Why do people try to change Christianity?

[Ahanu]

Miracle stories and how they are organized in the bible

I think that we should recap on our discussion so far. Briefly, I initially entered this thread mentioning how different current events would look if they were described by a first century apocalyptic Jew. More on this later.




I notice that Thomas takes many passages literally where Bishop Shelby Spong and I do not take them literally. Like me, Bishop Shelby Spong lives in North Carolina, a buckle within the Bible Belt, where, as we have seen, the common Christian interpretation of scripture that we run into is quite different. That’s why we focus on the materialistic aspect of the ascension so much (Remember, Thomas said: “Then I suggest he's [Bishop Shelby Spong‘s] subject to the same error of looking materialistically, and not analogically.) I noted that many Christians around the area believe that Jesus was physically “taken up” into the sky, and so it obviously follows that Jesus will return in the sky (read Acts 1:10-11 and Revelations 1:7). It is an undeniable fact that thousands of Christians believe this. It might sound silly, but, if you have a miracle working God, it’s quite understandable that this conclusion can be reached. Afterall, I just read one scholarly source by Bynum that reads: "Tertullian [a Church Father] even argues that the shoes and clothing of the children of Israel did not wear out, nor did their hair and fingernails grow, while they wandered forty years in the desert. If God can thus suspend natural laws in order to preserve shoe leather and garments, how much more can he preserve flesh or the particles thereof for resurrection?" Indeed, how much more can God cause Jesus to appear in the sky, then begin to “take up” all believers physically from this Earth? However, I discovered that Catholics do not read “taken up” in the same way as many Southern Baptists. This is good.




As we began to continue in our discussion, I learned that Thomas reads all miracles in the bible literally. Now we are starting to discuss what I believe to be one of Bishop Shelby Spong’s main points, which I highlighted in the beginning of this post. When discussing how Jesus was remembered, Spong talks about people who think that, before the gospels were written, the first believers had shared memories of Jesus with their children at home, or maybe with a neighbor at work. That’s how some Christians do come across, because they are unaware that the synagogue was the setting for the oral traditions about Jesus. This is generally overlooked by some Christians, for Spong writes: “A magical view of the gospels was developed which asserted that instead of the Hebrew stories shaping the Jesus story, the events of Jesus’ life simply fulfilled biblical expectations and prophecies in some miraculous preordained way” (Spong 144). We are coming across how a first century apocalyptic Jew would interpret events again. I’m sorry, Thomas, but you read many events as if the writer is a modern day journalist, reporting about events that happened around 40 years prior to broadcast. Spong is trying to peer behind 1st century Jewish storytelling to find Jesus. What might the story look like if it happened today, or if a person from the 21st century traveled back in time and arrived in Israel to watch the life of Jesus?




Let us peer behind one example: the Jewish seasons. I haven’t read this argument on the Interfaith forums before, so I think it’ll be interesting to note. In addition to the argument above, I would like to note here that we should take the miracles as more liturgical than historical when looking at how the Jewish liturgical year shaped the memory of Jesus (195). As we know, Christmas is fast approaching. It is one of the major events within Christianity. The church seasons (such as Advent and Easter) are based on two major events: the birth of Jesus and the resurrection. Like the church seasons, there are Jewish seasons.




Here’s the Jewish year according to Spong and how Mark's narrative fits within them:




“Passover: the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Nisan (late March, early April). A celebration of the birth of the Jewish nation in the exodus” (194).




Mark 14-15. I'm familiar with Passover, so I skip examples here.




“Dedication or Hanukkah: starting the twenty-fifth day of the month of Kislev (typically in mid-December). An eight-day celebration of the return of the ‘light of God’ to the temple during the time of the Maccabees” (195).




Mark 9-13. Look at Jesus’ transfiguration. He’s viewed as the new temple that replaces the old one which had been destroyed by the Romans. “Transfiguration celebrates the light of God resting on Jesus” (197).




“Sukkoth or Tabernacles: starting the fifteenth day of Tishri (normally our October). An eight-day celebration of the harvest” (195).




Mark 4-8. Read the parable of the sower. Interestingly, “between Dedication in mid-December and the next earlier liturgical celebration of the Jews, which was called Sukkoth--the harvest festival--there is a period of approximately seven to nine Sabbaths, depending on where Hanukkah falls” (197). By the way, it should be noted that “the whole Jewish calendar revolves around the time of Passover, which can come anywhere from March 21 on, depending on the rotation of the moon. Easter, because it is based on Passover, comes on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21” (298). Anyway, as I said above, this is interesting; there are nine episodes, “one for each sabbath between Sukkoth and Dedication” (Mark 5: 1-20; 21-43; 6: 1-6; 6: 7-29;
6: 31-56; 7: 1-23; 7: 24-37; 8: 1-21; 8:22-38; Spong 197).




“Yom Kippur: the tenth day of Tishri (late September or early October). A day of penitence and reflection on the ability of God to overcome the sin of human life and alienation from God” (194).




Mark 2-3. Here Spong means the first half of chapter 3. All of these stories “portray Jesus as entering that which is unclean and restoring the victim of uncleanness to wholeness” (199).




“Rosh Hashanah: the first day of the month of Tishri (roughly late September or early October). An annual gathering of the people to pray for the coming of the kingdom of God” (194).




Mark 1. Think of Jesus’ calling of the first disciples, for instance. Also, this holiday was “celebrated by the blowing of the shofar” (199). Spong says John the Baptist is the “human shofar” (200).




“Shavuot or Pentecost: fifty days after Passover, on the sixth day of Sivan (late May or early June). A commemoration of the giving of the law to Moses at Mount Sinai” (194).




This is left out of Mark. Do not fear; Matthew makes up for this.




Conclusion: “the organizing principle behind the gospel of Mark is neither memory nor history,” writes Spong (200). This doesn't explicitly suggest that we shouldn't take things literally. This does suggest looking at Jesus in a different way.




By the way, I very much condensed Spong's chapter to get the gist of what he's saying. I wonder how that person from the 21st century who, upon traveling back in time and arriving in Israel to watch the life of Jesus, would write about the life of Jesus--assuming he/she didn’t know about the Jewish year?




That fig tree story would fall under the festival of dedication for Mark.



Hmm . . .




I haven't forgotten about commenting on that link you posted. It's just that I'm reading some stuff on phenomenology and the writer of the phenomenology of perception.

Source:

Spong, John. Jesus for the Non-Religious. New York: HarperCollins, 2008

 

[chongjasmine]

Why do people try to change Christianity?

Seriously if people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

Do people do it constantly to Islam and Judaism and I just do not see it?

I mean the Bible and Christ are about the only 2 things Christianity has right?
Well if people do not want to believe those then how can they even call themselves Christians?

Where would you draw the line on using that classification?

Not everybody wants to change Christianity. Christianity without Christ, like you said, is without meaning. I for one, do not want to change Christianity, but will prefer Christianity, to be what it is written in the bible, in the context of looking at both the OT and the NT.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I notice that Thomas takes many passages literally where Bishop Shelby Spong and I do not take them literally.

Actually, I read the text according to 'The Four Senses of Scripture', a practice common in contemporary Judaism (I have been told), but yes, I do not discount the literal because I find no compelling reason not to — that I might find them hard to believe is itself insufficient reason.

(Remember, Thomas said: “Then I suggest he's [Bishop Shelby Spong‘s] subject to the same error of looking materialistically, and not analogically.)

And I stand by that point. There is a distinction between 'materially' and 'literally', if someone might wonder on that point.

The miracles and miraculous events are by no means simply gratuitous displays of power, but have theological and metaphysical signification, and their literal reality fits with the Christian theological and metaphysical paradigm, which is why I am inclined to accept them.

Spong seems (and I am aware that I'm only seeing quotes here) to emphasise one aspect of Scripture at the expense of another, and thus arrives at a distorted picture.

