I know I haven’t posted a relevant entry here in a while – things have been hectic. In the mean time, I’ve recently listed my services on thumbtack.com and decided to post the link up here.
As contradictory as the title sounds, it seems as though my most knowledgeable information seems to stem from “discussions” that I have with acquaintances who consider themselves religiously active. It is no secret that such individuals tend to be extremely close-minded, understanding and believing only what they are told they should. Granted, there are a few exceptions, and I am always happy to meet them.
My most recent discussion occurred a few nights ago, when the issue of the swastika came up. The person I was discussing this with, argued that it had no origin in Judaism, and of all the Jewish lessons she’d taken, regarding symbols and the like, it had never been mentioned. Right there on the spot, we did our little cell phone searches, and I found a description of the swastika’s link to Judaism. I showed this link to her – namely its inclusion on ancient Jewish decorations. Her response was one that is so commonplace it has become the stereotypical religious response. “That doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the people who made the stuff.” Of course, my favorite hobby is traversing thousands of miles and marking my initials on some poor pottery maker’s wares over in Africa, just so, thousands of years from now, somebody can say that my initials had nothing to do with the pottery (that was sarcasm).
Today, I decided to do a little more research and, though it is admittedly hard to find a direct link, there is such information available. But where my research did take me was far beyond what I had hoped to find. In other words, her one-sided view led me to relationships that I had never even thought about before.
First, I will describe the link for any of you readers who agree that the swastika has no origins in Judaism. Apart from the fact that Judaism would be the only religion and culture in the known history of man to not utilize a form of the image, there are written examples of its use. The majority of these cultures, from Norse regions, to Middle Eastern and Native American lands, usually referred to nature, the sun, or a calendar system. The Coptic period in Egypt was a time in which the area was home to many religions, as well as many examples of the swastika. Some of the cultures and examples did belong to Jewish history, though this might still not be considered a direct link.
However, the Jewish scholar Rabbi Eliezer Fischl did not only speak of the swastika, but wrote of and used it in his writings. One such example of his included the symbol with outwardly flowing verses (which, to me, resembled solar rays). The Aramaic hymn refers to the power of the sun. Rabbi Fischl’s book, itself, was a commentary on a medieval tome by yet another Jewish scholar, Rabbi Aharon of Kardina.
NOTE – before continuing, I just want to re-iterate that my argument is not in the swastika’s origin as a Jewish symbol, but only its use as a religious symbol, as its true origin has yet to be found.
That being said, one of the Rabbi’s versions was slightly altered, and was created with the Hebrew letters Aleph and Resh, the initial and final symbols in the Hebrew alphabet. The combinations translates to “light”.
As previously mentioned, the symbol of the swastika has been found in seemingly un-linked cultures throughout the world, and throughout history. It is found often among cultures that include both Norse and Hindu faiths. It is a popular notion that Adolph Hitler’s version was absorbed from the Norse incarnation, as his Arian beliefs linked him directly to a people whom he felt were the perfect examples of the human being. Though not as well known, and probably only passing theories, it has been mentioned that his swastika was also an afront to the Jews he despised. His choice of the swastika was made even more deliberate because it was a Jewish symbol that he mocked by turning on its axis, thus deliberately insulting the Jewish people.
This link to Judaism (though not necessarily the insult theory) is a relatively easy path to re-trace, according to scholars such as Gene D. Matlock, whose extensive research has actually determined deep links with, and possibly even the origin of Judaism, Indian and Hindu regions. His examples alone of strikingly similar names and meanings between the two cultures would be enough for many to understand such a link. The first, and most striking (to me, anyway), is his description of a parcel of land in India that was known as Seuna-Desa, or Zion Land. Within this region existed a city, historically known as Satana, which, according to Matlock, would put Sodom and Gomorrah to shame. Its views, of course, were greatly different those in surrounding cities, especially of nearby Seunas. The two cities decided to settle their differences in battle – one that Satana lost.
