N.W.O or O.W.O? Sound off.

The greater point that i am begining to see is this:

Who was the "God" that asked Abraham to slaughter his only son?

Who really was the "Satan" than pleaded with him to spare his son"

Who is this "god" that demands blood sacrafice and absolute obidience?

Why is this "god" able to be summoned with "its" true name?

Don't sound very Christian to me. Are any of you getting my drift?

Originally posted by SunTzu22
The greater point that i am begining to see is this:

Who was the "God" that asked Abraham to slaughter his only son?

Who really was the "Satan" than pleaded with him to spare his son"

Who is this "god" that demands blood sacrafice and absolute obidience?

Why is this "god" able to be summoned with "its" true name?

Don't sound very Christian to me. Are any of you getting my drift?

Article on Hegel basically states that Christianity is bad, dualistic religion worshiping false god.

If we see ourselves as alienated from God, we have a huge problem. That's exactly what the Abrahamic faiths do to us - they alienate us from who we really are, from our divine spark. Instead of making us search for God inside ourselves, they project God onto an external figure; remote, alien, infinitely high above humanity. They make humanity bow to this being as its unworthy slaves. Humans are worthless and depraved in comparison. Nothing could be unhealthier for humanity than to be so alienated from God, to have such a negative concept of ourselves, to be so in thrall to a false god.
It is the Demiurge who is the false God. "Why does evil exist?" is one of the oldest questions. If God is perfect goodness, all-powerful and made everything, evil ought to be impossible. The Abrahamic religions can make no sense of evil. In Illumination, God did not make everything. It all evolved from the fundamental substance of the universe, driven by the dialectic. The Demiurge is one of the main products of the dialectic. Evil is a dialectical necessity in order for good, its opposite, to have meaning. That's why evil MUST exist.
[...]
The ascent of thought to pure form gives rise to the Absolute Idea, to reason that has reached its maximum expression, but at this stage it lacks all content. It can be equated to God "in himself". The spatio-temporal world is an "emanation" of the Universal Mind - Mind made "other" - in order to create an arena where content can be supplied. God cannot be God without this arena of creation. This explains why God (in himself) created the physical universe: he had no choice. The Abrahamic faiths claim that God is complete and perfect and in no way needs creation - which begs the question of why, in that case, he bothered to create the world. It becomes whimsical and superfluous; an act that makes no sense. In Hegel's philosophy, God MUST create the physical universe. It is an inescapable step on his path to maximum actualization. The physical world is a mirror in which the Universal mind can contemplate itself. Absolute Mind (God fully actualized) attains Absolute Knowledge of form AND content.
[...]
The earliest humans, it is said, lived in a state of perfect innocence in the Garden of Eden, a terrestrial paradise. Everything went wrong when they chose to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, an action explicitly forbidden by God.

Of course, there was no such tree; it was symbolic, not actual, metaphorical not literal. After all, how could eating some fruit give you knowledge of evil? In fact, it is the act of disobedience that introduces humanity to "evil", not the fruit of the tree, and it is this act of disobedience for which humanity is punished by God and for which humanity is said to be "Fallen." The actual eating of the fruit resulted in..."And the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons." In other words, the main consequence of understanding good and evil would appear to be the need to go shopping for clothes, which certainly explains a lot about the behaviour of the legions of women who watch Sex and the City.
[...]
Hegel's project was all about showing the intimate connection between God and man. This was the centrepiece of his philosophy. He was determined to heal the alienation that characterized so much of life: between man and nature, man and society, and above all, between man and a God that was made external to him and placed infinitely far above, impossible to reach or comprehend.

"Religion [he's referring to Christianity] wishes to educate men to be citizens of heaven who always look on high and this makes them strangers to human feeling."

Hegel
Look how well the idea of a remote God works for the Elite. The Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ" - Christ's earthly representative - so to disobey the Pope becomes the equivalent of disobeying God. If God were regarded as being internal rather than external, who would need any popes, any representatives? Hence it is not in the interests of religious leaders to encourage the idea that God is inside us.
.

And so on and so on. You can pretty well see that Hegel's religion is not about worshiping horny beast (as many suggest) but at same time he is strongly against Christianity (or abrahamic religions generally) as it evolved - and frozen - during time. He see it as childish or mere thesis without adequate antithesis and hence not synthesized yet on higher level.
Before any ranting and chanting please read whole Hegel article. Above quotas and my dumb explanations are not enough for properly grasping Hegel's system.

Excellent post there no one.

I've actually made a post regarding this very old subject NWO and OWO and people either dismiss it or not they are not too intrigued to even bother reading.

I think we should team up here in ATS to make some interesting topics regarding what we know, I'm sure you and I will make good partners.




And by the way any of you guys noticed the new trend here at ATS? Important threads such as these kinds receive too little views sadly, it seems people either don't understand intelligent post or we need to dumb down our posts for them to understand.

reply to post by zeddissad2


Hey there buddy, our friend here SunTzu is just making a point no need to chastise him, he just merely stating out the point that he sees,


About Hegel, everyone who is not dogmatic and religious can and will understand the part of Alienation from the God within us.



Continue reading in the site given by the OP and formulate your thoughts carefully regarding the subjects there, I know there's a lot to read plus the four books that can freely be downloaded in the site.

My point is it is still to early for you I guess to start trusting some site, what we want are thinkers, leaders not followers.

I hope you understand me and goodluck.

reply to post by Lateralussicksicksick


I'm sorry. I did not want to be rude - especially not against SunTzu. I tried to point out that this subject can not be handled dogmatically or in better words with un-reflected prejudice.

I'll keep reading and posting of course! Please keep in mind that English is not my first language. In fact I started writing in English 2 years ago.

Happy research to everybody!

Back to religion. Phenomenology of Spirit was written at times when institutionalized religion have strong impact on public affairs. One or other form of Christianity was ideology of respective states. That is reason why is Phenomenology written in somehow cryptic form - especially parts directly speaking about abrahamic religions. Hegel simple did not want Phenomenology to be banned.
What may be was not very clear from my previous posts: Hegel is fierce critic of institutionalized and distorted form of Christianity. On other hand he see development of monotheistic religion - and especially Christianity - as positive and necessary step in development of fully realized consciousness.

The Holy Spirit (the Holy Mind) is the synthesis of God the Father (God in himself) and God the Son (God outside himself and struggling to be himself: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me."). In this sense, the Holy Spirit can be considered the highest aspect of God, the aspect with which we can truly interact, and which can infuse us with the divine spirit. That can, in short, reveal to us the Mind of God. Thesis: God the Father = Absolute Idea. Antithesis: God the Son = the embodiment of the Absolute Idea, the Absolute Idea made flesh, "alienated" God. Synthesis: God the Holy Spirit = Absolute Knowledge of the Absolute Idea as it is in itself and how it appears when embodied and reflected in the physical world. No higher knowledge is possible. In the Holy Spirit, the maximum actualization of the Absolute Idea is achieved as Absolute Mind/Spirit ("Geist", to use Hegel's specific German word.)

But at moment of synthesis, religious stance became obsolete. Holy spirit can not be properly grasped by religious means - Holy spirit is domain of pure Philosophy.

While dialectical process is fundamentally progressive, dialectic may be used also as analytical method: than we speak about negative dialectic. Derrida's deconstruction is basically this negative dialectic. But there is also other meaning of term "negative dialectic":

[...] where the synthesis produced by a thesis and antithesis is negative and unhealthy rather than a positive uplifting of the other two elements. Take an example such as democracy (as the thesis) and capitalism (as the antithesis). This might have led to the best features of democracy and capitalism being blended together in a higher synthesis. Instead, we got the most rapacious form of capitalism with the Elite paying themselves unprecedented sums of money, and democracy being turned into a farce and a mockery of any genuine concept of the people as truly empowered. Those ordinary people who buy into the Elite's version of democracy are complicit in their own oppression. They are victims of a "false consciousness" that makes them think that what is harmful to them is actually beneficial. Of course, the Old World Order have programmed them to think that way.

This negative (bad) dialectic is source of alienation in modern western societies. On one hand alienation is necessary step in progressive dialectical process, but negative dialectic effectively obstruct overcoming of alienation. Majority think that we are living in democracy but in fact we are living under rule of oligarchy (namely plutocracy) carefully painted in bright colors - that is prime example of false consciousness. There is other very good example of unresolved alienation in modern times - death. It is integral part of life, it is even one of defining features of life, but in our society is death expulsed into obscurity, rendered void, but still it is so integral part of our being - thus we are alienated from ourselves on very base level.

I mentioned it earlier but with fresh thoughts in mind I'll repeat it again: is this really "end of history" as Fukuyama postulate? Impossible at least from dialectical point of view! There is too many unresolved problems yet. Current form of "liberal democracy" (sorry, kleptocracy) with so many people living "American dream" (dreaming to death in poverty - that is statistics) is very far away from absolute consciousness:

We are the tool of the cosmic process of ever increasing acquisition of self-knowledge of the Absolute. As above, so below. If we fail to grow dialectically, we do not fulfil our human essence. We remain self-alienated. Most people go through their lives in self-alienated, Autopilot mode. They are making little or no dialectical progress and are condemned to live low-quality lives. Because of the rule of the Old World Order, the whole of humanity is dialectically retarded. We cannot resume an upward trajectory until the OWO are defeated. Francis Fukuyama claimed that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of communism, liberal democracy was the only show left in town, the only universal ideology left. Islam is not a viable rival since Islam has never had any strong appeal to non-Muslims. If you aren't born a Muslim, you are highly unlikely to find anything attractive about it; quite the reverse. Fukuyama was famous for his book about the "End of History". What he meant by this provocative phrase had nothing to do with some apocalyptic event but rather with the philosophical idea that history has reached its logical conclusion, its dialectically appointed end, in the shape of liberal democracy operating according to capitalist market economics. Historical events would still take place, but they would no longer be concerned with the dialectic since that had reached its endpoint. In other words, he was making the claim that liberal democracy is as good as it gets for humanity. This bungled and botched monstrosity is the apex of human political evolution, supposedly. One by one, Fukuyama imagined, countries not yet part of the liberal democratic family would succumb until the entire world was one vast liberal democracy.

This is quite an interesting read. Thank you so much OP.

reply to post by Lateralussicksicksick


I do believe that a partnership is quite desirable How will they stay ignorant with us to guide them?

thank you all for taking the time to change your life for the better