Doomstead Diner Menu => Conspiracy => El Gallinazo's Unidentified Flying Realities => Topic started by: el Gallinazo on July 05, 2012, 09:10:59 PM

Title: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 05, 2012, 09:10:59 PM
Of the statement that starts out, "There are two types of people................" I find the following breakdown very useful.  One type of person believes that their consciousness is a function of the intact organization of their physical body, and when that body ceases to function, particularly in relationship to neuronal firing, then they enter an eternal oblivion.  They also believe that nothing exists in the universe other than matter, energy, space and time.  We can call this type I.

A second type believes that the physical body is simply a vehicle in which consciousness can enter the experience of life in this physical dimension, and that their consciousness, and sense of individual identity, exists on many higher vibratory frequencies simultaneously regardless of what happens to the particular physical vehicle.  They believe that when they leave a non-functional physical vehicle, which is often referred to as existing in the 3D holographic universe, then their physical electrolytic brain ceases to effect their consciousness, that consciousness switches over almost immediately into a perception of a 4D or 5D universe, depending on the evolution of that particular soul.  People who think this concept portrays reality may be called II.

I's think II's believe what they do simply because they are just to wussy to face the inevitable end of their perceptual existence.  II's believe that I's believe what they do because their perceptions are so narrowed by rationalizations, fear, and mind control from birth that they can only see a very small part of the reality spectrum.  I typically find I's to be more violent and less trustworthy than II's.  Their belief system that everything in their universe depends on the perpetuation of their physical body survival causes them to be in constant fear for that body and willing to make almost any deal to keep it running.  Obviously I am a II, and I find the box that the I's have put themselves in to be quite pitiable at best.  Particularly since I find it completely fallacious and, ironically, to their detriment.

Though a II, I am obviously not one of those "sweetness and light" New Agers.  I believe, that there are powerful beings that prey on humans for their own benefit and much to the detriment and suffering of humans.  How and why they do this is complex.  These beings may exist in another dimension, usually the lowest octave of the 4D, and humans of every cultures have given them various names.  Our particular culture refers to them as the diabolic.  Dark entities may also be very much a part of the physical universe and visit us from other star systems, in which case they are called aliens.  The difference between these two groups is not always clear cut, as interstellar, faster than light speeds require the technologies of dimensional change.

There are also beings of helpfulness and light which inhabit the near physical dimensions, and cultures have names for them as well.  Fairies, sprites, nymphs and elves are some from ours.  And there are also space travelers visiting our planet from loving and high dimensions who wish to see our race succeed and evolve positively.  In former times they were often called angels.

I regard Kurzweil as, in Clif High's terminology, to be either a player or a useful idiot of the dark side.  He is so terrified of death, that he would attempt to make any deal with a devil to perpetuate his conscious existence.  And the devil just laughs into his hand, because he knows that any human has far more as his soul's birthright, than the devil could ever offer.  But to mention that to the poor idiot would weaken his negotiating position as thinkers like Goethe knew all too well.  After all, here is an idiot actually begging to be imprisoned forever inside a machine.  Why should he be denied?

And one other point.  I am not necessarily an advocate of an advanced technological "utopia."  I tend to think people would be a lot better off developing their nascent capabilities rather than relying on machines in many instances.  For example, we may be better off developing our telepathic abilities rather than relying on cell phones even if they didn't give us brain tumors.  The reason that I bring up the more advanced technologies that the shadow governments have developed, such as zero point energy or antigravity, is to point out just how badly we are being suckered by our betters, the Illuminati and their controllers.  We are supposedly running out of oil and killing our planet with CO2, so in any case we must consign ourselves to a future of material lack.  Austerity Macht Frei! A simple, non-tech future has much to recommend itself, but it is a social, voluntary decision.  Or you can choose to be suckered by the Illuminati mind control machine.  Flip a coin.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 06, 2012, 08:57:20 AM
Of the statement that starts out, "There are two types of people................" I find the following breakdown very useful.  One type of person believes that their consciousness is a function of the intact organization of their physical body, and when that body ceases to function, particularly in relationship to neuronal firing, then they enter an eternal oblivion.  They also believe that nothing exists in the universe other than matter, energy, space and time.  We can call this type I.

A second type believes that the physical body is simply a vehicle in which consciousness can enter the experience of life in this physical dimension, and that their consciousness, and sense of individual identity, exists on many higher vibratory frequencies simultaneously regardless of what happens to the particular physical vehicle.  They believe that when they leave a non-functional physical vehicle, which is often referred to as existing in the 3D holographic universe, then their physical electrolytic brain ceases to effect their consciousness, that consciousness switches over almost immediately into a perception of a 4D or 5D universe, depending on the evolution of that particular soul.  People who think this concept portrays reality may be called II.

Whenever I start down the fallacious path of asserting "there are two types" of anything, I take a step back and try to find a third type.  I invariably succeed in this exercise.

One of my favorites is the well-worn "There are two types of people.  Those who believe that man is inherently good, and those who believe that man is inherently evil."  I've restated this as three choices: "There are three types of people.  Those who believe that man is inherently good, those who believe that man is inherently evil, and those who believe that how a person answers the question 'is man inherently good or inherently evil' tells you more about the nature of that person than it does the nature of mankind as a whole."  The only person any of us really knows-- and only if we work really hard at it-- is himself.

