Christianity and Solar myth

[Dromond]

I've read some books on this subject over the years, (they tend to be so heavily sourced that it's easy to get confused and even bored)but the subject has fascinated me.

I finally found a website that perfectly (albeit simply)explains the allegorical connection between astrology, the ancients, Christ and rebirth.

www.members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmyth

Anyone else find this interesting?

[sgt.null]

www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
a source for historical proof of Jesus.
www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm
another.

[Dromond]

Wow, you read my link really fast.

[sgt.null]

still reading, but hit the highlights.
i read it through to get the feel and then go back for depth.

i have read many versions of what happened, or what people think happened. i have read that my Church is the whore of babylon. that my Church sprang from the cult of Nimrod. i may be reading the dan brown book for book club. while the solar cult is entertaining, they are founded in some misconceptions. is started with my links with historical mention.

[The Laughing Man]

Even the earliest full account of Jesus in the Bible, the Gospel of Mark, is admitted by the Catholic Church to date to at least A.D. 70, a full 40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. (Mark makes reference to an event that happened around A.D. 70, so it could not have been written any earlier. Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170, a full 140 years after the alleged event, since no one makes any reference to a Gospel of Mark, or any other Gospel, prior to this time.)

It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus. The historical evidence is overwhelming—the Jesus of the Bible never existed.

This is amazing, and somehow I wonder how this could have been overlooked. I haven't researched Jesus "yet", heh, but if this is accurate it is absolutely stunning. I am not so convinced yet tho, Dromond, this requires some "digesting" as it were, but it seems that if "true knowledge" is "natural knowledge", then obviously the solar system and other celestial arrangements must be somehow a part of it and useful for instructional and referential purposes. I think the farther back we go for "the meaning of life" by the "words of men" the more accurate the information must be, depending translational variations. And the whole range of "viable" religious dogma must be "parsed" for similarities, and the collective of such similar ideas then applied to the similarities found in the "original scripture". I have a "theory" on this but yet to "work it out", heh.

But again the good news is that in such a study you will see God and His true message for all mankind; not as we have it today from Rome where it is altered and adulterated almost beyond recognition in our New Testaments. The Ancients knew this God like few nations today every hope to and they recorded their knowledge and in spite of Rome's purge of the world's libraries has surfaced today with the aid of archeology and it lays before us if we only desire to look. We truly live in a blessed age where such Divine Truths have been restored to all of mankind and the hope of a renewed brotherhood of man that moves beyond traditional religious walls lays at our grasp. For you see God and His message to all mankind is the same regardless of man's religious camps.
jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/

seems he already has one.

History again points its accusing finger at the living evidence. The horrible results of such a crime against nature and mankind are pictured in the Dark Ages .. . Not even priests or prelates were permitted to learn to read or write. Even bishops could barely spell out their Latin. During this period of mental darkness, the ignorant masses were trained in intolerance, bigotry, fanaticism, and superstitious fear of an invisible power secretly controlled by the church; all of which begat a state of hysteria and imbecility. Through this terrorism popes seized control of the temporal power, retaining this control for nearly 500 years. They appointed and deposed kings at will, hence they dictated legislation to their ends and purposes - the very essence of government . . . This process of legislating evil into mankind is to vindicate that damnable doctrine of original sin, which slanders nature and insults all mankind . . . Originally the motive was to confiscate the intellects of man, but the modern policy is much more concerned in confiscating their personal rights and property. Here is the other aspect of the suppression of Gnosticism. Its method of teaching was an understandable symbolism. It specifically recognized nature as the great teacher, and visible things as the traditional records of past events, in progressive evolution from the lowest state to the highest, with thinking, reasoning man as the highest evoluted being. Man did not fall, he was raised up by a natural promotion. Hence every man was a Gnostic to the extent of his accumulated knowledge and understanding. Thus each unit man became a teacher, and all men were given equal rights in the acquirement of knowledge. It was wholly an educational system, and a natural consequence in evolution.

[Dromond]

Keep reading, you will be blown away!
Thank you, the Esmer, for the link in your last post.

I've read for two hours over the last couple evenings and still have a long interesting read ahead.

I like that guy, his site not only reaffirms much of what I believe and say on Kevinswatch, but I'm learning more from him as I go along. How cool is it that he is a pastor with his life studies for the truth the only thing that drives him, painful as it may be, as he discovers. I wish the truth was all that mattered.

