a lot of so-called Christians have virulent hatred of whatever they imagine as "the left" - and the term "Christian" is over-broad, the religion/beliefs of some are nearly unrelated to others. They may share the same headwaters, but have diverged into separate rivers on down the way a bit. Any "christian" that doesn't spend a lot of their time trying to SAVE Fall-well/Robertson/gospel-of-prosperity/etc and that ilk I think must ask themselves why they're not trying, because I don't see how they can think, say, Phelps is "saved"
There's another thing about xtianity that sets it apart. You don't see a lot of jewish/buddist/jain/hindu/moslem people out there actively trying to brainwash people into joining their club. A lot of them don't know diddly squat about their own professed religion, it might as well be a political party or a shopping club or a MLM operation. Christianity as written in the bible is an explicitly revolutionary political movement for gaining power over the entire world, and parsing it out to a network of tin-pot dictators in robes. Not sure if there's a greater threat to humanity ever been on this earth.
Last edited by justdrew on Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
Laodicean wrote:Just like to add that I found the Hancock lecture I posted (page 21) fascinating.
Laodicean wrote:
I have watched this video. I endorse watching the whole thing, but in regard to this thread, I advise going to time mark 1:01:09 for OP topical info. At that mark, you will hear Hancock say exactly what AJ was saying, and one of the slide images is a diagram of the LHC. Yes, the 'build it' LHC. Anyway, I recommend for purposes of this thread, watch from 1:01:09 to the end (about 10 min.) Maybe Jones watched this lecture! He has already done shows/segments on the alleged dangers of the LHC and got all freaked out about it.
The majority of evidence presented thus far to demonstrate that Icke is an anti-semite is being taken from chapter 7 of his book ...And The Truth Shall Set You Free
Below is a link to that chapter should anyone wish to read it.
Is Intuition only intuition upon confirmation of what was intuited actually turning out to have been true?
Is Faith only as-yet-to-be-confirmed intuition?
Canadian_watcher wrote:
8bitagent wrote:I agree with Jack.
The reason people don't see saying nasty things about Jews in the same light as putting down Christians/Christianity is probably due to the fact Christianity isn't particularly tied to a singular group.
Christianity is certainly tied to a singular group: Christians.
But I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about anyone who says they have faith - even if that faith isn't tied to a religion. You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board but prevalent in the "left" almost everywhere, against people who are spiritual.
Laodicean wrote:Just like to add that I found the Hancock lecture I posted (page 21) fascinating.
Laodicean wrote:
I have watched this video. I endorse watching the whole thing, but in regard to this thread, I advise going to time mark 1:01:09 for OP topical info. At that mark, you will hear Hancock say exactly what AJ was saying, and one of the slide images is a diagram of the LHC. Yes, the 'build it' LHC. Anyway, I recommend for purposes of this thread, watch from 1:01:09 to the end (about 10 min.) Maybe Jones watched this lecture! He has already done shows/segments on the alleged dangers of the LHC and got all freaked out about it.
Laodicean wrote:Just like to add that I found the Hancock lecture I posted (page 21) fascinating.
Laodicean wrote:...
I have watched this video. I endorse watching the whole thing, but in regard to this thread, I advise going to time mark 1:01:09 for OP topical info. At that mark, you will hear Hancock say exactly what AJ was saying, and one of the slide images is a diagram of the LHC. Yes, the 'build it' LHC. Anyway, I recommend for purposes of this thread, watch from 1:01:09 to the end (about 10 min.) Maybe Jones watched this lecture! He has already done shows/segments on the alleged dangers of the LHC and got all freaked out about it.
So Hancock assumes that the cave paintings, and by correlation, modern man, sprang full blown into existence out of the encounters of homo sapiens with entheogenic plants. His evidence is largely based upon the imagery displayed in cave paintings in the range of 32,000 BCE, which he identifies as corresponding to typical imagery of the trance state, including therianthropes and entopic visual phenonmena. This raises a few questions:
Doesn't it seem likely that the evolution of human language might have predated the cave paintings significantly?
Doesn't it seem likely that other, less durable forms of visual and cultural expression must have predated the cave paintings, such as drawings and paintings which were rendered outside of the protective environment of the caverns, and that this evolution may have taken place during the 100,000 years prior to the cave paintings?
Does it seem to make sense that during the 100,000 years before the cave paintings during which time humans were for all extants and purposes modern in form might not have encountered and eaten the entheogenic plants in their environment? Animals are regularly seen doing just that.
Does it make sense to assume that the cave paintings arose fully formed as they are without a significant period during which the iconography and techniques associated with their production were developed?
Can we really overlay meanings like this onto symbolic imagery of this advanced age? Does it really make sense to assume these are images of shamans rather than a form of pictographic language the translation or metaphors of which we simply cannot be aware?
Hancock asserts that possibly the encounter with entheogenic plants which gave rise to the flowering of culture during the Aurignacian needs to be reexperienced through new encounters today - but didn't that very flowering lead inexorably to the disasters of today?
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
C_w, saw your post answering my question asking for examples of non-theists oppressing theists through law and force a while ago.
Now before you went and added the edit, I actually intended to reply as follows:
France? What an interesting example.
I commend you for not reaching for the usual canards of blaming Stalinist Russia or Maoist China on atheism, since of course neither of these states oppressed people because of any remotely rational atheism, but because of a secular religion that was actually a revival of the same God-Emperor cult we see in countless autocracies going all the way back to the Pharoahs. (I suppose the modern Chinese state, which is less ideologically cultish but just as oppressive of its people, including of religious movements, may be closer to an atheistic tyranny.)
Of course, you are also mad, but that's all right and I hope you don't take it the wrong way. Revolutionary France seized the long-held lands of the Catholic Church, 'tis true, and broke its power, surely with justification given the history of oppression and benightment the people had suffered under it; but the excesses of the Terror were also applied with cruelty to many a neck from the former First Estate, 'tis also true.
Today's France imposes measures like the 'burqa ban' in the name of secularism and protection of individual freedom, but these are thinly disguised religious intolerance angling for culturally right-wing voters, or really just plain hating on the unassimilated immigrants (not that I'm for burqas, mind you, just aware that a punitive law is not really meant as a solution any more than the NATO troops are in Afghanistan to advance women's rights).
And I wonder what you mean by the French detours? Because there were some Catholic and monarchical revivals or reactions in that country's history, sometimes verging on fascism; I hope you don't view these positively.
.
Unfortunately, then you went and did that edit, and threw in the usual bogeymen of theist persecution, Stalin and Mao.
Okay. Preemptively answered above.
But then you took things decisively farther.
Are you really implying that the removal of Christianist ceremonies ("prayer") from US public schools is an oppression of religionists? I can't believe you'd really be for allowing the Christianists to use the country's public schools for brainwashing and to bully the non-conformists there, because of course that is exactly what would happen -- what already does happen, and would become a hundred times worse if it were given legal cover. Madalyn Murray O'Hare was a hero for pursuing that case.
As a child I was forced to attend a private school that practiced religious indoctrination on us, including interminable teacher-monitored church services on the Tuesdays; and that was still in a relatively liberal culture compared to what would be happening in a great many fundamentalist precincts of this nation. One of the things we learned in our church was that y'all's churches in Texas aren't the real thing. Sorry, there's only one original church, and it's Orthodox, and there is a Western wing of heretics run out of Rome, and all the rest is pure delusion and barely worth even acknowledging. That's the Christianity I learned.
Canadian_watcher wrote:Christianity is certainly tied to a singular group: Christians.
This is not remotely a singular group.
This is a catch-all for a number of persuasions, many of which do not consider the others to be Christian. Christian churches have at many times been at war and burned each others' members freely, not to mention that library in Alexandria you were wondering about.
In fact, these sects were already at war with each other even before the Roman Empire decided to adopt Christianity as the right religion for keeping the slaves in order. (Results were mixed.) The greatest holiday native to our church alone (i.e., Orthodox holiday only) commemorates a fucking 30-year civil war and massacres over the question of whether you're allowed to draw a picture of Jesus.
I suppose the good guys must have won, because I like stuff like this:
An earlier conflict that people actually fought and died in, at least if you believe the Church tellings of the motives behind the killing, was about whether the Christ was all God or half-God half-man. Or wait, maybe whether he was all man or half-and-half prior to the Resurrection, and all God after that? I may be at war with myself.
Since I was brought up in a church of this supposed singular group (not that this is a necessity for criticizing Christianity or its variants), I feel fully empowered to say that most Christians (regardless of whether they are Greek Orthodox or the heretical majority) are not Christians.
I've said it here before: If the teachings of the Christ character as given in the Gospels are not your central guide to action in life, then you are not a Christian. (I am not a Christian.) Doesn't matter if you believe in the literal truth of the Christ story, his god-hood or Resurrection, or if you think you're "born again." Christians are those who take Christ as their teacher, not their "savior." If you love your neighbor as yourself and share what you have with those in need, and the Gospels are your inspiration for that, then you are a Christian, even if you don't believe in the bible sky god. Whereas Pat Robertson is not a Christian, because his is an ideology of hatred. The apocalyptists, fundamentalists, homo-haters and positive-thinking Salesman Christians a la Osteen are not Christians.
Christian is also a historically recent philosophy (in Big History terms, anyway), not a biological trait that's been around since humans first evolved. Christian is as it does; therefore it is not remotely comparable to sex, race, or sexual orientation.
Canadian_watcher wrote:But I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about anyone who says they have faith - even if that faith isn't tied to a religion. You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board but prevalent in the "left" almost everywhere, against people who are spiritual.
That brings us back to oppression. Does the rejection by some of purely faith-based assertions on a message board amount to a prejudice, and if you want to call it that, what's wrong with it?
Besides which, on this message board you engage in evidentiary statements all the time. So your faith must live with other means of apprehending the world.
By the way, given this subject: I assume you do not on the whole believe in the Ickean reptilians, except perhaps as metaphor. Or do you? If so, then do you believe in their existence on faith alone? Or do you believe in the Ickean reptilians on evidence? The latter would be if you felt you had experienced it somehow, or seen clues, rather than believing on pure word.
And a final "by the way": Do you think my writings in this post are indicative of this prejudice against people of faith and spirituality? We might as well have that out in the open amongst us, since neither of us is going to demand that the other be burned at the stake, I am sure.
.
Anyway, it's all about how one defines "faith" and "spiritual," and plenty of people who make much of these concepts in their lives are good, good people.
Many better than me, if "you are as you do" is the rule.
So here's a video I ran into today via Counterpunch, of some Catholic Workers fighting the good fight:
The reason people don't see saying nasty things about Jews in the same light as putting down Christians/Christianity is probably due to the fact Christianity isn't particularly tied to a singular group.
Christianity is certainly tied to a singular group: Christians.
But I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about anyone who says they have faith - even if that faith isn't tied to a religion. You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board but prevalent in the "left" almost everywhere, against people who are spiritual.
Oh of course...while all my Christian friends are more or less gay loving liberals...a lot of leftist friends of mine have a virtulent hate and mistrust of any Christians or religious people in general
? I'm not talking about CHRISTIANS.
I will now, for a moment:
I am beginning to believe that American "Christians" might be something altogether different from the Christians of other places. Maybe there's a little ethnocentrism going on with the Americans on the board? Within Christianity itself there are dozens of different 'sects' or whatever they like to be called. Denominations, whatevs. In the US moreso than anywhere there are Born Agains, Evangelicals and Mormons. I did not look at stats on this. This is a guess. But this guess, if true, might explain why so many lefties detest people of 'faith.'
Those people - the Phelps, etc are quite putrid.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
that was a fantastic response and thank you for it. I want to reply and hope to.. forgive me for now for just doing a quick drive by to say:
Yes, I do believe that using the law to force prayer out of school *is* an example of people of a non-theist bent to force their non-theism on others.
Whether or not I think it is the right thing is a whole other matter, but the motive was clearly to make the school board fall in to line with the beliefs of people who do not believe.
Oh wait..
NB - NO, I do not believe in the Reptiles of Icke. At all. I am horrified that he would believe in the claims of that Wilder person (was that her name?) and certainly that level of gullibility (or vanity?) on his part calls in to question every single thing that he says. Given. Granted.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
Let him who seeks not cease seeking until he finds; and when he finds he shall be troubled; and having been troubled he shall marvel, and he shall reign over the totality° {and find repose°}
If those who lead you say to you: Behold, the Sovereignty is in the sky°!, then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you: It is in the sea!, then the fish {of the sea} will precede you. But the Sovereignty {of God} is within you and it is without you. {Whoever recognizes° himself shall find it; and when you recognize yourselves} you shall know that you are the Sons of the Living Father. Yet if you do not recognize yourselves, then you are impoverished and you are the impoverishment.
barracuda wrote:So Hancock assumes that the cave paintings, and by correlation, modern man, sprung full blown into existence out of the encounters of homo sapiens with entheogenic plants. His evidence is largely based upon the imagery displayed in cave paintings in the range of 32,000 BCE, which he identifies as corresponding to typical imagery of the trance state, including therianthropes and entopic visual phenonmena. This raises a few questions:
Doesn't it seem likely that the evolution of human language might have predated the cave paintings significantly?
Doesn't it seem likely that other, less durable forms of visual and cultural expression must have predated the cave paintings, such as drawings and paintings which were rendered outside of the protective environment of the caverns, and that this evolution may have taken place during the 100,000 years prior to the cave paintings?
Does it seem to make sense that during the 100,000 years before the cave paintings during which time humans were for all extants and purposes modern in form might not have encountered and eaten the entheogenic plants in their environment? Animals are regularly seen doing just that.
Does it make sense to assume that the cave paintings arose fully formed as they are without a significant period during which the iconography and techniques associated with their production were developed?
Can we really overlay meanings like this onto symbolic imagery of this advanced age? Does it really make sense to assume these are images of shamans rather than a form of pictographic language the translation or metaphors of which we simply cannot be aware?
Hancock asserts that possibly the encounter with entheogenic plants which gave rise to the flowering of culture during the Aurignacian needs to be reexperienced through new encounters today - but didn't that very flowering lead inexorably to the disasters of today?
barracuda wrote:Hancock asserts that possibly the encounter with entheogenic plants which gave rise to the flowering of culture during the Aurignacian needs to be reexperienced through new encounters today - but didn't that very flowering lead inexorably to the disasters of today?
These are paradigm demolishing words Barracuda.
Hancock states that for 2 million years the human species was boring ... yet think of the resiliency. Two million years! It is quite easy to imagine that consciousness is a maladaption ... a mistake of evolution within which is contained the seed of both our flowering and our inevitable demise. So far as anyone can tell, we are alone in the universe.
Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe examines the great existential crisis of humanity in his brilliant essay entitled The Last Messiah. By way of warning, Zapffe presents an extremely pessimistic view of our place in the universe ... yet it is certainly one distinct possibility and in my opinion, well worth a few moments of contemplation.
Peter Wessel Zapffe, in The Last Messiah wrote:One night in long bygone times, man awoke and saw himself.
He saw that he was naked under cosmos, homeless in his own body. All things dissolved before his testing thought, wonder above wonder, horror above horror unfolded in his mind.
Then woman too awoke and said it was time to go and slay. And he fetched his bow and arrow, a fruit of the marriage of spirit and hand, and went outside beneath the stars. But as the beasts arrived at their waterholes where he expected them of habit, he felt no more the tiger's bound in his blood, but a great psalm about the brotherhood of suffering between everything alive.
That day he did not return with prey, and when they found him by the next moon, he was sitting dead by the waterhole.
Whatever happened? A breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily- by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapon was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn the one edge toward himself.
Despite his new eyes, man was still rooted in matter, his soul spun into it and subordinated to its blind laws. And yet he could see matter as a stranger, compare himself to all phenomena, see through and locate his vital processes. He comes to nature as an unbidden guest, in vain extending his arms to beg conciliation with his maker: Nature answers no more, it performed a miracle with man, but later did not know him.
I blame the Nazis. Being anti-Semitic used to be fine, was very popular, then they came along and ruined it for everyone.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
I'm an independent researcher, author and lecturer in archaeoastronomy, astrotheology, ethnopharmacology, shamanism, symbolism, ancient and modern mythology, fertility cults, and ancient and modern religion.
I co-authored the book Astrotheology & Shamanism: Unveiling the Law of Duality in Christianity and Other Religions, 2006, with Andrew Rutajit. I also co-produced the DVD The Pharmacratic Inquisition, 2007, also with Andrew Rutajit. See http://www.gnosticmedia.com
I'm the curator of the official website for John Marco Allegro, the much criticized Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, and have contributed much to the re-examination of many of Allegro’s theories. See http://www.johnallegro.org
I contributed much of the research toward the academic article Wasson and Allegro on the Tree of Knowledge as Amanita, 2006, with Michael Hoffman. This article is to be published in The Journal of Higher Criticism, sometime in 2008.
I was featured in the documentaries American Drug War (aired on Showtime) and the recently released Canadian film, Hijacking Humanity.
I have over 15 years of research into the study of ethno-pharmacology and drugs. Through the years I've given dozens of public speeches and radio interviews regarding these studies.
lupercal wrote:So Catholics aren't the wisdom hiders here.
It's just as bad to adulterate the truth as to hide it.
Ha. Well, every translation is an adulteration isn't it? So I'll let the Big Guy sort out that one out. But notice I said wisdom, not truth. Once you get into the truth business the libraries go pretty fast, along with the rest of the real estate.
