The Christ Conspiracy

[Swift]

Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible.

Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces.

Excerpt:
http://hiddenmysteries.com/1000/christconspiracy/christconspiracy.html

For those interested, you can find a 27-page article in pdf-format on the eDonkey network, searching the following keywords: origin, christianity, acharya. The file was too big to post here.

Swift

[nBT]

many of the current christian rituals originate from roman religion. roman religion has its roots in the greek pantheon. the greek pantheon was an ever chanching play where gods came and went. original hinduism, egyptian worshop and mesopotamian worshop all have these saviour myths. and yes even today there are these myths.

[Swift]

Worshop? Do you mean workshop or worship? ;)

[euterpenc]

Jung has some interesting things to say about this. Recurring motifs are usually part of the collective unconscious.

[philonightmare]

Jung has some interesting things to say about this. Recurring motifs are usually part of the collective unconscious.

That's an excellent point. I didn't even think of the C.U.

To you, Swift: Most anthropologists would agree with Acharya's view that Jesus is just a mythical figure that combined all the traits of previous god-like mythical heroes and legends.

Did the author address the possibility of Jesus being a real person and that his image could have, after his death, been obscured by the Pagan-Christian-Romans to suit their political needs?

[kuranes]

Fraser's "Golden Bough" is supposed to be a work that shows similarities and cross-references in symbols ( religous, myth, and otherwise ) through the ages. It was apparently quite the rage when first published, and is supposed to be a multi-volume work. It would be interesting to compare its conclusions to Jung.

I read a book called "The First Coming" that was informative on the "real" Jesus. I read it a few years ago and so I don't remember what they cited as evidence that he did in fact exist. It seems that years ago I also read elsewhere that the record of his name as someone either scheduled to be executed or listed among the dead ( already executed ) was a matter of record. What he actually did during his life, and whether he rose from the dead or was the son of God are a whole other kettle of fish and bread. "First Coming" asserted that he never even claimed to be the Son of God, as we understand the term to mean today. There were a number of terms used back then that have entirely different meanings now. "Son of Man" was one of them, I remember. There were certain prophecies, about a leader whom people were waiting the arrival of, the terms of which were later misconstrued.

Many "unpopular" and inconvenient ( for the powers that be ) aspects of Christianity were tossed out at the Council of Nicea, I'm told, to help form the beginnings of the religion we know today.

I've always liked that picture/poster that showed Christ laughing, since he is otherwise always portrayed as such a sober sides kind of guy. I like the fact that he preferred hanging out with the hurly burly vs. the upper crust. At least the revisionists had the balls to leave in the "My God why hast thou forsaken me?" part.
K

[coffeezombie]

I've read accounts that Christ was actually a Jewish revolutionary and not a "man of peace" at all, and that his death is what sparked everybody into attributing religious words to him. I don't remember exactly where I read this, though, but it was a long time ago and probably not well substantiated.

[Swift]

Did the author address the possibility of Jesus being a real person and that his image could have, after his death, been obscured by the Pagan-Christian-Romans to suit their political needs?No, at least not in that article I read. I think Acharya does not believe in any historical Christ. She does point out a lack of historical evidence. Of the 40 writers that lived in Jezus' time, only 4 mention him briefly, but everybody (even the Church) agrees that those parts of the text are just forgeries.

Jezus being a real person that has been used for others' political goals is a plausible idea, but it's lacking the evidence, while the idea of a myth that turned into a human being is much more plausible.

Swift

[Swift]

I've read accounts that Christ was actually a Jewish revolutionary and not a "man of peace" at all, and that his death is what sparked everybody into attributing religious words to him.I've read something that the apostle Paul (who used to be Saul) was actually a Roman secret agent that was sent to Palestine to infiltrate and subverse this new jewish revolutionary movement into a more peacefull movement.

Of course, this is just a theory not backed up by evidence.

Swift

[Thermo]

No, at least not in that article I read. I think Acharya does not believe in any historical Christ. She does point out a lack of historical evidence. Of the 40 writers that lived in Jezus' time, only 4 mention him briefly, but everybody (even the Church) agrees that those parts of the text are just forgeries.

