(Ed) Spiritual Socialism

[bknight]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And it's amazing how often people who scream "think for yourselves! Question Authority!" turn out to be the most blind,unquestioning followers of an ideology that you could imagine.

What he said.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

No, I was expecting a lot of resistance. Samael isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea.

This is another revealing statement. You arrived on this forum touting ideas from an article you hadn't read, about topics you know little of, to be applied to countries you've never visited. Can you see how this might be perceived as somewhat presumptuous.
To say you expected 'resistance' is, to my mind, indicative of arrogance. Your assumption appears to be that these ideas are completely right, and that the closed-minded skeptic meanies would refuse to accept them. It puts the failure of acceptance on the shoulders of the rest of the forum, rather than on you or the ideas you are promoting.
Perhaps if you'd signed up expecting education instead, it might have been better.

Originally Posted by shankara

"Shankara and others like him"... because I'm obviously brainwashed or something?

Nope. Yet another of your ill-founded assumptions.
By "others like you", I meant that you are not the first person to join up, full of missionary zeal, only to find that many other people have considered these ideas before, and have gained a much wider perspective and knowledge as a result. When you, and your ilk, discover that there will be no amazed and servile submission to whatever is being proposed, and that you are, in fact, as guilty of one-sided thinking as anyone else, the reaction is depressingly inevitable: tantrums and numerous flounces. I have not suggested you are 'brain-washed', merely that your thinking suffers from the same cognitive biases as the rest of humanity. A far better approach would be to assume that your interlocutors are educated and reasonable people, and to accept an education in things you were previously uneducated about- and to accept it with thanks. I personally have learned a huge amount from my participation on this forum. A little humility goes a long way.

Originally Posted by shankara

I think I could throw an accusation like that right back at the majority of human beings, considering the chaos on this planet and the lies we're being fed.

Firstly, the accusation came from you, not me. Just for the record.
The fact that you have such obvious contempt for humanity says a lot about your commitment to the ideals you claim to follow. These brainwashed sheeple are the same workers you say you want to control the world's businesses.
Secondly, the world is more peaceful and more prosperous than it has ever been. Your perception of a world in chaos is another example of confirmation bias.
Lastly on this one, those who claim the mainstream media is full of lies tend to be the ones who most readily accept unfounded, speculative, conspiratorial bilge, epsecially if it's dressed up with some anti-authoritarian language and a Guy Fawkes mask. That there is bias in the media is not in contention: that there is a global control of media to feed the populace lies in order to further some kind of evil agenda is paranoid fantasy.

Originally Posted by shankara

"will see how this quote, with a little editing, applies in equal measure to his own approach."... Do you think so? Because to me he's talking about the fact of finding a middle way between extremes, neither the left nor the right having the whole picture.

"blind adherence to Samael's writings"... yes, that's it, we're unquestioning drones, we all accept the dogmas of the Gnostic church however irrational they are. Maybe there are people "in the Gnosis" like that, but I hope I'm not one of them.

You say this, but look at your reaction when your dogmas were questioned. Note also that none of the questions -at least, that I noticed- came from a position of extreme political belief. They came from knowledge and experience of the world.Your attempt to shoehorn opposition into preconceived categories is further evidence of confirmation bias, and not a little hubris.

Originally Posted by shankara

"THINK FOR YOURSELF, QUESTION AUTHORITY"

We are. We are questioning your authority, and that of Sameal. Surely you should be happy about this?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

This is another revealing statement. You arrived on this forum touting ideas from an article you hadn't read,

Wrote. But which admittedly perhaps doesn't capture the essence of the books which it's trying to explain.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

about topics you know little of,

I'm no expert. But maybe also we're just not reading the same literature...?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

to be applied to countries you've never visited.

I've briefly visited actually, also I know people who are living there, like the guy who made THIS PODCAST (which deals with the Bolivarian Revolution but also generally lays out the difference between European and Latin American Socialism).

So actually it's fine that you don't agree with my ideas. Sure I would like it if you actually responded to Samael's own ideas rather than to my interpretation of them, which was really intended just as an introduction, to explain briefly some of the books' themes and my own interpretation of what Samael might write if he were here now. It's also interesting how people responded to the points about the bombing of Japan but there wasn't a single response to me mentioning (twice) the 3 million dead in Vietnam...

