Tao Te Ching replied by Satolkin @ Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:10:27 -0000

Satolkin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:10:27 -0000

Sounds interesting as hell, Aran, and he should be able to find legit connections. It’s been awhile since I studied the TTC, but lemme know what you’ve got. Oriental and Occidental esoteric traditions have some parallel thought. email addy is dmavity(at)comcast(dot)net.

So who's going away for the Summer? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:19:16 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:19:16 -0000

Oh, I’ll look around and see if I can find you some interior shots of a Masonic Temple. LDS Temple shots will be a lot harder to come by, and, in fact, I don’t believe they let non- LDS even in after an Open House.

So who's going away for the Summer? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:16:52 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:16:52 -0000

Arandur wrote:>Haven’t gotten to tour one. Haven’t been able to find good interior photos, either. Nor of a Masonic Temple. Any sources that would give a preview (pictures, explanations of symbolism, etc.)? I’m partial to my Catholic cathedrals and basilicas :)

Hey, who the hell do you think built those edifices for you guys? Besides, a Solar Temple is a Solar Temple ; )

Dude…east Denver. I had no idea- you’re better off in KC. I used to live up in Conifer, so my view of CO is a tad clouded. Plus, KC isn’t bad- rolling hills, chalk caves, definite seasons (beats hell out of CO’s 2 weeks of Fall)...my sister- in- law lives there. Pretty OK place. And immediate family is important; that’s why I ultimately (for better or worse) came back to CA.

Politically we’re in agreement, particularly as it applies to the recent town hall meetings. My own lazy, worthless Congressdouchebag has decided to do this on a phone in meeting- a freaking conference call.
Have fun; I want to see you berating a politician on TV. Loudly.

So who's going away for the Summer? replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:03:44 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:03:44 -0000

Yeah, I got to tour a Temple Open House in Orem years ago- a customer of mine invited me. Very cool- almost as cool as a Masonic Temple. :D
Crazy topics? Right now, there’s politics. If not that, we always have the other forbidden topic- religion.

Aran, aren’t you up in CO? Always seemed like an OK place to raise a family. Why KC?

So who's going away for the Summer? replied by Satolkin @ Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:02:51 -0000

Satolkin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:02:51 -0000

Man, these S.E. gigs aren’t paying for shit these days, are they Koo?
The camping thing is a good, cheap vacation- me, my wife and the dog, usually on the coast. Much reading and drinking.
Have a great summer, all.

So who's going away for the Summer? replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:30:30 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:30:30 -0000

Stone fu**ing broke, so not going anywhere as such. Planning a few 4 and 5 day camping trips, however. Where are you going in UT? Still one of my favorite States.

And where the hell IS everyone?

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 10 May 2009 04:54:04 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:54:04 -0000

LdsGal202 wrote:>very interesting religion… :)))

Which? Remember what I said about Bro. Joe- he was keyed into this stuff.

Predestination and Preordination. replied by Satolkin @ Sat, 09 May 2009 05:45:26 -0000

Satolkin — Sat, 09 May 2009 05:45:26 -0000

More of a preordination type, though not exactly.

Work with me here.

G-d has a plan, and no matter what we do individually, “His Will be done.” This does not preclude freewill, we are free to do what we want. However, if what we want and what He wants don’t mesh, a slight adjustment is required in the means to accomplish the overall Plan, and should our will not mesh with His Will, we pay a price, although His will remains intact, and we were still free to do whatever we want.

Fuck up, pay the price, but The Plan remains unchanged.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 08 May 2009 06:34:17 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:34:17 -0000

Arandur wrote:>You’re using a looser definition of Dualism than the traditional Catholic definition :).

I’d be interested in hearing the definition- seriously. Dualism/ duality carries a fairly specific meaning, from a classical/ esoteric viewpoint.

From what I understand, Zarathushtra initiated a rather abrupt change to previous Aryan cultural nature spirit/deity worship. In fact, there is apparently a place among the various heavenly beings for those Aryan spirits.

Probably to the former, almost certainly to the latter.

