Raelian Conspiracy to Overthrow Religion

reply to post by drevill


Well what is it you are calling a demon? If you believe what the vast majority of Christians believe, meaning you believe the fallen angels are demons, then you would be wrong. A demon is a spirit, fallen angels are caporial, the are flesh and blood now (look up Psalms 82), they may have some amazing abilities (i.e. lightning comming outta there hands, shapeshifting, levitation, ect.), but they can be killed, though it may be hard to do so I'm prety sure they can. But in turn they cannot inhabit the empty soul (a soul, not spirit, that does not have the Holy Spirit inhabiting it). Demons are never refered to in the Bible as fallen angels (as far as I know), this is a Christians mythology (sadly). Fallen angels are what Rael believes (and probably knows the truth, but does not share it) is aliens.

Demons though are spirits of the first, THE FIRST, Nephelim before and after the flood. A demon needs a body to inhabit, a fallen angel does not.

-Jimmy

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

We know Satan needs an army for the end times. Since only 1/3 of the elohim fell, he needs soldiers. The cloning could also be a way to make bodies for the demons.

You mean an army of clones like this!




It is teh Star WaaarrrZZZ!!!11!!1!!!!1!!

Check this out...

Who Is Jesus Christ?

Jesus plays a role in Raëlian cosmology as the 38th prophet, followed by Joseph Smith of Mormon fame. Jesus was a product of Mary’s artificial insemination by the president of the Council of the Eternals, that is, Yahweh, the chief Eloha. Raël was similarly born of the union between a human mother and Yahweh, making him half-brother to Jesus. Raël justifies this interbreeding with reinterpretations of Genesis 6:1–4, noting the Elohim had normal carnal desires and passions. The Jews today are supposedly descendants of these couplings.

The Raëlians also have a scientific explanation for the resurrection of Jesus. It was, they say, a “resuscitation” and type of cloning, performed by the Elohim using a single cell preserved prior to Jesus’ crucifixion.

www.equip.org...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


So I wonder what fallen angel he's decended from, Semjâzâ perhaps? I forgot is the anit-Christ supposed to be the descendant of satan or satan inside a body?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by ThreeNF

I know many reasonable people who have open relationships, swing, etc.

Most people do not think that is reasonable behavior. It is frowned upon because it is wrong. Black vultures know better than that.
Black vultures, though, discourage infidelity. All nearby vultures attack any vulture caught philandering.

In fact, it will probably not be an issue in the near future because the concept of marriage will eventually die, along with old school religions. Raelianism will be the religion of the 3rd millennium. Couples will exist, but the traditional marriage contracts of today will eventually cease to exist. More and more people will realize that signing a contract to stay with the same person for the rest of your life no longer makes sense.

America has been compared to the Roman Empire in secular and religious ways. Regardless of its ultimate legacy, America is a civilization on the decline. A couple of centuries from now (or sooner), someone will write a book called "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire." Historians will lament the loss of a once-great civilization that brought prosperity to the world and tried to make it safer for democracy. The glory that was the United States will lay in ruins, brought down not by terrorists but its own debauchery and complacency.

Even before cultural decay was apparent, a man named Dr. Carle Zimmerman wrote a book called "Family and Civilization" in 1947. He reviewed the decline of multiple civilizations and empires and found eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization:

1) Marriage loses its sacredness; is frequently broken by divorce.

2) Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony is lost.

3) Feminist movements abound.

4) Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general.

5) Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion.

6) Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept family responsibilities.

7) Growing desire for and acceptance of adultery.

8) Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions and sex-related crimes.

www.gopusa.com...

Just because something is the social norm doesn't make it right. Years ago it was the social norm to discriminate against women, blacks, etc. Was that right? Didn't the catholic church kill off millions of free thinking women at one point in history, and wasn't that the social norm at the time? Was that right? Things change and they are going to continue to change. I'd suggest you prepare for it

You're right, because something is a norm doesn't make it right. But the prohibition of adultery is universal for a reason. The same reason that other crimes like murder and theft are universally prohibited. They go against the framework of civilization. Which is trust and decencey. The fact is you are right we are in moral decline and Raelians just embrace it. To the peril of humanity.



