Messages

Ok, I was *really* tempted to continue this argument, but i am going to bite the bullet, as i can see that this debate is not going anywhere; we agree to disagree!

But I just wanted to say..... arrghh, no I've stopped myself.

Regards,
Douglas

Nay_

My impression is that I was viewed as one of them. You are right in that everyone I remember there was male, but I couldnt say whether it was an all male community or not.

As for what kind of place it is, i have no idea. It seemed pretty totalitarian anyway.

Regards,
Douglas

Gwathren_

So you actually believe that by sanctioning gay marriages, this will encourage so many people to 'become gay' that it will actually threaten the future of humanity?

How exactly does gay marriages encourage homosexual practice *to the extent* that it would actually threaten heterosexual reproduction and future of humanity?

Yes, it might encourage a small amount of people who already have bisexual tendancies, but once again, since the bisexual/homosexual percentage of the population is so small, this cannot have any significance for everyone else; such people will decide to have gay relationships and feelings in any case, and the new right to get married makes not a jot of difference.

If on the otherhand, you are not gay/bi, its not going to have any effect on you, apart from your own prejudices.

I would still like to see a good argument to back up your hysterical claim that gay relationships and gay marriage in particular will cause 'gayness' to threaten humanity. You havent shown any so far, apart from some wild kneejerk apocalyptic rants of biblical proportions.

With regards to your comments about 'gay animals', actually animal species on occasion display gay tendancies from time to time. However, as with humans, they are a small proportion of the total species, and make not a jot of difference to the fortunes of the species as a whole, they are not a problem and nobody is particularly concerned.

Your argument rests on the idea that some humans may be 'persuaded' to 'become gay', even when they are not.
However, the latest scientific evidence points towards a real genetic difference between gay and staight people, their chromosones are different.
As for those 'straight' people who are open to 'persuasion', the liklihood is that they too have this chromosone difference but have suppressed it for social reasons. These people might be encouraged to come out a bit more if gay marriages were sanctioned, and I can tell you now, such people would be far happier to acnowledge their own true identities.

Even so, those people we are talking about are still a *small* proportion of the population and the idea that somehow the majority of the heterosexual population are going to 'turn gay' is ridiculous and utter fantasy; all that is being displayed is a hysterical kneejerk reaction to your inbuilt conservative prejudices, which you feel are under attack from the prospect of gay marriages.

Douglas

Hey Shinobi, yeah you are right, I have been doing a bit of research since our last chat!

I'm sure you know much more about the details than me, I was just giving a summery of the various types of buddhism around, according to my research.

Cetainly, from what i have read it is the case that all Buddhism falls into two overall catergories, northern and southern, or the 'Greater wheel' and the 'lesser wheel' (you give the correct names in your post). The form practiced in Japan Tibet and China is Northern, and the 'lesser wheel' is practiced in Vietnam and Thailand.

The Southern is regarded as the original.

There are BIG differences between the two, from what I have read.

I would like you to clarify what you know of the whole Nirvana concept.
Certainly, from what I have read, all the variations of Northern Buddhism lean towards a concept of reuniting with the 'all', similar to the Hindu idea, whether the southern variety leans away from this concept. There is a definate 'trinity' concept which I have found in Northern buddhism, with the buddha's first aspect being the embodiment of the universe or 'the all'.

Yes, your are right about the Dalai Lama being a reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion, but in my researches, which centred on chinese intepretations, he is seen as a woman ( at least, that is how the genderless boddhavista presents itself).

Do you agree with my findings that the southern buddhists do not accept the boddhivista 'ideal'? They deny that these beings have any interest in helping others.

Also, the idea of lay buddhists, who make up the vast majority of buddist religion: Northern buddhists, ie Tibet, China and Japan accept that everyone can reach buddhahood eventially, the monks on the otherhand, are on the fast track.

However, the southern buddhists are strict that only monks are true buddhists and are actually working towards buddhahood.
This is why I had the idea that it was perhaps the southern or 'original' buddhism that was packaged for the west, as I think you would agree, most peoples' conception of a buddhist here is a *monk*, but my chinese friends are all regarded as buddhists *within their own culture* even although they have never meditated in their lives, they still go to the temples etc. Just like in Hong Kong or wherever, they all regard themselves as buddhists, and Northern buddhism accepts this.

Please comment!

Douglas

Gwathren_

What paint have you been sniffing?

What I say here wasnt intended as an argument against your earlier statement, it was just a comment about homosexuality in the ancient world in general.

As for your earlier comments, I would still like to see your evidence for how homosexuality may 'threaten the future of humanity'.

I say again, that the percentage of gay/bisexual population in ANY given society: Classical, Masai tribesman, modern western, whatever, (never mind whether they have straight relationships also) has always been, is and always will be *tiny* compared to the vast majority of the heterosexual population.
If you can show me any human society past or present in the entire history of humanity that shows otherwise, then I'd like to see your evidence; otherwise, please refrain from making hysterical comments about how gays may 'threaten humanity' and 'form a part of the end times'. Such extremism only fuels more prejudice.