The region in which these two cities existed has been a holy land for Indians. It includes such cities as Nashik, which is the exact Hebrew term for “Royal Prince”. This city was the favorite of Indian Yadava Royalty. Satana, itself, existed near a region known as Khandesh (translated as “City of Cain). Kodesh also exists, and refers to “first”. Both Kod and Khad, according to Matlock, further the link between the two cultures, in that they are sanscrit terms for first, or God. Khadesh is the first day of a Jewish calendar month.
Why is anything even remotely controversial to an organized religion not common knowledge? Long before Matlock’s research, 18th century scholar, Godfrey Higgins, published two volumes of work that proved the link between Judaism and Hinduism. The iron grasp that the Church had on Europe during that time suppressed the writings and very few remained public. Even today, it is difficult to find a copy, though they do exist. Modern religious figures have taken advantage of this and have passed the information off as their own, creating followers of words that were written and shunned centuries ago. It is even believed (though I have yet to research this myself) that a certain Presbyterian preacher plagiarized the works of Higgins in his creation of what we now know as the Book of Mormon.
I have never claimed to know everything, and I am always eager to learn. I’ve found that one of the best ways, as the title of this entry states, is to find a way to prove a stubborn person wrong. Though you will rarely change the viewpoint of anybody whose final retort is always “faith”, it definitely opens the door for you to expand your knowledge of any topic.
I first realized this lesson quite a number of years ago, when I was discussing something with a pig-headed co-worker. The background is that diamonds can be made from any carbon-based material, if enough pressure and heat are combined. I made the comment that they can, and have, created diamonds out of peanut butter. Of course, I was chastised, insulted, and even yelled at, so I did what I normally do – researched it, if for no other reason than to prove myself wrong. I did happen to find information that stated peanut butter’s use in the creation of diamonds. Of course, when I presented this to her, she had the same brick-wall answer that can be compared to any close-minded person – that it was a lie and she would always be right, even when the proof was staring her right in the face.
Expecting – and Ready – for the Bad
I’m currently up in Washington State, having flown up for the funeral of a close family member. I knew, even as I packed, that I was going to receive comments for the pendant I wear (NOT for my beliefs, as those who make the comments have created their assumptions from only what I wear). I knew who the source of the most un-intelligent, attempting insult was going to be, and I knew that he wouldn’t have the balls to say it himself – he’s done the same thing before when he has issues with other people. Instead, he decided to make a mention of it to someone a little closer to me, who just happened to be standing next to the comment engineer. Even had I not expected it, not a split second would have passed before I realized the true source.
Although I have no quarrel with conservative or liberal, as long as they’re open-minded and what I consider to be “common-sensican”, he is conservative to the point where what he knows is what is, which is why he never needs to ask, in order to make his presumptions about people known, while having others speak his mind – I’m guessing to stay in good graces with a family who loves him and doesn’t realize his disingenuous ways. Granted, he is a good guy, overall, but it’s the close-mindedness that leads to the cons that I see in him. Both of his daughters, unless they’ve graduated, attend a Catholic school – beliefs in which neither believe. Last year, they approached me to ask about my pendant and I don’t bring my beliefs up unless asked, so I was careful to tread, but they were eager to listen. What I said was closer along the lines of what they felt, I guess, but, once again, it’s not something they could ever bring up to a dad such as theirs.
Having mentioned my pendant, it is simply a pentacle; a five-pointed star facing up. Even had it been a pentagram, the same star facing down, it would have had nothing to do with beliefs for which it has been so associated. What I believe, they have never asked, but a non-Christian symbol is, hence, an evil disgrace and, I’m assuming, a source of much comment about insulting the departed for wearing it at the funeral.
In point of fact, less than a handful of people have ever directly asked about my pendant and my beliefs. One was the person whose funeral we attended. One was the aforementioned daughter of the close-minded cousin. The other, well, leads to the good.
The Good – Unexpected and Much Appreciated
The person whose funeral we attended had always wanted a party to celebrate her life, not a wake to mourn her death. (As a side note, that is what I would want, as well). And though most of my family consists of some sort of former or non-practicing Christian faith, one family, whose religion is known but never discussed (reasons why to come), surprised me to the point where, of all relatives, they have become the family with whom I’d choose , above all, to spend time with.
