I Am Christ

[Bgood]

Hey Mr. Sherlock, if you are Christ, then can you perform miracles such as turn water into wine and raise the dead? If not, then who gives a shit if you have a delusional identity crisis.

And by the way, Socrates and Plato never mentioned anything ever about Christ. He wasn't made up yet.

[Aegrus]

You guys have pretty well done that, no? We have histories of whole countries run by atheists exploring "new" ideas. It did not work out well. Upwards of 60 million innocent people were killed, murdered, starved to death in the last 100 years by atheist leaders-- more people than all the religious wars in all of history combined. God forbid a skeptic would stand up to Stalin or Mao. That is not to say Christians did not do evil, but a rational person would compare their works to the teachings of Jesus.

First of all, Mao Zedong killed about 1 million people. 65 million died of starvation (edit- famine). He was evil, and a terrible leader, and he was an atheist. But he didn't come close to approaching Hitler.

Now, as for Stalin- Stalin was Catholic. Pol Pot was Buddhist.

Here's one of my sources. I can provide more, but I doubt you'll even read this one, so why bother.
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-birmi...e-atheists

---

These leaders get reputations as atheists for destroying churches- but all too often, they are simply trying to destroy every church except their church. That was Stalin's motivation.

Pol Pot said he didn't believe in god- but he did believe in guiding powers of fate that wanted him to act on their behalf. He also attacked science as much as organized religion. Too often, I hear fundies pull these people out as "evidence" that atheism is evil- and every time, I'm stunned that everyone just accepts it as fact when we question everything else so carefully. Do some research on their actual lives. They are not atheists. (Except Mao.)

[Bgood]

Now, as for Stalin- Stalin was Catholic. Pol Pot was Buddhist.

Pol Pot said he didn't believe in god- but he did believe in guiding powers of fate that wanted him to act on their behalf. He also attacked science as much as organized religion.

I would also add from Aegrus's source:

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. Cambodia's communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism.

As a Buddhist follower myself I find Pol Pot's history disgusting and sad. Buddhism being one of the most peaceful and non-violent religions ever along with Jainism, I wonder how much evil influence his 8 years of Catholic schooling had on his ego-mania. Perhaps that planted bad seeds more so then Cambodia's native religion. I would imagine so.

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

Ummmmm and the point of this post?

[Aegrus]

Now, as for Stalin- Stalin was Catholic. Pol Pot was Buddhist.

Pol Pot said he didn't believe in god- but he did believe in guiding powers of fate that wanted him to act on their behalf. He also attacked science as much as organized religion.

I would also add from Aegrus's source:

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. Cambodia's communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism.

As a Buddhist follower myself I find Pol Pot's history disgusting and sad. Buddhism being one of the most peaceful and non-violent religions ever along with Jainism, I wonder how much evil influence his 8 years of Catholic schooling had on his ego-mania. Perhaps that planted bad seeds more so then Cambodia's native religion. I would imagine so.

Just goes to show that no religion can be used as proof of morality. Even a predominantly peaceful one like Buddhism. Even religions/magical world views with legitimately good messages can be unjustly corrupted by the biases of bigots. People rule their faith, not the other way around, and that can be both good and bad. Good when Christians decide not to kill homosexuals and atheists. Bad when they choose not to be generous, bad when they choose to steal or kill.

This supports what I've thought for a long time- religion does not make believers better than atheists. It doesn't make them worse, either. Religion doesn't change who you are- you choose what you believe based on what you already are, or who you want to become.

Honestly, if history had ever had many atheist leaders, I'm sure we'd see that they can be just as crazy as Christians. Mao approaches that. But what makes religion more dangerous than atheism is that it encourages absolute faith without proof or reason- and that makes it very easy for insane demagogues to gain power, as has been witnessed countless time throughout history.

Should religion be banned? Of course not. The many should not be punished for the crimes of the few, no matter how terrible the crimes. Plenty of perfectly good people are religious. But we can't allow religion to rule politics or undermine scientific method. The worst people will always take power when you start accepting absolute truths without demanding evidence for positive claims.

---

I don't have any proof to support this last rant, though. Consider it my personal opinion.

[michaelsherlock]

Hey Mr. Sherlock, if you are Christ, then can you perform miracles such as turn water into wine and raise the dead?

I think if you read the OP, you will discover that nowhere do I claim to be Christ, in fact, I expressly state that I am not (a fictional character).

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In a unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech...In one of wrong speech, wrong action...In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood...In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort...In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness...In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.

"Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech...In one of right speech, right action...In one of right action, right livelihood...In one of right livelihood, right effort...In one of right effort, right mindfulness...In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."

If not, then who gives a shit if you have a delusional identity crisis.

These seem like angry words:

“You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”

And by the way, Socrates and Plato never mentioned anything ever about Christ. He wasn't made up yet.

I will deal with this one tonight.

[michaelsherlock]

Congrats, you just summarized the doctrine of the modern Satanist Church perfectly.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/
[/quote]

I wonder if you even followed the link? It really is quite amusing how perfectly your beliefs line up.
[/quote]

I followed the link and read the "affiliation" Page, and I must say, I fail to see the resemblence. Satanism is a religion created in the 60s by Levay, and although his goal was to bring down organized religion, (a place where perhaps our minds meet), his method was to create a religion and more beliefs to do so. I think you have failed to grasp some of the nuances of what I have written.

Being that I think Satan is a misunderstanding to begin with, one which was popularized and propagated by the Christian Church to possibly frighten people into joining their church, a trick used by many ancient religions, I see no essential similarity with my idea, and the church of the Hebrew verb, Shatan!

I would be thrilled to hear in what way you see the similarities.

---

And by the way, Socrates and Plato never mentioned anything ever about Christ. He wasn't made up yet.

I never said that Socrates and Plato, mention Christ. Please, please, please, read more carefully.

What I was referring to, which seems to have been lost on the majority of the members of this forum, is that the "notion" was propagated by these men.

His speech is blasphemous. He praises a man in place of a god so that he can praise a man as though he were a god. If Socrates can replace a god, then other men can replace the gods as well, other more worthy men like Alcibiades himself. Alcibiades is taking his revenge on Socrates. He refutes Socrates by professing his love for him inspite of the fact that he does not appropriate his way of life. The power politician overtly denies philosophy is a genuine possibility for ordinary human beings.

[Epimethean]

Oh, boy, here we go ...

[Norfolk And Chance]

The title of this thread, ‘I am Christ’, although sounding like the rant of a deluded mind, is in fact, a profound notion. A notion that has the power to end wars, famine, inequality and the manipulation, which has been the cornerstone of both religion and politics. This philosophy, which I have termed‘I am Christ’, is not of my own contrivance, but dates back to a time before the alleged advent of Christ himself. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato propagated this ancient idea, along with more modern scholars like, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Carl Gustav Jung, Wilhelm Reich, Albert Einstein and the late professor of mythology at Princeton University, Joseph Campbell, to name just a few.

Although it is an exceptionally useful way of thinking, it is frightening to those malign shepherds who have been at the helm of the sinking ship of humanity, since time immemorial. As a result of the threat posed by this idea, the heads of both religion and politics have released a virus into the minds of the many. In so doing, they have ensured that this philosophy is denied the opportunity to take root amongst the masses. This virus has continued to ensure our masters' ill-gotten power over us. We have given this virus the harmless and innocent name,‘belief.’ Yet, it is far from harmless and has been the favored tool of the malevolent in fomenting disorder and chaos amongst an otherwise intelligent species. Should we be freed from this cognitive prison, the balance of power between the masses and the elites would shift, toppling the naked emperors that have subjugated humanity since the deliberate spread of this mental and emotional plague.

I was wondering how I could best explain the ‘I Am Christ’ philosophy in words that could adequately convey its meaning. Einstein once said that any fool can make something more complicated, but it takes a genius to simplify something, or words to that effect, and so I guess this is going to get pretty complicated!

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Any thoughts?

I simplify your diatribe down to "meaningless waffle" Does this mean I'm a genius?

The fact that you claim to have "simplified" my post down to "meaningless waffle" and then proceeded to ask whether or not it means you are a genius, should furnish you with the answer to that very question.

I agree, the idea is very simple, yet it seems the application is where we fall down. If I might ask you a question. What country do you live in?

England.

Why?

[genkaus]

---

The title of this thread, ‘I am Christ’, although sounding like the rant of a deluded mind, is in fact, a profound notion. A notion that has the power to end wars, famine, inequality and the manipulation, which has been the cornerstone of both religion and politics. This philosophy, which I have termed‘I am Christ’, is not of my own contrivance, but dates back to a time before the alleged advent of Christ himself. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato propagated this ancient idea, along with more modern scholars like, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Carl Gustav Jung, Wilhelm Reich, Albert Einstein and the late professor of mythology at Princeton University, Joseph Campbell, to name just a few.

Although it is an exceptionally useful way of thinking, it is frightening to those malign shepherds who have been at the helm of the sinking ship of humanity, since time immemorial. As a result of the threat posed by this idea, the heads of both religion and politics have released a virus into the minds of the many. In so doing, they have ensured that this philosophy is denied the opportunity to take root amongst the masses. This virus has continued to ensure our masters' ill-gotten power over us. We have given this virus the harmless and innocent name,‘belief.’ Yet, it is far from harmless and has been the favored tool of the malevolent in fomenting disorder and chaos amongst an otherwise intelligent species. Should we be freed from this cognitive prison, the balance of power between the masses and the elites would shift, toppling the naked emperors that have subjugated humanity since the deliberate spread of this mental and emotional plague.

I was wondering how I could best explain the ‘I Am Christ’ philosophy in words that could adequately convey its meaning. Einstein once said that any fool can make something more complicated, but it takes a genius to simplify something, or words to that effect, and so I guess this is going to get pretty complicated!

As I mentioned above, the ‘I Am Christ’ philosophy is not solely my own idea, or philosophy, but for the title, and I understand that the title can be slightly misleading, so allow me to clear up that issue first.

I Am Christ: Title

The title is meant to be read! It is not, ‘I, Michael Sherlock, Am Christ,’ but ‘You, the reader, are Christ.’
So why didn’t I just call it ‘You are Christ’? The reason is that when you read ‘you,’ the emphasis is initially directed away from the reader at a subconscious/unconscious level. The unconscious mind interprets information in a different manner than the conscious mind, so when a person reads, ‘I Am Christ,’ the voice inside the readers head is saying that exact phrase to themself, which is where the message is intended to go. I think the tile describes the philosophy better than a long winded explanation, but here goes anyway.
The reason I have used the title, ‘Christ’ is that I am speaking to a predominantly western audience, who are either Christian, or have grown up around the symbols of that religion, the word ‘Christ,’ being one of the more powerful ones.
Another reason I have titled the thread this way, is that it also happens to be the title of a 3 volume series I have written. The series has been designed to illustrate the tenuous and erroneous nature of belief, by using Christianity as a kind of whipping boy, so to speak. I chose Christianity due to the fact that it is an easy target and illustrates quite clearly, the potential chasm which exists between a given belief and the truth is claims to be built upon.
Essentially, the name Christ, in the title, could be replaced with any hero’s name! I am Gandhi! I am Socrates! I am Hercules! I am Mohammed! I am Buddha! I am Homer Simpson!

What the ‘I Am Christ’ Philosophy is not!

First allow me to reiterate a point which I have found many people (especially Christians) cannot seem to get past. I am not calling myself Jesus Christ, nor do I think that I am special, enlightened, endowed with super-powers, or even highly intelligent. I am simply a person, or so I have been told!

This philosophy is not an attempt to create yet another “New Age” religion in which dumb dumbs are told to sit down shut up and listen to the “Great Guru!” It is not a form of Gnosticism and it is not a philosophy, in the strictest sense of the word. There are no T-Shirts, beads, incense sticks, no army of converters, nor are there bands of colourfully adorned shaven headed hippies chanting in airports. It is not a movement, fashion, trend, organization, religion, institution, it is not post-modernism gone astray, as many Christians have accused it of being, and it is not “The Answer!” As far as I have been told, “The Answer” is 42, but I am still checking that out!

The ‘I Am Christ’ Philosophy

The idea/philosophy is focussed on getting people to shed, destroy, see past, re-assess and grow past their subjective beliefs, as much as possible! It is about increasing the “individual’s” independence of thought as much as possible and exploring the limits of that possibility. The ‘I Am Christ’ idea, takes into account that humans are social beings and are therefore naturally dependant on one another to some degree, but the ‘I Am Christ’ idea, asks; to what degree is this dependency healthy for both the individual and the society and do both history and current affairs present us with any evidence to show that such dependency is causing our downfall as a species, who seem to be heading into a new ‘dark age,’ or ‘Idiocracy,’ if we ever in fact emerged from the first one.

It is about fostering both a cognitive and behavioural humility amongst an otherwise egocentric and overconfident species, whose confidence has been predominantly rooted in misguided beliefs and perceptions that have been reinforced by various psychological strategies employed to protect the house in which these beliefs reside, the ego.

It is about attempting to address and reconcile the various aspects of our own consciousness (individuation) which have been divided and pitted against one another, causing the proliferation of internal and external conflict and the dominance of the ego-self over the “true-self,” for lack of a better word.

It is about maturing beyond lame and impotent “hero worship,” and becoming the hero, the saviour, the teacher and the student, all at one time and giving up childish things, like religious faith, political ideologies and scientific and academic dogmas.

It is about putting an end to the emotional manipulation achieved by the belief, which, in the hands of various belief peddlers, has fostered inequality, poverty, war, yadda, yadda, yadda and which has underscored each person’s relationship with societal institutions since recorded history and probably even longer. Hopefully by cutting off this root, (the emotionally manipulated belief) in each and every individual, we would effectively cut the strings by which our religious, philosophical, academic and political leaders have made us dance and in so doing, learn to walk for and by ourselves, for the first time.

Any thoughts?']

---

You should stop telling us what it does and what it is not and start with what it is. Most of your post is about what your philosophy is not and what it is supposed to accomplish - but nothing about its contents. What does this pet philosophy has to say about metaphysics or epistemology or ethics? Stop trying to sell it without telling what it is.