Eliphas Levi

Originally posted by queenannie38
Yes. That's true. Yet not everyone GOES there. Maybe that is what I should have said. I don't know how to explain it. But the truth is that it is available to all yet not accessed by all.

Maybe because they think google has all the answers

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Maybe because they think google has all the answers

Next best thing, I s'pose.

Originally posted by Tamahu


What I'm saying, is that Christ is the Light and Fire. Luci-Light Fer-Fire: Christus-Lucifer.

"I am the light of the world."

- The Book of John


"For our God is a consuming fire."

- Hebrews 12:29

"Satan" is the Light and Fire of Christ inverted.


Nothing can exist without the Christ.

However, it is taught that Christ does not create Satan directly.

Man's "lower self", so to speak, created Satan with the symbolic fall in Lemuria, when she and he(Isha and Ish) ate the forbidden fruit(remember that smelling it's sweet aroma is not the same as eating it).


But yeah, if I've to go to hell for not believing in the "Jesus" of conventional non-Gnostic Roman-Christianity, Calvinism, Protestantism, etc. that has, for over 1500 years, enslaved and murdered more than any other 'religious' institution in known history; then I would rather go to hell.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Tamahu


What I'm saying, is that Christ is the Light and Fire. Luci-Light Fer-Fire: Christus-Lucifer.

"I am the light of the world."

- The Book of John


"For our God is a consuming fire."

- Hebrews 12:29

"Satan" is the Light and Fire of Christ inverted.


Nothing can exist without the Christ.

However, it is taught that Christ does not create Satan directly.

Man's "lower self", so to speak, created Satan with the symbolic fall in Lemuria, when she and he(Isha and Ish) ate the forbidden fruit(remember that smelling it's sweet aroma is not the same as eating it).


But yeah, if I've to go to hell for not believing in the "Jesus" of conventional non-Gnostic Roman-Christianity, Calvinism, Protestantism, etc. that has, for over 1500 years, enslaved and murdered more than any other 'religious' institution in known history; then I would rather go to hell.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Tamahu]

I can agree with some of what you are saying, and still get the point of what I'm not in total agreement with, but when you start in with the whole "Non-Gnostic Christian bashing" you loose all of your weight with me.

I'm not one of those Cristians that can't except the truth, but I do have to say if the Muslims (radicals just like the Christians that you use as paint for your broad brush)get their hands on a nuke I'm sure they will not hesitate to even the score.

As for the Jews (they call us goyim= cattle) I'm sure if they had enough power they would stone us Christians and all others (that means every other religion, philosophy, and atheist alike) to death without remorse just as the good old book tells them to do.

We were the ones fed to the Lions by Pegans for a little bit so I guess it's just tit for tat.

I don't realy subscribe to the whole killing "heretics" as fanatics would, but I hope I made my point.

I wouldn't paint with such a broad stroke if I were trying to come across as a person that stands against fanaticism.(If that is what you are trying to portray here)

The bottom line is that through the many different translations things got messed up, this did not take place in the info. age that we are now in so you have to give alittle margin for error when you lock at this whole Lucifer thing. It was when it was translated into Latin that this happened as Lucifer is Latin for Venus I believe. No agenda there. If you wantd to talk about the Cathars, Pegans or just about any other religion being snuffed out I could agree that there was an agenda but this is not one of those cases.

Originally posted by lazy1981


As for the Jews (they call us goyim= cattle)

Just for the record, "goyim" means "gentiles", not "cattle".

I'm sure if they had enough power they would stone us Christians and all others (that means every other religion, philosophy, and atheist alike) to death without remorse just as the good old book tells them to do.

All of my inlaws are Jewish. I don't think they would have any interest in stoning you. Me maybe, but not you.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by lazy1981


As for the Jews (they call us goyim= cattle)

Just for the record, "goyim" means "gentiles", not "cattle".

