New Age = Satanism?

Originally posted by missvicky
New Age refers to the "New Age" of Aquarius. We have been in the Age of Picses for the last 2000+ years. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the Precession of the Equinoxes which is a scientific term and relates to what constellation the axis of the Earth and the pole star for that age is in.

You know, that's what I used to think and you are probably right as far as the etymology of the term "New Age" but, if so, why did the they think we were in the Age Of Aquarius back in the 60's? Doesn't the Age Of Aquarius start in the middle of the 22nd century?

I love the concept of it because I'm way into the circles of time and yearly progression (which is a matter of religion to many people) so if there's more to the macrocosm of it as you suggest, I'd like to see how it actually fits into the shift. Honestly, it's just heartbreaking to me to know there is a shift that is eminent and to tie it to the Age of Aquarius because I would hate to think that it's over 100 years from now.

Just a side-thought I had about this subject this morning.

Why is it that, to be called a Christian, you have to pledge your life to Jesus and get baptized (a whole Pagan ritual if I ever saw one, by the way) yet, to be a Satanist, all you have to do is piss off a Christian?

Why is initiation into the Jesus club so specific and the path so narrow yet the Satan club is supposedly so easy to join that people don't even know they are in it? But really, the parameters for determining if somebody is Satanic seems to be "Does it anger the church or conservative logic? Is it different? Does it challenge my world view?"

Just something to chew on this morning.

reply to post by autowrench


Thank goodness, a voice of reason and education in this whole debacle of "who can spew the most dogma".

Yes, Source is a BALANCE of the aspects that define male and female. They compliment each other, just like the yinyang forms a complete circle out of dark and light. This whole "God is male" thing is just another symptom of insecurity among our species - striving toward whichever seems more powerful and more pure, because we're so terrified of being "weak".

reply to post by booyakasha


So how does that connect to the metaphysical plane? Is the Bible a reflection of how the celestial bodies mirror the metaphysical energies influencing our reality?

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
I disagree, the Abrahamic faiths have been so far politicized that the preconceptions surrounding them and the beliefs have been manipulated. The true essence of Christianity has been watered down and integrated into the Western tradition since the nationalization of Christianity by Constantine, which is ironic due to the persecution of the Christian believers right before this political move. As the old saying goes, if you can't beat them, join them and beat them from the inside. Christianity was meant to be a personal relationship with God, not a political thing;Jesus fervently addressed those in charge of theocratic nation of Israel that misuse the Word of God to fit their political ideas. The pharisees were expecting a physical messiah that would overthrow Roman Rule, when Jesus is the spiritual Messiah.

You just described how Christianity is and how it should be. Just because it should be something, it doesn't make it so. You are right though, it shouldn't have evolved the way it did.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
If anything, I think that the current organized religions are just setting the system up for the main embodiment of the spirit of the antichrist. In the 21st century, the popular paradigm is that religions and government are bad, and i think the antichrist will feed upon these preconceptions and defile everything that is considered holy by different people and place himself as holy.

The reason the paradigm of "religions are bad" is popular is because it is true. The current mainstream western religions are used for great evil. I find it strange that virtually every Christian I know assumes people immediately think "evil" when they hear the term "antiChrist". Not all of us see the fall of the Abrahamic church structures as a bad thing. I want there to always be the freedom to worship those gods (OT gods and Jesus, etc) but actual power structure that has been created out of violence and lust of money is something I will celebrate the dismantling of and so will many others.

So don't assume that the "antichrist" will have to deceive people. Many people are quite willing to see a social liberation of religions. If that's what the antichrist is, then he's got a lot of allies.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
When you study the history of mankind and religion, you will see that politics and religion have always had a relationship with each other. I don't think this is of coincidence; the greed and taste for power of mankind have always manipulated the popular belief of a nation or group of people in order to subject them. Ancient Rome perfected this political theory to the teeth.

This is not true. In recent history, this is true. Babylonian culture is a great cut-off point where the obvious shift to a war-like patriarchal religion frame work took over. Before this, there were civilizations in Mesopotamia who worshiped matriarchal deities and went (in some cases) over 1,600 years without signs of violence or war (both results of politics). That shift also marks the genesis (no pun intended) of Hebrew spirituality.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Just like any other thing in this world, the New Age philosophy is a double edged sword, it may lead someone to the actual truth, or it might swing back and hit you in the face.

edit on 15-10-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)

Or it may just be what replaces religion as we know it.

