To: Acharya S
Subject: regarding cannibalism
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:48:36 -0300
Dear miss S,
I've enjoyed reading your article "Is Cannibalism a Religious Experience?" Since Im writing about cannibalism in South America (Im a journalist in Brazil), I wonder if you could enlighten me with the truth in this matter: is cannibalism always related to religion in the south-American tribes, or is it possible that in relating cannibalism and religion we're finding a way to legitimate what our Christian eyes sees as unacceptable? Could and did the Indians eat another human being just for the fun of it? What do you think?
One more thing: I really liked you site and biography and "voc muito mais bonita do que um acadmico de meia-idade". Oops, just kidding.
I thank you in advance,
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:48:26 -0800
To: Acharya S
Subject: The Christ Conspiracy
I finally finished reading your book. You were good enough to autograph a copy for me ... Quite a piece of work. I know a dissertation when I see one. Why isn't there a Ph.D after your name so you can butt heads with religious scholars? I'm not being facetious. I found the book to be a real education for me, a recovering Catholic. I had read a couple books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, one by Allegro and the other by Baigent and Lee.
... What you have put together brings forward a longstanding camp of writers into a modern context. I say it is well done and of course evocative. But this is one conspiracy I'll have to sit back and let you folks rattle the cages of the living. I really can't see disturbing my dear Roman Catholic Mother, a post WWII Italian immigrant, with this information. It would disturb others whom I know as fundamentalist, too. They are nice folks. I was told at an early age never to discuss religion, politics or sex with family or friends. Now, with strangers or those I care less about, I have already let them know what I believe. I think this dichotomy is funny. I suppose the real truth will arise eventually. I found it interesting that the History Channel, in their 2min. segments, 'Time Lab 2000', did a piece at Xmas time about the birthdate of Christ and how it was established. It was the exact same info you described regarding Mithra. Also, who would have guessed that the Pope would bend his knee in supplication for forgiveness for the Inquisition, etc.
I am a graduate of that Jesuit cesspool know as Loyola Marymount. The folks there are OK. The jevies themselves are very open minded types but they are real business people, if you know what I mean. This whole thing is amazing. I see this knowledge as the rot around the pediments of a colossal edifice that has been covered up over the centuries but may bring it down eventually. Another point that scares the be-Jesus out of me, is the volatility of this info and the bloodlust of Christianity's defenders.
Anyway ... I have a lot of questions about Christianity as we know it today. Particularly, are there any Christian Gnostic (non-historicizing) traditions in existence today? Are the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Christians among these? ...
Thanks for the intelligent comments. Much appreciated. As far as your question goes, no, very few people today have any clue as to the mythical, non-historical nature of Christ, including so-called Gnostics.
To: "From Sex to Superconsciousness"
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Pope Brings Peace Message to Holy Land
god exists and
god is holy and
god is omnipresent
all the universe is holy
all the time
That would include every square inch of the Earth I guess. Religionists mostly defy logic. It's like a child who makes up a story to back up a story that they made up earlier. The Pope even resembles a child who went into their parents closet and came out with clothes that were too big, complete with a funny hat and goofy slippers.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: hello again
To: Acharya S
I love a coincidence...
after deciding to practice "creative procrastination" and ignore my work this morning to peruse your excellent, though-provoking Website, I went to lunch. At the magazine store on **** St here in Manhattan, I came across and purchased the latest Steamshovel Press. Back in my worker drone cube, I was flipping through the pages and was surprised to see your name and likeness attached to the Rajneesh article....
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:35:05 -0600
To: Acharya S
Subject: Fwd: FLY EL AL
The earth is anti-Jew? Yes, it must seem that way to hear some of them cry. Note, I said some of them. I have known many Jews and do not recall a one of them taking a crying stance. Most were quite competent all on their own without ever having to resort to such trickery.
Why does the word anti-Semitic seem false, deceptive and otherwise deceitful? Like it is not talking about the Jew specifically but a wider group of people of which the Jews are only a part? But it is never used, as far as I have ever heard, to mean anyone else but the the Jews.
Why isn't anti-Jew or anti-Hebrew used I wonder? And I have wondered why many or races haven't used this obviously successful "woe is me" tactic? Many others have suffered atrocities as well.
It is a difficult thing weaving race into religion and religion into race... and it gives me pause to wonder, what is a Jew called if they lose their religion? Do they lose their race along with it?
To: Acharya S
Subject: Christian "answers" to the solar myth
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:07:14 GMT
I thought you might enjoy this. I found the entire amusing text on a Christian "answers" website in response to someone's question about the mythological origins of Christianity.
"The Mythras of the Persians was just a solar god, akin to the Hindu Mitra. He had few if any heroic tales concerning him. He was just the spirit which inflamed and illuminated, and served as the supreme witness of oaths.
"The Mythras of the Hellenistic mystery religion appears to have delveloped almost in answer to Christianity's challenge to the impersonal, non-spiritual, and a-moral nature of Greco-Roman civic religion. This Mythras was not born of a virgin (as some know-nothings baselessly claim) but rather born from a spark caused by a sunray striking a rock in a cave.
"Mythras did not die, but rather sacrificed the sacred cosmic bull, the blood of which (somehow) revivified the world. While within the cult there was a hope of life (in purely spirit-form) after death, there was no belief in a resurrection of the flesh, either of Mythras, the cosmic bull, or the individual believer."
The amusing thing is that this guy seems to totally miss what he is saying!
"The Mythras of the Persians was just a solar god, akin to the Hindu Mitra. He had few if any heroic tales concerning him. He was just the spirit which inflamed and illuminated, and served as the supreme witness of oaths."
JUST a solar god!!!??? Doesn't he understand that admission of this very thing alone unretractably justifies an massive portion of the theory of the Solar Myth? Jesus too, and Buddha, and Horus, as well as Krishna were "solar gods." This requires only a cursory glance at each of their legends and doesn't even involve a matter of virgin birth, sacrifice, or resurrection.
And as far as Mithra being just the spirit which "inflamed and illuminated," what then was Jesus Christ? Jesus certainly was called "the Light of the World" - therefore he illuminated - and when Jesus spoke to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, their "hearts burned within" them (Luke 24). Also, there were tongues of fire upon the apostles at Pentecost and Christ was said to "baptize by fire" whereas John could only baptize by water. And does everyone wish to now do away with the prophecy so often attributed to Christ in Malachi: "the SUN of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings" (Malachi 4:2b)? A great deal more material could be amassed here (like the fact he was encircled by 12 disciples like the 12 signs of the zodiac encircle the sun and was in the tomb for three days - like the sun on the 22nd of December descends and then arises on the 25th).
And then the man goes on to say, "The Mythras of the Hellenistic mystery religion appears to have delveloped almost in answer to Christianity's challenge to the impersonal, non-spiritual, and a-moral nature of Greco-Roman civic religion."
First of all, any lack of currently existing heroic material dealing with the Persian Mithras does not mean that the Greeks invented theirs from scratch. What kind of scholarship is this!? If it were not such a touchy issue any scholar would most definitely associate the two Mithras. Even so, hen he says that the Mithra "religion appears to have developed almost
in answer to Christianity's challenge" I think he overstates his case. The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly shows that the cult of Mithra was ancient - more ancient than Christianity - and occupied the central area which was to become Vatican city. I'd say that's something. The fact is, Christianity was the strange idea (perhaps so was Judaism) for making the mythology mortal.
Then he says, "This Mythras was not born of a virgin (as some know-nothings baselessly claim) but rather born from a spark caused by a sunray striking a rock in a cave."
Hmm. I am startled that the guy didn't catch this one. Christ (already demonstrably identified as an incarnation of the Sun) was also - according to tradition - born in a cave. Since Christ was Light and His Father too, is called Light, one could easily see him as being born of a "sunray." And then there is the fact of this sunray striking a "rock" which both Christ and Mithras are clearly identified with.
And regarding the virgin birth of Mithras: can a spark from a rock be conceived through natural intercourse? It was then, a supernatural conception which was wrought by the Spirit of the Sun or the Spirit of Mythras if we are rational enough to accept that the Persian and Greek deities are related! And has any natural cave ever given birth to anything? No, any natural cave is surely hidden from sunlight as a mother's womb is. And so for a god to emerge from a cave that has never before intercoursed with the sun or has never found itself pregnant with life, that is a virgin birth.
He adds, "Mythras did not die, but rather sacrificed the sacred cosmic bull, the blood of which (somehow) revivified the world."
I would just like to note how interesting it is that this same author admits elsewhere in his response (I have not reproduced the entire response here) that many religions did have saviors who died and returned to life.
But in Mithraism we find that at least this bull's blood revivifies the world. He adds "somehow." But the "how" is quite obvious if he wants to see it. As even Genesis tells us: "The life is in the blood." And so to revivify (that is, "revive" to life) the world it only makes sense that some source of life would be needed: and an enormous Bull's lifeblood would be ideal. (This was the motivation for the sacrifice of animals in all primitive religions where a moralized explanation had not usurped the simple need for a life energy to restore to life the crops.) Furthermore I find it interesting that this fellow calls the Mithraic Bull a "cosmic Bull." That's right, it is cosmic! The Bull being Slain is Taurus ... and in Christianity the animal slain is the Lamb or Aries. And Christ is the "cosmic" fulfillment of this lamb sacrifice.
The last thing that the man says is kind of interesting:
"While within the cult there was a hope of life (in purely spirit-form) after death, there was no belief in a resurrection of the flesh, either of Mythras, the cosmic bull, or the individual believer."
First of all, the idea of a bodily resurrection is present FIRST in Zoroastrianism, not in Judaism. And in both Christian and Jewish usage there is almost always an identifiable symbolism clearly underlying the use of the image of bodily resurrection (when applied to the General Resurrection at the end of time). For instance, when the Book of Ezekiel talks about what looks like a resurrection, the text itself clearly states that the "valley of dry bones" is all of Israel crying "our hope is dried up" while in Babylon. Their hope was "dead" and it was their hope which was eventually spiritually resurrected.
The Sadducees did not believe in any kind of spiritual entity or afterlife, and the Pharisees believed in a bodily general resurrection. Christ surprised both groups by describing the resurrection as something which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob already had. Furthermore he stated that men and women would not be able to marry in the resurrection because they would be "as the angels in heaven."
Now, while angels have been known to take physical form in the Jewish legends (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), while in "heaven" they were spirit beings like God himself. In other words: they had no bodies but they lived--and so would the resurrected mortals. This was a view unlike the Sadducees proposed and too little for the Pharisees who desired a bodily general resurrection.
And since the theme of resurrection can also have to do with a spiritual "resurrection" of hope while still alive in the body (such as in the prophet Ezekiel), there is no reason to think Paul or any of the Apostles meant more than that when they spoke of Christ making alive our mortal bodies. After all, according to John, believers already stepped from death into life
and were simply awaiting for the success of Christianity over its rival, Judaism, in order to attain to that life (joyous success) completely.
The bodily resurrection of Christ was only supposed to be a sign of his power over death. For that reason alone did Christ demonstrate to everyone his risen form--not because he needed to carry that form around with him eternally.
Furthermore, where there has been a resurrection of the Sun-God bodily in some myth (for instance Osiris) this fellow speaks of it as the resurrection of a zombie for the mere purpose of procreation. But that is absurd! Osiris is clearly portrayed as being conscious and powerful in his resurrection. He was supposed to rule the underworld consciously, not as a zombie. So the idea of at least the Sun-God's bodily resurrection for the purpose of giving confidence to those who would simply live on spiritually ONLY, is not unheard of before Christ.
How do you deal with all of these arguments against the Solar Myth Theory, Acharya?
I don't deal with them, because they are born of ignorance. You, however, have dealt with them nicely. Thank you. Here is, however, a very popular article on Mithra.
To: Acharya S
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:12:14 CST
Don’t worry, this e-mail is not going to be some lame attempt at proselytization, and I am not going to be quoting a bunch of Scripture at you. I understand that if the words of the Bible had any meaning to you, you would already be a Christian, and I will be wasting my time giving judgmental (and probably hypocritical) prophecies of doom. Therefore, first of all, I would like to apologize to you, as a Christian, on behalf of all Christians, for those e-mails, letters, etc... in which you have been "viciously attacked." It is not right for anyone, especially Christians, to be judgmental or to say you or anyone else is going to hell. For Christians it is totally hypocritical. BUT, I do want to ask you not to judge a path by the people that are travelling on that path. Apparently you have already judged Christianity as not being the way or truth, but please do not let your judgments be based on your opinion of Christians. Yes, there are many, very many, people in the world who claim to be Christians, who tell others how to act in a Christian-like manner, and who may perhaps even believe themselves to be Christians, but do not practice what they teach and who arrogantly go around condemning others for not being who they think themselves to be. It is disgusting and degrading mainly to themselves, but also to the assembly of people they try to represent. I have not read your entire web page (and I usually do before I e-mail a response) so I cannot say a whole lot. You probably have other reasons for your rejection of Christianity, but if not, I simply wanted to remind you of this fact: just because people drunkenly stagger along the path they have chosen, it does not mean that path is not the right one.
And one last thing, this is just a thought, it seems rather contradictory for one to say that religion corrupts people and makes them psychos if the people he or she says are psychos are the hypocrites. If one is a hypocrite, then they do not really follow their religion, and thus, their religion cannot be to blame for their deranged state. Thank you for your time and for your informative web page.