how do you deal with people who believe in batshit insane conspiracy theories?

[chenGOD]

You do know what myths are for right troon?

Secondly, I'm not taking any advice about language from you. When you can master the intricate difficulties between "accept" and "except", then we'll talk.

[Guest glasse]

Man it's pretty useless arguing with someone as indoctrinated as you are troon.

 

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell#The_Masks_of_God

 

Go get those books and read them. after you've read them, if you still don't think the Bible is just a recontextualisation of older myths, then you're the one with eyes wide shut.

 

 

 

i don't contest that they are older myths, these stories have been circulating for tens

of thousands of years in many cultures. at this point in time we are talking about

'accuracy of versions' and the Bible just happens to be a very powerful and accurate version

of this mythos that is specific for our season (2009). its what we understand about the stories that is the point.

how to read them and how to see the patterns in them, the code. (not the 'da vinci code' or the 'bible code' like in the mainstream shit books)

this is different, much simpler.... its in the reoccurring themes and relationships between the characters.

they are there and we must take advantage of them to see certain truths clearly.

 

(reading old king james versions is important to, through simplifying the language into

new 'easier to understand' language, alot of the code has been lost. pre 1950 Bibles

are usually safe, an authorized king james version. except no substitute

 

let's all just be open minded to one another and bag on scientology instead.

 

 

lol

 

Well, I will contest it. First, I have not read Campbell's books, but I heard about them before and am familiar some of what he is trying to kick. Below are some criticisms from an article I read.

 

 

"Campbell is ever at odds with a religious literalism which reifies mythic themes into concrete facts. He refers to the biblical creation story that teaches an actual beginning of the universe as "artificialism" and chides Bill Moyers for considering the resurrection of Christ in historic terms. He says such a view "is a mistake in reading the symbol"; it is to read "the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry," and to read "the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation" (p. 57). In fact, Jesus' ascension into heaven, metaphorically interpreted, means that "he has gone inward -- not into outer space but into inward space, to...the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within" (p. 56).

 

Given this method of interpretation, Campbell much prefers Gnosticism over orthodoxy. He quotes favorably from The Gospel of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed as teaching that "he who drinks from my mouth will become as I am," and properly notes that "this is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking" (p. 57).

 

Campbell's approach to mythology has the appearance of profundity. He uses it profitably to construct interpretations of a vast body of literature. He likens mistaking a metaphor for its reference to eating a menu instead of the meal. Yet when Campbell addresses biblical materials, such as the Gospels or Acts (which were written as history, not poetry or visionary literature), it becomes painfully evident that his metaphoric interpretation is forced at best. Certainly, the significance of the ascension of Christ for Christians is not exhausted by spatial location, yet the physical reference is intrinsic to the significance that Christ is not bound to earth. He has ascended to the "right hand" (this phrase, of course, is metaphoric) of the Father where He now reigns. Campbell may not believe the Ascension to be literally true, but the apostles did and the church still does. A more judicious reading would note that a miraculous truth claim is being made, to be either accepted or rejected -- not reinterpreted by a mythical hermeneutic. Instead of eating the menu, Campbell misreads it and fancies a meal never mentioned."

 

 

 

Yet evangelicals need not entirely dismiss Campbell's mythic concerns. Christian writers like C. S. Lewis have argued that the world's mythologies present a dim imitation of the redemption made historical through Christ. Mythologies worldwide speak of lost innocence, cosmic conflict, and redemption. In this sense the mythic dimension can be seen as part of general revelation, not in itself salvific, but pointing beyond itself to what Lewis in God in the Dock called "myth become fact:" "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens -- at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by debatable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to an historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate."

 

Campbell largely dismisses the historicity of Christianity by saying we don't know much about Jesus, given we only have "four contradictory texts that purport to tell us what he said and did" (p. 211). He adds that, despite these supposed contradictions, we know "approximately what Jesus said" (p. 211). If Campbell would have taken seriously the idea of a basic historical record of Jesus' words, he might have been less inclined to recast Christianity in mythic terms. The wealth of historical material provided by the Gospels, while not without some complexities, reveals a concern for historical accuracy and integrity, (see, e.g. Luke's prologue).

 

 

 

It might appear at first that Campbell's mythic permissiveness (no one mythic understanding is ultimately true) would serve as a solid platform for pluralism. At one point he says that mythologies are like individual software; if yours works, don't change it. But the classical liberal (not the modern, relativistic liberal) understanding of pluralism is deeper and wider. It assumes truth has nothing to fear from a plurality of perspectives; it can compete with and triumph over error in "the marketplace of ideas" by virtue of its own merit. Western liberty of expression is premised on the right to be right and the right to be wrong and be proven wrong through dialogue, debate, and discussion. Mythic pluralism assumes no truth to be discovered, debated, or discussed. The merit of any mythology is not its objective veracity but its subjective pull and social power. Mythic pluralism endorses a relativism that ignores the possibility of uncovering the absolute, the universal, or the objective. If the software works, keep it -- just so long as you delete any religious literalism.

 

Campbell may not have countenanced it, but it may befall him to become a posthumous prophet for New Age sentiments. Although more of an academic than a popularizer, his world view is in basic agreement with New Age celebrities like Shirley MacLaine, Werner Erhard, and John Denver. All is one; god is an impersonal and amoral force in which we participate; supernatural revelation and redemption are not needed. Campbell's erudition and sophisticated manner may attract those who are less impressed by the metaphysical glitz of a Shirley MacLaine, the rank superstition of "crystal consciousness," or the cosmic hype of the "Harmonic Convergence."

 

Campbell is correct: the power of myth in its various functions is potent and pervasive. Human beings need a comprehensive world view capable of undergirding and integrating individual and social values, engaging the imagination, activating the intellect, and energizing the will. Yet it must also be true. Campbell abandoned what he confessed he could not understand -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" -- and affirmed gods many and lords many. One can only hope his readers will harken to the words of another person conversant with the power of myth, G. K. Chesterton. He said in "The Unfinished Temple," "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."

 

 

The entire article can be found here.

 

Here is a thought I had. If it were all real, all the claims of Judeo-Christianity, Old & New Testament, everything it purports as being real; Heaven, angels, prophecy, demons, all of that, then the explanation for the fertility religions and their pre-similarities to judeo-christianity would be evident, wouldn't it? Christians of course believe in Satan and fallen angels. Everyone knows, (to the point of cliche in modern culture), what the devil does and what he is all about. He goes around using half truths to sell lies in order to trick people, right? Him and his angels would know secret things about Heaven and God, and could use those secret things to inspire people toward various kinds of counterfeit spirituality.

 

Again, all of that is based on pre-supposing it is real, but the point is you can't use the fertility religions to disprove the beliefs of a Christian or a Jew.

[Root5]

I can't stand all the idiots who, like sheep, believe in all these bullshit conspiracy theories.

 

They can't see the plain and obvious truth that conspiracy theories are lies, planted in society by the United Nations, in order to keep us in a state of panic.

 

It's part of their overall plan for a Zionist take over.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

i actually genuinely want to join the freemasons. it would be fucking awesome. my dead mate's brother knows members, so i had a chain by which i could gain access, alas this chain is now broken.

 

 

then i could give wattumers updates on our plans to rule the world and shit innit

[awepittance]

i am a 3rd degree freemason. PM me for details

[klanty]

This guy I went to school with is now a high-ranking freemason.

 

He's also a trained ninja.

[MAXIMUS MISCHIEF]

so all you conspiracy haters, answer me this

 

what are the fema camps for and why are there warehouses beside them with gas chambers?

[Guest ezkerraldean]

so all you conspiracy haters, answer me this

 

what are the fema camps for and why are there warehouses beside them with gas chambers?

teh jews did it

[FLA FUR BIS FLE]

Man it's pretty useless arguing with someone as indoctrinated as you are troon.

 

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell#The_Masks_of_God

 

Go get those books and read them. after you've read them, if you still don't think the Bible is just a recontextualisation of older myths, then you're the one with eyes wide shut.

 

 

 

i don't contest that they are older myths, these stories have been circulating for tens

of thousands of years in many cultures. at this point in time we are talking about

'accuracy of versions' and the Bible just happens to be a very powerful and accurate version

of this mythos that is specific for our season (2009). its what we understand about the stories that is the point.

how to read them and how to see the patterns in them, the code. (not the 'da vinci code' or the 'bible code' like in the mainstream shit books)

this is different, much simpler.... its in the reoccurring themes and relationships between the characters.

they are there and we must take advantage of them to see certain truths clearly.

 

(reading old king james versions is important to, through simplifying the language into

new 'easier to understand' language, alot of the code has been lost. pre 1950 Bibles

are usually safe, an authorized king james version. except no substitute

 

let's all just be open minded to one another and bag on scientology instead.

 

 

lol

 

Well, I will contest it. First, I have not read Campbell's books, but I heard about them before and am familiar some of what he is trying to kick. Below are some criticisms from an article I read.

