It’s not professional, and it’s definately not for a wide audience – it’s just a honest simple blogcast. I’d like to start doing interviews with people in the community at some point, that is, the Bear community or homo’s that don’t associate themselves with that homogenized camp effeminate will and grace culture.

As for the website – mate if I were more of a geek, i’d do it for you… Surely we can find a LOTU geek that could knock up something like that? I’ll put my hand up to do things like ads and musical stuff (i try to do music production in my free time)

What’s the URL of your podcast?

Give me a cool church to go to and I’d go.

A website would be better, with forums and DIGG style news on pertinent issues, opinions, interviews, podcasts etc

a home away from home

Like G’day world except targeted directly at LOTU

Am willing to offer free time to it : ) whatever I can do

P.S.
I know that your straight and you probably wouldn’t like my blog or podcast, but I’m getting better at doing the podcasts (I think – I’m not the smartest bloke in the room – at least, no one has said that it’s absolutely shit anyway) so I might have something to offer.

I quit facebook a few weeks ago because it was too damn annoying. But I’ll sign up again…

I have to say I am very pleased to see you open up to the different ways people feel they fit into this world. That perhaps our strong individualistic way of living is not for everyone, and that many need to identify with something larger than them selves.

I also wanted to say something about whether LOTU needs to be a “religion” or “church”. There are advantages, such as tax ones which certainly can assist the process. But the belief many people seek does not neccessarily need to be religion. For example, the Environmental movement displays all the hall marks of religion. People take what is given by the institutional authorities as truth and without question, there are ceremonies and “Holly Days”, people who do not believe are not listened to, and can be considered heretics or even worse, evil. There is psychological reward for practicing environmentalism and a desire to enlist others to the belief system.

The point i am trying to make is that all people are meme machines, and for many of these meme machines there is a section of their brain that needs to have meme programs running that are specifically around belief. These programs do not have to be religion, but they do have to have all the same factors of religion.

“taking seriously” isn’t necessarily the same as “believing in”… Joseph Campbell doesn’t dismiss the utility of mythology for us “primitive” people, to inspire acts of creativity or compassion, or to build foundations of a complex relating with each other, to mark the passing of major life events with acknowledgement of our solidarity with a broader millieu than a community of academics and scientismic enthusiasts. a varied and adaptable inner life requires something bigger than our small egoic selves to measure responses to some of the strange phenomena that come our way, which for many people aren’t as simple as a cup of coffee and a new gadget. you can talk about principles of ‘uncertainty’ approved by the mainstream scientific establishment, and up to a point this covers the big picture, even substitute the *word* “Strings” for “God, Allah, Shiva, Brahman, Tao, Yahweh, etc.” to be a bit different from the rest, just as scientific materialism covers some part of reality represented by various religions, as most do not deny outright that *at some level*, matter exists. yet denying credence to the subtle realms of emotion, creativity, love, empathy, and further still, dreamforms, hypnogogic visionary occurances, subjective *feelings* of connection to powers and forces larger than the small egoic self, is not so easy for “Science” and “Critical Thinking”. seems you are to pray to an Anglocentric Deity of Theory formed by words and starkly delineated images, instead of the intricately detailed and humane, drawn and modelled *representations* of inner states and mysterious transhumanistic forces many of which science is a far cry from recognising as existent, let alone adequately describing, as the deeply loved Theistic constructions of just about every non-Anglo culture on this earth, and from all the history of just about all the people who ever were.

this is to be a religion of criticism – a denial of religious forms, ironically in the form of religion. the proposal is to do away with the 84,000 books of canonical Buddhist *Science*, and the Taoist *Sciences* of longevity and health in the disciplines of TaiChi, QiGong, GongFu, FengShui. and of the Hindu *Science* of Yoga in its many forms of Raja, Bhakti, Karma, Jnana, the last a form of which you personally subscribe to as a proponant of neo-Advaita on this very network, having spent time talking with Bob Adamson, who learned his trade from Nisargadatta Maharaj, who in turn says “Give up trying to evaluate the real I or the counterfeit I, but associate the I with the Brahman, I am the Brahman.” (Consciousness and the Absolute, p.92) which, for the less informed, is the Hindu naming of the formless Divinity of everything without exception. true, it is “not two, and nor is it one, for it has nothing against which to measure its solitary divinity”, and yet is a god, though without the form characteristic of the Western gods favoured by the reactionary atheist movement. that the Advaitin Divine is so closely akin to the Spinozan Absolute will doubtless be glossed over, and that Spinoza developed his ideas after exposure to the deeply religious cultures of the East is doubtless an “unscientific” facet of the basis of this new religion, and thus should be omitted along with the other aspects of the not-quite-Theism this new ‘religion’ is built upon. as Bob Adamson names this “unnameable” quality “Presence-Awareness”, are we to assume that because he has discarded the nomenclature of his teacher in these matters, that he has disavowed the foundation upon which the edifice of his intellectual formulations are based? even the Zenists have a name for it, although “that which shall remain nameless” being too negative and close to a Nihilist conception of existence, phrasing it “Buddha-mind” or “Self-shining emptiness” often suffices. still, there are in the traditions of Advaita, Zen and Taoism many indications that the ultimate knowable is not a knowing by name, and the knowing by living it is conveniently put into word form anyway. because people need a name for that which they have always experienced as their meaning of life, and the most true way of feeling that they have ever experienced. and “Strings” is as good as any of their names IMHO, as is “Uncertainty”, a mighty fine one. yet, if we are to be strictly “scientific”, even in the mainstream Secular Western sense of the word, are we to ignore the effect of the observer in all this, and deny simultaneously the postmodern slant which science has recently adopted as it increasingly recognises the legitimate place of Subjectivism? so, since *your* subjective viewpoint that the gods do not exist, nor any “non-scientismic” attributes of reality, then surely the subjective viewpoints of other people who believe the contrary are equally valid. or, is this a selective Religion of “That part of Science Chosen to Support our Dogmatic A-Theism”, although globally by numbers still, and this measured by the scientific faculties operated by each human being – ~95% of present humanity and more like 99.9% of humans throughout the ages – whose conclusions refute your own. but this is “bad science” i suppose. and we can make it go away by saying the words loud enough, that “it doesn’t exist”, and that everyone who opposes our new Deity of Reason is less than human – they are to a very last one “Primitive”. and therefore, it doesn’t, to you. but maybe, despite you advocating that people join your Religion, with the potential outcome of destroying cultures based upon a knowing of mysterious events concerning the human system as it relates to the environment for which “Science” has no names, and may be of some future utilty to even the Atheist scientismic community, just as it is of immeasurable consolation in times of grief, tradgedy, birth, growth, kinship ceremonies, describing more effectively than any modern psychology life stage markings, orientation to living conditions in areas not analysed by science for the purposes of which the deities of elements, climatic conditions, the behaviour patterns of plant and animal species have developed… maybe, an A-Theism is not as practical for people not already as reliant as you are on a state dissociated from the mythology of a tribe, of a natural environment, and not as disconnected from their roots as are not a few scienticians, locked away in ivory towers far from a need to orient themselves to a crisis of weather in their air-conditioned laboratories and studies, and numbed by information coming in at such a rapid rate through their eyes via a computer screen, that they need not respond with their whole selves physically to the conditions of life, and dance the evil spirits away, because they have modern pharmaceuticals for that, and instead of praying to a deity for grace or freedom from suffering, they pray for an answer to a question, and the answer is as limited as the question, just as those who ask the world for riches will become rich, as those who offer respect to a “super-worldly” power have the chance for riches beyond the ken of one content with the very “facted-up” life comprised entirely of matter, some very elementary subtle attributes of existence such as rudimentary emoting and intellectual theorising. see, the gods live in the world of vision, and we just might need the boons of the world of vision, which is also the realm of creativity and new ideas, to prevent the deterioration implied in a certainty about a given set of theories, which gradually as people cease believing in, and being devoted to, their gods, will tend towards a state of entropy and dissolution of all that is most vital, leaving an army of grey “thinkers”, speculating about powerful modes of *feeling* the world denied to them because they do not believe enough to risk an *experience* of divinity, just as their followers will suffer likewise from the dearth of numinosity brought about by a closed system of *Non-Belief*, which of course is really belief in mainstream science, clothed in a reactive terminology.

“Science is not Absolute” you say. and this is a Religion of Science. well, what then of the blanket denial, an *Absolute* denial of any and all gods, with no proof of their non-existence aside from your own faith – since that is the meaning of A-Theism, being not just a counter-argument to Christianity, but a clear statement that “There exist absolutely no gods”. So we are looking at the prospect of accepting on faith your word (sorry, “your approved brand of science”) as an *objective* reality, while the subjective feelings, traditions, ways of life and ritual practices, are “championed” by you, who “will defend your right” to argue for what you, Cameron, are arguing to convince people is absolutely wrong…?

i feel some deja vu coming on – stop me if i get all radical on your good self, but there have been some notable others throughout the century just passed who also believed they would promote the “truth” to the “primitives”… and failing that, different wings of the assertive, empowered and organised philosophical groups would, on the one hand “defend the freedoms” of speech, and deal with the “problem” in other ways than talking.

i don’t even pretend to “defend to the death your right to say it”. i think your pretty far up your own arse and either shit-stirring a lot of people potentially influenced by the online mouthpiece of your acquistive successes, or you are fighting, like Conrad’s Kurtz, in a jungle of mystery you haven’t even seen a part of, except in your imagination via a casual purusal of some old books by dead white guys and translators, facilitated by a capacity for sporadic creativity fostered by early years of limited human companionship, and exacerbated by a disconnection from the life-giving forces of natural power that being fucked around for a few decades in the harsh terrain of the streets and jungles of the world will teach a person.

in short, getting a life of your own worth surrendering to a higher power requires humanitarian goals somewhat more sweeping than accumulating followers to boost traffic, with a sideline of riding on the coattails of the popularity and general egalitarianism of the Human Rights charter, using it as an article of slogan to gain adherents, not for the people it seeks to protect, for they are discriminated against as “incorrect primitives” by your new “Religion”, but for selfish aims. have some personal experiences that truly test the limits of what your scientism can explain, before you go messing with mass dissemination of half-baked messianic aspirations.

so saying, it is understandable that the power of numbers you’ve acquired lately is being used for this end – who hasn’t considered themselves infallible at some point or another…

perhaps a good start might be to actually HAVE a thelotu website at http://www.lotu.com and some explaination, as well as some sort of unified forum that people can access rather than have to open accounts at a half dozen sites.

I know this is just getting off the ground, but it seems that with 30 something members already on facebook this could go somewhere.

During the Christmas period I did think of a new day to takeover Xmas. I call it ISNESS Day. It´s a celebration of what is.

A day that you don´t consume or buy buy buy, but merely appreciate.

Thou shalt think for thyself

?

I doubt LOTU will have “commandments”. We have no need to tell people what to do with their life. LOTU does accept the UN Human Rights charter though.

As for tackling Islam, etc, I think we tackle the majority of the religious people in the so-called “civilized” countries before we go after the others. If we can get the West to act rationally, perhaps we can inspire the others to sort themselves out? But while we have educated people in the West still running around believing in fairy tales, it makes it hard to tell the rest of the world anything.

Remember that they are essentially mentally retarded people – I know, I know, I have no understanding of the Bible, I´m forced to act childish.
I have tried to read the bible though. Has anyone ever printed a serious version of the Bible, or are they all pisstakes? I don´t see how we can have an open discussion on the Bible untill someone writes the serious version.

When can we start pulling apart Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, Judaism? I´m sharpening my ill informed knives for Krishna and Moses. I wonder if they ever met?

Also Will there be a LOTU Ten Commandments?

Can we just do the opposite of the Biblical Ten Commandments?

Though shall not covet thy neighbours wife
Though shall covet they neighbours wife

Easily changed.

I will however answer your questions.

You say BC Butler “blew Q”. So why do you think the majority of biblical scholars still believe the Q theory?

We don’t know, obviously, who wrote the NT gospels or why they wrote them. That’s all speculation. All we do know is that the majority of scholars agree that whoever they were, they were NOT first-hand witnesses of the events. And let’s remember Mark is the only account which is even partly original, Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark. So we have one person, 2000 years ago, ranting about a magic guy. Big deal. It goes into the same box as all of the other rantings from human pre-history. Our history is replete with mythologies of weird and wonderful stories of god and demons. This one is no different.

The line you quote from Jospehus is, I believe, considered by most scholars to be a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, so it’s doubtful he would have written something like this. Also, early Christian writers don’t mention the paragraph (like the TF), which also detracts from it’s credibility.

Paul is an interesting point. Again, Paul was not a firsthand witness of Jesus. His reasons for doing what he did are speculation also, but go to any mental institution today and you’ll find plenty of people who suffer from hallucinations and who are a danger to themselves and others. It is a common phenomena.

Paul existed though. He wrote letters. Jesus didn’t. Neither did anyone who saw Jesus or spoke to him.

If you want to know what the Jesus Seminar concluded about the NT, I suggest you read their report. It’s called “The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.”.

Who wrote all of the early Jesus stories and why is pure speculation.

The history of the early humanity is full of people believing in crazy stories about gods, demons, and heroes. Just pick up any book by Joseph Campbell. The only difference I can see between the Bible and other ancient mythologies like the iliad and the Odyssey is that the believers of the former managed to get an army behind them in the early 4th century and were homicidal enough to execute everyone who didn’t bow down before them and then carry out a reign of terror for the next fifteen centuries.

Rational people realize these are all just stories told by primitive humans trying to come to terms with the world around them. There is zero evidence that we should take them seriously, any more than we believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Hercules or Apollo.

Steve: what evidence is there that your God, Jesus, and/or the Trinity exist, OTHER than the Bible?

Obviously you regard having to justify your theory as a personal attack. Don’t be so sensitive.

You are actually becoming a parody of the religious authorities you despise “Thou Shalt not challenge my authoraTAH!!!!!!!!’ Though shalt NOT challenge JS!!!!’

Oh well – look – ignore the questions, empty your mind and keep on repeating the Mantra: all Christians are dumb, Christianity is a myth, all Christians are dumb, Christiantiy is a…’

and HAIL!

Cameron !!

High Preist of LOTU!!!!!!!!!!!!