On Deborah Houlding's contradictions (Plutarch Style)

This is the original article which I published in the forum of the so-called "astrologer" Deborah Houlding. It was a reply to her awful article on Pythagoras, on her website which is full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions, therefore insulting to Hellenic Philosophy/Theology. Deborah Houlding, unable to answer or tale any rational criticism she responded the good old christian way: She deleted the article and banned my account. For this reason I decided to post it in many relevant places internetwide, because persons like Deborah Houlding are not only fakes and everything but astrologers but although they have the form of man, they have the attitude of the pig. Here's the works!! Enjoy some real philosophy. [size=18][b]On Debora Houlding's contradictions[/b][/size] [i][alternative title: That which Deborah Houlding claims are more paradox than the Stoic's sayings)[/i] written by Hekate [i]inspired by Plutarch[/i] [b]INTRODUCTION[/b] [b]Lexicon[/b] [b][i]Hiera:[/i][/b] a word than means both "powerful" and "sacred". [b][i]Multiverse:[/i][/b] A word to describe the Hellenic concept Sympan, which is defined as "The sum of All". All that have existence, Beings therefore. All Beings consist of matter, therefore Multiverse is material. [b][i]Cosmos:[/i] [/b]Ornament, decoration. Usually translated with the english word "world. Difference between Multiverse and Cosmos: Cosmos is a complete and finite organism (Being), therefore countable by number. Multiverse is the sum of ALL, therefore includes all the many different cosmoi (worlds). Multiverse is infinite, therefore non-countable by number. MAIN THESIS Deb says that she is an Astrologer. But on the same time she uses the "tropical" system, not keeping the Analogy of the Stars in her charting, but relies on false positions that are not analogous to the sky. So she does not embody the Caelum Ratio (Manilius) that is necessary but is completely desynched with Uranian Logos and is depicted in the main Astrological Canon "same as above and below". This shows that she does not even know the very meaning of the word Astrology nor its main Canon, that define the science she claims to practise. Deb writes that she has respect for religion and even has a disclaimer on it, but on the same time she acts disrespectfully, when she is notified that her article on Pythagoras is insulting to one of the earth's most well-known and widely respected religions and while this notification comes from a Hellen Priestess, who is most suitable to judge what insults her religion and what is not, since Hellenic Theology is her job. And while Deb writes that she "prefers to refer to these matters as philosophical rather than religious" she writes on her Pythagoras article that the number 1 is the "one god" of which only the monotheists speak of. But then again Deb thinks that religion are philosophy can be seperate, which is unthinkable since Philosophy is a Hellenic science developed for the proper investigation of theological concepts, therefore religious matters. Which means that Philosophy is religious and Religion is philosophical. The only ones that seperate Philosophy from Religion and have completely abandoned the first, are the monotheists so what have they and their "god" got to do with Philosophy? Still Deb thinks that she can refer to monotheist matters as philosophical while she writes about the number 1 and the "one god" of the monotheists. But it is obvious that she does not even know what monotheism actually is, because she thinks that monotheism is to say that "all are one" and that "the monad rules, it is supreme. that's monotheism". But how can ALL -a word that describes sum- be the number 1 (one), since this number is only used to describe one (1) unit of like-kinded things? And it is further irrational to claim that ALL are one because ALL declares a sume always more than one unit. ALL the objects that my house contains are certainly not 1 (one) but their sum can be described by a number like 10 or 27 or 109 according to the quantity of the counted objects. And if I wish to count them according to their kind, then I would have to speak of "9" units of "spoon", "4" units of "wooden chair", "3" units of "table", "2" units of "bed" etc. an this is how my catalogue would look. Since ALL the objects found in a house are not 1 (one) how can anyone claim that ALL the things the Multivers contains are one (1), since the Multiverse is larger than a house. And we know this is so, because a house is contained in the Multiverse and it is always the smaller that is contained into the larger and never the larger into the smaller. So it is irrational to say that "all are one" and that this is the meaning of the number 1. What is more, it is wrong to term these as monotheism. Let's examine now what monotheism actually is. To