For those of you who read this with condescendence, you might snort at the mention of such a branch of your faith. For those of you who just enjoy the read and information, don’t snicker – they’re Jehoves…yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Of any branch of Christianity (even though many refuse to admit that), they are among the most scorned (I would count Mormonism and Southern Baptism among the top, as well, though that is opinion, not statistic). I know that the father – who is my cousin – converted because of his wife, but, through our conversations, I realized that he is as devout as they come. Yet, he was the only person who listened, with an open mind, intelligible questions, and answers that didn’t lead to the generic end-all-conversations answer that is, “faith”. He would ask, why I believe certain things, what brought me to believe them, how I feel about what he believes, and where we both come from, religiously. He understood my answers and, though almost always returning to the words of the Bible for answers, rather than the history of the book itself, it was an enlightening discussion for both of us.
As much as I’ve chastised organized religion, be it Islam, Christianity, and the like, I will never admit to knowing everything about anything. His religion is one of few branches from the norm that I didn’t know in-depth, and can’t discuss in detail until I do. He, in turn, as most Christians of any branch do, had ever turned to his Bible for answers, rather than taking into account the omissions his version may have made, or the alterations that have taken place over time. My pointing out of history and its effect on Biblical scriptures during each period of time gave him, in his own admission, research to do. I , in turn, agreed to look up some information that he had directed me to. Though I haven’t yet (saving it for when I get home), he did say it was impartial, either way.
Later that night, as everyone left, I was arranging an after party. Of fifteen people who said they’d return, and two who specifically asked me to stay there and wait for them, only that family, who rarely even drinks, returned. The “party” returned to the family’s room and the entire family shared a glass of wine with me before I left.
And yes, he has the good genes of an overall respectable and accommodating family within him, it was a nice surprise that the most devout of all, in one of the most ostracized religions of all, was the only one who initiated a completely open-minded conversation – not even attempting any conversion, just listening, answering, and asking.
It was unexpected, least of all (almost) from him, making the trip up here worth more than the paying of respects, while under the gazes of ignorance.
I know this is a bit off the path for my blog, but I needed somewhere to record it and thought it to be fitting….
Lamentations of a Man Upon Who Was Bestowed the Unwanted Title of Prophet
I am John – the Revelator
The creator of seals I cannot break
I am the dreamer of ultimate sin
Of pain, and the suffering, the sorrow of all
So punished by ills I had written
For I am creator of ultimate sin –
and he who decided the fate of mankind
Even unknowing, the lot I convince;
Through fear of the end – such power, infectious
Yeah, ‘twas my poem convincing as such –
the fear and the anguish my words have unleashed
The fear and the anguish created through dream
I, who am John, through thought and through pen
Intentions not being to speak prophecy
Intentions not being to take lit’rally
For that which I wrote – it was but a dream
A dream, not of demons, as clerics recite
But that of the hated I wished, out of spite,
Would meet on the mountain the armies I know –
to which I align, as my kin
They, who would triumph o’er demons
Of Mine
Demon – an insult to mine enemies
Those persecutors who scoffed at our views
Who hate and despise as they punish our kind
Delivering sentence of death
Of destruction
My dream was recorded as strength for our triumph
Events that transpired while even I breathed
Though lacking such drama – and nye in true battle
Instead, that of will, and of freedom for mine
A story was written, based on a dream
Dramatic, its purpose, as such stories are
Thus, giving me title of your Revelator –
Thus serving the needs of they hungry for power
Who with such a tool – the power of fear
They wield my words and so rule un-opposed
For this, as a dreamer, an author of tales
Regretting, so deeply, my greatest of works
Now but a weapon they swing with great might
My sin, that of writing a false history,
Prevents, in itself, the rapture of me
John, he is I, the writer of dreams
Creating the source of scourge and of fear
Remembering, though, that your God is mine
I pray, both to He, and to you – the believers
I beg for forgiveness of what I have done
For penning a tale I once based on a dream
Based on the nature of tyrants and fear
A story intended to rally my kind
Succeeding in naught, but my greatest of fears
Creating a fuel brightly burning for they –
Those who seek power, and fear is their way
