Jacques Vallee interview and Jesus of Nazareth

[Kim323]

Thanks, redpill and goggsmackay. Just wanted to reiterate that my reference to something ezechiel said as foolishness in my last post just above, though I qualified it clearly, was a bit too much, and no personal affront or insinuation was intended. Disagree to the heavens, yes! But that word has more connotation than I meant or intended. Kim

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Can't speak for Ezechiel but I kinda got it and Ezechiel is switched on enough to see that too I think. Never hurts to ensure clarity though, especially with the way a few threads have gone recently (not all religious either)!

 

[Ezechiel]

Ezechiel - you are spot on in making the distinction that the corruption of the message is a human thing. In my mind the message is human-made anyway....I think an all-powerful God, who really wanted to give instructions to mankind would make sure of a few things:
1. That all humans have an equal chance to hear those instructions.
2. That it is made clear what the original words are in all languages so it can never be tweaked by humans.

Just those 2 reasons are more than enough for me not to have any faith in the religious books because any god who would be so careless as to allow to happen what has undoubtedly happened, is not worthy of respect, let alone worship.

These exact 2 reasons have meant 'check mate against religions' for me since grade school and why these simple realizations never triggerred red flags is stupefying lol (intense indoctrination ?). The emergence of the internet and the 'Global Village' (Alvin Toffler) triggered a cultural shockwave exposing the true centrist self-righteous nature of religions. This new global perspective should eventually move us all to secular values that are common to all backgrounds.... Unless people like Sanctorum bring us back to the dark ages lol.

An all powerful god micro-managing earth through a single individual belonging to a specific religion ? That's a recipe for disaster and irrational beyond belief on a universal scale.

Keeping religions and fundamentalists in check will definitely be a challenge for the next century. Their interference with politics is undeniable... padding the supreme courts with conservative judges (Rowe vs Wade part II anyone ?). Interfering with science (stem cell research)... etc. Interfering with civil liberties (definition of marriage). Oppressing women (put on a burka won't you !).

 

[Ezechiel]

Ezechiel - you may be interested to know that when I was in basic training for the Navy, on a sunday it is compulsory to attend church. Now, the smart people quickly realised it was the single time in the week that you got a chance to relax without having to be somewhere, having to get your uniform spotless, running about etc. Even though I am not religious at all I quickly treasured those sunday mornings, only cos of the break though.

Resolving moral issues ? Church has traditionally been the logical answer especially since the 'thou shall not kill' commandment contradicts what troops are trained for. Assuming 90% of americans are christian, resolving that psychic conflict drilled in from birth would be job one.

... wonders what Chinese troops do on sunday morning

 

[Kim323]

Hey, Ezechiel. First of all, it's Rick Santorum, not SANCTORUM. The latter is the plural possessive, the genitive plural of sanctus/sanctum in Latin. And don't tell me you meant that as a pun or whatever, you didn't.

If you would read my other posts on this subject, and gosh, have I have tried mightily to stick to the subject, you will see that I, and many Christians, are all for stem cell research, gay marriage, women's rights (where have you been?), and on and on and on as I have said in my posts, and this is commonly known by most people by far.

"Keeping religions and fundamentalists in check will definitely be a challenge for the next century." "Padding the supreme courts." "Interfering with civil liberties." "Oppressing women." Christianity is a "recipe for disaster and irrational beyond belief."

You try to come across, Ezechiel, as the new man, the creature of humanism and "secular values," the heir to "a cultural shockwave" engendered by "the internet and the global village." You left out the "multiculturalism" you say Jesus didn't have or forsee, and the "population control" he, personally, mind you (!), began.

Goggsmackay has heart, Ezechiel, if I may reference that fine Scottish gentleman. He thinks and wonders, and asks questions, not only in general, but to me, and the ones to me I have not claimed I answered anywhere near adequately. You parrot, what, I don't know exactly. As I've pointed out ad nauseam, you compress everything into one thing to make these big and grand points that rest, on, well, what? You come from the perspective of, really, contempt, derision, and ridicule of religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity, and are still living the conclusions you trumpet so loudly as some sort of epiphany from "grade school." As a teacher, I will tell you I am suspect that no growth in the understanding of the sanctity of history as a scholarly endeavor worthy of respect and study has seemingly taken place. In short, Ezechiel, you seem to be still stuck in grade school.

