Monday, September 18, 2023

Jesus Was A Pantheist

 Full Article

John 17

21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

Jesus saw God the way Spinoza saw God.

Nothing exists but God.

God is one, that is, onl one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. {I.15]

God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17]

 

Jesus , Spinoza Einstein Are All Pantheist

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

Albert Einstein also had a good understanding of humans as an inseparable part of the One, as he writes, A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein)

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.

21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

John 17

11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

Jesus

Again and again in John 17

13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one

He prays for us all to be pantheist to remember that we are pieces of God

(21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us)

We are only separate because like Jesus we chose to DESCEND from heaven and incarnate. as I said before earlier.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. You cant just be born of the water (womb) but of the spirit. But how can one be born of water and spirit? If you are born of flesh how can your spirit enter ?

 

How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

But how does the spirit enter the body and be born after you die?

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

 

But when a man dies no one sees the spirit leave and when the spirit enters a body no one sees this?

 

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

But I don't remember being born so if I die where did my spirit come from in order for me to be born in the first place?

 

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, except he that came down from heaven, even Jesus

 

We are all part of God manifesting as a "part" separate trying to become one. But where Jesus realizes this, we believe religion and deny it.

"Separate Beings of the same source. “So," if" God decided to "manifest" Himself in the earth to accomplish His desires, He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in Jesus He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in you He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in me etc.

 

Why should we be separate ? Why deny this ? Religion teaches repetition which is brainwashing. If you say something enough you will begin to believe it is true.

Jesus prays for us to remember who we really are!

We are ONE We manifest as separate beings to learn just as Jesus did but eventually we must return to The Source.

Eventually we must remember.

Like Jesus did

So, when Jesus became ONE he remembered and wanted us all to remember.

 

 

 

 

Jesus prayed for Pantheism

What is Pantheism?

21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

 

22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

Say this prayer in front of any Pantheist and they will recognize their own teachings!

 

All things interconnected and interdependent. In life and in death we humans are an inseparable part of this unity, and in realizing this we can find our joy and our peace. (Harrison, Pantheism, 1999)

 

'God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature’s laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.' (Zeno, founder of Stoicism) (Russell, 1946)

 

The most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one could almost say the essence of it - is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics)

 

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein)

 

All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. (Heraclitus, 500BC)

 

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

 

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many... Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms.

 

(Rig Veda)

 

Behold but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray. (Kabir)

 

The Universe is Brahman, the One that underlies and make possible all the multiplicity; the universal consciousness that is the soul of all existence. It is the primordial no-thingness from which all things arise, the one reality whose oneness is all-inclusive; and includes all that is, or shall be. It is Brahman; the source of the entire cosmos and all cosmic activities relating to the emergence, existence and dissolution of the terrestrial phenomena that form the cosmic rhythm. And this ultimate reality is One- absolute and indeterminable. (Sudhakar S.D. I am All)

 

By his silence Shakyamuni wanted to divert our attention from fruitless questions to the all-important task before us: solving life's problems and living a life which would bring happiness to self as well as others

To a follower who insisted on knowing, "Is there a God?", Shakyamuni replied with the parable of the poison arrow. "if you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise O disciple, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; when that is done, you may still ask the questions you put before me, if you so desire."

And that is how I feel when asked "What is God? "

To me it is more important to know what God is NOT because until you get rid of all false or Ego concepts of God your mind is full of what you think. And there is no room for the actual nature of God to enter your mind and become one with you.

 

There is another story of a professor that thought he knew everything already but couldn't understand why he couldn't be taught zen.

 

A Cup of Tea

 

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

 

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

 

A Relationship with God by Becoming One With God

 

I do not think that anyone's relationship with God is and illusion. I do not claim like most Buddhist that God can not exist. Most of our relationships with other people are complete misunderstandings. We think we KNOW the people we have relationships with. Many times we project our ideas on people. If we are cynical or mistrusting of people then we focus on any evidence in someones behavior that they want to manipulate or use us. If we are optimist that like to look at the brighter side of life we try to see the good in people. If an optimist meets a philosopher that is a skeptic that questions everything and doesn't always see the good in everyone then that optimist will see the philosopher/skeptic as a NEGATIVE person.

 

The RELATIONSHIP with these people is not an ILLUSION. But our biases create a misunderstanding of who these people REALLY ARE .

 

Again there are not just 2 alternatives. That is you know someone completely with NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS about who they really are. OR you do NOT KNOW or UNDERSTAND them at all.

 

I do NOT believe that relationships are like that. I believe that we can know someone and have a really good understanding of who they are but still at the same time be blinded with assumptions based on biases from our experiences. In some ways we may never truly know someone. The only way to truly know someone is to be able to trust them.

 

Many people have prejudice and biases against women or people of other races. For them getting to know a woman or someone of another race is very limited. If there is hate involved they may never get to know certain people that come into their lives. If they have worked through and gotten rid of hate they may still have prejudice or biases based on the fears left over.

 

What I am getting at is that is this. I am NOT claiming that anyone that doesn't see God the way I do isn't having a relationship with God. Nor am I claiming that God does not exist in a way that allows any personal connection or relationship. I am only claiming that all religions including Buddhism creates filters or assumptions about God that creates biases.

 

For me seeing God through religion is like looking at something with one eye closed. True what you are seeing IS real. But in order to see not only what is REAL but with true DEPTH you must look at what you want to see with BOTH eyes open.

 

It is my opinion based on my experience and studies and realizations that to see God is like seeking enlightenment. Until you let go of what you think you know and what you feel you need or desire actually KNOWING the nature of Reality or God is impossible. But this does not mean I deny that those that do not have enlightenment can not have a relationship with God. I am simply saying that God is beyond what religion teaches!

 

Not only does Jesus teach reincarnation but Jesus also teaches Pantheism!

 

He admits that God's will is DIFFERENT than his own so he can only be claiming to be God in the Pantheist sense that we are ALL God!

 

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

 

Then admits that only God's will decides who is saved Again Jesus has his own separate will.

 

6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

Jesus can not make the decision because he is not God and he admit it.

 

John 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.

 

Over and over Jesus admits that his will/spirit/soul etc is DIFFERENT then God's will

 

John 7:17 If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. John 7:18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.

 

Jesus does not speak from his own authority because he is not God !

 

Jesus taught Pantheism.

 

At one point he is so frustrated trying to explain being one with God without claiming to be God that he points out Jewish teachings that point to pantheism saying all are gods/or part of God But regardless to say that God's will is different and separate from his own will and at the same time claim to be ONE with God IS Pantheism plain and simple!

 

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.

 

Of course when he claims pantheism he is misunderstood as claiming to be God so he clears that up just as I said .

 

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

 

Of course they would respond that they only let the spirit of God IN them just as you claim.

 

Even though God is IN all of us when you become ONE with God your connection is deeper. So deep in fact that those who never achieve becoming ONE with God misunderstand anyone who claims Pantheismis the truth  the way Jesus did.

 

Jesus claims after becoming ONE with God that he does only God's will but it is still DIFFERENT and SEPARATE from his own

 

John 10:38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

 

To say that God is IN me and I IN him IS Pantheism !

 

Otherwise Jesus would have said that God IS me or I AM him!

 

Jesus did say before Abraham was I AM but... I AM ...is pantheism and he is also hinting at reincarnation which he explains in John when answering Nicodemus on how reincarnation is possible.

 

When ever someone becomes ONE with God they become God by letting go off all they think they are.

 

If you let go of things like "I am a man" or I have blond hair or anything else to do with the body. . Then let go of all of who you think of as "your personality Favorite colors music etc and then further let go of all your deepest desires and fears .. and all that you are as a person all that is left is your awareness or soul .

Since God IS awareness you become one with the source . You are no longer I am Matt or I am Brian . You just are.. You are I AM . God is in you and you are in God . There is NO separation because you give up your will. Of course I personally do not believe you give up your will . I believe your will is motivated by a higher and purer awareness. But to understand the nature of will or God or even your own soul you would have to become ONE with God.

 

This is very hard to do for a NON-Pantheist or for someone that HATES Pantheism. I(I am using your word hate ironically because you seem to think that anyone that disagrees with something that seems obvious and spiritual to you must hate what they disagree with)

 

A NON-Pantheist could become ONE with God by meditating but by doing so they would probably become a pantheist as soon as they achieved this awareness or at least they would be much more open to the idea.

 

Yeah Jesus made alot of people angry with his Pantheism and his teachings on the truth of Reincarnation threatened those in power.

Socrates was killed for saying similar things and daring to challenge the accepted view of those in power. The Christians got rid of reincarnation from his teachings as well as his pantheism just like the Buddhist got rid of the soul from Buddha's teachings and for the same reason.

 

Without reincarnation religion keeps it's power and without a soul to reincarnate Buddhism is just another form of Atheism.

Buddha refused to answer most people when asked about God because to do so would keep people from seeking to experience God directly without religion.

 

And Jesus never claimed to be God and he  admitted that he Incarnated just like everyone else and even tried to explain how reincarnation works.

But most of his words and teachings were erased and replaced to create the churches we have today.

 

What we are left with is a world where people are mocked or killed for telling the truth and a Jealous Angry God that demands our fear and obedience and calls this love.

 

No religion knows or explains what God or Love or your Soul really is though they talk incessantly about these and build up myths and sacred symbols to hide the truth.

 

That is why Jesus taught to seek wiithin.

 

But nobody looks inside anymore

 

...and the few that CLAIM they are looking INSIDE themselves for answers and claim that they ask God to tell them what is true... always seem to find what religion has always taught and what they already believed before they even asked any questions.

 

Socrates (Who I believe was an Incarnation of Jesus) taught that an unexamined life is not worth living.

But most people only examine life close enough to see that they were right all along and anybody that sees anything different must be wrong.

 

 


Thursday, January 05, 2012

Jesus Was A Pantheist

My Blog has moved. Please click the link below for this article.

Not only does Jesus teach reincarnation

John 17
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.


A Relationship With God by Becoming One With God

I do not think that anyone's relationship with God is and illusion. I do not claim like most Buddhist that God can not exist. Most of our relationships with other people are complete misunderstandings. We think we KNOW the people we have relationships with. Many times we project our ideas on people. If we are cynical or mistrusting of people then we focus on any evidence in someones behavior that they want to manipulate or use us. If we are optimist that like to look at the brighter side of life we try to see the good in people. If an optimist meets a philosopher that is a skeptic that questions everything and doesn't always see the good in everyone then that optimist will see the philosopher/skeptic as a NEGATIVE person.

The RELATIONSHIP with these people is not an ILLUSION. But our biases create a misunderstanding of who these people REALLY ARE .

Again there are not just 2 alternatives. That is you know someone completely with NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS about who they really are. OR you do NOT KNOW or UNDERSTAND them at all.

I do NOT believe that relationships are like that. I believe that we can know someone and have a really good understanding of who they are but still at the same time be blinded with assumptions based on biases from our experiences. In some ways we may never truly know someone. The only way to truly know someone is to be able to trust them.

Many people have prejudice and biases against women or people of other races. For them getting to know a woman or someone of another race is very limited. If there is hate involved they may never get to know certain people that come into their lives. If they have worked through and gotten rid of hate they may still have prejudice or biases based on the fears left over.

What I am getting at is that is this. I am NOT claiming that anyone that doesn't see God the way I do isn't having a relationship with God. Nor am I claiming that God does not exist in a way that allows any personal connection or relationship. I am only claiming that all religions including Buddhism creates filters or assumptions about God that creates biases.

For me seeing God through religion is like looking at something with one eye closed. True what you are seeing IS real. But in order to see not only what is REAL but with true DEPTH you must look at what you want to see with BOTH eyes open.

It is my opinion based on my experience and studies and realizations that to see God is like seeking enlightenment. Until you let go of what you think you know and what you feel you need or desire actually KNOWING the nature of Reality or God is impossible. But this does not mean I deny that those that do not have enlightenment can not have a relationship with God. I am simply saying that God is beyond what religion teaches!

Click Link Below For Full Article




Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Does Freedom Evolve?

I have always been a fan of Dennet. Here is a part of a review I found on the book Freedom Evolves.


Dennett's Foil: Robert Kane's View of Free Willhttp://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--766-The_Dogmatic_Determinism_Daniel_Dennett.aspx

That the nature of causality is vitally important for the free will versus determinism issue is highlighted by Dennett's critique of what he regards as "the best attempt so far" to defend free will against determinism: that of Robert Kane in his book The Significance of Free Will (Oxford University Press, 1996). Kane recognizes that free will is relevant to action in those cases in which a person has to choose between two contradictory courses of action and has strong reasons for both. However, he shares Dennett's event-event view of causality and dogmatic rejection of agent causation. To avoid acknowledging agent causation while also avoiding determinism, Kane tries to base free will on quantum indeterminacies that may occur in the atoms of the brain during the process of deliberating on the reasons for alternative actions, which make the person's final choice of action undetermined. Dennett easily demolishes the theory, correctly demonstrating that such quantum indeterminacies do not in any way help give the person control of his actions or provide support for holding the person responsible for them. "

But when examined this conclusion does not hold up as the only conclusion. Quantum indeterminism could be awareness itself in this case my soul. If this were the case then it is my soul that determines my actions. So I do have free will. In quantum physics possibilities collapse into probabilities and probabilities collapse into actualities. But in reality every time I make a decision I can change my mind. How many times can I change my mind. Theoretically I can change my mind an infinite amount of times. If I decide to go to the movies tomorrow the next morning I can decide not to go. I can make plans to do something else.

When we say "my plans fell through" it implies that due to circumstance beyond my control my alternative plans simply were not feasible. If this were to happen then I could change my mind once again and go see a movie. But in each case it is me that is deciding. Many times when someone wants to do something badly enough they can conquer the odds (The probabilities in QM) and find a way to do things even when things are against them. In the laws of physics if a coin falls not only does it eventually have to hit the ground but it has to collapse the probability of heads or tails when it does. It can not decide not to land. In the same way it is assumed that indetermism in QM can not allow for freewill. Any time we make a decision in life it is not only assumed that we must always choose between one action and another but that this choice has already been predetermined at birth. Somehow from this

Dennet wants to posit freewill as reason for morals without actually accepting freewill. Just as the theologian wants to answer the problem of Evil in theology with freewill even though theology teaches there is no such thing. Apparently God gives us the freewill to choose to follow God or not then test us to see how we use this gift by sending someone he has already designed to believe in him. So when an atheist meets a christian he is temporarily given freewill to accept or reject Jesus. If he accepts Jesus then his freewill is gone he now will do Gods will. If he rejects Jesus then God takes away his will to resist Satan. Of course this is what Christians believe this is not what theology or the bible teaches. Theology teaches that we never have freewill. God wills us to be believers or nonbelievers. God then test his creations to see how well they follow his design.

So somehow we are designed to act as if we are believers or nonbelievers acting out of freewill. For all intents and purposes of theology we have freewill to choose to be a believer or not but God already know what we will choose at any given moment. God wills everything to happen. This creates his design. Every time we resist his will we are exercising our own freewill but we can only resist according to the parameters of his design. He then rewards or punishes us based on his whim which Christians call grace. The scientist gives me the same type of predetermined will. Dennet doesn't seem to offer a freewill of indeterminism. In fact he claims that indeterminacy can affect reality on every level but one Consciousness.

"Dennett defends a particular form of determinism known as compatibilism. This is the view that the concept of free will should be redefined so that it no longer involves a free choice among alternatives and can thus be made compatible with the mechanist/reductionist model of the universe. "

To me this idea of freewill like the theological version it isn't even coherent let alone worth having.

"For Dennett, the significance of free will is that it is the basis of morality and moral responsibility, of engaging in moral judgment and holding people responsible for their actions. His thesis is that while free will in the ordinary sense is an illusion, these consequences of free will are real and compatible with his deterministic model of the universe, so free will should be redefined to refer to these consequences. Dennett suggests that calling an action "freely chosen" should not mean that the person had some other possible alternative action (which Dennett claims is never true), but rather should mean that we are justified in holding the person morally responsible for that action: "In other words, the fact that free will is worth wanting can be used to anchor our conception of free will in a way metaphysical myths fail to do"

Again I have to disagree with Dennet. He is offering the old theological model of freewill that Christianity used to justify theological morality. Having freewill can not be true so has no value in itself but believing in freewill allows us to create morals. Our society attempts to control us with psychiatrist and priest. If we had freewill in a real sense then both religion and behaviorism loses its power over us.

We can no longer be converted or social engineered into good citizens. If we actually have a soul that is independent of any behavioral reductionism or theological construct of obedience we might all become spiritual anarchist holding no authority higher than our own soul. Well I for one am already a spiritual anarchist and I hope one day to live in a world of spiritual anarchist because freedom means nothing if you can not exercise it.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/152812-2

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Descartes A Method of Faith?

I have been searching the net with no luck on Descartes to find arguments on him starting from a theistic conclusion and working his way back to to his premise. To clarify I think Descartes like most theist started with God and and worked his way back to a starting premise. He wants to prove God exist. Not as an agnostic arguing probability but as a theist who is already convinced. Since his most important work is based on a method of doubt it looks as if he is an agnostic doubting everything then surprise surprise his reasoning just happens to lead him to what he already believed. It is my understanding that any true agnostic using this method of doubt would go in circles like the dog chasing his tail.With each circle of reasoning he would end up with less and less faith until atheism all though not proven would seem the most probable truth. Descartes on the other hand seemed to go from his method of doubt straight to a theistic conclusion step by step with no missteps. I find this suspicious.

Sounds more like a method of faith. You start with your faith in God then pretend to doubt just so other skeptics will take your faith as actual reasoning. Many Christians today use this method in writing books that say they were once an atheist. Their writings fall down based on their misunderstanding of what atheism is. If you really were an atheist then you would know that atheism is a philosophy. Or more clearly a predisposition to non theistic philosophers/philosophies based not on prejudice but personal experience and an intelligent understanding of what philosophy is. Yet book after book is published and carried mostly by Christian bookstores claiming they once were atheist and how they lived a totally immoral life until some realization or dissatisfaction with that life led them to God. Who of course just happened to be the Christian God.

If you really chose atheism as just an excuse to be amoral and then became dissatisfied with an amoral life why not become a Jew? Jews believe in God. There is your meaning. If you claim all you need is God for meaning Judaism should be enough. Or why not Buddhism ? Buddhism teachings are all about compassion leading to enlightenment. With Buddhism amoralism is impossible. You can be an immoral person but not without conflict and if you want enlightenment you have no choice but to eliminate this conflict with mindfulness and compassion. So why do all these writers live such immoral lives and coincidentally find Jesus instead? To me it is obvious they are not being intellectually honest with themselves or with us by saying they were once atheist.

All atheist suffer the pains of agnosticism. Not pain necessarily from Pascals wager or or Christian Theism. Christians are not the only belief system with a concept of God.

A real atheist will study theism deism pantheism etc before making the commitment from agnostic to atheist. And a real agnostic would never be able to use their doubt to get to God. Only faith gets you to God. Doubt takes you to reality instead. I guess I am saying Descartes was a liar. Either he was a theist playing with words or he was an agnostic hiding behind theism to get published. Either way he misled people to believe he had proof of God and that this was more important then any honesty inquiry into the nature of metaphysics. Can any one offer some good internet links to substantiate or challenge my claims? Does any one here have a opinion on whether I have a point?

Metaphysics of Spirituality

Reactions: Problems with the Soul theory


The Cartesian Circle and The Clockwork Orange Paradox.

 

The Soul of The Atheist

 

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Consumer Culture As A Form of Pornography?

compassion, consumer, consumerism, culture, education, equality, gender, materialism, media, men, money, politics, pornography, power, sex, sexism, society, values, wealth, women

I am writing a book on pornography with the premise that true pornography is any form of media that distorts men and women into predator and prey (Aggressor and Victim) Whether it be an adult film showing a woman to be used or a horror flick showing her as a victim and therefore sexy But even romantic comedy shows women as victims who need a man with money to validated their worth as a sex object

So my question is this. Is there a connection between the way feminism has been absorbed into a patriarchal materialist society and porn ? There are now women producing porn but for the most part it has not softened in to erotica The bottom line is money Has our materialist society corrupted feminism so that woman are fighting for equality to pursue money and power? Are these not male values? And the worse male values at that?


Why should women settle for equality as defined by the top 1% of soulless males that worship power We need your healing feminine energy to balance out the overly male energy There are other values besides wealth power and competition that take just as much strength if not more to add to our a society as appreciated values

We need to learn feminine strengths such as compassion openness vulnerability and many others (Some that can not be put into words easily) These traits that are encouraged in women are discouraged in men because they are seen as weaknesses The problem is that feminist do not want to be seen as weak so a lot of them accept our societies rules for what is a strength or a weakness and what should be valued.

I for one would like to start an organization of men who have power unfairly due to our societies unequal playing ground who will be willing to join their power to women who are struggling feminist who are trying to empower themselves

The goal of such a group would be

1. To balance out the playing field for both feminine and masculine values

2.Eliminate gender roles all together as well

3.Create other options besides male dominator ones to influence our politics or economic structure education system etc

Am I too much of a dreamer ? Or does anyone else want to see this new world I envision? Perhaps I should wait a thousand lifetimes reincarnate and ask again?

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Idiots Censored

Ok Im not sure anyone got the joke anyway. Since this post was on a message board which is probably offline I am censoring this post until a later date. Why ? Because when I tried to  share on Facebook this post was posted instead of my main page. So if you want to read my blog you will actually have to visit my blog. Sorry

My Space Blog

Ok this is just a blog not my actual website. My actual website is on myspace. The link is on this blog. From time to time I will update my webpage on myspace. Sometimes I will feel the need to tell you what my plan is for my webpage on myspace. What I am doing there and why. When I do that I will not be posting the information here.


So if I am doing something important on my webpage on myspace how can you find out what is going on? Simple myspace as it's own built in blog. You can find my webpages PERSONAL Blog here. My Space Blog I will post anything personal I want you to know about along with webpage updates to myspace.

So what will I use the space on blogger for? This page you are reading now is not personal or about my webpage. I am sorry but you will just have to visit my webpage for that or the link above. This blog on blogger is about my thoughts. My philosophy. Not my life. Get it? Got it? Good :)