(0945)(0945)
Scholasticism versus Blinkered Bombasticism
The first and foremost criticism of the true empiricist is that he confuses. Just when people are clear about what he believes, he seems to change position on something. He says it’s because of subsequent data and many will see him as unreliable for that. But that is what empiricism is.
The showboating “Voice of Reason” as he calls himself, the god-free morality type, which includes many techie-types, is in fact, arguing everything from an a priori position of no-metaphysical-exists. He ties his hands to his sides after first donning the blinkers. Try telling the empirist that ✝️ian scripture is just flawed write ups by earthy men of the various times and the empiricist will agree … artifacts and documents are just that … they are what they are. Recorded by humans either divinely inspired or apocryphal. Going way back.
Well why believe in a Sky Fairy then, charges the “Voice of Reason”? The reply is that so many of those documents tie in with the gospels … sufficient for noted scholars throughout history to be almost convinced but still short of faith. It’s that “buying of the ticket”, genuinely, which then changes the picture. There’ve been a few people praying that I recover somewhat. The Voice of Reason says what utter tosh … it’s just a good, non-vaxxed metabolism and good old time.
Therefore there are two “camps”, are there not? Of late, I’ve been exploring the old scriptures, plus things like the Babylonian Talmud, Kabbalah, Weishaupt etc. … which brings me to the next point … the empiricist or scholar must cast widely. Regulars here for years know about the Holcombe Syndrome, where Perry Mason asks the sergeant what he does when he finds anomalies not fitting the general pattern of evidence. Holcombe says … you ignore them. (Or shelve them).
I saw a youtube asking what was Jesus of Nazareth banging on about throughout the gospels … what was He most against? It was firstly hypocrisy:
The second thing was the very approach of the Pharisees:
The written law was essentially the Torah, the oral became many things, inc. the Babylonian Talmud … this was human intervention by a priestly class. Guess which dominates today, esp. in Kabbalah and with the Sabbateans?
What was wrong with the Babylonian influence? It inverted, it turned the law on its head, it turned the Keepers of the Law into pedantic fanatics, living the life of Riley yet ruling like communist politburos over the downtrodden serfs.
They had and have usurped the original purpose of the Torah. Naturally, someone such as a Jesus threatened them, not unlike how a Danny Tommo now seems to have done here, unless the whole thing is theatre.
But thirdly, refining those two points before just a little more … it creates a divide between the “externalised” semi-faithful or lip-service faithful … and those who’ve internalised it into a relationship with their Maker. The latter are usually far quieter about it, while the former are about loud, public professions of faith, wearing big crosses, much chanting, gobbledegook and incense swinging, dressed in the regalia, much into the pomp and circumstance, addicted to High Ritual … and that’s before even looking at the “graven images”, from statues to paintings to frescoes.
And some of those are wild. A statue of Mary at the entrance to a church building, with no corresponding reference to a Christ? The “faithful” can see nothing untoward in that … not understanding in the least the connection with the pagan “sacred feminin”, of Lilit infamy. As for the sun god behind the cross in RC churches, esp. in the Vatican … say no more.
There’s nothing biblical in any of that. As for a third temple on the site of Fort Antonia … why? When the more likely site is a short distance away, where there actually had been a spring. Strategic misdirection. For metaphysical reasons.
Is the empiricist essentially anti Jewish? Not at all. Anti Babylonian? Yes … because so much bad over the millennia has arisen from its inversions. And so it goes ……..