Yes, of the tyrants alone I created
‘Twas Rome and its tyrants that shaped such a dream
Creating a symbol of what I despise
Succeeding in naught, but giving a tool
To those I called kin, and so many to follow
The power of few, now to hold many more
Those souls that I wished to be free
Again, I must pray for what I have done
To those blindly caught in my web of words
Forgiveness from they –
Those whose lives I directed
Through power that once I had penned
Creating the weapon for they who know true
That fear of the pen is that above all
Watching as weapons – all rusting away
Cursed, though, to witness the lives that they sway
Long after writers have faded away;
Creators of tales, unable to say that intentions were never to challenge a faith
Or form such a tool to empower the hate
Emotions, mine own, those tyrants I’d fought
Their power, the same as your walls to perception
A teller of tales; a dreamer of dreams
Could never have dreamt that such power was his
The power still used by the tyrants today
To alter the present and times long since gone
Historic destruction that none should control
Blame, I accept, for penning the tool;
That which such evil has held for so long
With title unwanted – the great Revelator
I wish to take back such a burden to all
Heed not my story – this I implore
A story I wrote now become so much more
Live not your lives in such fearful demeanor
Let not my words have any effect
On even an instant of free will and life
Even an instant of those long since told
To fear what I penned so long, long ago
You are believers of words from the stage
The tools of actors delivering lines
Listen to he who has altered your lives
So cursing my soul for weakening yours
To wander forever in shame for my work
Writing of wars that call history home
Branding me still for the fear I instill
Directed at powers I challenged in life
Felled by a weapon that trumps any sword
A scribe’s simple pen and his powerful word
Forgive me, my brethren, and to whom we all pray
For giving such powers to those undeserving
Allies, I felt, as empires fell
Now greater than powers I once so despised
Never so feared, as history shows
Than they with the power a pen once created
The pen of a dreamer who altered the world
- John, who is branded by nothing more hated than what now I am,
No longer a dreamer
Creator of seals
Of horsemen and plagues
But oh, so much more –
This un-measurable fear
May they who have come to expect from my words
The tale of dreams and the end of all days
Finding in fable what some claim as truth
Pray that none other should suffer the fate
Of hearing my tales – passed on then as truth
Or even a fate worse than the rest –
Be he whose creations; descriptions of dreams
Be cursed to lend power to tyrants and thieves
I, the creator of powers un-matched
Here thus revealing the guilt I shall bare
Or I, the creator of something so heinous
Regret such a title as “John, Revelator”
Used as a cry – one of fear not imagined
Creator of chains, oh so strong and so binding
Warping a faith I once so defended
A mockery now as they hide behind fear
Hated by none more than he penned the weapon
Live as your values may guide every choice
Live not for the fear of no greater sin
Than they who surpass it by wielding the tool
Saying to you what they and none other
Interpret as only an actor can do
Words to be sharpened in each, their own way
Creating the fear that you know today
I wrote then of deeds that are long ago passed
Passing still further as words here you read
Fiction, it was; a dream many shared
Now spoken as truth – as prophecy’s king
While ever I mourn for the damage I cause
Lives ever altered by naught but a dreamer –
Creator of words that grow stronger by day
Now, to my readers
Now must I pray
I must plead, even beg
That you live as you will
Be not the target of bearers of fear
Power is yours, not in that oft recited
Found in the tales I wrote – ever gruesome
Chosen for naught but the terror instilled
My tale, a dream, wrote not for your ears
I am the author that wrote the worst tales
Creating the thoughts that in some may not change
In those who have long lost the faith in their way
Because of I, a man, namely John;
Once who opposed such an empire; Rome
Shamed now to say that the guilt is all mine
For I become bringer of strength to corruption
I am the Revelator – tool of their power
Putting to shame the evil I fought
A shame I will bare now forever and more
As dreamer, and writer; creator of fear
The greatest of prophets, that not did I want
Revelations of John –
He is I, but I’m naught
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
Cyprian of Carthage once wrote in a letter that, for most people, it is difficult to overcome “what is deeply and radically engrained within us”. Though Cyprian was discussing his interest in, and later conversion to, Christianity, he was referring to the difficulty that any person might have in embracing a new point of view; one that was introduced later in a person’s life. Cyprian’s environment was pagan in nature, so Christianity would be the new belief to which he was being exposed.
Approximately 33 percent of the world’s population is Christian. 23 percent is Muslim, and an estimated 14 percent consider themselves to be Hindu. Wikipedia listed the annual growth of Christianity as 1.3 percent, almost equal to the world’s overall population growth of 1.2 percent. Of that number, only 0.13 percent are converts to any form of Christianity. The numbers may be dull and confusing, but ultimately, they help to enforce Cyprian’s view that it is difficult to let go of an inherently ingrained set of beliefs.
And though no true numbers exist to measure the world’s combined IQ changes over the years, it is rare to find a religiously-affiliated individual who will listen to an opposing viewpoint, as an open-minded audience. Ultimately, the end-all absolute answer to any question involving religion comes down to one word – faith. Regardless of numbers, facts, theories, ideas, history, or any other tangible examples, faith becomes the answer to any question or argument that otherwise has no logical answer.
The Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimated that around 41,000 different Christian faiths exist today. That’s over 40,000 different interpretations of the exact same book – one that specifies it is simply a “version” of the original book of stories that were put together as a method of conversion (often through fear). Over 40,000 different faiths that consider themselves Christian are so set in their ways that they can’t even agree on the interpretation of a single religion, let alone listen to any other viewpoint beyond that.
A great number of people, religious or not, believe that humans are not animals, but are, in fact, better than animals. The majority of Christian faiths attribute this to humans having souls (only their faith is proof that nothing else does). However, if humans were not animals, themselves, we, as a species, would not hold within us those animalistic traits that are passed down from one generation to the next. In the wild, young learn by imitating parents. They do what they must in order to survive. In most cases, wild animals must not think for themselves, lest they develop traits that will prevent their survival.
The Christian viewpoint that humans are not animals would imply that we hold within us no instinct for survival. We learn everything we know as we live. This would automatically imply that all human beings are open-minded, which would create an environment in which all people, regardless of faith, would listen and absorb any information provided to them. Keeping this in mind, wouldn’t the viewpoint that humans are not animals be a contradiction in itself, where religion is concerned?
It is because we are animals, born with traits developed over millennia, that we grow to imitate our parents. In a wild environment, that is the one trait, above all, that would keep us alive. As “intelligent” beings, the idea of faith, passed down from one generation to the next, seems to be one of those ideas that are near impossible to alter. Coupled with fear, ignorance, and shear stubbornness, it becomes what Cyprian of Carthage was referring to when he wrote of the difficulty in altering what is, “deeply and radically engrained within us”.
A few key points to suggest in any religious discussion -
For some odd reason, there seems to be an increasing amount of end times talk as the most recent (and falsely publicized) iteration of Armageddon approaches. As if it weren’t hard enough already to get a straight answer as to why Apocalyptic prophecies are associated with heathen religions, in the first place (considering that the latter are baseless, false religions created by the Satan that original Christians apparently didn’t even realize existed), try asking why each approaching supposed day of judgment is definitely “real”, while all that were “real” and passed must have been more tricks of the Devil. The only true answer to both these questions is one simple word – fear. The wider the umbrella of fear that a religion can create, the greater chance it has of increasing its customer base and either fleecing followers out of what little money they may have, creating an ever-growing pool of followers over which to rule, or (and usually) both. One recent discussion resulted in an answer along the lines of, “…because we wouldn’t be here if it had already happened.” Don’t ask; I’m still trying to wrap my head around that one.
The truth is that the version of Revelations contained within Biblical texts is one of many that were written around the same time – which, even according to past Christian leaders (including Saint Dionysius of Alexandria, around the year 260), was neither written by the man that it’s attributed to, nor written at the time that other Biblical canons were written. Saint Dionysius pointed out that significant differences existed in both the way the canon was written and with its sophistication. Apparently, his observations were ignored, as were the fact that, around the same time, numerous books of revelation were written by Jews, Christians, and even pagan religions. As Christianity was only beginning to come into its own, authors chose to write their versions and attribute them to the various disciples, reasoning that they were writing in the spirit of those who came before them. Not one of the books found to date has matched the styles or educational levels of any other Bible canon contributors.
Apparently, though, this was a known fact to Christian leaders since the religion’s earliest years. Origen, known as the father of the church, was one of its earliest historians and philosophers. Even this was not enough to protect him as others realized what power they could wield through fear. Origen was condemned as a heretic around 300 years after his death because his teachings, though some of the first in Christian history, were “wrong”. He, of course, had the nerve to state that all things, including animals, stars, human, angels, and even demons were interconnected. If this were true, his teachings would have diluted the fuel behind the religion’s greatest tool. As he was being branded as heretical, so were a list of other books of Revelation, which coincided with his (and early Christian) teachings. These included The Secret Revelation of John (which undoubtedly differed in style from his canon and the current Revelations that he has been credited with authoring), The Gospel of Truth, and Thunder, Perfect Mind. Not only were such books banned, but church leaders went so far as to outlaw everything other than Catholic-associated texts and to denounce spiritual leaders who were educated.
Even today, the effects of religion on illiterate masses can be seen throughout the world, from America’s deep south (also known as the Bible Belt) to the sands of Arabia. In fact, one of the most fundamental and contested differences between Sunni and Shi’a Islam is the idea that all people (versus only an Imam) have the power to reach Allah. Imagine the power that religious leaders would lose if they determined that all people should be able to pray to God, ask about and interpret the Koran, or question why a passage is skipped, ignored, or included as a method of altering the context of a sermon? As Catholicism has demonstrated throughout history, it is much easier to control a population with a handful of literate religious leaders, who watch over a flock of, well, sheep. Those followers can’t always be held responsible for their beliefs because they know only what they’re told by the one person who they have grown up being told to trust. Their ignorance isn’t blind, but it is often taken advantage of. As literacy became a more popular trait to have, history shows that Christianity began to branch out more and more, based on the understanding of texts by people of all walks of life.
This increase in literacy and its association with free thought is exactly what Tertullian was trying to avoid in the third century. He demanded that followers only listen and “accept the rule of faith”; going so far as to condemn ALL questions as heretical. Even as he represented the beliefs of a man who asked questions of those around him, Tertullian found a way to eliminate others’ search for knowledge. It should go without saying why he chose the most vivid and horrific version of written revelations as the only legal Revelations to include in Catholic teachings.
Tertullian’s association with Revelations is further shown by his intentions to outlaw what he called “secret books”. It must only be coincidence that when iterations of various authors’ revelations were found at Nag Hammadi, a religious site in Egypt, they were referred to as Apocryphon, or “Something Secret”. Outlawing questions might seem to many as extreme, but you’re also able to read this. If you weren’t, who would you turn to as a source of information and how could you be sure that whoever that person is, they would be telling you the real truth, rather than their truth?
Athanasius, another early Christian leader, was an ally of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who became Christianity’s savior by declaring it Rome’s official religion (but did not get baptized until his death bed, so that he could continue his lifestyle without fear). Apparently, Athanasius knew then what scholars believe now – that the “beast” referred to in the Bible’s Revelations referred to Roman rulers. He omitted any such reference from the book, in an effort to appease Constantine, while keeping the fear associated with all of that overzealous fire and brimstone.
However, Athanasius then did something that many Christian sects might still do today. He exchanged the references of the Emperor as the beast with his only true competition – other sects of Christianity (which he referred to as heretics). He made it known that the heretics (among them, the Arians, or followers of exiled priest, Arius) were not real Christians and were, apparently, yet more tools of Satan. His reasoning seemed to mimic that of Tertullian, who worked to essentially ban education a century before Athanasius took the reigns. Athanasius, though, took it a step further by denouncing even educated spiritual leaders, reasoning that all human thinking was evil. Christians, then, had absolutely no choice but to listen and obey, without question or thought, the words of yet one more religious leader who valued power above all else.
IRONY ALERT – Arians, today’s illiterate and ignorant version of Hitler’s supposed “perfect” people, were once considered heretics in their first appearance in Christian history.
Today’s Arians hate Jews, though they worship one as their Savior. They hide behind the writings of his disciples to explain why they should be allowed to do to others what Romans did to Jesus, a Jew. Jesus was never baptized, nor was “Christian” a term used to describe his followers until long after his death, so there is little argument that he could be anything other than Jewish.
