>>3428011i believe what we call nordic aliens are actually the inner earthers, they may came from space, but if so they did several thousand years ago.
furthermore i believe that they are more related the biblical angels. as opposed to the grey ayys which i think are actually demons. god created man in his own image, how likely is it the same goes for his angels? going back to
>>3427526 >>3427532 >>3427560you now can argue wether its correct to call them angels and demons, and thus attribute them a spiritual nature, or call them ayys and attribute a physical nature to them. i however believe there is an ongoing effort to explain biblical and spiritual phenomenas and explain away anything spiritual about it. ie:
The bibles genesis talks in some sense about what we call Big Bang. Both underlie a similar principle which is the easiest explainable in the realm of math. In the beginning there was nothing but God (consciousness) and everything was created out of nothing, 0. Out of this you can make something by creating opposites. +1 and -1. You now have something out of nothing, which when put together will be again nothing. In the world of physics you have the Big Bang, out of nothing pops up matter and anti matter, energy and dark energy, protons and electrons or +1s and -1s out of 0.
In the bible you have god creating heaven and earth, seperating the day from the night, taking the female from the male (adams rib creating eve), creating duality out of nothing, same principle.
Semirelated:
Simulationtheory (shilled for by people like musk for example) is just the same story as genesis of the bible. you just take out the spiritual and divine and switch it for some material counterpart. the spiritrealm/heaven becomes the material world outside this simulation, the divine creator with some random pleb outside that build the PC. the freemasons for example believe in a completely mechanical universe, the simulation stuff would be exactly that.
