The overall theme of the following essay has been

central to my thinking through of religion for some time

now: religion without religion. Central to this project are

‘questions’, and questions concerning questions. Its key

questions are: what knowledge do we gain through

religion? And: what knowledge does religion prevent us

from gaining? Is god knowable outside of religion? Of

ultimate concern is the question of a religious focus in

the here and now; this world rather than a heaven or

nirvana or a 'goal' or 'reward'. But in the main I am

trying to stay fixed on one ‘central’ idea which is: not

doing or not acting. It is not an acceptance of what is

‘now’ exactly but it is definitely not a rejection of

anything as that which needs to be thrown away, judged,

changed, fought against, etc., and the implications of

aggression that attend the desire for change.

But why the appeal to christianity? Can’t we love and

forgive and share without Christ? j.j. altizer has said,

"the message the christian is now called to proclaim is

the gospel, the good news of the death of god. few

christians have been able to embrace the death of god as

a redemptive event." I argue however that it is not a

death of god that is the issue, but rather; god’s

renunciation of power, which if one conceives of god as

‘all-powerful’, can certainly be perceived to be god’s

death. Because the nature of god has changed, or rather:

the nature of how we perceive god must change. And it

is only a powerless god that can save man, by saving

man through man rather than the impossibility of saving

man through god. One could ask, “Why worship a god

that has no power?” The response to such a question is

another question: why worship a god that is all-

powerful? Because what is at stake here is the ego’s

assumption to power through identification with the

ultimate power. It is not a letting go. It is not an

evolution. It is merely another game of grasping.

Is the message of the gospel that god, for whom all

things are possible as all power rests there with god,

renounces this power to control? Is the message that

your god is not power and violence and law and

compulsion but rather; that your god that you worship

and hold in your heart is intentional powerlessness? God

has more than potential power. God is potency and he

relinquishes it and transforms into absolute acceptance

of suffering, of pain; and he forgives and calls his

children to do the same. Christ says, let he who has

power renounce it and then they shall enter the kingdom

of heaven
Vaneigem says in his critique of criticism that god has

killed his son- and immediately i began thinking about

the dying savior god motif in myth- its not the son- its

god- this is something i have 'overlooked' forgotten- god

did not kill his son- god killed himself- or rather god let

us kill him- jesus is not 'god's son'- jesus is god come in

the flesh in human form- 'the son of god' is a inexact

way to articulate the divine in the flesh- but the trinity

idea of the greeks says- father- son- holy spirit- these

three are one- god is son son is god god is spirit spirit is

son- its the same- there is no difference- god incarnated

and died- this is the tope of these myths- not god had a

son and sacrificed that son- and he cries out on the

cross- why have i forsaken myself- god asks himself:

why did i allow myself to be destroyed? why did i

abandon myself to the violence of these humans? why

did i give up my power to go through this experience of

torture and death? this is the fun of theology- i think god

dying rather than gods son dying- gets overrrun by the

hebrew sacrifice of the son idea from the story of

abraham- such a powerful and confusing myth from the

old testament-

christianity and psychiatry- affinities-

the message of jesus was love, forgiveness- love our

enemies, don't judge, turn the other cheek, non violence,

etc., certainly foreign ideals to the so called 'christian'