The false dichotomy presented by this post can better be phrased "There are two types of people.  People just like me, and people who are my opposite."

Quote
I's think II's believe what they do simply because they are just to wussy to face the inevitable end of their perceptual existence. 

There's no doubt that some outspoken atheists think along those lines, but not all atheists or agnostics believe that.  And how would you know what I's "think" when you are a II and think like one?  You can't, but the fact that you believe you do leads to a lot of opportunities for misunderstanding and speaking past each other.

Quote
II's believe that I's believe what they do because their perceptions are so narrowed by rationalizations, fear, and mind control from birth that they can only see a very small part of the reality spectrum.

Really?  Secular rationalists are subject to mind control from birth but religious zealots (which can only be found among your Type IIs) are not?  Amazing.  Samuel Harris and Richard Dawkins would say (and have said) that II's believe what they do because of mind control from birth.  (This is more evidence that you don't know what your alleged type I's actually think; all you have to do to find out is wade through what they wrote, however distasteful you might find it; that's the only way to understand how your "opposite" actually thinks.)

Quote
I typically find I's to be more violent and less trustworthy than II's.  Their belief system that everything in their universe depends on the perpetuation of their physical body survival causes them to be in constant fear for that body and willing to make almost any deal to keep it running.

Uhm . . .the Crusades, the Inquistion, Islamic suicide bombers, other religious terrorists, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, the Roman Catholic Church before Reformation.  Some of the greatest violence (and the greatest deceptions) have been perpetrated by your type II's.  Type I's don't have a lock on violence and deception.  Indeed, there are many examples showing that some of your type II's are more prone to violence and deception because everything will be good as long as they are truly sorry afterwards for all the evil they committed.

In view of how you differentiated between the behaviors of your I's and II's, I would reframe your false dichotomy as "There are two types of people.  Those who rationalize their evil deeds through reason, and those who rationalize their evil deeds through faith." 

To break that dichotomy, I'd say "There are three types of people.  Those who rationalize their evil deeds through reason, those who rationalize their evil deeds through faith, and those who do their best not to commit evil deeds because they know evil cannot be rationalized."  Once you add that third category, a lot of your I's and II's will be reclassified as III's. 

 
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 07, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
Tao Jonesing


My comment about two types of people was meant to be more than a little tongue in beak.

OTOH, your objection to my comment and observation, "I typically find I's to be more violent and less trustworthy than II's."  was well warranted.  Not only do I withdraw the statement as fallacious, but  rather than weasel out of its stupidity based on what the meaning of is is, I do not contest the awarding of the Akashic judges a point to you on the basis of a clean take down  ;D  I have lately been focused on the misdeeds of the materialists, and for the moment, totally overlooked the fact that the religious mafia, which outnumbers them drastically and appears, at least on the surface, to believe in the existence and importance of a non-material world, is committing horrendous deeds far in excess to the 'type I's" 

I was listening to a recent interview with Clif High in which he relates an incident a friend of his, whom High describe as a "normal sheeple," observed at an airport.  This friend was watching two men, one of whom turned out to be David Icke, though the friend didn't know that until well after the fact.  The other was an older guy with an entourage and lots of bling, who High suspects was an occult adept of the Rockefeller clan, studying Icke with such total intensity that strange things started happening to his appearance in the eyes of the friend.  I simply bring this up to point out the top occult adepts of the Illuminati are well aware that the world of logical positivism is an inaccurate description of reality, yet it does not prevent them from committing all sorts of hideous deeds.

I also believe that the leadership of the Illuminati are fostering a logical positivist agenda at our universities, as both this belief set along with the religious set make what High would refer to as "useful idiots" that can be more easily controlled.

I was listening to a long interview with Michael Tsarion, the Irish philosopher, last night and was quite impressed with his brilliance.  He maintains that government and religion are the two greatest enemies of humanity.  He defines both as a group of people who demand or support that people behave or believe in a certain fashion or, as Jimi would put it in Hey Joe, we "give them the gun."
Title: Boogie on down
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 07, 2012, 03:22:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7IZmRnAo6s# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7IZmRnAo6s#)
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: JoeP on July 07, 2012, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: LG

I was listening to a long interview with Michael Tsarion, the Irish philosopher, last night and was quite impressed with his brilliance.  He maintains that government and religion are the two greatest enemies of humanity.  He defines both as a group of people who demand or support that people behave or believe in a certain fashion or, as Jimi would put it in Hey Joe, we "give them the gun."

Hard for me to find any inaccuracies here.  I'll try to find the link and watch/listen.
   
Dancing cockatoo. really?   :dontknow:
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 07, 2012, 07:27:24 PM
Joe P


Michael Tsarion:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/12dec/RIR-091217.html (http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/12dec/RIR-091217.html)

Unfortunately in the subscriber only portion of the site.

Regarding the Cockatoo Snowball

I'd rather watch her boogie than Britney Spears any day.  A lot sexier.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 07, 2012, 10:24:31 PM
Tao Jonesing


My comment about two types of people was meant to be more than a little tongue in beak.