[edit on 4/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I'm not most people, and what you think is right isn't right. You're definition of morality and the framework of civilization isn't correct and will not be accepted by everyone. Why should anyone listen to you, or to a doctrine dictated by the Catholic church, an organization that has killed millions of people in its time among other gross violations of human rights? And that linked document of yours is garbage. I can't believe that this day in age people still think that homosexuality is a sin or wrong. Homosexuality is no different than being black, white, blue eyed, brown haired, etc. It's really sad that many people just don't get it. It is those people that epitomize mankind's stupidity.

Again, I must recommend that everyone read Intelligent Design. You'll then understand who Satan and Lucifer really are

reply to post by jimmyjackblack

It could be Semjâzâ he was the watchers leader correct? Enoch1:9:7 "Semjâzâ, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates." He taught enchantments, and root-cuttings. For that reason I lean toward Azâzêl.

Speculation of course, but I just looked at Enoch 1:8 and I would guess the Elohim that Rael is strongly associated with is Azâzêl, because he seems to be associated with the sexual perversion. From this line
"the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways."

Enoch 1:8

And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all
2
colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they
3
were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Êzêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven...

Originally posted by jimmyjackblack
reply to post by drevill

 

Well what is it you are calling a demon? If you believe what the vast majority of Christians believe, meaning you believe the fallen angels are demons, then you would be wrong. A demon is a spirit, fallen angels are caporial, the are flesh and blood now (look up Psalms 82), they may have some amazing abilities (i.e. lightning comming outta there hands, shapeshifting, levitation, ect.), but they can be killed, though it may be hard to do so I'm prety sure they can. But in turn they cannot inhabit the empty soul (a soul, not spirit, that does not have the Holy Spirit inhabiting it). Demons are never refered to in the Bible as fallen angels (as far as I know), this is a Christians mythology (sadly). Fallen angels are what Rael believes (and probably knows the truth, but does not share it) is aliens.

Demons though are spirits of the first, THE FIRST, Nephelim before and after the flood. A demon needs a body to inhabit, a fallen angel does not.

-Jimmy

Hello

Could you explain your theory on Psalms 82 and in what way you think they are flesh.

The context is David saying they are judges (not gods or angels) and that they have judge unjustly, then he calls upon God to judge them.

That aside i'm interested to hear your comments on this though.

disregarding my thoughts on Psalms 82 how are they flesh now?

many thanks

David

thanks

david

Originally posted by ThreeNF

I'm not most people,

You are right about that!!!

and what you think is right isn't right. You're definition of morality and the framework of civilization isn't correct and will not be accepted by everyone.
Why should anyone listen to you, or to a doctrine dictated by the Catholic church, an organization that has killed millions of people in its time among other gross violations of human rights?

The prohibition of adultery and promiscuity is universal in humanity. What you advocate is devolution to behaving like wild animals.

I am not Catholic. Again historically that is an ignorant statement as atheist states have slaughtered more people in the twentieth century than anything you can attribute to religion.

Catholics have done a lot of good in the world as well. They take care of the orphans that result form the sexual promiscuity you embrace.

And that linked document of yours is garbage. I can't believe that this day in age people still think that homosexuality is a sin or wrong. Homosexuality is no different than being black, white, blue eyed, brown haired, etc. It's really sad that many people just don't get it. It is those people that epitomize mankind's stupidity.

I suppose if somebody was brainwashed by perversion it would be hard to discern the truth. Take note that the author was noted Sociologist and Historian Dr. Carle Zimmerman. His book, "Family and Civilization," is a scholarly work, pure history, sociology, and science. Far from being current rhetoric from the "religious right," the book was published in 1947.