I'm sure if they had enough power they would stone us Christians and all others (that means every other religion, philosophy, and atheist alike) to death without remorse just as the good old book tells them to do.

All of my inlaws are Jewish. I don't think they would have any interest in stoning you. Me maybe, but not you.

Thanks for clarifying that; It seems to be a foundation for some major misconceptions. As soon as I reach 20 posts I will u2u you.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by romanowski]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
All of my inlaws are Jewish. I don't think they would have any interest in stoning you. Me maybe, but not you.

You are TOO funny.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I can agree with some of what you are saying, and still get the point of what I'm not in total agreement with, but when you start in with the whole "Non-Gnostic Christian bashing" you loose all of your weight with me.

Actually, from what I understand, the crucifiction of Jesus was perpetrated by the Chief of Demons Yahveh(not to be confused with Yehovah), and this is said to be the main cause for the Gnosis that Jesus taught to end up getting oppressed(see the book: "Astrotheurgy").

The Roman Catholics who followed Yahveh were the ones who burned Christ's Disciples(the Gnostics) at the stake. So non-Gnostic "Christianity" is practically the direct result of the Chief of Demons.

Jesus did not found the Roman Catholic Church; Jesus founded the Gnostic Church. The Gnostic Church existed in the times of Saint Augustine. This is the Church which was known by Jeronimo, Empedocles, Saint Thomas, Marcion de Ponto, Clement of Alexandria, Tertulian, Saint Ambrosio, Harpocrates and all of the first Fathers of the Church. In that epoch, the Church was named the Catholic Gnostic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church in its present form was not founded by Jesus. This Roman Church is a deviation or corruption, a fallen branch of the holy Gnosticism. The Roman Catholic Church is a cadaver...

In this present time, the Roman Catholic Church has totally lost the tradition. That is why we see that in this Roman Church the fire of the temple is lit by acolyte boys, an action that is not only an absurdity, but more over, a very grave sacrilege and an insult to life itself... - Samael Aun Weor

But this is not to say that there haven't been non-Gnostic(Protestant, Romish, Adventist, etc.) Christians who have real Faith. And if these "non-Gnostic" Christians did, or actually do have authentic living Faith in Christ, then they are Gnostic whether they consider themselves Gnostic or not.

It seems that the Rosicrucian Gnostics attempted to break Europe away from Romanism by backing Martin Luther. However, the Romish dogma was so ingrained into the psyches of the populace, that they still wouldn't have been able to accept Gnosis.

And, as mentioned earlier, the Roman Catholic Church used to know of Gnosis(Eliphas Levi wrote that some Roman Church fathers even used the term Gnosis), and Gnosis can also be seen in their rituals(the symolism of which most Romish priests themselves don't even come close to suspecting). Jesuit travellers who went to Tibet were astonished at how the Tantric rituals of Buddhism were unmistakably almost identical to the Roman-Catholic rituals.


The Zionists(not to be confused with the Jewish followers of Yehovah) are Yahveh's(the Chief of Demons) biggest supporters.

I'm not one of those Cristians that can't except the truth, but I do have to say if the Muslims (radicals just like the Christians that you use as paint for your broad brush)get their hands on a nuke I'm sure they will not hesitate to even the score.

Well, there certainly are fanatical Muslims. But most Muslims I've talked to are very intelligent and have much more of a bird's-eye-view of the bigger picture than does the average Westerner.

Most Muslims are not anti-Christian and/or anti-Jewish at all. The Zionist propaganda is responsible for painting such an erroneous picture. Most Muslims are anti-Zionist and anti-Western-imperialism.

These statements may seem hypocritical on my part-but I must say that, despite the propaganda, and even though (exoteric)Muhammadanism is the second-bloodiest religious-form in known history-Islamic history doesn't even come close to the amount of bloodshed committed by (exoteric)Christianity. Almost all of Europe's acts of bloodshed and slavery within the last couple thousand years have been in the name of "Jesus". Many slaves came to America on "the good ship Jesus".