New Age is just a mix up of eastern philosophy mixed in with a bit of mysticism that, like every thing in this world, has some truths to it, but my advice is to take everything with a grain of salt.

Religions are not bad, and this is part of my thesis statement of the research paper I am writing for a class.

In my paper, I will address and argue that the politicizing and nationalization of any religion, specifically Christianity, has distorted the core beliefs and fundamental basis of said religion and manipulate the preconceptions surrounding it.

The current mainstream western religions are used for great evil.

I will not disagree with this or this,

but actual power structure that has been created out of violence and lust of money is something I will celebrate the dismantling of and so will many others.

So don't assume that the "antichrist" will have to deceive people. Many people are quite willing to see a social liberation of religions. If that's what the antichrist is, then he's got a lot of allies.

Ironic how you tell me not to assume, yet you assume. Sorry, I'm a huge fan of irony, you will not believe the many times I have fell to silence just thinking of the ironies.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


I am not saying the antichrist will prop up social liberation from religion. I am saying that unlike you, who have shown respect to the beliefs of others and their religions, the antichrist will not get a rat's tail about what you believe in as long as it is him. The antichrist will prop himself as God and he will deceive many.

This trend of an authoritative figure taking the place of God is not a new thing, plenty of people, Louis XIII or XIV of France for example, have done this and people have worshiped the authority figure as a god.

Originally posted by Cuervo
Just a side-thought I had about this subject this morning.

Why is it that, to be called a Christian, you have to pledge your life to Jesus and get baptized (a whole Pagan ritual if I ever saw one, by the way) yet, to be a Satanist, all you have to do is piss off a Christian?

Why is initiation into the Jesus club so specific and the path so narrow yet the Satan club is supposedly so easy to join that people don't even know they are in it? But really, the parameters for determining if somebody is Satanic seems to be "Does it anger the church or conservative logic? Is it different? Does it challenge my world view?"

Just something to chew on this morning.

edit on 16-10-2012 by Cuervo because: Sleepy

Yeah, I have no clue to the baptismal doctrine or the Holy Communion ritual. Apparently, the logic behind these two doctrines that are in all Christian denominations is that Jesus Christ partook in these rituals, so therefore so must his followers.

To my knowledge, Satanism reveres the self and puts the self before others, which is a polarized opposition to the true essence of Christianity.

If you think by pissing Christians off you are a Satanist, sorry buddy, you weren't pissing off true Christians.

Yeah, basically that's right. There is the STO path and the STS path.

STS Service to Self is considered "negative" in terms of seeing it in a dualistic 3D way. It is the forgetfulness or perhaps the denial that we are all One.

STO Service to Others would then be "positive" polarity, an ever-reaching unity towards One. Serving another because by doing so I AM serving myself, acknowledges that we are One.

Like all things, it is all about the vibration state of the consciousness you are projecting.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
To my knowledge, Satanism reveres the self and puts the self before others, which is a polarized opposition to the true essence of Christianity.

The Satanists you are talking about are of the Anton Lavey variety who don't worship anything other than Ayn Rand and spiritual capitalism.

You are correct in saying that this is in direct opposition to Jesus but I would not say it is opposite of Christianity. Many Christians believe in Ayn Rand capitalism and also in many of the values that Anton Lavey teaches.

No matter the religion of who believes in those philosophies, they are despicable. Strangely, that form of Satanism and modern Christianity have very little to do with either Satan or Jesus when it comes to personal action.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by autowrench

 

Thank goodness, a voice of reason and education in this whole debacle of "who can spew the most dogma".

Yes, Source is a BALANCE of the aspects that define male and female. They compliment each other, just like the yinyang forms a complete circle out of dark and light. This whole "God is male" thing is just another symptom of insecurity among our species - striving toward whichever seems more powerful and more pure, because we're so terrified of being "weak".

Your post reminded me of the spirit science video/movie I watched this morning.

Basically said we are in need of balance and will balance out .....that the male energy (right brain, I think) is dominant right now in our species. Each time this happens there is a consciousness shift. With the shift in consciousness comes a shift for the Earth as well.

Neale Donald Walsh seems to teach that what you are doing here is experiencing for God and what you are here to do is not to become more or evolve into anything but that which you were when you were born into this world is /was the true you...just have to remember that you are already perfect. The purpose of life is not to get better or grow up. He also said that whatever you have an abundance of...share it. Whatever you need in abundance will be had. Giving is what we are here for....so he says.

