Real Religion

It's important to remove the psychological and verbal barriers preventing us from accepting the Holy Spirit into our lives. If you believe in religion objectively, you don't care what any aspect of religion is called. Winged beings are mentioned as appearing in the Bible, Ancient Egyptian religion, the Vedas, and most other religious texts.* Why would these religions disagree with each other just because different terms are used to describe the same thing?

At Eagle Temple, we are religious. We accept that aspects of Christianity exist objectively, and might be referred to by many names and in many languages, in "other" religions. We believe all religions are an attempt to decipher that which exists, but cannot be quantified, and we welcome anyone and everyone to join us in our quest to spread love and refine theology.

If you’re a Christian, then you believe that God always has and has always been. So what was God doing before around 800BC when he appeared to Moses, in terms of interactions with humans? The stories in Genesis and the early Old Testament are deeply metaphorical and historical, with many of the characters being personifications of tribes or peoples.

Yet we know that God, the Lord of Hosts, is, well, a Lord of Hosts – in the Bible, a host is a word used to refer to an Army. God controls a heavenly army, as is documented extensively in the Old and New Testament. Why do we assume the bulk of their activity is recorded in the Bible alone? Why not look for the obvious activity of God before and after the creation of the Bible? God himself invokes no distinctions between religions, as we see from the transition of Judaism into Christianity. There is only what is true. 

With that said, let's see if we can identify the objectively real apparations across the entire world, and classify them in a Christian context.

We will start with physical description, before getting into the higher level analysis of whether other people’s experiences can be categorized as belonging to the Christian religion. Archangels (literal translation from Koine Greek being “Chief Angel” of God’s army) of all kinds of descriptions, cherubim with multiple faces or the face of animals but human bodies and wings. The trend appears to be that they move or exist in the sky when they appear, they have wings, their faces can be either human or animal, and they do the work of God. All it would require to consider, for example, Nisroch or Ra an archangel (which I have for many years now) is to translate the old Assyrian or Egyptian word they used to refer to these beings as archangel, instead of God.

This is a more accurate translation, and thus begins a Christian classification system, which we will employ to categorize religious aspects. 

Unless every culture, seperated by geographic and language barriers, throughout history has been suffering from mass delusion imaging the same religious aspects, then the most logical conclusion within the context of Christian thought is that these various beings who raised humans up from animals into spiritual beings are members of God’s Host.

If you honestly believe in Christianity, then how could you say that God only decided to involve his army in a small region in the Levant? God is and has been active worldwide. Where did Moses take his people out of? Egypt. It says he carried with him the wisdom of the Egyptians, and even his name represents the abandonment of the various forms of Gods and communication directly with God.

In their (Egyptian, Assyrian, Semitic, etc) consonant only alphabets, the vowels did not change the meaning of the word. So a word or name remained the same, regardless of the type or presence of vowels. Let’s standardize the vowels, with religious Egyptian titles.

When we do this, keep in mind God’s refusal to give Moses his name, when Moses asks for it. God simply says, that he is “He Who Is.”

YHWH is not a name but a word that means “He Who Is” that only began being kept sacred in around 100-200BC, not a name. The entire purpose of the passage was Moses learning he could never know God’s true form.

Let's standardize the vowels:

Romosos – Born of Ra.

Amonmosse – Born of Amun.

Thothmosos -Born of Thuth.

So we have Mosos, which means “Born of – ?”

As it says in the Old Testament, Moses was called this because he was “pulled out of the water,” from a river, that is to say, the mother did not know who he was born of.

So Moses, who was Egyptian royalty (adopted by a Pharaoh’s daughter) and who was racially/visually Egyptian (Exodus 2:19) was given this name with enormous significance in Egypt. It’s no wonder then that God chooses this unique individual to reveal his truest form to, explaining to him that God’s true form is beyond human comprehension, and he is to be only referred to as “He Who Is.”

This is one of the many meanings in the Old Testament that can really only be understood in an Egyptian context, Judaism proceeded from the Egyptian religion, just as most will agree Judaism was the origin of Christianity. I see the work of God and God’s army all over the world, and it’s important not to let etymological differences or different words or definitions get in the way of the universal truth of religion itself.

There are probably thousands of different words for a tree, but we do not think that changes the underlying nature or existence of a tree. So if we know that God’s Host is and always will exist, why not translate ancient people’s foreign words into their proper classification in English?

An atheist might see this as a religiously influenced and thus inaccurate decision, but isn’t calling them Gods in modern English a religious decision? Unless you refer to these beings by the original ancient word, you have to make a translation, I don’t see why an atheist would care whether an ancient being’s title is translated to Archangel or God as they believe in neither, and to a Christian there’s only one possible translation without assuming mass delusion from every other culture in the world throughout history.

The truth is, we cannot know God’s true form, as it’s outside of our capacity to understand. We can contextualize this reality with what modern science we have – other dimensions, whatever – but the possibilities that exist and the very real worldwide shared experience from every culture speaks for itself. Imagine if we always limited religious understanding to the context of scientific understanding – religious men and women have understood for 10’s of thousands of years at least that there are other worlds parallel to our own, science only just recently confirmed the existence of 10+ dimensions for string theory, overlaying and inside and intersecting our 3D reality.

