The Modern challenge to Christianity

[Nick_A]

Ah, I've been called-out. Well, I'm no Professor Needleman, but I'll try my best to satisfy your requirements for civilized discussion, Nick.

I would like to object to the ideas presented by the aforesaid professor on the basis that, in the scope of history through the Christian point of view, they add absolutely nothing to our collective understanding of the course of world events. Although to someone without the benefit of spiritual knowledge they may seem deep and meaningful, to the Christian (and we are in a Christian forum, I might remind you) who has an understanding of God's will and even a cursory knowledge of the past, Needleman's core ideas amount to nothing but truisms.

The idea that you seem to be astounded by-- that our knowledge is outpacing our morality-- is as obvious to the Christian as any. God said to Adam that if he was to partake in knowledge, that he would surely die-- he, and all of his decendants upon whom he'd brought down a curse through his actions. If morality can be defined as the adherence to essential goodness, and if God can be defined as essential goodness, then the entire history of human beings is the history of knowledge outpacing morality, because nobody has ever been as close to God as Adam was, and yet our knowledge today far exceeds that which may logically be attributed to Adam.

Indeed, Jesus Christ represents a return to simple morality-- one based on love and the understanding of love instead of on codes of law and their application by the so-called intellectual elite of the time. Jesus' main criticism of the scribes and the pharisees has to do with their hypocrisy: saying that they are God's followers, and yet not following God, nor helping others to follow God. However, in the eyes of the scribes and pharisees of the time they were not hypocrites, but righteous followers-- a fact validated by the cannon of knowledge accepted by their peers. It's essentially a self-perpetuating cycle of knowledge and immorality: we adapt the standard of morality based on our increasing knowledge, and through the increase of knowledge we in turn adapt the standard of morality to the point that it becomes perfectly normal to kill innocent people-- specifically, Jesus himself. Had the religious establishment of the time returned to simple morality, they surely would have seen Jesus for who he was, but this was simply not going to happen due to the overwhelming tide of knowledge that had swept through not only those elites, but essentially every elite.

Since the very beginning, the course of human history has been moving toward two things: an increase in knowledge, and a decrease in morality. If one analyzes any society that rises and falls, it will certainly be the case that the analysis will reveal that said society has increased in knowledge since its beginnings, and that its essential morality has decayed by its end, and the general trend will be that the more "smart" a culture becomes, the stronger it gets, and the faster it falls from not only its original ideals, but also the kind of common morality and general good described by Immanuel Kant as the categorical imperative, and railed against by Marx and other communist writers as bourgeous decadence. Have you ever asked yourself how a society built on philosophy and rationality could rationalize the wholesale buggering of young children as an expression of their concept of love? Or how the ICBM and the hydrogen bomb could be included in the list of mankind's greatest achievements? And it is essentially this self-destructive tendency that leads history into the end-times, when things get so out of hand that God has no choice but to put an end to the system of things that will be brought around by generations of elites who combine to re-cast the world in their own image based on knowledge that is not tempered by morality.

Therefore, the idea that a learned man like Needleman could sit back and claim that this self-destructive trend is a couple hundred years old is just silly, almost ridiculous, and certainly nothing new.

And by the way, I care very little if my religion appeals to you, Nick. I'm well aware of what you're up to, and why you as a "pre-Christian" have posted this topic on this particular forum.

Marsh, you are fighting so much that you don't bother to be open to what you read but prefer to pre-judge which is the essence of prejudice.

Jacob Needleman is not saying the imbalance between morality and knowledge is anything new but rather we've reached a stage where the problem is more critical as we pass the buck from solution to solution

But in fact, no assumption of moral authority by secular humanism has taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war, along with the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all at once project humanity's essence-immortality onto the entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness, and global disintegration of the normal patterns of life that have guided mankind for a millennia. Neither the secular philosophies of our epoch nor its theories of human nature - pragmatism, positivism, Marxism, Liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism, psychoanalysis - nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor other wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzing new ethical problems.

Indeed,

Jesus Christ represents a return to simple morality-- one based on love and the understanding of love instead of on codes of law and their application by the so-called intellectual elite of the time.

No, Jesus provides a means by which inner morality becomes possible. You speak of love but the quality of love, objective love, Jesus refers to is beyond us who are restricted to subjective love where we love this and hate that.


You cannot read a preface to a book without suffering righteous indignation. Where is the love in that. I'm not being critical because you are just being normal.

Prof. Needleman suggests that it has always been a function of Christianity to become more than normal for society and become oneself

.....an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we were meant to be -- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

What good is speaking of simple morality when we are incapable of it? Paul describes the human condition well but we prefer to preach rather then admit it is true in ourselves as well and explaining why everything is as it is.

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul is man enough to admit it but we prefer to BS about world peace impossible for the collective human condition.


Prof. Needleman suggests the value of an ancient idea as the beginning to dealing with the human condition:

What is lost is the experience of oneself -- myself, the personal being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting ones existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however tentatively, of a higher current of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness between what we are meant to be and what we actually are. it is perhaps the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past toward the human future.

This is the essence of what it means to "know thyself." You prefer to mock, make fun of names, and write of love. Now what's wrong with this picture?

And by the way, I care very little if my religion appeals to you, Nick. I'm well aware of what you're up to, and why you as a "pre-Christian" have posted this topic on this particular forum.

I've been discovered. I am Lucifer himself tempting you to actually think about the depth and potential of Christianity

 

[wil]

the purpose of the bible is not that of historical authenticity (though there is much history recorded within). The purpose of the bible is to teach us how to live right, compassionate, just, and loving lives. Where is the "myth" in that message?

I think the hyperbole is in the observations in your life time, of people professing to be "Christian", yet fell quite short of the mark. You're in good company...Mahatma Ghandi felt the same way...

Nobody says myths don't have a message or that there aren't great messages in the myths that are in the bible.

Q, for most of the past 2,000 years the majority of Christians believed the earth was created in seven calendar days 7,000 years ago, the canyons were created by the receding waters from noahs flood and we are all decendents of Adam and Eve...these are the myths that 'were' historical fact and to some today (the thousands that trip thru the creationist museum) still are proven historical fact.... This is what I am saying needs to be laid aside.

This claim of biblical inerrancy as interpretted by the powers that be is what caused your chosen faith to hold science as heretical for hundreds of years...

 

[Quahom1]

Nobody says myths don't have a message or that there aren't great messages in the myths that are in the bible.

Q, for most of the past 2,000 years the majority of Christians believed the earth was created in seven calendar days 7,000 years ago, the canyons were created by the receding waters from noahs flood and we are all decendents of Adam and Eve...these are the myths that 'were' historical fact and to some today (the thousands that trip thru the creationist museum) still are proven historical fact.... This is what I am saying needs to be laid aside.

This claim of biblical inerrancy as interpretted by the powers that be is what caused your chosen faith to hold science as heretical for hundreds of years...

Who's calendar days Wil? Man's or God's? The Universe was created in six days, before man ever existed as a corporial being. So why would God use man's time to to explain his creation, when we didn't exist? And why can't the corporate consciousness not have begun with two humans? Why couldn't that have been the turning point from animal to something more?

As an aside, water, is a powerful force on this planet, as it lava...but water is more so.

For most of the past 2000 years the world has been in the darkness...thanks to the likes of the Romans, and the Huns...talk about idiots.

 

[wil]

Who's calendar days Wil? Man's or God's? ....

And why can't the corporate consciousness not have begun with two humans? Why couldn't that have been the turning point from animal to something more?

Agree on the calendar days...but that is not what the collective understanding was for 2000 years.

As for the other...according to scripture...Gen 1 we have animals first but in Gen 2 it goes Adam then animals then Eve....So quite the interesting evolutionary thought we have there.

Again, preaching to the choir if you want to look at underlying metaphysical possibilities...but I am referring again to the pervasive thought that this is History.

 

[Nick_A]

Agree on the calendar days...but that is not what the collective understanding was for 2000 years.

As for the other...according to scripture...Gen 1 we have animals first but in Gen 2 it goes Adam then animals then Eve....So quite the interesting evolutionary thought we have there.

Again, preaching to the choir if you want to look at underlying metaphysical possibilities...but I am referring again to the pervasive thought that this is History.

If Prof. Needleman is right in that we need a new understanding of God or man, can it come from rejecting the Bible and how it was written or becoming able to begin to "understand" it?

 

[wil]

If Prof. Needleman is right in that we need a new understanding of God or man, can it come from rejecting the Bible and how it was written or becoming able to begin to "understand" it?

I don't think it needs rejection...more footnotes, more clarification...not just continually updating to modern language for ease of understanding...

but an understanding of how and why it was written.

It is happening now...and it will continue...

 

[Quahom1]

Agree on the calendar days...but that is not what the collective understanding was for 2000 years.

As for the other...according to scripture...Gen 1 we have animals first but in Gen 2 it goes Adam then animals then Eve....So quite the interesting evolutionary thought we have there.

Again, preaching to the choir if you want to look at underlying metaphysical possibilities...but I am referring again to the pervasive thought that this is History.

No, read Gen 1 and Gen 2 again. In both counts man, is last (he just names all the animals that are brought to him). As I recall, giving someone a name, implies possession, and responsibility for the one given a name.

Animals, then Adam, then Eve...saving the best for last perhaps...

One is a general account, while the other is a personal account.

We call it the 1000 ft view and the two foot view...

 

[wil]

No, read Gen 1 and Gen 2 again. In both counts man, is last (he just names all the animals that are brought to him). As I recall, giving someone a name, implies possession, and responsibility for the one given a name.

Animals, then Adam, then Eve...saving the best for last perhaps...

One is a general account, while the other is a personal account.

We call it the 1000 ft view and the two foot view...

Well put on your spectacles, one of your views needs glasses.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

[Nick_A]

I don't think it needs rejection...more footnotes, more clarification...not just continually updating to modern language for ease of understanding...

but an understanding of how and why it was written.

It is happening now...and it will continue...

Do you experientially understand its meaning to know how and why it was written as is? If it is all happening now, what experts of the day have explained it? The Jesus Seminar, Oprah, or perhaps Conversations with God.

 

[wil]

Do you experientially understand its meaning to know how and why it was written as is? If it is all happening now, what experts of the day have explained it? The Jesus Seminar, Oprah, or perhaps Conversations with God.

I have no knowledge of what the Oprah says. TJS and NDW/CWG I am familiar with.

 

[Nick_A]

I have no knowledge of what the Oprah says. TJS and NDW/CWG I am familiar with.

This is the trouble. People believe that since they've read or heard something and beccome familiar that they have understanding.

 

[wil]

This is the trouble. People believe that since they've read or heard something and beccome familiar that they have understanding.

Namaste Nick,

The Dali Lama says 'You know you are enlightened when everyone you see you see as enlightened.'

So glad to be a reference point.

 

[Nick_A]

Namaste Nick,

The Dali Lama says 'You know you are enlightened when everyone you see you see as enlightened.'

So glad to be a reference point.

It's amazing how many groups of enlightened people full of love engage in these rituals of mutual destruction called wars. Perhaps he meant that the corpses are the enlightened ones which makes more sense..

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, you are fighting so much that you don't bother to be open to what you read but prefer to pre-judge which is the essence of prejudice.

No, Jesus provides a means by which inner morality becomes possible. You speak of love but the quality of love, objective love, Jesus refers to is beyond us who are restricted to subjective love where we love this and hate that.


You cannot read a preface to a book without suffering righteous indignation. Where is the love in that. I'm not being critical because you are just being normal.

What good is speaking of simple morality when we are incapable of it?

This is the essence of what it means to "know thyself." You prefer to mock, make fun of names, and write of love. Now what's wrong with this picture?

I've been discovered. I am Lucifer himself tempting you to actually think about the depth and potential of Christianity

Ah yes....... The lad asks me to speak logically and intelligently rather than cynically, and what is the result? He listens to not a word I have said, but instead has railed against my beliefs, accusing me of being a mocker, of being prejudiced, of being a hater...

You have just proven me absolutely correct in my assumption about you, Nick. You're not Lucifer, nor did I ever think you were; you're just one more non-Christian who's trying to tell Christians what we believe and should believe, what we are and are not capable of, how our world is and should be defined, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And when someone like me, who holds Jesus as my source of knowledge rather than a professor-- as is my right, chooses not to agree with your opinion, out comes the alarmist rhetoric that's so common and so telling of a man with an agenda.

"Oh, he says he's a Christian but he strongly disagreed with me, which shows he's not loving."

"Oh, he made fun of Professor Needleman's name, which shows that he mocks everything."

"Oh, he says that I'm up to something, which must mean he's calling me the Devil."

"Oh, well if he's like that then I want no part of his religion." (as if you ever did)

Whatever, Nick. I'll venture that everyone posting in this forum has been able to discern that I was joking about the whole Needleman thing, which I already explained three posts ago (see the Stonecutters episode of the Simpsons in order to understand the humour), and yet here you are calling me down over it all over again. And why? Because I objected to Needleman's ideas logically and with as much clarity as I could, and apparently you have nothing to come back with, so you resort instead to harping on the same dull things again.

See, you're not a Christian (pre-Christian is another way of saying non-Christian) by your own admission, and yet here you are trying to tell me about what Jesus stands for.

Example: "No, Jesus provides a means by which inner morality becomes possible. You speak of love but the quality of love, objective love, Jesus refers to is beyond us who are restricted to subjective love where we love this and hate that."

Man, if you're not a follower of Christ, how can you possibly know what he provides, what he refers to? The answer is that you can't, and yet here you are telling me that you can, and using this professor's book-- and other "experts of the day" such as Oprah (*booooooooo!*)-- to rationalize what you're saying. You accuse me of fighting too much simply because I don't readily accept what you believe, and then judge my character?

Yeah, I fight for what I believe in, and when someone walks into my house and leaves the front door open, I'll close it before the flies get in.

 

[Nick_A]

Ah yes....... The lad asks me to speak logically and intelligently rather than cynically, and what is the result? He listens to not a word I have said, but instead has railed against my beliefs, accusing me of being a mocker, of being prejudiced, of being a hater...

You have just proven me absolutely correct in my assumption about you, Nick. You're not Lucifer, nor did I ever think you were; you're just one more non-Christian who's trying to tell Christians what we believe and should believe, what we are and are not capable of, how our world is and should be defined, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And when someone like me, who holds Jesus as my source of knowledge rather than a professor-- as is my right, chooses not to agree with your opinion, out comes the alarmist rhetoric that's so common and so telling of a man with an agenda.

"Oh, he says he's a Christian but he strongly disagreed with me, which shows he's not loving."

"Oh, he made fun of Professor Needleman's name, which shows that he mocks everything."

"Oh, he says that I'm up to something, which must mean he's calling me the Devil."

"Oh, well if he's like that then I want no part of his religion." (as if you ever did)

Whatever, Nick. I'll venture that everyone posting in this forum has been able to discern that I was joking about the whole Needleman thing, which I already explained three posts ago (see the Stonecutters episode of the Simpsons in order to understand the humour), and yet here you are calling me down over it all over again. And why? Because I objected to Needleman's ideas logically and with as much clarity as I could, and apparently you have nothing to come back with, so you resort instead to harping on the same dull things again.

See, you're not a Christian (pre-Christian is another way of saying non-Christian) by your own admission, and yet here you are trying to tell me about what Jesus stands for.

Example: "No, Jesus provides a means by which inner morality becomes possible. You speak of love but the quality of love, objective love, Jesus refers to is beyond us who are restricted to subjective love where we love this and hate that."

Man, if you're not a follower of Christ, how can you possibly know what he provides, what he refers to? The answer is that you can't, and yet here you are telling me that you can, and using this professor's book-- and other "experts of the day" such as Oprah (*booooooooo!*)-- to rationalize what you're saying. You accuse me of fighting too much simply because I don't readily accept what you believe, and then judge my character?

Yeah, I fight for what I believe in, and when someone walks into my house and leaves the front door open, I'll close it before the flies get in.

Marsh, what you call Christianity has no appeal to me. It is filled with too much nastiness and negativity. Prof Needleman contends that we are entering critical times because our capacity for self destruction is improving while our captivation by the "joys" of sin including all this righteous indignation and imagined self importance that denies any growth in "understanding" that could contend with this potential disaster.

He contends that we can be part of the solution if we make the efforts he explains as intermediate Christianity which has always been a part of Christianity and opens us to reality and the experience of inner morality that should be normal for us.

You prefer to be part of the problem through expressions of righteous indignation and I prefer to be part of the solution by coming to grips with the human condition as described by St. Paul. The essence of Christianity contains the means for doing so. We have chosen our directions.

 

[wil]

Marsh, what you call Christianity has no appeal to me. It is filled with too much nastiness and negativity. Prof Needleman contends that we are entering critical times because our capacity for self destruction is improving while our captivation by the "joys" of sin including all this righteous indignation and imagined self importance that denies any growth in "understanding" that could contend with this potential disaster.

He contends that we can be part of the solution if we make the efforts he explains as intermediate Christianity which has always been a part of Christianity and opens us to reality and the experience of inner morality that should be normal for us.

You prefer to be part of the problem through expressions of righteous indignation and I prefer to be part of the solution by coming to grips with the human condition as described by St. Paul. The essence of Christianity contains the means for doing so. We have chosen our directions.

I think the way to be part of the solution, the way to be a Christian is to be Christ like. Paul, I die daily, ie one has never learned it all. Put on the mind of Christ. Work on ourselves, know that everyone is where they need to be. I think there was a reason that when Christ asked if someone was ready to be healed they said yes...it was his nature and the way that he said it.

Seems to me being part of a solution doesn't include telling others they are part of the problem.

 

[Quahom1]

Well put on your spectacles, one of your views needs glasses.

No, I can understand the story and the depth quite well. As I said, one is a 1000 foot view and the other is a two foot view. One part focuses on the whole of creation while the other focuses on the creation of Man. One is about God Elohim, and the other is about God YHWH. One speaks of plants and seeds, while the other speaks of no plants or seeds for man to till, work, plant, harvest, eat. One speaks of the earth and vegetation, while the other speaks of a home for man that does not exist yet. One speaks of creating animals first then man while the other speaks of creating animals before bringing them to man, not bringing man to where the animals are being formed.

I must note, the Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the two parts of Genesis when he made this statement: “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [Gn1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [Gn2:24].” Matthew 19: 4-5.

v/r

Q

 

[Nick_A]

I think the way to be part of the solution, the way to be a Christian is to be Christ like. Paul, I die daily, ie one has never learned it all. Put on the mind of Christ. Work on ourselves, know that everyone is where they need to be. I think there was a reason that when Christ asked if someone was ready to be healed they said yes...it was his nature and the way that he said it.

Seems to me being part of a solution doesn't include telling others they are part of the problem.

The whole purpose of Christianity is to deal with the fallen human condition that continues in us as the wretched man described by Paul in Romans 7. We cannot be Christ like, The human condition prevents it.

It isn't a matter of saying we will do this or that but in coming to discover the human heart and allowing it to heal.

Christianity is not the way of the Law telling you what to do. Christianity accepts that we cannot be Christ like and more human so agrees to surrender our illusions for the sake of inviting help from above as in the Holy spirit. Christ says to love our enemies but we see we cannot. That is a big step in self knowledge that begins to free one from platudes.

You may be associated with secular interfaith which stresses doing the polite thing and creating the nice images. However Christianity as a part of transcendent Interfaith requires a person to become open which is far easier when a person has come through self knowledge to discover that life in the darkness of Plato's cave is a dead end street. We say one thing and do another.

We are the problem. The first part of becoming part of the solution is in admitting we are the problem. Then we seek to either continue as such or make the inner efforts to "Know Thyself" from which help comes for the solution.

Higher conscious influences are always trying to help us but require us to be open to them which means a willingness to gradually surrender our dependence on our acquired inner lies that support our imagined self importance and the domination of vanity or "appearance" on our psych.

If we cannot admit to being the problem, all those calling themselves Christian for some reason will only adopt the role of the Pharisee in the NT and be representatives of appearance, the objective results of which as shown in the Bible, must lead, with the cooperation of all with the dependence of "appearances" in general, to the destruction of the Good.

The concern now is that this destruction is not just limited to a person's unique being but a quality of mutual mass destruction never witnessed before.

In good conscience I'd rather assert that the human condition in all of us make us a unique part of the problem and suggest that Christianity as opposed to Christendom, could be part of the solution that minimizes the dangerous parts of lawful natural cycles that include war.

 

[Quahom1]

The whole purpose of Christianity is to deal with the fallen human condition that continues in us as the wretched man described by Paul in Romans 7. We cannot be Christ like, The human condition prevents it.

It isn't a matter of saying we will do this or that but in coming to discover the human heart and allowing it to heal.

Christianity is not the way of the Law telling you what to do. Christianity accepts that we cannot be Christ like and more human so agrees to surrender our illusions for the sake of inviting help from above as in the Holy spirit. Christ says to love our enemies but we see we cannot. That is a big step in self knowledge that begins to free one from platudes.

You may be associated with secular interfaith which stresses doing the polite thing and creating the nice images. However Christianity as a part of transcendent Interfaith requires a person to become open which is far easier when a person has come through self knowledge to discover that life in the darkness of Plato's cave is a dead end street. We say one thing and do another.

We are the problem. The first part of becoming part of the solution is in admitting we are the problem. Then we seek to either continue as such or make the inner efforts to "Know Thyself" from which help comes for the solution.

Higher conscious influences are always trying to help us but require us to be open to them which means a willingness to gradually surrender our dependence on our acquired inner lies that support our imagined self importance and the domination of vanity or "appearance" on our psych.

If we cannot admit to being the problem, all those calling themselves Christian for some reason will only adopt the role of the Pharisee in the NT and be representatives of appearance, the objective results of which as shown in the Bible, must lead, with the cooperation of all with the dependence of "appearances" in general, to the destruction of the Good.

The concern now is that this destruction is not just limited to a person's unique being but a quality of mutual mass destruction never witnessed before.

In good conscience I'd rather assert that the human condition in all of us make us a unique part of the problem and suggest that Christianity as opposed to Christendom, could be part of the solution that minimizes the dangerous parts of lawful natural cycles that include war.

Christendom is a political venue with religious trappings. Christianity is a way of life...

 

[wil]

The whole purpose of Christianity is to deal with the fallen human condition that continues in us as the wretched man described by Paul in Romans 7. We cannot be Christ like, The human condition prevents it..

The purpose of x is to deal with y, but we can't deal with x because z prevents it.

Well then, lets all just continue to bump our heads against the wall.

I don't have a woe is me, we are born in sin, or lack view of humanity. My Father is wealthy and has bestowed that wealth on all his children that choose to accept it.