I really don't see how you can deny that your attacks are not from any factual basis, but are, rather, pretentious I think, attacks based on something in you personally that has nothing to do with the grand things that are truly historical. History requires an adherence to a willingness to understand it, to study it, and if you think Constantine "fabricated" Jesus and Christianity at the Council of Nicaea, well, ahem...................... If so, and you have said you believe that, you clearly have read nothing about not only Constantine or Nicaea, but of that whole period of the history of the Roman Empire and the history of Christianity. I know, in ten seconds you could embed something you found on that internet you triumphantly hold up as the new wave that supplants that horrible Christianity, but you haven't read much if any of Roman history.

Lastly, since you alluded to Santorum and mentioned Alvin Toffler, do you know who wrote the forward to Toffler's book, Creating a New Civilization? No, it wasn't Santorum, but when you mentioned Alvin Toffler, like your posting of the Gustave Dore picture you said proved your contention that religion was a conspiracy for population control, it rang a bell just as quickly as my recognition of the Dore picture, and I found my copy of Toffler's book on my shelves. Do you know? If you hate Santorum.................................. Kim

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Let's try to keep this thread civil please.

Thanks

 

[Kim323]

Yes, Angelo, and thanks, I agree. ARRRGGGG! If a racial group, other religion specifically, sexual persuasion, etc., had this stuff directed at them, there'd be all heck to pay. I really never dreamed Christianity was so reviled, at least here, but I do take what you said to heart. I was so relieved frankly to see the threads about Jesus and religion actually drift off the what's new list, and then, zap! But I will control my tongue, bite it if I have to. Thanks. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

All of this is well and good but why should people who represent themselves as the mouthpiece of supernatural beings be taken seriously by modern human beings? Is there anything about their complicated systems of spiritual protocols that could elevate any of them above the designation of superstition? When you get past the simple "Treat each other nice." and "Don't make a mess where you eat." what do you have? A bunch of competing franchises. Again, I will point out for those paying attention, I have not singled out one particular group to revile over another.

 

[trainedobserver]

If a racial group, other religion specifically, sexual persuasion, etc., had this stuff directed at them, there'd be all heck to pay.

Religious groups are based on beliefs. Sexuality and race are not.

Religious belief systems certainly are open to criticism and ridicule and should not enjoy any special status because of a belief held in the mind as opposed to a biological reality like race or sexual orientation.

 

[Ezechiel]

Hey, Ezechiel. First of all, it's Rick Santorum, not SANCTORUM. The latter is the plural possessive, the genitive plural of sanctus/sanctum in Latin. And don't tell me you meant that as a pun or whatever, you didn't.

LOL, what makes you think it wasn't a pun. Go ahead and enlighten everybody

If you would read my other posts on this subject, and gosh, have I have tried mightily to stick to the subject, you will see that I, and many Christians, are all for stem cell research, gay marriage, women's rights (where have you been?), and on and on and on as I have said in my posts, and this is commonly known by most people by far.

Fundamentalists are not. I don't remember writing that you were ?

"Keeping religions and fundamentalists in check will definitely be a challenge for the next century." "Padding the supreme courts." "Interfering with civil liberties." "Oppressing women." Christianity is a "recipe for disaster and irrational beyond belief."

You try to come across, Ezechiel, as the new man, the creature of humanism and "secular values," the heir to "a cultural shockwave" engendered by "the internet and the global village." You left out the "multiculturalism" you say Jesus didn't have or forsee, and the "population control" he, personally, mind you (!), began.

My point is: a global village context is incompatible with the rigidity and intolerance of some religions. You can have your Jesus thing.... just don't push it on everybody. Same with Mohammed... just don't kill us all infidels.

As a teacher, I will tell you I am suspect that no growth in the understanding of the sanctity of history as a scholarly endeavor worthy of respect and study has seemingly taken place. In short, Ezechiel, you seem to be still stuck in grade school.

I take it you teach in some kind of religious environment ?

I really don't see how you can deny that your attacks are not from any factual basis, but are, rather, pretentious I think, attacks based on something in you personally that has nothing to do with the grand things that are truly historical. History requires an adherence to a willingness to understand it, to study it, and if you think Constantine "fabricated" Jesus and Christianity at the Council of Nicaea, well, ahem...................... If so, and you have said you believe that, you clearly have read nothing about not only Constantine or Nicaea, but of that whole period of the history of the Roman Empire and the history of Christianity. I know, in ten seconds you could embed something you found on that internet you triumphantly hold up as the new wave that supplants that horrible Christianity, but you haven't read much if any of Roman history.

?! does not compute.

Lastly, since you alluded to Santorum and mentioned Alvin Toffler, do you know who wrote the forward to Toffler's book, Creating a New Civilization? No, it wasn't Santorum, but when you mentioned Alvin Toffler, like your posting of the Gustave Dore picture you said proved your contention that religion was a conspiracy for population control, it rang a bell just as quickly as my recognition of the Dore picture, and I found my copy of Toffler's book on my shelves. Do you know? If you hate Santorum.................................. Kim

Make my day .... (oh boy)

 

[Kim323]

Ok, then what do you believe, and/or what do you believe in? I mean , is it ezechiel's, seemingly so, secular values? Is it this new age of multiculturalism, the Internet, and "planetary values" he sort of describes? If I understand him, that is. He directly accuses Jesus, Christianity, and the God of Christianity of, well, just about all the horrors of the world from its inception to the present day.

And make no mistake about it, Jesus, Christianity, and the Christian God ARE ninety percent of the object of derision and ridicule here, with the Jews thrown in for good measure with stone hart's "desert sheepherders...........". That, really, is true, as I have assiduously have followed three/four threads on Jesus, Christianity, and judaeism, as you all know, and as pedantic as I sometimes am, I know that i have largely endeavored and have largely stayed on the topic.

I don't mean any of the above provocatively or personally.

So, ok, I'd like to know what members of a forum on the paranormal/supernatural do, and I mean DO





actually believe as to, what, struggling here, systems of belief. Honestly interested.

I'm re-reading Civilized Life in the Universe: Scientists on Intelligent Extraterrestials, Oxford university press,2006. There have been/are very reputable scientists who believe that this SETI stuff hypothesizing anthrpomorphized aliens is so statistically and scientifically improbable that it's well-nigh right next to impossible.

And intelligence???????? THAT ALONE even is so presumptuous say, again, some very reputable scientists. Predicting evolution on other worlds is a pipe dream. And how about science itself???? As revered as science is here on earth, it's not even necessary in order to live or exist even here, much less on other worlds. So science as a means of even communicating is far from assured.

We may well be alone in the universe, not only as the only life, but even more likely so as to what we are.










So, there's no proof at all, say many scientists, that life exists elsewhere.

So, what just do people here believe in that they are so sure of??? Again, not meant at all to be an adversarial question. What do you subscribe to that, really, you are so sure of, what are the for sure constants you hold dear or just plain believe in that has no remote scent of the supernatural, and is so rooted in fact and surety that no way, no how can it be derided/challenged/questioned, so you rest comfortably and surely upon it's bedrock in your life?

Let's leave judaism, Christianity, and Jesus alone for a while.

 

[Kim323]

Excuse the structure of that post. Typing with one finger on my son's iPad wreaks havoc with previewing and editing. And I put an apostrophe in its where it is anathema to a teacher to put it. Most of my posting is done on my pc where I can type normally! Anyway would like to hear answers, genuinely so, to the question I posed above. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

Ok, then what do you believe, and/or what do you believe in?

Should we get into a discussion about the difference between belief and knowledge? Or would that just be a waste of time?

I believe as Vallee said, that "Not only is there an amazing willingness in the human mind to invest credence and faith in unproven facts, but there is more evil, more readiness than ever on the part of various sophisticated groups, to use this human weakness as a tool in controlling others."

I believe that the only hope for humanity is to flee from the superstitions of the past and to shed the chains of the irrational belief systems that hold up non-human entities, and often their human emissaries, as objects of worship and authority.

I do not believe that supernatural beings communicate their wants and desires to humanity through humans or any other agent. I also believe that if they did, that would not mean we should take them at their word or offer them any special honors.

I do not believe that anyone claiming to be the spokesperson for a god, gods, goddesses, or extra-terrestrials should enjoy any special status or be exempt from criticism or out right ridicule went it is deserved just because they believe a non-human entity (god or alien) is communicating with them, their teachers, or their leaders.

 

[Kim323]

Ezechiel, I realize our posts crossed, but I wanted to say that my "Jesus thing," and then a very direct allusion to killing is crossing the line.

I have, if you have read my posts on this topic, have stayed on the topic, and HAVE NEVER PUSHED my "Jesus thing" on anybody. And, your "it does not compute" is a copout to my comments to you about history. If you believe what you say about the emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, you comprise a membership of one in the field of reputable scholars. And no, I have said I taught for 35 years in a public school setting.

"Global village," you keep saying. Believe me, you would not want to live in this idealized "village," as per Joseph Campbell, with the "cultural good," assumed by the very nature of a tribe or village to be possessed by each person in it, the must-be-adhered-to-or-else law of that village. Not all bad, but you idealize horribly, and that it could be applied to a whole planet with its many different cultures, languages, etc. is something I'm confused about. So, I ask you what I asked above: what DO you believe in? What belief system of constants such that it addresses humanity and how you perceive it, and will apply to humanity's future, etc. See my questions above. Thanks. Kim

 

[Ezechiel]

He directly accuses Jesus, Christianity, and the God of Christianity of, well, just about all the horrors of the world from its inception to the present day.

That's a bad interpretation. Here's the correct one:

Jesus is a framework (system of values with a stamp of god). This framework was used by all kinds of leaders (religious and not) as moral justification to oppress and dominate over competing religions. Thus the religious wars, past and present.

Why would a supreme being address a small region instead of a planet? (the ultimate micromanagement) I remember a 'chosen' people, the aryan race they were called, they met fierce resistance

 

[Kim323]

See my posts above. What do you believe in, you? Not what I've said, what you say, specifically, using your knowledge of humanity, science, whatever. I only know what you hold in contempt, and I mean that as simply a statement of fact. It's clear what you believe about Christianity, and I suggested we shift to you. Thanks. Kim

 

[Ezechiel]

"Global village," you keep saying. Believe me, you would not want to live in this idealized "village," as per Joseph Campbell, with the "cultural good," assumed by the very nature of a tribe or village to be possessed by each person in it, the must-be-adhered-to-or-else law of that village. Not all bad, but you idealize horribly, and that it could be applied to a whole planet with its many different cultures, languages, etc. is something I'm confused about. So, I ask you what I asked above: what DO you believe in? What belief system of constants such that it addresses humanity and how you perceive it, and will apply to humanity's future, etc. See my questions above. Thanks. Kim

Hate to break it to you, but you're living in it right now. Thus the disputes between secular and conservative forces in the U.S.A. Take a quick look at the GOP race, social issues resolved through the state or the church ?

I believe in what works and what will potentially fix what doesn't work
... as long as we keep working on it and are not stopped in our tracks by religious dictates based on dated scripture.

 

[Kim323]

Trained, you said the only thing you believe IN, in a positive sense, is the Vallee quote, your signature. The rest is more of the same, yes partly derision, about what you DON'T believe. Be more specific. The only other positive I believe is actually a rejection of the superstition you refer to. But you haven't begun to elucidate WHAT you believe in such that it addresses humanity, its past, present, future, gosh, do I have to define the question so much that it loses its validity? And don't get into the rhetorical split hairs stuff of, shall we get into the difference between belief and...................... Come on. This is a chance to put down some I believe. It's YOUR beliefs I'm asking about. Thanks. Kim

 

[Kim323]

"I believe in what works." Copout supreme. I asked you and Trained what you believe in. Not what you don't believe in. You can't have a system of belief based on what you don't like, and I know what you don't like, believe me. What do YOU believe in? I even brought up what reputable scientists have said about humans being alone in the universe. I mean, really, you two, what is your framework? What works, Ezechiel? Goggsmackay asked me a very specific question about Jesus's message being confined to pretty much only the Jews. I answered in a roundabout way HISTORICALLY that Christianity had spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire, etc., but I made clear that I was being inadequate because any further explanation would be my opinion, and yes, too, my belief. I have certain beliefs that I believe in because I believe them factually and historically, and yes, some of these are Christian, and I've avoided stating them directly. That's what I'm asking you and Trained, Ezechiel, what, factually and historically, do you believe, scientifically if you want to go in that direction? All you're saying is how certain things should be open to ridicule (you said that directly, Trained). I mean, am I mistaken that some/many people, because they are human, strive to understand things based on facts, and through that striving, come to believe in things that yes, are supernatural (just to use that term), because factually, and I stress factually, to believe otherwise is to reach into such a realm of improbability that statistically the supernatural (again, just to use that term) is a very, very credible component? That is the framework of what I believe in, me, Kim, and I know people who are not whom you two condemn so strenuously, that have done the same. So, in that light, then, or any light, what do you believe in based on your own research and knowledge, not your experience of those blasted conservatives, etc., etc.? Thanks. Kim

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Trained, you said the only thing you believe IN, in a positive sense, is the Vallee quote, your signature. The rest is more of the same, yes partly derision, about what you DON'T believe. Be more specific. The only other positive I believe is actually a rejection of the superstition you refer to. But you haven't begun to elucidate WHAT you believe in such that it addresses humanity, its past, present, future, gosh, do I have to define the question so much that it loses its validity? And don't get into the rhetorical split hairs stuff of, shall we get into the difference between belief and...................... Come on. This is a chance to put down some I believe. It's YOUR beliefs I'm asking about. Thanks. Kim

"Belief is the Enemy" ~John Keel

Such phrase shouldn't be confused as a nihilistic or cynic statement, just as a cautionary note from a man who looked deep into the unknown, to find out the unknown was looking back at him...

(The juicy part starts at 8:57)