Jezus being a real person that has been used for others' political goals is a plausible idea, but it's lacking the evidence, while the idea of a myth that turned into a human being is much more plausible.

Swift
Josephus' books were forged?

[Pedro_The_Lion]

Isn't this basically the proposition of The DaVinci Code?

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Jung has some interesting things to say about this. Recurring motifs are usually part of the collective unconscious.

Yeah, he had quite a bit to say about Christ in general. Definatly all pretty interesting.

[philonightmare]

No, at least not in that article I read. I think Acharya does not believe in any historical Christ. She does point out a lack of historical evidence. Of the 40 writers that lived in Jezus' time, only 4 mention him briefly, but everybody (even the Church) agrees that those parts of the text are just forgeries.

Jezus being a real person that has been used for others' political goals is a plausible idea, but it's lacking the evidence, while the idea of a myth that turned into a human being is much more plausible.

Swift

I personally believe that Jesus was a real man and that his character was misconstrued by the Church and by other political machinations. Besides, who writes history? The winner or loser? The people of that time would have thought of Jesus as the loser and therefore not wanted to waste their time writing and documenting his every move (and if documents were constructed, it is more likely that they have disappeared over the years instead of not existing at all, ever). I think, for such an archaic figure, Jesus has sufficient proof in my book. The myth is the result of all these centuries of believing in the wrong image of Jesus.

I also think that one of the myths associated with Jesus is that he's God's son. I don't think this was the belief right after he died, but heck...who am I to know? Perhaps, right from the start people started to create the wrong image of him.

I think the issue here is what constitutes as historical evidence when dealing with the image of Jesus that we have now. I don't think this issue will ever be solved, but it's sure as heck fun to talk about.

[misutii]

I personally believe that Jesus was a real man and that his character was misconstrued by the Church and by other political machinations. Besides, who writes history? The winner or loser? The people of that time would have thought of Jesus as the loser and therefore not wanted to waste their time writing and documenting his every move (and if documents were constructed, it is more likely that they have disappeared over the years instead of not existing at all, ever). I think, for such an archaic figure, Jesus has sufficient proof in my book. The myth is the result of all these centuries of believing in the wrong image of Jesus.

I also think that one of the myths associated with Jesus is that he's God's son. I don't think this was the belief right after he died, but heck...who am I to know? Perhaps, right from the start people started to create the wrong image of him.

I think the issue here is what constitutes as historical evidence when dealing with the image of Jesus that we have now. I don't think this issue will ever be solved, but it's sure as heck fun to talk about.

the fact is that even if we had written evidence it wouldn't prove much. i'm studying roman history and when using source material you have to take everything with a grain of salt as the authors back then were prone to illogical superstitions and also tended to make up names, events, and sources to fit their needs. for example, if you were to read Suetonius' Life of the Caesars and believe every word of it you'd be an idiot

[philonightmare]

the fact is that even if we had written evidence it wouldn't prove much. i'm studying roman history and when using source material you have to take everything with a grain of salt as the authors back then were prone to illogical superstitions and also tended to make up names, events, and sources to fit their needs. for example, if you were to read Suetonius' Life of the Caesars and believe every word of it you'd be an idiot

Oh yeah, I do realize that even the written texts could be biased. I just think that if there were any texts from Jesus' time that talk about him, it means he existed in some shape, form, matter... Myth or real man, he did exist, he's not a fig.of our imagination. At least that much we can be sure of (unless you want to argue that Jesus is purely myth, which I find hard to believe since there is as little proof of that being an absolute as there is proof that disproves his existence). Damn... I need to get some sleep. That made no sense.

And yeah, Roman history is littered with bias. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt anyways...what's the fun in blindly accepting something without testing it out first?

[Swift]

Isn't this basically the proposition of The DaVinci Code?No. The proposition of The DaVinci Code is that Jezus has formed a bloodline that continues till today, and that this secret is guarded by a secret society. The book I was talking about claims Jezus is all myth.

