Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Froderik on May 13, 2010, 01:48:52 PM
-
“Mothman”, as the strange creature came to be called, is perhaps one of the strangest creatures to ever grace the annals of weirdness in America. Even though this mysterious and unsolved case has nothing to do with ghosts, it would be remiss of me to not include it in a section of the website about the unexplained.
The weird events connected to the Mothman began on November 12, 1966 near Clendenin, West Virginia. Five men were in the local cemetery that day, preparing a grave for a burial, when something that looked like a “brown human being” lifted off from some nearby trees and flew over their heads. The men were baffled. It did not appear to be a bird, but more like a man with wings. A few days later, more sightings would take place, electrifying the entire region.
http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html (http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html)
The Mothman is a creature reportedly seen in the Point Pleasant area of West Virginia from November 12, 1966, to December 1967. Most observers describe the Mothman as a man-sized creature with large reflective red eyes and large wings. The creature was sometimes reported as having no head, with its eyes set into its chest.
A number of hypotheses have been presented to explain eyewitness accounts, ranging from misidentification and coincidence, to paranormal phenomena and conspiracy theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothman)
-
What spikes your interest in Mothman?
I think the strangest thing about this phenomenon are the phone calls and the slightly off-kilter prophecy.
My personal belief is this is "creature" is demonic.
-
My personal belief is this is "creature" is demonic.
Seriously?
-
Inbreds + moonshine + a fucking kite = lulz
-
Inbreds + moonshine + a fucking kite = lulz
Ok...that one got me!
:roflmao: :roflmao:
-
My personal belief is this is "creature" is demonic.
Seriously?
Yep - very seriously.
-
My personal belief is this is "creature" is demonic.
Seriously?
Yep - very seriously.
You mean like the devil walking around in human, or whatever this is, form? Really? What would the purpose be? Just to sneak up on unsuspecting people and freak the shit out of them?
Fairy tales and ghost stories aren't just for kids, I guess.
Sorry...you'll probably be offended by this, but I just don't get how any intelligent person can fall for that crap. At all.
-
My personal belief is this is "creature" is demonic.
Seriously?
Yep - very seriously.
You mean like the devil walking around in human, or whatever this is, form? Really? What would the purpose be? Just to sneak up on unsuspecting people and freak the shit out of them?
Fairy tales and ghost stories aren't just for kids, I guess.
Sorry...you'll probably be offended by this, but I just don't get how any intelligent person can fall for that crap. At all.
It's not crap....I've SEEN the Mothman... and its name is SATAN!!! :clown:
-
Well - let me ask - what do you know about the Moth-man phenomenon? If you are familiar with it, I'd ask you to tell me how you explain it. If your not, then you should be before forming an opinion.
I didn't say I thought the the thing was the Great Liar hizself.
What do you know about the Nephilim?
How about the Bell Witch of TN?
-
No more than the next guy, really..
I hadn't even heard of the Mothman until last night..lol.
As for those other things, wiki & google reveals these items, for the sake of conversation:
Nephilim (or sometimes referred to as nefalim) are beings, who appear in the Hebrew Bible; specifically mentioned in the Book of Genesis and the Book of Numbers; they are also mentioned in other Biblical texts and in some non-canonical Jewish writings.
"Nephilim" comes from a Hebrew word meaning "fallen ones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)
Bell Witch of TN:
http://www.bellwitch.org/story.htm (http://www.bellwitch.org/story.htm)
-
http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html (http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html)
This is a decent brief on Moth Man and related events in Point Pleasant.
So, what piked your interest? What brought up the subject last night?
-
http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html
This is a decent brief on Moth Man and related events in Point Pleasant.
So, what piked your interest? What brought up the subject last night?
Yeah I saw that page last night (it came up like second.)
RTP2K3 brought it up..
-
http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html
This is a decent brief on Moth Man and related events in Point Pleasant.
So, what piked your interest? What brought up the subject last night?
Yeah I saw that page last night (it came up like second.)
RTP2K3 brought it up..
Mothman is NOT a "demonic entity" per se, more like a "psychic echo" induced by moonshine, and hillbilly ignorance.......this, however, does not make Mothman any less "real".....more on this later.
-
Yeah, I saw you had posted the link (http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html (http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html)) and was commenting it provides a good "high points" accounts; no pun intended.
Mothman is NOT a "demonic entity" per se, more like a "psychic echo" induced by moonshine, and hillbilly ignorance.......this, however, does not make Mothman any less "real".....more on this later.
Why do you assume the witnesses (victims) are ignorant or drunks or even hillbillies? That's not the impression I get from reading witness accounts. And manifestations of the ignorant and slosh brained don't account for the many extremely strange events surrounding sightings of this thing - often experienced by sober and educated people.
I think it is demonic - as are many other strange creatures (and "hauntings")often encountered - including "aliens". I'm willing to consider alternative POV - but I have to say, I can't see the "psychic echo" induced by moonshine, and hillbilly ignorance theory as more plausible than accepting there are demons and they do have an interest in interacting with people, misleading people, and tormenting people.
Something similar to Mothman is the Jersy devil.
The History channels monster quest did an episode on wolf-man with some describing a large upright standing "dog". One witness is an artist who did a large puppet like figure of what he saw. I was amazed at his rendition as it looked exactly like the demon peering over the man's should in the now well know photograph. I can't find a link to the episode but you can see the picture by Googling "Demon leering over man's shoulder". The picture has passed forensic scrutiny. No one will claim what is seen is "real" but the picture is not faked.
