Christ filled Christmas? (Facebook debate about religion, syncretism and context)


Christ filled Christmas? (Facebook debate about religion, syncretism and context)

Facebook debate with ‘Crock’ (name changed)…

Crock says to Frank:

A happy, Holy, Christ filled Christmas – A child is born .. and He was born to die for us all…Thank God for Jesus …

I reply…

Crock, what are you talking about? Your referring to ancient pagan sacred geometric metaphor used by the Christian church to wield mass hypnotic subservience right?

And thus it unfolds:


Hi Gavriel ..

1st. It is not Christian it is Catholic. There is a massive difference …

2nd. This I might suggest be of many of the major religions … I could list a few for you sometime if you wish.

3rd. Hardly sacred, if it is considered to be pagan on this I would agree…

4th. Hypnotic? I do not see that making a choice is considered to be a such a state … ( I see no mass hysteria within the Christian faith)

5th. Subservient, I am not to sure what you mean by this statement , maybe you could elaborate for me

6th. Celebrating the Birth of a Child has never been seen as an ancient pagan sacred geometric metaphor, especially when it has been a proven fact in this specific case.

7th. You will note that having been able to make these statements one would automatically show that one is able to make ones own choice, therefore one is not subservient as you so aptly put it. Thanks for your reply



The very fabric of the christian faith is based on subservient mass hysteria, that’s why you can’t see it Ray, because you’re currently consumed by it my friend.

There’s plenty of self-education available. This is highly recommended. Astro-Theology and Sidereal Mythology



There are no priests in the Christian Church (That is the Catholic Religion) The congregation I go to is free to come and go as it pleases, there are around 300 members.

I have read several books on your suggestion of a myth and have recently just read a book ‘The Myth Maker’ – by a Jewish writter, Hyram Maccoby – he made some very good points and some insights into the human mind, he even quoted from the New testament and the Tanakh.

The problem was his exegesis. You see he had little knowledge of either of the books that he suggested that he had studied to complete his otherwise excellently written work.

My question for you is this: Where do you gain your insight from.. is it the link that you have posted? I would be most pleased to know.

PS. As for christians to find salvation for thier sins .. That is why they are called Christians to some extent because the sin is forgiven.. It is those who are out side the fellowship of Christ that need the salvation.



My insights come from a lifetime of integration, not from one link. And frankly, you don’t need much insight to see through such a superficial literal view of jesus as a baby who died for our sins.

Try this Crock:



I am a little surprised here – You tell me that Christianity is controlling, deceptive and not the truth Yet this writer Michael Tsarion, admits to being a deceptive, a follower of the teachings and worshipper of a God called Arya. (Astro ‘heavenly Bodies’ … Theology ‘The study of God’ -(To whom you say you do not believe)

‘It is indispensable for readers interested in the holy art of deception.’ **the writers emphasis. ** He accepts that the writings are arcane astrology

Each book by Michael serves to open the eyes of the world to see the deception and worship of astral bodies.

Now that is interesting, can you explain how one can be freed by this religion/cult and by practising it grow in understanding and knowledge of the maker of the things that one worships.

I would have thought that worshipping the master that made the astral bodies would be more advantageous. “It reminds me of the ancient religion of Babylon”



You’ve got to break out of your narrow scope definitions of things such as god, first of all. You take the bible literally, when it’s a veiled deceptive metaphor and cover up of older genuine wisdoms. I think you’ll find answers to these questions in the Santos Bonacci video I posted above.



Syncretism – Why did you not tell me this before.

Lots of people many of them very nice I’m sure having met with some over the years through many of the pseudo Christian churches and groups .. in fact most of the members are form churches and religious groups. URC, Methodist, Unitarian, EST, Astrology, Parapsychology, Spiritism, Psychic Surgery, Christian Science, Theosophy, Unity, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Humanism, A.R.E., ESP. I have looked at and studied a couple of them over the years.

I remember sitting in a room with some people from a couple of these groups, I think that over an hour of heated discussion they only thing that they agreed with in the end was that they would like a cup of tea. Of which I promptly stood up to make for them.

PS. How else do children come into the world

I take it that you are originally of the ancient religion of the Torah. Pentateuch?



I’m not a syncretist. I’m a contextualist.

All of these factions also have tremendous superficial points of view, because they take things too literally. Santos Bonacci illustrates how Christianity and other religious beliefs originate from older practices.

All of your religious beliefs Crock, are fabrications, distortions and obfuscations of older superstitions/insights. That’s the point here.



Oh, got the name wrong Opp’s sorry…. Ok – This is what you are saying and I accept what you say, what intersts me is what you get out of this contextualist thing? I could tell you loads of what I get out of my thing .. Tell me mnore oK .


The key difference I believe is truth vs honesty. 

Contextualism facilitates honesty. Which is the process of integrating our experience in the widest possible way without cutting corners of conscious identification. 

Honesty on the other hand is the path of religious (superstitious) belief (faith backed by cutting corners on honest identification of experience). 

Your truths allow you a certain short-term comfort in life through hope in superficial fanciful emotionalisms, bringing long-term diminishment’s of spirit, ending in tragic and pointless death, first of soul, then of body. 

My honesty gives me the power to create real value for myself and loved ones for a longer-term benevolence of happiness forever.


Contextualism describes a collection of views that philosophies that emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context.

Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as meaning, knowing that, having a reason to and possibly even being true or being right only have meaning relative to a specified con

1. Contextualist views are often closely aligned with situational ethics, or with moral relativism. Not a new area of thought, think you will find that it was most prevalent during the early 1920 on into the mid 1940’s.

2. Often expounded by the Philosophers of the day and the doctors of eugenics.. fascinating on the grounds of what you thought became acceptable, this was a way of sectioning out the people that one wanted to communicate with and those one did not.

