How can I convert Trent Reznor into Christianity?

[AlyOshA]

For those of you who do not take yourself seriously 24/7, please indulge this free-form rant that attempts to indoctrinate Trent Reznor into the Christian faith.

I am the first person to throw spears at the bible and God; in fact it is my favorite thing to do. But right at this moment I am going to love Jesus. Jesus was the first person who truly did not fear God. He was the first one to stare at pain, suffering and death and love them as if they were blessings. That is why he is so famous. Jesus taught us how to suffer and how to die. He was no Buddha. Buddha taught us how to live. Buddha experienced enlightenment then went on to live a long prosperous life. Jesus experienced true enlightenment, as he was being whipped and beaten, and sucking on vinegar and then death. God is cancer, God is the concentration camps of Auschwitz, God is when you cut up fresh habanero chili peppers with your bare hands, then you rub your eyes, then you run to the restroom to wash your eyes but decide to pee first and while your eyes are watering and burning your realize that your genitals are also ablaze and then you pee all over your pants and decide to jump in the shower with your cloths on, and then you slip in the bathtub flying backwards and impaling yourself on a towel rack and then you remain there with a towel rack piercing your kidneys and intestines but not yet killing you, and after nine hours of slowly bleeding organs with burning eyes and genitals you die. That is God. And Jesus was the first one who not only did not fear God but actually loved him like a father. Anyone one can love a sunset, or intercourse with someone you are madly in love with, or stimulating discourse with uncontrollable belly laughter while drinking an expensive bottle of wine with your best friend and soul mate. Jesus was the first to love the crucifix, and not the way a sadist loves a crucifix, not for some devious insecurity and self-hated, not for twisted sexual pleasure. Most of us silly mortals love pain and suffering out of masochism, pride, and weakness. Out of a necessity to feel something, anything. We think at times that it comforts us like a mother, but we never love it with a pure heart like Jesus did. Jesus truly loved the crucifix as if it was a beautiful sunset or as if you he were witnessing the birth of his first child. That is why he is amazing. That is why his name is immortal. That is why he was the first true son of God. But that is the only miracle that he performed – the other miracles are all bullshit and anyone who likes to use their brain from time to time realizes that. But why hate the crucifix, why hate the burning habanera soaked genitals, how can you hate something that exists, something that is your reality and your fate, the crucifix doesn’t care if you hate it, it doesn’t care whether you think it is fare in torturing you? The crucifix knows that it is God and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it – except to love it as your father.
Amen. And praise Jesus!

[ThroughAir]

lying backwards and impaling yourself on a towel rack and then you remain there with a towel rack piercing your kidneys and intestines but not yet killing you, and after nine hours of slowly bleeding organs with burning eyes and genitals you die.

Now I'm no genius, but I would like to question the ability of "impaling" yourself on a towel rack.

[AlyOshA]

Now I'm no genius, but I would like to question the ability of "impaling" yourself on a towel rack.

I commemorate you for acknowledging that you’re not a genius, but your insanely astute observation just gave me a blinding epiphany – you are a genius! Praise the lord almighty!

[AlyOshA]

No one has responded. Either A: I have convinced everyone to love Jesus as the true son of God. Or B: My raving madness is pathetic and no one cares to indulge me. Hmmm... I am going to bank on B being the more likely conclusion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well done AlyOshA! The only part that needs in my view some better thought is the following bit:

Jesus truly loved the crucifix as if it was a beautiful sunset or as if you he were witnessing the birth of his first child. That is why he is amazing

Christ represents the cauldron of human life with all its suffering and passions alright. But there's really no point in loving this or that aspect. I'd say that what happens is detachment from all resentment and all spite toward the "burning habanera soaked genitals". Loving the pain is just as deluded as hating the joy.

Some would say this is the power of forgiveness, a power that fucks the devil himself.

[AlyOshA]

Christ represents the cauldron of human life with all its suffering and passions alright. But there's really no point in loving this or that aspect. I'd say that what happens is detachment from all resentment and all spite toward the "burning habanera soaked genitals". Loving the pain is just as deluded as hating the joy.

Some would say this is the power of forgiveness, a power that fucks the devil himself.

Awesome! What can I say. I totally agree. Very cool. Thank you.

[David Quinn]

It's a very good rant, Alyosha, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. That kind of open acceptance of all things, both good and bad, as being a part of God's glory is very stunning and lofty. And as you rightly say, the power of the Gospels is ultimately derived from the sheer lack of compromise and boundless acceptance of all things displayed by Jesus.

That was one the better contributions to this forum, Alyosha. I'd love to see more of your "free-form rants", if they are going to be of this quality.

-

[David Quinn]

Alyosha wrote:

Jesus was the first person who truly did not fear God. He was the first one to stare at pain, suffering and death and love them as if they were blessings. That is why he is so famous. Jesus taught us how to suffer and how to die. He was no Buddha. Buddha taught us how to live. Buddha experienced enlightenment then went on to live a long prosperous life. Jesus experienced true enlightenment, as he was being whipped and beaten, and sucking on vinegar and then death.

Jesus seemed to deliberately engineer things so that he would be whipped and beaten and crucified. Why do you think he did that? Was it an attachment to suffering and martydom?

Do you think spiritual people need to engineer this sort of thing upon themselves? Is that why you are critical of the Buddha?

-

[BJMcGilly]

Hi AlyOsha,

At first i didn't bother to read your post because of the heading. But in so reading i've realized how institutionalized i have become through reading.

Great post.

Bryan

"Egoism, the limiting of consciousness to individual life as seperate from the one infinite life, is the last barrier to the attainment of unity with the infinite life." - Paul Brunton, Perspectives

[AlyOshA]

Well first it should be noted that this posting was an attempt to convert Trent Reznor. So it had a particular agenda. But I wouldn’t say that Jesus engineered his crucifixion. I think he merely knew his way and accepted it. I think he most definitely had a presentiment of the final outcome, but I don’t think he planned it all himself (the way an engineer would). Also it should be noted that I’ve studied and followed the Buddha more prominently in my life, so my articulations about the way of Jesus are poor in comparison to say -- Beingof1. I am not critical of the Buddha I am only critical of his followers (in the same sense I am critical of Christians). But Buddha and Jesus are not even comparable really. Think about the Parable of the Arrow. This embodies a vastly different approach than that of Jesus.

The Buddha was sitting in the park when his disciple Malunkyaputta approached him. Malunkyaputta had recently retired from the world and he was concerned that so many things remained unexplained by the Buddha. Was the world eternal or not eternal? Was the soul different from the body? Did the enlightened exist after death or not? He thought, 'If the Buddha does not explain these things to me, I will give up this training and return to worldly life'.
He put these questions to the Buddha who replied, "Now did I ever say to you that if you led a religious life you would understand these things? It is as if a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends, companions relatives were to get a surgeon to heal him, and he were to say, 'I will not have this arrow pulled out until I know who wounded me, of what caste he is, what his name is, whether he is tall, short or of medium height, what colour his skin is, where he comes from, what kind of bow I was wounded with, what it was made of, whether the arrow was feathered with a vulture's wing or a heron's or a hawk's…..' Surely the man would die before he knew all this."
"Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not, Malunkyaputta, there is still re-birth, old age, death, grief, suffering, sorrow and despair - and these can be destroyed in this life! I have not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are not conducive to tranquillity and Nirvana. What I have explained is suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful, leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge."
Thus spoke the Buddha, and with joy Malunkyaputta applauded his words.

[Nick]

Is it the Trent Reznor of the band Nine Inch Nails you are trying to convert to Christianity? If so, why? Also, I'm getting the impression that you are not a Christian yourself, considering you studied and followed Buddha. So why would you want to convert someone else to Christianity if you yourself are not a Christian?

[David Quinn]

Alyosha,

But I wouldn’t say that Jesus engineered his crucifixion. I think he merely knew his way and accepted it. I think he most definitely had a presentiment of the final outcome, but I don’t think he planned it all himself (the way an engineer would).

But he must have known that if he kept stirring up trouble, it would surely come back to bite him hard - particularly in those more violent times. Yet he never backed down. So for all intents and purposes, he really did engineer his own downful.

The question is, why?

And do you think it is necessary for the spiritual person to similarly trigger his own downful in order to become "truly enlightened"?

I am not critical of the Buddha I am only critical of his followers (in the same sense I am critical of Christians).

What should they be doing instead?

But Buddha and Jesus are not even comparable really.

You don't think they were both serving the same Truth?

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Sorry to interupt.

I found this BBC article mildly amusing, and so might you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1244037.stm

I just figured this wasnt worth starting a new thread for, besides, it kind of suits this thread.





"The makers of BBC One's upcoming Son of God series have employed modern forensic techniques to create a model of Christ's face based on the skull of a 1st century Jewish man.

Amusingly, the model's somewhat muscular features have a heartening 'bloke down the pub' feel, as opposed to the more more feminine and delicate features that we see in the Jesus depicted today.

[Jamesh]

But Buddha and Jesus are not even comparable really

I have a feeling you could be wrong about this. I think this is because I place a more direct relationship between some of the Gnostic texts and Jesus, than the bible. I think Jesus had two sides, one for the common people, the shallower herd (which included most of his entourage), and a more enlightened one for a select few.

Jesus had to start from a much lower base of enlightenment knowledge than the buddha. For the buddha the eastern asian trend - seemingly originating in India - of more mentally open spiritual thinking was well established.

The potential threat against his life due to what he was trying to teach, would always have been more constant than the buddas. [Edit: opps I just noticed David already made this point]. I think he had to market himself to survive, he had to have an entourage, and he had use a lot of story telling material, which he flavoured with as much truth as he thought he could get away with. Most of these truths have since been corrupted by successive word changes into small "truths", as those who transcribed were not in any way enlightened. I think the opposite occurred with whatever the buddha may have said, for a few centuries anyway.

I think they are comparable, but the buddha was definitely more enlightened and was able to focus more consistently and completely on reality.

[AlyOshA]

Is it the Trent Reznor of the band Nine Inch Nails you are trying to convert to Christianity? If so, why? Also, I'm getting the impression that you are not a Christian yourself, considering you studied and followed Buddha. So why would you want to convert someone else to Christianity if you yourself are not a Christian?

Yes. Sorry Nick. There are some lighthearted intentions in this post. I tried to diffuse the seriousness and make it more playful. I am neither a Buddhist nor a Christian (I’ve studied many ways, but yes my study of Buddhism was more prominent than Christianity), labels serve no purpose for me and I don’t think they are accurate anyway. As for the tone of the post, I think you can find truth, wisdom, contentment and the whole nine yards without demanding somberness and respect. But the title of my posting wasn’t totally arbitrary. Of course, I don’t want to convert anyone into anything. I don’t really care for Trent Reznor but someone made me revisit the song “hurt” promising me that it was an amazing song and if I revisited it I would understand. I revisited it and I couldn’t deny that it had its appeals. But why? Then I started thinking about Johnny Cash’s last album. How he wrote all these songs for Jesus, but then threw in some awful pop culture hits and the song “hurt”. “Hurt” is a truly masochist, suffer-praising song. Some people think that Christians praise suffering for the sake of suffering, sort of like our teen-angst icon Trent Reznor. So I wanted to write a free-form rant trying to show Trent Reznor that Jesus was not merely an icon for the masochistic, there is way more going on. Also Trent Reznor wouldn’t read the post if I had a more preachy (as opposed to playful and tongue in cheek) demanding of respect. But just because I joke doesn’t mean I don’t take things seriously. You can take things seriously without an emotional vested interest and the demanding of respect.

But he must have known that if he kept stirring up trouble, it would surely come back to bite him hard - particularly in those more violent times. Yet he never backed down. So for all intents and purposes, he really did engineer his own downful.

Actually, I think you are partially right David. But I don’t believe we have total control to actually engineer our destiny, I think we can only shape and guide the motion that is already in place. (You know I haven’t actually met Jesus so this all speculation, but I am going to guess that) Jesus had total self-awareness, of himself, his path, and his connection to the eternal. Someone with total self-awareness innately understands that not everything is a blanket cause and effect. Every situation is completely different from the next (regardless of its origins or the sequence of events). Jesus utilized his exact circumstances and surroundings for their utmost effect (and you have to admit it worked, that man’s (supposed) words are more widespread and everlasting than anyone else’s, regardless of whether most people understand them). And yes, some people do terrible things in the name of Jesus, but think of all the good that comes as well. The same logic can be applied to love, there is allot of murder and violence and terrible things done because of, or in the name of love, but do you think our world would be better off without love? I say give me the good, the bad, and the ugly (the entire spectrum is the only way). Here is an interesting challenge, how do you think Jesus could have done it differently and for what effect?

And do you think it is necessary for the spiritual person to similarly trigger his own downful in order to become "truly enlightened"?

Absolutely not, that is why I said Buddha experienced enlightenment and went on to live a long, healthy life. Jesus’s way is only necessary for Jesus, in Jesus’s time, and under Jesus’s exact circumstances. There is allot to be learned – you have to admit. Every sage obtained enlightenment under different circumstances and there is a lot to learn from that diversity.

ME: I am not critical of the Buddha I am only critical of his followers (in the same sense I am critical of Christians).
DAVID: What should they be doing instead?

That depends on what they want to accomplish. I don’t believe in converting or changing people. So I don’t tell others what they should do, they need to discover that for themselves (and of course they will anyway and already have, whether they realize it or not).
My way, I acknowledged Buddha, learned his way and then unlearned him and eventually lost him altogether. I accomplish something and I immediately move on without relishing or savoring. If we embody our own way, prove by setting our own examples, Buddha’s intent will be realized without the cultish misunderstandings.

You don't think they were both serving the same Truth?

I don’t think there is a “same truth”. Every truth is different depending on the ever-changing exactness of the moment. I think they were both in tune with the absolute, they had a similar degree of understanding (enlightenment) but it was not a truth that can be spoken and then easily applied to everything. They are in the same category of significance but they are not the same (and therefore their “truths” and “ways of serving” are not the same either).

Jamesh:

I think they are comparable, but the buddha was definitely more enlightened and was able to focus more consistently and completely on reality.

I’m more enlightened than you are… Think about how silly that sounds. The human mind loves simple, definitive, blanket truths. Sure if you want to compare them you can, but why compare, why not discover them on an individual basis. A=A right? Do all teachers need to be the same, with the same lessons and the same goals?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

,

But I wouldn’t say that Jesus engineered his crucifixion. I think he merely knew his way and accepted it. I think he most definitely had a presentiment of the final outcome, but I don’t think he planned it all himself (the way an engineer would).

But he must have known that if he kept stirring up trouble, it would surely come back to bite him hard - particularly in those more violent times. Yet he never backed down. So for all intents and purposes, he really did engineer his own downful.

The question is, why?

And do you think it is necessary for the spiritual person to similarly trigger his own downful in order to become "truly enlightened"?

This question I find interesting as well, and has been brought up in some tantalizing manner (well, it seemed to me anyway) before by you David. I got the impression you had no definite answer back then to the question of ultimate consequences of living the truth, or you didn't give one at least.

As for my own views, I think different takes are possible in the case of Jesus:

1. The story of a crucified Jesus (same goes for baptism) is pure dramatized parable of our own self, suffering or drowning and the resurrection, rebirth or resurfacing the final transcendence of it all, in some form or another. The way this Story plays out in any human life is too much varying to claim dramatic downfalls as a rule. The idea of reincarnation is tied into this as well.

2. A historical sage called Jesus indeed staged the most intense and public suffering available to get the message through in Big Letters while at the same time perhaps become, or having been, perfectly enlightened - the final straw. But he might have arranged for his survival though and the peculiar earlier than scheduled release from the cross might be an indication he might have "pulled it off" somehow. It reminds me of the Buddhist monk who protested in the corner of a busy street by setting himself on fire - he totally burned down all the while sitting unmoved peacefully on the ground. There are still photos around showing the gruesome details. While this was supposed to be some political protest, there's an immense message to it as well - demonstrating the real state of our being, consumed by fires. The monk mocking us all. I hope he reached perfection before he died. But for all I know he might have been totally deranged instead, or looking for a good way to die, since he was already quite aging.

To the question if it's necessary for the spiritual person to similarly trigger his own downfall, I do wonder myself at times. As there's certainly a lack of involvement such person experiences, not to be concerned for personal 'safety' or personal survival as anything in itself to value in the slightest, he might choose to throw himself literary away for any in his view worthwhile cause.

As everyone does already anyway, with our own mostly unconscious concept of 'worth' graven into our minds.

[Jamesh]

I’m more enlightened than you are… Think about how silly that sounds. The human mind loves simple, definitive, blanket truths. Sure if you want to compare them you can, but why compare, why not discover them on an individual basis. A=A right? Do all teachers need to be the same, with the same lessons and the same goals?

I think you are a regular poster or someone we know pretending to be someone else.

You seem to want to be guruish - forget I responded.

[AlyOshA]

You figured me out Jamesh... I am actually Cosmic Prostitute! Soon I will get tired of posting under multiple (that’s right I said multiple) identities and I will stop posting.

[Matt Gregory]

You had me fooled, Cosmic. I've been enjoying the forum very much lately, though. I think you really helped it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hahah! As if these things weren't freaking obvious from the very start of your invasion, 'Cory'! ;)

Does your highly charged mental energy need so many different outlets, I wonder? Is it like a compulsion? Or a need to outsmart, control?

[AlyOshA]

Most of us have fantasy worlds. The more complex and intelligent we are the more elaborate is our fantasy world. Dostoevsky’s greatest talent as an artist is that he had the most elaborate, complex, and realistic fantasy world. The average person day dreams of being a hero or being loved, something silly but just enough to quench the emptiness of reality. If Dostoevsky did not write down his fantasy worlds he would have dropped off into madness, he surly would have escaped into his fantasy world once and for all. Luckily he did write them down, because commoners like us can love and cherish his fantasies for generations on end. This genius forum with Jamesh, Beingof1, Cosmic Prostitute, Kevin Solway, Sky, Mookestink, DHodges, Tharan, Unwise, Millipodium, Sue, Sanchez, Kelly Jones, ect., and ect., these characters are all creations from the fantasies of
Cory Patrick. He created them out of boredom at home and now for the occasional escape from his office work. Is it really wrong to question the nature of reality? I am not Cory Patrick; I am a real person who joined this forum a week ago (and had never seen this forum beforehand). I learned about this forum because one of the members named RaskOlikOv came onto the Dostoevsky site that I post on and starting picking fights and insulting people. I have not told any lies since I joined this site and everything I relate is from actual experience, but my calling in life is as an artist. I separate my enlightened being from my ego, my emotions, and my fantasies. But I have learned just as much from Nina Simone and Dostoevsky than I have from all the religious texts and sages combined. I have been meditating on a regular basis for over ten years and I feel that I have reached advanced stages of spiritual attainment, but since I am member of this physical world and I serve a function just as the bee serves its function in the orchestra of existence – my foremost duty is to the arts. Are you confused, emotionally involved, entertained? If so, then I have done my job. Is it possible for an artist to obtain enlightenment? Yes. You would be amazed how astutely aware and transcendentally unattached an artist is to emotions, fantasy, and ego.

[Cory Duchesne]

Diebert wrote:

Hahah! As if these things weren't freaking obvious from the very start of your invasion, 'Cory'! ;)

[laughs] Diebert - I was wondering when someone was going to accuse me of being cosmic prostitue. Everytime Cosmic P referenced me in his posts, I always assumed other forum members found that fishy. But it's not true that I am Cosmic P.

Cosmic P is my next door neighbor and we read each others books, and talk quite often in person, so we have similar points of view - so that explains it.

diebert: Cory, does your highly charged mental energy need so many different outlets, I wonder? Is it like a compulsion? Or a need to outsmart, control?

Well, my mentality isn't so highly charged that I would do the 'multiple poster' thing.

But a compulsion to outsmart and control?

I grimace before the truth of it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[laughs] Diebert - I was wondering when someone was going to accuse me of being cosmic prostitue. Everytime Cosmic P referenced me in his posts, I always assumed other forum members found that fishy. But it's not true that I am Cosmic P.

Cosmic P is my next door neighbor and we read each others books, and talk quite often in person, so we have similar points of view - so that explains it.

That was the only other possibility indeed, less likely to have kindred spirits living so close, but possible.

But how can you be sure you aren't a figment of Cosmic's imagination? But one that is not aware of the fact? How would you check this for yourself, if so desired?


AlyOshA,

Interesting. Indeed is imagination the capacity to envision our world and ourselves. The more this imagination is developed to create a functional, workable model of a 'world' and a 'being', the more the chance that a full blown fantasy or hallucination develops alongside it. The only way to distinguish between total fantasy and healthy functioning of the imagination is the test for contradiction I suppose. The more complexity and intelligence, the more rationality is needed, the more rigid our inquiry must become to deal with contradictions. Seen like this we can view imagination as a form of knowledge, reason as a second shaper, and knowledge of the absolute as a third type (following Spinoza here basically). All three are fundamental different kinds of knowledge with a different purpose. Each one is a completion and fulfillment of the underlying one.

You sound quite rational compared to the average member jumping in here. It's not altogether impossible for you to be Cosmic P. since he can be very rational sounding too :). It doesn't matter to me though, really. My own alias is Mookestink. Just kidding.

[Cory Duchesne]

Diebert: But how can you be sure you aren't a figment of Cosmic's imagination?

I would first ask (perhaps a bit indignantly with a bit of a sneer): "why his imagination?"

Why isnt he a figment of mine?

Or why wouldnt I be just as much a figment of everybody elses imagination?

Or maybe you are saying: "how do I know that me and everyone I know are only figments of cosmic prostutes imagination?"

I don't know if this is what you are encouraging me to ponder....

[AlyOshA]

Diebert:

Seen like this we can view imagination as a form of knowledge, reason as a second shaper, and knowledge of the absolute as a third type (following Spinoza here basically). All three are fundamental different kinds of knowledge with a different purpose. Each one is a completion and fulfillment of the underlying one.

Hmm… Maybe Cosmic P is not my only kindred spirit.

Or maybe you are saying: "how do I know that me and everyone I know are only figments of cosmic prostutes imagination?"

The real question is how do you know that you are not a butterfly dreaming to be Cory Patrick? That is, "all that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream". Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream…
Chuang Tzu:

How do I know that the love of life is not a delusion? How do I know that he who is afraid of death is not like a man who left his home as a youth and forgot to return? Lady Li was the daughter of the border warden of Ai. When she was first taken captive and brought to the state of Chin, she wept until the bosom of her robe was drenched with tears. But later, when she went to live in the royal palace, shared with the king his luxurious couch and sumptuous food, she regretted that she had wept. How do I know that the dead do not repent of their former craving for life? Those who dream of a merry drinking party may the next morning wail and weep. Those who dream of wailing and weeping may in the morning go off gaily to hunt. While they dream they do not know that they are dreaming, In their dream, they may even try to interpret their dream. Only when they have awakened do they begin to know that it was a dream. By and by comes the great awakening, and then we shall know that it has all been a great dream.

Once upon a time, Chuang Tzu dreamed that he was a butterfly, a butterfly fluttering about, enjoying itself. It did not know that it was Chuang Tzu. Suddenly he awoke with a start and he was Chuang Tzu again. But he did not know whether he was Chuang Tzu who had dreamed that he was a butterfly, or whether he was a butterfly dreaming that he was Chuang Tzu. Between Chuang Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. This is what is called the transformation of things.