Which makes sense both from a religion-as-man-made-philosophy approach as well as a religion-as-man-trying-to-understand-real-divine-beings-and-dimensions approach. Very clumsy, I know, sorry. Tired. I make the distinction because sometimes its hard for me to understand where you’re coming from, Satolkin. Sometimes you seem to lean pretty heavily towards the former approach; I lean heavily towards the latter.

No need to apologize; I know what you mean. I don’t see a problem with either as reasons for the development of religion. No reason it can’t be both.
Sorry for being confusing, I just take an occultist’s/ esoteric’s view of things. I hold my opinions pretty lightly, and if I see or experience something that I consider legit, I make a shift. Plus, under the boatload of religious dogma we all encounter, I figure there’s some unity hiding underneath it all.

In other words, I believe many of the various “gods” worshipped by many cultures through history could well be real spiritual beings, just not ones worthy of worship in the same way that the One True God is.

I’m perfectly OK with that. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that those real spiritual beings are just relatively lesser manifestations/ emanations of the One True G-d. You and me included.

understanding at the time of aspects of the One True God, sort of like native American Great Spirit worship

Good analogy, and I’m not sure I’d consider it “muddled.” The Hindu Brahmic belief is similar. Calling G-d by different names doesn’t make Him different gods, it just means different cultures view Him somewhat differently.

One the Zoroastrians-as-spiritual-ancestors and brothers thing, I also find it pretty interesting that the some among Islam consider them “People of the Book,” as well, even though the spread of Islam culturally destroyed Zoroastrianism.

Interesting. I didn’t know that.

As to the concept of the Demiurge:
Where this really started gaining popularity was among Manichean Gnostics. The essential idea is that since the created world is imperfect, the Creator must also be imperfect, so there must be a True G-d that is above the Creator god.
As metaphor for a gradual “solidifying” of Spirit into imperfect matter, and man’s interpretaion of G-d as necessarily imperfect, it’s OK. Taking it literally is as flawed as taking a literal view of Genesis, IMO. Gnostics, BTW, are all over the place on their beliefs, particularly on this issue. Neo- gnosticism, and some semi- associated religious Orders place more emphasis on the need for personally obtained knowledge of G-d than the whole demiurge story.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 07 May 2009 17:24:17 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:24:17 -0000

Arandur wrote:>I’ve seen some discussions of Zoroastrianism identifying it originally as a true monotheistic faith originally, then being adopted in various cultures as a dualistic tradition, then back in same ways. Are you in the Dualist crowd, Satolkin, and why?

Complicated question. The easy answer is “no,” I’m a trinitarian, but deeper, I’m a unitarian who understands unity through It’s trinitarian expression. To get there, though, you have to be in (at least for awhile) or at least understand, the Dualist crowd, and the greater philosophical idea of “opposites.”

As to ancient montheistic religion (and Zoroastrianism is a great example; glad you started the thread) the Mono vs. Dual argument is much like the chicken and egg question. We like to think that there was a “pure” monotheist religion that degenerated into dualism, or even polytheism, but I suspect it’s the other way around. Dualism is a very natural way to look at the universe, and it takes refining of that idea to get to monotheism. Zoroastrianism, proper, may have been a monotheistic response to something more dualistic that came before.

Having said that, though, it’s important to really understand Dualism. Technically, mainstream Christianity, despite the Holy Trinity, is dualistic in it’s G-d vs. Satan approach. We could also say that any tradition expressing a G-d/ G-dess belief is also dualistic, except most of the neo- pagan movements that do so actually see a trinity of sorts in that arrangement.

One of the reasons that I think Zoroastrianism was the mainline religion of the one true God before Abraham is that the Bible seems to acknowledge it as such through Cyrus the Great (along with many other Persian emperors, avowed Mazda worshippers), Melchizedek, and the Magi that journeyed to pay Jesus homage (almost certainly Zoroastrian priests).

Largely agree, and I believe Melchizedek to be a conceptual expression of the religion of the One True G-d being communicated to (the idea of) Abraham, from a non- semite source. Cyrus is definitely a specific reference to Zoroastrianism as being one such source. IMO. The Zoroastrian priests (priest- scientists, really, primarily astronomers/astrologers) as the legendary “Magi,” most certainly.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Sat, 02 May 2009 00:36:26 -0000

Satolkin — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:36:26 -0000

Arandur wrote:>What do you mean by “Initiatic” and “graded?”

Coming into a tradition through a ritual initiation, with subsequent rites moving the member to a higher “grade.”
If that sounds far- fetched or weird, think Baptism and Confirmation, with Ordination reserved for those who become members of the priesthood.

I agree that Zoroastrianism probably most closely parallels Christian tradition. As far as other saviour belief systems, you’ve got the Celtic greenman within the ancient Brit system, the Osiris- Isis- Horus mystery system of Egypt, and any number of vague references to renewal in nature as embodied by a physical being. “John Barleycorn” is a clouded reference to this belief. As is Odin and his self- “crucifixion” on the Norse tree of life.
The trinity and renewal cycle of Brahma- Vishnu- Shiva. There’s a ton of ‘em. Religion just tends to follow that pattern, and you’d be hard pressed to find an ancient religion that didn’t follow a trinitarian belief, at least at it’s core, or within the “inner order” groups that religions invariably have.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 01 May 2009 03:30:49 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:30:49 -0000

I’m with ya on the Trinitarian thing- I wouldn’t even call it “proto.” We didn’t invent the idea of one- in- three, or the Mystery behind that.

I don’t think anyone really knows anything concrete about original Mithraic practices as taught by Zarathustra. The assumption is that it was Initiatic (which is probably accurate, as that was, and still is, common) and probably in a “graded” system (which would also be common). Beyond that, it’s speculation. One of the results that we can probably be assured of is that it was seriously astronomically- based, which contributes to the idea of the ancient Persians as great adepts/ magi.
It’s really hard to say, just as difficult as trying to figure out what ancient Hebrew Temple practice was. If I had to guess, I’d say natural science based, monotheistic yet Trinitarian, and using heavy sun symbolism. All of which makes it somewhat indistinguishable from a lot of ancient religions, but I think this was probably one of the most influential ones.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:54:32 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:54:32 -0000

Arandur wrote:>Ahriman, yeah, though it seems like there is a variety of opinion about him running through historical Zoroastrianism. The earlier beliefs seem to hold Ahriman up as a corruption and corruptor of the ideal, even leading the angelic figures astray, but without true dualistic equality of power or even necessity of existence. [/quote]

Right. But, important to remember, that the idea of an “Opposer,” with equal strength and power to G-d, is fairly recent, and, IMO, a misunderstanding. There is only G-d; any idea of opposition is really just negation. Very passive.

If you’re referring to the Roman cult of Mithras, that seems to have been a smallish military cult that was contemporary and subsequent to Jesus.

More modern and watered- down. The original Persian Mithraic cult is very, very antique, and goes back at least….well, hell. Originally tied in with Taurian symbolism, so we’re going back maybe 6000 years. Old, dude, and maybe the original religious precursor to the whole Hero/ Redeemer mythos, aside from the obvious observations of nature that it was based on before deing embodied in on “entity.” The Roman military picked up on it because of the “warrior” aspect of Mithras; I doubt they understood the full picture. Plus, he was essentially just a “warrior- angel;” not a huge player. One of the “sparks.”

but the Mithra concept does still seem to be proto-Trinitarian in the person of the Son.

Yes. Don’t be too haughty in the use of the term “proto” though- our modern concepts aren’t original, and we haven’t changed them all that much. Frankly, a lot of what they used then and we use now is based largely on astronomical observation, and observation of natural phenomena.

There was also a belief in a Saoshyant messiah figure to “renovate” the world,
Many “saviours,” bro.. I know you don’t like this, but the Christ is the most recent, and the one we identify with. The saviour is a very necessary archetype for us crazy humans.

Satolkin, you probably see this as all evolution of concepts and understanding of the divine. I see it as pre-Abrahamic revelation of the same unchanging God.

Well, sure. G-d doesn’t change; our understanding of Him does. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
Abraham….was an idea, not a person. It’s not necessary for him to have been a person- he represents a shift in thinking. Melchizedek, G-d bless ‘im, represents the foundational, unchanging truth. Allegory, metaphor, legenda and mythos.
Satolkin, can you direct me to good sources on Zoroastrianism? Are there other similar ancient belief systems that you’re aware of?

Tough one. Most of the writing on Zoroastrianism was Victorian, and those folks labored under some heavy error, particularly in their belief in the beginnings of everything to Egypt. Modern belief tends to take the form of new age (rhymes with sewage) nonsense. My approach was the Lectures in Scottish Rite Freemasonry (and we talk about the Zoroastrian model quite a bit) tempered by stuff I’d already read. Most modern writers on Mithraism tend to take a decidely anti- Christian stance (which annoys the shit out of me) or fall back on some old misunderstandings. The best you can do is to read everything you can, but discriminate. Plus, hell, read the Zend- Avestas. Ancient Sacred Writings give huge insights on our own.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:50:54 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:50:54 -0000

Sorry, guys- I’ve been busy as hell.

This won’t add terribly much to the discussion, but you are nuts- on accurate, Aran. Not only is the Avestan system clearly proto- Hebrew (although there were other influences) the Mithraic legend eventually became a cult/ sect that clearly contributed to Christian legend.
Oh, and don’t forget the Zoroastrian “Satan,” Ahriman.

Jesus went to hell replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:21:02 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:21:02 -0000

LdsGal202 wrote:>well I got clarification of this thought thru the missionaries at my church i had a discussion about it and totally get it as far as mormon belief-wise :)))

Way to keep us hanging. :D
What did they say?

Jesus went to hell replied by Satolkin @ Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:19:27 -0000

Satolkin — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:19:27 -0000

Yeah, part of the Apostle’s Creed, but the Nicene Creed I’m familiar with (in the Anglican Church) doesn’t include it. Aran is right- the descent to free the souls is representative of Christ freeing the….what? “Virtuous pagans?” who had lived before his birth and death is the essential meaning. For me, Aran, it’s unnecessary. At the same time though, it is food for thought, and does lay the groundwork for some mighty badass imagery used by Dante. Read Inferno, if you get the chance. It’s one of my favorite pieces of writing from that period, and the most interesting work from the whole Divine Comedy. Shows “Satan” as essentially impotent, which is cool. Dorothy Sayer’s translation is the best I’ve found- great footnoting and commentary.

December 2008 Monthly Thread - Merry Christmas! replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:19:20 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:19:20 -0000

Arandur wrote:>I was trying to keep the Communion thread going. Perhaps I should come up with another, new topic.

Yeah, make it something real controversial so we can argue. :D

Presidential Inauguration replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:17:37 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:17:37 -0000

Greetings, feeldaburn.

Gal- AA is something that is better in theory than in reality. Unfortunately, what has happened is that it’s been used to help unqualified people into schools and jobs, purely for the sake of numbers, and Federal pressure. I’ve got some personal experience with it.

the Urim and Thummim replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:09:45 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:09:45 -0000

Two of the most mysterious “items” in the OT, very little is said about them. They were actually worn by the High Priest in “pouches,” either on his shoulders, or behind the breastplate.
Due to the intentional (IMO) lack of description, and they’re relative importance, they’re puzzling. I’ve heard some pretty wacky conjecture on what they actually are. Some believe they’re a reference to the two stone tablets of Moses, some believe they were devices that “charged” the Ark, some believe that one of them was the “Shamir,” and nobody really knows. Even rabbinacal texts are pretty silent on them.

I'm Not Sure What I Believe In Anymore... replied by Satolkin @ Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:03:39 -0000

Satolkin — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:03:39 -0000

Arandur wrote:>. As I mentioned above, I seek God largely through an intellectual pursuit of truth, and that’s how He approaches me. In the past couple of years, though, I’ve realized that He seems to be training me out of that mindset a bit and relating to me more spiritually.

Feelda, though of pretty far apart views of Christianity, Aran and I are pretty similar in this, and a search like that, and the one you are going through, strengthens faith, regardless of what that faith is. “An unexamined life isn’t worth living.”
As usual, I can’t remember who said that.

I won’t go into a long story, but I was also raised in a traditional church, went through some mighty dark times (my atheistic period) and slowly was helped out of it in a lot of different ways, some of them incredibely odd.
They’re all lessons. Keep learning.

The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:36:49 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:36:49 -0000

All righty then. Aran, I’m going to be intentionally vague about a couple of things. I’ll detail more if you want, but as I said, you might find some of it somewhat blasphemous.

The Apostles: an absolute necessity as a literary device. We have absolutely no proof of their existence- you know as well as I do that the writers of the Gospels (both canonical and “gnostic”) took the names of the Disciples who became the Apostles. The hint is that there are 12 of them. And I’ll take care of the next obvious question, was “Jesus the Christ” a real person? Possibly not, which doesn’t change the message.

Early Christians, contrary to popular belief, were Hellenized Jews, who practiced Jewish Tradition, and followed the teachings of one Rabbi, which was acceptable because, among other things, the teaching easily fell in line with Greek, and mostly Hermetic philosophy. That was an extremely radical period of time in Palestine, not only philosophically but politically. We have absolutely no proof that they believed Jesus to be the literal “only son of G-d,” although there are some indications in a fairly recently translated Essene liturgy that a High Priest may have been seen as the actual physical embodiement of Deity. That may lend some credence to a belief in Jesus as G-d in the flesh, but it’s hard to say at this point.

The Fathers of the Church don’t concern me in the slightest, except to add interesting historical detail to what we have today as mainstream Christianity.

In the case of the “Apostles” or early “Christians,” it is a mistake to assume they attached more “external” than “internal” reality to this tradition. It’s important to keep in mind that internal realities are almost always couched in external terminology. “Those who have ears to hear,” and all that.

Presidential Inauguration replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:05:43 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:05:43 -0000

Yeah, apparently the reinststement of the offshore drilling ban is a done deal. I think that kills ANWR, as well. Hey- why drill for your own oil when you can continue to buy it from people who hate you? It staggers the imagination. I’m OK with the lobbyist rules if they have teeth and if it’s implemented. I have doubts that anything with this bunch is going to go past the “we’re going to do this” stage.

The stimulus plan is the usual throwing money at a problem that both Parties are now guilty of. If we really want the fed to be involved in economic stimulus (and I’m leery of that) the best place to start is to institute some pretty serious tariffs, restrictions on international trade, and making our business and entrepenurial environments a little more “welcoming.”

Hey, but ain’t it great having Reich back again? Good Lord.

The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:55 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:55 -0000

Arandur wrote:>At this point I’m more interested in knowing what you think about the Apostles, the early Christians, and the Fathers of the Church, and why their conception of a lot of these things seems much more externally real than the belief that Jesus and the Scriptures tell a story focused solely on inward spiritual journeys unique to each individual. Why did they care about an organization, as well?

You’re not going to like it much, Aran. Let me formulate a response. I’ll post up in a day or so.

The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:47:17 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:47:17 -0000

Arandur wrote:>I’ve known about “Bethlehem” since I was a kid;

Figured you did, but dammit broham, we’re still talking symbolism, and foreshadowing (yeah, yeah…you’re going to want to say “prophecy.” We can argue about that some other day.)
Anglicans vehemently argue against transubstantiation, BTW.

Anyway. We’re coming at this from two irreconcilable angles. If my belief is that Christ is within, and that Jesus was an Exemplar and Teacher of that revelation, eating the actual body and blood of Jesus is completely meaningless to me. If Christ is “physically ” present in you and me always, it’s unnecessary.
And yes, I know that’s not your belief, so we’re at a sort of a standoff here. BTW, we don’t throw away leftover bread and wine either, but that’s because as a symbol, it’s holy. That would be akin to pissing on a Cross, which, as a symbol, is also Holy.

Presidential Inauguration replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:35:08 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:35:08 -0000

Arandur wrote:>What, and have Biden as president for 4 years?

That’s too vile a thought to even contemplate. Reminds me of back when we used to refer to Quayle as George Sr.’s “asassination insurance.”
I did what I usually do with Presidential inaugurations- ignored it. There’s better use for those millions of dollars spent, and I dislike the aura of psuedo royalty that accompanies it. Just hand over the nuke football and keys to the White House and shutup about it. Pretty much agree with the rest of your post, Aran. Politics is a nice break from discussing religion.

Which I am now going to do on the communion thread. That didn’t last long. :D

BTW, anyone heard from Koo? We just don’t have the same “scoundrel quotient” here without him

Recent Posts by Satolkin | GOD STILL LOVES US