(As a side issue, many scholars now regard the miracle stories as the oldest in the Canon, which points not only to their veracity, but centrality, in the Christian Tradition. The idea that the miracles were grafted onto a more mundane account is rejected as not in accord with the evidence.)

I noted that many Christians around the area believe that Jesus was physically “taken up” into the sky, and so it obviously follows that Jesus will return in the sky (read Acts 1:10-11 and Revelations 1:7). It is an undeniable fact that thousands of Christians believe this. It might sound silly, but, if you have a miracle working God, it’s quite understandable that this conclusion can be reached.

Yes. More to the point, it's entirely rational within its own context — most scientific theory sounded 'silly' a generation ago, but not today — but I think the greater point is such ideas sound odd in modern ears, because modernity is so steeped in materialism that it is all but blind to the language and meaning of symbol.

'Taken up', as a visual act as well as a verbal statement, would have been received within a symbolic sensitivity that surpasses the modern world, and by comparison renders modern man as somewhat illiterate. I dare to say that the man of antiquity would draw a far more nuanced and sophisticated conclusion, and derive a lot more meaning, from the act/word than man today.

Afterall, I just read one scholarly source by Bynum that reads: "Tertullian [a Church Father] even argues that the shoes and clothing of the children of Israel did not wear out, nor did their hair and fingernails grow, while they wandered forty years in the desert. If God can thus suspend natural laws in order to preserve shoe leather and garments, how much more can he preserve flesh or the particles thereof for resurrection?"

But this is speculation, not doctrine. Should we be criticised for speculation?

Indeed, how much more can God cause Jesus to appear in the sky, then begin to “take up” all believers physically from this Earth? However, I discovered that Catholics do not read “taken up” in the same way as many Southern Baptists. This is good.

See above.

When discussing how Jesus was remembered, Spong talks about people who think that, before the gospels were written, the first believers had shared memories of Jesus with their children at home, or maybe with a neighbor at work. That’s how some Christians do come across, because they are unaware that the synagogue was the setting for the oral traditions about Jesus.

If that is his point, then he's generalising somewhat inaccurately on that point. The synagogue was the place of public preaching about Jesus (until the Jews forbad the Christians to do so), but the 'inner teaching', if you like, the Mysteries, were not spoken of publicly, but privately.

We have the evidence of the disciplina arcani, and many contemporary writings that show that the 'esoteric' meaning of the oral tradition was reserved until after baptism, and often was part of the Baptismal Rite. The instruction of the Catechumen did not take place in public.

The Arian Dispute changed everything, and the Christian Mysteries became the subject of common discussion. One of the Fathers, I can't remember whom, is recorded to have written that he can't even buy fruit at the street market without being engaged in a heated discussion as to whether Jesus Christ was created, or eternal! Sadly, my grocer only wonders whether I've done the lottery this week ... then again, if my grocer engaged me in theological dispute, the fruit and veg would be on the turn before I got home!

Spong writes: “A magical view of the gospels was developed which asserted that instead of the Hebrew stories shaping the Jesus story, the events of Jesus’ life simply fulfilled biblical expectations and prophecies in some miraculous preordained way” (Spong 144).

And his evidence — that the promises of God were not heralded in the Hebrew Scriptures, is what?

Spong's doctrine is his own speculation, after all, and that's all it is, and many, many scholars regard it as deeply flawed.

Spong is trying to peer behind 1st century Jewish storytelling to find Jesus.

Ah! The Quest for the Historical Jesus ... well, there's a vast range of scholarship that clearly demonstrates that, in the absence of actual evidence, all that one will find is one's own presuppositions.

Schweitzer had the intellectual insight and honesty to realise that such a quest is fruitless ...

I would like to note here that we should take the miracles as more liturgical than historical when looking at how the Jewish liturgical year shaped the memory of Jesus.

Is that not putting the cart before the horse. What that implies is that the Jewish Liturgical heritage, rather than remembering events, actually invents itself, with no foundation in reality at all?

Possible, I suppose, but then, where does the invention come from?

As regards the seasons, here's another view —

St Paul teaches there are two ways of coming to know God, through the witness of nature, and the witness of Revelation.

If God is God, and creator of the world, then the world will be shot through with Divine Principle, and so nature will be a Book of Divine Activity, as Scripture is a Book of Divine Activity.

Hermeticists and metaphysicians have always learned to 'read the signs', under the auspices of 'as above, so below', for example.

So we can have two ways of seeing. One sees the liturgy and ritual of a tradition fixed to certain times and places by accident, by strokes of fortune, by crafty manipulation, by whatever.

Another way of seeing is that all truth is one, and God is all in all — so the truth and reality that informs the Mysteries of the Incarnation, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, is the same truth and reality that informs dawn and dusk, the seasons, the music of the spheres.

So if God chooses by His good grace to unite His own divine nature to human nature; if He is to walk as a man among men, then He will be born at a fitting time, and if He is to die, then His death will likewise trigger resonances backwards and forwards in time because those events were, before the foundation of the world.

So I find it not at all surprising that the events of the Christian calendar have resonances among pagan traditions, because all truth is one, and the Cosmos is a theophany ... in fact I would find it remarkable if there were no such coincidences.

But then I am a symbolist, that is how the Cosmos talks to me.

Just my speculation.

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

Hi Ahanu —

Greetings.

If that is his point, then he's generalising somewhat inaccurately on that point. The synagogue was the place of public preaching about Jesus (until the Jews forbad the Christians to do so), but the 'inner teaching', if you like, the Mysteries, were not spoken of publicly, but privately.

We have the evidence of the disciplina arcani, and many contemporary writings that show that the 'esoteric' meaning of the oral tradition was reserved until after baptism, and often was part of the Baptismal Rite. The instruction of the Catechumen did not take place in public.

The Arian Dispute changed everything, and the Christian Mysteries became the subject of common discussion. One of the Fathers, I can't remember whom, is recorded to have written that he can't even buy fruit at the street market without being engaged in a heated discussion as to whether Jesus Christ was created, or eternal! Sadly, my grocer only wonders whether I've done the lottery this week ... then again, if my grocer engaged me in theological dispute, the fruit and veg would be on the turn before I got home!

Yes, the synagogue was the setting of the oral traditions about Jesus, not just the place of public preaching about Jesus, Thomas.

The New Testament references Jewish scriptures around a whopping 900 times in various ways (Vermes 144). This includes "verbal allusions, i.e. telling a story or formulating a teaching with the help of expressions borrowed from scripture, to formal pesher-type citations and sometimes, especially in Matthew and John, with the explicit claim that the event described came about in order to fulfil the words of a prophet" (145). Connections like this couldn't just be made with discussions with children and people at work. Back then everybody didn't have their own bible (as we do today). Spong writes: "The books of the Bible were on scrolls that were cultural and community treasures. These scrolls were preserved by the very expensive process of hand-copying. Only in the synagogue, where scripture study was a community function on the sabbath, did people have access to these sacred texts. The synagogue was, therefore, the setting of the oral period" (Spong 143).

With this evidence in mind, do you still claim that the synagogue was just the place of public preaching about Jesus, as your words seem to imply? Was it not a place where the "followers of Jesus came to synagogues as worshipping Jews, and sabbath after sabbath, year by year, they heard the scriptures read, remembered the words of Jesus and opened their eyes to the Jesus experience as it was illumined by both scripture and liturgy"? (146)

Is that not putting the cart before the horse. What that implies is that the Jewish Liturgical heritage, rather than remembering events, actually invents itself, with no foundation in reality at all?