Again, I must recommend that everyone read Intelligent Design. You'll then understand who Satan and Lucifer really are

I know full well who he is. The author of all lies. Your God.




[edit on 4/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Pretty simple really. Let's look at the scripture and take into note the some keywords that are in it:

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

They (these gods) are called "elohim" in the original language, these clearly are not judges, the judges appointed over Israel. Gods calls them "gods" and they He tells them they will die like men, so God is sentecing these dudes to be able to die like men, well despite what the side notes in my bible tell me it's obvious that if you were not able to die like a man dies, then you must be something other than a man. Plus the fact that God calls them gods and the word used to describe them is elohim. These are fallen angels who appointed themselves as gods oover the peoples of the earth and screwed them over pretty bad (the very thing that the fallen angels did in genesis 6) so God says "Hey, you boys are causeing too much trouble and you've screwed over humanity, so your not going to be a spiritual being anymore, screw you!" (that is the Jimmy translation). Oh and also this psalm was not written by David, it was written by some other dude named "Asaph", David just included it in a book of psalms he gathered. So that's pretty much what I think concerning that scripture.

-Jimmy

reply to post by jimmyjackblack

God says "Hey, you boys are causeing too much trouble and you've screwed over humanity, so your not going to be a spiritual being anymore, screw you!" (that is the Jimmy translation).

that is the Jimmy translation

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

The prohibition of adultery and promiscuity is universal in humanity. What you advocate is devolution to behaving like wild animals.

O RLY?


www.youtube.com...

LOL!



[edit on 13-4-2008 by ThreeNF]

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


hello

First off no need for the condescending tone, If i'm mistaken, please forgive me

secondly yes the word is as you say but in context it does not mean what you say

thirdly it is David that calls them this and not God,

Fourthly even if you were correct, what is it to die like men in the judgement? It means their fate is the same.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions and no real substance here. Sorry, but if you want to convince me i am wrong (and i am happy to be with real biblical proof) it needs more than repeating the text again.

The Bible usually interprets itself, do you have any other scripture to back up the claim that these are fleshly and in fact that we can kill them?

all the best

David

reply to post by drevill


Sorry bro, I never meant to sound condescending, that's the problem with text is ya can't really hear what someone is saying. And it was not David calling them gods, fisrtly, why would he call them gods? That just woundn't make any sense and secondly it was as I previously stated, Asaph wrote that psalm, not David, David just included it in the book of psalms. I have no idea who Asaph was, but I'm guessing that he was some dude who saw the knew about what had happened (I guess God showed him, I don't know). Now I'm not out to just try and prove you wrong, I'm trying to help you understand why I believe what I believe. One big problem we have these days is that we don't have the whole original Bible, we have the most important parts though (The Gospels). I know that there are many other scriptures relating to the fallen angels trying to screw over humanity, but there's not a whole lot about themselves. I felt I explained it pretty well in my last post about it, but I'm not that great at explaining things or teaching or anything like that (which is why I'd make a horrible pastor or teacher). Sorry you mistook my words as a negative thing, they were never menat to be, I've done that too though, thinking someone was trying to put me down when they were actually just trying to explain something. Like I previously said though, I'm not too good at coveying things, especially over text.

reply to post by ThreeNF


I like the black vultures better at least they know adultery is wrong and they don't put up with it.

The true nature of the UFO phenomenon...








[edit on 4/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Asaph

You are right, my apologies.

sorry got a bit touchy there

Thanks for the explanation. although i have to respectfully disagree about the flesh part


all the best

David

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Pure genius Let's compare our sexual behavior to that of vultures I said this before. We aren't animals and to compare our sexual behavior to that of animals is meaningless. For example, doesn't the female praying mantis bite off the head of the partner before or during copulation? So does that mean women should but a bullet into a man's head after she's had sex with him?