define this we must consult those who name themselves monotheists because to inquire and learn about something, we must ask those who are familiar with it and know about it. If we wanted to learn what medicine is we must consult a doctor and if we want to learn what car-mechanics are we must consult a car-mechanist. If we want to learn what politics is we must consult a politician and if we want to learn what painting is we must consult a painter. Some may argue here that not all doctors can give a correct opinion on medicine or that not all painters can give a correct opinion on painting. But this is irrational. Can we call "doctor" someone who fails to cure through medicine? Or "politician" someone who fails to practise politics? Do we name "driver" someone who cannot drive or "cook" someone who cannot cook or "singer" someone who cannot sing? So if it is a "doctor" then we can surely consult it about medicine otherwise it cannot be called "doctor" and if we call it a "politician" then we can surely consult it about politics or it cannot be called "politician". So to learn about monotheism we consult the monotheist. According to the texts monotheists themselves have written and are contained in a book of theirs -the only one they ever wrote- called "the bible", we find that monotheism is "the belief that there is a non-material being, which they call god, that lies outside the Multiverse, who has constructed the Multiverse". It is clear that something must be outside its construction, must not be a part of it, in order to be able to construct it. To make a statue the sculptor must not be part of the marble and to make a food the cook must not be part of the food ingredients. All the technitians-creators are never part of their constructions, of their technical creations. But the god of monotheists is non-material where its supposed construction, the Multiverse is material and it is impossible for the non-material to construct something material. And how can the non-material be a Being since all Beings are material? Being has existence therefore material manifestation. All that have existence, Beings therefore, are all contained into the "sum of all" which we name Multiverse. It is impossible for something both to Be and lie outside the Multiverse. If it's a Being it is inside Multiverse and if it is outside, then it is not a Being, it is a non-Being. But non-Being is non-existent and consequently cannot Be and cannot have constructed anything. But if it is a Being, of material manifestation and inside the Multiverse, then it cannot have constructed it, because it is contained within Multiverse, it is supposed construction. And to construct anything the creator must be outside of the construction. [b]And this is the proof that Multiverse is not a construction and that there can be no creator of the Multiverse.[/b] So Deb comes in contradiction with monotheism, when she places the "one god" of the monotheists inside the Multiverse (which is supposed to be the "one god"'s construction, so "one god" must be placed outside of it and if placed outside of it, it is not a Being, therefore has no existence and consequently cannot have constructed anything, especially the Multiverse) and names it God. Furthermore Deb comes in more contradictions when in her Pythagoras article she writes that God is the number 1 but on the same time she writes that ALL are 1 (one), therefore ALL and God coincide. But ALL, as I have proved is not 1 (one) and evenmore ALL are contained inside the Multiverse while the god-of-monotheists outside, so ALL and "one god" cannot coincide, therefore Deb self-contradicts herself again. Now, if God and ALL is the same thing, then they both should be inside the Multiverse. ALL are inside the Multiverse but the "one god" of the monotheists is not according to monotheists and to claim that it is inside and to call it God, is not monotheism. So Deb is irrational when she says that God=ALL=the number 1 (one) and that this is monotheism. I have already proved that ALL is not the number 1 (one) and since the number 1 is inside the Multiverse (for we, mankind, have defined the number 1 to describe a single unit of a quantity of things of the same kind) it cannot be the "one god since the "one god" is outside the Multiverse and the number 1 is inside the Multiverse since we, who defined it are inside the Multiverse. Now let's examine the case that God is inside the Multiverse. This is not monotheism. If God is inside the Multiverse then it is a Being. It cannot be the creator of the Multiverse since it is inside it. In addition if God is inside the Multiverse it must be of matter because the Multiverse consists of matter in various forms (water, earth, air, fire, aether). Having proved that nothing is outside Multiverse and Multiverse is not a construction (creation) we conclude that God can only Be inside Multiverse, so it