Satanic Paedophile Codes ZaZa etc.

reply to post by forestlady


Incorrect. It is perfectly fine to use a resource from 1956. Let me explain why. Someone does research to find "The sky is blue!" Everyone agrees, and it gets published. Time passes. This does not mean the old research is inaccurate, it just shows that no one has found ANYTHING to dispute it.

I do not understand this need to create revisionist history. So you don't follow any ancient religion, and those ancient religions killed each other over their religion. Why is this so disturbing? You keep insisting this must be so without any citations.

You have been provided sources, and any cursory search of any religion journal would so confirm, that the ancient religions constantly killed each other over religion. It is simply fact. Also, citing random names does not equal sources. Journal/article name please?

I would agree paganism is not a religion. It is a collection of religions that are widely different. The false parallel to Christianity fails because Christianity is located along one core theme: the divinity of Jesus Christ. There are denominations of Christianity, and they are not separate religions because of this central theme. There is no such singular uniting theme of the many religions which fall under the "pagan" branding. Even within the same religion that gets called pagan, belief systems are radically different.

You have apologists in your community. Every religion does. Do not be blinded by partiality. I don't listen to the scholars in Christianity who claim that all the good things of history are Christian. I listen to those without an agenda.

The bible is a guide to real magic and Jesus was trying to teach people it. Its ironic Christians and Catholics were burning people for being into it when the person they followed was a master of it. That's probably why they weren't allowed to read the bible for along time.

While I do appreciate your changing the direction of the conversation and not directly answering anything I wrote, please do note that I noticed it. By not responding, you tacitly acknowledge that everything I wrote was correct and that you were in error.

And I appreciate that.

To your post, then:

Originally posted by forestlady
Christianity isn't 2000 years old? Can you please explain that? How do you figure?

No, it is not.

Yes, I can.

I figure using the same math everyone on the planet uses.

To specifics: it is generally accepted that Jesus was born somewhere between 6 BC and 4 BC. It's believed that he lived to be just about in his mid-30sh, which would put his death at approximately 30 AD. He began his ministry approximately two years before his death. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ didn't begin his ministry until 28 A.D., then Christianity will not be 2,000 years old until the year 2028. Roughly 20 years from now.

Also, please provide sources that all these Pagan groups fought over religion.

Why? You haven't provide one single whit of proof as to anything you've written - and you've been incorrect more than once. Why do you demand a higher burden of proof from others? Cite your sources, missy.

All of the groups you listed did fight alot, but it wasn't over religion.

Oh, but it was. You don't have a herd of gods whose sole vocation is 'god of war' if you're going out to pick petunias.

What you're doing - and I'm only trying to help you out here so that in the future you don't make this same mistake - is not understanding that not all religious wars are called "crusades" or "jihads" or other exciting words like that. Sometimes holy wars were as simple as "well my god of war can beat your god of war" followed by the inevitable "oh yeah?"

The Vikings for example didn't care who they raped, pillaged, and murdered; they did it because they liked it, not because they had an axe to grind. Some groups also fought for freedom to practice their religion as well.

Wow. The depth of your knowledge of Viking history and culture is ... err ... 'dizzying.'

There really isn't any way to politely reconcile what you've written with actual history without pointing out that you're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Boy, are you wrong.

I realize that it's too much to ask that you check your ... 'facts' ... before you post them, but - at the very least - look into the history of Ireland a bit. The Vikings were quite a bit more than what you've credited them as.

Continues...

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by mmmeat]

...continued from previous post

Originally posted by forestlady
Paganism IS a religion; just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make it so. It is like saying all the differaent Christian sects aren't really a religion because Christians believe different things.

Incorrect. You've misunderstood what I've written.

Your example regarding Christians is incorrect as well. Christians - regardless of sect - all believe in the same basic premise: the teachings of Christ.

Paganism is a 50lbs of feral cats goofed on catnip and tripleshot espressos stuffed in a 20lb bag. You've got monotheism, polytheism, shamanism, and all kinds of isms that fall under the blanket term "paganism."

The basic premise is a nature-inspired religion; that is what connects all the different Pagan sects, just as Christianity does.

Christianity doesn't connect pagan sects. There is no such thing as a pagan sect. Remember: You heard it here first.

What you're describing is nothing more than a neo-paganism nature cult. If that's what you believe, that's cool with me. I'm all for chicks running around naked in the forest.

