Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Printable Version +- Forums (http://india-forum.com) +-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Historicity of Jesus - 2 (/showthread.php?tid=362) |
Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 04-07-2010 Quote:EXCERPT: Historicity of Jesus - 2 - acharya - 04-14-2010 http://www.amazon.com/tag/religion/forum/ref=cm_cd_dp_rft_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx417AUXOWKSRN&cdThread=Tx1CJLAXF1NI2WN [size="7"] Prove Christianity is a lie.[/size] I wouldn't call Christianity a lie- I would call it a myth. As a student of religion (and an atheist), I see no harm in treating Christianity as a myth. Christ's teachings are as resonant and important today as they were 2,000 years ago. As a teacher and an advocate for social justice I think Jesus was without peer. I think Jesus' transformation into Christ was a product of several things- the respect of his followers, his traumatic death, the power of his teaching, and the Greco-Roman habit of turning great men into deities (let's not forget that the church languished as a Jewish sect but exploded when it was adopted by gentiles). To call it a 'lie', you have to presuppose deliberately dishonest words and actions on the part of Jesus' followers. But who's to say how watching your teacher (a person for whom you left your family and your possessions) die in such a terrible way would affect you? Perhaps you would have visions concerning him? Maybe you would look to your people's scriptures to see if there were references to him and his death? You might even find yourself looking for a way to rationalize what happened, and you might come to believe that he had been truly exceptional- maybe even a god. I think Jesus' becoming Christ is understandable under these circumstances. [size="6"] Benjamin Kenon says: "I think Jesus' transformation into Christ was a product of several things- the respect of his followers, his traumatic death, the power of his teaching, and the Greco-Roman habit of turning great men into deities." Except that 'Jesus' never existed. He is fully fictional.[/size] Initiation by baptism, communion with the God through a holy meal that represented the flesh of the dead God, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, and immortality of the soul were all core beliefs of many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.Christianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology: the virgin birth, the miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. And they had them centuries before Christianity. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 04-14-2010 So it was a packaged religion to ensure appeal to the Greco-Roman mileu of the ancient Mediterranean. The fact that there are so many commonalities or coincidences(atleast 7 is listed below) with ancient religions and practices shows its a man-made dogma. Quote:1)Initiation by baptism, 2)communion with the God through a holy meal that represented the flesh of the dead God, 3)the Holy Spirit, 4)monotheism, and 5)immortality of the soul were all core beliefs of many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.Christianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology: 6)the virgin birth, 7)the miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. And they had them centuries before Christianity. Muhammed was atleast clear in reducing the commonalaties! Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 04-15-2010 Quote:satyabhashnam Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 04-15-2010 Quote:were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. this is the modernist position: that christianity is just another false heathen "religion." Nothing will be gained by Hindus by following these types of uber-western critics: the Dawkins and Hitchens. The ones who are stridently anti-islam, e.g. the spencers and splenglers, are likewise a dead end. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - acharya - 04-24-2010 Historicity of Jesus - 2 - G.Subramaniam - 04-24-2010 Are you accusing Hinduism Today of being cuckoos ? Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-04-2010 Brihaspati wrote in BRF: Quote:Why is Christianity preparing the ground for Jihadi takeover One fake will take over the other fake. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-05-2010 Muhammad's mission was to revive the old control of the known world(goal of the Middle East orders) mission that the Church forgot once the Roman Emperor converted. Their logic was why bother controlling the world, when the Roman Emperor serves the Church and thru him they can control the world. In other words the Church became Europeanized(Greco-Roman)from its Near Eastern roots. What Muhammad saw was that the original mission focus was lost and created a new order(Islam) to return to direct control. This mission focus is still with the Sunni-Wahabi Islamists. Its this return to core mission(periodic reset) which energizes the periodical revival of Islam. The Reformation and Enlightenment have cut off this return to core mission for Christianity. This is what is causing the angst in Western societies the transplanting of Near Eastern core valsues on freedom loving individualistic people. The whole saga of Reformation->Enlightenment-> Positivism->Modernism->post-Modernism are ways to throw away this blanket of NE Core values and return to 'pagan' roots. We see this periodic reset in the X-tian cults that spawn in America - Baptists, etc. This is what makes the fundoo West have a soft corner for the Sunni-Wahabis. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - acharya - 05-05-2010 ramana wrote: Muhammad's mission was to revive the old control of the known world(goal of the Middle East orders) mission that the Church forgot once the Roman Emperor converted. Their logic was why bother controlling the world, when the Roman Emperor serves the Church and thru him they can control the world. In other words the Church became Europeanized(Greco-Roman)from its Near Eastern roots. What Muhammad saw was that the original mission focus was lost and created a new order(Islam) to return to direct control. This mission focus is still with the Sunni-Wahabi Islamists. Its this return to core mission(periodic reset) which energizes the periodical revival of Islam. The Reformation and Enlightenment have cut off this return to core mission for Christianity. This is what is causing the angst in Western societies the transplanting of Near Eastern core valsues on freedom loving individualistic people. The whole saga of Reformation->Enlightenment-> Positivism->Modernism->post-Modernism are ways to throw away this blanket of NE Core values and return to 'pagan' roots. We see this periodic reset in the X-tian cults that spawn in America - Baptists, etc. This is what makes the fundoo West have a soft corner for the Sunni-Wahabis. Ramana ji, I do not think Christianity existed as a Socio-political ideology (akin to Islam OR modern Church) until few decades prior to conversion of Constantine. Hence, the loss of focus by early christians, seem to be a far-fetched assumption (IMHO). Western Christianity (Catholic Church and later ramifications which happened to the west of Danube River Basin) is political successor of Western Roman Empire. The Christianity was altered to suit the political objectives of Rome, and not vice-versa. Out of three religions, Islam indeed is the most perfected and "civilized" religion. The geopolitical objective of people from Tigris-Euphrates basin and Mediterranean sea is to act as "middle-men" between East and West. The only other powers which controlled this region are Persians and Romans (eastern romans with support of west). Both of these powers are alien to the Tigris-Jordan Doab. For some years prior to Islam, the control of Western Empire on this region had vanished and the empire was formally divided. The eastern empire and the churches it produced (Greek, Russian, Syrian, Armenian, Georgian etc) have no sympathies of any Islam, Shia or Sunni. However, neither they had balls to snatch the region away from Islamic control. Islam was backed up by skilled manpower from central asia (Turks), whereas the population dynamics of natives of anatolia and Canaan was static. It was only after massive invasion from west (first crusade) that the region came under "western dominion" for 100 years before loosing it to Saladin. The geopolitical "need" of western Europe to be in touch with Asia (India and China) is so huge that they can pay any price to keep their contact robust. Hence, when we look at Muhammad as a policy-maker, his primary need was to consolidate the region between Tigris-Euphrates and Jordan river (including arabian peninsula). This was never the need of Jews nor was it the need of Christians simply because their socio-political character is smaller than that of Islam. Hence, Muhammad accommodated all those people in this region as "Ahl-e-Kitab" (People of Book). he was immensely lucky because Persians and Byzantines were exhausted after fighting each other. For Tigris-Jordan Doab region, both Anatolia and Persia are adversaries. For latter two, this region is the pivot. As of the west's soft-corner for Sunni Islam, it has more to do with victory in world-war-1 and subsequent sell-out of Sunni elite to western interests. If something like Iran happens in Tigris-Jordan doab, all the bonhomie between fundoo west and Sunni Islam will vanish and next crusades will be called upon. When India manages to unify itself and Persia is Deislamized (or total and fundamental disconnect from Sunni-wahabi type of Islam) I won't mind Islam controlling region between Tigris and . West's control over that region has been more detrimental to India than Islam's control. Check the timeline. Ever since "West" lost control over anatolia, syria and levant, coincides with Yashodharma's final defeat of White-Hunas. Ever since then, up to 1200's, India was free from any foreign invasions. The arabs were defeated conclusively and thrown out (even out of sindh which was ruled by Sumra Rajputs). West's occupation of jerusalem in first crusade coincides with Ghurid invasions on India. From later 1500s when Byzantium was conquered by Turks, India too witnessed a stable geopolitical environment free from any central asian invasion (partly because invaders themselves were settled firmly in North India and did not give scope for any other foreign entity to make inroads). The reasons for these coincidental occurrences could be effect of "pax-islamica" on central and western asia which causes the tribes to move en masse for a cause (of islam in danger). Or climatic changes (as brihaspati ji pointed out). could be both. Jews have suffered more under Christian occupation than under Islamic one. Hence, if modern state of Israel enters into a regional peace-keeping alliance with other powers of this region without influence of the west, this will tremendously contribute towards world-peace. It is necessary for Israel to form such alliance before the post WW2 baby-boomer generation dies out. After the newer generations take over the administration of the "west" the sympathy which Israel and Jews have will start diminishing exponentially. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-05-2010 He has to look at the history and not just in Indian terms. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 05-06-2010 Constantine's role was more to operationalize the true doctrine. It is like Brzenski operationalizing the Orientalist conceits which were rampant but rather haphazard over previous eras. Natives have quite artfully deconstructed British Orientalism via Said and Pannikar, but their voices are quite muffled against the American successor whose cloak itself is a burden and who have their own batch of anti-Orientalists. There was a progression in Normativism leading up to Christianity. We need to make the connections between Greek- Roman transfer and Brit-American transfer. Persia is quite a naturally situated power in the ME, but not so lunar Greece and the Roman successors. Now these Gurwas have even hatched a pendulum theory about euro ascendancy in the pre-greco-roman era. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Husky - 05-06-2010 [quote name='acharya' date='05 May 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1273019682' post='106235']Ramana ji, I do not think Christianity existed as a Socio-political ideology (akin to Islam OR modern Church) until few decades prior to conversion of Constantine. Hence, the loss of focus by early christians, seem to be a far-fetched assumption (IMHO). Western Christianity (Catholic Church and later ramifications which happened to the west of Danube River Basin) is political successor of Western Roman Empire. The Christianity was altered to suit the political objectives of Rome, and not vice-versa.[/quote]To declare the alleged 'brand of' christianism from Constantine's reign onward to be the "actual origin" of the woes that christianism has inflicted on the world is that same ongoing self-delusion/Indian apologetics for christianism as finding the Missionaries/the Church/the Evangelists/the Pope/Vatican/subcult X of christianism/Pauline christianism are "to blame" (versus christianism/non-existent jeebus itself which is always kept innocent). It is "but the socio-political ideology aspect that it has gained since then" that is now to be held responsible? Grand self-delusion. To charge uniquely "christianism from Constantine on" is like, in the Indian case, charging just "christianism from Sonia onwards" for the same. As if christianism prior to Sonia had never terrorised and never attempted absolute power and christoterror. Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power. * 1. Christianism had certainly been trying the same before. For example, it had attempted to gain imperial power (which meant it could use that power to stifle everything else) in Diocletian's time too. ADDED: via emperor Diocletian's converted wife and daughter, see 2 posts down. Helena was a foot in the door as much as Sonia and her brood are in India. And Helena was very much a believer in christianism. Ignorant and dangerous and willing to do anything for it. Like all christians ambitious for christianism's sake are. The church worked with Constantine like the church worked with his mother Helena. (And of course Helena worked with Constantine.) Same as the church had tried under Diocletian (but in that earlier situation christianism was too forward and ambitious and overshot itself.) Christianism is the one purpose that drove them all. They did it for the jeebus lie. They were false, they murdered, they lied, they conspired, they did all that and more. But they did it for christianism. They *believed* the jeebus lie. Even while playing cryptochristist (as Constantine did for a time). * "Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power." Hmmm. Need an analogy. Like Julian is the human embodiment of Hellenismos (Hellenismos' natural anti-body - brilliant, indomitable, powers of regeneration - when an unsubverted Hellenismos is faced with prolonged christianism), Constantine is the embodiment of christianism: i.e. the absolute monarch when it is a christian is a bloody tyrant. Absolute power (= in a sense what the foremost seat of the Roman Empire meant) when in christian hands is universal tyranny and the end of life as heathens know and value it. If Constantine had not been, or had not succeeded, christianism would have tried again. And again - until it produced another constantine for its cause - unless christianism were itself to be destroyed. People should read how christians (=embodied christianism) of the empire thought about their religion and where it was meant to be. And read about how the conscious and alert GrecoRomans thought about the sort of fundamental threat christianism posed. The christians (=christianism): aimed for christian jihad of the known world. To convert the Dar-ul-harb of Rome into a christian theocracy: "Rome for christ (or we'll burn it to the ground. If jeebus can't have it, then no one can!)" In time, the GrecoRomans realised this. Indians have had more time to think and ponder on it, more examples of christian total war staring them in the face, and then they - wait for it - come to the profound conclusion that it wasn't actually "true christianism", it was "(post) Constantine christianism" which "wasn't really (representative of) the 'true christianism'". tanding ovation: <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> 2. Christian terrorism and intolerance was there from the first. Before Constantine and his gaining power, christianism was famous for terrorising the Hellenes of the empire. Christians regularly vandalised and burnt temples to the Olympic Gods (and temples of other Gods in the Mediterranean/Levant). Just as christians in India and Korea have done since even before gaining political power in S Korea/India. Christians screeched putrid lies about the Gods of the empire to taunt the pluralistic and (overly) tolerant GrecoRomans before christians had the political power to do so with impunity. (IIRC Roman courts at times dismissed all the false MF Hussein/Doniger-like anti-Hellenistic foul-mouthedness of christians with the usual laissez-faire old Roman statement "The Gods may defend themselves".) Same as in India where the christians have since the start been speaking and publishing anti-Hindu lies - pamphlets, books and more fictions. The Traditionalists of the empire slowly learnt to loathe and hate christianism and christians for their utter intolerance and consequent incorrigible destructiveness. This was WELL BEFORE christianism ever got political power. The angelsk-speaking Indian (would-be) 'intellectuals' - BR was it? - will never learn from history. (And they would keep others ignorant too with their pontifications on "ignore history as it really had happened; let's pretend what I say holds true. We will 'explain' it all with a socio-political model/reasoning. We're not laughable communitwits to resort to inferior socio-economic explanations for everything.") Where was I. Oh yes. In a huff. Indians will never learn from history. Then live to learn it first-hand. Christianism is about its ideology ("religion") - not to be disguised and excused under terms like "socio/politics" and (unmotivated/random) "imperialism". The history of christianism is explained by the ideology. People should stop ignoring its central and defining characteristic, as if the elephant in the living room will magically disappear if we go about it as if it wasn't there. The politics is a consequence of the religion. Need to stop excusing it. Need to stop creating delusions about it and deluding others with it. Fortunately, there exist historians (e.g. DE, EN, FR) - scholars, not armchair pontificators - who have written books on what *actually* happened. It's known history after all: there are *first-hand* ancient sources they can work with, as opposed to hypotheses and hand-waving on "what could have been, therefore it maybe was?" type conjecture. But to read those works with equanimity, one would need to let go of pet theories on christianism ("It was Paul!" "No no no, dude, I've figured it out: it was Constantine! See, my copy of Da Da Vinci code says - when you hold it against the moonlight in this angle, while standing on one leg and squinting until you're permanently immune to all useful history books...") - theories that are successful in one thing: not presenting history, but letting christianism off the hook for christianism's bloody, relentless history. Bah. How long will the self-and-mass-delusion go on for. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-06-2010 Another way of saying it is the Exodus was the Pharonic way of getting rid of their potential regime changers. What was achieved by co-opting Constantine was what was tried in the 18th dynasty In Egypt but didnt get any further. The early attempt was unsuccessful due to lack of critical mass of 'belivers' due to various reasons. Rome didnt have that problem. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Husky - 05-07-2010 For context on the references to Diocletian, here's a reminder: http://freetruth.50webs.org/B3b.htm#Diocletian Quote:The Diocletian persecution of 303-305CE - under Emperor DiocletianOf course christianism had its revenge on the imperial apostates: in time, Constantine would gruesomely murder Prisca and daughter and all their kids. (Of course the faithful Constantine was quite even-handed: he did that to others besides.) In its finally successful attempt to take over Rome, christianism would convert not just peripherals like Mrs Emperor and Ms Emperor but the Emperor itself. Helena was a christian when Constantine's dad met her. She raised Constantine a christian, so he was secured for christianism since the start. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-07-2010 Admins When I tried to save this thread for my archives, it saved only till post #296. Please consider splitting into chunks to enable saving. Thanks,ramana Historicity of Jesus - 2 - acharya - 05-11-2010 The big secret about secret societies Step right up, folks, and read the one true guide to Western and Eastern esoteric societies from the Freemasons to the Rosicrucians. Relics, totems and secret handshakes revealed! BY LAURA MILLER Why are secret societies so secretive? The automatic assumption is that they're up to no good. At the Bohemian Grove, rich and powerful men convene to hatch plots and direct world events -- or so we're told, by people infuriated at having been excluded from the California campground. But, hey, wouldn't a corporate boardroom or a private dining suite at a pricey restaurant do just as well for that sort of high-level skulduggery -- and attract much less press? On the other hand, it's probably a lot easier to sneak a van full of hookers into a campground than into 30 Rockefeller Center or the Four Seasons. In either case, their discretion has backfired. It may well be that the activities of the world's most notorious secret societies consist of little more than grown men cavorting in drag and performing dopey ceremonies under the influence of strong drink. Whatever -- the public will never believe it's all innocuous. Secrecy turns out to be the most effective attention-getting, fantasy-inciting trick in the book. Remember how the neighbor kid's previously unimpressive playhouse became instantly and irresistibly fascinating the moment he taped a "Keep Out" sign to the door? If a cabal of evil masterminds really wanted to keep their fiendish plans quiet, they'd cook them up in a Christian Science Reading Room and hand out fliers on street corners. Of course, Christian Science has its own set of secret doctrines, and once protected them as fiercely as the Church of Scientology now shields its own wacky space-opera theology. Religions were the first institutions to really milk the secrecy gambit for all it was worth. Swear your acolytes to silence and make any violation of the sanctum punishable by death, as the orchestrators of the Eleusinian Mysteries and other ancient cults did, and you cloak your relics, totems and chants in an extra-thick layer of otherworldly glamour. The current presidential administration isn't the first cabal to obsess over controlling "the message," or to realize that sometimes control is the message. Nowadays, however, it's hard to keep even the most awesome secrets under wraps. Sooner or later, no matter how tight your security or how fearsome your lawyers, a disgruntled apostate will leak your closely guarded scripture to the Web, where, stripped of mystery, it often looks as absurd as middle-aged white guys wearing purple robes and trading funny handshakes. Somehow, the precious sacred writings always turn out to be endless, badly written tracts stuffed with woolly, incomprehensible abstractions. Christian Science and Scientology are among the very few "secret" societies whose beliefs Mark Booth doesn't promise to unveil in his new book, "The Secret History of the World: As Laid Down by the Secret Societies," but in this respect, at least, they fit right in. Booth, an editor at a British publishing house, presents his book as an alternate history of the cosmos and humankind, with the early chapters relating the creation of the world and later chapters devoted to all of crankdom's usual suspects: "Egyptian" hermeticism, Neo-Platonism, the Knights Templar, the pineal gland, alchemy, Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry -- you name it. He maintains that his version of the creation narrative, distilled from all these sources, is "a teaching common to Mystery schools and secret societies from all over the world." To have written such a comprehensive synthesis of Western and Eastern esoteric mysticism would be a formidable accomplishment indeed -- if there were any reason to think that Booth's claim were true. For what it's worth, the metaphysics can be summarized thus: The material universe is an emanation of the cosmic mind, which began to "precipitate" (the central metaphor is of crystals forming in a solution) when the mind (i.e., God) first reflected on itself. The thought of God became more and more "dense," turning to "gas, then liquid and finally solids." Matter continued to pass through a series of stages of increasing density until it formed the Earth, living creatures and finally human beings. Humanity, in turn, continues to evolve toward the ultimate end of the entire process: the universe becoming fully aware of itself. Memorable early milestones in this saga include the stage at which the universe consisted of a "vast vegetable being" and the part where the "fish gods" came along to teach us all how to talk to plants. From this you might conclude that "The Secret History of the World" is a truckload of drivel, and you would be right. It is a mess of a book, disjointed and rambling, rife with puzzling non sequiturs that are obviously meant to be suggestive or evocative but that more often read like the symptoms of an advanced case of Attention Deficit Disorder. The many illustrations culled from Western art ("Egyptian snake goddess with knives," "Zarathustra with rolled scroll") are largely undated and unsourced, as are most of the colorful but unenlightening anecdotes. We are informed that the 16th-century Swiss alchemist Paracelsus was "a strange, aggressive character" who "seems never to have grown a beard" -- but Booth leaves out his contributions to the world's store of knowledge. (He was the father of toxicology.) Booth is forever intimating that he's about to explain something important to the reader and then abruptly dropping the subject. He has all the smoke and cymbals of the Great and Terrible Oz, but can rarely muster even the fake disembodied head as a crescendo. He makes a promise, for example, in the caption to a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" -- "It has been suggested that this painting alludes to suppressed secret doctrines regarding the feminine role in Christianity. We shall see shortly that this is true, but not in the way proposed by 'The Da Vinci Code'" -- that is never fulfilled; he never mentions the painting again. Furthermore, much of the "information" Booth chooses to supply is either incorrect or, frankly, untrue. Some of these errors seem to be the result of simple ignorance. He has, for example, the idea that the "laws of probability" dictate that "a coin flipped in strict laboratory conditions will ... land heads up in 50 percent of cases and tails up in 50 percent of cases." (Probability only indicates that a coin is equally likely to land on either side on any single toss.) He entirely misconstrues the thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat -- not an uncommon confusion, it's true, but since Booth chooses to make "modern science" the villain of his secret history, complaining incessantly that it fails to understand the "deeper" philosophical issues of existence, he should at least make some effort to grasp what it does understand. Like most writers working this particular vein of mumbo jumbo, Booth traffics in a lot of unsubstantiated stories that have been discredited by historians he dismisses as slaves to "convention." This, of course, doesn't prevent him from flaunting the credentials of academics whose ideas he likes. (Either a professorship lends credibility to a scholar's claim or it doesn't -- make up your mind.) A fringe theory about the chronology of Egyptian dynasties that seems to support the historical basis of the Bible is, Booth approvingly notes, "gaining ground even among the older generation of Egyptologists." But the fact that no Egyptologist would endorse Booth's bizarre assertion that the Great Sphinx at Giza was built around 10,000 B.C. (7,000 years earlier than it was actually built, and long before Egyptian civilization was even founded) doesn't trouble him a whit. Some of Booth's untrue assertions (such as the claim that the writings of C.S. Lewis are rife with coded "Rosicrucian" symbolism) are clearly examples of wishful thinking. Others are rank misrepresentations: Charles Darwin did attend a couple of séances at the request of his older brother (an enthusiast), but he pronounced spiritualism to be "rubbish" and the medium in question was later proven to be a fraud. Still other errors in "The Secret History of the World" are simply baffling. Why does Booth write that Pythagoras perished in an arson attack in the city of Croton, when the Greek philosopher was instead banished and died in Metapontum? And these are only the errors and misrepresentations I happened to spot because I have a little knowledge of the subjects in question. No doubt there are many more that will be leap out at readers with more expertise, especially in the sections on the Cabala, Hinduism and the French Revolution. Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from "The Secret History of the World" -- not about the world, certainly, or about its history, but about the things people want to believe and the rationales they invent for doing so. Unlike the authors of most other books purporting to introduce esotericism to a lay audience, Booth hardly bothers to fabricate a facade of coherent argument in order to make "The Secret History of the World" more plausible. By contrast, that masterwork of pseudohistory, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln (source for the Mary Magdalene theory in "The Da Vinci Code"), is more typical of the genre and of historical conspiracy theory in general. Baigent, et al., inundate their readers with a tidal wave of obscure footnotes, uncheckable sources, faux scholarship, cherry-picked facts and ingenious sophistry. To the unsuspecting, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" can easily pass as well-researched and even reasonable. To refute it, you have to spend all your time tracking down and disproving a bunch of trivial details without ever getting around to asking why anyone would embrace such a preposterous theory to begin with. Booth, on the other hand, can't concentrate on anything long enough to fashion a convincing lie about it, and as a result, the desperate longing lurking behind the ideas he trumpets -- and, by extension, behind much of esoteric lore -- is stripped bare. After surveying other popular writings on his theme, Booth complains that "you have only to dip into these books and web sites to see there is no guiding intelligence at work, no very great philosophical training and very little hard information" -- a pretty accurate characterization of "The Secret History of the World." Without any sort of intellectual apparatus to hamper the view, you can very clearly see the desire that drives this author. What does Booth want to believe in, and by extension, what is the underlying emotional appeal of the "secret doctrines" he touts? He's far from unusual in his attraction to this kind of thing, as demonstrated by the success of not only "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code," but also the booming interest in apocryphal gospels, religious conspiracy thrillers and such pop-Gnostic phenomena as the "Matrix" movies. The bad guy in his story isn't the orthodox churches that have long and violently suppressed heretical beliefs, but science and "militant materialists" like the author Richard Dawkins. It turns out that not everyone who objects to today's anti-theists is conventionally churched. Against the "intellectual dishonesty" of "the people who guard the consensus" Booth offers an alternative that rejects both old-fashioned faith and new-fashioned skepticism. It's not a religion, exactly, or quite a philosophy, but if offers the following comforting features: 1. You are the center of the universe. Even in the traditional Christian worldview, in which God's eye rests upon the lowly sparrow, a single soul can feel insignificant. In Booth's universe, "Nothing happens in the cosmos except to affect humanity in some way." The universe cannot attain its destiny until each human mind is reunited with the cosmic mind, and by extension, the littlest event in your own psyche has repercussions that extend throughout creation. 2. Everything has meaning. Instead of inhabiting a world of sometimes frightening randomness, every event and every molecule of matter is suffused with purpose, the purpose of elevating human consciousness to the level of the divine. Far from being alone in the universe, humanity is surrounded by intelligent spirits keenly interested in its affairs. Every work of art and architecture is packed with coded clues alluding to the secret practices that have enabled special individuals to communicate with and even master those spirits. 3. Human beings control everything. Even in cases when bad luck, laziness, disorganization and simple ineptitude might seem to explain why certain events occur (or fail to occur), the truth is that somebody, somewhere is covertly pulling the strings. The string-puller's intentions may be (in fact, quite possibly are) malevolent, but nothing happens by accident or because everybody is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Just as everything has meaning, everything is intended, even if we don't know by whom. 4. The answers to all life's questions are known within a special club. If you're in it, you get to participate in exciting initiation ceremonies and exchange secret passwords and signs, as well as partake of the mysteries of the universe. If you're not in it, you get to participate in exciting investigations into the club's hidden influence on world affairs and exchange the results of your detective work with other fearless seekers after truth. Either way, you have the inside scoop. 5. Superpowers are attainable. According to Booth, some "adepts" in the esoteric disciplines have acquired the ability to perform such diverse feats as levitation, reading minds, visiting other people in their dreams, rearranging the molecular structure of metals, and killing a goat by staring at it for 15 minutes. 6. History never has to be boring. All major turning points in the past are orchestrated by divinely inspired geniuses who have been initiated into secret societies, communicate with spirits and are invested with superpowers. Artists and scientists achieve wonders not by virtue of unstinting hard work and devotion combined with genetic gifts, but are blessed with supernatural abilities that destine them for success. Wars and revolutions happen not as a result of tedious economic factors like excessive taxation and trade imbalances, but as part of titanic struggles between good and evil. For example, Julius Caesar invaded Britain not in search of tribute and tin in order to fund the Roman empire, but because he planned to pass himself off as the Sun god and needed to wipe out the Druids before their teachings exposed him as a sham. 7. You don't have to die. This is, of course, the killer app of religions everywhere. In Booth's vision of the esoteric philosophies, the main purpose of secret rituals and doctrine was to instruct initiates on what to expect beyond the grave in order to lessen the terror of the "after-death experience" and prepare them for reincarnation. [Did you notice that I listed seven features? That's the sacred number of the planetary spirit beings! This can only signify that I, too, must be a secret initiate, trying to put the scientists off the scent!] Obviously, this makes for a thrilling and entertaining cosmos. Although Booth generally misrepresents science and scientists in "The Secret History of the World," accusing them of believing that they are on the brink of figuring out "everything there is to be understood about the structure, origin and future of the cosmos" (something I've never seen any scientist claim), he does make one -- perhaps only one -- valid point. Science is inadequate to answer the "big WHY questions" that have perplexed humanity since our days as a giant vegetable. Of course, the vast majority of scientists do not purport to answer such questions, at least not in their capacity as scientists. These are metaphysical mysteries about our own existence that scientific materialism doesn't address. Booth complains that while someone like Dawkins says he finds sufficient cause for awe in the contemplation of a purely material universe, the rest of us can't subsist on such thin philosophical gruel. "However they deck it out with the rhetoric of mystery and wonder, theirs is a universe of blind force," Booth writes, and you don't have to believe in Isis and the philosopher's stone to see his point. Most people will still choose to believe in something "more," whether it's the ninefold path of the Buddha or the pillars of Islam or pyramid power. Chances are that whatever they choose will sound ridiculous to anyone who doesn't also believe. That's something religion has always had in common with sex: If you're not into it, it looks silly. Which explains why all the really clever people do it behind closed doors. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-23-2010 Link: http://www.simplyvedic.org/html/literature/vedic-encyclopedia/science-3.html Quote:The practically employed time concept of the modern historical scientist, including the archaeologist, strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian time concept. And it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 05-23-2010 Initially, Christianity was promoted in the restive provinces. As the center itself collapsed, the ideology was promoted internally. There is an exact corollary with the promotion of socialism/Communism in the East; but as the external colonial edifice collapses, the colonial gaze turns inwards and we now are witnessing domestic colonialism in the Empire. at certain points along the timeline, the external promotion becomes quasi-independent and these prevent a sound assessment. Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 05-24-2010 [quote name='dhu' date='23 May 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1274638632' post='106538'] Initially, Christianity was promoted in the restive provinces. As the center itself collapsed, the ideology was promoted internally. There is an exact corollary with the promotion of socialism/Communism in the East; but as the external colonial edifice collapses, the colonial gaze turns inwards and we now are witnessing domestic colonialism in the Empire. at certain points along the timeline, the external promotion becomes quasi-independent and these prevent a sound assessment. [/quote] Brilliant analogy. Now expand on this. |