Yet all in all, the link I provided gives a more easily understood picture of the origins of Christianity, or so I say.

[Dromond]

And by the way, dennis, I've read your links,the proof, etc... I've read most of it elsewhere, there's nothing but discounted forgeries and wishful thinking there.

[Plissken]

i have read many versions of what happened, or what people think happened. i have read that my Church is the whore of babylon. that my Church sprang from the cult of Nimrod...

Yes, and when you support guys like Dobson and Robertson, remember that they've both written books on these subjects. Just because you share common goal right now doesn't mean that you won't right go back to being the Beast of Revelation once Abortion and Gay Marriage are done away with...

[The Laughing Man]

I wish the truth was all that mattered.

when "Truth" becomes a product of "the mind", each "different mind" has a "different truth" it seems. We all agree the sun is round and orange, why can't the truth be the same? Sorry, sgtnull, I have to agree with the others on your links, they seem to have an "agenda" to dispute the truth, not reveal it, and that should be your first clue. Truth stands on its own, and is its own answer to criticism and opposition.
Finally, Dromond, make no mistake I probably agree wholeheartedly with many of your philiosophies, and wasn't trying to "take away" from your links, merely add to them in support of the "general idea". It's all good, in other words. My feeling is the more we can get to the similarities between different religions or philosophies and "truths", the more likely we are to agree on a "common denomination", heh.

[Dromond]

That's fully understood, The Esmer. I was merely stating my link was less 'weighty' and easier to understand to someone new to this subject. I am glad you augmented this discussion with more information and again say thanks for the link, I really am glad to know of that website.

Sorry if it came across any other way.

[The Laughing Man]

all good, all good. Now we just have to convince sgtnull, and Avatar, and we we can call it a true "miracle", heh.

I have been a "student" of "Nagualism" for 20 years now, almost exclusively, thru Carlos Castaneda and his "benefactor" Don Juan Matus, who taught his version of the ancient knowledge of the "Toltecs". The similarities in the "gist" of their "observations" and "truths" seems to fit very well into these "suppositions" of Gnosis and Solar Myth in many ways, as well as almost every other "higher religion" in some ways, at least the way I see it. Have you read any of Castaneda's books? I find many people who say they have, but no-one wants to talk about it for some reason.

[Dromond]

Now that's something to think about.

I read Casteneda's books back in the '70's up to 'The eagle's Gift' when it was published in '83 or so. I was fascinated by his story then lost interest about 1/2 way through The Eagle's gift.

I never made the connection between The teachings of Don Juan and Gnostic teachings. I read Casteneda long before I heard of Gnosticism.

I always thought of Don Juan as a work of fiction in spite of Casteneda's claims.

Now, however, I would really like to read these books again (I still have some of them) but that's going to be awhile.
The 'Nagual' was the coolest thing I can remember, really need to reread his books.

[The Laughing Man]

The only thing I can say is that they have to be taken in a collective of all the books and other writings and sources combined, including books and speakings of other "apprentices" too, which to me, boiled down to:

That we are luminous beings made of luminous energy, first and foremost, and that when we were able to percieve ourselves as such, we then automatically perceive the luminous energy of the universe, and that the "Source" of it all is "truly obvious". The "doorway" to this perception is "internal silence", or "not-doing", or "stopping the world". Remember, Don Juan called himself a "man of knowledge", and that gnosis means "one who knows", and that "Isreal" translates as "Man of Knowledge", as well.

I am going to teach you the secrets that make up the lot of a man of knowledge. You will have to make a very deep commitment because the training is long and arduous. A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it will live to regret his steps. When a man has fulfilled those four requisites there are no mistakes for which he will have to account; under such conditions his acts lose the blundering quality of a fool's acts. If such a man fails, or suffers a defeat, he will have lost only a battle, and there will be no pitiful regrets over that. A man of knowledge is one who has followed truthfully the hardships of learning, a man who has, without rushing or without faltering, gone as far as he can in unraveling the secrets of power and knowledge.

To become a man of knowledge one must challenge and defeat his four natural enemies.

