Thursday, December 18, 2008
Now, I don't expect anyone to drop what works for them but when speaking out on improvable theories please consider the unscientific nature of ass-u-me-ing GOD does or doesn't exist. Neither of these views have been proven or disproved conclusively no matter how vehemently stated. When you quote words out of an old book, as proof of the validity of what you are stating, it holds no weight if your opponent doesn't value the text as much as you do; that goes for egg-headed Atheists as well as Bible bashing fundamentalists.
Non-Theism is the thinking mans / womens alternative, placing yourself central but isolated from radical views. It is an open and informed stance on issues that are yet to be resolved, striking a home run for the people who don't want to be drawn into arguments that seem to be going nowhere. When someone asks what religion you are, confidently replying Non-Theist should not offend anyone yet allows you the room to manoeuvre as your knowledge on the issues increases or personal experiences enlightens.
Don't get me wrong, I have my own opinions on what God and religion should be (and the origins of the Universe) but I refuse to be dictated to by entities who, by strength of numbers, portray themselves as experts on maters that can only be described as theory. I may or may not choose to accept portions of what they say as truth but I don't have to buy it holas-bolas and I don't have to ram it down anybodies throat. If my children are to be educated in the knowledge of religion or science, I would prefer it if their teachers were educated Non-Theists who were opening their minds to the broad spread of opinion and leaving them to make up their own minds on which particular views they aspire to hold. I don't see any value in insisting that they be educated by creationalists or disciples of Darwin but someone who had a non-biased attitude and good working knowledge of both, would do.
So, we may have been brought to our present place in history by mono-brained, single minded achievers who caved out a place for us to exist and we may have then been enlightened by Bi-polar argumentative types who gave us Democracy as it is now but the time has come for Multi-dimensional thinkers to take the wheel and steer us wisely into the future. Give our children half a chance to rise above the petty squabbling of the last generation and sit back for the ride of a lifetime as a spirit of co-operation and acceptance of others views, catapults us to the stars and beyond.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Many will come in my name, claiming I am the Christ and they will deceive many. (Matt 24:5)
Now correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that if Jesus was right about what he was saying here, just before he was crucified, then Paul and his Roman based Christian religion were the most likely ones he was talking about; because nowhere in history do we have a more likely bunch of deceivers.
Just before he said that, in his address to the multitude (Matt 23) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt23;&version=31; Jesus gives an accurate description of what the Roman Catholic Church was destined to become, a revamped version of everything he hated about the religious nutcases that surrounded him. He spoke about setting yourself above others and expecting of them what you can’t live up to yourself. He says they will swallow up the property of widows, under the cover of long prayers and traverse the seas to proselytize, creating converts who will be twice as damned as themselves; blind fools. He then accuses their forefathers of murdering the prophets and predicts they are about to make the same mistake.
I think Jesus used Saul of Tarsus (Paul, main contributor to the New Testament) to fulfil his prophesy, the way Saul used Jesus to fulfil his belief; that a Christ had to hang on a cross for the salvation of all those who would join his Human sacrifice cult. In his letter to the Romans, Saul (alias Paul), after giving himself a big rap, launches into an attack against peoples sexual preferences rather than addressing his own evil actions and doesn’t even mention the fact he had been involved in murder and torcher (oh, how history repeats it’s self).
He goes on to condemn every type of human behaviour as worthy of death and hell, from his concept of god, and then makes the statement we shouldn’t judge people; in the texts that have been used to judge more people than any other in history. He goes to great pains to point out that only those who obey the LAW can be worthy, as his gospel proclaims, and then contradicts himself by saying we can only be saved by grace. Not to be content with that great big faux pas, he ends up the third chapter by setting the law on its right footing by saying that it’s neither obedience to the law nor grace that saves, but faith; while he consigns pride to the trash can.
Paul (the self proclaimed expert on everything) then launches into a tirade of apologetics that only a man suffering from a bad case of guilt’s could possibly appreciate. Chapter after chapter of religious gobbledy gook, enough that if anyone today started raving on about in a public place, they would automatically be redeployed to the loony bin. Where is his credentials to make these outrageous statements? Who is his witness that he was commissioned by Jesus? Why does he get to speak as though he was the voice of God on earth? What possesses fundamentalists to admire this mans ravings so much, when they are very reluctant to embrace Jesus’ teaching on excessive wealth, open displays of piety, unnecessary use of the defensive sword and the non-bias view of women in positions of authority?
I don’t have any answers for these questions, I doubt if anybody does but please don’t misunderstand me, I have laboured over it for far to long just as I have pondered Darwinism and now Dawkinism. If Peter and Paul met Darwin and Dawk for the Bi-millennium debate on the ‘Origins of the Species’ or the ‘Did Jesus do miracles?’ follow up, I don’t think I would even bother to show up. But if Jesus and Mary Magdalene invited me around for a piss-up, I’d be there in a flash; just as I would if Einstein and Jung were putting on a soccer match. So, rather than judging people or theories on the probabilities of being right or upright, let’s just see if we can get along first.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Please bear with me on this one because I know it's not everyone's cup of tea and that only a few million poor souls bought into the Ophra Winfrey backed extravaganza but ‘The Secret” really bites if you are one of the unfortunates who don’t ever get to partake of the promised benefits because it couldn’t possibly work for every one, only the privileged few.
If there’s any reality to Rhonda Byrnes’ marketing fiasco don’t you think that somewhere along the line some big and powerful organization would have picked up on it before it was released to the general public. Oh dear, I hear the reply; so ergo, a quick glance around and we seem to be surrounded by monoliths that have mastered the secret, Google, Microsoft, The Pope, The Rothschild's, The Masons, The Mormons, The Dali-Lama? The list seems to be endless, so my enquiry is; how could an individual practitioner of ‘The Secret’ compete with the consolidated will of the organized practitioners, when they seem to be intent on profiteering from the masses? Would not the bigger positive law of attraction override the individuals desires.
The Catholic Church is an interesting case study; over the thousands of years it has practiced the secret to monopolizing money and power, it has a track record of keeping the pew warmers in their place while revelling in their own success. Same thing with theRothschild’s even though their Ashkenazi power base can only be traced back hundreds of years or so. The Masons really had the bit between their teeth by the time they signed the American Declaration of Independence and Cecil Rhodes engineered his own Empirical ambitions. Adolf Hitler seemed to have a particularly good handle on the application until an even bigger positive thinker came along to put an end his run. McCarthyites pitted their strength of unity against the Stalinists and now it’s Christians against Muslims.
I think you get the gist of what I’m saying, the power of attraction works until a bigger magnet comes along, this is why big companies like Gunns in Tasmania, send trouble makers into the greenies, so their magnet doesn’t get to powerful. The real secret to power and wealth is UNITY and while we have individual power brokers plying their trade, with the intent of their own interests above others, chaos in the ranks will prevail and solo seekers doomed to failure.
We, the manipulated, need to get organized if we want to compete in our future. We the masses have the potential for having the biggest magnet on the playing field. We, the poor and meek pins in the fabric of society, have the ability to inherit the Earth if we could galvanize ourselves into a solid body and WE could ensure that all our collective children could have an equal portion with out having to slave for the privileged minority till eternity.
The concept of a central data bank with equal access no matter of race, creed, colour or socio- economic class is the right of every child of the future and could provide the basis for sustainable, peaceful government by the people for the people, into the immediate future and beyond. Don’t align yourselves with the Party Poopers use ‘the secret’ to get out from under tyrannical rule, forever.
Friday, December 5, 2008
I'd like to comment on the insanity of Richard Dawkins when he calls Christians insane, not because I am a Christian anymore than I am an Atheist but don't you think it is a bit Bi-polar when "supposedly" intelligent thinkers can only perceive one of two perspectives. They carry on like there is no shades of gray, only black and white, only good guys and bad guys, only their way of explaining things or the crazy guys. I don't have any trouble accepting the theists point of view when it comes to an unseen, powerful, creative force anymore than I do accepting scientific theories about Quantum Physics and why can't both be true? The long and boring debate about Evolution V's Creation can be simply understood if you can accept the possibility Evolution was the way God chose to create, end of story.
If I had to define my concept of our state of being, (rather than relying on Jewish traditions, Paulinian rhetoric, Islamic dogma, Buddhistic detachment, Hindu hocus pocus or any of the various native mumbo jumbo’s) then I chose to sit centrally positioned in the sphere of debate, drawing from all the great thinkers but beholding to none. My beliefs are easier to quantify by stating what they are not, rather than passing off assumptions as something solid. The secret to the power of the big religions is in the grouping of consciousness rather than the reality of their beliefs and therein lies their weakness as well. Minimalists have a strength superior to overblown, all encompassing, egocentric know it alls, no matter how many people they rope into their theories, therefore; what I know about creation and what I can pass onto others, is no better than the size of their ability to comprehend. Just as a computer has access to the internet, we can access the bigger picture if we are not afraid to cross cultural barriers but we cannot exceed our capacity to store truth; although we can always junk the spam.
So truth is what the group consciousness decides it is and while our world will always be made up of individual points of view, the real test of whether we will evolve into a permanent universal force will be whether or not we can establish a group consciousness that all can access and relate to, a central databank of beliefs that we can all believe in.