Asking for a logical reason for atheist/mythicist fear of spiritual revelation

[sonoman]

I am a modern Gnostic Christian visionary and like many Gnostics before me I too have spiritual visions from God that define my particular Gnostic Christian path. It happens that God put me on this Gnostic pathway 34 years ago at the time of my initial religious conversion experience which converted me from atheism to lasting belief in God and the Spirit of Christ as the primary (Son) emanation from the Godhead headed by the heavenly Father. 34 years ago God in mental epiphany told me that Bible could not be used as real history but only as stories with allegorical meanings and messages meant to guide human beings spiritually as well as give them social organization. And right from the start God guided me towards the astrological connections with the Spirit of Christ and the origins of my beliefs in older pagan religious ideas that the Hebrews borrowed and incorporated into Judaism. Also, right from the beginning 34 years ago God set me on an Egyptian connection to my unusual version of Gnosticism. In 1998 God led me via a friend handing me a book and saying, "Read this.", the book being Semitic Languages Prof. John Gray's Near Eastern Mythologies, to discover Jesus' real heavenly Father who is not Yahweh but EL Elyon, God Most High. Near Eastern Mythologies shows how the ancient Canaanites conceived of and worshiped their God Most High, the same Most High taken by the later Hebrews and reworked in the Sinai Covenant nto the man-made construct, YHWH, a quite schizophrenic god who has EL's compassion and wisdom here, and Yahweh, the tribal war god's cruelty there, just like the believers behavior following such a man-made artifice and being told it's God, the Only One, and yet the writers of this slogan, Our God is One, were consummate liars telling enormous fibs, fibs that have gone on to have a life of their own inspiring countless religious wars and deaths and misery to millions of people. Which is why the atheist/mythicist reaction. And fear of spiritual revelation.

However, can the Spirit ever be stopped by human effort? History doesn't record it whenever it was tried, e.g. the failed atheist revolutions, the French one and the Soviet one with the Chinese one a living joke now. But even with historical discovery on the side of atheism against religionists the Spirit still cannot be stopped and despite all condemnation rightfully placed at the foot of Abrahamic religions, a new yet ancient form of Christianity has already arisen to replace the faulty first Abrahamic versions. As I was saying before God led me to find Celestial Torah Christianity that reveals the Christ/Anointed idea is well over 4000 years old and is astrologically based, not in sun god worship but in the Aquarius connection to the Christ. It is quite amazing to find out the Christ idea is so old and it is more amazing to discover it is not Abrahamically based at all and will not suffer the End Times of Abrahamic religions where Armageddon has literally come at Megiddo with the archeological evidence of Hebrew myth-making of the Bible stories.

The thing is, when I try to post this new yet ancient information about the origins of the Christ idea demonstrated to going back to ancient Sumeria and Egypt in the Near East, I get my posts censored on religious forums run by Christians who refuse to acknowledge any such evidence as being valid. Well, I thought to myself after first finding about Acharya' Christ in Egypt book that confirmed and expanded my own spiritual revelation and research, these mythicists will understand where I'm coming from when I connect the Spirit of Christ with astrological meaning but, nooo. What I got, and got right here too, was the atheist form of REACTION to my historical information. Acharya herself censored my posts on her blog and here they were censored too and myself banned. I don't know why I'm allowed now but having got a new invite to rejoin this forum I am going to see if the mythicists are changing their tune and letting historical facts be posted including new revelation that shows a non-stop spiritual evolution of the Humanitarian Model being carried through the astrological association between Saturn (EL) and Aquarius (Man Face of God who has the Living Waters). I've been living the Aquarian archetype since Easter of 1979 and really would like to share this new Celestial Torah Christianity information with mythicists but the prejudice of mythicists against spiritual revelation has stopped this modern Gnostic from being able to share online information about Christ Aquarius, a far more spiritually revealing Archetype than the sun god one which Christ shares with other dying/resurrection sun gods. Celestial Torah Christianity at: http://biomystic.org/celestialtorah.htm. That's the index page and from there you can access all the Celestial Torah Christianity pages. Can we talk about the astrological information contained in Celestial Torah Christianity? Or will it be censored because spiritual revelation cannot be admitted into the mythicist ideology lest it counter what appears to be the dominant mythicist idea that all religions are priesthood man-made artifices for controlling societies, i.e. no place for prophesy to enter the equation, yet it is prophetic revelation that created the subject matter for mythicists to study.

[Interbane]

I think the reason is that your idea is not new. It has been discussed ad nauseum in countless forms. But if you are a human like the rest of us, you won't let it go, and you'll have an attachment to your idea that cannot be swayed. So discussing it truly doesn't accomplish anything.

Finding 'meaning' in the stars is an advanced form of pareidolia. There are infinite ways this manifests in peoples beliefs, and yours is an excellent example. After encountering it time after time after time, it starts to become tiresome.

There is no fear here, just a keen understanding of human nature and epistemology.

[sonoman]

So with that philosophy you will dismiss all of Acharya's books too since they too are covering the same ancient astrological grounds reading the same astrological meanings into stellar configurations.

[ant]

However, can the Spirit ever be stopped by human effort? History doesn't record it whenever it was tried, e.g. the failed atheist revolutions, the French one and the Soviet one with the Chinese one a living joke now.

The atheistic downfall is and always will be its utterly hopeless state of being.

A purposeless cosmos..,
A origin rooted in an evolution of species that at its core is nothing more than gene survival..,

Amounts to an empty, absurd existence that the atheist defends against with an illusion of "meaning."

[geo]

However, can the Spirit ever be stopped by human effort? History doesn't record it whenever it was tried, e.g. the failed atheist revolutions, the French one and the Soviet one with the Chinese one a living joke now.

The atheistic downfall is and always will be its utterly hopeless state of being.

A purposeless cosmos..,
A origin rooted in an evolution of species that at its core is nothing more than gene survival..,

Amounts to an empty, absurd existence that the atheist defends against with an illusion of "meaning."

This is actually a sad, limited perspective, but it's not an atheist worldview. There are a bunch of atheists on BT. Why don't you ask one of them, or do you prefer to make it all up?

Is it your belief that humans are the culmination of God's creation?

[johnson1010]

I am an atheist.

Ant, that is your world view. Not mine.

Every time you’ve tried to impose your limited understanding of “purpose” on us I have told you that it’s not shared by any atheist I know of.

Purpose and meaning are relative. That doesn’t make them empty.

It makes them relative.

Your apparent inability to muster a modicum of self worth independent of the idea of a god does not indict atheists who live joyous, purposeful, powerful lives without saddling themselves with your particular invisible friend.

[ant]

Your caricature of religion is just as bad, if not worse.

The only reasonable position related to the existence/non existence of a god from a scientific perspective (which you love to preach) is that of agnosticism.

The very fact that you are an atheist (certain there is no god) implies your unreasonableness related to the entire matter, and your ignorance related to the purpose of science.

It's laughable that you get annoyed whenever I point out what materialism professes - an indifferent, purposeless cosmos and an evolution of species that is strictly speaking a game of the fittest genes surviving the longest.

Any value you add is illusion - PERIOD.
Don't get angry at me for your belief system.

[Interbane]

So with that philosophy you will dismiss all of Acharya's books too since they too are covering the same ancient astrological grounds reading the same astrological meanings into stellar configurations.

Actually, what Acharya's books convey is that we, humans, assign meaning to the stars. She does not claim that they "have" meaning, in some innate metaphysical sense. That is what others believe, yourself included it seems. The distinction makes her position diametrically opposed to your own.

It's laughable that you get annoyed whenever I point out what materialism professes - an indifferent, purposeless cosmos and an evolution of species that is strictly speaking a game of the fittest genes surviving the longest.

If it makes a difference, your remark doesn't annoy me. We live in an indifferent, purposeless cosmos. I think it's silly to believe that the cosmos has a "purpose". We, humans, have purpose. Both collectively and individually. It's fulfilling and rewarding and honest. But the stars in the sky, and the great unknown... why anthropomorphise them?

I'm not sure if I have johnson's position correct, but your words don't annoy him either. It's just that you don't understand him. You think that since a)materialism shows a purposeless universe and b)johnson is a materialist, then c) johnson lives a purposeless, meaningless life. There is a logical error here, and I hinted at it above.

[johnson1010]

The only reasonable position related to the existence/non existence of a god from a scientific perspective (which you love to preach) is that of agnosticism.

True. But agnosticism doesn’t preclude coming to a best-guess conclusion.

The very fact that you are an atheist (certain there is no god) implies your unreasonableness related to the entire matter, and your ignorance related to the purpose of science.

Atheism does not mean CERTAIN there is no god. Nothing about the word implies “certainty”. It means I don’t believe in a god. Anyone who doesn’t believe is in fact atheist. You are an atheist in regards to Odin, if you don’t believe in him.

I am an agnostic atheist. Which means, The evidence for god is not compelling, so I don’t believe. If evidence were to come to light that I was wrong, I would change my mind. The part that implies certainty is “Gnostic/agnostic”.

It's laughable that you get annoyed whenever I point out what materialism professes - an indifferent, purposeless cosmos and an evolution of species that is strictly speaking a game of the fittest genes reproducing most successfully.

This part is fine, with my correction….

Any value you add is illusion - PERIOD.
Don't get angry at me for your belief system.

This part is your own invention, and due to your inability to understand what it means when I say that meaning is relative.

I’ll post it again.

Lets say a person values something for subjective reasons. A puppy. There is no objective value IMPOSED on the puppy. However, because it is valued by a subjective intelligence it will be objectively safeguarded.

So when the house burns down the person risks life and limb to retrieve the puppy, even though the bose sound system they own is worth more money. Their subjective value of the puppy has resulted in real world efforts to secure its safety which proves that it IS more valuable than the sound system.

That is a relative preference, but so is all preference, since only subjective intellects are available to attribute value to anything.

Any value you add is subjective, and relative – PERIOD.
That doesn’t make it imaginary, or vacuous – PERIOD.

Your inability to understand this does not make your pigeon-holing of atheists true by default.

[ant]

We live in an indifferent, purposeless cosmos.

That is a metaphysical statement. It is strictly an opinion.
It's empirically groundless and not a testable hypothesis.
It's also silly to literally define "creation" for everyone.
But of course, you've made other know-it-all assertions before
You've universalized an opinion - "WE."

If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
Otherwise, you'd be wise to stop asserting things you feel you do not have to provide conclusive evidence for.
Passing the hot potato to someone who thinks otherwise is lame.

You're relative life does not make it any more meaningful than someone who believes in purpose.

This know-it-all, haughtiness of yours is actually amusing. There aren't many scientists who've made claims even similar to yours (i.e. "we've stopped evolving" "there's no purpose").