is a Being and consists of matter. But if something Exists (is Being) it never appears as only one (1) unit of its kind. If the concept "Idea" exists then there are infinite ideas, if the concept "Man" exists there are infinite men, if the concept "Star" exists there are infinite stars and if the concept "Glass" exists there are infinite glasses. If the concept "Psyche" exists there are infinite psyches and if the concept "Table" exists there are infinite tables and if the concept "Tree" exists there are infinite trees. If the concept "Word" exists there are infinite words, if the concept "writer" exists there are infinite writers. And if the concept "God" exists" there are infinite Gods. [b]And this is the proov that the number 1 (one) is a numeric that defines a unit of things of the same kind and that this numeric is simply the beginning of an infinite series of numbers.[/b] Which is exactly what the Hellen Philosopher Pythagoras taught. Pythagoras got his name from the oracle Apollo gave through Pythia to his father Mnisarchus, who consulted the Delphi Oracle Temple of God Apollo. He was not only told of his wife's pregnancy but that the son that will be born will be "best and wise among all men". When his boy son was born, Mnisarchus named him Pythagoras which means Pythia's talk (or speech). The "son of Apollo" was a well trained Philosopher, an excellent thinker, a scientist and a wise man who was taught by Aegyptians well. He could not have said the irrationalities that Deb claims that he did, irrationalities that are hers, but which she tries to attribute to Pythagoras. And to try to use the Pythagorean name to disguise her irrational claims (as if we wouldn't notice!) is insulting for Us, because Pythagoras is no such jerk and Deb has no right whatsoever to try to present him as one, by attributing to him her claims. [b]EPILOGUE[/b] Some more on Deb's irrationality and (self-) contradictions. Deb writes that the "monotheism is expressed through Pythagorean principles that we are all united in one spiritual source". According to the definition of monotheism, it is not "the union of all in one spiritual source". This "union of all...etc" is a contemporary view and is not part of the theology of the monotheism, nor it has anything to do with the Pythagorean principles which are polytheistic and typically and characteristically reflect the Philosophy and Theology of the religion of the Hellenes. Deb however, is under the impression that there is "one spiritual source" and evenmore that Pythagoras said so. Gods only know what kinds of books she's been reading but I am certain they have nothing to do with Pythagoras. I do not know in what context she uses the word "spiritual", for she has shown that she is incapable of logical ([b]ratio[/b]nal) thinking and writing and she is not using the words with [u]analogy[/u] (ratio) to their meanings. "Spirit" is a word that has to do with "breath": In-spire, per-spire and a-spire and their derivatives show that. But it is my opinion that Deb is using the word "spiritual" in the sense of "non-material". I will check both cases: -If the word spiritual refers to "non-material": In Hellenic Theology/Philosophy the symbol word for matter is Gaia, the mother of ALL (notice the likeness of "matter", of "alma mater" and of "mother"). Gaia is a Goddess, therefore unborn, inconscient, self-existing and self-motioned according to the definition of the God concept by Hellen Philosophers like Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle and others. Gaia is the source of ALL existence, ALL Gods, ALL life, ALL men. She is the Matter than the Multiverse consists of. Therefore a "spiritual source" in the context of "non-material" does not exists within the material Multiverse. Furthermore "we", mankind (or any kind, treekind, starkind, godkind) are material therefore we cannot be "fragments" of the spiritual source" because the sum of material things cannot result to something non-material. And the "fragments" of non-material are never material - but this last sentence is hypothetical because non-material is non-existent, therefore there can be no "fragments" of it. -If the word spiritual refers to "breath": Breath is a material concept of the material Multiverse. "Breath" is either air or in some occasions aether. Aether is the fifth element, a material element that is usually described as "ever-living fire" (aeizoon pyr). This is the element of which conscience (nous, mind) consists of. According to Plato (in Timaeus), Man is formed the following way: nous inside the psyche, psyche inside the body. This forming procedure takes place from conception till birth. Nous is provided by the Star (like Sun), Psyche is provided by Selene (like Moon) and Body is provided by Ga (like Earth). After death the reverse procedurebegins. Body is given back to Ga (earth, chthon), Psyche is given back to