Welcome to The Beast Bay General Thelema Science Art Scholarship The Beast Bay website
 up a level
 search
 main


  The Future of New Religions
Scholarship Posted by Xnoubis on Thursday June 21, @11:49AM
from the osiris-orisons-horizon dept.

For our 'Massimo Introvigne link of the week,' let me recommend his recent address to this year's Engelberg Seminar, "The Future of Religion and the Future of New Religions". He tentatively predicts that the more conservative religions will continue to experience the most growth in the upcoming decades, as they have in the past few. Is he right? I hope not.



<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on Scholarship
  • Also by Xnoubis
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    Re: The Future of New Religions
    by Tim Maroney on Thursday June 21, @11:36PM
    It's a very interesting essay, particularly with respect to the evolution of scholarly approaches to new religions and their co-evolution with popular bias against "cults."

    What I'm not at all clear on is where he thinks the study is going to go. He seems to postulate a scholarly obsolescence of the category without explaining what that would mean. Does he mean there will be no new religions because of the increasing entrenchment of conservative religion? It's a possible implication of his analysis but he never states so directly.

    I would argue against this conclusion (if that is his conclusion), since I do not see any consolidation of worldviews happening -- the 20th century crisis of values is still very much with us, and people are increasingly withdrawing into subcultures and tribal groups. It may be that most are not what we would call "religions," but the continuing fragmentation of society only creates more and more nooks and crannies in which small religions can form.

    (In addition, "religion" is a highly artificial category which probably does not reflect any natural category. It may be that the study of religion will wind up subsumed into the study of ideology, but there will still be plenty of new ideologies to study. Is Rocky Horror a religion?)

    Tim

    • Re: The Future of New Religions
      by Xnoubis on Friday June 22, @05:16PM
      I got the impression that he was saying that the term "new religions" (as opposed to "old religions") would fall into disuse in favor of other approaches, such as grouping religions into families, that would place less emphasis on the old/new dichotomy.

      I'll have to give the religion/ideology relationship some thought...


    • Re: The Future of New Religions
      by Xnoubis on Saturday June 23, @10:39AM
      I tend to see religion as a cultural institution dedicated to propagating a particular view of absolute truth in order to fulfill the human need to find meaning in life. So it is artificial, but then so is agriculture. In both cases, we were at some point not developed enough to need them, and may at some point be developed enough to transcend them.

      The secularism that, according to the article, was expected to eclipse religion didn't do so, I think, because it does not fulfill the need for meaning as effectively as religion does. A better candidate, it seems to me, is gnosis.

      So what I see as the future of religion is that, as gnosis spreads, the various denominations will at first react and become more conservative as they are doing now, but that each will also develop forms that are more compatible with gnosis. Eventually, the gnosis will trickle into all but the most shuttered sects.

      Then each religion can be valued for their celebratory aspects, while their dogmas can be hauled off to the strains of the Gershwin tune, "It Ain't Necessarily So."


    Re: The Future of New Religions
    by Fra THA;M on Friday June 22, @10:18AM
    I remember reading something by Christopher Hyatt in the preface to "The World's Tradgedy". It equated the rise in fundamentalism with the final violent spasms that occur with the onset of death. Human beings have an ingrained desire to hunt for transcendance, but it doesn't have to be in the form of a traditional religion. The secularization of society has the potential of being the most beneficial step in the evolution of religion to yet occur. We all know what discipline can step to the plate, and fill the vaccuum left by 'religion'. I am an atheist, and secular humanist, yet Thelema is able fulfill the functions of a religion. That is why it is imperative that as Thelemites, we actively work to bring the Law to those individuals intelligence and integrity who shape the course of human developement (politicians, scientists, artists, activists, etc), all the people who are expending much energy into developement of a secular world. There can be no denying that those individuals working in the social sciences can provide insightful and informative predicitions. But they lack the simple mechanics behind the theory of the progression of aeons, which might refine their vision. We as thelemites know what is coming, and what is here. The age of the crowned and conquering child is upon us, regardless of whether the Law of Thelema is accepted. But We have been provided an ark by means of which the magnitude of the cataclysm may be averted, and onto which the just men and women may be loaded two by two (Sorry. I am a fan of melodrama. But I essentially mean what I said.).

    • Re: The Future of New Religions
      by Shasu Ma'akheru on Saturday June 23, @02:25AM
      Ever since it was remotely safe or legal to do so, the enemies of Christianity have been predicting its demise. If the fundamentalism of today is indicative of death throes, what was the Albigensian Crusade? Christianity is like a large animal, stunned, but slowly regaining its footing after being thrashed by materialist science and the rise of modern nation states. It has adapted to profound social changes before, and I see no reason to doubt its ability to corrupt the human race has suddenly run into a barrier of any kind.

      In any event, Christianity is not going to die on its own. Something will have to kill it, and that will almost certainly involve some conversion by the sword along the way, though the ratio of overt violence to friendly (and not-so-friendly) persuasion remains to be determined.

      In its current state, Thelema is in no position to displace Christianity as a mass religion. It may be a more than adequate substitute for you or for me, but it does not of itself provide any of what evangelical Christians are packing the pews to get. If Christianity is to be destroyed, the void must be filled with another mass religion. In the best of all possible worlds, this would be a religion with Thelemic principles; the worst case scenario would be something like Islam.

      Living in the West in a time of great peace and prosperity (for us, if not our vassal states) has a very distorting effect on our view of history. Religious ideologies spread by mass migration and violence. If they had not captured the support of armies and national governments, neither Christianity nor Islam would have survived their first four centuries. Even Buddhism, itself pacifist in nature, was largely spread in the wake of regional warfare and state sanction. This is a distasteful realization for some Thelemites -- which is odd, considering that Liber Legis is in part devoted to an Egyptian war god -- but many unalterable truths are distasteful.

      The corrollary to all this is, of course, that left unchecked, the slave-religions will eventually regain control of the state and use its power to obliterate heresy. It is definitely not pleasant to contemplate the technology a modern Christian state would have at its disposal today, much less in one hundred or two hundred years.


      • Re: The Future of New Religions
        by Xnoubis on Saturday June 23, @11:14AM
        > Christianity is not going to die on its own.
        > Something will have to kill it

        Eeew. I'm for co-opting it, myself. For example, Matthew Fox's Creation Spirituality goes a long way toward making a Christianity that is harmonious with Thelemic principles.

        > In the best of all possible worlds, this would
        > be a religion with Thelemic principles; the
        > worst case scenario would be something like
        > Islam.

        I'm starting to think that Buddhism, especially in its Tibetan form, is our best candidate for a healthy world religion. Plus, it only takes a little tinkering to bring it and Thelema into alignment.

        Propagating a healthy form of Islam is a really huge problem for the world, I agree.

        > Religious ideologies spread by mass migration
        > and violence.

        But the religions are not always the agents of the violence. In our time, the violence is the subjugation of those vassal states you mentioned, mostly driven by business interests. The religions that play that conflict to their best advantage will likely come out on top. Don't piss off the wealthy and powerful until or unless you can pose a real challenge to them, but don't get caught supporting the oppressors when a revolution succeeds. Tricky business.


        • Re: The Future of New Religions
          by Fra THA;M on Saturday June 23, @01:24PM
          >Matthew Fox's Creation Spirituality goes a long >way toward making a Christianity that is >harmonious with Thelemic principles.

          >I'm starting to think that Buddhism, especially >in its Tibetan form, is our best candidate for a >healthy world religion. Plus, it only takes a >little tinkering to bring it and Thelema into >alignment.

          I'm sorry, but Buddhism? Thelemic Christianity? Your words frighten me Xnoubis. A little tinkering? Old religions with their old rituals; each with their cowardly disavowal of the Truth: No Gods, No salvation, No grand predetermined purpose for humanity. The Book of the Law is explicit. It's polemics don't advocate co-opting what you like from other religions. No compromise. Tramp down the wretched and the weak. Weakness is the cowardice of being afraid of what it means to be alone in a godless universe. Weakness is piling responsibility onto a God, or retreating from the world instead of recognizing that we as individuals are ultimately the ONLY salvation or damnation for the species. Deus Est Homo. In Homini Salus. Amen!


          • Re: The Future of New Religions
            by Xnoubis on Saturday June 23, @10:15PM
            Someone once said that while the opposite of a mundane truth is false, the opposite of a great truth is also true. And indeed, the Thelemic canon propounds Gods, a God, and No Gods, in various places. (It is not solely atheistic, even if that is the mode you seem to prefer.) No salvation, but descriptions of things that are salvation in all but name ("I shall redeem ye from all pain," etc.).

            For me, Crowley's oppositional stance to other religions was just part of his shtick, not something that is essential to Thelema. (But if it works for you, fine.) If the truth of Thelema is of a general nature, then it should be possible to recognize that truth within other traditions. Otherwise it's just one provincial creed in a pissing contest with all the others. Weakness, one might say.

            But no compromise? I agree, and I intend none. Matthew Fox teaches Original Blessing instead of Original Sin, and well done, I say. But he also condemns the Age of Enlightenment and condones monogamy as the most sacred form of sexuality; I'm not going to congratulate him for that.

            I don't think it's realistic or even desirable that everyone become either Thelemite or secular humanist. There are many different paths for many different people. That being so, the underlying principle of respect for the freedom of the individual still holds, regardless of that individual's creed. So creeds and forms of creeds that are less obstructive to the individual are to be encouraged, whatever the trappings are.


            • Re: The Future of New Religions
              by Fra THA;M on Sunday June 24, @11:50AM
              Touche. As brothers fight ye. But no where in the Crowley cannon does it advocate respect for creeds, or the individuals who adhere to them, which are symptomatic of slavery and ignorance (the ignorance which keeps individuals from discovering and performing their true wills.). In fact, the Thelemic books are filled with quite inflammatory commands to the contrary. Freedom isn't freedom. In our consumer/corporate slave society, people aren't free. Though no one physically impedes them, they still live as if under the strictures of a dictatorship. The same with those who suffer the fetters of restrictive creeds. Strike hard, and low, and mercy be off. Not to hurt them, but to help them realize their plight. An Iconoclast holds a sacred office. But I imlore you to remember The Law Is For All. There are many paths, but it is the Law of Thelema, and the dictates of the book of that law, which will solve the crises of our post-industrial world.


              • Re: The Future of New Religions
                by Colin S McLeod on Monday June 25, @10:03AM
                FRA. THA;M wrote:
                "But no where in the Crowley cannon does it advocate respect for creeds, or the individuals who adhere to them, which are symptomatic of slavery and ignorance (the ignorance which keeps individuals from discovering and performing their true wills.)."

                I beg to differ, ye of the redundant full-stop (and of the ignorance of which it is symptomatic).

                Liber X, 21:
                "Nevertheless, as a fire cannot be started with iron alone, in the beginning one system may be suited for one seeker, another for another."

                Colin S McLeod

                The Secret Temple
                http://www.duaut.net/


                • Re: The Future of New Religions
                  by Xnoubis on Monday June 25, @10:11AM
                  Shouldn't that be "thou of the redundant full-stop"? Geez!

                  Nice quote, though.


                  • Re: The Future of New Religions
                    by Colin S McLeod on Monday June 25, @10:38AM
                    Well, if he could have a redundant full-stop, I thought I could have a redundant nominative plural of the second person!

                    "Nice quote, though."

                    Just wanted to make the point that the literalist tendancy is not necessarily coextensive with the facist tendancy.
                    Though, of course, the Facsists were quite tolerant of the old religions - so long as they didn't exhibit any of the fire that passage describes as being worthy of respect.

                    CSM


                    • Re: The Future of New Religions
                      by Mordecai on Monday June 25, @12:25PM
                      >Just wanted to make the point that the literalist tendancy is not necessarily
                      >coextensive with the facist tendancy

                      Not necessarily, but quite congenial nonetheless.


                • Re: The Future of New Religions
                  by Fra THA;M on Monday June 25, @11:10AM
                  I beg your forgiveness of my ignorance of proper grammar and syntax, master. One can assume that an evidently plebian mind, such as I possess, is incapable of thinking in anything other than colloquilisms and free-associative ramblings. At least that is what the stogy old backward-looking dinosuar Profs that wander the lonely corridors of this University tell me. !


      • Re: The Future of New Religions
        by Mordecai on Saturday June 23, @03:35PM
        This is, to me, a reasonable enough analysis of the general historical situation as regards the growth and death of a 'world' religion (though I take issue with the phrase "many unalterable truths are distasteful"; there are some unalterable truths we know in physics, but not (as yet) in history. Practices as widespread and acceptable as slavery have become globally illegal).


        • Re: The Future of New Religions
          by Martin Hettland on Saturday June 30, @10:12AM
          Mordecai, you claim that there are no unalterable truths(as yet)in history.
          I disagree, in the book "Death by Government" written by R.J. Rummel, he showes government to be the gratest cause of death in the 20th Century.
          All the most violent and murderous goverenments have been based on absolutism,(=undivided and unlimited power bestoved on an elite or the leader of a government.)
          My claim is that it is a unalterable truth that absolutism leads to an increase in murders and violence.

          Regards: Martin Hettland.


      • Re: The Future of New Religions
        by Nekial on Saturday June 23, @03:58PM
        93

        Let's not forget that it was because a Roman emporor took to it that Christianity/Catholocism has become the big fish (and red herring) that it is. And that this was not achieved through violence or migration.

        This lends credence to another theory here that our best hopes may lie in appeal to the secular leaders.

        Perhaps we begin by outing all high profile Thelemites. Also by authoring a popular history of Thelema. And what about missionaries to countries in crisis? Somalia, anyone?

        93, 93/93


        • Re: The Future of New Religions
          by Fra THA;M on Saturday June 23, @04:10PM
          Amen! Organize and proselytize. In the example of the putrescent Paul and early church liers. Would any of you martyr yourselves for your beliefs...


          • Re: The Future of New Religions
            by Nekial on Saturday July 21, @02:35PM
            93

            Anyone living according to their beliefs is giving their life for/to them. We are "martyred" as soon as we start living by our principles, and we are cowards as soon as we stop.

            93, 93/93

            [PS: In a book called Boners, illustrated by Dr. Seuss, I found this: "Martyr: A pile of sticks, on fire, with a christian on top."]


        • Re: The Future of New Religions
          by Shasu Ma'akheru on Monday June 25, @12:17AM
          Let's not forget that it was because a Roman emporor took to it that Christianity/Catholocism has become the big fish (and red herring) that it is. And that this was not achieved through violence or migration.

          While I think you are quite correct about converting secular leaders, Constantine and the early Christian emperors were extraordinarily violent in their efforts. The emperor's conversion was effected as a matter of political expediency in an increasingly Christianized empire, but it was less his pious example than his iron fist that made Christianity universal within the empire.

          Perhaps we begin by outing all high profile Thelemites.

          I don't think it would be wise to 'out' the 'few & secret'.

          And what about missionaries to countries in crisis? Somalia, anyone?

          I don't know about Somalia, but the idea in general is not without merit, depending on how it was implemented. Do not forget, however, that Thelema is not a religion, and spreading it like one will require finding a suitable religion to graft it to. I'm inclined towards the Afro-Caribbean religions like Vodou and Santeria in that respect, but there may be other suitable hosts for the Thelemic meme.


          • Re: The Future of New Religions
            by Mordecai on Monday June 25, @10:24AM
            How true! As it was the fact that the cross was the sign "in which you will conquer" that apparently led Constantine to adopt Christianity, it is clear that violence had everything to do with the political triumph of the "orthodox" form of the creed.


            • Re: The Future of New Religions
              by Anthony on Sunday July 01, @01:01AM
              It is a dangerous trap to believe that Xianity holds some kind of benign core beneath the self-delusions of fundementalists.

              In Xianity, all roads lead to Choronzon. It is a psychologically, spiritually damaging anti-religion in every way.

              In terms of evolution, the veiling of the blood of man was doubtless the very step to be taken.

              Peace can not mean the "miserable ease" of tolerence. Tolerence is the way of the fools of whom AC writes "all fools despise". Cattle-like contentment one moment, and extreme inexplicable violence in others, in whatever fashion, and however muted, including and most of all, psychological self-mutilation such as the kids enjoy with their thinly-disguised Xian "leaders" like Mariliyn Manson.

              It seems a paradox that we have to go to war for peace but that is only a problem to the logician.

              If we do not in some fashion hit out even internally against stupidity when we see it then we become the dupes of stupidity no matter how intelligent we think we are.

              Book II & III are the means of awakening, and full awakening is not pleasent by a longshot and few accomplish it.

              There can be no peace in stagnation because stagnation leads to violence. All of the slave-religions are to borrow a phrase elsewhere from AC - fetters of our going. The suppression of our going equals violence.

              Thus the destruction of all internal and external obstacles is ultimately the only way to accomplish peace and the Thelemic ideal.

              The answers are all there, very explicit in "The Law Is For All" but it's a question of how willing we are to accept what we really feel and not sell out for what we perceive to be an easy life, but what ultimately entails simply selling ourselves to Choronzon and the black brothers.


              • Re: The Future of New Religions
                by Anthony on Sunday July 01, @01:15AM
                Professional soldiers, cowards who will not fight - see nothing.

                If you want to progress, you have to listen to your blood and perhaps stop for a second trying to annihilate yourself and get out of the endless nirvana that you're looking for but you don't know you're in. (in order of course for solve et coagula)

                (cf: the passage in the book of lies about the jewell in the eye of the toad. That's where our babes are born these days and most never leave the womb. I'm not good with references. I'm not interested in being a Thelemic scholar)

                Too much of the trances of Binah lead back into the abyss. It's necessary to move into Chockmah, and Book II and III give the means, but most people aren't willing to take those steps and would easier see a distasteful lapse into "semi-fascism" on AC's part.

                The book of the law is better read with the comment.

                And don't think that masters of the temple are "nice" people by ordinary human standards though they might appear so.

                They sound a bit like.... AC... and Nietzsche... which is why they don't say much and their law is silence.

                And one does have to be clear indeed cause black brotherhood is a very short step and a very easy fall. If people can bracket Hitler in with AC and Nietzsche - and AC thought of Hitler as a prototype of the black brother (though of course we have Kenneth Grant to provide another nauseating example, and Austin Osman Spare, and David Bersson)......... if people see AC Hitler and Nietzsche as some kind of trinity then that's a mark of how unclear they are.

                The higher grades are not for those who would delude themselves into thinking they're angels, and for people who would want to be angels for as my mentor puts it "The light of this world is dark".


    • Re: The Future of New Religions
      by Xnoubis on Saturday June 23, @10:57AM
      > It equated the rise in fundamentalism with the
      > final violent spasms that occur with the onset
      > of death.

      I rather think of it as similar to the way in which the mentally ill will sometimes regress to a worse condition during the course of their treatment.

      > But they lack the simple mechanics behind the
      > theory of the progression of aeons, which might
      > refine their vision.

      But isn't the theory of the progression of aeons part of the religious aspect of Thelema? I'm not saying it's wrong (at the moment), just that it is one of the statements Thelema propagates as true, and in that sense on an equal footing with statements of faith from other creeds.

      Now, the "method of science, aim of religion" aspect of Thelema does have something to offer secularism. I see that tenet manifesting most fruitfully in Transpersonal Psychology, so I'm hoping that Thelema will eventually develop a strong working relationship with that science.


      • Re: The Future of New Religions
        by Fra THA;M on Saturday June 23, @01:49PM
        I think literate and learned Thelemites can see the profound similarities between Neitzsche and Crowley. Everyone is familiar with formers diatribe on the death of God. It has become almost cliche. But Neitzsche predicted that it would probably take close to a hundred years before the world recognized the fact that God was dead. That is our generation. Those who are so afraid of being alone wind up clawing at the giant bloated corpse of God. F**k him, we have no use for him and his ilk. Science is able to explain the origins of the cosmos, to categorize it from giant superclusters of galaxies down to the tiniest subatomic particles. Theism and deism are an anachronism. So now we ask ourselves, what can give us purpose? What can fill that now void place of the spirit? The answer is the humanist philosophy of Thelema... The transcendant nature of the individual, and the magick and majesty of our very existence. Theology, whether Thelemic or other, is the cowardly Qliphoth of the old aeon. The Kings of the earth shall shrug when they read my rant, and the Slaves shall get defensive.


        • Re: The Future of New Religions
          by Shasu Ma'akheru on Saturday June 23, @03:13PM
          Science can presently explain almost nothing of interest to me, personally, and frankly, I find it hard to distinguish materialist science from any other religion. Well, that's not quite true -- prior to the rise of materialist science, no ideological movement had created the tools necessary to destroy all life on earth in an afternoon, much less given them to the people least likely to handle them responsibly.

          Religion and humanism are not incompatible, either. The monotheistic view of a singular God above and beyond and separate from mankind is an aberration of the corrupted Aeon of Osiris. The pre-Christian view of the gods, plural, as having a collaborative, symbiotic relationship with the humans with whom they actively dwelt is still a workable model, and in no way incompatible Thelema.

          Nietzsche was, as he like to say, a posthumous man. He foresaw the death of the monotheist's God, but mistook the future for the present. That lumbering, ancient, parasitic emanation of the Qliphoth is still alive and well, feeding at the trough of hatred and division every week in churches, mosques, and synagogues all over the world. It must be starved, but at present, it is still well-fed,


          • Re: The Future of New Religions
            by Fra THA;M on Saturday June 23, @04:03PM
            Prior to the rise of materialist science, the human lifespan in the 'west' was half what is now. Simple infectous diseases were incurable, communication over distances were impossible, and the majority of the populance lived in ignorant uneducated slavery (like, unfortunately, most of the third world). Science is a testament to the ingenuity and triumph of the human spirit. No one can deny the negative and destructive aspects of it. Don't blame science, blame men. Science, like magick, isn't black or white...its the rot in mens' souls that corrupts it. Thats why the Philosophy of Thelema is so integral, in order to educate people.

            As for the gods...they are just terms for natural forces; formulas of whose power we may tap into. Like the whole of the framework of the Tree Of Life, they have no 'objective' or 'concrete' existence.

            And finally as for God...so many profess to beleive, but how many do you think actually do? They convince themselves of his existence but shove him aside when he gets in the way of their secular pursuits. The great monotheistic and patriarchical age is over, and what we term beleif is just the stink of it's corruption.


            • Re: The Future of New Religions
              by Shasu Ma'akheru on Saturday June 23, @04:25PM
              I didn't say science had not accomplished useful things. My main point was that it fails to explain anything important; it denies existence or relevance to the things that matter most. When science can explain beauty, love, or even the relationship between Yetzirah and Assiah, then it will have risen above the level of apes tinkering with tools. It is a mere tool, and a rather plebeian one at that.

              As for the gods...they are just terms for natural forces; formulas of whose power we may tap into.

              You are confusing the egregores with the forces that lie behind them. The gods do have an objective if non-physical existence, at least as much as you or I or any other randomly chosen person can be said to have. It is certainly possible to access raw Atziluthic force without the mediation of a god or other Briatic entity, but that's more than most people are currently capable of doing. Certainly, we are evolving in that direction, but in the meantime, as opposed to 'God', the gods are in no way hostile to us, and we may as well repair the symbiotic relationship that 'God' has worked so hard to disrupt.

              And finally as for God...so many profess to beleive, but how many do you think actually do?

              See how many of them you can get to shout Satanic hymns! When it gets down to it -- down to the level of raw, animal fear in the dark hours of the morning -- they all believe in the existence of a vast, terrible being who stands ready to punish them. "God" connects to every last one of the buggers through their superego. What they don't believe is the touchy-feely stuff like the Sermon on the Mount. They all believe, deep in their juvenile minds, in the God-Monster.


              • Re: The Future of New Religions
                by Xnoubis on Saturday June 23, @10:25PM
                >> As for the gods...they are just terms for
                >> natural forces; formulas of whose power we may
                >> tap into.
                >
                > [...] The gods do have an objective if
                > non-physical existence

                I just think that language isn't particularly well-suited to this subject matter. These two statements, and many other contrary ones that could be made, recall the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Big subject, the mysteries; many ways of looking at it.



                • Re: The Future of New Religions
                  by Martin Hettland on Friday June 29, @12:53PM
                  Xnobius, earlier you wrote: "I tend to see religion as the cultural institution dedicated to propagating a particulare view of absolute truth in order to fulfill the human need to find meaning in life."

                  I agree that the need for a meaningful life is a very important motivation behind the phenomenon of religion.

                  But religious absolute truth got competition after the Second Word War from the Human Rights who were decleared to be unconditional(that is absolute).

                  If one regard the Human Rights to be absolute in both the physical and any non-physical world, there will be no room for absolute religious truthes imposed on you by another will.

                  At the end of the the day, today both religious and nonreligious people often put the absolute Human Rights above and ahead of the traditional and religious absolute truth.

                  Reagard: Martin Hettland.


                  • Re: The Future of New Religions
                    by jazzcat goodshiplollypop on Friday June 29, @07:49PM
                    ...this be a very interesting insight into the human nature, it seems to me we have a kind of double sided coin to history as we pretend to know it, ( i say predend, cuz the pod saying history is written by the victors)...((when i was writing that the word pod was put in there by accident i swear, so i left it in))..and so, where was i<<,>>
                    oh ya, the coin is head, (ROMAN CHURCH) tail, (TEMPLAR)...so and all the other sides of that!..
                    witches, warlocks, gnostics, alchemists, gypsy
                    fortune teller agents of chaos, romantic poets,
                    like Shelly and Blake, and the whole revolution of the written word, and the romantic vision of Democracy, and all that implys...it was Shelly that said that the poets are the unacknowledged legitlators...And Blakes; Albion,ect. all this opposed the catagorical imperitive of Kant, and the absolute hegemony of the dominant religion,
                    which if truth be told, hid the truth behind a wall of dogma, and the meaning of that is still
                    a mystery, but human rights is a product of the other side of the tarnished coin, the heads i win tails you lose menatlity, is a cheap trick!

                    p.s. if my version of history is a bit time machined, bare with me...


                    • Re: The Future of New Religions
                      by Martin Hettland on Saturday June 30, @06:01PM
                      Hi jazzcat goodshiplollypop, so you are writing that the Templars(Freemasons....you name it)were behind the creation of the unconditional human rights, in opposition to the absolute truths of the Catholic Church?
                      This looks like a conspiracy theory to me.

                      Regards: Martin Hettland.


                      • Re: The Future of New Religions
                        by jazzcat goodshiplollypop on Saturday June 30, @07:57PM
                        ...E GoDz...far be it from me to make that quantum leaping assumption...i just toss in my silly ol
                        moon coin, heads is man in ye ol moon, and tails is green cheese..!

                        geeze!...that be dope shiz!..wiz waz waz (C)uz

                        but but just imagine!...somewhere in the mix
                        perhaps be thee ingrediants!!!

                        mix and match...the jazzcat scratch scratch!!!


                        IIIAAAOOO...E.,,A..,.(O) rain drops on roses

                        and wiskers on kittens...bright copper kettles"

                        na na na these are a few of my favorite things...!!..la lala, when the dog barks
                        when the bee stings...lalate da..na na na..!



     
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


        "As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
    [ home | search ]