Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 40 of 40

Thread: New Age-prevalent or p***e?

  1. #26
    dave52_47
    Guest

    Post continued.....

    Trinity,

    Religion do not pop up from nothing, into the time and space.
    You are right. Jesus was the founder of Christianity. He told Peter that He would build His church and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it." My problem with the "inclusion" of all of these 'rising savior' myths is that it denies the supernatural intervention of God the father, Jesus Christ after He ascended, and the Holy Spirit in the origin and building of this "body of Christ" as it was called. To say, or imply strongly, as you are continuing to do, that the origins of the church are in paganism because of 'similarities' between the two puts the church in a 'contrived', 'man-made' category, and denies that it was God's plan from the beginning. That's a serious a serious charge and it makes one wonder (if one were to believe such a thing) if Jesus is coming back for His 'bride'--the church, as scripture promise. That is the 'eschatological' significance (which you speak of in the next reply) of this line of thought. Either it was founded on Jesus Christ and built by the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles or it has no basis in God's plans for mankind. I would choose the former without blinking an eye.


    We agree. We agree. However, the eschatology, symbols, and the images of Judaism was influenced by other religions and cultures (i.e. ***yria, Babylon, Persia, Greek and Roman). Keep also in mind, before there were writings, there were oral traditions. Those traditions have met together and often. Throughout the caravans in the desert and by the migration of the nomads.
    I never mentioned the Mithraism, only the Zoroastrianism and in one occasion an example of similarities, from Egypt (Horus). Anyway, as mentioned above, the Mithraism derived from the Zoroastrianism. They exist because of the actions and beliefs from the past. All religions have siblings.

    Catholicism---> Protestantiism---> Biblical fundamentalists---> Mormons---> ???
    I would disagree with the last part. I said earlier that Protestanism wasn't born out of Catholicism. Protestantism had it's roots in 1st century Christianity. That's why I say that it actually preceded the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Are you showing a chronology of derivatives? You've really broadened your argument to the point where any religious group that has some semblance of Christianity in it is said to have been "spawned" by Christianity. You know there are some that claim to be Christian yet their doctrinal teachings are completely the opposite of Historic Christianity.

    This is where you mentioned Mithraism:

    That was not the opinion of Fathers of the Church as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr. Even for enemies of Christianity as Celsus.

    "The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments...Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."
    Tertullian, late 2nd century CE, commenting on the many similarities between Mithraism and Christianity.
    Here is a quote from Justyn Martyr, Apology I, 2nd Century--(from The Kingdom of the Occult-Walter Martin, Jill Rische Martin, Kurt Van Gorden, p. 107):

    "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospel, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." (emphasis mine).

    What a travesty! And this clearly shows that it was an imitation of a Christian practice that was established by Christ's example. It has no meaning otherwise. This was a men only religion that had a great appeal to the Roman army.


    Here some informations about the life of Horus (Egypt).

    Conception by a virgin.
    Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
    Mother = Meri or Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
    Father= Seb (Jo-Seph)
    Of royal descent.
    Birth location - in a cave.
    Annunciation - by an angel.
    Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star.
    Birth date: Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (typically DEC-21).
    Birth announcement: By angels.
    Birth witnesses: Shepherds.
    Later witnesses to birth: Three solar deities.
    Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered.
    Baptism location: In the river Erid****.
    Age at baptism: 30
    Baptized by: Anup the Baptiser.
    Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.
    Temptation:Taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut. Sut (a.k.a. Set) was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan.
    Result of temptation: Horus resists temptation.
    Activities:Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power."
    Raising of the dead: Horus raised Osirus, his dead father, from the grave.
    Transfigured: On a mountain.
    Method of death: By crucifixion.
    Fate after death: Descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
    Resurrection announced by: Women.
    Future: Reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.
    And many more.
    I'll answer what I can tonight. I researched this once but I don't have it at hand right now.

    Osiris is the Son of Geb and Nut (earth & sky). He was torn into pieces and scattered around by his brother Set. He married his sister, Isis, (goddess of ferility, magic, and motherhood) and she gathered up the pieces and gave them to Egyptian embalmers and then he is resurrected. Osiris is a good daimon (demon), a created being who became a god. He was not born of a virgin and was one of many gods. We're talking polytheism big-time in Egyptian mythology. He was not God incarnate. He did not sacrifice for the sins of the world. He also later became a god of the underworld. His resurrection then, was spiritual--not physical. Hence, no salvation by grace through him. These are the parents of Horus. A demon who was elevated to godhood and a Goddess.

