View Full Version : Aristotle Versus The Big Jew in the Sky

Saturday, January 1st, 2005, 09:25 PM
Aristotle’s Prime Mover evokes motion, not some big Jew in the sky. The commonly accepted model of the beginning of our universe, often referred to as the “Big Bang,” suggests that it began between 15 and 18 billion years ago in an infinitely compact and singular state, enclosing a space even smaller than an atomic particle. If Aristotle were alive today, he would say the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, not the tribal war god of ancient Israel.

According to Aristotle the Prime Mover is the Prefect First Cause responsible for moving objects, which, in turn, move other objects: The Prime Mover is always at absolute rest, beyond time and space, motionless and changeless in perfection, omniscient and eternal, everywhere and nowhere.

Aristotle perceived God through motion. To my knowledge, he never claimed he understood or spoke to God. He was no different than the rest of humanity, pathetic creatures trapped in time and space, really, having only intuitive awareness of the Unknowable.

The conquests of Alexander, Aristotle’s pupil, brought Jews on the world stage. They brought with them, in contrast to the Prime Mover, Yahweh, the fiendish god of Jews, a kind of divine superiority soothing to their macerated egos because he chose them as his very own and set them above their betters, and they also brought with them their cunning in peddling their superstitions to cheat the unwary.

In the centuries between Aristotle and Constantine, the horrible Jewish god was to "make folly of the wisdom of this world," thus negating all learning, all culture, and repudiating reason itself. Yahweh and the radicals of an initially obscure Jewish sect promised to envy and malice that the rich and powerful would be tortured in Hell forever and forever, if they did not empty their pockets to the profit of ranting priests. To the dregs of the Empire that was Roman only in name, Christianity was what liquor is to alcoholics.

With Irenaeus the persecution of Gnostics and fierce, ecclesiastical intolerance to any other personal religious beliefs became the driving force of Christianity. Though Marcion (140 ce) sought to dump the Old Testament from Christianity because he felt Yahweh was incompatible with the Loving Father proclaimed by Jesus, he still attributed to Yahweh the status of a lesser, creative god, so there was some credence to Irenaeus’s charge of dualism.

If Marcion were alive today, I suspect he’d call Yahweh a gruesome Jewish fairytale and be done with it, thus avoiding Irenaeus’s complaints. Valentinus, on the other hand speaks of a God who is:

"(Root) of the All, the (Ineffable One who) dwells in the Monad (He dwells alone) in silence . . .since, after all (he was) a Monad, and no one was before him. . .”

A Valentinian Exposition ww.19-23, in NHL 436

Elaine Pagels writes in The Gnostic Gospels that according to a third Valentinian text, the Interpretation of Knowledge, Christ taught that “Your Father, who is in heaven, is one. No dualism in Valentinus. His concept of God was much like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, i.e., a Prefect God who does not play favorites.

If Constantine had not had his vision at Malvian Bridge (312 ce), Mithraism, not Christianity, might well have become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Based on the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract and war, Mithraism was more popular than Christianity at the time. But Christianity prevailed, and it’s no coincidence that the brand of Christianity that the Fathers put over was one which lugged with it the "Old Testament" and identified Yahweh, the big Jew up in the sky, as the Christian god, or that the first concern of the fathers, as soon as they got their hands on governmental power, was to exterminate the Marconists, the Manichaeans, and all the other Christian sects that refused to accept as their god the fiend of the "Old Testament.”

The slaughter went on well into the Middle Ages. In 1209 Pope Innocence III sicced an army of some thirty thousand knights and foot soldiers on the Languedoc—the mountainous northeastern foothills of the Pyrenees in what is now southern France. These Christian soldiers put a whole population to the sword in what became known as Albigensian Crusade. The extermination was so vast and terrible that it may well constitute the first case of “genocide” in modern Europeans history. What awful crime had these peaceful Cathars committed? The heresy of dualism: they believed in a good god of love, and an evil one of the material world.

By the time of the Reformation, Gnostics were either exterminated or driven into hiding. The Protestant Churches, however, proved to be just as intolerant as the Catholic when it came to blind faith as opposed to inner revelation.

An increasing number of "Fundamental Christians" have recently felt the need to defend Christianity by trashing anyone who speaks out in any way against the Bible. What it all boils down to, folks, is not exclusively religious or political augments but who’s in charge, and it’s the same old crowd. You can see them every Sunday morning on one-eyed Jew, screaming “God of Israel!” again and again, till they’re blue in the face.

Sunday, January 2nd, 2005, 12:17 AM
Aristotle perceived God through motion. To my knowledge, he never claimed he understood or spoke to God. Yes, this is sympathetic to Cosmotheist thought.

Here is some information compiled by Dave Cooper.

These are quotes from “Cosmotheism”, chapter 14 of Robert S. Griffin’s The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.
This post is intended only to be a brief synopsis of Pierce’s concept of Cosmotheism.

The Nature of God

What makes pantheism a religion and not simply an insight or philosophy is that this unity that pantheists see is divine—it is sacred. To pantheists, the world isn’t simply a set of interrelated concrete phenomena. There is more—call it God—and this “something more” infuses, permeates, the world. It is part of everything, and everything is part of It. It digitizes the world and makes it holy. When pantheists look at the world, they see God. [188]

Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith. Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic god doesn’t have a personality. It doesn’t have a mind. It doesn’t perceive as does a human being. It doesn’t formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person. Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions. There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life. [189]

Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God. God isn’t up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent. God is here, a part of all this, immanent. [189]

God has a transcendent dimension as well as an immanent one. Some scholars have used the term panentheism (note the “en” in the middle) to distinguish the strand of pantheism that stresses both the immanent and transcendent quality of God. [189]

[There is] a tendency within this tradition to view the being of God as if it were not completely exhausted by the universe. [189]

[b] “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body of which we are all parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve center from which we quiver forever. All this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.” [193] [Pierce quoting D.H. Lawrence.]

Sunday, January 9th, 2005, 11:14 AM
Cosmotheism is the religion which is honest and it will be great if it stays honest too.

Mostly it has a lot in common with the original Aryan Zoroastrian Religion as well as the Upanishads and Aryan Sufi Philosophy(Not jewish Sufi but Vedanta mostly).