 

 

"Campbell is ever at odds with a religious literalism which reifies mythic themes into concrete facts. He refers to the biblical creation story that teaches an actual beginning of the universe as "artificialism" and chides Bill Moyers for considering the resurrection of Christ in historic terms. He says such a view "is a mistake in reading the symbol"; it is to read "the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry," and to read "the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation" (p. 57). In fact, Jesus' ascension into heaven, metaphorically interpreted, means that "he has gone inward -- not into outer space but into inward space, to...the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within" (p. 56).

 

Given this method of interpretation, Campbell much prefers Gnosticism over orthodoxy. He quotes favorably from The Gospel of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed as teaching that "he who drinks from my mouth will become as I am," and properly notes that "this is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking" (p. 57).

 

Campbell's approach to mythology has the appearance of profundity. He uses it profitably to construct interpretations of a vast body of literature. He likens mistaking a metaphor for its reference to eating a menu instead of the meal. Yet when Campbell addresses biblical materials, such as the Gospels or Acts (which were written as history, not poetry or visionary literature), it becomes painfully evident that his metaphoric interpretation is forced at best. Certainly, the significance of the ascension of Christ for Christians is not exhausted by spatial location, yet the physical reference is intrinsic to the significance that Christ is not bound to earth. He has ascended to the "right hand" (this phrase, of course, is metaphoric) of the Father where He now reigns. Campbell may not believe the Ascension to be literally true, but the apostles did and the church still does. A more judicious reading would note that a miraculous truth claim is being made, to be either accepted or rejected -- not reinterpreted by a mythical hermeneutic. Instead of eating the menu, Campbell misreads it and fancies a meal never mentioned."

 

 

 

Yet evangelicals need not entirely dismiss Campbell's mythic concerns. Christian writers like C. S. Lewis have argued that the world's mythologies present a dim imitation of the redemption made historical through Christ. Mythologies worldwide speak of lost innocence, cosmic conflict, and redemption. In this sense the mythic dimension can be seen as part of general revelation, not in itself salvific, but pointing beyond itself to what Lewis in God in the Dock called "myth become fact:" "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens -- at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by debatable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to an historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate."

 

Campbell largely dismisses the historicity of Christianity by saying we don't know much about Jesus, given we only have "four contradictory texts that purport to tell us what he said and did" (p. 211). He adds that, despite these supposed contradictions, we know "approximately what Jesus said" (p. 211). If Campbell would have taken seriously the idea of a basic historical record of Jesus' words, he might have been less inclined to recast Christianity in mythic terms. The wealth of historical material provided by the Gospels, while not without some complexities, reveals a concern for historical accuracy and integrity, (see, e.g. Luke's prologue).

 

 

 

It might appear at first that Campbell's mythic permissiveness (no one mythic understanding is ultimately true) would serve as a solid platform for pluralism. At one point he says that mythologies are like individual software; if yours works, don't change it. But the classical liberal (not the modern, relativistic liberal) understanding of pluralism is deeper and wider. It assumes truth has nothing to fear from a plurality of perspectives; it can compete with and triumph over error in "the marketplace of ideas" by virtue of its own merit. Western liberty of expression is premised on the right to be right and the right to be wrong and be proven wrong through dialogue, debate, and discussion. Mythic pluralism assumes no truth to be discovered, debated, or discussed. The merit of any mythology is not its objective veracity but its subjective pull and social power. Mythic pluralism endorses a relativism that ignores the possibility of uncovering the absolute, the universal, or the objective. If the software works, keep it -- just so long as you delete any religious literalism.

 

Campbell may not have countenanced it, but it may befall him to become a posthumous prophet for New Age sentiments. Although more of an academic than a popularizer, his world view is in basic agreement with New Age celebrities like Shirley MacLaine, Werner Erhard, and John Denver. All is one; god is an impersonal and amoral force in which we participate; supernatural revelation and redemption are not needed. Campbell's erudition and sophisticated manner may attract those who are less impressed by the metaphysical glitz of a Shirley MacLaine, the rank superstition of "crystal consciousness," or the cosmic hype of the "Harmonic Convergence."

 

Campbell is correct: the power of myth in its various functions is potent and pervasive. Human beings need a comprehensive world view capable of undergirding and integrating individual and social values, engaging the imagination, activating the intellect, and energizing the will. Yet it must also be true. Campbell abandoned what he confessed he could not understand -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" -- and affirmed gods many and lords many. One can only hope his readers will harken to the words of another person conversant with the power of myth, G. K. Chesterton. He said in "The Unfinished Temple," "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."

 

 

The entire article can be found here.

 

Here is a thought I had. If it were all real, all the claims of Judeo-Christianity, Old & New Testament, everything it purports as being real; Heaven, angels, prophecy, demons, all of that, then the explanation for the fertility religions and their pre-similarities to judeo-christianity would be evident, wouldn't it? Christians of course believe in Satan and fallen angels. Everyone knows, (to the point of cliche in modern culture), what the devil does and what he is all about. He goes around using half truths to sell lies in order to trick people, right? Him and his angels would know secret things about Heaven and God, and could use those secret things to inspire people toward various kinds of counterfeit spirituality.

 

Again, all of that is based on pre-supposing it is real, but the point is you can't use the fertility religions to disprove the beliefs of a Christian or a Jew.

 

Wouldn't you say that this particular criticism is itself a bit weak, considering that he is reviewing the television interviews, and not the book? You can rip a person apart any which way when you are rummaging through their recorded interviews, especially when that material is taken by third parties and edited to suit the format (especially the bit where he says Campbell "chides" Moyers. Moyers was posing questions, Campbell was answering them). Maybe I am just biased towards Campbell, but this review seems to really be grasping at straws.

[cichlisuite]

it seems like everyone new i meet, or friends of friends, people i meet at parties, clubs, bands, whatever, they seem to ALL believe in some kind of conspiracy theory. things like the new world order, 9/11 truthers, swine flu mind control, fake moon landing, irrational hatred of the government, climate change garbage etc. i've heard basically everything, and it's just insane what people will believe and accept as 100% truth. it's all fucking BS, and i see through what they are saying, but trying to talk to these people about anything just makes them think i'm 'uneducated' and don't know the 'truth' because i haven't watched some youtube videos. there is no way to counter argue anything with them, it's like talking to a wall. this one guy, no matter what you say to him, any kind of critical thinking, using science, can not change his mind that george bush was responsible for 9/11. i have this other friend who has also basically started her own cult as well (don't get me started on that insanity).

 

it seems like either musicians or creative types of people just attract this unwavering kind of fucked up thinking about the world and other associated irregular thought patterns. these people appear to be 'normal' yet there are some serious issues going on if they believe this stuff as truth. i think what happens is that people somehow end up discounting ALL credible sources of information like the newspaper, online articles, tv news, etc. and then resort to believing whatever people tell them in person and what they view on youtube. 'it makes sense so it must be true'. never before have i encountered so many people who take peoples opinions as 100% fact. it's good to be skeptical of things, and to question things, but you can take it too far. how do you debate reality? you can't. so many conversations have ended in disaster. was it always like this? has the internet done something to propagate this kind of thing? sorry to rant but i've had a lot of crazy experiences lately, probably will continue tonight, also sorry for my grammar i'm kind of tipsy at the moment

i believe we're controlled (be it intentionally or causally due to everything that starts with mass*) to a certain degree of idleness. our values and meaning of life are fucked up beyond any short-term hope. i believe there's much more to human race and nature than just fucking technology or social study that turned our way of evolution and prosperity into a completely wrong direction. everything that works around us is here to keep us well in line for a higher goal - for something you have no control over (nor the wish). to perpetuate whatever interest of power or imature burp of brains there is.

 

it is most sad humanity thinks of itself as something more or superior to their environment.

 

i don't even know why i start this reply, because i know there will be a pile of eyebrowing, and i wont even care to elaborate thoroughly on my view, because it is basically irrelevant. everyone should ask themselves _honest_ questions,and everyone know fucking well what those questions are. if you don't, grab a sack, put in some clothes and sandwiches. go see the world. you will ask yourself those questions again, but then, you will know the answer.

[chenGOD]

i was gonna write a big response to you glasse but basically: CS Lewis says - "my mythology is better than yours nah nah nah nah nah". The point is not to disprove the belief in the Christian mythology (because how can you disprove a negative), rather to point out that it is not unique, and there is no reason why it should be taken with any more validity than other mythologies.

 

troo:why do you the think the guys who rewrote the stories to make the bible have any more specialized secret insight?

[Guest mafted]

Also, why does the U.S. Government refuse to admit that Area 51 even exists if nothing classified is going on there? It definitely does, and it's huge. Retired, top ranking former military personnel have actually stated having accidentally come across what looked like a spaceship in one of the hangers before being escorted out. I believe it.

[Redruth]

i was gonna write a big response to you glasse but basically: CS Lewis says - "my mythology is better than yours nah nah nah nah nah". The point is not to disprove the belief in the Christian mythology (because how can you disprove a negative), rather to point out that it is not unique, and there is no reason why it should be taken with any more validity than other mythologies.

 

troo:why do you the think the guys who rewrote the stories to make the bible have any more specialized secret insight?

 

 

more then who?

 

spirituality is actually a very simple concept, but i know what all the fuss is about.

it's the ability to except and truly know the things we must do and not do to be truly spiritual.

 

love is at the root of it all actually, but one has to look deep into love and define

what is not love when analyzing his or her actions.

 

without true love, there is and will be nothing.

[perunamuusi]

Also, why does the U.S. Government refuse to admit that Area 51 even exists if nothing classified is going on there? It definitely does, and it's huge. Retired, top ranking former military personnel have actually stated having accidentally come across what looked like a spaceship in one of the hangers before being escorted out. I believe it.

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

[SR4]

Also, why does the U.S. Government refuse to admit that Area 51 even exists if nothing classified is going on there? It definitely does, and it's huge. Retired, top ranking former military personnel have actually stated having accidentally come across what looked like a spaceship in one of the hangers before being escorted out. I believe it.

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

 

 

i have no doubt that at one point area 51 housed a spacecraft of some sort, but whether it is alien or not is beyond the point it would seem.

 

area 51 is some seriously shady shit.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

this. they definitely do hench secret fucking hardcoar high-tech stuff there (Skunkworks etc.) and they probably have a bunch of captured foreign shit too that would be embarrassing to reveal publicly. there's no doubt some awesome-as-shit stuff there, but there ain't gonna be aliens, innit.

[Guest mafted]

Also, why does the U.S. Government refuse to admit that Area 51 even exists if nothing classified is going on there? It definitely does, and it's huge. Retired, top ranking former military personnel have actually stated having accidentally come across what looked like a spaceship in one of the hangers before being escorted out. I believe it.

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

 

 

Ok, but the fact that they are keeping it, or anything, secret shows that government can and will keep things unknown to its citizens. It's right in your face: Top secret. You can't look in there, even though you, as a taxpayer, pay for this country. It shows what deception they're capable of. Why some aren't able to read between lines and entertain the possibility that they're hiding other things is beyond me.

[Redruth]

Also, why does the U.S. Government refuse to admit that Area 51 even exists if nothing classified is going on there? It definitely does, and it's huge. Retired, top ranking former military personnel have actually stated having accidentally come across what looked like a spaceship in one of the hangers before being escorted out. I believe it.

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

 

 

i have no doubt that at one point area 51 housed a spacecraft of some sort, but whether it is alien or not is beyond the point it would seem.

 

area 51 is some seriously shady shit.

 

 

 

area 51 is some seriously shady shit. +1

[Guest mafted]

 

 

i think whatever goes on at area 51 is probably top secret military projects and high technology flight / weaponry engineering. all this roswell alien crap is a smokescreen.

this. they definitely do hench secret fucking hardcoar high-tech stuff there (Skunkworks etc.) and they probably have a bunch of captured foreign shit too that would be embarrassing to reveal publicly. there's no doubt some awesome-as-shit stuff there, but there ain't gonna be aliens, innit.

 

 

Why don't you think so? The day after the incident, the Roswell newspaper reported that a craft was seen and taken away by what they thought was the governnment. This was before the huge media shit storm. It's possible though not as probable.

[triachus]

I know a guy who knows a scientist that went to area 51. He did some research/experiments with magnets or sonar stuff. Can't remember specifics tho, it sounded kinda boring. But he could talk about it, nothing secret or anything.

 

 

And there were no alien related things. Bummer, huh?

[Guest ezkerraldean]

Why don't you think so? The day after the incident, the Roswell newspaper reported that a craft was seen and taken away by what they thought was the governnment. This was before the huge media shit storm. It's possible though not as probable.

Project Mogul or whatever? early Cold War spy balloons, put in the jet stream and flown over the USSR, much in the same way as the japs tried to dump bombs in the US during the war (and succeeded in one case). at Roswell a spy balloon must have come down, with some sensitive-as-fuck pictures on it. so they're gonna whisk it away pretty quick, aren't they. fuck aliens.

[Guest mafted]

you have heard the equations that predict amounts of intelligent life in any given galaxy? so, why are aliens still some mythical, Disney-inspired fairytale to everyone? they are out there, just like WE are.

[SR4]

is there an equation to suggest that they would be far more scientifically advanced than us?

 

im not saying they don't exist, but US secret technology is a priority on my theories list.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

you have heard the equations that predict amounts of intelligent life in any given galaxy?

yes, do you actually know about them? they're completely useless. we can only begin to guess the value of one single variable out of ~8 in the formula (the planet probability one). it's a pile of shit.

so, why are aliens still some mythical, Disney-inspired fairytale to everyone?

because we have no evidence whatsoever for them yet. as much as we all want there to be aliens etc., we have heard/seen/detected zero. let's not let our desires for alien life fuck up our objective scientific searches.

[perunamuusi]

aliens lol