As for the Jews (they call us goyim= cattle) I'm sure if they had enough power they would stone us Christians and all others (that means every other religion, philosophy, and atheist alike) to death without remorse just as the good old book tells them to do.

Like I've said, do not confuse Judaism with Zionism.

We were the ones fed to the Lions by Pegans for a little bit so I guess it's just tit for tat.

The Gnostic Christians were the ones thrown to the lions. The Roman "pagan" Religion once offered Initiation into the Gnostic Mysteries in the remote past. But after the Roman priesthoods degenerated, Christianity was to replace Roman paganism as the Religion that would give access to Gnosis.

Christ was worshipped in the mysteries of Mithra, Apollo, Aphrodite, Jupiter, Janus, Vesta, Bacchus, Astarte, Demeter, Quetzalcoatl, etc.

The Christic principle has never been absent from any religion. All religions are one. Religion is as inherent to life as humidity is to water. The Great Cosmic Universal Religion becomes modified into thousands of religious forms. Thus, the priests from all religious forms are completely identifiable with one another through the fundamental principles of the Great Cosmic Universal Religion.

Therefore, a basic difference between the Mohammedan priest and the Jewish priest, or between the Pagan priest and the legitimate Christian one, does not exist. Religion is one. Religion is unique and absolutely universal. The ceremonies of the Shinto priest of Japan or of the Mongol Lamas are similar to those ceremonies of the shamans and sorcerers from Africa and Oceania.

When a religious form degenerates, it disappears; yet, the universal life creates new religious forms in order to replace it.

- Samael Aun Weor

Therefore the Roman authorities did not want the Revolutionary Gnostic teachings of the Master Yehoshuah to be universally recognized.

We were thrown to the lions in the circuses of Rome, and we celebrated our rituals in the catacombs. We were burnt alive in the flames of the Roman Catholic inquisition. We accompanied Jesus Christ in the Holy Land. We were the mystical Essenes of Palastine; we are not improvising opportunist doctrines. We were hidden during twenty centuries and we are now returning once again to the street carrying on our shoulders the old, rough and heavy cross.

Paul took our doctrine to Rome and he was a Nazarene Gnostic.

Christ taught our doctrine in secrecy to the seventy disciples.

The Sethani, Peratae, Carpocratians, Nazarenes and Essenses are Gnostic. The Egyptian and Aztec Mysteries, the Mysteries of Rome, Troy, Carthage, of Eleusis, India, of the Druids, Pythagoreans, Kambirs, of Mithra and Persia, etc. are in their entirety that which we call Gnosis or Gnosticism.

We now once again open the ancient Gnostic Sanctuaries which were closed upon the arrival of the dark age.

We are now opening the authentic Initiatic Colleges.

- Excerpted from The Major Mysteries by Samael Aun Weor.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Masonic Light


So it is known by the general public. But thats not what a Jewish friend told me when I asked after being called that.

reply to post by Masonic Light


Now now, be nice to the inlaws.

reply to post by Tamahu


I realy can't comment as to the validity of some of your claims. You are obviously more knowledgable in this area than I. But I think that you are mislead about Gnostic beliefs being part of the Roman Catholics view of Christianity. As the Gnostics were kicked out and their teachings pretty well banned after the Council of Nicaea. Now weather or not Constantine truely converted is anyones guess, I will not argue that. I will concede that many who followed the Gnostic belief most probably bit their tounge and went along with the idea, all along injecting their brand into Catholic doctrine as time went on.

As for the Muslim and Jewish referances I couldn't agree more with you. My aim was only to show how the same argument could be made on the flip side of the coin. As you can see from my profile I am from Chicago (5 generations) one of the most diverse places in the world. Growing up on the North side of town I was exposed to just about any type of Mid-Eastern and Asian culture you can throw out there. And it's true most Muslims are very peaceful people and do not subscribe to the radical side condeming it as a perversion of Islam. I had many High School freinds that took the time to explain things to me and I am aware that the resentment comes from our support of the Zionist and Western Imperialism. That what terror groups use pervert Muslim beleifs in order to indoctrinate the young.

As for the Jewish portion of my last post, I am also aware that that type of rhetoric (Hatred of outsiders and non Jews) is more or less a Zionist thing. But as I said I wanted to show you the factions on the flip side of the coin.

When we talk about "slavery" and lay blame at the feet of Christianity (leaving Muslims blameless) if you look for the origin of the word slave you will find that this came to be due to the mass abductions of slavic people he Dalmation Coast at the hands of the Muslims. This was so common that the word Slov became synonymous with ownership of another human being ie. "Slave/Slavery." It was also common practice in the Muslim world (and I will admit other parts of the world) as a right of victory to enslave conqured people. In fact that is how the Mamluks came about. They were forced into military service by their Muslim oppresors or sold by family members. Saladin was a famous Mamluk warrior and eventualy a Sultan.

So don't put slavery at the feet of the Christian world or religion I'm sure that we did have a part no more or less than any other but it's just not our doing as a group. And though the Southern Baptist religion preached slavery from the pulpit through out the Civil War it was a perversion of the Bible. In fact most of the anti-slavery movement at the time (such as the Underground Railroad) was at the hands of Christians in the North as well as the South risking their lives and prosperity in order that others could be free.

We are not the source of everyone's problems. My whole point is DO NOT PAINT WITH A BROAD BRUSH.

Originally posted by lazy1981
I realy can't comment as to the validity of some of your claims. You are obviously more knowledgable in this area than I. But I think that you are mislead about Gnostic beliefs being part of the Roman Catholics view of Christianity. As the Gnostics were kicked out and their teachings pretty well banned after the Council of Nicaea. Now weather or not Constantine truely converted is anyones guess, I will not argue that. I will concede that many who followed the Gnostic belief most probably bit their tounge and went along with the idea, all along injecting their brand into Catholic doctrine as time went on.

What I was saying, if you look back at my last post here, is that the Roman church knew that Christianity itself cannot really be separated from Gnosis, but then proceeded to hide the fact.

Many church fathers were either Gnostic themselves, and hid the fact as to avoid persecution; while other church fathers joined in on persecuting the Gnostics, all-the-while studying the Gnosis themselves!

But I think there were also in those days of the council of Nicaea, sincere, yet naive, Christians who simply believed the anti-Gnostic propaganda, and only wanted to defend what they thought was the truth in regard to the Christian doctrine.

But I think we can rest assured, that the Church Fathers of whom Samael Aun Weor listed as being Gnostic, were not the ones who wanted to hide and persecute Gnosticism. These ones, who even apparently wrote against the Gnostics, were actually writings against false Gnostics, while appearing to be writing against Gnosticism in general. In those days, as now, there were some bogus "Gnostic" sects which taught false doctrines.


And then there are also the Orthodox and Coptic churches which seem to have been much more tolerant; the latter being practically openly-Gnostic.

In fact most of the anti-slavery movement at the time (such as the Underground Railroad) was at the hands of Christians in the North as well as the South risking their lives and prosperity in order that others could be free.

We are not the source of everyone's problems. My whole point is DO NOT PAINT WITH A BROAD BRUSH.

Right. As I've implied, there have always been a minority of "non-Gnostic" Christians who lived out real Christian values.




What are your thoughts on the following chapter(at least the first four out of seven parts of it) of the Gnostic Initiate Max Heindel's:



"Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception"?


(That is, if you wish to take the time to read it).

Also, I would say that the Ottomans have been the most responsible for making Islam look fanatical. Even much more-so than the "conquering Saracens".

reply to post by Tamahu


First I would like to say that I beleive the closest type of Christianity closest to Gnostic beleifs is the Eastern Orthadox Church.