When a man starts to learn, he is never clear about his objectives. His purpose is faulty; his intent is vague. He hopes for rewards that will never materialize for he knows nothing of the hardships of learning. He slowly begins to learn- bit by bit at first, then in big chunks. And his thoughts soon clash. What he learns is never what he pictured, or imagined, and so he begins to be afraid. Learning is never what one expects. Every step of learning is a new task, and the fear the man is experiencing begins to mount mercilessly, unyieldingly. His purpose becomes a battlefield.

And thus he has stumbled upon the first of his natural enemies: fear!

A terrible enemy--treacherous, and difficult to overcome. It remains concealed at every turn of the way, prowling, waiting. And if the man, terrified in its presence, runs away, his enemy will have put an end to his quest and he will never learn. He will never become a man of knowledge. He will perhaps be a bully, or a harmless, scared man; at any rate, he will be a defeated man. His first enemy will have put an end to his cravings. It is not possible for a man to abandon himself to fear for years, then finally conquer it. If he gives in to fear he will never conquer it, because he will shy away from learning and never try again. But if he tries to learn for years in the midst of his fear, he will eventually conquer it because he will never have really abandoned himself to it. Therefore he must not run away. He must defy his fear, and in spite of it he must take the next step in learning, and the next, and the next. He must be fully afraid, and yet he must not stop. That is the rule! And a moment will come when his first enemy retreats. The man begins to feel sure of himself. His intent becomes stronger. Learning is no longer a terrifying task. When this joyful moment comes, the man can say without hesitation that he has defeated his first natural enemy. It happens little by little, and yet the fear is vanquished suddenly and fast.

Once a man has vanquished fear, he is free from it for the rest of his life because, instead of fear, he has acquired clarity--a clarity of mind which erases fear. By then a man knows his desires; he knows how to satisfy those desires. He can anticipate the new steps of learning and a sharp clarity surrounds everything. The man feels that nothing is concealed.

And thus he has encountered his second enemy: Clarity!

That clarity of mind, which is so hard to obtain, dispels fear, but also blinds. It forces the man never to doubt himself. It gives him the assurance he can do anything he pleases, for he sees clearly into everything. And he is courageous because he is clear, and he stops at nothing because he is clear. But all that is a mistake; it is like something incomplete. If the man yields to this make-believe power, he has succumbed to his second enemy and will be patient when he should rush. And he will fumble with learning until he winds up incapable of learning anything more. His second enemy has just stopped him cold from trying to become a man of knowledge. Instead, the man may turn into a buoyant warrior, or a clown. Yet the clarity for which he has paid so dearly will never change to darkness and fear again. He will be clear as long as he lives, but he will no longer learn, or yearn for, anything. He must do what he did with fear: he must defy his clarity and use it only to see, and wait patiently and measure carefully before taking new steps; he must think, above all, that his clarity is almost a mistake. And a moment will come when he will understand that his clarity was only a point before his eyes.

And thus he will have overcome his second enemy, and will arrive at a position where nothing can harm him anymore.! This will not be a mistake. It will not be only a point before his eyes. It will be true power. He will know at this point that the power he has been pursuing for so long is finally his. He can do with it whatever he pleases. His ally is at his command. His wish is the rule. He sees all that is around him.

But he has also come across his third enemy: Power!

Power is the strongest of all enemies. And naturally the easiest thing to do is to give in; after all, the man is truly invincible. He commands; he begins by taking calculated risks, and ends in making rules, because he is a master. A man at this stage hardly notices his third enemy closing in on him. And suddenly, without knowing, he will certainly have lost the battle. His enemy will have turned him into a cruel, capricious man, but he will never lose his clarity or his power. A man who is defeated by power dies without really knowing how to handle it. Power is only a burden upon his fate. Such a! man has no command over himself, and cannot tell when or how to use his power. Once one of these enemies overpowers a man there is nothing he can do. It is not possible, for instance, that a man who is defeated by power may see his error and mend his ways. Once a man gives in he is through. If, however, he is temporarily blinded by power, and then refuses it, his battle is still on. That means he is still trying to become a man of knowledge. A man is defeated only when he no longer tries, and abandons himself. He has to come to realize that the power he has seemingly conquered is in reality never his. He must keep himself in line at all times, handling carefully and faithfully all that he has learned. If he can see that clarity and power, without his control over himself, are worse than mistakes, he will reach a point where everything is held in check. He will know then when and how to use his power.

And thus he will have defeated his third enemy.

The man will be, by then, at the end of his journey of learning, and almost without warning he will come upon the last of his enemies: Old age!

