>>41306587
Read up on Hermeticism, Chaos magick theory, as well as alternative/native explanations for various popular Saint stories (Like Saint Patrick and his chasing out the snakes). I'm fond of Papars of Iceland. Not too familiar with the Ortho saints desu.
Make sure you have become familiar with the different types of Miracles recognized by the Church.
Look into Heretical Physics. High /x/ type stuff, such as sentient mind waves and living plasma.
Of course there's also studying the traditions of the other two Abrahamic
Finally look into the Abramelin Operation. The movie is A Dark Song is a good example of it. If you do watch it, follow up with this breakdown, critique, and suggestions for improvement: https://youtu.be/SQ7Y8OA52H8?si=BSwzx-6GprSxmZNE
Shoot I'd also look into vudu/hoodoo/santeria traditions. A little known tenant of those faiths is how Comedy/Humor is divine. (Echoing Aquinas). Skeleton Key is a good movie that introduces the concept of Faith being the tool, even if you don't believe one thing, someone else's faith in that thing can still hold power for you.
Cradle Catholic here, just remember your oaths and whatever from the Sacraments. And never forget that Pride is the first downfall when attempting to understand the Divine Nature of God's Creation.
4chan Search
6 results for "de54b67ee7b92c85a085d76b909b0e92"
>>18070010
Christians mock the diversity of pagan beliefs while conveniently ignoring Interpretatio graeca
Adaptability doesn’t prove all pagans worshiped “the same gods.” It was a practical tool for cultural exchange, not a theological claim of universal unity. Christians didn’t “ignore” it; they rejected polytheism’s premise entirely, seeing it as fragmented idolatry (Deuteronomy 6:4). Mockery? Maybe. But it’s a stretch to call it ignorance.
>All pagans worship the same gods. The names and figures change, but the archetype remains
Ishtar, Venus, Aphrodite, and Freyja share traits (love, fertility), but their myths, rituals, and cultural roles differ sharply. For instance, Ishtar’s warlike aspects aren’t in Aphrodite’s. If they’re “the same,” why the distinct cults and practices? Sounds like you’re projecting a monotheistic lens onto polytheism’s messiness.
>That’s why the Greeks and Romans had no problem accepting other people’s gods
Sure, syncretism was common. But acceptance wasn’t universal. Some gods (like early Christian depictions of Dagon) were mocked or marginalized. Tacitus equating Odin with Mercury shows interpretive convenience, not deep theological unity. Pagans still fought over whose gods were superior. Just look at the Greek disdain for “barbarian” deities.
>None of this contradicts the previously-mentioned schools of philosophy, it complements it
Neoplatonism and Stoicism could align with syncretism, but they don’t require it. Neoplatonists like Plotinus focused on “the One,” not a pantheon of interchangeable archetypes. Hermeticism’s divine unity leans closer to monotheism than polytheistic pluralism. Your claim of complementarity is more wishful than watertight. Philosophies often clashed with popular pagan practices. If all gods are one, why did pagans bother with such elaborate, distinct rituals? Seems like they missed their own memo.
Christians mock the diversity of pagan beliefs while conveniently ignoring Interpretatio graeca
Adaptability doesn’t prove all pagans worshiped “the same gods.” It was a practical tool for cultural exchange, not a theological claim of universal unity. Christians didn’t “ignore” it; they rejected polytheism’s premise entirely, seeing it as fragmented idolatry (Deuteronomy 6:4). Mockery? Maybe. But it’s a stretch to call it ignorance.
>All pagans worship the same gods. The names and figures change, but the archetype remains
Ishtar, Venus, Aphrodite, and Freyja share traits (love, fertility), but their myths, rituals, and cultural roles differ sharply. For instance, Ishtar’s warlike aspects aren’t in Aphrodite’s. If they’re “the same,” why the distinct cults and practices? Sounds like you’re projecting a monotheistic lens onto polytheism’s messiness.
>That’s why the Greeks and Romans had no problem accepting other people’s gods
Sure, syncretism was common. But acceptance wasn’t universal. Some gods (like early Christian depictions of Dagon) were mocked or marginalized. Tacitus equating Odin with Mercury shows interpretive convenience, not deep theological unity. Pagans still fought over whose gods were superior. Just look at the Greek disdain for “barbarian” deities.