Honestly when I first discovered Samael I thought "this guy is a total crank". It's not easy to explain how that opinion changed, but it wasn't just an intellectual process, it was something I went through totally, emotionally, spiritually.

It's my hope simply that you might see a perspective which perhaps you haven't been exposed to before. Samael I feel was very original in a lot of his ideas, he wasn't simply regurgitating the doctrines of others. Isn't it good to look at things from another angle sometimes? Otherwise the Dialectic will stagnate, for want of Antithesis.

"OPPOSITION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP"

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

Wrote. But which admittedly perhaps doesn't capture the essence of the books which it's trying to explain.

Sorry- my mistake. I missed the question mark in your OP.

Originally Posted by shankara

I'm no expert. But maybe also we're just not reading the same literature...?

I have a Degree in Business Management. That's how I know about business and economics. That, and my own reading.
My first act, on reading theories like Samael's, would have been to check if they were viable by comparing them with actual situations in the world, both current and historical.
Clearly we are not approaching this in the same way, because you obviously didn't do this.

Originally Posted by shankara

I've briefly visited actually, also I know people who are living there, like the guy who made THIS PODCAST (which deals with the Bolivarian Revolution but also generally lays out the difference between European and Latin American Socialism).

Again, you appear to be basing your conclusions on the word of someone else.
Who is this blogger, and why do you cite him as an authority?

Originally Posted by shankara

So actually it's fine that you don't agree with my ideas.

Then stop acting all hurt and flouncy.

Originally Posted by shankara

Sure I would like it if you actually responded to Samael's own ideas rather than to my interpretation of them, which was really intended just as an introduction, to explain briefly some of the books' themes and my own interpretation of what Samael might write if he were here now.

Sameal's ideas are misguided at best, and foolish at worst. They have been responded to here: it's just that you don't like those responses.

Originally Posted by shankara

It's also interesting how people responded to the points about the bombing of Japan but there wasn't a single response to me mentioning (twice) the 3 million dead in Vietnam...

Perhaps this was because your posts about Japan were factually incorrect, and apparently motivated by a hatred of America.
That people died in the Vietnam war is not controversial: we all know that.
Why do you think there was little or no comment on Vietnam?

Originally Posted by shankara

Honestly when I first discovered Samael I thought "this guy is a total crank". It's not easy to explain how that opinion changed, but it wasn't just an intellectual process, it was something I went through totally, emotionally, spiritually.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by shankara

It's my hope simply that you might see a perspective which perhaps you haven't been exposed to before. Samael I feel was very original in a lot of his ideas, he wasn't simply regurgitating the doctrines of others. Isn't it good to look at things from another angle sometimes? Otherwise the Dialectic will stagnate, for want of Antithesis.

For goodness sake. Why do you think we're here on this forum? Again, may I remind you that numerous posters examined the ideas you presented, and found them wanting. No-one- that I noticed, at any rate- summarily rejected them because of entrenched dogmatism. The ideas were poorly conceived, and based on a lack of historical and economic understanding, which is why no-one here was terribly impressed.
It is revealing that you have not once acknowledged your errors. Once again, I suggest you apply these thoughts to yourself. Now you have been exposed to different perspectives, and some of your assumptions been shown to be false, are you going to change your mind?

Originally Posted by shankara

"OPPOSITION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP"

Now you're just talking bollocks. Where do you get this stuff from?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by shankara

"OPPOSITION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP"

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Now you're just talking bollocks. Where do you get this stuff from?

"No, officer, it wasn't assault with a deadly weapon...I was being a true friend!"

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by shankara

It's also interesting how people responded to the points about the bombing of Japan but there wasn't a single response to me mentioning (twice) the 3 million dead in Vietnam...

There was no response for two reasons:

1. We try to keep the thread on topic. This one is about a long failed economic social construct, not military history.

2. Since you failed to demonstrate basic knowledge of WWII, explaining Vietnam will certainly be a lost cause since - unlike WWII - the war, and US involvement in that war is so much more complicated.

Yes, we killed 1.1 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers in our 11 years in SE Asia. This was mostly because General Vo Nguyen Giap was all too happy to throw his men into our meat grinder, and had zero problem killing civilians either directly, or by placing them between his forces, and ours.

Unless you can tell me how many opposing sides there were in Vietnam I'm not wasting any more time.

Vietnam was 50 years ago, live in the now.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

There was no response for two reasons:

1. We try to keep the thread on topic. This one is about a long failed economic social construct, not military history.

2. Since you failed to demonstrate basic knowledge of WWII, explaining Vietnam will certainly be a lost cause since - unlike WWII - the war, and US involvement in that war is so much more complicated.

Yes, we killed 1.1 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers in our 11 years in SE Asia. This was mostly because General Vo Nguyen Giap was all too happy to throw his men into our meat grinder, and had zero problem killing civilians either directly, or by placing them between his forces, and ours.

Unless you can tell me how many opposing sides there were in Vietnam I'm not wasting any more time.

Vietnam was 50 years ago, live in the now.

Tragedy of Veitnam is that it was basically a feud between two oppressive, corrupt governments in which the US got involved out of a misguided belief that somehow we were defending democracy.
If Vietnam had a lot of strategic value, you could justify that in a Cold War Context, but Vietman's strategic value was nil. If nothing else, it was a waste of a vast amount of resources on a poor strategic objective.
The tragedy is not that the government of South Vietnam was overthrown, but the what the Vienamese people got was no better;in fact in many ways was worse.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Now you're just talking bollocks. Where do you get this stuff from?

From William Blake

[Hans]

Shankara how is this idea different from Utopian Socialism?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Hans

Shankara how is this idea different from Utopian Socialism?

There definitely seem to be some strong parallels between the two ideas...

Perhaps there is a difference in the means to be employed in the struggle. For example Samael says that the different religions should unite and struggle together for the triumph of spiritual socialism. Indeed the primacy and necessity of religion, is a key aspect of Samael’s thought.

Furthermore he isn’t saying that everyone can necessarily be convinced by reasoning to start voluntarily practising distributive justice, he’s quite strong in advocating for union organizing, strikes etc., to put up a fight against the powerful even if this fight is non-violent. He does believe in a revolution, just one founded on Ahimsa. At the same time he does talk about a practical form of politics based on deed rather than word which might be seen as a means of convincing the masses, by reason, of the correctness of socialist ideas.

Samael is not against Dialectical Reason (quite the contrary), he simply doesn’t accept the Dialectical Materialism of Marx. He rejects Engel’s saying that there are Dialectical leaps, that the quantitative transforms into the qualitative:

“Water when heating or cooling, where the boiling point and the freezing point are the nodes in which the apparent jump to a new state of cohesion occurs, that is, in which the quantity apparently changes in quality, the leap is apparent because it is not really the quantity that has changed in quality, within the apparent leap there has been a whole process of selection within the concepts of time, space and movement.

The nodes of Hegel cannot cause leaps, but only orderly and methodical changes.”

Therefore Samael is not opposed to Scientific Socialism, but the pseudo-Science of Marx, which lacks the comprehension of metaphysics, reduces the Cosmos to “matter”, and reduces humanity to being mere machines of production and consumption, animals in need only of animal comforts.

I’m afraid I’m not expert enough to offer any further commentary.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

Perhaps there is a difference in the means to be employed in the struggle. For example Samael says that the different religions should unite and struggle together for the triumph of spiritual socialism. Indeed the primacy and necessity of religion, is a key aspect of Samael’s thought.

Once again, Samael shows the impracticable and undesirable qualities of his theories.
For a start, the idea that the world's religions will 'unite and struggle together' over anything, let alone something as vague and far-fetched as Spiritual Socalism, is vanishingly unlikely. The religions of the world have been fighting each other since religion began, and, if that wasn;t enough, they also have a habit of splintering into sects and branches, which also fight amongst each other. I would go so far to say that religion is one of the most divisive forces on the planet.
Furthermore, that religion is necessary, and should be a prime force in our world, is far from obvious. The amount of suffering, abuse and injustice caused by religions- and I mean the teachings as well as the practitioners- should rather mean they should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

What are the qualities of relgions that Samael believes should make them the arbiters of our fates?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Once again, Samael shows the impracticable and undesirable qualities of his theories.
For a start, the idea that the world's religions will 'unite and struggle together' over anything, let alone something as vague and far-fetched as Spiritual Socalism, is vanishingly unlikely. The religions of the world have been fighting each other since religion began, and, if that wasn;t enough, they also have a habit of splintering into sects and branches, which also fight amongst each other. I would go so far to say that religion is one of the most divisive forces on the planet.
Furthermore, that religion is necessary, and should be a prime force in our world, is far from obvious. The amount of suffering, abuse and injustice caused by religions- and I mean the teachings as well as the practitioners- should rather mean they should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

What are the qualities of relgions that Samael believes should make them the arbiters of our fates?

