Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Religion
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-08-2012, 10:59 AM   #541
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
to a certain degree, all writers are biased and unquestioned by their supporters, not just conspiracy writers.
Great, so we agree then that careful scrutiny is necessary when accepting any beliefs or theories as facts. We need evidence. We need overwhelming evidence which supports a position before we accept it as truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the truth of history usually arrives on the scene years after the actual events, but, even now, the US gov't alone has thousands, if not millions, of classified reports. archaya claims there is a "christ conspiracy", you seem to buy into that...no?
The events are fairly well known and have been carefully studied by thousands of historians for the last 60 years. Funny that only an extreme minority (a minority known for its bizarre views on other topics) should believe it all to have been a conspiracy. It's just such an easy blanket statement but ultimately completely absurd. A conspiracy theory is defined:

"...any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. [source:
Conspiracy theory dwells very much in a cult-like atmosphere

Of course not everyone behaves in this way and there is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.

However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. In this way this kind of thinking very much resembles the alleged thinking of the 'secret societies' conspiracy theorists claim to reject, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person once acceptance of it occurs.

This is very dangerous because the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth.

One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"

It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.

All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.

Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of horrendous deeds. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.

In regards to Acharya's claims in her book 'The Christ Conspiracy' I can only say it's a great title but is it really a conspiracy? Acharya is by no means the first writer to doubt the literal existence of Christ so I am not 'buying into' her claims. We can trace these theories on the mythology of Christ much further back. For example in 1909 John E. Remsburg wrote in his book The Christ:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

Maurice Goguel, in his essay "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", [Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118] wrote pointing out that the the belief that Christ was a myth was alive and well in the early 20th century:

"Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder."

Albert Schweitzer wrote in his 1931 Out of my life and thought: an autobiography [pg 125]:

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion."

And Archibald Robertson wrote in his Jesus: Myth or History? (1946):

"A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs" (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels. ... The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

But is it a conspiracy? Not at all because a belief in a literal Jesus is an issue of faith. Faith, not conspiracy, has transmuted Jesus from myth into literal Messiah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
can't really say what would have happened, can we? I'm sure the folks with their finger on the button would like us to believe that though.
We can have very clear ideas of what would have happened actually: "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Historian Robert P. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners.'" [Source: Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, page 163]

So as it was approximately 250,000 people were perishing a month. Add to this the incredible numbers of casualties which would have resulted from an invasion of mainland Japan and you have slaughter on a truly horrifying scale.

As I have already stated in a previous post, as the war ended the Japanese were preparing a massive propaganda campaign to rally civilians to resist the expected invasion. It's uplifting theme "one hundred million will die in defense of Emperor and Nation." A little cultural note: Ten thousand is the largest number that can be represented by a single character. It is commonly used to represent an indefinitely large number. One hundred million is ten thousand squared, in other words, all will die. To the last man, woman, and child. Would it have succeeded? Not totally. Japan would not have ceased to exist, not everyone would have had the stomach to sacrifice themselves. But many, many would have. Many did in Okinawa. On top of that, the Japanese military showed it's willingness to make sure civilians had their honor preserved (by killing them) both in Saipan and Okinawa. It is not the least bit unlikely that they would have done the same on the Japanese home islands. On top of that the naval embargo and the devastation of the Japanese infrastructure would have condemned millions to death by starvation and exposure during the winter.

An invasion would have been horrific. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria alone had, in the week before the surrender, caused over 80,000 deaths. And this was small-scale. Imagine a large-scale invasion of the Japanese main land. The idea is simply too horrible to cotemplate.

Some Japanese agree. On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyuma said: "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (Shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." [Source: "Japanese Defense Chief: Atomic Bombing 'Couldn't Be Helped'". Fox News. 30 June 2007 read online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287453,00.html ]

Kyuma's comments were similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, and answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime." [Source: in two places, H. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of modern Japan, p. 676; J. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 606]

And no, there were no 'folks' with the finger on the button licking their chops in anticipation of dropping the bomb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the prisoner's dilemma, eh? the differences in interest only developed out of the crimes of the prisoners. which goes back to my point, the "conspiracy" is that people do evil for personal gain and then call the consequences a "prisoner's dilemma."
Yes personal gain. Remember though that my personal gain is not your personal gain and that with your personal gain I lose. It never works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
although, in terms of war, I'm willing to take that a step farther and suggest that war is actually beneficial to certain parties therefore war is pursued.
Depends which time period you are talking about. In the modern era war has certainly become profitable because business has increasingly become involved, however prior to World War II and in the time including that terrible event war was not profitable.

At the opening of the twentieth century there were five great Western empires—the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian—and two emerging great powers: Japan and the United States. By century's end, all the empires had disappeared. How did they perish? By war—all of them.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was crashed in World War I and torn to pieces at Versailles, where Germany was also dismembered. A vengeful Reich then began a second European war. Ruin was total. Japan, believing its empire was being extorted, its place in the sun denied, attacked America and was smashed like no other nation in history. The British and French empires, already bled in the trenches of the Western Front from August 1914 to November 1918, did not long survive Hitler's war.

America survived as the sole superpower because it stayed out of the slaughter pens until the other great powers had fought themselves near to death and avoided a cataclysmic clash with a nuclear-armed Soviet Russia. In World War I Americans did not go into combat in great numbers until 1918. In World War II America did not cross the Channel until four years after France had fallen and three years after the USSR had begun fighting for its life. It did not go to war against Japan until the Japanese army had been bogged down for four years fighting a no-win war against the most populous nation on earth. U.S. casualties in the two world wars were thus the smallest of the Great Powers, and America in the twentieth century has never known the vast destruction that was visited on Russia, Germany, and Japan (or even on France and England).

But let's go further back. Between 1789 and 1914 there were seven major European wars: the wars of the French republic (1792-1802), Napoleon's wars (1803-1815), the Crimean War (1853-1855), the war of Piedmont and France against Austria (1859-1860), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), and the Balkan wars (1912-1913). With the exceptions of an undeclared naval war with France under John Adams, and the War of 1812, the United States stayed out of them all. As for World Wars I and II, the United States kept clear of both conflicts for more than two years before going in.

Take World War I as an example, Wilson could have responded to U-boat attacks on U.S. merchant ships in 1917 with a naval war, without sending a single soldier to France. As late as December 1916 the president professed to see no difference in the war aims of the Allies and the Central Powers and no compelling U.S. interest to justify intervention.

In 1939 the United States anticipated that Britain and France would block any Nazi drive into Western Europe. When France was overrun, the United States rushed aid to Britain. By the fall of 1940 Hitler was contained at the Channel. By December 1941 he had been halted outside Leningrad and Moscow. U.S. policy was succeeding without one American ground soldier in combat.

The cleverest move America made was staying well clear of these conflicts and by doing so accumulating incredible profits. While the rest of the world destroyed itself, America built itself. It's no wonder that it would emerge after the war as the strongest super-power. This quick emergence however went straight to its head and it quickly turned into an arrogant empire bent on expansionism (just like every other crooked empire before it). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
sure, there are some theories out there that are crackpot, but not all of em.
So how are you going to know which ones are and which ones are not? What test do you use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
there are acts of G-d and there are acts of men. we have been given the necessary tools to carve a good life on this rock earth. society is today what society is today because we have made it this way. consumerism sees in an opportunity in the sinful aspect of humanity, so it is exploited. the elite are riding the elephant that is the masses, they can control the elephant as long as the elephant believes it can be controlled.
I totally disagree. We were given no such tools, me made them! No supernatural deity gave us anything. We have done everything on our own, both the good and the bad. Furthermore consumerism is not in and of itself bad, it stimulates economies and allows growth. What is bad is when consumerism, rather than the development which it can bring beomes the sole aim. This is gross capitalism and it easily turns into a monster which must be fed regularly (it particularly enjoys eating the poorer people of the world).

Also, the elite are not riding the masses through control. Oh no, there is no control. Orwell was wrong and Huxley was right. The future is not a boot stamping on a human face as Orwell envisioned, the future is a sell out. We police ourselves by creating standards created by our own greedy ambitions. We conspire against ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
self control is one of our tests.
What tests?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the japanese and germans were probably telling their peeps the same things. "damn those allied powers, they must be dealt with." meanwhile, IG farben and ge were makin' money.
IG Farben went on making money not because they were part of some secret conspiracy but because they were a typical business. Their sole interest was money. Welcome to capitalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
america has a policy of expansionism as well, I'm not sure we could even count how many coups have been staged.

Covert United States foreign regime change actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes but America's policy of expansionism only developed after she become a superpower post WWII (the link you provided alone proves that). Beginning in the 1890s, there was certainly a long list of US military interventions in Latin America. You can imagine that the response in Latin America was negative. FDR began to implement what he called the "Good Neighbor Policy" where he began to reduce American military involvement in Latin America and strengthen economic ties to Latin American countries. In 1933 greatly backed off Latin America and the US even accepted an agreement made in Montevideo, Uruguay by a Pan-American Conference that "no country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." These policies greatly improved America's image in Latin America. An important result of these polices was that during WWII, none of the Latin American countries considered challenging US policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
and, I'd imagine that if put in a similar position as japan, america would act much the same. fighting to the very last man. that's not to defend the actions of japan or america, just to say that, most times, perspective depends upon which side of the fence a person finds his or herself on. was japan/germany on a war path? sure, but so were the allies.
You are trying to make the Japanese actions sound normal, almost a justified reaction. Are you aware of what Japan did in South East Asia and in China? Did America act the same way towards Japan after it had been defeated? Do you know of any Americans beheading Japanese civilians on the streets of Tokyo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the media has a knack of battering our senses into submission through repetition. the 24 hour news cycle...hooray.
Yes and conspiracy theorists have a knack of using lies and present them as fact through repetition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
were they? I suppose that depends on what side of the bombs you were on. the US has an expansionist policy that has cost innocent lives as well. what would you say to the non-combatants that died in those bomb blasts? I don't believe that we can put a value on human life, it is priceless.
Of course human life is priceless. That's why the bombs were necessary. They prevented greater loss of life. What would I say to the non-combatants that perished? I would point out to them that their own government was responsible. The Japanese people sanctioned and consented to the rule of the Japanese government. They celebrated Hirohito as a God. This was not some oppressive Saddam-like leader where support outside the inner party was non-existent. This man was their deity. They celebrated the conquest of China as patriotic. They did not believe the people they conquered to even be human.

The responsibility for citizens' casualties falls squarely on the Japanese government. Hiroshima wasn't a sneak attack, it wasn't a surprise. They knew exactly what happened at Trinity, they knew exactly what Truman meant in the Potsdam Ultimatum. They are responsible for those deaths, no one else.

Hirohito and the War cabinet knew what happened in Alamogordo. They were given WEEKS between the Potsdam Ultimatum and Hiroshima. They were outright TOLD what was going to happen and how to avoid it....and they refused. That's THEIR responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
right now things seem to be moving towards wwIII, the arab spring is giving rise to a rash of radical islamic regimes in the ME...a new axis power. maybe team america will go crusading?
We will see...I have never been big on predicting the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
take the current state of iran for example, a product of america and britain's making...operation ajax:

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes post WWII stupidity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
there is a language to symbolism. icke makes some valid points among some other BS. I don't believe in mind control, but I know there is hypnotic suggestion. the trick is to have folks associate the two as being the same thing because suggestion loses it's effectiveness when people realize what it is. associate the truth with lies, it discredits the whole bunch.
Do you really need Icke to tell you there is a language in symbolism? Nature is a language.

Last edited by exu156; 05-08-2012 at 05:09 PM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 10:47 PM   #542
logos880
Senior Member
 
logos880's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Great, so we agree then that careful scrutiny is necessary when accepting any beliefs or theories as facts. We need evidence. We need overwhelming evidence which supports a position before we accept it as truth.
depends on how you define "evidence." I believe that there are realms beyond our capacity to sense, and I have intuitive and experiential evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
The events are fairly well known and have been carefully studied by thousands of historians for the last 60 years. Funny that only an extreme minority (a minority known for its bizarre views on other topics) should believe it all to have been a conspiracy. It's just such an easy blanket statement but ultimately completely absurd. A conspiracy theory is defined:

"...any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. [source: Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conspiracy theory dwells very much in a cult-like atmosphere

Of course not everyone behaves in this way and there is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.

However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. In this way this kind of thinking very much resembles the alleged thinking of the 'secret societies' conspiracy theorists claim to reject, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person once acceptance of it occurs.

This is very dangerous because the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth.

One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"

It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.

All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.

Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of horrendous deeds. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.

In regards to Acharya's claims in her book 'The Christ Conspiracy' I can only say it's a great title but is it really a conspiracy? Acharya is by no means the first writer to doubt the literal existence of Christ so I am not 'buying into' her claims. We can trace these theories on the mythology of Christ much further back. For example in 1909 John E. Remsburg wrote in his book The Christ:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

Maurice Goguel, in his essay "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", [Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118] wrote pointing out that the the belief that Christ was a myth was alive and well in the early 20th century:

"Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder."

Albert Schweitzer wrote in his 1931 Out of my life and thought: an autobiography [pg 125]:

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion."

And Archibald Robertson wrote in his Jesus: Myth or History? (1946):

"A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs" (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels. ... The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

But is it a conspiracy? Not at all because a belief in a literal Jesus is an issue of faith. Faith, not conspiracy, has transmuted Jesus from myth into literal Messiah.
you have a double standard. you take the "us and them" mentality when it is convenient and condemn it when it is convenient. "all freethinkers" is the "us" and bible believing christians are the "them." "we have the 'ultimate truth' that Jesus is just a myth." see how that works?


Quote:
Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
We can have very clear ideas of what would have happened actually: "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Historian Robert P. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners.'" [Source: Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, page 163]

So as it was approximately 250,000 people were perishing a month. Add to this the incredible numbers of casualties which would have resulted from an invasion of mainland Japan and you have slaughter on a truly horrifying scale.

As I have already stated in a previous post, as the war ended the Japanese were preparing a massive propaganda campaign to rally civilians to resist the expected invasion. It's uplifting theme "one hundred million will die in defense of Emperor and Nation." A little cultural note: Ten thousand is the largest number that can be represented by a single character. It is commonly used to represent an indefinitely large number. One hundred million is ten thousand squared, in other words, all will die. To the last man, woman, and child. Would it have succeeded? Not totally. Japan would not have ceased to exist, not everyone would have had the stomach to sacrifice themselves. But many, many would have. Many did in Okinawa. On top of that, the Japanese military showed it's willingness to make sure civilians had their honor preserved (by killing them) both in Saipan and Okinawa. It is not the least bit unlikely that they would have done the same on the Japanese home islands. On top of that the naval embargo and the devastation of the Japanese infrastructure would have condemned millions to death by starvation and exposure during the winter.

An invasion would have been horrific. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria alone had, in the week before the surrender, caused over 80,000 deaths. And this was small-scale. Imagine a large-scale invasion of the Japanese main land. The idea is simply too horrible to cotemplate.

Some Japanese agree. On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyuma said: "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (Shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." [Source: "Japanese Defense Chief: Atomic Bombing 'Couldn't Be Helped'". Fox News. 30 June 2007 read online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287453,00.html ]

Kyuma's comments were similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, and answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime." [Source: in two places, H. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of modern Japan, p. 676; J. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 606]

And no, there were no 'folks' with the finger on the button licking their chops in anticipation of dropping the bomb.
again, you act as if the US joined the war to fight the crimes of japan, and that's not the case. one expansionist empire versus another. I didn't say that anyone was "licking their chops in anticipation." I did say, what would you expect the button pusher to say other than, "it couldn't be helped?" come on now, be realistic.

let us also keep in mind that the attack on pearl harbor was not completely unprovoked, US embargo on japan "forced" japan's hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes personal gain. Remember though that my personal gain is not your personal gain and that with your personal gain I lose. It never works.
if priority numero uno is "personal gain" then you're right...this goes back to the conspiracy that I'm talking about. we've got it all backwards, and that is convenient for those in charge. it is only when one gives away the self that one is truly in control of the self.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Depends which time period you are talking about. In the modern era war has certainly become profitable because business has increasingly become involved, however prior to World War II and in the time including that terrible event war was not profitable.

At the opening of the twentieth century there were five great Western empires—the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian—and two emerging great powers: Japan and the United States. By century's end, all the empires had disappeared. How did they perish? By war—all of them.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was crashed in World War I and torn to pieces at Versailles, where Germany was also dismembered. A vengeful Reich then began a second European war. Ruin was total. Japan, believing its empire was being extorted, its place in the sun denied, attacked America and was smashed like no other nation in history. The British and French empires, already bled in the trenches of the Western Front from August 1914 to November 1918, did not long survive Hitler's war.

America survived as the sole superpower because it stayed out of the slaughter pens until the other great powers had fought themselves near to death and avoided a cataclysmic clash with a nuclear-armed Soviet Russia. In World War I Americans did not go into combat in great numbers until 1918. In World War II America did not cross the Channel until four years after France had fallen and three years after the USSR had begun fighting for its life. It did not go to war against Japan until the Japanese army had been bogged down for four years fighting a no-win war against the most populous nation on earth. U.S. casualties in the two world wars were thus the smallest of the Great Powers, and America in the twentieth century has never known the vast destruction that was visited on Russia, Germany, and Japan (or even on France and England).

But let's go further back. Between 1789 and 1914 there were seven major European wars: the wars of the French republic (1792-1802), Napoleon's wars (1803-1815), the Crimean War (1853-1855), the war of Piedmont and France against Austria (1859-1860), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), and the Balkan wars (1912-1913). With the exceptions of an undeclared naval war with France under John Adams, and the War of 1812, the United States stayed out of them all. As for World Wars I and II, the United States kept clear of both conflicts for more than two years before going in.

Take World War I as an example, Wilson could have responded to U-boat attacks on U.S. merchant ships in 1917 with a naval war, without sending a single soldier to France. As late as December 1916 the president professed to see no difference in the war aims of the Allies and the Central Powers and no compelling U.S. interest to justify intervention.

In 1939 the United States anticipated that Britain and France would block any Nazi drive into Western Europe. When France was overrun, the United States rushed aid to Britain. By the fall of 1940 Hitler was contained at the Channel. By December 1941 he had been halted outside Leningrad and Moscow. U.S. policy was succeeding without one American ground soldier in combat.

The cleverest move America made was staying well clear of these conflicts and by doing so accumulating incredible profits. While the rest of the world destroyed itself, America built itself. It's no wonder that it would emerge after the war as the strongest super-power. This quick emergence however went straight to its head and it quickly turned into an arrogant empire bent on expansionism (just like every other crooked empire before it). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
war has always been "profitable" for the winners; the spoils of war. but, today it is possible through finance capitalism to "rig the deck" so to speak, and make profit regardless of "who" "wins." not to mention the political ramifications that follow. things worked out for israel thanks to that post war political process. the spoils of war. can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
So how are you going to know which ones are and which ones are not? What test do you use?
several: research, evidence, intuition, inspiration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
I totally disagree. We were given no such tools, me made them! No supernatural deity gave us anything. We have done everything on our own, both the good and the bad. Furthermore consumerism is not in and of itself bad, it stimulates economies and allows growth. What is bad is when consumerism, rather than the development which it can bring beomes the sole aim. This is gross capitalism and it easily turns into a monster which must be fed regularly (it particularly enjoys eating the poorer people of the world).
opposable thumbs duuuude. did you make that body you're using now? what about your mind? nothing is yours or mine.

war is a great way to feed that monster. so is over-the-top in-your-face 24-7 no-holds-barred commercialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Also, the elite are not riding the masses through control. Oh no, there is no control. Orwell was wrong and Huxley was right. The future is not a boot stamping on a human face as Orwell envisioned, the future is a sell out. We police ourselves by creating standards created by our own greedy ambitions. We conspire against ourselves.
I think orwell and huxley were both right on certain things...I wouldn't say it's all one or the other. we really aren't too far off from socially accepted "feelies", while the "patriot" act is systematically stealing our freedoms. think about it, internet connected TVs now have built in cameras and the gov't has a backdoor into any ISP in the country. "hello big brother." the content on TV is hyper sexualized a la brave new world.

in a way, it's almost as if the two have merged. we all willingly carry cell phones that can be remotely activated and tracked through gps satellite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
What tests?
the tests of life, the one's the Creator intended for us to take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
IG Farben went on making money not because they were part of some secret conspiracy but because they were a typical business. Their sole interest was money. Welcome to capitalism.
ezactly, you know what they say about the love of money I'm sure. as long as the money is rolling in, peeps don't ask too many questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes but America's policy of expansionism only developed after she become a superpower post WWII (the link you provided alone proves that). Beginning in the 1890s, there was certainly a long list of US military interventions in Latin America. You can imagine that the response in Latin America was negative. FDR began to implement what he called the "Good Neighbor Policy" where he began to reduce American military involvement in Latin America and strengthen economic ties to Latin American countries. In 1933 greatly backed off Latin America and the US even accepted an agreement made in Montevideo, Uruguay by a Pan-American Conference that "no country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." These policies greatly improved America's image in Latin America. An important result of these polices was that during WWII, none of the Latin American countries considered challenging US policy.
yeah that worked out really well in the long term.

there were economic and political motivations for the US to enter war with germany, but this was not supported by the voting public. germany was in a tripartite agreement with japan. war with japan = war with germany. US puts embargo on japan, japan attacks US as a result. US is now at war with japan and germany.

Quote:
For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The war's rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the war's global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
You are trying to make the Japanese actions sound normal, almost a justified reaction. Are you aware of what Japan did in South East Asia and in China? Did America act the same way towards Japan after it had been defeated? Do you know of any Americans beheading Japanese civilians on the streets of Tokyo?
but I thought that things like this happen in war? no, I'm not justifying any crimes by the japanese, wrong is wrong. the point is that people were being killed on both sides. generations of japanese born deformed, getting cancer from the fallout. how is that any less horrible??

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes and conspiracy theorists have a knack of using lies and present them as fact through repetition.
yeah, only those conspiracy theorists are guilty of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Of course human life is priceless. That's why the bombs were necessary. They prevented greater loss of life. What would I say to the non-combatants that perished? I would point out to them that their own government was responsible. The Japanese people sanctioned and consented to the rule of the Japanese government. They celebrated Hirohito as a God. This was not some oppressive Saddam-like leader where support outside the inner party was non-existent. This man was their deity. They celebrated the conquest of China as patriotic. They did not believe the people they conquered to even be human.

The responsibility for citizens' casualties falls squarely on the Japanese government. Hiroshima wasn't a sneak attack, it wasn't a surprise. They knew exactly what happened at Trinity, they knew exactly what Truman meant in the Potsdam Ultimatum. They are responsible for those deaths, no one else.

Hirohito and the War cabinet knew what happened in Alamogordo. They were given WEEKS between the Potsdam Ultimatum and Hiroshima. They were outright TOLD what was going to happen and how to avoid it....and they refused. That's THEIR responsibility.
again, this all assumes that the fight couldn't have been avoided in the first place. money powers supporting both sides, aiding germany in a military build up with an aim toward war. there is shared responsibility. can you honestly say that the invention of the nuclear bomb was a good thing??

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
We will see...I have never been big on predicting the future.
the writing seems to be on the wall. the people love trilogies. box office hits usually, and america is not one to shy away from war. can you offer up some reasons why babylo..ahem...iraq was invaded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes post WWII stupidity.
greed is more like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Do you really need Icke to tell you there is a language in symbolism? Nature is a language.
I don't need him to tell me anything, just pointing out that he's not entirely lost it.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Last edited by logos880; 05-08-2012 at 10:54 PM.
logos880 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 02:20 AM   #543
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
depends on how you define "evidence." I believe that there are realms beyond our capacity to sense, and I have intuitive and experiential evidence.
How would you judge your 'intuitive' evidence to be accurate? Seems very much like a hit and miss affair which could easily lead to wrong assumptions.

http://www.futurity.org/society-cult...e-often-wrong/

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Tro...tuition/65674/

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...bad-decisions/

You would have to wonder how much of it would actually be emotional conviction if not carefully kept in check with hard evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
you have a double standard. you take the "us and them" mentality when it is convenient and condemn it when it is convenient. "all freethinkers" is the "us" and bible believing christians are the "them." "we have the 'ultimate truth' that Jesus is just a myth." see how that works?
There is no double standard in the slightest. The Jesus myth hypothesis is not conspiracy research. It does not pretend that there is a massive modern-day cover up to keep people ignorant of the real nature of Jesus. In fact the opposite is true, the documents exist and readily studied.

The power of faith hides some very inconvenient facts. It has a tendency to mix up myth with reality particularly when it is mixed with desire. What if someone came up to you on the street and said that:

- They have a personal relationship with a being named Zalmoxis
- Who they insist is really real
- and they'll never die
- because this ancient god
- Cleansed their soul with blood magic
- which grants them the power of living forever
- in a magical place no one can see.

You would probably think this person is nuts. But that is their faith. And strangely their faith would not be that different to the Christian faith. Funny thing is that there really was a faith in Zalmoxis (his name sounds like a cough syrup but he really was a god). His cult is attested by Herodotus in 425 BC. That's 500 years before Christianity. So if the claims of Zalmoxis are clearly mythical then what separates them from the claims made about Christ by his followers?

Faith is a personal issue. It can be shown to be myth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
again, you act as if the US joined the war to fight the crimes of japan, and that's not the case. one expansionist empire versus another. I didn't say that anyone was "licking their chops in anticipation." I did say, what would you expect the button pusher to say other than, "it couldn't be helped?" come on now, be realistic.
Agreed! Japan was trying to become the dominant, imperial power in East Asia and the Pacific. They had invaded China in 1933 and were preparing to conquer Indochina, Malaysia, India and the Pacific islands. they wanted to control all these territories so that they could use the raw materials in them for their own industries. The United States had been growing steadily more opposed to the Japanese expansion. They knew that if they attacked those other countries the US might go to war to stop them. So they decided to attack the US first. They hoped they could cripple the US so it could not oppose them while they grabbed as much territory as they could and that once they had the territory America would make peace and let them keep it.

The first part of their plan worked. They were able to take huge amounts of territory in early 1942 because the US was not strong enough to stop them. But their sneak attack didn't make peace, it made made war. They were unable to destroy America's remaining strength and it able to build so many ships and planes and guns and everything else you need for war that it could arm itself and the British and the Russians and adopt a "Germany first" strategy and still completely defeat Japan into the bargain. One statistic tells the tale. Before the war both Japan and the united States had both been building about one aircraft carrier a year. From 1942 to 1945 the Japanese built four more. That was all they could do, one a year. In that same three and a half year span the United States commissioned over one hundred aircraft carriers.

But to really understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been America's ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson. Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have." In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend. Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her. When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior. When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down. Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat. Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo.

Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal. Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

When two powers are both trying to influence or expand into an area, conflict is almost inevitable. When reading and trying to understand history, try and look past the juvenile good guy/bad guy routines. All nations are looking out for their own best interest. That Japan in WWII attacked several of its neighbors no more makes them a bad nation than it does the USA for destroying their various neighbors and competitors on the North American continent. These conflicts are the natural result for any situation that has dynamic expanding powers. Japan in WWII was looking out for its best interest. That included its elemental need for petroleum and other imports. When looked at in the broader perspective, WWII was almost entirely about petroleum. Germany and Japan both ran their military campaigns with the fundamental desire to control oil fields. The USA was successful in WWII with its projection of power via its naval and air forces entirely due to having huge supplies of oil. That Italy was so inept in WWII is largely a result of oil shortages, lacking even those supplies necessary to sortie their Mediteranian fleet. Had these various factors been turned around I am cetain the USA would have gone to war (calling it 'preemptive' war) to take over the oil from Japanese or German spheres of control. That would not necessarily make the USA a 'bad' nation and Japan/German 'good' nations. It is just the natural course of human history as is being played out today just like it was in the 1940's.

But the war had to end. Question was how to end it quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
let us also keep in mind that the attack on pearl harbor was not completely unprovoked, US embargo on japan "forced" japan's hand.
Yes true. There were severe embargoes but this again was merely one nation protecting its self-interests. I am not sure that it provoked Japan. Japan already had expansionist visions throughout Asia way before any embargoes were put in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
if priority numero uno is "personal gain" then you're right...this goes back to the conspiracy that I'm talking about. we've got it all backwards, and that is convenient for those in charge. it is only when one gives away the self that one is truly in control of the self.
Agree! But no one is willing to give away the self. Our entire world is geared towards the worship of the self. The ego is god. And thus we remain slaves to ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
war has always been "profitable" for the winners; the spoils of war. but, today it is possible through finance capitalism to "rig the deck" so to speak, and make profit regardless of "who" "wins." not to mention the political ramifications that follow. things worked out for israel thanks to that post war political process. the spoils of war. can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Agreed but in many cases war has proved a disaster even for the 'winners'. As said previously, at the opening of the twentieth century there were five great Western empires—the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian—and two emerging great powers: Japan and the United States. By century's end, all the empires (except the US) had disappeared. How did they perish? By war—all of them.

The new trend which makes war a business is indeed profitable but it is as yet a new experiment and you have to wonder how long it will last until it thankfully turns sour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
several: research, evidence, intuition, inspiration.
Again, as I wrote in the beginning of this post, how would you judge your 'intuitive' evidence to be accurate?

http://www.futurity.org/society-cult...e-often-wrong/

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Tro...tuition/65674/

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...bad-decisions/

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
opposable thumbs duuuude. did you make that body you're using now? what about your mind? nothing is yours or mine.
Opposable thumbs are not proof that anything has been given to us. That belief is a matter of faith not fact. Plenty of scientists would disagree with you and push (at times equally as faith based) idea that the world evolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
war is a great way to feed that monster. so is over-the-top in-your-face 24-7 no-holds-barred commercialism.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
I think orwell and huxley were both right on certain things...I wouldn't say it's all one or the other. we really aren't too far off from socially accepted "feelies", while the "patriot" act is systematically stealing our freedoms. think about it, internet connected TVs now have built in cameras and the gov't has a backdoor into any ISP in the country. "hello big brother." the content on TV is hyper sexualized a la brave new world.

in a way, it's almost as if the two have merged. we all willingly carry cell phones that can be remotely activated and tracked through gps satellite.
Depends in which part of the world you live I suppose. For residents of places such as North Korea certainly Orwell got it right. But that model can never last for long. The best way for long lasting control is for people to control and police themselves. They are doing it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the tests of life, the one's the Creator intended for us to take.
Well again this is a faith based idea, not a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
ezactly, you know what they say about the love of money I'm sure. as long as the money is rolling in, peeps don't ask too many questions.
Agreed. And as long as this aggressive capitalism is the major motivator in world affairs then expect nothing but more war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
there were economic and political motivations for the US to enter war with germany, but this was not supported by the voting public. germany was in a tripartite agreement with japan. war with japan = war with germany. US puts embargo on japan, japan attacks US as a result. US is now at war with japan and germany.
Agreed. But this is not conspiracy. This is just called protecting one's self interests. The very reason why a world-wide New Worlds Order conspiracy could never work. The same reason why communism has never worked (and China is not really communist so no point using it as an example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
but I thought that things like this happen in war? no, I'm not justifying any crimes by the japanese, wrong is wrong. the point is that people were being killed on both sides. generations of japanese born deformed, getting cancer from the fallout. how is that any less horrible??
Yes things do happen in war but in every war there are also individual actions. There are degrees of bad and degrees of good in every situation. Things are rarely black and white. Example:


Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
yeah, only those conspiracy theorists are guilty of that.
No but conspiracy theorists are famous for their distortions and lies. Do I need to provide examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
again, this all assumes that the fight couldn't have been avoided in the first place. money powers supporting both sides, aiding germany in a military build up with an aim toward war. there is shared responsibility. can you honestly say that the invention of the nuclear bomb was a good thing??
I wouldn't say it was a good thing. It was what it was and it is what it is. Once the door is opened it is not possible to close it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
the writing seems to be on the wall. the people love trilogies. box office hits usually, and america is not one to shy away from war. can you offer up some reasons why babylo..ahem...iraq was invaded?
Well certainly not for some Biblical reason so I would not bother with the Babylon title. It was invaded for oil. But throughout this thread you keep mixing up modern war with the events of WWII. These are different times and the motives are to a great extend very different. The bombing of Japan was necessary, the invasion of Iraq was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
I don't need him to tell me anything, just pointing out that he's not entirely lost it.
I totally disagree (let's leave it at that for obvious reasons).

But I feel this thread has lost its direction. Shall we get back to discussing religion?

Last edited by exu156; 06-08-2012 at 10:30 AM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 12:27 AM   #544
logos880
Senior Member
 
logos880's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
How would you judge your 'intuitive' evidence to be accurate? Seems very much like a hit and miss affair which could easily lead to wrong assumptions.

http://www.futurity.org/society-cult...e-often-wrong/

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Tro...tuition/65674/

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...bad-decisions/

You would have to wonder how much of it would actually be emotional conviction if not carefully kept in check with hard evidence.
like I said, it's a combination not just blind intuition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
There is no double standard in the slightest. The Jesus myth hypothesis is not conspiracy research. It does not pretend that there is a massive modern-day cover up to keep people ignorant of the real nature of Jesus. In fact the opposite is true, the documents exist and readily studied.

The power of faith hides some very inconvenient facts. It has a tendency to mix up myth with reality particularly when it is mixed with desire. What if someone came up to you on the street and said that:

- They have a personal relationship with a being named Zalmoxis
- Who they insist is really real
- and they'll never die
- because this ancient god
- Cleansed their soul with blood magic
- which grants them the power of living forever
- in a magical place no one can see.

You would probably think this person is nuts. But that is their faith. And strangely their faith would not be that different to the Christian faith. Funny thing is that there really was a faith in Zalmoxis (his name sounds like a cough syrup but he really was a god). His cult is attested by Herodotus in 425 BC. That's 500 years before Christianity. So if the claims of Zalmoxis are clearly mythical then what separates them from the claims made about Christ by his followers?

Faith is a personal issue. It can be shown to be myth.
funny how you overlook all the shoddy research put into archaya's book while you jump down sutton's throat. I have followed some of the threads laid down by archaya to find them quickly unravel and sutton's claims didn't turn out the same way.

you can't prove that Jesus is purely a myth anymore than I can prove that He wasn't...faith on both sides. like I said before, we are both taking someone else's word for it. I'm sure you're familiar with my take on the pagan christs at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Agreed! Japan was trying to become the dominant, imperial power in East Asia and the Pacific. They had invaded China in 1933 and were preparing to conquer Indochina, Malaysia, India and the Pacific islands. they wanted to control all these territories so that they could use the raw materials in them for their own industries. The United States had been growing steadily more opposed to the Japanese expansion. They knew that if they attacked those other countries the US might go to war to stop them. So they decided to attack the US first. They hoped they could cripple the US so it could not oppose them while they grabbed as much territory as they could and that once they had the territory America would make peace and let them keep it.

The first part of their plan worked. They were able to take huge amounts of territory in early 1942 because the US was not strong enough to stop them. But their sneak attack didn't make peace, it made made war. They were unable to destroy America's remaining strength and it able to build so many ships and planes and guns and everything else you need for war that it could arm itself and the British and the Russians and adopt a "Germany first" strategy and still completely defeat Japan into the bargain. One statistic tells the tale. Before the war both Japan and the united States had both been building about one aircraft carrier a year. From 1942 to 1945 the Japanese built four more. That was all they could do, one a year. In that same three and a half year span the United States commissioned over one hundred aircraft carriers.

But to really understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been America's ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson. Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have." In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend. Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her. When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior. When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down. Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat. Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo.

Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal. Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

When two powers are both trying to influence or expand into an area, conflict is almost inevitable. When reading and trying to understand history, try and look past the juvenile good guy/bad guy routines. All nations are looking out for their own best interest. That Japan in WWII attacked several of its neighbors no more makes them a bad nation than it does the USA for destroying their various neighbors and competitors on the North American continent. These conflicts are the natural result for any situation that has dynamic expanding powers. Japan in WWII was looking out for its best interest. That included its elemental need for petroleum and other imports. When looked at in the broader perspective, WWII was almost entirely about petroleum. Germany and Japan both ran their military campaigns with the fundamental desire to control oil fields. The USA was successful in WWII with its projection of power via its naval and air forces entirely due to having huge supplies of oil. That Italy was so inept in WWII is largely a result of oil shortages, lacking even those supplies necessary to sortie their Mediteranian fleet. Had these various factors been turned around I am cetain the USA would have gone to war (calling it 'preemptive' war) to take over the oil from Japanese or German spheres of control. That would not necessarily make the USA a 'bad' nation and Japan/German 'good' nations. It is just the natural course of human history as is being played out today just like it was in the 1940's.

But the war had to end. Question was how to end it quickly.
the generic routine of "good guy versus bad guy" says that "axis powers are bad guy" and "allied powers are good guy" which seems to be what you are saying. there is an evil here, and it's called expansionism or greed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes true. There were severe embargoes but this again was merely one nation protecting its self-interests. I am not sure that it provoked Japan. Japan already had expansionist visions throughout Asia way before any embargoes were put in place.
again, it is this doctrine of "self interest" that is the evil. going back to the prisoner's dilemma, had the prisoners not broken the law in the first place they wouldn't have had a "dilemma."

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Agree! But no one is willing to give away the self. Our entire world is geared towards the worship of the self. The ego is god. And thus we remain slaves to ourselves.
too true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Agreed but in many cases war has proved a disaster even for the 'winners'. As said previously, at the opening of the twentieth century there were five great Western empires—the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian—and two emerging great powers: Japan and the United States. By century's end, all the empires (except the US) had disappeared. How did they perish? By war—all of them.

The new trend which makes war a business is indeed profitable but it is as yet a new experiment and you have to wonder how long it will last until it thankfully turns sour.
it will only give rise to the next step in socio-political evolution, and unless we give up on this path we will only be one step closer to it's inevitable end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Again, as I wrote in the beginning of this post, how would you judge your 'intuitive' evidence to be accurate?

http://www.futurity.org/society-cult...e-often-wrong/

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Tro...tuition/65674/

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...bad-decisions/
the same way that I would judge a decision to be bad. some things work and some don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Opposable thumbs are not proof that anything has been given to us. That belief is a matter of faith not fact. Plenty of scientists would disagree with you and push (at times equally as faith based) idea that the world evolved.
take a creator out of the equation, we still have the tools necessary to be happy. we know this because there are happy people in the world, some of whom are even sick, dying or poor. we have minds, to think and make decisions with...doesn't matter where those minds came from, we still have them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Depends in which part of the world you live I suppose. For residents of places such as North Korea certainly Orwell got it right. But that model can never last for long. The best way for long lasting control is for people to control and police themselves. They are doing it now.
I look at orwell's and huxley's views being two aspects of the same whole. almost like a masculine and feminine take on things. daddy the beast and mommy the whore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Well again this is a faith based idea, not a fact.
to an extent. for instance, I would say that we are meant to work for living. this is true for all living things. I would say that "cause" is meant to give rise to "effect."

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Agreed. And as long as this aggressive capitalism is the major motivator in world affairs then expect nothing but more war.
I'd say that there are some intrinsic truths reflected in capitalism, but there is a balance point somewhere which it seems we've lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Agreed. But this is not conspiracy. This is just called protecting one's self interests. The very reason why a world-wide New Worlds Order conspiracy could never work. The same reason why communism has never worked (and China is not really communist so no point using it as an example).
yes, there are multiple world interests...what I will call "money powers." have a look at this short book, "the occult technology of power." don't be thrown by the title, it's not an exercise in occult belief systems just "hidden power" and how it works:

http://www.rexresearch.com/articles/ocultech.htm

I believe that roosevelt knew of the japanese intention to attack pearl harbor, and allowed it happen. same with 9/11. that is the conspiracy, the folks in power are familiar with "self interested human nature" and just let things happen. kinda like knocking over that first domino.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Yes things do happen in war but in every war there are also individual actions. There are degrees of bad and degrees of good in every situation. Things are rarely black and white. Example:

SBS - John Rabe, The Good Nazi of Nanking (1/8) - YouTube



No but conspiracy theorists are famous for their distortions and lies. Do I need to provide examples?
no, but so are pretty much every news agency and politician. again, by singling out "conspiracy theorists" you are playing the "us and them" game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
I wouldn't say it was a good thing. It was what it was and it is what it is. Once the door is opened it is not possible to close it again.
yes, some lines cannot be un-crossed. makes you wonder if the 'fire of the gods' was such a beneficial thing for humanity, no? seems we just aren't mature enough yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Well certainly not for some Biblical reason so I would not bother with the Babylon title. It was invaded for oil. But throughout this thread you keep mixing up modern war with the events of WWII. These are different times and the motives are to a great extend very different. The bombing of Japan was necessary, the invasion of Iraq was not.
humanity is constantly repeating itself while we spiral up the technology ladder. that's why I called it babylon, we've gone back to the cradle of civilization for age old reasons. are we conscious as we move along history's line? I'm not so sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
I totally disagree (let's leave it at that for obvious reasons).

But I feel this thread has lost its direction. Shall we get back to discussing religion?
I don't really have anything to say about religion in this context, other than to say that symbols are a picture of concepts that are beyond words. in this way, symbols act like a connecting gear, allowing the great mystery to turn the mind.

to sum up my position, the "NWO" is probably the same "world order" that we've always had: sin. in that way, the world order is anti-Christ, and satan is the prince of this world order. how conscious the rulers and the ruled are of this, I don't know.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 08:43 AM   #545
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Do you really quote them? Let's see...

Let's take Blavatsky first. You quote her as saying: So let's go to The Secret Doctrine volume 2 pages 171, 225 and 255 and see if we can find that quote anywhere. Here is volume 2:

http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume2.htm

Now scroll down to pages 171, 225, 255 and tell me if you can find that quote anywhere. It's not there!
I really could not wait to share the following with you, exu. I watched a lecture by Professor Walter Veith last night, titled 'The Hidden Hand'. Now, little known fact about Walter Veith, is that he was a former occultist, who was heavy into 'astral projection' and the like, before he became a born-again Christian.

Walter Veith, in trying to 'expand' his occult knowledge, tried to get his hands on certain 'occult books' which were not just 'readily available' to the uninitiated. His father-in-law, was apparently very high up, in the occult circles, in South Africa and he 'piggy-backed' off his father-in-law's name, to get in contact with some of his former associates, in those high-up occult circles.

And guess what Walter Veith was able to get an authentic copy of? Albert Pike's 'Morals and Dogma' and Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Vol II! He then goes on to SAY that you can order these books through Amazon.com but they are NOT the 'real mccoys' that the 'adepts/initiates/high-ups' use.

He puts up quote, after quote, after quote of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, Vol II, which is NOT found in the online pdf's!!!! Walter Veith goes on FURTHER to say that if ANYBODY does not believe him, he will 'scan and e-mail' those pages on request, to that person, to PROVE that he has those books!

He also, as proof that he had one of the 2 books, scanned the preface to Pike's 'Morals and Dogma' and includes it in his presentation!

Now, my question to you is - how did you know, that the pdf's found online, of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Vol II, did NOT contain the quote below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
"Lucifer represents life, thought, progress, civilisation, liberty, independence. Lucifer is the Logos, the Serpent, the Saviour" and "It is Lucifer who is the God of our planet and the only God"
Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Again, let me know when you have something actually worthwhile discussing.
Yes, it seems as if the Theosophical Society is not including all of their treachings, in their 'online pdfs'....I eagerly await your response

Last edited by jesusissalvation; 10-08-2012 at 08:47 AM.
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 08:51 AM   #546
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Take a look at jesusissalvation's posts as an example. He can't even make his argument without quoting words that people never said. Using false information to support an idea is very typical of conspiracy theorists and it's not a position I can support.
This has now come back to 'bite' you
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 08:59 AM   #547
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Which I guess brings us back to the title of this thread:Why do Christians worry about the NWO?
Christians don't. What must 'be', must 'be'. The only thing any of us can do is live uprightly [keeping God's Commandments], worship the Creator of heaven and earth Jesus the Christ and follow in His faith 'n testimony.
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:10 AM   #548
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
Thank you very much for the correction on the Blavatsky and Bailey quotes. These [Blavatsky's] seem to have been adapated from a former theosophist, that the Theosophical Society have quoted, only in essence to discourage their readers from accepting them as 'theosophical truth'.

Their footnotes wrt this author reads as follows.

" By an Englishman whose erratic genius killed him. The son of a Protestant clergyman, he became a Mahomedan, then a rabid atheist, and after meeting with a master, a Guru, he became a mystic; then a theosophist who doubted, despaired; threw up white for black magic, went insane and joined the Roman Church. Then again turning round, anathematized her, re-became an atheist, and died cursing humanity, knowledge, and God, in whom he had ceased to believe. Furnished with all the esoteric data to write his “War in Heaven,” he made a semi-political article out of it, mixing Malthus with Satan, and Darwin with the astral light. Peace be to his — Shell. He is a warning to the chelas who fail. His forgotten tomb may now be seen in the Mussulman burial ground of the Joonagad, Kathiawar, in India." ~ http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-13.htm

Thank you, nevertheless, I shall no longer make use these quotes.
I hereby make a FULL RETRACTION of the above statement, based on the fact that the Theosophical Society, provides 'heavily edited' copies of their published works, via pdf's downloadable online!!
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:17 AM   #549
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelsherlock View Post
You seem to be omitting massive chunks of history. I just wonder, is this omission from selective bias or wilfull ignorance? Please, please, please, put the Bible down for a second, retire the rhetorical Christian apologetic books, and pick up some real history books. Look at the landscape of the past 2000 years in its entirity, or else, remain as you are, blind!
Christians have been persecuted since just after the time of Jesus. First by the established Jewish sects [Pharisees, Sanhedrin] of their day, then by the Roman government, then by the Roman Catholic Church, then by the 'enlightened elite' of the French Revolution, then by 'godless Communism' now by the legislated 'powers' of governments right around the world, where praying in Jesus' name, in the public sphere is prohibited - but you can pray in Krishna, Buddha or Jane's name and that is 'no problem'.

So what exactly did I 'miss'?
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:25 AM   #550
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alephvian View Post
And to add to that there was plenty of Christians who persecuted and killed pagans and Gnostics
Precisely when did Christians ever 'persecute' anybody, if Christianity was a persecuted religion for the first 300yrs of its' inception?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alephvian View Post
Even Paul (Saul) was one of them...
Saul, as a Pharisee, persecuted Christians and was very interested in getting his 'hands' on the Apostles of Jesus, so he could have them all locked up and executed. Paul, as a Christian, was then the one to be beaten, shipwrecked and persecuted by 'everyone and his dog'.
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:27 AM   #551
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
whatever happened to a socratic styled dialogue?
There's only ONE word that will truly suffice here - A.M.E.N!
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:28 AM   #552
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
I really could not wait to share the following with you, exu. I watched a lecture by Professor Walter Veith last night, titled 'The Hidden Hand'. Now, little known fact about Walter Veith, is that he was a former occultist, who was heavy into 'astral projection' and the like, before he became a born-again Christian.

Walter Veith, in trying to 'expand' his occult knowledge, tried to get his hands on certain 'occult books' which were not just 'readily available' to the uninitiated. His father-in-law, was apparently very high up, in the occult circles, in South Africa and he 'piggy-backed' off his father-in-law's name, to get in contact with some of his former associates, in those high-up occult circles.

And guess what Walter Veith was able to get an authentic copy of? Albert Pike's 'Morals and Dogma' and Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Vol II! He then goes on to SAY that you can order these books through Amazon.com but they are NOT the 'real mccoys' that the 'adepts/initiates/high-ups' use.

He puts up quote, after quote, after quote of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, Vol II, which is NOT found in the online pdf's!!!! Walter Veith goes on FURTHER to say that if ANYBODY does not believe him, he will 'scan and e-mail' those pages on request, to that person, to PROVE that he has those books!

He also, as proof that he had one of the 2 books, scanned the preface to Pike's 'Morals and Dogma' and includes it in his presentation!

Now, my question to you is - how did you know, that the pdf's found online, of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine Vol II, did NOT contain the quote below?





Yes, it seems as if the Theosophical Society is not including all of their treachings, in their 'online pdfs'....I eagerly await your response
That's a heck of a lot of steep claims. Can I ask you, how do I contact the professor? Have you got his email address? I would be very interested in writing to him. Until I see his alleged 'proof' there is not really much to discuss.

But I love these ex-occultists you Christians keep digging up, they are a laugh a minute. Some many of these people get exposed as complete frauds. Examples:

http://www.markdice.com/index.php?op...dice&Itemid=89

http://www.markdice.com/index.php?op...dice&Itemid=89

Furthermore I would be very cautious taking anything your esteemed professor says as solid. So he was a former occultist now turned born again Christian who conveniently was also an evolutionist turned born again Christian:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/websto...to-creationist

How convenient! Hit every base with one stone

And yet:

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/3519

I look forward to those contact details

Last edited by exu156; 10-08-2012 at 09:36 AM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:32 AM   #553
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
I hereby make a FULL RETRACTION of the above statement, based on the fact that the Theosophical Society, provides 'heavily edited' copies of their published works, via pdf's downloadable online!!
Wow its a FACT now? I hope you got that proof handy.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:34 AM   #554
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
This has now come back to 'bite' you
hehehehe oh yeah it's biting alright. In future when you are going to use born again conspiracy nuts (former occultists and evolutionists no less ) as your sources do make sure you do a bit of research first yeah...

Oh Lord, save me from your followers!

Last edited by exu156; 10-08-2012 at 11:39 AM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:27 PM   #555
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
That's a heck of a lot of steep claims. Can I ask you, how do I contact the professor? Have you got his email address? I would be very interested in writing to him.
You may request an e-mail address to use via the distribution channel of his lectures here 1-866-572-9457, or home telephone: +27 855-0417 or simply just 'log' an online request here http://amazingdiscoveries.org/contact-us [click on the help desk link].

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
Until I see his alleged 'proof' there is not really much to discuss.
You haven't answered my previous question. How did you know, that the online pdf's are 'edited versions'??? You have never come back regarding any other quote I've used, except these particular ones, claiming that I've 'made things up', pertaining to the published works of the Theosophical Society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
But I love these ex-occultists you Christians keep digging up, they are a laugh a minute. Some many of these people get exposed as complete frauds.
Funny how that works hey? A few years ago, while Walter Veith was involved with the occult and practising astral projections, you would probably have been 'best internet/chat buddies' with him. Now the man goes and makes a complete 360 degree turn-around in his life and all of a sudden he's a 'laugh-a-minute' nutcase?

Can you spell 'biased'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
I look forward to those contact details
As per above. Knock yourself out, bud
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:50 PM   #556
michaelsherlock
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
You may request an e-mail address to use via the distribution channel of his lectures here 1-866-572-9457, or home telephone: +27 855-0417 or simply just 'log' an online request here http://amazingdiscoveries.org/contact-us [click on the help desk link].



You haven't answered my previous question. How did you know, that the online pdf's are 'edited versions'??? You have never come back regarding any other quote I've used, except these particular ones, claiming that I've 'made things up', pertaining to the published works of the Theosophical Society?



Funny how that works hey? A few years ago, while Walter Veith was involved with the occult and practising astral projections, you would probably have been 'best internet/chat buddies' with him. Now the man goes and makes a complete 360 degree turn-around in his life and all of a sudden he's a 'laugh-a-minute' nutcase?

Can you spell 'biased'?



As per above. Knock yourself out, bud
Not to be picky with words but, a 360 degree change means that he was an occultist, became a Christian, and then returned to being an Occultist. It is a complete revolution. Sorry, just struck me as funny.
michaelsherlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 04:48 PM   #557
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
You may request an e-mail address to use via the distribution channel of his lectures here 1-866-572-9457, or home telephone: +27 855-0417 or simply just 'log' an online request here http://amazingdiscoveries.org/contact-us [click on the help desk link].
No, no ,no, no it doesn't work like that. You are making the claims as FACTS and so the onus is on you to provide that proof.

And I just love it when you say:

"Walter Veith...tried to get his hands on certain 'occult books' which were not just 'readily available' to the uninitiated. His father-in-law, was apparently very high up, in the occult circles, in South Africa and he 'piggy-backed' off his father-in-law's name, to get in contact with some of his former associates, in those high-up occult circles."

Whoooooooooooo how mysterious

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
You haven't answered my previous question. How did you know, that the online pdf's are 'edited versions'??? You have never come back regarding any other quote I've used, except these particular ones, claiming that I've 'made things up', pertaining to the published works of the Theosophical Society?
What are you talking about? Have you completely lost it? You used one alleged quote from the Secret Doctrine, that's it. And that's the quote I pointed you out on. Its bullshit and phoney and it was never in the book. Now its your job to prove that it is or was. You say this professor has the proof so its your job to get that proof, not mine. You born again nuts sure are funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
Funny how that works hey? A few years ago, while Walter Veith was involved with the occult and practising astral projections, you would probably have been 'best internet/chat buddies' with him. Now the man goes and makes a complete 360 degree turn-around in his life and all of a sudden he's a 'laugh-a-minute' nutcase?
No what's funny is how you nuts make up stuff and actually believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
Can you spell 'biased'?
Can you spell 'nuts'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
As per above. Knock yourself out, bud
No, you go knock yourself out. I'll be waiting. But remember, sensational claims require sensational proof. Can't wait to see it.

I just love how you have automatically assumed the professor's claims to be FACTS but you yourself have not seen any of the evidence. Do you do this often? I noticed you have not commented on my posted link so here it is again:

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/3519

Any reason why? Is it because you are so busy holding on to this 'reality' you so much desire to be true that you have lost sight of what is real and what is fantasy? Hmm?

I have been involved in occultism and Magick for longer than I can remember and this is the first time I have ever heard that Theosophists have been editing the Secret Doctrine. The utter stupidity of this statement is just too astronomical not to enjoy. A born again conspiracy wet dream if ever there was one.

I am really relishing the opportunity to see that 'proof'.

Please, PLEASE, don't leave this thread before you provide it. Entertainment like this comes all too rarely I am afraid and good laughs are all too hard to find these days.

I may actually end up writing to the kook professor, not to ask for proof of his claims regarding Theosophy (that's your job because you are the one supporting the claims) but just to put his occult knowledge to the test. Heck that should prove funnier than even your posts.

Last edited by exu156; 11-08-2012 at 02:16 AM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 05:33 PM   #558
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelsherlock View Post
Not to be picky with words but, a 360 degree change means that he was an occultist, became a Christian, and then returned to being an Occultist. It is a complete revolution. Sorry, just struck me as funny.
Erre no. He actually started out as a Christian and then left the church and got involved in the occult. Does that make it a bit clearer for you?
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 05:45 PM   #559
jesusissalvation
Senior Member
 
jesusissalvation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
No, no ,no, no it doesn't work like that. You are making the claims as FACTS and so the onus is on you to provide that proof.
*scratching head* Then why'd you ask for his contact info?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
And I just love it when you say:

"Walter Veith...tried to get his hands on certain 'occult books' which were not just 'readily available' to the uninitiated. His father-in-law, was apparently very high up, in the occult circles, in South Africa and he 'piggy-backed' off his father-in-law's name, to get in contact with some of his former associates, in those high-up occult circles."

Whoooooooooooo how mysterious
You like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
What are you talking about? Have you completely lost it? You used one alleged quote from the Secret Doctrine, that's it. And that's the quote I pointed you out on. Its bullshit and phoney and it was never in the book. Now its your job to prove that it is or was. You say this professor has the proof so its your job to get that proof, not mine. You born again nuts sure are funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
No what's funny is how you nuts make up stuff and actually believe it.
When you have some spare time, I'd strongly encourage you to watch this. Keep your copy of Secret Doctrine II handy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by exu156 View Post
I may actually end up writing to the kook professor, not to ask for proof of his claims regarding Theosophy (that's your job because you are the one supporting the claims) but just to put his occult knowledge to the test. Heck that should prove funnier than even your posts.
[email protected] - This is predominantly for distribution queries, pertaining to his lectures but I'm more than certain they'd be happy to provide you with alternate contact info, should this not suffice.

Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the e-mail you're sending him?

Thanks and God bless
jesusissalvation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:47 AM   #560
exu156
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
*scratching head* Then why'd you ask for his contact info?
Well I thought about it but then it kind of dawned on me as to why I should be the one looking to prove your claims. Shouldn't that be your job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
You like?
Yes I do because yet again it confirms the pattern we have seen way too often before. Ex-Occultist/ex-Satanist/ex-New Ager/ex-evolutionist (you pick whatever other enemies you evangelical have and insert here) converts and is born again AND (and its a big AND)...reveals all the secrets. So interesting that all of these tools you born agains parade as authorities on these things, when examined closely, turn out to be as misinformed as the last idiot paraded as authentic. You people live in a delusional dream-land where, to sustain the illusion, you must step-over into fabrications and nonsense and parade them as FACT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesusissalvation View Post
When you have some spare time, I'd strongly encourage you to watch this. Keep your copy of Secret Doctrine II handy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q18iSz6mus
Oh dear why didn't I listen to my instincts that this would be nothing but yet another heap of Christian born again conspiracy nonsense? Oh why? Oh Why? I will never get that hour and half back. Lost for ever in the company of this complete lunatic you people call a professor. He reinforces what I said in a previous post: 'Oh Lord save me from your followers!'

Keep in mind the claims you made regarding this professor. Allegedly his family was high up in occult circles and therefore he had access to books not usually available to the mainstream occult community.

He quotes Pike's Morals and Dogma (not exactly a hard to get, reserved only for the select few kind of book) and he makes absurd assertions right from the start. Forward the video to 3:50 and he says:

"Morals and Dogma, the very highest source in Freemasonry."

This is such an absurd statement that right at the beginning it is clear we are not dealing with an ex-occultist or anyone even remotely knowledgeable on the topic but a complete fraud.

As John J. Robinson writes in his book A Pilgrim's Path:

"Fundamentalist anti-Masons love to condemn all Freemasonry based on the writings and philosophy of Albert Pike. They never say that Pike's works were written only for the Southern Jurisdiction of Scottish Rite Masonry, which was the limit of Pike's Masonic authority. He was the Sovereign Grand Commander of that Masonic body from 1859 until his death in 1891."

He then adds appropriately:

"...about 80 percent of American Masons have little or no knowledge of the work of General Pike. I have found that most Masons have not even heard of him. These men are mystified by attacks on Masonry that cite Pike's writings, since they have no idea what the antagonist is talking about."

Why would this be so? The title of his book Morals and Dogma in and of itself has led to much confusion since those who are NOT Masons seem to assume that his book sets forth 'dogma' for Freemasonry. Nothing could be further from the truth. This book was and is simply, the sometimes jumbled thoughts of one man.

For about 60 years Morals and Dogma was given as a gift to all who joined the Southern United States jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite is an appendant body of Freemasonry. It is NOT Freemasonry itself! While all Scottish Rite members are Masons less than 25% of Masons have ever been Scottish Rite members.

Morals and Dogma is a philosophical work, created by an individual who was an extraordinarily prolific writer even for an age when prolific writing was the norm. It was also fashioned in the style of Pike's time when public speaking was a high art form and Pike was known for his skills in this area. Morals and Dogma is not a manifesto (i.e. public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions) for Masonry or even for the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction. It is, rather, an attempt by Pike to provide a framework for understanding religions and philosophies of the past. Pike believed that without knowing the history of a concept, one couldn't grasp the concept itself - and thus his lengthy explanations of various religious beliefs, consistent with knowledge of those beliefs in the mid-1800s. And it's NOT a matter of this book being relevant in "one jurisdiction and not another" as some religious intolerants sometimes claim: this book was NOT written for ANY Masonic jurisdiction: it was written for a totally separate organization in which less than one quarter of Masons have held membership at any point in time.

Grabbing quotes out of context (and this was, after all, his written discussion of various world religions and philosophies), it's quite easy to find things which will make Pike sound just awful. In context - and particularly when one considers that this is one book by one writer - Morals and Dogma simply has no relevance to the actions and activity of Freemasonry. And it should be noted that Masonophobes (anti-Masons) also ignore the hundreds of thousands of Masons who have explained - in books, talks, and on the web in videos, blogs, websites and more - that Pike's book is NOT any type of 'ruling guide' or 'handbook' for Freemasonry. But of course the usual born again nuts will tell us that this is all just part of the conspiracy. After all, without their conspiracy madness their beliefs and theories quickly fall apart.

Another much neglected point concerning Morals and Dogma is that starting in 1871, every edition was and is prefaced with these words:

"Everyone is free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound."

Holy crap! So much for supreme authority.

So why does the nutty professor state in that video that Pike's book is 'the very highest source in Freemasonry' and not note THIS part which totally refutes that claim? How can one assume that Masons follow blindly everything else Pike 'taught' (he wasn't 'teaching' but that's another discussion) but ignore this sentence right at the start of the book? Could it be because the nutty professor is actually not interested in knowing the truth but merely pushing his warped conspiracy-fueled born again agenda?

For the record Pike never held an authoritative office in Freemasonry. Pike joined Freemasonry in 1851 and in 1855 (four years later) was the Master of his lodge. He also served his Grand Lodge as the Chairman of the Committee on Masonic Law & Usage and for a year held his highest office in Freemasonry: his Grand Lodge's Chairman of the Library Committee. While these are important offices, they were at a jurisdictional level and NOT involving hundreds of other Grand Lodges worldwide. He received the Scottish Rite degrees from Albert Mackey and immediately undertook the task of re-writing them to provide a more organized series of lessons which would (ostensibly) impart knowledge. Again, this ONLY applied to the Scottish Rite Southern United States Jurisdiction. The degrees in the rest of the world (including the then more populous Northern Masonic Jurisdiction in the United States) were NOT re-written by Pike, once again reinforcing the fact that Pike did NOT rule Freemasonry - or even the entire Scottish Rite!

But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory huh?

The nutty professor then quotes from Morals and Dogma (page 817) as follows:

"The Templars, like all other Secret Orders and Associations, had two doctrines, one concealed and reserved for the Masters, which was Johannism; the other public, which was the Roman Catholic."

What he doesn't tell us is that these are not Pike's words. This is Pike quoting someone else, in fact an enemy of Masonry making allegations against Masonry. Let's turn back to page 814 and we read:

"Now, from the tomb in which after his murders he rotted, Clement the Fifth howls against the successors of his victims, in the Allocution of Pio Nono against the Free-Masons."

on page 815 he tells us:

"An enemy of the Templars shall tell us the secret of this Papal hostility against an Order that has existed for centuries in despite of its anathemas, and has its Sanctuaries and Asyla even in Rome.

It will be easy, as we read, to separate the false from the true, the audacious conjectures from the simple facts."

He then begins the quote which takes us across no less than 5 pages. Check it out yourself:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/md31.htm

Why doesn't the nutty professor clarify this? Could it be that it just doesn't suit his conspiracy fueled agenda?

Then again in the video if you forward to 6:36 you will find the idiotic professor again attributing words to Pike which he never made. Here is the source:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/md31.htm

Pike is quoting allegations by an anti-Mason and the nutty professor thinks its Pike revealing the true purpose of Freemasonry. Its hilarious.

I have only just covered the first 7 minutes of the lecture by the nutty professor and already the cracks are all over the place. Stick around to see what else will unravel.

Stay tuned, much more to come...

Last edited by exu156; 12-08-2012 at 02:47 PM.
exu156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 AM.