Knowledge of Good and Evil

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

Please forgive my inattention, I have been quite occupied with other concerns of late, and have not had the time to give this thread the proper attention.

If, as I stated before, there is no consciousness beyond man, and man came from the very depths of the most ancient sea, and was the very FIRST of all life, he had no concept of good and evil, right and wrong, regardless of his pre-human form. That would have to come from life experience i.e., that which caused that life-form pain or injury as opposed to comfort or satisfaction. I would suggest (without any formal proof) that a continuation of life would become a primal ‘instinct’ and later the ‘survival of the species.’ (Of the fittest?) Later development of intellectual and instinctive abilities would come from interrelationships within a growing species, and then from within an organized community.

I think I follow, and am inclined to agree. Morality among animals, or perhaps better said morality without conscious rational thought, is certainly of a different type and kind than seems appropriate in civil society. It would seem, (if it is truly distanced observation and not anthropomorphizing, always a concern when looking at this), that animal mothers among the mammals, and to some degree birds, seem to have some “emotional” relation to their babies. Herding and pack animals exhibit hierarchies, rallying around the strong male “protector.” There are other attributes that can sometimes be forwarded, but not exclusively. Murder, for instance, seems somewhat arbitrary. Same with theft. These considerations are always “within the group,” as animals rarely consider “moral” behavior outside of their group, often even within the same species.

IF, we accept the existence of a conscious entity beyond ourselves (God, if you will) we are still faced with the question of how man adopted an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil. My concept of Genesis leaves the doctrine of Original Sin, in grave doubt. The Serpent fed on Eve’s innocence, not her sinfulness! Adam gave in to curiosity, not the knowledge that he was doing something wrong. When they lost their innocence, when niavete vanished and they realized their naked state, the first concept of ‘wrong’ entered the picture. The concept was not planted by God or by the Serpent, but by a bitter life experience. When they were banished from Paradise, Adam and Eve entered the world of mankind and the adaptation into a material life experience that created the Law, crime and punishment, etc.

We still are faced with a daunting challenge, that of anthropomorphizing G-d. I realize the subject demands we speak in terms that are meaningful to us as humans, we obviously cannot converse in wolf or orangutan. Even though I may believe, in fact do believe, in a Creator, I am cautious to attribute human aspects to “Him.” IF G-d has a “consciousness,” I suspect that consciousness is so far beyond our understanding as to make the term almost meaningless. How can I begin to fathom a consciousness that created the universe “by speaking the word?” Even if I may be so presumptuous as to claim that I am made in the image of G-d, I am no more like G-d than my shadow is like me.

As to Original Sin, I am not versed enough to argue. If the concept applies to going against the direct mandate of G-d to Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then I am thinking that is a beginning point for human moral development, a significant marker if you will. Prior to that, if Adam and Eve are representative of early humanity, we have no way of knowing if they were able or capable of doing wrong towards other humans. Were there murder and war, theft and adultery prior to the advent of Eden? Archeology suggests at least some of these were so, and it is likely the others can be surmised. Perhaps, and this is only speculation, Eden represents an active interjection on the part of the Creator into the creation. The opening of the minds of Adam and Eve represent the advent of rational thought. Of course, this raises questions of its own, considering rational thought seems to have been with humans far longer than the Biblical 6 thousand years since Adam was created.

… we come to face a truth whether one is a ‘believer’ or a non-believer, and everything in-between. The world corrupts; it corrupts us physically, spiritually, and eventually, intellectually.

Perhaps. Belief carries its own burden, particularly if one desires with all of his or her being to “believe” the truth. What value is belief in a non-truth? Perhaps there may be some moral value, ethical lessons to be learned and applied toward the rest of humanity. But to the individual, what real value is there to belief in non-truth? If truth is eventually a corruption of the mind, then what value is there to any philosophy, religious or otherwise? Either something is truth, or it is not. I suppose there may be some degree of truth, some mythos are “more true” than others, but there must be one factual truth that exists. Whether or not the one factual truth can be proven is another story.

We need no ‘angel’ or ‘demon’ on either shoulder because we respond to our environment, to the actions of mankind and of nature. We are conditioned by all that comes from our ancient ancestry to our modern frustrations and joys. We are conditioned by so many factors that it becomes incomprehensible and almost beyond understanding, but that which has become our innate knowledge of good and evil lies within us and, in the end, we are barely in control.

To some degree I can agree. Even so, how does one account for actions we know are not correct, that are not “skillful?” I want to believe every mother tries her best to instill correct behavior in her children. Yet, in spite of this effort through the millennia, every mother’s child makes mistakes. On occasion we go against our learned behaviors, sometimes with our conscience screaming to us not to do so. If we are conditioned, then we are conditioned to do what is right. Yet, in spite of our conditioning, we do not always do what is right. Why?

I do not believe that we must ascertain the historical reality of first man. Who or what he might have been is inconsequential. The FACT that a first, an original, came into existence is proven by the fact that you and I exist! And I am not of a fundamentalist mind but a believer who has no problem in accepting the fact that our universe must be billions of eons old. On the other hand, I delight in the knowledge that Hubble allows us to SEE that the Creation is an ongoing event in the myriad of Star Nurseries that until now have been hidden from us.

Actually, I suspect we can never know the true ha-Adam. Even if we were of the great fortune to find him in his grave, I doubt we would fully appreciate the importance. But timing is essential to our understanding of truth. Was ha-Adam only “born” 6 thousand years ago? Or is he much, much older? When was the human mind awakened into consciousness? When was humanity gifted with rational thought? When did foresight become an intrinsic part of the human thought process? The Knowledge of Good and Evil points directly to all of these questions.

Now, if the story of Eden is “really” about the dawn of the age of agriculture, then we can more literally accept the 6 thousand year figure. In which case, perhaps the opening of the mind is more literally about the physical addiction to cereals.

Genesis is, at best, an anthropomorphic analogy of man coming into the world, and for the age in which it originated, is a unique and ambitious effort.

I absolutely agree that the Genesis story is a noble and ambitious effort to convey an understanding, and it is a superlative effort for the age in which it originated. My effort with my question is not to cast the Bible or any portion of it into doubt in the minds of those who believe in it. Certainly there is a great value, and great truths contained within. I tread very lightly considering this. I do not discount G-d lightly. There is far too much evidence of a personal nature for me to doubt the existence of a Creator. Yet, there remains a nagging doubt that calls me to question. I do not follow where the wind blows, I do not actively consider every “prophet” that comes my way. Even in what religious philosophies that dominate in the world, there is sufficient truth for most, and certainly evidences that satisfy the vast majority. I am a Christian. I believe in the tenets of Christianity. Certain values are self-evident, love G-d and do unto others… But there is something missing. That “something” is quite unimportant to salvation, to gaining access to heaven and the favor of G-d. But it nags at me just the same. We are moral animals, yet we are far, far more. Why?

Now this statement causes emotion… If Adam existed as an immortal in Paradise (the Garden) then I would suppose that the ultimate purpose would have been as Genesis states, “Be fruitful and multiply!” Gaining knowledge, wisdom, Adam would eventually have reached a state of perfection (whatever grand scheme that would entail) and he would have become as a God, knowing all that God knows.

So then, perfection lies in knowledge?

In Christianity, doctrine tells us that, having fallen from grace, Adam became a mortal being subject to all the consequences of that existence. There was no alternative but for the Christ (Messiah) to become human, take on all the frailties of human existence and reach a state of perfection here on this earth. The reward for believers is ‘salvation’, reaching the state of perfection originally intended for Adam and eternal life in the, Kingdom.

Yes, Christian doctrine tells us these things. What does the objective physical evidence tell us?

