Mystery object in solar system

[9th]

 

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

According to the Greek Orthodox scriptures, "the Devil shines with reflected light."

 

They were definitely onto something.     

 

Indeed ..... if we go down this path ....

Devil : Lucifer : Morning Star: Venus

 

Lucifer shines beautifully !

 

 

 

Also the Moon, shines with reflected light.

 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Have I mentioned that there are no devils except for the ones we create in our own mind?

 

 

 

'bad mind' becomes 'externalised demon'  ;

 

Avestan angra mainyu "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's."^[1] In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to the prophet himself, angra mainyu is not yet a proper name.^{[n 1]} In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of a mainyu ("mind", or "spirit" etc.)^{[n 2]} that is angra ("destructive", "inhibitive", "malign" etc, of which a manifestation can be anger). In this single instance—in Yasna 45.2—the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares angra mainyu to be its "absolute antithesis".^[1]

 

A similar statement occurs in Yasna 30.3, where the antithesis is however aka mainyu, aka being the Avestan language word for "evil". Hence, aka mainyu is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with spenta mainyu, the "bounteous spirit" with which Ahura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was".

 

The aka mainyu epithet recurs in Yasna 32.5, when the principle is identified with the daevas that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the daevas are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: Zoroaster stated that the daevas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.^[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Mainyu

[Marblehead]

No, Zarathustra never had a devil when he established Zoroastrianism.  It was only after he died that the devil was created.

 

Some Jews hold that there is no devil.

 

Remember, Zarathustra said that God gave us free will but also the responsibility for all out thoughts, words and deeds.  There was no need for a devil.

 

[Taomeow]

11 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Have I mentioned that there are no devils except for the ones we create in our own mind?

 

 

They were officially cancelled only about 150 years ago, when the human mind was proclaimed almighty, omnipotent, omniscient.  This ruse was planned and implemented in order to offer people rendered completely powerless a comforting illusion of control they can't have in reality.  When someone picks your pocket, why look outside yourself for the perpetrator?  It's your own other hand stealing from you, it's the only devil you can ever catch.  Don't bother complaining.  All your problems are in your mind.  (Walks away with your wallet grinning a devilish grin.)

 

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Indeed ..... if we go down this path ....

Devil : Lucifer : Morning Star: Venus

 

Lucifer shines beautifully !

 

 

Care to look deeper?  How exactly did the goddess Diana Lucifera (who shines with the "true light of her own") become the devil Lucifer who shines with reflected light?.. 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

That's debatable:

 

"AHRIMAN (Avestan: Angra/Aŋra Mainyu; not attested in Old Persian), demon, God’s adversary in the Zoroastrian religion. He seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster’s; and the scanty evidence in the Gathas on this point may perhaps be supplemented from later sources. But the notion of Ahriman did not remain unchanged through the centuries. In the Gathas Angra Mainyu is the direct opposite of Spənta Mainyu; both spirits are essentially actors in the primeval choice, a great drama dominating the life of man and the destiny of the world...

The Gathas. The name Angra Mainyu appears only once (Y. 45.2), when the “more bounteous of the spirits twain” declares his absolute antithesis to the “evil” one in all things. The same spirit is intended (Y. 30.3) as one of the twin spirits who made the great choice, although the epithet used there is aka (“evil”); this same epithet recurs in Y. 32.5, when Aka Mainyu is apostrophized with all the daēvas who have deceived mankind and themselves. The daēvas are said (Y. 32.3) to be the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of Akəm Manah (“evil thinking”). But in Y. 30.6 it is the “deceiver,” dəbaaman, most probably Angra Mainyu, who induces them to choose acištəm manah (“The worst thinking”). The abode of the wicked in the hereafter is said (Y. 32.13) to be the abode of this same “worst thinking,” not of Angra Mainyu. One would have expected the latter to reign in hell, since he had created “death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful” ( Y. 30.4)."

 

--http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahriman

 

True, but there are certain things to remember.

 

People thought different to the way the 'modern person' does, back then ( and still now, in some places)

 

It was common to give 'being' , identity, sentience to just about everything - polytheism ; there was not separation like we have now, no 'ideal/real dualism'.   ( I still do it myself , give' inanimate objects' identity and gender , especially when I am with aboriginal friends ...... my old Triumph Bonny  { Doris }  always went well after some compliments and polishing   )

 

So, it would have been, kinda, both.  But definitely 'mainyu' can mean 'mind' (for want of a better term .... I prefer ' an aspect of psyche' ). In modern terms we could see Angra Mainyu as the Id and Spenta Mainyu as the Sugerego.

 

Here are the ' qualities' of  mainyu ;

 

• A spenta mainyu - a brilliant, positive, constructive, and beneficent spirit - allows a person to perceive their higher calling.
• An angra mainyu - a gloomy, negative, destructive, and harmful spirit - leaves a person vulnerable to base ambitions.

The Amesha Spentas seem to be 'good human attributes' that are related to Spenta Mainyu.

 

Source ( as above) 'from God';

• Vohu Mano, the high mind (creation was caused by a divine thought)
• Asha, cosmic order and universal laws
• Khshathra, dominion
• Armaiti, equanimity
• Haurvatat, ultimate wholeness
• Ameretat, immortality
• In a further attempt to understand God and how God interfaces with God's creation, the six qualities and attributes, the Amesha Spentas, were thought of as archangels - abstract extensions of God - each associated with an aspect of creation.

Received by (so below) 'Man';

 

• Vohu Mano in human beings is the good mind.
• Asha is principled, honest, beneficent, ordered, lawful living - for some, righteousness and piety.
• Khshathra is having dominion and sovereignty over one's life.
• Armaiti is serenity.
• Haurvatat is being holistic and healthy. It is also seeking excellence in all we do.
• Ameretat is transcending mortal limitations through good health, by handing down the spiritual flame or mainyu athra, and by building an enduring, undying spirit, the united fravashi.

 

Now, being an atheistic/agnostic type (and maybe Marblehead is too ?)  we can dispense with the 'God' and 'Devil' yet still comprehend the principles (one reason I like Zoroastrianism; makes sense when the religious part is removed , the practices are still valid.

 

That being said, if an angelic form seems convenient , and my psyche is receptive to that mode, I will go with it.

 

But devils and gods based on humans that supposedly created us like them .... ?  Well ....

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Nungali
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/overview/index.htm

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Care to look deeper?  How exactly did the goddess Diana Lucifera (who shines with the "true light of her own") become the devil Lucifer who shines with reflected light?.. 

 

Yes.  But looking down my path might be different from yours  

 

Venus is not Venus, really. That's why it seems strange to relate a female Venus to a male Lucifer . Venus is actually Vulcan. We know that since we sent a probe to Venus.  The conditions there relate to Vulcan's ; smithing and weapon making (technology), with the resultant heat, toxicity and 'pollution' involved.

 

Venus is 'lovely' (seeks love)  , her symbols are life, nature, the ocean, animals .... clearly; The Earth ... an aspect of Gaia.

 

Mars seems aptly named, the God of war.  Now Earth ( really Venus ) lies between the paths of Vulcan ('Venus') and Mars . Just as 'myth Venus'  rebounded between Vulcan and Mars (although she was supposed to be married to Vulcan ).

 

So Man, not seeking love, right where it was ( here and in the self ) sought it externally and misunderstood his own identity and place, and sought it outside himself .... and on we went rebounding between war and  technology/environmental consequences , ever since the Palaeolithic.

 

To understand what its like to live in a self love, and on the planet Venus ( a bit like the Garden of Eden idea) go stay with some people with that mind set .... and see how they deal with life  its an amazing experience;

 

                            

 

Anyway, to answer you question more directly and anthropologically (ie. from the overall human perspective )

 

...   because   agriculture .

[Nungali]

Also  ' Diana Lucifera' ;

 

 

from  20:10 ;

 

 

[Nungali]

Spoiler

I love Selene
Queen of my dreams I see you there
She's come to be me
Now I can see her everywhere
Mother of the earth
Mother of the sea
Moon in the sky
I'm your reflection oh
Deep down in the sea
Turn on slowly…

 

[9th]

16 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Care to look deeper? 

 

That all depends on how attached you are to your own projections, your own conceptions, your own interpretations, and your own world view.  It depends on how flexible you are, and how much freedom you have from your own mind as well as the collective mind.  The vast majority of people have little choice in the matter, when it comes to the construction (and especially deconstruction) of such a fundamental framework.  Everyone has a vested interest in such a system on some level, and uncovering all of those various sticking points will require an understanding of the principals of such formations themselves - from the original genesis in the source of their manifestation, as well as the unfolding circumstances that follow.

 

For example, the actual abrahamic name of the Leader of Fallen Angels (or Watchers), is Samael.  The latin name "Lucifer" (literally "light bringer", from lucem ferre) does refer to venus specifically and has absolutely no relation to the angelic host as described by the abhrahamic traditions.  The conflation between those stories is an ancient patriarchal "wink and nod" that somehow became a rote and uncontested truism within the religious understanding of the middle ages and renaissance period, and has remained as an unexamined "reality" ever since.  But its not "reality".  Its a conflation of numerous ideas.

 

Quote

In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows:

 

Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil.

 

Thus, even if translated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil.

 

Consequently, for Jesus to be called ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil.

 

The logic breaks down on the first premise—viz., that the term in Isa 14:12 refers exclusively to one who is evil. Since this is false, the conclusion is also false.

 

 

But of course no one ever got rich by betting on the public capacity for logic.  If you are really interested in digging even deeper, we can continue.

 

 

Quote

In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:

 

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

 

Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’:

 

et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

 

In Job 38:32, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏מזרות as Mazzaroth. This is another word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV translators did not know what it meant, so they simply transliterated the Hebrew into English characters. Even though Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators did, he was not exactly sure what to make of it either. But he at least tried, rather than simply leave the word untranslated as the KJV translators did. He translated the word as lucifer—or ‘morning star,’ which is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew ‏מזרות:

 

numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

 

The word means ‘constellations’ or ‘crowns’ (modern translators are not sure, though ‘constellations’ is usually preferred). The fact that Jerome recognized that at least the ‏מזרות probably referred to stars is far better than the KJV translators did by leaving the word completely untranslated. There is of course no conspiracy on Jerome’s part here; he is simply being faithful to the Hebrew Bible and is translating as accurately as he can.

 

In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here:

 

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

 

In other words, lucifer is not a proper name, but is the Latin word for ‘morning star’ or ‘day star.’ The KJV simply reproduced the Latin in Isa 14:12 because they were not sure what ‏הילל meant. The KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek or Hebrew. In places where they were not sure what the Greek or Hebrew meant, they simply translated or reproduced verbatim the Latin text. This has happened scores, if not hundreds, of times.

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

 

Huh?  What?  

 

Yeh, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.  But honestly if you are really interested in learning about the paths of lightnings and stars, you are gonna need to do some extra credit work.

 

Quote

When the congregation of the righteous shall appear,
And sinners shall be judged for their sins,
And shall be driven from the face of the earth:

And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous,
Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits,
And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the earth, 
Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners,
And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits?

It had been good for them if they had not been born.

 

When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged,
And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted:

And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear

On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.

 

Then shall the kings and the mighty perish
And be given into the hands of the righteous and holy.
And thenceforward none shall seek for themselves mercy from the Lord of Spirits
For their life is at an end.

 

[Nungali]

 

"    'Venus'  ?   Nah .... Morning Star ... my people come from Morning Star ... to here .  We got secret dance and pole ... we can go back there . "

 

 

 

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/AboriginalAstronomy/Examples/banumbirr.htm

 

 

Now that chap there up there ... being naked, black pagan and all sorts of unchristian things , obviously is an agent of the Devil .

 

Hence the Satanic link between Venus and the Devil  .....

 

Spoiler

 

[Taomeow]

7 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

"    'Venus'  ?   Nah .... Morning Star ... my people come from Morning Star ... to here . 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

 Venus is actually Vulcan. We know that since we sent a probe to Venus.

 

 

NASA are your people?..

[Nungali]

no ..... wrong  probe ...

 

 

'my people '   sent this one

 

 

 

 

[Taomeow]

Just now, Nungali said:

no ..... wrong  probe ...

 

 

'my people '   sent this one

 

 

 

 

 

This came back with the information that Venus is Vulcan?..

[Nungali]

Nooooo   .... you got confused with made up stuff ...

 

this be Vulcan (real)

 

 

 

 

and this be    a 'venusian'  Vulcan (made up )

 

 

 

Mmmmmmmm ...... 

 

 

 

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Nooooo   .... you got confused with made up stuff ...

 

 

 

Nah, you get confused about me being confused.  Of course the internet is not the best medium to transmit a joke.

 

I wrote more but it wasn't meant to be... when I tried to remove the god of fire from the quote so as not to duplicate the image, it got, instead, enlarged and possibly enraged and struck down my humble paragraph.  Ah well.  It was a great paragraph if I say so myself...  but chances are it would've pissed you off too.  So, maybe for the better.   

[9th]

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Nah, you get confused about me being confused.  Of course the internet is not the best medium to transmit a joke.

 

I wrote more but it wasn't meant to be... when I tried to remove the god of fire from the quote so as not to duplicate the image, it got, instead, enlarged and possibly enraged and struck down my humble paragraph.  Ah well.  It was a great paragraph if I say so myself...  but chances are it would've pissed you off too.  So, maybe for the better.   

 

Me  ! ? 

 

Get pissed off  ?  

 

 

 

.  

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

The rabbit moon is tonight for anyone interest and it will be there for uninterested folks as well.

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

The rabbit moon is tonight for anyone interest and it will be there for uninterested folks as well.

 

 

 

I am expecting rain with it .  

 

 

[Emera]

Keep in mind that I know many variations of the stories and can flexibly adopt a new model if needed. There are those that I like though. This is the crystallization of my western art of QBL.

 

To provide some humor in the thread, Lucifer is kinda used in an insult way by some demons - in the sense of "oh your so cool, Lucifer." Lightbearer and all that shit. (You think you're all that)

 

Worship of demons is demonolatry, submission. But people who say they worship Lucifer are talking about something else and it sounds like the Neshamah, themselves that they are worshiping. Whatever floats their boat, and it is positive belief in some ways.

 

The concept of the morning star spans various continents and traditions. The devil, the big D (the Satan or hebrew for the enemy) is not lucifer - but the demon that snuck into the garden of eden to convince Chevah - the Eve to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in genesis. This is akin to sabatoge if you think about it - giving Da'ath to humans before they're considered ready. That's like making your eggs aware before you srcamble them. Humanity is now sentient, aware of good and evil and will resist its own development which is done through good and evil. Kind of a dick move, by an angel that wanted to show its creator that humans are not worth their privileges. 

 

This is Da'ath is missing in the tree of life as shown by the golden dawn, but they dont have their knowledge striaght because the tree clearly missing Da'ath is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life is considered to be by magicians, Enoch or humanity - and it's fruit is the goal of the left hand path. The adam and eve were thrust out of the garden before they could partake of it and become as gods.

 

--- 

If you want to know more about the Devil, the Satan - evoke Azael - the opposer of El. Azazael - Double Azael or Azael squared. Mahazael is is Great Azael. Commonly known as Baezlebub, Leviathan, Behemoth.

 

They are the same, but different being - kept in different proportions to prevent that one being fro manifesting in it's total complexity, which would be very bad for us humans ;).

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Emera

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I have already expressed my understanding regarding gods, devil, and all that other stuff.

 

But yes, I can understand people believing in such things.

 

But others believing doesn't make them real for me.

 

 

[Emera]

Valid point. Real or not real is only a boolean value existing in the minds of people.

[9th]

 

Time to relax for a bit.