But ... to believe that your "ancestors" have been persecuted or that pagans (the real pagans, not the modern neo-pagans) didn't fight because their gods told them to is just plain ludicrous. Neo-paganism can claim no ancestry or provenance with anything further back in history than the 19th century theosophy and occultism that was popular at that time.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. I believe in my deities, Christians believe in theirs, as do Jews, Moslems, etc. That's what makes it a religion - believing in your deities.

No, a religion is a set of beliefs and practices. Some religions - most notably, many that exist in paganism - do not have dieties.

As a pagan, you should know that.

One last thing: We have many scholars in our Pagan community, who have studied ancient texts, archaeology, etc. They are not revisionists and they know what they're talking about.

Then please - for the sake of all that's good and holy - listen to them. Don't just pick out the parts you want to hear and disregard the rest. It will make you a better person. Which is what all religions strive to accomplish.

Light, using resources from 1956 really isn't a good source; much has been discovered since then.
You ask for sources: Marija Gimbutas and John and Caitlin Matthews are three.

Your source - Marija Gimbutas - began writing in 1946 (ten years before 1956, if you're counting) and stopped writing in 1971. She really isn't a good source; much has been discovered since then.

Oh, and John and Caitlin Matthews? They're not pagans; their work centers around neo-paganism/shamanism and other new age beliefs. Again, sorry to burst your bubble: not pagan, not your ancestors.

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by mmmeat]

John Matthews was a Pagan for many years. If you read his books, it's in his biography. And Gimbutas was still writing at her death in 1994. A number of her books were published AFTER 1971, as you can see here:

Bibliography:Works
Gimbutas, Marija 1946. Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit. Tübingen: In Kommission bei J.C.B. Mohr.
Gimbutas, Marija: Ancient symbolism in Lithuanian folk art. Philadelphia: American Folklore Society , 1958. Memoirs of the American Folklore Society 49.
Gimbutas, Marija ,1961. "Notes on the chronology and expansion of the Pit-grave culture", in J. Bohm & S. J. De Laet (eds), L’Europe à la fin de 1’Age de la pierre: 193-200. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
Gimbutas, Marija 1963. The Balts. London : Thames and Hudson, Ancient peoples and places 33.
Gimbutas, Marija 1965. Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague/London: Mouton.
Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas and Ernestine S. Elster 1986. Excavations at Sitagroi, a prehistoric village in northeast Greece. Vol. 1. Los Angeles : Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1986, Monumenta archaeologica 13.
Marija Gimbutienė 1985. Baltai priešistoriniais laikais : etnogenezė, materialinė kultūra ir mitologija. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Gimbutas, Marija 1974. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe
Marija Gimbutas (ed.) 1976. Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavation at Anza, southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1976. Monumenta archaeologica 1.
Marija Gimbutas 1977. "The first wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe", Journal of Indo-European Studies 5: 277-338.
Marija Gimbutas 1980. "The Kurgan wave #2 (c.3400-3200 BC) into Europe and the following transformation of culture", Journal of Indo-European Studies 8: 273-315.
Marija Gimbutas 1989. The Language of the Goddess.
Marija Gimbutas, Shan Winn, Daniel Shimabuku, 1989. "Achilleion: a Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 B.C." Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Monumenta archaeologica 14.
Marija Gimbutas 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess
Gimbutas, Marija 1992. Die Ethnogenese der europäischen Indogermanen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft , Vorträge und kleinere Schriften 54.
Dexter, Miriam Robbins and Karlene Jones-Bley 1997 (eds), The Kurgan culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe. Selected articles from 1952 to 1993 by M. Gimbutas. Journal of Indo-European Studies monograph 18, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Gimbutas, Marija, edited and supplemented by Miriam Robbins Dexter, 1999 The Living Goddesses. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Dexter, Miriam Robbins and Edgar C. Polomé, eds. 1997, "Varia on the Indo-European Past: Papers in Memory of Marija Gimbutas." Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph #19. Washington, DC: The Institute for the Study of Man.

www.answers.com...

reply to post by forestlady


Again, citing bibliographies does not do anything. Nor does citing biased sources. But I'll consider them, if you can cite ANY peer reviewed article that supports your opinion.

I am so upset right now it's almost impossible to think straight.

"Satanic" codes? I fail to see anything in the designs that smack of anything "satanic". Is it me, or is labeling uncomfortable subjects as such re just a way to attract attention and then divert conversation into religious debate?

Satanic Panic for the next generation, perhaps?

I fail to see the logic behind the OP's assumptions.

The majority of Satanists I have had direct contact with tend to quote scripture more often than anything else, throwing in their own perversions to the symbolic meaning and use of certain symbols. Why? Simple. Distort the truth, create confusion, sit back and laugh at the people who buy into it, revel in the drama.

