![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
Interestingly, I once had an astrologist read my chart. I'd known this woman for several years, but for some reason she insisted on doing this reading, and later wrote me a letter. She said that I had the strongest Gemini character of any chart she'd ever seen, so take that for as much mileage as it will get you. As a side note, her letter also told me some interesting but fairly tragic things about what I could expect from life. I still remember the feeling I had reading her letter.
Smith takes astrology seriously. Not the horoscopes that pundits print in magazines every month, but the idea that the Zodiac does influence something about us in an almost primordial way - I don't dismiss it. There was art produced during the Crusades that depicted Christ with the twelve signs of the Zodiac behind him, and it's no coincidence that there were 12 tribes of Israel, and Christ chose twelve disciples. It comes back to the anthropic realism - this universe exists for us, and from Earth there are these twelve signs in the sky, and they are meaningful to us.
Anecdotally, I grew up in a house with three Tauruses, myself being a Capricorn. Taurus (depicted by a bull) is known to be aggressive, angry, hot-tempered - and this very much matched the way my three family members behaved, at least with each other, while I was always "peaceful".
I don't know where the overlap is with demonic spirits and genuine primordial knowledge with respect to the Zodiac / astrology. I'm sure there are palm readers who, just by visiting them, end up opening their clients up to demonic possession.
On your points about the seeming significance of our conversations, I've already said before I am sure our meeting was Providential. What God has in mind as a fruit to be born of all this, remains to be seen.
I take it more seriously than I let on, but I fully agree that there is a great danger in it as well, particularly the wayward roads it can lead a person down. I only know because I've been down them, and it's nothing but sadness. It seems so, so simple, but without any bias in this statement at all, Christianity (as in the whole ethos, the Church, the people) has been the only metaphysically relevant thing that I've ever been around that made me genuinely happy - around which I could feel authentic positivity.
Capricorn
Was there some influence from this on your username, by chance?
What God has in mind as a fruit to be born of all this, remains to be seen.
(chills)
You two could write the captions for the DVD of our conversations. They will be adapted into a live action film, by, um, Kirk Cameron starting late this year.
around which I could feel authentic positivity.
If the Good News that Christ rose from the dead (and all it implies) is not true, then I doubt there is anything that could be viewed as authentically positive, in the final analysis.
Was there some influence from this on your username, by chance?
I don't know if Capricorns are known for peace seeking. Are they? I just know Taurus is very war-like, and that was definitely the environment I grew up in, and so it was a reaction to that that led me to development a conciliatory personality.
A question for you and : you both seem to take Christianity very seriously, in varying respects. I don't know KOWA's background exactly. My question concerns the sacraments. The only sacrament that Protestant Christians have retained is baptism. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and it is baptism alone that brings one into the Church (Protestant baptisms, if performed validly, also lead one into partial communion with the Catholic Church).
But baptism is also the door to all the other sacraments. Confession to restore the bond of charity if broken by mortal sin after baptism. The Eucharist, source and summit of the faith and wellspring of grace - devotion to and reception of which will become more critical as time goes on, I think.
But what I wanted to ask specifically, and the reason I raise this now, is about the sacrament of Confirmation, an anointing with oil. Like all the other sacraments, it can only be received after baptism. But the reason this is relevant to the current thread is that there are some Catholic commentators who have suggested that only those who have been Confirmed will be able to resist the Mark of the Beast. I'll try to find sources for that another time for reference.
Now, this is where we enter territory where I am lost. I will have to do some reading to even understand the significance of Confirmation. I have a better grasp of the Eucharist, but even Baptism is somewhat of a mystery to me.
But, this connection to the mark makes it very interesting.
some Catholic commentators ... have suggested that only those who have been Confirmed will be able to resist the Mark of the Beast.
I can see why they would say this. Faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). The Latin Sacrament of Confirmation is basically the same as the Holy Mystery of Chrismation - being the occasion for the reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Orthodox Church, Chrismation is typically received immediately after Baptism in all but the most unusual situations. I’m not familiar with the form the Rite takes in the West, but in my family’s Chrismation, we also received Tonsure, which to my understanding is reserved for monastics in the Roman Communion (correct me if I am wrong). In Orthodoxy, per 1 Peter 2:9, we’re all a “royal priesthood”, so everyone receives Tonsure - though only Clergy recieve Holy Orders.
So while the Mark of the Beast will be some innocuous ecumenical rite(s) that includes a conscious renunciation of Christ, the Mark of the Lamb by contrast is these Holy Mysteries that come with conscious acceptance of Christ and reception of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I suspect there will be people who, for political reasons, choose to reject both Marks, at least for a time. But Scripture seems strongly to affirm that the entire world is going to receive one or the other.
In light of all that, the picture I’m seeing is that either Mark, rather than being set-in-stone in any particular single event, implies a continual commitment to either one or the other; furthermore, that committed refusal of the Beast will absolutely require the Grace of God in a continual outpouring of the Holy Spirit - which as I mentioned is symbolically Gifted to us at Chrismation.
I think I see what they are saying.
I suspect the practical side of this will be that the only successful theriomachists will be active participants in the Holy Mysteries of the Church.
I suspect many would-be theriomachists will be deceived (per Matthew 24:24), trusting in a Communion without Grace, without power to save. Hence, the importance of sound Ecclesiology. There’s an alarming possibility this number may be very small, per Luke 18:8. Indeed, “will He find Faith on earth?” Christ refers to the “Little Flock” on a number of occasions, so it’s wisdom not to put ones’ Faith in the “majority”.
Gentlemen, the picture is quite bleak; but would we expect any different ? I trust in the Goodness of God, and I know He’s perfectly capable of delivering His Faithful Remnant through anything.
(post is archived)