You'll just never get it, will you? But I'll still love you

Peace & Love

Originally posted by ThreeNF
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Pure genius

Let's compare our sexual behavior to that of vultures

I said this before. We aren't animals and to compare our sexual behavior to that of animals is meaningless. For example, doesn't the female praying mantis bite off the head of the partner before or during copulation? So does that mean women should but a bullet into a man's head after she's had sex with him?

You'll just never get it, will you? But I'll still love you

Peace & Love

Hmm... bullet through the head while having sex, that's a pretty interesting thought.
Well you or someone on here said that homosexuality is natural, well then sexuall morality is natural. Also those penguins that have the guy friends are no different than me and my buddies, just cause we are friends for life does'nt mean we are gay, they have sex with female penguins, they don't have sex with the male penguins, so that is one very debunked argument. And if you're going to say that two male animals humping each other is proof that homosexuality is natural then you're wrong on that one too, they are showing dominance when they hump each other. But if you take one example of what you call natural animal behaviour and except it, but then you don't except another animal behaviour cause it does'nt support your view, then you are being hypocritical to your own logic.

Originally posted by jimmyjackblack

Originally posted by ThreeNF
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Pure genius

Let's compare our sexual behavior to that of vultures

I said this before. We aren't animals and to compare our sexual behavior to that of animals is meaningless. For example, doesn't the female praying mantis bite off the head of the partner before or during copulation? So does that mean women should but a bullet into a man's head after she's had sex with him?

You'll just never get it, will you? But I'll still love you

Peace & Love

Hmm... bullet through the head while having sex, that's a pretty interesting thought.
Well you or someone on here said that homosexuality is natural, well then sexuall morality is natural. Also those penguins that have the guy friends are no different than me and my buddies, just cause we are friends for life does'nt mean we are gay, they have sex with female penguins, they don't have sex with the male penguins, so that is one very debunked argument. And if you're going to say that two male animals humping each other is proof that homosexuality is natural then you're wrong on that one too, they are showing dominance when they hump each other. But if you take one example of what you call natural animal behaviour and except it, but then you don't except another animal behaviour cause it does'nt support your view, then you are being hypocritical to your own logic.

Where do I say that two male animals humping is proof that homosexuality is naturual, huh?? Where? I'm trying to point out that you shouldn't compare our sexual behavior to that of animals.

The only proof you need is to ask someone what their sexual preference is. If they say it's of the same sex, then that's it. Otherwise, you are saying what they are feeling is wrong and to say that is a gross violation of human rights. You have absolutely no right to say with whom one can have sex with. If A wants to have sex with B, then the only thing that matters is what A & B think and that it is mutually agreeable between them. C can take a walk or join in if A & B like

[edit on 13-4-2008 by ThreeNF]

reply to post by ThreeNF


I did'nt say you said it for sure, I just know someone on here said it.

So if I wanted to have sex with a goat, and the goat wanted to have sex with me then it's ok?
That's a tad bit odd my friend, but that is in fact the logic which you have provided me with and I made the same case as to how pedophilia could be construde as exceptible by this same logic.
THis my friend is the logic of which you have provided me with.

Originally posted by jimmyjackblack
reply to post by ThreeNF

 

I did'nt say you said it for sure, I just know someone on here said it.

So if I wanted to have sex with a goat, and the goat wanted to have sex with me then it's ok?
That's a tad bit odd my friend, but that is in fact the logic which you have provided me with and I made the same case as to how pedophilia could be construde as exceptible by this same logic.
THis my friend is the logic of which you have provided me with.

How do you determine it's OK with the goat? Let's try to get the argument to sex within the same species, OK? Pedophilia is a different story altogether and quite sensitive. I do not condone anyone having sex with prepubescent children, because those children haven't developed sufficiently to understand what is going on. When those children enter into puberty, it's' important that we educate them as to what is happening and why. Eventually, the child will reach a point of sexual maturity and what that happens, it should be their decision as to who they want to have sex with - not the parents or the law.