Pharmacratic Inquisition | Christianity's Darkest Secrets Revealed

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by neut, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. neut macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #1
    This is not a Christian bashing ... this is the logical breakdown of human religions and their historical and universal meanings.

    The Pharmacratic Inquisition

    The Pharmacratic Inquisition: The Suppression of Direct Religious Experience, Sexuality and Drugs. Christianity's Darkest Secrets Revealed.

    This is a 3.5 hour lecture, regarding the origins of religion.

    As above So below - This video covers both aspects of Christianity: God's son in heaven, the risen savior; and God's son on earth, whose flesh and blood is consumed.

    This video is presented by Jan Irvin and Andrew Rutajit, authors of the book, "The Aquarius Initiation: Astrotheology & Shamanism - Revealing the Law of Duality in Christianity and Other Religions"

    Sponsor: Gnostic Media
    Director: Andrew Rutajit
    Producer: Gnostic Media
    Production Company: Gnostic Media
    Audio/Visual: sound, color

    Contact information:
    www.gnosticmedia.com


    I'm an hour into this video and the content is just awesome ... everyone should watch this. 2000 and 5 years later the forgotten truth is told once again.


    peace | neut
     
  2. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #2
    I plan on watching this—it looks really interesting—but I'm wondering what the title is alluding to if it is just a discussion about the origins of religion. Care to shed some light?
     
  3. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #3
    I wouldn't mind watching this, but it's unfortunate the producer (I guess) picked ONE platform specific format. If I'm missing some thing, let me know.
     
  4. neut thread starter macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #4
    ? are dark secrets always bad ?

    this will help you with you're association of dark/evil | light/good also. it is exactly what it says it is ... the dark secret's just arise from the break-down of religion and it's portrayal to the masses.

    have fun and don't get scared. :)

    just watch it ... download the full WMV (200+MB) for a video without stalls.
    wmv player


    peace | neut
     
  5. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #5
    I tried watching it, and I couldn't even make it 20 minutes. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, these guys are morons who do not know what they are talking about. They constantly use the words microcosm and macrocosm and often misuse them. I'm having a hard time taking these guys seriously. And the guy on the left needs to learn how to pronounce words right.
     
  6. neut thread starter macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #6
    that's too bad you're so superficial ... it's sad that that could keep you from discovering what you truly are.

    the first chapter is a clarifying of what they are going to talk about ... beginning with the vocabulary; these are not professional speaker.

    please, if you choose to watch ... focus on the content. im an a/v guy so i know how little things can really bother you, but please try not to nit pick something that could let you come to your own realizations about Christianity and it's effect on all our lives.

    wish i could finish it tonight, but i need some sleep. :)


    peace | neut
     
  7. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #7
    Yeah, okay I'm too superficial to discover who I really am. I'm not a devout Catholic or deeply religious or anything. And the fact that I choose only to listen to people who know what they're talking about makes me superficial. Right. :rolleyes:

    Give me a break. Just because I don't believe in your new age religious stuff doesn't mean I'm superficial.
     
  8. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    I am focusing on content, and it's wrong. They don't know what they're talking about, that's why I'm not watching it. The pronunciation was just a little annoyance of mine. But when they don't understand what microcosms and macrocosms are, which are central to their argument, I don't put any faith in their "knowledge."
     
  9. neut thread starter macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #9
    my only suggestion would be that you watch chapter 2 and see how far you can make it into that ... im not a macro/microcosm expert so i can't help you with that. :)


    peace | neut
     
  10. Apple //e macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    #10
    yeah, i couldnt get past 20 mins either.....when you have to define "theology" and "theocracy" and get the etymology wrong, youre in trouble

    its no newsflash that chrisitianity is based on prior beliefs.

    its also no newsflash that chrisitianity, along with judaism and islam holds itself to be in sole posession of the absolute truth...so yeah, everything that goes against their belief is "wrong"

    i havent seen the whole thing but i really dont see any reason to....

    it kinda reminded me of the davinci code.......
     
  11. virividox macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #11
    not really my thing. but hey if it does it for u great
     
  12. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #12
    Sorry, WMV doesn't work for crap on a Mac, and I won't adulterate my system by installing it.

    Now that I've read some of the other posts, this drivel isn't worth my time anyway.
     
