benjamin franklin PBS special
Steve S.
playing Franklin begins speaking to the camera, he says that his life has
been good; so much so, that he wouldn't mind living it over again. However,
"since repetition is impossible..."
It amazes me how a supposedly objective documentary on PBS--whom people
trust to give correct information--would distort Franklin's views on
reincarnation. Franklin believed in reincarnation and would never have said
that "repetition of life is impossible".
Here is Franklin's epitaph, which I would guess is what the writers of the
documentary used to derive their distorted version:
The Body of B. Franklin, Printer, Like the Cover of an Old Book, Its
Contents Torn Out And Stripped of its Lettering and Gilding, Lies Here Food
for Worms, But the Work shall not be Lost, For it Will as He Believed Appear
Once More In a New and more Elegant Edition Revised and Corrected By the
Author.
Steve S.
CAndersen (Kimba)
>It amazes me how a supposedly objective documentary on PBS--whom people
>trust to give correct information--would distort Franklin's views on
>reincarnation. Franklin believed in reincarnation and would never have said
>that "repetition of life is impossible".
PBS is _extremely_ biased in all their presentations. Just like all the
others. I don't know of any media source that I would trust to be
objective. The best I can hope for is one whose biases are sometimes
compatible with mine.
But most people do have this trust in the media, like you stated, and
they've just been given a new nugget of misinformation on a subject you
care about. Frustrating, isn't it?
CAndersen (Kimba)
>Contents Torn Out And Stripped of its Lettering and Gilding, Lies Here Food
>for Worms, But the Work shall not be Lost, For it Will as He Believed Appear
>Once More In a New and more Elegant Edition Revised and Corrected By the
>Author.
Although I suppose one could argue that a new, more elegant, revised and
corrected edition does not correspond to "repetition".
Steve S.
reincarnation, they thought of it as a kind of blemish, an embarrassment
that they'd just "smooth over". No point in embarrassing his memory with one
of his quaint supersitions of the era. That's the kindest interpretation I
can have, because it looks clear to me that they took the wording of their
re-enacted introduction right from the epitaph, so they had to have made a
conscious decision.
It points home to me how these beliefs are reinforced by the
reinterpretation of history. Which is interesting, because PBS protests the
reinvention of history where blacks, minorities and women are concerned (and
I agree with them), but then they put this nonsense in the mouth of one of
our founding fathers.
Steve S.
"CAndersen (Kimba)" <Kimba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:odultugj95d7eav7g...@4ax.com...
fiziwig
Steve S. <ssa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:utmt584...@corp.supernews.com...
> I would guess that if the producers were aware of his belief in
> reincarnation, they thought of it as a kind of blemish, an embarrassment
> that they'd just "smooth over". No point in embarrassing his memory with
one
> of his quaint supersitions of the era. That's the kindest interpretation I
> can have, because it looks clear to me that they took the wording of their
> re-enacted introduction right from the epitaph, so they had to have made a
> conscious decision.
>
> It points home to me how these beliefs are reinforced by the
> reinterpretation of history. Which is interesting, because PBS protests
the
> reinvention of history where blacks, minorities and women are concerned
(and
> I agree with them), but then they put this nonsense in the mouth of one of
> our founding fathers.
>
> Steve S.
"Stupid humans. Stupid, stupid humans." -- Edward D. Wood Jr.
--gary
Dick
I am so pleased with the format, but rant to myself all the time about
their biased presentations. At least they do more than sound bytes.
Steve S.
I agree. I've been a big fan of PBS for years, and worked for a PBS
affiliate for a year and a half.
Actually that station took major advantage of me, paying me $5.79/hour to
start (with a small raise later) for the highly complicated and responsible
job of putting programs on the air--manually, with no automation (strangely,
this job has a status right above the janitor in such stations). I'd say
they had to because they didn't have enough money, but, the executives got
paid okay. That station (which will remain nameless) basically used me and
spit me out when I was used up. But still, I felt honored to put the PBS
children's morning lineup, like Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow, on the
air for a large city.
PBS has had some progressive shows relating to religion and spirituality,
such as Bill Moyers, Joseph Campbell, Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dwyer, and
Jeffrey Mishlove's "Thinking Allowed". But they stay in the safe zone. They
don't go too far, and they don't get the real spiritual heavy-hitters. It
reminds me of the scene in the movie "A River Runs Through It", where the
main character meets his future wife at a party. He speaks disparaging about
the "Klee Club Eskimos" (sorry if I have this wrong), a white group that
plays homogenized black music, and brags that he's seen the real thing. She
replies, "I *like* the Klee Club Eskimos"... . So when it comes to
spirituality, PBS presents the "Klee Club Eskimos", rather than the more
powerful sources. Partly this could be their funding structure. They can't
afford to piss off too many contributors. Since the fundamentalists and
people prejudiced against minorities (not necessarily the same of course)
probably don't form much of their contribution base, they can afford to
readily piss off "those" groups, and they do. But they can't piss off the
materialists who believe, for example, that consciousness is a by-product of
electro-chemical activity in the brain, a man is his body and his body only,
and a person ceases to exist at death. Not with real proof, anyway. Even
though such proof is fairly easy to come by, including from reputable,
scientific sources. And, even though a number of key figures in our nation's
history--some highly intelligent people, like Benjamin Franklin--believed in
it strongly. The discoverer of electricity would not have been so
impractical as to belief in something like reincarnation blindly. It must
have been proven to him beyond a reasonable doubt, for him to be so sure as
to make it the *one thing* he decided to refer to on his tombstone.
But, the producers of the show about Franklin probably imagined that this
pragmatist had to have blindly and foolishly adopted this archaic belief
unquestioningly--but that he was keenly intelligent, scientific and astute
about everything else...???
Steve S.
"Dick" <di...@christophers.net> wrote in message
news:e6bvtu8t071rdlrac...@4ax.com...
fiziwig
Steve!!!!!!
But, ... but, isn't PBS the great open forum where ANY idea can be explored?
Your revelations have crushed my faith in that one last bastion of
intellectual freedom. :(
--gary
Steve S.
impression I got was that it's a bastion that's under seige. Part of what's
happened to it is that it's got competition from such things as Nickelodeon,
the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and so-on. When they ran the
slogan that said, "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?", there was more than a
touch of irony in that. Because, indeed, several other channels will, and
were. Also, like all organizations, it's becoming part of the establishment.
However, that said, there is a high vibe of spirituality that still courses
through the veins of PBS. I experienced it when I sat at the hub of that one
station. It could have been my imagination, but I don't think so. I can't
quite describe what it felt like to push the button that sent Reading
Rainbow, for example, out on the airwaves to the children of an entire city.
And, there are gems among the ranks in PBS still today--really exceptional
people. There is also a lot of bullshit, and internal politics, like you see
in just about every organization that is trying to do good in the world.
I could go on, but the point is, despite some disappointments, the spirit of
PBS isn't dead by a long shot, and it's still to be admired and supported.
Tom Shafer
Rosicrucian Masons. As best I know, this group believes in reincarnation.
Tom
Steve S.
I've been in a friendly e-mail debate with a Christian scholar who refutes
reincarnation. One of the things I'm realizing is that I don't have the
scholarship necessary to effectively debate him, when he claims, for
example, that there is no basis in historical documents for reincarnation
ever having existed among early Christians, or that it was ever banned. I
can't cite actual historical documents, and it's a handicap.
Steve S.
"Tom Shafer" <nospam....@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uul7e2h...@corp.supernews.com...
CAndersen (Kimba)
>I've been in a friendly e-mail debate with a Christian scholar who refutes
>reincarnation. One of the things I'm realizing is that I don't have the
>scholarship necessary to effectively debate him, when he claims, for
>example, that there is no basis in historical documents for reincarnation
>ever having existed among early Christians, or that it was ever banned. I
>can't cite actual historical documents, and it's a handicap.
I just have to make a comment here that usually such arguments find the
person demanding proof to have a circular wall of defense against proof,
like the ones who demand physical proof of non-physical things.
Doing a Google search on the subject, though, turns up some possibly
helpful links, such as:
http://www.silo7.com/messageboard/drm1c1.htm :
"Belief in reincarnation is and has been central to the major religions,
including the early Christian communities until it was declared heretical
and forever banned from Christian theology by the Emperor Justinian at the
Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D.
"Without considering the views of the Pope, the Emperor Justinian declared
war on the teachings of reincarnation and karma. Teachings like the
DePrincipiis and Contra Celsum by the great Church Father Origen (185 - 253
A.D.), that quite clearly acknowledges the prenatal existence of the soul
and its dependence on earlier actions. Origen thought that only in the
light of reincarnation could certain scriptural passages of the Bible be
explained.
"The Church has clung to the conviction that the ban by Justinian --
"Whoever teaches the fantastic pre-existence of the soul and its monstrous
restoration shall be damned," -- is part of the conclusions of the Council.
The prohibition of the rebirth doctrine is therefore considered by some
scholars as simply an error in history and lacking all ecclesiastical
validity."
And there are a number of essays trying to show that reincarnation is still
to be found in the Bible, such as:
http://www.hknet.org.nz/reincarnation4.html
Have fun.
Tom Shafer
> Now, *that's* interesting. Do you have a source for that?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Here is a great essay on Masonic founding fathers with an emphasis on
Washington's high level involvement.
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/craft/masonic_myths_of_the_founding_f
a.htm
Below you find a list of the high Masonic offices Franklin held. Note that
they quote his epitaph, commonly believed to reflect his belief in
reincarnation.
http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/franklin_b/franklin_b.html
If all else fails look at the Great Seal of the US on the back of the dollar
bill. The pyramid and all seeing eye are Masonic symbols.
>
> I've been in a friendly e-mail debate with a Christian scholar who refutes
> reincarnation. One of the things I'm realizing is that I don't have the
> scholarship necessary to effectively debate him, when he claims, for
> example, that there is no basis in historical documents for reincarnation
> ever having existed among early Christians, or that it was ever banned. I
> can't cite actual historical documents, and it's a handicap.
Start with the biblical proof of pre-existence of souls.
Jeremiah 1
"5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew [1] you, before you were born I
set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
The mention Samson. He was a Nazirite from birth, actually in the womb
because his mother could drink no wine nor eat grapes while she carried.
him. Yet Mosaic Law clearly states:
Numbers 6
"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a
man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as
a Nazirite, 3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must
not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not
drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as he is a Nazirite,
he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds
or skins. "
Tough trick for Samson to have taken that vow unless he had pre-existed in
another body. Note also that this requires a vow by the person; nothing
says God can just make you a Nazirite.
Then there was Jesus and the man born blind. Whose sin caused his
blindness, his or his parent's? Yet how could he have sinned before birth
unless he lived a previous life.
Note none of this will convince your friend. ;-)
Tom
Steve S.
This fellow apparently believed in reincarnation in college, but accepted
Christianity (and all that went with it) subsequently. Good deal, bad deal.
It's almost like a kid that's been brainwashed by a cult--but there's some
of him still left in there. That's an extreme way of putting it, but there's
some truth to it. Once you put on the perceptual framework of what's been
handed down to us as Christian doctrine, you really can't see anything
outside it, apparently. I think I feel like this guy got kidnapped back in
college by some college-based operatives, and I resent them for it. But he's
probably a lost cause.
Steve S.
"Tom Shafer" <nospam....@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uuo784f...@corp.supernews.com...
CAndersen (Kimba)
>Once you put on the perceptual framework of what's been
>handed down to us as Christian doctrine, you really can't see anything
>outside it, apparently. I think I feel like this guy got kidnapped back in
>college by some college-based operatives, and I resent them for it.
Unless they used physically brain-damaging techniques on him, you need to
realize that he made this choice himself; no amount of proselytizing would
affect a person who isn't predisposed to go along with it. So if you want
to reach him, you need to stop resenting the ones who "did this to him" and
figure out his reasons for wanting to be the way he is now.
This is where he feels he needs to be now, and if you try to drag him away
from his current position, he'll likely dig in and stay there--the need to
justify his current position will fill up his life and prevent him from
having any time to reflect on his position. If you want to prod him, do it
with questions he can ponder instead of facts he "must" accept.
I know it can be frustrating; your image of putting on a perceptual
framework says so. But we all have some form of this, and the really
frustrating fact is that we can't see the limitations we impose on
ouselves, even if they are painfully obvious to other people. If a person
is not aware he is limiting himself, you can't just tell him to open up.
In re-reading what I just wrote, it occurs to me that the limitations can
also help us focus on what there is left for us to see, which takes me back
to the point about him needing to be where he is now. So, let go of the
resentment and be patient with him, while remaining true to yourself.
Tom Shafer
I got caught up in this crap in my teens. I got out of it eventually.
since they scare you into it with hellfire preaching, there is a lot of fear
to overcome on the way out.
I suspect your friend may be looking for a way out if he is talking to you.
Tom
CAndersen (Kimba)
Fear is indeed a big factor in many people's involvement with Christianity,
often the dominant factor.
christian rosencreuz
history is fairly fluid. Reincarnation only came into Rosicrucian
teachings about the same time the Theosophical Society started it, ie
in the mid to late 19th century.
Rosicrucians 'of antiquity' eg of the 17th and 18th centuries did not
have such teachings so far as I know. While it is true that
Rosicrucianism is connected to the Gnostic Christian 'stream', its
reincarnation beliefs are a fairly late addition.
R+C
Sky
I like this quote (credited to Jack Handey): "My young son asked me what
happens after we die. I told him we get buried under a bunch of dirt and
worms eat our bodies. I guess I should have told him the truth--that most
of us go to Hell and burn eternally--but I didn't want to upset him."
**Sky
* * * * People often find it easier to be the result of a past than a
source for the future.
Sky
: This fellow apparently believed in reincarnation in college, but accepted
: Christianity (and all that went with it) subsequently. Good deal, bad
deal.
: It's almost like a kid that's been brainwashed by a cult--but there's some
: of him still left in there. That's an extreme way of putting it, but
there's
: some truth to it. Once you put on the perceptual framework of what's been
: handed down to us as Christian doctrine, you really can't see anything
: outside it, apparently. I think I feel like this guy got kidnapped back in
: college by some college-based operatives, and I resent them for it. But
he's
: probably a lost cause.
: Steve S.
Fear is one incentive for continuing with the Christian faith, once it has
you in its clutches, but part of its psychological appeal is that it
requires no real personal responsibility for one's life. When things go
terribly wrong, blame Satan. As for God, he is the everyfather in whom we
can place all our cares and concerns, and rest assured that he's looking
after us, no matter what happens.
God's a very uncomplicated entity from a Christian viewpoint: just worship
and praise him (and his son), and he's happy. Convince (brainwash) others to
worship and praise him too and he's even happier. And God is the only entity
a Christian has to please. A Christian can mistreat his wife, his neighbors,
his coworkers, his customers, his dog and his kids, but if he prays long
enough and often enough, God will neutralize those little imperfections.
God forgives on behalf of everyone, which erases a great deal of personal
responsibility. A rapist, wife-beater or child abuser doesn't have to face
the responsibility of the damage he's done to others. He can leave a path of
destruction and pain, a life-time long, but if he tells God "I love you,"
his guilt magically disappears, and he's forgiven for all the harm he's done
to everyone.
There are no lessons to learn, no wisdom to be gained, for the Christian.
All he has to do is appeal to God's insatiable mega-vanity with endless
adoration and praise, and he's got his ticket to everlasting heaven.
** Sky
"He is purple -- the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like
a triangle -- the gay-pride symbol.... As a Christian I feel that role
modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children."
~~Rev. Jerry Falwell, outing Tinky Winky the Teletubby
Tom Shafer
> responsibility. A rapist, wife-beater or child abuser doesn't have to face
> the responsibility of the damage he's done to others. He can leave a path
of
> destruction and pain, a life-time long, but if he tells God "I love you,"
> his guilt magically disappears, and he's forgiven for all the harm he's
done
> to everyone.
>
> There are no lessons to learn, no wisdom to be gained, for the Christian.
> All he has to do is appeal to God's insatiable mega-vanity with endless
> adoration and praise, and he's got his ticket to everlasting heaven.
>
> ** Sky
Sky,
You put this so well.
I think a turning point was close to my conversion of Judaism when I reread
the passage about Jesus forgiving the prostitute. Granted the poor woman
needed a positive message. But I wondered how many homes her conduct had
wrecked and how many times had she spread STDs.
She needed forgiveness form God to be sure but to grow spiritually and
really change she also needed forgiveness from the persons she had harmed or
to do work to atone for what she had done. (Helping other prostitutes to
leave the life comes to mind as an atoning work.)
Simply saying "Go and sin no more" isn't enough. We learn to sin no more by
trying to repair the damage we have done.
One of the things that attracted me to Judaism is that it teaches there are
two components to sin, sin against God and sin against man. Not even God
can forgive a sin against another person. We must obtain forgiveness or do
an act of atonement.
When you think about this, it is the same as the 12 step AA program. We
need to take a fearless moral inventory of what we have done to others.
Then we must seek forgiveness and repair of the damage we did.
There are many other spiritual paths that share this teaching.
Tom