Free entertainment for little more than a page of subversive information.

Golly gee, I sure do miss the days when those xeroxed "satanic watch" flyers were passed around at school. Sure made my social life disappear once they "made known" that the peace sign and the anarchy symbol were "Secret Satanic Codes". Boy, as if we weren't picked on enough back then to begin with....but I digress.

These symbols are so common as an innocent artistic exploration that it just seems this whole scenario might be nothing more than an attempt to spurn another modern day witch hunt.

It's ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

"Satan and his Minions" are probably laughing his arse off over people who are going to buy into this theory hook, line and sinker - and have a field day when someone goes to the great lengths of ruining the life of some poor person who just thought having a design of this nature on a t-shirt was cool.

And let's not forget all the kids who doodle on their bookcovers and notebooks - are they inadvertantly sending the wrong signal? Oh dear.

I can see where this is going.

FEAR!
PANIC!
TRUST NO ONE!

Lock up the crayons and forbid the children artistic expressions - they may inadvertantly be luring pedophiles!

I am SO infuriated with the abuses I have seen over the past 20 years of my life of the perversion of symbolism and "it's ties to the Satanic" that I might get beligerant.

Until I hear this type of claim from an actual Satanic Coven leader who blatantly ADMITS his groups usage of said icons for this purpose, I'm not buying a thing.

Even then - just because one coven uses the symbol is such a manner, does not mean it's UNIVERSAL. Like I mentioned before, the majority of the Satanists I have met in the past just revel in the imagined sense of power they get from riling people up over trival and infactual matters.



*edit for spelling error

[edit on 12-1-2008 by GENERAL EYES]

Originally posted by forestlady
John Matthews was a Pagan for many years.

No. John Matthews and his work has always centered around exactly what I said in my previous post: neo-paganism/shamanism and other new age beliefs.

Exactly as I said. Exactly.

Here's the thing: you really, Really, REALLY need to provide documentation - sources, etc. - to be able to have any type of integrity here. Nothing you've posted is based on easily researched historical data or on the reality currently in operation at this time in this dimension. Nothing you've posted is in any way accurate. Nothing you've posted is believable.

You're a pagan - yet you know nothing about paganism.

You condemn Vikings - yet you know nothing about the people.

You claim a monotheistic religion has deities. (Here's a clue: 'mono' tends to mean 'one')

You state you're not a neo-pagan, yet everything you post clearly shows that you are.

You claim paganism doesn't go back that far - yet you say your "ancestors" were burned at the stake.

The list goes on and on.

I'm sure that in your own naive way - and yes, my dear, you are naive...truly, truly naive - you firmly believe whatever it is that makes you happy. And I'm sure your johnny-come-lately cult thing is everything you've ever hoped for ... but - from everything you've posted here - it's not paganism, it's neo-paganism; it's at best 20 years old; it has nothing at all to do with any of the ''original" pagan religions or cults, and it's really not worth fighting over.

You've brought nothing compelling to the table, you refuse to cite chapter or verse for your sources, and you have a tenuous fingertip hold (at best) on a minimal amount of data, and you obviously just want to argue at this point. Know this: what you're doing here - on this thread - is a disservice to pagans everywhere, and not at all in keeping with the themes of your neo-pagan ... thing.

Sorry you couldn't bring anything substantive to the conversation.

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYESUntil I hear this type of claim from an actual Satanic Coven leader who blatantly ADMITS his groups usage of said icons for this purpose, I'm not buying a thing.

Well, even then I'd be a little hesitant to buy in. We've been having a hell of a time on this thread with a 'pagan' who knows nothing about paganism. You might want to hold off believing any symbol of man represents satan until you get the word from the Big Man himself.

And if you do get the word, do let me know if he really looks like Tim Curry from Legend. If he looks like Tim Curry from Rocky Horror Picture Show, let me know that, too ... I find him far more scary as the latter...

Your pal,
Meat.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by mmmeat]

reply to post by GENERAL EYES


I agree with you and thanks for posting.

To the 2 antogonizers who keep trying to nitpick my posts apart by distraction: Marija Gimbutas IS peer-reviewed and she wrote until 1994. All you have to do is Google it and in 30 seconds you would know that you claims are wrong. You are wrong and you're trying to intimidate me thru insults. Your agenda is very apparent thru the insults you hurl.
Your credibility has been destroyed, because you really don't know much about Marija Gimbutas; it is obvious from your mistakes. I don't think you have much credibility to stand on.