Douglas

Gwathren_
Yes, I too accept that homosexuality in the classical period cannot be directly compared to homosexuality in today's world. I was just pointing out that homosexuality played a role in Classical Greek society.

We have to remember that the Classical era is too wide an area to apply one definition in any case.
For example, with regards to Greece: In Athens it was acceptable for an adult man to engage in sexual relations with a boy (ages 12-18 approx); this was viewed as a vital part of a youth's education.
However, sex between two adult men was viewed as perverse!!!

In Sparta however, sex between two adult men was accepted.
However, with all these case, we are talking about the customs of the upper classes, and it is likely the case that these customs were not generally shared by the common people.

In Rome, contrary to popular belief, homosexuality was actually frowned upon, although, again in the upper classes it did tend to go on in private; however it was seen as contrary to traditional Roman values and a feature of 'Greekness'.

For example, archaeological evidence from a region where Antony was laying siege to one of Octavian's (later Augustus) strongholds, catapult shot has been recovered which has graffiti inscribed upon it with insults which refer to Octavian as a gay f***!!! Clearly, to be accused of such leanings was not exactly a compliment!

Regards,
Douglas

Gwathren_

I know you were originally talking about marriages, but then your comments angled towards general hysterical comments about homosexuals 'ending life on earth', and these ridiculous comments needed countering.

That's what I don't like. Marriage is a holy union made by a man and a woman that form an entirety. This must not be broken.


This is the argument which i find unconvincing, for the reasons given in my post about assumptions that 'god gets angry when people engage in sexual conduct other than biologically intended'.
This is often used to attack gay marriages as there is a view that only heterosexual marriages are sanctioned by god, for the above reason.
In fact, this is just an assumption.

Of course christians like yourself are perfectly free to express your beliefs on this matter, as are jews or muslims, and if you feel that marriages are holy ceremonies sanctioned by god and only applying to straight couples then it is fine for you to apply this to members of your own religious community.
However, for the rest of us who do not follow these doctrines, we shouldnt be dictated to by people using religious arguments. I don't give any credance to your justification above that marriages are 'holy unions'. In my view they are social unions, which some people reinforce through religion.

Douglas

I would actually add, that this very thing – homosexuality might eventually cause the end of human rule on Earth. That might become the "end of days

Oh, get real!

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and always will continue to be a feature of human life.

Has it ever threatened the survival of the human race? No.

This is because the gay/bisexual percentage in any given population is always tiny. Every wondered why they are called a 'minority' group?

The vast majority of the population is and always has been heterosexual and the heterosexual biological drive to reproduce is so strong as to be unstoppable.
In fact, the problems in the world today and in the years to come are due to *overpopulation*, not because of a lack of it.

Gays can never 'threaten' the continuation of humanity like some extremists argue, since it will always be the case that the vast majority of the population will be heterosexual.

For those stupid enough to say otherwise, I say look at the whole of human history up until this point, (and the animal kingdom, where 'gayness' occurs from time to time).
Has humanity at any point in history ever been threatened by 'gayness'?
Of course not, despite the fact there have always been gay people.

What about classical Greece? They accepted and practiced homosexual relationships *alongside* heterosexual ones; Classial Greece was aguably one of the greatest civilisations in the world and has gone on to become the foundation of modern western civilisation.

Secondly, the main problem seems to be with the monotheistic religions, who have decided for us that 'god' is angered by those who engage in sexual conduct which is 'other than biologically intended'.

However, if we accept the premise that this god character exists, the above notion is nothing more than an assumption. As I said, history has proved that gays are only ever a minority of any population they can NEVER directly threaten its survival; the biological balance is tipped WAY in favour of the vast majority of people being straight.

Since this god knows that gays can never make any slightest difference to population variance, it could well be the case that he doesn't mind one way or the other, as the whole system works to max efficiency anyway; in fact at present it is actually a bit too efficient. Also, since with many gay people, their chromosomes dictate their sexual preference, why should god punish them for a fault in the biological system he created?

I think in reality, people are free to be whatever sexual orientation they want; and since the basic biological forces and attractions will always reign supreme, the vast majority of the population will always be straight, they have no choice, their chromosomes dictate it, just as gays' do. As for the tinier minority still, who swing both ways, they can do what they like.

This basic setup has operated throughout history and will continue to do so. The only difference is that the gay minority now makes its voice heard; this is in line with the general policy of recognition for all minorities and should be welcomed as part of a healthy modern society.

Unfortunately, some people's minds have not caught up yet, and are unlikely to do so in the future. However, they themselves are also becoming a minority grouping and as such, have the freedom to voice their concerns.

Regards,
Douglas

Hardly, Mustardseed!
Its just a point of view, which people are free to disagree with, and do!

Anyhow, I'm sure that many christians would admit that they dont agree with the sentiment behind this declaration; others don't mind, but the ensuing vitriolic debate is exactly what makes it interesting and indeed entertaining for those of us outside of the christian community (or the islamic one for that matter).