The questions asked would be ‘What Truth would that be’ (Because if I do not see it as being relevant, then it has no place in my country, society or home) therefore truth becomes relative.

Another question would be ‘What Honesty would that be’ (Because if I do not see it as being relevant, then it has no place in my moral or status of my mind) – there are those that say Honesty is what you perceive it to be.

Contextualism describes a collection of views that philosophies that emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context.

Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as meaning, knowing that, having a reason to and possibly even being true or being right only have meaning relative to a specified context.

I have yet to find a philosopher that had anything to be happy about; I spent so time years ago studding and the so called philosophers were always looking to chase the tail of the next monkey. -Ray (Some notes – Wikipedia)


Crock, your head seems to be full of philosophical mis-identifications (hence the superficial religious belief), but you can untangle that web of deceptions. 

Truth is relative to reality. Honesty is relative to individual perception. 

All falsehood rises from relative truths as they misrepresent reality. All neuroses, soulful turmoil and loss of selfhood comes from truths (relative misrepresentations of reality based on dishonest obfuscations of context). 

Integral human experience rises from the honesty process of identification relative to our individual perception of context. That’s the height of morality. The rise of the real self. The downfall of thousands of years of mystical confusion and organized religions.


Hi Gavriel,

philosophical misidentification (hence the superficial religious belief) – How you have come to this conclusion, when I have not mentioned what I believe is amazing.

If as you have already said in your previous replies to my messages to yourself.. That you have a differing belief structure and a different approach to how you see what you wish from life, far be it form me to tell you that you should change.

I replied to your statement stating that what I believe (celebrating a baby born) is a myth and I returned your message pointing out that I have had several discourses and reading from people who have said the same about Christianity i.e.. it is a Myth . All of them used a constant and unbroken line that they had studied and lived this amazing life without God and did not need Him. It has been their decision and I am happy for them.

The tyranny of choice as the enemy of relationships. Our culture teaches that by choosing to consume an endless stream of the latest what-not we validate ourselves and express our individuality. Exercising our right to choose is the way we are being programmed to function.

Yet our choices (truth – honesty) has consequences for our /your relationships: the decision whether or not to take a new job involves weighing up costs and benefits, not just oneself, but to ones family and my community.

Although choice (truth – honesty) is not a zero-sum game, there is usually a cost associated with a choice: the question is, who pays that cost? When choice is equated with (truth – honesty) personal freedom, the cost to others is disregarded.

Even though our choice (truth – honesty) is made in a seemingly caring and open way we have to keep on choosing in order to be free to continue to be true to ourselves (self-centred) everything, even our most intimate relationships, are reduced to momentary decisions (truth – honesty).

Against this, Christianity recognises that there is an aspect of what it means to be human which is even more fundamental than the ability to choose, and that is the ability to love.

To choose is to decide what to love and how much to love it. That is why it is reasonable to choose to commit to lifelong faithfulness to another human being and to make no end of sacrifices in order to see that person and others within the family circle flourish.

Because our culture sees choice (truth – honesty) as freedom what truth or honesty we choose becomes in a whim, disposable.

The emphasis on self /choice has made us a generation paralysed by FOMO (fear of missing out), which brings in a form of psychosis which says we must feel good all the time and be on top of everything.

Thus we are driven to pursue the widest possible range of experiences by YOLO (you only live once). The broken relationship rate is rising as people choose their (truth – honesty) freedom over working through their difficulties with or without a life-partner whom they choose or do not chose in the past or the future.

But the number of people choosing to cohabit in the first place is also falling and failing due to the choice issue whereby (truth – honesty) within the friendship / relationship becomes relative.

Restricting one’s future freedom of choice (truth – honesty) is seen as too much of a risk. If you see (truth – honesty) choice equated with freedom, choice (truth – honesty) is dissociated from reality and this from real life and commitment.

What takes its place is a closed and narrow outlook on life and a lose of all trust in the people, places, things that one sees both in the present and for the future …


Crock, we live in diametrically opposed worlds, and the distance between them is widening…

You have not responded to what I’ve said, only distorted the point of differentiating truth and honesty by inter-linking them into a hodgepodge concept. 

But even within your reply I can see the underlying challenge that you face, Crock. You relate the conflict of selfhood vs selflessness. 

In common terms: selfishness vs altruism (self-sacrifice). 

And within that distorted experience of life values, you are unable to equate love with individuality. 

You link love with sacrifice… giving up the free and real self in favour of the short-term comfort of collectivism (which I alluded to in an earlier reply). 

“The tyranny of choice as the enemy of relationships.”

You’ve actually given a confessional Crock, whether you see it or not. 

You confess your default to uphold your integral self in favour of maintaining relationships. 

And you call that love? Real love is about goodwill towards something that exists. 

Your version of love is about covering up the differences with layers of pretence, facilitating that short-term comfort that leads to diminishment’s of spirit and an empty soul. 

The new world is being built on integrity Crock. No superstitions. No false beliefs. No higher external authorities be it god or government. 

Each man and woman as self-responsible. 

Relationships built on truly relating to one another, as individuals. Unique. 

Like I said, two very different worlds. 

Yours is based on Plato’s truths. Mine is based on Aristotle’s honesties. 

Have you read any of Ayn Rand’s books? The Anthem? The Fountainhead? Atlas Shrugged? 

And try my post on Externalization of the Soul at…/asc…/externalisation-soul/

Crock, here’s from someone who gets it:

Loved this? Spread the word

About the Author


Related posts

God & Religion?

​Read More

Religion Is At A Cross-Roads

​Read More

Buckminster Fuller on Life

​Read More

Life Purpose? — I’m thinkin’… “Eternal Bliss”

​Read More
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Receive Cosmic Bullets of Honesty