Konrad Hartmann
Paranormal Maven
Ha! Thanks, Burnt State.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Rosemary Ellen Guiley
- Thread starter wwkirk
- Start date
Free episodes:
Konrad Hartmann
Paranormal Maven
Bob Zanotti
Onbeat/Offbeat Broadcaster
Konrad,
Thanks for your kind comments and further questions. I can address all of them, but I wanted to get some input from my Hindu monk friend regarding Rakshasa. I'll get back ASAP. Bob[/quote]
Hi Konrad. Sorry for the delay, but I only got a response from my Hindu monk friend today. Here is what he had to say:
“Rakshasa is a term for very demoniac entities ("man eaters") - the worst of demons, and quite powerful, but ultimately weak because of their hatred of God and the divine. Djinn is, as far as I know, a term for similar entities. Narasimha is an incarnation (avatara) of Vishnu/Krishna, to protect his devotees and destroy the ungodly who try to harm them”.
C.G. Jung: I have been friends with an instructor (their term for “professor”) at the Jung Institute in Zurich for many years. She is also a practicing Jungian analyst-psychiatrist. We have had literally hundreds of hours of dialogue over the years, so I’ve had a fairly good exposure to Jung’s ideas.
Jung was a spiritual – some would say “religious” man, raised in a Zurich Protestant family. But he was very open to what could be called the “paranormal” and Eastern philosophy. He accepted the ideas of karma and reincarnation, which, I believe, later inspired Harvard’s John Mack in his work. As an aside, Jung’s acceptance of the “paranormal” was one of the reasons for his falling-out with Sigmund Freud.
On the specific issue of Shadows, Jung did not, to my knowledge, refer to them in the context of demons or Djinn. On the other hand, Jungians talk about Shadows as though they were living entities that have to be dealt with by the individual. Otherwise, the shadows will always return until they have been “addressed” or acknowledged by the individual. They reside in the inner depths of the unconscious, and occasionally break out of their unconscious confinement, and “demand” to be heard or acknowledged. I would speculate that, in effect, Jung’s Shadows could well be considered “demons”.
Hinduism is obviously very familiar with demons, and they even have names. It’s interesting that Roman Catholic tradition is similar. As in the case of Jung’s Shadows, in the Catholic monastic tradition, in particular, the individual must confront the demons in or around him, in order to understand what they want and why they are doing what they are doing. It is considered possible, as in Hinduism, that demons can be responsible for changes in behavior. We all know about demonic possession and exorcism.
In some RC monasteries, monks were actually locked in their cells to force a confrontation between them and the demon. It seems to me that this is very similar to what Jung taught about dealing with Shadows. The well-known German Benedictine monk, Anselm Grün, wrote about this in the book “Der Umgang mit dem Bösen: Der Dämonenkampf im alten Mönchtum”. What he describes is very close to Vedic teachings and those of Jung. The thought comes to me that maybe this is what Jesus was doing when he went into the desert and was confronted by the “devil”.
TM: I know the article you speak of, and read it several years ago. I also contacted the author. He turned out to be abusive, and in my opinion, had some personal, neurotic issue with the TM Movement. I understand he was/is a TM teacher. I asked him several questions about his position, but he became so hostile, I simply broke off contact with him. He’s got a grudge of some kind, and I would leave it at this, and not give much credence to his comments.
TM is a technique of mantra meditation. It derives from Ayurveda “The Science of Living”. This is a comprehensive set of advice for healthy living. It is part of Vedic Science, of which yoga in all its forms is a part. TM is completely separate from the TM Movement, and is philosophically and religiously neutral. It requires no belief of any kind. There is no religious awareness, per se, although religious people often report deeper spiritual insight and therefore, a reinforcement of their faith as a result of practicing TM. But TM will work just as well for an atheist.
A key part of the practice of TM is settling down the mind – i.e. lowering the entropy of consciousness. What happens is that this “mental chill-down” allows very deep-seated thoughts to be released from the unconscious and rise to the conscious surface. This is likened to champagne bubbles rising from the bottom of the bottle and dispersing when they reach the top. This is where the release of deep stress comes from. But I can also see a clear parallel here between Jung’s Shadows and the Hindu and Catholic techniques of confronting “Djinn”.
I hope this is what you were look for.
Best wishes,
Bob
SlightlyAbovePar
Skilled Investigator
Wow. The thread that just won't quit!
If you (the royal you) spend most of your argument trying to paint your opposition with the most negative brush possible, you simply don't possess enough "ammunition" to defend your beliefs. It's really that simple.
Paragraph after paragraph explaining how dull you think skeptics are only highlights how little you have to say in defense of your beliefs. If your supposed evidence were as strong as you (again the royal you) like to pretend, you would be talking about said evidence.
You don't, because you can't.
If you (the royal you) spend most of your argument trying to paint your opposition with the most negative brush possible, you simply don't possess enough "ammunition" to defend your beliefs. It's really that simple.
Paragraph after paragraph explaining how dull you think skeptics are only highlights how little you have to say in defense of your beliefs. If your supposed evidence were as strong as you (again the royal you) like to pretend, you would be talking about said evidence.
You don't, because you can't.
RenaissanceLady
Paranormal Adept
I'm a little late to this discussion as I only just heard the program. My two cents:
I agree with what many of the skeptics are saying. I would hate for us to jump to relatively extraordinary conclusions for events and situations which we cannot yet define. Giving a supernatural explanation for events which may be firmly routed in science is a way of admitting defeat. There is absolutely no purpose in study if we can easily dismiss what we do not understand simply because we claim it has supernatural origins.
However.... I also appreciate that I am looking at this topic through the lens of a dominant culture bias. I suspect that every person on this thread has an extremely Western view of the world, usually to the point of dismissing other cultures' "truths" or belief-systems. (As an example, think of the cultural beliefs and attitudes in Far East Asia, even among their scientific communities. We should also consider many prevalent attitudes of our native communities which may seem abhorrently foreign to our own culture. I imagine Chris could describe this in detail.) Though I may personally disagree with many of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's conclusions in the program, I still have tremendous respect for the research she has done and understand that ancient cultures may have "truths" which are far different from my own. I genuinely appreciated the look into what we would describe as ancient or traditional folklore. I should admit that I have two of her encyclopedias and still consider her to be a solid researcher and author. I'm glad she was a guest on the Paracast.
I agree with what many of the skeptics are saying. I would hate for us to jump to relatively extraordinary conclusions for events and situations which we cannot yet define. Giving a supernatural explanation for events which may be firmly routed in science is a way of admitting defeat. There is absolutely no purpose in study if we can easily dismiss what we do not understand simply because we claim it has supernatural origins.
