Been thinking about what happened in France...

Post Reply New Topic

Yes.

You really have no idea what you are talking about because you don't know the context. What you "see with your own eyes" is misleading because you don't know the context.

You see a black woman portrayed with the body of a monkey and conclude the illustrator is a racist. You don't understand that he is quoting a statement by a right wing politician and the illustration is calling the Front National a racist party for supporting such ideas. The context matters.

Sorry for the super-long post, its just that to stick my neck out and say something sarcastic, get a fair response back, and then not even say what it is I'm considering as the truth of religion makes it very difficult for me to qualify what 'truths' I'd be suggesting in the bible and you can't know what you're disagreeing with me on unless I share that much. You don't need to agree with anything I said, just wanted to get that out.

Where I come at it from, just to try and give a few examples because I want to be fair and not abdicate all responsibility for the comment I made:

Story of the prodigal son - the descent of spiritual man into matter through various incarnations and his journey back

Story of the garden of eden - differentiation of consciousness from a unified atavistic state (comparative to now) and differentiating out the awareness of a certain qualifying factor of the existance of moral good and evil (prior to that everything - particularly to the animal observation - would simply be nature 'doing' what it does)

Laws of the Israelites - an arbitrary exercise, discarded later, in refining awareness of the details (10 commandments seem to be - as Christopher Hitchens pointed out - something that any tribe couldn't have survived long at all if they couldn't understand that killing, stealing, and adultry were a societal problem - just that there were 613, not 10, in Leviticus - it was dubbed the 'way of death' simply because it was an excersize marked by obsessing on what the wrong ways to to things was rather than focusing on the right way - of which Jesus of Nazareth was able to compact that into one sentence - love your neighbor as your self, love God as you've been loved - takes a lot less to point upward than try to codify all problems downward)

Us as the 'body of Christ' - archetypal man in the Platonic sense, the idea that there's a collective group soul of humanity, sayings like Christ as the 'true vine', saying things like love your neighbor and your God as you've been loved, Christ saying at judgment the sheep and the goats will learn that he was omnipresent through everyone incarnate - it's the idea that the collective soul of humanity, higher self of higher selves, came down to touch base. James and Peter would have had of course nothing to do with this, they were Messianic Jews through and through and couldn't stand Paul because he was blaspheming Judaism, they would have hated John even more because he took Judaism through the idea of Jesus as eternal Logos to the extremes of Platonic and Pythagorean thought (utterly pagan but the church had to take it in because they had impecible character and you couldn't bash them without untying morality altogether).

I finally came to understand the huge veneration of Mary in Catholicism - ie. the thing that always just was but you were never allowed to ask about. Mary Queen of Heaven, Isis, Sophia of Solomon, all of these are names of the female presence of God, the Egyptians referred to these same principles as Isis and Osiris, Mother and Father, Kabbalists would refer to them as Chokmah and Binah. To that last tangent - the very idea that you can take love (13), unity (13), and add them to 26 (YHVH), or get serpent (358) and messiah (358) matching along numberic lines (ie. same force that caused the fall is the same force that redeems - not a concrete devil but proper utilization of understanding the 'tree of good and evil') and stack more numeric symbols on this really shows that just like in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, even Islam - there was a religion for the people (which is usually what causes the typical 'religion burning the world down' idiocy) and there was the version of the truth for the 'initiated' - in this case pantheistic monism.

I really take this much more from the Theosophic viewpoint that these were mystic and mystery texts, purely symbolic rather than literal, that these were a combination of Egyptian and Babylonian mystery rights, and that Ezra put them together in Babylon (what we might call the Old Testament) as a very jingoistic and in many cases oppressive system which loaded all kinds of very negative guesswork as to why the Israelites were conquered by the Babylonians and from there it's all backward retrofitting - moralizing that the Israelites were Polytheists with El (later transformed into YHVH) as sort of the Zeus figure that the others such as Baal and Astarte revolved around and their polytheism was the cause of the fall, believing that chasing after psychism or prophetic ability (at least for non-Levites) was the cause of the fall from YHVH's favor, and ultimately he reverse-engineered the history of Israel bashing Egypt, bashing Babylon, and telling of the mass Israelite genocide of Canaanites when arks such as the ark of the covenant were an Egyptian artifact, the creation story and cosmology of 7's (luminaries/planets of ancient astrology) were Babylonian, Hebrew is a Canaanite text, and the Israelites themselves descended along those lines. Moses, if he did live till 40 in Egypt for some reason as the Emperor's adopted son would have been an advanced Egyptian mystery initiate, there's no history of any Canaanite genocide by the Israelites and that story is highly dubious, it's just that..... when you start peeling the whole thing apart and looking at the nuts and bolts you start finding connections to Buddhism, Hinduism, Neoplatonism, it's all one amagamated mass which looks dogmatically different on the outside but its really all the same on close enough inspection.


That's why I can't debate any of this - almost no one here is used to thinking along those lines and you absolutely can't debate a person on a whole field of observation or study that the best they can do is shut it down. To the credit of most anti-theists they would see all mysticisms and esotericisms as tortured apologies for backward ideas of bronze-aged people and no matter how well polished that esoteric line of thought is they would walk it backward all the way to saying "The earth is not 6,000 years old, animals didn't spontaneously 'happen', all of that is just primitive misconception for lack of science, and anything you'd say is a hopeless and misguided building upon a lie - therefore nothing you have to say merits any analysis whatsoever when what we know you stemmed it all off of is patently untrue". In that line of logic people can't inwardly project, they can say and believe they did but its not possible. Someone can have an NDE, say that they saw someone who no one knew was dead yet, they find that to be true, but this was only chance because again - we know that the world isn't 6,000 years old, therefore all religious or spiritual thought or pretense of obvservation is built on backrupted ideas of primitives therefore there is no such thing as a valid possibility that there is consciousness beyond the body or beyond physical life because, again, the only thing out there that would suggest such a thing are books that on a literal read are proven untrue (or modern 'new age' which is just a wishful corruption of those books by people just as terrified of death).

It's undefeatable logic which is why I'd say that I simply lay down and hope I don't get kicked to hard by those who know the truth that there's no such thing as life hereafter, a human soul, any kind of subtle bodies, and by a few one liner questions could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm a liar and snake-oil salesman. Trying to debate Christianity or atheistic evolution in Iran these days would go about as well.


Sorry for the super-long post, its just that to stick my neck out and say something sarcastic, get a fair response back, and then not even say what it is I'm considering as the truth of religion makes it very difficult for me to qualify what 'truths' I'd be suggesting in the bible and you can't know what you're disagreeing with me on unless I share that much. You don't need to agree with anything I said, just wanted to get that out.

Religion is the monster. I see believers as victims mostly.

I keep having to repeat myself I never questioned the character of the individual cartoonists. I have no idea their real beliefs or their personalities. I only see what they publish and can only comment on what I see. I never said, oh that cartoonist is racist because he penned this or that. I know a lot of what's out there is only there because people are willing to hand over their money for a copy and that completely by itself decides what is published. I don't buy this balony about how what's in a magazine is about fighting racism. It's about making money and that's that.


And as far as not understanding an image due to language differences...my response is...ever notice on a box with directions, the trend is to print illustrations for instructions instead of languages? It's because illustrations are the universal language! You simply do not need any caption to understand a drawing or a picture. You see what you see. If I see a picture I don't like I simply do not like it. You can talk about anything I still don't like it. And I am not the only one who doesn't really like this magazine. Before this happened, lots of people didn't like it. It just wasn't their cup of tea so they simply did not look at it or read it. There's no need to harm a soul. Just don't bother with it. Why is that so hard for people to do?

I keep having to repeat myself I never questioned the character of the individual cartoonists.

I don't buy this balony about how what's in a magazine is about fighting racism. It's about making money and that's that.

And as far as not understanding an image due to language differences...my response is...ever notice on a box with directions, the trend is to print illustrations for instructions instead of languages? It's because illustrations are the universal language!

You simply do not need any caption to understand a drawing or a picture. You see what you see.

If I see a picture I don't like I simply do not like it. You can talk about anything I still don't like it.

And I am not the only one who doesn't really like this magazine. Before this happened, lots of people didn't like it. It just wasn't their cup of tea so they simply did not look at it or read it.

There's no need to harm a soul. Just don't bother with it. Why is that so hard for people to do?

It depends on the culture. If it is a choice, then you are not a victim.

It is, however, a completely different story within cultures where you are born into it, and where apostasy is punishable by death. That is why regions governed in accordance with Sharia is so fundamentally evil; either submission or death. Such cultures ought to be destroyed in the name of humanity.

The only possible way of achieving your desired goal of cultural destruction would be to kill those who chose an ideology that is unacceptable to you.

No, a culture where it is a choice is fundamentally different from a culture where it is not a choice.

Religion has long been something other than spiritual, and is an unnecessary component in the seeking of truth - except, perhaps, as an object lesson to be avoided. It poisons and enslaves minds using primitive ritualistic BS. I have no interest in arguing with the indoctrinated - though that won't prevent me from debating with them on WP. Un-clouding the eyes of the faithful is itself, to my mind, a worthy goal.

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and as more and more information comes to light surrounding the details of the attacks as well as the connections between the perpetrators, groups, and NATO-based intelligence agencies, the suggestion that the attacks were, in reality, of the false flag nature, is being proven more and more valid by the hour....

ActivistPost.com: Brandon Turbeville
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/15- ... false.html

As far as knowing there's something fishy about all this - I thought that from day one.

This has all the trappings of a mafia style hit. The first thing I thought after reading the details is this is so much like what the mafia does when they have a hit on someone.

Labour politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, a former journalist who was appointed mayor of the Dutch city in 2008, is known for his straightforward stance on integration.

The 53-year-old won the praise of London-mayor Boris Johnson over his comments last week attacking fellow Muslims who move to Western nations but refuse to accept the Western way of life.

'It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,' Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch current affairs program Nieuwsuur (Newshour).

'But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave.

'If you do not like it here because some humorists you don't like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.

This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at'.

...

Mayor Aboutaleb, who represents the Dutch Labour Party, de Partij van de Arbeid, has long had a no-nonsense approach to immigration and integration.

Speaking to the Observer shortly after his appointment he said his message to immigrants is 'stop seeing yourself as victims, and if you don't want to integrate, leave'.