    I wouldn't make too much of the winter solstice angle. Scripture doesn't state clearly that Jesus was born in the winter. There are several scholars who have suggested a spring birth. I surely don't have enough evidence one way or the other. An interesting note though: If He was born in the spring that would surely throw off the astrological charts based on His birth., i.e.; the beginning of the "piscean age".

    • Are you equating the 3 "solar deities' with the wisemen?


    Where is the evidence for a crucifixion? I'm not even sure that "crucifixion " was commonly practiced by the Egyptians. Could you cite a source on that?

    I still don't see what this has to do with 'new age' except that the last time I encountered this "presumption" was on a 'new age ' forum on a different website.

    Thanks for your patience waiting for replies back from me.

    Dave

  2. #27
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hello Dave,

    Quote Originally Posted by dave52_47
    This is the origin of 'hell' according to scripture and history. Both O.T. and N.T. confirm the common use of the term used for the "dump that burned continuously" outside of the city of Jerusalem to apply, as Jesus Himself-as well as His Apostles used it-to refer to a place of eterenal punishment called Hell.
    That was a good presentation about the terminology of Gehenna. However, I was talking about the distinction between the Sheol and Hades. You can also add the Tartarus because the New Testament speak about this also.

    Sheol is not a synonymous of Geheena. In my comprehension the Geheena is a metaphor on an other metaphor mentioned in the book of Revelation: The lake of fire.

    "Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. The word "hades" was in fact subs***uted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "hades" to refer to the abode of the dead.

    By the second century BC, Jews who accepted the Oral Torah had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives. At that time Jews who rejected the Oral Torah believed that Sheol meant simply the grave."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-15-2008 at 03:26 PM.

  3. #28
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hello Dave,

    dave52_47: You are right. Jesus was the founder of Christianity. He told Peter that He would build His church and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it." My problem with the "inclusion" of all of these 'rising savior' myths is that it denies the supernatural intervention of God the father, Jesus Christ after He ascended, and the Holy Spirit in the origin and building of this "body of Christ" as it was called. To say, or imply strongly, as you are continuing to do, that the origins of the church are in paganism because of 'similarities' between the two puts the church in a 'contrived', 'man-made' category, and denies that it was God's plan from the beginning. That's a serious a serious charge and it makes one wonder (if one were to believe such a thing) if Jesus is coming back for His 'bride'--the church, as scripture promise. That is the 'eschatological' significance (which you speak of in the next reply) of this line of thought. Either it was founded on Jesus Christ and built by the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles or it has no basis in God's plans for mankind. I would choose the former without blinking an eye.
    Both of us, we are agreeing that Jesus is the founder of the Christianity. Though I think that the religious phenomenon was also influenced by the human factor, imagination and perception, throughout the ages. That does not exclude God as factor, also. The parallels between those myths into a period of fifteen hundred years (BC and during the CE), is factual, and that can not be accidental. There are too much of those examples. Those similarities are not always identical but they are close. However, Jesus is the real thing in that maze.

    I would disagree with the last part. I said earlier that Protestanism wasn't born out of Catholicism. Protestantism had it's roots in 1st century Christianity. That's why I say that it actually preceded the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Are you showing a chronology of derivatives? You've really broadened your argument to the point where any religious group that has some semblance of Christianity in it is said to have been "spawned" by Christianity. You know there are some that claim to be Christian yet their doctrinal teachings are completely the opposite of Historic Christianity.
    Any religion has a development. This is not something that is static, but this is something who is alive. There is many Hinduism sects, same thing with the Muslim and the Judaism. Christianity is not different on this matter. Only in the United States you can count more than 35,000 denominations. And this is not the end of this exponential explosion about the belief in Christ.

    This is where you mentioned Mithraism:
    Thank you. It was an indirect allusion. I accept your correction. However and also, I mentioned later that Mithraism was only a branch of something much more older, the Zoroastrianism. Christianity came out of the Judaism and Mithraism came out of the Zoroastrianism. Said like this it should be more understandable.

    Here is a quote from Justyn Martyr, Apology I, 2nd Century--(from The Kingdom of the Occult-Walter Martin, Jill Rische Martin, Kurt Van Gorden, p. 107):

    "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospel, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." (emphasis mine).

    What a travesty! And this clearly shows that it was an imitation of a Christian practice that was established by Christ's example. It has no meaning otherwise. This was a men only religion that had a great appeal to the Roman army.
    For us, the first written account of the bread and wine ceremony can be found in Genesis 14 when Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. However, the Zoroastrianism had also this kind of custom. We also had this story of the three wises men who searched the baby Jesus. Keep in mind that they were pagans but they also had some clues about his birth.

    Osiris is the Son of Geb and Nut (earth & sky). He was torn into pieces and scattered around by his brother Set. He married his sister, Isis, (goddess of ferility, magic, and motherhood) and she gathered up the pieces and gave them to Egyptian embalmers and then he is resurrected. Osiris is a good daimon (demon), a created being who became a god. He was not born of a virgin and was one of many gods. We're talking polytheism big-time in Egyptian mythology. He was not God incarnate. He did not sacrifice for the sins of the world. He also later became a god of the underworld. His resurrection then, was spiritual--not physical. Hence, no salvation by grace through him. These are the parents of Horus. A demon who was elevated to godhood and a Goddess.
    Yes, there are also distinctions. I never pretended that all stories were copied and totally identical. Some gods in the antiquity were only men. Greeks and Romans were good at this (demigods).

    I wouldn't make too much of the winter solstice angle. Scripture doesn't state clearly that Jesus was born in the winter. There are several scholars who have suggested a spring birth. I surely don't have enough evidence one way or the other. An interesting note though: If He was born in the spring that would surely throw off the astrological charts based on His birth., i.e.; the beginning of the "piscean age".
    And we will still celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 25th day of December. However, Jesus birth was possibly during the Autumn, late during this season. Not a time to sleep outside.

    • Are you equating the 3 "solar deities' with the wisemen?
    Not really. I am only comparing the two postulates. But the number three is fascinating, and the three wise men were astronomers.

    Where is the evidence for a crucifixion? I'm not even sure that "crucifixion " was commonly practiced by the Egyptians. Could you cite a source on that?
    I should have used the term "impalement". That was the kind of public execution everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon. Romans had only perfected this method. Jesus was not the only one who was crucified by the Romans.

    Deuteronomy 21:22-23
    If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

    Talah or 'ets (heb.)= hanging on a pole or stake.

    "The Bible speaks also of hanging (Deut. xxi. 22), but, according to the rabbinical interpretation, not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death (Sanh. vi. 4, 75b)."
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...128&letter=C#0

    I think the Sages wanted to soften the image of this kind of capital punishment.

    I still don't see what this has to do with 'new age' except that the last time I encountered this "presumption" was on a 'new age ' forum on a different website.
    The conversation turned in this direction because most of the the New Age beliefs came from the Eastern World. And this beliefs has nothing very new to give. An ashram Hindu in United States or an ashram in India is still an ashram.

    Thanks for your patience waiting for replies back from me.
    You are welcome.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-15-2008 at 08:03 PM.

  4. #29
    dave52_47
    Guest

    Default more on hell....

    That was a good presentation about the terminology of Gehenna. However, I was talking about the distinction between the Sheol and Hades. You can also add the Tartarus because the New Testament speak about this also.

    Sheol is not a synonymous of Geheena. In my comprehension the Geheena is a metaphor on an other metaphor mentioned in the book of Revelation: The lake of fire.
    Trinity,
    I was replying to this staement :

    I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.
    That is why I gave the definition for Gehenna (translated as hell in theN.T.- as was shown) and not Sheol. This is the word Jesus used in the gospels. It didn't appear first in Revelation. The concept was not Greek-the language was. The "dump that burned continuosly' was outside of Jerusalem-not Athens.

    Dave

  5. #30
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Dave,

    Quote Originally Posted by dave52_47 View Post
    That is why I gave the definition for Gehenna (translated as hell in theN.T.- as was shown) and not Sheol. This is the word Jesus used in the gospels. It didn't appear first in Revelation. The concept was not Greek-the language was. The "dump that burned continuosly' was outside of Jerusalem-not Athens.
    I understand, but the word 'gehenna' is not a word employed in the Old Testament for Sheol. This is not a subs***uted word. This is only a place on earth or a site near Jerusalem for the rubbish. The word Sheol has an underworld connotation and not a connotation for a complete annihilation. Also, the Gehenna is not the Hades or the Tartarus. It is a metaphor on a future reality. The Hades and the Tartarus already exist now.