What’s most insane to me, is that the similarity between various religions is used as an argument AGAINST religion!

Atheists use the fact that religion takes similar forms, and has similar patterns, as a way of de-legitimizing it, when there’s no greater proof of the objectivity of the Holy Spirit’s activity, that different and often unrelated groups develop extremely similar ways of identifying activity that exists outside of our limited sense perception.

We know there is activity our senses cannot detect even through scientific inference – science and religion are agreed on that – so why would we expect activity largely outside of our reality to conform itself to the limited context of our language, a function of a reality that is only one plane of existence for what we are trying to define here?

Science and religion are different avenues of inquiry, one is a system to better understand and operate within perceptible reality and the other is a system to better understand and operate outside of perceptible reality.

The scientific will acknowledge as fact activity outside of sensory reality (but only very recently) and the religious obviously acknowledge sensory reality, they intersect where they intersect and they’re unrelated when they’re unrelated.

Etymology might not be science, but the principles are exactly the same. If the Holy Spirit shows the same or similar forms to two unrelated cultures, and different names exist for what appears to be similar or the same, why not categorize the ancient under the terminology of the modern.

The proper identification of various religious forms as aspects of the Holy Spirit is not just supported in the Bible but it also makes religion logically superior, when measured using effectiveness against atheism. When you compare each individual religion, it’s hard to say which religion has contributed the most, although of course it’s easy to identify, Christianity.

Yet when the comparison is Religious vs the Non-Religious, the superiority of religion is so obvious. The religious were and are responsible for virtually all scientific and logical advancement, and every major branch of science was created by the religious up to modern quantum physics.

Every impactful leader to have ever existed has been religious – from Alexander the Great spending a year filling in the ocean around the Levant to sacrifice in Tyre’s temple, or Genghis Khan being the “Flail of God” to punish those who God hated, to Constantine being guided by God through signs in the sky to victory over Christianity’s enemies, to Pharaoh’s guided by the light whose graves still cast a shadow upon the modern world, to Barrack Obama who prayed to be an instrument of God’s will, atheists seem to forget that reality itself demonstrates the superiority of religion, and whilst religion is the natural state of man occurring on every deserted island with no outside assistance, atheism requires a very specific set of circumstances to occur, and generally has only really existed as a subset of thought in peaceful Christian societies, generally speaking.

So why Christian contextualization, and not, say, Muslim or Egyptian or Jewish or any other arbitrary religion? Well, besides my faith & loyalty to Christ who has blessed me beyond imagination, for me to identify the superior religious classification definition requires that definition meets certain logical standards, with only Christianity meeting all of these standards, such as:

The definition needs to predict, incorporate and account for losses against the definition. For most religions, the defeat of that religion in battle, whether an ancient battle or a modern battle of ideas, implies the inefficiency and thus inferiority of the forms behind that religion. By virtue of every individual religion having only a minority hold on the world, with none undefeated and those that are undefeated being useless footnotes, for any of these religions to be a core classification system requires them to demonstrate their efficiency by predicting their future loses in advance, and accounting for a world where their suffering has a purpose within the context of God’s greater plan.

The forms described need to be all encompassing – that is to say, if the religious classification system does not describe forms that have appeared regularly throughout history, then it’s a non-starter – it cannot be used to understand the history of religion from a particular religious context. The forms of the members of the Heavenly Host described throughout the Old and New Testament are both specific enough to be directly compared to ancient “Gods” (forms under the Holy Spirit) such as animal headed beings with wings, but also varied enough (flaming wheel covered with eyes that guard the throne of God from Ezekiel and Enoch, as an example) so as to imply the existence of other beings of equal variation, putting no limitation to possible classifications. Christianity has both members of the Heavenly Host that can be directly compared to ancient forms, and members with such extreme variation from standard forms so as to imply the possibility of inclusion of any potential ancient form.

It needs to emphasis forgiveness – the generally arbitrary identification of Christian figures throughout history is sure to spark some disagreements and thus arguments.

There has to be an identification, or at least reference to and respect for, the “logic behind” the various forms. Christ identifies the Holy Spirit as behind the actions of the apostles and flowing through the Father to Him to the Apostles, and mentioned that those who forgive him will be forgiven but those who act against the Holy Spirit will not be. Combined with the foundation of “He Who Is” and the various members of the Heavenly Host, a Christian classification system only requires you expand your potential identification of Christianity at work beyond the events specifically mentioned in the Bible, which most Christians do today, as they believe God is still acting upon the world today.

Religious is a more accurate term for a person's beliefs because it encompasses more.

If a cat falls from a airplane and survive, and the following two explanations are given, which are you more likely to believe?

- The cat fell 30,000 feet and lived.

- The cat fell 30,000 feet and was slowed by winds, crashed through a rain-forest canopy and hit a sloth net on the way down, and so lived.

Regardless of your choice, studies have shown people are more likely to believe the latter description, because it contains an explanation. Of course, the former is more accurate, because it includes the second description, and millions of other potential explanations. In a similar manner someone describing themselves as religious rather than Christian might be more accurate because "Religious" encompasses Christianity and all other religious aspects. Insofar as someone believes the aspects of their religion exist objectively, it makes sense that these aspects would be called different names and interpreted different ways by different cultures and peoples.