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    Hmmm...I watched the whole thing, and I have to say I'm pretty much with everyone else on this. Sorry, Neut. :( The funny pronunciations and the iffy definitions aside, these two spend the majority of their time in one of two arenas -- stating the obvious (that themes repeat from religion to religion, and that large religions tend to exercise subtle techniques to limit mindshare to what they consider acceptable viewpoints) and making extremely loose and unjustifiable connections (for instance, they mix well-accepted historical facts about religious figures between which they draw analogies with things that have rarely been documented in any credible way, and for which they offer no new evidence).

    This video is no service to anyone seeking enlightenment.

    And you should know these things about me -- I am not an advocate of the Christian church, I do not participate in religion (although I used to), I do believe in universalistic trends between religions, I do believe in spirituality as a means to increased awareness, and although I don't do it, I do think that careful use of psychotropic drugs can be beneficial to some people in some cases. In other words, if they were saying anything of value, I'd be ready to endorse it.

    But they aren't. :(
     
  14. neut thread starter macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #14
    well .. it's not meant to be taken like a pill. this is information with citings of many authors; what do you mean they didn't back anything up? :confused: it up to us to research our questions; right? this isn't a q&a.

    these are not popular views held by many, but that's exactly what they are trying to bring through. just because many people back 'facts' in school text books ... doesn't necessarily make it true, does it?

    im going to finish it tonight i'll post what i think.


    peace | neut
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    I mean that the authors they cite, in many places, along with them themselves are just making conjectures. If I make some ad-hoc claim, and ten other people to make the same ad-hoc claim, the fact that those people made the same claim doesn't help my argument much.

    In the comparative religion portion of their talk, they make a lot of claims about the life stories of religious figures from other religions, and how they have characteristics similar to that of Christ. I agree with this point in general, but if you try to follow any of their leads, many of their instances are backed up only by more conjecture and rarely by any archaelogical or historical evidence.

    But at a deeper level, okay, so suppose I accept their argument that Christianity, in particular, has censored a large volume of human thinking about "theogenics." Actually, I'm willing to accept that point. And then, suppose I accept that latent indicators of this thinking are found in myriad places in our art and science, showing its importance to our predecessors. I find many of the symbols they unearth questionable, but I do agree that theogenics were important to many people in the past. Now what? For a couple of authors who've dabbled in taking theogenics, what's the point? How has it helped them become enlightened? How can it be of service to me? Lots of our predecessors in the past valued hunting and eating animals, and at a level, I cherish their spirit, but I'm also happy (and not bathed in ignorance) being a vegetarian.
     
  16. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #16
    Man , you guys spend entirely too much energy on this stuff; organized religion is a hideous joke. Get over it and think for yourself. The bottom line is: You are gong to die and there isn't a damn thing after that. You can't accept that, can you? Too much for you, eh? Welcome to the primary premise of religion: I can't accept the fact that I, and my loved ones, are going to die, like every other living thing on this planet. Oh no, not that! We must invent fairy tales about how we are so important that the normal rules of nature don't apply to us!

    What scares me is that people like you are willing, throughout history, to go slaughter other folks, because they don't believe the exact same crap that you believe, give or take a few details (Christian vs Jew vs Moslem). I'm sorry, ban me, send me into the abyss, but I'm just sick of this kind of dead head crap.

    Holy Mary, Mother of God, forgive me, for I have sinned. NOT! You don't, or shouldn't, need any type of organized religion to know what's right, and wrong, in the world.
     
  17. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #17
    I don't mean to flame, but what is the purpose of this post? Obviously some people disagree with you, but you're not going to change someone's mind with a single post on a Mac enthusiast message board. All you end up doing is offending people and starting a heated argument in which neither side will win. Please refrain from making such posts in the future.

    But on a side note, one could also intelligently argue the opposite of what you are saying, whether or not you agree. It all comes down to personal beliefs. I enjoy having debates on this topic, but this forum is hardly the correct place for it.

    And as for the dead head argument, I could say the exact same thing about you, but I won't because I know that people have different views and I won't push mine on others like you are trying to here. To be honest, I'm sick of the dead head, blanket statements people make like you have right made just now. If some people would like to discuss religion, please let them. I won't stop you from discussing with your atheist friends about atheism.
     