    To be more clear the Gehenna is a prophetic allusion about a future state for the souls of the evil men. The word Hades is the subs***ute word for Sheol.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-15-2008 at 08:39 PM.

  6. #31
    dave52_47
    Guest

    Thumbs up Christianity is 'unique' because it's Savior is 'unique'.....

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    Hello Dave,

    Any religion has a development. This is not something that is static, but this is something who is alive. There is many Hinduism sects, same thing with the Muslim and the Judaism. Christianity is not different on this matter. Only in the United States you can count more than 35,000 denominations. And this is not the end of this exponential explosion about the belief in Christ.
    I'm not saying that Christianity did not have development. I just question the 'pagan source theory' which intimates that Christianity was 'derived from', or 'stole' it's fundamental doctrines from, pagan religions dating all the way back to Egypt.


    For us, the first written account of the bread and wine ceremony can be found in Genesis 14 when Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. However, the Zoroastrianism had also this kind of custom. We also had this story of the three wises men who searched the baby Jesus. Keep in mind that they were pagans but they also had some clues about his birth.
    For us the "bread and wine' of the last supper was more than just a ritual but has it's significance in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To say that this was borrowed or adapted from earlier religions completely cheapens the true deeper meaning of the event, which was The severe price that He paid atoning for our sins.

    Not really. I am only comparing the two postulates. But the number three is fascinating, and the three wise men were astronomers.
    Meaning??? Numerology has no place in Christianity.

    I should have used the term "impalement". That was the kind of public execution everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon. Romans had only perfected this method. Jesus was not the only one who was crucified by the Romans
    .

    Exactly. Crucifixion was the method preferred by the Romans. There is a word for impaling in the Greek. If it were intended to convey that point it would have been used instead of tree, or cross. "Hanging" on a stake or tree would be much closer to crucifixion than impalement.

    I think the Sages wanted to soften the image of this kind of capital punishment.
    I don't think it was softened at all. They were both horrible forms of death, especially when you consider the requisite beatings and floggings that preceded the actual execution. Besides, the Holy spirit was the inspiration for the record, not just man's point of view.

    The conversation turned in this direction because most of the the New Age beliefs came from the Eastern World. And this beliefs has nothing very new to give. An ashram Hindu in United States or an ashram in India is still an ashram.
    I agree with you here. Gnosticism has it's roots there and New age is built on gnostic beliefs as well as a huge dose of eastern mysticism.

    So my question again is: "Is 'new age' p***e' or prevalent today?

    Dave

  7. #32
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Dave,

    Quote Originally Posted by dave52_47 View Post
    I agree with you here. Gnosticism has it's roots there and New age is built on gnostic beliefs as well as a huge dose of eastern mysticism.

    So my question again is: "Is 'new age' p***e' or prevalent today?
    The New Age is prevalent today but his material came from the past. You have said that in your comment above, and I agree on this (gnostic beliefs and eastern mysticism). New things that are in reality old things.

    I hope you will be patient with my English because this is not my usual language. Thank you.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-15-2008 at 09:15 PM.

  8. #33
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Hello Dave,

    dave52_47 : I'm not saying that Christianity did not have development. I just question the 'pagan source theory' which intimates that Christianity was 'derived from', or 'stole' it's fundamental doctrines from, pagan religions dating all the way back to Egypt.
    I am of the opinion that C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein are right. All other myths are a pale imitation of the true myth.

    Christian mythologists such as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien understood the narrative of Christ's sacrificial death of atonement for humanity as a "true myth" with the special property that it had been enacted historically in time and space. Lewis wrote, "The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened." In this view, mythological predecessors of the "drama" of Christ were inspired glimpses of divine truth that would only become fully manifest at an appointed moment and place, viz. in Roman Judea. For these authors, the mythological elements in the story of the Christ do not undermine but rather enhance the transcendental truth of the gospel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...tive_mythology

    For us the "bread and wine' of the last supper was more than just a ritual but has it's significance in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To say that this was borrowed or adapted from earlier religions completely cheapens the true deeper meaning of the event, which was The severe price that He paid atoning for our sins.
    Not if we have the real meaning. And I believe we have the right meaning.

    Meaning??? Numerology has no place in Christianity.
    Not for the book of Revelation. I am talking about symbolic numbers (i.e. 3,7,12, 1000, 144000, etc). I am referring also to the gematria or grammateia for the Greeks (ex: 666 or 616).