Douglas

Yes Nagual, it is worth the energy spent if you are using it to bring material wealth to yourself, which is one of the prime motives for creating powerful sentient thought forms.

They can bring you real material wealth, materialised in the form of cash or valuables. They can also show you where such things can be found. Added to that they can be used to control the minds of others. Every been frustrated at a job interview by the stubborness of the interviewer? Not any longer.

The mind control can be subtle, so the peoson doesnt even realise, or it can also be instructed to take overt control, ie a direct psychic attack, which will scare the sh*t out of the victim, even driving them to suicide if that is what is desired. This mode of attack is used against the magician's enemies.

As I said before, the above actions are considerd by many to be 'black magick' and I wouldnt personally advocate this, but it's fair to point out the potential uses of thought forms.

As for thought form objects, these are different. What we are talking about above is the creation of sentient thought forms entities, which is a whole other ball game.

oman34m
I think that to make a thought form entity of any real power, you need to get other people on board. Not that is impossible to do it your self, but it would take SO much more work and time, added to this, the power and abilities of the entity would only be a fraction of the being I describe, and its ability to manifest anything would be severly limited, a waste of time in my opinion.

As an added point, I know that some people will criticise the use of magickal practices for gaining material wealth, but many occultists regard it one of the most fundamental occult laws (at least regarding the western world), that in order to make progress in the spiritual world, it is first nececery to master the physical world.

There is a lot of truth in this. You dont have time or energy to explore the spiritual realms when you are slaving away for 12 hours a day or more in a sweat-shop, in addition to the feeling of depression it gives you. I know this as i have done it! People who deny this do so because they are in fact financially sound, although often they don't actually realise it.

Douglas

Well, its not a simple answer, since there are two main forms of buddhism; Northern Buddhism and Southern Buddhism.

The southern Buddhism is considered the 'original' and apparantly follows Buddha's original teachings from 500BCE. This form is now the minority form of buddhism and is practiced only in Thailand, Vietnam and a few other places.

Northern Buddhism, formed out of the teachings of a group of monks who split off from the original teachings, although it is still pretty old, having formed around 300BCE.

This spread to the rest of Asia and is the from of buddhism practiced in Tibet, China and Japan. Northen Buddhism is the majority form of buddhism in the world today.
Of course, the forms of Northern Buddhism practiced in these countries have developed into their own ditinctive sub-groups, like Zen Buddhism in Japan, and Varyjiana (?) Buddhism in Tibet. However all thse sub groupings are all forms of *Northern Buddhism*.


Now in Hinduism, the fundamental truth is that there is the 'ALL', a pantheistic notion that everything in the universe is ONE, a conscious entity which pervades and IS everything. Actually, strictly speaking it is Panentheistic as the ALL includes more than just our observable universe but also the astral and mental levels and other worlds.

The highest gods in Hinduism are manifistations of this intelligence although they have some independent action as well.
In addition there are many minor deities and spirits worshipped only on local village level, like local village goddesses for example.

The ultimate goal of every human is to escape from the endless chain of reincarnation and return to the source, the ALL, which is at the core of our individual selves (remember we are all part of the ONE as well). Our ultimate aim is to merge with and become the ALL.


Now, in original S buddhism, Buddha doesnt really teach this. He DOES agree that our aim is to escape the endless cycle of reincarnation, but our goal is not to merge with the ALL, but to escape even from that, and escape outside of EVERYTHING, the Void. He uses the metaphor of the fire, and once our desires are used up then the ashes are cold, this is the state we are looking for.
However many problems arise because people dont realise the theory behind fire which was common in Buddha's day.
In his time fire was seen as an energy which was diffused evenly throughout the cosmos, but was brought together in the burning process and fed off the wood. When all the fuel is used up, the fire *disperses again* throughout the cosmos.
This is the idea that Buddha is getting at. Not really at One with the universe but somehow distributed throughout and outside of it.
He doesnt explain this idea any further, saying it must be experienced.

Now, the N buddhists split off from the original group as they had begun to find some problems with Buddha's original teachings and his lack of clarity on other points. However, unlike other academic philosophies or christian theologans, their disagreements did not come about through philisophical debates; their findings were via direct experience through meditation and altered states.

This was in fact going along with just what the Buddha had originally advised: 'don't take my word for anything, go and find out and explore for yourselves'. They did, and their explorations uncovered many new findings which the old guard didnt like, hence the split.
However, N Buddhism is now the most popular form of Buddhism in the world.

the N buddhist clarified the problem of what Nirvana is all about.
The original Buddha had fudged the issue, but the N buddhists found through their meditations that it WAS in fact a reuniting with the ALL; the All also lies at the core of our being and behind the illusion of individuality which we must destroy in oreder to achieve this bliss.
In many ways the N buddhists have actually returned to the Hindu concept of Brahman or the 'ALL'.

