Evangelicals and the ' Fight for Jesus' squad

[jacjon]

Has anyone seen Jesus Camp? It's a documentary that focuses on this very issue (militarizing christianity), and shows how children, young kids, 5, 6, 7 etc are happy to be training combat techniques as to be "god's army" in hopes they could "give their life to the lord".


I think this is the focus of jacjon's original post, that "good christians" feel that they have to be armed and ready to "kill for the lord".

Hey Cyre.....Whoaaaaaa.....that is directly opposite to my intentions and, I hope, my text.
Besides....I don't believe I have tried to designate the differece between 'Good' and I guess the opposite ' bad ' Christians. That task shall remain with others!!


Honestly the logic doesn't make sense, so i don't understand how one can arm himself, expect to commit murder, and think he was fulfilling gods will.

Just a quick note......All religous and secular beleifs were founded at one time or another by using force.

 

[jacjon]

ScioAgapeOmnis,

I agree that the most blatant barbs came from jacjon, and maybe what I saw as "hidden" barbs from you were just my own misinterpretation. Here are the two statements of yours that I interpreted as hidden barbs, or at the very least somewhat provocative:

Do you like the idea of being a pawn in a STS control hierarchy?

(My POV - It's clear that jacjon doesn't consider himself an STS pawn, so how should he have responded to this?)

I based that one 2 things. First, he said Jesus was his Lord - isn't that a direct reference to a STS hierachy of control where some "God" is perceived to be the one in charge aka "Lord"? Also, he obviously chose to hold this belief, and I know that when you assume or believe, you surrender your free will - and if what you believe was created by someone else, you surrender your free will to that person/entity. That, in my understanding, simply means becoming a pawn in a STS control hierarchy. I know what I asked was kinda a loaded question since it assumes that he IS part of an STS hierarchy, but that is not a baseless assumption because it is based on what he said, aka, he has a Lord and he blindly accepts certain things as truth without question.

OK, SAO...where did you read that I " blindly accept certain things without question "???
Can I ask for your basis of fact that allowed that conclusion. Or, is it your opinion??
You and I are going to disagree. Probably on a lot of things. But that doesn't mean we can't converse.
Firstly, my ground rules not only allow for opinion, I BELIEVE that intelligence is garned through fact and experience but succeeds to its fullest when wise men gather insight through such methods but can transcend the experience and move to hypothesize the future.

So if you aren't interested in truth, why are you on this forum?

(My POV - jacjon surely considers himself quite interested in truth, so again, how should he have responded?)

But if he has beliefs, meaning, he assumes certain things to be true without question, is that not a direct opposite of what "seeking truth" means? Unless you mean he only seeks truth in some areas, but holds on to other sacred cows in other areas.

SAO---well, one man's passion is another's poison.
Who gets to decide what " seeking truth " means??
To get back on topic, I believe that those Ministering to and through the Evangelical process are taking advantage of - some - who may not be able to think for themselves quite as well as others. The character of my remarks really have not so much to do with Christianity, in its most acceptable sense, but the way I see it being proselytised to a certain group of people while offering something that is speculative at best: ie: a righteous and pious life leads to salvation and life everlasting.
Remarks, please.

I'm definitely reading some frustration in ring these statements, but it seems that I'm wrong about them being malicious. So I apologize again.

No worries, I know that malicious does not necessarily have to be consciously malicious, your predator mind or ego or some other subconscious impulse can make you say something that is essentially a "barb" without you even realising you did that. So I mean, knowing that I had some emotional reaction to jacjon's original reply, I was definitely open to the possibility that although I tried my best not to react/respond mechanically in any way, something might've slipped through anyway.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I find it interesting how different perspectives lead to complete opposite conclusions about the role of the PTB in the Christian religion. While you (and I) see Christianity as created BY the PTB as a control system from the get-go, jacjon sees Christianty as a fundamentally true belief system that's been "hijacked" by the PTB and turned INTO a control system.

Very astute. That's it exactly!!

I actually don't exactly think that either. It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all?

Unfortunately we have few FACTS to support either view. In my opinion, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do dwell in us all.
That is my opinion, based on my inspection of the available facts and then using my mind to reason what, for me, is faith.
However, I do not consider myself overly religious. In fact, I am much more spiritual than religious.
It doew, however, bother me immensely when an almost 'brainwashing-like' dogma is inserted into "religion" for completely secular reasons. ( I assume no one re4ading this wants to get into the more reconizable 'Evangelsits' so I'll leave that for a more opportune time.


Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well).

I'm not sure disempower is the correct term in that - for those that lead the movement - power is a necessary step toward control.

But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

Or, in the case of my original words.....misused for......

One could say that his mind NEEDS to see the situation in this way, as he so strongly identifies with the basics of the Christian faith.

please see above

Well he might say the same thing about us, maybe for whatever reason, we NEED to see religion as something that was designed from the start to be a control mechanism instead of as having been corrupted along the way? But certainly parts of it were designed from the start as a control mechanism. Maybe not necessarily all parts though, but certainly the parts that promote unquestioned blind faith in what they say.

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

To some degree I think it's possible, but I mean if you're gonna question political things and see the lies there, why not take it further and question religion as well? After all, they are very similar, so if you can SEE the lies in one, it is not a huge stretch to see the same exact kinds of lies that use the same hooks etc in the other, osit.

If I didn't think I would incur your wrath I just may be tempted to say "God bless both of you" LOL
That's just the point. I, me, jacjon.......don't NEED religion to supplant empitness in my life. Spirituality perhaps....but not religion and the omnipresent dogmas.
It is this 'blind trust ' phenomena that scares me. Although I don't believe in the 'Warriors for Jesus' literally means a rush to arms...I do believe it is anethema to a well balanced society. At the same time I recognize that as a global society we are moving away from secularized governments ( perhaps the last in the west being the Clinton administration ) to those based on religious dogma -- the Middle East -- and of course, the recent coup d'etat in Thailand.
Blind trust by its very nature is evil and history clearly points out the tradegy that is most always imposed upon the masses by the few. ( ps: a good read about controlling the masses is Eric Hoffer's

In any case, challenging each others' paradigms is what this forum is about. There are no sacred cows. So if jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, that's his personal issue. I was just hoping that both you and he could move beyond that and have a discussion.

I hope so as well!!

But if there are no sacred cows as you say, why should we just ignore Jac's sacred cows? Jac wants to discuss sacred cows that HE considered silly that someone else has, but in the same sentence he proclaims to have sacred cows that are just as silly, so it just seemed like a very good reason to point that out and question them. We can certainly just "move beyond that and have a discussion", but it's kinda difficult to discuss someone else's sacred cows with someone who has the exact same kinds of sacred cows. It just seems hypocritical.

I think I'll just leave that.
Oh, the hell with it !!!! Please define MY sacred Cows.
jacjon

 

[jacjon]

ScioAgapeOmnis,

I agree that the most blatant barbs came from jacjon, and maybe what I saw as "hidden" barbs from you were just my own misinterpretation. Here are the two statements of yours that I interpreted as hidden barbs, or at the very least somewhat provocative:

Do you like the idea of being a pawn in a STS control hierarchy?

(My POV - It's clear that jacjon doesn't consider himself an STS pawn, so how should he have responded to this?)

I based that one 2 things. First, he said Jesus was his Lord - isn't that a direct reference to a STS hierachy of control where some "God" is perceived to be the one in charge aka "Lord"? Also, he obviously chose to hold this belief, and I know that when you assume or believe, you surrender your free will - and if what you believe was created by someone else, you surrender your free will to that person/entity. That, in my understanding, simply means becoming a pawn in a STS control hierarchy. I know what I asked was kinda a loaded question since it assumes that he IS part of an STS hierarchy, but that is not a baseless assumption because it is based on what he said, aka, he has a Lord and he blindly accepts certain things as truth without question.

jacjon says -- OK, SAO...where did you read that I " blindly accept certain things without question "???
Can I ask for your basis of fact that allowed that conclusion. Or, is it your opinion??(end)

jacjon says -- You and I are going to disagree. Probably on a lot of things. But that doesn't mean we can't converse.
Firstly, my ground rules not only allow for opinion, I BELIEVE that intelligence is garned through fact and experience but succeeds to its fullest when wise men gather insight through such methods but can transcend the experience and move to hypothesize the future.(end)

(My POV - jacjon surely considers himself quite interested in truth, so again, how should he have responded?)

But if he has beliefs, meaning, he assumes certain things to be true without question, is that not a direct opposite of what "seeking truth" means? Unless you mean he only seeks truth in some areas, but holds on to other sacred cows in other areas.

jacjon says -- SAO---well, one man's passion is another's poison.
Who gets to decide what " seeking truth " means??
To get back on topic, I believe that those Ministering to and through the Evangelical process are taking advantage of - some - who may not be able to think for themselves quite as well as others. The character of my remarks really have not so much to do with Christianity, in its most acceptable sense, but the way I see it being proselytised to a certain group of people while offering something that is speculative at best: ie: a righteous and pious life leads to salvation and life everlasting.
Remarks, please.(end)

I'm definitely reading some frustration in ring these statements, but it seems that I'm wrong about them being malicious. So I apologize again.

No worries, I know that malicious does not necessarily have to be consciously malicious, your predator mind or ego or some other subconscious impulse can make you say something that is essentially a "barb" without you even realising you did that. So I mean, knowing that I had some emotional reaction to jacjon's original reply, I was definitely open to the possibility that although I tried my best not to react/respond mechanically in any way, something might've slipped through anyway.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I find it interesting how different perspectives lead to complete opposite conclusions about the role of the PTB in the Christian religion. While you (and I) see Christianity as created BY the PTB as a control system from the get-go, jacjon sees Christianty as a fundamentally true belief system that's been "hijacked" by the PTB and turned INTO a control system.

jacjon says -- Very astute. That's it exactly!!(end)

I actually don't exactly think that either. It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all?

jacjon says -- Unfortunately we have few FACTS to support either view. In my opinion, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do dwell in us all.
That is my opinion, based on my inspection of the available facts and then using my mind to reason what, for me, is faith.
However, I do not consider myself overly religious. In fact, I am much more spiritual than religious.
It does, however, bother me immensely when an almost 'brainwashing-like' dogma is inserted into "religion" for completely secular reasons. ( I assume no one re4ading this wants to get into the more reconizable 'Evangelsits' so I'll leave that for a more opportune time. (end)


Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well).

jacjon says -- I'm not sure disempower is the correct term in that - for those that lead the movement - power is a necessary step toward control.(end)

But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

jacjon says -- Or, in the case of my original words.....misused for......(end)

One could say that his mind NEEDS to see the situation in this way, as he so strongly identifies with the basics of the Christian faith.

jacjon says -- please see above(end)

Well he might say the same thing about us, maybe for whatever reason, we NEED to see religion as something that was designed from the start to be a control mechanism instead of as having been corrupted along the way? But certainly parts of it were designed from the start as a control mechanism. Maybe not necessarily all parts though, but certainly the parts that promote unquestioned blind faith in what they say.

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

To some degree I think it's possible, but I mean if you're gonna question political things and see the lies there, why not take it further and question religion as well? After all, they are very similar, so if you can SEE the lies in one, it is not a huge stretch to see the same exact kinds of lies that use the same hooks etc in the other, osit.

jacjon says -- If I didn't think I would incur your wrath I just may be tempted to say "God bless both of you" LOL
That's just the point. I, me, jacjon.......don't NEED religion to supplant empitness in my life. Spirituality perhaps....but not religion and the omnipresent dogmas.
It is this 'blind trust ' phenomena that scares me. Although I don't believe in the 'Warriors for Jesus' literally means a rush to arms...I do believe it is anethema to a well balanced society. At the same time I recognize that as a global society we are moving away from secularized governments ( perhaps the last in the west being the Clinton administration ) to those based on religious dogma -- the Middle East -- and of course, the recent coup d'etat in Thailand.
Blind trust by its very nature is evil and history clearly points out the tradegy that is most always imposed upon the masses by the few. ( ps: a good read about controlling the masses is Eric Hoffer's the True Believer (end)

In any case, challenging each others' paradigms is what this forum is about. There are no sacred cows. So if jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, that's his personal issue. I was just hoping that both you and he could move beyond that and have a discussion.

jacjon says -- I hope so as well!!(end)

But if there are no sacred cows as you say, why should we just ignore Jac's sacred cows? Jac wants to discuss sacred cows that HE considered silly that someone else has, but in the same sentence he proclaims to have sacred cows that are just as silly, so it just seemed like a very good reason to point that out and question them. We can certainly just "move beyond that and have a discussion", but it's kinda difficult to discuss someone else's sacred cows with someone who has the exact same kinds of sacred cows. It just seems hypocritical.

jacjon says -- I think I'll just leave that.
Oh, the hell with it !!!! Please define MY sacred Cows.
jacjon

 

[Argonaut]

Very percise Alderpax. I was, and admitted as much to ScioA late last evening, just spewing words. Guess I thought ( for a sceond ) that it was a competition
A larger understanding of things is, and has got to be, the mandate here.
However, and I will address this directly through ScioA responses to me, as Descartes said --Cogito ergo sum. Although knowledge gained aposteriori is fundamentally based on facts and experience I beleive it to be a fair assumption that without reason, without belief Man would not has prospered. When I think of opinion I think of this. I would much prefer to engage in dialogue which allows me ALL my facilties. Besides --- without opinion how can we possibly know the entire truth????for

After reading your recent posts, jacjon, I feel that most of us have misunderstood you. Although you hold some Christian beliefs, you seem to be far from dogmatic. I think a lot of us have been viewing you as a strange case, as you claim to accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ, plus a few other "traditional" tenets of Christianity, which really isn't the norm here. As for "Sacred Cows", these are any beliefs that one attempts to guard and protect from scrutiny, due to a psychological "need" to continue holding those beliefs. I was viewing your belief in Christ as your major sacred cow. If I was wrong, and you ARE open to questioning the reality of Christ, then this is not a sacred cow for you.

If I didn't think I would incur your wrath I just may be tempted to say "God bless both of you" LOL

Seriously, now - You're not gonna incur anyone's wrath by saying that. You talk as if we're rabidly Anti-God, which we're most definitely not. We may be challenging you, or even misunderstanding you, but only because we desire open-minded discussion. Our issue isn't with "God", it's with dogmatic, rigid mind-prison beliefs, and especially with those beliefs being promoted on this forum. If this doesn't describe you, then don't worry. Also, if you do bristle a bit when a belief of yours is challenged, then maybe you DO have a sacred cow or two. Most of us have at least one, so I'm not singling you out here.

 

[Argonaut]

Do you like the idea of being a pawn in a STS control hierarchy?

(My POV - It's clear that jacjon doesn't consider himself an STS pawn, so how should he have responded to this?)

I based that one 2 things. First, he said Jesus was his Lord - isn't that a direct reference to a STS hierachy of control where some "God" is perceived to be the one in charge aka "Lord"? Also, he obviously chose to hold this belief, and I know that when you assume or believe, you surrender your free will - and if what you believe was created by someone else, you surrender your free will to that person/entity. That, in my understanding, simply means becoming a pawn in a STS control hierarchy. I know what I asked was kinda a loaded question since it assumes that he IS part of an STS hierarchy, but that is not a baseless assumption because it is based on what he said, aka, he has a Lord and he blindly accepts certain things as truth without question.

Based on what jacjon claimed to believe, I understand your assumptions. But your question to him didn't just assume that he's part of an STS hierarchy, it implied that he's willingly acting as a pawn with full awareness that he's doing so. Of course you didn't mean that literally, but I read the question as sort of like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There really isn't a satisfactory way jacjon could've answered it. He could either say "yes" or "no", thus conceding that you're right, or flat-out deny being part of an STS hierarchy, which is essentially what he did.

So if you aren't interested in truth, why are you on this forum?

(My POV - jacjon surely considers himself quite interested in truth, so again, how should he have responded?)

But if he has beliefs, meaning, he assumes certain things to be true without question, is that not a direct opposite of what "seeking truth" means? Unless you mean he only seeks truth in some areas, but holds on to other sacred cows in other areas.

He may - and probably does - hold onto some sacred cows. But again, your question seems to take for granted that he is not only actively uninterested in truth, but is fully aware of his own lack of interest. These types of questions tend to back their target into a corner, leaving him no real option but to outright deny your entire statement.

I'm definitely reading some frustration in these statements, but it seems that I'm wrong about them being malicious. So I apologize again.

No worries, I know that malicious does not necessarily have to be consciously malicious, your predator mind or ego or some other subconscious impulse can make you say something that is essentially a "barb" without you even realising you did that. So I mean, knowing that I had some emotional reaction to jacjon's original reply, I was definitely open to the possibility that although I tried my best not to react/respond mechanically in any way, something might've slipped through anyway.

Very true, this does happen a lot more than people realize or admit.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I find it interesting how different perspectives lead to complete opposite conclusions about the role of the PTB in the Christian religion. While you (and I) see Christianity as created BY the PTB as a control system from the get-go, jacjon sees Christianty as a fundamentally true belief system that's been "hijacked" by the PTB and turned INTO a control system.

I actually don't exactly think that either. It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all? Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well). But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

I now get where you're coming from, and I apologize once again for over-simplifying your position. My personal belief is similar to what you said. I do think that religions like Judaism, Christianty, and Islam (among others) were engineered by the PTB from the start. However, I think there have always been "mystery schools" and such that have held great truths, including ones based on a "good teacher" who may have inspired the concept of Jesus Christ. But some of these truths were used and twisted by the PTB in the creation of their monolithic religions. After all, the most effective lies are wrapped in a cloak of truth. Unless you're the Bush Administration, of course; then you can just straight-out LIE and everyone just swallows it. But I digress. ;)

One could say that his mind NEEDS to see the situation in this way, as he so strongly identifies with the basics of the Christian faith.

Well he might say the same thing about us, maybe for whatever reason, we NEED to see religion as something that was designed from the start to be a control mechanism instead of as having been corrupted along the way? But certainly parts of it were designed from the start as a control mechanism. Maybe not necessarily all parts though, but certainly the parts that promote unquestioned blind faith in what they say.

Excellent point. I've often thought of this, actually. What if Christianity turns out to be TRUE in some form, but I'm so focused on denying it that I'm ignoring the evidence for it? I don't believe that it IS true in any solid way, but I hope I'm not turning this belief into my own form of unquestionable dogma. Btw, in my opinion, "Christianity" as I percieve it originated with Roman Catholicism, and it all went downhill from there. So I think we agree; there's just a difference in how we're using the term "Christianity". I don't consider the pre-Catholic mystery schools, Essenes, and Gnostic sects to be "Christianity", per se. So when I say that Christianity was engineered as a control system from the start, I'm considering that "start" to be the birth of the organized Catholic Church. So we essentially agree here, and from what I'm starting to understand from his recent posts, this view may even agree with jacjon's.

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

To some degree I think it's possible, but I mean if you're gonna question political things and see the lies there, why not take it further and question religion as well? After all, they are very similar, so if you can SEE the lies in one, it is not a huge stretch to see the same exact kinds of lies that use the same hooks etc in the other, osit.

Very true. Trying to incorporate all of the truths here together with belief in Christ as Savior sounds extremely tough to me. I personally think that if jacjon continues here, and is a genuine truth-seeker, that eventually his Christian beliefs will become mere trappings, and then will just fall away at some point. Also, jacjon DOES see the lies in Christianity. But he's seeing this as his religion being abused, not as part of his religion itself. Which is understandable.

In any case, challenging each others' paradigms is what this forum is about. There are no sacred cows. So if jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, that's his personal issue. I was just hoping that both you and he could move beyond that and have a discussion.

But if there are no sacred cows as you say, why should we just ignore Jac's sacred cows? Jac wants to discuss sacred cows that HE considered silly that someone else has, but in the same sentence he proclaims to have sacred cows that are just as silly, so it just seemed like a very good reason to point that out and question them. We can certainly just "move beyond that and have a discussion", but it's kinda difficult to discuss someone else's sacred cows with someone who has the exact same kinds of sacred cows. It just seems hypocritical.

Sorry, bad wording on my part once again. Here's what I meant to convey: If jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, then that's his problem. You're not responsible for coddling his paradigms or his feelings. If he chooses to enter this forum with sacred cows, he needs to understand that we'll do whatever we can to tear those sacred cows apart. Demolishing sacred cows - our own and those of others - is a big part of "thinking with a hammer".

Of course, I probably wouldn't make the above statement now, after reading jacjon's recent posts. But that's what I intended to convey at the time. Hope it's a bit more clear. :)

 

[jacjon]

Do you like the idea of being a pawn in a STS control hierarchy?

(My POV - It's clear that jacjon doesn't consider himself an STS pawn, so how should he have responded to this?)

I based that one 2 things. First, he said Jesus was his Lord - isn't that a direct reference to a STS hierachy of control where some "God" is perceived to be the one in charge aka "Lord"? Also, he obviously chose to hold this belief, and I know that when you assume or believe, you surrender your free will - and if what you believe was created by someone else, you surrender your free will to that person/entity. That, in my understanding, simply means becoming a pawn in a STS control hierarchy. I know what I asked was kinda a loaded question since it assumes that he IS part of an STS hierarchy, but that is not a baseless assumption because it is based on what he said, aka, he has a Lord and he blindly accepts certain things as truth without question.

Based on what jacjon claimed to believe, I understand your assumptions. But your question to him didn't just assume that he's part of an STS hierarchy, it implied that he's willingly acting as a pawn with full awareness that he's doing so. Of course you didn't mean that literally, but I read the question as sort of like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There really isn't a satisfactory way jacjon could've answered it. He could either say "yes" or "no", thus conceding that you're right, or flat-out deny being part of an STS hierarchy, which is essentially what he did.

(My POV - jacjon surely considers himself quite interested in truth, so again, how should he have responded?)

But if he has beliefs, meaning, he assumes certain things to be true without question, is that not a direct opposite of what "seeking truth" means? Unless you mean he only seeks truth in some areas, but holds on to other sacred cows in other areas.

He may - and probably does - hold onto some sacred cows. But again, your question seems to take for granted that he is not only actively uninterested in truth, but is fully aware of his own lack of interest. These types of questions tend to back their target into a corner, leaving him no real option but to outright deny your entire statement.

I'm definitely reading some frustration in these statements, but it seems that I'm wrong about them being malicious. So I apologize again.

No worries, I know that malicious does not necessarily have to be consciously malicious, your predator mind or ego or some other subconscious impulse can make you say something that is essentially a "barb" without you even realising you did that. So I mean, knowing that I had some emotional reaction to jacjon's original reply, I was definitely open to the possibility that although I tried my best not to react/respond mechanically in any way, something might've slipped through anyway.

Very true, this does happen a lot more than people realize or admit.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I find it interesting how different perspectives lead to complete opposite conclusions about the role of the PTB in the Christian religion. While you (and I) see Christianity as created BY the PTB as a control system from the get-go, jacjon sees Christianty as a fundamentally true belief system that's been "hijacked" by the PTB and turned INTO a control system.

I actually don't exactly think that either. It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all? Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well). But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

I now get where you're coming from, and I apologize once again for over-simplifying your position. My personal belief is similar to what you said. I do think that religions like Judaism, Christianty, and Islam (among others) were engineered by the PTB from the start. However, I think there have always been "mystery schools" and such that have held great truths, including ones based on a "good teacher" who may have inspired the concept of Jesus Christ. But some of these truths were used and twisted by the PTB in the creation of their monolithic religions. After all, the most effective lies are wrapped in a cloak of truth. Unless you're the Bush Administration, of course; then you can just straight-out LIE and everyone just swallows it. But I digress. ;)

One could say that his mind NEEDS to see the situation in this way, as he so strongly identifies with the basics of the Christian faith.

Well he might say the same thing about us, maybe for whatever reason, we NEED to see religion as something that was designed from the start to be a control mechanism instead of as having been corrupted along the way? But certainly parts of it were designed from the start as a control mechanism. Maybe not necessarily all parts though, but certainly the parts that promote unquestioned blind faith in what they say.

Excellent point. I've often thought of this, actually. What if Christianity turns out to be TRUE in some form, but I'm so focused on denying it that I'm ignoring the evidence for it? I don't believe that it IS true in any solid way, but I hope I'm not turning this belief into my own form of unquestionable dogma. Btw, in my opinion, "Christianity" as I percieve it originated with Roman Catholicism, and it all went downhill from there. So I think we agree; there's just a difference in how we're using the term "Christianity". I don't consider the pre-Catholic mystery schools, Essenes, and Gnostic sects to be "Christianity", per se. So when I say that Christianity was engineered as a control system from the start, I'm considering that "start" to be the birth of the organized Catholic Church. So we essentially agree here, and from what I'm starting to understand from his recent posts, this view may even agree with jacjon's.

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

To some degree I think it's possible, but I mean if you're gonna question political things and see the lies there, why not take it further and question religion as well? After all, they are very similar, so if you can SEE the lies in one, it is not a huge stretch to see the same exact kinds of lies that use the same hooks etc in the other, osit.

Very true. Trying to incorporate all of the truths here together with belief in Christ as Savior sounds extremely tough to me. I personally think that if jacjon continues here, and is a genuine truth-seeker, that eventually his Christian beliefs will become mere trappings, and then will just fall away at some point. Also, jacjon DOES see the lies in Christianity. But he's seeing this as his religion being abused, not as part of his religion itself. Which is understandable.

In any case, challenging each others' paradigms is what this forum is about. There are no sacred cows. So if jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, that's his personal issue. I was just hoping that both you and he could move beyond that and have a discussion.

But if there are no sacred cows as you say, why should we just ignore Jac's sacred cows? Jac wants to discuss sacred cows that HE considered silly that someone else has, but in the same sentence he proclaims to have sacred cows that are just as silly, so it just seemed like a very good reason to point that out and question them. We can certainly just "move beyond that and have a discussion", but it's kinda difficult to discuss someone else's sacred cows with someone who has the exact same kinds of sacred cows. It just seems hypocritical.

Sorry, bad wording on my part once again. Here's what I meant to convey: If jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, then that's his problem. You're not responsible for coddling his paradigms or his feelings. If he chooses to enter this forum with sacred cows, he needs to understand that we'll do whatever we can to tear those sacred cows apart. Demolishing sacred cows - our own and those of others - is a big part of "thinking with a hammer".

Of course, I probably wouldn't make the above statement now, after reading jacjon's recent posts. But that's what I intended to convey at the time. Hope it's a bit more clear. :)

Not sure - yet - if I competent in the MECHANICS of the Forum' regarding these posts?????????? but I do enjoy the repatee. Thx to SAO and Alderfor your patience.
jacjon

 

[jacjon]

Do you like the idea of being a pawn in a STS control hierarchy?

(My POV - It's clear that jacjon doesn't consider himself an STS pawn, so how should he have responded to this?)

I based that one 2 things. First, he said Jesus was his Lord - isn't that a direct reference to a STS hierachy of control where some "God" is perceived to be the one in charge aka "Lord"? Also, he obviously chose to hold this belief, and I know that when you assume or believe, you surrender your free will - and if what you believe was created by someone else, you surrender your free will to that person/entity. That, in my understanding, simply means becoming a pawn in a STS control hierarchy. I know what I asked was kinda a loaded question since it assumes that he IS part of an STS hierarchy, but that is not a baseless assumption because it is based on what he said, aka, he has a Lord and he blindly accepts certain things as truth without question.

Based on what jacjon claimed to believe, I understand your assumptions. But your question to him didn't just assume that he's part of an STS hierarchy, it implied that he's willingly acting as a pawn with full awareness that he's doing so. Of course you didn't mean that literally, but I read the question as sort of like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There really isn't a satisfactory way jacjon could've answered it. He could either say "yes" or "no", thus conceding that you're right, or flat-out deny being part of an STS hierarchy, which is essentially what he did.

(My POV - jacjon surely considers himself quite interested in truth, so again, how should he have responded?)

But if he has beliefs, meaning, he assumes certain things to be true without question, is that not a direct opposite of what "seeking truth" means? Unless you mean he only seeks truth in some areas, but holds on to other sacred cows in other areas.

He may - and probably does - hold onto some sacred cows. But again, your question seems to take for granted that he is not only actively uninterested in truth, but is fully aware of his own lack of interest. These types of questions tend to back their target into a corner, leaving him no real option but to outright deny your entire statement.

I'm definitely reading some frustration in these statements, but it seems that I'm wrong about them being malicious. So I apologize again.

No worries, I know that malicious does not necessarily have to be consciously malicious, your predator mind or ego or some other subconscious impulse can make you say something that is essentially a "barb" without you even realising you did that. So I mean, knowing that I had some emotional reaction to jacjon's original reply, I was definitely open to the possibility that although I tried my best not to react/respond mechanically in any way, something might've slipped through anyway.

Very true, this does happen a lot more than people realize or admit.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I find it interesting how different perspectives lead to complete opposite conclusions about the role of the PTB in the Christian religion. While you (and I) see Christianity as created BY the PTB as a control system from the get-go, jacjon sees Christianty as a fundamentally true belief system that's been "hijacked" by the PTB and turned INTO a control system.

I actually don't exactly think that either. It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all? Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well). But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

I now get where you're coming from, and I apologize once again for over-simplifying your position. My personal belief is similar to what you said. I do think that religions like Judaism, Christianty, and Islam (among others) were engineered by the PTB from the start. However, I think there have always been "mystery schools" and such that have held great truths, including ones based on a "good teacher" who may have inspired the concept of Jesus Christ. But some of these truths were used and twisted by the PTB in the creation of their monolithic religions. After all, the most effective lies are wrapped in a cloak of truth. Unless you're the Bush Administration, of course; then you can just straight-out LIE and everyone just swallows it. But I digress. ;)

One could say that his mind NEEDS to see the situation in this way, as he so strongly identifies with the basics of the Christian faith.

Well he might say the same thing about us, maybe for whatever reason, we NEED to see religion as something that was designed from the start to be a control mechanism instead of as having been corrupted along the way? But certainly parts of it were designed from the start as a control mechanism. Maybe not necessarily all parts though, but certainly the parts that promote unquestioned blind faith in what they say.

Excellent point. I've often thought of this, actually. What if Christianity turns out to be TRUE in some form, but I'm so focused on denying it that I'm ignoring the evidence for it? I don't believe that it IS true in any solid way, but I hope I'm not turning this belief into my own form of unquestionable dogma. Btw, in my opinion, "Christianity" as I percieve it originated with Roman Catholicism, and it all went downhill from there. So I think we agree; there's just a difference in how we're using the term "Christianity". I don't consider the pre-Catholic mystery schools, Essenes, and Gnostic sects to be "Christianity", per se. So when I say that Christianity was engineered as a control system from the start, I'm considering that "start" to be the birth of the organized Catholic Church. So we essentially agree here, and from what I'm starting to understand from his recent posts, this view may even agree with jacjon's.

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

To some degree I think it's possible, but I mean if you're gonna question political things and see the lies there, why not take it further and question religion as well? After all, they are very similar, so if you can SEE the lies in one, it is not a huge stretch to see the same exact kinds of lies that use the same hooks etc in the other, osit.

Very true. Trying to incorporate all of the truths here together with belief in Christ as Savior sounds extremely tough to me. I personally think that if jacjon continues here, and is a genuine truth-seeker, that eventually his Christian beliefs will become mere trappings, and then will just fall away at some point. Also, jacjon DOES see the lies in Christianity. But he's seeing this as his religion being abused, not as part of his religion itself. Which is understandable.

But if there are no sacred cows as you say, why should we just ignore Jac's sacred cows? Jac wants to discuss sacred cows that HE considered silly that someone else has, but in the same sentence he proclaims to have sacred cows that are just as silly, so it just seemed like a very good reason to point that out and question them. We can certainly just "move beyond that and have a discussion", but it's kinda difficult to discuss someone else's sacred cows with someone who has the exact same kinds of sacred cows. It just seems hypocritical.

Sorry, bad wording on my part once again. Here's what I meant to convey: If jacjon chooses to get huffy when you question the Lordship of Jesus Christ, then that's his problem. You're not responsible for coddling his paradigms or his feelings. If he chooses to enter this forum with sacred cows, he needs to understand that we'll do whatever we can to tear those sacred cows apart. Demolishing sacred cows - our own and those of others - is a big part of "thinking with a hammer".

Of course, I probably wouldn't make the above statement now, after reading jacjon's recent posts. But that's what I intended to convey at the time. Hope it's a bit more clear. :)

Not sure - yet - if I competent in the MECHANICS of the Forum' regarding these posts?????????? but I do enjoy the repatee. Thx to SAO and Alderfor your patience.
jacjon

Whoops......spellings gone to hell.....that's repartee...as I'm sure you both knew
jacjon

 

[Argonaut]

Not sure - yet - if I competent in the MECHANICS of the Forum' regarding these posts?????????? but I do enjoy the repatee. Thx to SAO and Alderfor your patience.
jacjon

Not a problem. You're very welcome. :)

 

[vinny]

jacjon, it would be considerate to other readers if you could avoid quoting huge segments of the thread each time you want to add a one-liner. Also, spellings can be corrected on the original post, without duplicating the post, by clicking 'edit' on a post you have made.

All this helps to reduce the noise level, and so make it easier to get to the 'signal'

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Jacjon, I'm not sure what your reply was, could you please restructure it so that your replies are separated from the text to which you are replying? Here's a help page that gives a short but sweet overview of how to use the quote tag (among other things): http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/help.php
And if possible, please try to only quote the parts of the text to which you are replying, instead of including the entire post. It would make it much easier to read imho.

 

[Cyre2067]

Honestly the logic doesn't make sense, so i don't understand how one can arm himself, expect to commit murder, and think he was fulfilling gods will.

Uh, Cyre, have you been able to read CofZ?

Indeed, its extremely enlightening. I feel as if my understanding of our history is being re-written into my mind in a more objective manner, yielding many "Ah ha!" moments along the way.

I still don't understand how, if one proclaims to be "good" one can justify the murder of another simply because he/she does not conform to their wishes. It's as if one has the arrogance to assume they are correct, wholly, unquestionably, and the issue is not open for discussion, and all who oppose deserve death. To me, that's the essence of "the dark side", the entropic principal and my conception of evil. This is hardwired into my being, and i can't fathom how murder can be deemed "good" regardless of the justification.

Perhaps this block i have is the same for them, only reversed, they cannot reason how their murder could be anything but good. There's no question for them, that their actions may be evil.

In respect to 7th density/God/the universe there is no good or evil, there just IS. Ergo, those i deem evil are necessary to teach me how to be a more evolved "good" being. That without them, i would have no comparison, no understanding of the nature of the darkside, which is half of the universe.

Good and evil are merely points of view.

My contradiction arises when one proclaims to be of the light side, but is obviously not. If you want to push that, "Im right all the time and thats that" perspective you should at least be honest about it. Call yourself an Imperial, or a Sith, be open and proud of what you are, don't wear a sheep's skin and pretend to be something your not. It makes the rest of your side look lame. And that's basically how i feel about militant "christians". (edit) How can you claim to be "of christ" when he obviously wasn't on your side.

 

[Yossarian]

Yes jacjon, I also am interested in what you have to say and in this general discussion, but can't separate your new comments from the old quotes that you are commenting on, in the way that you are formatting your posts. Please Only quote the relevant part that you are responding to, and format your NEW comments so that they appear with the pink background.

In that way I (and others) might be able to better follow what you are saying and even join the conversation.

 

[Yossarian]

Here are some I think helpful "suggestions" for fruitful dialog, helpful especially when the subject is potentially volatile and concerns questions of "theological" (i.e., concerning ultimate reality and meaning) importance (i.e., also potentially emotional) that I borrowed from Leonard Swidler. I'm not saying that these concepts haven't been followed or are needed, but they gave me pause to look at myself in my attempts to dialog.

--A purpose of dialog is to change and grow in perception and understanding of reality and to act accordingly.

--Participants come to dialog with honesty and sincerity.

--Participants assume a similar honesty and sincerity in their dialog partners. (Yet, we are aware that there are always possible agents of disruption at work--my addition.)

--Participants come to the discussion with no hard and fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are.

--Dialog takes place between equals.

--Dialog requires mutual respect.

--Dialog participants should be willing to be self-critical of themselves and any intellectual/emotional/spirtual baggage that they may be carrying.

--Dialog participants should be willing to try to imagine themselves in the place of the other participants.

 

[moonwalker]

I would like to know whether Jacjon holds the beliefs that Christ was indeed born as the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected to advance and sit on the right hand of that God and that belief in Him and confession of our sins after being baptized will result in life everlasting.

If Jacjon does hold them beliefs then I can't see this thread going very far, but like Alderplax said if it's possible to synthesize the beliefs I stated above with the truths discussed here then I'm all ears.

Hey Moonwalker... Somehow I'm being made out to be exactly what I'm railing against. Yes, I am a Christian and have the FAITH in Jesus Christ. Did he rise through resurrection....I'm afraid I'm as skeptical as most men of reason. Do I believe in an afterlife, I have no knowledge, either a posteriori or apriori ( and consequently, without a basis to formulate one, I ahve no OPINION!!! Does that mean I can't discuss it?? I hope not, or I really am in the wrong FORUM.
pLEASE DON'T FORGET, THIS THREAD STARTED WITHMPlease don't forget, this thread started because of my opinions, based on the facts, of the ABC's new coverage of the - and I paraphrase - " Warriors for Jesus."
The FACTS are that millions of people are being 'cultizised" (my word) by those with extradordinary intentions.
I thought the preface to my "rhetoric??? " swas axiomatic. Apparently not.
Doesn't mean we can't chew it over!!

Jacjon I'm not coming after you or anything what concerned me was your preface. On one level it was self-evident yet on another level you go on and state that Jesus was your Lord. That straight away sets alarm bells ringing and I admit kind of irritates me because I wrongly assumed you were coming from a dogmatic position.

It seems to me like what you believe in is a stripped down version of christanity, no firm belief in the after life or the ressurection, which to me seem core tenents of the faith. I'm still not clear on what you believe. So may I ask - when you say have faith in Jesus Christ does that mean that you have faith in him returning, forgiving your sins, saving you or something else completely?

M

 

[Nienna]

Indeed, its extremely enlightening. I feel as if my understanding of our history is being re-written into my mind in a more objective manner, yielding many "Ah ha!" moments along the way.

I still don't understand how, if one proclaims to be "good" one can justify the murder of another simply because he/she does not conform to their wishes. It's as if one has the arrogance to assume they are correct, wholly, unquestionably, and the issue is not open for discussion, and all who oppose deserve death. To me, that's the essence of "the dark side", the entropic principal and my conception of evil. This is hardwired into my being, and i can't fathom how murder can be deemed "good" regardless of the justification.

Yes, CofZ is definitely giving me the "ah-ha" moments also. And, for some reason, I am not a bit surprised.

When I was between 8 and 9 years old, my mother sent me off to Sunday School. Not because she was a good Christian, she never went to church, but because she wanted me to be exposed to it and then decide for myself if this was something I wanted to continue doing. I have to admit, I was not impressed. We would have to sit in and listen to the sermons and even at that age, I was repelled by the whole thing. Sunday School lasted, for me, a few weeks and that was it.

And the whole thing is, according to CofZ, the Old Testament is a result of the books written by the Levites. And from the way it sounds, the Levites were psycopaths. There was only their way. And if you did not want to do things their way, then you were dead. These laws were written by men. They invented a God so they could proclaim they got these laws from a God. OSIT.

And the present-day Christians are joining in and buying the whole "it's Our God or Their God" state of mind that has been programmed into them by the priest, ministers, preachers, etc. And if killing "the other" is part of it, so be it. God commanded whole cities and civilizations to be destroyed in the Bible, so it must be the right thing to do. The sheep are under the spell of the Evil Magician and cannot wake up to see what's being done. They no longer can tell the difference between good and evil. They only see what they are programmed to see. So they support these "doers of evil" and think they are doing good.

And, I know Cyre, it makes no sense to me either. This is only my take on it, and I could be way off base.