My opinions on the materials that you offered are in agreement in some ways but I totaly disagree with others. I believe that what is said by the author is true in it's ideas but not in the direction that it takes. Of course man is of a base nature and being and has grown only through the "GOD" that lives within us all. I am of the beleif that that GOD is Christ. If you use the analogy of a glass of water you will understand what I mean. When the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created man and all matter they were like the water in the glass and wee are the glass. Even if you pour out the water there remains water in the glass. The creator has left a bit of himself in all taht he has created. This is the driving force that the author speakes of that subverts our natural instincts. I feel that GOD is this Altruism that the author speaks of.

As far as "being left to an impossible task" all on our own, it is promised to us in the Bible that the LORD sends the Helper (Holy Spiorit) to aid us in this task. And we will never attain the God like status or knowledge that you speak of. It is only the Supreme Father that can be perfect, perfection is beyond our grasp. This is why Jesus took our imprfection unto himself at the Cross and sacriced himself in order to bring us to the perfection that we could not attain ourselves. In turn reconcileing us with the Father. If we were able to do so He would serve no purpose. Besides how can anything be greater than it's Creator. If that were possible we would have created ourselves: Furthermore, we would have had no need to lower ourselves to this level of existance in the first place.

I'm not being cute, but I don't see the corelation between the Almighty and the periods of celestial bodies. Can you explain how this is supposed to make sense? I have to admit that I'm at a loss in that section.

I am aware of the Essenes sect and I can see how their relious ideals coincide with the teachings of Christ to a degree. It could be possible that Jesus was tied to them in a fashion.

Also, I have always beleived that man is not the body of base matter that we see on a day to day basis. That is only a tool used in order to function in this lower form of existance. Our being "is" a spiritual one. I am well aware of the portion of myself that is my body the one that we call the brain or mind and my Spirit which is who I am not what you may see infront of you. The Spirit is the true Mind or Consciousness. This is what I refer to when I speak of the water left behind in the glass.

The idea of the dense and vital bodies are sound in theory. Though I can not say because I wasn't there, neither were any of us. My opinion of it is none of us alive today can say one way or another. So being true to myself I take the traditional account to be true. I see it as Jesus' resurection was a physical one and possibly apeared as the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. As He said he would to baptise them with the Holy Spirit.

It is true that the passsage says (Matthew 10:34) "I came not to send peace, but a sword" but it is often taken out of context. What he brings is the sword that will seperate man from the world (Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth the father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me:") and closer to GOD.Your author echos this teaching, "The national, tribal, and family unit must first be broken up before Universal Brotherhood can become a fact." In the case of Jesus teachings the "Universal Brotherhood" is the Love of GOD.

Although I don't see eye to eye with all of this, I will say that there are some ideas put forth that I already relate to in a loose fashion. I feel that alot of this is very close to Cabalistic teachings, and the notions of vibrational effects spoken of have much to do with Buddism if I remember correctly.

Be that as it may you have still yet to tell me how Christianity is the cause of what's wrong with the world and, "as a religion" is the largest contributor to the institution of slavery? I would realy like you to tell me how the slavery thing works out?

This has been a very stimulating conversation, we should realy carry this on in another thread though, we have gotten way off track and it's not fair to those that want to talk about Eliphas Levi. I will be glad to continue this dialog about Gnostic Teachings minus the rhetoric (it was a reach with the whole slavery thing). But you have to open a thread on it because I don't know how to. U2U me and let me know what it's titled so we can continue.

PS
I would have to agree if you meant a mental form of slavery. That would be no lie.

Originally posted by lazy1981
As far as "being left to an impossible task" all on our own, it is promised to us in the Bible that the LORD sends the Helper (Holy Spiorit) to aid us in this task. And we will never attain the God like status or knowledge that you speak of. It is only the Supreme Father that can be perfect, perfection is beyond our grasp. This is why Jesus took our imprfection unto himself at the Cross and sacriced himself in order to bring us to the perfection that we could not attain ourselves. In turn reconcileing us with the Father. If we were able to do so He would serve no purpose. Besides how can anything be greater than it's Creator. If that were possible we would have created ourselves: Furthermore, we would have had no need to lower ourselves to this level of existance in the first place.