Basically Samael considers the organized religions to be merely husks, shells which once contained the true esoteric doctrine. Nonetheless he considers that they maintain Eternal Values (a kind of perennialist position).

I agree that they do expend a lot of energy debating about doctrines rather than actually engaging in practical action. But if they were going to unite about anything, I'd say that creating a better social structure would be the thing. They already have some common ground in terms of charity, helping the poor etc., so struggling for a new order (or at least expanding their charitable work) seems a logical next step.

Perhaps Samael is trying to inspire people to take action individually, or in small collectives, rather than hoping to inspire the pope and the grand mufti.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

Basically Samael considers the organized religions to be merely husks, shells which once contained the true esoteric doctrine. Nonetheless he considers that they maintain Eternal Values (a kind of perennialist position).

Strange, then that they can never agree what these eternal values are.
Strange also that these so-called eternal values keep changing as civilisation advances. Consider slavery, the caste system, the Divine Right of Kings, human and animal sacrifices, the law of dhimmi (the systemised oppression of non-Muslims, especially Jews, in Muslim countries), women's rights, gay rights....All once touted as eternal values, now, thankfully, not so much.
If organised religions are merely husks, why does Sameal think them necessary and worthy of ruling us?

Originally Posted by shankara

I agree that they do expend a lot of energy debating about doctrines rather than actually engaging in practical action. But if they were going to unite about anything, I'd say that creating a better social structure would be the thing. They already have some common ground in terms of charity, helping the poor etc., so struggling for a new order (or at least expanding their charitable work) seems a logical next step.

Yet again, this notion does not survive its first brush with reality. Almost every step forward humanity has made has been bitterly opposed by the world's religions. Not only the issues I mentioned above, but also scientific and technological progress, ideas like the concept of a fair trial (not the case under dhimmi or Sharia, or in Christian witch trials either) and (at times) new movements in art and literature. Far too often, the charity work is a mask for indoctrination, abuse and control. This has led to the infamous Mother Teresa and her welcoming of suffering, to the scandal of abuse in Catholic children's' homes and schools, and to the setting-up of extremist madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere, which has spawned a global wave of jihadist extremism.

Originally Posted by shankara

Perhaps Samael is trying to inspire people to take action individually, or in small collectives, rather than hoping to inspire the pope and the grand mufti.

Well, he needs to do a lot more research, and a lot more thinking.
Being slightly more specific wouldn't hurt either.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Strange, then that they can never agree what these eternal values are.
Strange also that these so-called eternal values keep changing as civilisation advances. Consider slavery, the caste system, the Divine Right of Kings, human and animal sacrifices, the law of dhimmi (the systemised oppression of non-Muslims, especially Jews, in Muslim countries), women's rights, gay rights....All once touted as eternal values, now, thankfully, not so much.
If organised religions are merely husks, why does Sameal think them necessary and worthy of ruling us?


Yet again, this notion does not survive its first brush with reality. Almost every step forward humanity has made has been bitterly opposed by the world's religions. Not only the issues I mentioned above, but also scientific and technological progress, ideas like the concept of a fair trial (not the case under dhimmi or Sharia, or in Christian witch trials either) and (at times) new movements in art and literature. Far too often, the charity work is a mask for indoctrination, abuse and control. This has led to the infamous Mother Teresa and her welcoming of suffering, to the scandal of abuse in Catholic children's' homes and schools, and to the setting-up of extremist madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere, which has spawned a global wave of jihadist extremism.


Well, he needs to do a lot more research, and a lot more thinking.
Being slightly more specific wouldn't hurt either.

Originally Posted by Samael Aun Weor

"Every Religion under the sun is born, grows, develops, multiplies into many sects and dies, as it has always been, as it will always be.

The Religious Principles never die, the Religious forms die but the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES, that is to say the ETERNAL VALUES, never die, they continue, they are covered with new forms.

Religion is inherent to life as humidity is inherent in the water, there are deeply religious men who do not belong to any religious form."

I think there are a lot of reactionaries and fascists who use religion as a cover for their reactionary projects.

[shankara]

To put it another way, what's your perspective on abortion?

Because for me this is an example of how religions prevent, or strive to prevent, humanity falling into utter barbarism.

[Hellbound]

Frankly, this idea is the same as every other "perfect society" idea I've ever heard. They only work if you ignore human nature and assume full buy-in from everyone.

Communism would work, if everyone followed it's precepts. But whenever implemented, people rise that take advantage of the system, and the "fairness" of communism feels distinctly unfair to many due to human nature.

A Libertarian society would work, if people actually had enlightened self-interest. Instead, short-term gains are prized above long-term losses, actions are based on incomplete information, and human nature prevents those not affected by the unscrupulous or starting from a lower position from being the counterweight it's claimed they would be.

And similar for all of these utopia ideas.

The test of a system isn't "If everyone follows it this would work". The real test is "Will this work even if a large part of the people don't like it/want it, and a significant minority actively tries to sabotage it?"

[theprestige]

As I understand Marxist Communism, industrialization was supposed to trigger the natural evolution of human nature from the fallen state of Capitalism to the state of grace of Communism. Human nature was not ignored; rather, Marx predicted that human nature would change into something better, and this new nature would be compatible with Communism. Indeed, these evolved humans would need nor want no other system. Communism was predicted originally as a perfect society arising naturally from a perfect humanity.

Lenin's modification was to propose that we don't need to wait for the evolutionary process to run its course. Communism could be jump-started into existence, even in a society that hadn't yet fully industrialized. Where Marx predicted natural evolution, the Soviet Union was an effort of intelligent design: If you build the perfect society, and force people to conform to it, you will create perfect people.

It is my theory that any system of government based on the idea that humanity is perfectible is doomed to fail horrifically and at great cost to human life. A petty dictator is bad enough. A well-meaning totalitarian is a monster.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

The test of a system isn't "If everyone follows it this would work". The real test is "Will this work even if a large part of the people don't like it/want it, and a significant minority actively tries to sabotage it?"

A useful preliminary test, even before you get to the details of the advocated system: "Does your movement have any women in it?"

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Myriad

A useful preliminary test, even before you get to the details of the advocated system: "Does your movement have any women in it?"

I wouldn't join any organization that didn't have any women.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Myriad

A useful preliminary test, even before you get to the details of the advocated system: "Does your movement have any women in it?"

How is this test useful?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by theprestige

As I understand Marxist Communism, industrialization was supposed to trigger the natural evolution of human nature from the fallen state of Capitalism to the state of grace of Communism. Human nature was not ignored; rather, Marx predicted that human nature would change into something better, and this new nature would be compatible with Communism. Indeed, these evolved humans would need nor want no other system. Communism was predicted originally as a perfect society arising naturally from a perfect humanity.

Lenin's modification was to propose that we don't need to wait for the evolutionary process to run its course. Communism could be jump-started into existence, even in a society that hadn't yet fully industrialized. Where Marx predicted natural evolution, the Soviet Union was an effort of intelligent design: If you build the perfect society, and force people to conform to it, you will create perfect people.

It is my theory that any system of government based on the idea that humanity is perfectible is doomed to fail horrifically and at great cost to human life. A petty dictator is bad enough. A well-meaning totalitarian is a monster.

Yeah, pretty much my point. Anything that requires or expects humanity to get better (for any value of better other than act as they always have) is doomed to fail

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Strange, then that they can never agree what these eternal values are.
Strange also that these so-called eternal values keep changing as civilisation advances. Consider slavery, the caste system, the Divine Right of Kings, human and animal sacrifices, the law of dhimmi (the systemised oppression of non-Muslims, especially Jews, in Muslim countries), women's rights, gay rights....All once touted as eternal values, now, thankfully, not so much.
If organised religions are merely husks, why does Sameal think them necessary and worthy of ruling us?


