The Antics of Alex Jones

[vanlose kid]

such confusion.
Christianity is not a system, not if one understands it as the teachings of Christ: faith is not systematic. that's pretty basic. that was the whole point of the pharisee and the tax collector, the good samaritan, the sermon on the mount, the cleansing of the temple, etc. again, basic stuff.

even if one were to see Christianity as a system it didn't exist as such until Nicaea, ca. 325, i.e. the Roman church, or the system of Constantine. the perversion of faith.

that taken into account all systems are man made and as such are as light and as dark as the men and women who make and maintain them. what their light or dark has to do with their staying power is beyond me, for they do not exist (despite the laws that grant existence to corporations) other than is human institutions. governments, societies, corporations, soviets, etc., fall under the same heading: have the same "frailties" so to (objectifyingly) speak. they're human.

only a pipe dreaming rationalist thinks, imagines, believes, there can be a system that is light through and through. that one can set down a few precepts or doctrines or propositions or axioms or a CONSTITUTION and everything else will follow unerringly for all eternity. rationalists are pretty dense like that though.

*

[compared2what?]

such confusion.
Christianity is not a system, not if one understands it as the teachings of Christ: faith is not systematic. that's pretty basic. that was the whole point of the pharisee and the tax collector, the good samaritan, the sermon on the mount, the cleansing of the temple, etc. again, basic stuff.

even if one were to see Christianity as a system it didn't exist as such until Nicaea, ca. 325, i.e. the Roman church, or the system of Constantine. the perversion of faith.

Agree. Also, point taken. But I was replying to this:

I think any belief system powerful enough to command obedience must have a shadow side, but a system with a staying power of millennia can't be only shadow.

So I took it for granted that "system" meant "belief system," which meant "the system of beliefs that comprise the faith proper, as well as the system of beliefs that's arisen from, during, in, around and/or consequent to its ritual administration to the faithful in churches over many centuries."

Or, put more succinctly, "the creed and the cumulative common cultural wisdom derived from it in the present-day west." Though more the latter than the former, maybe. Anyway. I agree with your above-quoted remarks. I was speaking of (as you go on to deem and describe it, better than I could) a man-made system.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Belief system?

Believe everything and nothing.

Make beliefs serve you, not the other way around.

Don't be enslaved to any system, yours or any other man's.

I'm inculcating my world view.

A paradigm is a tool.

There are many tools in my box.

But my keen insight is the sharpest.

...

[Luposapien]

Hadn't really checked back in here for a while, so didn't realize I'd sent the thread so far off topic with my off-the-cuff comment about Christianity. Not that I think it's not worth talking about. I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is an institution of absolute shadow (just as I don't necessarily believe that dying is all about Death). My personal hunch is that most things will tend to balance out in the (sometimes very) long run. As Mama used to say, "If the branches reach up to heaven, the roots reach down to hell." And they do. Maybe. I was just giving a little poke to Jones and company in regard to an apparent blind spot they may have. I think C2W hit what I was aiming at by terming it a death fetish. I was trying to hint that I wasn't making a judgment about what True Christianity is with my "what is commonly referred to as" qualifier, but I guess it probably just came across as me being a smart-ass, which of course I was. I really don't think that it's so much about the will to do good or evil, but about the will to do anything, and how the consequences of those actions spiral away from our intent. Actions and reactions and all that.

In general, though, please understand that any axiomatic sounding proclamation I make is most likely backed by about a page and a half of unwritten caveats and self-doubt. It's amazing that I ever post anything at all, to be truthful. Usually I get about this far in and then just delete it. Guess I better send this one off before I think better of it.

[vanlose kid]

such confusion.
Christianity is not a system, not if one understands it as the teachings of Christ: faith is not systematic. that's pretty basic. that was the whole point of the pharisee and the tax collector, the good samaritan, the sermon on the mount, the cleansing of the temple, etc. again, basic stuff.

even if one were to see Christianity as a system it didn't exist as such until Nicaea, ca. 325, i.e. the Roman church, or the system of Constantine. the perversion of faith.

Agree. Also, point taken. But I was replying to this:

I think any belief system powerful enough to command obedience must have a shadow side, but a system with a staying power of millennia can't be only shadow.

So I took it for granted that "system" meant "belief system," which meant "the system of beliefs that comprise the faith proper, as well as the system of beliefs that's arisen from, during, in, around and/or consequent to its ritual administration to the faithful in churches over many centuries."

Or, put more succinctly, "the creed and the cumulative common cultural wisdom derived from it in the present-day west." Though more the latter than the former, maybe. Anyway. I agree with your above-quoted remarks. I was speaking of (as you go on to deem and describe it, better than I could) a man-made system.

gathered as much. the remark was more general anyway, and not directed at you.

one point though, re "the system of beliefs that comprise the faith proper, as well as the system of beliefs that's arisen from, during, in, around and/or consequent to its ritual administration to the faithful in churches over many centuries."

i don't think there is one homogenous thing that is comprised of all that. and again, Christ's teachings were not systematic: they do not comprise a system. that some elements are taken out, perverted, and made the basis of systems is another thing. i think the distinction is important as it is one anti-religionists tend to cover over for their own occult purposes.

anyway, Nietzsche recognized the distinction (between the system and the way of life), even though he, for rhetoric's sake in his polemic against the Church, made more of it than can rightly be made (my remarks in []):

--I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.--The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" [Evangelium, the Good News, literally] died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings," a Dysangelium.14 It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith," and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian. . . To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages. . . . Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being. . . . States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true--as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity.

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_t ... christ.htm

it would be nice if the Nietzscheans read and understood Nietzsche before "interpreting" him, i.e. repeating nonsense attributed to him which they picked up in "progressive" circles. the world would be a better place. i think.

*

[vanlose kid]

the Nietzsche passage above is brilliant in so many ways. here's something for the hard of hearing. he gives a definition of Christianity as a system:

To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity.

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_t ... christ.htm

this gives you an idea of the target of Nietzsche's critique, i.e. what "christ" is meant in Anti-Christ. and more importantly what Christ is not meant. all of this turns the common interpretation of the work on its head.

if you read, that is.

*

[Iamwhomiam]

vanlose kid wrote:such confusion.
Christianity is not a system, not if one understands it as the teachings of Christ: faith is not systematic. that's pretty basic. that was the whole point of the pharisee and the tax collector, the good samaritan, the sermon on the mount, the cleansing of the temple, etc. again, basic stuff.

even if one were to see Christianity as a system it didn't exist as such until Nicaea, ca. 325, i.e. the Roman church, or the system of Constantine. the perversion of faith.

that taken into account all systems are man made and as such are as light and as dark as the men and women who make and maintain them. what their light or dark has to do with their staying power is beyond me, for they do not exist (despite the laws that grant existence to corporations) other than is human institutions. governments, societies, corporations, soviets, etc., fall under the same heading: have the same "frailties" so to (objectifyingly) speak. they're human.

only a pipe dreaming rationalist thinks, imagines, believes, there can be a system that is light through and through. that one can set down a few precepts or doctrines or propositions or axioms or a CONSTITUTION and everything else will follow unerringly for all eternity. rationalists are pretty dense like that though.

Well, I really know little about Alex Jones. What I've learned about him has come from the postings of others here on RI. I don't have a high opinion of the man. But I do know quite a bit about Christianity.

The closest practice today to that which is believed to have existed soon after the crucifixion is that of the Saint Thomas Christians in India. The Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic faith would be next closest to the most ancient practice of Christianity. Some scholars believe Abraham is a corruption of Brahma and that he emigrated to Ur from India.

However, it's faith and the practice of faith I mean to address here. The earliest "Christians" practiced the rituals of Judaism as a means for professing their faith. Jesus, let's not forget, was believed by his disciples and many others to be the Jewish Messiah.

So in that way, and with modifications over time, a system was developed and standardized at Nicaea where the most powerful swayed the less powerful Christian authorities and certain practices and texts were standardized. There were a very many 'schools' then teaching vastly different philosophies and all were considered "Christian," at least up and until the Council of Nicaea was convened. Afterward, some teachings and texts were considered heretical, and many were persecuted for their practice of heresy and many texts were destroyed. At Nicaea too, the "Bible" was designed to include 5 of the Jewish books we call the Pentateuch, The Old Testament as well as which books (texts) to include in New Testament of Jesus.

"Faith," being individually unique, is something quite difficult to define and I do not believe it could be considered a "system." But specific words to be said and motions to be gone through, a ritual, must be systematized to be effective. They have purpose. Esoteric, yes, though one purpose they serve is the strengthening of faith. Can I get a witness?

Also, considering ritual is comprised of rites (words and motions, appropriate time of day and year and dress,) and always magical (ok, spiritual, religious) in nature, and conducted to bring about supernatural occurrences, were you aware that Jesus was also supposed to bring an end to all magic?

Odd, isn't it, that the guy just wanted his friends to gather around a good meal with lots of wine to remember him and we now have cathedrals and high holidays dedicated to worship him. This after he nearly stroked out at the temple cursing the money changers. From the guy who taught God was within each of us. Just like the Hammer.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: professing faith in anything needs a system to make that faith meaningful. I think. Or maybe this: Christianity is a system of rituals.

[vanlose kid]

attending university is a system of rituals.

working the pit on Wall St is a system of rituals.

doesn't say much does it?

*

[vanlose kid]

Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified. – Leo Tolstoy

*

[Hammer of Los]

...

Hmm.

I'm meditatin' on yer posts, Iamwhomiam and Mr Kid.

...

[Wombaticus Rex]

Has there ever been a credible investigation into Alex Jones, his funding and his past?

[brainpanhandler]

Has there ever been a credible investigation into Alex Jones, his funding and his past?

That's an excellent question I don't now the answer to. but let's start one. We're credible. I'm going to have a lot of free time on my hands for a few weeks.

[Iamwhomiam]

vanlose kid wrote:

attending university is a system of rituals.

working the pit on Wall St is a system of rituals.

doesn't say much does it?

The result of the ritual would be the criteria necessary to be judged to determine its efficacy, I would think.

To take your points in the order given, what is the result of the rituals you've listed? Attending and participating in the rituals of college returns one a degree, which to someone without one might be seen as magical piece of paper whose rewards are continual throughout their life.

Of course, you'll need a college degree to work the pit, but the rewards from practicing rituals here are greater still, with many college graduates wishing they had participated.

Both set aside a "special" population with certain advantages over mere plebes.

Otherwise known as the "Mo Money Blues."

[Wombaticus Rex]

SPLC on Alex Jones

IREHR says Jones is a Very Bad Man

New Republic, "Truther Consequences," Page 1

New Republic, "Truther Consequences," Page 2

[brainpanhandler]

Has there ever been a credible investigation into Alex Jones, his funding and his past?

Just some casual musings:

When you use the word funding it seems to me like you are implying a potentially hidden benefactor that has it's uses for an Alex Jones. Based on the three articles you link to we could make some conjectures based on his earliest beginnings with the theory in mind that he was groomed and slowly cultivated in the manure of the john bircher right, to be eventually deployed when opportunity or need struck to "occupy the shadowy territory where the far right curves around and meets the far left.", namely, the 911 truth movement. Either he was nurtured for that or some purpose with his knowledge or he was allowed to organically grow into a useful idiot, monitored and fed information from anonymous sources in order to steer him in ways advantageous to his hidden controllers. Or perhaps even both. It seems now he is pretty much self funded I would imagine.