There is a misconception about Gnosis, which assumes that Gnostics are trying to "be like God" in the egotistical sense or something like that. But this is not the case.

You're right, only God is Perfect.

In the Gnostic teachings, we learn that entering Heaven is in no way the same as our ego becoming God. To enter Heaven, we(the ego(s) that we identify with) must die. When the ego is dead, the Divinity Within is able to find expression through us. The ego can never perfect itself.

(Bear in mind that Max Heindel and other Theosophists refer to the Buddha-Nature as "the Ego"(with a capital "E"). Which is a poor choice of terminology. So when reading said author's writings, I simply replace the word "Ego" with "Essence" or "Buddha-Nature".

The Essence or Buddha-Nature(erroneously called the "Ego" by some) is the aspect of God, or the Adamic vehicle, that the average 'individual' has incarnated for experience in 'lower' planes of existence.

Samael Aun Weor's teachings on the ego, however, are in reference to the Legion of demons written about in the Gospels or the "Red Demons of Set" of the Pert Em Heru which trap the Buddha-Nature in sin and suffering.

I'm utilizing the term according to Samael Aun Weor's use of it.)


The Divinity seeks to take the Buddha-Nature or "Ego" out of the suffering caused by the egos or Legion of Red Demons of Set.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." - Matthew 5:48

"Man, know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and it’s Gods…" - Ancient Kemetian Maxim


"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods"...

"I have said, Ye are Gods (Elohim); and all of you are children of (Helion) the Most High (El Elyon)." - the Book of John

In Gnosis, we also learn that the ego cannot be destroyed without the help of the Holy Spirit(and of course the Father and the Son as well).


In actuality, many contemporary conventional Christians are seeking to get into Heaven, with their egos alive!

But mere belief is insufficient for entering Heaven.

“Now the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence and the violent(diligent) take it by force.” - Matthew 11: 12

In Gnosis, it is taught that without Chastity(which is the Foundation for receiving help from the Holy Spirit), and without Awakening, we cannot in any way enter Heaven.

The Vital body is the energy of the Holy Spirit that we have incarnated in Yesod, which is Hebrew for Foundation. This is the same rejected-Cornerstone, the Philosopher's Stone, Peter-Cephas, the Rock or Foundation Stone that Yehoshuah Christ Will Build His Church upon, etc.

This is why we must Work to Chisel the Rough Ashlar so that it can become the Perfected Stone of the Holy Spirit.

"What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - James 2

Now the following passage from the Gospels is very interesting in Light of this(we cannot enter Heaven with the egos alive):

"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." - Romans 13

What makes it interesting, is that a Buddha literally means an Awakened One.

Christianity(Gnosis) and Buddhism are originally the same.

It is taught that the Bodhisattvas(which could translate to: "the Soul of Awakening") who work for all Sentient Beings(like Yehoshuah did, and does), are the Buddhas who can Incarnate the Christ.


Mere belief = "Faith" without works.

Actual Living Faith = Awakening, Gnosis.

Originally posted by lazy1981
It is true that the passsage says (Matthew 10:34) "I came not to send peace, but a sword" but it is often taken out of context. What he brings is the sword that will seperate man from the world (Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth the father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me:") and closer to GOD.Your author echos this teaching, "The national, tribal, and family unit must first be broken up before Universal Brotherhood can become a fact." In the case of Jesus teachings the "Universal Brotherhood" is the Love of GOD.

While I think that Max Heindel's interpretation is correct(Scriptures have Sevenfold meanings, all of which can be interepreted through Meditation, with the condition of Chastity), you are also onto something very profound here.