However.... I also appreciate that I am looking at this topic through the lens of a dominant culture bias. I suspect that every person on this thread has an extremely Western view of the world, usually to the point of dismissing other cultures' "truths" or belief-systems. (As an example, think of the cultural beliefs and attitudes in Far East Asia, even among their scientific communities. We should also consider many prevalent attitudes of our native communities which may seem abhorrently foreign to our own culture. I imagine Chris could describe this in detail.) Though I may personally disagree with many of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's conclusions in the program, I still have tremendous respect for the research she has done and understand that ancient cultures may have "truths" which are far different from my own. I genuinely appreciated the look into what we would describe as ancient or traditional folklore. I should admit that I have two of her encyclopedias and still consider her to be a solid researcher and author. I'm glad she was a guest on the Paracast.
Bob Zanotti
Onbeat/Offbeat Broadcaster
THIS IS DIRECTED TO KONRAD HARTMANN
Konrad, I posted this reply to your latest posting to me several hours ago. It showed up here as having been posted, but checking back, it can't be found! I can only conclude that either the Deros or other dark forces are at work, or more likely, that I don't really understand how this forum software works.
In any case, here it is again:
===========================================
Hello again, Konrad.
What you’ve written here and elsewhere is very interesting. You are extremely well versed in this field, and there is probably little I can contribute to your further knowledge.
Your observations about the gradual loss of focus and understanding of the Dark Forces is quite correct. As we move away from an object it gets out of focus. I think part of the problem, if not most of it, has come with the decline of institutional religion, especially in the West, and the corresponding rise in secularism. So-called “modern science” has been a major factor in this, if for no other reason than it cannot co-exist with God Consciousness or the Divine, or at least refuses to entertain the idea.
It has always amazed me how allegedly intelligent minds can deny intelligence behind the Universe. They present all kinds of convoluted propositions that aim to deny the existence of a superior, creative and orderly intelligence (beyond theirs, that is).
According to their reasoning, if we were to throw a ton of scrap metal into a container, shake it up and let it stand for a million years, it would turn into a car. Absurd to be sure, but typical of their mentality. I cannot help but recall Thomas Edison’s favorite saying by Sir Joshua Reynolds. It hung all over Edison’s laboratory in Orange, New Jersey:
“There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labour of thinking”.
“Science” loses tremendous amounts of mental energy in trying to disprove the obvious or what it arrogantly will not accept. Maybe it’s a kind of conscious or unconscious revenge for what the Church did to early Science. In any case, “modern” science is obsessed with explaining what is unexplainable in material terms, which is really all they’re willing to accept as reality. This is an especially nasty form of Materialism, which is all they appear to be able to understand.
But all that this kind of “science” can do is observe and describe phenomena – which it has not created. They haven’t a clue what it is or who or what created it. What’s more, when pushed for an explanation, they eventually reach the point of desperation and start clutching for straws, for example, by referring to “Nature”. But what is “Nature” beside a convenient euphemism for God? Who or what is behind “Nature”? “Science” will give us complex dissertations on physics and celestial mechanics. But not one scientist can explain who or what created “Natural Law” and the “materia” that makes up our Universe. We constantly hear statements that involve the phrase “The human body, or the heart, or the legs (etc.) are *designed to* (something)…….
OK. But the logical follow-up question to that is “Who designed it”? That’s where “science” hits a brink wall and changes the subject.
But this mentality does not exist in ancient Vedic Science. Their understanding of their job (also shared by early European Science) was to understand the intricacies of Creation and Natural Law, but – very importantly – at the same time, acknowledging that only a super intelligence could be behind it. To me, this is real Science, based on awe and humility, and not egocentric arrogance.
It’s interesting that the most accomplished of scientists share that ancient point of view. The BBC once did a feature about the religious views of leading scientists. They interviewed Nobel Prize winners in various fields, including Physics and Astrophysics. All of them said that as they got deeper and deeper into their work and understood Creation and the Universe better, it became obvious that “intelligence” is the only rational explanation for what is behind it. There is no way all of it could happen by chance.
I once interviewed Professor John Wheeler of Princeton, the astrophysicist and Einstein collaborator. Wheeler was attending the symposium in Bern marking the 100th anniversary of the Special Theory of Relativity, which Einstein wrote when he lived in Bern. Wheeler is the originator of terms like “black hole” and worm hole”. I asked him about his view of what is termed today “Intelligent Design”. His answer: “We are like an ant walking on the surface of a balloon. That ant will never be able to rise up above the surface to look down and understand the context of its existence. That’s where God takes over”.
There’s a lot of disinformation and downright false claims about Einstein, himself, being “anti-religious” and an atheist. But this is what he wrote to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York in April 1921, in reply to the Rabbi’s letter to Einstein, asking simply :”Do you believe in God”? Einstein’s wrote:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Interestingly, this is highly compatible with the teaching of Hinduism, which holds that God (Krishna) was the origin of the force that “desired” the creation of the Universe and all things seen and unseen within it. But the actual “engineering details” about how to achieve Creation, including all material life forms, were left to the demigods and other divine “functionaries”.
Well, I guess I got a little carried away! But I suspect an element of synchronicity involved that had to be satisfied.
As for Jung’s “Active Imagination”, I haven’t read the book, but I was personally involved in a lot of dream analysis and the application of Active Imagination. This certainly is part of Jung’s “Shadows”. I can also see a relationship with Djinn or demons.
I think we’re dealing here with a classic case of “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – whatever the term applied, we’re talking about the same thing, but from different perspectives. Personally, I agree that the ancients had a much better understanding of what these energies and entities are than Western society has today. As you rightly say, the catch-all term is “Satan”, “The devil” or “Darkness”, all depending on the religious tradition.
But while we focus on the “evil” or malevolent aspect of some of the incarnate spirits, we mustn’t forget that there are many others existing in “The Light” – the opposite of demons or Evil. Here, we can once again compare the similarities of Jung’s Shadows and the practice of TM. In both cases, these elements of the unconscious can also be creative or beneficial, but only if allowed to surface to the conscious level.
As you again rightly say, so much of our present-day problems is caused by “noise” in our heads. Every part of the waking day is filled with some conscious distraction or activity. The worst thing is that all of this is actually “designed” to kill time and to put a barrier between our consciousness and the Shadows of the unconscious. Modern people are actually afraid of silence, and avoid it like Dracula avoids the crucifix! But it is those pent-up Shadows and “entities” or “energies” that we avoid dealing with that are screaming to be released and addressed– just like pressure that has to be relieved. And if they are not released, something’s going to “blow”.
In TM and other meditative techniques, we let go of the conscious world. This is like removing the cork on a champagne bottle, thus accessing the unconscious “bubbles” of the Shadows that are there. During this process, these rise to the conscious level, and we are confronted by a myriad of seemingly random or meaningless thoughts. But as well as releasing a lot of deep tension and thus relieving stress, we also frequently experience very creative thoughts in this state. As in Active Imagination, we can also get to know our innermost Self better.
“Going into silence” through meditation or prayer is known to all the great religions as a method of gaining spiritual insight and growth, but also as a practical technique for reducing the entropy of the conscious mind, and therefore, greatly improving mental coherence and orderliness, which, come to think of it, is the essence of the Universe – i.e. the orderliness that governs the Universe. By “transcending”, we become a closer part of the Universe, itself, and so, we can “tank up” on energy, as a positive spin-off. This is also the state that is a prerequisite for astral travel and psychic abilities.
As for attracting dark forces, it’s simple: You’re known by the company you keep, and this applies to entities we attract, good or bad. Lifestyle and mental state is key here. Unusual changes in personal behavior can very easily be associated with this. I would say that applying this principle to such things as rampage killings and other atrocities is not inappropriate. Here too meditative techniques can be a great help.
Before I wear out my welcome here on the Forum, I think I’ll end this ith an “Amen”.
Bob
Konrad, I posted this reply to your latest posting to me several hours ago. It showed up here as having been posted, but checking back, it can't be found! I can only conclude that either the Deros or other dark forces are at work, or more likely, that I don't really understand how this forum software works.
In any case, here it is again:===========================================
Hello again, Konrad.
What you’ve written here and elsewhere is very interesting. You are extremely well versed in this field, and there is probably little I can contribute to your further knowledge.
Your observations about the gradual loss of focus and understanding of the Dark Forces is quite correct. As we move away from an object it gets out of focus. I think part of the problem, if not most of it, has come with the decline of institutional religion, especially in the West, and the corresponding rise in secularism. So-called “modern science” has been a major factor in this, if for no other reason than it cannot co-exist with God Consciousness or the Divine, or at least refuses to entertain the idea.
It has always amazed me how allegedly intelligent minds can deny intelligence behind the Universe. They present all kinds of convoluted propositions that aim to deny the existence of a superior, creative and orderly intelligence (beyond theirs, that is).
According to their reasoning, if we were to throw a ton of scrap metal into a container, shake it up and let it stand for a million years, it would turn into a car. Absurd to be sure, but typical of their mentality. I cannot help but recall Thomas Edison’s favorite saying by Sir Joshua Reynolds. It hung all over Edison’s laboratory in Orange, New Jersey:
“There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labour of thinking”.
“Science” loses tremendous amounts of mental energy in trying to disprove the obvious or what it arrogantly will not accept. Maybe it’s a kind of conscious or unconscious revenge for what the Church did to early Science. In any case, “modern” science is obsessed with explaining what is unexplainable in material terms, which is really all they’re willing to accept as reality. This is an especially nasty form of Materialism, which is all they appear to be able to understand.
But all that this kind of “science” can do is observe and describe phenomena – which it has not created. They haven’t a clue what it is or who or what created it. What’s more, when pushed for an explanation, they eventually reach the point of desperation and start clutching for straws, for example, by referring to “Nature”. But what is “Nature” beside a convenient euphemism for God? Who or what is behind “Nature”? “Science” will give us complex dissertations on physics and celestial mechanics. But not one scientist can explain who or what created “Natural Law” and the “materia” that makes up our Universe. We constantly hear statements that involve the phrase “The human body, or the heart, or the legs (etc.) are *designed to* (something)…….
OK. But the logical follow-up question to that is “Who designed it”? That’s where “science” hits a brink wall and changes the subject.
But this mentality does not exist in ancient Vedic Science. Their understanding of their job (also shared by early European Science) was to understand the intricacies of Creation and Natural Law, but – very importantly – at the same time, acknowledging that only a super intelligence could be behind it. To me, this is real Science, based on awe and humility, and not egocentric arrogance.
It’s interesting that the most accomplished of scientists share that ancient point of view. The BBC once did a feature about the religious views of leading scientists. They interviewed Nobel Prize winners in various fields, including Physics and Astrophysics. All of them said that as they got deeper and deeper into their work and understood Creation and the Universe better, it became obvious that “intelligence” is the only rational explanation for what is behind it. There is no way all of it could happen by chance.
I once interviewed Professor John Wheeler of Princeton, the astrophysicist and Einstein collaborator. Wheeler was attending the symposium in Bern marking the 100th anniversary of the Special Theory of Relativity, which Einstein wrote when he lived in Bern. Wheeler is the originator of terms like “black hole” and worm hole”. I asked him about his view of what is termed today “Intelligent Design”. His answer: “We are like an ant walking on the surface of a balloon. That ant will never be able to rise up above the surface to look down and understand the context of its existence. That’s where God takes over”.
There’s a lot of disinformation and downright false claims about Einstein, himself, being “anti-religious” and an atheist. But this is what he wrote to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York in April 1921, in reply to the Rabbi’s letter to Einstein, asking simply :”Do you believe in God”? Einstein’s wrote:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Interestingly, this is highly compatible with the teaching of Hinduism, which holds that God (Krishna) was the origin of the force that “desired” the creation of the Universe and all things seen and unseen within it. But the actual “engineering details” about how to achieve Creation, including all material life forms, were left to the demigods and other divine “functionaries”.
Well, I guess I got a little carried away! But I suspect an element of synchronicity involved that had to be satisfied.
As for Jung’s “Active Imagination”, I haven’t read the book, but I was personally involved in a lot of dream analysis and the application of Active Imagination. This certainly is part of Jung’s “Shadows”. I can also see a relationship with Djinn or demons.
I think we’re dealing here with a classic case of “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – whatever the term applied, we’re talking about the same thing, but from different perspectives. Personally, I agree that the ancients had a much better understanding of what these energies and entities are than Western society has today. As you rightly say, the catch-all term is “Satan”, “The devil” or “Darkness”, all depending on the religious tradition.
But while we focus on the “evil” or malevolent aspect of some of the incarnate spirits, we mustn’t forget that there are many others existing in “The Light” – the opposite of demons or Evil. Here, we can once again compare the similarities of Jung’s Shadows and the practice of TM. In both cases, these elements of the unconscious can also be creative or beneficial, but only if allowed to surface to the conscious level.
