Why not change health care (clinics, hospitals, etc.) and legal practice into user-owned cooperatives?

posted at 10:35:37 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Most of the fundamentalisms, including in the Christianities, are based on fear of the unknown. Being able to cling to what one believes to be definite answers, irrespective of whether they can be justified from history or the texts themselves, can bring one a type of comfort. Too bad that life does not work that way. Nothing, except God, is absolute and unchanging.

---

I can't vouch for its historicity, but the Black Stone in the Kaaba is clearly a symbol of the continuity of Prophethood from Adam to Muhammad.

Spiritual symbols remind us of the existence of certain realities beyond what can be observed empirically, much as Christian water baptism is a reminder of the purification of the heart by the Holy Spirit.

posted at 02:06:22 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

To my understanding, the legislative magisteria, or authority, of the House of Justice incorporates any directive or decision, not already discussed in the Sacred Texts or in the interpretations of the Guardian, which requires obedience. Therefore, it could, as an extension of legislation (i.e., rulings on behavior), include the House's executive and judicial functions.

IMO, infallibility is a distinct issue from authority, though the two are somewhat related. If I say that the House is infallible, that means, in my view, that its decisions are morally pure. To my understanding, morality, in this context, refers to the actions of the House conforming to God's Law, Will, purpose, objectives, etc.

Though it may have been God's Will for the House to write its statement on the Lesser Peace and the unity of nations, that does not necessarily imply that the statement is authoritative. However, I don't personally believe that it falls within the realm of the House's legislative magisteria. Therefore, I would suggest that it is not authoritative. (For a variety of reasons, I prefer to focus on authority, not infallibility.)

I do think that the House of Justice, like any institution or individual, can interpret, but its interpretations are not authoritative. Elucidation, in my view, relates to legislation, i.e., behavior.

---

The question I would ask is: What does it mean that the Bible is the revealed Word of God?

In Some Answered Questions:

"The perfections of Christ are called the Word because all the beings are in the condition of letters, and one letter has not a complete meaning, while the perfections of Christ have the power of the word because a complete meaning can be inferred from a word. As the Reality of Christ was the manifestation of the divine perfections, therefore, it was like the word. Why? because He is the sum of perfect meanings. This is why He is called the Word."

- -Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp.206-207

Jesus was called the Word because, within His Soul, He contained the sum of perfect (divine) meanings.

By extension, IMO, the Bible can be called the revealed Word because the teachings of Christ, the "meanings" He taught, were conveyed in the Bible. However, it seems to me that taking this simple truth and using it to support the validity of a particular biblical writer's views (irrespective of whether anything he said was valid) goes a bit too far.

---

The edition of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of the Bahá'í Faith, we have in English is official (authentic), not authoritative. The writings of Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb, the interpretations of the Guardian, and the legislation (in a broad sense, including legal elucidations, IMO) of the House would all fall under the umbrella of God-given authority. However, I do not think that the English translation of the Aqdas is authoritative. If it were, then someone disagreeing with a particular word or phrase in the translation would be questioning the authority of the House of Justice.

In sociology, authority has a specific meaning. Max Weber defined it as normatively mandated power, or power buttressed by social rules. Power, all types of power, refers to the ability to compel people, individually or collectively, to do something. Specifically, non-normative power would include the power that a mugger exerts over her or his victim, whereas normative power would privilege the authority of the House of Justice to engage in legislation.

Although the House of Justice would, like each of us as individuals, have the power to interpret, as it did recently in its commentary on the Lesser Peace and the unity of nations, this sort of interpretation would, IMO, be something less than authoritative, i.e., not within the legal framework established in the Sacred Texts. Likewise, the Guardian had the power to legislate, as he did when setting certain policies (pending the approval of the House of Justice), his legislation was, from the standpoint of the Sacred Texts, not authoritative.

The issue of authenticity is another issue. Although the interpretations of the House of Justice may not be authoritative, no one would dispute the fact that they are authentic. In other words, they are written by, or under the authority of, House of Justice. Of course, authenticity does not mean verbal inerrancy. The Guardian stated that the Qur'án is absolutely authenticated. However, there are discrepancies between some of the early qur'ánic texts.

That is why I think that the safest approach to take is what I like to call minimalism, i.e., not to assume that a text is either authoritative or authentic unless evidence can be produced supporting it. In this case, I would say that, while the Aqdas itself is authoritative (and authentic) in the original Arabic, its English translation is not.

In cases where "obedience" is required, I would regard that as a function of the House's legislative authority. However, when it comes to a statement on the Lesser Peace and the unity of nations, what is there to be obedient to?

IMO, letter on the Lesser Peace and unity of nations was not within its authority, strictly speaking. However, the only way a problem could have arisen would have been if the House had claimed that the letter was authoritative (authoritative interpretation).

---

The equation of infallibility (Arabic, isma, meaning defending or saving), with verbal inerrancy is an interpolation. In Arabic, isma relates to moral purity, not verbal inerrancy. The later dogma, verbal inerrancy, is rooted in fundamentalist Christianity, not in Islam.

A close examination of the evidence for verbal inerrancy, if applied to the Bible (which it can be - and with greater ease than the Qur'an), immediately undermines the fundamentalist Christian view, not the more common orthodox Muslim perspective on the Qur'an.

---

The perennial philosophy has frequently been connected with the traditionalist movement in metaphysics of Rene Guenon (for those who are familiar with his work). IMO, Guenon and his followers represent a form of metaphysical elitism, especially as they have condemned certain other groups, such as Blavatsky's Theosophical Society, for their syncretism.

The problem: All religions are, or were at some time, syncretistic, including the ones recognized as legitimate by Guenon. They blended existing streams of thought extant in their cultures. Within Christianity, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Communion (or its variants, the Eucharist and Memorial), the doctrine of Satan, etc. all had pre-Christian and, in some instances, pagan origins.

Is it possible to construct a philosophia perennis which is not contaminated with traditionalism?

Also, most proponents of the philosophia perennis are metaphysical realists. They believe that there is a quiddity, or an "essence," underlying all the religions. Can one be a metaphysical nominalist or conceptualist, as I am, and support the perennial philosophy.

---

It would take a long time before the American criminal injustice system becomes equitable. In comparison to the good-ol'-boy system in the American South, sure, there has been improvement. Moreover, there is also the problem that, for identical crimes, law-enforcement officers are more likely to arrest African Americans than European Americans. And, given that African Americans are disproportionately poor, they cannot afford the same quality of legal council as the average European American defendant or convict. For instance, the appeals process does not work as well for African Americans as for European Americans. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that the burden of proof should be doubled for minorities, especially in capital crimes.

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about the Ahmediyyas of India, Doc? These guys opted for Islamic Pakistan instead of secular India in 1947, when my country was so unfairly partitioned on the stupid basis of religion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, there are two branches of Ahmadiyya: Qadiani (the majority) and Lahore (the minority). The Qadiani branch teaches that Ahmad is a prophet, whereas the Lahore branch regards him as a reformer. Most Muslims (who are aware of the distinction) accept the Lahore Ahmadis as (basically Sunni) Muslims, while they reject the Qadianis on the basis of shirk (assigning partners with God).

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pakistan refused to take them saying they were not true Muslim and sent them back to us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ahmadis have some unconventional beliefs, such as that Christ was not crucified, but that He instead traveled to the Indian subcontinent where He preached the Gospel and eventually died. They claim to know where He is buried.

Back when I was a forum manager on America Online, I observed vicious arguments between orthodox Muslims as Qadiani Ahmadis. The orthodox Muslims tried to convince us (AOL forum management) that the Ahmadis were not Muslims and should not be permitted to post in the Islamic forum. The orthodox Muslims lost the argument.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we said never mind, welcome back and took them back in. They have their own mosques and they pray to Allah too, but they do it differently.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as do the Ismailis and United Submitters.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably you can rate them on par with the Seventh Day Adventists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, since most SDA members regard Ellen G. White as a prophet. However, the SDA have never received the same poor level of treatment from mainline Christians as the Ahmadis have from Sunnis. That is why I thought that the Mormons were a better analogy.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day, it all boils down to different roads to the same destination with fellow travellers being a threat to the journey itself by fighting over the destination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and with Christianity, the (unbiblical, IMO) triumph of orthodoxy over orthopraxy.