Speaking on behalf of energies and such is nothing new. New Age is seemingly becoming some kind of religion and I really hope we as a society will get away from religion all together and just say...its ok to just believe in whomever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt another.

Is Neale, New age? If so, he doesn't sound satanic... lol

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Apparently, the logic behind these two doctrines that are in all Christian denominations is that Jesus Christ partook in these rituals, so therefore so must his followers.

If I were a mother I might admonish, "If Jesus jumped off a bridge, would you?"

reply to post by MamaJ


I have enjoyed Jordan's videos as well. They are actually one of the clearest sources of information I can rely on in this age of "information warfare". In my continued diatribes, which all too often fall upon stone ears, I have repeatedly explained how humankind sees motion as meaning, and mistakenly takes such philosophy to the point of heading toward one extreme - usually an extreme that is believed to protect them against a perceived threat.

This can be seen throughout history. In fact, this whole "Satanism" thing is one example of such an effect: the Church invented "Satanism" to discourage curious minds from uncovering sources of power that would remove the Church as the middle man in the exchange between heaven and earth, otherwise known as divinity and singularity, respectively. It is unclear as to whether they observed our cultural ignorance as a potential factor in abuse of said power, or if their intentions were more towards the ambitious end of the spectrum - namely, encouraging ignorance so as to bolster our superstitious fears and manipulate our confusion to their advantage.

Either way, "Satanism" is the result of associating occult knowledge - "hidden" knowledge - with the very things these ignorant people feared, resulting in their endeavors of engaging in a mass movement towards the "Crucible"-style end of the spectrum. It gave them meaning ("protection") and thus they convinced themselves they would survive the demons they had unwittingly been maneuvered into conjuring in their heads.

On a related note, witchcraft, which was prohibited in the Bible, could very well have been prohibited by the authors of the sacred text for the very reasons outlined above. However, I suspect such restrictions were imposed on certain conditions, oriented around cultural and educational factors. The bottom line: to adhere to such fear-mongering philosophies was almost certainly intended to protect a culture composed mostly of ignorant, weak-minded townspeople. Since that description no longer applies in the sense it used to, it would be foolish to continue to uphold such standards when, at this point in time, it seems obvious that this philosophy is exactly what we should be letting go of.

Unfortunately, familiarity has always held a certain appeal for those afraid of the future. And in a world where a difference in opinions holds a different, but just as cutting, consequence...well, it's clear that familiarity seems to be a green zone for any who doubt the surety of the future in the chaotic environment we have constructed for ourselves.

New age is not new age. It's simply knowledge that has survived the purge of weak-minded men seeking to strengthen their grasp on the odds of survival. And slowly, science is dredging it back up...and as we are rediscovering these little tidbits of ancient wisdom and understanding, change is taking place in our world. But being the stubborn, temperamental species we are, we resist change in favor of familiarity. Change means destruction, in our minds.

However...what's that law again?

The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

en.wikipedia.org...

So really, nothing changes but our corporeal purpose. And considering the purposes we've fulfilled in in this day and age, I'm inclined to be thankful for that avenue of change. Because with a new purpose, comes a "new age"...right?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Apparently, the logic behind these two doctrines that are in all Christian denominations is that Jesus Christ partook in these rituals, so therefore so must his followers.

If I were a mother I might admonish, "If Jesus jumped off a bridge, would you?"

If jumping off a bridge means to be peacefully against the status quo and try my best to peacefully live unconventionally in an conventional reality, then yes, I will try to jump off that metaphorical bridge.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
To my knowledge, Satanism reveres the self and puts the self before others, which is a polarized opposition to the true essence of Christianity.

The Satanists you are talking about are of the Anton Lavey variety who don't worship anything other than Ayn Rand and spiritual capitalism.

You are correct in saying that this is in direct opposition to Jesus but I would not say it is opposite of Christianity. Many Christians believe in Ayn Rand capitalism and also in many of the values that Anton Lavey teaches.

No matter the religion of who believes in those philosophies, they are despicable. Strangely, that form of Satanism and modern Christianity have very little to do with either Satan or Jesus when it comes to personal action.

You are correct in saying that this is in direct opposition to Jesus but I would not say it is opposite of Christianity. Many Christians believe in Ayn Rand capitalism and also in many of the values that Anton Lavey teaches.

Hence the reason I state the true essence of Christianity, which I am not proud to be correct about. Again, my definition of Christianity is to live, be, see, act, feel, know (believe), most importantly, love like Jesus Christ, because like Paul says, knowledge and prophecies don't last forever and their time will end, but love is eternal and never fails. The organized aspect of Christianity during its initial development after Christ was taken back above was to help build the fundamentals on how to acknowledge the personal relationship between one and God and how Jesus Christ fits into that picture by being the archetypal apotheosis for others, if that makes sense.

However, the leaders of the organized churches of Christianity, similar to the leaders and rabbis of the Law of Moses like back in the times of Christ, have overstepped their boundaries and act almost like an intermediary between one and God, confusing the followers of the true purpose of Jesus Christ's existence and mission, perpetuating assumed, half true ideologies, and placing upon the followers futile, and simply stupid, precepts, which acts as a stumbling block in a person's spiritual development.

No matter the religion of who believes in those philosophies, they are despicable. Strangely, that form of Satanism and modern Christianity have very little to do with either Satan or Jesus when it comes to personal action.

This is why I am such a big fan of irony, it helps to laugh about the illogical standards that are applied to all facets of life today that people eat up.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas

Again, my definition of Christianity is to live, be, see, act, feel, know (believe), most importantly, love like Jesus Christ,

I appreciate the connotations you included with the word "know". I can see that you understand the true nature of knowledge. Props for that.

However, there is one crux: we rely on our leaders to be honest about the nature of Jesus. We rely on hundreds of generations of stigma and political corruption, fallible record-keeping and hidden agendas. We cannot know for certain that any of what we know today is worthy of trust.

Unfortunately, the alternative is so unpleasant that most prefer to take their chances. As a result, they are incapable of reviewing their faith and doctrine objectively and critically, a process that usually reveals most truths for what they are - truth. And what does it reveal about Christianity?

I think that's obvious. Sure, there some things that can be concretely proven, but logical rhetoric shows that certain areas of the philosophy is so erroneous as to be laughable. Still, I think there may have been some very valid reasons to keep "new age" stuff hidden from the masses. During an age of such apt corruption, imagine if they had telekinesis, remote viewing, or telepathy at their disposal.

It would have been chaos.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


To be honest I am still trying to learn how the whole thing works. But I think I am leaning towards the Bible being a symbolic representation of the planets and zodiacs paths as viewed from earth. As well as the celestial bodies mirroring the metaphysical energies influencing our reality through magnetism and electricity. It's also a representation of our four seasons, our great year (the 24,000 year cycle), our chakra system, how the celestial bodies play a role on our chakras, how to eat healthy and much more. The Bible is layered with this ancient science that The Vatican was trying to stomp out in our past.

And to the OP, yes Christianity would want you to think the new age stuff is Satanic because they created Satan and use him to scare you into not dabbling with their secret science.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC and Mama J

If you enjoyed that video I would watch Santos' series called "The Key" He really explains himself well and clarifies a lot of his "Ancient Science".

reply to post by booyakasha


Satan/Lucifer is real, but people that put way too much emphasis on him, especially when dealing with fear. It's one thing to acknowledge, it's another to disregard, but the worse thing, in my opinion, is to put emphasis on Satan in order to facilitate subordination through fear.

reply to post by Cuervo



You know, that's what I used to think and you are probably right as far as the etymology of the term "New Age" but, if so, why did the they think we were in the Age Of Aquarius back in the 60's? Doesn't the Age Of Aquarius start in the middle of the 22nd century?
_____________________________________________________________________________

I think they were singing about the dawning of The Age of Aquarius?
Here's an interesting article about when the Age Of Aquarius starts (or started):
www.aquarian-age.net...

reply to post by wrdwzrd


I'm Agnostic and not biased to any religion and I'm comfortable in accepting that I don't have any clue as to what REALLY happens before or after death nor if any one religion is valid.

With that said , Why are you so certain that the past and current age of religion wasn't or isn't Satanism?

New Age = Satanism , suggest that Prior to new age we had peace and harmony in the world and Satanism didn't exist or was as prevalent?

If my memory of history is correct we have never had any peace or Utopian society under any prevalent Religious eras.

As a matter of fact if I recall correctly, religion was directly in the middle of numerous blood baths during our history and directly the cause of numerous un-despicable acts of man against man ?

Perhaps observing history we could better conclude that
Religious Era = Satanism ?

Or perhaps I'm just pushing air out of my ears versus my arse, tonight.