    Exactly. Crucifixion was the method preferred by the Romans. There is a word for impaling in the Greek. If it were intended to convey that point it would have been used instead of tree, or cross. "Hanging" on a stake or tree would be much closer to crucifixion than impalement.
    aneskolopise (gr.): impalement
    anaskolopizô (verb): impaling

    In ancient Rome, the term "crucifixion" could also refer to impalement. Ancient authors also report the use of "crucifixion" (which may have meant impalement as well) in Carthage, where it was used for extreme cases of treachery and failure on the battlefield, usually combined with other forms of torture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaling

    Between you and me, I would have preferred to be crucified than to suffer an impalement.

    I don't think it was softened at all. They were both horrible forms of death, especially when you consider the requisite beatings and floggings that preceded the actual execution. Besides, the Holy spirit was the inspiration for the record, not just man's point of view.
    Both tortures were horrible. What I dislike is the public exposure of the corpse. Anyway this law is behind us and immoral in our time. That was the life style of the archaic societies.

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 11-20-2008 at 08:57 PM.

  9. #34
    ChrisLaRock
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dave52_47 View Post
    It seems that today many in the Christian Community hold to the view that New Age is something that has 'come and gone' and doesn't warrant serious attention anymore. I personally believe that we have seriously underestimated it's penetration of Western society, and more importantly it's impact on the Church. What you think?

    Dave
    The new age movement is still here, but they have stopped calling it new age.

  10. #35
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLaRock View Post
    The new age movement is still here, but they have stopped calling it new age.
    Well, this was my main argumentation. Why we should call this something new and modern, when this religious phenomenon has been inspired by so old traditions (generally by the eastern traditions)?

    Trinity

  11. #36
    ChrisLaRock
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    Well, this was my main argumentation. Why we should call this something new and modern, when this religious phenomenon has been inspired by so old traditions (generally by the eastern traditions)?

    Trinity
    I was watching videos of Dr. Martin discussing this issue. He basically says the new age movement is a resurrection of ancient religions condemned by God in the Old Testament.

    But what I mean is that the new age movement is often called by different names. "Self esteem training", "Inclusive spirituality", and things of that nature.

  12. #37
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLaRock View Post
    But what I mean is that the new age movement is often called by different names. "Self esteem training", "Inclusive spirituality", and things of that nature.
    I understand what you are saying, and I think you are right because some of these teachings are oriented on the cult of the personality. That cannot replace or subs***ute the relationship that exists between us and the living God.

    Yes, it is good to have some life skills, a code to live by, wisdom, also a positive mind, but this should be secondary to the faith. I ***ociate the New Age movement to a resurgence of a form of shamanism and sometimes to some very occult practices. ECKANKAR is one example.

    Two weeks ago I have found that my weekly water seller is a member of ECKANKAR (I do not drink tap water). He let me a book, and I will try to ***ess that cult with some discussions with him. They affirm to teach many levels of conscience. He even told me that he visited Paris in an astral trip. This seems interesting.

    May God protect me.

    Trinity

  13. #38
    ChrisLaRock
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    I understand what you are saying, and I think you are right because some of these teachings are oriented on the cult of the personality. That cannot replace or subs***ute the relationship that exists between us and the living God.

    Yes, it is good to have some life skills, a code to live by, wisdom, also a positive mind, but this should be secondary to the faith. I ***ociate the New Age movement to a resurgence of a form of shamanism and sometimes to some very occult practices. ECKANKAR is one example.

    Two weeks ago I have found that my weekly water seller is a member of ECKANKAR (I do not drink tap water). He let me a book, and I will try to ***ess that cult with some discussions with him. They affirm to teach many levels of conscience. He even told me that he visited Paris in an astral trip. This seems interesting.

    May God protect me.

    Trinity
    the ***le 'new age' itself has lost a lot of its appeal and has become a joke to most people.

  14. #39
    PostTribber
    Guest

    Default 'no worries...'

    in the end, Christ will separate the goats from the sheep. good for us, baa-aaa-aaad for them.

  15. #40
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    what I got out of the whole "New Age"stuff that sweeped acrossthe country in the 90s is, ....

    Thats rocks are holy....that small stones that are shiny are holy...that trees are holy and need a hug....that some people can claim to be very old and other people will believe them....that if you write a book with a clever ***le or cover art you can make a lot of money.....that you dont have to be that clever sometimes to fool all the people.....that lots of people want to be gods.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •