SCEPCOP Forum

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.

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... ).

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

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

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.