Whatever avenue one chooses, we must all deal with ‘real’ life within the many structures of human existence on this planet. My question would be: will man be able to attain that state universally, or merely individually.
Finally, as Ethics and Morality vary from social order to social order, they would certainly vary from species to species, and from life-form to life-form, including that which we would consider, Alien!

That ethics and morality differ from culture to culture and species to species is unquestionable to me, there are far too many examples. Yet, moral lessons are the great value we carry away from all religious philosophies. It remains, why are we moral? Because we are trained? Questioning minds can overcome training, indeed, questioning minds are often the first to be sacrificed in any revolution. Likewise, questioning minds in the right place at the right time with the right support can influence the masses. Both of these are historically evident. Yet, underlying every significant religious enterprise is a fundamental or foundational morality. So many of us take this morality for granted, presuming that morality is an objective reality that cannot be questioned. There may be some merit, and it is that merit I seek. But morality as a whole is far from objective, as evidenced by your statement above. Morality is subjective by its nature, it means different things and holds different expressions across different cultures.

Religions give us basic codes for moral action, and they often vary as do Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Law though they come from the same base. The basic foundations of our legal systems stem from ‘Theos nomos’, God’s Law! Agios nomos, man’s law, usually generates from those principles and adapts by necessity. But no one yet has accomplished a ‘perfect’ Law in heart, mind or spirit.

I cannot argue with this, I have made statements in the past that support this. Of course, one could argue (indeed, must!) that some other religions also stem from their own interpretation of “G-d’s” Law. If G-d created all as He wished all to be (speaking in relative terms), then expressions of what G-d is and what He represents, what His will and methods and motivations are must have some basis of commonality. I find a commonality in the Golden Rule.

I believe it is because we have become so diverse in our nature as individuals.

Certainly. While we are diverse, we also share a commonality. Yet, there can only be one truth. We can spend a lifetime searching for who among us holds that one truth (if indeed any can be said to hold it in its completeness!). Or we can go where the spirit leads us, and find the truth where it resides.

Perhaps, just maybe, what is true for you may not be true for me. And likewise in return. That is, if truth is in reality relative.

On the other hand, if there is in reality an objective truth, then there can only be just one truth. I suspect none of us holds it in completeness. We all hold hints and allegations, enough to lead us to suspect, but none among us is worthy to hold the real truth. And then, there is the possibility that none of us is capable of knowing the truth. Does not the Bible state that a mortal man cannot look upon the face of G-d and survive?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Inhumility, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your response, especially the verses from the Quran.

Knowledge of good and evil has been beneficial to man and that’s why man has made so much progress in science and technology and other fields. It is no more a forbidden tree or its fruit, man has tasted it and it is tasty.

Well, we have a bit of a quandary, as exposed in my answer to Victor. Is the threshold of Good and Evil the opening of consciousness and reasoning? If so, then you may be pointing in the right direction, but the timetable is way off. If, on the other hand, the story of Eden is the dawning of the age of agriculture and humanity's addiction to cereals, it raises other questions. Do we credit all of our technologies short of rudimentary tools and fire to the mind expansion brought about by the addiction to cereals? What is it about the natural chemicals in cereals that expanded our mental faculties to the point of creating such arts and sciences as astronomy, mathematics, architecture and war?

Morals ,to me, are the natural faculties of man molded into actions, done with free will, suited to the time and occasion and of course according to the dictates of God as per the Revealed Scriptures.

Well, I see an issue with "suited to the time and occasion." This suggests Utilitarian morality, that whatever means is justified if it points towards the end. (What is sometimes called "the end justifies the means") When we hold such a point of view, we inherently tell ourselves, and by extension others, that we do not have to abide by what we say we do. That is, I can tell you murder is wrong, and that I will not commit murder because it is wrong. Yet, if by committing murder I can further my personal agenda towards what I believe is a higher cause, I can justify to myself to commit murder. I can show others that I can murder, while I am telling those same people that murder is wrong. In such a case, am I right or wrong to commit murder? Murder is still murder. The difference being whether in one's view it is for personal motive, or for G-d. Murder for G-d is acceptable, but murder for personal reasons is not? It conveys a very mixed message to others. Not to mention, how does one really know they are murdering for G-d? Because another man, perhaps a respected Holy man but a man just the same, tells them to? If G-d Himself tells me to murder, then I would likely do so (although I would question my own sanity). If some man tells me G-d said so, I will not murder, because it is a man and not G-d.

I hope this makes some sense. I am rambling, apologies, I am tired.

 

[Victor]

juantoo3
Dear fellow traveler:

Even if I may be so presumptuous as to claim that I am made in the image of G-d, I am no more like G-d than my shadow is like me.

This statement should be canonized!

I am honestly impressed with your understanding and this simple metaphor speaks a thousand words. The image we are comprised of is a spiritual image, at least to my thinking. I flinch when others claim we are the ‘physical’ likeness of the Creator.

Anthropomorphizing God has been the motif since day one. We have no other way of expressing ourselves about the Creator, even to ourselves, other than when we are in deep meditation. How sad! Now, as to belief, I have a favorite scene from a theatrical event where an old man is speaking to a young boy who has been constantly lied to by his mother. I hope this does not bore you.

“If you want to believe in something, then believe in it! Just because something isn’t true that’s no reason you can’t believe in it. There’s a long speech I give to young men, seems to me you need to hear a piece of it… piece of it. Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything. That power and money, money and power mean nothing! That good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, love, true love never dies. You remember that boy, you remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, you see, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in. Got that?”
Second Hand Lions

My friend, we are obsessed with the future. Not the future earth but the future life that lies beyond this earthly realm. I can only tell you that from life experience, meditation, and prayer, I know there is far more to experience in the ‘kingdom.’ I also believe this because I believe that the ‘Christ’ figure runs through history, repeating itself over and over again. I look to Abraham, Melchizedek, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi….. how many others have there been? And indeed, what is Salvation? Redemption? Enlightenment? Possibly it is no more than to know that we exist and will continue to exist through all time.

We are not accidents, but intentional creations of That Entity who rules all things, and being of that essence gives us enormous flights of imagination and the power to, believe!

SO… I am working on a fourth thesis and I see a good year’s work ahead. Do stay in touch here on this site.

I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[inhumility]

Kindest Regards, Inhumility, and welcome to CR!
Thank you for your response, especially the verses from the Quran.
Well, I see an issue with "suited to the time and occasion." This suggests Utilitarian morality, that whatever means is justified if it points towards the end. (What is sometimes called "the end justifies the means")

Thanks for your kind remarks.
I did't mean "suited to the time and occasion." what you have understood,it is because I couldn't mention it clealy.What I mean by that is if for instance somebody does some wrog to you,then you have to judge from humanity's angle if your action of forgiving that person would improve that person ,if forgiveness will improve that person in your best judgement then you should forgive that person.On the otherhand if your best judgement decides that your forgiving that person will further spoil that person then you should not forgive and rather take action against him so that that person improves.This is a humanitarian approach as well as a moral approach.
Thanks

 

[Victor]

inhumility:
This is a humanitarian approach as well as a moral approach.

What about the religious approach? Christianity deals with a strict code of ‘ethics’ when it comes to dealing with ‘wrongs’ done to one within the body of believers; for simplicity sake, a congregation. Example:

The Congregational Council makes a report to the congregation and a person disagrees with the facts stated. That person goes ahead and makes his own investigation, which when delivered to the congregation and the Council, points out the errors in their report and in their general conduct. A member of the Council, who had planned to leave the Congregation anyway, takes offense at the individuals report and then goes to members of the Council and to the Pastor of the church and states that the individual is the sole cause for his family leaving the church. That the individual has defamed his character, impugned his word, and is the single individual reason for his leaving the church, thereby denying him and his family the right to Christ’s table. (The Eucharist)

This person never confronts the individual who made the report, never takes witnesses from the church to talk to him and never involves that individual before the Congregation but makes all his accusations behind the persons back!

Matthew 18:1-15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

This person happens to be an influential member of the church, and though he leaves, his continued presence in and around the church causes members of the Congregation and the Council to look upon the innocent individual with suspicion. The pointing fingers accuse and so the individual goes to the Council asking them to hear the case, look at the evidence, and declare his innocence. They Refuse!

Because of such intolerant neglect, this person is no longer permitted to take Communion, involve himself in management areas of the church and its committees, must resign from the Choir where he served as Cantor and Lector, and his tithe is considered unacceptable to the church.

Matthew 5:21-26
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.”

The accuser goes unscathed, still refuses to deal with the individual, and continues his assault from outside the boundaries of the church though still involved in working around the building during the week although no longer a member. Would you tell the accused to ignore the cowardice and infamy of this persons attack and forgive him? And how would you judge the Council?

I recall this, when Jesus was confronted with civil matters, he conceded to make compromise, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” But when it came to his religious beliefs, he practiced, Jihad! Note his actions at the Temple with the money changers, and his response to Peter? “Get thee behind me Satan, for you are not for God but for men!”

Decision please?

I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

The image we are comprised of is a spiritual image, at least to my thinking. I flinch when others claim we are the ‘physical’ likeness of the Creator.

Some speculation I suppose is unavoidable, but where we tread dangerously is in believing our speculations. Worse yet, teaching our speculations as "truth" to others.

Spirit will lead, if we allow spirit to do so. Spirit will guide us to where we need to be, and spirit will teach us as we are capable of learning. Substitute G-d if you like for "spirit," or Christ, or any of a number of other spiritually "in-tune" teachers. But I hesitate, strongly, because I do not feel all teachers who are frequently presented as spiritually in-tune actually are so. There are many false guides. The trouble has long been in sorting through things to make sense of any of it. Perhaps that is a portion of the enigma, in that we try to make sense of a subject matter that fundamentally does not make objective logical sense.

Anthropomorphizing God has been the motif since day one. We have no other way of expressing ourselves about the Creator, even to ourselves,

Considering that this is the way of humans for millenia, certainly reaching into unwritten history, it is no surprize. Anthropo-projection onto the wind, the fire, the rain, the harvest. Some papers I have read hint that the "Wild Man" tradition dates so far into antiquity among peoples such as the Ainu that this "projection" cannot help but influence our collective conscience and primordial memories. We still hold fast to this tradition, in the form of Santa Claus, even today!

Now, as to belief...:

“If you want to believe in something, then believe in it! Just because something isn’t true that’s no reason you can’t believe in it. There’s a long speech I give to young men, seems to me you need to hear a piece of it… piece of it. Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything. That power and money, money and power mean nothing! That good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, love, true love never dies. You remember that boy, you remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, you see, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in. Got that?”
Second Hand Lions

The trailers for that movie looked good, I just haven't got around to seeing it yet. Always did like Michael Caine.

Of course, this avoids the issue. We are not speaking of motivating ourselves into a fervent hope for better, deluding ourselves into a romantic preferable view of reality. At its core we are still looking for the objective essence of morality. That we can believe in falsities, albeit nice ones that have moral lessons and character building, is not in question. Undeniably, we do so all of the time. I am wondering if there is merit beyond this, and the parallel thought of whether there is merit to "belief" in only the truth. Obviously, this would entail objective truth, for we all already hold our own relative truth. So, do we look to see what our forebears saw in their unpolluted and unspoiled minds (wherein they saw the "wild man" and anthropo-projected onto the harvest), or do we view theirs also as a perverted and slanted relative truth and seek for a truth yet beyond all "conventionally" known? Is truth, objective / reality / factual truth, something the human mind is (generally speaking) incapable of handling in the purest form?

we are obsessed with the future. Not the future earth but the future life that lies beyond this earthly realm. I can only tell you that from life experience, meditation, and prayer, I know there is far more to experience in the ‘kingdom.’

I agree. Yet, where does this preoccupation with an afterlife stem from? I do not see anything directly associated with neolithic "shamanistic" religion that directly points to afterlife. Of course, since I was not there and am not familiar with the culture and language, I cannot say this with certainty. The whole "looking to heaven" for rewards or whatever is a related subject with close ties to the development of morality. Is "afterlife" the result of shamanist experience (sky-walking, spirit-flight, astral projection)? Is it intutive (would animals know and understand?)? Is "looking to heaven" the result of being left behind by off-worlders? Any or all of the above? Or none of the above? That is, what is the objective truth of the matter, and am I (are we) prepared to hear it and understand?

I also believe this because I believe that the ‘Christ’ figure runs through history, repeating itself over and over again. I look to Abraham, Melchizedek, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi….. how many others have there been?

Here I hesitate, no doubt from my Christian upbringing. Christ to me is a specific individual. Now, I can see you drawing some connection ("after the order of Melchizedek"). Abraham holds an honored place, as does Moses and others, but they are not Christ. I have no doubt Buddha (forgive my spelling, Siddartha Guatama) holds an honored place. Gandhi holds an honored place. As a Christian, there is only one Christ. This is one of my "slants" that I must overcome in my search, but as my religious understanding goes it is pretty much non-negotiable. (which returns us to our preferred beliefs...)

And indeed, what is Salvation? Redemption? Enlightenment? Possibly it is no more than to know that we exist and will continue to exist through all time.

This is a good question, of course, how can I know your answer is sufficient?

We are not accidents, but intentional creations of That Entity who rules all things, and being of that essence gives us enormous flights of imagination and the power to, believe!

I agree. Yet I must also temper my belief. Because I believe, does not make it truth.

I am working on a fourth thesis and I see a good year’s work ahead.

Good luck!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, inhumility!

Thank you for your response!

What I mean by that is if for instance somebody does some wrog to you,then you have to judge from humanity's angle if your action of forgiving that person would improve that person ,if forgiveness will improve that person in your best judgement then you should forgive that person.On the otherhand if your best judgement decides that your forgiving that person will further spoil that person then you should not forgive and rather take action against him so that that person improves.

For practical reasons I am inclined to agree with you. It is well, I believe, to try to determine the motivation of the person doing wrong.

There is a saying; "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

In other words, simple mistakes should be forgiven. Even 70 times 7. Where there is no hurtful intent behind the action. Accidents happen.

On the other hand, if someone takes an action against you and yours with intent to harm, maim, steal or otherwise, then you have the right and duty to defend yourself and yours.

This is a humanitarian approach as well as a moral approach.

Perhaps. I understand it as "turn the other cheek." The old man once taught me, "I will meet anybody halfway. If they are not willing to go that far to meet me, then I will not waste my effort."

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

What about the religious approach? Christianity deals with a strict code of ‘ethics’ when it comes to dealing with ‘wrongs’ done to one within the body of believers; for simplicity sake, a congregation. Example:

The Congregational Council makes a report to the congregation and a person disagrees with the facts stated. That person goes ahead and makes his own investigation, which when delivered to the congregation and the Council, points out the errors in their report and in their general conduct. A member of the Council, who had planned to leave the Congregation anyway, takes offense at the individuals report and then goes to members of the Council and to the Pastor of the church and states that the individual is the sole cause for his family leaving the church. That the individual has defamed his character, impugned his word, and is the single individual reason for his leaving the church, thereby denying him and his family the right to Christ’s table. (The Eucharist)

This person never confronts the individual who made the report, never takes witnesses from the church to talk to him and never involves that individual before the Congregation but makes all his accusations behind the persons back!

Matthew 18:1-15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

This person happens to be an influential member of the church, and though he leaves, his continued presence in and around the church causes members of the Congregation and the Council to look upon the innocent individual with suspicion. The pointing fingers accuse and so the individual goes to the Council asking them to hear the case, look at the evidence, and declare his innocence. They Refuse!

Because of such intolerant neglect, this person is no longer permitted to take Communion, involve himself in management areas of the church and its committees, must resign from the Choir where he served as Cantor and Lector, and his tithe is considered unacceptable to the church.

Matthew 5:21-26
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.”

The accuser goes unscathed, still refuses to deal with the individual, and continues his assault from outside the boundaries of the church though still involved in working around the building during the week although no longer a member. Would you tell the accused to ignore the cowardice and infamy of this persons attack and forgive him? And how would you judge the Council?

I recall this, when Jesus was confronted with civil matters, he conceded to make compromise, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” But when it came to his religious beliefs, he practiced, Jihad! Note his actions at the Temple with the money changers, and his response to Peter? “Get thee behind me Satan, for you are not for God but for men!”

Decision please?

Thank you for the glaring reminder of why I remain a solitary in my walk.

That person who abused their position and authority will answer...big time.

I'm sorry, but in virtually every church I have seen, it is no more than a social club, a clique, a collection of snobs who lord over one another (not to mention outsiders). They go on about gambling, but hold bingo and raffles in the sanctuary. They go on about abuse of power, then invite local politicians to speak from the pulpit. They go on about adultery while they chase each other around out of sight. They go on about all manner of evil in the world, while partaking freely on their own, in secret and in denial.

Sigh...I want to believe there are those who are legitimate. I just haven't seen any, and jaded me...I've given up looking. I am prefectly capable of letting the spirit guide me alone along the path.

 

[Victor]

juantoo3 ;
You are indeed priceless!

“Thank you for the glaring reminder of why I remain a solitary in my walk.”

1970 I joined my present congregation. From 1971-1976 I was the Choir Director, the adult Sunday school teacher, A council member. I was on the Christian Education comm.; the Visitation comm; the Finance comm.; I was on the softball team, the bowling team and the drinking team!

In 1976 I had a waking vision and the Lord God said, “Come back to me, come back and worship me!” I was called out of the church, led by the Spirit, and studied day and night, for the next twenty-six years! In infinite loneliness, without a friend, without human companionship save for my dear wife, I struggled with God and His Holy Spirit until I finally fell exhausted. Then he demanded more of me in my solitude.

Two years ago, after nearly thirty years alone and in the fire of that Spirit, I begged the Lord to allow me to return to the church. He knew better, but finally permitted it. I was met by more opposition than you can imagine, and after finally struggling to obtain my membership again, I realized why He knew it could never be. I am miserable!

I shall respond to your other post shortly. For now, I thank The Lord for Brian and a site on which I have found honesty and graceful thinking.

My friend, I leave you with this:

“Justice is turned back,
and righteousness stands afar off;
for truth has fallen in the public squares,
and uprightness cannot enter.
Truth is lacking,
and he who departs from evil
makes himself a prey.”

(Isaiah 59:14-15 RSV)
I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[juantoo3]

"and he who departs from evil
makes himself a prey.”

Boy, ain't that the truth!

 

[wil]

I thought I never needed congregation...perfectly happy on the path solo...

till I found where I landed the past 10 years....like it so much decided to became a member this month.

 

[lunamoth]

I thought I never needed congregation...perfectly happy on the path solo...

till I found where I landed the past 10 years....like it so much decided to became a member this month.

Hey, that's nice Wil. Wishing you continued harmony in your 'new' church home. This is the Unity chruch?

lunamoth

 

[Victor]

juantoo3

“I do not feel all teachers who are frequently presented as spiritually in-tune actually are so. There are many false guides.”

Of course, look at my thesis on Paul. Sometimes I believe that we select our saints about the same way we select our politicians!

As I have noted before, ‘truth’ like ‘beauty’ is in the eye of the beholder. What is truth, something that cannot be obviated by logical reasoning? Is it an undeniable fact that seems to have no other resolution but itself, like a prime number? As in, the sun rises or sets? Obviously these are not truths but personal observations that have no basis in fact. The earth rotates yet poetic license reigns supreme.

“So, do we look to see what our forebears saw in their unpolluted and unspoiled minds…”.

Was there ever a time when this was true?

“…or do we view theirs also as a perverted and slanted relative truth and seek for a truth yet beyond all "conventionally" known?”

In ‘truth’ there is no such thing as ‘truth’ simply because we cannot conceive of, nor do we have any method for discovering, any ultimate ‘form’. We cannot even conceive of a permanently solid object. Why? Because molecules are constantly in motion, and that motion is not constant from time-frame to time-frame. Truth is only relative to the moment, as are ALL things. Truth itself is an abstract concept.

“where does this preoccupation with an afterlife stem from?”

I think, therefore I am! But what am I? And what will I become? Where am I, and where am I going? The moment ‘ageing’ was considered as part of human existence, when death became an eventuality, the question of what is happening to me, what will happen to me, came into existence also. I would consider that an afterlife, heaven, paradise, et al; may be nothing more than a desire of mankind to continue, an after-death fantasy.

“That we can believe in falsities, albeit nice ones that have moral lessons and character building, is not in question.”

Your statement may be the only ‘truth’ available here in this mortal existence of ours.

“am I (are we) prepared to hear it and understand?”

I doubt it!

“As a Christian, there is only one Christ. This is one of my "slants" that I must overcome in my search, but as my religious understanding goes it is pretty much non-negotiable.”

Are you referring to the ‘person’ or the ‘spiritual ministry’? Christ means ’anointed one’, ‘chosen one’, or ‘Messiah.’ It has nothing to do with ‘messianic’ hope until we Christians got hold of it. The Christ? What connotations does that hold for the scholar, the seeker? Perhaps I should have said, Christ Soul, or Christ Spirit. For this one must consider the great apologists of the Judao-Christian Church; Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Justin, James the Lord’s brother, Arias, etc.

One must consider that Jesus did nothing superior nor more miraculous than G-d’s great prophets who parted seas, stopped the sun in the sky, healed, raised the dead, provided miraculous feedings, were incarnations of the power of G-od’s Holy Spirit, ascended into heaven, and did not die. So what’s new? Only Christianity uses Jesus of Nazareth, Yoshua bar Joseph, as a scapegoat and sin-eater! But as the author of Hebrews states: “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.”
Hebrews 9: 22 But in its birth, there was no new covenant, it was born in Judaism.


This is where the church had its beginnings, it roots are still planted there, but in our modern doctrine their Christology would be considered heresy. As late as the third century these great minds still considered , salvation, as a very real possibility through the efforts of the individual and their adherence to the Law and good works! The question even then was, could anyman become a Christ, return to his ‘beginning’ and achieve perfection.

The divinity of a man and the ‘incarnation’ were still subjects of debate, and in some instances a matter of violence between the Gentile-Christian Church and the Judao-Christian Church. Too often we fail to remember the warfare that enveloped these two factions and ended with the Judao-Christian faith disappearing from our Christian history. What a sad estate!

I have not been beyond the veil. I am as much in the dark as everyone else. What is to befall us I have no idea, nor can I state more than my own beliefs and hopes. They are relevant to no one but myself and they are a mixed bag of Christian aspirations and desires.

I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

Thank you for your response! I apologize for the delay in my reply, I have been mulling over what to say. Being pressed for time, I may have to respond more in depth another time. But I will do what I can here for now.

Of course, look at my thesis on Paul.

I must say, that is quite an extensive work. I had in mind to print it out at work, but it was over one hundred pages long! I did save it to my hard drive, and have gotten through the first chapter and most of the summary.

I still have a nagging question, reflected in a thread I began some time ago on the Christianity board. What would Christianity look like minus Paul?

One chief consideration, I would rather not dwell on here, is that of tearing down rather than building up. Using the example of demolition, a few well placed charges can bring a building down in a moment, a building that perhaps took thousands of man-hours to construct. It seems to me, any institutional religion can be destroyed with a few well placed charges, but what is lost in the process? What edifying purpose does it serve? What benefit serves those whose faiths are destroyed?

Now, this thread is focused on the development of morality, an extension of the "morality in evolution" thread in the philosophy section. In that sense, looking beyond Paul, looking beyond Jesus, even looking beyond institutional religion, is appropriate.

Sometimes I believe that we select our saints about the same way we select our politicians!

Perhaps. Yet, one must concede, it takes a certain kind of person with the wherewithal to step up to the plate and make things happen. Like him or not, one cannot truthfully take that from Paul. Or any elected politician, for that matter.

As I have noted before, ‘truth’ like ‘beauty’ is in the eye of the beholder. What is truth, something that cannot be obviated by logical reasoning? Is it an undeniable fact that seems to have no other resolution but itself, like a prime number? As in, the sun rises or sets? Obviously these are not truths but personal observations that have no basis in fact. The earth rotates yet poetic license reigns supreme.

I question quite what it is you mean here, I can see two interpretations. Yes, we all hold our relative / subjective truths. From our vantage, the sun appears to rise and set. I can grant you that. For how many centuries did humanity plod along under the assumption that the Earth was the focus of the universe? How many centuries have we plodded along under the premises laid down by Nicholau Copernicus, Galileo Galile and Isaac Newton? Now, most of us, labor increasingly under the influence of Albert Einstein and quantum mechanics. Each of these "truth sets" have been functional in their day and time, and no doubt there are residual influences even from before heliocentrism that still reside in our thought processes and influence our vision of "truth." The time may well come, perhaps not soon, when even quantum mechanics will seem as outdated to some future generation as heliocentrism seems now to us. Yet, beyond our vision, beyond our comprehension, lies a fundamental reality, an "objective truth," that by the nature of reality cannot be denied. Perhaps it is objectively true that Paul usurped Christianity. Nevertheless, without the efforts of Paul, I seriously question whether or not Christianity would even exist, in any recognizable form, today.

jt3-“So, do we look to see what our forebears saw in their unpolluted and unspoiled minds…”-

Was there ever a time when this was true?

I was refering to our prehistoric neolithic and paleolithic forebears. In my mind, yes, I see the possibility of "innocent" minds unpolluted by television, the rat race, nuclear armageddon, etc. If our minds could possibly be more directly connected to "nature," would we be more "in tune" with objective reality? Or would we still be too naive to make any sense of anything?

In ‘truth’ there is no such thing as ‘truth’ simply because we cannot conceive of, nor do we have any method for discovering, any ultimate ‘form’. We cannot even conceive of a permanently solid object. Why? Because molecules are constantly in motion, and that motion is not constant from time-frame to time-frame. Truth is only relative to the moment, as are ALL things. Truth itself is an abstract concept.

Ah, therein lies the crux of the "matter." If we were open to objective truth, instead of imposing our will to observe something as "solid," we would instead see things as they are, in this case, in flux. Even stones are born, age, grow become diseased and die, just on a time scale so much slower than we are accustomed to seeing. It makes it difficult for us to fathom this, to imagine stones as "alive," because we operate on a different "frequency" and impose our will upon our vision.

I think, therefore I am! But what am I? And what will I become? Where am I, and where am I going? The moment ‘ageing’ was considered as part of human existence, when death became an eventuality, the question of what is happening to me, what will happen to me, came into existence also. I would consider that an afterlife, heaven, paradise, et al; may be nothing more than a desire of mankind to continue, an after-death fantasy.

And yet, the experiences of multitudes who have "returned" suggest otherwise. Even shamanic communication with the spirit world, sky-walking, suggests otherwise. These experiences by their very nature are not "provable," but would seem, at least to those who have these experiences, to point to objective reality, therefore "truth." Truth for all, I cannot say. But in order for truth to be objective, it must encompass all subjective truths. Or at least, explain why a subjective truth is not altogether true.

jt3- “That we can believe in falsities, albeit nice ones that have moral lessons and character building, is not in question.”-

Your statement may be the only ‘truth’ available here in this mortal existence of ours.

I am prepared to accept this, but not without a figurative fight.

jt3- “am I (are we) prepared to hear it and understand?”-

I doubt it!

Having had a little time to consider, you may be correct. In order for our mind to more fully comprehend objective truth, we would have to jettison our subjective truths. Fundamentally, I don't think our minds are structured to work that way. Our relative truths are reinforced by a library catalogue of facts and figures and experiences. Wholesale jettison would effectively leave us in a vegetative state. I do wonder though if we can catch glimpses, and as we catch more and more of them, perhaps we might eventually overwrite our library.

Are you referring to the ‘person’ or the ‘spiritual ministry’? Christ means ’anointed one’, ‘chosen one’, or ‘Messiah.’ It has nothing to do with ‘messianic’ hope until we Christians got hold of it.The Christ?

Well, as much as some may question my sincerity or motivation, I am approaching from a Christian vantage. So yes, I am using Christian connotation of the term.

What connotations does that hold for the scholar, the seeker? Perhaps I should have said, Christ Soul, or Christ Spirit. For this one must consider the great apologists of the Judao-Christian Church; Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Justin, James the Lord’s brother, Arias, etc.

I am not familiar with any of these, save James. And I fail to recall where he used the term "Christ" in a more broadly defined method.

One must consider that Jesus did nothing superior nor more miraculous than G-d’s great prophets who parted seas, stopped the sun in the sky, healed, raised the dead, provided miraculous feedings, were incarnations of the power of G-od’s Holy Spirit, ascended into heaven, and did not die. So what’s new? Only Christianity uses Jesus of Nazareth, Yoshua bar Joseph, as a scapegoat and sin-eater! But as the author of Hebrews states: “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” Hebrews 9: 22 But in its birth, there was no new covenant, it was born in Judaism.

Of course, this returns us to the problem of Christianity without Paul, and now I see without the central figure of Christianity itself. Side note, since we are off track anyway, is that if Jesus would be known by his Hebrew name, Yoshua, because there is no "J" in the alphabet, then it would stand to reason "Joseph" would not be correct either. Checking the Strong's, I see the name is Ioseph. Didn't check James, but I know from past experience the Spanish is Santiago, I presume Saint Iago (no doubt from the Latin). I also think it a little curious, since Paul is traditionally credited with writing the book of Hebrews, that he should be quoted, somewhat anonymously. I do not find it strange the comment about shedding of blood for remission of sins, Judaism during the Temple period had developed it into a factory scale art form. Not to mention, how many countless cultures lost in antiquity used blood sacrifice for essentially the same purpose? I might point to the Romans as only one example.

Even if Christianity is born in Judaism, which I find to be a very honorable thing, sacrifice is an integral part of that faith. By command! The chief difference is that Christianity had one Messiah offered as the ultimate sacrifice, once and for all. No more was required the shedding of blood of innocent creatures simply for the purpose of remission of human sin. So, while sacrifice holds ugly connotations for those of squeemish constitutions, those who simultaneously have no problem eating a triple whopper with cheese, I see Christ's sacrifice as a natural extension of the Jewish ritual. A ritual dating a couple of thousand years before, even to the acceptable sacrifice of innocent Abel, and the animals G-d "took" to make clothes for Adam and Eve.

This is where the church had its beginnings, it roots are still planted there, but in our modern doctrine their Christology would be considered heresy.

I understand Christ was a Jew, born and raised into a Jewish household, presumably devout, for which no doubt his mother offered suitable sacrifice on the eighth day per custom and command. Jesus was taught Jewish law, and by all accounts within 50 years or so of his life He was blameless before G-d. (Short of the little fiasco that got Him hung on a cross) Jesus taught a new interpretation of Jewish law to Jewish followers, healed and fed and worked miracles among Jews (and occasionally non-Jews). And He died an ignoble death at the instigation of some Jews who were likely jealous of and threatened by His endeavors. So yes, I do not in any way discount the close association and affiliation with Judaism.

Even so, considering the sack of Jerusalem + / - 60 ad, and the final straw in the eyes of the Roman empire, the Bar Kochba revolt + / - 120 ad, Judaism and anything remotely associated with it was forcibly removed from Palestine for nearly two thousand years. Judaism, a religion with a long and rich, established history, was cast to the wind, and has only miraculously survived! What would the fate of a novel, miniscule, infant sect of Judaism have suffered were it not for Paul taking it to the rest of the Empire prior to the dispersal post Bar Kochba? Hint, think Essenes and Qumran, who were annihilated and obliterated during the sack of Jerusalem. If anything, Jesus warned this would happen! I admire James. I appreciate his teaching above that of Paul. However, if all had been left to James, Peter and John alone (essentially, for other than rumors, the other apostles made little significant contribution left to us today, save the questionable gospel of Thomas), Christianity would have disappeared. Is it possible, just maybe, that the hand of the Creator might have played a part in any of this?

As late as the third century these great minds still considered , salvation, as a very real possibility through the efforts of the individual and their adherence to the Law and good works! The question even then was, could anyman become a Christ, return to his ‘beginning’ and achieve perfection.

I have little doubt these issues were being discussed among theologians of the time. I have little doubt about the importance of "works" as alluded to by James. I have serious doubts about achieving perfection, particularly without the benefit of blood sacrifice, per Judaism, per command, ritual and tradition.

The divinity of a man and the ‘incarnation’ were still subjects of debate, and in some instances a matter of violence between the Gentile-Christian Church and the Judao-Christian Church. Too often we fail to remember the warfare that enveloped these two factions and ended with the Judao-Christian faith disappearing from our Christian history. What a sad estate!

But this premise, so far as I have seen having not read your thesis in entirety, ignores the impact of the Roman government via its military on the region in question. That there were squabbles among factions is nothing new, but the claim here seems to infer that the "Gentile-Christians" took up arms to specifically annihilate the "Jewish-Christians," of which I have seen no historic reference to support. Quite the contrary, the annihilation of the Jewish presence in Judea by the Roman military is quite well known and understood, including the annihilation of Jewish and Gentile Christians from the region.

I have not been beyond the veil. I am as much in the dark as everyone else. What is to befall us I have no idea, nor can I state more than my own beliefs and hopes. They are relevant to no one but myself and they are a mixed bag of Christian aspirations and desires.

I presume this references my questions regarding why we, collectively, look to some semblence of heaven. My aspirations and desires are no less vague to me. Even so, I will continue to conduct my affairs by hope, trust and faith, ever mindful of Pascal's wager.

Ever looking for G-d, ever mindful of the value of the teachings of my tradition, and ever mindful of other's truths,

I remain respectfully yours,
Juantoo3

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Morals are simply the human term for how to behave as humans. Other creatures have their own instincts on how to be like they were created to be. How did humans develop their instincts on morality? Again, it seems like humans differ very little from other creatures, esp. those most like us—mammals. Farm animals are what I’m most familiar with, but I’ve watched birds and animals in the wild, though I have never seen monkeys or apes. I have read many stories about animal families. The similarities between us and other mammals are so great that almost any human watching animals interact can understand what is going on and why. I am talking about the psychological level. Each species has its own unique habits and “laws” and nearly every species has some similarity with human behaviour.

The bottom line of practically all human moral codes is the promotion and preservation of life of the self or tribe or nation, whatever social unit is important to any given society. The more prosperous and leisure a society’s situation, the more sophisticated and abstract are its moral codes.

Re the question of evil, I have a hard time comprehending exactly what is meant by the term. There seem to be many, more accurate, definitions of the things that happen on this planet.

DIKL said:

-Joy in causing suffering. A person is evil when he enjoys causing suffering.

I would call that psychotic and the individual is in need of help.

DILK, Post 3: What of torturing a suspected terrorist to retrive information that might avert greater suffering?

I think that is wrong. There have to be better ways. Being a respectful neighbour whom no one feels like terrorizing would go a very long way.

<Another question I had is: is it possible for someone to think of himself as 'evil'? I don't mean in the sense that a person is aware of that his acts are considered evil by society. Rather, is it possible to internally think of oneself as evil?>

Absolutely! That is due to very bad treatment at the hands of others. And it seldom brings forth constructive actions. That is why torturing someone is WRONG, no matter what the intent. Punishment is one thing; torture is another.

Juantoo, Post 5: On the other hand, it is hard to justify something like genocide as anything but evil. Where would you draw the line?

I say the person who feels like committing genocide is in very serious need of help on the emotional and spiritual levels. That would remove genocide at the root of the problem which is where the line should be drawn.

Juantoo, Post 6: IOW, if there is no "G-d" in some form or manner, why have all pre-historic cultures we are aware of made an attempt to reach toward "It."

Several suggestions:

• “It” seemed to express wrath or favour rather arbitrarily. Yet there seemed to be evidence that certain human actions avoided wrath and evoked favour, such as rain to produce crops and wiles to fend off the enemy.
• Humans are hard-wired for religion. See http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/index.html.

Looks like I won’t get through this thread tonight so I will post what I’ve got.

 

[Victor]

Juantoo3:
With deepest respect I offer you the following. Do not take offense as we are now debating on a formal scholastic level. This post refers only to a study of Paul. I will most happily respond to the rest of your post later as I truly enjoy our conversation and the trading off of ideas. But Paul is a thorn in my side with whom I take great exception!

Before I even begin to respond to your latest, I must first ask you to thoroughly explore all 249 (two hundred forty-nine) pages of the thesis. There are also 622 (six hundred twenty-two) biblical and theological footnotes, each of which must be explored individually, for its merits.

Then note that most major, professional Christian theologians and interpreters agree with my findings! In the modern church, theologically, Paul is losing face. Why? Because he was a liar, a thief, a hater of life, a despiser of the Apostles, an imposter, an interloper, apostate to Judaism (where Christianity was given birth by Christ himself) built off other men’s works, and was a murderer! All this confirmed by his own written word.

He was a literary genius, yes. He was a genius at forming and constructing a world-wide organization, but one that eventually destroyed the church as led by Peter, James, the Lord’s brother, and John. I find him no better than the most articulate modern-day godfather. The only comment I will make in reference to your post is this: What would the church be today without Paul?

Christ centered with Christ Jesus at its head! In experience and intimate involvement within the church scholastic I can honestly say that at least (at least) 90% of the church body today in its congregations, is Gospel illiterate! They know nothing of Jesus’ teachings, the world he was born into, the world he lived in, and his instructions on how we are to live and govern ourselves within the body of believers.

When you have given your full attention to the thesis and its total references so you will understand the why and wherefore of its contents, I would suggest that you write a formal apology (criticism) to it. Then offer it to the manager of this site (Brian) for his approval, and if he finds that it is a serious, learned work, it will be published here for the world to evaluate. We have been waiting for over six years for such a response. From one of your talent and understanding this would be most welcome. Only then can I offer a proper rebuttal.

But know this before you start, you must sacrifice everything save the Spirit’s guidance if you are to undertake this task. I am NOT a Pauline Christian. I attempt to build my life, my worship, and my studies on the basis of the Word, Jesus the Christ, his teachings and his life activities.

My question to you then is, why isn’t Jesus, the living Word, enough? As I remain your servant in all things.

I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[Victor]

Juantoo3:
With deepest respect I offer you the following. Do not take offense as we are now debating on a formal scholastic level. This post refers only to a study of Paul. I will most happily respond to the rest of your post later as I truly enjoy our conversation and the trading off of ideas. But Paul is a thorn in my side with whom I take great exception!

Before I even begin to respond to your latest, I must first ask you to thoroughly explore all 249 (two hundred forty-nine) pages of the thesis. There are also 622 (six hundred twenty-two) biblical and theological footnotes, each of which must be explored individually, for its merits.

Then note that most major, professional Christian theologians and interpreters agree with my findings! In the modern church, theologically, Paul is losing face. Why? Because he was a liar, a thief, a hater of life, a despiser of the Apostles, an imposter, an interloper, apostate to Judaism (where Christianity was given birth by Christ himself) built off other men’s works, and was a murderer! All this confirmed by his own written word.

He was a literary genius, yes. He was a genius at forming and constructing a world-wide organization, but one that eventually destroyed the church as led by Peter, James, the Lord’s brother, and John. I find him no better than the most articulate modern-day godfather. The only comment I will make in reference to your post is this: What would the church be today without Paul?

Christ centered with Christ Jesus at its head! In experience and intimate involvement within the church scholastic I can honestly say that at least (at least) 90% of the church body today in its congregations, is Gospel illiterate! They know nothing of Jesus’ teachings, the world he was born into, the world he lived in, and his instructions on how we are to live and govern ourselves within the body of believers.

When you have given your full attention to the thesis and its total references so you will understand the why and wherefore of its contents, I would suggest that you write a formal apology (criticism) to it. Then offer it to the manager of this site (Brian) for his approval, and if he finds that it is a serious, learned work, it will be published here for the world to evaluate. We have been waiting for over six years for such a response. From one of your talent and understanding this would be most welcome. Only then can I offer a proper rebuttal.

But know this before you start, you must sacrifice everything save the Spirit’s guidance if you are to undertake this task. I am NOT a Pauline Christian. I attempt to build my life, my worship, and my studies on the basis of the Word, Jesus the Christ, his teachings and his life activities.

My question to you then is, why isn’t Jesus, the living Word, enough? As I remain your servant in all things.

I Am, as always;
Victor G

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

Please accept my reply with the respect in which it is sent.

With deepest respect I offer you the following. Do not take offense as we are now debating on a formal scholastic level. This post refers only to a study of Paul. I will most happily respond to the rest of your post later as I truly enjoy our conversation and the trading off of ideas. But Paul is a thorn in my side with whom I take great exception!

I appreciate this. Please bear in mind a few things. First, I am not a professional student, nor am I independently wealthy. I do have demands on my time. Considering my post last night took about 4 hours to compose, and it probably represents about one page of your thesis, not counting research, I am looking at well over 400 hours should I proceed as you suggest.

Second, I am human. I can get emotional at times. Of course, a great deal has to do with whom I am conversing and how they present themselves. To this point, I see no problem. As long as we both understand that our respective disagreements are not personal slights, and we remain polite toward one another, I do not foresee any issues regarding this.

Finally, because I am not a student or professor, I am not beholding to any educational institution for my views. Because I am not a member of, or affiliated with, any specific church or religious organization, I am not beholding to them either. In other words, I am but a lowly freelance thinker.

Before I even begin to respond to your latest, I must first ask you to thoroughly explore all 249 (two hundred forty-nine) pages of the thesis. There are also 622 (six hundred twenty-two) biblical and theological footnotes, each of which must be explored individually, for its merits.

You may ask, but it may be some time before I complete what I have saved. Again, time constraints.

Keep in mind too, I am speaking in reference to a much larger picture. You desire me to focus on a myriad of little details, rather than see the big picture. I am thinking outside of the box here. The devil, as we know the saying goes, is in the details…

Then note that most major, professional Christian theologians and interpreters agree with my findings! In the modern church, theologically, Paul is losing face. Why? Because he was a liar, a thief, a hater of life, a despiser of the Apostles, an imposter, an interloper, apostate to Judaism (where Christianity was given birth by Christ himself) built off other men’s works, and was a murderer! All this confirmed by his own written word.

Your reputation precedes you here. I have been participating on CR for some time now, but I suspect I signed on just about the time you left the first time. I have actually been looking forward to this conversation with anticipation.

That other scholars agree with you is not in question. It is my experience, that if one searches hard enough, they can find scholars to support most anything. When careers are on the line, a lot of things can be put forward, some that hold merit, some that do not.

Since I am not beholding to any scholarly institution, and have no grants at stake, I am free to "think outside of the box."

He was a literary genius, yes. He was a genius at forming and constructing a world-wide organization, but one that eventually destroyed the church as led by Peter, James, the Lord’s brother, and John. I find him no better than the most articulate modern-day godfather.

It's kinda hard to defend someone who is viewed as a modern-day godfather. One is not beholding to Paul, nor to Jesus for that matter, once one takes your conclusions to their natural end.

In the sense you seem to be depicting Paul, I see him figuratively as initially a corporate officer of Christianity Incorporated. Jesus of course was the founding CEO, James becoming the follow on second CEO. Now, presuming the words spoken in the Gospels is true, that is, the words of Jesus, then the founding CEO predicted before his untimely death that the Corporation would struggle, and that it would be laid waste (along with the rest of Judaism) soon. When looking at the Temple with his followers, he made the comment that no two stones of the Temple would remain on top of each other. Now, "soon" as we know from the Bible, is a relative term. It actually took nearly 30 years for his vision to transpire, but transpire it did. When it did, the corporate offices in downtown Jerusalem were utterly destroyed along with the Temple. Seems I recall reading somewhere that James was thrown to his death from the Temple roof just before it was destroyed. At this point, Jesus or no, desire or no, Christianity would have disappeared. Likely we would know little of it, other than a chance footnote in Josephus or perhaps some tattered shreds of a collection of Jesus sayings, which would be to us today no more than an historical curiosity.

Now, Paul prior to this, as a corporate officer, had taken the company to neighboring countries. In this sense, Christianity was a multinational corporation, specifically due to the efforts of Paul. Yes, presuming the epistles written of him are anywhere near accurate, he did have some run ins with corporate headquarters. But there is no denying that he got the job done. The message Jesus wanted to get out, the new interpretation of the Jewish tradition, was reaching converts far afield, especially *non-Jews!*. Praise G-d for this! Without Paul's efforts, the company would have been destroyed along with the Temple, and any trace would have been forcibly removed or destroyed by the time of Bar Kochba. Christianity could not have survived in Palestine any more than Judaism did. Like him or not, Paul got the job done. Like his methods or not, there is no denying his motivation and intent. And like it or not, the otherwise prerequisite for being Christian that one must of necessity first be a Jew, was excepted by the efforts of Paul. IOW, one need no longer be Jewish to become Christian. This is a crucial point.

Christ centered with Christ Jesus at its head! In experience and intimate involvement within the church scholastic I can honestly say that at least (at least) 90% of the church body today in its congregations, is Gospel illiterate! They know nothing of Jesus’ teachings, the world he was born into, the world he lived in, and his instructions on how we are to live and govern ourselves within the body of believers.

However, as you alluded to in your earlier post, without Paul, Christ becomes "just" an ordinary man. So what if an ordinary man stands at the head of an institution like Christianity? It means nothing. Let me explain:

First, if Paul is to be discounted (presuming Christianity somehow could survive the Roman onslaught), then surely his entourage is to be discounted as well. That means Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles, are to be removed. Which casts doubt on the other two synoptic Gospels. And Timothy, and his efforts.

And Revelations surely couldn't be true, if Jesus is just an ordinary man! How can an ordinary man return with an army of angels to defeat evil and cast it in chains into the abyss? Whoa, that means John was a liar too! Throw away the Gospel of John and his epistles as well.

Let's see, that leaves I think James and Peter. Not much to build on. Doesn't matter anyway, the message is moot. Messiah was "only" an ordinary man. Ordinary men don't resurrect, so the Old Testament promises to that effect are cast into doubt.

So, what do we have left? The root Judaism from which it all came. Why call oneself a Christian then, why not formally convert to Judaism and be done with the affair? Unless one still desires to eat ham and pork chops…(of course, that is contingent on the acts of Paul!, or denial of monotheism at that day and time.)

Yes, this is a "slippery slope" argument, and I do not see how it can be avoided. The points, not the method of argument.

That 90% of Christians are Biblically illiterate is a travesty, but certainly not the fault of Paul. What transpired after Paul was out of his hands, as much as your child is not under your direct control especially after a certain age. That institutional and political influences some 300 or so years later seriously affected the outcome of what became Christianity is a matter of scholarship that is no longer even questioned, it seems. One needn't look far at all to find faults, perhaps debilitating ones. All of the texts, Old and New Testament, are brought into question by scholars of one stripe or other.

So yes, I agree with the lament that congregations are unknowing of the history and cultural significance of the times and place in which the Gospel narrative unfolds. Yet, we still have the quandary, in that if we take away what little "they" have, what do we leave them? If we destroy their tower of building blocks, what do they have left?

Because we can, does not mean we should. How Christian is it, to be a bully? In light of the fact we are talking about a "modern-day godfather," how like this analogy are we personally acting if we take away an otherwise ignorant hope? Not all people are intellectually capable of comprehending. Not all people have the time or wherewithal to devote to understanding. For some, perhaps ignorance is bliss. I'm personally not about to try to convince otherwise. Which means that ultimately, in my view, this is a discussion that is pretty well confined to academia, at least for now.

*continued*

 

[juantoo3]

When you have given your full attention to the thesis and its total references so you will understand the why and wherefore of its contents, I would suggest that you write a formal apology (criticism) to it. Then offer it to the manager of this site (Brian) for his approval, and if he finds that it is a serious, learned work, it will be published here for the world to evaluate. We have been waiting for over six years for such a response. From one of your talent and understanding this would be most welcome. Only then can I offer a proper rebuttal.

You are not the first to personally lay this gauntlet before me, although I am honored and humbled to have it laid at my feet by the author. Bearing in mind I have little alphabet soup behind my name, and nothing to denote a formal education in theology or any related field, my "apology" is certainly not of the caliber to spur one's career. Since I have nothing to gain, no career at stake, no financial benefit, no congregation looking to me, no degree at stake, there is really no benefit to my formally undertaking this. I have only my humble observations. Accept them, or not. Perhaps for a percentage of the profits, I might consider the formal undertaking with the time required. Otherwise, I have no incentive.

There is no direct recourse on my faith-walk.

Besides, I already presented my "apology," in my previous posts and here.

But know this before you start, you must sacrifice everything save the Spirit’s guidance if you are to undertake this task.

Would this be the same Spirit that compelled Solomon to compose this:

Ecclesiastes 12:11 The words of the wise (are) as goads, and as nails fastened (by) the masters of assemblies, (which) are given from one shepherd.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books (there is) no end; and much study (is) a weariness of the flesh. (emphasis mine)

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this (is) the whole (duty) of man.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether (it be) good, or whether (it be) evil. -KJV

I am NOT a Pauline Christian. I attempt to build my life, my worship, and my studies on the basis of the Word, Jesus the Christ, his teachings and his life activities.

I accept this, no problem. I hope you do not feel threatened that I disagree. I traveled this route for a time once, and it left a bitter taste in my mouth, chiefly because of the person with whom I traveled. This becomes, or can easily become, a doctrine of personality assault. Look hard enough at anyone, and you will find errant moments. Put anyone on a pedestal, and they will fall. It is human nature. No one is perfect. If G-d had to wait to find a perfect person to champion His cause, He would wait a long time indeed. I would guess forever. It is impractical to insist that Paul had to be perfect. Peter wasn't. John wasn't. There is no reason to believe James was perfect. Why the assault on Paul's character? In light of what Paul has done, again presuming the texts are even accurate to begin with, he should be commended, not vilified. Alas, this is my opinion. I have no illusions of convincing you.

Is Paul the "be all and end all" of Christianity? Hardly. But I do think he served a very noble and crucial purpose in the formative years of the fledgling Christianity. Like him or not, the efforts of Paul are integral to bringing us the Christianity we have today. Of course, being a Christian, I see this as a good thing. Just as I am certain there are those who disagree with me. Of course, I had always thought before now that the ulterior motive of the character assassination of Paul was the demolition of Christianity. I still fail to see the benefit, the edification, the construction of anything of value towards a faithful walk with G-d by dismantling Paul, particularly with the logical repercussions that would naturally follow.

Why stop at Judaism or Deism? Dismantle away, one can ultimately bring down every faith in the world. Is this not one of the prime motivations lying behind so many conversions to atheism? At some point one must (or perhaps not) say "this path is the path." With all of its faults and illusions, with all of its frailties and impositions, with all of its irrationality and questionable history, it is the path for me, to do the best I know how with, in an effort to return to the Source from which I intuitively know I came.

My question to you then is, why isn’t Jesus, the living Word, enough?

How can Jesus be the living Word if he is but another mere mortal human? All he would be, under the best case scenario without Paul, is "just" another wise teacher. Whoopee. The world is full of 'em.

I'm sorry to be sarcastic here, but by removing Paul and the expectant aftermath, this Jesus is just another man. Why not worship Mohandas Gandhi? Or Martin Luthur King Jr.? The world is full of basically good people, history is full of basically good people. What makes a Jesus who is a shadow of a Christian Messiah, who because of mortality could not resurrect, special and worthy of worship and having a religion based upon Him? Why not worship Nelson Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie? Or Caesar? Or Mammon?

I realize I'm getting a bit "out there," but it is to make the point. Christianity is special because our Christ is special. He can raise the dead. He can walk on water. He can make wine from water. He can heal the sick. And He rose from the dead 3 days after suffering a criminal's death, showing us definitively that we too have the opportunity to achieve heaven. No guesswork, no character assassination (forgive, that ye may be forgiven), no doubt, all I ask is "do." In love.

Ecclesiastes 3:12 I know that (there is) no good in them, but for (a man) to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

Ecclesiastes 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it (is) the gift of God.

Ecclesiastes 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that (there is) nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that (is) his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

With greatest respect,
Juantoo3

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Paul is losing face. Why? Because he was a liar, a thief, a hater of life, a despiser of the Apostles, an imposter, an interloper, apostate to Judaism (where Christianity was given birth by Christ himself) built off other men’s works, and was a murderer!

Victor, This is probably asking the impossible, but some of us are really interested in what you are saying but just don't have the time to read the whole of your thesis. Could you offer a brief synopsis?

The point is: I am used to reading invective against Paul on this site, and it is almost invariably worthless IMHO. Since you have spent so many years in study, your view may be different. I used to be critical of Paul until I read the epistles more thoroughly, especially Romans.

The Church today is not what it could be I agree. I have heard St Paul, Constantine, Henry VIII, Luther, and even Descartes blamed for this. I take this to be scapegoating. You may disagree.