--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:27 PM, Michael wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > > > >> My dear Michael, the brunt of human civilization was pagan. > > > > Weren't we talking of known history? And so whats the difference? > > The point is, or was, worship of gods is quite an old human pattern.
No doubt about it, but this is not the issue. You were trying to make a point that this worship is directly connected to human genocides - of which we know of course only in recorded history. Also 'men of god' certainly refers to religious founders known to us. You said in Message #171669:"Strangely, the mass genocides throughout history are always connected to 'men of god'...doesn't that tell us anything?" insinuating that religion in general gives rise to war and the most terrible slaughters in history. Shemp though was easily showing you, that the most terrible genocides of this century were almost exclusively performed by atheists - thereby showing that this behavior ha really nothing to do with religion or gods. I would say that you believe so is your personal superstition - as you said in your previous post - Message #171684 You:'The recent popularity of certain black creation gods (IHVH-1, Osiris-Jesus etc., Allah) should not be an obstacle in Eurocentric born religionists like ourselves understanding of what went before.' That is to say, you believe in the gnostic version of black and white gods, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaldaboath esp see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaldaboath#Neoplatonic_Criticism) And you even add: 'That's not say the recent black gods followers weren't in some way "peaceful".' Insinuating that its really the gods that are bad and responsible, and if followers behave in a peaceful way, its despite of their religion, whereas everybody knows, that acceptance of the other, Love thy neighbor is a central tenet of Christianity. Vaj, you are of course entitled to believe whatever you want, but it just has no relation to facts. I think you are simply thinking (thinking on a purely theoretical basis) too much, making things up on the way. The other way is the way of the heard - to actually love God - follow you intuition rather than the mind alone. All these great beings like Ramakrishna or Ramana, do you really think they were misguided, following some 'death god' not really worthy of their adoration? Ramakrishna and Ramana, were they so blinded by the goodness of their own heart, that the couldn't see the dark shadow of the gods they adored? Thats what you seem to believe. Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi,Guru Dev, Ammachi, Mother Meera (sorry for the appeal to authority to Barry ;-)) all say equivocal that one should love and trust in God - in whatever form he / she is closest to ones heart. And that is my experience as well: whatever form comes to me naturally, I accept (in fact I can't do otherwise as I have explained here before) > >> The recent popularity of certain black creation gods (IHVH-1, Osiris- > >> Jesus etc., Allah) should not be an obstacle in Eurocentric born > >> religionists like ourselves understanding of what went before. > > > > > > No, but thats sort of unrelated of what you said before. I know you > > like to pose with your religious learning, but as far as I can see its > > just bla bla. > > Well no, if we are predisposed to the worship god or gods (or > goddesses) by the fact that we were born into a culture that accepted > and celebrated them as benign, it can blind us to the implications of > such worship. No Vaj, you get this totally wrong as well. For example, I as a western atheist that I was when I started TM was certainly not predisposed to god-worship. I found out later that both of my parents were atheist when I was brought up later. I certainly don't follow the religion of my culture, nor do I really follow my culture at all. Secondly you still owe us the evidence of you claim - that religion, nay the wrong gods themselves are responsible for all the evil in the world. > >> That's > >> not say the recent black gods followers weren't in some way > >> "peaceful". > > > > > > So you think Jesus was 'black'? I assume you don't mean that > > literally, but your gnostic, Rosecrucian upbringing is getting the > > upper hand. But please elaborate. You probably mean black in he sense > > of Yaldeboah or so. Then you are in about the same league as Petrus > > once was on ATM. Congratulations! > > Black in the sense of being a death god who dies and descends into > hell/amenta to later re-emerge anew...yet these death/resurrection > cults often get stuck on death (the "black", putrefaction) aspect. I know what you mean. But since I am not a Christian I can't tell too much. I know that these myth are very old, but IMO the figure of Christ really transcends these - actually I believe this to be a later addition. A believing Christian might tell you that the resurrection from the death is more important than the sacrificial death, that death is a fact of live and that in this case the belief is that life triumphs over death. > Such formulae of attainment are more suited to a different era, like > 3000 BC, not 2000 CE. Jesus and Krishna are just later iterations of > this (by their times already) old formula. WTF, where do you get this Krishna a a death God from? It is true that there are early versions of the Krishna cult, and that most probably 2 figures merged into one - the shepherd Krishna with the Gopis, and the Krishna of the Gita. But there is no story whatsoever of a sacrificial death or reemergence from the death. Krishna just died more or less the normal way. Why black God then, because Krishna means black? That, a dark hue was his skin color. Do you now mix racial issues in here? ;-)