---

Here is an attractive photograph of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. It was taken on July 28, 2001 (shortly before 9/11). I obtained it from this site, where it says, "Please take this picture and share it with anyone and everyone who likes it."

---

The revolution I anticipate may come about as a "natural" result of America's foreign policies. After 9/11, the average American finally woke up to the fact that much of the rest of the world despises U.S. foreign policies. It is those same policies, supported by the U.S.-dominated global corporatocracy (oil, etc.), which are the primary inspiration for Islamist militant activities (so-called "terrorism").

The legitimate anger that much of the world feels towards the *real* axis of evil (the U.S., Britain, and Israel) will likely bring additional attacks to these, and other, countries. It this happens, as most "terrorism" experts seem to believe, and the attacks are sufficiently severe, these countries could almost immediately find themselves in a condition of political and economic anarchy. Someone will have to do the rebuilding.

---

Rough comparisons (not exact):

1. Sunni Islam: Protestantism

2. Shi'ih Islam: Roman Catholicism

3. United Submitters: Jehovah's Witnesses

4. Ahmadiyyih: Mormonism

posted at 12:06:00 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

About Rev. Moon and his Unification Movement:

--------------------------------

CounterPunch

January 14, 2003

Moon Shadow

The Rev, Bush & North Korea

by WAYNE MADSEN

When President Bush added North Korea to his list of "Axis of Evil"

nations, the influence of the self-declared reincarnation of Jesus

Christ, the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, loomed

largely over the White House decision-making process. The decision by

Bush to throw into the trash heap of history eight years of a joint

American-South Korean-Japanese dialogue with the reclusive Communist

regime would ultimately result in Pyongyang returning to using the

rhetoric of bygone years. Just as the Bush administration reintroduced

to regular use the terms "segregation," "civil rights," and "ban on

abortions," the terms "demilitarized zone," "Panmunjom," and "38th

parallel" would also re-enter the American political lexicon.

Bush, a self-described "born again Christian" who has maintained

close links to Moon, hired David Frum as one of his speechwriters. Frum

apparently came up with the term "axis of evil" for Bush's 2002 State of

the Union address but it seems likely that Bush, heavily influenced by

the propagandists of the rabidly anti-Pyongyang Washington Times, decided

North Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il was Satan reincarnate. Years

before North Korea announced it was restarting its nuclear enrichment

facility at Yongbyon, The Washington Times splashed front page headlines

about North Korea being a threat while other major newspapers and wire

services treated the sensationalistic reports as a non-story or more

probably, plain disinformation masked as "intelligence reports" and

"leaked" by anti-Clinton Pentagon officials.

For twenty years, Moon's main policy laundering enterprise for

his incessant influence-peddling has been The Washington Times, the

money-losing newspaper he owns outright through New World Communications,

Inc., the paper's parent publishing company. New World also owns

Insight Magazine, The Middle East Times (based in Cairo), Zambezi Times

(based in Lusaka, Zambia), newspapers in Uruguay and Canada, a textbook

publishing company in Russia, and United Press International, the formerly

well-respected wire service that fell on hard financial times and was

bailed out by Moon's seemingly unlimited cash flows.

Next year, an Insight magazine reporter is poised to take over as

President of the venerable National Press Club in Washington. Thus, in a

presidential election year, a Moon employee will have influence on what

politicians and candidates are selected for televised luncheon speeches

carried by C-SPAN and other cable news networks. Democrats and Greens

should be very wary. Some former Washington Times officials claim The

Washington Times and its affiliates are so tied in with Moon's agenda,

its reporters and staff should register with the Justice Department as

foreign lobbyists under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Moon launched The Washington Times in 1982, just a few years after one

of Moon's associates, Tongsun Park, was indicted for paying bribes

to a number of U.S. politicians. The paper, which has a dearth of

advertising revenue, has lost more than $1 billion dollars since its

inception. Nevertheless, it has become a powerful conservative voice

throughout Republican ranks in both the White House and Congress. In 1996,

former President Bush, who has taken millions of dollars in speaking

fees from Moon, spoke before a Moon audience in Argentina and declared

Moon to be a "man of vision." Bush 41, who could never really grasp the

"vision thing," decided Moon had it.

Moon's own background, which reportedly includes links to both the

Korean CIA and its American counterpart, parallels that of other

ethically-tainted individuals who have once again found sanctuary in

a Bush administration: Elliott Abrams, John Poindexter, Otto Reich,

and John Negroponte, all of Iran-contra infamy. The Washington Times

was a leading supporter of the Nicaraguan contras and a chief apologist

for the perpetrators of the arms-for-hostages scandal. Violating one of

the main canons of journalism -- that newspapers should not become part

of or create their own stories -- the Washington Times established the

Nicaraguan Freedom Fund to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the

contras circumventing the Boland Amendment that prohibited Federal money

for the rightist guerrillas. Moon was also one of the few influential

people who continued to defend Richard Nixon even as the President was

resigning over the Watergate scandal.

In addition to his media empire, Moon also owns a Jonestown-type

compound in Brazil called New Hope. He has also invested in the

sparsely-populated and impoverished Marshall Islands. He has infiltrated

one of the secessionist movements fighting for independence for the

Angolan enclave of Cabinda. Moon's favorites in Africa included some

of the CIA's most reliable clients: UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in

Mozambique. Moon's fronts even maintained a dialogue with Pol Pot's

murderous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge murdered 3 million

Cambodians. More surprisingly, Moon reportedly partly owns a hotel in

Pyongyang and a North Korean Fiat automobile plant. His flirtation with

mind control techniques is legendary. Parents have spent millions trying

to deprogram their children from the effects of Moon's Pavlovian brain

bending methods. Moon's mass marriages of unwitting American males to

Korean wives, while humorous on the surface, nevertheless managed to trap

Zambian Roman Catholic Bishop Emmanuel Milingo. At least one pre-eminent

Washington Times reporter is said to have been enticed into one of his

boss's mass marriage ceremonies.

At the 20th anniversary celebration of The Washington Times held last

year in Washington, Moon seemingly endlessly spoke in Korean at the

alcohol-free affair. He said The Washington Times would "spread the

truth about God to the world." But in Moon's world, he is God. President

Bush sent a message to the banquet stating, "Since 1982, people across

America and throughout the world have relied on The Washington Times as

a distinguished source of information and opinion."

Bush seems to value Moon's commitment to family values. Bush named

David Caprara, the head of Moon's American Family Coalition, as the

director of VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America). Moon's commitment

to family values was exemplified at his 20th anniversary celebration of

The Washington Times. The keynote speaker was Dr. Laura Schlessinger,

the holier-than-thou radio talk show host who is the psychiatric part of

the daily ration of right wing AM radio venom that is complemented by the

political indoctrination of Rush Limbaugh and his clones. Schlessinger's

own commitment to family values was highlighted recently when she claimed

the body of her 77-year-old mother from the Los Angeles County morgue

after it had remained there for ten days after her unattended death in

her condominium. Schlessinger, who lectures callers on how to keep their

families together and wholesome, had not seen her own mother since 1984.

To Moon, however, disowning one's parents is a hallmark of his

brainwashing techniques. In 1973, while a college student in Mississippi,

I was once lured into a Moon recruiting function. I met a young Jewish

girl from New Jersey who was traveling around the country in a van with

her fellow Moon adherents. As a native of New Jersey myself, I asked

the young woman what her parents thought about her roaming about the

country. She replied, "Parents, I have no parents. Reverend Moon is my

family." I wanted to call the nearest rabbi to help the poor girl get

home to her parents who must have been worried sick. Nevertheless, Bush

believes that Moon's family value system is credible enough to appoint

one of his adherents to head VISTA.

But Moon is not only a danger to young people. While Bush accuses Kim

Jong Il of all kinds of evil affronts he seems to ignore some of Moon's

more bellicose and threatening comments. According to a 1978 House

of Representatives investigation of Moon some of the more outrageous

comments include:

---Unification Church members are to regard Korea with great reverence

and look forward to the day when the Korean language will be spoken

throughout the world.

---Members are to maintain a view to establishing a "unified

civilization" of the whole world, to be centered in Korea and

"corresponding to that of the Roman Empire."

---God was helping Moon to set up a final battle involving the United

States, Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan.

---Moon's plans are to manipulate seven nations at least, to get hold

of the whole world: the United States, England, France, Germany,

Russia, and maybe Korea and Japan. "On God's side, Korea, Japan,

America, England, France, Germany, and Italy, are the nations I

count on in order to gain the whole world," Moon stated.

The House of Representatives report on the activities of the Korean

CIA in the United States found evidence that the Moon organization had

violated a number of Federal and state laws. In 1984, Moon was convicted

of income tax violations and spent 13 months in prison. But remember,

in 1996, Bush pere referred to Moon as a "man of vision." It should be

noted that while Bush was head of the CIA, Moon was organizing a number of

pro-American and anti-communist rallies and front organizations around the

world. Moon was a convenient agent of influence for the CIA and Mr. Bush.

According to intelligence insiders, North Korean intelligence has quite a

dossier on Reverend Moon and his payments to politicians in the United

States and abroad. Some of the intelligence may prove embarrassing

for some politicians, including the Bush family. So, here we are

again. Noriega of Panama had the goods on the Bushes. He is now in a

U.S. Federal prison; Sadaam knows what the Reagan-Bush administration

sold him in the way of components for weapons of mass destruction. We

are about ready to go to war against him. And Kim Jong Il has the juicy

bits on Moon's financial links to Bush pere and dauphin. Kim is now a

member of the "axis of evil," a man who George W. Bush hates because he

"starves his own people."

Congress investigated Moon's operations in the late 1970s. It was at a

time when Moon was involved with smaller scale influence peddling and

brainwashing young college students into joining his cultist Unification

Church, popularly known as the "Moonies."

Now, at a time when Moon may be influencing United States foreign policy

vis a vis North Korea, a known nuclear power, and risking a nuclear war in

northeast Asia and hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of deaths,

it may be time for Congress to once again launch an investigation of a

man whose sole purpose is to unify the world under his direction. It has

been over 60 years since the world heard a man talk like that: his name

was Adolf Hitler.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and

columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth.

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01142003.html

posted at 11:41:09 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly MF I can't beleive for a moment that the west has monopoly on this atitude, every religion it seems has an accompanying tradition of folk practices which involve calling on spiritual powers for mundane situations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For necessities, yes. People have always regarded religion (and magic) as a means of survival. However, in the West (especially in the U.S.), it is not only for purposes of survival but for conspicuous consumption, which is especially evident in certain strains of American pentecostalism.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The distinction between prayer for personal transformation as opposed to prayer for "getting stuff" is a valid one, but it is valid only for those with enough conciousness to percieve the difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That consciousness, IMO, comes from one's society and culture.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

]Meanwhile the real world confronts us bizzaire spectacles like Colombian drug lords praying to the Holy Virgin for succses in their smuggling and kidnapping operations seemingly oblivious to any inherent contradictions in their world view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uses of religion are generally an extension of one's values. In the U.S., consumption ("shop till you drop") is pervasive. In many other parts of the world, it tends to be more limited. If you are poor, really poor (not poor by Western standards), your wants may be more circumscribed.

---

One cannot really evaluate certitude (gnosis) empirically or scientifically. It may be possible to measure the effects of these experiences on the brain, galvanic skin response, etc. However, there is no way of judging whether the source of the experiences themselves is "true."

What I am doing is working with the late Stephen Jay Gould's concept of the twin magisteria of the sciences and religions. There is only a conflict if a particular religious organization insists on doing the job of science (like the Raelians or Christian fundamentalists), or vice-versa.

I would, in addition, say that spiritual experiences can never be pinned down (empirically).

I use a standpoint epistemology of sorts. Scientifically, I am a skeptic (of everything, including spiritual matters). A scientist, acting as a scientist, has no way of studying, or evaluating, the spiritual realm. That is my approach when I teach my classes, do research, etc.

Metaphysically, I focus on values (axiology), ways of knowing (epistemology), the nature of being (ontology), and questions of ultimate order (cosmology).

* Christian Scientists were encouraged to avoid seeing a physician (other than to have one's bones set) and, instead, to see a Christian Science practitioner.

* Jehovah's Witnesses do not get blood transfusions based on a literalist reading of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

* Scientologists condemn anything except their own approach to resolving emotional problems.

* Christian fundamentalists denounce evolution as secular humanism and promote one of several forms of creationism.

* Some members of my own religion have similar unscientific views based on literalist readings of our scriptural texts.

The solution is focusing on core competencies - being a spiritual skeptic or agnostic when doing science and refusing to make scientific pronouncements (based on one's religious teachings) when doing religion.

posted at 09:16:19 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

MSNBC is rapidly becoming even more right-wing than Fox News Channel, and CNN isn't too far behind.

As someone with a journalism degree (A.B.J., University of Georgia), and who has worked in the field, I challenge the view that the media has a liberal bias. That is what I regard as one of the "right lies" promoted by Fox News Channel and talk radio. The result? Well, the lie has worked. Perfectly reasonable news outlets are suddenly afraid to criticize Bush or, heaven forbid, der Fuhrer (Ashcroft) and his concentration camps. Like the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s, they have been intimidated into silence.

The mainstream media has traditionally been either middle of the road or, in some cases, slightly right of center. There are some liberal news outlets, but they are mostly in Europe (e.g., The Guardian, in the UK).

Both liberalism and conservatism are right wing, i.e., part and parcel of the corporatocracy. Moreover, the American media, largely because they see the success of Fox News Channel, talk radio, etc., have become cheerleaders for the far right. The public's right to know has been sacrificed at the altar of profits for the executives and, to a lesser extent perhaps, for the stockholders. That is the ultimate value.

---

Metaphysical (speculative), alethiological (truth claiming), and axiological (ethical) issues cannot be proven - objectively or subjectively.

Proof is syllogistic - premises leading to a conclusion. The problem is that all premises are inevitably value statements, or they can be reduced to values.

The difference is between certainty and certitude. Certainty is rational (not empirical). One can talk oneself into being rational about almost anything. Then, a week later, and given another convincing set of premises, assumptions, or a new syllogism, one can be equally certain about something else.

On the other hand, certitude is a spiritual state of inner knowing (gnosis or, in Arabic, irfan). It is subject neither to rational proof nor empirical evidence.

Now, I have no idea how one could have certitude about Zeus, but that is not for me to say. Perhaps, if I knew an adherent of Zeus, I might be able intersubjectively understand their intentionality, but I wouldn't count on it. ;-)

---

>>[From ABC News:] Two of the world's mighty monotheistic religions appear to be locked in a modern-day crusade with the extremist fringes within Islam and Christianity waging a war of words.<<

Why is ABC afraid to also talk about the extremist fringe of Jews? They seem to be at least as problematic as the two they mentioned. That is really a rhetorical question. (By the way, I come from a Jewish background.)

>>This subject appears to be a matter of opinion. Hitler may have rejected christianity, but he still continued to retain superstitious beliefs of some sort, hardly an atheistic trait, and the Nazi masses who carried out his evil deeds were, in fact, predominately christian.<<

Yes. However, whether those religious beliefs were founded on theism is questionable. I have not seen evidence that Hitler remained a theist.

>>Among the last people who were summoned to spend time with Hitler and Eva Braun was a christian chaplain. ( The Bunker. The History of The Reich Chancellery Group. J.P. O'Donnell).<<

I didn't know that. Interesting. Of course, that alone is not sufficient evidence of his beliefs, unless we could know the content of their conversation.

>>Ironic that Bush continues to beat his christian-reich drum, but America remains an officially secular nation....(So far).<<

If John Ascroft had something to say about it, that might change. He is the member of the Bush regime I would most like to see in a taxidermist's office. However, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Powell would not go along with it. ;-)

I also don't think that Bush, as much as looking at him makes me want to puke, would want that. Bush is really a moderate, not a conservative, evangelical. He doesn't seem the type to establish a quasi-theocracy. Still, I am surprised that he is willing to sponsor Ashcroft's concentration camps.

posted at 04:17:15 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

There are at least two different "maitreyes."

Benjamin Creme, owner of Share International, is a kind of informal

successor to Alice Bailey and her Arcane School (though I doubt the

Arcane School would recognize Creme in that capacity). His maitreye is

supposedly a Pakistani living in London. His existence is dubious.

Some writers suspect that he is a fictive character.

The other maitreye is a former graduate student, of Iranian Shi'ih

Muslim background, at Mississippi State University (my alma mater). He

dropped out (or something) before receiving his doctorate. He now

lives in New Mexico and is the author of a privately published book,

_The Holiest of the Holies_. I have a copy.

---

Hi, Peter (Occhiogrosso, author, The Joy of Sects,

|| I find your Web site one of the best organized and most comprehensive on the Net. I'll be adding it to my list of favorite sites. ||

Thank you very much. It has improved with age. ;-)

|| The more intelligent prayer in schools people, of course, are saying that they don't want an actual Christian prayer to be mandated (they probably couldn't agree on one) but just for a moment of silence to allow kids to pray however they like. ||

Yes, I remember when most social conservative leaders started advocating the moment of silence. As I remember, the first one to express this viewpoint was Pat Robertson.

|| I suppose they would still consider this a moral victory, even though most kids will be using the time for fantasy or planning where they're going to go after school. ||

That is my problem. To me, the moment of silence is not an issue. However, this one objective is part of a broader attempt at social engineering, which also includes transforming the media (with the cooperation of Rev. Moon's Washington Times, the Fox News Channel, and most of talk radio), getting "intelligent design" taught in public schools (after previous attempts to have a more explicity biblical creationism failed), and arguing that the mainstream media are "liberal" (which has already resulted in shifts to the right by CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, etc.).

The social conservative movement is interesting. It appears to me, on face validity, that the typical social conservative sees the goals of Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc. as merely an attempt at fairness, not as a broader attempt to transform American culture:

discovery.org/

One might expect such activities from post-millennialists (those who believe that Christ will return to earth only after Christians have built God's kingdom), but not from premillennialists (those who believe that Christ will only return after the earth had become progressively worse).

Warmly,

Mark Foster

posted at 04:51:30 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

I think that the problem is with the word "sabbath." `Abdu'l-Baha did

apparently indicate that Friday would eventually become the Baha'i day

of rest. However, I don't think that necessarily means it will become

a sabbath.

The term sabbath has a specific meaning in the context of the Tanakh

(Old Testament). Certainly, the New Testament never designates Sunday

as a new sabbath; nor, to my knowledge, is Friday, the Islamic day of

Jumu'ah, referred to as a sabbath by `Abdu'l-Baha.

---

I think that asking whether a statement is or is not true creates an

unnecessary dualism or dichotomy. The question of truth vs. falsehood

introduces a rational approach to understanding scriptural texts

which, IMO, is almost never appropriate.

Scripture is a vehicle for truth. However, that truth is always masked

by historical and cultural context. Indeed, scripture ***is*** that

context. The Prophet may utilize certain contexts, either because He

believes they are true (for whatever reason) or because He finds them

to be useful vehicles, as an instrument for presenting spiritual

reality (ethics and metaphysics).

Moreover, these contexts, used by the Prophet, may be externally true

(or not). However, IMO, there is frequently no way of being certain.

Rather than wondering whether a particular passage is "true" (like

Baha'u'llah's statements on alchemy), it might be better to ask, How

can that passage enable myself and others to become spiritually

transformed? Of course, the greater alchemy has always been the

mystery of inner, spiritual resurrection. Anything else can wait.

---

Rather than everything being "God," which I agree is true in some

sense (with a few qualifications), I would rather say that God is the

divine Quidity, the innermost Essence of all things. That seems a bit

clearer to me.

---

>>You've been away for a while, Mark. Is money that tight<<

lol. Yeah, that's it. ;-) How've you been, Nima? In spite of

more recent events, I still love you like a brother.

Actually, I don't want to discuss my absence on Usenet, but

I can tell you about it you privately sometime, if you like.

>>Says you, but not according to the ever growing body of

literature on cults even within the sociology of religion.<<

Can you cite some sources? The term "cult" is actually rarely

used by sociologists. The preferred NRM has all but replaced

it.

See, for instance (on Jeff Hadden's site):

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/concult.htm

He makes the same point as I did.

>>But, of course, you are specifically wheeled out here to say

"useless in academia" to earn your keep. By virtue of your

involvement in a bona fide cult and your admission to me that

you have been paid by the Baha'i AO for your internet presence,

it stands to reason that snakes like you arr useless *to* academia

tout court and not valid typologies such as "cult."<<

Nima, I never said such a thing. The only times I ever received

any money from Baha'i funds were:

1. 1979-1980: When I was deputized to serve as a Baha'i teacher,

working with a project, in Westchester County, New York; We

raised an assembly in that county

2. 1980: When I was given money to travel to Zaire

I never said that "cult" was not used in academia. What I said

is that, in the sociology of religion, the term has generally

been used in a neutral sense, and that "NRM" is now preferred

by most researchers over "cult." Of course, technically, an

NRM can be either a sect of a cult.

>>Collins, John J.

1991 The Cult Experience. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas,

Publisher.<<

Thanks. I just ordered it from Amazon. (It is not available

from bn.com or from buy.com.)

>>So what happened to your involvement with Thelema there,

Mark?<<

That was a long, long time ago. However, I enjoyed it a great

deal. The Sufi/Baha'i and Thelemite symbol systems have many

points of convergence.

>>Don't you know I am the One whom the Master Therion and

his celestial guides from the Aethyrs prophesied would come,

which makes me the true Magister Templi and the one and only

Thelemic Prophet in this day.<<

Nima, you are one of the most intelligent people I know, and

I respect your right to believe and say what you want. I

read most, if not all, your Usenet postings (did a Google

Groups search) yesterday, and I find your ideas

fascinating, even where I may not entirely agree with them.

>>You should see my commentary on LiberAI 2 76 (the Book of

the Law). I have cracked what it means.<<

I would like to read it.

>>Tell that to your contacts in the OTO, that the NEMO has

come, if you are still in touch with them.<<

I still do have a couple of friends/acquaintances from my

time in the OTO.

Have you seen this site?

>>Crowley's mission was to be the darkness (thus his self

proclamation as the Beast and his involvement with some

unsavoury characters).<<

Of course is the joke is that he was just bragging about

being the beast. Crowley, I think, tried to experience

as many different things (and substances), from as many

perspectives, as he possibly could.

>>Mine is to be the Light while weilding the sword of

Justice, since I am also the manifestation of the god

Horus ;-) La ilaha/No god = Crowley illa Allah/but

God = Nima ;-) Everything else shall change, including

the parts of the Book of the LAw and the Qabbalah.<<

Including, love is the law, love under will (thelema)?

>>p.s. I have added 9 more Sephira to the Sephirotic

Tree of Life and the Kether/Tajj is no longer a He but a

She. What sayest thou, brother?<<

I would like to read it. Like I said, if I were looking

for another Prophet, I would consider you first. I

admired your intellect and insights from the first time

I read your postings on the original Talisman list.

posted at 05:58:01 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Progressive revelation is, IMO, a different issue from religions.

Because God progressively reveals His Will, perhaps a bit like Don

Beck and Ken Wilber's approach to spiral dynamics, does not

necessarily mean that one "religion" is superior to another.

---

The U.S. has been drifting closer to fascism for some time. It is sad for me to see my country heading in this direction. John Ashcroft's concentration camps now makes this even more obvious.

---

>>In Northern Ireland, the BF is most assuredly a "cult" in the

sociological determination - as of Census Day 2001, some 254 persons

in a total population of 1,685,267 described themselves as Bahai.<<

Using one of the more common sociological definitions (Roy

Wallis, etc.), the Baha'i Faith is a cult everywhere, not

only in Northern Ireland.

Although some Muslims (and others) still regard the Baha'i

Faith as an Islamic sect, as a sociologist of religion, I

generally define a religious organization phenomenologically,

i.e., focusing on how members of that organization define

themselves (their "intentionality").

Since Baha'is consider themselves to be members of an

independent religion, not a branch of any other faith, it

it is a cult by definition

>>They were outnumbered by Jews (365), Buddhists (533),

Quakers (749), and Mormons(1414) among others but outnumbered

the Sikhs (219) and Pagans (148) (Sorry, Michael!). There

is hope however - they also outnumbered the Atheists at 106

a Satanists at 12.<<

Yes, obviously the Baha'is Faith is a relatively small

religion in most countries. However, size is not a principal

factor.

>>From memory (I would need to check this) their numbers

have decreased since the 1991 Census when, if I recollect

correctly, over 300 persons signed themselves as Bahai.<<

I would not be surprised if that were true in most

Western societies.

>>In the broader and pejorative sense of the word the BF's

behaviour can best be described as "cultic". It qualifies

on all counts therefore to be dismissed as a cult and a

decreasing one at that - in terms of numbers at least.<<

There are two major pejorative definitions of "cult":

1. a religion which deviates from the teachings of

fundamentalist and neo-evangelical Protestantism

(Walter Martin et al.)

2. a religion, headed by a living charismatic leader,

who abuses its members

Using the first definition, any and all faiths whose

tenets do not conform to Christian fundamentalism and

neo-evangelicalism would be cults.

Using the second definition, the Baha'i Faith would not

be a cult using the first criteria (living charismatic

leader). However, the issue of abuse is largely

subjective (which, in part, is why sociologists rarely

utilize this definition of "cult") and provides a vehicle

for attacking a religious organization.

These sorts of issues are rarely resolved.

I developed what I regard as a more useful religious

organizational typology.

---

For what it's worth, I have a great deal of respect for Sikhism. As

you may or may not know, I was briefly a Sikh before coming into the

Baha'i Faith. These days, I practice a form of meditation (surat shabd

yoga) which is rooted in the Sikh tradition.

Like Islam and Judaism, Sikhism has always been distinguished by its

recognition of Tawhid, the Unity of God. I would not place mainline

Christianity, with its trinitarianism, in the same category.

Personally, I think that too much is made of "religions" and whether a

particular faith tradition was referred to by Baha'i sources as a

world religion. I would rather focus on truth and reality. As

Baha'u'llah says (repeating the traditional saying), "Knowledge is but

a single point. The foolish have multiplied it."

Perhaps Sikhism should be regarded as an Islamic reform movement or as

a synthesis of Islam (Sufism in particular) and the Indian Sant

tradition. Regardless, if all truth comes, ultimately, from God, then

Sikhism must be an expression of the Will of God.

---

The only "fair and balanced" news is that which is fair and just to the oppressed and which opposes the corporatocracy. Neoconservativism (Fox News Channel) and neoliberalism have no place in this equation. The balance is situated in the moderation of following God's Will, as revealed through His Prophet. It is this balance which results in the promotion of social justice.

It makes sense, therefore, that fair news coverage should take the form of a revolutionary far left praxis. The views of economic and political liberals and conservatives should only be considered for purposes of deconstruction.

---

What I have observed over the years is that when Christian neo-evangelicals (conservative evangelicals) are confronted, they frequently turn into fundamentalists.

posted at 10:26:48 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it your contention that the Bible can be read and understood in the same way one would read and understand a text book?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I write college textbooks, and I expect them to be understood literally. However, I do not regard the books of the Bible as textbooks.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only answer I can offer is that one of us must be spiritually blind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could it be that there are several layers of meaning? Why does there need to be only one? Personally, I regard the literal meaning as the most superficial, and the one most likely to result in misunderstanding. Generally speaking, I have found that fundamentalist and neo-evangelical Christians have difficulty with this concept.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you make direct statements such as "Contrary to the views of fundamentalists, literalism is the antithesis of understanding ." It sounds like something you are sure of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is something I believe strongly. Certainty implies intellectual perfection.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you are confronted with your statement you explain that you are not "sure" of anything. Now it becomes "IMO"

I believe my opinion is as worthy as yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said it wasn't. However, by calling me spiritually blind, it is apparent to me that you don't share that viewpoint.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on,you have been taking pot shots at Christianity from the beginning.

Don't try to dazzle me with fancy footwork.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take pot shots at fundamentalism, not Christianity. IMO, fundamentalism is the antithesis of Christianity.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You deny being a Christian, yet you think you understand what a Saint would/should say?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I don't think that sainthood is limited to those who regard themselves as Christians.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am guessing that you don't think we should defend our faith when it is under attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defending one's faith is different from attacking a person. That is a distinction which I have found over the years that many fundamentalists don't appreciate.

posted at 11:35:39 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was referring to your hard and fast rule about "literalism being the antithesis of understanding."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was that before or after you accused me of being spiritually blind?

I do believe that literalism is the antithesis of understanding. In my view, it is a form of scriptural materialism.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you be sure what the "Spiritual" rules are?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not "sure" of anything. IMO, uncertainty is a basic element of the human condition. However, I do strongly believe that literalism is materialistic.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never represented myself as anything but evangelical. Your tone suggests that's a dirty word to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you didn't read when I wrote (see above):

"If I were a Christian, my views would be a synthesis of left evangelicalism (Sojourners magazine), Quakerism, Moral Re-Armament, and the liberation theologies."

Fundamentalism is a dirty word to me. I also have problems with the neo-evangelical movement, also called conservative evangelicalism. However, I find neo-evangelicals less personally objectionable than fundamentalists.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to suggest that a saint can't be evangelical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, what I suggested is that a saint would not say things such as you did (above):

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a spiritual point of view, how would you know?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spiritual blindness?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Marx regarded American slavery (not ancient slavery) as an unusually degenerate form of capitalism.

---

There was a connection between the Roman Catholic Church and Latin American revolutionary activity back in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, liberation theology was originally a movement started by Latin American Jesuit priests.

Subsequently, after the Pope harshly criticized the Jesuits, and their so-called black pope, for what he regarded as un-Christian behavior, the direct involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in liberation movements waned.

Although liberation theology still exists in Latin America, it has become what I regard as accommodationist. In other words, most of these liberation theologians have largely abandoned their Marxist roots and now claim that economic liberation can take place in the context of global capitalism.

These days, the best work in left liberation theology is being done by Palestinians, African Americans, and feminists.

---

To me, American liberalism and conservatism are both right wing. These two ideologies are united in their support for the corporatocracy.

Economic conservatism (including neoliberalism) is the essence of evil (the class consciousness of the oppressor); and economic liberalism is the reformist reflection of that evil (the false consciousness of the oppressed).

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a spiritual point of view, how would you know?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could be wrong, but you appear to me to have bought into one of the "right lies," as I call them. In this case, I am referring to the belief that there is a connection between holding extreme left views and atheism. Historically, that cannot be supported. Some of the greatest spiritual giants and mystics (not that I am putting myself in either category, God forbid) have been on the left.

In any event, I am definitely not a secularist. If I were a Christian, my views would be a synthesis of left evangelicalism (Sojourners magazine), Quakerism, Moral Re-Armament, and the liberation theologies.

My hostility to capitalism, for instance, is founded largely on moral grounds. I regard it as an almost thoroughly materialistic system. To me, a liberation from capitalism would also be a spiritual liberation (freedom from greed).

In addition, my anger at what I call Amurika (the cowboy country which has replaced the America of the founding fathers of the United States) is precisely because it is secular and unspiritual. Humility is one of the most basic spiritual qualities, and arrogant U.S. policy certainly does not demonstrate it.

posted at 05:32:15 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Contrary to the views of fundamentalists, literalism is the antithesis of understanding.

---

I don't think that God has much to do with inhumanity, although, undoubtedly, religion has frequently been a powerful motivation for terrorism (such as that which led to the founding of Israel) and for other despicable acts.

The real problem, IMO, is that human social structures, including the major social institutions (family, education, government, the economy, and, of course, religion), often do little to promote virtuousness.

For instance, the religious institution in the U.S. (i.e., American civil religion) is largely pro-capitalist. Capitalism, the most degenerate economic system in the modern world, is championed by most major American religious organizations. Moreover, the capitalist corporatocracy (especially its oil) is clearly behind Bush and Blair's inevitable war with Iraq.

In addition, the American government continues to drift ever-closer to fascism, which should be even more obvious since this past week's decision to allow John Ashcroft, Bush's henchman, to continue filling up his concentration camps (locking the door and throwing away the key) with alleged "terrorists" (often based on mere hearsay).

Nonetheless, considering the detestable human rights records of officially atheist countries, including the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, it is obvious that a country doesn't need a god to behave like animals.

---

The word, "cult" has at least four meanings. Only the last two have any use in an academic context:

1. Here, a cult is a supposedly "dangerous" religion which brainwashes people. The deprogramming movement, which developed in the 1970s, was based on this definition. From an academic standpoint, there is no evidence that brainwashing can take place. Lifton's thought reform (brainwashing) model was rejected long ago.

2. In this case, a cult is a religion which does not conform to the teachings of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christianities. This self-serving definition, originally promoted by the last Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults), obviously has no use outside of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity.

3. According to theologians, a cult (Latin, cultus) means worship or an object of devotion. Examples include the cult of the Virgin Mary and the cult of the Eucharist. This definition has no negative connotations.

4. The most common sociological definition regards a cult as a religious organization which is not a branch of one of the dominant religious traditions in a particular society. Thus, the United Methodist Church would be a denomination in the United States but a cult in Japan. Likewise, Soka Gakkai, a denomination in Japan, is a cult in the United States. This definition is also entirely neutral. The Raelians, by the way, would be a cult in all societies. That is not because they are "bad," but merely because they are not a branch of any other religion.

---

I don't think that hatred of Jews is universal" Historically, anti-Semitism has been largely a phenomenon in countries with predominantly Christian populations. It is at least partly based on the belief that Jews killed Christ.

Furthermore, just as Christians have often lived with other Christians, so Jews have often lived with other Jews (voluntarily or not). Separation (segregation) usually produces a level of distrust and prejudice.

There is almost no history of anti-Semitism in predominantly Muslim countries (aside from the tension which has nearly always existed between members of different religions). On the contrary, the Sephardim (Spanish Jews) lived side by side with the Moors (Spanish Muslims) with very little problems.

Difficulties between Muslims and Jews are relatively recent and are primarily a function of colonialism (Israel).

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslims on the forum have posted comments about the new testament being a jewish conspiracy. They have also said Jews suspected of conspiring were taken before Muhammad, so it is not just a recent event.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those are two different things. The view that the NT is a Jewish conspiracy is a minority position in the Islamic world. It is basically an consequence of the general Islamic hostility toward political Zionism.

There were many tribes who conspired against Muhammad's Islamic 'umma (community) in Medina. Some of those were Jews. The fact that certain contemporary Muslims focus on the Jews is, once again, the result of a more generalized anger toward political Zionism.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Muslims believe the 911 attacks were merely a Jewish conspiracy to unite America against Muslims. Again, it is easier to blame than be responsible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same thing. The (justifiable, IMO) resentment that many Muslims have toward Israel and its policies expresses itself in many different ways.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It must be so much easier to blame, that they don't feel bad about being admitting they perceive Jews as being so smart, they can rule the world by mere manipulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are assuming a correspondence between emotion and rationality. I doubt that most people have thought the subject out that fully. They are just angry.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that being said, someone still owes for the 911 attacks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, al-Qa'ida, not all Muslims.

---

The word, "cult" has at least four meanings. Only the last two have any use in an academic context:

• Here, a cult is a supposedly "dangerous" religion which brainwashes people. The deprogramming movement, which developed in the 1970s, was based on this definition. From an academic standpoint, there is no evidence that brainwashing can take place. Lifton's thought reform (brainwashing) model was rejected long ago.
• In this case, a cult is a religion which does not conform to the teachings of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christianities. This self-serving definition, originally promoted by the last Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults), obviously has no use outside of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity.
• According to theologians, a cult (Latin, cultus) means worship or an object of devotion. Examples include the cult of the Virgin Mary and the cult of the Eucharist. This definition has no negative connotations.
• The most common sociological definition regards a cult as a religious organization which is not a branch of one of the dominant religious traditions in a particular society. Thus, the United Methodist Church would be a denomination in the United States but a cult in Japan. Likewise, Soka Gakkai, a denomination in Japan, is a cult in the United States. This definition is also entirely neutral.

---

I have found much of the criticism of Raelian beliefs, as strange as some of them are, to be disingenuous - especially when it has come from fundamentalist Christians.

Is is more rational to believe that the earth was created in 6 days, that a man was physically resurrected from the dead, and that a rapture will remove all true believers from the earth before, during, or after a tribulation than it is to believe that the human race has extraterrestrial origins, a viewpoint which is, incidentally, supported by some scientists?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes! God said it and that is good enough for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why is it that I read the same books of the Bible, and I do not reach those conclusions (physical resurrection, 6-day creation, rapture, etc.)?

Your assertion, by the way, is just that. It is not an argument - no different from Rael claiming to have been aboard a spaceship.

In any event, one can believe what one wants, but I certainly wouldn't rank the beliefs of the Raelians in the top-ten most weird.

posted at 05:50:20 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Prayer is a matter of love, of establishing oneself in the condition of servitude to God. Its objective is to create a change of heart, not to "get stuff." Unfortunately, in the carnal West, many people have revisioned prayer as something like a magic spell.

In other words, the only answer to prayer that really counts is the establishment of a susceptibility within the soul to spiritual transformation. If God decides that, in order to help facilitate that transformation (or for some other reason), it would be helpful to give "stuff" to a person, that is God's decision.

Attempting to measure matters of the spirit using science is as misplaced as using religion to determine scientific principles (as with so-called "creation science"). Science and religion operate in different magisteria, realms of authority, and should not exceed their core competencies.

posted at 04:32:16 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Most Satanists don't believe in Satan anyway. To them, "satan" is a metaphor for the human will. Anton von LaVey took Aleister Crowley's "thelema" (will) and renamed it to satan in order to make it more controversial.

---

Without getting into an exegesis of specific texts in the Qur'an and the Bible, I will simply say that I don't see Muhammad and Christ as opposites.

If they were both alive at the same time, and in the same place, I do think that Their teachings would have been identical (or nearly so). Moses and Shakymuni Buddha were essentially contemporaries, but Their teachings, or the manner in which those teachings were delivered, were dramatically different.

The Buddha did not apparently discuss God, in a Western sense, at all. For Moses, the unity of God was at the center of His message.

There are many Christian traditions which are opposed in many areas (evangelicalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Assemblies of Yahweh, etc.), just as there are Islamic traditions which differ greatly (Sunni, Isna Ashariyyih, Ismaili, Ahmadiyyih, etc.) - to the point where Christians say that other Christians are not Christians and Muslims say the same about other Muslims.

The differences between Islam and Christianity come mostly from human (mis)interpretation or a failure to contextualize the message of a Prophet in a particular historical and cultural space. These differences are most apparent when dealing with the Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms.

---

The problem is that prayer cannot legitimately be operationalized (defined in measurable terms).

It is for this reason that scholars of religion usually distinguish between religion and magic.

At least as we use the term operationalization in sociology, it refers to taking a concept, such as prayer, and defining it in such a way that it can be incorporated into a testable hypothesis.

The word quantified is more general, but it usually refers to developing a scale or index to measure something. Typically, it is one step beyond operationalization.

Practitioners of magic frequently claim that they can follow certain procedures in order to produce (sometimes automatically) a desired outcome.

Religions, on the other hand, can, strictly speaking, make no such claims. For instance, most theistic faiths will state that the outcome of prayer is subject to divine, not human, will.

Of course, some theistic religions have blurred the line between religion and magic. Examples are found in some of the pentecostal groups, where adherents often argue that merely confessing one's healing will enable one to be healed. In this case, from an academic point of view, they are engaging in magic, not religion.

posted at 03:54:06 PM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Monday, 6 January, 2003, 19:18 GMT [BBC News)

Cannabis linked to Biblical healing

Many of the miracles concerned healing

Jesus Christ and his apostles may have used a cannabis-based anointing oil to help cure people with crippling diseases, it has been claimed.

Researchers in the United States say the oil used in the early days of the Christian church contained a cannabis extract called kaneh-bosem.

They suggest the extract, which is absorbed into the body when placed on the skin, could have helped cure people with a variety of physical and mental problems.

---

The medical use of cannabis during that time is supported by archaeological records

Chris Bennet

---

The author of the article, published in the US drugs magazine High Times, says his findings are based on a study of scriptural texts.

Wide use

The article does not question the validity of the miracles reported in the Bible but rather examines whether the early Christian Church may have made use of substances with an active medical effect.

They do not rule out the role played by blind faith in Christ.

Chris Bennett said cannabis was widely used at the time to heal the sick.

"The medical use of cannabis during that time is supported by archaeological records."

He said the ancient anointing oil contained high levels of cannabis extract.

"The holy anointing oil, as described in the original Hebrew version of the recipe in Exodus, contained over six pounds of keneh-bosum - a substance identified by respected etymology, linguists anthropologists, botanists and other researchers as cannabis extracted into about six quarts of olive oil along with a variety of other fragrant herbs.

"The ancient annointed ones were literally drenched in this potent mixture."

Miracles

Mr Bennett suggested the drug may have played a role in some healing miracles carried out by Jesus and his disciples.

He wrote: "In the ancient world, diseases such as epilepsy were attributed to demonic possession.

"To cure somebody of such an illness, even with the aid of certain herbs was considered exorcism or miraculous healing.

---

Jesus often becomes the final hope for the pharmacologically impaired

JesusJournal.com

---

"Interestingly, cannabis has been shown to be effective in the treatment of not only epilepsy but many of the other ailments that Jesus and the disciples healed people of such as skin diseases, eye problems and menstrual problems."

Mr Bennett said the findings suggested that it was unchristian to persecute people who used cannabis.

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient Christian anointing oil, as history indicates, and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ."

However, Christian groups in the United States have rejected Mr Bennett's claims.

They have insisted that the arguments made in the article are lame.

In a response to the article published on JesusJournal.com, critics said: "As many of us know firsthand, Jesus often becomes the final hope for the pharmacologically impaired."

---

Hi, Peter [Occhiogrosso - author, The Joy of Sects],

I enjoyed reading, The Joy of Sects. It is certainly one of the best books in its genre.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

his should also include brief instruction--say, in the prayer postures of the Muslim raka, or the proper posture for zazen, and so forth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, that has been tried over the past year, and anti-Islamic neoconservatives and social conservatives, such as Daniel Pipes and Ann Coulter, were venomous over it.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, no fundamentalist could possibly agree to this, but it would keep them on the defensive on this proposal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least it would allow scholars to meaningfully deconstruct their original arguments.

Another one: The argument used by many proponents of intelligent design and creationism has been fairness, i.e., since evolution is taught, so should intelligent design (or creationism). Although they are, IMO, combining apples and oranges, I say, give them what they want on this one, too. However, also require a unit on Vedic, Buddhist (usually an evolutionary variant), Thelemic, Islamic, etc., models of origins.

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the war between the colonists of America and Britain, was it unreasonable for the natives to choose sides with the British?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Native Americans were the oppressed. IMO, their actions were largely irrelevant. The victim should never be blamed, never, for attempting to escape victimization.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did their unreasonable action against the colonists create the "Indian problem"?

Justifiable genocide? No!

The reason for it? Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indians and the "Indian problem" were Western constructions. There were different tribes, clans, bands, and nations with, for the most part, little similarity and contact with each other.

One can attempt to explain why certain particular events did or did not transpire. However, the antecedent variable behind all of them was European colonialism and hegemony.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also the Indians choice to fight against the colonists was to feel good, but illogical, leaving the colonists without alternatives!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The alternative was to pack up their bags and head back to Europe. By staying in North America, entire indigenous populations were annihilated.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They could not go back to Britain, if they stayed, they had to eliminate the "Indian threat".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A better solution: if the first nations peoples had eliminated the European threat.

There are always options, even if taking them might have resulted in undesirable consequences.

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the land of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David and Solomon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of those Prophets are revered by both Jews and Muslims.

I am not objecting to Jews living in the Holy Land. Personally, I reject the nation state model. In my view, people should be permitted to live wherever they want. My problem is with political Zionism: with a new country, dominated by colonialists (European and American Jews), established in a region with an indigenous population.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslims are not weak, they had Russia siding with them, arming and emboldening their armies! Now they buy missles from N. Korea, and the Russian Mafia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say that Muslims are buying missiles is reification (assuming the existence of a social structure where none exists). Some Muslims are buying missiles. So are some Christians, Jews, and Buddhists.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrorism is the warefare of the unreasonable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason is in the eye of the beholder. That is why reason can never become a foundationism. In other words, what is reasonable is always based, founded, on a value system. IMO, it is reasonable that Israel should not be a colonialist Jewish state.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who but the unreasonable would be on the wrong side? The wrong side is the side opposite of the solution, the problems sentimentality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the late 19th- and early 20th-century Zionists were sentimental about the Holy Land?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mfoster, without the holy land issue, they would not have an excuse for their characteristics, it is only an excuse, can you see through this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unclear. When, in recent history, did Muslims and Arabs systematically attack Jews until the founding of Israel? It is not an excuse. It is anger generated by religious colonialism.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the overpopulated people of europe had not colonized the western hemisphere, the Bahaia Religionists would have, poor Indians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, I have no objection to people living where they choose. However, the history of European colonialism in what is now the United States was not exactly gentle to the native populations.

---

The Arabs are the indigenous people of Palestine (including what is now called Israel).

If North America was first colonized in the last 50 or 60 years, the Native Americans, the first nations people of what is now the United States, would also be called terrorists. "Terrorism" is the warfare of the weak.

posted at 11:46:25 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What PhDs are, in my experience, are a group of persons who have the perseverence and the resources to withstand the academic environment for 8 years. The degree in itself does not indicate any propensity towards any particular thought, only a knack for surviving.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, that is a common argument. However, what it does not take into account is that, according to studies performed by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the majority of ABDs (all but dissertation) do not go on to become Ph.D.s.

Perseverance (and patience), with only a moderate amount of intelligence, may get one as far as completing course work and, perhaps, through the prelims. However, doing original research, writing a book on it, and having it approved by one's committee (the defense) is generally much more difficult.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another skill developed in that 8 year period (or much, much longer in some cases), is the uncanny ability to manufacture intelligentsia-speak non-arguments that drone on forever. This particular skill MUST be developed because PhDs are a self-perpetuating lot; PhDs create MORE Phds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me for saying so, but that comes across as overly cynical. I got my Ph.D. in sociology because I love the field, and that's it. Most of my colleagues, and those I went to grad school with back in the late 70s and early 80s, would undoubtedly tell you the same thing.

All fields have their own languages and terminologies, and Ph.D.s need to be adept at using the ones in their particular areas of specialization. However, it doesn't follow that most people become Ph.D.s in order to speak or write them. They are tools, means to an end, not the end itself.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this droning is not enlightenment ....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you call "droning," I would call dialogue. The objective of such dialogue is an increase in understanding (or "enlightenment" if you will).

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... it is suspiciously like smoke and mirrors, where core concepts and practical human experience are obscured by endless reams of obtuse, irrelevant argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making an awful lot of unsubstantiated, or sweeping, generalizations. The term "empirical" means experience. The scientific method is also extremely practical. It is an extension, a systematization, of common sense (learning by trial and error). Whether a particular argument is, or is not, relevant, needs to be examined in the context of the discussion.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may be an exception to this, but as yet, I cannot tell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An exception to what? To your conclusion that academic scholarship is irrelevant?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your response assumes that basic human truths are subject to change. Of course, one has to question what IS a basic human truth, but no matter how you parse, wiggle, or dissemble, the act of killing another human is not likely to change unless we somehow develop immortality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said anything about "truth." That is a matter for metaphysicists, ethicists, axiologists, and theologians. I am taking about facts and data and the need to consider them in their cultural and historical contexts.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your assertion that Hitler did not pretend to be a Christian (with your irrelevant aside, typical PhD bulls**t) is questionable as well as non-salient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are the one who made the assertion that Hitler was a Christian. If you think that it is nonsalient, then why did you bring it up?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming that statement is true, it should be apparent to even a dabbler that there was a religious component to the Holocaust. You then take a giant leap forward to say "neither did the Third Reich". Now, sir, who is making generalizations?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is tautalogical. First, you need to define what you mean by "religious." The killing of millions of Jews was not an act of rebellion against Jewish theology. Most German Jews were secular, not highly religious, but Hitler's regime made no distinction between them.

Second, by "neither was the Third Reich," I was saying that the underlying principles of that government did not claim to be be derivative of Christianity (liberal, moderate, or conservative). It seems to me that my statement is true on face validity. Can you refute it?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement has been used in so many doctoral theses that I'm surprised you would bother to bore us with it here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that it is used a great deal does not make it less useful. IMO, everything exists in, and through, certain contexts, and cannot be fully grasped without them.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you were trying to come up with some kind of "kicker" to zing us. (As an aside, what was the last paragraph of YOUR PhD thesis?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is ad hominem. I am not trying to "zing" anyone. I am, like most people in this forum, trying to express my views.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I digress. Making up non-words to support non-arguments is non-sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where have I used what you term "non-words"?

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please understand, with all due respect to your PhD, that it is persons like you that have taken the UTTERLY CLEAR, UN-MISTAKEABLE meaning of this commandment (and the entire rest of the Bible, as I see it) and have twisted it around as a matter of convenience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what you mean by persons like me. Ph.D.s are expected to be intellectuals (original thinkers), and there is tremendous variability in thinking among those with research doctorates. For instance, I am politically a Marxist and economically a market socialist, but, on many social questions, I am quite conservative.

Imagined categories like "how Ph.D.s think," tend to promote more misunderstanding than understanding. They are rarely useful unless they can be backed up by empirical evidence, and, even then, there is usually considerable skewing (extremes).

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should ask yourself a simple question, because this is an extremely simple command. If you believe the 10 Commandments are truly the word of God as given to the human race, why would God leave a loophole in such an important commandment?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, because the Decalogue was written to a population which lived, perhaps, 2500 years ago. To them, its meaning was, I suspect, entirely clear. However, removing this text from its historical context and attempting to understand it in light of the sensibilities of another era, our own, is what results in confusion.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is EXACTLY what it is, a loophole, a patch, an interpretation of expedience used by "Christian" governments including the regime of Adolph Hitler to wage slaughter against whomever is unfortunate to make their "Axis of Evil" list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany is a predominantly Lutheran society. However, Hitler did not pretend to be a Christian (either liberal, moderate, or conservative). Neither did the Third Reich.

All narratives exist in a particular historical and cultural framework. The problem is decontextualization.

---

As I, and many others, frequently say in arguing with creationists and proponents of intelligent design, an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.

In the scientific method, one accepts the null hypothesis (of no difference) unless and until an alternative hypothesis (of difference) is successfully demonstrated. An example: a null hypothesis would be that the Buddha did not write anything.

---

The routinization of charisma (the personal magnetism of the religious founder/s) is one of the principal determinants of whether a new religious movement lasts. If the charisma cannot be institutionalized, or contextualized in a social structure (a system of social rules), the movement will likely die with, or shortly after, the passing of the founder/s.

---

HPB's (Blavatsky's) view of evolution, like many other aspects of her system, is derived from her understanding of Buddhism. There is a great deal of similarity between the predominant Buddhist and the Theosophical view of evolution.

Buddhism does not have a concept of creation per se (in the Western sense), so HPB created a hybrid. Her metaphysical syncretism has resulted in harsh criticisms from Rene Guenon and other leaders of the traditionalist movement.

---

Originally, most leaders of the social conservatism movement (Christian Right, Moral Majority, etc.) wanted to actually see prayers verbalized in public schools. Later, when that proposal failed, most of them instead advocated silent prayer. Of course, they are being disingenuous. No one is stopping (or can stop) a person from praying silently.

Well, I personally favor giving the social conservatives what they truly want: verbal prayers in public schools. However, we can have the prayers of a different faith tradition said each day of the month: Satanism, Wicca, the Ordo Templi Orientis, Islam, Santana Dharma (the Hinduisms), Sikhism, the Baha'i Faith, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the various Protestant denominations, etc.

Let's make Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham happy. Hah! You had better be careful what you ask for.

posted at 07:00:15 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

IMO, "thou shalt not kill" is referring to the behavior of one human toward another, i.e., a prohibition of murder. It is not dealing with the actions of governments, whether justifiable (certain wars) or not (acts of genocide).

It seems to me that all scriptural texts, whether of the Bible, the Qur'án, or other sacred books, need to be approached in context, and, as such, the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) clearly addresses itself to the conduct of the individual believer, not that of entire societies or governments.

---

• The We Generation: The 1960s as the decade dominated by civil rights and social consciousness

• The Me Generation: The 1970s and the preoccupation with psychotherapies

• The Fee Generation: The 1980s and Reaganomics, including the advancement of the global corporatocracy (the new world order)

• The PC Generation: The 1990s as the decade of the personal computer and the rise of the Internet and the dot com industry

• The De-generation: The 2000s as the disintegration of the West, the dot com bust, the scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, 9/11, the war on terror, the crises caused by Iraq and North Korea, and the sexual abuse problems within the Roman Catholic Church

posted at 02:46:00 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

All history is propaganda, i.e., persuasion. There is almost never only a single history of a period.

Back when I was in graduate school, I took a course on the French Revolution. No less than five distinct histories of that event were presented.

Histories are mirrors. They reflect the biases of the individual historian. In order to gain an appreciation for a particular time period, a thoughtful reader should pursue several histories, not merely one history.

Ideally, those histories should be prepared by careful scholars, not by amateurs or religious bigots (Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, etc.). Professional historians are trained to distinguish between bigotry and scholarship.

The executive producer of the program on PBS (the American Public Broadcasting System), formerly called NET (National Educational Television), had a particular point of view, a legitimate one, and consulted scholars (such as Karen Armstrong) who supported that perspective. This approach is perfectly acceptable.

As we see on Internet forums, there is no such thing as an unbiased individual. The best one can do, in producing a program on Islam, is to attempt to be fair, to rely on careful scholars, and to avoid a reliance on bigoted Christian apologists. Unfortunately, the conventional Western view of Islam has largely been shaped by Christian missionaries.

---

A significant percentage of those Muslims and Arabs who have informed on suspected militants were themselves detained, and it doesn't take long for word to get around.

How many people would go to the authorities under those circumstances?

---

There is no such thing as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. There are different Judaisms, Christianities, and Islams.

For instance, generally speaking, liberal Judaism, liberal Christianity, and liberal Islam have more in common with each other than each of them do with their respective fundamentalist counterparts.

posted at 02:02:01 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Copyright © 2002-2003 Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.