GET YOUR POWER BACK, SLAVE!
Acharya S aka D.M. Murdock's article, Please Respect My Religion is an example of how ULTRAGOD says you should BE a GOD, not worship one, and write your own religious texts and verses!
"The best teachers create new teachers, not students, the best Gods create new Gods, not followers!"
Why would you have these narcissistic, misogynistic, mentally-ill men suffering from heat exhaustion from the dry, unlively desert over 5,000 years ago write rules on how to live FOR YOU?
Please Respect MY Religion
by Acharya S
Acharya S: "We are often asked to "respect people's religions." In the first place, many religious ideas are very disrespectful to human beings and are not worthy of respect. Secondly, what about people respecting our religion in return?
The word "religion" comes from the Latin noun religiō, which means, among other things, "scrupulousness" or "conscientiousness." In my perspective of reality, I endeavor to be extremely scrupulous and conscientious. Hence, one could call me "religious" and my perspective "religion."
My religion does not call people "infidels," "heretics," "goyim," "heathens" or "sinners," who are "other" and "alien," unlike us and worthy of contempt, exploitation or worse."
Please respect my religion.
My religion does not call for nonbelievers to be derogated, hated, subjugated or enslaved.
Please respect my religion.
My religion has no giant, anthropomorphized, male God in the sky, somewhere "out there" separate and apart from humanity who dictates our every waking moment.
Please respect my religion.
My religion says there are no divinely revealed facts straight from the mouth of God that represent the "one true faith."
Please respect my religion.
My religion objects to so-called holy texts full of violence, brutality and cruelty.
Please respect my religion.
My religion prohibits the murder of women and girls in order to "protect honor."
Please respect my religion.
My religion prohibits child marriages and other forced marriages.
Please respect my religion.
My religion objects to forcing people to cover up simply because they have genitals of a particular gender.
Please respect my religion.
My religion objects to gender apartheid, in which men and women are segregated purely because of their genitals.
Please respect my religion.
My religion prohibits the genitals of children of either gender from being mutilated because of "religious" dictates.
Please respect my religion.
My religion is based on consciousness, not genitalia.
Please respect my religion.
My religion values scientific observation and humane morals, not superstitious belief and violent fanaticism.
Please respect my religion.
My religion does not allow for death or other punishment for apostasy or blasphemy, etc.
Please respect my religion.
My religion opposes invasion, rape and robbery in the name of a god.
Please respect my religion.
My religion prohibits beheading or otherwise murdering living, breathing human beings in order to defend it from "insults."
Please respect my religion.
My religion values life more than death and prohibits killing in its name.
Please respect my religion.
My religion does not allow for hand amputations for theft or stonings and hangings for adultery.
Please respect my religion.
My religion prohibits homosexuals from being hanged or otherwise murdered simply because of their sexual orientation.
Please respect my religion.
My religion treats children with kindness, love and affection, not beating them and teaching them hatred of others.
Please respect my religion.
My religion does not require prayer, once, five times or any other amount per day.
Please respect my religion.
My religion is not interested in mind control, so what you do within the privacy of your own mind is up to you, but my religion says that disrupting the public square and workplace for prayer is antisocial, aggressive and obnoxious.
Please respect my religion.
My religion objects to loud ringing of bells and shouting through loudspeakers, tormenting neighbors and causing divisiveness.
Please respect my religion.
My religion exhorts people to expose and speak out against oppression, censorship, human-rights violations and animal abuse wherever they may be found, in whatever culture or country and practiced by whatever ethnicity or religion.
Please respect my religion.
My religion calls for people to object to religious beliefs that are vicious, hateful, sexist and violent, regardless of the religion, faith, sect or cult.
Please respect my religion.
My religion calls for dignity and respect for the individual, who is free to believe or disbelieve at any given moment, as opposed to being forced to adhere to a particular religion through threats of violence and hellfire.
Please respect my religion.
My religion encourages singing, dancing, joy and general freedom to love life.
Please respect my religion.
by Acharya S: Click here for article source
Knowledge is Power!
The TRUTH is the most lethal WEAPON of MASS CREATION & DESTRUCTION!
BEFORE you pick a God....
STOP! LOOK! LISTEN! READ! THINK!
RESEARCH! WATCH! OBSERVE! LEARN!
RETAIN! DEBATE! EDUCATE! INFORM!
Support the DEATH of YAHWEH!
Monotheistic religions are created specific to their own race and culture, but are about total CONTROL of everyone else. They also claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe, which they clearly do not.
Hey YOU!
NEW WORLD ORDER
"Conspiracy Theorists"
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
LUCIFER and SATAN are TWO DIFFERENT CHARACTERS!
The NWO is SATANIC; NOT Luciferian!!!!
In the quest for the real facts and truth about everything we've been taught by power-hungry religious institutions and diseased and corrupted governments; there are still very important distinctions that need to be made and addressed that are still being confused even amongst the most knowledgable and reputable academics and researchers.
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Question:
Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of "Lucifer." I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?
Answer:
It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.
Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”?
Here are the facts:
The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “[i]t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan.
But is Satan “Lucifer”?
No, he is not.
The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).
As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).
It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “[i]n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).
Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.
The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).
Click Here for Source of Interview:
SCIENCE VERSES FAITH
MONOTHEISM Destroys All Other Races, Cultures, Tradition & Centralizes THOUGHT/POWER
A Secularist Counts All the Gods
in the World!
How many Gods are there?
Birth of Religion: Monotheism as Dualism
The origins of the "idea" good and evil.
Ancient [PAGAN] Egypt & Their Mummies
are WHITE, Not BLACK DNA
Zeitgeist: The Movie(s)
In 2007 this eye-opening and brilliant documentary film by Peter Joseph was released to the public and has now, thankfully, gone viral. The documentary goes over the most pressing issues that Americans, if not the entire world, are dealing with in our present age. The first part of the movie addresses the very compelling Christ myth theory, the second part shows alternative theories for the parties responsible for the September 11th attacks, and the last part goes over the monopoly of the Federal Reserve and how these ruthless bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power to enslave the masses economically through debt.
Since then, a sequel, Zeitgeist: Addendum, has been released that focuses further on our corrupt monetary system and advocates a resource-based social system influenced by the ideas of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project. A Zeitgeist Movement has also now emerged, and a third film called, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward was just recently released in January of this year, 2011.
GREAT! Zeitgeist: The Movie The Full Version
OK! Zeitgeist: Addendum The Full Version
HORRIBLE! Zeitgeist: Moving Forward The Full Version
Submitted by: HHG
Comments: The first Zeitgeist is great. In the second Zeigeist, Addendum, they start focusing on their versions of solutions instead of just exposing the problems in our society. Although Jacques Fresco's ideas are wonderful, we still need to be weary of anyone trying to get rid of national territories and land boundaries aka nations/states. People grow and evolve at their own pace and this is why nations are a great thing. We need the space to be able to grow to our fullest godlike potential right now instead of waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. This could be looked at as, "leading by example." Having any "one" central anything is just bad, bad, bad.
The third Zeitgeist is horrible and chalk full of politically-correct propaganda. Obviously, the powers that be have noticed that they need to intervene with the Zeitgeist people as soon as possible before it gets too much support by the masses. They are trying to prove again and again that it's really "Nuture Over Nature" not "Nature Over Nuture" and that genetics basically don't matter or mean anything. If that is the case, I'd like to hear them explain how Monsanto is genetically modifying our food to supposedly make it better. They aren't taking the seeds to "behavior school" to make them better, they are genetically modifying them!! This Zeitgeist just shows how desperately we need more studies on genetics and to put Eugenics BACK IN SCHOOLS. It's blatantly obvious that they are scared to death of anything the Germans invented, hence the Jews that are being interviewed. They also contradict themselves when they state in the movie that "nature is a dictatorship," as that seems to me that nature would rule automatically over nuture by default. We're all subject to the laws of gravity baby, nobody is exempt.
Comments: by Charles
I've enjoyed the first two Zeitgeist movies quite a bit, the first more than the second, and the first section of movie #1 the most (that's the section on organized religion). A simple watching of that 40 minute section of Zeitgeist #1 may work wonders to convince the fence-sitters of the futility and foolishness of xtianity and Big Organized Religion as something unique. The "true believers" will probably just get upset and whine; bully for them.
The only problem with the Zeitgeist movies - and I say this not having watched #3 - is that they tend to be typical lefty fare: good information, but bad solutions, and what solutions are offered don't mention anything about race, ethnicity, and culture clashes as genuine political vectors. Specifically, they can't or won't see the fact of the instinctive part of human nature to conflict with the "other" or the different, hence the inability of all cultures and races to "get along" without conflict. The solutions offered by Zeitgeist are largely economic and technological tinkering, akin to fiddling with the banking system in Ancient Rome while the barbarians are being let through the gates by the inner traitors. This is precisely where America is today.
So my take is that Zeitgeist-based ideas do have some credence - but only up to a point, and any real path forward will borrow a bit from that salad bar of ideas but mostly dump the rotten old day-before-yesterday platitudes in the trash. As I've said earlier - and as we all know - any political idea that does not recognize race is fundamentally flawed, like trying to run a marathon with a broken leg.