I'm just saying that Jesus' life was seen through that lens, or how it shapes the way Jesus is remembered. Jesus surely lived, I believe, but his life is clearly shaped by the scriptures--as we have already seen, for example, in the way the miracles are so well organized in the bible according to the Jewish year. Thomas, you're saying that the switching of the cultural lens from 1st century apocalyptic Jew to 21st century American journalist would not change the way we view Jesus. In other words, if these events were to happen in our culture today, some of the following truths would remain the same: demons possessed the mentally ill, Moses appearing on a high mountain (where Peter prepares a tent), Jesus would heal those with physical handicaps, and so on. It doesn't take a PhD in religion to know that, if Jesus grew up in a culture in which the concept of a physical resurrection was unavailable, he would not be portrayed as bodily rising from a tomb.

Sources:

Spong, John. Jesus for the Non-Religious. New York: HarperCollins, 2008
Vermes, Geza. Searching for the Real Jesus: Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Religious Themes. London: SCM Press, 2009.

 

[Amergin]

Originally Posted by Dor
Why do people try to change Christianity?

They have spent too much time reading the words, trying to understand the concepts, using rational and critical analysis. This leads to finding the errors, contradictions. and obviously mythological nature of the stories. For some people it leads to rejection by the brain's sceptical filter. If one learns to identify mythology and superstition, he cannot continue to be a Christian.

Seriously if people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

If one lives in a country guaranteeing freedom of religion, it is the right to accept or reject any religious belief, interpret that belief in his/her own way, switch to another religion, or reject all religion as superstition. I think you have a right to accept traditional Christianity. You also have a constitutional right to modify that belief in any way that suits them. Christianity is a hodgepodge of different and conflicting beliefs. None can prove if their favoured sect is the true faith or if any sect of Christianity is valid.

Do people do it constantly to Islam and Judaism and I just do not see it?

I observe that most converts to Islam come from Christianity. Most Muslims in Europe are immigrants but an increasing number of Europeans dissatisfied with Christianity are accepting Islam. I think that is because Islam is simpler, satisfying, and free of the many contradictions and magical superstition of Christianity.

I mean the Bible and Christ are about the only 2 things Christianity has right?
Well if people do not want to believe those then how can they even call themselves Christians?

The Old Testament if studied critically and literally, is in conflict with the Christianity that began in the mid fourth century CE. In spite of apologist denials, Christianity is polytheistic while Judaism from the time of Moses is Monotheistic.

Where would you draw the line on using that classification?

I do not like to draw lines between different sects of the same general neurocognitive superstition. One line is the one separating belief based theistic religiosity from reason based Non-theistic Agnosticism.

Amergin

"We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on Earth while men worship a tyrant in Heaven." -Robert G. Ingersoll (American Civil War Union hero, abolitionist, and atheist.)

 

[Quahom1]

They have spent too much time reading the words, trying to understand the concepts, using rational and critical analysis. This leads to finding the errors, contradictions. and obviously mythological nature of the stories. For some people it leads to rejection by the brain's sceptical filter. If one learns to identify mythology and superstition, he cannot continue to be a Christian.

If one lives in a country guaranteeing freedom of religion, it is the right to accept or reject any religious belief, interpret that belief in his/her own way, switch to another religion, or reject all religion as superstition. I think you have a right to accept traditional Christianity. You also have a constitutional right to modify that belief in any way that suits them. Christianity is a hodgepodge of different and conflicting beliefs. None can prove if their favoured sect is the true faith or if any sect of Christianity is valid.

I observe that most converts to Islam come from Christianity. Most Muslims in Europe are immigrants but an increasing number of Europeans dissatisfied with Christianity are accepting Islam. I think that is because Islam is simpler, satisfying, and free of the many contradictions and magical superstition of Christianity.

The Old Testament if studied critically and literally, is in conflict with the Christianity that began in the mid fourth century CE. In spite of apologist denials, Christianity is polytheistic while Judaism from the time of Moses is Monotheistic.

I do not like to draw lines between different sects of the same general neurocognitive superstition. One line is the one separating belief based theistic religiosity from reason based Non-theistic Agnosticism.

Amergin

"We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on Earth while men worship a tyrant in Heaven." -Robert G. Ingersoll (American Civil War Union hero, abolitionist, and atheist.)

Why are you here?..in the Christian forum? What is your purpose? Is it to show Christians they are stupid and you are wise? Is it to get Christians to leave the faith? What is your end goal?

 

[Amergin]

Why are you here?..in the Christian forum? What is your purpose? Is it to show Christians they are stupid and you are wise? Is it to get Christians to leave the faith? What is your end goal?

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

Go to an exclusively Christian site, where the purpose is for discussants to bolster each others irrational belief by "fellowship" or exchanging memes to reinforce beliefs.

If my comments threaten the fragile structure of your faith, go to your church.

I am here because I sincerely think religion (esp. Christianity) has been extremely harmful to human behaviour (war, persecution, oppression, killing of heretics, denial of basic human rights, and loss of freedom to think.)

This has retarded Western Civilisation for over a millennium bringing extensive death and suffering.

All I try to do is get Christians to critically re-examine their beliefs, scriptures, and dogmas. I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't have a religion. There is nothing I have for them to convert to.

I would like if I can free even one person from the fear of killer gods, oppressive belief. Stamping out freedom of thought through fear is sad. I would like to help victims (patients infected with religion) be able to remove the chains of superstition and the shackles of suppressed freedom of thought.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Here is why one should be free from superstition. A Great American thinker wrote this in the 19th Century before Christianity grew so powerful in America.

The Joy of Freedom


When I became convinced
that the Universe is natural,
that all the ghosts and gods are myths,
there entered into my brain, into my soul,
into every drop of my blood, the sense,
the feeling, the joy of Freedom.

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell.
The dungeon was flooded with light
and all the bolts, bars
and manacles became dust.
I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave.
There was for me no master in all of the wide world,
not even in the infinite space. I was free.

Free to think, to express my thoughts,
Free to live to my own ideal,
Free to live for myself and those I loved,
Free to use my faculties, all my senses,
Free to spread imagination's wings,
Free to investigate, to guess and dream, and hope;
Free to judge and determine for myself,
Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds,
all the "inspired" books
that savages have produced,
and all the barbarous legends of the past.

Free from popes and priests,
Free from all the "called" and the "set apart,"
Free from the sanctified mistakes and holy lies,
Free from the fear of eternal pain,
Free from the winged monsters of the night,
Free from devils, ghosts and gods.

For the first time I was free.
There were no prohibited places
in all the realms of my thought:
no air, no space,
where fancy could not spread her painted wings.
No chains for my limbs,
No lashes for my back,
No fires for my flesh,
No master's frown or threat,
No following another's steps;
No need to bow, or cringe, or crawl,
or utter lying words.

I was free.
I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously,
faced all worlds;
And my heart was filled with gratitude,
with thankfulness, and went out in love
To all the heroes
and the thinkers who gave their lives
for the Liberty of hand and brain,
for the freedom of labor and thought;
To those who fell on the fierce fields of war,
To those who died in the dungeons with chains,
To those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs,
To those whose bones were crushed,
whose flesh was scarred and torn,
To those by fire consumed;
To all the wise, the good, the brave of every land,
whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom
to the sons and daughters of men and women.

And I vowed to grasp the torch that they held,
and hold it high,
that light might conquer darkness still.

--Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[iBrian]

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

This isn't a rationalist forum, it's an interfaith forum where everybody is expected to respect the diversity of belief systems represented here.

I would like if I can free even one person from the fear of killer gods, oppressive belief.

Feel free to join in with discussions because they interest you - but you need to respect the basic foundation that this is an interfaith website.

 

[Thomas]

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

Because they don't, Amergin.
You offer plenty of opinion, plenty of erroneous assumption ... and that's it.
So I echo Quahom's point.

Here is why one should be free from superstition. A Great American thinker wrote this in the 19th Century before Christianity grew so powerful in America.

Sadly, it's not Christianity, it's American nationalism under the guise of Christianity ... it's not Christianity that's powerful in America, it's America.

You now have a military presence in every country in the world bar a handful, you try and dictate the policy of other nations, you try and bring down those nations whose policies you disagree with, you hide behind other nations in your abuses of human rights, you reduce foreign economies to penury to maintain your own profligate lifestyle, you have more of your own population in prison than any other country in the world ... show me what's Christian about that.

America is doing precisely what European nations did a millenia ago ... mask their political intentions behind the veneer of religion.

All I try to do is get Christians to critically re-examine their beliefs, scriptures, and dogmas.

To do that you need to present real evidence, not opinion, formed in a vacuum, and invariably wrong.

Your arguments don't have a leg to stand on, old chum.

Thomas

 

[greymare]

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

Go to an exclusively Christian site, where the purpose is for discussants to bolster each others irrational belief by "fellowship" or exchanging memes to reinforce beliefs.

If my comments threaten the fragile structure of your faith, go to your church.

I am here because I sincerely think religion (esp. Christianity) has been extremely harmful to human behaviour (war, persecution, oppression, killing of heretics, denial of basic human rights, and loss of freedom to think.)

This has retarded Western Civilisation for over a millennium bringing extensive death and suffering.

All I try to do is get Christians to critically re-examine their beliefs, scriptures, and dogmas. I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't have a religion. There is nothing I have for them to convert to.

I would like if I can free even one person from the fear of killer gods, oppressive belief. Stamping out freedom of thought through fear is sad. I would like to help victims (patients infected with religion) be able to remove the chains of superstition and the shackles of suppressed freedom of thought.

Amergin

LOL, Shaky? Fragile? Seems to me you dont know too much about Q's faith at all!!

 

[Thomas]

Amergin, consider —

Your most prominent line of argument is that Christianity is an Indo-European religion, rooted in pagan practice. But apart from drawing superficial and apparent commonalities (which share no commonality in the detail), you have made no argument acceptable to scholarly examination.

Where is the actual evidence? You have presented none.

It might surprise you to know I have just attained a degree in theology, and it might also surprise you to know that if I offer arguments, as you do, based on nothing but my opinions, I would have failed.

So whilst you say that you want people to apply scientific rigour to their ideas, you might actually start by observing your own rule.

Two points to get you going:
The origins of Christianity is Judaism.
The expression of Christianity sits within the context of Judaic monotheism.
The elements that are most startling — the Incarnation and the Trinity — sit within the context of 'revelation'.

The first theologians of the Church were, almost to a man, Platonists.
The ongoing argument and touchpoint is always the Platonisation of Christianity — whether Christian doctrine is Hellenised Christianity, or Christianised hellenism.

If you start from here, you're on a firm foundation ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

My belief system was challenged long before your arrival here. And it is none the worse for wear thank you. In fact I am so comfortable in my faith I have no problem asking others' about their faith, for I am a curious sort. But I do not try to disuade them from their faith...that would be extremely insulting to the individual Human Being. And faith is very, very personal to a Human Individual; not to be run ramshod over by a perceived superior intellect with a touch of arrogance, and a faith of a different kind (in this case, of self).

Go to an exclusively Christian site, where the purpose is for discussants to bolster each others irrational belief by "fellowship" or exchanging memes to reinforce beliefs.

Why would I want to go to a site that has people that think exactly like me? I would learn nothing. Why would I need to bolster my beliefs by surrounding myself with others of like mind, when I am quite confident in my own understanding?

Why would I want to leave my folks and friends here after spending seven wonderful, thoughful, educational, instructional, warm years here?

Why would I settle for a hamstrung horse of 20, when I've been challenged by a bucking bronco of 7?

If my comments threaten the fragile structure of your faith, go to your church.

But I don't need "church" to bolster my faith Amerigan. I need church to stay connected with my community. It's a bonding thing society needs to keep us civil and concerned for others around us. It gives us the opportunity to rise to our best, or be comforted and dare I say, rebuked if needed, at our worst times...

I am here because I sincerely think religion (esp. Christianity) has been extremely harmful to human behaviour (war, persecution, oppression, killing of heretics, denial of basic human rights, and loss of freedom to think.)

Show me a religion or faith (whatever you wish to call it), and I will show you historically the highs and lows, the pinnacles and pitfalls each have experienced. It is not the faith that is the problem. It is the people who acted in certain ways and either acclaimed the faith, or hid behind it.

This has retarded Western Civilisation for over a millennium bringing extensive death and suffering.

Retarded Western Civilization you say, for over a thousand years? This is an argument that must needs be addressed in a different thread, and I am all for a debate with you on this matter. Suffice it to say, without the western influence, we would not be discussing this matter right now, in cyberspace (just a small example). In fact, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for western influence, since my father would never have survived his birth in the 1930s, but for an experimental contraption (called an incubator. Yes my father was the first premature baby ever, put into a functioning hospital incubator, Chicago, Illinois, another small example).

All I try to do is get Christians to critically re-examine their beliefs, scriptures, and dogmas. I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't have a religion. There is nothing I have for them to convert to.

A vaccuum, must be filled with something...

I would like if I can free even one person from the fear of killer gods, oppressive belief. Stamping out freedom of thought through fear is sad. I would like to help victims (patients infected with religion) be able to remove the chains of superstition and the shackles of suppressed freedom of thought.

"Gods" aren't the killers Amerigan...People are. But they use Gods as an excuse. According to scripture, there was only one time "God" intended to "kill" mankind...(actually cause extinction is a better description), but even then He thought the better of it. He was simply pissed at the base nature Man had fallen to, but he had compassion, and hope. So we were were given a second chance.

I have a challenge for you Amerigan. Talk to the God you don't believe exists. Ask him to prove his existance to you (personally). What do you have to lose? Test him. Challenge him. See what you get in return.

See, God is not a vengeful God to those who are serious in wanting to know him. Indeed he is a humorous and gentle God, and he will reveal himself to those who seek him, in ways that leave no doubt to the one asking for proof. He will also answer questions (especially about the pain and suffering man has gone through).

God wants communication with man (individual man/woman). God is very personal, and intimate.

Try it Amerigan...what have you got to lose? But be careful for what you ask for...you just might get it.

God Bless you.

v/r

Q

 

[Saltmeister]

If one learns to identify mythology and superstition, he cannot continue to be a Christian.

If superstition is the irrational belief in certain supernatural phenomena, then there is the possibility that belief in some supernatural phenomena is quite rational. I believe the Bible contains only rational beliefs concerning supernatural phenomena and therefore that there is no superstition in the Bible.

Yes, I have identified "mythology" in the Bible but I continue to be "Christian" because I see no problem with people "mythologising" our relationship with God.

The Old Testament if studied critically and literally, is in conflict with the Christianity that began in the mid fourth century CE. In spite of apologist denials, Christianity is polytheistic while Judaism from the time of Moses is Monotheistic.

It's tragic, but I do not think it diminishes the validity of Christianity because if you understood the history of Christianity in the first century, you would understand why this happened.

The Nazarenes sent Paul as an ambassador to the Greeks and Romans. Paul deemed it acceptable for the Greeks and Romans to continue celebrating and indulging in their "pagan" and "Hellenistic" philosophies because the most important thing was for them to worship the Jewish God Hashem and stop engaging in idolatry. This was a very liberal theology that the Nazarenes offered to the Greeks and Romans on "monotheism."

The Later Christians misunderstood this liberal attitude toward Hellenism and Greek and Roman paganism. They thought the pagan and Hellenistic concepts were "orthodox" views when they were not. These concepts were not acceptable in Jewish theology. Contrary to what Christians normally think, these concepts were not "fundamental" to Christianity." They were simply tolerated by the Nazarenes.

It is tragic that the Later Christians adopted a more strict theology when the Nazarenes with Paul as the ambassador decided to adopt a liberal attitude toward the Gentile Christians. The reason why you find "pagan" and Hellenistic concepts in the New Testament is because of this liberal attitude of the Nazarenes.

It does not make Christianity invalid. Instead, it shows that such theology should be accepted as long as people don't deem it "fundamental." To say that it is fundamental is to contradict the liberal attitudes of the Nazarenes. The Nazarenes through Paul deemed it an acceptable "monotheistic" theology so it is acceptable. In saying this, I acknowledge that it's a "deviant" monotheistic theology, unlike the "orthodox" one in Judaism and Islam, but the Nazarenes allowed the possibility for this deviant theology to develop.

I observe that most converts to Islam come from Christianity. Most Muslims in Europe are immigrants but an increasing number of Europeans dissatisfied with Christianity are accepting Islam. I think that is because Islam is simpler, satisfying, and free of the many contradictions and magical superstition of Christianity.

Christianity was never supposed to "completely make sense." The Nazarenes tolerated "imperfection." Because they deemed the "deviant theology" of the Greek and Roman Christians acceptable, they probably would have tolerated Trinitarianism as well if they survived that long, as long as this "deviant monotheism" was not deemed "fundamental" because fundamentalism (the belief in fundamentals) contradicted the liberal attitudes of the Nazarenes toward the Gentile Christians.

Back in the first century, many of the Jews were hostile to foreigners and Gentiles (called "goyim") because they were under the influence of an establishment dominated by Shammai and his followers. Shammai was anti-foreign. Jesus taught many of the same things as the more liberal school of Beit Hillel. Likewise, his followers, the Nazarenes also took a liberal and accepting attitude toward the Greek and Roman Christians.

The Nicaean Creed and Trinitarian theology authorised in the fourth century contradicted this liberal attitude of the Nazarenes. This was the beginning of Christian fundamentalism and legalism.

The Later Christians wanted Christianity to "completely make sense." But it didn't need to, because the Nazarenes deemed that this wasn't necessary for them to have a relationship with God. The Later Christians forgot the "easy yoke" that the Nazarenes offered them and took the "heavy yoke" of a Christianity that "had to made sense."

The teachings of Jesus were supposed to lead people away from fundamentalism and legalism like that of Beit Shammai. This started to happen again to Christianity in the fourth century. Because of their weak faith, the Later Christians started to worship a "Golden Calf" (so to speak).

If people want a religion that makes sense, no problem if they choose Islam. The point of Christianity is that there is a "lower standard" by which people will be accepted by God. It means that God does not require our belief system to make sense.

I do not like to draw lines between different sects of the same general neurocognitive superstition. One line is the one separating belief based theistic religiosity from reason based Non-theistic Agnosticism.

To me it's a line between the humanity-oriented teachings of Jesus and the fundamentalist and legalistic attitudes of many Christians today. Many Christians today are not followers of Jesus, but followers of other Christians.

If my study and analysis of Christian Mythology threatens your shaky belief system, why are you here where all beliefs can be rationally challenged?

It doesn't threaten my belief system, but I believe there is a greater chance that it threatens the belief system of those on "exclusively Christian" message boards.

Go to an exclusively Christian site, where the purpose is for discussants to bolster each others irrational belief by "fellowship" or exchanging memes to reinforce beliefs.

I don't like that kind of spirituality either. It turns so-called "Christians" into followers of other Christians, rather than deciding for yourself what being a follower of Jesus (a true Christian) is really about. I strongly dislike this "collectivisation" of Christian beliefs, that it has to mean the same thing to everybody. Each of us is different; we follow a different journey through life, so we should process, evaluate and contemplate the meaning of the Gospel through that experience rather than "copying" each other.

I am here because I sincerely think religion (esp. Christianity) has been extremely harmful to human behaviour (war, persecution, oppression, killing of heretics, denial of basic human rights, and loss of freedom to think.)

This has retarded Western Civilisation for over a millennium bringing extensive death and suffering.

Actually, I disagree that it retarded Western civilisation. As the ideas of "Christianity" became more dominant, this led to a more unified Western and European culture. The persecution, oppression and violence led to greater cultural unity. This cultural unity was a catalyst for progress.

All I try to do is get Christians to critically re-examine their beliefs, scriptures, and dogmas. I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't have a religion. There is nothing I have for them to convert to.

Your sentiments belong more on those "exclusively Christian" message boards. We're already a bit skeptical.

I would like if I can free even one person from the fear of killer gods, oppressive belief. Stamping out freedom of thought through fear is sad. I would like to help victims (patients infected with religion) be able to remove the chains of superstition and the shackles of suppressed freedom of thought.

To me the problem is not religion, but fundamentalism and legalism. If people are happy with their ideology, I am content. But if someone is being persecuted and oppressed, that is when I criticise.

Yes you can be a slave, particularly if you fall under the influence of fundamentalism and legalism. Nobody should ever be pressured to do anything. Their basic humanity and dignity should never be violated. Ideology that exerts power over people to the extent that it starts to do damage to their humanity or dignity is ideology that potentially enslaves.

There is a "way" for Christianity not to enslave, persecute or oppress and that "way" is the teachings of Jesus and of Hillel the Elder who came before him. Jesus taught people how to follow their religion without enslaving, persecuting or oppressing. The reason why you see Christians oppressing others today is because they are followers of other Christians, not of Jesus. One reason why I dislike the "collectivisation" of a religion is that you can easily follow the bad example of others.

 

[Amergin]

Why are you here?..in the Christian forum? What is your purpose? Is it to show Christians they are stupid and you are wise? Is it to get Christians to leave the faith? What is your end goal?

I am here because I have just as much right as do you. My purpose is to discuss with people, alternatives to mythology, superstition, and ignorance. You used the word, stupid. Stupid usually means unable to learn math, science, physics, geology, rational thinking, analytical inquiry, and strong protective scepticism. American kids are 16th to 18th in the world's countries in math and science. Do you really like that?

In a modern world of high technology and physics that seemed like science fiction a century ago, eduction is important.

A Child infected with Christian Fundamentalist memes will believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That is obviously false. He may believe that some impossible flood killed off all life on the planet by a mentally unstable god. He will not question that the wooden boat of Noah was too small to collects all families of animals let alone species. Noah has a wooded boat without sails, oars, steam engine, diesel motor, petrol motor, or nuclear engine. He could not sail all over the world without power to collect millions of animals from their places of origin then returning them to those homelands. Where would anyone get 2.5 billion cubic Km of water to flood Mt Everest and then remove all of that water to ?where? freezing to the size of a moon. Creating Adam and Eve 60 centuries ago is childish fable. Evolution is a proven fact and Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and spherical. Earth is not the centre of the universe but a small planet in an insignificant solar system in the outer arm of a mid-sized galaxy among billions of galaxies.

Christian mythology in introduced by meme (brain washing) repetitious words daily in a growing child. His/her brain circuits adapt to accepting bollocks or irrational superstition. When presented with real biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, and advanced math, the meme handicapped child cannot understand the reality. America then sinks into the Third World with people wallowing in superstitious rubbish as America's economy becomes a banana republic. I don't wish that. But bragging about being the most Christian country on Earth is not suggesting a healthy America with an educated class. The educated would migrate to China, India, Europe, Russia, Japan, and possibly Canada.

Christianity is more than a religion. It is a mental disorder in its full form. I do not hate Christians. I hate Christianity. Similarly I do not hate people with brain tumours, I hate the tumours.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

First off Amergin, you're using a variation of the Straw Man argument, so the logic of your position is flawed from the start.

When presented with real biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, and advanced math, the meme handicapped child cannot understand the reality.

How come then that Christian thinkers have made some of the most significant contributions to science in the fields you mention. How d'you explain that?

It's like me saying that all science has resulted in is mass murders: machine guns and barbed wire, gas chambers, ABC weapons ... we have an environmental and ecological crisis of such proportions that the very community that caused it simply cannot bring themselves to face their problem they have created ... every child born in the US uses 4 times more the resources of a child born in the thirds world, and your energy requirement goes up and up to sustain the technologies your produce, that render your populations addicted to a materialist/consumerist culture ...

A renown scientist and visionary has declared that thanks to science the result will be the death of 80% of the global population.

Personally I think the position is more nuanced than that. Sadly you seem unable to make such discriminations.

Your position is that of the fundamentalist bigot — you take the worst possible case scenario, and apply it universally without distinction, simply ignoring any evidence to the contrary. You're as silly as Dawkins et al, you're infected with the same noisesome meme that his ilk are, and the meme that thinkers in the scientific community are distancing themselves from.

You have become the very thing you bang on about.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

I love the charitable Christian attitude (in the face of such a tremendous threat) which I see so often in the Christian forums. Take this one, for example. It just oozes.

And that's why I, personally, feel Christianity needs changing. Because if you're going to fall back on your religion, and tell me that that's what's responsible for you all acting this way ... then clearly that's where the issue is.

If it's something else, say ahh, good old human nature (which, again, you BLAME God for, as if this was GOD's fault) ... then apparently the Christianity some folks practice *don't quite cut it*. The human nature part, that is. But I for one don't blame your religion. And I don't hang it on some stupid snake myth and a bunch of crap that any thinking person knows didn't mysteriously just HAPPEN a few thousand years ago. Or million.

No, I think the situation is a little more complicated than that. But I say again, when I see the way folks are carrying on here, in the face of such OVERWHELMING odds (oh my God, dear Lord, what shall we ever do!?! a man has CHALLENGED us again!) ... yes, in the face of these odds, it's great to know, and see, and understand, just what the TRUE Light ~ and LOVE ~ of Christianity is all about.

THANK you all for making that abundantly clear. And for answering your own question so thoroughly; Thank you ... project DONE.

"Why do people try to change Christianity?"
Because: When these folks gathered here, identifying themselves as `Christian' carry on like this, some of us pretty much wonder that it's not a failed endeavor, utterly and entirely.

Amergin may want to help liberate folks from superstition, fear and foolishness, but he did not CREATE that crap to begin with. If you can't face the truth about your own TRADITION, and accept how it came to be full of such foolishness over the centuries, then why are you all banding together in yet another little clique, inviting folks to just and move on so blithely?

Actually, it kind of disgusts me, but I for one am a BELIEVER, because after my experiences, combined with studies, combined with sharing certain things with others throughout the years, I am also a KNOWER. And while some lot have persecuted the Knowers since even before, during and clearly immediately after Jesus' times all down throughout the centuries, we know that's changing today ... so that yes, fortunately, sites like Interfaith.org do exist.

But at the same time the site isn't here for people to just sit around and get bashed on ~ something of which admins and mods are mindful, and ask others to, likewise, be ~ nevertheless, WHERE ELSE do you expect the Truth to come to Light?

It comes to Light in your, in my, heart and mind ... and this process is nothing new; nor is it ultimately assailable, or capable of defeat. Strangely, however, that shred of the great Tapestry which some in their good fortune have managed to be shown ~ and which they now come to cling to ~ that SHRED, even for all its strength, and capacity to uplift and Inspire, SOMEHOW manages to FAIL to help us to carry the Light, to Shine the Torch, and to PROVE to our fellow man that Christ's Message of Love (Love thy ENEMY, even as thou lovest thy neighbor, family and self) ... that MESSAGE, so critical, and so crucial above all else in Christ's doctrine ...

... becomes so fragile, so unbelievable, so impossible to prove out in our daily experience.

Well friends, if that's how it is, if you find it useful and necessary to all band together and attack someone, EVEN IF s/he were to happen to attack your own beliefs, then clearly you have forgotten the difference between a sound defense, and just taking pock shots, return jabs and generally being a miserable lot in response. Oh, what a wonderful way to prove your Savior's Love and honor His example!

It can be me, it can be Amergin, or it can be the next THINKING member of our society who stops by for tea & biscuits, and who HAPPENS to have traveled a time or two more often than YOU ... on the road of Life. We have seen, often enough we have experienced and CAN say we Know; and just because it may sometimes be that what we most need to learn, or are somehow sure we may be able to find help with, is right HERE ... guess what.

We really don't give a flip if you lot don't have the gumption, the wherewithal or the patience to ask, "Ahh, let's see. What's the lesson for me here? What's the way in which I may be useful in this particular situation?"

If you can't TAKE A LESSON from someone (from ANYONE) who already knows how to, and DOES, behave that way ... then just take it from someone, from ANYone, who already knows ~ but doesn't. The reminder serves just as well ... if you let it.

But no, if ~ the moment you feel challenged, the moment something doesn't CLICK with your CLIQUE ~ if in that moment of overwhelming odds (whose odds, again, are we talking about?) ... IF at that point it's just impossible to move forward without adding insult to injury, or further damaging something which, frankly, needs all the help it can get (yes, that's just my humble opinion as an outside onlooker, and increasingly seldom LURKER) ...

... then why don't you just turn the OTHER cheek, and prove that you are not TOTALLY without this thing you bandy about, speak so highly of, CLAIM as so important in your lives, but then ~ when push comes to shove ~ forget altogether.

Show a little FAITH, and say something like, "You know Amergin, you raise some interesting points; many folks may not believe this here, or that there, or ... yes, admittedly this is a challenge for many people to grasp, chew, swallow or digest; HOWEVER, it is something which *I* accept, and which we as Christians accept, as a matter of FAITH."

There is nothing wrong with that. Especially if it *happens to be* true. And I doubt it. But I wish you would finally prove me wrong. Any of you, but sometimes, especially, some of you. Because for all your talk and puffiness, you sure as hell demonstrate very little FAITH.

Knowledge is not Faith, information is not Faith, and who can yell the loudest, or sing the rosiest during Sunday Mass ... is not FAITH. Not theological degrees, not high church offices, nor frequency of attendance; these are not, certainly not necessarily, proof of FAITH. And Faith isn't about proving anything to ANYbody ... not just "even when," but ESPECIALLY IF you happen to feel threatened.

And don't worry. Many of you have gotten plenty of it entirely, or at least mostly, wrong. Sorry. I don't take credit for that, no matter who I may have been, once upon a time, and no matter what I may have said. You won't, not now, not never, hang that hat on my head, or my hook, and say, "Oh, but you said this, or so and so said that." I don't give a damn if Augustine THOUGHT he was telling it like it is, or if St. Paul MEANT so friggin' well when he preached about yadda yadda and little red wagon. You see, if you couldn't, and if you can't, DISCERN truth from falsehood in your own heart ... then does it matter?

Being exposed to the Truth is one thing; retaining some identification with, and understanding of it, is another. So if the truth IS Love, and if it is only by learning ~ through PRACTICE ~ to Love ourselves, our neighbor, our family, community, nation & society ... even our WHOLE WORLD, enemies and all ... that we become BETTER Christians (oh wait, that's you lot, my apologies) ... then anyone care to tell me, what's so much more important than THAT, that we fail to show that, when we're ganged up on (oh wait, I'm sorry, that's YOU LOT, again) here on the Christian forums, during such a blatant, outright, ruthless, vile attack, with overwhelming numbers, odds and such cruel weaponry as has been devised for this calamity?

//sigh//

The comfy cushions are only because indeed, there are `little Ones' with fragile hearts and minds, and YES, Faith does need careful nourishing ... and the Lord looks after His own. Sorry that most of you miss the point, and can't figure out yet who "His OWN" actually ARE. It will Dawn.

But so, too, shall the old ways increasingly be relegated to such, known as such, and rightly identified as the DARK ages. They were, and remain Dark, for a reason.

And Darkness still wanders amongst and betwixt us, but it is not Amergin, and - at least on most days - it isn't me! Think for a moment about what Darkness wishes to accomplish, and you will see that Truth, Goodness and Beauty do not *exclude* the Dark, or the motives of those who serve it (either consciously, or as is usually the case, unconsciously); rather, Light and Love, in serving with Purpose, are always able to transmute and transform Darkness into something useful. The name of the game is Inclusivity. And there are no exceptions. Discretion, diplomacy, balance, Purpose ... Meditation and Prayer.

I am frustrated. But it's because you can't recognize a Warrior of Light when you see one. You truly, as has been said before ... don't know your own. But the `You' is Humanity, the Warrior of Light is the Soul ... and God's own?

I'm still waiting on that one.

Your 6th Ray Brother,
Andrew/Taijasi

 

[Saltmeister]

American kids are 16th to 18th in the world's countries in math and science. Do you really like that?

In a modern world of high technology and physics that seemed like science fiction a century ago, eduction is important.

I agree that education is useful, but for what purpose? Education always has a purpose. Is it to maintain America's place in the world as a superpower, or is it for the benefit of those individuals who receive it, and for society? The argument for the need for an education can be based just as much in nationalism as in the social and personal benefits.

For me, it is partly because I abhor fundamentalism and would like to see people take a more rational approach to religion. It is also partly because I do not know how the political world order would change if America lost her dominance.

America then sinks into the Third World with people wallowing in superstitious rubbish as America's economy becomes a banana republic.

It would be a shame if America became a Third World country but I have never seen any conclusive evidence that even religious fundamentalism was to blame for it. I have often thought it more likely to be because Americans are too lazy to study science and engineering. America has fewer and fewer graduates in science and engineering each year. Many of its graduates are immigrants.

I hope people here are not offended by me saying that Americans can't stand hard work, but from what I have seen and heard, this seems to be the case. What could possibly be the reason for not studying science and engineering other than the fact that Americans are just lazy? It seems that people in America would rather leave the hard work to other countries. They would rather buy cheap imports from China and India. It is not the Chinese and Indians who are cheap, but Americans who are cheap. The Chinese and Indians are an undervalued underclass. It is such a degrading notion that people who work much harder should be paid so little.

Lack of job opportunities can't be an excuse. If it were, even the immigrants wouldn't be studying science and engineering, and I am sure that many of these immigrants settle in America. They value hard work more than locally-born Americans!!! Locally-born Americans would rather hold parties and have sex every night. Locally-born Americans are too busy flirting and fornicating and running around without their pants.

America's manufacturing base is shrinking. Its trade deficit is increasing. Its people and government have the biggest debt in the world. America is a debt-driven economy. They borrow other people's money so they can live their lives in luxury. But one day this all has to be paid back.

America's greatness did not come from hard work, but from drunkenness, fornication, flirting, partying and holidaying. For a number of decades, Japanese cars were of superior quality to that of American cars. The American automakers didn't care about quality control. They cared more about profits. They didn't care about customer satisfaction. They just wanted to make a quick buck. That's why a lot of people bought from Toyota and Honda. The Japanese cars were also more fuel-efficient.

I can understand that a number of other factors made the Japanese more competitive even on American soil. The Japanese manufacturers set up their factories in a place that was relatively free from union influence. But why didn't the Americans follow the good example of the Japanese and do the same? My conclusion is that Americans are idiots. I don't know how religious fundamentalism could have affected American business strategies. It would have been irrelevant. The Bible doesn't tell people how to run a business. It doesn't say anything about unions or quality control.

A Child infected with Christian Fundamentalist memes will believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That is obviously false.

The Bible doesn't even say the earth is 6,000 years old. That's just an interpretation.

Christianity is more than a religion. It is a mental disorder in its full form.

It can be a mental disorder. As I said, there is a way for Christianity to not be so socially and emotionally destructive, and that is by following "the way" of Jesus. A large proportion of Christians are not followers of Jesus, but followers of other Christians.

It's like me saying that all science has resulted in is mass murders: machine guns and barbed wire, gas chambers, ABC weapons ... we have an environmental and ecological crisis of such proportions that the very community that caused it simply cannot bring themselves to face their problem they have created ... every child born in the US uses 4 times more the resources of a child born in the thirds world, and your energy requirement goes up and up to sustain the technologies your produce, that render your populations addicted to a materialist/consumerist culture ...

A renown scientist and visionary has declared that thanks to science the result will be the death of 80% of the global population.

Actually, I think it would be wrong to blame scientists for that. It is capitalism, not science that has been the cause of so much environmental degradation. This would not have happened in a Communist country. Why do you think there is so much pollution in China today when there was very little two decades ago? The answer is simple: greed and capitalism.

A scientist is just someone who conducts the research and provides the knowledge. You have to blame the bankers, accountants and CEOs of our world for the pollution, environmental degradation and consumerism. To some extent, you have to blame the politicians as well, because they believed capitalism was the way of the future.

To keep up with the competition, you have to get your products to market faster than your competitors. That means that you have to use more energy. A car that uses more fuel gets to the destination faster. Our ecological footprint increased when we replaced horses with cars. Life was pretty good before cars were invented, but when people started making cars, everyone had to buy a car too. Now almost everyone has a car.

Life keeps getting bigger and getting faster. When everyone lives big and fast you have to live big and fast too. This was what the CEOs of the last century decided. Because everyone else was increasing the size of their chimneys they had to build bigger chimneys of their own to "stay ahead" of competitors.

What do you think caused the subprime mortgage crisis? It wasn't scientists. People were sucked into the dream of home ownership. Everyone wanted a home because their friends and neighbours were buying one. Jealousy, greed, envy and peer pressure led many people to buy homes they couldn't afford. They lived beyond their means. The bankers wanted more money so they baited people into buying homes. The scheme backfired because there wasn't enough money to go around. The people on mortgages lost their jobs and couldn't pay back their loans.

They didn't blame scientists. They blamed bankers and accountants.

 

[Thomas]

And I don't hang it on some stupid snake myth and a bunch of crap that any thinking person knows didn't mysteriously just HAPPEN a few thousand years ago.

The trouble is Andrew, that 'stupid snake myth' was sufficient inspiration for an Eckhart, an Aquinas ... indeed for countless saints and sages, mystics and metaphysicians ... down through the ages ... that Book was and is a constant and inexhaustible source of wisdom, of inspiration, of light, and of life.

So when someone refers to it as 'stupid', I tend to think, maybe, they just completely missed the point. I mean, I recall my teacher at school saying that anyone who thought Shakespeare was boring was ... stupid ... so I gave him, and Shakespeare, the benefit of the doubt, and guess what, he's not boring at all.

So in short, I think people try to change Christianity because they don't understand it, or they can't rise to the challenge it presents them.

So they seek to rubbish it, or accommodate it to themselves.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

The trouble is Andrew, that 'stupid snake myth' was sufficient inspiration for an Eckhart, an Aquinas ... indeed for countless saints and sages, mystics and metaphysicians ... down through the ages ... that Book was and is a constant and inexhaustible source of wisdom, of inspiration, of light, and of life.

So when someone refers to it as 'stupid', I tend to think, maybe, they just completely missed the point. I mean, I recall my teacher at school saying that anyone who thought Shakespeare was boring was ... stupid ... so I gave him, and Shakespeare, the benefit of the doubt, and guess what, he's not boring at all.

So in short, I think people try to change Christianity because they don't understand it, or they can't rise to the challenge it presents them.

So they seek to rubbish it, or accommodate it to themselves.

God bless,

Thomas

Thomas,

No, I didn't miss the point. Perhaps you have never caught my take on all that, but in a nutshell, I certainly believe that there is a deep Wisdom ~ and most intriguing story ~ behind the myth of Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden and the FALL into Incarnation.

But I do not agree on your take on it; nor do I agree with the Fundamentalist Christian version, which differs but little, especially on salient points. I argue for a GRADUAL DESCENT (the `Fall') of Humanity, as GOD-Ordained, from Spiritual levels into the less Spiritual (if such an inadequate expression can be permitted, lacking further explanation or context).

I believe that we have moved ~ just as the Vedic teachings indicate (in something which Science now corroborates, thousands of years later) ~ from a Golden, through a Silver, through a Bronze and finally into an IRON age. As iron corresponds with the least precious of metals in this descending scale, so the Kali Yuga indicates a time of significant struggle to reach, maintain and increase our [original] connection with Deity.

The focus on `original sin' is actually just one more indication of that. In the assertion of such, the modern Christian does exactly what you mention. S/he proves that s/he "[doesn't] understand it, or they can't rise to the challenge it presents them" ... which challenge sometimes includes GOING BEYOND what we have always been handed (from the presumed, yet sometimes mistaken *authority* of mother church, or father priest). And the Roman Catholic Church has only just begun to realize that people MUST question and be willing to overturn stones ... before they can find what it is they seek.

If only such great weights and obstacles hadn't been placed there to begin with, perhaps the challenge wouldn't be so great today. Here I do not refer to the natural and innate handicaps of our human/animal nature; I mean the UNNECESSARY wrangling, and often enough intentional ~distortions~ which occurred at the hands of the copyists, the clergy and those who most pointedly wished to CHANGE what was originally taught ... for personal agendas, familiar power struggles and plain, simple, old-fashioned greed.

Do I believe that, several million years ago, there was an unfortunate deviation from the PLAN of God for our little Earth? Yes. I do. I also believe that the Flood Myth is a retelling of even further *deviation* ... which cataclysmic event (as natural, karmic consequence) is related somewhere in most if not all other texts of the major religions. Such periodic catastrophes, as also the rise and fall of entire nations and world civilizations, is increasingly proven and documented by modern science.

As I say, I am interested, intrigued, quite captivated by the mysterious and serpentine PAST which our collective Humanity has experienced. I am very much committed to understanding, and to helping others to understanding something about the CAUSES for that past ... as also some of this thread of Causation and present Consequence continues through the present. But I refuse to perpetuate the ignorance of certain narrow-minded Darwinian interpretations, equally as I turn away from the small-minded commentary offered by Fundamentalist Christian *Creationism* ~ or its Roman Catholic counterpart.

I have never thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I have asked that the child be properly bathed, which process is ongoing, and that we learn to let the dirty water go where it belongs ... DOWN THE DRAIN. Now it's time to start drying off the child, and give it the proper care and attention it deserves. TAKE IT TO HEART, in other words. Kindle the Fires, and nurture Them. But first, let's rescue this Child, lest its foot start down the drain with the dirty water, sucking away what little we have left to remind us, leg, torso, HEAD and all.

Yes, people often set aside their HEAD when they confront or convert to (a) religion; Christianity, with its martyr complex and excess zeal, is certainly no different.

Shakespeare was a genius, a wonderful man. In my tradition, he was what we call an ARHAT (Arhan, Lohan, Rahat). And yes, I mean after the Buddhist doctrine of the same. There is much to account for his Inspiration, but few contributions to the literary field compare, certainly in modern times. To call him stupid or boring may be a matter of personal opinion, but so also I would say we are entitled to our take on Christianity, or any religion. If it doesn't appeal to us, then perhaps it never will, or perhaps we just need a rest from it.

I have had my rest ... and then some. Sometimes I lack patience, and often I find myself distracted. But as for my perseverance? That, I hope, will no longer falter, but only increase.

People who can see, detect, understand, feel or otherwise relate to Christ's central message ... and who can likewise, sometimes increasingly, resonate to the note of Kali Yuga, while recognizing how this compares to the notes of the other, greater three Yuga ~ in other words, who realize how much deviation has occurred across the years ... such people often burn with zeal, or yearn, as with earnest aspiration, to help RESTORE the original Message which Christ tried to bring for us.

We shall not falter, we shall not cease. And we shall not lord it over the rest of you sorry lot, as if we were somehow entitled to a greater standing or position in our Lord's Kingdom, as if someone (like Christ) "died and made us God," or as IF, in fact, we were BETTER THAN anyone else AT ALL. THIS, I'm afraid, is the attitude that some Christians have, about themselves, about other Christians, and about the true worth, value, merit and significance of Christ or Christianity.

They have missed the point. ENTIRELY.

So, hopefully without committing all the same errors, making the same fools of ourselves ~ even if we must, like the rest, learn by and through our mistakes ~ WE TRUDGE ON.

And we don't mind that folks have different points of view. We believe (I know I certainly do) that without such, life, religion and all of us would be pretty boring ... not to mention pretty one-sided. It's in the discussing of such, the exploring of each other's understanding, experiences and `AHA' moments ... that we learn the most ~ about ourselves, about each other, about Life ... and about GOD.

Without that, it's just one man, whatever his colors, regalia, set of credentials or articles of faith ... just standing in the pulpit, preaching. And if I wanted that, I'd be going to a church, or watching any one of these mindless, inane programs on my television every day.

I don't want that. I want Livingness. And, like many, I yearn for the RESTORATION of the Mysteries, the ReAppearance of the Christ and the outer Expression of God's Kingdom, on Earth, AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. I will settle for no less; and ~ kicking and screaming if I must ~ I have no choice but to do what is necessary in order to help bring it all about.

It isn't the having of Free Will which I celebrate. In that, I do perhaps give poor expression to some of my Devotional potential ... and fall short of being Grateful (that word, that Quality, which accompanies and complements GRACE). True, all this. But I do recognize the need for Self-Sacrifice, however poorly I may reflect or express that at times, nowadays, etc. It is not enough to know it, or believe it, Intellectually. But you see, that is a START. And for many, even before the hurdle of DOING, there is the simple yet more fundamental hurdle of Experiencing.

So the Silver Platter syndrome that so many Christians suffer from? I say get over it. Your Savior's own Forerunner once had his head brought to someone on such a silver platter. It may have been pleasing to her, but I assure you, no answers that have any real significance to you, in your life, and on your Spiritual Journey will EVER be so obtained, or attained. They will not come because someone is able to drop a book onto a silver platter, or place a head ~ ANYONE's head ~ upon that platter, and deliver it up for you.

Your heart, on the other hand, placed willingly, gladly, humbly, even Joyfully, upon a certain SCALE ... found lighter than the Feather of Ma'at [Mahat, the Holy SPIRIT] ... this, and no less, is asked of you, and REQUIRED before we may finally enter God's Kingdom.

Why do I believe it's worth laboring to help Christianity to a greater measure of the Light, and to assist those IN the Light to more greatly Illumine and uplift Christianity? Because ... until there are sufficient open-minded, well-balanced, ecumenical-aiming CHRISTIANS filling the pews and opening their hearts to Christ daily [which means incorporating sufficient of the old/new teachings into their lives, in earnest] ... until then, the Master's Work is still a burden that sorely need's lifting. And Christ's task remains that of a man having reached an impasse.

Not even Christ, not the Father in Highest Heaven, can do for us, what we will not, or refuse to do for ourselves. Not even two rowboats and a helicopter are sufficient to save the drowning man, who already KNOWS so much about his Lord, his God and his Savior ... to simply SIT THERE, having FAITH, waiting on Salvation.

I agree with Amergin utterly on such a point, and what's more, I know it ~ from my own perspective and experience, remember ~ truly enough. Stagnation, was NEVER, what Christ intended, hoped for, or asked from His followers. In the last analysis, it is certainly not up to me to judge, just who's stagnant in his or her beliefs, whose church is behind the times, whose version of the Bible is most current or most accurate, or which hand-me-down from which high holy pontiff is the one to follow in any given situation. But then, I would argue that this is part of the challenge.

It's about learning to apply Christ's Teachings in ANY given situation, on ANY given day, NO MATTER WHAT. Anything less ... is just not being Christian.

Namaskar