What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

[wynn]

Even karma doesn't explain it. If I killed your infant son, would you killing my infant son be considered justice? Why should my infant son have to die to satisfy some cosmic scorecard? And even if you believe in the concept, you'll never know what you're being punished for, so what's the lesson? Karma, at least it seems to me, is just another overly-simplistic religious pseudo-philosophy that crumbles under the slightest inquiry.

While trying to work out the details of how karma works would likely drive one crazy, the basic principle of karma is common-sense: What goes around, comes around; don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself.

As to your question, I don't think one could come to trust and appreciate God if he turned out to be the cause of such a sadistic system as karma.

Agreed. Fear, awe and reverence yes, but certainly not trust and appreciation.

You may view having no belief in God to be a cold and lonely existence, but at least there's no celestial judge waiting to smack you and your family down for things you allegedly did in a previous life for the purpose of getting even.

I don't view having no belief in God "to be a cold and lonely existence" - not at all. I'm not sure you understand my motivation for exploring these topics, and I'm not sure I can explain it in ways you could relate to.
In matters on the topic of "God," I am mostly driven by ambition, pride, envy, not by the desire for warm fuzzies.

 

[wynn]

I've told you, there is no ''problem of evil'', just as there is no ''problem of darkness''. Go figure.

Gee, of course there is no problem of evil!
There is no me, no you, no sun and no moon either!

IOW, you're simply proposing a stalinistic solution: dismiss the person, and then the person's problems will be irrelevant too.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Gee, of course there is no problem of evil!
There is no me, no you, no sun and no moon either!

IOW, you're simply proposing a stalinistic solution: dismiss the person, and then the person's problems will be irrelevant too.

If there is a ''problem of evil'' , and my explanation hasn't cleared things up, then explain.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

While trying to work out the details of how karma works would likely drive one crazy, the basic principle of karma is common-sense: What goes around, comes around; don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself.

Of course. As a principal, it's fine. It's when one starts to actually investigate the implications of such a process that one discovers just how impossible, not to mention obscene and senseless, it actually is. This is why I say it's a shallow pseudo-philosophy. It's just another way of making sense of the world (why would this child be born with cancer?), but like all religious explanations, it doesn't actually stand up.

I don't view having no belief in God "to be a cold and lonely existence" - not at all. I'm not sure you understand my motivation for exploring these topics, and I'm not sure I can explain it in ways you could relate to.
In matters on the topic of "God," I am mostly driven by ambition, pride, envy, not by the desire for warm fuzzies.

You shouldn't concern yourself with whether or not I'll be able to relate. Be as clear as possible, and if I get it, then I get it. If not, then I don't. At least in the attempt to explain yourself, there's a chance for common understanding. Retreating only ensures that there will always be a disconnect.

 

[Balerion]

Gee, of course there is no problem of evil!
There is no me, no you, no sun and no moon either!

IOW, you're simply proposing a stalinistic solution: dismiss the person, and then the person's problems will be irrelevant too.

No, what he's trying to do is redefine "evil" as "the absence of good." It's a semantic trick, nothing more. It doesn't actually address the issue of bad things happening in a universe created by an inherently good God.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Balerion,

I actually agree with you in the main.

Often when confronted with a Christian evangelist they ask: "Do you belive in god?" and my response is a bit of a provoker and I say "Yes with out question" where upon the evangelist will launch into a diatribe of Bible speak, which I usually interupt and say: "Oh you mean the Christian God? oh no... my God is quite sane thank you. I can't belive that God is nuts".
And they ask: "why do you think the Christain God is nuts?"
I say "Well think about it, God strings up his only son Jesus after having him flogged half to death on a cross to die a slow an painful death" do you call that sane? I don't...Do you call it moral? I don't.
When God is supposed to be able to speak to all men any time he chooses why would he use such a minimalistic approach to deliver a so called message... he must be nuts... and I apologise and say I can not accept that God is nuts so I believe in God who is sane and rational and omnipotent and certainly not the Christain insane and pseudo potent version. And I finish with, "But by all means believe in an insane, sadistic God , that is your right to do so.."
The premise is, if man has trancended the morality of 2000 years ago the bible needs a third testament... the greatest theosophical mistake of the bible I feel is that it is closed to evolution, to evolving, to being relevant to mankinds needs of today and not 2000+ years ago.

The book is obsolete in it's current form.
It is little wonder that fundamental Christains are intolerant of theories of evolution and science because the inabiity to "evolve" their own faith and belief system is closed to them due to the last few words of that book they keep waving around.

Now note an exception IMO: Modern or contemporary Christains who take a more metaphorical approach to the bible and beleive in action over words are not the target of this post

 

[Jan Ardena]

Quantum Quack.

Often when confronted with a Christian evangelist they ask: "Do you belive in god?" and my response is a bit of a provoker and I say "Yes with out question" where upon the evangelist will launch into a diatribe of Bible speak,

I'm intersted in the ''diatribe'' you see fit to leave out of this statement in bid to deliver the punchline.
Was it a load of rubbish?
Didn't you understand it?
Or was there another reason?

....which I usually interupt and say: "Oh you mean the Christian God? oh no... my God is quite sane thank you. I can't belive that God is nuts".
And they ask: "why do you think the Christain God is nuts?"

So do you think Jesus was nuts also?

I say "Well think about it, God strings up his only son Jesus after having him flogged half to death on a cross to die a slow an painful death" do you call that sane? I don't...Do you call it moral? I don't.

Jesus chose that life, knowing the consciousness level of the powers that were/be. He wasn't exactly a stupid man.
He lived his life as an example of how to acheive God consciousness at that time, under those circumstances.
If you decide to take a swim in a river full of crocs, your going get a nasty nip.

When God is supposed to be able to speak to all men any time he chooses why would he use such a minimalistic approach to deliver a so called message... he must be nuts... and I apologise and say I can not accept that God is nuts so I believe in God who is sane and rational and omnipotent and certainly not the Christain insane and pseudo potent version. And I finish with, "But by all means believe in an insane, sadistic God , that is your right to do so.."

So, a high ranking personality, highly intelligent, fully self-realised, has a personal relationship with God, decided to descend on the planet for what is probably a moment in his
real time (which he is fully aware of), out of unconditional love, gives a real example of how to live so that we can also transcend this suffering, dies a most painful death, showing us the kind of people who are in charge of the world. Come back in his spiritual form to provide evidence for those that saw him, that this life, this body, and all this, is nothing but an illusion, and there is a real life to live where you can actually be yourself, in your natural habitat. And all you can say is ''God is nuts'' and I prefer to believe in my God who is ration and sensible?

There seems to be alot missing from your conception of God, or is it just me?

The book is obsolete in it's current form.
It is little wonder that fundamental Christains are intolerant of theories of evolution and science because the inabiity to "evolve" their own faith and belief system is closed to them due to the last few words of that book they keep waving around.

How can spirituality be obselete?
If conspiracy theories are true, then the dumbing down of ''spirituality'' is basis of it.


The point of scriptures, or any kind of spiritual discourse, or action, is about nothing other than to bring the human to his/her highest level of awareness.

jan.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack.




I'm intersted in the ''diatribe'' you see fit to leave out of this statement in bid to deliver the punchline.
Was it a load of rubbish?
Didn't you understand it?
Or was there another reason?




So do you think Jesus was nuts also?





Jesus chose that life, knowing the consciousness level of the powers that were/be. He wasn't exactly a stupid man.
He lived his life as an example of how to acheive God consciousness at that time, under those circumstances.
If you decide to take a swim in a river full of crocs, your going get a nasty nip.





So, a high ranking personality, highly intelligent, fully self-realised, has a personal relationship with God, decided to descend on the planet for what is probably a moment in his
real time (which he is fully aware of), out of unconditional love, gives a real example of how to live so that we can also transcend this suffering, dies a most painful death, showing us the kind of people who are in charge of the world. Come back in his spiritual form to provide evidence for those that saw him, that this life, this body, and all this, is nothing but an illusion, and there is a real life to live where you can actually be yourself, in your natural habitat. And all you can say is ''God is nuts'' and I prefer to believe in my God who is ration and sensible?

There seems to be alot missing from your conception of God, or is it just me?



How can spirituality be obselete?
If conspiracy theories are true, then the dumbing down of ''spirituality'' is basis of it.


The point of scriptures, or any kind of spiritual discourse, or action, is about nothing other than to bring the human to his/her highest level of awareness.

jan.

Firstly let me apologise for launching into something with out proper preamble....
I may have presented an approach that may have at first seemed offensive. For this I apologise.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was most of what people have considered him to be, to them and to others.
Where I see it, is in the interpretation of exactly what Jesus was, given the cultural and historical background he lived in.

The times were steeped in Judaism, persecution, paganism, you name -it-isms.

The crucifixtion was not the true Gods work but a man-made contructed Gods work. For as I said I do not believe for a single moment that the true God then or Now would be as insane as the crucifixion suggests him to be.

I see in the biblical writings many things inspired by the universe that bewildered people totally, they naturally ascribed such phenonema to a divinity of their own making.

I will stand by my "God is not insane" comment regardless if it is offensive or not...
and when people realise this, that God is NOT insane, they may start to see the insanity of man at work in some of the writings in the bible and not that of an insane God.

Needless to say I believe the REAL truth about Jesus and that of his beauty, spirit and sacrifice will eventually come out into the REAL world when the world is ready to accept it and not before.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Jan,

How can spirituality be obselete?

that is not what I wrote:
I wrote:

the greatest theosophical mistake of the bible I feel is that it is closed to evolution, to evolving, to being relevant to mankinds needs of today and not 2000+ years ago.

The book is obsolete in it's current form.

and I ask you now, why did you twist the meaning of those words not unlike people have been twisting the meaning of the Bible texts for millenia?

The biggest problem with most human religions is that they chronically underestimate the nature of GOD...they paint God with in their own competancy level, with in their own social paradigm and God is by far considerably more than what he is painted to be.. IMO

They do this I believe for ego-centric reasons as I attempted to point out earlier.

 

[wynn]

No, what he's trying to do is redefine "evil" as "the absence of good." It's a semantic trick, nothing more.

And that is a stalinistic solution (I am alluding to Stalin's motto "No man, no problem" and his policy of making problematic people disappear).

If there is a ''problem of evil'' , and my explanation hasn't cleared things up, then explain.

As already mentioned, you simply play a game of semantics.
And, as I already said, you try to do away with the problem by dismissing the person and their concerns.


The problem of theodicy, in many variations, has existed across cultures for a long time.
Many people, whole cultures even, have considered it legitimate.


That you think these people and their concerns are to be dismissed with a simple play of words - that, to me, presents another aspect of the theodicy problem. Ie. "Why would an omnibenevolent God demand that people's innermost concerns about God be dismissed instantly, without explanation, as irrelevant, or He will refuse these people and have them lead meaningless lives of misery?"

 

[wynn]

Jesus chose that life, knowing the consciousness level of the powers that were/be. He wasn't exactly a stupid man.
He lived his life as an example of how to acheive God consciousness at that time, under those circumstances.
If you decide to take a swim in a river full of crocs, your going get a nasty nip.

So, a high ranking personality, highly intelligent, fully self-realised, has a personal relationship with God, decided to descend on the planet for what is probably a moment in his
real time (which he is fully aware of), out of unconditional love, gives a real example of how to live so that we can also transcend this suffering, dies a most painful death, showing us the kind of people who are in charge of the world. Come back in his spiritual form to provide evidence for those that saw him, that this life, this body, and all this, is nothing but an illusion, and there is a real life to live where you can actually be yourself, in your natural habitat. And all you can say is ''God is nuts'' and I prefer to believe in my God who is ration and sensible?

There seems to be alot missing from your conception of God, or is it just me?

That is a grossly idiosyncratic understanding of Jesus you have there.

Unless you count Mormons as Christians, Christians generally do not hold that understanding.

The general Christian understanding is that Jesus isn't simply a man, but the one and only Son of God, God incarnate; he has a special and unique status.

 

[wynn]

Of course. As a principal, it's fine. It's when one starts to actually investigate the implications of such a process that one discovers just how impossible, not to mention obscene and senseless, it actually is. This is why I say it's a shallow pseudo-philosophy. It's just another way of making sense of the world (why would this child be born with cancer?), but like all religious explanations, it doesn't actually stand up.

From what I've read, karma and reincarnation aren't meant to be taken as empirical approaches to analyze reality, but as ethical guidelines.

 

[Balerion]

And that is a stalinistic solution (I am alluding to Stalin's motto "No man, no problem" and his policy of making problematic people disappear).

Stalin had no such motto. It is a quote that comes from the novel Children of Arbat.

From what I've read, karma and reincarnation aren't meant to be taken as empirical approaches to analyze reality, but as ethical guidelines.

No doubt it served as both. To make sense of a disaster that kills innocents, presuming that the victims earned their fate in previous lives certainly helps. This would qualify as an empirical approach to analyzing reality.

 

[Balerion]

So do you think Jesus was nuts also?

Most likely, yes. He was a doomsday preacher, telling people to forget their jobs and their families to be with him. That's right out of the David Koresh handbook.

A man claiming to know the one true path to heaven would alone qualify him as a potentially dangerous delusional. Then throw in the Son of God business, and he's right for a straight jacket.

 

[wynn]

Stalin had no such motto. It is a quote that comes from the novel Children of Arbat.

Oh well. He was certainly notorious for his policy of making problematic people disappear, a policy that can indeed be succintly summarized with "No man, no problem."

No doubt it served as both. To make sense of a disaster that kills innocents, presuming that the victims earned their fate in previous lives certainly helps. This would qualify as an empirical approach to analyzing reality.

It's interesting that people tend to think of karma that way - in terms of payback and concerns over the past.

From what I understood, traditional Buddhist teachings don't focus much on this aspect of karma, but rather in the sense that one's actions matter; ie. they teach karma in terms of one's prospects for the future, given one's present actions, while they don't teach, in a manner of some kind of guilt-trip, about the present as being the consequence of past actions.

 

[wynn]

Who say's God is good, and who say's he only creates good things. Links please.

For crying out loud, how can you even suggest that there may be things that God does which are not good?!
What, does God play dice and make mistakes??

I mean, you're moving into dangerous territory with the suggestion that God can do evil things.

The answer depends on who's God you are talking about... if it was yours I would suggest that you answer it for your self...
obviously you have a God in mind... so why not tell the board about your God? You know, the one you keep referring to.....

I don't have any particular concept of God in mind; I am just speculating about the perhaps possible implications about God's character, implications which we can extrapolate from analyzing particular phenomena (such as the existence of cancer, earthquakes, global economic crisis etc. - ie. what could the existence of cancer suggest about God's character, given that He apparently allows for it to happen).

 

[Balerion]

Oh well. He was certainly notorious for his policy of making problematic people disappear, a policy that can indeed be succintly summarized with "No man, no problem."

Well, sure. I'm not entirely sure how this applies to the matter of Jan's attempt to solve theodicy, however.

It's interesting that people tend to think of karma that way - in terms of payback and concerns over the past.

From what I understood, traditional Buddhist teachings don't focus much on this aspect of karma, but rather in the sense that one's actions matter; ie. they teach karma in terms of one's prospects for the future, given one's present actions, while they don't teach, in a manner of some kind of guilt-trip, about the present as being the consequence of past actions.

It's not that I'm thinking of karma "in that way" as much as it is that I'm simply considering it as a whole. The nature of karma is that it works both ways; if traditional Buddhists only focus on the good, then fair enough, but that doesn't mean the implications on the other end of the spectrum don't exist.

 

[Quantum Quack]

what could the existence of cancer suggest about God's character, given that He apparently allows for it to happen).

If you check your Yoga teaching thoroughly and refer to your monist monks analogy you will find that Cancer, tumors, and the like are caused ultimately by frustration of the ego.
In other words those that "wanna be" God(dess) but can't be God(dess) get frustrated and develop cancers to the various organs involved....
So why would you blame God for "allowing" people to suffer the consequences of their innate ambitions to rule their universe?

Cancer= Long term build up of ego frustration = God complex

sort of thingo...

 

[Balerion]

If you check your Yoga teaching thoroughly and refer to your monist monks analogy you will find that Cancer, tumors, and the like are caused ultimately by frustration of the ego.
In other words those that "wanna be" God(dess) but can't be God(dess) get frustrated and develop cancers to the various organs involved....
So why would you blame God for "allowing" people to suffer the consequences of their innate ambitions to rule their universe?

Cancer= Long term build up of ego frustration = God complex

sort of thingo...

Really? Huh. Who knew the American Childhood Cancer Organization was wasting its time raising money for research when all it needed to do was get sick children to stop being such egomaniacs!

Seriously, that's a smackable kind of ignorance. It just goes to show how useless and stupid all of these "enlightened" philosophies really are.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Really? Huh. Who knew the American Childhood Cancer Organization was wasting its time raising money for research when all it needed to do was get sick children to stop being such egomaniacs!

Seriously, that's a smackable kind of ignorance. It just goes to show how useless and stupid all of these "enlightened" philosophies really are.

you really need to get your head out of your proverbial... "what's it called" Balerion... really...
the issue is one of psycho somatics: Relatively new scientific field called : psychoneuroimmunology.

and the psycho-somatic nature of genetic mutations, accordingly.

so cancer has hereditory traits, that is to say that they are considered as being of a hereditory disposition. This hereditory trait can be induced by psycho-somatic means in previous generations is the proposition. It also suggests that events in the current person life time may also trigger that disposition once formed in previous generations.

It is even the contention that all illnesses, especially cancer and cardio vascular disorders, beyond external pathology, that afflict the human race have a psycho -somatic [psychoneuroimmunological] genesis.
Yoga as a practice is primarilly concerned with the psycho-somatic nature of the human body and mind. An Intuitive Eastern form of psychoneuroimmunology....that pre-dates your ignorance by some 8000 years.
Most Yoga practicioners do not understand the reality of Yoga.. especially those who practice it in the West using "wanna be" Yogi's as their mentors.


Do you wish to apologise to the board for the insight into your insecurity now or would you rather wait till later?
after all you sound awfully frustrated to me...