History vs Mythology

There are a lot of Sunday-school assumptions most people make about the Bible and actual history of Christianity; or else they disregard the Bible and history in lieu of unsubstantiated theories concerning 'God's Will' to justify what fails to corroborate. There are quite a lot of cop-outs that I've run into that people want to cling to, which is well and good, but don't presume to call it fact or history - it is neither - it is simply what believers chose to believe.

There were a few marked things I noticed when reading the new testament through after having delved into the apocrypha: Jesus was a jerk. The myth of this Buddha-like personage of peace and forgiveness fails to appear on the pages where the man himself plays a speaking role. He's angry, he's mean; he berates and insults his friends and his family, he disregards non-Jews. The tone he uses is not of prediction, but of ordering his followers to do things they don't want to do, and they beg him or assert that they won't do it (he intends to purposely 'fulfill' old testament scripture, as was the trend in the day - to force God's hand to act in favor of his people). I'm actually quite surprised I've only seen one other person make note of this, because it's quite blatant... I honestly think that most people who actually read Matthew, Mark, or Luke glaze over the words and just recite their own happy narrative mentally.

The second is the distinct difference between what comes out of Jesus' mouth in the 'synoptic' gospels and what Paul and his followers make of him and his 'teachings' after he dies (assuming he didn't use a stunt double on the cross). This, again is so noted by historians who aren't playing to a church paycheck, that two distinct movements are usually defined: the followers of Jesus, and the followers of Paul or Christianity. There is argument over whether the Gospel of Thomas is the missing source X used in compiling the gospels, but it may be the closest reference to the actual teachings of Jesus.  I just stumbled on this page while writing this blog, entirely by accident; I was actually looking for a specific quote on another point I planned to discuss, but, the universe flows... http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

What I was looking for were specific quotes from the early Greek-Roman philosophers, the concepts of which impacted the perception and definition of the Western concept of the Christian God more thoroughly than the definitive pages of the old testament. This website describes the evolution of where Greek thought influenced Christian ideology, which I suppose is better: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/

Which begs the question: if God is universal, then would it matter who's pre-Christian ideas of God were later enveloped into Christian mythology? But it does, logically. If God were universal, the Jews would not need to be the chosen people, then nothing is substantial at all about Jewish history, theology or their prophecies... without those, then Jesus is not a prophetic figure of any sort of substance (any more than any other culture's), because there's no longer a basis for him to be 'chosen'. Either way, Jesus means nothing to non-Jews, or those unwilling to abide Jewish law, history, mythology, and prophecy. Without the Jewish struggle, there was no cry for redemption or salvation beyond the apocalyptic attitude it developed from Zoarastrianism, embraced from being occupied by foreigners... what are Jewish struggles to Hellenists and Romans? Nothing if you don't convert them to the likes of the time's contemporary mystery/resurrection cults built on Hellenic traditions (populated by people alienated from their homelands amid the sea of the Roman Empire, looking for somewhere to belong) which included the confession of sins, baptism, initiation, being subject to the service of a 'savior' god, as well as a 'sacred marriage' which united a savior god/goddess (which Paul changed to the Church). The non-uniqueness of Christianity is not an indication of its universal 'correctness'... it is an indication that it is simply not special. Except perhaps to say that the man for whom it is named did not actually start the religion.

Vegan Brownies

after reading reviews of the fail vegan brownie recipes out there, one user made ingredient recommendations that i somewhat heeded in making mine...
NOTE: this is vegan except for the nutella, which has milk, but i can't resist it, feel free to substitute or omit

1c. flour
1 Tbsp flax seed meal
½ c. cocoa powder
¼ c. brown sugar
¼ tsp baking powder
½ tsp salt
½ tsp cinnamon
½ c. raw almonds
½ c. semi sweet chocolate chips
¼ c. safflower oil
¼ c. nutella
¼ c. warm water
1c. apple butter/sauce (1.5 lb apples peeled/cored/chopped / 1c. sugar / ¼ tsp cinnamon, dash ground cloves/salt - put dry ingredients over apples in slow cooker 12 hrs; high 1st hour, low 11 hrs, stir occasionally)

preheat oven to 350°F
2 med bowls: in one, sift together dry ingredients except almonds and chocolate chips
in the other, combine all wet ingredients.
fold dry mix into wet mix, don't over-work
add almonds and chocolate chips
spoon into greased 8x8 pan or 12 ct lined muffin pan
bake until just cakey but still moist (15-20 min - 10-15 for muffin pan)
remove pan and cool covered with towel

From Old Notes of Yesteryear

anti-existential exercises

I don't mean anything to him -- never have.. just those lonely moments when he has nothing else to turn to, i am always there... and i'm there because all i have are those moments...

is that enough? maybe it is not enough... but it is enough when those are all i have left, why should it be any less if i have all the world?

i've run out of things and people to fill the gap... cuz for me, like him: nothing means anything...

embrace the nothing? 

 i wrote this little mantra... and i've basically refused to allow myself to legitimize the meaning of anything - it's validity and implications (specifically) are meaningless...

if i start thinking about something, i'll stop myself, think 'no, cuz that means you're thinking (i.e. making stuff up to justify something i don't understand)... if i get emotional or defensive, i'll stop myself and think 'no, cuz that means it means something'... and i take a deep breath, and think about sunflowers or gaillardia and some faceless chick with long brown hair strolling in a field of flowers instead

and if i want to tell him something or send him a pic or something funny, i just think about all the emails i just deleted from my sent box that he never replied to, and that post i had on his profile that was the 2nd post he ever commented on in 2 years... and i tell myself 'fuck it'... i think about gaillardia and a chick strolling through a field... and carry on doing something else, cuz whatever i wanted to put out there doesn't mean anything... just the field of flowers and the girl with the long brown hair

the gap is disappearing... not being filled.. but imploding...

Food for Krampus

got my list of food to serve at a post-xmas party:

MARINATED BACON-WRAPPED STEAK/SHRIMP SKEWERS
BLUE CHEESE & LEEK-TOPPED YAMS
CHICKEN PAI MAI
ARTICHOKE TAPENADE / LEMON ARTICHOKE DIP
IRISH CHEDDAR MAC N CHEESE
COCONUT MILK RASPBERRY FOOL

CRANBERRY SAUCE
LAMB W/ CHERRY REDUCTION
HOMEMADE STUFFED MUSHROOMS

NEW MEXICO GREEN CHILE TAMALES

mixed drinks:
White Sangria
tequila sunrise
vegan eggnog-ish rum drink

Pics will be forthcoming - well... was too drunk to take any... sorry

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.

UPDATE : So, how does food affect your life?

So, I've been playing around with adding raw veggies and more nuts and fruits to my life... and I have to say, those days where that is primarily what I eat, I feel amazing. if I stop eating veggies, I start feeling like crap:  like I'm running a marathon with my legs tied together; it's just miserable. The easiest way I've found to ingest large amounts of veggies is in juicing and smoothies.

The key to any eating habit (aka diet - but here without the connotation of fads and restrictions for the sake of losing weight) is diversity. It's important to not get settled into only a handful of dishes at the beginning; boredom always sets in and one strays to a diversified pallet after a short while. Once a week at least, experiment with something new, something never tasted before, something that stretches the limits of what 'food' means (for our society, this often means something that is less processed and packaged, and more actual, living, fresh food).

There will always be those things one clings to for comfort food - the best thing to do is to modify those things to meet a new standard. My two are mac 'n cheese and chips and salsa:

1. For me, even though I'm not vegan or vegetarian, I do refrain from eating high starch and boxed products. In more recent years I've also stopped ingesting milk because it started causing me to have cystic acne (I know this because if I refrain from eating dairy I stop getting acne). But, cheese is another matter... I love cheese, and I love kefir. So, the two part to this is that I've had to find a pasta base (rice or whole wheat) that doesn't affect me as much as semolina, AND I've had to find properly cultured cheeses that have broken down the casein protein and fats in dairy that causes my acne (for instance, Cabot's white cheddar). So, to fully enjoy mac 'n cheese without adverse effects, I make my alternative pasta, make a béchamelle from scratch using irish butter, coconut milk and Cabot's or other aged cheddar. which is neither difficult or time consuming.
2. Though there are usually no additives in canned salsa from the store, the veggies have all been cooked, and therefore will cause the stomach to react to it as though it were a foreign substance. Additionally, all tortilla chips are made out of corn, at least until recently. And based on my previous experiences with corn, the hindrance to the digestive system is not limited to whole corn kernels, but also translates into corn meal and flour. So, the easy part was to transition to bean/rice-based tortilla chips that are now available, which are very tasty and don't leave you with that feeling of bloaty fullness. The slightly more involved step was making fresh, home-made salsa -- my first batch was a failure, then I remembered that putting tomatoes in a food processor in general is a no-no because it releases all the water and loses its flavor. Subsequent batches (thanks to my friend making some from an old-style recipe) turned out absolutely flavorful and awesome. The key was to not give up. Another part of my chips 'n salsa binging was the use of sour cream and it's creamy sweet goodness... This I've amended in using avocados splashed with lime juice to top my fresh salsa instead.