At This Point, Can't Use Nicey Nice

Post #12,273 by deSitter 10/8/01 2:02:13 PM Reply	At This Point, Can't Use Nicey Nice The ultimate goal should be the prevention of nuclear war. Whatever it takes to achieve that aim should be undertaken. If that means backward and unstable regimes - including Israel with their antediluvian religious ideas - must be conquered with extreme prejudice, then so be it. Civilization cannot survive any more political correctness. Bad people must be suppressed and Marshallized.
Post #12,311 by Ashton 10/8/01 5:08:57 PM Reply	Gentlemen! - fighting in The War Room !?
Post #12,312 by marlowe 10/8/01 5:13:17 PM Reply	So how come it's okay for us to oppress Arabs... but it's not okay for Israel to do the same? You've got a serious double standard working here, man. What exactly has Israel done to torque you off besides oppressing some assholes who we both know sorely needed oppressing at any rate? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #12,359 by dmarker2 10/8/01 10:14:50 PM Reply	Re: Wot U R suggesting would greatly expand the problem . Re Jews & Israel - can you see the parrallel between the problem the Romans faced & what is occuring there today ? But, the problem is now compounded because there are 2 lots of fanatics in the region & the worst of these fanatics on both sides are tearing each other apart and taking us with them The 3rd Roman solution against Israel was drastic but did it solve the problem - NO !!! just put it on ice for several 100s of years interspersed with pogroms against Jews in many of the countries they settled in. A real fact here too is that apart from a period when Mohammad turned on some Jews, it is the European countries that carried out the worst atrocities against Jews between 10th & 20th centuries. The Arabs haven't been able to refine their methods for slaughtering Jews, yet. Drastic acts to solve delicate problems shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem & condemns all players to further pain. Maybe it buys short term relief but rarely a complete answer. Thankfully we have some apparantly sane people running the US anti-terrorist action. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #12,380 by deSitter 10/9/01 12:40:53 AM Reply	Absolutely I surely see the Roman parallel. And wholeheartedly endorse following it - for what is really coming (assuming we survive) is a new conception of God - not a vengeful God of books - not the realm of Logos - like John - but instead a God inside Man - a God of the heart instead of the mind - equal partners - and this is what the crazies really fear. Since (like Rome) our own society is based on dying ideas, I would expect the main road to survival to involve absorbing the new ideas while the old ones more or less gracefully die - and transform it into a new idea that can sustain us far into the future (about 2100 years as the crow flies). Of course, you cannot possibly understand what I am talking about - only admit this, and I will do my best to explain.
Post #12,383 by dmarker2 10/9/01 2:41:33 AM Reply	Re: I have a perspective on this topic ..... Very brief .... Yes the Jews were acknowledged to have discovered there was only 1 God. The Romans Greeks Huns Vikings etc: etc: still worshiped multiple Gods usually based around seasons & weather. One God was intellectual progress for mankind. Christians took an extension of the one God & added a few relations back in as God's relatives, but extended God into the Trinity so they could include the old world God (the Father) plus the new concept of a mystical spirit. But Christiany split & fought over the divine nature of Jesus & the meaning of the Trinity. Mohammad re-invented the one God and used his vision of God to bring static Arabs & Bedou together. All the above unified God concepts were man's creation and man created God in man's image - this point is lost on most people (totally). There was a purpose to creating God in man's image & it was to do with human superiority over all other forms of life and mens desire to dominate women. Thus the bible & Koran & Torah write in a way that relegates women to the staus of chattel somewhere above the less dominant 'animal' species. The above flawed & archaic ideas of God don't mean that there isn't a 'God' just that we humans still have difficulty in defining God in any meaningful and universal way. We may be entering a period where our scientific advances can enable some among us with insight to define a new more accurate concept of God devoid of the chauvanistic artifacts of history and with a relativity to the world, universe and cosmos, as we have come to understand them / it all. But not withstanding the above monologue am more than interested to read what your own views are Cheers Doug Marker
Post #12,388 by Ashton 10/9/01 3:39:25 AM Reply	Can't resist such a pregnant analysis.. And so surprising to hear it from an Occidental :-\ufffd (Somehow I can't place India as 'Oriental' though.. India is India, re the metaphysical in full panoply. Maybe Occident is also obsolete.) Scholars catalogue the intricacies over entire careers. Joseph Campbell tried to express the origins of all religion in earliest myths, in his popular books. He nicely fills in the blanks - the origins - of much which Christianity presents as original and unique. (That's another forum I think.) Oddly, while 'multiple gods' appear to persist in Hindu variations - these are more for popular consumption, and closer study reveals that Siva = Rama = Vishnu in various forms. (Ganesha, the elephant-looking god, is particularly colorful). The idea of the necessity of destruction before renewal can occur - is apparently understood (and perhaps also - the folly of imagining one would want to physically 'live forever'!) I think that pretty much what you are suggesting as a possible (and desirable) evolution, overcoming of the Western-God wars - has long existed among the more ept in India. Anyone earnestly paying attention has recognized the 'Source' as within - whether called 'the Absolute' or by the subtleties of the Sanskrit names. Simply, the West would be catching up.. if it can and if it will. And if we live long enough. I guess it's ever a phenom of the newcomer to act the adolescent: in religion as elsewhere. My concern would be that nuclear weapons wielded by adolescents (and/or sociopaths) might well bring the experiment to a close quite pre-maturely. Anyway - nice synopsis cum motives; the Father characterization is like war IMhO: history and popular religions are spawned by the winners - most often men, who have ever seized the power. (And in the West, no matriarchies are ever mentioned to school children and 'religion' is always assumed to be something about ~'Christian dogma', at least in US schools.) How in Oz? Cheers, Ashton
Post #12,391 by dmarker2 10/9/01 4:48:59 AM Reply	Re: Isn't India enigmatic - idols & visions ... India produced the Budda - later China's Triptaka went to India to resolve contradictions in the teachings that had emerged in the Chinese translations. But Indian Buddism is steeped in vedic teachings and traditions. I find it so odd that so many Indians fervently worship milk drinking stone staues of Ganesha and yet the most enlightened among India's people are in the forefront of divining the 'inner' God. Their concept can be expanded to include that the inner God can be found in any living thing and in a basic form, any matter. The whole issue of the difference between inorganic matter & living organic matter is still part of the puzzel. Wilhelm Riech's attempts to take one & into the other with the addition of 'Universal Energy' (Orgone), was an intriguing perspective on the life / no life mystery. Still intigues me to this day. I still don't believe any human has succeeded in demostrating this transformation or clearly identifying the missing ingredient that allows one to become the other. It seems amazing that we humans can deduce that every universe is powered by a black hole, but we can't take a mix of inorganic material (soup) & show that it can be made organic (creating life of it). But the man who first can do this and clearly define and scope all ingredients, can surely claim to be a 'God' (the old fashioned type :-). Re religion in Australia - tis so long ago since I went to school It have no real idea what gets taught now other than that teachers must keep their hands off pupils (these days touching pupils for any purpose puts the fear of God into all sorts of people - esp paranoid parents). Cheers Doug
Post #12,393 by Ashton 10/9/01 6:06:38 AM Reply	Re: Isn't India enigmatic - idols & visions ... I think the "walking to the Ganges for water, then some humongous distance back - to pour water over an icon" represents the 'formatory' mindset, present in all populations. Ditto picking out your fav sub-deity for special attention. (Still.. Ganesha is the most compassionate of deities!) Always and everywhere are the 'circles' - with esoteric in the center. Believe it is at the esoteric level only, where the bells & whistles are dispensed with. Such questions as would imagine er transmuting inorganic into organic - creating 'life'? - just wouldn't arise. That would be a Western approach: analyze, induce, synthesize - the expectation of a process to be 'mastered'. Reich could be called a wannabe Western mystic - Orgone as umm phlogiston ? We have a hard time letting go of 'causality' and much else. That's why I don't see it as likely, that we can bridge the gap in mindset: we believe that $$ (and chemical elements) are Real! and that intellect can deduce it all. Words fail in that argument. (Whether or not the historical Jesus made it to India in the 'unchronicled years'? many of his ideas as expressed - preceeded him, there) Oh Well.. There is the concept of 'yugas' (some thousands of years) and this is supposed to be the most 'difficult' one from which to discern, well.. 'Truth'. There are ways (or Ways?) around the dificulty but - again - the noise of technology tends to interfere with following these, for most folk in typical daily situations. (In India today, as well) There have been a few Remarkable sages, in recent years - and with interesting attitudes towards 'seekers' from the West: believe that ~ people who have gone to that much trouble (?) are worthy of attention, while - (actually saying that!) "Indians today can't pay attention either / are lazy". Go figure. (Some English transcriptions of talks are jewels. One in particular, from the Marathi language, is remarkably clear - I'd say erudite in the precision and subtlety of the examples -- almost poetry even in the translation. One can only wonder.. and credit the translator for capturing that which could not possibly come from 'editing') It's always an interesting 'Play'. Ashton
Post #12,412 by Andrew Grygus 10/9/01 10:37:51 AM Reply	Oh, how Judeo-Christian of you. Yes the Jews were acknowledged to have discovered there was only 1 God. The Romans, Greeks Huns Vikings etc: etc: still worshiped multiple Gods usually based around seasons & weather. One God was intellectual progress for mankind. This concept of "one god" is political "progress", not intellectual progress. The Judaic concept of "One Supreme God" was invented to cement an authoritarian and repressive rule by one group over a diverse people. It has been found highly useful by every other repressive authoritarian regime since, thus it's popularity. "Worship" is a Judeo-Christian concept and is alien to paganism. That God should need or desire the worship of humans is a pretty damned stupid idea. It's like you needing the worship of each individual cell in your spleen. It's the height of conceit and an intellectual failure on a massive scale. It places a severe human limit on God. Pagans did not "worship" gods / goddesses, they were fabricated personifications of natural forces. Propitiate? Perhaps. Evoke in ritual and magic to gain a desired end? Absolutely. "Worship"? No. That's a Judeo-Christian concept, and quite defective in my opinion. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #12,417 by dmarker2 10/9/01 11:03:23 AM Reply	Re: Yo bro - a good clarification Thanks Doug
Post #12,431 by JayMehaffey 10/9/01 11:44:53 AM Reply	Keep in mind also Keep in mind also, there where as many kinds of Paganism as there are types of Christians today, if not more. The gnostic mystery cults in particular where very quick to simply blend whatever local beliefs existed into the outer layers of the cult, making virtually every group slightly different in beliefs and practice. Some of the pagan gnostic cults of the middle east already followed the sort of god inside line of thought that Ashton and deSitter follow today. They eventually evolved in the gnostic Christian cults and then where stamped out by the literalist Christians, who have never been good at tolerating other lines of thought. Jay
Post #12,434 by Andrew Grygus 10/9/01 11:55:54 AM Reply	Indeed yes - Paganism encourages diversity. Christianity was originally far more a child of Paganism (using that term as a blanket to cover all non Judeo-Christian religions) than Judaism, incorporating major concepts from the cult of Isis and Osiris, concepts imported from Persia, and possibly even farther. But none of this supported an authoritarian church, so the rabble rousers tacked on the Old Testament to justify their ambitions. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #12,449 by Ashton 10/9/01 1:36:46 PM Reply	The spread has been, as with all things er "helped along" by the evident political desire to corral power (and justify that in a neatly packaged way). Naming a particular celestial Chief Honcho is a 'nice' corollary for submission to the leadership of the local.. Honcho-guy (almost Always a guy, natch) -- umm for our comfort and safety. Isis & Osiris indeed - I like the tree-model a lot better; a more compelling illustration of that mystery we get so massively wrong, so often - love :-) Tiyo Kemosabe... {Mindfucks R'Us}
Post #12,551 by boxley 10/9/01 10:22:57 PM Reply	paganism spreads! legs, but wait that was a long time ago, was it pagans or piegans? mumble, mumble, bikes, colors! Yup Pagans! ]:-> sorry boss couldnt resist thanx, bill What is a user? You mean userid isnt the same as uid?, gid? whats that? I dont understand "ask the requestor to send a non formal email request for ftp access? whaddya mean dean? Halp Iam drowning in Bovine Fecal Matter!!!! Bill
Post #12,572 by deSitter 10/10/01 12:58:36 AM Reply	No It was a recognition that thought - chaotic - is separate from intelligence - ordering. Read Bohm, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

Welcome to IWETHEY!