Buddhists (north and south) accept the existence of the Hindu deities but dont think they are worthy of worship. the gods are just another 'class' of being that life-forms can reincarnate into; these different classes reside on different realms on the 'Wheel of life':

These realms are 'Hell', Hungry ghost, Animal realm, Human, Jealous god realm, God realm. These are all the realms that beings reinacarnate into on a never-ending basis. The god realms are the most pleasant ones and the life span for gods is long, thousands or millians of years. However, the beings of ALL these realms must eventially die and go to whatever realm thier karma dictates; none of them are permanent states.
Buddhists regard hindu deities (and other deities) as beings who have reincarnated into one of the god realms.

The above realms form the wheel of life and is the endless cycle of which we all belong and which it is our goal to escape.

However, after this point, N and S buddhists disagree. In both cases, beings who escape the cycle of reinacarnation go to levels beyond the ones mentioned above. They continue their development until they are ready to enter Nirvana.
These beings are labled boddhivistas and are extremely powerful. However, although the original S Buddhists accept the existence of beings at this level, they believe that they have no interest in the affairs of others, they are only focused on their own goal.

The N Buddhists found this idea to be incorrect as it seemed to contradict the Buddhist ideal of compassion; surely any enlightened being would be concerned for its less fortunate members!

Therefore, N Buddhists, maintain that Boddivistas stop just short of entering nirvana and stay behind to help other beings on the path. They can be prayed to and can assist in the same way as gods, but boddhivistas differ from gods since they only have pure unconditional love as their motive and do not expect worship or reward. Gods on the other hand are usually in it to get something for themselves; however they can still be useful in their own right.

Moreover, as some of these boddhivistas have been around for so long, many have been recognised as deities by some peoples.
For example, the Dalai Lama is actually a reincarnation of the goddess of compassion (cant remember the name), although strictly she is a boddivista.

Northern Buddhists also accept OTHER buddhas as well, basically we all have buddha nature in us so that is not suprising. Buddha therefor can manifest in various forms. There is a *trinity aspect* to Buddha; his first aspect as 'the All', his second aspect as himself residing on the highest levels to teach and guide others (sometimes through various aspects/buddha types), and a third aspect which can manifest in the physical world. The original buddha was himself in his physical aspect. Really he could manifest in any of us.
In this way, N buddhists can be accepting of other religions. Christ for example can be seen as a form of buddha, or as is more usual, he is regarded as a boddhivista.

Oh yeah, N buddhists believe that EVERYONE can, if they live according to the moral principles outlined by Buddha, eventially, after many lifetimes achieve boddhivista level and eventially Nirvana.

S buddhists on the other hand believe that you HAVE to be a monk.
Again this elitist stance iritated many early budhists.

This is why in N buddhist countries, ie Tibet, China Japan, EVERYONE are corrctly classed as buddhists, Lay Buddhists to be precise, even if most have never meditated in their lives. Of course, in these countres there are monks, but they are on the 'fast track' to enlightenment, rather than taking the slow route. Tibetan monks for example want to achieve it in one lifetime, and Zen buddhism teaches you to sample it DURING your life.

The west on the other hand has the mistaken conception that all buddhists equal *monks*. This is not the case. Only the minority southern buddhists believe this. It is like saying that you are only properly a christian if you are a monk.

Part of the reason for the buddhism/monk equation in the west is, I think, because it is the minority S buddhism that is usually packaged for the west; possibly westerners like it as it is meant to be the 'original' teachings of buddha. However branches of Northern buddhism have also been popular in the west to some extent, such as Tibetan Buddhism and Zen buddhism, so it is not clear cut.

Just to clarify, around 75% of buddhists belong to denominations of N buddhisma while only 25% belong to S buddhism.

Getting back to the original subject, which I have went way off track with, the Hindu's are a bit snobby when it comes to this and are a bit like the S buddhists in a way, since they belive that the best way to score point is to be in tone of the priest castes or to become a holy man, however I am not sure that it is an absolute requirement or not.

In short, Northern Buddhism probably has more in common with Hinduism than its southern counterpart, although Hinduism doesnt categorise other worlds into the same realms as Buddhism does.


Just to add, I would say that at least 50% of New age ideas come from Hindu doctrine; these include, Reincarnation, Brahmin/Pantheism/The ALL, Astral plains, Karma, Mental plains, chakra system, akashic records, energy working in general, guides and other deities of various descriptions.
In short, you could perhaps term the New Age movement as 'Hinduism for the west'.


Regards,
Douglas

I fully support this, but as an experiment, it would be interesting to post this on the christian forum and sit back for the reaction:
Sometimes shocking, sometimes enlightening, always entertaining.

Douglas

Actually, I didnt say 'all these things are the fault of the west'.

The point I was making is that we are *all* part of the problem.

The terrorists are just an extreme form of mainstream concerns. Until those concerns are addressed, no progress will be made. In relation to this, dealing with the 'symptoms' will solve nothing, we have to look at the underlying cause, which will take dialogue from both sides. I notice that nothing of the sort has taken place so far.

The 'war of terror' is the biggest joke to come out of America. Terrorists cannot be defeated, unfortunatly. sooner or later, talking has to start, on BOTH sides. the UK and Irish terrorists have olny recently recognised this.

Douglas

As for the oil thing, it has never been about the oil. There is oil in other places and it is bought and sold on an open, world market.