As you again rightly say, so much of our present-day problems is caused by “noise” in our heads. Every part of the waking day is filled with some conscious distraction or activity. The worst thing is that all of this is actually “designed” to kill time and to put a barrier between our consciousness and the Shadows of the unconscious. Modern people are actually afraid of silence, and avoid it like Dracula avoids the crucifix! But it is those pent-up Shadows and “entities” or “energies” that we avoid dealing with that are screaming to be released and addressed– just like pressure that has to be relieved. And if they are not released, something’s going to “blow”.
In TM and other meditative techniques, we let go of the conscious world. This is like removing the cork on a champagne bottle, thus accessing the unconscious “bubbles” of the Shadows that are there. During this process, these rise to the conscious level, and we are confronted by a myriad of seemingly random or meaningless thoughts. But as well as releasing a lot of deep tension and thus relieving stress, we also frequently experience very creative thoughts in this state. As in Active Imagination, we can also get to know our innermost Self better.
“Going into silence” through meditation or prayer is known to all the great religions as a method of gaining spiritual insight and growth, but also as a practical technique for reducing the entropy of the conscious mind, and therefore, greatly improving mental coherence and orderliness, which, come to think of it, is the essence of the Universe – i.e. the orderliness that governs the Universe. By “transcending”, we become a closer part of the Universe, itself, and so, we can “tank up” on energy, as a positive spin-off. This is also the state that is a prerequisite for astral travel and psychic abilities.
As for attracting dark forces, it’s simple: You’re known by the company you keep, and this applies to entities we attract, good or bad. Lifestyle and mental state is key here. Unusual changes in personal behavior can very easily be associated with this. I would say that applying this principle to such things as rampage killings and other atrocities is not inappropriate. Here too meditative techniques can be a great help.
Before I wear out my welcome here on the Forum, I think I’ll end this ith an “Amen”.
Bob
Konrad Hartmann
Paranormal Maven
Hi Bob,
Your post showed up as conversation, and I replied to that so I guess that portion doesn't show up on the forum. That isn't to say the Deros aren't at work, however.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm not all that well-versed in this material. I know a little bit about a lot of things, which holds the potential for the sort of disasters that often result from having just a little bit of knowledge.
Regarding the decline of institutional religion, the topic holds a few complications. Things perhaps became a bit entropic in that these religions held a function of holding a culture together, and as the institutions declined, maybe people didn't really have anything to replace it with. In many ways, though, I feel that the institutions themselves may have contributed to their own decline. Speaking for myself, I was raised Catholic, but never really engaged with or felt a connection to the concepts taught in Mass. I didn't go to Catholic school. The longest conversation I ever had with a priest was when he scolded me in the confessional because I had apparently given a wrong answer to, "When was your last confession?" By the time I was 12, I was agnostic.
Since then, a mountain of evidence has come forth to incriminate not just a number of priests, but also higher-ranking officials. While I never witnessed or experienced any criminal behavior from the clergy, either myself or family members have received church services from priests known to be offenders or from a cardinal known to harbor offenders. The church has failed to deal with these crimes and may arguably be in violation of U.S. RICO laws. And I sometimes feel that, were I still Christian, I might view this whole event as a test from God to determine whether the faithful were willing to stand up against what seems to clearly be an organized act of evil. And by and large, I am disappointed by the passive acceptance of many of my friends, family, and co-workers to these events. Instead of helping the crucified, perhaps they are only making sure that the leather of the Roman flagrum is well-oiled. I don't mean that as an attack on Catholics, but I do mean it as an attack on the church hierarchy.
I'm picking on the Catholic church because I was raised to be part of that institution. I understand that abuses have been exposed in many other religions. I don't meant to pontificate, nor do I wish to denigrate the beliefs of Catholics. But I think that, if the church has experienced a decline, it is because of the horror that the leadership has embraced as a friend.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Regarding science, I suppose I don't view it and spirituality in the same domain. That is, I believe that one can view the world in a scientific view, but also view it on another level in a spiritual view. I think Alan Moore referred to it as a two-state system. Actually, I think he said something like, 'Religion and science are the children of magic, and they both are embarrassed of their parent.' We tend to have a very binary view of everything in our culture, so something has to be only scientific or only spiritual. I try to experience the beauty of both. Science can explain why a plum tastes so good in terms of the chemistry involved and how we are adapted to respond because of the beneficial nutrients in the fruit, or why we may enjoy hot peppers even though they are activating pain receptors. We may understand that we seek mates based on evolutionary drives to reproduce, but we sometimes need a language beyond science to explain the pleasant madness (well, at least madness) involved with romantic love. We may view that love as just an illusion functioning to ensure DNA replication, and we may view the love for our children as a ruse to ensure the protection of our replicated DNA, but that doesn't take away the experience of love.
Many intellectual arguments seem to arise out of a reaction to a given movement. For me, it is important to be able to view existence with my own spiritual beliefs. However, I find problems arising with universal type religions. That is, I view one's spirituality as a very personal event, and I disagree with those who would push their One-True-Religion as the only valid religion. So, I think that some of the pushiness of some materialist positions occurs as a reaction to, for example, Biblical literalists who want to remove evolution from textbooks, people calling for the murder of cartoonists because they drew an upsetting picture, and mutilation of women and children justified in the name of a given faith. Having been a nominal Catholic at one point and a materialist at another point, I understand some of the anger expressed by people against some faith systems. [That said, there are other faith systems outside of religion that have attacked scientists. E.O. Wilson faced rabid opposition because he dared to posit biological influences on sociology, but not so much from religious groups.] [That said, some forms of atheism strike me as evangelical in their tone, casting fire and brimstone upon the non-believers of non-belief.]
In my more speculative moments, I sometimes entertain the notion of an entity or entities seeking to prevent consciousness. I think of a society inundated with psychopharmaceuticals and electronic noise (and yes, I realize my own hypocrisy as I drink cider and write on a computer), and I wonder if there isn't an intelligence at work or conscious effort to keep people from introspective thought. Advertising stabs at our attention wherever we go, and I am swayed by the opinion of Banksy the graffiti artist who claims that we have a right to hijack that sort of forced exposure media. I feel like we are being trained to buy and watch and listen and always, always consume. And I also feel that, simply because we ignore our dreams and our unconscious doesn't mean that those energies go away. Unseen and ignored, our Shadows perhaps grow stronger in the dark, they organize, and they will do things.
Thanks for your interesting perspective, Bob. I think there is much to be said for going into silence. I definitely need to work on meditation.
Konrad
Your post showed up as conversation, and I replied to that so I guess that portion doesn't show up on the forum. That isn't to say the Deros aren't at work, however.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm not all that well-versed in this material. I know a little bit about a lot of things, which holds the potential for the sort of disasters that often result from having just a little bit of knowledge.
Regarding the decline of institutional religion, the topic holds a few complications. Things perhaps became a bit entropic in that these religions held a function of holding a culture together, and as the institutions declined, maybe people didn't really have anything to replace it with. In many ways, though, I feel that the institutions themselves may have contributed to their own decline. Speaking for myself, I was raised Catholic, but never really engaged with or felt a connection to the concepts taught in Mass. I didn't go to Catholic school. The longest conversation I ever had with a priest was when he scolded me in the confessional because I had apparently given a wrong answer to, "When was your last confession?" By the time I was 12, I was agnostic.
Since then, a mountain of evidence has come forth to incriminate not just a number of priests, but also higher-ranking officials. While I never witnessed or experienced any criminal behavior from the clergy, either myself or family members have received church services from priests known to be offenders or from a cardinal known to harbor offenders. The church has failed to deal with these crimes and may arguably be in violation of U.S. RICO laws. And I sometimes feel that, were I still Christian, I might view this whole event as a test from God to determine whether the faithful were willing to stand up against what seems to clearly be an organized act of evil. And by and large, I am disappointed by the passive acceptance of many of my friends, family, and co-workers to these events. Instead of helping the crucified, perhaps they are only making sure that the leather of the Roman flagrum is well-oiled. I don't mean that as an attack on Catholics, but I do mean it as an attack on the church hierarchy.
I'm picking on the Catholic church because I was raised to be part of that institution. I understand that abuses have been exposed in many other religions. I don't meant to pontificate, nor do I wish to denigrate the beliefs of Catholics. But I think that, if the church has experienced a decline, it is because of the horror that the leadership has embraced as a friend.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Regarding science, I suppose I don't view it and spirituality in the same domain. That is, I believe that one can view the world in a scientific view, but also view it on another level in a spiritual view. I think Alan Moore referred to it as a two-state system. Actually, I think he said something like, 'Religion and science are the children of magic, and they both are embarrassed of their parent.' We tend to have a very binary view of everything in our culture, so something has to be only scientific or only spiritual. I try to experience the beauty of both. Science can explain why a plum tastes so good in terms of the chemistry involved and how we are adapted to respond because of the beneficial nutrients in the fruit, or why we may enjoy hot peppers even though they are activating pain receptors. We may understand that we seek mates based on evolutionary drives to reproduce, but we sometimes need a language beyond science to explain the pleasant madness (well, at least madness) involved with romantic love. We may view that love as just an illusion functioning to ensure DNA replication, and we may view the love for our children as a ruse to ensure the protection of our replicated DNA, but that doesn't take away the experience of love.
Many intellectual arguments seem to arise out of a reaction to a given movement. For me, it is important to be able to view existence with my own spiritual beliefs. However, I find problems arising with universal type religions. That is, I view one's spirituality as a very personal event, and I disagree with those who would push their One-True-Religion as the only valid religion. So, I think that some of the pushiness of some materialist positions occurs as a reaction to, for example, Biblical literalists who want to remove evolution from textbooks, people calling for the murder of cartoonists because they drew an upsetting picture, and mutilation of women and children justified in the name of a given faith. Having been a nominal Catholic at one point and a materialist at another point, I understand some of the anger expressed by people against some faith systems. [That said, there are other faith systems outside of religion that have attacked scientists. E.O. Wilson faced rabid opposition because he dared to posit biological influences on sociology, but not so much from religious groups.] [That said, some forms of atheism strike me as evangelical in their tone, casting fire and brimstone upon the non-believers of non-belief.]
In my more speculative moments, I sometimes entertain the notion of an entity or entities seeking to prevent consciousness. I think of a society inundated with psychopharmaceuticals and electronic noise (and yes, I realize my own hypocrisy as I drink cider and write on a computer), and I wonder if there isn't an intelligence at work or conscious effort to keep people from introspective thought. Advertising stabs at our attention wherever we go, and I am swayed by the opinion of Banksy the graffiti artist who claims that we have a right to hijack that sort of forced exposure media. I feel like we are being trained to buy and watch and listen and always, always consume. And I also feel that, simply because we ignore our dreams and our unconscious doesn't mean that those energies go away. Unseen and ignored, our Shadows perhaps grow stronger in the dark, they organize, and they will do things.
Thanks for your interesting perspective, Bob. I think there is much to be said for going into silence. I definitely need to work on meditation.
Konrad
Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
I know the post wasn't directed at me, but man... do I agree with the points above.
Wade
FeralNormal master
I finally just had a chance to listen to the whole show, that was quite a lot of dogma that REG…and by extension, middle east mystics… unloaded on us. One can certainly understand why people would be so skeptical of the djinn because we are talking not only of an enigma but an enigma with its own belief system and set of values.. I wonder if there isn’t a certain segment of the alleged djinn populace that doubt humans exist and are skeptical when told that there is another world out there a with completely different race with a society and a government there that exists just for us to f*** with .
I find it interesting that as far as a mythology or canonization goes the concepts of djinns, at least compared to the western world’s concept of extraterrestrial beings (ZETAS!) seems to be more fully fleshed out. The djinn are a race with its own society, own government, own rogues (sex with humans ? yeeecch…) misanthropes and people friendly ones, conservative and liberal ones wealthy ones and welfare cheats as well. they were here before us and are jealous of what we have, many of them want nothing more than to eliminate us and regain what was once theirs by any means necessary even to the extent of fermenting trouble among us” lower entities” to regain it. And this wasn’t being conceptualized by Rosemary this was being reported by her. The very same culture…not every person in that culture obviously… that gave us math and astronomy and poetry, was/is telling ( not theorizing it) us about these other beings and in such a matter of fact way it’s like we are stupid for not seeing it because it’s in plain sight.
There is a lot to be skeptical of and for whatever reason the one thing I’m zeroing in on is her assertion…if I heard right…that the nephilim may not be the result of crossbreeding between aliens and humans but between the djinn and humans. I may be wrong but I thought within that culture it was acknowledged than djinn can have sex with a human but not procreate, it’s done just to take the edge off. Having said that I wonder if the supermarkets in Somalia carry their own version of the weekly world news and in it a women claims she had sex with a djinn and whether it was ripped from her before she conceived. Maybe this djinn is running its own plastics company in Durban now. Maybe someone on the level of barry taff needs to write a book called “aliens above, djinn below”. we seem to be getting it from both sides . In that, Fort, Vallee and Djinn “scholars” seem to agree.
In the end I agree with some of the other comments here that part of the problem may have been with the way that REG presented her findings and herself, despite being an old pro at this. She cast a pretty wide net and I had some issues with her trying to pigeonhole an ancient eastern fairly straight-forward (yet nuanced) concept into our 21st century western pantheon of characters. I didn’t find it a completely comfortable fit but I have to be honest with myself and ask had you guys had interviewed an actual Sufi mystic would my feelings be any different. I wonder if the earlier middle eastern world that introduced us to the idea of the djinn ever experienced contact with shadow people, human-like entities spouting elusive, rhetorical, non-sequitars, grinning men, fuzzy dwarves, greys, ghosts, or zooform cryptids and how they explained them off. I’ve read older stories dating back to the 19th century with the word ghosts used but being that it was an English translation I have to wonder if maybe it wasn’t edited to use the word ghost as that term would have more meaning to our western ears.
In the end of all the various explanations we come up with to explain such things, generalized as a manipulative collection of otherworldly beings with some kind of agenda that consists of pushing our button, I still find myself thinking (or perhaps wishing) that the origin of all these things is us, something closer to the Trickster phenomena, our collective unconsciousness, Because many, if not most, of the accounts that people give, assuming it is not a hoax, come off like the dreams of an eight year old. I find many of my dreams to be pretty non-linear, illogical, spatially-challenged, and have serious continuity issues. As do many contact accounts. Maybe I am in the head of an eight year old, but that means you guys are too. When I think of things like this I think of that classic episode of star trek “shore leave” or forbidden planet where one had to be careful of their subconscious thoughts. being that I’m somewhat psychologically oriented (not trained) I favor, if not only as thought experiments, concepts like these over many others. We're bring harassed by home grown tulpas. All of the world’s ills and our own shortcomings are of our own doing but it’s sort of convenient to pass the buck to et or Iblis.
Looking at it another way, it may be time to change my signature to "The djinn are us". no trickster need apply
I find it interesting that as far as a mythology or canonization goes the concepts of djinns, at least compared to the western world’s concept of extraterrestrial beings (ZETAS!) seems to be more fully fleshed out. The djinn are a race with its own society, own government, own rogues (sex with humans ? yeeecch…) misanthropes and people friendly ones, conservative and liberal ones wealthy ones and welfare cheats as well. they were here before us and are jealous of what we have, many of them want nothing more than to eliminate us and regain what was once theirs by any means necessary even to the extent of fermenting trouble among us” lower entities” to regain it. And this wasn’t being conceptualized by Rosemary this was being reported by her. The very same culture…not every person in that culture obviously… that gave us math and astronomy and poetry, was/is telling ( not theorizing it) us about these other beings and in such a matter of fact way it’s like we are stupid for not seeing it because it’s in plain sight.
There is a lot to be skeptical of and for whatever reason the one thing I’m zeroing in on is her assertion…if I heard right…that the nephilim may not be the result of crossbreeding between aliens and humans but between the djinn and humans. I may be wrong but I thought within that culture it was acknowledged than djinn can have sex with a human but not procreate, it’s done just to take the edge off. Having said that I wonder if the supermarkets in Somalia carry their own version of the weekly world news and in it a women claims she had sex with a djinn and whether it was ripped from her before she conceived. Maybe this djinn is running its own plastics company in Durban now. Maybe someone on the level of barry taff needs to write a book called “aliens above, djinn below”. we seem to be getting it from both sides . In that, Fort, Vallee and Djinn “scholars” seem to agree.
In the end I agree with some of the other comments here that part of the problem may have been with the way that REG presented her findings and herself, despite being an old pro at this. She cast a pretty wide net and I had some issues with her trying to pigeonhole an ancient eastern fairly straight-forward (yet nuanced) concept into our 21st century western pantheon of characters. I didn’t find it a completely comfortable fit but I have to be honest with myself and ask had you guys had interviewed an actual Sufi mystic would my feelings be any different. I wonder if the earlier middle eastern world that introduced us to the idea of the djinn ever experienced contact with shadow people, human-like entities spouting elusive, rhetorical, non-sequitars, grinning men, fuzzy dwarves, greys, ghosts, or zooform cryptids and how they explained them off. I’ve read older stories dating back to the 19th century with the word ghosts used but being that it was an English translation I have to wonder if maybe it wasn’t edited to use the word ghost as that term would have more meaning to our western ears.
In the end of all the various explanations we come up with to explain such things, generalized as a manipulative collection of otherworldly beings with some kind of agenda that consists of pushing our button, I still find myself thinking (or perhaps wishing) that the origin of all these things is us, something closer to the Trickster phenomena, our collective unconsciousness, Because many, if not most, of the accounts that people give, assuming it is not a hoax, come off like the dreams of an eight year old. I find many of my dreams to be pretty non-linear, illogical, spatially-challenged, and have serious continuity issues. As do many contact accounts. Maybe I am in the head of an eight year old, but that means you guys are too. When I think of things like this I think of that classic episode of star trek “shore leave” or forbidden planet where one had to be careful of their subconscious thoughts. being that I’m somewhat psychologically oriented (not trained) I favor, if not only as thought experiments, concepts like these over many others. We're bring harassed by home grown tulpas. All of the world’s ills and our own shortcomings are of our own doing but it’s sort of convenient to pass the buck to et or Iblis.
Looking at it another way, it may be time to change my signature to "The djinn are us". no trickster need apply
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Lots of talk about Dark and Light here, talk about devils running around messing with people and at least one of the hosts supporting it gladly, seemingly without perspective. Are we joining the woo-woo crowd?
Anyways, what I'm seeing are a lot of posts with interesting ideas and lending of scientific, philosophical and religious concepts, that sort of becomes this religio-philosophical hodgepodge. I'd like to comment on that. As someone rather well-trained in philosophy and scientific theory, a few comments and new-agy attitudes are making me itch.
First of all philosophy and religion are not interchangeable.
Neither are the natural and the super-natural interchangeable, neither is the symbolic level and the objective level. No matter if California brand 'spirituality' is sweeping through the UFO/para-sites once again.
We need to get some concepts clear or conversation falls to pieces. Regarding the limit between the supernatural and natural, the symbolic and the objective, let me make my points by replying to a few posts:
The material - Psychology
The religious - Divine significance and interaction. Symbology and reality becomes one. Just like in primitive societies where you'd have real witches, cannibals eating the literal strenght of the opponent. That's where reality and symbol are the same = the dark ages.
So, as long as we are aware that we talking about belief systems versus what we materially know, and symbology versus objective reality, then I'm fine with it?
In my mind, many proclaimed spritual/religious people are thinking in very limited, and literal ways. But that's just my opinion.
There are no limits in the scientific world. But the scientific world believes in speaking about that which it can speak about, and not taking part in the fantasizing. If it takes part in a discussion with believers in the super-natural, it will typically be seen as limited and conservative. That's because science is all about dicipline, not allowing belief into the equation. The ingrate believers don't get it, we would still be living a darker age if science did not do so. A world full of 'djiinn'.
That doesn't mean a scientifically oriented person can't be open-minded, even religious, and can't talk about fringe subjects that may hold promise but haven't yet been shown. Someone has to do the fringes, and for instance science let everyone know about quantum physics, didn't it?
Anyways, what I'm seeing are a lot of posts with interesting ideas and lending of scientific, philosophical and religious concepts, that sort of becomes this religio-philosophical hodgepodge. I'd like to comment on that. As someone rather well-trained in philosophy and scientific theory, a few comments and new-agy attitudes are making me itch.
First of all philosophy and religion are not interchangeable.
Neither are the natural and the super-natural interchangeable, neither is the symbolic level and the objective level. No matter if California brand 'spirituality' is sweeping through the UFO/para-sites once again.
We need to get some concepts clear or conversation falls to pieces. Regarding the limit between the supernatural and natural, the symbolic and the objective, let me make my points by replying to a few posts:
He didn't 'accept' it, he believed in a super-natural religious explanation, thus he was a believer at heart.
Indeed, that is the view of a believer of the super-natural. While Freud's psychological 'shadow' resides in nature, in the human flesh. Two views collide:
The material - Psychology
The religious - Divine significance and interaction. Symbology and reality becomes one. Just like in primitive societies where you'd have real witches, cannibals eating the literal strenght of the opponent. That's where reality and symbol are the same = the dark ages.
So, as long as we are aware that we talking about belief systems versus what we materially know, and symbology versus objective reality, then I'm fine with it?
Ok, who created the creator? You are making unfounded conclusions about something that is so imcomprehensible and mysterious that I find it problematic to make such conclusions. Do you acknowledge that evolution takes place with every new generation born into the world of life?
Really!? You compare life to a car? That's not correct, a car can't naturally create new cars and could never have happened in nature without a natural actor, the human. Are you sure you're not the one with the simple mechanical view of the world where a God creates a human, just like that? No evolution necessary?
In my mind, many proclaimed spritual/religious people are thinking in very limited, and literal ways. But that's just my opinion.
There are no limits in the scientific world. But the scientific world believes in speaking about that which it can speak about, and not taking part in the fantasizing. If it takes part in a discussion with believers in the super-natural, it will typically be seen as limited and conservative. That's because science is all about dicipline, not allowing belief into the equation. The ingrate believers don't get it, we would still be living a darker age if science did not do so. A world full of 'djiinn'.
That doesn't mean a scientifically oriented person can't be open-minded, even religious, and can't talk about fringe subjects that may hold promise but haven't yet been shown. Someone has to do the fringes, and for instance science let everyone know about quantum physics, didn't it?
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
No, it is not the language of the universe, it's a human language to describe the universe.
Personally, I'm open to transcendentalism, but I'm always aware that when I see patterns in nature (the veins in a leaf, or the veins in your wrist, or a river-delta), I'm actually seeing matter ordering itself according to physical proporties. Gravity (or the pumping heart) creates these flows. Is there a system in place?
Yes, in so far as the physical proporties are concerned. It is not math. Math is the description of these physical proporties, and since physical proporties are always the same, physical matter (the known universe) conforms to to what appears to be a mathematical system. Math is the human language to describe it. Math is not a natural science, and traditionally it resided with philosophy.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Exactly. Thus if someone makes super-natural claims, we can assess their claims on the scale of credibility, not least by our understanding of the material nature of our world, and by the knowledge that noone can credibly name one instance of supernatural entity like the 'djinn' that is in any way proveable and thus worthy of consideration in a scientific objective sense.
Here's what I hear: Reptile winged djinn-midgets must be considered. We haven't seen any, but it's possible, science just haven't acknowledged them yet! Whatever. You can say that about anything you please.
Bla bla bla. This is so typical. Science discovered quantum physics which you used previously to attack - uhh, science.. Classic antiscientific hypocrisy. That's why we need the scientific method, to avoid bs.
For the record gents, it's safe to say Rosemary did a significant amount of couch research considering both the amount of publications, and the character of the publications (culling info from personal but certainly also written sources).
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
In light of the passionate follow-up commentary from Chris to this on the Grant Cameron episode, I can't help but add more commentary here. First, I loved the audio insert ... hilarious ... and I absolutely agree that we should "at least have a listen to what she [Rosemary] says". Also, as you pointed out, her experience in the field should command some respect, but to be honest, if it weren't for that, I'd have had no reason not to have been more critical. Nevertheless, I did take the time to listen and consider quite a few responses before posting my review, and I still think it sums it up pretty well. But at the same time, the intensity of your pleas have not gone unnoticed ( at least by me ), and I hope this response will provide some food for thought that will help resolve the problem. Here's where I think the root of it begins:
Recently I posted the "Can You Say Weltanschauung?" thread and your comment that you've come up with a "pretty interesting new pair of glasses" is exactly what the context of that thread is about. It may seem like a simple concept ( Weltanschauung or Worldview ), but it's not. You and Rosemary are deep inside the Ketchup bottle. Although you have a pretty good idea what each other is trying to get across, the reaction you're seeing in the forum is the result of the gulf between the worldviews of the listeners and yours, as relayed to the outside world ( the people without the glasses ) by the use of language that doesn't translate well. I realize that people often find it tedious and boring to dwell on the lexicon, but this situation is exactly why it's so important to get a grip on it. At one point you even alluded to this problem yourself. Now having identified the problem, what can we do to fix it?
First off, I think that paranormal researchers and authors need to step outside their paradigms and back into the so-called real world in order to retrace their steps and create a clearer path for those whom they are trying to bring into their worldview. This sounds easy, but again, it's not as easy as it sounds. It's one of the most important lessons I learned by posting over on the JREF forum. Prior to that I believed UFOs weren't considered to be "woo" so much as something that was simply unexplained, and that skepticism would be a valuable tool in helping to resolve that mystery. In fact, prior to that, I had never even heard the term "woo". It was something Gene had mentioned here, and I got curious, and it led me to the JREF. However not to digress: The reality is that getting some people just to acknowledge that alien visitation is a scientific possibility requires several steps, never mind getting them to integrate it into their worldview. Another thing to be cognizant of is that it doesn't mater how much experience you have or how many books you've written, if it's considered to be woo in the first place, adding more of it is only digging yourself into a deeper hole rather than adding any credibility. Or more simply, an expert in woo is only that much further off the deep end. So although I sense the frustration in your voice when you describe how you've been accused of "pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo new-age booshwa" trust me, it's not like I haven't been there, and it's why minimizing it is so important if you want to be taken seriously.
So my plea to you in return is to take this issue more seriously and encourage others to do the same. If we can't even provide logically consistent rational explanations for what we're talking about, how do we expect anyone else to take us seriously? You claim to have identified a, "potential causal mechanism that may tie together paranormal phenomena" ... bingo! You've got my attention with that. Now send me the book ( a little reminder there ). That kind of language sounds like you're someone who's got their head screwed on straight and are looking at the issue from an objective point of view. I think Rosemary could benefit by adapting her presentation in a similar manner.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
I think that when you read enough, it sort of coagulates into this big lump in the mind: It's real, woaaaaaa!!!
But then you start breaking down the sources, starting from scratch. First source, Icke. Then you're like... weeeell, right, the effin' Holocaust denier.. Then the next source, and the next, and next, and you're getting nothing solid.
Oh, and speaking from the point of natural history, the super-human reptilians just do not make sense. Reptiles are very primitive in an evolutionary sense. We know of no 'intelligent' reptiles, as far as I'm concerned. It's always been so telling to me that no such considerations are taken by the proponents. There's a massive missing link there.
Sure reptiles can be dangerous, it happens that people are killed by the Comodo Dragon. But they sure don't kill with their brain waves.
Got to go back to scratch sometimes, lest you start believing the sources just because there are many of them. That's what I do anyway.
SlightlyAbovePar
Skilled Investigator
Spookeymoulder - epically awesome post!!!!
Wade
FeralNormal master
Thank you I do tend to ramble, don't I ?
Bob Zanotti
Onbeat/Offbeat Broadcaster
REPLY TO KONRAD HARTMANN AND JIMI H:
Konrad, I’ll try to be brief. Abuses within the Church: yes, indeed. But that’s not my point.
This is my point: Only 10 percent of any given population group engages in deep thinking and the rest follow like sheep. The small minority of thinkers represents social leadership. It doesn’t need laws, rules and regulations to function. But the vast majority does. The Church had an important teaching and policing role in establishing moral and ethical standards of behavior for the unwashed masses. Let us not forget that the legal codes of even the most secular societies are based on ethics that originate in theology and religion. In other words, the Church has been a traditionally important partner of the State.
Although there are exceptions, the decline of the institutional Church has a lot to do with the rise of Existentialism and the Anarchist Movement. In more recent times, Nike footwear marketers put it into a very powerful slogan that was a great hit with 1960’s and 70’s youth, rejecting all that had been considered convention: “Just Do It”. This also became the battle cry of all kinds of “special interest groups” that until then, had been considered outside accepted norms of social behavior, and a loss in self-control -i.e. the threshold of "unacceptable behavior" was greatly lowered, and has been on the decline ever since. You don’t have to look far to see and hear what has happened to society as a result.
JIMMY H:
Who created the creator? I don’t know and neither do you.
Science is itself a religion, because it blindly believes in its own intolerant dogma, and will not entertain any deviation from it. One form of tyranny (The Church) has been replaced by another ([pseudo-] science}.
You have side-stepped some key points I made early on in this discussion, or perhaps you just didn't "get it". I’m at no loss for words and arguments and counter-arguments. But I’m not into that. You and I are not on the same page, simple as that, and nothing I can say will change your perspective.
You’re welcome to the last word, if that’s important to you. Be my guest. But I'm signing off on this one.
Pax vobiscum.
Bob
Konrad, I’ll try to be brief. Abuses within the Church: yes, indeed. But that’s not my point.
This is my point: Only 10 percent of any given population group engages in deep thinking and the rest follow like sheep. The small minority of thinkers represents social leadership. It doesn’t need laws, rules and regulations to function. But the vast majority does. The Church had an important teaching and policing role in establishing moral and ethical standards of behavior for the unwashed masses. Let us not forget that the legal codes of even the most secular societies are based on ethics that originate in theology and religion. In other words, the Church has been a traditionally important partner of the State.
Although there are exceptions, the decline of the institutional Church has a lot to do with the rise of Existentialism and the Anarchist Movement. In more recent times, Nike footwear marketers put it into a very powerful slogan that was a great hit with 1960’s and 70’s youth, rejecting all that had been considered convention: “Just Do It”. This also became the battle cry of all kinds of “special interest groups” that until then, had been considered outside accepted norms of social behavior, and a loss in self-control -i.e. the threshold of "unacceptable behavior" was greatly lowered, and has been on the decline ever since. You don’t have to look far to see and hear what has happened to society as a result.
JIMMY H:
Who created the creator? I don’t know and neither do you.
Science is itself a religion, because it blindly believes in its own intolerant dogma, and will not entertain any deviation from it. One form of tyranny (The Church) has been replaced by another ([pseudo-] science}.
You have side-stepped some key points I made early on in this discussion, or perhaps you just didn't "get it". I’m at no loss for words and arguments and counter-arguments. But I’m not into that. You and I are not on the same page, simple as that, and nothing I can say will change your perspective.
You’re welcome to the last word, if that’s important to you. Be my guest. But I'm signing off on this one.
Pax vobiscum.
Bob
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Exactly. I don't claim to know about Light and Dark and what have you. I don't even know how to speak about an objective creator when we don't know who would then create the creator, it's a huge paradox.
Only to a religious person. You probably don't understand the more humble agnostic position where people don't make speculative claims.
The only dogma is the scientific method, feel free to sketch out a better working method? The believers clearly get the award for pseudo-science, honestly. Can't be any doubt about that.
Sometimes it is better to not make claims than to make certifiably false claims. Fair enough?
What about a little humility from the believers? How often were the believers right? Does lightning happen because of Thor's hammer? Do people get sick because they are taken over by the Dark, the djinn?
Are you going to forego medical treatment in the future, if the medical sciences are all wrong and pseudo-science?
You're the one who started attacking the scientists whom you clearly resent, no need to play the victim.
PS: You managed to not deal with one single of my points directly, all we got was: Science is bad and dogmatic and a religion.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
Pseudo-science? Or just beliefs?