Early Arians were exiled and condemned by “true” Christians. They were identified by Athanasius as Antichrist. Antichrist is an idea that was stolen from the Jews. Some Arians today will say that Antichrist will be a Jew (or anything else that a specific person or group feels like hating and turning against).
Conclusion – A group of Christians, their forbearers condemned by Christians, worship a Jew and use his teachings as a reason to condemn Jews. The whole stealing ideas from other religions thing is just icing, since we know that, without the help from Jews, Arians would have never been able to fathom such a complex idea.
It goes without saying that, for the majority of us, the culture in which we are raised; the culture that plays such an important role during our formative years is what will most affect and shape our beliefs and decisions for the rest of our lives. Whether our cultures are religiously-based, racial in nature, or socially elite, human beings, for the most part, will continue to follow the views that have been instilled within them. Beliefs and ideas may grow and fester from generation to generation, leading to both positive and negative outcomes. The amount and nature of such influence is both learned and subliminal – it may be taught outright in school, or it may be developed as a subconscious method to not anger family or friends. Regardless of the varying environments and influences, though, every culture is ultimately affected by the influences to which they are exposed.
The reason for all of the above influence and environment writing has to do with today’s topic – something that I’m confronted with a lot, but something that, if you put a little thought into it, is very easy to prove right (or wrong, depending on how you’re confronted). The discussion starts off in many ways, the easiest to describe would be this – “If Christianity (or any particular religion) isn’t the true/real/only/yaddayaddayadda, then why did God answer my prayers, or why did my sister see winged “angels” that saved her?” ” Why did I flat line for a few minutes and find myself being torn apart by demons, before Jesus came and told me to be good so I could be saved?”
First, pay attention to the source. Though it may have happened before, I have personally never encountered a devout Hindu suddenly becoming Christian after seeing an Angel. Second, as with most stories today (and which automatically gives you a point from which to approach) is that these stories are modern in nature. Depending on the story you’re told, it is very possible that you’ll be given something to think about, whether you’re a skeptic, open-minded, or (dare I say it) a religious person who might actually be interested in hearing the true nature of things.
Let’s start with culture’s role, both physically and mentally, on believers of what they are told. If you’re in a hurry, I’ll throw in a quick tidbit – angels weren’t depicted with wings until some time during the gothic ages. The beings on which today’s angels are based were wingless and much more humanoid (after all, we were all made in His “image”). A quick comparison between Bible versions helps to back this up. And even though the farse that is the King James Version is, itself, relatively new, it is what most people today are familiar with. The following is Its Genesis 3:24, which mentions, simply, Cherubims (those little guys will be discussed later):
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way , to keep the way of the tree of life.
And, though the KJV is modern in the grand scheme of things, one even more recent version, the Bible in Basic English, or BBE, has found an alternate translation of the same text:
So he sent the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden he put winged ones and a flaming sword turning every way to keep the way to the tree of life.
This is but an example of the mutations that have always plagued, and will forever continue to plague, what may have once been a harmless system of belief. For though the choirs of angels (of which the Cherubim are some of the highest) weren’t developed until the middle ages, only two actual angels (originally wingless) were named in the Bible. Notice, in the latter example, that any reference to ancient religions have been removed – replace, instead, with the symbolic imagery of the modern angel.
|
|
|
Cherubs, themselves, have been traced, through literature and art, as far back as the Assyrian civilization, which has been dated through the 25th century, BC – long before even Judaism was acknowledged. And though they have been winged through their history, only very recent Bible iterations have mentioned wings (though verses in older versions mention them above or around a particular throne or location). Perhaps, this was a method, developed over time, to pass the attributes of pagan deities on to those faiths who sought to destroy them. By removing the wings of Greek, Roman, and other cultures, then passing them to the supernatural beings of Judeo-Christian belief, church leaders who created such damaging portrayals and alterations in the Middle Ages would have even more proof of Satan’s time-traveling Plagiarism through Anticipation antics.
Once again, though (a previously-recorded example), it’s curious how a heathen reference, especially one associated so closely with eroticism, lust, and love, would become the symbol of a Roman saint. The intermingling of certain aspects of the various pagan religions throughout Europe was thought to help integrate the locals into Christianity, while allowing them to maintain a small portion of their own belief which, after time, would fade into the oblivion that is a history written by the powerful clergy. But, I digress…
Continued Shortly…
It has been said that the “fish” symbol known to most Christians today has been a mark of the religion since its inception. Romans had banned the worship of the Godman, Jesus, so his followers were forced underground. The story goes that the little fish – those two circular fragments – were drawn upon landmarks, walls, and doors, as a marker to signal other Christians of the location of fellow believers.
But what connection does a fish have to a young, diverging Jewish sect? Most Christians today would associate the symbol with the story of Jesus filling the fishermen’s nets with fish. If that were true, though, how would it be that a group of people who believed in miracles over math choose for their representation a symbol of purely mathematical nature? The true origin of the fish makes much more sense than its invention as a secretive marker.
Generations before Jesus, there existed in Greece some of the most historically renowned mathematicians, philosophers, and thinkers. It may only be coincidence that the majority of them were initiates into a belief system upon which Christianity modeled itself, but it is far from coincidence that two of these figures, also sometimes referred to as Godmen, were renowned for, among other things, filling the fishermen’s nets with fish. One of the men was a mathematician, named Pythagoras, though he is lesser known for being a renowned philosopher. However, his discovery of the sign of the fish, was purely mathematical, not philosophical.
Pythagoras discovered that two circles of equal size, when meeting at the center of the circles, created what is now referred to as a Christian symbol. However this symbol has pagan meanings long before it was leeched by the followers of me,Jesus. The fish that was created was a symbolic joining of two elements – spirit and matter. Archimedes, another exceptional mathematician and scientist, noted that the ratio of size to length of this fish was 153:265. This translates to the controlling ratio of an equilateral triangle, and can now be traced passed early Christians and directly to the man whose Pythagorean theorem is still taught to geometry students today. It can’t be mere coincidence that both his theorem and the “measure of the fish” relate to the triangle.
And though the number of fish that Jesus filled the nets with is not always mentioned, those who do include a number choose the random one of 153 fish. That is quite a seemingly random number to be included in the story of a man whose life is based on miracles, not mathematics.
But if that’s not a truly Christian story, there must be at least one that surrounds a symbol held sacred by Christians. What about the story of Constantine, who dreamt that Jesus presented him with a symbol that he was to wear on his shield as he led his armies to victory? Today, tellers of that tale have altered the story to fit their beliefs, as they have done with so many others. Current mythology states that the symbol presented by Jesus was that of a cross. But even though Constantine lived in the third and fourth centuries, the cross and crucifixion would still have been much too common to warrant a sacred dream foretelling victory. The historical truth is that Constantine was presented with the symbol Chi-Rho. This pagan symbol was often used as a marker, and it was a common symbol of good luck. Even this, though, is beginning to morph into a pro-Christian symbol. Apparently, as they have throughout history, Christians, having realized that more and more people are being made aware of the Chi-Rho, have begun stating, themselves, that Constantine did not see a cross, but a Chi-Rho. This is because, according to new researchers, the Chi-Rho is a Christian symbol created when Constantine wore it into battle as a Christian (though he was not a Christian at the time of the battle).
Even the cross, itself, which today is automatically associated with Christianity, was subject to a hostile takeover. Jesus was not the first to be depicted on a cross. He was also not the first to be crucified for his beliefs. He was not the first to have reincarnated and healed others, and he was not the first to have risen from the dead. The figures upon which Jesus is based existed in every previous culture and civilization. Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, and Adonis are just a few of the names by which he was known while he lived, performed miracles, became ostracized, was put to death, and then resurrected or recreated himself.
Conspiracy food for thought – the “measure of the fish”, or vesica piscis, is a symbol common to many beliefs, including Christianity and Kabbalah. It has also been used as a symbol in Freemasonry. By today’s logic, doesn’t anything with the slightest connection to the Freemasons warrant belief in a deep, dark, world domination conspiracy?
![clip_image002[4]](http://hereticsandhysteria.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/clip_image0024.jpg "clip_image002[4]")