Originally posted by mmmeat
[Well, even then I'd be a little hesitant to buy in. We've been having a hell of a time on this thread with a 'pagan' who knows nothing about paganism. You might want to hold off believing any symbol of man represents satan until you get the word from the Big Man himself.

Agreed. Even within "Satanic Covens" there are people who are really just making a big do to of their own concepts.

And if you do get the word, do let me know if he really looks like Tim Curry from Legend. If he looks like Tim Curry from Rocky Horror Picture Show, let me know that, too ... I find him far more scary as the latter...

Then no doubt you will find THIS even more disturbing...I know it freaked me out as a youngster flipping through the record stores!

reply to post by forestlady


Stop trying to demonize me because I disagree with you. Just because your view point is not supported by the weight of scholarly peer reviewed evidence does not mean that I'm an "antagonizer." I also wait for you to tell me one single insult I used, anywhere in this thread. Just one.

I still wait for one single peer reviewed article cite. Giving random names of authors and claiming they are "peer reviewed" doesn't actually give you any evidence. Give an article - as I have done with FIVE ARTICLES - that tells us ancient religions were the epitome of tolerance and never fought over religion. You won't be able to...because simply as a matter of historical fact it is not true.

I studied religion in an academia long enough to know what happens when someone clings on to false hope in something that is wrong and all the evidence shows it. They immediately begin demonizing everyone who disagrees with them, claiming all of a sudden that they've been insulted when no insults have been exchanged, and start talking about credibility. All this from someone who has yet to provide a SINGLE peer reviewed article that supports your viewpoint.

You see, I could start copying and pasting from the vita's of any of the great scholars of religion - all of whom disagree with you, by the way - and paste it on here. But it proves nothing. I've shown my evidence - where is yours?

[edit on 12-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

It's all true. Satanists and Pedophiles run the world and most every top organization.

There's really no point in trying to 'prove' this to people who are in denial. So many people have come forward to blow the whistle on this stuff and they were all called liars.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
Stop trying to demonize me because I disagree with you.

Oh boy Trust me, people 'demonize' you because you make it your lifes mission to shut them up for discussing masonry and secret societies. Get over it buddy.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Are you still mad that EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM (masons, non-masons...everyone) has told you that your threads on masonry are devoid of substance?


[edit on 12-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by Roark
Doghead:

If Magick's goal is to expand the consciousness, how can it be "provably unsuccessful"?

Dark Magick.

And yeah, we get it. The ATS Masonic Brigade doesn't believe there is such thing as 'bad' Magick.

If you ask me, the show of Masons in a PEDOPHILIA thread defending magick is Care to explain why you lot are so bent on defending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, satanists etc?

Or are you just concerned that your little organization might get mentioned?

I will never for one instant waste my time listening to people who defend magick and satanism in all it's forms. The excuses they use and terminology they try to hide behind is just too transparent.

Props to the OP for bringing this topic up.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by NewWorldOver

 

Are you still mad that EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM (masons, non-masons...everyone) has told you that your threads on masonry are devoid of substance?

[edit on 12-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

*shrug* The only people who have shown up to my Mason threads were Masons. I find it cute how you gang up on threads that might concern your little club to give eachother stars it's sweet. Oh look, star for you!

Seriously though, stop trying to stifle discussion... it's terribly suspicious for you Masons to behave this way. But you carry on...

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Wow. Here is the proof again, ladies and gentlemen. In a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with masonry in any form what so ever, NWO just has to try to somehow make the fraternity look evil by grasping at threads of logic that do not exist. Desperate measures.

I never knew that all of the people who were non-masons, and heck, even the FORUM STAFF who chimed in that your threads completely devoid of anything but your rambling were masons! As so many others have told you, when will you learn that exposing your "theories" with reason and logic does not constitute "stifling the discussion." But of course for you, EVERYONE who disagrees with you MUST be a mason, and of course anyone who disagrees with you is STIFLING THE DISCUSSION! YES!

[edit on 12-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Aaaaand now the Masons high-jack the thread and derail it in order to carry on with their nonsensical religious debates.

Uh huh.

I've seen this pattern before.

But not in any threads concerning pedophilia.... suspicious much?



Carry on.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Oh look everyone! NWO is yet again trying to set up his own conspiracy! He comes into a thread that has nothing to do with masonry what so ever, then tries to make it about masonry - thereby derailing the topic. When I point out what he is doing, now supposedly the MASONS are derailing the topic!

It's a classic NWO boondoggle in the making.