|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 67 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Preach: Messianic Existentialism |
Posted by
IamSquid on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:10 PM PST
Once upon a time, the human race was one with Nature and the Universe. We had everything we could ever really want and yet, somehow it wasn't enough. We had to have more. So we left Paradise to create a world of microwave ovens and barcodes.
The Fruit of Free Will is the ungrateful malignance that blemishes the face of the Earth. We are so casual in our defiance of what really matters. The idea of building a missile for the purpose of conquering a cache of a limited, inefficient fuel that destroys our only home is tolerated because it connivances our lives full of microwave ovens packaged in barcodes and assembled by slaves.
People would easily kill or ruin one another for a sleight increase in profit, and these are the people I'm here to save. It sickens mee to see people I share common genes with unleash lawyers upon one another in order to seize their dead father's estate. It sickens mee that the world I'm trying to save would rather crucify mee than listen to what I have to say.
It doesn't bother mee that no one believes in mee. It doesn't stir mee that in all likelihood I'll be whining like this until something comes along and stops mee. It's not unsettling that I will in all probability have to die in order to get anyone's attention. What bugs mee is the thought that I may not make any difference whatsoever, just like my predecessor. I wonder if he hated the human race just as I do.
|
Note: Jesus complexs R us! |
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messianic Existentialism | Login/Create an account | 31 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Messianic Existentialism
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Dec 20, 2002 - 05:07 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/
|
Well, see the thing is the poor sap in question was worse off than you...he CARED about the human race..to his own detriment.
Man, someone should have a serious talk with whatever voice was in his head...messin with a poor woodworking schitzopherenic like that...sheesh. The NERVE.
Just be glad that you have the good sense to know the true nature of the beast...and to not EVER turn your back on it. To do so would be as foolish to turn your back on the tricky ocean....never know when it's gonna come from behind and sweep you away, even in the shallows.
|
Re: Messianic Existentialism by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 21, 2002 - 11:17 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Of course he cared, but did he hate them as well? We would not hate the lovres that cheat on us if we did not care about them, we would not hate the children that run away from us if we did not care about them, etc.
Incidently it is impossible to not know evil. One cannot know God without knowing the Devil. My philosphy is not based on regarding Good over Evil but instead taking the Middle Path.
I will leave the argument that the Beast was God and not the Devil for another day. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Dec 21, 2002 - 11:32 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/ | Bah I really don't care enough about it to bother really. I don't know if he REALLY hated or not, I mean hell he's been dead for HOW long? Did he ever really exist at ALL? Sure they say they have proof...but well they say they can prove a LOT of things simply because there is not only lack of evidence to the contrary, but lack of evidence in general.
This is the precise reason I don't get way into this whole "god" thing...it takes up too much of my precious "me" time. I'd rather be out drinking and pretending I'm Axel Rose than buggering my brain over a couple thousand year old fairy tale.
I'm just satisfied in knowing that, yeah, I hate people, yeah, most of them are ignorant, ungrateful, and can blissfully meet their own ends however they choose.
I figure the people worth my time to save will make themselves known in my life. I'm not holding my breath....and I'm not one for "projects" either, at that....
I figure I'll save animals. They're better company. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 22, 2002 - 09:06 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | That's actually a very wise statement. Yoo can't save everyone, the only people worth saving will make themselves known to yoo.
I believe, however, yoo misunderstand my point. This has nothing to do with any kind of "god" or religion. Take yorself as an example Bettie, what do yoo do that damns us all? From what I know about yoo, absolutly nothing! In fact, yoo seem to try to avoid doing the things which damn us all. Thus yoo are an example, even when yor drunk and pretending to be Axl Rose.
People aren't damned because they are "hethens," "heretics," or "blasphemous." Hell, I'm all of those things. People are damned because they refuse to take into account the consequences of their stupidity. It is partially a conscious effort and partially a scoial effort because it's so goddamn casual. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Dec 23, 2002 - 04:13 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/ | Tru nuff. I get it now *duh*
What I've noticed lately is that the generation growing up RIGHT NOW and the one PRIOR to it (mine and thereabouts) is that they are growing up in a frame of time where personal responsibility is for the birds...it's a dirty word. They are generally not taught action and consequence, just action. I totally believe that you can do whatever you want...but that certain behaviors or "actions" also have consequences and "reactions". They are raised in the "victim" mentality...that it CAN'T be their fault, there MUST be someone ELSE to blame, somewhere down the line.
So the behavior continues, becomes worse.
I don't THINK I'm damning anyone (physically, like, causing doom to the world *I wish*)....that is, if you don't count all the souls I've bought off of mallrats....man those kids are easy!
And like I said before...I'd rather save animals. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Obolisk is Divine. Mmm-yes. by Cashmere on Dec 24, 2002 - 09:20 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Of course. The emotions behind "fuck'em" does not, however, involve apathy at all; it is more along the lines of controlled egotism. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Isis Mourning
by Monolycus on Dec 20, 2002 - 11:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
"What bugs mee is the thought that I may not make any difference whatsoever..."
Aye, there's the rub. And I hate to be the one to break this to you, but dying isn't going to get anyone's attention either. Wanted you to hear this from a friend. Ted Kazcynski thought that making other people die was the only way to get people's attention... he did, but nobody listened to what he actually had to say. He remained in everyone's consciousness just long enough to make a historical footnote of himself in a trivial pursuit game. People kill and die all the time in hopeless attempts to get people to stop what they are doing and think things through... and it never, ever works.
Come to terms with the fact that you are not going to, can not, save the masses. They refuse to be saved and they will take as many with them as they are able. To paraphrase one of the masters: there's no hope for the Clueless. They will fight tooth and nail to fulfill all of their awful prophecies under the banner of the Sons of Fenris and never a rational thought will make the first bit of difference to them.
Now...
You can be very upset by the fact that the majority have doomed themselves and not see any hope here or...
You can realise that there is a compromise between saving everybody and saving anybody. Just because you can not deliver the world does not mean that you can not make a difference. It is the burden of the bodhisattva to recognise their limitations. Making a difference in the lives of the willing, the few, even one other is making a difference. And sometimes that is all you can do.
Take heart, my messianic cephalopod... there is work yet for you to do. Do not be disheartened by numbers... remember that as above, so below. If you can save one reproductive pair, you can save a species. Set your sights a little lower and you can accomplish everything. I am, I was, I will be
~Monolycus.
|
Osiris Risen by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 21, 2002 - 01:29 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Incorrect! WWI was sparked by the assassination of a single life! Likewise the disillusionment in the honesty of the US government was sparked by the death of JFK. Single deaths can have enormous implications for the course of history.
I realize the fact that the vast majority of the masses are very comfortable with their misery. I am not suggesting that the world become a giant Rainbow Gathering in which everyone joins hands and sings. What I am suggesting is that people come to terms with the effects of their strive for damnation so that the rest of us are dragged down by their stupidity. I have no wish to destroy Free Will as it is through Free Will transcendence is attained.
Limitations are self-imposed. Perhaps my faulty liver prevents mee from consuming alcohol but there are other ways of intoxicating myself. Assuming the identity of Christ is not a question of birthright but a question of Will.
I appreciate the criticsm but I won't settle for satisfactory. As above, so below is one of the greatest truths Trismegistus wrote and likewis my personal Alchemy should have effects upon the sphere about mee.
-Iam |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Apophis and Typhon by Monolycus on Dec 22, 2002 - 12:14 AM (User info | Send a Message) | The actual impact of the deaths of Archduke Ferdinand or John Cainnedeach are very much the products of revisionist simplifications, but (as history seems to be more art than science) it doesn't bear debating. It is by our deeds that we impact the world around us, and by our decisions that we are judged. Our deaths are neither deeds nor decisions.
There are those who will be contented with only all or nothing. If that is your scope, I wish you the best, but we are concluded.
~M. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
I.N.R.I. by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 22, 2002 - 08:48 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Interesting that yoo should say that about history. I see history as more like mythology than anything else. History is not altogeather fiction but also it has been skewed and often times intentionally altered to suit the purpoes of indivuals. Still the stories have meaning.
This is why I don't bother to debate whether Christ was historical or mythological. Even the Gospels themselves contradict one another (paticularly John's as he was the most prone to confabulation) and the Church portaryal of the Jesus myth conflicts severely in many aspects to what is generally considered to be their source material.
Anyway, the scope is not all or nothing, it's success, failure is not an option. Success has a pretty wide range as long as the basic criteria are met and not even met instantly, only before it's too late (which unfortunatly I will not be here for).
Furthermore I should add that this is NOT a religious issue. People should be free to believe whatever they want, I'm not trying to pull this John 3:16 crap where yoo have to believe in such and such a god or whatever. It is an issue of people coming to terms with the fact that they have Free Will and the ramifications thereof.
Respectfully yors, brother.
in LVX
-Iam |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism
by Dolorosa (SixOfSwords@IU.zzn.com)
on Dec 22, 2002 - 09:16 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Ever just want to break it all?
I mean, shit...everyones sitting around WAITING for things to change...fuck that, I say we kick-start ragnarok.
It'd be nice to go back...way back.
I don't hate the human race myself...not really...come to think of it, I don't hate Tse-tse flies either...not really.
|
Re: Messianic Existentialism
by callei on Dec 22, 2002 - 12:02 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
And other people's stupidity bothers you? How stupid is it to try to change the reality of so many other people, especially when that reality works for them? How stupid is it to try to judge others by your own inner twangy plastic ruler to see if they measure up to your day dreams of perfection?
How many miles have you walked in thier (either collectivly or individually) shoes to make you an expert on thier blindness? Everybody's actions make sense in thier reality, flow logically from the last action, and are moving them toward thier eventual goal. You may not understand why a business man of 50 needs to wear a dress on alternating Saturday afternoons, or what drives a political martyr to set themselves on fire, or why a toddler wants to play with a bag of rice, but that is your blindness, your lack of understanding, that makes thier actions and goal so strange and incomprehensable. Thier actions are guided by thier pasts (that you dont know), thier present (that you also dont know or understand), thier curiosity, thier hopes for the future, there justification of past beliefs and attempts to create new beliefs, and thier joy. It is where thier free will takes them and that is beautiful.
And you want to take that away, make thier past dreams, actions, loves, hates, beliefs, and self knowledge a lie so that they can more perfectly fit into your reality of one dimentional audience members trained to clap when the red light goes on? That seems awfully childish to me. Especially if you are threatening to take your ball and go home if they wont play your way....
The messia fantasy is like all other sociopathic fantasies in that the person in the center of the dilusion cannot perceive other people to be 'real' and sees them rather as wall paper or obsticals. That narrowness of perception, that inablility to see the trees in the forest, is what makes them both laughable and dangerous to others. laughable because their very narrowness causes them, through the same actions as other people, to develope strange and funny ideas about the world and thier place in it, and dangerous because, unlike most of us that believe they are real and thereby put more love and acknowledgement out at them, they are black holes that suck in the everyday mana that others create blackening the world and damning it with thier lack of aknowledgement.
|
Temptations by Monolycus on Dec 23, 2002 - 12:18 AM (User info | Send a Message) | It really wasn't my impression that Squid was indicting the concept of free will, per se. He stated that "(t)he fruit of free will..." had resulted in a global level of badness, but I did not see where he clamoured for its abolition. The ability to do bad (as well as good) is often taken as a mandate to do bad, which is the prerogative of the individual but is no less heartbreaking when it happens. Further, as long as we are fleshing out the finer points of this argument in a real-world context (as opposed to strictly hypothetical situations), social constructs forbid the unconstrained exercise of free will far more explicitly than any religious taboo does or we would not punish people who exercised their prerogative to commit crimes. It is not merely the would-be messiahs who objectify and constrain the masses but the tacit social contract that we all enter into.
As fashionable as it might be to argue that "everything is permitted", I somehow doubt that it would be quite so appealing when it is the Devil's advocate's own life that has become "...nasty, brutish and short" as a result of someone else's experiments with free will. I am aware that you had in mind experimentation along the lines of cross-dressing, playing with bags of rice, or other harmless pursuits... but the argument you make could also be applied to theft, rape, homocide or other undesirable behaviours. Who am I to take away a person's free will if it makes them happy to poison the water table, slaughter a family, drive dangerously? I see where you are coming from, callei, but it is a slippery slope that you are walking upon here.
Incidentally, while I am no scholar or authority on Christianity (nor any sect that embraces the god of Abraham), this discussion has (predictably) centered around what has become known by Biblical scholars as the Last and Greatest Temptation of Christ. The temptation in question was simply: knowing that people left to their own devices will make a mess of their lives and the planet, thus dooming both the righteous and unrighteous alike, wouldn't it be better to simply take away their choice to make bad decisions? According to legend Christ took your view, callei, that it is better to leave it to humankind to make that decision for themselves even though it will mean their inevitable
destruction. I, too, take the position that a person's opportunity to learn and grow from their mistakes as well as their successes is the only way to keep them from becoming emotionally and intellectually arrested... but the issue is not quite as black and white as you have presented it. More often than not, where someone's free will takes them is the antithesis of "beautiful" as you described, and more people than not will be negatively impacted by people chasing their bliss... but the messianic perspective is that the alternative is the more horrible. Having a world filled with harmful, criminal people is preferable to having a world of dependent, emotional children who have been denied the opportunity to grow and learn. I often think of this "Last Temptation" argument when I hear people talking about how we should sacrifice our liberties for security... but that is the same debate with a different face on it. I am
your faithful friend,
~Monolycus. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Temptations by callei on Dec 23, 2002 - 10:49 AM (User info | Send a Message) | i used the idea of cross dressing and playing with bags of rice as those are done by fewer people than rape and murder of the body, mind, or soul, not because they are harmless. Funny huh?
And I agree with you that the social contract does far more harm that most individual free-will. BUT what is the root of the social contract? what does it do and why do we have one? To tell us how to act. The social contract in an of itself is not 'evil' just as an tidal wave isnt 'evil'. it is just a thing. But when people use this thing as a replacement for thier own will and thought, it becomes a loaded Saturday Night Special, prone to hurt the people at either end.
The social contract (developed in large part by meglomaniacs, messiahs, and people used to thinking of others as furnature) is in many cases what drives people to poison water supplies, start wars, or on a smaller level, beat thier children and rape thier prom date. The limits it places on ones choices, the distance that it places between people, and the roles that are asigned to others to complete the social contract are the vary reasons that there are cliques in highschool, bell tower shootings, and the pervasive fear of satanist (to use american examples).
The social contract was not designed by people, but rather set up by a few people (the ones with the money and the power), tacitly agreed with by the people (those that want the money and the power), and ignored or side stepped by those that want to be happy.
I fail to see the difference in 'leading' people by messianic word and messianic action. In either case you are buying into the idea that people cant think for themselves rather than that they are socially trained not to think for themselves.
And Jesus gave in to that tempation, he allowed and promoted the development of a religion that told people what to think, what to do, who to love, who to fear, what to eat, what to drink, where and how to live, and how to treat thier loved ones. But i wasnt really thinking of him, i was thinking more of Hitler and Stalin and thier attempts to make the world a better place.
In fact the only changer of the social contract that i can think of that dont fit this model are Siddartha and Ghandi, both of whom refused followers, the roles and privilages of leadership, changed the world more by example than by the time honored way of rewriting the social contract. Both held the idea that real compassion is to let people live thier own lives and not to try to change others. both forced those that wanted to follow them (ie give up thier free will) to think for themselves.
Perhaps the real question here is what would have to happen to make more people use the free will that they have? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Temptations by Monolycus on Dec 23, 2002 - 04:57 PM (User info | Send a Message) | According to Rousseau, the social contract is an a priori condition in order that a society might function. What people like Josef Stalin or Idi Amin do when they rewrite the social contract to serve their own megalomaniacal ends is not a natural progression of the status quo, but an abuse of power.
I am afraid that I must disagree with you about Jesus (Ieshua) having given in to the Third Temptation. According to the legend, Ieshua led by example only. He did not form the Christian Church (the codification of what we know today as Christianity can be heaped on to the lap of Saul of Tarsus) nor is one jot of so-called Holy Writ credited to his personal hand. What Ieshua actually did (if one subscribes to the belief that he existed and did anything) was to present a model by which people could be saved, very much in the same mold as Siddhartha, Mithras or Lao Tsu (although not so terribly close to the actions of Mahandas Ghandi, Confucious or Mohammed). The blame for the Church's denial of free will is the fault of wave upon wave of Grand Inquisitors (beginning with Saul) speaking on behalf of the historical Ieshua*.
I think there might be some confusion about what is meant by "leading" people. In this day and age, our leaders (die Führen) make their sweeping decisions and base their policies on what they feel is in everybody's best interests, but this is not any form of "salvation" which, by necessity, must be an individual and private response to our lives. The kind of "leading" that is done by a genuine spiritual messaniac figure can not, therefore, be coercive... and many (if not the majority) would necessarily miss the point. It is not simply a question of how to entice people to exercise their free will (they do that all the time), but how to demonstrate to them methods by which they can benefit themselves and those around them? Once again, thank you for your time. I am, as ever,
your faithful friend,
~Monolycus.
*I know that I have advocated this before, but I implore you to read The Brothers Karamozov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. All that we have so far said is covered in Part II, Book Five, Chapters 4 and 5. Further, the preceding argument about how the denial of free will stagnates the soul could easily have been covered in the book discussion of Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange (especially with the inclusion of the final chapter that Pseudonym provided for us!) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Temptations by callei on Dec 23, 2002 - 11:23 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I know. sad isnt it that we drag out the old arguements like they were new and get impassioned of stale thoughts.
I was thinking more of the socio-political leaning of the person generally refered to as Jesus, not the spiritual, since that is more open for debate. Therefor I used political leaders as my examples. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Temptations by callei on Dec 23, 2002 - 11:06 AM (User info | Send a Message) | may i just say that to have you comment on my words is high praise? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Thank you by Monolycus on Dec 23, 2002 - 04:28 PM (User info | Send a Message) | You are very kind to say so, but I am just as honoured to be allowed to have these discussions with all of you.
~M. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 23, 2002 - 04:21 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | WHOA! A bit angry there are we?
Okay, yoo seem to misurderstand. The first misunderstanding yoo should have picked-up on had yoo read my comments: I am not out to destroy Free Will. Free Will is a very beautiful thing because through it, learning is possible.
The second misuderstanding is that I am not a puritan. Cross-dressers, drug-addicts, homosexuals, anyone who's had an abortion, and anyone else Xian Fundies rant endlessly about who are just minding their own buissness are fine in my book. Individuality is to be cherished.
I should probably also add that not only am I not Xian, but my definition of the word "Messiah," although it does allude to Judeo/Xian concepts, is not in any way religious.
Finally, yoo insinuate my stupidity. Stupidity is a question of behavior, not of mental efficency. It was stupid for mee to break the law of Harpocrates in writing this article, however it has taught mee something so I regret no part of it.
If yoo are to accuse mee of stupidity for that reason, fine. For any other reason regarding this article, I must remind yoo of who's the person getting upset about hearing someone say "Wouldn't it be great if everybody was nice to one another." |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by callei on Dec 23, 2002 - 11:05 AM (User info | Send a Message) | not angery just bored with quasi christian rambling since it so often comes out as small minded foolishness of the first water.
Most everyone here knows that i promote the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. Consiquently i think there are many people out there that are wasting my air. If you have examined your life and think yourself to be a leader, i can only agree that you must hate those that you want to lead as only those without freewill will follow you. Only those that choose to have you think for them will let you think for them. it must be awful to be caught in such a catch 22, to want to take away something that they dont have.
I have never said, without my tongue in my cheek, "wouldnt it be nice if people were nice to each other?" I am far more likely (if you read over my comments) to say "wouldnt it be nice if people thought it through before they <insert action here> so that they could explain why." I am not a proponate of enforced kindness, i dont think everyone should get along, and i am big on personal responsiblity.
I call your arguement to re-enslave the mental slaves banal and stupid. why bother beating the broken? it wastes your time and thiers. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 23, 2002 - 12:38 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Bored? Then why are yoo still bitching about it?
Let's synchronise our terminology for a second: I am talking about Free Will, yoo are talking about independant thought. Two entirely different ideas!
Free Will: The ability humans possess to transcend their instinct. Example: Suicide, the intential denial of the survival instinct.
Independant Thought: The ability humans posses to make desicions for themselves. Example: Taste, what makes some people enjoy punkrock and others classical music.
Now, go back and actually read what I have said. At no point in time did I ever mention independant thought at all. If yoo had read what I had written, yoo might have noticed that I claim no followers i.e. I am not a leader. Perhaps I should elaborate since yoo don't seem to be picking up on anything I'm saying: I am no shephard and I'm not looking for a flock!
If yoo had read anything I've written on this subject yoo might have realized there is no mention of any kind of enforcement! None! Mental slaves? Once again yoo didn't read what I said so once again I will say it in terms even yoo can understand:
Yor chopping down a Tree and yor House is in the path of the Tree's fall. I'm being polite and state the obvious to yoo: "Yoo realize, of course, the Tree will fall on yor House, right?" For the sake of argument, let's say yoo reply with "I know what I'm doing!" To which I respond with "Right-o, carry-on!"
If this is too complicated for yoo, I'm certain yoo'll let mee know. Although it seems more likely yoo won't bother to read it at all and continue telling mee why I'm the one who's ignorant!
The lesson here: Listen!
Oh yes, and once again, this is not Xian or even quasi-Xian. If yoo would like to have a debate on Judeo/Xian or quasi-Judeo/Xian theosophy, I am more than willing to participate. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by callei on Dec 24, 2002 - 09:16 AM (User info | Send a Message) | sweetie you referance xian ideology and terminology therefore i say that it is quasi-xian. Free will as some strange sperate entity is an xian idea. "Am i my brother's keeper" with its attendant rage is also an xian idea. The idea that free will leads to something called evil is an xian idea. the imbedded idea that people need someon else over see thier life is also rather xian in that is it surrounded by other xian idiology. need i go on?
Frankly I am too busy this month to do the religious debate thing. Im sorry. Its always fun when we have one here.
Your explaination with the tree IS vague for all that it is talking about unanticipated side effects of actions. You are assuming that i still want the house, you are assuming that some combination of free will and free thought led me to cut it down, like i just woke up and said "hmm lets cut down a tree, any tree will do!" There is in it an assumtion that the destruction of the house along with the tree isnt my intent. You dont give me the benefit of the doubt, offer to help, ask why, or try to distract me from this task that you judge to be wrong, you merely judge and depart. I think it says more about you than you think it does.
Pardon the typos, if any i am typing this while i eat and juggle the phone. (its the closest to free time i have today). |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Messianic Existentialism by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 24, 2002 - 06:48 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | With the exceptioon of the word "messiah" (two words: "mes" an Egyptian word meaning "begotten" such as Ramses: "Ra Mes" or roughly: "Son of Ra" hieroglyph being the pose of Harpocrates and the name and also the name of Moses; and "yah," a title of God; the point being that the word is a Hebrew hand-mee-down from Ancient Egypt and thus is not specifc to Xianity) all the terminology in the article itself I have used is adopted by contemporary Western philosophy and therefore is not specific to Xianity.
True, yoo might say, the introductory paragraph is an allsuion to the myth of Eden but I believe the allegory speaks for itself.
"I am my brother's keeper" is a referance to the Book of Ezekiel! Old Testament! Jewish, not Xian!
Free Will leading to evil? What was it I just said about the myth of Eden? Re-read (if yoo in fact read it the first time) my definition of Free Will.
And of course, where did I ever say anything about seeing over other people's lives?
What amazes mee is that I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT opposed to Free Will and yoo seem to read straight past it and contine to argue with mee. The article was not even on the subject of Free Will anyway.
Here's the best part: "You dont give me the benefit of the doubt, offer to help, ask why, or try to distract me from this task that you judge to be wrong," Try to distract yoo? Which is interfering more with yor choice?
Honestly and respectfully, yor objection to the article is laughable, an article yoo clearly have no comprehension of. Are yoo offended by what yoo consider to be blashphemous or are yoo just being difficult? Yoo certainly seem to be making time to argue when yoo claim to have so many better things yoo could be doing? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Every Man and Woman is a Star... by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 25, 2002 - 03:53 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Well, if we are to take the Jesus myth from an astrological perspective, the death of X released humans from their bondage to the predetermination of the stars. I'm not sure if I agree with this concept but then I know very little about Astrology, I always found it was an excuse invented for why contemporary Western Astrology doesn't work.
light |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Every Man and Woman is a Star... by feralucce on Dec 26, 2002 - 02:34 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://feralucce.vibechild.com | Actually... the birth of christ as it is timed now... is meaningless in astrology... BUT... do the math and check the sources... you will find that the man named Jesus was born 6 years before 0ad... AND... in aprill... around april 15th to be exact... in that year, at that time... jupiter and saturn were in aries (both a good sign for the birth of a king by the reckoning of that time) and that day, (the beginning of the feast of pass over that year) the moon and the sun came into aries on the same day. It is not that the astrology is meaningless... it is that the gregorian calendar is trash... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Every Man and Woman is a Star... by IamSquid (undisclosedgettheaddressfrommeepersonally) on Dec 26, 2002 - 03:10 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Well as I said I know very little about Astrology but it seems most logical to mee that the largest contributing factor of the crappiness of modern Western Astrology is the prescession of the Equinoxes.
Really? Aries, huh? I always assumed he would have been Pisces (just because of the constant referances to X = Fish). I completely overlooked the possibility of him as the "shepherd."
The Gregorian calender is most certainly trash! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Every Man and Woman is a Star... by feralucce on Dec 26, 2002 - 10:52 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://feralucce.vibechild.com | yup... there is a program available from the discovery channel "Jesus: the complete story: 3 hours... watch for it... they take archeologists, historical (not biblical accounts) and forensics scientists and walk trhough the life of Jesus.. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Every Man and Woman is a Star... by Merry_Widow on Dec 26, 2002 - 05:52 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Jesus was an Aries? Go figure. I guess that would explain a few things... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|