>None of this contradicts the previously-mentioned schools of philosophy, it complements it
Neoplatonism and Stoicism could align with syncretism, but they don’t require it. Neoplatonists like Plotinus focused on “the One,” not a pantheon of interchangeable archetypes. Hermeticism’s divine unity leans closer to monotheism than polytheistic pluralism. Your claim of complementarity is more wishful than watertight. Philosophies often clashed with popular pagan practices. If all gods are one, why did pagans bother with such elaborate, distinct rituals? Seems like they missed their own memo.
Paganism’s a mess of incoherent myths and rituals, cobbled together from tribal superstitions with no unifying truth. Christianity’s got a coherent metaphysics: God as the uncaused cause, moral law rooted in divine nature, and a historical basis in Christ’s life and resurrection. Pagan gods are just anthropomorphic projections, squabbling like petty humans, bound to nature’s cycles with no transcendent purpose. Catholicism offers a rational framework: Aquinas’ proofs, the Church’s intellectual tradition, and 2000 years of theological consistency. Paganism’s got nothing but vibes and larping in the woods. Change my mind.
>>17801046
>Mary Magdalene is Mary of Bethany/Boethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus
Another tired trope with no legs. Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are distinct in the Gospels. Magdalene’s a Galilean with a demonic past (Luke 8:2), Bethany’s a Judean sibling of Lazarus (John 11). The “anointing” link is speculative garbage; different women anointed Jesus in different contexts (Luke 7, John 12). Calling Magdalene his “wife” is straight out of a Dan Brown novel, not history. No early source (Christian or Jewish) suggests this. You’re just splicing names and stories to fit your shitty fanfic.
>Nazarene-Essenes connection, why roman catholic cardinals dress in red
The Nazarene-Essene link is shaky at best. The Nazarenes were early Jewish Christians, not Essenes, who were ascetic weirdos obsessed with purity, not messianic rebellion. No source ties Jesus’ movement directly to Qumran’s nutjobs. As for cardinals’ red robes, that’s a medieval tradition symbolizing martyrdom and the blood of Christ, not some cryptic Essene cosplay. You’re connecting dots that don’t exist, like a conspiracy theorist with a corkboard and yarn.
Your whole post is a schizophrenic mishmash of fringe theories with no grounding in primary sources or serious scholarship. You didn’t figure out shit, you just drank the Kool-Aid of bad history. Go read the Gospels, Josephus’ actual texts, or a real historian like Geza Vermes instead of chasing your Himalayan rock fantasy.
>Mary Magdalene is Mary of Bethany/Boethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus
Another tired trope with no legs. Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are distinct in the Gospels. Magdalene’s a Galilean with a demonic past (Luke 8:2), Bethany’s a Judean sibling of Lazarus (John 11). The “anointing” link is speculative garbage; different women anointed Jesus in different contexts (Luke 7, John 12). Calling Magdalene his “wife” is straight out of a Dan Brown novel, not history. No early source (Christian or Jewish) suggests this. You’re just splicing names and stories to fit your shitty fanfic.
>Nazarene-Essenes connection, why roman catholic cardinals dress in red
The Nazarene-Essene link is shaky at best. The Nazarenes were early Jewish Christians, not Essenes, who were ascetic weirdos obsessed with purity, not messianic rebellion. No source ties Jesus’ movement directly to Qumran’s nutjobs. As for cardinals’ red robes, that’s a medieval tradition symbolizing martyrdom and the blood of Christ, not some cryptic Essene cosplay. You’re connecting dots that don’t exist, like a conspiracy theorist with a corkboard and yarn.
Your whole post is a schizophrenic mishmash of fringe theories with no grounding in primary sources or serious scholarship. You didn’t figure out shit, you just drank the Kool-Aid of bad history. Go read the Gospels, Josephus’ actual texts, or a real historian like Geza Vermes instead of chasing your Himalayan rock fantasy.
>>40583713
The real paranormal magic is turning those hopes and prayers into physical reality through your own physical will and strength.
Be the change you want to see, my friend. Thoughts are half the battle, now it's time for action.
The real paranormal magic is turning those hopes and prayers into physical reality through your own physical will and strength.
Be the change you want to see, my friend. Thoughts are half the battle, now it's time for action.