  18. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #18
    Since you question the purpose of my post, I'll ask you what you think the purpose is of the original post? Yes, I'd like an answer.

    So, my post was somehow more one-sided or biased or ?? than the content originally linked?? Really?

    Last I looked, you don't have a say in telling me what's appropriate to post. I certainly can't see how my post is any more provocative than the original link. If my post isn't appropriate for this forum, neither is the original link. At least be consistent in your condemnation. The original link and my post probably represent polar views of the same subject, but why is the original link OK, but my post is inappropriate? This is, in part, what my post was alluding to.

    Next: This *is* the correct forum for these posts; this is where the original post occurred, I didn't start a new thread. This thread is the one that started pushing their views on someone else (to paraphrase your criticism of my reply, above). This may be a Mac forum, but you'll notice, since you posted here, that not all forum content is about the Mac. It's called "Community Discussion". A discussion does not normally limit itself to a single point of view, although it appears you would prefer that.

    Last: I didn't "stop you from discussing" anything. What are you talking about? I find your response to be from a very insecure position. I simply stated my opinion on a topic that is ripe with opinions. Why am I not allowed to voice mine, while the original poster, and you, voice yours? This is exactly what is wrong with what's going on in the world today. BTW, I'm NOT an atheist, I just don't believe in YOUR religion; there's a BIG difference, which I'm not sure you appreciate.
     
  19. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #19
    Excuse me...you guys? People like you? Who exactly are you characterizing like that? Why would you think those things about me? :mad:
     
  20. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #20
    Who said anything about you? I'm referring to the original poster and his linked content. In any case, believe whatever you want, I was just expressing my opinion about the linked content being discussed. No one said you had to agree with me.
     
  21. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #21
    Okay, I don't really want to argue religion, so this will be my last post in this thread. You can respond if you want. I'll read your response. I just won't reply anymore.

    The purpose of the original post was to start a discussion on the merits of the arguments presented in the video. It was to discuss certain elements of organized religion.

    I wouldn't say it was more one-sided or biased. I just thought it was unrelated to the current topic as this thread was started to talk about certain religious aspects, not insult those who follow them. This thread was not meant to judge people, but you did. You dismissed the beliefs of any person who followed an organized religion. The original poster wanted to discuss the origins of organized religion, not insult people who follow those organized religions.

    I just thought your post was irrelevant to what we were discussing. To me it was like discussing the future of the Powerbook G5 and inserting an blanket statement that Windows is far superior to Macs and anyone who uses a Mac is an ignorant moron.

    This might have been the correct forum of all the forums on Mac Rumors, but I just think it's silly to have a debate on the merits of religion on a message board. They are hard enough to conduct in person.

    No, you didn't stop us from discussing anything, I guess I was wrong on that. But you did take the discussion somewhere that the original poster did not intend. As I said before, the original poster didn't want to judge the merits of organized religion or call people names. Instead of discussing religion, you made a blanket statement and made fun of people. And I'm sorry for mistaking you as an atheist.
     
  22. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #22
    Macaddicttt

    OK, enough said. I should know better than to post outside the tech forums.
     
  23. neut thread starter macrumors 68000

    neut

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Location:
    here (for now)
    #23
    You guys are funny ... i still haven't finished it, but i've gotten into the psychedelics part now. :)


    Very interesting stuff; very scattered, but there is a ton of information to validate/discuss. Maybe not here though ... i can see not too many people here are interested, but maybe some lurkers will take some of this home with them to their sun worshipping brethren.

    Many questions are raised with this presentation. Most of this information i have seen before, but never laid out in this fashion. The idea that we (our earth is) are merely pointing at a new star ... this was significant to those in power for the stars were our tools to add order to our lives. Of course only the powerful priest knew how to tell time and direction using the stars, but so did a lot of other primitive cultures ... they were systematically wiped out as they were discovered.

    If even pieces of what the free masons know is true than we are still all living in a world controlled by the/an upper elite ... they have succeeded in quieting the masses, but what will this new age bring? a new 'saviour'? or just a new star to point at? ... maybe a new conciseness that well allow us to accept what we are doing (giving thanks to the very thing that has given us life and direction) and move on.

    im a Libra by the way.


    peace.
     

Share This Page