Yet again, this notion does not survive its first brush with reality. Almost every step forward humanity has made has been bitterly opposed by the world's religions. Not only the issues I mentioned above, but also scientific and technological progress, ideas like the concept of a fair trial (not the case under dhimmi or Sharia, or in Christian witch trials either) and (at times) new movements in art and literature. Far too often, the charity work is a mask for indoctrination, abuse and control. This has led to the infamous Mother Teresa and her welcoming of suffering, to the scandal of abuse in Catholic children's' homes and schools, and to the setting-up of extremist madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere, which has spawned a global wave of jihadist extremism.


Well, he needs to do a lot more research, and a lot more thinking.
Being slightly more specific wouldn't hurt either.

Quote:

riginally Posted by Samael Aun Weor
"Every Religion under the sun is born, grows, develops, multiplies into many sects and dies, as it has always been, as it will always be.

The Religious Principles never die, the Religious forms die but the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES, that is to say the ETERNAL VALUES, never die, they continue, they are covered with new forms.

Religion is inherent to life as humidity is inherent in the water, there are deeply religious men who do not belong to any religious form."

Very pretty, in its own way, but this does not in any way answer a single point that I made here. If all I can expect in response to serious questions is vague, second-hand platitudes, then I would question whether this thread is worth the effort.
Care to try again?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

To put it another way, what's your perspective on abortion?

Because for me this is an example of how religions prevent, or strive to prevent, humanity falling into utter barbarism.

I support a woman's right to choose.
Is forcing a rape victim to carry her attacker's child an example of these eternal values you think are so necessary? Is the church's assumption of control over women's bodies a step away from barbarism, or a step towards it?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Strange, then that they can never agree what these eternal values are.
Strange also that these so-called eternal values keep changing as civilisation advances. Consider slavery, the caste system, the Divine Right of Kings, human and animal sacrifices, the law of dhimmi (the systemised oppression of non-Muslims, especially Jews, in Muslim countries), women's rights, gay rights....All once touted as eternal values, now, thankfully, not so much.
If organised religions are merely husks, why does Sameal think them necessary and worthy of ruling us?


Yet again, this notion does not survive its first brush with reality. Almost every step forward humanity has made has been bitterly opposed by the world's religions. Not only the issues I mentioned above, but also scientific and technological progress, ideas like the concept of a fair trial (not the case under dhimmi or Sharia, or in Christian witch trials either) and (at times) new movements in art and literature. Far too often, the charity work is a mask for indoctrination, abuse and control. This has led to the infamous Mother Teresa and her welcoming of suffering, to the scandal of abuse in Catholic children's' homes and schools, and to the setting-up of extremist madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere, which has spawned a global wave of jihadist extremism.


Well, he needs to do a lot more research, and a lot more thinking.
Being slightly more specific wouldn't hurt either.

Yes, religious forms fall into corruption due to the influence of the dark forces which infiltrate them and human weakness. Often texts are lost, edited or misinterpreted, prime example being the Roman Bible. But spirituality itself remains pure, there are also forces of light and awakening, this is why I mentioned the notion of the religious man who belongs to no religion...

To some extent there is some light left in the popular religious forms. A kind of muddied light, mixed almost inextricably with darkness, but a light nonetheless. There is logic in rejecting the current organized religions because of this polluted quality. We would certainly be better off without dogma and this whole "my God is bigger and stronger than your God" business...

Personally I think a lot of Jihadism is tacitly encouraged by the CIA etc to give an excuse for ever more surveillance of the population. I also think that whatever lies these religious schools might be teaching, these lies come from the dogmas and outward forms rather than spirituality itself:

Originally Posted by Ramakrishna

“One man may read the Bhagavata by the light of a lamp, and another may commit a forgery by that very light; but the lamp is unaffected. The sun sheds its light on the wicked as well as on the virtuous.”

I also think that study and research and all of this (and I don't know to what extent Samael was educated though he spoke of intellectual cultivation, or words to that effect, being useful) isn't as valuable as intuition developed by spiritual practise.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I support a woman's right to choose.
Is forcing a rape victim to carry her attacker's child an example of these eternal values you think are so necessary? Is the church's assumption of control over women's bodies a step away from barbarism, or a step towards it?

Of course you have to raise the most extreme and emotive example... Personally I feel that as the child is innocent, the child is not responsible for how he or she was conceived. I believe that to bring that child into the world would ultimately be a process of healing for the mother, though it would be best (and should perhaps be obligatory) that the child be adopted.

In other cases, the whole abortion thing is a testament to how utterly inverted and misguided our society is. In England two doctors must say there is "a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother" if the baby is born in order for an abortion to be legal. Evidently the risk to physical health is rare, so the doctors are basically saying that having an abortion would be good for the woman's mental health...

Anyway, without being "flouncey" I don't know that I have time to keep contributing to this thread so often, though I'll try to check in now and again...

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by shankara

Personally I think a lot of Jihadism is tacitly encouraged by the CIA etc to give an excuse for ever more surveillance of the population. I

Anybody else getting 9/11 Truther vibes from the above?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Anybody else getting 9/11 Truther vibes from the above?

What I got was Big Brother is watching, from 1984 society.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by bknight

What I got was Big Brother is watching, from 1984 society.

Oh,that too, but the whole "The CIA is behind Jihadism" just reeks of 9/11 Conspiracy nonsense.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Oh,that too, but the whole "The CIA is behind Jihadism" just reeks of 9/11 Conspiracy nonsense.

In that context I could see the connection.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by shankara

Of course you have to raise the most extreme and emotive example...

Really? Just like you when you come up with this emotive garbage.

Originally Posted by shankara

Personally I feel that as the child is innocent, the child is not responsible for how he or she was conceived. I believe that to bring that child into the world would ultimately be a process of healing for the mother, though it would be best (and should perhaps be obligatory) that the child be adopted.

Obviously, a zygote is not a child. Please enlighten us as to when exactly a "child" occurs in your opinion.

Originally Posted by shankara

In other cases, the whole abortion thing is a testament to how utterly inverted and misguided our society is. In England two doctors must say there is "a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother" if the baby is born in order for an abortion to be legal. Evidently the risk to physical health is rare, so the doctors are basically saying that having an abortion would be good for the woman's mental health...

Savita Halappanavar is dead along with her unborn fetus because of people who think like you.

Originally Posted by shankara

Anyway, without being "flouncey" I don't know that I have time to keep contributing to this thread so often, though I'll try to check in now and again...

So a stealth flounce.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by bknight

In that context I could see the connection.

And I can see the "Big Brother is Watching" connection with his statement that the CIA's motives for backing Jihadism is to expand their power to spy on "the population". So we seem to be on the same page, but with slightly diffrerent emphasis.

[dudalb]

And the CIA wishes it was one tenth as powerful as people like Shankara think it is.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by shankara

I also think that study and research and all of this (and I don't know to what extent Samael was educated though he spoke of intellectual cultivation, or words to that effect, being useful) isn't as valuable as intuition developed by spiritual practise.

Please cite one single example of how our lives have been improved by "intuition developed by spiritual practise". Navel-gazing does not cure diseases, invent technology, discover laws of nature or improve human rights.

Originally Posted by shankara

Of course you have to raise the most extreme and emotive example...

It is a logical extension of your argument, and one of the reasons many countries have rules that women have a right to abortions. You chose to talk about this, don't forget, rather than all the other examples you ignored.

Originally Posted by shankara

Personally I feel that as the child is innocent, the child is not responsible for how he or she was conceived. I believe that to bring that child into the world would ultimately be a process of healing for the mother, though it would be best (and should perhaps be obligatory) that the child be adopted.

Have you spoken to many women about this theory?

Originally Posted by shankara

In other cases, the whole abortion thing is a testament to how utterly inverted and misguided our society is.

So you want workers to have control over the means of production, but not the means of reproduction? Nice.

Originally Posted by shankara

Anyway, without being "flouncey" I don't know that I have time to keep contributing to this thread so often, though I'll try to check in now and again...

Here you go again.
Can I just ask: do you think you have learned anything from your time here? You have been corrected on a number of occasions, but, each time, your response is to maintain your incorrect views, and simply refuse to participate in the discussion any more. (For a couple of hours, at least). I pointed out your dependence on dogma and authority. You dismissed this, but nonetheless, you continue to display a dogmatic approach and a resistance to adapting your ideas when encountering new evidence.
Is this an example of "intuition developed by spiritual practise"? Because, as a demonstration of the concept, it's not very impressive.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by shankara

To put it another way, what's your perspective on abortion?

Because for me this is an example of how religions prevent, or strive to prevent, humanity falling into utter barbarism.

How is it more barbaric to compel half the population to surrender control of their bodies?

[shankara]

“If he had been Antichrist Creeping Jesus
Hed have done any thing to please us
Gone sneaking into Synagogues
And not usd the Elders & Priests like dogs
But Humble as a Lamb or Ass
Obeyd himself to Caiaphas
God wants not Man to Humble himself
This is the trick of the ancient Elf
This is the Race that Jesus ran
Humble to God Haughty to Man
Cursing the Rulers before the People
Even to the temples highest Steeple
And when he Humbled himself to God
Then descended the Cruel Rod”

I like William Blake a lot because he's kind of coming from the place that visions and intuitions are superior to mere scholarly logic.

I'll go over what you all said briefly. Of course if I respond then you make out that I'm some kind of simpleton way too uneducated to comprehend your sublime discourse and if I don't want to hang around fighting a pointless battle then I'm easily offended or melodramatically acting wounded. We've strayed quite a long way from the original points as well.

- Of course a Zygote is a child, it's a unique genetic existence.
- A pregnant woman's body belongs to the child as much as it does to her.
- Have I ever spoken to women about this? Yes, and unfortunately many women are conditioned by the feminist agenda to get angry when the notion of self-responsibility is suggested to them. I've also spoken to women who agree with me that life begins from the moment of conception.
- Am I demonstrating that spiritual intuition is better than logic? The characteristic of spiritual awakening is that forces of darkness attack it.

- I "sound like a 9/11 Truther"? Is that a bad thing? Because yes of course I'm a 9/11 Truther.

[shankara]

Anyway, this is all going to go around in circles, we aren't actually talking just butting egos.

Om Mani Padme Hum...

[sackett]

Intuition? Visions? Mere rationality? Come now, Shank. How is this different from making things up and then believing them?

Why stop now? Why don't you take up Madam Blavatski? Edgar Cayce? Norman Vincent Peale? Hey, with your approach, the whole universe is your little oyster.

Calling Kumar, come in, Kumar. Over.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by sackett

Intuition? Visions? Mere rationality? Come now, Shank. How is this different from making things up and then believing them?

Why stop now? Why don't you take up Madam Blavatski? Edgar Cayce? Norman Vincent Peale? Hey, with your approach, the whole universe is your little oyster.

Calling Kumar, come in, Kumar. Over.

I fine the OP's praise of Sprituarity over Religion to be amusing since Spirituality is just Religion under a different brand name.
And trying to force Eastern Religion...I guess Hinduism in this case..down our throats is no better then forcing Christiniaty down our throats.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by shankara

[b]“I like William Blake a lot because he's kind of coming from the place that visions and intuitions are superior to mere scholarly logic.

.

- I "sound like a 9/11 Truther"? Is that a bad thing? Because yes of course I'm a 9/11 Truther.

Wow, that first statement is going to go over well on e webpage devoted to rational thought.
What it really means is my feelings are superior to reality.
We have US President who thinks is intuitions and gut feelings are superior to rationality. And it's not turning out too well.
As for the second statement, yeah, being a 9/11 Truther is a bad thing.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by shankara

- Of course a Zygote is a child, it's a unique genetic existence.
- A pregnant woman's body belongs to the child as much as it does to her.
- Have I ever spoken to women about this? Yes, and unfortunately many women are conditioned by the feminist agenda to get angry when the notion of self-responsibility is suggested to them. I've also spoken to women who agree with me that life begins from the moment of conception.
- Am I demonstrating that spiritual intuition is better than logic? The characteristic of spiritual awakening is that forces of darkness attack it.

I have bad news, everything on this list is incompatible with Socialism.

Quote:

- I "sound like a 9/11 Truther"? Is that a bad thing? Because yes of course I'm a 9/11 Truther.

And now we have a clear picture of the level of reasoning going on here...

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I have bad news, everything on this list is incompatible with Socialism.

https://media.giphy.com/media/MVgLEa...72Ne/giphy.gif

And now we have a clear picture of the level of reasoning going on here...

And the reasoning is not too sharp, but that belongs in another thread.