The Discriminitive Wisdom of the Buddhist 'deity' Manjushri is symbolized by Him holding a Sword. This is the Wisdom that allows the Consciousness to "be in the world but not of it".

This is the same as the Ra-Heru-Khuti of Ancient Khemet. He of the Two-Horizons, the separating of the Spiritual from the mundane.

This has to be taken in context of course; because a true Master is said to Be beyond dualism.

But still, the Spiritual Aspirant has to be able to not get caught up in worldliness.

So the Wisdom of Manjushri, Geburah, Samael, Mars, Ra-Heru-Khuti, the Sword that the Christ Jesus came to bring, etc. is the aspect of Christ that assists us in this Work.

"He answered and said unto them: Because it is given unto you(the Initiates) to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them(the profane) it is not given." - Matthew 13:11

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by lazy1981
PS
I would have to agree if you meant a mental form of slavery. That would be no lie.

Yeah I would also say mostly mental slavery.


But what I'm also referring to is this:

Max Heindel:


"The religion miscalled Christianity has therefore been the bloodiest religion known, not excepting Mohammedanism, which in this respect is somewhat akin to our malpracticed Christianity.

On the battle field and in the Inquisition innumerable and unspeakable atrocities have been committed in the name of the gentle Nazarene.

The Sword and the Wine Cup--the perverted Cross and Communion Chalice--have been the means by which the more powerful of the so-called Christian nations gained supremacy over the heathen peoples, and even over other but weaker nations professing the same faith as their conquerors.

The most cursory reading of the history of the Greco-Latin, Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon Races will corroborate this."

reply to post by Tamahu


I can agree that on the battlefield Christian Armies commited murder of men, women, and childeren. I will even admit that Christianity mentaly enslaved and still does in certain sects more than others. I certainly do not condone this but I do not agree that Christian Armies killed any more or less than other armies did in that age as it was the custom and practiced by all at that time.

Every culture turned a blind eye to this as it was the reward of the common soldier to rape, loot, murder, and plunder their enemy. We can all have our grand delusions of valiant men going off to fight for God, king, and country. And all the bad stuff that happened afterwards was only men getting caught up in the rage of battle. Unfortunately the truth is that most would have never left to fight if there was no promise of the things previously mentioned.

The Jews did no less when they concured the Medianites and the Canaanites.(Numb. 31:1-41 Numb. 34:1-12 Numb. 33:50-52) Also in the book of Joshua 6:21 "And they utterly destroyed all theat was in the city, (Jericho) both man and woman, and young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. Are the Jews blameless? I could go on with many more passages.? They even took slaves of a sort, Numbers 31:35 "and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man inimately."

The muslims did no less as they slashed their way throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even Spain/Portugal in 711 AD. They killed and enslaved Christians with no distinction between soldier and civilian. Men, women, and childeren. Monks wrer slaughtered, chuches defiled or converted into muslim places of worship. Christians taken off into slavery and women sold into prostitution. At their best Islam only subjugated conquered Christians by charging them taxes for not being muslim. Invading Christian lands well before the first Christian Crusaders set foot in the "Holy Land." Literally bringing islam to the world by way of the sword.

See the facts. Although Christians may have perpetrated crimes against others it is not the religion. Furthermore, We were not the first to do any of the things that you accuse us of. And the Jews and Muslims have done the same and even worse.

I think that you have a problem with the truth because it doesn't coincide with the orderly packaged blame placed on mainstream Christians as the first and only violent persecutors. My opinions are based on the facts infront of our eyes, it seems that you can not weigh the facts for yourself. Why must you continue to site the opinions of your author instead of conceding that this was done on all sides and was not monopolized by Christians?

If you want to talk about Gnostic ideals and beleifs 10-4 we can do that all day, I enjoy it. But if you are going to continue to bash traditional Christianity with out allowing for the guilt of others and all the while you still have yet to show me how Christianity as a religion is responsible for slavery then I have no more to say.