mikey mikey wrote:
At least I've earned my pennies :p

i bet it sunk when they rolled her onto it.

batou wrote:

Firstly let me say welcome Anonymous.

Secondly, since the topic has come up, I should point out a few differences between David Icke's "spiritual" beliefs and Christianity (as i understand it from a theological POV and not the various nutty churches around the world).

Icke talks about each individual on a path to enlightenment (higher vibration) and that the power to do so lies with in us, naturatually. This is thwarted by external forces (lower vibration) and one can overcome this through the "law of attraction" which he took from the works of William Walker Atkinson who wrote Thought Vibration and founded the New thought movement.
Check out the list of titles by various authors.

Seem familiar?

This theosophy comes directly from esoteric/occult sources. It teaches that the evil one needs to fight against comes from outside and the salvation from it lies within. Essentially a self-worship.

This is totally contrary to the Christianity that I have studied. Not the flag-worshipping Jesus Camp stuff or the money worshipping Prosperity Theology nor the End of Days death worship that get so much press in the American MSM. I am talking about the theology of people like C.S. Lewis in his works called Mere Chrstianity ot more modern writers like Abbot Christopher Jamison in his works Finding Sanctary.

So how does the Christianity of theologians (as opposed to televangelists) differ from ickes theosophy: simply that it teaches that selflessness is salvation. That the evil that each individual must fight is the evil in one's heart. That does not mean we must not oppose injustice. Only that we should be sure to be doing so for the right reasons,

Mathew 7:3
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Moreover, we are not the source of our own salvation. Nor can we change the world merely by our will alone (as New Thought) suggests, but we must in fact surrender our will to the will of God. The one prayer that is at the heart of Christianity says "Thy will be done". Not "my will be done".

Indeed Christianity (as theologians describe it) demands something pretty high: total sacrifice of the self and the will and the surrender to God, whatever happens. Of course, my wife would tell me that Buddhism also demands the sacrifice of the self in order to achieve peace.

So you may be right to call Ickism a religion, although I think the word cult is more appropriate. However, it bears little relation to Christianity unless you are likening it to something like the Christianity of fundies (Prosperity Theology, Rapturists et.al.) -which DIF is full of btw.

Icke: "Change yourself you change your life..we are the world and the world is us, if we change internally the world will have to change"


This is a use of Hegellian logic by Icke, it posits the mental reality of human's is the basis for the material reality of the earth, Marx inverted this with his Materialist Dialectic in which he said Material reality gave rise to life in which the mental interpretations of material reality occur and constantly evolve and develop, giving rise to Religion, Hegel and then Marx..

The Marxian theory is that by scientifically and logically understanding where we are in the material world we can act to improve, change it, or more accurately encourage it's unfettered development.

That's very old thought Mikey, so do you think the rich and powerful are working against the will of god, or is it part of god's will that people like Jimmy Saville live and die extremely wealthy despite being absolute monsters?

Guevarista wrote:
Did you not see my inclusion of Prosperity Theology as the sort of Christianity I was NOT talking about?

Did you also miss this?

I must say the inclusion of Jimmy the nonce was a nice touch, if you were attempting to flame bait.

mikey mikey wrote:
It's a question about why you're still believing in fairy tales, why do you believe you have evil in your heart, are people born with this evil in their heart?

That's a subversion of human progress that Icke and your religion both share.
Pardon my edits:Nor "good will" be done..it would seem from the last few thousand years there is no good will in christianity, it has been obvious to me since boyhood there is more good in my will than there is in any religion.
.

Guevarista wrote:
I believe it's because it's his choice too. Pretty obvious really.

@anonymous... welcome to the forum

Guevarista wrote:
There is a lot of truth in fairy tales. I imagine that some people have looked at the history of the 20th century and told you that Marxism is a fairy tale. Certainly the idea that human progress is inevitable is looking a tad fanciful.

I expect that you would rather Marxism be judged on its own merits rather than on the misdeeds of Mao Zedong.

And you'd probably be right to do so.
Guevarista wrote:
I am aware that I am not perfect, yes.
Guevarista wrote:
Ahh. Human "progress". How's that working out, eh?

I think we can both see the ideological currents of conservatism in their popularity pretty much preclude any tangible form of progress from taking place.

I would rather Marxism be used as a methodology from which to base a critique of Maoism and Maoist philosophy, rather than western liberal fairy tales being thrown around about both.

It's strange to me that in this day in age people advocate surrendering their will to some ideology.

Not only is the surrendering of the will or ego is common to many forms of mysticism, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, there is also non-religious or natural mysticism. Moreover,according to Kant, a person must act from duty which he views as an act of pure or abject selflessness. One's duty is thus to sacrifice himself to duty.

Selflessness is at the core of living in a community. It is not the loss of self-detrmination. In fact, by removing the tyranny of desires and impulses, one actually becomes more rational and self-autonomous.

BTW, not all marxists are atheists (see below)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Influence_on_others

Guevarista wrote:
Its basically just about human conceptions and creation of paradigm.
We believe that the monetary system is the be all and end all of life on this planet so it remains that way.
Simple as, basically.

It can't be changed by a small group of people, it would literally have to be something that a vast number of people consciously want and believe in before it'll happen.

There's nothing mystical or spiritual or new age bullshit about it tbh.

G'day Anonymous.

Welcome to the forum.

Here's a few threads that may be of interest to you in relationship to DI and the DI f.

The David Icke Timeline - A Work In Progress
www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4252

SHTF for webmaster Sean
www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2964

David Icke Forum Censorship
www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2252

Are David Icke's Claims Of Not Making Money True ?
www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3071

The Pyramid Of Power & David Icke
www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=339

mikey mikey wrote:
G'day Mikey Mikey.

This is a common argument by 'Real Christians TM' ... that others claiming to be christians aren't really christians.

There are over 38,000 denominations of christianity ... which denomination is the 'Real' one ?

Basically, your post is an appeal to/argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy ...

Argument from authority

Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.[1][2][3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
First off he's made a statement not an argument.
Secondly it's merely his own opinion which he did make clear.
Thirdly as this is his own viewpoint of what christianity is about then it's not coming from a position of appealing to authority, if he was then he'd be harping on about the pope and what he says is the final word of God and must be taken as absolute truth and all that etc etc etc.

Hello Mikey Mikey, and first let me say thank you for the friendly and well thought out debate, it is a relief to see someone that disagrees with my concpet put their argument forward in such friendly terms, unlike that other David Icke Forum that subjects you to hostile ridicule and personal abuse should you say something goes against what they believe.

And yes, i am aware David Icke does take a lot of Occult teachings and throws it in the mix too. I get the impression however that he takes a bit of everything and throws it in when it suits him. The Occult teachings just so happen to be the areas in Ickeism that would do away with Jesus leaving the door open for a new Messiah coincidentally enough.

mikey mikey wrote:

Hello Mikey Mikey, and first let me say thank you for the friendly and well thought out debate, it is a relief to see some­one that dis­agrees with my con­cpet put their argu­ment for­ward in such friendly terms, unlike that David Icke Forum that sub­jects you to hos­tile ridicule and per­sonal abuse should you say some­thing goes against what they believe.

And yes, i am aware David Icke does take a lot of Occult teach­ings and throws it in the mix too. I get the impres­sion how­ever that he takes a bit of every­thing and throws it in when it suits him. The Occult teach­ings just so hap­pen to be the areas in Ick­eism that would do away with Jesus leav­ing the door open for a new Mes­siah coin­ci­den­tally enough.

Thank you and I will nedd a few hours to get the reponse you deserve.

I am very happy to wlecome once again, an intelligent poster.

andyh wrote:
G'day Andyh.

The "statement" is a disagreement with what Anonymous posted, which is considered an 'argument' ...

ar·gu·ment (ärgy-mnt)
n.
1.
a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

... by definition.

Mikey Mikey claims his position is from "a theological POV" and at no pint does he state, 'This is my opinion', or 'My opinion is', or any other variations.

Indeed Chris­tian­ity (as the­olo­gians describe it)

... which is clearly evidenced in the above statement.

The viewpoint Mikey Mikey puts forward is from "a theological POV", citing C.S. Lewis and Abbot Christo­pher Jami­son as 'authorities' of such a point of view ...

I am talk­ing about the the­ol­ogy of peo­ple like C.S. Lewis in his works called Mere Chrs­tian­ity ot more mod­ern writ­ers like Abbot Christo­pher Jami­son in his works Find­ing Sanc­tary.

... which is obviously an appeal to authority by citing the above.

This is something that I am familiar with, having read and debated on the Debating Christianity & Religion forum ...

debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php

... in which appeals to authority are a common occurrence from christians that debate on the forum.

reality is just a consensus opinion. whatever gets you through the day