OTOH, your objection to my comment and observation, "I typically find I's to be more violent and less trustworthy than II's."  was well warranted.  Not only do I withdraw the statement as fallacious, but  rather than weasel out of its stupidity based on what the meaning of is is, I do not contest the awarding of the Akashic judges a point to you on the basis of a clean take down  ;D  I have lately been focused on the misdeeds of the materialists, and for the moment, totally overlooked the fact that the religious mafia, which outnumbers them drastically and appears, at least on the surface, to believe in the existence and importance of a non-material world, is committing horrendous deeds far in excess to the 'type I's" 

I was listening to a recent interview with Clif High in which he relates an incident a friend of his, whom High describe as a "normal sheeple," observed at an airport.  This friend was watching two men, one of whom turned out to be David Icke, though the friend didn't know that until well after the fact.  The other was an older guy with an entourage and lots of bling, who High suspects was an occult adept of the Rockefeller clan, studying Icke with such total intensity that strange things started happening to his appearance in the eyes of the friend.  I simply bring this up to point out the top occult adepts of the Illuminati are well aware that the world of logical positivism is an inaccurate description of reality, yet it does not prevent them from committing all sorts of hideous deeds.

I also believe that the leadership of the Illuminati are fostering a logical positivist agenda at our universities, as both this belief set along with the religious set make what High would refer to as "useful idiots" that can be more easily controlled.

I was listening to a long interview with Michael Tsarion, the Irish philosopher, last night and was quite impressed with his brilliance.  He maintains that government and religion are the two greatest enemies of humanity.  He defines both as a group of people who demand or support that people behave or believe in a certain fashion or, as Jimi would put it in Hey Joe, we "give them the gun."

@elG,

Thanks for helping me calibrate.  I can't tell from the plain text what you folks actually mean around here.  After suffering through things for a couple of weeks, all I can determine it that  Ashvin is a crazy man,  RE is TOO sane, and you're just right (i.e., I get you).

I think the one area that I will disagree with all of you is in the notion that the hell on earth we face is created by anybody other than human beings.  We are more than capable of managing this level of evil by ourselves.  We really don't need help from the supernatural realm.

Among the biggest failures of the folks around here is their reliance on concepts like the "Illuminati."  Here's why: whatever truth your "Illuminati" chose to share with you, they mixed it with a lot of BS that makes the truth of what you know a lie.  The surest way to disarm the true critique of their reign is to mix a bunch of BS with the truth, which makes the truth BS.  Rockefeller funded the Kochs who funded the John Birch Society who have spawned almost every NWO conspiracy theory in the US since then.  In this sense, even the most earnest of anti-Illuminati proponents, including Alex Jones(?) is a dupe.

Quote
I also believe that the leadership of the Illuminati are fostering a logical positivist agenda at our universities, as both this belief set along with the religious set make what High would refer to as "useful idiots" that can be more easily controlled.

Your Illuminati aren't anti-religion.  They invented all of the religions you know here in the West (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all Political Economy, etc.).  The arc of history is pretty damn clear, if you choose to see it.


Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: RE on July 07, 2012, 10:41:51 PM
RE is TOO sane

There's a Novel Perspective.

I think I'll add that one as a Quote on the Newz Page. :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 08, 2012, 09:18:23 AM
Tao Jonesing wrote:

"We are more than capable of managing this level of evil by ourselves.  We really don't need help from the supernatural realm."

Well. you would really love Tsarion then.  That is his theme.  He uses a lot of Jungian analysis to deal with the dark side of how the ego hides from the spirit via the shadow.  Though Tsarion is totally aware of the Illuminati agenda and doesn't dispute it.  He is pretty silent on non-human players either way, though he holds Icke in high regard.  One reason that he holds Icke in high regard is that Icke states that the only real solution for the 99.999% is to raise their conscious understanding of the universe and become more heart centered and loving.  They have no alternative other than a total fascist state filled with horror forever.

And while I might not agree with the quote of yours above, my argument against it would lack gusto.  In other words, it might be true.  But even if I did accept your statement at face value, it doesn't negate the role of non-humans in the current catastrophe.  The idea that humans are fucked-up enough to create all these problems alone doesn't prove that they did so, it just proves that they may have.  My acceptance of the idea of non-human players having a huge role is based on massive amounts of direct, eye witness evidence from credible sources as well as credible research based on primary sources.  So my position is that maybe humans are fucked-up enough to create all this mayhem on their own, but it turns out that they didn't.

As to the Illuminati disinformation machine - no shit.  They are masters with their wheels within wheels, and separating out the nuggets of truth is a daunting task (but really interesting).  And the hardest one to do is why.  As Clif High puts it, "I am a linguist and I never do "why."  And it makes my wife furious.  I don't know how she puts up with me."
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 10:17:53 AM
Thanks for helping me calibrate.  I can't tell from the plain text what you folks actually mean around here.  After suffering through things for a couple of weeks, all I can determine it that  Ashvin is a crazy man,  RE is TOO sane, and you're just right (i.e., I get you).

I think the one area that I will disagree with all of you is in the notion that the hell on earth we face is created by anybody other than human beings.  We are more than capable of managing this level of evil by ourselves.  We really don't need help from the supernatural realm.

Among the biggest failures of the folks around here is their reliance on concepts like the "Illuminati."  Here's why: whatever truth your "Illuminati" chose to share with you, they mixed it with a lot of BS that makes the truth of what you know a lie.

The surest way to disarm the true critique of their reign is to mix a bunch of BS with the truth, which makes the truth BS.  Rockefeller funded the Kochs who funded the John Birch Society who have spawned almost every NWO conspiracy theory in the US since then.  In this sense, even the most earnest of anti-Illuminati proponents, including Alex Jones(?) is a dupe.