Sorry Jena, but this is just naivety, is it an accident that Iraq happens to be the second biggest reserve of oil in the world?

Also is it is pure chance that America's two other main sources, Saudi Arabia and South America, are under some threat? The House of Saud is in danger of being toppled by Islamic fundis, (After all, Saudi Arabia is the home of Al Qaeda, never mind Iraq or Afghanistan). For this reason, in the interests of national security, the US Govt wants to secure a third major reserve, the second biggest in the world in fact, which will secure US interests for years to come.
Additionally, they will have a useful ally and base for troops should things go pear-shaped in Saudi Arabia; the US will be in a position to 'rescue' the Saudi oil reserves, should this occur.

This isn't rocket science; it's called 'securing national interests'.
That's just the way it is. Actually, if they just admitted it, then I don't think there would be a big problem; its when they try to disguise it in some kind of 'moral crusade', as if they only want to 'help the rest of the world out of the kindness of our own hearts', it is this sad attempt which pisses so many people off as it is seen as an insult to our intelligence.

Yes, oil is the prime motive; others play a part to a lesser extent: the need to 'hit out' at someone after 11th September attacks, any tin pot dictator who opposed US in the past will do. In this way, they feel they are getting some revenge for the attacks in NY. The US feels the need to do this, almost out of desperation, as they are finding it difficult to get their head around the fact that this enemy CANNOT be fought with force of arms. However, the Iraq war is a kind of Alka-Seltzer, it will make them feel better in the short term, as if they are achieving something against the terrorists; in reality of course, the effect will be the opposite. Such wars only encourage more hatred against the west, as the Spanish attacks prove.



One of the things the terrorists don't quite seem to understand is that you cannot kill an idea, be it helpful or harmful. They will continue to horrify the world. But until they begin to horrify their own families and their own people, they will continue to glorify what they do to some very young and impressionable people.


Yes, but you can also substitute 'terrorists' in the above statement for 'the west'; the west will also find it very difficult to 'kill an idea'.

Ultimately, there is a complete lack of understanding on both sides, and an inability by either party to communicate. Until BOTH sides change their stance on this, then this 'war' will go on for ever, just as in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. (NI is only making progress now that TALKING has begun).


Douglas

I think the Spanish people are just getting their own back on a government that decided to go ahead and support Bush and Blair, even although 90% of Spanish people were against it, even demonstrating in the streets. What happened to democracy?
It was the same in Britain, but Blair pushed ahead anyway.

Why are people in Spain AND the UK ticked off? Because they knew that the UK or Spanish governments throwing their support in with America would make them targets for Islamic extremists.

And this is just what happened. Islamics extremists never had any grievences with Spain before, but they do now.

The people understood this, and wanted to stay out of it, thats why they are really ticked off when their 'representative' government doesnt listen to them.

Whats irritating is that now we'll get 'I told you so' statements from Bush & Blair saying that he was right all along that we are all under threat from Islamic extremists..... well, if you decide to openly side with the extremist's enemy, then yes, you are a target... thats why most people wanted to stay out of it... too late now.

Douglas

You don't understand what I'm saying.

The Christian 'lucifer' and the old Roman god of the same name are in no way related. The Christians just used his name for their own 'devil' figure.

Thats it.

Douglas

I don't really like to encourage any more nonsense about 'demon wars' by contributing to 'demon war threads', so i'm going against one of my own rules here, but I am curious about something.

Where did all this guff originate? It certainly didnt come from any biblical source or from 'Mayan prophesy' like some people like to believe (unless it comes from dodgy 'factual' web sites).

I think the main originator is Japanese anime and manga fiction.
That people read/watch that stuff and actually think its real is a very disturbing indicator about peoples' gullability levels.

The reason I say this, is that I notice that almost without fail, the people who peddle these stories are always anime/manga fans, with anime user names and DBZ quotes; they also quite often believe that they can do the same things as featured in DBZ.

To answer Logic's question, yes, Im sure that these peoples beliefs will find some form on the astral, but they do so along with everyone elses, so its really doesnt matter; if astral thought forms really took shape in the physical as easily as that, then we would be in serious sh**t from all manner of crazy stuff.
Also, I think you overestimate the actual importance of 'demon war' diciples; believe me, they are a minority and actually fairly embarrassing!

Apologies to 'demon war' believers out there, but the rest of us have seen all this before, its just a pity its hit the forums this time.

Regards,
Douglas

People want to make the world like it was 2000 years ago?

Not that I disagree with them. I'm a Roman historian so I'm biased. I would like to take a trip back to the empire.

2000 years ago the known world was ruled by Octavius Augustus Caesar, under a new imperial regime, which came into effect after the end of the Republic in 27BCE. Augustus' political settlement was disguised to make it sound like it was still constitutional, ie he was officially 'Princeps' or 'First Citizen', not a monarch, and his powers were only conferred on him by the Senate.

Of course this was excrement and everyone knew that the Senate had no real power any more.

