Messages

2012 is probably one of the most noted dates (it may be even more anticipated than the year 2000). There are thousands of web pages about what will happen in 2012 and at the end of the Mayan calendar. Many information sources agree on the key information, with only minor differentiations.

That's not really suprising, as they all copy each other and regurgitate the same info.
btw its not really 'more anticipated than 2000'. 2000 was *far more known about* due to the majority of christian fundamentalists who thought it meant the end of the world. The same idea went around at the turn of the year 1000. Will these people never learn?
Other gullables followed them as well, although there were already stories going around about '2012' due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Mayan Calender, which is peddled by irresponsible book authors and dodgy websites, but for the most part, people were fixated on 2000, and of course nothing happened. 2012 obsessives should take note.

As for the theory that people believing in 2012 might make it happen, well a lot of people believed in 2000 but it didnt make the world go bang in 2000 and substantially LESS people are aware of 2012; even if it is widely publisised, there is absolutely NO way that 2012 holds the same interest or psychological impact as the round date 2000; this date was ingrained on (christian) minds subconsiously and yet didnt result in diddly squat, certainly not the 'apocalypse' and the coming of jesus like the nutters were hoping for.


Recently I considered that the idea might be just another prophecy, and everybody is falling for it like Y2K proceeding the year 2000.

erm.... I kind of thought that was obvious!

The Mayan calender is an agricultural calender based on an astronomical system.. its FULL of cylces and renewal dates, they happen all the time and none of them mean 'awareness shifts' and end of the world scenarios. it simply the end of one computation cycle and the start of another. 2012 represents the end of a long dating cycle and the start of another. The whole 2012 myth is just that... nonsense!
I'm sorry apocalypse obsessives were disapointed that their mad visions were not fulfilled in 2000, but they better get used to it, because they're in for another disapointment in 2012. however, by then the 'big date' will already have moved off to some other time.

In fact i have already seen this process begin early, with some people moving towards yet other  dates.. and talking about 2016, 2025 etc etc.... ad infinitum ad nausium!
Doug

Forgot to mention, its Billie Piper who plays the Doctor's new assistant... for those who dont not know who she is... all you need to know is that she is... er nice

Doug

Once again ,you misunderstand what i'm saying. i'm saying that nazi atrocity was *justified* through a perverse interpretation of current science.

Just as other atrocities are justified through a perverse interpretation of religion.

So what I'm saying is that it is utter naivity for secularists to imagine that in a world of 'pure science' with no religion (their ideal world), then there would be less atrocities. This is wrong, as people generely make use of whatever's around to justify their reasons fo doing something and making it 'right'.

And if you think that eugenic theories of science were not DEEPLY influential (even in america) and did not have an impact on racism and the ideologies of nazism then you do nothing more than display your utter ignorance of the wider context of the period.

Doug

Be kind to your enemies... be generous to he that has wronged you
Mesopotamian inscription 3rd Millenium BC. Iraq.



This issue might seem absurdly obvious to some, but it remains the case that there is a widespread myth, spread by fundamentalists (and esp. hollywood epics of the 1950/60s!) that true morality and ethics only began with Judeo-Christianity and that before that, people had no sense of morality and ethics and pagan culture was basically one of immorality full-stop. Of course, this is not true. as Anyone familiar with the greek philosophers will know, with Plato going on to become extremely important in the theology and ethics of christianity.

And for those who subscribe to the idea that before christianity 'life was cheap', they might like to read the following article by Cicero, the great Roman Statesman of the mid 1st century BC, an adherrant of the Stoic school of philosophy. It will be clear from the outset, that he *values human life*  and basic human fellowship. In the real world of course, life was often 'cheap' (political events, crime etc) but then life continued to be 'cheap' throughout the following christian period and up to the present day, but just because this is the reality does not mean that it was accepted as an ideal. Pagan ethics was very concerned with finding a way for humans to live together in harmony

Despite what religonists would say, the same basic moral principles are found in all human societies, even if they are not articulated in any kind of advanced theory. That you should be 'kind to your neighbour' and not dump on him was long an accepted maxim amongst all levels of society, as without an innate sense of this virtue, settled civic society is impossible. It goes without saying that not everyone adheres to these ideas all the time, but they are a dominating facet of any settled society, otherwise there could BE no settled society. Of course, the pagan elite, being educated, wished to find sophisticated, articulated ways to express and explore the basic human virtues, and find an ideal way of cultivating them, hense the pagan ethical systems.

Anyway, Here's Cicero's excellent article about the value of human life and the ideal of helping out your neighbour:

------------------------------------------------------------
(Translated from the Latin)
CICERO:
HOW TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS:

Sometimes expediency and right (as we understand the terms) will appear to clash. In order to avoid mistaken decisions when this happens, we must establish some rule to guide us in making such comparisons and to prevent us from deserting our obligations. That rule will be in accordance with the teaching and system of the Stoics; they are my models in this work - for the New Academy (to which I belong) gives us wide latitude to support any theory which has probability on its side. But to return to my rule.

Well, then, to take something away from someone else - that one man should profit by another's loss - is more unnatural than death, or destitution, or pain, or any other physical or external blow. To begin with, it strikes at the roots of human society and fellowship. For if we each of us propose to rob or injure one another for our personal gain, then we are clearly going to demolish what is more completely natural than anything else in the world: the link that unites every human being with every other. Just imagine if each of our limbs had its own consciousness and decided it would do better if it appropriated the nearest limb's strength! Of course the whole body would inevitably collapse and die. In precisely the same way, if every one of us seizes and appropriates other people's property, the human community, the brotherhood of mankind, collapses. It is natural enough for a man to prefer earning a living for himself rather than for someone else - granted; but what nature forbids is that we should increase our means, property and resources by plundering others.

Indeed this idea - that one must not injure anybody else for one's own advantage - is not only natural law, an internationally valid principle; it is also incorporated in the statutes which individual communities have framed for their national purposes. The whole point and intention of those statutes is that one citizen shall live safely with another: anyone who attempts to undermine that association is punished with fines, imprisonment, exile, or death.

The same conclusion follows even more forcibly from the rational principle in nature, the law that governs gods and men alike. Whoever obeys it - and everyone who wants to live according to nature's laws must obey it - will never be guilty of coveting another man's goods or appropriating for himself what he has taken from someone else. For great-heartedness and loftiness of soul, and courtesy, and justice, and generosity, are far more natural than self-indulgence, or wealth, or even life itself. But to despise this latter category of things, to attach no importance to them in comparison with the common good, really does need a great and lofty heart.

In the same way, it is more truly natural to model oneself on Hercules and undergo the most terrible labours and troubles to help and save all the nations of the earth than (however superior you are in looks or strength) to live a secluded, untroubled life with plenty of money and pleasures. Mankind was grateful to Hercules for his services, and popular belief gave him a place among the gods.

So the finest and noblest characters prefer a life of dedication to a life of self-indulgence: and one may go further, and conclude that such men conform with nature (for that is just what they do) and will therefore do no harm to their fellow-men.

In conclusion: a man who wrongs another for his own benefit either imagines, presumably, that he is not doing anything unnatural, or he does not agree that death, destitution, pain, the loss of children, relations, friends, are less deplorable than doing wrong to another person. But if he sees nothing unnatural in wronging a fellow-being, how can you argue with him? - he is taking away from man all that makes him man. If, however, he concedes tbat this ought to be avoided, but regards death, destitution, and pain as even more undesirable, he is mistaken in believing that any damage, either to his person or to his property, is worse than a moral failure.

So everyone ought to have the same purpose: to make the interest of each the same as the interest of all. For if men grab for themselves, it will mean the complete collapse of human society.

And if Nature prescribes (as she does) that every human being must help every other human being, whoever he is, just precisely because they are all human beings, then - by the same authority - all men have identical interests. Having identical interests means that we are all subject to one and the same Law of Nature: and, that being so, the very least that such a law must enjoin is that we may not wrong one another. The hypothesis of that proposition is true; so the conclusion is true also. People are not talking sense if they claim (as they sometimes do) that they do not intend to rob their parents or brothers for their own gain, but that robbing their other compatriots is a different matter. That is the same as denying any common interest with their fellow-countrymen, or any consequent legal or social obligations. And such a denial shatters the whole fabric of national life.

Latin Literature, An Anthology, London, 1989, 34-36.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Doug

PS btw I'm not criticising christian ethics, they are also provide very good guidelines to conducting your life well; I was just wanted to provide an example of an equally valid, in my view, pagan ethical system, that was already alive and well beforehand.

yup... thats it!

This is true. There is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom. The later (hopefully) gets better with age and comes with, or is, an aspect of experience. Intelligence is something you have a certain degree of and you make the best of it.

This can be very hard to understand, particularly for many young people who just don't understand how it is possible to be extremely intelligent but at the same time do or think some extremely dumb things. I know, i'm only just getting to grips with the difference between intelligence and wisdom myself!

Doug

Gandalf, his mother said he showed no signs of depression.

Ha! Telos, This means nothing!

One thing you should know about depression, is that people can become masters of hiding it, even at 14. Their parents can be none the wiser, believe me!

Doug

I don't find the above story at all suprising. It is the case that a lot of people who suffer from chronic depression and other mental afflictions like schizophrenia, are also in many cases highly intelligent, prompting some people to wonder if there is a link.

I think in some cases there is. It is not far fetched to imagine being really bright but feeing held back by others or somehow perceiving that you will not ever be able to get that something to make you happy. The rest of us dullards are happier.. dont they say ignorance is bliss?    maybe in some cases!

We all have to remember as well that no matter how brainy you are, you can still f**k up and make really dumb decisions... esp. when the emotions are involved.. then all intelligence, now matter how bright, goes out the window.

He was at a dodgy age..14... maybe he discovered he was gay...  but was brought up to believe that this was a 'bad' thing, so blew his brains out in a fit of emotional, hormonal despair... maybe he discovered he was schizophrenic and realizing this, after everything was going so well for him, could have been a HUGE blow.... the disorder usually manifests itself during puberty.. again, he may have got into a fit of depsir after hearing the voices etc and of course didnt tell his parents, who worshiped him as 'the boy genius'. He therefore had nowhere to turn..... in a momentary fit of emotional despair he pulled the trigger.

People are so very complex and although this sounds obvious, you cant just categorise people as 'types'.. people are so full of internal contradictions and paradoxes. You never can tell whats going on underneath.

Doug

The newest incarnation of the Doctor is played by Christopher Eccleston (he comes from the north of England). Chris is a great actor, have already played non other than jesus christ (!) in the past; also some may remember his excellent performance as the Duke of Norfolk in 'Elizabeth', with Cate Blanchete.

The new series looks like it will be great, and although I loved Paul McGann as the Doctor, that US movie version was absolutley awful, showing they had no idea about how the show worked and the hallowed tradition it followed   . The new series looks to be back on form, keeping all the 'Who essentials' but also incorporating new ideas and better special effects.. but as all true Whovians know, its not special effects that make the series.. its the characters and the story!

I must admit though that my fav Doctor has to be Tom Baker!

Doug

PS Yes it should appear in the US at some point, at least on BBC America.

All fans of the UK sci-fi series DOCTOR WHO: the show is officially the longest running sci-fi series in the world, running since 1963!

As fans will know, the show is returning at long last on Saturday, 26th March! Check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/

Whovians: post your comments!

Doug

well its because in the deluded mind of our mad preacher 'foaming Father Wingate' who probably doesnt know diddly squat about international affairs, is that he lumps in Russia and China as one because in his mind they come under the lame and out of date title of 'commies'.

The problem of course, if the whacked out crazyman bothered to look at what was going on in the world in recent decades, is that russia is no longer communist! In fact now its almost the opposite..a mafia state in some regions! As for China, yes they are officially 'communist', but there's something odd going on because if you go to Hong kong and especially Shanghai on the mainland, you will find a vibrant supermodern city, with a new rich growing middle classes and loads of people making money,places like shanghai are often said to be 'more western than the west' and certainly dont look in any way 'communist'.

The chinese are not interested in 'invading america'... the chinese just want to make money.. which they are doing... lots of it!

The reason the official 'communist' system is still in place, is because the chinese government prefer a longterm slow and systemised transition to full capitalist democracy, a slow controlled process that may take several *decades*, not months or years.
The reason is simple: they dont want the chaos and 'mafia state' situation that is the case with Russia, where they went for an overnight transition... they dont want the same situation as has happend in russia, and they are not going to hurry up just because the west told them to. It was the west and america which was constantly encouraging  Russia to change ...but the change was too quick and look what happened.

Thats why the chinese felt threatened by Tianamen square in 1989. I know that was awful, but from their point of view, these idealistic and naive students were about to start a chain reaction that might overthrow the current system overnight.. sounds great, but look at russia, how many people have died since then as a result of organised crime and the russian mafia who virtually run half the country? probably more than the students in Tianamen square.

It may be the case that the slow scientific approach taken by China is the best way forward, no matter that it is too slow for the west. At least they have order and security and this has to be maintained and continued so that democracy can be brought in on a gradual, controlled level.
You cant have full democracy WITHOUT safety and security FIRST, as America has found out with Iraq. Peoples first priority is NOT freedom to vote.. its freedom to go outside and not be killed by roving bands of brigands and nutters on the streets.

Doug

PS oh, almost forgot, another important point is that since the 1950's Russia and China fell out and they really do not like each other! They really dont!

Adrian is the boss who rules by "divine right". Major Tom is king, Nay is queen. The rest, well, we just fight amongst ourselves, lol.


I make the tea!

Science doesn't kill anyone, accidents and misuse by PEOPLE do.

Christianity has killed a lot of people, but there's not even a need to go that broad. The number of people killed in the NAME of it is enough.

Tyciol_

People have been killed in the NAME of science just as much as they have been through religion.
I'm afraid science doesnt have much of a better track record than religion once you look at it properly.

Try the theory of eugenics, survival of the fittest and other late 19th century/early 20th century racial doctrines based on science of its day, resulting in the logical conclusion of the nazi death camps.

Of course you will say 'but that wasnt proper science, that was a twisted corrupted perversion of science, warped in order to justify certain ideas'.

My answer is complete agreement. But it is the exact same process that happens with religious persecution and genocide and torture based on religious priniciples. They are also justifed through a perversion and twisting of religious ideas, in all likelyhood quite the opposite of what the originator had intended.

In one way, you are right.. religion and science themselves do not kill people, but both have been used in exactly the same way in order to justify murder. Science has inspired just as much in the way of death and horror as religion has. And dont get me started on the technology of war, which science has also playe a full an active role in.

For this reason, It really strikes me as utter naivity when some people, particlurly anti-religion types, say that there would be no problems in the world if there was no religion and only pure science: absolute naivity.

The true source of the problem is not, religion or science.. it is Human Beings...

Pod_3_

But it IS the case is it not that the biblical jesus WAS of the line of David and therefore of Jewish royal blood, whatever we may say about stories of 'simple carpenters'? So the biblical jesus was not just 'mr joe public' like he is portrayed by many people today, esp by many in the US who like to equate him with the 'working class kid made good' image.

Please note: Im not saying that by having 'royal blood' this means anything per say, Im just talking from a purely social perpsective.. he couldnt just have been on 'an ordinary family' they sound more like an aristocratic family, perhaps fallen on hard times, maybe not. But the population must have been aware of their lineage, and i'm sceptical that they were 'poor'.

hmmm Mustardseed_ The post that temporarily appeared there was a complete rant and certainly didnt sound like you!

Most weird!

Doug

i think it is possible for 'spirits' to affect matter but not by themselves.

I have seen enough weird sh*t in my time to convince myself that A) so called 'ghosts' are a real phenomenom and B) manipulation of physical objects can and does occur.

My current theory on the 'mechanics' of 'hauntings and ghosts' is this:

I think objects moving around etc are caused by the individual witnessing it... the one on the scene causes the effect as it is that person who is ALSO on the physical level... The individual is used almost as an instrument by the nonphysical person.. however i dont know if much of this is consiously thought out.. i think it all happens unconsiously, via the link between the individual here and the non-physical one there. so say, the 'ghost' desired an object to move, then unconsiously this desire transfers to the witness via the mental link, and the witness unconsously manifests the desired effect via their own (unwitting) telekinetic ability.

This all fits in with my current thinking on 'ghosts' and hauntings.. i dont think in these cases the ghost visits us... but rather we visit the ghost.. ie we phase away slightly from normal awareness and become aware of the non-physical individual, allowing a contact to take place.

In many such cases the astral 'vision' is overlayed on the physical one... you perceive both mixed together.. hense the haunting and the vision of the ghost.

Why this seems to occur in specific areas i dont yet know.. there has been some research done that shows a higher magnetic field in areas of known 'hauntings' that may explain it.

However, unlike the scientists who use this to explain away visions of 'ghosts', i think its also possible to argue that something else is happening.. ie the magnetic field is disturbing the individual's normal focus and link with physical reality (via the brain), thus allowing them to perceive other realms.

Perhaps also,  the event of a highly emotional situation... eg a suicide or murder, leaves an imprint on the physical enviroment (perhaps even an altered magnetic field?)... allowing others to perceive the said victim in their astral enviroment... and in turn allows the victim to perceive the witness.

Chohan_

Absolutly: The Torah or 'old testement' is quite obviously a retelling of old sumerian myths but re-structured and re-interpreted for a new 'hebrew' age, and details of many of the major stories can be quite easily traced to the earlier Sumerian stories.

For this reason it is almost possible to get away with the Hebrews statement that 'their tradition is as it was 4000 years ago' and so on. But what is obvious from a secular-historical perspective that the Hebrews inherited these old myths and adapted them for their own purposes. This makes sense as the semitic tribes (of which the Hebrews were just one branch of) took over the old Sumerian kingdoms and inherited much of the old Sumerian culture, so it would be very suprising for the semitic inheritors NOT to inherit earlier sumerian traditions!

For this reason i do like the Torah/OT as these Hebrew scholars really did a service as this work is such a valuable compendium of old Sumerian myths, which are really the heritage of all the mesopotamian peoples.

And you are right that you can have it both ways with no real problems... if you are an orthodox believer you can say 'ah, but the Hebrew retelling is god telling us how it really was' and for the rest of us, we can see past the later re-interpretation and enjoy the ancient mesopotamian tales in all their glory. Coupled with the epic of Gilgamesh it makes great reading!

Doug

For those in the UK, tonight at 9pm on BBC1 is the second part of a 2 part docu-drama about what might happen if the Supervolcano underneath Yellowstone national park erupts. Nothing much actually happended last night on part 1, the action is all tonight.. check it out if you have time. The docu-drama is a joint production between the BBC and the Discovery Channel so US viewers may get to see it themselves in due course.

Ok so it might not blow for another 100,000 years (if at all), but on the otherhand it could happen tomorrow!

Doug

I find this very offensive

It is unfortunate if people find this thread offensive, but they don't have to read it if they find it goes against their orthodoxies. This is a free board does not restrict itself to a single religious creed or enforced doctrine; we're sorry if this does not please some but we are a civilised board and we have to live with it.

It is clear that Mustardseed wished to experiment with attempts to channel god and wished to post his results here for others to comment on. Everyone is free to agree/disagree with his findings and discuss other aspects of them, but just because a few 'find it offensive' is no reason for mustardseed to stop what he is doing. Many other members find it very interesting, regardless of what they make of it.

If people come across posts they have problems with, but do not violate the commonly set bounds of board decency, then there is nothing they can do about it, but they don't have to read it!

Doug

isiah... do you actually know what the term 'occult' actually means?

It means 'hidden'.  Any form of knoweldge which is not widely known can be termed 'occult'. the term has only been given a negative spin by the church who do not like the idea of people researching into 'hidden' information, or dare i say it... having an enquiring mind and not just willing to swallow the line from the pulpit.

If you interprete christian teachings to bar you from engaging in such activities then of course that is your choice. As i'm not a christian then I dont really care too much, but i do think its a bit of a shame.

It's a myth. The Hebrew Torah is still very much if not exactly the same as it has always been. The Greek new testament, likewise.
As already said, if God created the universe in 6 days, would he let his word become obscured and totally distorted?


The torah was first written around the 8th-7th century BC (and not before!) as that was when a good enough writing system was developed to record it (according to *unbiased* Israeli scholars); but it is naive to believe that the religion of Judaism didn't continue to go through significant developments for a long while after that. For example, it is clear that the religious dualism aspect, that the world was split into opposing forces of light and darkness, did not appear till c500BC onwards when the Jews picked up many ideas while in Babylon.. It was only around 300BC that an actual personification of this evil force 'Satan' was developed. Also it was from Babylon that the jews first developed  a detailed concept of an afterlife, before which, the jews vision of the after-world was not significantly different from the common 'hades' like model common at that time. The Jews first picked up the concept of a hereditary priesthood from their stay in Babylon, as well as carrying back the germs of many mystery traditions that would flower later into the Zohar and Jewish mysticism in general.

With regards to the new testament, it is correct that the four 'gospels' are indeed substantially the same as they were originally written down (dating from the late 1st to early 2nd century and NOT by the original 'disciples' themselves). However, the problem is that there were *myriads* of written stories doing the rounds as the myth of the god-man Jesus spread around after the mid-first century ad. Some were purely concerned with a mystical savior, stories which would later inform the 'gnostic' tradition, while other people made attempts to write a more historical version, trying to place this savior in a real historical time and place... it was the 'historical' jesus who eventually won out and became accepted.. Even then, there were still many versions and a process of narrowing down had to take place in order to select the few which gelled most consistently and with minimum contradictions... hence the 4 gospels.. Unfortunately, this process was not 100% successful as there are still many contradictions between the four which causes problems in interpretations... cf Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which uses bits of one and ignores aspects of others (not to mention using completely extra-gospel work!).

Now it may be that there was in actual fact a miracle worker and Christ (savior) in Judea at this time... in fact there were loads of them at this time, but was there really a real Jeshua Bar Joseph? possible, although the actual evidence is slim.. For the development of Christianity, it didn't actually matter if there really WAS such a man, by the end of the 1st century it was generally accepted as historical fact by Christians, despite glaring inaccuracies like there was no town of Nazareth in the 1c ad!
The rest as they say really is history!

Doug

Isiah.. i agree with you entirely, but we both draw different conclusion from it.

For you that means that you stick to what's in your holy book and dismiss everything else.. which is fine... no problem!

And for me it only confirms my own view that a lot of what's in the Christian bible is simply wrong, pure and simple. Written by men, for men who all had their own particular views and prejudices. Don't get me wrong, it provides a reasonable guide on how to live a good life alongside your fellow humans (provided it is viewed selectively of course.. a lot of it is nuts imv!). Fine if you want to be a part of that, but for me, it doesn't really cut any ice. On the bright side, such restrictions keep the riff-raff away from all the good stuff!


Doug

Those are worrying quotes by the Nazi leadership: Guys like the minister of propaganda Geobbels and others, including Hitler himself were geniuses of political propaganda and showmanship. I would dare anyone to watch 'Triumph of the Will' (detailing the 1935/6 Nuremburg rally) and not feel the emotion and grandeur of it all and feel yourself be carried away by it, despite the rational part of your mind telling you how horrific it all is. This is because all great propaganda works at the emotions primarily (as well as pure mis-information as well of course).

What's more worrying is that any politician worth his salt will have a respect for these guys' techniques and will have studied them carefully, as they form the basis for modern political propaganda today... don't be fooled, its being used all the time, only the term 'propaganda' is given the more user friendly term 'spin' these days.

Of course propaganda is not new.. The first Roman emperor Augustus was a true master of propaganda and spin, but the Nazis were the first to use modern mass media to its full extent. The spin coming from the Whitehouse about criticizing American policy being 'unpatriotic' is an amazing example of pure propaganda to bolster the current regime.

This technique wouldn't work in the UK as we do not have this big thing about 'patriotism' that Americans do.. with an oath of allegiance every day in school and all this kind of thing.. we kind that stuff pretty corny, but since it is so ingrained in the American psyche the spin merchants have been able to utilize that and turn it on their own people for the politicians own advantage.. Which is what you see at the moment.

Doug

tyciol_
Any chance you could do us a favour some day and improve the quality of your posts?

Doug