Well the crazy man agrees with you about the Illuminati, and the fact that most NWO theorists are being duped by them. And, on top of that, the highest ranking members of the FMs and Illuminati are also being deceived to think that they will attain some kind of Godlike status through their destructive efforts. The greatest deceptions are those mixed in a with a lot of truth, as originally proven by the greatest Deceiver of them all.

Quote
2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Eve did know evil by eating the fruit, but she also became mortal and she was no longer "like God". The arc of this deception is indeed very clear, and it is what leads you to believe that all religions including Judaism and Christianity were initially developed by the "Illuminati". That's exactly what Satan and his fallen angels want you to think, because it is his Ancient Hope that humanity will worship him instead of God.

This is where the New Age spiritual deception comes in, because it is not enough that humanity becomes secular and fails to believe in God. What Satan wants is for us to explicitly worship him, so that he can claim that he has become "like the Most High", and for anyone else who resists to be purged. To achieve that goal, he will make the so-called anti-NWO advocates believe that humanity can evolve and/or be transformed into a higher state of knowledge, wisdom and existence, eventually creating a peaceful and harmonious Utopia on Earth - the resurrection of ancient Atlantis - but only with the help of an "enlightened" leader.

Part of this deception will most likely be the "disclosure" of ETs that "prove" to us that we can evolve into such a Utopian state without any help from God.
Think about how many people you know who will agree if you tell them that Aliens exist and have most likely been in contact with humanity for some time (or perhaps even created humanity), but the government has been covering it up... we have been prepped for this disclosure for awhile now. And it doesn't hurt that so many otherwise smart and informed people are convincing others that spiritual entities with "good intentions" have been revealing this kind of information to them, and that 2012 marks humanity's entrance into the New Age of Aquarius. Never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with Mayan prophecy, or alignment with the galactic black hole, or the return of planet Nibiru, or anything like that, and especially not Biblical descriptions like many of the New Age advocates claim (Tsarion comes to mind...) - it just sounds right, doesn't it?

But it's not right - it's demonstrably false, and it's the mother of all deceptions.

http://www.youtube.com/v/LeIVz9lCZqQ?version=3&feature=player_embedded 

http://www.youtube.com/v/wjmFm8PIz8M?version=3&feature=player_detailpage
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: el Gallinazo on July 08, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
I am not a Christian.  I have never even played one on television.  There is a strong case to be made that Jesus was not even a historical personage, but his saga was invented out of whole cloth.  I tend to believe that he was, in fact, a historical personage, but many of the texts that the Church chose as the official New Testament, as opposed to the Apocrypha, were highly distorted.  I am not even going to go into the Aramaic / Greek, Synoptic, or 2nd or 3rd century origin.  In my youth it interested me, but not any more.  From what I can make out though, Jesus was very enlightened and a really good guy.  But the Church that was founded in his name became diabolical even before Constantine officially co-opted and usurped it.  The only sect in Christianity that I can make out which carried on Jesus's wholesome enlightenment was the Gnostics. And the mainstream diabolical Church did their best to exterminate them, both in the centuries immediately following Jesus in the Middle East as well as in early Renaissance France where the Inquisition slaughtered Gnostics by the hundred thousands.  And strangely enough, it is the Gnostics who Ashvin vents his greatest antipathy toward.  Why am I not surprised?  I wonder if  he carries around a Zippo in his pocket with the hopes of burning a couple more of them at the stake :-D
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: JoeP on July 08, 2012, 01:24:49 PM
Quote from: LG
I am not a Christian.  I have never even played one on television.

Same here.  But I do tune into this guy sometimes:
 
http://www.youtube.com/v/9AEN5BzwJGI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage

He seems to get a tremendous amout of relief from giving sermons.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ka on July 08, 2012, 02:13:53 PM
[quote El Gallinazo]And strangely enough, it is the Gnostics who Ashvin vents his greatest antipathy toward.[/quote]

In Copleston's multi-volume A History of Philosophy, where he lays out all sorts of philosophical positions that he personally wouldn't agree with (as a Jesuit) in a very calm way, there is only one place where he gets emotional and uses words like 'evil' to describe them, and that is when he is discussing Gnostics.

Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 03:12:31 PM
[quote El Gallinazo]And strangely enough, it is the Gnostics who Ashvin vents his greatest antipathy toward.

In Copleston's multi-volume A History of Philosophy, where he lays out all sorts of philosophical positions that he personally wouldn't agree with (as a Jesuit) in a very calm way, there is only one place where he gets emotional and uses words like 'evil' to describe them, and that is when he is discussing Gnostics.
[/quote]

Understandable, because the Gnostics represent a sect of Christianity that attempts to turn the entire faith on its head and portray God, YHWH, as a malicious and deceptive god (lowercase d), who is actually subservient to Satan (the Serpent of Genesis). It is the root foundation for every secret society and spiritual movement which informs the Illuminati, i.e. the Freemasons, Rosicrucians and Theosophists. The latter heavily relies on Gnostic principles, especially when it comes to portraying Jesus as just another "ascended master", and some of them claim to be in contact with Him. Incidentally, HP Blavatsky is someone Michael Tsarion refers to as "the best philosopher of all time".

The Gnostic Gospels were written well after the Synoptics and are not written by the claimed authors, a fact that was admitted by the Gnostics back then. A lot of people have tried to suggest that these Gospels were around at the Council of Nicea and that they were intentionally left out of the Canon to give preference to the Synoptics and obscure the fact that Jesus was not divine, but that has been proven to be false. That argument is not even internally coherent, because the Gnostics DID believe Jesus was divine and part of the Pleroma (the highest Gods). On top of that, we know for a fact that some of the Gnostic texts were not around at the time of Nicea, and that Nicea had nothing to do with determining the Church's Canon (that had been done much earlier).

There is some evidence to suggest that the Knights Templar commissioned to ensure safe passage to Jerusalem eventually picked up Gnostic beliefs and practices, and were also tortured and executed by the Inquisition for such acts (so were true Christians who refused to accept the CC's dogma, by the way - a fact you hear very little about in modern times... I wonder why?). What is absolutely clear, though, is that the KT eventually became the ancestor of all modern Occult societies, and spread to Western Europe and America through Sir Francis Bacon and Christopher Columbus first (the latter sailed with the symbol of the Knights Templar on his ships), and then the colonial settlers that came much later. Perhaps the one accurate thing contained in all Dan Brown novels is the fact that you can find the symbolism of these anti-Christian movements in Rosslyn Church, which was constructed to reflect the transition towards a New World Order in which the Americas (the "new world") would play a key role.

So, yeah, if you want to find the spiritual roots of the various secret societies working towards a NWO, including the Illuminati, you don't have to look much further than Gnosticism. To me, it is pretty clear that this was Satan's rapid response to the major blow that he was dealt by Jesus' propitiation on the Cross. That, and the rise of the almost equally unsubstantiated and anti-Christian Catholic Church. The Gnostics (and their derivatives) and the CC have both been working towards the same goal over the course of many centuries - to undermine the Word/Wisdom of God and replace it with the word/knowledge of man, exactly as Satan conceived in Eden.

Oh, and, along with the false claims that certain Christian texts were left out of the Canon in the 4th century, you will always hear people making claims that the Bible and Synoptic Gospels have been manipulated and changed by the Illuminati over the years through translations, substitutions and what not... needless to say, those are more false claims that are easily debunked. You will NEVER find anyone who can show you any evidence of such manipulation (because it doesn't exist), and usually they try to explain away that fact by resorting to the pathetic excuse that "all of the REAL manuscripts were destroyed and written out of history". The problem with that explanation is that... it makes no logical sense and is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
From what I can make out though, Jesus was very enlightened and a really good guy. 

Here's a great excerpt from CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" which explains why the "great moral, yet human teacher" descriptions of Jesus are really quite ridiculous:

http://www.youtube.com/v/f2UEm6MddN4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage

Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ka on July 08, 2012, 10:00:46 PM

In Copleston's multi-volume A History of Philosophy, where he lays out all sorts of philosophical positions that he personally wouldn't agree with (as a Jesuit) in a very calm way, there is only one place where he gets emotional and uses words like 'evil' to describe them, and that is when he is discussing Gnostics.

Understandable, because the Gnostics represent a sect of Christianity that attempts to turn the entire faith on its head and portray God, YHWH, as a malicious and deceptive god (lowercase d), who is actually subservient to Satan (the Serpent of Genesis). It is the root foundation for every secret society and spiritual movement which informs the Illuminati, i.e. the Freemasons, Rosicrucians and Theosophists. The latter heavily relies on Gnostic principles, especially when it comes to portraying Jesus as just another "ascended master", and some of them claim to be in contact with Him. Incidentally, HP Blavatsky is someone Michael Tsarion refers to as "the best philosopher of all time".

The Gnostic Gospels were written well after the Synoptics and are not written by the claimed authors, a fact that was admitted by the Gnostics back then. A lot of people have tried to suggest that these Gospels were around at the Council of Nicea and that they were intentionally left out of the Canon to give preference to the Synoptics and obscure the fact that Jesus was not divine, but that has been proven to be false.

Yes, yes, I know why Copleston lost his cool. I also know that what you are giving is the narrative told by the winners, which is always suspect. The thing is that unless you hold that the Holy Spirit made sure that the Councils got the right answers, then the questions of what is orthodox, and who suppressed what and when, will just be one careful historian's opinions bashing against another. In this arena there is no such thing as "proof". You can line up your authorities, while Elaine Pagels or Hans Jonas or whoever can line up theirs, and come to opposite conclusions.

What that means to me is that we have no choice but to adopt what Peter Berger calls the Heretical Imperative, in the book of that name. Which is to say, living in a pluralist society, one exposed to many revelations, and accusations of heresy and suppression and  devil-worship passed back and forth, there is no option but to think for oneself. It is quite possible that in thinking for oneself one concludes that the Holy Spirit has been in control. But proving it is another story. As I see it, each of us has to rationally work out a faith s/he can live with, and then live it. Tradition no longer has much say in the matter.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 10:48:53 PM
Yes, yes, I know why Copleston lost his cool. I also know that what you are giving is the narrative told by the winners, which is always suspect. The thing is that unless you hold that the Holy Spirit made sure that the Councils got the right answers, then the questions of what is orthodox, and who suppressed what and when, will just be one careful historian's opinions bashing against another. In this arena there is no such thing as "proof". You can line up your authorities, while Elaine Pagels or Hans Jonas or whoever can line up theirs, and come to opposite conclusions.

What that means to me is that we have no choice but to adopt what Peter Berger calls the Heretical Imperative, in the book of that name. Which is to say, living in a pluralist society, one exposed to many revelations, and accusations of heresy and suppression and  devil-worship passed back and forth, there is no option but to think for oneself. It is quite possible that in thinking for oneself one concludes that the Holy Spirit has been in control. But proving it is another story. As I see it, each of us has to rationally work out a faith s/he can live with, and then live it. Tradition no longer has much say in the matter.

Ka, I respect your straightforward and balanced approach to these matters.

However, you are a) falling back on the flawed notion that we cannot have any objective idea of which versions of Biblical history are more accurate than others (a logic that deceivers would love for us to embrace), and b) failing to understand that true Christians have not been "the winners" in any meaningful sense of that word.

The fact is that there is plenty of objective evidence to discredit the version of history which says that the Synoptics were fabricated or manipulated to reflect only one perspective of Christianity and Jesus' life while the "other accounts" were suppressed. Textual critics (of all different faiths/backgrounds) devote their entire lives to studying this stuff, and I'm not about to accept that none of their work counts for anything because it feels better to say that history is in the eye of the beholder. I have linked to sources for that evidence several times on this forum, but will gladly provide them to you again if you wish.

Second, the Catholic Church and the Occult societies which highly influenced the development of Western Europe and America and continue to do so today are the real "winners" in terms of controlling the spin on history that most people are exposed to, and their views are typically 100% antithetical to what the Bible teaches (this is also an easily verifiable fact). Even the so-called "fringe" beliefs about Christianity that we find in the New Age Movement get A LOT of exposure in popular culture, as well as the alternative media. The Da Vinci Code by itself, which started with a preface falsely claiming that the information contained within was accurate, launched Gnostic myths about Biblical history into the limelight of mainstream society. And there have been many other similar books/movies before and after.

Obviously, faith does ultimately involve a personal journey to God, but many aspects of the truth can first be sorted out and fitted together with objective evidence, logic and critical analysis, and we do well to rely upon the work of many others who have come before us and uncovered pieces of that puzzle, including those who have exposed the deceptions of the false historians and the false scientists and the false teachers.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ka on July 09, 2012, 02:19:33 PM


However, you are a) falling back on the flawed notion that we cannot have any objective idea of which versions of Biblical history are more accurate than others (a logic that deceivers would love for us to embrace), and b) failing to understand that true Christians have not been "the winners" in any meaningful sense of that word.

By the "winners" I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, and the history of those who accepted them and built orthodox theology from them (plus the OT and Greek philosophy). As opposed to Marcion, Valentinus, etc., of whom we mostly know only through their opponents, eg, Tertullian. How do we know that Tertullian wasn't distorting their thought, as, for example, Muslims do when calling Christianity tritheism? I agree that the texts of the NT we have are authentic, in the sense that they are (bar a few minor and irrelevant copying errors or pious insertions) what were originally written, but are they themselves free of "corruption"? Each Gospel author had his agenda, included stories which may or may not be true.

So who interpreted the message of Jesus correctly? That is what I say cannot be established objectively, short of taking a tape recorder back in time, and even then one must figure out how to interpret what he said, given the different kind of consciousness that his audience had as compared to know.

Quote
The fact is that there is plenty of objective evidence to discredit the version of history which says that the Synoptics were fabricated or manipulated to reflect only one perspective of Christianity and Jesus' life while the "other accounts" were suppressed.

Then why didn't we have a complete Gospel of Thomas until 1948? Who knows what else was rejected? But I agree (see above) that the Gospels we do have were not fabricated or manipulated. They were, however, selected to reflect only one perspective of Christianity, the one that won.

Quote
Obviously, faith does ultimately involve a personal journey to God, but many aspects of the truth can first be sorted out and fitted together with objective evidence, logic and critical analysis, and we do well to rely upon the work of many others who have come before us and uncovered pieces of that puzzle, including those who have exposed the deceptions of the false historians and the false scientists and the false teachers.

Where I come down is that all that has been "sorted out and fitted together" is just one possibility, even just one Christian possibility. Does one follow the Thomists, or the Barthians, or the fundamentalists, or the "Jesus Seminar" folks? How can we be sure that Arianism or adoptionism is a heresy? And so on.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 09, 2012, 04:02:38 PM
By the "winners" I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, and the history of those who accepted them and built orthodox theology from them (plus the OT and Greek philosophy). As opposed to Marcion, Valentinus, etc., of whom we mostly know only through their opponents, eg, Tertullian. How do we know that Tertullian wasn't distorting their thought, as, for example, Muslims do when calling Christianity tritheism? I agree that the texts of the NT we have are authentic, in the sense that they are (bar a few minor and irrelevant copying errors or pious insertions) what were originally written, but are they themselves free of "corruption"? Each Gospel author had his agenda, included stories which may or may not be true.

Oh ok, I'm glad you brought that up, because I find that to be a much better argument than the fabrication/manipulation ones, even though I disagree with both. The major difference between us here is probably the fact that I would put the onus on you to establish why the Gospel authors were misrepresenting Jesus, just as I would do the same if we were talking about any other historical accounts of a man's life and teachings (for ex. the Buddha).

There are certainly some differences in the descriptions and styles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. First and foremost, we should recognize the fact that if there were no differences, then a conspiracy between them would be much more likely. They may have been inspired by God/Jesus, but they were still human and therefore capable of misrepresenting the exact reality, both unintentionally and intentionally, with their descriptions of people and events. The key issue is to figure out how bad these errors were and if they intentionally changed the status of Jesus by ascribing events/claims to Him that never occurred. If you believe in the OT and the fact that the NT is Inspired by the same God, then this is really a moot point, but we can leave that issue aside for the sake of argument.

Most people accept that Mathew and Mark used Luke's account to form their own accounts, and that Paul just used his own experiences with the Holy Spirit which led to his conversion. I'll admit that I am not even close to being an expert in this field, but they are certainly out there. So far, I have come across no good evidence to suggest that any of the authors were intentionally lying about Jesus. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they would all come to this unprecedented series of events with different perspectives, in the very early stages of Christianity breaking off from Judaism. There is certainly room for disagreement over who got the finer details more right, though.

There is also the issue of why the NT is so congruent with the history and teachings of the OT - if you believe the former was a misrepresentation of history, then you have to admit that they did a FANTASTIC job of making their false history jive with the history/theology of the OT. Either that, or you say the entire OT is also a misrepresentation of history, and the Bible has been one centuries-long conspiracy between dozens of authors in different locations over many, many generations.

Quote
So who interpreted the message of Jesus correctly? That is what I say cannot be established objectively, short of taking a tape recorder back in time, and even then one must figure out how to interpret what he said, given the different kind of consciousness that his audience had as compared to know.

So do you also believe that ANY history recorded before the invention of the tape recorder cannot be established objectively in any meaningful way?

I do not believe an "evolution in consciousness" has made it impossible for us to understand what people back then were thinking when we study their writings and the historical context.

Quote
Then why didn't we have a complete Gospel of Thomas until 1948? Who knows what else was rejected? But I agree (see above) that the Gospels we do have were not fabricated or manipulated. They were, however, selected to reflect only one perspective of Christianity, the one that won.

Ka, we know what the Biblical Canon sanctioned by the early Church was and it is the same one that was sanctioned by the Catholic Church much later (not at Nicea), and we also know that the Gnostic Gospels were not even considered or referenced by early Church fathers, most likely because they didn't even exist at that time. The view that best fits the evidence is that the Gnostic Christians decided to create their own set of Gospels and record their views of Jesus after the original disciples and apostles.

You say that the those people "won", but the interesting thing is that the  CC doctrine taught to the masses almost has as much in common with the Gnostic Gospels than the Synoptics and the Epistles. So they may have "won" in terms of the texts that have been passed down until today, but not necessarily in terms of how popular their teachings were in the Western world. The pre-enlightenment/renaissance CC did all kinds of things that were 100% contrary to the NT, and of course the NT has been either completely ignored or brutally attacked ever since the enlightenment era. Everyone wanted to escape religious persecution, and rightly so, but they forgot that it was Anti-Christian institutions doing the persecuting the whole time in contravention to the Gospels.


Quote
Where I come down is that all that has been "sorted out and fitted together" is just one possibility, even just one Christian possibility. Does one follow the Thomists, or the Barthians, or the fundamentalists, or the "Jesus Seminar" folks? How can we be sure that Arianism or adoptionism is a heresy? And so on.

I think what you are really talking about here is advanced theology, and while I do believe some of those things can be clearly debunked using scripture, there is obviously room for disagreement. But when those disagreements are reasonable and have some basis in scripture, they almost never go against the basic foundations of Christianity, such as Jesus' divinity. With Christianity, the most fundamental disagreements are usually over Biblical prophecy, and that is understandable. We find similar types of disagreements in all major religions.

Again, this is assuming that the Biblical scripture we have today is not itself corrupted, but I believe I have made a solid case for why it is not, and the onus is on you to prove that the Gospel authors were misrepresenting the life and teachings of Jesus.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ka on July 09, 2012, 08:03:45 PM

Oh ok, I'm glad you brought that up, because I find that to be a much better argument than the fabrication/manipulation ones, even though I disagree with both. The major difference between us here is probably the fact that I would put the onus on you to establish why the Gospel authors were misrepresenting Jesus, just as I would do the same if we were talking about any other historical accounts of a man's life and teachings (for ex. the Buddha).

There are certainly some differences in the descriptions and styles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. First and foremost, we should recognize the fact that if there were no differences, then a conspiracy between them would be much more likely. They may have been inspired by God/Jesus, but they were still human and therefore capable of misrepresenting the exact reality, both unintentionally and intentionally, with their descriptions of people and events. The key issue is to figure out how bad these errors were and if they intentionally changed the status of Jesus by ascribing events/claims to Him that never occurred. If you believe in the OT and the fact that the NT is Inspired by the same God, then this is really a moot point, but we can leave that issue aside for the sake of argument.

Yes, the onus would be on me to show that they misrepresented Jesus, but I am not claiming that. What I am getting at, and I apologize for being round-about, is that all these questions as to authenticity or who got left out and who got into the canon do not matter, or I guess I should say that they should not matter. What matters are the messages. Now the reason people go on about how they are or are not authentic, or were corrupted, or whatever, is that one wants to give them, or deny them, divine status, i.e., that they are revelations from God. But nothing can prove that. Even if it were a demonstrable fact that Jesus rose on the third day that would not prove he was God. It would prove that miracles occur, and thus prove that naturalism is incorrect, but I, for one, became convinced it was incorrect through other means, so that part of the "message" I consider unimportant.

So what does matter? In my view it is stated in the Gospels, in the statement "the truth shall make you free of sin and death". I take that to mean that, as a sinner, I do not possess the truth. But I also take it to mean that it is possible to acquire it. And one thing one does to acquire it is to study the messages of those who one thinks are, or have become, free of sin (as for the "and death" part, that can mean various things, so I'll let it slide). Jesus, I assume, is one of those, and given the Barfield business in one way the most important. But he is not the only one. However, in the present context (the question of authenticity of scriptures), I do not feel all that confident that what grew up around the Jesus story is all that trustworthy. There is, no doubt, good stuff in the Gospels that -- to my ears -- rings true. But that is only after reading similar stuff from others. On the other hand, there is much that does not ring true, that strikes me as more likely to be the typical addition of legends and such that surrounds any major religious figure.


Quote
So do you also believe that ANY history recorded before the invention of the tape recorder cannot be established objectively in any meaningful way?

I think that questions of divinity and determining what is true and what is false revelation cannot be determined through historical research. Hence we are reliant on our reason to wade our way through.

Quote
I do not believe an "evolution in consciousness" has made it impossible for us to understand what people back then were thinking when we study their writings and the historical context.

It doesn't make it impossible. It does mean that the differences in language and culture are more severe than usually thought.



Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 09, 2012, 08:24:34 PM
Tao Jonesing wrote:

"We are more than capable of managing this level of evil by ourselves.  We really don't need help from the supernatural realm."

Well. you would really love Tsarion then.  That is his theme.  He uses a lot of Jungian analysis to deal with the dark side of how the ego hides from the spirit via the shadow.  Though Tsarion is totally aware of the Illuminati agenda and doesn't dispute it.  He is pretty silent on non-human players either way, though he holds Icke in high regard.  One reason that he holds Icke in high regard is that Icke states that the only real solution for the 99.999% is to raise their conscious understanding of the universe and become more heart centered and loving.  They have no alternative other than a total fascist state filled with horror forever.

And while I might not agree with the quote of yours above, my argument against it would lack gusto.  In other words, it might be true.  But even if I did accept your statement at face value, it doesn't negate the role of non-humans in the current catastrophe.  The idea that humans are fucked-up enough to create all these problems alone doesn't prove that they did so, it just proves that they may have.  My acceptance of the idea of non-human players having a huge role is based on massive amounts of direct, eye witness evidence from credible sources as well as credible research based on primary sources.  So my position is that maybe humans are fucked-up enough to create all this mayhem on their own, but it turns out that they didn't.

As to the Illuminati disinformation machine - no shit.  They are masters with their wheels within wheels, and separating out the nuggets of truth is a daunting task (but really interesting).  And the hardest one to do is why.  As Clif High puts it, "I am a linguist and I never do "why."  And it makes my wife furious.  I don't know how she puts up with me."

Thanks for the follow-up. 

I accept your acceptance of the plausibility of my statement of what I believe.  My goal is not to convince anybody of anything other than the plausibility of my beliefs.

I have my own beliefs as to the "why," but I don't feel like sharing them yet.
Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 09, 2012, 08:46:02 PM
Oh, and, along with the false claims that certain Christian texts were left out of the Canon in the 4th century, you will always hear people making claims that the Bible and Synoptic Gospels have been manipulated and changed by the Illuminati over the years through translations, substitutions and what not... needless to say, those are more false claims that are easily debunked. You will NEVER find anyone who can show you any evidence of such manipulation (because it doesn't exist), and usually they try to explain away that fact by resorting to the pathetic excuse that "all of the REAL manuscripts were destroyed and written out of history". The problem with that explanation is that... it makes no logical sense and is ridiculous.

Perhaps without realizing it, you're making a compound allegation, i.e., you are alleging (1) that Gospels were manipulated and (2) your Illuminati did it, such that if either allegation is false, your compound allegation is false.

The fact is that the manipulation of the Gospels was well-documented long before the rise of the first group to call itself Illuminati in 1776.

Bart Ehrman does a pretty good job of documenting the most obvious "interpolations" in several books, which I will cite to later.  I have tracked his assertions back to the sources he cites and have confirmed that he's not making it up.  I will cite to those books (free on Google books) for you, as well, including links to the books themselves.

Title: Re: Type I & Type II Existential Personalities
Post by: Ashvin on July 09, 2012, 09:33:27 PM
Perhaps without realizing it, you're making a compound allegation, i.e., you are alleging (1) that Gospels were manipulated and (2) your Illuminati did it, such that if either allegation is false, your compound allegation is false.

The fact is that the manipulation of the Gospels was well-documented long before the rise of the first group to call itself Illuminati in 1776.

No, I was alleging that they were NOT manipulated by the Illuminati (and when I say "Illuminati", I mean any of the secret societies that came before them, and I would also include the Roman Catholic Church)

Quote
Bart Ehrman does a pretty good job of documenting the most obvious "interpolations" in several books, which I will cite to later.  I have tracked his assertions back to the sources he cites and have confirmed that he's not making it up.  I will cite to those books (free on Google books) for you, as well, including links to the books themselves.

I have already provided you with a response to Dr. Ehrman's work from Dr. Wallace on the "Out of this World" thread. Yes, there are interpolations, but a) that is not evidence of coordinated manipulation and b) that does not prevent us from discovering the wording of the original texts.