Things were good in the classical period, not just The Roman Empire, but also the earlier Greek civilisation which itself was absorbed into the greater Roman Empire.

It is certainly NOT the case that 2000 years ago 'people were running around in skins and scrabbling in the dirt' like one earlier poster mentioned. Such views of history are completely incorrect and actually display a kind of cultural disdain for the historical past which I have found to be a mainly American phenomenon. I'm not sure why but it's a long running feature, going back to Henry Ford's classic crass statement 'history is bunk'.

In the Classical world, just like even older civilisations like Egypt and Sumeria for example, were civilisations with towns, cities, laws, constitutions, literature, art, culture, philosophy, music, sport, beurocracy, administration, medicine, state religions etc etc.
Did you know that Rome in the 1st century BCE was the largest city on Earth, with a population of one million; this would not be matched again until London in the 19th century.

Regarding medicine. In the Roman period, the quality of medicine was actually high (although hopefully no-one will be daft enough to compare it to 21st century standards!), in fact, surgical techniques were so good that they were not matched again until the 19th century.
Julius Caesar for example famously had an operation to remove his appendix when he was a child.

Yes, outside of towns and cities, many rural people continued to earn a living off the land and lived pretty close to the bone, but this has always been the case, right up until the present day. I would not demean country folk by saying that they 'scrabble in the dirt'; you sound like an arrogant Roman senator!

From Greece (Athens) we got democracy, rationalism and philosophy, and from Rome we got Good Government, Roman Law and later, the Roman religion of Christianity. Sanitation technology was amazing, with some roman sewer systems still in use today. The Cloaca Maxima, the main sewer in Rome for example, is still in use today, this was built around 500BCE!

Let's not forget classical architecture which has spread to all corners of the earth. cf The White House in the US, probably the most famous neo-classical building in the world: Ionic style.

Greek Doric style can be seen in the Kobe National Bank in Tokyo!

The Americans went on a Roman republic trip when they were laying out their new capitol did they not?

The fact that they call it Capitol Hill, which is named after the one in Rome (The Capitoline Hill); also their constitution is based on the Roman republic, with a senate and so on. And that monument that looks like Cleopatra's needle? come on guys, Augustus brought one of those back with him from Egypt and set it up in Rome as well!

Anyway, basically the whole of modern western civilisation owes itself directly to the classical world, so yeah man, you have to love it!

And don't forget, Romans had underfloor central heating as well as the most hard-assed, disciplined, fully professional, ruthless killing machine of an army that ever kicked barbarian butt in the ancient world!

SEND ME THERE NOW! []

Douglas

Hmm, I wonder who WAS responsible though?

Its still too early to tell, but the Spanish government would like everyone to think ETA is responsible, but other evidence suggests Islamic terrorists. ETA have themselves denied any responsiblity for the attack.

I am wary of the government's claim for ETA; they have an agenda in putting the blame for the bombing on ETA.

It is election time in Spain:

Many Spaniards were p**ed of at the Spanish PM's support for Bush & Blair, a deeply unpopular move in Spain, since they believed that by pledging support for the US and UK, Spain might be drawn into attacks themselves by Islamic extremists; the extremists later said that those who supported Bush and Blair would be targets; Spain was one of the countries listed.

If this is in fact what has happened, then the Spanish people will probably want to lynch the government for taking them down this road, just as much as they want to lynch those responsible!

For this reason, with the election on Sunday, the government will want to pin the blame on ETA instead, as this will show them in less of a bad light; also they will draw good support as people have liked the government's hard line on ETA in the past.

However, from looking at the way this bombing was carried out, it doesnt look like ETA's work.
10 bomb blasts set of by remote control? a commuter train?
This is not ETA's style; and the level of co-ordination and planning suggests Islamic extremist involvement.
There has been a letter sent to an arabic newspaper which claims to be from those responsible, however this might be a hoax and an attempt by some Islamic group to take the 'glory' for themselves.

Time will tell hopefully, but don't expect much before Sunday's election.

Douglas

Its a shame that Christian Magic has been 'suspended' by his parents, who believe they are doing 'the right thing'.

Ultimatly, it won't work as I know from personal expeience!
If you have a burning desire or interest in somthing, you will find a way to get back to it, despite restrictions. Even if it is months or years afterwards.

Concerning Wicca...... Wicca is NOT 'evil', also Wicca generelly doesnt beleive in 'evil' in the sense of polar oppositions, like Christianity. Instead, there is only one true power/law in the world, that is 'LOVE', its purest form that underlies the universe. All the rest is varying shades of grey.

Yes, wicca or witchcraft/magickal practice CAN harm the unwary at times.
However, so can Christianity or Islam, as we all know.

I would just like to point out a distinction here, concerning witchcraft and Wicca, which some people may not be aware of:

In the US, Witchcraft and Wicca are generelly regarded as the same thing. However, in the UK the two are distinct, with Wicca being the recently formed (1950s) 'formal' religion of Witchcraft.
While Witchraft generelly is distinct and takes many forms (they are highly individulistic with no set, core beliefs), most of which do not agree or acknowedge Gardnerian witchcraft.

So, despite the statements you read in a lot of American witchcraft books about how all witches 'believe in the Wiccan reed, believe in the law of thrice-fold return' etc etc, these sweeping statements are actually false.

Douglas

Never mind any anti-semitic themes; as a Roman historian myself, I get constantly pi**ed off by the continual *anti-Roman themes* in these kind of movies.

The Roman religion of Christianity, along with Roman Law and good government, are the greatest legacies of the Roman Empire and have gone on to form the foundation of modern western civilisation.
(Along with Democracy but that was invented by the Greeks... but it's still a legacy of Classical civilisation and its gift to you and me).

I am sick and tired of all those Hollywood productions from the 50's and 60's (although movies like Spartacus and Ben Hur were great in their own right) who paint the Romans as a bunch of wicked, immoral filth who were the enemies of the true god, the bad guys of the bible etc etc. Ok... I admit that sometimes their discipline was harsh, but no harsher than any of the other systems of the times, is death by stoning any nicer?; in many ways Roman law was actually *less* harsh than foreign laws, although this is never talked about, even although Roman law went on to become the basis of law for most of modern-day western civilisation.

Part of the negative propaganda against the early Romans is actually their own doing, as much of the anti-Roman sentiment in later Christian writings are actually by *ROMAN Christian writers*, like Augustine etc, who tried to distance the Christian Roman Empire from its earlier pagan heritige, and did this by discrediting the practices of the pagan empire, before it adopted the 'true' religion.

In fact as every Christian *should* realise but usually doesn't, they owe a great dept to the Roman Empire, because it was the Empire who eventually adopted Christianity as the state religion and turned it from a minority faith within the Empire to THE ONLY faith and transformed it into a world religion; Christianity as we know it today, whatever denomination, owes itself directly to the Empire.

The Empire was a great friend to Christianity after 313CE and was its 'staff' in a very real sense, officially promoting the religion and allowing it to grow until its power and authority became absolute. The Roman Empire grew into a Christian theocracy. This would have been impossible without the direct patronage and full support of the Roman state.  

So to say that the Romans were the enemy of the 'true' religion is cr*p; its just that I have heard people say this in the past and it's irritating. Christians should thank the Romans for their religion, as without the Empire they would never have heard of it; it was the Emperor Constantine who eventually decided what religion was good for you!

It is now almost certain that Christianity would never have become the dominant religion without direct imperial patronage. After 313, the Roman state poured huge amounts of money into the church and funded a massive expansion of church buildings, training and organisation, including building churches in Jerusalem.

If we look at the Sassanid Persian empire next door to the Roman empire in the east, there was a similar number of Christians there as in the Roman empire, however, in the Persian empire, the state never officially adopted the religion so it always remained a minority faith there (staying at about 1/5th), right up until the 7th century when the Arab Muslim conquest swept them and their Zoroastrianism religion all away.

It was all an amazing stroke of luck; After the troubles of the 3rd century, Constantine was looking for things which would help bind the empire together, faith being one of them. It just so happened that his mother Helena was an adherent of that strange eastern religion called 'Christianity'; a light bulb went on above his head and he asked his mother 'tell me more about this thing called 'Christianity''!!!

What a brilliant idea! Not only was it a novel way of binding the empire together through religion, by its monotheistic nature it also seemed to perfectly compliment the ideology of absolute monarchic authority, thereby reinforcing the position of Emperor; God could rule heaven, while the emperor could be sanctioned by divine authority to rule the earth (strictly on behalf of God of course!).

The pattern was then set: the foundation of the Roman successor states of Europe was laid, which would come to fruition once the Empire collapsed in the West from 410CE onwards (The Eastern half of the empire on the other hand continued until 1453, later known as the Byzantine empire).

Christianity's role as authorising right to rule remains the cornerstone of most nation-states' legitimacy right up to present day; In the UK some people still say 'God bless the Queen', while in the US the President will say 'God bless the USA', while its constitution says 'all equal under god'. The idea is the same.

So even although I am proud not to be a Christian, I still say: God bless the IMPERIVM ROMANVM!!!

Douglas

Thanks for the link Ekron!

Douglas

Dumbledore_

I have only ever participated in a group project.

Using the technique described above, myself and five others got together a few years ago to create a thought form.
We created a life story for the being and proceeded with the technique as described above.
We got great results and after only a week and a half, we got to the stage where we were getting loud knocks, sighs and rappings on the walls... what a racket!
At this point two members of my group chickened out as things became too real for them... it seems that deep down they must have still thought it was some kind of game! I think the main problem is that some people conceive of thought-forms as some kind of abstract notion, which only exists in the mind's eye, like creative visualisation. It is not. Once created, the being is VERY real and will soon make this clear to those who think otherwise. As long as those taking part are clear on this, then there should be no problem. I found this out the hard way!

So I am still trying to find people to form a new group; what I do know is: this technique works! I never doubted it though as I was taught it by a geniune occultist whom I used to know, who gave me this reliable technique after I asked him about this topic. He had made use of thought-forms many times in the past.

Regarding material objects, I have been reliably informed (by the same source who gave me this technique) that apports of material objects are easily achieved once the thought-form is fully generated. For this reason, thought-forms are used to bring cash or other items.

Be warned though, if clear instructions are not given beforehand, it can often go to the nearest reliable source for such items.

My occult friend has skirted pretty close to the law in the past, when the entity procured a large amount of jewellry from a nearby shop!
Another time, he asked for cash and was given a huge bag of money. It turns out that the money was from a recent store robbery in the area. The police later caught him spending some of this and found the cash in his house. However, he was released without charge as they were unable to explain how he had this bag in his house; apparantly the thieves had already been arrested and the money confiscated a few days before!  The police took the cash away however!

I think you will find it difficult to manifest anything of worth using your method, as the required energy will be too great, although perhaps if you do the same techniuqe but with more people, results can be obtained. On the other hand, four days is good!

I would recomend creating an entity and let IT do the work for you. You have seen how hard it is to generate objects yourself.

Douglas


PS Fenris: Thank you for that link to 13's post on the theory behind thought-forms; an excellent description on the mechanics of thought-form creation, I recommend everyone read it!

I agree with almost everything he says, apart from his statement that no matter how powerful a thought-form becomes on the astral, it cannot manifest on the physical without special help.

Well, clearly from the technique I described, the thought-form is VERY physical. I have no reason to doubt the occultist's claims about it, and I have personal experience of the physical effects generated by the thought-form as it was coming into being.... believe me, it was VERY physical...and loud!

Of course, the technique I describe above and which I tried out, sets out to create a thought-form which is able to act in the physical realm *from the outset*. Perhaps 13 IS right, that there is a problem if you create it on the astral only, but this seems a pretty silly thing to do when the whole purpose of the thought-form is to help you in THIS world.

The technique I describe is not difficult, it just requires patience; the resulting thought-form can manifest physical objects of any description as well as acting on individuals on a mental level.

I would suggest that 13 has shot himself in the foot in a sense, by limiting himself to his own theory. Too much theory can be a bad thing as it can often restrict practice!

I agree with Fat_Turkey and others that the forums have gone downhill as of late.

Its like the decline and fall of the Roman empire!

For me, I would date the start of this decline from the date that Frank vanished. Not that Frank was the only thing holding the forum together, far from it. Its just a symbolic marker, as I found the forums have been on a downhill slide fince that time.

There has been such an influx of new people since then; as evidence of this, I bet that around 75% of people reading this will not even know who Frank is!

Now, there have been many great new people coming to the forums at this time, which is great, but there has also been an even greater number of butt*oles.

I believe the main problem can be traced to one main factor which no-one seems to have touched upon:
As soon as the moderators, esp. Adrian (sorry Adrian!) started creating countless, pointless subforums for every conceivable topic under the sun, then this had the effect of dilluting the forums as a whole, creating a huge arena for non-astral related topics and attracting busloads of people who were coming here with no interest in astral matters!
Now we have to trawl though all the dross to find anything useful.
Before all the posts were concenrated into a few well though out forums, which also served to restrict conversation to on-topic, astral info.

Now the forums are opened up to people who come here and dont even look at any of the astral topics, the whole purpose for this site!!!

As such we have attracted, demon war, ki and other kiddy dross through all these pointless sub forums.

So Adrian: I would say to you: its time to restructure AP once more, cut out the crap and get the forums back to a *few* good ones, discussing *relevant* astral information and topics. If I want to read about 'Modern christianity' or 'world religions' or 'quantum development' I can do that somewhere else. Also, do we really need seperate forums for 'Astral consciousness' and 'astral experiences'?
This is dillution once again.

Douglas

Risu no Kairu_


I understand what you are getting at. However, As Fenris says, the being is 'feeding' from the power generated by your thoughts, ie your belief in the entity itself. It is your thoughts which have brought it into being. This is quite different from a vampiric concept of an entity draining energy from people.

The individual or group is *not* drained of energy or fatigued in any way, as they are not giving away any more energy than they do the rest of the time, simply by *believing* in things.

The two issues are not related.

However, as Fenris, pointed out, thought forms might figure out a way to get energy themselves over time, this could be a variety of sources, however this would only happen if the being is dismissed from the group. As long as it is under the groups direction, it has all the energy required.

After its dismissal, then if it is smart enough it may learn to gain energy other ways, including some form of energy draining. However, this is of no concern to the group.
When a group formally dismisses an entity it is common practice to stipulate that the being is to refrain from harming any member of the group in future and never to come in contact with them in any way again. Only after agreeing to this is the being released.

Over and above all this, I would add again that thought-forms do not seek to harm their creators in any case, unless there is an unstable element in their make-up, which is due to the mental issues of one or more of the creators. Such a risk is easily avoided as I said, as long as those participating are carefully veted.

Dumbledore_ I agree with you about different techniques including those which can be carried out by individuals.

The technique I gave requires more people as it is designed to create a powerful thought-form being as quickly as possible. It all depends on what you want it for.

Douglas