|
|
Post by sunkissed on Sept 11, 2009 16:16:04 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Sept 11, 2009 20:45:09 GMT 7
(It's a 'spiritual' blog, so Boelsen beware! haha)  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cygnet on Sept 12, 2009 15:11:18 GMT 7
I'm interested to see what comes up on this blog, the nature of his beliefs has always presented itself rather elusively, so itll be good to get some insight. The media spin is interesting too. Its funny that a lot of people didnt seem to realise he was spiritual til now and theres some weird backlash all of a sudden... again.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Sept 12, 2009 23:08:51 GMT 7
Well AFAIK he's only been super-spiritual since... say... 2002?
The problem is, it's a very scattered, "make it up as you go" kind of thing. What on earth is a 'vibration' meant to be, anyway?
I've watched a few videos on the Source family that Sky Saxon was in, and well, it bothers me because the teaching there is that everyone is a god or has the potential to be one - wait, what?
And Billy was involved with this guy?
I hope to God (the one that I believe in, singular, non-trinitarian) that the upcoming SP music isn't overly infected with this wishy-washy "spirituality", because I'm pretty sure I won't be able to listen to it if it is.
To start with, from the looks of the latest post, pretty sure he's confusing spirit and soul (or combining them as one thing) - he's... ok, lets do this:
Billy:
Ezekiel 18:4 NIV
Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV
(Emphasis mine)
Swap in the word "spirit" into BC's sentence and it's accurate. But he can't even get that right? And then I bet all the freaks on the oboard are lining up to spiritually fellate the guy as if he's the world's latest prophet or something.
Makes me wonder what Billy's basing his beliefs on, if he's read the Bible at all or if he's just spouting new-age crap he's picked up along the way under the vague umbrella of pseudo-christianity. He seems to be talking about God/Christ on his Twitter - but then he pulls out this hippie bs.
It's just a very mixed set of beliefs, it's kind of like saying "I believe the sky is blue, the grass is green, and there are puppy dogs flying in formation overhead". Some of what he's saying seems to be grounded in conventional wisdom, and then he throws the puppy dog beliefs in there, and it's sort of like... um... ok, Billy. Whatever you say.
If one professes to be Christian, then surely one should base one's beliefs in the Bible, just as those who follow Islam base theirs in the Quran, and the Scientologists base theirs on Battlefield Earth and the backs of cereal boxes?
It makes me uncomfortable. As a self-professing Christian, some of what comes out of his fingers is truly cringeworthy. I honestly would rather he be atheist. I also don't know if the Source cult are trying to adopt him as their new posterboy as Sky was before him, and Yod before him... but if they are, then I don't know if I can buy future SP releases and still feel good about where my money's going. Even just the fact that I'm able to connect those dots (and I don't think it's a long bow to draw at all) gives me the heebie-jeebies.
|
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Sept 13, 2009 9:06:59 GMT 7
surely if someone like me who despises any form of religion can listen to billy's music, someone who is willing to believe that there is a god out there must be able to acceopt other peoples beliefs aswell and listen to billys music?
|
|
|
|
Post by sunkissed on Sept 13, 2009 14:18:50 GMT 7
Hahaha, I've had to rewrite this a few times, as every time I tried to explain what I understand Billy and Jimmy to be referring to when talking about vibrations I ended up sounding like a dickhead. But here goes...
Have you ever watched/listened to any Bill Hicks stand up comedy? If you have, then do you remember the part where he does the LSD Nightly News wrap up skit? Something along the lines of, "Today a young man on acid realised that all matter was merely just energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.”
I'm using the Hicks example here to just ground the vibration thing in some nice pop culture context, rather than some abstract debate.
I gather that the idea is that the substance of the universe; the building blocks from which all that exists can exist is vibrating at different frequencies/speeds/states and that according to the state of vibration that something is in determines how it appears. Take for example the difference between solids and liquids; the faster something is vibrating the more solid it appears/is. The idea is that all the exists is in some state relative to the speed/frequency at which it is vibrating...
So, from that some people assume that there must be something special about this universe which appears in a state of constant "becoming", drawing the conclusion that the state at which something is vibrating determines how it manifests/appears (it determines its form) and they then draw the further conclusion that EVERYTHING is the manifestation of some level of the particular composite parts of the universe relative to the particular object that is being described, vibrating at differing rates.
Where some go from there is where it gets weird (or weirder, huh Boelsen?)
Personally I can kinda run this line of thought and think, yeah ok, I've seen rudimentary examples of how atoms work and all that, and how they are spinning around/vibrating all crazy like (the composite parts of an atom that is) and I understand that this is how things appear as degrees of substance (solid, liquid, gas etc) but I don't get how from that one can assume that this has a special significance, or implication for...humans.
The fact that there is no possible way to conceive of "nothing" or "nothingness" stems from the fact that in order for "something" to have come into existence it necessitates that there was a space/potential for something to come into existence, and that in turn assumes that ad-infinitum there was always "something" a space/potential for "something" to emerge. This very problem, whether it be explained via the Big Bang, or God... or otherwise, is still confronted by the problem that at some point, the very origins of the universe cannot be explained because you hit an infinite regress. For example, if we explain the origins of the Universe as the Big Bang, then what was present before the Big Bang in order for the Big Bang to occur, and so on and so on. In a theological context, the question arises, (to be clear, one already assumes that God does exist in this hypothesis) Has God always existed? Was there something before God? If there was then there must have been the conditions from which God could be created, or God could "emerge". And because the theologians can't handle this, because this would strip God of any power, they then say that God always existed...which as I've hopefully demonstrated, does not explain or provide proof for God's existance, it merely takes God as an apriori assumption which all of the consequent beliefs are founded upon.
So from this idea, one which all theologies have dealt with in their attempt to ground their faiths in either an immanent or transcendent God(s) the problem emerges: If God has always existed, then is that God one which has control of what is/has been created, or is God the Prime Mover, and then are we all manifestations of God in control of creation.
When I say in control of creation, I mean that if we are all "vibrations" of God, that is to say, manifestations of God, then what responsibility and what faculties do we have?
From what I've read from Corgan or heard in interviews I get the impression (just re watched the TFE documentary thing) he thinks that when he says we are God he means that we are a part of that "unified vibration" (the fundamental components of the universe) and that nothing can be separated from that which it emerged from. In regards to being "creators" I assume he means that we can "create" and that in creating something we are "like" God.
Jeez.
As for Sky Saxon and the Source family, i have no problem with a bunch of hippies trying to create an alternative way of life which is founded upon eastern theology. I don't see what is upsetting about that. Yeah it looks weird when Saxon is doing his weird chanting/meditation and they look like freaks in their gowns and beards and all that, but it doesn't seem any stranger to me than looking at a priest pouring wine into someones mouth or some Muslim bowing down on carpet.
As for Corgan's references to Jesus Christ or Mary and so on, I have always understood that as a reference to the archetypes of Jesus and Mary, not historical people, but rather something like using them as images of strength, inspiration etc. He has spoken about Buddha and others, I get the impression that he appreciates the unique expressions people have about God. I point to Islam as an example of a faith which takes into account the beliefs of others (such as Christianity and Judaism) and says, yep, we understand what you were on about, you got it mostly right, except JC (jesus christ hahaha) was not the son of God, he was a prophet, K? cool.)
People are strange, but they are all expressing some idea of how they see themselves in light of a greater mystery.
Brendo, your argument presupposes that in order to have a justified true belief in God one must have a concrete set of beliefs which determine how one expresses that belief. I just (don't) understand why you think this way.
And also, I find it terribly reductive and a little embarrassing on your behalf when you try and take things that Corgan or others have said and try to show its disparity with some Christian writings. What on earth were you thinking? "See everyone! Billy doesn't know what he's talking about because he wrote Spirit when he should have written Soul, I mean come on! How obvious is that, what an idiot, it's like he is using a word that the faith I prescribe to uses, but in a different way, it's crazy talk! Because isn't it obvious that my faith determines how these words are used?"
Seriously, it's wacky man. And also, you are aware where the word atheism was first used right?
MMhmm, it was used to describe Christians. Yep. Because the Jews didn't believe in the Trinity and felt that the Christians had made a big mistake.
So, if you would rather be atheist in light of what Billy is saying, then wait no longer because to this day you still are in some peoples eyes.
***These are not my views on Religion nor whether Religions are valid or anything like that. Also, I must note that this is a monotheistic interpretation of divinity, because I am responding to Brendo and his claims for Christianity. This is just my impression of New Age spirituality, and how it might be at work in what Corgan is saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Sept 13, 2009 15:40:05 GMT 7
Michael, you're awesome, but I can hardly ever be fucked reading your whole mamoth replies  Brendo, your argument presupposes that in order to have a justified true belief in God one must have a concrete set of beliefs which determine how one expresses that belief. I just (don't) understand why you think this way. i completely agree with this. "is it wrong to say there's God and there's faith is it wrong to say so? " |
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Sept 13, 2009 19:22:33 GMT 7
i just don't think picking and choosing the bits you like out of every religion available is... correct is the wrong word, but you get what i mean. some people, bc included, seem to treat spirituality as a freaking buffet line. for example, picking only the bits you want to out of the bible, picking bits you want out of buddhism, picking bits you want out of freaking dianetics? frankensteining together a religion of your own? at some point, you need to go through and make sure that your many parallel belief systems don't contradict each other. i mean, the basics are the same all around - don't kill people, don't steal, don't be immoral, worship whatever deity or deities that are providing the things to you that you aren't killing or stealing. but then judaism and christianity have the 'God' thing pretty much spelled out: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1), "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) etc. there's a clear framework within christianity that says "hey, idiots, single God. yeah, that's right, just one of 'em. and he created EVERYTHING. yup." - and so the whole 'man can be equal to a god' idea reeks of Crowley more than anything else, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" (AL I:40) and "Love is the law, love under will" (AL I:57). billys current ramblings just seem like Crowley with a christian skin thrown on top. which bothers me. "We begin with the idea that there is a God... The idea of a higher collective intelligence or consistent organizing principle should be worth contemplating no matter what you believe in (or don’t believe in). For who is God if not Us?" to address your last point there, i don't believe in the trinity either, note i said nontrinitarian - so the roman church *did* make a mistake, in my eyes. where do i stand on the atheism scale now? i'm not quite at islam's view of Christ (i.e. I do believe that he is the Son of God), but I also don't believe he is God or part thereof. surely if someone like me who despises any form of religion can listen to billy's music, someone who is willing to believe that there is a god out there must be able to acceopt other peoples beliefs aswell and listen to billys music? i also find it hard to listen to slayer sometimes, because of the satanic references in their music. is that such a bad thing to feel? if something i'm listening to doesn't agree with what i believe, i should continue to listen, out of some misplaced 'duty' that has been thrust upon me because i enjoy the artist's previous work? |
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Sept 13, 2009 20:03:17 GMT 7
i can agree with lyrics, but you were just commenting on if the source cult was trying to adopt him, then you'd ahve to rethink buying their music.
but slayer are big time poop.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendo on Sept 13, 2009 23:34:33 GMT 7
well yeah, i would. if i knew that most definitely the money was going to the source cult, i'd have to strongly reconsider my stance on actually buying SP's music.
however until the point where billy renames sp the Yahowa Pumpkins 13, that's a moot point.
|
|
