The Catholic Church: Deceptions and Control

reply to post by adjensen

Certainly, an 'interesting' perspective. A perspective which has been brought to my attention perhaps a few dozens, if not hundreds of times in 34 years. (Maybe you don't really understand what the word "years" means in the statement "34 years".)

But it is a perspective with which there are at least a couple of potential 'problems':

In August, 1979, I received a Prophecy of a coming conflict in the Middle East which is probably a couple of hundred words long. It would be very easy for me to type out that Prophecy word for word, except for one thing: If someone were to read that Prophecy; and, then, to read the news from the Middle East over the past week or so, I could legitimately be prosecuted for what might be termed "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater".

Don't believe me?

Obviously, I could not care less.

Secondly, in August 1987, I received what I consider to be a Prophecy of a 'triggering event' for the Prophecy of August, 1979; a Prophecy which is precisely 12 words long; something that I could also very easily type here as well, or in the "Prophecies and Predictions" forum on ATS; except, that is, for one thing, I would probably be prosecuted for "terrorism" by the government of the United States.

In the United States, you see, Christian televangelists and 'Armageddon theologians' can make millions of dollars each year predicting in very precise detail the way in which the 'Battle of Armageddon' is to be prosecuted. Are they arrested for "incitement to violence"?

Hell no.

But if I, as a Muslim, were to publicize the Prophecy I have received and that Prophecy were then to be fulfilled, I would be looked upon as causing the fulfillment of that Prophecy. In the eyes of the government of the United States, I would be considered as the worst "terrorist" of them all.

This is the reason why I no longer inform anyone of the Prophecies I have received: because, unlike the Christian 'Armageddon theologians', I am a Muslim; and I would likely be prosecuted as a "terrorist" for merely having received those Prophecies and then informing others.

So, just like you, I am required to wait until the Prophecies are fulfilled; and, then, say something like "I told you so."

Now, I don't suspect that that is satisfactory to you either.

But I gave up trying to please you Christians a long time ago.

Oh, by the way, just for "kicks", you might want to read some of my comments on the thread "What happened before the 'big bang'?" in the "Philosophy and Metaphysics" forum on ATS...

But prolly not...

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Secondly, in August 1987, I received what I consider to be a Prophecy of a 'triggering event' for the Prophecy of August, 1979; a Prophecy which is precisely 12 words long; something that I could also very easily type here as well, or in the "Prophecies and Predictions" forum on ATS; except, that is, for one thing, I would probably be prosecuted for "terrorism" by the government of the United States.

No, you wouldn't.

But if I, as a Muslim, were to publicize the Prophecy I have received and that Prophecy were then to be fulfilled, I would be looked upon as causing the fulfillment of that Prophecy. In the eyes of the government of the United States, I would be considered as the worst "terrorist" of them all.

No, you wouldn't.

So, just like you, I am required to wait until the Prophecies are fulfilled; and, then, say something like "I told you so."

Except that you can't say that, because you haven't told me anything. I've heard vague claims of foreknowledge by someone who has demonstrated delusional thinking and is now laying the groundwork of being paranoid, as well. You've implied "there will be trouble in the Middle East," which is about as insightful as telling me that the sun will rise tomorrow.

But you're in good company -- the Timewave Zero crowd is predicting something coming up shortly, this guy claims that the Rapture will happen this Sunday, there's a thread around here someplace about visions of bad things on 11 October, and another about aliens attacking on the 13th.

But as the saying goes, "put up or shut up" -- if one wants to be taken seriously as a prophet, one needs to make specific claims, not general ones, ahead of time, and allow time to bear them out. Claiming that you'll reveal your prediction after the fact goes beyond silly, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by adjensen But as the saying goes, "put up or shut up" -- if one wants to be taken seriously as a prophet, one needs to make specific claims, not general ones, ahead of time, and allow time to bear them out. Claiming that you'll reveal your prediction after the fact goes beyond silly, wouldn't you say?

First of all, "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path", as Morpheus says to Neo in The Matrix.

All of your "No you wouldn't" statements are made by someone who has never walked the path and does not even know the path.

THOUSANDS of copies of the Prophecies have been mailed to the Jewish and Christian religious 'authorities' in the United States and the Israel from 1979 til approximately 1988 or so.

Do you have any idea whatsoever of the meaning of the word "thousands"?

Additional hundreds of copies have been mailed to the media officials in the United States and the Israel from probably 1980 to 1992 or so.

It is not my fault that they chose not to inform anyone else of those Prophecies.

In any case, you just don't get it.

Why, at this point, would I even want to be "taken seriously as a prophet"?

(As far as I know, it is already too late for anything to be done; for reasons you would never believe even if I told you.)

Especially, when the likelihood is that, in the United States, I would be prosecuted as a "terrorist" for those Prophecies.

In other words, I would prefer that you consider me delusional.

It's really much safer for me if you do.

When it comes right down to it, you really have no idea whatsoever of how little Knowledge you have of such things.

Michael

I'm not quite up to date on the thread (after a few days absense), but for the duration I have a comment.

Adjensen, you wrote (to Michael Cecil 6/10 01:13 PM):

"I don't need your vision, I don't need your book, I just need to hear a lucid answer to those very simple questions that belie the possibility that Jesus, the Jew, could be the divine bringer of Greek Gnosis."

But YOU rely on the alleged visions* from a man 2000 years back (Paulus), concerning another alleged person (Jesus) presented in a book, which allegedly has survived editing, falsification and political manipulation as intact.

It seems to me, that Michael's basic propositions rest on much more solid ground than yours. At least he has some firsthand information, which contains higher degree of 'evidence' than yours, which are just claims.

So what criteria do you have for rejecting Michael's bid? That is, if you accept epistemology as relevant (which I sometimes doubt you do).

* In a former post I wrote about 'epinoia'. Visions, revelations, mystical experiences etc can be counted in that category.

reply to post by bogomil

Well, it is even worse than that.

Moses received the Vision (referred to in Genesis 3:24 as the "Tree of Life") , or there would have been no book of Genesis at all.

Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel received the Vision or there would have been no books named after them.

Jesus received the Vision or there would have been no Thanksgiving Hymns and no Gospels.

Same goes for the Revelation of John, the Gospel of Mary, and the Quran.

Basically, it is the writings of Paul which are opposed to this Vision and the Knowledge conveyed by this Vision.

Which is why Christians are followers of Paul rather than Jesus.

Michael

Hi Michael,

you and I have had some confrontation before, so I better state my own position to avoid an un-necessary repetition of that.

I have through my life aspired to be able to live in 'uncertainty', as I know, that very few (if any) have found ultimate truth. I have my own 'methodology' for being able to live this way, to continue as a 'seeker' and what my criteria for communication/seeking information are.

What this 'methodology' is, is presently of no consequence for this thread, but the outcome of it is, that I have questioned 'doctrines' as deep, as it's possible to do (at least for me). This implies an analysis of even the concepts assumption, axioms (e.g. Cartesian logic: "I drink, therefore I am") etc.

It has lead me to a R.A.Wilson/Jain situation, where I can work with 'relative reality'. Truth can be more or less approximative.

Certain phenomena are (in a cosmic context) 99,99% 'true'. E.g. gravity very, very, very seldom fails. At the other end of the spectrum are 'belief-systems': Un-examined, based on assumptions falsely elevated to axioms and motivated by subjective preferences.

OK, I go in for a landing now. I find epinoia experiences 'true', insofar they are 'real' the same way as ordinare physical perceptions are. But even ordinary physical perceptions can be deceptive, as our individual interpretations can differ quite a lot around any given signals/data/information.

So I go as far as my 'methodology' allows me, if I want to stay on relatively safe ground. It means, that I communication-wise simply abstain from making too far-reaching conclusions on 'god', 'epinoia', quantum-mechanical hypotheses and whatever, until I feel that there is understanding (not necessarily agreement) between participants.

I feel safe with saying, that real epinoia exists, that it's not fantasy, that it has manifested in 1001 different contexts, and that it (examined) can give us an enormous addition to 'knowledge'. But I refuse to, prematurely, making final conclusions about it.

On what ground is Rustami's epinoia from 'above' rather than a 'demon'/archon whispering in his/her ears. On what ground is your interpretation more correct than e.g. what you can find in any pentacostal congregation, where they 'meet the holy spirit', on what ground is IAMIAM's 'bhakti' real. Or for that sake my own epinoia experiences.

So when I can't agree with you all the way, it doesn't mean, I'm against you. I just refuse to adress the unknown on shaky ground.

Hi Lambs to lions

If you in any way feel, that my recent posts are too far off-topic, I will respect your opinion on that. So just tell me.

You started, and continued, a much-needed basis for a dialogue. It has to run its course, and I'll get a chance to 'wander off' later, when the real party is over and when I won't do any harm. There are always those who stay up late, wanting to go on after everybody else have gone to sleep.

Originally posted by bogomil
I'm not quite up to date on the thread (after a few days absense), but for the duration I have a comment.

Adjensen, you wrote (to Michael Cecil 6/10 01:13 PM):

"I don't need your vision, I don't need your book, I just need to hear a lucid answer to those very simple questions that belie the possibility that Jesus, the Jew, could be the divine bringer of Greek Gnosis."

But YOU rely on the alleged visions* from a man 2000 years back (Paulus), concerning another alleged person (Jesus) presented in a book, which allegedly has survived editing, falsification and political manipulation as intact.

It seems to me, that Michael's basic propositions rest on much more solid ground than yours. At least he has some firsthand information, which contains higher degree of 'evidence' than yours, which are just claims.

So what criteria do you have for rejecting Michael's bid? That is, if you accept epistemology as relevant (which I sometimes doubt you do).

Two reasons. First, he has subsequently demonstrated delusional thinking in his posts here, along with paranoia and a persecution complex. I feel bad about how Michael has been treated, and there's a possibility that his current state and attitude towards criticism is a result of years of being ignored and ridiculed, but it's far more likely that his "visions" are not of divine nature, but he has deluded himself into thinking that they were. The fact that he dismisses requests for clarification with a "you're not worthy" and refuses to post what he claims to be "on the verge of happening prophecy" reinforces the position that he is incorrect.

Secondly, and this is where you fail, as well, he cannot answer simple questions regarding logical contradictions in what he proposes to be the truth. It is one thing to answer incorrectly, or to answer illogically, but to not even bother trying indicates that the arguer bases his faith on WANTING it to be true, and little else. Again, wishful thinking.

You and I have had this discussion over and over, and I get tired of asking and you never answering, but as it is (amazingly enough, the train may get back on its tracks,) germane to the Catholic Church noted in the OP, I would once again ask you to cite instances where Paul's teaching is not in harmony with Christ's. I continue to await your explanation of your previous claims that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea determined the Biblical canon, when this is demonstrably untrue.

You are also welcome, as Michael and IAMIAM were, to explain how you reconcile the inherent conflicts between Hellenistic and Judaic beliefs on multi-deism and the nature of matter, and why Jesus did not repudiate, vehemently, the God of the Jews, the Law he gave them, and the whole of the faith, if said creator god was a bumbling demiurge.

To your implied insult of my faith in the Bible, as I have said so many times, I do not believe in God because of the Bible, I am not reconciled to God through the Bible, and I do not claim that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible, along with the doctrine of the church, other believers, theology, and many other aspects, serve to support and confirm my faith, which I arrived at independent of any of them.

reply to post by bogomil

Hi Bogomil,

Understood.

You are operating at the limits--at the very edge--of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'. This is the realm of the "archons" of the Nag Hammadi documents and the "archetypes" of Jungian psychology; a language which, in fact, makes it possible for conveying Revelation; that is, information from that third dimension of consciousness.

This is also the language of the Revelation of John, although that Knowledge originates in the actual Revelation itself.

The significance of this is that it not need be conveyed in verbal language at all.

It can just as easily be conveyed in art--for example, Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" (as I have commented on previously in a thread of that title); in cinematography--for example, the "Stargate sequence" of 2001--A Space Odyssey or The Matrix and Matrix Revolutions; or, for that matter, in the dances choreographed by Michael Flatley; which is why I have included such things on my website.

Once there is the elimination of the certainty of thought--which is a requirement of the consciousness of the 'thinker' by which it establishes "Absolute Truth"--what it comes down to is the realm of Knowledge and information.

In other words, that explanation is correct which conveys the most information, provides the most Knowledge, is capable of structuring the most amount--and along a wide spectrum--of the chaos. (This is beyond what Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

This is an immediate step outside of the entire framework of the scientific method itself; which rules of evidence and logic have been concocted by the consciousness of the 'thinker'-------ultimately for its own self-preservation rather than for the purpose of explaining reality as such.

As a rule, the 'thinker' is intensely offended at any attempts to draw in music, the lyrics of songs, poetry, art, cinematography and dance as all providing crucial information about reality.

The frame of reference of logic is such a very narrow perspective--like one specific color in the midst of an entire spectrum of colors.

Michael

Originally posted by adjensen
You are also welcome, as Michael and IAMIAM were, to explain how you reconcile the inherent conflicts between Hellenistic and Judaic beliefs on multi-deism and the nature of matter, and why Jesus did not repudiate, vehemently, the God of the Jews, the Law he gave them, and the whole of the faith, if said creator god was a bumbling demiurge.

Hello my friend,

I was hoping to remain out of this conversation, and merely participate as a spectator if only to learn more about everyone else's point of view. However, Since I was mentioned, I'll explain how I reconcile Jesus not repudiating the God of the Jews. This is just my interpretation based on Jesus' message, and I will not be quoting scripture to back it up. It is in there if you look for it, though you may not see it if you interpret things differently. Doesn't mean that I think anyone is wrong, just that I see things differently.

Jesus did not repudiate the God of the jews because his message was clearly that everyone has their own perception of Deity, thus, the God of the jews is the same God, the one and only God, of all faiths, viewed through different lenses. He did not repudiate their Law, because Man, having free will, is perfectly able to subscribe to which ever Law they want, but more especially, the Law of Moses is simply a further elaboration of the One Law of God, to love each other.

God is not a bumbler. Man is. Since the very beginning we have been struggling to earn his favor. Cain slew Abel over his own perceived short comings. If we continue to expect God to choose between us over our various sacrifices, we will continue to Judge each other as not worthy, leading to more hate and violence.

God judged this whole existence in the beginning. He looked at ALL of it past, present, and future. He paused at each step and said, it is GOOD. It is Man who chooses to judge it not good, and continue to make it good in his own image. Silly Man, you cannot judge. That is God's job. Our job, our only expectation is to Love this creation, and our fellow Man within it.

Let those who wish to be judged by Moses' Law be judged by Moses' Law. I will be judged by God's Law, and he already did so.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Jesus did not repudiate the God of the jews because his message was clearly that everyone has their own perception of Deity, thus, the God of the jews is the same God, the one and only God, of all faiths, viewed through different lenses. He did not repudiate their Law, because Man, having free will, is perfectly able to subscribe to which ever Law they want, but more especially, the Law of Moses is simply a further elaboration of the One Law of God, to love each other.

No, that is incorrect, and is absolutely counter to Judaism. The god of the Philistines or the Moabites was not "another perspective" of the Jewish God. The Law wasn't some handful of "love each others", it is a complex and concrete definition of the expectations of God for the First Covenant. I don't dispute that there's a lot of stuff in there that people added or changed, but it is not merely a set a laws among many such sets, with any set as valid as any other.

To believe that this is a matter of interpretation, and supported by Scripture, is to demonstrate profound ignorance of the Jewish faith, sorry.

God is not a bumbler. Man is.

I agree with this, but this is a belief of the Christian Gnostics. If you do not subscribe to their beliefs, you need not defend them.

Originally posted by adjensen
No, that is incorrect,

Again my friend, you assume authority you do NOT have. Only I have the authority to determine what is correct and incorrect for me. You are more than welcome to offer what is correct for YOU.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by bogomil


Bogomil,

The thread has evolved and is very interesting, state your opinion and respond to any post in any way that you like. Thanks for your contributions.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
No, that is incorrect,

Again my friend, you assume authority you do NOT have. Only I have the authority to determine what is correct and incorrect for me. You are more than welcome to offer what is correct for YOU.

So, is it your belief that you are the final arbiter of truth? That everyone, God included, needs to bow to your will as to what truth is? Or are you merely stating that your interpretation of the truth is your own?

You are correct in the second -- you are welcome to believe anything that you like, but you are not in congruence with the truth as to the Jewish faith. A pursuit of the truth that allows for arbitrary dismissal of anything that disagrees with what one believes the truth to be is a faulty pursuit that will please the seeker, but only by misleading him.

Saying that Christian and Jewish scripture teaches that the God of the Jews is the same as Baal, Vishnu or Thor is a lie. A deliberate falsehood. Whether it is spoken out of ignorance or intentional distortion doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

And I have as much authority to point out your fallacies as you have to put them forth, friend-o.

reply to post by IAMIAM


IAMIAM,

My beliefs closely parallel your own. I have tried, through self discovery, to truly have a sense of what "I" believe. It was very important for me to begin this search by releasing my previous beliefs.

I went through several stages. The first and most troublesome was guilt. The members of my church would most likely attribute this to, "turning my back on God." I came to understand this was not the case, and the guilt was a by-product of church and religion.

I realized that my allegience to any particular church, or any particular religion did not equate to an allegience with God. Once I understood that, I found that I could seek God, outside of the confines of any particular set of rules or consequences.

You made me think of these things when you stated something along the lines of, God doesnt bumble, man does. Man has taken a very simple, pure truth, and converted it into a complicated and misdirected mess.

God is within us all. Love your fellow man. This is something that we are all born with the ability to do. You don't need a membership. Where would this world be if we set aside our differences and recognized our common bond? There is only one God, though we might have different names for Him. He is the universal force that resides within us all and permeates throughout everything. There is no denying Him.

Re Adjensen

You don't think, you're overdoing the popular method of insinuating incompetence, lying or worse in your opponents? In the present case with Michael Cecil suggesting he's mentally unstable. You're just yapping.

As to Michael's epinoia, I have no reason to believe, that he's faking it. Quite the contrary; there are signs, that he's authentic (which I again must emphasize, doesn't mean I share his interpretations or greater implications).

Quote from Michael, directed to you:

"You could read my book a thousand times and you would never understand it. Or, if you understood it, you would not believe it. So it would be a waste of your money to buy it."

I fully support this statement. No-one can understand anything about epinoia, until they have experienced it. There's nothing elitist about this, anybody can start on this path and go on until results start to show (completely independent of doctrines, gurus, holy books etc). It's not a secret club.

Your quote:

"Secondly, and this is where you fail, as well, he cannot answer simple questions regarding logical contradictions in what he proposes to be the truth. It is one thing to answer incorrectly, or to answer illogically, but to not even bother trying indicates that the arguer bases his faith on WANTING it to be true, and little else. Again, wishful thinking."

If that is the case, I can't see, how it differs from what you are doing. You've been chasing your own tail from practically our first clash.

Your quote:

"You and I have had this discussion over and over, and I get tired of asking and you never answering, but as it is (amazingly enough, the train may get back on its tracks,) germane to the Catholic Church noted in the OP, I would once again ask you to cite instances where Paul's teaching is not in harmony with Christ's."


I have formerly stated, that I have no possibility of evaluating "Christ's teachings", as I can't be sure, if the man existed or if it's him described in NT. What I HAVE said is that (according to the edited NT), Paulus was in conflict with the original disciples and apostles.

And on this I have already answered you on earlier, but as you took the liberty of changing the words from a post of mine and send the edited result out as a quote from me, I kind of lost faith in your honesty. Especially as you soon after called me a liar.

Your quote:

"You are also welcome, as Michael and IAMIAM were, to explain how you reconcile the inherent conflicts between Hellenistic and Judaic beliefs on multi-deism and the nature of matter, and why Jesus did not repudiate, vehemently, the God of the Jews, the Law he gave them, and the whole of the faith, if said creator god was a bumbling demiurge."

If the proper context arises I will. Not on this thread.

Your quote:

" The Bible, along with the doctrine of the church, other believers, theology, and many other aspects, serve to support and confirm my faith, which I arrived at independent of any of them."

You mean, that you independent of doctrines, fellow believers, bible etc arrived at the existence of the alleged Jesus, the pauline doctrines and other specifics of your belief-system. No mean feat, especially as you don't seem to have any other visible methods of information as us epinoiacs have.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
God is within us all. Love your fellow man. This is something that we are all born with the ability to do. You don't need a membership. Where would this world be if we set aside our differences and recognized our common bond? There is only one God, though we might have different names for Him. He is the universal force that resides within us all and permeates throughout everything. There is no denying Him.

Spoken like a true Prophet. I'd say your journey has reached a climax my friend. What's left, is just loving it all.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by adjensen
So, is it your belief that you are the final arbiter of truth? That everyone, God included, needs to bow to your will as to what truth is? Or are you merely stating that your interpretation of the truth is your own?

My friend, lets put religion a side for a moment for that is too close to your heart to see clearly what I am saying.

Lets use mathematics.

2+3=5 I assume you would agree with that calculation, yes?

2+3=9 Is what I think is true.

Who is right and who is wrong?

We are both right., Why?

Because the numbers are merely symbols which translate our thoughts. To you and the vast majority of the world, you are correct. However, to one who understands free will, all answers are possible.

2+3=5 is correct among the vast majority, because they have agreed on the meaning of the numbers. There is a compact amongst them to think a certain way.

2+3=9 is correct to who ever wishes it to be correct. What matters is what idea behind the symbols represent to THEM. As long as the number 9 still counts for 1 1 1 1 1 in their own understanding of the symbol.

If we took the time to get to understand the idea behind our symbols, we would find that the thought is basically the same.

An Atheist says there is no God, but the say existence is self evident. I say fine then, we are in agreement. What they call God, is existence. I do not need to force them to use my word for the idea.

An Atheist will say the Universe is bound by laws, but not intelligence. I say, ok, same thing to me.

Your religion and your interpretation of it, I will leave to you. I know what it means to me. What's more important, the symbol or the meaning?

If you say symbol, that is idolotry.

If you say meaning, then I say stop arguing over the symbol and act according to meaning.

Does this version make more sense?

With Love,

Your Brother

Hi Michael

Your quote:

"You are operating at the limits--at the very edge--of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'. This is the realm of the "archons" of the Nag Hammadi documents and the "archetypes" of Jungian psychology; a language which, in fact, makes it possible for conveying Revelation; that is, information from that third dimension of consciousness."

This is a somewhat different terminology from what I normally use; so I'm uncertain as to the meaning of 'self', 'thinker' and 'third dimension' in this context (my semantic references can be buddhism, other asian epinoia or Gurdjieff if possible).

Your quote:

" The significance of this is that it not need be conveyed in verbal language at all."

I have my own little fun with that, as I personally follow the way of 'doing through non-doing'. Very zen and guaranteed to have you climbing on the walls for a while.

Your quote:

"In other words, that explanation is correct which conveys the most information, provides the most Knowledge, is capable of structuring the most amount--and along a wide spectrum--of the chaos. (This is beyond what Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)"

Not bad; you're one of only a dozen people I've had contact with, who grasp this alternative inclusive epistemology (again you and I may have muddled semantics). This is not only fun, it can be hilarious, when you knot and un-knot yourself, trying to discover who's who and what's what and who's what and what's who (I love the 'Illuminaty' trilogy).

For me the step from 'scientism' to an enhanced scientific model wasn't that big. You only have to change 'empirical' perception to enhanced perception and spice it with a bit of inductive reasoning. The basic science methodology is still there; anyway modern theoretical science HAS to think in these rather esoteric terms.

(Just for prevention: "NO, not anything can be proved that way"). This what not directed at you, Michael.

Hi IAM

In my own grumpy way, I almost like you (but please don't let it disturb you, I haven't come around to call you 'Bro' yet).

You have identified many of the more important bits of the great jigsaw-puzzle of existence; now you just have to put them together.

If you achieve total enlightenment before me, please send me a U2U. I'll do the same for you.