world- jesus was a bad dude, a heretic a rebel, a lover

not a fighter- dangerous to the man in charge- he was

killed- probably as a political terrorist or something-

saramago calls him: the world’s most famous criminal-

the message of his teachings spread across the

mediteranean- very quickly- within 20 years of his death

there were communities throughout greece, rome,

lebanon, syria- all trying to put into practice a

communal lifestyle- again, dangerous, throw them to the

lion, they are not participating in the officially

sanctioned marketplace lifestyle- soon the movement

was too big- there was only one choice- the goverment

was in jeopardy- this was emperor constantine's lot-

constantine- the real creator of 'christianity'? so he calls

together the counsel of nicea and orders under threat of

death the christians to give him a working doctrine that

will be propagated among the masses- becoming the

official state religion- none of that shit about peace and

love and sharing- its a set of beliefs i want- everyone

will believe the same thing- so we get 'christianity'- the

nicene creed- almost every church today baptist,

evangelical, luthern, whatever- it goes right back to the

nicene creed- not the sayings of christ- not the bible,

pauls letter, etc.,- the nicene creed has 3 key beliefs

almost universal to all christians- 1.- man is a sinner- by

nature- a man is born fucked up and evil and depraved-

so political tool #1: citizens with low self esteem- no

one believes in themselves- self worth- no- you're a

degenerate- continuing- point 2.- jesus died as a

sacrifice for your faults- political tool #2- the guilt of the

masses- blood is on your hands you worthless loser- and

3. jesus was resurrected to save you- perpetual and

burdening gratitude to your maker that no act can

possibly repay- always a loser- always falling short- so a

christian is a believer and what he essentially believes is

his own stupidity and worthlessness- but on the surface

he believes in the crucifixion and the resurrection- so

what happened to the teachings of jesus? poof! a magic

act worthy of an emperor- jesus has vanished- one

neednt love or forgive one only needs to believe in the

resurrection- so on to psychiatry- the psychatrists have

now become the master illusionists worthy of the early

church bishops praise- pay no attention to that man

behind the curtain- okay- it goes like this- in every way

similar to the counsel of nicea- 1. man is sick- mentally

ill, depressed, what have you- of course we are talking

about the field of medicine though- arent we- wait- is

psychiatry 'medicine'? if i have AIDS my immune

system is compromised and i can die- ADD will not get

worse and worse until i have such a short attention span

that i will just drop dead- if i have obsessive compulsive

disorder i fill out a multiple choice questionairre- do i

fill out a multiple choice questionaire if i have

leukemia? so- made up diseases- we have to 'believe' we

are 'sick' with these fake disease- a continuation of sin-

man is pathological- number two: salvation on the cross-

the eucharist- the body of christ- the pill- salvation

comes in the form of the pill- the new body of christ to

save you from your sin- 3- resurrection- the new life

begins- a new birth- born again- and the fake sickness

and the fake treatments- being chemical toxins- will

only reinforce that you are sick- because the drugs will

give you real symptoms- making you feel like shit-

gratitude to the good doctors

freud titled a book 'the pathology of everyday life'- and

he wasnt joking! why not just call it 'the illness of

perception'- we are all fucked- was he trying to

ingratiate himself on europe by creating an

indispensable profession?- convincing us we were all

sick with a mysterious and invisible disease or diseases

that only he was capable of diagnosing- does it continue

the judeo christian paradigm of sin- sans god- and where

does the notion of the martyr come from- is that purely

christian- its hard to find anything like that in judaism-

christ's passion and suffering were not his- a greek after

thought- the greek gods suffer and we suffer with them

but not distinctly without them- suffering to connect to

god is neither greek nor hebrew but born of the union of

the two- again a unique and disturbing phenomenon of

the coming together of the two strands of religion-

campbell and robbins both talked about this disturbing

split in western consciousness which they both saw as

arising directly from christianity- its a sort of

celebratory/ carnivalesque/nature/mother cult overlayed

with the jewish patriarchal god of the law- so we end up

with catholicism- this baroque pantheon of saints

appropriated from martyrs and early pre christian

european myths- and the mother worship in the form of

the virgin mary and the resurrected god jesus continuing

the greek mysteries of dionysis, eluesis, orpheus, etc., -

so we have a pantheistic and ecstatic, orgiastic and

polytheist european conception of the world and divine

and salvation and an abrupt and aggressive cut into that

with a semitic cults coming to predominance with the

ruling elites and the forced conversions and propagation

of the faith of a single god- that is mythic gods and a

'real' god vying in the consciousness and two distinct

forms of religiousity at play- liberation and law-

transcendence and obedience- represented by two

distinct roots- the european and the hebrew/middle

eastern- interestingly i think here lies the beginnings of

'consciousness' as we know it- that was to be conceived

by the philosophers and theologians- not the 'birth' but

the conception- these two parents- the hebrew cult and

the mediterranean mystery cults- planted the seed- for

what maybe hegel would call the 'unhappy

consciouness'- which is consciousness- because when i

am conscious of my self- aware of myself as individual-

distinct - then i feel also my separateness from things

and others- the mysteries sought to unite man with his

fellow man nature and god- but the hebrew cult

demands that man and god be separated by a vast

chasm- reconciled only through god’s will and power-

but the distinctness of god and man- is key to middle

eastern religion- and god is the sole center- my point-

that these two forces are irreconsilable- and pulling us in

two directions- exactly what campbell says- getting to

what i want to say- i have been reading about

psychoanalysis as a further semetic imposition on the

western paradigm (blatant anti-semitism or ?) sure we

can call something anti-semitic but should we ignore

criticism based on these grounds? heidegger was a

brilliant philosopher- and a nazi- ?- i dont know- but

freud was very much jewish- and it really begins with

him- he himself wrote on the pathology of christianity

and the brilliance of judaism- (conversely lacan said of

all the religions only christianity comes close to the real)

early critics in austria- before auschwitz of course-

astutely exposed freuds semitic chauvanism- what

would europe be without the hebrew influence- but had

he further imposed the semitic veil over western

consciousness- christianity is a greek religion that has

been overlayed and twisted by semetic notions and

psychoanalysis too is greek myth that has been

subjected to a literal hermeneutic by a devout jew (who

admitted to doing his best work while on cocaine) his

first talks on his theories- which were not accepted by

the anti semetic austrian medical community- were

delivered at synogauges- not to doctors but to

worshippers- and it was the gentile's mind- that needed

healing- according to freud jews are actually quite well

adjusted thanks to their wonderful religion- unlike the

neurosis that christianity attends- paul was no less a

freud when he diagnosed the gentiles as sick

unrepentant sinners that god had abandonded- it was his

mission to save them through christ-

the inhumanity of transcendence? In son of man harvey

says that in order to merge with christ we must make

our way through increasingly severe trials of suffering-

as christ did as he was whipped and beaten and finally

crucified at which point he had already passed beyond

life and death- keep doubting

knowing god

if god exists

is god only known through inference? is there a direct or

rather a real knowing of god? outside of 'belief'?

believing in a thing, or believing in the existence of a

thing is not knowing a thing- in fact we have to believe

in a thing because there is a real doubt. if we know

something to be real we do not have to believe in it.

there is no question of believing.

faith is a passionate form of uncertainty.

but belief is still belief. should we just say belief is just

synonymous with fiction? that is; we tell ourselves these

fantastic stories about reality that cannot be true and we

invest ourselves in them and try to condition ourselves

into accepting them as truths- we do this by joining

communities, engaging in rituals, reciting sacred texts,

etc.,

but to a real experience of god outside of that?

i think in order to transcend belief it helps to see that

beliefs are structured exactly as narratives.

and let me say that all ideology is belief and it's all

narrative.

the german critic gustav freytag created a simple

diagram, drawing from aristotle's concept of unity of

action, for use in analyzing narrative structure. freytag's

triangle, as it is known, while a tool commonly used for

the analysis of fiction, can easily be applied to marxism,

christianity, psychoanalysis, etc.,

to be completely vulgar: ideologies, religions, etc.,; they

are plots.

our ideologies, the overall narrative architecture behind

our beliefs, all begin with a problem.

man is born sinful.

we could say all ideology begins with man's fallen state,

whatever form that takes.

the proletariat is in servitude to the bourgeoisie

we are told the dramatic tales of the consequences of our

fallen state.

our fallen state has been perpetuated for eons.

at some point in history there is a crack in the dark

reality and something else comes through into this

world.

christ is crucified.

l. ron hubbard begins auditing.

something happens to undo the fallen condition.

christ is risen.
the truth has finally been told.

the wheel of dharma has been turned.

man has now been liberated (all he has to do is believe

it).

so we have the initial problem, the climactic rupture and

the resolution.

now all narrative must be played out in one dimension:

time.

the story moves from one point in time to another. from

past to future.

time is essential for fiction, ideology, belief.

time is the canvas of fantasy.

without time we cannot fantasize, idealize.

so ultimately it is time itself that must be investigated

because it is the sand in which the stories of beliefs are

written.

time belongs to the human mind.

we think time and in time.

there is no time outside the mind.

so is there time?

is time real?

this is the key to my initial inquiry.

to human thinking time has three dimensions. past

present future.

the past.

what is the past?

is the past real?

is the past something that was once real but is no longer

real?

speaking on iraq george w. bush said, the past is past.

perhaps i could correct him just a bit by saying, the past

has passed.

but what is the past now?

memory.
but memory is not what has passed. it is memory.

a materialist definition of memory may be something

like-

memory is stored information.

i tend more toward metaphysical thinking. i am one of

these dinosaurs who still knows 'psyche' as 'soul' not as

'mind'.

but nevertheless; memory is information retained. but

that information can have color, smell, emotion, pain.

we have no experience of the past in the present, that is,

we cannot experience the past now.

there is no real past.

what is the present. it is something that never really is

because it is a constant movement. rather, what is the

present cannot be captured, because of its momentum.

as a thing the present does not exist. or more exactly; the

present can never exist unless one is willing to admit a

sort of eternal present which is; it is always now. or the

present is what i am always experiencing.

the future. the future is never now and therefore it is an

absolute fantasy. the future is pure fiction. i may project

from the present based on the past into the future but the

inevitability of my projections are uncertain.

so here we have the three dimensions of time. time itself

you see is a narrative triangle.

we have created the narrative scheme of time in order to

be able to structure our narratives of liberation,

transcendence, desire, etc.,

so returning to my original question-

how do i know god outside of belief?

there are mystics and gurus and masters who would tell

one to follow a path- yes a path through time- from

point A to point C- i begin here and travel through time

into the future through meditation, through suffering,

through worship i arrive at knowledge of god.

so to begin to know god, not believe but to know, i need

to believe.

i need to believe i am following the right master or

following the right practice to get me to that future

knowledge of god, a knowledge that i would not pursue

without the belief in god to begin with.

but with this path is the belief that god is not now. that

god is only in the future. but the future is a fantasy.

so i want god without any belief-

so i must not have a path to follow

or years of practicing something or following some

teacher

and there must be no question of time

if god exists at all i must be able to know god right now-

because right now is all i know is absolutely real and

beyond belief- so where is god right here right now?

what is it i experience right now? or rather what is this

now?

1. the totality of all things

and if i am thinking of god as a being then

2. the absence of god

so towards a theology of the consequences of the

questioning-

the sure thing

belief is not built on knowledge

unless knowing and knowledge are two different things

the perception of the reality of a thing

to a degree that

with all certainty

it is indisputable
is the reality of all things disputable

beliefs are the fictions we construct based on our desires

fear frustrations

how do you know something?

that is how i begin

in epistemology

there is a term

inference

my uncle told me that there is place we go when we die

called planet 4-9

i read this book and it tells me i am a robot

is this knowledge

to the buddhist and jains it is not knowledge

or rather- to put it accurately to them:

inference is not a valid form of perception

or perceiving reality
mathematics is a game with rules

so we can know anything to be real within the game

if we know the rules

and the pieces are being moved according to the rules

accordingly it is a language

knowing the language allows one to speak in that

language

in a comprehensible manner (to other beings that also

speak the language and follow the rules)

is language a belief system and are all belief systems

games with rules

do you really want to say what language is

to define language

from zizek on love deconstruction and cynicism:

to question belief through language?

or to question the reality of language?

look how it functions:

for the philosopher of accuracy-

who must work with language and through it

convinced of the 'beliefs' inherent in language

language as ideology itself

quotation marks

rhetorical distance

if judith butler is asked what is this

a bottle of ice tea

she would never have said it is a beverage or ice tea

she would say if

we accept the metaphysical notion of language

identifying

clearly objects

taking all this into account

then may we not

risk the hypothesis

that in the conditions of our language game

this can be said to be a bottle of tea

that being said however if we follow saussure's simple

diagram signifier/signified

then god is a signifier-and the signifier of inference- is

there a signified

the signifier is like a finger pointing to something

the finger is not the something

for example the word 'finger' is actually closer to 'finger'

than that digit we refer to on our hand because it is in

fact exactly the same thing

the word 'finger' is 'finger'

the word finger is not a part of my body

but i only bring this up because i take it for granted that

language is the water we swim in- we think in language-

we have internal dialogue- our thoughts- our thinking-

to ourselves- is just talking to ourselves- in our mind, to

communicate to ourselves we formulate sentences out of

words which are constructed of letters- but the question

of the essay is

god without inference

so does the word god actually point to a real 'thing'?

which brings us to the ultimate question why?

why should i want to know if there actually is a god

rather than merely to believe there is?

are the two the same thing?

let me give you an example

the film-

the sure thing

cusack has been told by a friend that there is a hot

blonde on the other side of the country that will go 'all

the way'

at a kind of onto-epistemological level cusack believes

there is a girl on the other side of the country that will

go all the way with him

thats is

he does not know it- he has not gone all the way with

the girl or even met the girl so the reality of sex with her

in fact the reality of her is open to question

he sets out on the journey to meet this girl

what if his friend was lying? and there was no such girl

or what if there was a girl but she was really just a good

looking guy that liked to dress like a woman, etc., or

there was such a girl but she was not 'easy' and there

was no way she would ever make out with a loser like

cusack

so cusack is intitially set on the path by a story he is

told- he believes the story and wants to make story into

reality- because- and here it the point:

talking about going all the way and thinking about going

all the way are not actually going all the way

there is fantasizing about the hot blonde and there is

actually going all the way with the hot blonde

which brings me back to the ultimate question

is knowing god then the ultimate pleasure?

this is the fantasy that drives the mystic forward

lets begin with the title- knowing god 1- one sadly there

is a two which i have been writing- which 1 sets up-

where the entire thing takes the turn into another

dimension- building on the idea of the moment and 'felt'

absence in the moment- and moving into theological

concerns for god's non-existence- or non- presence and

the absence as presence that jewish theologians have

been playing with- because for the jews god was very
much present in the world- active in history and then at

some point vanished- and i say that this disappearance

made possible the transition from a god of law to a god

of love- and that love is powerlessness- this is why

christ suffers and dies- he is god he has no way to stop

what is happening- and the idea 'imitatio christo'- is that

we follow christ into renouncing power- let me digress-

the problem i have with so much theology is that it says

man is here and god is way over there- separated by a

vast abyss that cannot be traversed- we are always

veiled from god- or there is always a barrier between us

and god- whether the veil of reality or by the demands

of a mediator, or by time itself- and a fallacy

perpetuated by the theologians- such as ratzinger, is that

christ is the son of god- which i believe i already

emailed you about once before and wrote about in the

blog- the trinity- father son holy spirit are one- there is
no son, like i said it is an inexact way of articulating the

incarnation- god dies- not christ dies- god does not kill

christ like what was proposed for abraham to kill isaac-

so returning- god is dead- god is gone/absent/- and so

can god be known? would knowing god be the leveling

of all differences? the ultimate emptying? and should

that be closed to us or rather should we forget the

redemption and live the fall? is there an ultimate closure

in that most elusive and desirable of answers? that is the

eradication of every thing- i mean things- as distinct

things- we love things or beings and so what would pure

love be- because i mean to get to love and god as the

same at some point- i mean we love a thing to the

exclusion of other things- but getting back to the

implications of knowing god-the answer is like the most

fabulous object in the world in time bandits- it is the

ulitmate possession to end anxiety- or rather the fantasy

of that- you now have it now you are whole- but again it

is the fantasy of that- and further that knowing god is

not literaly the question it is any question that embodies

the possession of the ultimate fantasy- which in

metaphorical terms is the return to the garden- prior to

the fall- before distinctions- when man dwelt in the

presence of god- but you see here IS where we are and

so what is our relationship to what is- or rather what is

our attitude to what is and how does that attitude

contribute to generating our reality- what if: the fantasy

of transcendence IS hiding us from something to

ourselves? or even hiding us from ourselves? what i am

thinking but havent worked out yet is that there is an

unspoken desire- a real desire for something that is not

an impossibilty and the religious impossibilty is the

displaced desire because the real desire cannot be

articulated because the truth is too horrible- although it

may not be at all- but there is a felt horror about

acknowledging it- otherwise why such a grandiose idea

such as god- a deferment- and christ died so we could be

free- god the father has left us to grow up and face our

desire- to be perverse enough to articulate the hidden

desire-

wait are you really having an issue with the religious

crap- and the sure thing was the response to your sad

heckling- the can we know god question is the

beginning of the do we need religion question- i guess i

could clarify more about 'belief' being religion- if thats

what you mean by me going to fast for you- slow it

down? take it nice and slow? so it feels good? do like it?

a little gentler? not so fast and aggressive? so

RELIGION- it propogates the idea that there is a

'divine'- outside of religion- where is that idea? can i

have that idea outside of religious conditioning? that is:

we 'know' god by through from religions, religious

teachers, religious texts- so is god an intellectual

property of religion? and of course i can make one up

but thats not the point the point is to take the question

seriously and not to find out if there is a god- because

what i am saying is not moving from point a to point b it

is taking point a as 'THE thing'- because the moment

suffers- the moment is disparaged- the moment is

poverty and so the project is to sacralize point a and not

point B- so no i reject knowing god (in the future) in

favor celebrating the asking of the question right now in

the present- so it is the thinking through rather than the

arrival at- we maintain the tension by taking the

question seriously and not taking the answer or

resolution seriously- the essay on infidelity goes into

that- the 'closure junky'-

so i said i ask the question i dont really care to answer

and want to go in to the question instead- god- and then

i go through yes i admit a menial excursion into the

three dimensions of time where i privilege the present-

so this moment is the moment to know god if god is god

and god is knowable and all that- no point a to point b

path to god through time etc., - so then we arrive at

possibilities- which if we would allow would call for

theological and philosophical inquiry- is god

nothingness- is god the totality of the present- etc., but

still we arrive at more questions and no intimate

knowledge which is the point- so to the question-

because it is always a question- god is always a

question- why take the question seriously and not the

answer- 1. the answer cant be taken seriously and the

question is as i said god- but seriously- the question i

want to ask is why do i ask- why ask such an impossible

question- which i have already discussed but want to

clarify a few things- god is not known because god does

not want to be known- the desire to know god is the

desire for power- wouldnt intimate contact with the

divine be the ulitmate connection to power? but you see

god is not power- that is the fantasy- if i know god then

i know the secret of everything and i have unlocked a

limitless resevoir of potentional- or whatever- so god

left the picture renouncing power and because if you

read the semetic texts you see those connected to god

were powerful- so god has said- we dont need to know

one another- neither i nor you need power- we need

love- and out of god's love- out of my love i leave you-

as christ said before he died love one another as i have

loved you- this god did not 'heal the world' it has not

been a better place since- but love was given to the

world instead of god and healing and power- this is why

jews did not accept jesus because they thought the

messiah would be powerful- destroy rome, establish a

jewish kingdom, etc., so god does not want us to have

knowledge of god out of love for us- and so the answer

to the question will be an impossibility- an impossible

quest for the ultimate non existent power- and that

impossibility conceals our desire- it is our self

deception- or like i was saying about theology- it

maintains our separation from god (or rather the

question of it)- the question of god keeps us from

ourselves- i'm just trying to connect all the dots for you-

god- powerlessness- love- desire- i think the desire is in

the realm the possible and because of that it is

terrifying- what if something is possible and does not

succeed? what if i need courage to make the thing

possible? the absence of god is the confrontation with

desire- you see it is the veil to the holy of holies torn-

the center chamber of the jewish temple was concealed

by a veil and it was the most secret and sacred space in

jerusalem- only the high priest was allowed to enter and

only once a year the moment christ died on the cross the

curtain over the holy of holies fell away- now all secrets

are naked to all eyes yet we look away and pretend that

god is still watching and gives a shit- and what i would

like to say is what we are not seeing is what we are,

which has to do with now- not what we can be or will be

or could be- i'm talking about the fall- that the fallen

state of man has been loved embraced accepted by god-

the fall was about desire- and the subsequent

relationship between god and man was about power

controlling desire- so what is now

so another question- just thinking- does love or the

radical acceptance we talk about really harbor

animosity?- an unspoken or unrecognized loathing? for

example if love we can say i get angry at you because i

love you- because i love you i have passion when i am

disappointed- do i treat you like i hate you because i

love you? which would conversely mean i would treat

you like i loved you if i hate you- if we are confronted

by something so horrible or disgusting or banal or evil

or whatever can we then say- embrace it- love it- is this

an uninteresting question? for god so loved the world

that he died for the sake of it- could this imply- that god

really hated the world so much that he had to make a

drastic sacrifice to reconcile the world to god- do we

accept a thing, love it totally, because we really cannot

love it?

yes- its like through the looking glass- the world we

think exists is in reality the inversion of what the surface

tells us- another example- we know god through the

prophets- through the men that throughout history have

said they have been in direct contact with god or the

divine or whatever and that they speak on god's behalf-

like muhammad of islam or moses of judaism of jesus

with christianity- we know god through the spokesmen-

we dont know god as a being, as a 'person'- this

anthropomorphized god- in the way we know each

other- we dont sit down and hang out and chat with god.

but these guys do and then they come to us and tell us

all about what god is like and what god wants- etc.,

looking at it this way we can take the saying 'jesus christ

is the son of god' to mean 'god is the son of jesus christ'

because really jesus has created his god that he is

propagating to israel- god did not create jesus it was the

other way around- interestingly, applying this mirror

critique to psychoanalytic theories of the mother there

are almost theological

implications about the father- father becomes the elusive
one the child is unable to grasp- thinking about his in
my own childhood and others i know it does seem that a
father is more a shadow than the mother and the mother
is very much a presence- like what i had said about god-
father is a 'felt' absence- the paternal father is a shadow
but not reality- is their hostility towards this very nature
of the father? isnt that freud's primal taboo- hating the
absence of the father which causes the murder of the
father- is god powerless or is god powerless in the face
of humanity's rage- was the hatred of man greater than
the power of god- therefore god's death being god's
murder and if god was complicit in this then it was a
refusal to reconcile- gods willingness to be murdered
was god's indictment of humanity- yet an entrapment-
making that race god already despised into the great
embodiment of evil- so it is the father not the mother
who cannot be possessed and it is man not god who has
the power- and it is gods hate not love that culminates in
the crucifixion and it is not freedom but judgement that
the christian cross brings- bringing in what we talked
about the other day- if we live radical
nonviolence/nonaggression- we are demonizing the
other- we make of the other a cruel sadist- by not
engaging- simultaneously through non aggression we
exalt our own ego- we can feel good about ourselves as
sinless, blameless- we are 'righteous' better than the
violent apes- you are evil i do not resist evil- again my
refusal to act is an indictment of you and a worthiness of
me- so this nonviolence is an injustice and an
aggression- and based in the ego's desire to see itself as
perfect- a saint- i am without fault- well anyway its just
a beginning to the topsy turvy universe- but even after
reading more advertising and psychology shit- and even
watching that film on food- its like we are sold alot of
images in our society and culture and conditioned along
certain lines- and the reality does seem to be the exact of
opposite of what is advertised- like the labels for bacon
and butter and eggs and chicken in the grocery store
show pristine farms and lakes and animals out grazing
in the sunshine- but there are thousands of animals
confined in large wherehouse without any sunlight-
rolling around and eating each others shit- some drug
they are advertising online for depression talks about
suicidal thoughts- and then goes on to list increased
suicidal thoughts as a side effect?- so even a drug that is
advertised as treating depression really makes
depression worse- it says that having suicidal thoughts is
a symptom of a serious mental health condition- i think
anyone that has never had suicidal thoughts would have
to be completely insane- totally out of touch with
reality- rushdi said that the lyrics of the popular music
of a culture expressed what it is that culture lacked and
fantasized for- if we're over saturated with cheesy love
songs americans are not feeling loved? i've rambled
enough- but! i havent even started on time itself how the
past present future is exactly the opposite- we really
move through time: future, present, past- we just
perceive it to be the other way- but really i should stop
before things get to oooooooooooooooooo!!!!!