Selene (like Moon) and when Psyche is dismantled, then the Nous is free to return to the Star it originally came from. Reincarnation is the process through which Psyches are not dismantled but are born again and again until they acquire the necessary experiences, until they are ready to return. Then the Psyche is finally dismantled and Nous, clear aether, returns to its Star, to the Star it had originally emitted from. So as it is obvious, there is no "one" spiritual source, no 1 aetheral source, but many, different, infinite. [quote]The Psyche is formed according to specific Logos (Ratio) which can be also explained mathematically and is, in Plato's Timaeus, a work strongly influenced by Pythagorean principles. This Logos of the Psyche is the following Pythagorean Tetraktys: (2^0) 1 (3^0) (point, start) (2^1) 2 3 (3^1) (line, side) (2^2) 4 9 (3^2) (square, surface) (2^3) 8 27 (3^3) (cube, solid) 1+2+3+4+9+8=27 And this is the Tetraktys that includes many other Tetraktyai inside it and encloses the Harmony of the Multiverse and the Music of the Spheres.[/quote] Deb, writes that monotheism existed long after Pythagoras but monotheism was invented in Constantine times to serve as an excuse for making the Roman emperor the supreme monarch of the empire and to justify his absolute -above the laws- monarchy with the fabrication of a Multiverse-outsider absolute supreme and non-material phantom monarch that supposedly had constructed Multiverse and therefore justified to rule it the monarch way. This was only the beginning for monotheist christian theology kept being cut'n'tailored for centuries after Constantine, grabbing bits from here and bits from there, random phrases in hellenic texts, in persian texts, in judaean texts, to form some sort of monotheist frame-of-reference. Bits from various myths were also used, distorted, combined without reason to support more claims of the christian monarchs. And this is how the Frankenstein of christianity was constructed and kept "alive" the zombie way by feeding it with thousands of innocent souls. Frankenstein was always in need of more soul energy and christian virus spread all over the world, preaching, grabbing, forcing, mutilating, raping and abusing all other nations' inhabidants, trying to acquire them for their [i][b]golem[/b][/i] Frankenstein. So monotheism not only did not exist before Constantine, therefore non-existent in the times of Pythagoras, but could not have been "the foundation of the Stoic [i]belief[/i]" as Deb -who has understood nothing- claims. The foundations of the Stoic [i]knowledge[/i] system, are the concepts of the two substances, "[b]apoios[/b]" (non-making, non-doing) and "[b]poiousa[/b]" (doing, making). The apoios substance is receptive (passive) and is called "meristi" (dividable). The poiousa is assertive (energetic) and is called "sinehis" (continuous). These are the Gaia and uranus concepts of the Hesiodean cosmogony and as usual Deb has not a single clue of what Stoics actually taught. While in the cosmogonical level, the Stoic teachings were satisfactory and according to the Hellenic Theology/Philosophy, in the anthropological level, the Stoics praised apathy and lack of action. [quote]And discouraged the actions that are necessary to be undertaken in order to fight injustice, to clean a hybris, to fight defending your land and nation against enemies. And discouraged the actions that are necessary to be taken in order to have a healthy society, to progress its arts and sciences, to set examples of justice, of politics, of ruling, of philosophizing - generally of doing beneficiary things in the social and personal level. Of becoming the [i]inspirited[/i] manifestation of the God's properties (Ideas and ideals) which is what Hellenic religion is all about. SYN ATHINA KAI HEIRA KINEI (Along with Goddess Athena, you also have to move your hands) [/quote] Stoics while they talked of Gods, the preached that Temples and Altars were "needless" and gave the impression that no connections (and no communications) between mankind, daemonkind and godkind were necessary - thus opening the way for the atheist movements that dominated the first centuries of early christianity. Of course those first christians/atheists did not practise anything nor were influenced by the Stoic teachings. They took many actions against the Stoic teaching of "non-action". Of course they were atheists. And this partially explains their paranoic rage against Temple and Statue Idols - the most beautiful works of art and love (Eros) that were ever created in the history of man civilisation. Only after "+450" were some Stoic bits embodied in the christian theological corpus, when they already were a regime. [size=18][b]"With the form of Man, but with the attitude of the Pig" [/b][/size] [i](Eunapius comment on the atheist christians who destroyed Serapeion, the Library of Alexandreia)[/i]