🚀 go-pugleaf

A Return to the Christ State: MAN'S ULTIMATE DESTINY!

Through Email, Arnold E. responded thus:

Dear Raymond,

I have known many, many like you, who have been disenchanted with
orthodox organized Christianity, and have turned to a more mystical 
esoteric interpretations to find meaning in a very chaotic, universe
which often manifests itself in pain....or as you put, you have
abandoned an old world view in search of a new world view that
will bring sanity and order to an insane world.  That is man's 
great quest, no doubt about it.  Obviously, from your letter
you believe that you have found answers.  

Let me paraphrase your testimony.  As I read your testimony, 
you discovered meaning in a non-dualistic, holistic world view,
--a state of being of one with "What is".
That the traditional dualistic good-evil type worldview has
been used by the powerful Catholic church for mind control, and
that all historical testimony about Jesus was invented by the Church
to
bring power, prestige, and position, for the catholic church.

And this new holistic world view allows you to live "in the moment",
an existentialist-philosophical world view. 

And you have great confidence in your world view, .... no doubt
about it.  Unfortunately your world view has nothing in common
with reality, and that, I am sad to say is a problem.

There is really nothing NEW in your letter that hasn't been expressed
about Christianity in the past 2000 years.  The same views have
been expressed by the Rudolph Bultmann's, the Karl Barth's, and
even more recently the Matthew Fox's, and Elaine Pagels.  You have
more in common with the Nietzsche's, the Emil Bruenners, and the
Jean Paul Sartre's of the world--basically athiests, than you have
with 
anyone who is a theist.  And this is common with those
with the New Age movement.....that is that the New Age movement shares
more with Athiests than with Theists.  Both wish for a new 
consciousness, that dismisses "parochial" dogma of organized 
religion, and usher in the new age of man, and new consciousness.
The only difference between an athiest, and a new ager is that
the new ager spirtualizes his world view, and the athiest denies
that he spirtualizes his world view.

Both find man supreme, the answer is within himself.  And this is
the prevailing thought since the enlightenment.  I submit, that
in the final analysis, that you have rejected the Catholic church 
and her dogma and have adopted hook line and sinker 19th century 
thought.  You have only replaced one master, with another, and
to top it off, you made a bad exchange.

You state "I am not a guru.  I am not a teacher.  I am not an expert."
But you arrogantly judge the the Catholic Church's motives in its
existence is for mind control.  I have to laugh at the irony of such
arrogance.  Maybe this new found philosophical world view you
espouse now is only mind control, and the controllers have you
in their grasp.  Remember, you are not a guru, a teacher, or an
expert.
It is something you must consider.  (And I disclaim any of your
attempts to dismiss me by labelling me as Catholic--I am NOT 
Roman Catholic, period.)

So maybe you will proclaim that it doesn't really matter that your
world view is in sync reality, because you have found your answers.
This is pure relativism.  And in that case, I worry about your sad
state of affairs.  For if your world view has nothing in common
with reality, it is purely fiction, and nothing but a placebo.
For if one is dying of cancer, a Placebo may make you feel better
in the short term, but in the long term, reality will judge otherwise.

I submit that your view of things is out of sync with reality, and
your
philosophical existentialism is a result of 19th century athiestic
philosophers who being "freed" from the bondages of organized 
religion, have adorned themselves with new chains.  Sure they thought
man was basically good, and saw in the future great man-made utopias,
but WWI, and WWII came, along with the last bastion of philosphical
utopianism-Russia's collapse, and tore those fictional dogmas of 
their own, down.

But philosophies die hard, and we have a remake of 19th century
thought,
that perhaps a new millenium will make a difference.....a chance
to shed ourselves one more time of the Christian dogma, of sin,
evil, and acknowledge ourselves as good, finally, that we should
work together in a religious free society man centered.  But of
the evils of the Roman Catholic church has done, they cannot 
begin to compare of the utopian societies such as Stalinist Russia,
who seeked to eradicate every form of organized religion, by seeking
and destroying anyone who held them.  Millions upon Millions of Jews
and Christians were murdered.  This century alone has seen more
Christians murdered in the name of destroying these dogmas than
the previous 19 centuries before.  Whatever evils the catholic church
has done, athiestic, and newage philosophical world views will only
bring in more evil.

Which brings me to the largest inconsistency of your whole thesis,
this non-dualism you seem to espouse--I assume to be the rejection
of a dualism of good and evil to leave room for a spirtual monism
of "what is".  I firmly believe you are speaking out of
opposite sides of your mouth--that you think that the good evil
dualism has been used by the Church to suppress men.  However
what would you call this?  Would you call this "good" or would
you call this "evil".  If you call what the church did is "good",
then you destroy your thesis.  If you call what the church did
as evil, then you destroy your thesis.  Both ways you destroy your
thesis;  If the church is good, then why are you criticizing it, and
if the church is evil then your non-dualistic monism falls, and 
we do indeed have dualism.   


>
>Maybe they'll wake up--maybe not! 
>

Maybe its time to hop on that wagon for another hungry
spiritual journey.  I believe that your answers lie in traditinal
Judeo-Christian roots--the one that you abandoned for 
a spirtual relativistic monism.  The later is untenable, self
defeating, and out of sync with reality.  The former is
tenable, philsophically sound, and consistent with reality.

I will be open for debate on this.....if you are really as open
minded as you think you are.

-Arnold 
>
>Dear Arnold,

  I have read your comments. Your energy is that of a scholar.  A
scholar is a pseudo creator; a builder, if you will, using the bricks
of another's words and thoughts they do not fully understand to build
for themselves temporary straw houses which offer no substantive
security to the builder.  If the bricks were indeed true, they would
be self-evident. There would be no need for clever manipulation to
hide one's ignorance of the truth.  One would merely rise to the
nondualistic level of understanding, see the truth, be the truth, and,
therefore, speak the truth.  There would be no need for the scholar
to formulate an "argument" based on his own eclectic categorizing of
bits and pieces of other men's knowledge through the conditioned
process of study.

  Aside from required college reading of Satre, I have read none of
the 19th century philosophers whom you have quoted. My statements
arise from direct perception; they are my truth. You, sir, have a
tendency to label what another says to suit yourself.  You are unable
to listen to anything anew because of this habitual behavior.  As such
you are prepared to argue.  With whom, may I ask?  Your entire note to
me is of one holding up hoops for another to jump through.  Much like
the person who baited Jesus on the cross saying "If you truly are the
Son of God, prove it to me.  Come down off of that cross."  Such a
person is caught at the most peripheral level of consciousness; i.e.,
the silly, linear, dualistic level of intellectualism.  I assure you,
NOTHING can be understood at that level.  Yet, that is the level you
wish to carry on your debate.  With Who?  With yourself, sir.

  Sir, you strike me as one who has the malady of being an expert. The
holistic balance of truth, the infinite energy of an holistic being,
is sacrificed for a very narrow sliver of expertise which promises one
power and position in an intellectual world.  All living on this plane
are subject to these moments of truth. Will they maintain integrity,
or will they sell out for what power may be acquired?  Each must ask
that question of themselves, for themselves.  The world is full of
entities who have sold their souls for their expertise.  In the
process one clearly becomes an unbalanced human being. (Just an
observation, not an accusation.)  I say this because nowhere will you
hear or read judgment arising from my comments directed toward another
for the purpose of persuasion or manipulation.  I merely use language
in the best way I can to describe what is observed in the moment.  I
can tell for a fact, that your mind does not work that way.  How?
Because it is self-evident.  I see it.

  You are a man of knowledge, but you do not see.  Understanding
requires spiritual sight.  It can never be arrived at through the
circuitous route of thought.  Unfortunately, you don't you see it.  To
do so, one must let go of acquired knowledge to enter the realm
where direct seeing is possible. Such energy lies beyond the ken of
the intellectual mind.

  You are eager to debate, but, strangely, nowhere have you  offered
to have a dialogue. But you don't see these red flags, do you?  In the
final statement you use the most juvenile of ploys by attempting to
bait me.  How Sad!

  Reread your comments.  You have had a debate with yourself, have you
not?  I do not conduct these kinds of conversations through e-mail for
obvious reasons of time.  If you desire to continue,  it must be
posted on the groups (as this will be without revealing your identity)
for the world to join in.  That, sir, is a much quicker route to the
truth than the one you propose. The subject discussed is much too
serious to be played with for ego gratification and private
amusement--the mark of a scholar. 


Raymond Karczewski  http://www.virtualplex.com/vplex/ark/