Sunday, August 13, 2006


“I put a spell on you
'Cause you're mine”
- (1949) Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Slotkin

“I'm all out of hope
One more bad dream could bring a fall
When I'm far from home
Don't call me on the phone
To tell me you're alone
It's easy to deceive
It's easy to tease
But hard to get release
- Billy Idol, Eyes Without A Face
I came across this site a few years back, in the days of my baroque meritocracies (which reminds me: I will have to lay a few metaphorical wreaths at the symbolic grave sometime soon), and at the time was struck by the novelty of it.

So for today’s Sunday sermon, let’s take a whack at this wackadoolery, shall we?

The title of this web page announces in big, bold letters: Jesus = Lucifer = THE Devil.

And the byline says, “That the Christian bible is the composition of Lucifer, the fallen rebel archangel and devil supreme, is scientifically proved in these volumes.”

Pretty wild assertion, whether you’re an atheist or a theist, ain’t it?

A perceptional canvas at once enormous and unique for its envelopment of time in all fullness and for its sweep of the East and West and of rest of mankind has been starkly unfolded by those concepts and findings. From that vantage point, it is indeed possible, almost automatic with the aid of impeccable logic, to externalise and integrate experience in its totality and comprehend the whole of existence, in all of its range and depth, in a totally integrative and indissolubly wholesome manner.”

Well, first off, you need to prove the existence of either gawd or the devil. This is just presuppositionalism otherwise. Second, as I see it, there’s really no ‘impeccable logic’ inherent in religion at all. Third, ‘externalise and integrate experience in its totality’ sounds like data overload to make the head explode.

Let’s take a gander, shall we?

The Ancient Mother – I
The Key to the bible
The christian bible, according to authors Leo Panakal and Vinodh Kumar, is nothing less than a malignant fraud that went undetected for two thousand years.”

Can’t dispute that.

The bible comprises the self-expression of Lucifer, the fallen rebel archangel and devil supreme, who affects himself in it as the christian god, a conscious parody of Easwara of the Sanskrit scriptures.”

Easwara? Who? ” Easwara has yet another name: Yogasikha. The sky is His blue form. The directions (Dik) are His garment. Hence He is known as Digambara. He is also known as Panchaanana - the Five-headed One. The five are: Earth, water, fire and aakaasa (space). His five heads represent the five basic elements (panchabhuthas). Siva is also described as Bhuthanaatha - the Lord of all created beings. Bhutha refers to creation. Easwara is the Lord of every creature in the universe. Hence, the entire cosmos is reflected as an image in the Lord. Siva is known as Subhankara- the one who is ever good (Subham).”


By analytically assessing the actual worth of the bible book, the authors free mankind from the fetters of guilt, or sin, instituted by christianity.”

Hey, gee, thanks guys! Luckily, I’m already free.

From the autonomic thrust of his very entity as undifferentiated rebel against the reality of his gravitational fall from goodness, Lucifer is compulsively bound to reality, and hence bound also to delineate himself - rebelliously, unabashedly, totally, uniquely, and once and for all - in terms of a non-dual rebellion against goodness. A book recording that kind of delineation will, by its very nature, singularly carry the self-expression of his TOTAL beinghood as rebel against goodness, THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE BEING THE SOLE, EXHAUSTIVE, FULL, CONCRETE EXEMPLIFICATION OF THAT EXERCISE.”

I think the Fixx said it best:
”Do what you say,
Say what you mean,
Because one thing leads to a-nuh-uh-other.”
There’s more, of course:
Chapter – II
Systems and Positions
The fundamental christian constituent being posited as rebellion, it presupposes the prior existence of a reality against which it is so constituted, since rebellion cannot come to be in absence of such a reality. Comprehensively, the entire christian position is based upon, and structured from, ban on knowledge under phobia of racial extinction, and a redeemer from the consequences of violation of the ban. Since our postulate should hold under all conditions, including the above posited basic constituent, it would be necessary and sufficient to prove the rebellion internally as a cyclical rebellion that envelops even the self-vindicative basic constituent. That christianity is such a rebellion is proved from the original rebellion against the ban on knowledge from its being specified as "knowledge of good and bad" - exudative of the foundational notion of original sin - which is itself reduced by its certified commentators back to the original rebellion against knowledge as such.
Lucifer has generated the different versions and spread out the capsuled variants that conceal, and/or rebelliously envelop, the identity in such design, the design itself being mandatorily dictated by the conscious id of his personality as cyclical rebel, that independently none of them, barring one lone exception, (See Knox bible, p.3) would yield data sufficient by itself to finally wrap up the exposition of the luciferian identity, whereas all of them together (and put together positvely by man) reveals the same in a conclusive manner that not only individually explains logically, interrelatedly and wholesomely, all the various links present but also binds them all together with a single thread, which is nothing but the same identity.”

So did you get all that? Yeah, it’s a tough read, all righty. So the way I figure this, it’s a vast, interwoven tapestry of multiple layers, entirely constructed to bring humanity into the pit (choose the allegorical abysm of your preference).

Chapter – III
Phenomenon of Man & The Brick in the wall

The word good is only derived from the Sanskrit root "gadh." This would demonstrate, once again, that the concept of goodness originates and subsists independently of the bible book and christianity.

Oh, so the actual original language of Man is Sanskrit. Phew, what a relief! Waitaminnit – doesn’t everyone claim their language came first?
Good is actually - [Middle English, from Old English gōd.]. I’m fairly sure that Sanskrit didn’t have that big an impact on Ye Olde Angles.

Further, the charts drawn in the bible book of the original condition prior to the "original sin" are an orchestration of this reality. The account issues all the same from the original sin of the subterranean narrator himself and a preponderant drive to collocate it to man by infusing an imaginary guilt into his consciousness through Cain - which is simultaneously turned into sin by mutual genetic inversion in other versions of the same text of Cain's words purportedly spoken to Lucifer. (See Knox bible). As to the professions of the christian original condition, they are contradicted by acknowledgement of the existence and activity of the serpent in that very condition and the admission at the end of the whole book that the same serpent had been right there all the way from the "primal age."(See Knox bible, p.274).

Oh, goody, talking snakes again.

("Spirit" is defined as "an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible." - Merriam Webster. The three attributes are accurately discerned in the being that got itself invited at noontime to Abraham's dwelling, there to malevolently effectuate fornication of his aged wife with suggestions that contrive to summon up her memories. The being is designated at one moment as "they," in plural ["They asked, Where is thy wife Sara?" (sic) - genesis 18:9, Knox bible]; in the next moment, the same apparently distinct beings objectify as "he," in the singular ["I will come back said he who was speaking to him" - ibid., 18:10], demonstrating it bodiless in both instances. The other symptom, of his visiblity, is attested by the narrative, where it says that Abraham "looked up and saw three men standing near him," ibid., 18:2; the same spectacle is elsewhere further represented as "a vision of the lord.")

So wait – we’re skipping from Cain to Abraham? Anyways, -YAWN-.

Chapter – IV
The Substratum
Again the substratum exposes the true nature of the "mystical body" as a composite of pseudo-God and pseudo-Man. Jesus is neither Man nor God. Man is the "one who reflects," and God is the "perfection of goodness." But jesus, as revealed by the biblical substratum of his real identity, is a malevolent spirit possessing a motivation to usurp the realm of reason and of truth, and hence of salvation.
The whole endeavor of christianity as indubitably announced by its champion is the "overturning" of reasoning directed toward the correct identification of its source-being as Lucifer. Taking his cue from the latter, Paul accurately articulates the received word in postmariological time. Boldly now he narrows it down to reasoning per se. Boldly again but meticulously he announces that "we are overturning reasonings."
Since reasoning is the line that demarcates man from animal, christianity is seen to be a system for degeneration of man through retroversion of this demarcation.

Biblical substratum? In the words of Desi Arnaz reading Jabberwocky: “Who talks like this?”

Chapter V
Origination of Evil and Doom of Sin
The words are uttered by, and occur solely and exclusively in, the consciousness of jehovah. And therefore, there has not been at all any origin nor movement of sin heretofore in any consciousness other than this one.
The alleged disobedience charged by Paul will not make any kind of sin since the primary condition of disobedience, expressed refusal to obey, is not satisfied, pre-cast as Adam is in a muted role as of then in Lucifer's consciousness. As for the aspect of disobedience, viz.,neglect, the charge is disproved under "discovery," the same protagonist having withheld by malidentification the pertinent data of the existence of the serpent.
The genes of murder, war-making, adultery and theft are all genes latterly interpolated into consciousness and then deliberately brought within the sphere of the attributed acts of man described in the book - attributed to man by rebellious commandments proffered after the event, turning the human psyche in the process into a battlefield between the genes thus implanted therein with all their automotive drives and the commandments subsequently planted against the selfsame genes, both being done by the same being, viz., jehovah, alias jesus, whom Moses in his goodness, as man takes to be "God," the perfection of goodness, as continuedly professed by that being in execution of his rebellion.

Notice how they capitalize Adam, Moses and God, but leave xtianity and jesus in lower case. Is everyone keeping up here, or are we drowsing off a bit? So rebelliousness was pre-programmed into our genes via the Demiurge – excuse me, Lucifer.

Chapter – VI
Sin = Guilt
The authentic firsthand citations and observations of Mary of Agreda, which are autonomous to christianity, on the one hand place the origination of sin at a site earlier and different from the so-called garden, and on the other appropriately identify the original sinner differently from man in Adam, as scriptural christianity claims - as "the prince of that (same) assembly."
On account of its complexion, as original, the sin above is integral with, and inseparable from, its originator. Therefore, the being and the consciousness that carries the underived gene of sin at genesis 4:7, and exerts itself verbally to discharge it upon man, is the same "prince of sin" as above.
The reader may note the first entry under sin in the bible book, where the sin issues alone from the consciousness of jehovah, in words avowedly spoken by him to Cain. Here below is the passage in full:
A) "If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling; but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it."- Good news bible, p.7.
However the same verse in the importantly attested Knox bible goes as follows:
B) "If thy actions are good, canst thou doubt they will be rewarded? If not, canst thou doubt that guilt, thenceforward, will lie at thy door? Meanwhile he (Abel) is at thy mercy, and thou canst have thy way with him." - p.3.
The entire bible book being underived and the text titled and couched as "genesis" being the bottommost compartment of the same aspect, "sin" and "guilt" in A & B above are interchangeable. Secondly, they are expressly personified by the speaker. Thirdly, they lie in a crouching state of inertia when and until so personified.
Unless acted upon by an external force, they would interminably so remain in inertia in, with, and alone with, its first and only spokesman above. The statement, "it wants to rule you," is how he elementally personifies sin/guilt - specifically too, by naming them "it" - so that he can apply on it with the force he needs to start it on motion, "it" embracing the sense of a person in lexicographic definition. By the expression "wants" he acts on the personified guilt/sin and puts it in motion.

Yeesh, these guys would drive C.S Lewis to drink. For those of you unfamiliar with Mary of Agreda, here is the Catholic forum reference and here are her works. Citing a 16th CE nun?

Chapter – VII
Assassination of Abel:The Site Configuration & Jesus' Conviction
The Corpus
The christian old testament of the bible book, particularly its most typological part named as genesis, is the transcribed embodiment of the consciousness of the classical Lucifer. It is in this sense that we call it the exclusive medium of the self-expression of Lucifer. The soliloquies, characters, and incidents featuring in it are emanations of this consciousness - the first at its indivisible primary level, the next at the fundamental operational level, and the third at the secondary operational level. It is at this third level that the consciousness of the devil supreme infiltrates generally into that of a particular community of people accomplishedly centered around Moses.
The fourth and final stage of the bible book named as new testament embodies the historical delineation of the same consciousness, now extrinsically transformed by paisacha vivaham (Fornication by the Devil) with the female Mary of the same community.
The House of Abel:
Considerations of sinistralism apart, the clinching text as far as jesus' culpablity is concerned, is Luke 11:51. Unlike Matthew 23:35, the paternity of Zacharias is altogether unrecited in Luke. In Matthew, the paternity is specified as Barachias. But Zacharias born of him did not die from violence, as dishonestly affirmed by jesus.
The omission of Zacharias' paternity in Luke and its inclusion in Matthew together with the other data in it that is factually dishonest when applied to the one or the other Zacharias, as sought by jesus in his criminality, and the quick breakdown of the whole patter ("the jargon of criminals" - Merriam Webster, p.834) when applied as the camouflaged clue to detection of Abel's true assassinator, and only when so applied, are the factors in jesus' conviction.

These fellas are just all OVER the place, they are.
I’m going to put it in a nutshell for y’all:
Lucifer rebelled, thrown down. Pissed off, Old Scratch decided to lure Adam into rebellion, got Cain to do Abel, and covered the world with a book he wrote. Oh, and he managed to do this all genetically. Not to mention Old Nick used a rewritten version of the Vedas to work that old ‘black magic’.
So, when Mr. mythical went to fast for forty days, and forty nights, he tempted himself?
This stuff is so far out in left field, it defies rationality.

Retro me, Satanas!
Oh, and while I’m at it: Retro me, Jehovah! And Brahma, and Buddha, and Zeus, and Odin, and…you get the idea.

My dream is this: that someday, our species will finally lay to rest these abject, foolish childhood nightmares, banish the ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties back to the dim corridors of primal memory, so we can walk upwards, to the light that beckons us, that light at the end of the tunnel, that sweet scent of freedom.

Be free. Of religion, of the torment of imagined sin, of the shackles of the ancient slavemasters. The ghostly memes shall haunt us no longer – and the dreams of an afterlife that never was will no long fracture this world into shards – break the mirror, and be free!
Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


Anonymous said...

Good grief, Reluctant! Where did you find all that? I understood the words, but not what they meant all put together. I'm now cross-eyed from trying to read it.

What I got from it was that it was all bovine manure.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hey, how ya been?
That was back in the day when I was trying to puzzle out where I stand.

Yeah, total mental manure. El toro poopoo.
Still can't find the guy who claimed there used to be dinosaur civilizations.

Wack-a-doo is as wack-a-doo does.
I still don't follow their 'genetic' reasonings, but I don't struggle too much over folderol.

Anonymous said...


Dinosaur civilizations? That's a new one on me. I'm trying to visualize that. Did they build the pyramids? Ah, no...that was space aliens; wasn't it?

The genetic thing didn't fit in with any thing I know about genetics, either. I am reminded of a man who tried to tell me there is a gene for church going.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Dinosaur civilizations? That's a new one on me.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it anymore. Again, way back when.
I do recall reading thru the site, thinking, "That sounds reasonble, that sounds okay", and then WHAMMO! Insanity sets in.
Ah, no...that was space aliens; wasn't it?
Good old Von Daniken: he sure infected the culture w/some extra strength lunacy.
I am reminded of a man who tried to tell me there is a gene for church going.
Ummm...actually -
"The God geneor gullible gene hypothesis states that some human beings bear a gene which gives them a prediposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation.

According to this theory, the God gene is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences. What evolutionary advantage this may convey, or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are yet to be fully explored.

The idea has been promoted by Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute."

Mind you, it's still in the works, but it's an interesting precept.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that was confusing! Lol