Matt Whitman, On the Gist of Josephus |501|

#4
Let's say Alex manages some how to prove that the New testament bible is compromised.
That the real actors were others and they manipulated the populace.
That assumes the Man did not have a internal agenda, a to do list, a collective internal impetus toward something.
They didn't have anything to do and have a lot of free mental space on the drive and are easily directly...that's a big maybe..but to be fair it is a possibility.
 
#5
Let's say Alex manages some how to prove that the New testament bible is compromised.
That the real actors were others and they manipulated the populace.
That assumes the Man did not have a internal agenda, a to do list, a collective internal impetus toward something.
They didn't have anything to do and have a lot of free mental space on the drive and are easily directly...that's a big maybe..but to be fair it is a possibility.
I'm trying to remember which podcast it was, but one recent one did a great job of pointing out that Constantine needed a new way to control the populace b/c the old gods had lost their primacy. I would describe this as one aspect of the suppression of the ancient goddess & nature worship that was co-opted eventually by monotheism world-wide. It is quite likely that St. Peter's creation filled the bill for Constantine & explains why suddenly J.C. was the man. As the podcast concluded, we are still trying to shake off the insufferable version of 'humanity as meat bags in a forest full of animals, but, hey, somehow we've got souls.' If that's not bad enough, that we're cut off from nature & cast out of Eden by nasty ole Eve, we've got to follow a bunch of impossibly rigid commandments or the loving god will fry us for eternity. If that's not a formula for mind control of the lowest form, I don't know what is. The saving grace from such a hideous system of purported reward & punishment is the fact that people can break, as Matt Whitman said he did. In the resulting shuffle, there are those who make a return to a belief in a Higher Power or stick w/ no god, no way. This is just a general description that doesn't include agnostics & other possible places to land.
 

Alex

Administrator
#6
Let's say Alex manages some how to prove that the New testament bible is compromised.
That the real actors were others and they manipulated the populace.
That assumes the Man did not have a internal agenda, a to do list, a collective internal impetus toward something.
They didn't have anything to do and have a lot of free mental space on the drive and are easily directly...that's a big maybe..but to be fair it is a possibility.
sure... open to some form of that as long as we start with an occam's razor view... i.e. this looks like a social engineer project.

could be something else, could be multiple something elses, but I think that's where we have to start.
 

Alex

Administrator
#7
I'm trying to remember which podcast it was, but one recent one did a great job of pointing out that Constantine needed a new way to control the populace b/c the old gods had lost their primacy.
that was Whitney and there's no evidence for it. the evidence suggests the opposite. the romans used christianity as an advanced psyop weapon. it was progress not decline.
 
#8
that was Whitney and there's no evidence for it. the evidence suggests the opposite. the romans used christianity as an advanced psyop weapon. it was progress not decline.
Maybe I'm mixing things up, but didn't the early church ban the teaching of reincarnation during Constantine's rule, specifically in 553 A.D, during the Second Council of Constantinople (Council of Nicea)? That's a key to the slavish idea of a soul's one shot at either heaven or hell; no do-overs, no second chance.
Sorry about that mistake, but Biography says that Constantine only lived to 337 A.D., so it couldn't have been a change he directed. Justinian I was the one who forced the ban.
http://www.blissfulvisions.com/articles/the-ban-of-reincarnation.html
 
Last edited:
#9
thx. I really appreciated Matt's willingness to engage.
It took finishing the episode a second time before I could formulate why I remain critical of Matt.
In the last 20 minutes of the episode Matt used the word "purchase" several times to describe the most vulnerable areas of the historical foundation of Christianity.
The word "apologetics" jumped into my head, and now I understand what always bothered me about that word.
In spirituality, it seems to me that apologetics pertains to the art of mastering the non-spiritual elements of religious political debate. So much so, that the best apologetics leave you feeling so good about the logic, that the spiritual component doesn't seem to matter. Almost as if that's the purpose of it.
 
#10
It took finishing the episode a second time before I could formulate why I remain critical of Matt.
In the last 20 minutes of the episode Matt used the word "purchase" several times to describe the most vulnerable areas of the historical foundation of Christianity.
The word "apologetics" jumped into my head, and now I understand what always bothered me about that word.
In spirituality, it seems to me that apologetics pertains to the art of mastering the non-spiritual elements of religious political debate. So much so, that the best apologetics leave you feeling so good about the logic, that the spiritual component doesn't seem to matter. Almost as if that's the purpose of it.
I think you're on to something. Why did the catholic church threaten the rising tide of scientific inquiry w/ violence so they'd stay out of spiritual issues? There's power & money in religion; no competition desired. Why is it that some of the most brutal, callous practices get a pass b/c they're part of some group's religious beliefs? Other countries tax the churches. Why doesn't the USA? Yes, I know about certain restrictions in the Constitution re: religious expression, but no taxation attracts the disingenuous.
 
#11
It took finishing the episode a second time before I could formulate why I remain critical of Matt.
In the last 20 minutes of the episode Matt used the word "purchase" several times to describe the most vulnerable areas of the historical foundation of Christianity.
The word "apologetics" jumped into my head, and now I understand what always bothered me about that word.
In spirituality, it seems to me that apologetics pertains to the art of mastering the non-spiritual elements of religious political debate. So much so, that the best apologetics leave you feeling so good about the logic, that the spiritual component doesn't seem to matter. Almost as if that's the purpose of it.[/QUOTE
Recently it has occured to me if logic is a real to tool to get at the truth (loosely defined).
As you're alluding , feels good but so what..empty bag tied up in a pretty bow.
A good lawyer can argue both sides of a aurguement convincing me of them both - ok so there both true then? - which gets into relativism which I've convinced my self is bull shit.
 
#12
Maybe I'm mixing things up, but didn't the early church ban the teaching of reincarnation during Constantine's rule, specifically in 553 A.D, during the Second Council of Constantinople (Council of Nicea)? That's a key to the slavish idea of a soul's one shot at either heaven or hell; no do-overs, no second chance.
Sorry about that mistake, but Biography says that Constantine only lived to 337 A.D., so it couldn't have been a change he directed. Justinian I was the one who forced the ban.
http://www.blissfulvisions.com/articles/the-ban-of-reincarnation.html
The Council of Nicaea was super important historically, but not in the way people think. It did not anathematize beliefs like reincarnation; they did not decide to keep the Gnostic Gospels and other "heretical" works out of the Bible, etc. and etc. By the time of the C of N, proto-Catholic/Catholic Christianity was already well established. Beliefs like reincarnation were no longer on the table if they ever were. The New Testament was pretty much what we have today. Nicaea was mostly concerned with the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

That being said, early Orthodox/Catholic Christianity was definitely a psyop in effect, and a lot of this can be seen in doctrines and beliefs like the Trinity. Threefold Godheads were nothing new. They were sort of a trope in ancestral Indo-European religions. But now you had to believe a very specific thing about how the members of the Trinity were related to each other, a thing which made no rational or irrational sense. If you tried to "help" by sorting it out in such a way that it made sense, you were very likely to be branded as a heretic and to have that heresy named after you. The result: masses of people believing something that was flagrantly nonsensical, and deathly afraid of trying to think about it for fear of punishment in this world and the next.
 
#13
Jumping back in to refute one of Matt's core arguments. SLAVERY.

There are people alive today who would consider bovine husbandry to be equally as evil as human slavery.
There are people alive today who would consider any animal husbandry to be equally as evil as human slavery.
So the It's-just-a-FEELING test doesn't cut it...

There are people alive today who believe that terminating a pregnancy is murder.
There are people alive today who believe that intentional ejaculation for non-reproductive purpose is murder (sperm is alive).

Point being....

The line is ALWAYS going to be drawn by the 51% (Or whatever standard applies).

Therefore the moral imperative is the thing to search for....

Rather than some uber-intellectual attempt at a "Okay fellow humans.. From here on out we all agree that ___________, right..??"

Shout out to Alex.. I think i finally understand the term "Moral lmperative".
I'm getting schooled here!
 
#14
The Council of Nicaea was super important historically, but not in the way people think. It did not anathematize beliefs like reincarnation; they did not decide to keep the Gnostic Gospels and other "heretical" works out of the Bible, etc. and etc. By the time of the C of N, proto-Catholic/Catholic Christianity was already well established. Beliefs like reincarnation were no longer on the table if they ever were. The New Testament was pretty much what we have today. Nicaea was mostly concerned with the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

That being said, early Orthodox/Catholic Christianity was definitely a psyop in effect, and a lot of this can be seen in doctrines and beliefs like the Trinity. Threefold Godheads were nothing new. They were sort of a trope in ancestral Indo-European religions. But now you had to believe a very specific thing about how the members of the Trinity were related to each other, a thing which made no rational or irrational sense. If you tried to "help" by sorting it out in such a way that it made sense, you were very likely to be branded as a heretic and to have that heresy named after you. The result: masses of people believing something that was flagrantly nonsensical, and deathly afraid of trying to think about it for fear of punishment in this world and the next.
Thanks for the revealing comment. I have read a number of explanations why rebirth was removed, although it's always fascinated me that J.C. asked John the Baptist in the bible if he was Elijah, who was a prophet who had been dead many years. One was a 'helpful' attempt to make people more motivated to improve themselves since now they had only one shot at heaven. To me, twisting that as helpful is about as shocking as can be imagined. I have known so many people, including myself, who entertained that one life idea as a child & suffered anxiety attacks that I'm happy are very, very rare now. Please read The PK Man by J. Mishlove if you haven't already. He does such a good job of exposing the mish-mash that has been labeled psi phenomena, among many other things. He also related a name for "the fastest growing segment of the American population" in his opinion: trans-modern, cultural creatives. I have heard this group called New Agers, empaths, & so on, but I believe it does a great job of describing the inclusion of consciousness into thoughts about anything literally.
 
#16
Jumping back in to refute one of Matt's core arguments. SLAVERY.

There are people alive today who would consider bovine husbandry to be equally as evil as human slavery.
There are people alive today who would consider any animal husbandry to be equally as evil as human slavery.
So the It's-just-a-FEELING test doesn't cut it...

There are people alive today who believe that terminating a pregnancy is murder.
There are people alive today who believe that intentional ejaculation for non-reproductive purpose is murder (sperm is alive).

Point being....

The line is ALWAYS going to be drawn by the 51% (Or whatever standard applies).

Therefore the moral imperative is the thing to search for....

Rather than some uber-intellectual attempt at a "Okay fellow humans.. From here on out we all agree that ___________, right..??"

Shout out to Alex.. I think i finally understand the term "Moral lmperative".
I'm getting schooled here!
One of the easiest ways for me to decide if I should or shouldn't do something is the Golden Rule, which lately I have been applying more & more to animals, so the comment about animal husbandry was eye-opening. Anita Moorjani really got me thinking about self-love; if you truly are connected to the extended realm, then you want the best heart-felt treatment for everything & that Love should direct all.
 
#18
I may be misremembering but I think this Matt was on-board with the point yr making. I think he was saying it doesn't matter what the vote is.
I'm just argumentative today. And Matt set the bar pretty high for debate.

Matt professed that slavery is obviously bad. I disagree.
All deeds ever done were the obvious thing to do at the time. Therefore it’s not obvious that anything is bad. Probably the opposite of obvious.
I say beware the claim that a foundation to avoid future slavery can be built upon sensibility.

I got fired up about Sam Harris earlier today, so I’d like to place these two side by side for comparison:
-Sam Harris’ talent for making it sound stupid not to rest with modern science.
-Matt Whitman’s talent for making it sound stupid not to be against slavery.

Fervent-compellence is just a backdoor power position for the 51%.

Peterson's 'Nazi Guard' thought experiment has to be the rule....
I have to know that I'm capable of whatever evil I want to steer my people away from, otherwise I wont recognize it when it's on my doorstep.
 
#19
I'm just argumentative today. And Matt set the bar pretty high for debate.

Matt professed that slavery is obviously bad. I disagree.
All deeds ever done were the obvious thing to do at the time. Therefore it’s not obvious that anything is bad. Probably the opposite of obvious.
I say beware the claim that a foundation to avoid future slavery can be built upon sensibility.

I got fired up about Sam Harris earlier today, so I’d like to place these two side by side for comparison:
-Sam Harris’ talent for making it sound stupid not to rest with modern science.
-Matt Whitman’s talent for making it sound stupid not to be against slavery.

Fervent-compellence is just a backdoor power position for the 51%.

Peterson's 'Nazi Guard' thought experiment has to be the rule....
I have to know that I'm capable of whatever evil I want to steer my people away from, otherwise I wont recognize it when it's on my doorstep.
Okay, but is this a version of Nietzsche's warning to 'be careful who you pick as an enemy b/c this is who you will become most like'? The Absolute created everything, so evil is a bastard, but he's the Supreme's evil, so that makes him okay, in a twisted sort of Supreme Self-esteem way. I'm sorry to say this again, but I don't remember for certain, but there was discussion on the forum about how Ahuramazda (sic) found it necessary to split off a dark side of Him/Her/Itself to satisfy humanity. Jung said the dark side is 90% gold. Finally, I find the eastern philosophy of Wuwei very appropriate since I'm not exalted enough to know how my choices may actually effect others in the future, so I make them w/o attachment. I try to help, but my efforts may be totally destructive, like Prohibition or making weed smoking illegal.
 

Alex

Administrator
#20
Matt professed that slavery is obviously bad. I disagree.
I get your point... well said... I totally agree.

to yr point :)

as you know, I've been digging into the roman thing a lot. I've discovered that they had a very different view of slavery. in many ways they were quite progressive. first off, it didn't have anything to do with race or stuff like that. secondly it was very fluid. tons of people worked their way out of slavery and became full roman citizens.
 
Top