Possible agenda of Bernardo's "daemon"

[Federica]

I read the part on Esoteric Christianity. Great stuff - truly. I feel like I expressed many of the same points he made in different words.

I'm glad you appreciated it! If you don't recognize any discrepancy between the views you have so far expressed and Cleric's illustration of Esoteric Christianity, you should probably read what Cleric wrote at the 3 links previously provided by Ashvin. And from there we could discuss the discrepancies more specifically. Probably you will find a part that you disagree with. Or, if you have written something in the past that illustrates your views, please submit it.

[AshvinP]

I'd be most curious to know what part of what I've written so far conflicts most strongly in your mind (anyone) with what Cleric wrote?

Also, if anyone knows, please explain what Ahriman and Lucifer represent in his cosmology? He said they are both "tugging" on us.

As Federica said, there are many different angles to approach the Ahrimanic and Luciferic influences. Ultimately, we are always speaking of living beings and so we must meet them with living ideas - ones which are fluid, flexible, mobile. Just as we wouldn't try to define the innermost soul depths of our friend or neighbor with static concepts, we should resist the urge to define the spiritual beings who live within us with such concepts. We can't really understand who we are, as temporally extended be-ings who perceive, think, feel, and act, until we also understand how their influences weave through our nature.

Broadly we could say they represent the over-materializing (Ahriman) and over-spiritualizing (Lucifer) influences. Ahr works in the realm of intellectual concepts tied to sensory perceptions while Lu works in the soul-realm of desires, emotions, passions, etc. It's difficult to separate them out, however, because the influences are always feeding back into each other, preparing the soil for the other to grow. Whenever we give in to our lower senuous impulses, hyper-abstraction and egoism, these influences are at work. On the other hand, Lu is also at work when we produce beautiful works of culture like philosophy, art, etc., so it's not all negative. In fact, higher esoteric development would not be possible without the Lu influence.

[xzardozx]

I will respond to your posts but, before that, one question - have you ever heard of Saint Germain? Voltaire called him, "the man who knows everything and never dies". He is a central figure in esoteric Christianity. His most famous incarnation was Francis Bacon who is widely believed to have written the works of Shakespeare as well as the KJV. He was involved in the creation of Rosicrucianism ("Rosy Cross" - esoteric Christianity). He was also John the Baptist. Where I part paths with you, perhaps, is that I now know that, as I wrote in my first post, God is both sides of the coin of Dark and Light. Consider the story of Job. God and Satan the Adversary have, at the very least, a close working relationship and no animosity was expressed between them. God agrees to allow Satan to test Job. I think the story very clearly suggests metaphorically that God is a composite of both of these beings. He told me his acceptable names are God, Satan or Lucifer but not the Devil and he prefers the name "Satan". Why? I can only guess. Eternal Souls need Adversity. I've written that over and over. That's why he chooses that name. He doesn't shy away from but embraces his role as Adversary. Like the rest of you, I used to shudder at the very words, "Satan" and "satanic", and I still do. Nothing has changed. I just know it's his Dark Side (from a human perspective), and his Light side is just as Light as his dark side is dark.

[Federica]

xzardozx, if you are taking to me, I don't know St Germain/ Francis Bacon. I only vaguely heard these names. I also know very little of the Bible, the parables etc.
Anyhow, you seem to anthropomorphize God, when you say He can express "animosity". On what account would God be subject to personal soul movements like we typically have, as for example animosity?

[xzardozx]

In the OT, God's wrath is constantly on display. He threatens to wipe out the ancient Israelites on multiple occasions and even goes through with it once when He manifested the Great Flood and Noah's ark. He started over from scratch. But you think the OT God is a different God from the NT God, yes? I thought that too. I had an Orthodox Jewish step-father who subjected me to extreme emotional abuse. I despised the God of the OT if he even existed and never expected to read it. But then I learned a lot of things.

[Federica]

I believe it was in your very first post that you said the Scriptures should be read metaphorically?

[xzardozx]

Then how would you interpret "God's Wrath" metaphorically? The creator seems to have a love/hate relationship with his own creation, no? It's just one of many dramatic tensions that keep the old Axis Mundi turning, as it were. He has high expectations. He wants to perfect our Souls.

[Federica]

I'm the wrong person to ask, but there are more than one here who surely have ideas. And in the meantime we can maybe pause this and go back to your initial purpose?

[xzardozx]

Why are you suspicious of the answers I gave you twice already - I believe I said to "share and converse" and also hopefully to find someone who might take an interest in my own personal trials and tribs and possibly even shed some light on them. Why do you find that suspicious?

[xzardozx]

Anyway, I think I will take my leave now. I left my Twitter address If anyone wants to contact me.