This enemy is the cruelest of all, the one he won't be able to defeat completely, but only fight away. This is the time when a man has no more fears, no more impatient clarity of mind--a time when all his power is in check, but also the time when he has an unyielding desire to rest. If he gives in totally to his desire to lie down and forget, if he soothes himself in tiredness, he will have lost his last round, and his enemy will cut him down into a feeble old creature. His desire to retreat will overrule all his clarity, his power, and his knowledge. But if the man sloughs off his tiredness, and lives his fate though, he can then be called a man of knowledge, if only for the brief moment when he succeeds in fighting off his last, invincible enemy. That moment of clarity, power, and knowledge is enough.

Carlos Castenada, Teachings of Don Juan

One thing that "legitimizes" Castaneda more than any other thing is that the books themselves are actually "technical manuals". Not only are you given a "behavioral" template to approach this "frightening possibility", the Warrior's Way, you are actually shown the procedures and "state of mind" needed to execute the "maneuvers of awareness" he describes.

www.castaneda.com is a place where they continue the "explanations" as it were, and a thing called "tensegrity", which is "similar" to Tai Chi, but focuses more on the "luminous shell" and becoming aware of it and how to "incorporate" it into our "daily lives". An instruction manual is what sets this "gnosis" apart from all others, and all others simply "reinforce" the validity, as it may or may not be, IMHO. The books after Eagle's Gift get much more "energy oriented", and continue to "define" the ideas in ever increasing ways. Allegory is also a great part of it, as is individuality in your approach to a "common reality".

"The Eagle's Gift", translated into "Gnosis" by The Esmer:

Invisible,Unknowable,Incomprehensible
Who Alone is Will & Form, Who Granted
He be Seen, Known & Comprehended
Aeons are entrance into what is silent,
no voice, nor knowing, nor forming concept,
nor illumination, where All things are Light,
tho they need not be illumined.

I've hung this gem up in the Hangar too long, it must be shared with the Watch:

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the minds essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect like vast space
where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject
that we do not see the true nature of things.
Live neither in the entanglements of outer things,
nor in inner feelings of emptiness.
Be serene in the oneness of things
and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity
your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remain in one extreme or the other
you will never know Oneness.

- Sengstan

translated from the Chinese

I am already given to the power that rules my fate
And I cling to nothing, so I will have nothing to defend
I have no thoughts, so I will see
I fear nothing, so I will remember myself
Detached and at ease,
I will dart past the Eagle to be free...

The Eagles Gift, by Carlos Castaneda

Forget the self and you will fear nothing, in whatever level of awareness you find yourself to be.

Don Juan Matus, The Active Side of Infinity

Don Juan Matus and the shamans of his lineage regarded awareness as the act of being deliberately conscious of all the perceptual possibilities of man…

"The Author's Commentaries" from the 30th anniversary edition of
The Teachings of Don Juan

here is a link that touches on some of these and other things,and altho I don't "endorse" this guy per se, he has alot of interesting ideas and links to other sources.

www.metahistory.org/CCandGnosis.php

you can also find my "hypothesis" on "awareness" in the Philosophical Subject of the Moment thread, where I actually "rarified" in words what has been in my head after 20 yrs of "contemplation and experimentation" of Don Juans teachings. It was a rush for me, heh.

One last thing, the Gnostic writings are something I've just recently become "aware of", heh, and if you really want to have your mind blown, consider that Syl actually "predicted" this event happening to me in the I Ching thread he started, in his response to my question, depending of course, on "how you look at it", heh.

Approaching
- ... One at this place quits the darkness and happily returns to the light. Because she attaches to and is influenced by the host, a kindhearted person, and returns to the proper path, there is good fortune.
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=281887#281887

[lucimay]

The Ez says:

Have you read any of Castaneda's books? I find many people who say they have, but no-one wants to talk about it for some reason

i think you're correct that people who have read Castaneda don't seem to talk much about it...i think it might be (and this is just from my own experience) that people just don't know HOW to talk about it. the prevailing controversy regarding the veracity of the writings seems to inhibit serious discussion of the "philosophies" involved. i know very few people as conversant as you Ez on the subject. i would have to read them all again to be able to talk to you about it myself. i am, however, most decidedly NOT in the "Castaneda as brilliant fiction" camp. i'm convinced, just by reading the books, that he was, in fact, a real researcher doing real research (ala Margaret Mead and her Samoan ethnography) who basically "went native" as it were. arguments to the contrary have never held much water for me.
i might just have to pick them up again as i never have really sat down with anyone who's read them who wanted to discuss, in detail, the "philosophies" (and i use that term loosely here for lack of better term) and ideas contained in them. ah...to begin again from a different starting point. i'm 20 years older and will undoubtedly have a different take on them!

[The Laughing Man]

if it's been 20 yrs since, you've missed alot, and ALL of it is necessary to get "the full picture".

here's a "quickie" primer link:
www.prismagems.com/castaneda/

and more:

www.castaneda.com/english/publications/ ... m?TypeID=1

...this is not a work of fiction. What I am describing is alien to us; therefore, it seems unreal.
CARLOS CASTANEDA
(From The Eagle's Gift; prologue)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing in the world is a gift. Whatever there is to learn has to be learned the hard way.

Turn my concepts into a viable way of life by a process of repetition.

Everything new in our lives, such as the sorcerers' concepts I am teaching you, must be repeated to us to the point of exhaustion before we open ourselves to it.

DON JUAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic premise of sorcery for a sorcerer is that the world of everyday life is not real, or out there, as we believe it is. For a sorcerer, reality, or the world we all know, is only a description.

For the sake of validating this premise I will concentrate the best of my efforts into leading you into a genuine conviction that what you hold in mind as the world at hand is merely a description of the world; a description that has been pounded into you from the moment you were born.

Everyone who comes into contact with a child is a teacher who incessantly describes the world to him, until the moment when the child is capable of perceiving the world as it is described.

We have no memory of that portentous moment, simply because none of us could possibly have had any point of reference to compare it to anything else.

From that moment on, however, the child is a member . He knows the description of the world; and his membership becomes full-fledged, perhaps, when he is capable of making all the proper perceptual interpretations which, by conforming to that description, validate it.

The reality of our day-to-day life, then, consists of an endless flow of perceptual interpretations which we, the individuals who share a specific membership, have learned to make in common.

The idea that the perceptual interpretations that make up the world have a flow is congruous with the fact that they run uninterruptedly and are rarely, if ever, open to question.

In fact the reality of the world we know is so taken for granted that the basic premise of sorcery, that our reality is merely one of many descriptions, can hardly be taken as a serious proposition.

Fortunately for you, I'm not concerned at all with whether or not you can take my proposition seriously, and thus I will proceed to elucidate my points,

in spite of your opposition, your disbelief, and your inability to understand what I am saying.
(Don Juan rocks!)

Thus, as a teacher of sorcery, my endeavor is to describe the world to you. Your difficulty in grasping my concepts and methods will stem from the fact that the units of my description are alien and incompatible with those of your own.

I am teaching you how to see as opposed to merely looking , and stopping the world is the first step to seeing .

Stopping the world is not a cryptic metaphor that really doesn't mean anything. And its scope and importance as one of the main propositions of my knowledge should not be misjudged.

I am teaching you how to stop the world . Nothing will work, however, if you are very stubborn. Be less stubborn, and you will probably stop the world with any of the techniques I teach you. Everything I will tell you to do is a technique for stopping the world .

The sorcerer's description of the world is perceivable. But our insistence on holding on to our standard version of reality renders us almost deaf and blind to it. I'm going to give you what I call "techniques for stopping the world."

When you begin this teaching, there is another reality, that is to say, there is a sorcery description of the world, which you do not know. As a sorcerer and a teacher, I am teaching you that description.

What I am doing with you consists, therefore, in setting up that unknown reality by unfolding its description, adding increasingly more complex parts as you go along.

In order to arrive at seeing one first has to stop the world . Stopping the world is indeed an appropriate rendition of certain states of awareness in which the reality of everyday life is altered because the flow of interpretation, which ordinarily runs uninterruptedly, has been stopped by a set of circumstances alien to that flow.

In this case the set of circumstances alien to our normal flow of interpretations is the sorcery description of the world. The precondition for stopping the world is that one has to be convinced; in other words, one has to learn the new description in a total sense, for the purpose of pitting it against the old one, and in that way break the dogmatic certainty, which we all share, that the validity of our perceptions, or our reality of the world, is not to be questioned.

After stopping the world the next step is seeing . By that I mean what could be categorized as responding to the perceptual solicitations of a world outside the description we have learned to call reality.

All these steps can only be understood in terms of the description to which they belong; a description that I'm endeavoring to give you. Let, then, this teaching be the source of entrance into that description.

The Art of Dreaming


Sorcery is the act of embodying some specialized theoretical and practical premises about the nature and role of perception in molding the universe around us.

Our world is only one in a cluster of consecutive worlds, arranged like the layers of an onion. Even though we have been energetically conditioned to perceive solely our world, we still have the capability of entering into those other realms, which are as real, unique, absolute, and engulfing as our own world is.

For us to perceive those other realms, not only do we have to covet them but we need to have sufficient energy to seize them. Their existence is constant and independent of our awareness, but their inaccessibility is entirely a consequence of our energetic conditioning. In other words, simply and solely because of that conditioning, we are compelled to assume that the world of daily life is the one and only possible world.

Believing that our energetic conditioning is correctable, sorcerers of ancient times developed a set of practices designed to recondition our energetic capabilities to perceive. They called this set of practices the art of dreaming . It's the gateway to infinity.

Through dreaming we can perceive other worlds, which we can certainly describe, but we can't describe what makes us perceive them. Yet we can feel how dreaming opens up those other realms. Dreaming seems to be a sensation--a process in our bodies, an awareness in our minds.

Self-importance is not something simple and naive. On the one hand, it is the core of everything that is good in us, and on the other hand, the core of everything that is rotten. To get rid of the self-importance that is rotten requires a masterpiece of strategy.

all this from a Yaqui Indian boy who once lived on table scraps. "allegedly".

Accept your fate in humbleness. The course of a warrior's destiny is unalterable. The challenge is how far he can go within those rigid bounds, how impeccable he can be within those rigid bounds. If there are obstacles in his path, the warrior strives impeccably to overcome them. If he finds unbearable hardship and pain on his path, he weeps, but all his tears put together could not move the line of his destiny the breadth of one hair. Fulfill your fate as a warrior not as a petty person.

[Avatar]

Sorry, what are we trying to convince me of here?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

That there is a source of energy that is responsible for everything that is, and were you not to call It Father, would still remain the source of everything and still remain acessible to your discovery. Scientifically speaking, that is.

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

The "big bang" says that "everything" exploded into being from a "nothing" that existed prior to this event, correct? What did this "nothing" exist within? Where "was" it that "everything" came into?

Doen't Gnosis and "religion in general" also make a similar claim, but say that a "Father", or "Mother", as the "personality", so to speak, of this "nothing" that "everything" came from, is the "source" of? How can "everything" come from "nothing"? Everything must come from "everything".

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

Soon the nucleus of the successful sperm enlarges into the male pronucleus. At the same time, the egg (secondary oocyte) completes meiosis II forming a second polar body and the female pronucleus.

The male and female pronuclei move toward each other. Their nuclear envelopes disintegrate. A spindle is formed (following replication of the sperm's centriole), and a full diploid set of chromosomes assembles on it. The fertilized egg or zygote is now ready for its first mitosis.

And his thought performed a deed and she came forth, namely she who had appeared before him in the shine of his light.

Is it God, or Man? Scripture or Science? Just change the words!

[Prebe]

Conluding that matter came from energy would only leave us groping for where the energy came from. The Esmer answers this with intent. I would go further and ask where the intent came from. Because I think intent or intelligence if you will can't exist disembodied (without matter).

[The Laughing Man]

well, it's a "matter" of "energy", which exists of and by itself? The big bang is already asuming this "energy" is behind everything as a result of the "intital explosion", right? How does science account for matter? Better yet, how does science account for the "indescribable force" that causes the universe to remain in constant motion and change, birth and rebirth and death? I don't think even "gravity" can suffice these days for a valid theory, which still remains another "fact of science and nature" that science still can only describe, yet not explain.

Thought is energy, and the argument is whether thought is "generated" solely in the brain, or is merely assembled there from an "external source" of "stimuli", and whether "knowledge without thought" can be validated as a "scientific theory".

[Avatar]

Sorry, I don't think we're going to convince me. Although in principle I can accept the idea of an "energy," my problem remains with your usage of "intent."

Only consiousness can exhibit intent as far as I'm concerned.

--A