Swift

[misutii]

And yeah, Roman history is littered with bias. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt anyways...what's the fun in blindly accepting something without testing it out first?

christianity, haha

[Johnny]

Jung has some interesting things to say about this. Recurring motifs are usually part of the collective unconscious.Yeah, I'm with Zee Gee. I'm more interested in the power this "beast" has had on Western Civilization than whether the beast had one horn or two, wings, hooves, a forked tail, that the beast was instead a Trojan Horse, etc...

To me, this deconstruction's tantamount to that other thread where members spout off a series of 1's and 0's to each other...like looking up close at an impressionist painting to scrutinize the different colored smudges.

It's real tough for me, because I see some extremely powerful symbols that reside within the Christian bible, symbols that have value and need to be revealed. Sometimes I think to myself, "Yeah, it's worth it to delude the human race into thinking it's a historically accurate and vital account of the Son of God's life"...to ensure a frame for the canvas upon which these symbols may be communicated to us exists to protect these hard-earned symbols.

It's akin to spiritual evolution - if there is no past for humanity to rest within, how can we hope for a future for our souls to evolve along?

But then, Darwin comes in to play and the dirty, ugly truths of evolution and survival of the fittest get uncovered...and nobody likes to be left in the dust, especially young people who (rightfully) position living as the highest priority.

Dickens does not allow Scrooge to see the error of his ways, his greed and selfishness, until he finally realizes that the world is going to keep on spinning without him when he dies...and when he does realize this, the children become the most important thing to him. And this is when Scrooge's power, his money, his voice becomes relevant to them...

1's and 0's can work together to make some pretty fabulous artwork, I think...

[kuranes]

There is a site whose existence is focused on calling the book this thread started on into question. I don't recall the url, but found it on the first page of Google last night. It had a name that made it seem like it would be highly biased towards traditional reasoning, but much of what they had to say seemed reasonable. They even posted a link to the lady author's rebuttals etc. so you could see they were being open. I thought that her rebuttals were less convincing.

Nevertheless, I do think that much of the dogma is restrictive and non-functional. Johnny seemed to be echoing the words of the ( what was the phrase? ) Grand Inquisitor? when Dostoevsky has him encounter Christ. I enjoyed Anne Rice's take on Lucifer and Jesus too. K

[booyalab]

you idiots, this is gnosticism. Try reading more than the pop-culture renditions of archaic cult philosophies.

[kuranes]

Not everything related to alternative views of Jesus is strictly Gnosticism. I've read some on Nag Hammadi etc. and could have introduced it. Not everybody appreciates me going "off topic" as much as perhaps you would have.

I agree that a book like "The Christ Conspiracy" sounds like "pop mysticism" to me, but I haven't read it. I can assure you that the book I referred to, "The First Coming", is not. Idiot yourself, if you were including me.

Do as thou wilt.

K

[Claverhouse]

you idiots, this is gnosticism. Try reading more than the pop-culture renditions of archaic cult philosophies.

:rofl:



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[misutii]

you idiots, this is gnosticism. Try reading more than the pop-culture renditions of archaic cult philosophies.

yah i'm bored too

[Johnny]

Yeah kuranes, the distance between being an art critic and an artist is staggering...it will always be equal or greater than the distance between two people.

Jung gets pegged as a gnostic quite often, and I don't really understand that. If one traces the philosophical roots of his psychology, one finds a keen interest in the physical world and nature from him...which he labels, to my POV, "good" rather than "evil"...and there's really no secret to the meaning of his work...

PS thanks for the tip on "The Grand Inquisitor"...reading it now...

[booyalab]

Not everything related to alternative views of Jesus is strictly Gnosticism. I've read some on Nag Hammadi etc. and could have introduced it. Not everybody appreciates me going "off topic" as much as perhaps you would have.

I agree that a book like "The Christ Conspiracy" sounds like "pop mysticism" to me, but I haven't read it. I can assure you that the book I referred to, "The First Coming", is not. Idiot yourself, if you were including me.

Do as thou wilt.

K

pop mysticism in this context= redefines any gnostic beliefs as a spiffy new way of looking at history. That shit is neither spiffy nor new.
I haven't read "The First Coming" but from what I've heard it doesn't portray the dichotemy of Christianity and it's cultish diversions objectively. You don't seem to understand that gnosticism and pop mysticism are almost mutually inclusive now. (arguably since it began, in one form or another) Unless the reading material is comparing the 2 idealogies of Christianity and Gnosticism academically, it's bound to be either a Christian or Gnostic bias. The funny thing about modern forms of gnosticism, though, is that people think they're stumbling on some ancient secret. They dont even realize they're being hoodwinked into believing something as old, dogmatic, and scientifically flaky as Christianity.

[kuranes]

It's true that there are a lot of "pop" books out there that pretend to "discover" something that is already entrenched in culture. ( Perhaps so entrenched that the average citizen doesn't know much about it. )Sometimes they uncover a new area for me, too, although that is not the case here, regarding this subject. ( Oftentimes I don't want anymore than a layman's summary of a subject anyway, as my interest level does not warrant the comprehensive drill-down view, but yet I'm still a LITTLE intrigued. ) There's probably a Bell curve here somewhere, with some books called "pop" at the extreme end ( pabulum ) and other "pop" books in the middle, segueing into "light technical".

If you care to look at "The First Coming", a url is www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/

I'm not sure where you heard that it is so lacking. Certainly there are aspects of Christ that it doesn't cover. ( I got a book called "An Experiment in Christology" that was dense enough that I put it on the back burner. )
There are a lot of objections to traditional Christian dogma, and Gnosticism certainly is a fundamental one. I share your antipathy towards the Pat Robertson types, if that's where you're coming from. But there are other ways to attack it besides ( or in addition to ) that.

Frankly this subject is complex enough to warrant its own board. I don't think any of us is interested enough in it to pursue it to that extent. Swift had started it based on his perhaps discovering an alternative POV on the subject for the first time. I thought that it was worth commenting on even though it couldn't be explored to the extreme.

I was somewhat surprised you dismissed all the participants so casually. You enjoy being abrasive ( "ornery") but you are nevertheless often more tempered in your critiques. So I held up a mirror to you.

K

[booyalab]

I was somewhat surprised you dismissed all the participants so casually. You enjoy being abrasive ( "ornery") but you are nevertheless often more tempered in your critiques. So I held up a mirror to you.

K

Let me draw a parallel. It's like reading posts on a topic that ties together "aliens" "secret government organization in a secret cave in the Black Hills" and "Michael Jackson" without seeing the words "conspiracy theory" in the entire thread.

I couldn't tell that anyone was aware of their bias so I decided to let them know what it was.

[Johnny]

...The funny thing about modern forms of gnosticism, though, is that people think they're stumbling on some ancient secret. They dont even realize they're being hoodwinked into believing something as old, dogmatic, and scientifically flaky as Christianity.You gotta load the gun first before you fire it...or else all you're gonna offer are clicking noises booyalab. You already set us up for the kill several posts earlier.

So, wat'chya yusin 'ta bag us grazin' Christian heathens, booyalab?

Honestly, I'm interested in your skepticism and what you may intend to offer because, for me, religious institutions such as the Catholic Church help me to "reveal" my mystical experiences of God in a beneficial manner. Being restricted to banter...oops, I mean, wax philosophical on the spirit just doesn't cut it for me personally.

Are you intending to offer a particular religious way of life of your own here or what? I don't really think it matters that much, except where harm comes to oneself or others for such practices. If, on the other hand, you intend to stamp out one's experiences of God and demand he/she conform to some belief system of your personal choosing, then I can only suggest that you may be better off buying your meat at the supermarket rather than trying to kill it fresh from the wild right now.

...no harm in practicing, however...we've all gotta start somewhere...

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/sombrero.gif

[booyalab]

You gotta load the gun first before you fire it...or else all you're gonna offer are clicking noises booyalab. You already set us up for the kill several posts earlier.

So, wat'chya yusin 'ta bag us grazin' Christian heathens, booyalab?

Honestly, I'm interested in your skepticism and what you may intend to offer because, for me, religious institutions such as the Catholic Church help me to "reveal" my mystical experiences of God in a beneficial manner. Being restricted to banter...oops, I mean, wax philosophical on the spirit just doesn't cut it for me personally.

Are you intending to offer a particular religious way of life of your own here or what? I don't really think it matters that much, except where harm comes to oneself or others for such practices. If, on the other hand, you intend to stamp out one's experiences of God and demand he/she conform to some belief system of your personal choosing, then I can only suggest that you may be better off buying your meat at the supermarket rather than trying to kill it fresh from the wild right now.

...no harm in practicing, however...we've all gotta start somewhere...

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/sombrero.gif

I had a feeling you might get uptight about my "scientifically flakey" comment. Let me assure you I'm on the "alogical" side. What I meant is that neither doctrine can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. (you believe it or you dont) What differentiates gnosticism from christianity though is at the root of the word 'gnosis'. They actually believe divinity is achieved through empirical knowledge. The importance and extent of Jesus' humanity is understood differently. Gnosticism is almost a pseudo-science of sorts.

[kuranes]

Interesting analogy.

I can see where someone could easily make the connection and say "how familiar are you guys with Gnosticism"? in that thread, and it wouldn't have looked out of place in the least, if that's what you mean. I repeat what I said originally, that alternative views on Christ do not necessarily have to involve Gnosticism per se, although many obviously do. I do not feel the overall "unsaid pervasiveness" of it as much as you do, apparently. And even if I did, I would probably simply introduce it rather than tell everyone they were an idiot for their not having brought it up yet.

So do you want to talk Gnosticism? I'm sure you have a lot to teach me on the subject, if you feel so strongly about it. I see that you're interested in Egyptian mythology.

K

[booyalab]

Interesting analogy.

I can see where someone could easily make the connection and say "how familiar are you guys with Gnosticism"? in that thread, and it wouldn't have looked out of place in the least, if that's what you mean. I repeat what I said originally, that alternative views on Christ do not necessarily have to involve Gnosticism per se, although many obviously do. I do not feel the overall "unsaid pervasiveness" of it as much as you do, apparently. And even if I did, I would probably simply introduce it rather than tell everyone they were an idiot for their not having brought it up yet.

So do you want to talk Gnosticism? I'm sure you have a lot to teach me on the subject, if you feel so strongly about it. I see that you're interested in Egyptian mythology.

K
No, not all alternate views of Jesus are gnostic. 99% of the time that 'conspiracy' is mentioned with him, though, those are gnostic views. (1% margin for people who are insane and have no affiliation with gnostic principles)

I'm blunt. It's part of the charm of my sense of humor (claverhouse thought it was funny at least :p)

I suppose I could've said it that way but I wasn't really in the mood to discuss it. I think I left soon after or something. I'm leaving just now too, but I might be interested in discussing this at a later time.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll ignore the way i say something and look at the substance. I should be so lucky.

[kuranes]

* in Peter Lorre voice* I'm sorry my dear- I didn't realize that you were just choking. Sometimes people in my life go beyond "bluntness" and try to "cut". Forgive my misunderstanding. I'll assume the 1% was a joke too, and leave it at that. * end Peter Lorre voice

I DO find you extremely intelligent. I think you show Sekhmet more often than the other side of Hathor, is all. When I'm at "war" I listen to her "sister" Athena, not Aries. And the flip side of Athena is Medusa, according to some sources. ( So my mirror is a must! :) )
Feel free to PM me and we can talk about this or Gnosticism etc. some other time.

K

[Johnny]

I had a feeling you might get uptight about my "scientifically flakey" comment. Let me assure you I'm on the "alogical" side. What I meant is that neither doctrine can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. (you believe it or you dont) What differentiates gnosticism from christianity though is at the root of the word 'gnosis'. They actually believe divinity is achieved through empirical knowledge. The importance and extent of Jesus' humanity is understood differently. Gnosticism is almost a pseudo-science of sorts.Well, at least you seem to know how to pull the trigger...but I didn't see you hitting anything...and I'm still running...so I'll offer you another round and see what happens. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Being on the alogical side might win you brownie points with some members here who expouse upon its overly-publicized advantages, but I assure you that using a gun to bag your game that does not appeal to logical advantage in its construction, handling, shape, and reliability will only handicap you in the end.

Besides, we're both on the same page with respect to doctrine. It's collectively useful and beneficial, or it's not and deserves rejection. However, just as we honor the physical world through our scientific endeavors, we who participate in religious practice honor the spiritual world.

We're not on the same page regarding gnosticism, though. For me, gnosticism is a rejection of the physical world in its entirety as evil and instead a total focus upon the spiritual world. Your take, where gnosticism points to a direct experience of God, I refer to as mysticism. But that's all due to the influence of Wikipedia upon my understanding of these terms. I don't have a clue what value esoteric knowledge truly brings a person in the long term. Maybe knowing something others don't know helps in the short term, but I think we've all seen what esoteric knowledge eventually accomplishes in the real world through, for example, the Enron scandal.

I'm personally opposed to the idea of esoteric knowledge and censorship in general, but that's me. If I were, say, seeking for my soul a way to transform itself from a "base metal" into "gold", into a treasure that would attract God's attention and inspire Him to interact with (bless) me in a way that my consciousness could apprehend, but the larger religious community would brand me a heretic, torture and kill me for being compelled to take on such a quest, I think I could rationalize the need to keep such an activity secret pretty easily...

What's the deal, booyalab? I'm up for both criticism and dialogue here, or I wouldn't have bothered to contribute to this thread. I'm practically tying my hooves together and laying down on the ground now. Are you gonna shoot me or what?

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/spam_laser.gif or http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ng_hug.gif , you gotta get me in the crosshairs of your scope first you know, not just yell "Idiot!" and point and jump up and down hysterically...

[YardGnome]

I read something similiar a while back. One of the Catholic priests deciphering the Dead Sea scrolls, John Marco Allegro, put himself out on a limb to suggest that Christianity, as people have already mentioned, was actually based on a number of psilocybin cult religions native to the Mediteranian area.

What was not mentioned by anyone here yet, is that allegro came to the conclusion that the "Eucharist" of Catholicism, was in fact literally a form of psychedelic mushroom. After writing his book "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" the Catholics stripped him of his title and he was taken off the project of deciphering the scrolls.

I think this is one of the beliefs of one of those off kilter gnostic religions. Although I think this perspective makes many of the so called "Miracles" and "Visions" detailed in the bible a bit more believable. The people were fucking tripping their faces off...

[Johnny]

...I think this perspective makes many of the so called "Miracles" and "Visions" detailed in the bible a bit more believable. The people were fucking tripping their faces off...Even today the Native American Church endorses the use of psychadelic mushrooms for initiation into shamanism. Even if your claims can't be substantiated, it wouldn't shock me to discover that the Catholic Church encountered and considered such practices in its missionary work.

[YardGnome]

Even today the Native American Church endorses the use of psychadelic mushrooms for initiation into shamanism. Even if your claims can't be substantiated, it wouldn't shock me to discover that the Catholic Church encountered and considered such practices in its missionary work.

I doubt they would ever admit to it. Just look what happened to Allegro when he attempted them to get them to believe it...

I have read about the Native American Church and how they have adopted some Christian ideas. Certain sects even have a Christian type mass where peyote is distributed amongst church goers during communion. This is all described in detail if you have ever read Aldous Huxley's The Door's of Perception. It's quite interesting...

[booyalab]

What's the deal, booyalab? I'm up for both criticism and dialogue here, or I wouldn't have bothered to contribute to this thread. I'm practically tying my hooves together and laying down on the ground now. Are you gonna shoot me or what?

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/spam_laser.gif or http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ng_hug.gif , you gotta get me in the crosshairs of your scope first you know, not just yell "Idiot!" and point and jump up and down hysterically...

hehe, If I had done just that I'd understand your frustration. Like I told kuranes, all I wanted to do was point something out. I can understand how my style can be unsatisfactory for some as I wont always accept the state of an argument on it's current terms. Does that make sense? Sometimes I want to engage, sometimes I want to enrage.

[Johnny]

hehe, If I had done just that I'd understand your frustration. Like I told kuranes, all I wanted to do was point something out. I can understand how my style can be unsatisfactory for some as I wont always accept the state of an argument on it's current terms. Does that make sense? Sometimes I want to engage, sometimes I want to enrage.The only thing that makes sense to me is that we don't always get what we want...even under intimidation by members armed with "idiot" guns...

Well, at least that whole alogic BS fantasy is finally being put to rest. LOL

[Johnny]

Fair enough, booyalab.

:sombrero:

[booyalab]

Fair enough, booyalab.

:sombrero:

oh no..you're not getting off that easily....

*is watching you*

[Johnny]

oh no..you're not getting off that easily....

*is watching you*That's the spirit, booyalab! :sombrero:

All you gotta do now is trade in that silly idiot-gun you were using earlier for something more useful...

[Johnny]

...Johnny seemed to be echoing the words of the ( what was the phrase? ) Grand Inquisitor? when Dostoevsky has him encounter Christ...O.K., kuranes, I've read it and am prepared to comment:

What a great story! Man, I'm gonna have to dig deeper into Dostoyevsky's work now...LOL

I, personally, don't think the masses deserve wholesale condemnation for their "failure" to take up personal responsibility and accountability for their own actions, for their failure to embrace free will...nor do I think the Grand Inquisitor is truly one of the few, the proud, the chosen, among those who do embrace free will and accountability.

When my heart was burned by the kiss of Christ, I never forgot it and have, in my own frailty that is all too human, tried to keep it warm for that experience to the best of my ability.

But I don't consider myself special or having been evolved into a higher being a la the starchild in Kubrick's 2001 Space Oddysey, for example. I just allow myself to be forgiven for following my passions, though I do fall into the pit of guilt and must strain to climb my way out on occasion...

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/sombrero.gif

[kuranes]

It's been awhile since I read it Johnny. Dostoevsky is one of the great writers in the history of the world, of course, and has other interesting things to say as well. I read "Crime and Punishment" first, which was OK, as was "Notes from the Undeground." "The Brothers Karamazov" was a long read, and is considered his most famous novel. "The Grand Inquisitor" may be an excerpt from it. I've forgotten. The four brothers are broken down by personality traits!!! Ivan is the brother most like us, as I recall. Alyosha is the kind of person our conscience tells us we should be. There is a third brother who is ruled by a whirlwind of emotions. An "F", if you will. The fourth is the Joker in the deck, who represents flawed humanity. I will not spoil it for you by telling you more. My favorite Dostoevsky was "The Possessed". I have yet to read "The Idiot", which is supposed to be another masterpiece. No doubt the translator adds a lot to the books I read. D is a Russian author from long ago.

I picked up on what you were saying earlier and saw some parallels with TGI. Reading your response, I can see that it does not serve as the equivalent of your viewpoint. Glad you enjoyed it anyway.

I remember reading a review of Carlos Castaneda that said "Even if Don Juan is just a fictional creation, we can learn a lot from him." Don Juan is a Yaqui Indian guru that Castaneda maintains is non-fictional. ( BTW, Carlos died, leaving some chaos behind, as far as girlfriends inheriting his estate, and two mysteriously disappeared. The FBI is looking into it. ) I guess I feel that we can learn from the idea and symbols associated with Christ, too, even if he really isn't/wasn't what traditionalists want him to be. Interestingly, one of my friends looks almost just like the Western pix of Jesus, especially if he let his hair grow out more. He's also the most generous person I've ever met. If he promises something, you know he'll deliver on it. Kinda funny, huh?

What do you think of Sheepdog's post on Truth? Are you really a general with Intelligence J? :) K

[Johnny]

...I remember reading a review of Carlos Castaneda that said "Even if Don Juan is just a fictional creation, we can learn a lot from him." Don Juan is a Yaqui Indian guru that Castaneda maintains is non-fictional...
...

What do you think of Sheepdog's post on Truth? Are you really a general with Intelligence J? :) KI read about Castaneda recently in Wikipedia. Don't know anything about him otherwise. Interesting guy...

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding our esteemed Sheepdog, k. I'll have to find the conversation and read it first.