-
(http://http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_flake_equation.png)
Same principle applies.
-
I think it is demonic - as are many other strange creatures (and "hauntings")often encountered - including "aliens". I'm willing to consider alternative POV - but I have to say, I can't see the "psychic echo" induced by moonshine, and hillbilly ignorance theory as more plausible than accepting there are demons and they do have an interest in interacting with people, misleading people, and tormenting people.
Occam's razor
http://www.2think.org/occams_razor.shtml (http://www.2think.org/occams_razor.shtml)
A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:
Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.
The simplest model is more likely to be correct--especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon.
The History channels monster quest did an episode on wolf-man with some describing a large upright standing "dog". One witness is an artist who did a large puppet like figure of what he saw. I was amazed at his rendition as it looked exactly like the demon peering over the man's should in the now well know photograph. I can't find a link to the episode but you can see the picture by Googling "Demon leering over man's shoulder". The picture has passed forensic scrutiny. No one will claim what is seen is "real" but the picture is not faked.
I liken it to the "alien abduction" phenomenon.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... alien.html (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html)
Alien abduction claims explained
Sleep paralysis, false memories involved
By William J. Cromie
Harvard News Office
Many of the people who believe they have been abducted by aliens are bombarding Susan Clancy with hate e-mails and phone calls. The Harvard researcher, who has spent five years listening to the stories of some 50 abductees, has described her (and their) experiences in a new book to be published in October.
Clancy, 36, likes most of these people. "They are definitely not crazy," she says. But they do have "a tendency to fantasize and to hold unusual beliefs and ideas. They believe not only in alien abductions, but also in things like UFOs, ESP, astrology, tarot, channeling, auras, and crystal therapy. They also have in common a rash of disturbing experiences for which they are seeking an explanation. For them, alien abduction is the best fit."
As you might guess, the people behind all that hate mail and the phone calls don't buy that. They were there, she wasn't, they insist.
In her book, "Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens," to be published by the Harvard University Press, Clancy describes a typical reaction. "Can you believe the nerve of that girl (Clancy)," one abductee says. "She comes to me, like, 'Oh, I believe you've been abducted! Let me interview you to learn more.... Oh, what really happened [she says] is sleep paralysis.' Riiight! How the - - does she know? Did it happen to her? There was something in the room that night! I was spinning. I blacked out ... it was terrifying.... I wasn't sleeping. I was taken. I was violated, ripped apart - literally, figuratively, metaphorically, whatever you want to call it. Does she know what that's like?"
Paralyzing dreams
Abduction stories are strikingly similar. Victims wake up and find themselves paralyzed, unable to move or cry out for help. They see flashing lights and hear buzzing sounds. Electric sensations zing through their bodies, which may rise up in levitation. Aliens with wrap-around eyes, gray or green skin, lacking hair or noses, approach. The abductee's heart pounds violently. There's lots of probing in the alien ship. Instruments are inserted in their noses, navels, or other orifices. It's painful. Sometimes sexual intercourse occurs.
Then it's over, after seconds or minutes. The intruders vanish. Victims are back in their own beds and can move again.
Clancy, Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard, and other researchers tie such horrifying happenings to sleep paralysis, a condition where the usual separation between sleep and wakefulness gets out of synchronization.
When you dream, you are paralyzed. It's a natural adaptation to prevent people from lashing out, jumping out of bed, walking into doors or windows, and otherwise injuring themselves. But it's possible to wake up while still paralyzed.
"We can find ourselves hallucinating sights, sounds, and bodily sensations," Clancy says. "They seem real but they're actually the product of our imagination." One researcher describes it as "dreaming with your eyes wide open."
Bizarre effects aside, sleep paralysis is as normal as hiccups. It's not a sign of mental illness. About 25 percent of people around the world have experienced it, and about 5 percent get the whole show of sight, sound, tactile hallucinations, and abduction.
Some of these people become completely absorbed by what happened and seek an explanation of it. That can lead them into a grab bag of different techniques well known to those with a rich fantasy life and a distaste for scientific explanations.
Such techniques include hypnosis, guided imagery, regression, and relaxation therapies. "These all work in roughly the same way," Clancy comments. "The therapist lulls the abductee into a suggestive state, in which normal reality constraints are relaxed, and then asks the person to vividly image things that might have happened." Or might not have happened.
Hypnosis, she says, "is a bad way to refresh your memories. Not only that, it renders you susceptible to creating memories of things that never happened, things that were suggested to you or that you just imagined. If you (or your therapist) have pre-existing beliefs or expectations, you're liable to recall experiences that fit with these beliefs, rather than events that actually happened."
False memories
Clancy knows all about false memories; they got her into studying abductees in the first place. When she arrived at Harvard to work on a Ph.D. in 1996, she was fascinated by the political, legal, and social impacts of people who suddenly recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Using standard laboratory tests, she found that women who reported recovering such memories were more likely to remember things that never happened than women who always remembered such abuse.
That result, however, does not prove whether or not the woman with recovered memories had actually been sexually abused. Clancy then got the idea that she could get a better scientific grip on false memories by studying people who recovered memories of events that could not, in her mind, have possibly happened, i.e., being abducted by aliens.
"Boy, was I naïve," she says in retrospect. "You can't disprove alien abductions. All you can do is show that evidence is insufficient to justify the belief, and try to understand why people have those beliefs."
On the way to doing this, she, McNally, and their colleagues made some tantalizing discoveries. Measurements of sweating, heart rate, and brain waves showed that those claiming to be abductees show the same symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome as combat veterans. The researchers did not, however, conclude that the abductees had experienced combat-type trauma. Rather, they believe, it is the emotional significance of a memory, whether it is true or not, that causes sweaty hands and rapid heartbeats.
Earlier this year, Clancy and McNally reported on another study that found those who recalled childhood sexual abuse or abduction by aliens experience higher rates of sleep paralysis than those who do not make such claims. Strikingly, the first group also scored high on underlying traits of fantasy proneness, paranormal interests and experiences, and inability to relate socially to others.
Add to this mixture a recurring interest in aliens expressed in books, in movies, and on television, as well as true discoveries of more than 150 planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy. Overwhelmed by this hurricane of sleep paralysis, false memories, and fantasy, some people seek explanations and succor in ghosts, reincarnations, and multiple personalities. Others find that alien abductions provide answers and peace of mind, says Clancy.
"It probably doesn't matter much to the abductees whether they are right or wrong," she comments. "They simply feel better because of what they believe."
Clancy is finished with space abduction studies. She now works in Central America, teaching, continuing research on trauma and memories, and writing a book on recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. You can bet that book will bring another high wave of hate mail.
-
Yeah, but... {wait for it}
What's your point???
-
Yeah, but... {wait for it}
What's your point???
:roflmao: :cheers:
-
Yeah, but... {wait for it}
What's your point???
:roflmao: :cheers:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The History channels monster quest did an episode on wolf-man with some describing a large upright standing "dog". One witness is an artist who did a large puppet like figure of what he saw. I was amazed at his rendition as it looked exactly like the demon peering over the man's should in the now well know photograph. I can't find a link to the episode but you can see the picture by Googling "Demon leering over man's shoulder". The picture has passed forensic scrutiny. No one will claim what is seen is "real" but the picture is not faked.
Ya mean this one? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44386 (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44386) From World Nut Daily?
Brian Bonner of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society said most such cases are explained relatively simply. But for this one, he said, there's not enough evidence to support a conclusion.
A photographic expert, John Davenport of Roach Photo, told the station the picture did not have evidence of tampering.
"It doesn't look like it was double-printed or spliced in," he said. "The grain is uniform."
(http://http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/demononeone.JPG)
Accidental double exposure.
And hey!!! Look!!! This guy didn't need AA to help him quit drinking....he just needed his talisman, the picture. Precisely my point about AA. It's not AA that gets people sober, just as it's not this "demon". It's the individuals that keep themselves sober.
-
I finally watched the movie last night, and am now a staunch believer in The Mothman Prophecies.
Too many uncanny, eerie occurrences not to be true...
-
Well, I think it is apparent Something out of the ordinary was taking place. One theory is as good as the next as to what it was, but it was clearly Something. I stand by my theory as the one that fits the facts best.
The photo of the leering demon. . . I can't see what you posted but assume it is the photo I mean from the type you copied. It isn't a double exposure. In the TV segment the local station did on this, the photographic expert went into more detail - and there was no double exposure - and no tampering. Double exposures quite simply look like double exposures. Images bleed into one another and over lap in a way this does not.
Some have said it must just be an actual dog - keep in mind this is a wedding photo. No strange dog would be clamoring about the reception - and on the tables apparently, to look over a mans shoulder like that. And if it were a family dog, there would be no mystery - it would just be a cute photo. Also, I think you'd agree, while it looks like a dog - it is somehow obviously not a dog.
-
Hmm, let's see the alternatives here.
On the one hand, we could surmise that this was done with photographic editing techniques such as, well, PHOTOSHOP (note that the source of the photograph is not mentioned once). Or some dude was pulling a bunny-ears style prank on them.
On the other hand, we could conclude that HOLY SHIT AN ACTUAL DEMON AAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Buzzkill, you really are fucking gullible, aren't you?
-
Well, here's the thing on the photo that you are missing - I saw the original filmed interviews of the people involved. This was carried by the local TV stations and could be viewed on their web site. The link is now dead - you know how the media web sites do - after awhile the story is gone. It might be on some archived site some-where but I wouldn't know how to find it. Anyway, they went into far more detail than is given in this print account. The TV station hired forensic experts to look at it. Had it been photo-shopped they would easily have discovered this. I am sure this is exactly what they expected to find. However, they could find nothing of the sort. In every way they can examine and investigate this appears to be a non-tampered with photograph - excepting the startling image. No one would say what is seen is real, but both forensic experts agreed the photograph was genuine - as in not altered or tampered with or double exposed. One admitted to being a little shook up about this. It was pretty interesting. So, sure, I might be gullible. But in this case, I am no more gullible than the forensic experts who did all they could trying to prove this was an altered image and couldn't do it.
-
Anyway, wasn't the photo produced (and documented?) before Photoshop existed?
Some things in this world you just can't explain... :o
-
Boy Howdy you are right! some things are just mysteries, and deep mysteries at that.
More than a million people , among them journalists, lawyers, medical officers of colonel rank in the army, former state prosecutors, forensic examiners, all kinds of people, all want to know where is the actual birth cerfificate for the occupant of the white house. ( see Jack Cashill, for more detail) Well?
Where is it?
I recently had to produce my birth certificate to renew my driver licence. Even though my prints are on file many places, federal state and local. I've been investigated and back-gound checked by the state i live in, and the F.B.I. around 30 times over the years. Still, I had to produce evidence of identity.......
so.... where is it?
J.O.M.
-
Anyway, wasn't the photo produced (and documented?) before Photoshop existed?
Some things in this world you just can't explain... :o
The story broke several years ago and the photo is several years older than that - but I don't know any dates. I am sure there were photo altering programs in use, tho no doubt primitive by today's standards. They were looking for over-laid or spliced alterations, even tho the photograph was a little aged.
A photograph can be dated by the paper it is printed on and degree of fading and so on. For example, I once had a court case against me dismissed b/c the accuser brought in old photographs as evidence - it doesn't always take an expert to tell whats old from whats new.
Another interesting aspect of this story not mentioned in these print articles:
The man and his wife said when the pictures of the wedding were new, they didn't notice this thing. The pictures were put in an album and no one noticed it. It was later (a number of years I think they said) when looking through the photo album that they then noticed the thing. They spoke of being very upset - and as is described in the article, it was startling enough to give the man the motivation needed to break some long standing bad habits. He certainly thinks what is in the photo is real and significant.
For me the mystery is why would a spiritual being (demon, angle or what have you) want their picture taken? Surely, if it is demonic, it didn't intend to frighten the man straight into the arms of Christ? What motivated it - what ever it is? As you say, some things you can not explain.
-
Sure I can. It's some kid standing behind the groom holding up a stuffed dog's head.
But you just keep on pretending with your demons and your Christ and the rest of us can keep on cleaning up after you.
-
Sure I can. It's some kid standing behind the groom holding up a stuffed dog's head.
But you just keep on pretending with your demons and your Christ and the rest of us can keep on cleaning up after you.
Gosh - I dunno. . . Don't look much like a plush toy to me. But if it makes you more comfortable to think so - then so be it.
-
The photo of the leering demon. . . I can't see what you posted but assume it is the photo I mean from the type you copied. It isn't a double exposure. In the TV segment the local station did on this, the photographic expert went into more detail - and there was no double exposure - and no tampering.
He said there was no tampering or obvious hoaxing. Nothing was said about organic anomolies, IIRC.
Double exposures quite simply look like double exposures. Images bleed into one another and over lap in a way this does not.
I beg to differ....very often they look exactly like the picture in question. In fact, I have a few of them that I took myself that look very much like this picture.
Some have said it must just be an actual dog - keep in mind this is a wedding photo. No strange dog would be clamoring about the reception - and on the tables apparently, to look over a mans shoulder like that. And if it were a family dog, there would be no mystery - it would just be a cute photo.
Ok, still doesn't make a case for "demonic" possession.
Also, I think you'd agree, while it looks like a dog - it is somehow obviously not a dog.
It's a dog.
-
In the spirit of "this is odd and interesting", as opposed to just being argumentative, I'll offer these additional thoughts:
A double exposure would require an actual dog to have been photographed. If so, said dog would be familiar to the family. It would either be the camera owners dog, or a friends dog - but in any case, a familiar dog. There would be no mystery. The man in the photograph might be startled at first seeing it, but he would recognize the dog; or if not, other family members would. They'd be laughing at the odd effect of this "double exposure", but other wise be unaffected.
Instead, the man and his wife were frightened to the point of life style conversion.
Also, I stand by my assertion that while generally K9 in appearance - this thing is clearly not an actual dog. This is a matter of opinion - but knowing dogs very well, I hold strongly to it.
I'm also of the opinion that this looks unlike a double exposure. I have a few myself and the effect can be quite interesting and deceptive - however, it takes only a brief examination to determine exactly what it is - a double exposure. As mentioned earlier, in the filmed story, the interviews were more detailed that this print version. It was much more apparent that the forensic experts were baffled. They would not have been baffled by a double exposure.
So, while I don't feel one can logically conclude this is a double exposure (or a plush toy) if this is the explanation your happiest with - so be it.
Myself - I'm not sure what it is - except that it is not a dog or a child's toy. I believe it could be something belonging to the spiritual realm. On appearance alone I'd guess something demonic.
-
In the spirit of "this is odd and interesting", as opposed to just being argumentative, I'll offer these additional thoughts:
A double exposure would require an actual dog to have been photographed. If so, said dog would be familiar to the family. It would either be the camera owners dog, or a friends dog - but in any case, a familiar dog. There would be no mystery. The man in the photograph might be startled at first seeing it, but he would recognize the dog; or if not, other family members would. They'd be laughing at the odd effect of this "double exposure", but other wise be unaffected.
Instead, the man and his wife were frightened to the point of life style conversion.
http://www.prophecynews.co.uk/content/view/463/ (http://www.prophecynews.co.uk/content/view/463/)
A Colorado man has reported that he was able to kick his drug habit after a photograph taken of him and his wife during a relative's anniversary celebration revealed what he believes to be a "demonic spirit" leering over his left shoulder. Joe Martinez says he always prayed to the Lord about his addiction, saying he could not be delivered from drugs by his own strength. But when Joe saw the photograph of him and his wife Patty, with what she describes as "Satan" at his left-hand side, he was determined to kick his habit. As soon as Patty saw the image she thought, "You're really walking with Satan". Photographic experts have examined the image and do not believe the dog's head was spliced into the photograph or that it is a double print. In order for a dog's head to appear in the photograph, it would have to be standing on the table behind Joe and Patty.
