and official narratives in short, terse pithy aphorisms!
and official narratives in short, terse pithy aphorisms!
‘There’s a new kid in town‘
I’ll spend some time on this one again.
Anyone familiar with this site knows I’m agnostic on cosmology within the context of knowing definitely what this earth and universe are. I’ve settled on the term ‘deceptive construct’ as it encapsulates most of the primary ideas I have along this line of inquiry.
I just watched THIS video by one of the few remaining Youtube channels I can still tolerate when it comes to spirituality. He goes by this name:
John St Julien Baba Wanyama
It’s well worth the time listening to as he frames the idea as allegories which is the only way to go with this line of inquiry.
But first, my brief view of who he is and what he teaches and these are my opinions as I could not know for sure what his intentions and motivations are. He is not really teaching any kind of Christian religion per se; at least nothing within any orthodox view. He is teaching what I would call an eastern Vedic view of Christianity– although from what I can tell his teachings also line up with the gnostic school of Valentinus–so a school of Christian Gnostics that did not hold an antagonistic view of Yahweh and the Old Testament.
We should note that Valentinus’ school also aligns with the view held by most of the Egyptian schools when it comes to the idea of the demiurge, known by various names, but mostly by PTAH which is where the name Egypt comes from.
I think we should start with the idea that god believers of any sort must hold to what might be called a first premise of theistic belief: The Primacy of Consciousness. There are schools in the east that take the idea as far as it can go and declare, with a high dose of dogmatism, that everything is MIND and that matter is illusion and Maya. In my research, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian schools held this view in antiquity, but what is certain, is that no matter what they believed in long ages past, by the time of the C.E. this view was held by Hermeticism which was the westernized version of Egyptian spirituality. In fact, the first tenet of Hermeticism is everything is mind. And this view is supposedly taken from the Egyptian Thoth, known as Hermes Trismegistus, in these schools. Nothing has changed today in this regard and its modern iterations in the New Age movement are teachings like ‘you create your own reality’: so The Secret et al.
From our perspective today there are two points worth considering: the Vedas describe a ‘soul template’ they called the Akashic which from today’s technological perspective could be interpreted as a referent to computer technology. The second is the modern invention of computer technology. Combine the two ideas and it’s not unreasonable to suggest simulation as a hypothesis. But how one could test or falsify the hypothesis is another issue altogether. Of course, this won’t stop those in the A.I. field who are attempting a materialist version and merging of silicon and mind.
John’s framing of the ideas is quite decent and in my view, he does justice to the theme. But please note he frames within a non-antagonistic view of the demiurge who he (seems?) to believe is Satan. Or, less clumsily, he seems to think that GOD and the demiurge (god) are on the same religious team so to speak. In other words, unlike my Christian Gnostic view that Christ is an Aeon that preceded the demiurge, he seems to think that the relationship between Yahweh and Christ is as narrated by Orthodox schools–so in this framing, he does away with the antagonism between Judaism’s view of Yahweh and the Christian Gnostic view that Yahweh is Satan. So he keeps the normal Christian notion of Satan intact albeit with a new modern lens that keeps the Torah and the N.T. on friendly grounds. It’s at this point I might call his hand and suggest there is a hidden agenda with this framing especially when factoring in that the Freemasons over the past few centuries have splintered Christianity into about 33,000 schisms with all the new schisms being Torah friendly.
The problem with doing so? One might start by reading Mustafa Gadalla’s, Historical Deception, The Untold Story Of Ancient Egypt linked HERE. The problem with his framing is that the Torah is false on all the most important levels whether history or on the nature of goodness and what constitutes a good father, so this also calls Christianity and Islam into question. Or, at least the versions of these religions that base their scriptural foundations on the Torah as accurate and reliable. I’ve many blogs on this theme so feel free to search them out. You see, what he calls Satan and the replicant programmer, I call Yahweh and what he calls Christ (presumably subservient to Yahweh) I call the Aeon Christ who preceded Yahweh in cosmological time. It’s not a trivial issue as far as I’m concerned. Again, my question to him would be why when most of the knowledge we have today about the Torah is false? Combine that with the notion that the B.O. Revelations describes Judaism as the religion of deception when it implements Third Temple Judaism, which is again, taken from the Egyptian Sun and Moon temple. In my view, it’s my stance on Christian Gnosticism that is the most coherent and needs the minimal amount of intellectual contortionism.
And then there is Mr. Mathis. For the first time, I have 2-requests for him. Consider doing a paper on John’s video and perhaps consider doing a paper on Mary Shelley if you’ve not done so yet. I’d be interested in what Frankenstein means to you. In my view, every decent thesis deserves a well-thought-out antithesis and I think you’ve met that criteria. Does John’s framing alter your views even one digital iota?