Babylon the Great Mother of All Harlots & Abominations -- Revelaton 18

[Obyron]

Tytan: The theory you mention about the mark of the beast referring to the title of a person, viz. "Vicarious Filii Dei," viz. Revelation, smacks of The Prophecy of St. Malachy, which states that the pontificate of the final pope-- whom he calls "Peter the Roman"-- will end in the "Destruction of Rome," which some people take as a metaphor for the end-times. People who are so inclined have done the math, and shakily decided that "Peter the Roman" should be whatever pope comes after Benedict XVI. I say this is shaky for several reasons, not the least of which is the series of Anti-Popes, any number of whom could actually have been regarded as legitimate. Also, it's prophecy, which I'm inclined to write off as fucking lunacy.

Still, if the Catholic Church crowns a new pope Peter in December of 2012 or something, I might make plans to stay away from Italy for the indefinite future.

A very quick search turns up that the "Vicarius Filii Dei" thing is totally unconfirmed, that there is no photo of such a "tiara" in the entire history of photography, and that all of the papal crowns are on public display, which should make such a thing trivial. The Catholic Church itself dismisses such talk as an anti-Catholic urban legend. I'd recommend you not propagate it until you have some proof! They could always be lying, which is the typical response you'll get from conspiracy theorists on pretty much anything when given a denial, but the burden of proof is always going to be on the people calling someone the Antichrist. You can't prove a negative (ie: "There is no God." or "Drugs are not dangerous."). The best you can do is always prove that the positive is astronomically unlikely. The Catholic Church hasn't always proven to be a reliable source, but I'm forced to side with them on this one until I see a picture of the damn thing, and more specifically a picture of a pope wearing it.

If you're going to resort to gematria, realize that it can be kind of tricky. I studied it briefly and very quickly gave up, because I found it to be enormously complicated and nebulous. The numbers themselves have symbolic meanings. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 23, etc. etc. all have a particular meaning to each system beyond their simple numerical values. Gematrial values also have separate (but linked!) meanings within their relations to other words, like other words with the same gematrial value, or for example: Word A has a gematria value of "781." Word B also has a gematria value of "781." These words or concepts could be related. BUT ALSO: The prime (and only) factors of 781 are 11 and 71, so any words that evaluate to 11 or 71, or include 11 or 71 as factors (especially prime factors) could be related. Sacred Mathematics and Gematria are things that people study their entire lives and still only humbly offer any kind of authoritative opinion.

But is that in English, in Hebrew, or in Latin? And whose version of gematrial "meanings" does one use? Aleister Crowley puts forth his own (available in "777 & Other Qabbalistic Writings Of Aleister Crowley", which includes Liber 777, Gematria, and Sepher Sephiroth-- available here. Good book if you're interested in Crowley/OotGD, but pretty dense). I'd advise anyone to give up on numerology before it drives them crazy.

Many many people with money work hard and sacrifice to get that money. There are people in every organization who "rise to their level of incompetence" and can make a decent salary doing pretty much fuck-all, but it's rare for a person to get "Fuck You Money" without working hard for it; inheritance notwithstanding (in which case you have to recognize that at some point someone worked hard for that money, and the wonders of good investment and studious guardianship have made it possible to pass that money down, sometimes through generations upon generations).

Most of the people you see who go on about how money is evil do not understand money, how to get money, or how to keep and skillfully invest money once they have it.

I do not have much money. My personal savings right now is pretty much what I have in my pocket, thanks to closing my business and the process of moving (which is ongoing. Hopefully I'll be done this Sunday-- UGH!), but I also really don't care. I have very few personal possessions which are important to me, and they consist almost entirely of musical instruments (which are only important because they allow my self-expression) and books. I also have my dog, who is a possession insofar as, legally speaking, he is considered chattel.

This doesn't particularly stress me out. I know how to get more money. It's not hard, nor does it require any particular cunning. I feel good about how I took care of my money when I had it, and I know that given time to save money I'll have no problem parlaying it into an investment strategy that'll leave me a millionaire when I retire in 40 years. This isn't important to me, but it's kind of neat, requires very little effort to pursue, and makes a fun academic exercise. It's like doing a little extra homework that you didn't have to do, because the subject is interesting. I'm not stressed about money, but I probably wouldn't know what to spend it on if I had it. I could buy lots of books, but I can really only read them so fast. I could buy more expensive guitars, but I can wail as easily on my 200 dollar hot pink Squier Strat (with the Hello Kitty pickguard) as I can on my 2500 dollar ESP KH-2 Signature Edition. In that sense, I figure my fingers are worth approximately 2300 dollars. How's that for savings?

I frankly don't see how people get so worked up about money. Sure, the LOVE of money is the root of most (but not all) evil, but the essence of evil is its self-defeating nature. The people who get terribly caught up in money and must constantly make more of it, and who define themselves by how much they can make and spend, tend to be very miserable people. I envy them neither their plight nor their millions. I know a few wealthy people of the Ebeneezer Scrooge/Midas variety, and most of them are incredibly intelligent, but it seems misguided to me. It's like having a friend who is a mathematical prodigy, but cannot see past how they could use the math to build a better bomb.

There is a fine tradition of slackerly (I made up a word) people who are fine with money, but just don't give a fuck about it beyond making sure they have heat in the winter, and that they don't have to eat ramen noodles to survive. The actual making of money takes up very little of their lives, and many of them have succeeded in the sublimely cool task of figuring out how to make that money without ever having to leave their home or put on clothes or put down their bong. I pretty much hold with that mentality.

Money is an evil, but it is an evil like Britney Spears' albums. It's pretty harmless as evils go, and there's not much you can do about it. In money's case at least, it is a necessary evil. It will not go away (unlike Britney Spears, at the rate she's going). You learn how to cope with it, and have it occupy the minimum part of your life possible. All the big overblown conspiracy theories seem like an enormous waste of time and mental effort when you actually consider how simple a concept money is.

To me the whole discussion of money is much ado about nothing. It seems more like your point is about the rights of workers (given your quoting of Marx, Engels, etc., since that was certainly their reference point, especially since they were writing at the time of the Liberal Revolutions in Europe, during the nastier times of the Industrial period) and the evils of materialism and wanting stuff for stuff's sake. You can make those points quite nicely, and they're both valid without all the "666 is money" tripe.

 

[TheSearch]

Money is the root of all evil.

Apart from money possibly being the mark of the beast prophocy theres also evidents of micro-chipping in peoples hands which is growing in media exposure.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

To me the whole discussion of money is much ado about nothing. It seems more like your point is about the rights of workers (given your quoting of Marx, Engels, etc., since that was certainly their reference point, especially since they were writing at the time of the Liberal Revolutions in Europe, during the nastier times of the Industrial period) and the evils of materialism and wanting stuff for stuff's sake. You can make those points quite nicely, and they're both valid without all the "666 is money" tripe.

Obyron, I must say, your ideas on economics are really a pleasure to read and think about. I find myself in complete agreement.

Just one point: do you think there are forces operating in society that seek to KEEP the poor from understanding what money truly is and how they can harness its power to their advantage, so as to perpetuate an exploitable working class? I'm not talking just about big corporations and their goons the advertising media, because they prey upon EVERYONE in their attempts to separate people from their cash. I'm talking about forces that actively work against the poor getting an education, especially a practical one about money matters.

Because knowledge is power after all. You and I are only secure in our poverty because we're resourceful, educated people. We've been shown that there are numerous ways that someone who's willing to work hard can scrape together a living for themselves. It's just a matter of being persistent, knocking on the right doors (and coming off the right way to the people who answer those doors!), and being VERY flexible in what you're willing to do. But what of someone uneducated, who's never been shown all the myriad holes they can stick their crowbar into and try prying? The world must be a very scary, unforgiving place, where some mysteriously have riches and others just don't, and that's that.

I think a solid education -- even just a high school diploma with decent grades plus a year or so of solid vocational / associates' training -- is the answer to workers' rights problems that Marx wrote about. Because it's hard to exploit people who know they're being exploited, and know they have the option of not being exploited. I'm a bit cynical on the whole idea of workers' rights -- I think the respecting of workers' boundaries by employers simply follows on the heels of a uniformly well-educated population, where there are no inexhaustible supplies of unskilled, uneducated laborers. When such pools of cheap labor exist, any decree of workers' rights by the government is a lovely idealistic thought that ain't worth the paper it's printed on.

As human labor is increasingly replaced with machine labor -- not necessarily a bad thing by any means IMHO -- governments would be VERY wise to push for their working classes to become solidly educated, so that they (the working class people) can become the operators and maintainers of this new technology. If, on the other hand, archaic ideas of education being useless for people who 'don't get paid to think' prevail, I can see a fucking jumbo disaster looming where the working classes are left with neither the laborious and exploitative jobs that once sustained them, NOR the knowledge base to move up to something better, and fester as an impoverished, semi-permanent underclass with nothing to do for money except crime.

From what I've seen, the East Asian First World is a shining example of how to do this the right way. In Japan, farmers are scientists, and janitors take a vacation abroad every year.

 

[Portillo]

Money sucks, gold rules.

 

[mulberryman]

Well, since this thread doesn't seem to want to pay attention and leave me alone.. OK, maybe it is a little interesting...

As I see it, whether or not money is evil is irrelevant. Its not going away, if thats what you're hoping. I highly doubt there is some comet or superflu coming our way, and if there is none of you are going to enjoy its aftermath very much, depite the revaluing of goods and services it would include.

Evil is necessary. Every one of you are, in some way, evil, and people can really only count themselves among the good, when they have embraced that evil inside them, moved in into a place they can reasonably call check, and use it only as a tool in the appropriate situation. People can do the same thing with money, and when they do, its called good economics.

 

[Tytan]

I'd recommend you not propagate it until you have some proof!

I think you’re taking this a bit too serious.

I find the topic trivial indeed, much like the topic of this thread, which is why I brought it up. Why should I concern myself with proof to prophetic conspiracy if there are fools who would accept it without their own investigation?

Tytan: The theory you mention about the mark of the beast referring to the title of a person, viz. "Vicarious Filii Dei," viz. Revelation, smacks of The Prophecy of St. Malachy, which states that the pontificate of the final pope-- whom he calls "Peter the Roman"-- will end in the "Destruction of Rome," which some people take as a metaphor for the end-times. People who are so inclined have done the math, and shakily decided that "Peter the Roman" should be whatever pope comes after Benedict XVI. I say this is shaky for several reasons, not the least of which is the series of Anti-Popes, any number of whom could actually have been regarded as legitimate. Also, it's prophecy, which I'm inclined to write off as fucking lunacy.

I’m not sure the Prophecy of St. Malachy has anything to do with mark of the beast referring to a title. Your brief summary of the prophecy doesn’t reveal any likeness. Biblical interpretation of Revelation 13:17 and 19:16 clearly shows that the “name” can refer to the title of a person, and not just an actual name.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

True, the inscription of “Vicarious Filii Dei” is merely rumored to appear on the popes papal tiara. It first comes to us in the Donation of Constantine in the 1500's, an artist representation with the inscription in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, and a controversial page 3 entry in the 1915 edition of Our Sunday Visitor By Rev. John F. Noll, which speaks on the letters Vicarious Filii Dei inscribed.

Even without this much, Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarious Filii Dei) is a title spoken of and given to Peter in writings of St. John and St. Matthew. Also, I believe it was in the early 1500’s, all but one crown was destroyed by the invading French, and then it happened again in the late 1700’s. Most of the tiaras since have been gifts. That being said, many people will denounce the idea of Vicarious Filii Dei being a title of the pope, and that it is inscribed on one of the tiaras, but it is well known that the Belgian Tiara given to the pope in 1871 has the inscription "Christi Vicario In Terra Regum" which literally translates to “To the Earthly Vicar of Christ”. The 1903 Gold Tiara has a similar inscription.

Still, if the Catholic Church crowns a new pope Peter in December of 2012 or something, I might make plans to stay away from Italy for the indefinite future.

I attribute 2012 most notably with the Mayan culture calendar predictions. If superstition hits you, ya might want to avoid the Yucatan as well.

If you're going to resort to gematria, realize that it can be kind of tricky. I studied it briefly and very quickly gave up, because I found it to be enormously complicated and nebulous.

Resort to gematria? Would you rather neglect various rules of numerology or insist on it being the primary reference on the matter? I would think the latter. And with all due respect, I didn’t think it was 1st grade math, my friend.

Sacred Mathematics and Gematria are things that people study their entire lives and still only humbly offer any kind of authoritative opinion.

Hence I rely greatly on the findings and notations of other credible scholars.

But is that in English, in Hebrew, or in Latin? And whose version of gematrial "meanings" does one use?

Actually it could be Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin. The biblical reference doesn’t give us the luxury by identifying which, although all four were in common usage in the region during the alleged writing. Any of them are viable, however, something about having to transliterate words in order to achieve a desired calculation (such as Caesar’s Latin name needing to be translated to Aramaic before anything can be done with it) immediately becomes bogus to me.

Aleister Crowley puts forth his own (available in "777 & Other Qabbalistic Writings Of Aleister Crowley", which includes Liber 777, Gematria, and Sepher Sephiroth-- available here. Good book if you're interested in Crowley/OotGD, but pretty dense). I'd advise anyone to give up on numerology before it drives them crazy.

Aleister Crowley is ok, but I fail to see even remotely where his practices gives any insight into the matter. And I honestly don’t see where your dislike of complicated numerology should be reason for others to abandon it.

 

[Obyron]

I think you’re taking this a bit too serious.

I find the topic trivial indeed, much like the topic of this thread, which is why I brought it up. Why should I concern myself with proof to prophetic conspiracy if there are fools who would accept it without their own investigation?

Because it's bad form, and a jackass thing to do, to assert something as truth when you know it's not.

I’m not sure the Prophecy of St. Malachy has anything to do with mark of the beast referring to a title.

Because the Prophecy of St. Malachy concerns popes as the antichrist. Whacking around with "Vicarius Filii Dei" until it means "666," which is the Mark of the Beast, is pretty clearly related. I didn't say you were referring to it. I said it "smacks of it." The Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms tells us that "smacks of" means "to have some of the characteristics or qualities of something." Thus, the theory that the Pope bears the mark of the beast on his head "smacks of" the Prophecy of St. Malachy. I don't see what's so hard to follow about this, and most of your post seems unnecessarily standoffish, which is amazing since 90% of it wasn't directed at you.

which literally translates to “To the Earthly Vicar of Christ”.

Which isn't Vicarius Filii Dei. One of the pope's titles is "Vicar of Christ" (Vicarius Christi), but that is not the same thing (probably because jacking it around to Vicarius Filli Christi was necessary to make the math work).

Resort to gematria? Would you rather neglect various rules of numerology or insist on it being the primary reference on the matter? I would think the latter. And with all due respect, I didn’t think it was 1st grade math, my friend.

Resort to gematria. Everything from this point of my post on was directed to LSD/XTC. I would rather discard numerology altogether. It's all apophenia to me. I didn't think it was 1st grade math either. I was relating my experience at finding it unnecessarily cumbersome and circuitous, and by way of getting to the fact that even people who believe in it and understand it fully try not to pin themselves down to specifics. It's much easier to be like Miss Cleo and make vague and shadowy predictions. That way your superstitionist pseudo-science never makes you wrong!

Hence I rely greatly on the findings and notations of other credible scholars.

Or at least equally incredible scholars.

Aleister Crowley is ok, but I fail to see even remotely where his practices gives any insight into the matter. And I honestly don’t see where your dislike of complicated numerology should be reason for others to abandon it.

The point of bringing up Crowley was to point out that there are multiple systems for interpreting gematria that can be considered "valid." Which brings us to, "Whose system do you use?" Why, the one that makes you right, of course! I don't dislike complicated numerology. I dislike all numerology. Jacking around with words to turn them into numbers which you then use completely meaningless systems to "interpret" strikes me as the kind of shit schizophrenics do when they'll let them have pointy things like writing utensils in the asylum.

Or maybe they do gematria in crayon.

If you're going to give the bible any credence at all-- and I don't-- then do what LSD/XTC does and treat it as a historical document. In that sense 666 pretty clearly refers to Nero, in which case it really doesn't matter what's on the pope's crowns, since John of Patmos could not have predicted it, and was most certainly not referring to it.

 

[mulberryman]

Because it's bad form, and a jackass thing to do, to assert something as truth when you know it's not.

Well, I don't really know much about marks of beasts and vicars of popes, but ime, its not bad form so much as its just good politics.

 

[Tytan]

Because it's bad form, and a jackass thing to do, to assert something as truth when you know it's not.

Again, you’re taking this out of proportion. Bringing up a prophetic conspiracy likened unto the OP for discussion isn’t an assertion of truth. It was offered in stark contrast to flimsy interpretations on the matter.

Because the Prophecy of St. Malachy concerns popes as the antichrist. Whacking around with "Vicarius Filii Dei" until it means "666," which is the Mark of the Beast, is pretty clearly related. I didn't say you were referring to it. I don't see what's so hard to follow about this,

It isn’t hard to follow, I merely wasn’t aware of the implications of the Prophecy of St. Malachy, having never read it. Hence, I wasn’t sure how it has to do with the Pope’s title conspiracy. Again, the pope’s title conspiracy was offered in contrast to “Whacking around” with the name of Caesar Nero until it mean 666. I don’t see how that is hard for you to follow.

and most of your post seems unnecessarily standoffish.

I think anyone can see quite clearly throughout this entire thread, that it is you who often come across as “unnecessarily standoffish”.

I said it "smacks of it." The Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms tells us that "smacks of" means "to have some of the characteristics or qualities of something." Thus, the theory that the Pope bears the mark of the beast on his head "smacks of" the Prophecy of St. Malachy.

At what point in time did I give the impression that I was unaware of how to interpret “smack”?

Which isn't Vicarius Filii Dei. One of the pope's titles is "Vicar of Christ" (Vicarius Christi), but that is not the same thing.

Vicar of Christ and Vicar of the Son of God are essentially the same title, and at best, the other evidence I cited deems such use plausible to have been inscribed, or given to the pope at one time in history. Especially Peter, the first pope in the papacy (as cited), in addition to the biblical reference indicating Jesus referred to Peter as Satan (Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.")

Resort to gematria. Everything from this point of my post on was directed to LSD/XTC.

Really? Well, that’s a little difficult to tell since you didn’t specify such in your post, and considering that the rules of Jewish gem atria were brought up by me in conjunction with the Aramaic form of Caesar Nero.

The point of bringing up Crowley was to point out that there are multiple systems for interpreting gematria that can be considered "valid." Which brings us to, "Whose system do you use?" Why, the one that makes you right, of course!

There are a few systems which are valid, but not many. For example, using Crowley’s system would not be valid in ascertaining objective patterns and connections within numeric data for the topic at hand. I would think that would be obvious.

As I’ve stated, only languages and their systems which were in use during the alleged writing of the biblical passage are valid. But also the requirement of translating, for example, Caesar Nero’s name from Latin into Aramaic in order to take advantage of Jewish numerology isn’t valid. And even then, these humble scholars that you speak of, assert Caesar Nero does not yield the value 666 under the Jewish rules of numerology.

It isn’t about “what makes you right” unless you are not approaching the subject objectively.

I don't dislike complicated numerology. I dislike all numerology. Jacking around with words to turn them into numbers which you then use completely meaningless systems to "interpret" strikes me as the kind of shit schizophrenics do when they'll let them have pointy things like writing utensils in the asylum.

No argument on the last part, which I do associate with the writers of the bible. The entire discussion is essentially meaningless. But, if your going to abandoning any attempt to understand and apply those “meaningless” systems from shit schizophrenics who wrote “the number of his [the beast] name” appearing in Rev. 13:17-18... What, are you doing here?

If you're going to give the bible any credence at all-- and I don't-

-

As an atheist… I don’t either, but I love world religious history.

then do what LSD/XTC does and treat it as a historical document. In that sense 666 pretty clearly refers to Nero,

Objectively the bible can not be seen as an accurate historical document. And even in the sense that it is, does not “clearly” refer to Caesar.

in which case it really doesn't matter what's on the pope's crowns, since John of Patmos could not have predicted it, and was most certainly not referring to it.

There are several things I’d like to say on this.

It doesn’t necessarily matter about what is inscribed on the pope’s crown today as much as the relationship of Peter substituting for (Vicar) Christ (The Son of God) as Head of Church. Similar inscriptions of the title (Vicar of Christ). The reference to Peter as Satan by Jesus in Matthew 16:23. "The Acts of Peter" (2nd century AD) and the Ecclesiastical History 3:1 (AD 230) where Peter supposedly requested to being crucified upside-down, and other information I presented.

Preterism can still apply to such interpretation (if you prefer), and doesn’t necessarily mean that John’s writings were prophetic, or that we are “getting into prophecy”. It isn’t prophecy to consider Revelation 13:18 referring to Peter or the title given to him as Vicar of the Son of God. A prediction doesn’t always mean prophecy, so much as it does an understanding of human nature… or anything else for which one might make a prediction. Whether it’s understanding weather to make predictions or understanding politics, economics, … you get the idea.

Still, there are many interpretations, and despite any prediction, or coded messages about a tyrant over his people… it is certain the Book of Enoch written in the second century B.C. heavily influenced the writer of Revelation in 70 A.D.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Here's that pic inside the Scottish Rite Cathedral in Tucson I promised U. I took it November 1987. I think it is similar to the Great Seal of the United States.

Here's an explaination of the symbol: The double-headed eagle was probably first accepted as a symbol of Freemasonry in 1758. In that year the body calling itself the Council of Emperors of the East and West, was established in Paris. The double-headed eagle was in all probability adopted by this body, which claimed a double jurisdiction. The eagle, one head inclined to the East and the other to the West, to guard any and all who might approach from either direction.

The accepted symbol of our Rite is the Double-Headed Eagle of Lagash. It is the oldest crest in the world, according to fraternal scholars and was a symbol of power more than two thousand years before the building of King Solomon's Temple.

This impressive double-headed eagle features the white-ribboned motto, pendant from the hilt to the point of the sword, containing the words SPES MEA IN DEO EST, which translates My Hope Is In God.

 

[Obyron]

If you read my earlier post about the Scottish Rite it explains that the double-headed eagle is a symbol that goes back to the Byzantine Empire, to at least the 13th century. It used to symbolize the two halves of the Roman Empire. It's even in the coats of arms of several European countries (the Deutscher Bund-- pre-Bismarckian Unification-- and the ancient empire of the Seljuk Turks, see also the national flags of Montenegro, and Albania) and several royal families, such as the Habsburgs and the Romanovs. Neat huh?

It's a very very old symbol, and there are lots more people with much more legitimate claims to it than the Scottish Rite!

Edit to add: Er, my point being that this pretty clearly means the United States Seal probably has very little to do with the Scottish Rite using some ancient two-headed chicken as their symbol!

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Bump, Archive Please!

This Thread had over 3000 views and 90 comments, plus lovely artwork by me.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^No prob. This one was a gem.