See...now right there it makes them susceptible to 'other worldly' explanation. People are searching for something to believe in or to help them in a given situation. They see something not readily explainable and automatically attribute it to the supernatural.
Also, I stand by my assertion that while generally K9 in appearance - this thing is clearly not an actual dog. This is a matter of opinion - but knowing dogs very well, I hold strongly to it.
I'm also quite familiar with dogs. Used to train them, have had several of my own and I can tell you that it looks pretty much like a friend of mine's rottweiler.
As mentioned earlier, in the filmed story, the interviews were more detailed that this print version. It was much more apparent that the forensic experts were baffled. They would not have been baffled by a double exposure.
They vary in appearance, depending on how much bleed through there is.
So, while I don't feel one can logically conclude this is a double exposure (or a plush toy) if this is the explanation your happiest with - so be it.
Meh...it's one explanation. Another might be forced perspective mixed with a little wishful thinking, as with the people that see Mary or Jesus in their toast or on a window.
Myself - I'm not sure what it is - except that it is not a dog or a child's toy. I believe it could be something belonging to the spiritual realm. On appearance alone I'd guess something demonic.
Something demonic.....I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by that. Would you elaborate a little please? I'm honestly asking, not trying to argue. I realize that you and I hold very different beliefs regarding this area and a very dear friend of mine believes very much as you do so I'm trying to understand.
-
Something demonic.....I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by that. Would you elaborate a little please? I'm honestly asking, not trying to argue. I realize that you and I hold very different beliefs regarding this area and a very dear friend of mine believes very much as you do so I'm trying to understand.
I'm willing to try. There are theologians with doctorates who specialize in demonology but I'm not one of them. That said, In general, I accept that there are angels. I understand that there are different kinds of angels - or maybe its more like angels who have differing work and job titles - anyway, some have more power and authority than others. They are individuals with free will.
Some angels, exercising their free will, have turned away from their Creator and seek to degrade and as far as possible destroy His creation. I've always thought of them as demons. Like angels, they are individuals who vary in strength and intelligence.
The Holy angels never seek attention or adoration. In the rare cases that they have made themselves known they refuse worship and always direct ones adoration toward God alone. They may insist on respect (Luke 1 vs 18-19) but never allow themselves to be worshiped.
The demonic on the other hand, covet attention and worship and get it how ever they can. They seem to like to torment and terrorize given the chance, but are wiling to pretend to "goodness" if that will better achieve their goal. Likewise, I think they are willing to display themselves in ways that confuse, frighten and misled, such as aliens or mothman.
I think one can invite the presence and activity of the demonic into their lives and homes, and encourage their strength and numbers by how they respond to them.
The same is (for me) no doubt true with regard to the Holy angels, altho you'd not be so clearly aware of them as they do not seek attention.
Satan (the accuser) and Lucifer are in my mind one and the same. This was an Arch Angel. His Holy equivalent would be Michael or Gabriele. Apparently, he was the greatest even of all the Arch Angels. This is a frightening prospect, as he very much hates you and seeks your destruction. Your only hope is in the fact God loves you and took the blame the accuser would use to condemn you upon Himself to save you.
It gets more complicated as you focus on the kinds of demons as they are not all the same. Also, when you begin to consider the Nephilum - what they are and how they relate to all this. So, when I say something demonic, I mean something in this general category of deceptive, evil and destructive being.
-
Thanks.....I appreciate the explanation. I don't understand believing in it, but I appreciate it very much as I seek to understand my friend. I love her dearly.
I get the concept of good and evil, I just don't accept that there's an actual being or entity (good or bad) that watches over us or tempts us. I think it's just an attempt to put a "face" on regular ol' everyday good/evil. Human nature drives us to try and understand things that are not readily explainable. That's how all gods arose in human culture throughout the ages. People were trying to gain some control over, or at least input, on their lives. Endeavoring to do that they came up with various gods that, if prayed and sacrificed to properly, would bless them with a good harvest. Or fertility. Or a good smiting of their thieving neighbor. Or protect them from the volcano.
I don't mean this to come off as flippantly as it's going to sound, but the Marxist phrase applies. Religion is the opiate of the masses. I don't mean that disparagingly either. It's a comfort, a security blanket. And I'm fine with that if that's what makes someone feel better. We all have and need our vices. Where I have a problem with it is when it's forced upon others "for their own good". Or used as an excuse to obliterate a people or group or culture.
Thanks again for the discussion.
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm)
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Usually all one gets from the above is “Religion is the opium of the people“ (with no ellipses to indicate that something has been removed). Sometimes “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature“ is included. If you compare these with the full quotation, it’s clear that a great deal more is being said than what most people are aware of.
In the above quotation Marx is saying that religion’s purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them that this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Although this is a criticism of religion, Marx is not without sympathy: people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.
-
I understand fully that on the surface all this supernatural stuff sounds like a fairy tale.
I believe it b/c I have had some experience with it. I could tell you about it, but there is no reason why you should believe me - I could be a little psychotic or just a plain ole liar. But, I know I'm not - I know it was "real" - I know others saw and heard it too. So, I know that there are things that defy natural explanation.
But greater proof than this is available to anyone who cares to look - the very real existence of Biblical Prophecy. It is real, ancient, and absolutely reliable; in other words, proof of an omniscient Supreme Being.
Where I have a problem with it is when it's forced upon others "for their own good". Or used as an excuse to obliterate a people or group or culture.
Me too. I would argue that when it leads to this kind of thing it is a result of men following after false gods, false prophets, false teachings - in other words - the demonic pretenders.
-
I understand fully that on the surface all this supernatural stuff sounds like a fairy tale.
I believe it b/c I have had some experience with it. I could tell you about it, but there is no reason why you should believe me - I could be a little psychotic or just a plain ole liar. But, I know I'm not - I know it was "real" - I know others saw and heard it too. So, I know that there are things that defy natural explanation.
I wouldn't think you're either lying or psychotic. Probably more along the lines of someone who wants to believe in something, so you do. I believe that you believe what you experienced was supernatural. You seem an honest person with integrity.
But greater proof than this is available to anyone who cares to look - the very real existence of Biblical Prophecy. It is real, ancient, and absolutely reliable; in other words, proof of an omniscient Supreme Being.
If you've got actual proof, or can at least point me in the direction where I might find it, I'd sure love to see it. But I have a feeling that your definition of proof and mine might be a little different.
-
Do you own a Bible? You'd need to own one and be wiling to read parts of it.
-
Do you own a Bible? You'd need to own one and be wiling to read parts of it.
Yep and I've read it fairly extensively (edited to add: actually, reading the bible is what 'converted' me to being a non-believer). Not completely, I'll admit but damn near. Sure....give me the passages and I'd be glad to. It'll make for a good discussion with my friend as well. She's obviously aware of my non-believer status and loves me just the same. :)
But....I have to say.....I hope it's not just the bible that provides the proof. Because that would be kinda circular logic, wouldn't it? God/heaven & evil/hell are true because the bible says it's true?
-
Well, in some cases it is the Bible proving the Bible, but even in theses cases there are other aspects one should consider that give weight to the accuracy of the prophecy. But in your case, I suppose I'd most turn your focus to recent world history and current events that were predicted by prophetic scholars long before they occurred and when such things seemed impossible. If your interested fire me off an email.
-
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
By Levi H. Dowling
Introduction by Eva S. Dowling
[1920]
This book is an extensive reworking of the Jesus story with strong Theosophical and Spiritualist influences. Of interest is the attempt to fill in the two decade gap in the Jesus's traditional biography. According to Dowling, Jesus spent a lot of time in the mystical East where he learned esoteric methods from the masters, while rebelling against the caste system. The narrative, unfortunately, has numerous historical inconsistencies, including Jesus meeting historical figures who lived hundreds of years before or after the first century, e.g. Mencius. The book has Jesus studying in India in the Orissa area; while this is an historically important ceremonial area, it didn't come into prominence until nearly a millenium later. In addition, this work appears to be derivative of The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ (http://http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/uljc/index.htm).
None of this lessens the charm or the esoteric insight of this book. Nor should its subterranean impact on popular spirituality in the United States be underestimated. The Aquarian Gospel was rediscovered during the spiritual ferment of the 1960s; a beat-up paperback copy of this book was de rigeur in every hippie pad, and it no doubt played an unsung role in naming the 'Age of Aquarius'. The Aquarian Gospel was probably one of the catalysts for the 'Jesus freak' movement. Although they would never admit it, many a staid evangelical Christian probably had their spiritual awakening while browsing this book in a head shop.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/ (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/)
-
Well, in some cases it is the Bible proving the Bible, but even in theses cases there are other aspects one should consider that give weight to the accuracy of the prophecy. But in your case, I suppose I'd most turn your focus to recent world history and current events that were predicted by prophetic scholars long before they occurred and when such things seemed impossible. If your interested fire me off an email.
Sent you a PM last week. Would love to have that info.
-
Sorry Anne - I didn't get it.
Try again if you'd like.
Fro - Funny how frequently people try to remake Yeshua Ha'Mashiach into an image they are more comfortable with. This inevitably creates a false Messiah and false teaching that will (in my view) lead many astray. You don't see this same phenomenon with Buddha, Mohamed, Das Ram, Sung-Yohng Moon or whom ever else you might care to name. Any thoughts on why this might be?
-
ou don't see this same phenomenon with [...] Mohamed
:rofl: :roflmao: :beat:
Yeah I mean it's not like there's two whole major sects of Islam and a whole bunch of sub-sects killing each other like flies in the desert over that.
When the Quran was first being written, the editors had to pick and choose between many thousands of contradicting Hadith, trying to figure out what was actually the words of the Prophet based on how many witnesses they could find to support them. Basically, the Muslims' choice book of fiction had a better editing team and they're still butchering each other over it. The comparison between Shia/Sunni and Catholic/Protestant is obvious. Who are you kidding?
-
ou don't see this same phenomenon with [...] Mohamed
When the Quran was first being written, the editors had to pick and choose between many thousands of contradicting Hadith, trying to figure out what was actually the words of the Prophet based on how many witnesses they could find to support them. Basically, the Muslims' choice book of fiction had a better editing team and they're still butchering each other over it. The comparison between Shia/Sunni and Catholic/Protestant is obvious. Who are you kidding?
Council of Nicea?
-
Council of Nicea?
The Muslims wrote theirs in less time after their prophet bit the dust, depending on who you believe; however, the general consensus is that it didn't take them nearly as long as the Christians and that the Koran is generally more self-consistent. Hence: Better editing team.
-
Council of Nicea?
The Muslims wrote theirs in less time after their prophet bit the dust, depending on who you believe; however, the general consensus is that it didn't take them nearly as long as the Christians and that the Koran is generally more self-consistent. Hence: Better editing team.
Ok, now what is your take on the Mothman Phenomena?
-
The exact same as Bigfoot. Numerous sightings, and it ended up to be conclusively proven a hoax.
-
ou don't see this same phenomenon with [...] Mohamed
:rofl: :roflmao: :beat:
Yeah I mean it's not like there's two whole major sects of Islam and a whole bunch of sub-sects killing each other like flies in the desert over that.
When the Quran was first being written, the editors had to pick and choose between many thousands of contradicting Hadith, trying to figure out what was actually the words of the Prophet based on how many witnesses they could find to support them. Basically, the Muslims' choice book of fiction had a better editing team and they're still butchering each other over it. The comparison between Shia/Sunni and Catholic/Protestant is obvious. Who are you kidding?
The difference is what the debate is about. Christian and Muslims (and many others) argue over doctrine and tradition - that's true. But you don't see people trying to argue Mohamed was a space alien, or a magician, or a more highly evolved man capable of time travel, or a fictional composite character - this is a very different kind of thing where some make an effort to change the very nature of who and what He is.
Another distinction He holds is being the only Messiah/Prophet/ God whose name is commonly used as a curse word. Why is that? Why don't people exclaim Mohamed! when upset - or Oh, Mohamed on a bloody crutch! or maybe Mohamed on a cranky camel!
-
But you don't see people trying to argue Mohamed was a space alien, or a magician, or a more highly evolved man capable of time travel, or a fictional composite character - this is a very different kind of thing where some make an effort to change the very nature of who and what He is.
Because the Quran made it particularly clear: Dude in the desert having visions. He claimed to be receiving messages FROM God. He never claimed to BE God or perform miracles the same way Christ did. And the Muslims have strong beliefs about describing him as anything but a prophet.
Another distinction He holds is being the only Messiah/Prophet/ God whose name is commonly used as a curse word. Why is that? Why don't people exclaim Mohamed! when upset - or Oh, Mohamed on a bloody crutch! or maybe Mohamed on a cranky camel!
You honestly can't recognize this as a simple cultural difference? The Jews have a prohibition against spelling the full name of God (hence why it's written YHVH), and the Muslims don't use their God's name in that way. They say "Allahu akbar!" in different contexts. Pretty sure the Hindus and other polytheists have their own swears relating to their own gods, though.
-
You honestly can't recognize this as a simple cultural difference?
No, b/c this is something that crosses cultural lines. It seems people of many faiths and cultures use His name to curse. I find this odd.
Dude in the desert having visions. He claimed to be receiving messages FROM God. He never claimed to BE God or perform miracles the same way Christ did. And the Muslims have strong beliefs about describing him as anything but a prophet.
Christian doctrine is clear with beliefs just as strong, or stronger. It isn't Christians who are always attempting to remake Him. What I'm wondering is, Why do so many who do not accept Christianity want to alter it to fit their own notions?
Generally, when you don't believe something you simply leave it alone. For some reason, many who reject the Biblical Jesus seem compelled to tinker with who He is, His message and ministry - making some all-together different dude. You just don't see this with other faiths.
As to Big-foot and Moth man - keep in mind some yahoo getting caught pulling a stunt, only proves that event was a stunt. There are many unaccountable things in the world.
-
Christian doctrine is clear with beliefs just as strong, or stronger. It isn't Christians who are always attempting to remake Him. What I'm wondering is, Why do so many who do not accept Christianity want to alter it to fit their own notions?
I don't want to remake it, but I do wonder about all the editing of the bible. And the contradictions within it and the contradictions with science.
Generally, when you don't believe something you simply leave it alone. For some reason, many who reject the Biblical Jesus seem compelled to tinker with who He is, His message and ministry - making some all-together different dude. You just don't see this with other faiths.
Speaking for myself, I'm fascinated and incensed at the same time. So many deaths, so much destruction all over who's god is the right god and which of his "laws" are the right laws.
There are many unaccountable things in the world.
Yep and we seem to emotionally have a difficult time with that. We need our security blankets for things we don't, yet, understand. As mankind has throughout all of our conscious time. But then advances in science came along and we realized that the earth is not flat, Thor is not throwing lightning bolts at us during a thunderstorm and Jesus didn't hang with the dinosaurs. I think we are so petrified of 'nothingness', of not existing, of what happens when we die that we've come up with this fairy tale to make us feel better. I truly believe we'll grow out of it someday.
-
I don't want to remake it, but I do wonder about all the editing of the bible. And the contradictions within it and the contradictions with science.
The Bible has never been edited - except by certain cult leaders attempting to make it fit their theology - I'm thinking of Charles Russell. But the gospels, and the letters, and the old testament have in no way been redacted or altered. The Jewish Rabbis and scribes were extraordinarily careful that nothing of the sort could or would happen.
Yep and we seem to emotionally have a difficult time with that. We need our security blankets for things we don't, yet, understand. As mankind has throughout all of our conscious time. But then advances in science came along and we realized that the earth is not flat, Thor is not throwing lightning bolts at us during a thunderstorm and Jesus didn't hang with the dinosaurs. I think we are so petrified of 'nothingness', of not existing, of what happens when we die that we've come up with this fairy tale to make us feel better. I truly believe we'll grow out of it someday.
An old thread from another forum just popped up. The subject matter applies so I thought I'd copy a responce to here:
Well Al - I'm not sure its worth the effort of arguing. Its not like it is an important theological point. It is purely conjecture on my part. But for what ever little bit its worth, I think this b/c there is in fact a world wide UFO phenomenon taking place. True, many events are proven hoaxes; others one can manage to explain with plausible natural explanations - but there remain many others for which there is simply no logical explanation, and many witnesses.
Also, there is an increase in people claiming to have encountered unnatural animals or human like (but clearly non-human) beings. They might all be trippin on acid - or other wise off their rails - but they appear to be average folks, normal in every way - some are police or military - and so I think you have to accept it is possible they have actually encountered something other-worldly.
Also, I consider the Lost book of Enoch to be a book of Scripture. I believe it tells us more about the odd verse we have concerning angels and women and Giants in the land. I think this ties in with the end time events and how they will play out. The development of a one world religion for example. The over whelming,world wide power and influence the anti-Christ will have, for another.
I consider the fact that there are actually scientist who now argue the origin of life on Earth is a result of pan-spermia - off world seeding.
I consider the fact other academics point to various cave pictorials and Mayan (or Aztec) carvings as direct evidence of space-men encounters by these peoples. The fact some seriously theorize it is these space men who help build the Mayan temples, Egyptian pyramids, Stone Henge and other sites that modern men can not duplicate.
I think society is being conditioned to accept that all religions are false, that we are the result of planting by these space men, that they have always been watching over us and that they are now ready to more directly guide us. I think the anti-Christ will be their spokesmen - maybe claim to be one of them - maybe this is what will be announced from he Temple - the he is actually our god b/c he is one of them.
There is nothing in scripture that speaks of space men - and I don't myself believe in space men - but I do believe in angels, demons and the possibility that their are other spiritual beings that resulted from the story in Enoch's book. They, I believe, will present themselves as "space-men".
We are told that the whole world will follow after the beast. That the whole world will follow one religion. This is pretty incredible when you think about it. How to get Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Scientologist (who BTW will just love this, as it fits with their theology very nicely) Moonies, Wiccans, Rastafarians, and so on to come together and believe the same thing?
It will require something quit incredible. Something all will view as undeniable. I believe an announcement by a world leader, with accompanying visual effects, that we are all really star children with a great new age dawning will do the trick. A few will resist and will suffer the consequences. They will be viewed as less than human - defective and in need of extermination so that the world can have its great new age.
This is how I theorize the events in Revelation playing out, and why say such an announcement will likely take place in the not to distant future.
Quote:
You obviously watched too much Star Trek and the new show 'V'
Don't watch at all. But I Do think this is part of the conditioning to accept the message.
-
Also, there is an increase in people claiming to have encountered unnatural animals or human like (but clearly non-human) beings.
(http://http://bear-candc.com/Fursuit%20parade_sm.jpg)
-
I have images blocked - wanna tell me about it?
-
I have images blocked - wanna tell me about it?
I think it's a picture of furries.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=furry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=furry)
1. furry
Possibly the strangest sub-culture in all of geekdom. Furries range from being harmless fans fascinated by anthropomorphic characters and animals, to immensely withdrawn or self-abosrbed persons who actually believe, or want to believe, they're eagle-winged fox-like versions of themselves with giant gentalia who wouldn't dare be anything else that could be considered mundane. Furries defy any coventional or unifying definition.
-
*huff*
and your point is?
;-)
-
UTube/expelled/R. Dawson: life began when aliens seeded the earth
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6EXeZPNxHU
Life began with crystal alligment
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZsND1RIoAQ
seriously scientific theories by serious scientist.
I consider the fact that there are actually scientist who now argue the origin of life on Earth is a result of pan-spermia - off world seeding.
I consider the fact other academics point to various cave pictorials and Mayan (or Aztec) carvings as direct evidence of space-men encounters by these peoples. The fact some seriously theorize it is these space men who help build the Mayan temples, Egyptian pyramids, Stone Henge and other sites that modern men can not duplicate.
I think society is being conditioned to accept that all religions are false, that we are the result of planting by these space men, that they have always been watching over us and that they are now ready to more directly guide us. I think the anti-Christ will be their spokesmen - maybe claim to be one of them - maybe this is what will be announced from he Temple - the he is actually our god b/c he is one of them.
-
I finally watched the movie last night, and am now a staunch believer in The Mothman Prophecies.
Too many uncanny, eerie occurrences not to be true...
I know the Mothman personally. Nice dude! Plays a mean bass, too!
-
I thought it was a saxophone. . .
-
Both of you are right...it was bass saxophone.
-
Oh shit .........sorry I thought it said "MUFFMAN" :heartbreak: