View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Discussions Religion and Theology, Scriptures, Bible Debate, etc.

Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby Scepcop » 17 Jul 2010, 07:19

Check out what David Icke says about why sex was repressed and made a sin in Christianity, from his book "The Biggest Secret" which I'm reading now: (Page114)

"For reasons I will go
into in a later chapter, the more energy
we suck into our energy field, the
more power we have to create and
control our own destiny. It is vital,
therefore, that those who wish to
diminish and dominate us find ways to
limit the amount of energy we absorb.
This is where the manipulation of sex
comes in. The three lowest chakras are
the base, the sexual chakra just above
that, and then the chakra connected to
our emotional level in the solar plexus.
It is this chakra which stimulates the
‘butterflies’ and ‘nervous stomachs’
when we are worried or stressed. So
the Christian and ‘moral’ attitudes to
sex close down the base chakra and
what energy it does absorb is thrown
into turmoil when it hits the sexual
and emotional chakras because of all
the fear and guilt surrounding the
subject. This imbalances and
diminishes the entire human energy consciousness
field. Most Christian
clerics have no idea that this is so, but
those who have controlled Christianity and the Roman Church certainly do, because
they are in the knowledge stream that has been suppressed in the general population.
Each generation has been conditioned to think the Christian way about sex, whether
consciously or subconsciously, and they in turn have helped to condition the next
generation to think the same. But sex is wonderful. It is to be enjoyed. The ability to
express your love physically for another human being is an incredible gift. I don’t care
what your sexuality may be. Love is love is love. Let’s express it. If Augustine or the
Pope want to tie a knot in theirs, fair enough, everyone to their own, as long as they
don’t tell me how to live my life."

In other words, the elite try to use Christianity to suppress sex and make it a sin to cut off our "energy" and make us weaker, so we remain in a state of fear and left brain materialistic thinking, cutting off from energy that would open us to higher consciousness, awareness, creativity and therefore more power and freedom, which would have made humans less controllable. Makes sense.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby ProfWag » 17 Jul 2010, 19:22

Scepcop wrote:Check out what David Icke says about why sex was repressed and made a sin in Christianity, from his book "The Biggest Secret" which I'm reading now: (Page114)

"For reasons I will go
into in a later chapter, the more energy
we suck into our energy field, the
more power we have to create and
control our own destiny. It is vital,
therefore, that those who wish to
diminish and dominate us find ways to
limit the amount of energy we absorb.
This is where the manipulation of sex
comes in. The three lowest chakras are
the base, the sexual chakra just above
that, and then the chakra connected to
our emotional level in the solar plexus.
It is this chakra which stimulates the
‘butterflies’ and ‘nervous stomachs’
when we are worried or stressed. So
the Christian and ‘moral’ attitudes to
sex close down the base chakra and
what energy it does absorb is thrown
into turmoil when it hits the sexual
and emotional chakras because of all
the fear and guilt surrounding the
subject. This imbalances and
diminishes the entire human energy consciousness
field. Most Christian
clerics have no idea that this is so, but
those who have controlled Christianity and the Roman Church certainly do, because
they are in the knowledge stream that has been suppressed in the general population.
Each generation has been conditioned to think the Christian way about sex, whether
consciously or subconsciously, and they in turn have helped to condition the next
generation to think the same. But sex is wonderful. It is to be enjoyed. The ability to
express your love physically for another human being is an incredible gift. I don’t care
what your sexuality may be. Love is love is love. Let’s express it. If Augustine or the
Pope want to tie a knot in theirs, fair enough, everyone to their own, as long as they
don’t tell me how to live my life."

In other words, the elite try to use Christianity to suppress sex and make it a sin to cut off our "energy" and make us weaker, so we remain in a state of fear and left brain materialistic thinking, cutting off from energy that would open us to higher consciousness, awareness, creativity and therefore more power and freedom, which would have made humans less controllable. Makes sense.

Sooooooo you consider church leaders the "elite?"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby Craig Browning » 17 Jul 2010, 22:20

There's actually a few tons of esoteric "cheating" that can be found within Christianity (in particular), including reasons for choosing Sunday as their sabbath rather than the traditional Saturday. I'll not go into it but would suggest folks take a look at the mystical correspondences between the two days, especially when it comes to the Kabalah. You should be able to understand the energy shift. Other such things include using the name "Jesus" instead of the original "Joshua" or "Yoshua" bar Josephus; there's a Pythagorean bit of number play here as you will find in the parables of feeding the multitudes (which Pythagoras and others had actually done long prior to him... metaphorically speaking; their demonstration being devalued as metaphor or parable by church leaders while JC's version really happened... :roll: ).

I'm not so sure that Icke's theories are on mark, in that sexual abstinence is quite a common teaching when it comes to spiritual evolution; the idea of freeing one's self of the more base influences in life. When you consider that the majority of the world's traditions support this attitude/theory, it kind of neuters Icke's course of suspicion. I'm not saying that he's wrong, only that there is a "logical" reason behind the tradition of controlling or "mastering" these base chakras.

The church is guilty however, of inciting shame when it comes to sex and sexuality, a process that starts in Genesis and ends in Revelations. The church likewise devalues "woman" in the sense that she is a treacherous creature sat upon the earth for the sake of breeding and serving the man. Even Paul points out that a man's wife (and children) are "Property" and little other. A look at certain traditions that well pre-date Christianity reveals how children were used as a kind of currency and of course, a diplomatic seal of sorts when it came to waring kingdoms and having off-spring marry as a means towards peace. This is a tradition of sorts still in practice in much of the world... the "gift" of a sexual device, for lack of a better term.

Most of the church's views towards sex however, stem from how the early church father's detested pagan folly... for whatever reason they had personally, they despised the freedom of expression and seasonal "Orgies" (celebrations of life) most of Paganism (early earth based religions) lived by. Personally I think such "men" would have proven interesting subjects to interview along psychological lines; their standards being revealed as very anti-social and cruel I believe, when seen through the eyes of educated observers. But in their day, they were men of position and apparent influence... seemingly imbued with the Holy Spirit and thus, infallible -- their word was law... for those that chose to call themselves "Christians"... which meant it was a sin to bathe or even keep house; such things were demonstrations of ego and a lack of piety... but then came the Black Death and the realization that it wasn't killing off all the Orthodox Jews who lived by a law of cleanliness... go figure :twisted:

I have a very moderate view when it comes to sex and sexual expression. I personally detest how factions of my own sub-culture (the Gay & Lesbian Community) "express" themselves in public view. I feel that it is very disrespectful of both, the public as well as the grouping... even one's self. Sex isn't something we need the world to experience with us, in my opinion. But look around; you'll see similar outward expressions during most any sporting event (TV Wrestling being little more than soft porn these days). You can likewise see it in how "Machismo" is being promoted at such a high level these days... the idea of being a "Real man" and in some instances a "real" woman... kind of a retroactive ideology that puts the modern woman back where she was, at least to a significant degree, during the 50s and 60s... albeit, with a veneer of independence and "position". BOTH of these angles being influenced through the auspices of the church though one would be hard pressed to prove the connections (church leaders have been very good at concealing their puppet threads over the past 1,760ish years the cult has thrived).

One must understand that "controlling" the masses involves more than just one area of manipulation. As the church first started forming it relied on the things the public already "knew"... usurping the familiar Holy Days like Yule or any one of the major Equinoxes, adapting the tales and symbols of those seasons to the Christian point of view. It was not difficult to take things familiar and turn them into such correspondences and within two generations, establish a new cult-mind way of seeing the world... it was one of several methods employed.

Anyhow... I've rambled sufficiently :oops:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 20:16

Craig Browning wrote: I personally detest how factions of my own sub-culture (the Gay & Lesbian Community) "express" themselves in public view. I feel that it is very disrespectful of both, the public as well as the grouping... even one's self. Sex isn't something we need the world to experience with us, in my opinion.

Curious Craig, why should it be acceptable for men and women to hold hands in public but not two men or two women?
'Course I feel the same way about men being able to walk around without a shirt on but it's "pornographic" for women to do so.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Jul 2010, 22:56

ProfWag wrote:
Craig Browning wrote: I personally detest how factions of my own sub-culture (the Gay & Lesbian Community) "express" themselves in public view. I feel that it is very disrespectful of both, the public as well as the grouping... even one's self. Sex isn't something we need the world to experience with us, in my opinion.

Curious Craig, why should it be acceptable for men and women to hold hands in public but not two men or two women?
'Course I feel the same way about men being able to walk around without a shirt on but it's "pornographic" for women to do so.


No... you've got me wrong there. I'm all for "light" affection in public by straight and gay folks... I stress however "Light"... when I see hetero couples in line at an amusement park trying to give each other a tonsillectomy with their tongues however, I think they've gone waaaay too far and tread on the idea of public indecency.

Funny thing about the T-shirt & Shirtless thing... I have no problems with a culture that allows either gender to go topless... such outlaw spandex (on anyone) and have a "Decency Police" that tells the fat cows (male & female) to put their shirts back on along with clothes that actually fit them and that they will get their shirtless privileges back AFTER they've dropped the weight and trimmed up a good bit. For me, seeing the various Homo-sapien-bovine entities waddling through town, at Wal*Mart or worse of all, at the beach in clothing that is waaay too tight on them, is far more offensive and "Morally Irresponsible" than seeing some woman's breasts (especially when they are cute and perky :) )

Many years ago some friends & I went to Magic Mountain just outside of L.A. Gary and I were "courting" as it were and just as I mention above, there was a couple tongue-diving a few rows in front of us. Gary pulled me over and from behind gave me a peck on the cheek... the couple that were making out (the male) moaned and commented "That's disgusting... damn fagots... there are children here." To which a mother with three kids in tow of various age groups replied, "At least the two of them are showing more class and control than the two of you."

I firmly believe that most educated people can accept this kind of casual affection regardless... maybe not if you were giving your Great Dane such affection, but another human, I don't see a problem... SO LONG AS YOU ARE DEALING WITH EDUCATED PEOPLE... NOT the trailer trash of the world (a.k.a. lowly educated, middle-American Red Necks and Bible Thumpers (a.k.a. "Tea-Baggers"))
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby Scepcop » 25 Jul 2010, 00:17

ProfWag wrote:Sooooooo you consider church leaders the "elite?"


Some are, such as the Pope, Pat Robertson, etc., those at the top of the pyramid in the religious organization.

What the illuminati does is capture or convert those at the top of the pyramid in key positions in every major institution. Then it can pull the strings with just a few people in them. That's one of their basic strategies.

David Icke explains it very eloquently in this 10 minute clip about religion, which makes a lot of sense:

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby The_Grand_Illusion » 05 Sep 2010, 20:00

Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Sooooooo you consider church leaders the "elite?"


Some are, such as the Pope, Pat Robertson, etc., those at the top of the pyramid in the religious organization.

What the illuminati does is capture or convert those at the top of the pyramid in key positions in every major institution. Then it can pull the strings with just a few people in them. That's one of their basic strategies.

David Icke explains it very eloquently in this 10 minute clip about religion, which makes a lot of sense:



You're absolutely right, Vinstonas (do ppl call you Winston???) Some of these people are hypocrites of the highest order (I could name a magician or two also...). Check it out...(not edited for correct punctuation)

PAT ROBERTSON

Reverend Pat Robertson is one of the Bush cronies. He also attended Yale, the home of the Skull and Bones fraternity, but wasn’t a Skull and Bones member, yet his is a Freemason, Knight of Malta (T. Marrs, Codex Magica) and obviously one of the Illuminati’s ‘in crowd’ and useful idiots. He is one of America’s preeminent 'Illuminati' televangelists and preachers. After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, he was reported to have effectively said that God was smiting the hapless city because of the lesbian Ellen Degeneres living there. Hmm, it seems that God’s precision weaponry has some design flaws much like those of the American military’s. A whole city for one lesbian? If Madeline Albright was a Funda-Christian, she would undoubtedly have reassured us it was ‘worth it’. Look out, Broadway, you’re in for some trouble! In truth however, the article that mentions this ‘Robertson quote’ was just being satirical. People believed it because fundamentalist nuts tend to say silly things, like this, from Mr Robertson, again; “The flooding of New Orleans is a sign that God is tired of seeing his creation mocked by the Mardi Gras and its perverted display of debauchery and exposed breasts.” (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/pat_robertson/2.html).

Just look at a mere fraction of Robertson’s resume. The man is a genius. Potty Mouth’s Pat’s finest moments (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/pat_robertson/2.html) include this gem:

“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/pat_robertson/ - I have seen this sourced elsewhere. Nexus Magazine?)

In his book, The New Millennium, Robertson has a point within a circle symbol at the top of virtually every page of the book. The point within a circle is definitive occultic language for sun worship. It was also chosen as the symbol of the Illuminati. Symbols don't jump onto books for no reason. This is a symbol meant for those who understand the language of symbols. (Wardman, p 208.) More evidence piles up as we read Robertson's book, New World Order. On page 37, Robertson suggests that George Bush (SKull and Bones, Freemason) is a man of goodwill of all things!!!! (Yes, and so was Charles Manson...) Later, on p. 92 he reiterates that Bush is "an honorable man and a man of integrity." (Wardman, Unholy Alliances, p 208.) On the cover of the February 17, 1986 issue of Time magazine, Robertson shows a pose known to Freemasons as the "Lion's Paw." Robertson denies that his pose has anything to do with the secret societies, but if he is a member, he took the oath to "ever conceal and never reveal any part or parts, arts or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry which I have received." (Wardman, p 208.) (Excusing the fact that Wardman himself was a fundamentalist of sorts, he still makes some interesting points... B)
Brendan D. Murphy is the author of the forthcoming book series on the nature of reality and consciousness, The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science, Mysticism and the Occult. Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Grand-Illusion-TGI/151764238172173?ref=ts

It's all just a dream, and the dream is dreaming itself...
User avatar
The_Grand_Illusion
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 20:20

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby Craig Browning » 05 Sep 2010, 20:46

Reverend Pat Robertson is one of the Bush cronies.

I had to laugh at this given that Bush, Jr pissed off old Fat Pat, costing the blood diamond mogul a small fortune.

Huh?

Yes, one of Robertson's "missionary projects" includes exploiting the African diamond trade. Seems he had millions of dollars of mining equipment sitting on the dock during some kind of political silliness there, and Georgey Jr. wouldn't pull the strings for getting it released. As I recall the article, Robertson lost a butt load of cash and hedged much of his talks in ways that weren't as supportive of Bush as his original support was. But then, several evangelists distanced themselves as they realized what a big mistake their support was of the man they'd put in position to abuse presidential power.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Christianity tries to repress sex - David Icke

Postby The_Grand_Illusion » 06 Sep 2010, 07:33

Craig Browning wrote:Reverend Pat Robertson is one of the Bush cronies.

I had to laugh at this given that Bush, Jr pissed off old Fat Pat, costing the blood diamond mogul a small fortune.

Huh?

Yes, one of Robertson's "missionary projects" includes exploiting the African diamond trade. Seems he had millions of dollars of mining equipment sitting on the dock during some kind of political silliness there, and Georgey Jr. wouldn't pull the strings for getting it released. As I recall the article, Robertson lost a butt load of cash and hedged much of his talks in ways that weren't as supportive of Bush as his original support was. But then, several evangelists distanced themselves as they realized what a big mistake their support was of the man they'd put in position to abuse presidential power.



That's cool--I wasn't suggesting they all had to get along, or that they all act honourably towards one another all the time. They ARE crooks after all! Look a little behind the mainstream media charade and you'll see that these people are connected through other channels not generally acknowledged, and certainly not discussed intelligently in the mainstream...
Brendan D. Murphy is the author of the forthcoming book series on the nature of reality and consciousness, The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science, Mysticism and the Occult. Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Grand-Illusion-TGI/151764238172173?ref=ts

It's all just a dream, and the dream is dreaming itself...
User avatar
The_Grand_Illusion
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 20:20


Return to Religion / Theology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest