Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Salvation and Knowing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Salvation and Knowing

    A central issue or misunderstanding which takes experience and discipline to understand is really not about the labels we give to it - whatever "IT" is. You can be a 'fool' and get the essence of "IT" or you can be the kind of fool who will never know anything. Wisdom acquisition can appear in Peaceful ways much as Gibran says about the "heather in yonder valley breathes it's fragrance to the air. Those are the children of God - and through them he smiles upon the Earth."

    It is not about the scripture or what other people say. If you read John 10:34 telling you that you are god, - then maybe you are right, but maybe you are wrong. Instead of it being "Ye are gods", I say it is WE and not any one person who is given the awesome responsibility of making the world "within" and "without" what Providence and potential allows.

    "Man achieves the height of Wisdom when all that he does is as self evident as what Nature does." - I Ching

    It is not what you desire to be true, or especially not what you feel you MUST have or control. Control is never what you think it is, it is more a matter of insecurity and thus it reflects the opposite into your life. Possessions do indeed 'possess'. I forget where that thought possesses me from, probably in one language or another it has been around for as long as the ape wanted a hug.


    Your potential and mine are different and yet connected. My truth is never going to be your truth but if we find it together - it will seem a great beauty indeed. That is a borrowed thought I suppose, from Fritz Perls. Knowing where our thoughts begin or came from becomes a chore as you gain knowledge. Knowing truth is an illusion. There is always more and each time you open a door there are more doors beyond. I forget where I got that metaphorical apparition.

    Your thought is transitory and your truth is something you strive to fulfill or learn. In palmistry it is seen in the mound at the base of your thumb. Your thought or ego requires full development and the mound grows bulbous in youth as you achieve things or gain what you think are right - BELIEF! When that mound is less full than the rest of the hand - it signals growth in wisdom and loss of ego.

    Do possessions provide relief from any karmic potential unfulfilled? Does BELIEF make you more powerful in truth or in ego?


    Will any person who achieves all they could be, have salvation - regardless of any religious following they may have said they thought was their path? Yes, it is probably the case and no one can tell you for certain what is most important for you, if you do not work to discover it, without a closed mind (Belief) or soul (mind, spirit and ESP or other words we have invented).

    "He who is least selfish is most selfish." Is true for you whether you ever know it in this life or not. The rewards are not in this realm of BE- ing. You must try "Not to BE" as much as you try "TO be." This conundrum we call life is also transitory to what our soulful connection may be. You nor I are likely to know it while we are what we call alive.


    The Beatles said it can be 'instant' in the moment you get it. That will be at death most likely. It was once in the Christian thought but certain people saw they could gain power if they got control of who got to go to some mythical place and they could charge you for "special dispensations", "confessions" and make your "will" and "testifying" fit their marketing plan. It was called The Law of Retribution and you were not destined to have it "happen to you" as the song said. You got to actually decide if your karma was good or not. It only requires giving all you have to your life. If you forfeit this giving and put it in the hands of others who interpret it for you, "IT" will get you.

    All these things are in the Gospel of Truth from the Nag Hammadi scrolls and you can find them all in just this one paragraph. Of course, there is great depth in each cliché I gave above, like "To Be or not to BE." That is a question to be sure.

    "The gospel of truth is joy for those who have received from the father of truth the grace of knowing him by the power of the word, who has come from the fullness and who is in the thought and the mind of the father. This is the one who is called the savior, since that is the name of the work that he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the father. For the name of the gospel is the revelation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the realm of all sought him from whom it came. You see, all was inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought."

    All three laws of the Magi are in the essence of any well conceived thought. But I see "Know, Will, Dare, Keep Silent" as the most applicable law in what is above.

    The Gnostics are traceable to at least the builders of the Great Pyramid which the Septuagint (Greek Bible) intimates when it says the family of Jesus and Joseph were "arch-tectons" or architects. This was the hardest thing to confirm from the writings of Conor MacDari along with the fruit of 'direct cognition' which comes from this harmony. This video gets it right about 'direct experience'.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-17-2016 at 07:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    You know about Schrodinger in Peanuts cartoon strips - Snoopy et. all. You know about dog-ma and now you know about Kar-ma. Can you drive your karma to pick up your Katma at the temple?

    Perhaps the issue of our cat or our mind is not so clear to anyone as of this moment in time (which is not linear). And I thought to look into what a great mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell might have added to our dilemma in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which means 'love of knowledge'.

    "Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However, suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The paradox was named after Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), who discovered it in 1901."

    Thomas Paine was an Illuminatus in the true sense of the word. Here he is talking about some of the most paradoxical and para - normal or unbelievable fictions you will ever encounter large groups of people swearing is real. (From The Age of Reason Part 2)

    "When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

    When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

    It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story."

    Jung can also be used to gain further insight but be careful of any quotes by those who say they take his full understanding to heart and remember the Dag Hammadi finds were Christianized which actually means it was Roman propaganda, and not fully translated in his era.

    " "A parallel form of alchemy also developed in the East, in which the liberation of the 'true man' from within was sought in forms of Indian yoga and Chinese Taoism....

    "For as science freed itself of religion in an Age of Enlightenment and work in the laboratory finally shed its arcane symbolisms... so the philosophical side of the work forfeit the creative medium - the living soul - of its projections only to become the inanimate preserve of secret societies such as the Rosicrucians....

    "Jung showed that the problem... of the body in general developed in Western alchemy as a compensatory undercurrent to the Christian conflict between the opposites, particularly the moral opposites of good and evil, which ever since the first day of Creation had been rent apart into upper and lower worlds. ... Alchemy represented the search for the divine spark of God's reflection in the darkness of the lower world, under the motto ascribed in antiquity to Hermes Trismegistus; 'as Above, so Below'....

    "As the power of faith upheld by the Church waned, it was left to psychology to uncover the source of this sickness in modern man, a sickness and distress which Jung argued can only be cured through greater knowledge and individual experience....

    "The opus of alchemy was essentially concerned with the union of opposites....

    "The stone, the lumen novum, arising from the conjunction of the reconciled opposites Sol et Luna was personified as the rounded, bisexual Anthropos and proclaimed... the saviour of the macrocosm and counterpart to Christ.... Because the experience of wholeness re-connects the individual with the universal life of the collective unconscious, Jung called the mandala 'a window on eternity', a moment of 'redemption' transcending the ego-personality as the whole transcends the part." 18

    Jung on Active Imagination: "Brief Extract from Analytical Psychology : its Theory and Practice The Tavistock Lectures (1935)"

    On the nature of tao - From Jung's Collected Works 6 Psychological Types (1921): "This psychological attitude essential condition for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, and this in its turn - all rational interpretations notwithstanding - is the central, irrational symbol whence the redeeming effect comes. The Christian symbol merely has a more social character than the related conceptions of the East....

    "According to the central concepts of Taoism, tao is divided into a fundamental pair of opposites, yang and yin. Yang signifies warmth, light, maleness; yin is cold, darkness, femaleness. Yang is also heaven, yin earth. From the yang force arises shen, the celestial portion of the human soul, and from the yin force comes kwei, the earthly part....

    "As a microcosm, man is reconciler of the opposites, Heaven, man, and earth form the three chief elements of the world.... Man is a microcosm uniting the world opposites is the equivalent of an irrational symbol that unites the psychological opposites.... The existence of two mutually antagonistic tendencies, both striving to drag man into extreme attitudes and entangle him in the world, whither on the material or spiritual level, sets him at variance with himself and accordingly demands the existence of a counterweight....

    "The aim of Taoist ethics, then, is to find deliverance from the cosmic tension of opposites by a return to Tao.""

    Unity in Yoga (one definition is union) and joining the yin and yang to get the ONE is a simple way to understanding all religious and philosophical debate. Eliade and Jung had 'words' over this and we have those letters here already.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-16-2016 at 12:03 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Sometimes it seems many animals are more wise and knowing than some humans. Yogi Ramacharaka (William Walker Atkinson) said domesticated animals can be more spiritually advanced than humans struggling all their lives to put food on their table.

    Do dogs and cats devise gods and alien interventions? Do they blindly accept what their masters tell them about history, politics and the right answers for tests?

    Yes, we can train a dog to do many things and there are some serious books showing women how to do this with or to their mates.

    But it is the field of hypnotic memes and icons where humans really jump the shark - at both ends. The so-called PTB (Powers that be) and the sheeple are both too enamoured by what can be done without considering reality could be so much more. We can create and make god or "all that IS" - better! There is no One Pie, despite what Malthus proposed.

    You do not have to steal from the rich to feed the poor or have negative income taxes and guaranteed minimum incomes. Yes, we can actually produce more with less man-hours, and it has been true with technology for many years, and far more true today.

    In short our true Salvation comes by thinking critically - and how can we get more people to do THAT?!!!!

    But there be monsters! If one reads enough of the myths one will wonder what is clear and how much "LIGHT" is shed into shadows created by the imagination of people wishing to lord it over others. The Gnosis or wisdom tree has too many branches and it needs pruning. When one person imagines a great and fearful beginning another person argues it and so on. Eventually you get a whole corpus of corpulence and flatulence, as I see it. Archons and immortals or angels and demons, worms and serpents all about hovering and flying; out of chaos! But somehow there was something other than chaos or it's original darkness which god created the firmament from. Yes, that darkness was actually a shadow of something else! It really became quite complex, all these people imagining an explanation for nonsense created by others, rather than observing reality - Nature!

    The names became power and able to hypnotize and make people behave according to what the priests liked. Machiavelli wrote a handbook on management still in use - Il Principe. In it he says if you give people what they want you can have a lot more, because people really only need a little. ""Appeals to base human urges" means you only have to give the "base" or most simple things and if you call those things a sin (Self-Inflicted Nonsense) you can even keep them as well. If I call my mighty omnipotent master by the name Allah and you call it some other name does that mean there is really more than one all powerful entity or reality?

    Absurd as it may sound - yes. We have made a heavenly host of monsters because we do not observe "What IS"!

    "When Pistis Sophia saw him moving in the depth of the waters, she said to him, “Youth, pass over here,” which is interpreted as “Yaldabaoth.” Since that day, the first principle of the word that referred to the gods and angels and people has appeared. And the gods and angels and people constitute that which came into being by means of the word. Moreover, the ruler Yaldabaoth is ignorant of the power of Pistis. He did not see her face, but he saw in the water the likeness that spoke with him. And from that voice he called himself Yaldabaoth. But the perfect ones call him Ariael because he was like a lion. And after he came to possess authority over matter, Pistis Sophia withdrew up to her light.


    When the ruler saw his greatness, he saw only himself; he saw nothing else, except water and darkness. Then he thought that he alone existed. His thought was made complete by means of the word, and it appeared as a spirit moving to and fro over the waters. And when that spirit appeared, the ruler separated the watery substance to one region and the dry substance to another region. From matter he created a dwelling place for himself and called it heaven. And from matter the ruler created a footstool and called it earth."

    If Maya is not real and only science can make sense of our reality - we are truly screwed. Not to say that scientists are not our best option versus all the gurus, pulpit-pounders and politicians - but they only teach when they really are not good scientists. (Generality - I know)
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-21-2016 at 01:22 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    In his growth towards being Yogananda met a wandering sadhu called the Perfume Saint who he had this discussion about ego with. From Autobiography of a Yogi.

    "“Truth humbly retires, no doubt, before such arrogant originality.” I was enjoying the discussion.

    “Man can understand no eternal verity until he has freed himself from pretensions. The human mind, bared to a centuried slime, is teeming with repulsive life of countless world-delusions. Struggles of the battlefields pale into insignificance here, when man first contends with inward enemies! No mortal foes these, to be overcome by harrowing array of might! Omnipresent, unresting, pursuing man even in sleep, subtly equipped with a miasmic weapon, these soldiers of ignorant lusts seek to slay us all. Thoughtless is the man who buries his ideals, surrendering to the common fate. Can he seem other than impotent, wooden, ignominious?”

    “Respected Sir, have you no sympathy for the bewildered masses?”

    The sage was silent for a moment, then answered obliquely.

    “To love both the invisible God, Repository of All Virtues, and visible man, apparently possessed of none, is often baffling! But ingenuity is equal to the maze. Inner research soon exposes a unity in all human minds—the stalwart kinship of selfish motive. In one sense at least, the brotherhood of man stands revealed. An aghast humility follows this leveling discovery. It ripens into compassion for one’s fellows, blind to the healing potencies of the soul awaiting exploration.”

    “The saints of every age, sir, have felt like yourself for the sorrows of the world.”

    “Only the shallow man loses responsiveness to the woes of others’ lives, as he sinks into narrow suffering of his own.” The sadhu’s austere face was noticeably softened. “The one who practices a scalpel self-dissection will know an expansion of universal pity. Release is given him from the deafening demands of his ego. The love of God flowers on such soil. The creature finally turns to his Creator, if for no other reason than to ask in anguish: ‘Why, Lord, why?’ By ignoble whips of pain, man is driven at last into the Infinite Presence, whose beauty alone should lure him.”

    The sage and I were present in Calcutta’s Kalighat Temple, whither I had gone to view its famed magnificence. With a sweeping gesture, my chance companion dismissed the ornate dignity.

    “Bricks and mortar sing us no audible tune; the heart opens only to the human chant of being.”

    We strolled to the inviting sunshine at the entrance, where throngs of devotees were passing to and fro.

    “You are young.” The sage surveyed me thoughtfully. “India too is young. The ancient rishis 3 laid down ineradicable patterns of spiritual living. Their hoary dictums suffice for this day and land. Not outmoded, not unsophisticated against the guiles of materialism, the disciplinary precepts mold India still. By millenniums—more than embarrassed scholars care to compute!—the skeptic Time has validated Vedic worth. Take it for your heritage.”"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Pardon my approbation and hackneyed phraseology or uncouthness, please; kind sirs or madams.

    Personally I do not know which myth is more enigmatic or unexplainable. Is it how people have been fed lies about some recent couple of humans in a rather unforgiving place who meet up with a god in some place, that this god rapes or otherwise forces his progeny upon the poor souls who are struggling to eat an apple of knowledge and get a grip on the snake - or that later we have this same book of begatting bringing forth new monsters from other planets we were not told existed until a few years ago. What flat earth or hollow earth kind of thinking is this? I guess I prefer the story in Enoch with those Elohim, because at least you can find some useful insight to your soul in it. Oh, I forgot it is censored.

    If you need to spend time thinking about the complexities of these lies - there are ample ways for you to get brainwashed. People spend their lives studying how to get more converts to their cults. They use every means at their disposal - including nations and laws. You won't soon find these studious types carrying the gun or sword, they use their sword for more pleasant and safe pastimes. But if you believe them you can get the 72 virgins - if they leave any for you. As you read what is provided in the next link you should heed their warning about desecrating sacred words and letters, but it is OK for them to use you as sword or cannon fodder. Is the name a clue to some Bear (Bereishit) droppings? Here is what they say about how you must treat their asswipe.

    "The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard."

    I like to see all the free material on the web, and yet I see so much old dogma sometimes I wonder if it would be better if we had to pay to get the proselyte lie into the hands of sheep. To suggest Christian Monasteries were anything other than a hotbed of depraved indifference to the welfare of people is a joke. To imagine a world so deranged that we celebrate the art and artists forced to portray the vile imagery is beyond reprehensible, and yet I have to admit it was an improvement over the Christianity where Rome had bishops owning gladiators in the second century of their new approach to control which later became Holy and an Empire..

    I find it especially repulsive that you can get a Ph. D. in Philosophy for addressing Augustine in a conventional manner. He is the harbinger of sin, Abelard the INTENT developed therein, Bernard the enforcer of major sinning (If he was not what I think he was.).

    He had been a follower of Mani and if he had not sold out we might never have been subjected to such deceit and terror. Mani wanted ecumenicism!

    “For the thing itself which is now called the Christian religion, was known to the ancients, and was not wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race until the time that Christ came in the flesh, from whence the true religion, that had existed previously, began to be called Christian, and this in our day is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having in later times received the name”. - Saint Augustine
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-02-2016 at 09:23 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    "McGilchrist argues that throughout history the two brains have been in a kind of rivalry punctuated by brief periods when they worked together. Neither he nor I am saying that we should jettison left brain or ‘survival’ consciousness in favor of the right. Both are necessary and we wouldn’t have them if they weren’t. But he does argue that there has been a gradual shift in emphasis toward valuing the left over the right, and that we are increasingly creating a left-brain dominated culture that is slowly squeezing out the input from the right. The fact that the most respected intelligences of our time – scientists – tell us that the universe is “pointless” seems evidence of this. Breaking down the whole into bits and pieces in order to understand and manipulate it (technology), we lose sight of the connection between things, the implicit meaning that the right brain perceives but which it is unable to communicate to the left, in a language it can understand. Poets, mystics, artists can feel this whole and try to communicate it, but the left brain only acknowledges ‘facts’ and dismisses their entreaties as well-meaning moonshine.

    So where does this leave us? For one thing, recognizing that the kind of consciousness associated with mystical experience and gnosis is rooted in our own neurophysiology, and cannot be dismissed as delusion, mere emotion, or madness allows us to approach the question of gnosis in a way that the proponents of episteme cannot ignore, even if they do not agree with it. If, as McGilchrist argues, the right brain holistic perception is fundamental – is, as he calls it, the Master – then we can begin to see how the left brain analytical perception rose out of it, developed as an evolutionary aid to survival. (It is, perhaps, the source of the ‘ancient wisdom’ of the Hermeticists and other mystery traditions.) We can see that our present left-brain oriented consciousness is not, as mentioned earlier, consciousness per se, but has antecedents in earlier forms of consciousness. And if we recognize, as many have, that this utilitarian focused consciousness, while working wonderfully as a tool for survival, has been gradually eliminating the kind of right brain perceptions that give life a sense of meaning, we can see that this imbalance needs to be redressed. McGilchrist points to several periods in history when, as mentioned, the two worked together, with remarkable results:

    Classical Greece, the Renaissance, the Romantic Movement.

    And in our own experience, we can find moments when this happens too: moments of insight, ‘peak experiences’, creative moments when the big picture and the detail come together, when the particular seems to express some universal, and when the whole cosmos seems to reside in our own imaginations. (Poets may receive inspiration from the right brain, but they need the left in order to capture that inspiration in words.) McGilchrist argues that the times in western history when a creative union between the two hemispheres of the brain were reached were triggered by the urgent need for them to work together. Crisis, he says, can bring about the completion of our ‘partial mind’, as the poet W.B. Yeats expressed it. We are not, I submit, short of crises. Let us hope McGilchrist is right and that the evolution of consciousness, spurred by the challenges before us, unites our two sides in a creative gnosis for the twenty-first century.""

    I sincerely hope he and Mc Gilchrist are correct about our brain structure changing to allow integrating and that the resultant integration will allow soul or spirit to inform the brain or mind. I suspect we have the means to make this a machine reality even if it is not biological. That means we will be second rate sentient beings on our own planet.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I am often saying our world is a different place than we are supposed to think it is if we are going to get along with those who say they know better. I guess you will not take long before you see me as someone who thinks he knows something important about every subject and maybe I come across as someone who thinks he knows everything about something. It was a goal of mine before I was ten years old when I first read or heard this was a good thing from Winston Churchill. A few years before I heard or read things like "To be or NOT to Be, that is the question." And I still find meaning anew sprout from different ways to word and emphasize the words in that little saying. Yes, "the question is a beingness all of it's own, BEing."

    'The more I know the more I know I do not know' became some kind of mantra and also a guide to me, reminding me, comparing knowledge with people who have no interest in study is a fool's quest which serves no purpose whatsoever. Having a Joy of Learning has made all things worthwhile and I might occasionally think it is a curse my father put on me; but I would not want to be any other way. I can in fact be whatever level or layer of the continuum because I have learned, and if I had not - what I could BE would only have the ring of insecurity attached with it. Yes, or no - you do not know? But if I tell you it is so, and then I say it does not matter if you are truly able to sense "what IS" - you would not be justified in thinking I am a pedant with no sound footing for living.

    That true footing is something alongside Karma and Love, which always has more purpose and Right Thought to being into Right Action. The opposite of a great truth is also true, while the opposite of an average or menial truth is just false. Double-talk it is not, I first read it in the words of an atom-mysticist named Nils Bohr. He called it the Rule of Complementarity. It has nothing to do with a compliment, and when people hear it they sometimes think I am saying something politically correct about complimenting all ideas and people in the style I most abhor, superficial nonsense! When that happens I have an immediate example of the truth in the saying or Rule. If there is interest I usually get to explain Abraxas and a continuum from good to bad with no evil and no absolute nirvana. Sometimes the conversation continues with me having to take the opposite of spiritual in order to illustrate my ability to make an opposite truth of some real truth. Then it gets weird with people wanting to find a Great Truth with an opposite which is also a Great Truth.

    "He who is least selfish, is MOST SELF-ish!" I spent a complete semester arguing this with a Professor who got his doctorate on selfish ego in do-gooders who had not considered this statement. I could say he never was able to put his mind around it, and the calm reasoning I exhibited. If I had spent all those hours getting a doctorate in something I did not understand I might think twice about my competency. It did in fact haunt him and he brought it up more often than I did. Syllogistic logic will set up conclusions not real or evident to self or SELF. That capitalized SELF or the capitalized BE in Shakespeare's great truth is the universal which no syllogism can allow according to a book by Jeff Coulter. I am also not certain that is a Great Truth because a perfect self or idea is possible according to Chardin and many disciplines in esoterica. But his point about agreed upon meaning and language in such contemplations does seem correct where words are involved. Yet, words do not need to BE (involved). You will see he is deconstructing a quote from McHugh in his deliberations.

    Logic is a tortured science like Economics where it seems money can and must be spent wastefully in order to maximize profits and productivity. Love of Knowledge or Philosophy should be far more enlightening than it is when experts get hold of a bone of contention. Do you need to know how many angels fit on the head of a needle?How about the math proving the existence of god. You want that - here it is . The esteemed and apparently most maligned and misunderstood economist is Rev. Thomas Malthus according to this number one site on him and economic philosophy.

    They talk about how he studied facts and populations with supply demand fundamentals which are just facts. Then we can see something most foul which gets him the title the Dismal Economist. He nearly recommends war, withholding healthcare and most foul of all cutting down on having kids when you are a kid. They are right, the facts are self-evident and yet most people will never agree to stop having unwanted or financially insecure relationships including children. But people do not want to think about what that means - and how they force society to go to war to maintain their need for sex or having kids. People love to think their leaders are the cause of these horrible genocides wrought upon the natives through The Plague and other viruses and various beastial means. They whine about their kids going off to foreign wars while they drive three cars and fly south for the winter. There is no opposite Great Truth in what we do against our other lifeforms on this planet. The people making these decisions may indeed be well off, but the masses are causing the horror shows as much as the talking-heads and laws those talking-heads have created.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-02-2016 at 01:19 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Salvation dogma took a pre-eminent role in the building of the church of Rome. It does not matter where those churches are or who administers them (east or west - American or in hell). This Empire calling itself Holy is not Holy except by the evidence of the holes created by wars. Holes in hearts and souls they control. Though they will say it was not a Holy Empire until Charlemagne - this is preposterous. It certainly was the intent to make it so as soon as they started to abuse pre-Christian (actually pre-Yeshua) literature and build their propaganda called the New Testament. If you wanted to say they were operating other games of conquest and appealing more to other methods at that time - sure, I would agree. Maybe it was Constantine you would credit with the abuses which follow this ever expanding Empire.

    It is also important to realize there are other segments of this cult who also have some part to play. The Judaic or Hebrew Bible was the foundation of the Abrahamic misogynistic cult of power. And they love to denigrate the Jews. I enjoy reading how they characterize each other - because (even within the denominations we loosely refer to as Christian) they often are telling truth when they are not hyping their own money-making section of the greater cult. Here we have a case in point - lying about sinners and the sinless.

    " He despised a throne and a diadem, lived with his wives in a row of low and homely cottages of unbaked bricks, and aided them in their household duties; he was strictly temperate in eating and drinking, his chief diet being dates and water; he was not ashamed to milk his goats, to mend his clothes and to cobble his shoes; his personal property at his death amounted to some confiscated lands, fourteen or fifteen slaves, a few camels and mules, a hundred sheep, and a rooster. This simplicity of a Bedouin Sheikh of the desert contrasts most favorably with the luxurious style and gorgeous display of Mohammed’s successors, the Califs and Sultans, who have dozens of palaces and harems filled with eunuchs and women that know nothing beyond the vanities of dress and etiquette and a little music. He was easy of access to visitors who approached him with faith and reverence; patient, generous, and (according to Ayesha) as modest and bashful "as a veiled virgin."

    But towards his enemies he was cruel and revengeful. He did not shrink from perfidy. He believed in the use of the sword {The pot and the kettle} as the best missionary, and was utterly unscrupulous as to the means of success. He had great moral, but little physical courage; he braved for thirteen years the taunts and threats of the people, but never exposed himself to danger in battle, although he always accompanied his forces. Mohammed was a slave of sensual passion. Ayesha, who knew him best in his private character and habits, used to say: "The prophet loved three things, women, perfumes and food; he had his heart’s desire of the two first, but not of the last." The motives of his excess in polygamy were his sensuality which grew with his years, and his desire for male offspring. His followers excused or justified him by the examples of Abraham, David and Solomon, and by the difficulties of his prophetic office, which were so great that God gave him a compensation in sexual enjoyment, and endowed him with greater capacity than thirty ordinary men. For twenty-four years he had but one wife, his beloved Chadijah, who died in 619, aged sixty-five, but only two months after her death he married a widow named Sawda (April 619), and gradually increased his harem, especially during the last two years of his life. When he heard of a pretty woman, says Sprenger, he asked her hand, but was occasionally refused. He had at least fourteen legal wives, and a number of slave concubines besides. At his death he left nine widows. He claimed special revelations which gave him greater liberty of sexual indulgence than ordinary Moslems (who are restricted to four wives), and exempted him from the prohibition of marrying near relatives.160 He married by divine command, as he alleged, Zeynab, the wife of Zayd, his adopted son and bosom-friend.

    His wives were all widows except Ayesha. One of them was a beautiful and rich Jewess; she was despised by her sisters, who sneeringly said: "Pshaw, a Jewess!" He told her to reply: "Aaron is my father and Moses my uncle!" Ayesha, the daughter of Abű Bakr, was his especial favorite. He married her when she was a girl of nine years, and he fifty-three years old. She brought her doll-babies with her, and amused and charmed the prophet by her playfulness, vivacity and wit. She could read, had a copy of the Koran, and knew more about theology, genealogy and poetry than all the other widows of Mohammed. He announced that she would be his wife also in Paradise. Yet she was not free from suspicion of unfaithfulness until he received a revelation of her innocence. After his death she was the most sacred person among the Moslems and the highest authority on religious and legal questions. She survived her husband forty-seven years and died at Medina, July 13, 678, aged sixty-seven years.161 In his ambition for a hereditary dynasty, Mohammed was sadly disappointed: he lost his two sons by Chadijah, and a third one by Mary the Egyptian, his favorite concubine. To compare such a man with Jesus, is preposterous and even blasphemous. Jesus was the sinless Saviour of sinners; Mohammed was a sinner, and he knew and confessed it. He falls far below Moses, or Elijah, or any of the prophets and apostles in moral purity. But outside of the sphere of revelation, he ranks with Confucius, and Cakya Muni the Buddha, among the greatest founders of religions and lawgivers of nations.

    The Conquests of Islâm.

    "The sword," says Mohammed, "is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim." This is the secret of his success. Idolaters had to choose between..."

    Plenty of kind words exalting themselves - eh?

    When I began asking questions I saw so much more to learn. I enjoy that still. But I do not need my ZEN and now I am free to take the PATH. I could advise the young 'grasshopper' about very little except to open his eyes much less than his ears (to people).

    I can say I want to know what he sees with so little of the war and the wages I have paid in the war to be all I can BE! I can hope he will ask why I was so stupid when he hears me recount so many things.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 08:09 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts