13-02-2009, 03:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 13-02-2009, 03:32 PM by David Guyatt.)
Thanks for your last post Kate. I am better able to understand your position now in light of your own personal experiences.
I was fortunate, I suppose, in not having any religious dogma thrust down my throat when I was young and am, as a consequence, fairly relaxed about most religions and can respect the moderate ones. By this I mean that I see the sole purpose and meaning of religion being to extend man’s consciousness of himself and to impose sensible and fair laws that advance civilized behaviour. Beyond that there are what you might term “religious techniques” that properly understood and practiced extend and enhance spiritual understanding and experience, although as I understand it these are not for themany.
What I cannot easily stomach is unblinking zealotry, dogma and intolerance -- which are, of course, the shadow hand-maidens of most major religions. I also seen religion in its essence as an instrument, for example like a knife which in the hands or a surgeon can be used to heal, or in those of a madman hands can be used to hack and harm. It cannot be sensible to blame the knife for being used in a murder, or worship the same knife for being used in an operating theatre. Intention is everything and each one of of us makes and thereafter endures the choice we make. Hence I think Jung was quite right when he said that “man is the cause of all coming evil”.
I ask that you do not associate me with Rabbi Schneerson
Man has an exceedingly long history of cruelty and he does not always need a religion to bring this out in him. There have been plenty of evil bastards over the centuries who didn’t need a religious belief to visit their viciousness upon others. But I do agree that religion can be and has been well used to visit wickedness upon the innocent.
I also note that you have a tendency to misunderstand and misrepresent my statements. Hence:
Quite how you reached this conclusion based on the foregoing paragraph I don't know, but it is not an accurate conclusion. If you read this forum deeper you will see clearly that I raise alarm bells to the point of tedium that this atrocious inhumanity continues to be perpetrated and, worse, it is protected at the very highest levels. But I don’t associate with a particular religion or religious faction - other than, perhaps, Satanism (which is a pretty damn poor descriptive term anyway).
For background on the Sanhedrin I simply Googled the name. That there is a rumour that the Sanhedrin went underground isn't really a surprise, but I would prefer something more solid than that to take it seriously as every religious and chivalric order of history sooner or later gets copied or re-invented by fame seekers and wingnuts. I cannot take seriously as historical continuity a group that came into being less than two years ago - after an absence of almost 2000 years. That is not to say that I regard them with any favour either.
Your personal religious experiences, as sadly unpleasant as they appear to be, are very unlikely to be typical of the many and your insights, therefore, are not well founded or balanced - it seems to me anyway? You will not be surprised that I don’t share the harshness of your views in this regard.
Call me silly then, but I like factual accuracy in posts as a verifiable reference point. The point I was making is that the “Book of the Sanhedrin” is not a recognized or known title. Even the use of the term the “Talmud” is not accurate insofar as there are two different Talmud’s - of which the Babylon Talmud seems to be the darker example (but I claim no great insights to either as I have said earlier).
You state that the
I want evidence that this is factual rather than a conspiratorial belief. Your earlier post that referenced the Noahide laws are not evidence of the foregoing statement. That law was concerned with making March 26th 1991 “Education Day USA” - a one off day (of infamy perhaps?) in all of history in other words. It wasn’t proposed by Bush (but by Robert H Michel, Joe Biden Jr and Richard Gephardt), it was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate and thereafter signed into law by Bush. A curious law perhaps but you have yet to demonstrate it is conspiratorial in its intent.
What you mean to say, I think, is that you believe this law to be a callous cipher that was surreptitiously designed to ease open the door for the reintroduction of archaic and arcane religious laws at some point in the future? I personally would need a lot more hard evidence to buy into this, as things are quite bad enough already without the need for such laws, when law-breaking without punishment is clearly the name of the game these days.
I was fortunate, I suppose, in not having any religious dogma thrust down my throat when I was young and am, as a consequence, fairly relaxed about most religions and can respect the moderate ones. By this I mean that I see the sole purpose and meaning of religion being to extend man’s consciousness of himself and to impose sensible and fair laws that advance civilized behaviour. Beyond that there are what you might term “religious techniques” that properly understood and practiced extend and enhance spiritual understanding and experience, although as I understand it these are not for themany.
What I cannot easily stomach is unblinking zealotry, dogma and intolerance -- which are, of course, the shadow hand-maidens of most major religions. I also seen religion in its essence as an instrument, for example like a knife which in the hands or a surgeon can be used to heal, or in those of a madman hands can be used to hack and harm. It cannot be sensible to blame the knife for being used in a murder, or worship the same knife for being used in an operating theatre. Intention is everything and each one of of us makes and thereafter endures the choice we make. Hence I think Jung was quite right when he said that “man is the cause of all coming evil”.
I ask that you do not associate me with Rabbi Schneerson
Quote:Here are a few words of your good Rabbi.He is not my good rabbi. I associate myself with no religious faction whatsoever, whilst respecting most of the moderate ones - as I mentioned earlier. My comments were directed at your statement about the Noahide laws which in the light of their archaic historical background I still do not find unusual enough to get my knickers in a twist about.
Man has an exceedingly long history of cruelty and he does not always need a religion to bring this out in him. There have been plenty of evil bastards over the centuries who didn’t need a religious belief to visit their viciousness upon others. But I do agree that religion can be and has been well used to visit wickedness upon the innocent.
I also note that you have a tendency to misunderstand and misrepresent my statements. Hence:
Quote:As far as sexual bestiality goes the Marquis de Sade - who enjoyed rape, bestiality and necrophilia - is far more current (died 1814). Ditto Sir Francis Dashwood, founder of the Hellfire Club, circa 1750. Ditto the powerful and well connected bastards who today run the international paedophile networks that we have discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum. What happened 2000 years ago -- supposing these claims are correct (?) is old news isn't it. I am happy to know someone who is certain these things no longer exists. Could you please supply us with where you obtained those FACTS?
Quite how you reached this conclusion based on the foregoing paragraph I don't know, but it is not an accurate conclusion. If you read this forum deeper you will see clearly that I raise alarm bells to the point of tedium that this atrocious inhumanity continues to be perpetrated and, worse, it is protected at the very highest levels. But I don’t associate with a particular religion or religious faction - other than, perhaps, Satanism (which is a pretty damn poor descriptive term anyway).
For background on the Sanhedrin I simply Googled the name. That there is a rumour that the Sanhedrin went underground isn't really a surprise, but I would prefer something more solid than that to take it seriously as every religious and chivalric order of history sooner or later gets copied or re-invented by fame seekers and wingnuts. I cannot take seriously as historical continuity a group that came into being less than two years ago - after an absence of almost 2000 years. That is not to say that I regard them with any favour either.
Quote:Religion is a form of insanity and no one could be more critical of Christianity as I am.
Your personal religious experiences, as sadly unpleasant as they appear to be, are very unlikely to be typical of the many and your insights, therefore, are not well founded or balanced - it seems to me anyway? You will not be surprised that I don’t share the harshness of your views in this regard.
Quote:What difference does it possibly make to call it a book, pamphlet, paper or tractate?!Sanhedrin contains over 700 pages which most people would consider a book.
Call me silly then, but I like factual accuracy in posts as a verifiable reference point. The point I was making is that the “Book of the Sanhedrin” is not a recognized or known title. Even the use of the term the “Talmud” is not accurate insofar as there are two different Talmud’s - of which the Babylon Talmud seems to be the darker example (but I claim no great insights to either as I have said earlier).
You state that the
Quote:Sanhedrin finally decided it was safe to go public with the likes of Bush and his cabal of perverts and lunatics on their side.
I want evidence that this is factual rather than a conspiratorial belief. Your earlier post that referenced the Noahide laws are not evidence of the foregoing statement. That law was concerned with making March 26th 1991 “Education Day USA” - a one off day (of infamy perhaps?) in all of history in other words. It wasn’t proposed by Bush (but by Robert H Michel, Joe Biden Jr and Richard Gephardt), it was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate and thereafter signed into law by Bush. A curious law perhaps but you have yet to demonstrate it is conspiratorial in its intent.
What you mean to say, I think, is that you believe this law to be a callous cipher that was surreptitiously designed to ease open the door for the reintroduction of archaic and arcane religious laws at some point in the future? I personally would need a lot more hard evidence to buy into this, as things are quite bad enough already without the need for such laws, when law-breaking without punishment is clearly the name of the game these days.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14