Inept Comprehension

 ugh! people are such subjective readers... years ago i had to remind someone who admonished the theory of 'holy blood holy grail' that throughout the whole book the authors professed that they weren't trying to prove anything, they just wanted to see if any accepted history supported or contradicted their theory... today, some asshat sees me with 'chariots of the gods' and says it was a favorite of his until he learned all the facts were falsified... um... the author states where there's ambiguity in accepted archaeology, and is adamant that his postulations are just that... in fact, his whole book revolves around the question How? that he thinks archeologists have failed to answer and for them to admit that they need better theories... he interrupts his recitations of historic anomalies to do this, it really is a bit scattered, which is a better argument: not well organized to support his ideas... so... what 'facts' exactly are there to be falsified?

people wantonly make the association of belief with books others read... unless one is capable of being an objective reader, there is so much being missed in the analysis of the author's statements... do i believe what i read? that is the least of my objectives; i see their motivation, how minutiae is twisted, how theories are made and later support is scrounged for, or how theories come to light from 'coincidences' that are blatant but somehow ignored. my drive is to learn of sources that i don't get to learn about from narrative history and high school science because neither need to prove where their facts and ideas come from... but alternatives to 'accepted' thought do.

historians and scientists fight like old toothless women over what 'truth' is, and 'accepted' theory is only what they can get most of their colleagues to agree on... what laymen consider history and science to be is a definite that does not exist - the only fact is that it is always changing

Letter to the Student

Your learnéd naïvité is so endearing. Just because one reads something and embraces it doesn't mean one needs to carry some label. Thoreau was a transcendentalist, which though endeared in this century, is heretical to 1800 years of church tradition; by adopting labels, one also adopts the label's history. I am fond of some christian works such as The Cloud of Unknowing and the Dark Night of the Soul, and in being a stoic I identify significantly with Hellenic and Gnostic concepts of life and the universe (which are in part associated with Pauline Christianity, as Paul was born into Greek Hellenic society). As much as I may be able to call myself gnostic or hermetic, I know that it adopted names and literature of the christian era which turned it into a christianized philosophy. It was kind of a Batman and Joker (from the Michael Keaton Batman) relationship: Joker before he was the Joker is responsible for making Batman, and then later when they interact again, Batman is responsible for making Joker into what he is now.

Transcendentalism (which was consequently something English Celtic churches never relinquished and were always bordering on Heresy because of) does not require christian myth, and is oft rather at odds with it. BUT because most of its adherents grew up in a christian environment, it assigns christian names and definitions to its concepts. Additionally, the Western christianized concept of god and how his nature is classically defined is a result of Greek and Roman thoughts on the benevolent vs. the malevolent nature of deity hypothesized to explain why bad things exist in the world; this is wholly unrelated to Jesus or jewish traditions, and dates from centuries before Jesus' time.

Jesus was never the savior of mankind sent to redeem sins, and the apostles and jewish religious leaders never saw him as such. He was someone who could legitimately consider claiming kingship and be anointed as such (in the Messianic tradition) to re-establish jewish independent sovereignty and oust roman imperialist occupation. Everything Jesus did including his attempt at surviving the crucifiction and asking jews to seek redemption and ritual cleansing was to "force the end", force god to act to redeem jews from submission to foreigners.

Paul made a shit ton of money in a kind of pyramid scheme for the Jerusalem church headed by the Pharisees and the very pharisaic political following Jesus left behind. Paul himself was never inducted and initiated into the cadre of Jesus' following; he made enemies everywhere and played both sides of everything - essentially the poster child for late antique douchebaggery.

Converting gentiles to judaism was common and there were 2 kinds of adherents: the 'god-fearers' who believed in jewish theology but did not abide Torah law, and full converts who underwent circumcision, adopted Torah law and abided dietary practices. Paul played to the god-fearers, abrogated jewish law and 'converted' them to what was otherwise an anti-roman movement turned into a theological one on the basis that adherents could be 'saved' not from Rome but from existence not by acting on proscription but by faith alone. He then tried to enforce new rules when he realized people acted how they wanted to, playing to their saving through faith alone, and not by acts. Paul did lots of other novel things that have no basis in the life and works of Jesus and his apostles - it would take a book to explain them all - but the take-away here is that christians forever after are confused by the nature of their faith and law and how they're supposed to follow, and most attempts to explain it make no logical sense.

The overall take-away from all of this is that I am not a dissuader or an atheist; I have a relationship with the universe. I will never admonish one for self-exposure, exploration and education wherever it may take one, but I will forever caution against subscriptions and labels. Their dependency on definitions fabricates illusion and misshapes reality for convenience.