Why do people try to change Christianity?

[Saltmeister]

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.

You gotta remember that so-called "charitable Christians" are just as human as you. The teachings of Jesus were never about going beyond one's human limits because they were always about our human vulnerabilities. People should be "charitable" but not to the point of compromising their "humanity" and ceasing to be genuine and sincere. There is a point at which "charitable" Christians can become fake and phony.

There is such a thing as going too far. If a Christian gets angry or is offended, take him for what he is. Don't say, "oh but no, you're supposed to be better." Religion is a social, political, economic and ideological process. You should never forget or overlook the human aspect of a religion, because the greatest strength of any religion or tradition is our humanity.

It is such a shame that the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" became a brand and now that it is a brand, it is possible for it to be desecrated. Now that it has been desecrated by people "falling short" of the "ideals" of Jesus, let it remain desecrated so that people can now be more realistic, which was the original goal of Jesus' teachings.

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 you want to "reform" Christianity, you better have a proposal that the majority of Christians will accept. You can't reform a religion without "working within" its traditions, just like Jesus worked within Judaism. Christians hate the idea of "borrowing" from other traditions. It makes Christianity seem insufficient. Criticism from an outsider isn't helpful if it doesn't make sense within that tradition. It is true of most traditions I know.

As for the way "Christian" posters are behaving here, I think you shouldn't expect more from them than you could ever expect from a fellow human. From what Quahom said himself recently, he was a disillusioned Catholic until he discovered "humanity." I'm thinking he meant the same thing as I am saying here.

I am also a KNOWER.

What do you "know?"

WHERE ELSE do you expect the Truth to come to Light?

What truth?

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

Who is attacking whom? What I see is a bunch of individuals, each acting independently.

It may appear that a group of people are ganging up on someone, just like what happened last year with Marsh. I think he got the impression that everyone was ganging up on him. But we were all acting independently. I am no sheep. My opinions are my own. I do my own thing.

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?"

The trouble with your post so far is that you've been incredibly vague about what you are actually talking about. While you may enjoy giving us vague descriptions about what it is that is so important, so critical and crucial, I would appreciate it if you could be more direct. It's almost like you don't want to say it. You keep going round in circles, hovering around in vagueness, making people figure out what you want them to think. I don't know what is so important that you have to play "hard to get."

... 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.

"Turning the other cheek" may make sense in some situations, but not in others. If it doesn't make sense to me, I don't do it. I have not yet succeeded in completely integrating this "turn the other cheek" thing into my "humanity, so as far as understanding what it means to be human is concerned, in many cases I cannot "turn the cheek." So I don't try.

From what I have seen, you don't either. You don't seem so reluctant in giving criticism and neither am I. Why should I contain my anger when I feel I have to let others know about it? Keeping something to yourself isn't always healthy. Sometimes you have to let it out, so I let it out. I put it out there for people to see.

To me, life is a series of negotiations where you're trying not to be dominated over, oppressed, persecuted, humiliated or exploited. I for one hate being humiliated or embarrassed on these forums, so when I feel threatened, I will respond in ways that will preserve my dignity.

You go to the negotiation table with a list of demands and a statement of your intentions. After a good long talk, you take what you wanted. That is what I do on these forums. I take what I want. But it isn't my policy to be assertive to the point that I take what harms another individual. You have to be assertive, but at the same time you also have be considerate of the dignity of others. Never ask too much, nor too little. Everybody gets their own fair share of the "power distribution" of the social order. I strive not to dominate, nor to have others dominate over me.

So AndrewX, please state your intentions. When you have finished discussing your list of demands we will each come out of this discussion (I mean negotiation) with what we want.

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.

I agree. If people had more faith in the teachings of Jesus, heaven would break in. That was what Jesus demonstrated through his miracles. Our world would be transformed.

... 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?

Don't you get it? Christianity has become brand. That's why.

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?

How do you decide who is a "Warrior of Light?"

The way I see it, so-called Warriors of Light must announce the most important teachings of Jesus and Christianity before such a status can be confirmed. But you won't know what that is until you become one yourself because only then can you recognise "the others." But what is "important" tends to differ from individual to individual.

 

[Quahom1]

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

No Amergin, your purpose is is to depose Christianity. However one can't depose a thought. Christianity is a way of thought. You can't supersede Christ's message (his thought).

His promise is full (can not come back void). I trust you can read this in the bibliographical text you are researching?...

If you are dismissing this, then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[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.

Well, here's the rub – I 'caught your take' ages ago – it's dualism, its Plato, etc., etc., I did it myself for a while, until I find questions it could not answer.

And, as you know, I have since demonstrated the fundamental error of projecting Plato into a JudeoChristian paradigm on more than one occasion. It produces the kind of ersatz doctrines so beloved of the gnostics, and it's an argument you have never even offered a counter, as I am pretty sure there isn't one.

You see, all you ever do, like Dawkins et al, is ignore my argument and reason, and instead fall back on rehashing the tired, old, prejudiced stereotypes, and treat that as summing up Christianity in its entirety (an intellectual dishonesty, in my book).

You see, we have covered the "garments of skin" (Genesis 3:21) in my tradition, although you're probably unaware of that — that the physical body was created, not as a containment to catch the falling 'spark', but as a condensation of the ether, if you like (and I'm speaking analogically), that contains and preserves that spark from immediate extinction by an entropic pursuit of that which is, ontologically, unreal and unsatisfying— because the spark is not its own source and therefore is not self-sustaining — and which, if not contained, would have become so infinitely attenuated as to lose its very existence, which is its ability to be, which is to act.

Moreover, your interpretation of Genesis contradicts the text which sees the material creation, and man, as 'very good' and furthermore it renders man as without intrinsic freedom whatsoever, and thus the puppet of a capricious deity.

+++

That you have a very low view of Christians I understand, you are loyal to your masters and their dogma on that point. But I must say you do have a very puffed up view of yourself if you think I'm going to abandon 2,000 years of reasoned philosophical tradition, acclaimed by spiritual masters of every tradition, and jump on the Andrew bandwagon, for no other reason than it's what you happen to think.

Thank you, but I am aware of how poor a Christian I am, without your constant sniping and offences offered to me and my tradition. Suffice to say I will stand with my kind, and I rest in the knowledge that what you so despise has produced an Eckhart and an Aquinas, a Bonaventure and a St John of the Cross, numerous Teresas, some Benedicts and Bernards, a Dionysius, a Maximus, a few Gregories of renown (and some Thomases, and some Andrews) ... for sadly, I must inform you, if its not already obvious, the line of thought you present doesn't hold a candle to any of them.

If I find myself in the company of their tradition, then that is good enough for me. As for us poor, impoverished Christians, devoid of all your insights into everything, then I trust in the love of my Maker. And as Milton said, "They also serve who only stand and wait"

God bless,

Thomas
BTW — you do know that Shakespeare was most probably Catholic, don't you?

 

[Amergin]

No Amergin, your purpose is is to depose Christianity. However one can't depose a thought. Christianity is a way of thought. You can't supersede Christ's message (his thought).

Christianity is a way of thought. It has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not argue with the moral and philosophical thoughts of Jesus as described in the gospels and Paul's writings. I oppose the false Cult of Christianity which has nothing to do with Jesus who they tried to reconstruct into a new god. I argue with Post-Constinine Christianity which as been so harmful, hate inducing, and the cause or excuse for wars that have killed over 70 million people. I oppose it when it suppresses knowledge of the real universe for a mythical place where magic rules.

His promise is full (can not come back void). I trust you can read this in the bibliographical text you are researching?...

I support the teaching of Jesus to feed the poor, heal the sick, scold the rich, throw the money changers out of the Temple (opposition to multi-billion dollar megachurches who goal is profit,) his teachings of justice and forgiveness.

I believe that if Jesus knew what the church that stole his name was doing:
1. getting wealthy while the poor starved
2. killed "infidels",
3. tortured dissidents,
4. burned scientists,
5. killed women on false charges of witchcraft
6. encouraged spouse abuse.
7. supported Kings in wars of conquest...against heretics
8. advocate an inquisition to find dissidents, for execution.
9. ignores Jesus the great teacher, converting him into a god who will lead a Dark Side Army of killer angels. That is horrible and insults the memory of Jesus the peace maker an philanthropist.

If you are dismissing this, then we have nothing to discuss.

I dismiss nothing that is true and at least neutral or positive on promoting mental health, peace, and freedom. I am a Jesus admirer but the Christian Church is evil and violates the ideals of Jesus.

Amergin

 

[taijasi]

Well, here's the rub – I 'caught your take' ages ago – it's dualism, its Plato, etc., etc., I did it myself for a while, until I find questions it could not answer.

And there's a difference between us. Not only did I find more than sufficient answers to my very best questions, but I found material which makes more sense to me than ANYTHING else I've ever encountered. Frankly, it just knocks over anything that the theologians (the MEN interpreting Scripture, God's Word and Christ's Teachings), or anyone else, has been able to come up with and slap onto Christianity as `official.'

I do not interpret what Christ said about the Apostle Peter as having anything to do with the authority of the historical Roman Catholic Church, or even mainstream Christianity, at this point. So remember, while I accept that this is what you believe, and I realize that this is also what many other Christians think is *the* interpretation, "Upon this Rock I shall build my Church" is STILL open for debate ... as far as what Christ had in mind when uttering words to that effect.

Let's be clear then: What works for you, may not work me; and vice versa.

And, as you know, I have since demonstrated the fundamental error of projecting Plato into a JudeoChristian paradigm on more than one occasion. It produces the kind of ersatz doctrines so beloved of the gnostics, and it's an argument you have never even offered a counter, as I am pretty sure there isn't one.

Umm, since Plato was an Initiate probably more advanced in his own day than you are in yours ... I'm of the opinion that you're the one who's behind the times. You have proved nothing to me on this matter, although I will certainly agree that it may require in-depth investigation to show the parallels between Greek thought, Gnosticism, Jewish mysticism. If you aren't willing to make a thorough enough investigation to discover those parallels, and to set aside personal prejudices [the cart comes AFTER the horse, not before], then I cannot be held responsible for that lack.

You see, all you ever do, like Dawkins et al, is ignore my argument and reason, and instead fall back on rehashing the tired, old, prejudiced stereotypes, and treat that as summing up Christianity in its entirety (an intellectual dishonesty, in my book).

No, my sometimes friend. It is YOU I think, who resorts to prejudices, straw-man arguments, and the familiar dog & pony show of so many misguided, if well intentioned theological types down through the centuries. You have nothing new to add, and that is precisely why it makes no sense to those who have bothered to inquire beyond what the Holy Father has told you to believe.

You are unwilling to set aside your prejudices, and the only thing you are intellectually honest about is that you have considered other points of view and rejected them. Having done so, you proceed to try and shoot down any and ALL interpretations [of Christ's Teachings] which do not mesh well with your own conclusions, and with what you have been encouraged and sanctioned to believe.

If you could think, for ONE moment, about all the many attempts, by myself and from a DOZEN other individuals just in the past year or two, to help you see beyond such prejudices and small-mindedness ... I think you would come to see that that long finger of yours which you are pointing, as you look down your nose at us, so proud of your erudite, over-educated status, would be more useful to you, and to all of us, if you would redirect it even just to certain UNDERLINED passages in your OWN Holy Books. Clearly you have a thing or two to learn, since you presently cannot understand where Plato and Judeo-Christian doctrine and tradition intersect.

As for for "argument and reason," please sum them up concisely in ONE paragraph, or at most two, involving the argument, then a summary of your reasoning. If I knew what that was, then perhaps I would be able to address it.

You see, we have covered the "garments of skin" (Genesis 3:21) in my tradition, although you're probably unaware of that — that the physical body was created, not as a containment to catch the falling 'spark', but as a condensation of the ether, if you like (and I'm speaking analogically), that contains and preserves that spark from immediate extinction by an entropic pursuit of that which is, ontologically, unreal and unsatisfying— because the spark is not its own source and therefore is not self-sustaining — and which, if not contained, would have become so infinitely attenuated as to lose its very existence, which is its ability to be, which is to act.

Yes, this makes perfect sense; this is the esoteric doctrine, in simple enough terms. How could anyone familiar with it, having had some insight (an `aha' or two), disagree? Such understanding makes one in no way superior, or specially gifted, or unique. It simply means we have come to grasp in greater measure, or with greater specificity, another piece of the puzzle regarding Humanity's origins and early history on this (or another) globe. It is a good summary of one portion, phase or aspect of `the Fall.' Or at least, that's how I would regard it ...

Moreover, your interpretation of Genesis contradicts the text which sees the material creation, and man, as 'very good' and furthermore it renders man as without intrinsic freedom whatsoever, and thus the puppet of a capricious deity.

No, Thomas, that is your opinion, and I would suggest a distortion of what I have ever said. I assume it is unintentional, however, so let me correct you now. Certainly, if God's Plan, in its Wisdom and its foresight, includes for the eventual PERFECTION of every Human Soul (as indeed, every Angelic Soul, and in time, ALL Souls) ... then how ON EARTH, IN HEAVEN or at all could this be BAD?

Besides, we cannot create life, certainly not as those did who brought us into being upon the various levels or planes. As you say, we are not self-emanating in our human, even our Solar aspect. So how can our creation and ensoulment be `bad?' If anything it must be assumed neutral, yet upon further study, observation, reflection and insight I cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is very good, indeed. Who would differ on that point, except a fatalist, a materialist, an atheist or a fool?

+++

That you have a very low view of Christians I understand

Nope. Here is another misunderstanding. In all fairness I cannot blame you, for you have never bothered to really explore why I feel the way I do ... about ANYTHING. Still, I can't hold you entirely responsible for that; you are often disengenuous, and not with just me. You take things personally as a matter of course, and you don't just jump quickly to defend your views. That would be understandable. Instead, you cry foul at the first sight of trouble, then you accuse the other person of refusing to address YOUR original argument, or you scream bloody murder about some tired old character attack.

Perhaps this is because, indeed, Thomas, I like so many here on the forums, really can't stand you as a person. It is nothing whatsoever like, oh he makes my skin crawl, or, he smells bad. Nor do I say, you look funny, and I do not laugh at your foolishness, even if there is ample opportunity. I cannot help it if you display poor or bad character at times; I, and all of us [as Saltmeister points out so well] do precisely the same.

The reason most of us are different, is that we know how to admit it. Ah yes, surely I have seen you toss an apology out here & there; maybe once, maybe even twice. But I seldom notice that there is EVER anything wrong with how you've ATTACKED an argument. For this is certainly what you do; and I think sometimes you forget every bit as readily as anyone just how closely some hold their beliefs and Faith to their sleeve.

Is that your fault, as far as some people taking an argument personally? Maybe not. I am guilty of the same lack of tact or diplomacy at times. But I am much more willing to admit it. I do not hate Christians. I do not despise them. I do not hate Roman Catholics; I do not despise them. And, my friend from long ago, I do not hate you; and I do not despise you.

This is not personal, so that's why I include it in my public posting. The problem is, you try to MAKE it personal, and you only do so when it suits. You see, I will NEVER RUN from what I believe, from what I have experienced, from what I have come to KNOW ... and, even though I sometimes back away, I do not do so because I am changing my mind. I am, at times, simply changing my approach. I am also sometimes considering more carefully what someone has shared, perhaps re-reading a post so that I'm more clear on what the argument was.

But let's stop with this foolishness, since frankly, I'm getting quite sick of it. You won't chase me off. The reason for that is, I know well enough who I am, what I am, why I am and what I'm doing here (or anywhere). If you think you know the same with respect to yourself, let alone if you actually DO know, then you should realize by now, it's not about beating the other person up, or over the head with your argument, or launching some kind of character attack, so that you can emerge the glorious victor ... and rule the roost. That, I'm afraid, is something that the fox still has you on; and you see, pompous as it may sound (self-righteous, presumptuous, what-have-you) ... I AM here to help protect the henhouse.

You'll just have to live with that. After all, I can accept that you find something of a similar calling, and I am certainly willing to try and get along with folks (Saltmeister just shared a wonderful post that helps bring a lot into focus for me, and I agree with much of what he posted ... which unfortunately I failed to reply to, due to a browser crash yesterday and minor frustration). If you are willing to PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, then it's time to suck it up and quit with your put-downs.

This page may change before you have a chance to view it, but if it remains the text by Kent Keith and Mother Teresa, I think you need to read it. There is something inspirational there, even if the content may change periodically. In that, you may consider it a reflection or mirror of what our relationship is with regard to the Soul.

For clarification, I do despise what occurred during the Dark Ages and Inquisition. I do regret what was done by foolish, power-hungry, small-minded and selfish individuals, mostly men ... to so distort and distract us from Christ's original Teaching, that we fall so far short of practicing what we preach today. Christ isn't just some historical figure from 20 or more centuries ago, nailed to a cross so that you can have an easy conscience. This Christ ~ never existed. He/it is a creation and figment of our imagination. Humanity's scapegoat, God-delivered, duty-free ... is a lie.

I regret and despise what I see sometimes, because it is worse than lip service, it is blasphemy. I see people praying to a MAN, and they understand him but little. They know that he was here to teach us something about love, but they forget just exactly what those lessons were ... if ever they knew them. And, worst of all, I see the impediments all around me to some of our very best pathways or opportunities to LEARN or re-experience these valuable, vital lessons.

Remember, Thomas, that I live in the shiny brass buckle of the Bible Belt in the U.S.A. I experience some of the strongest of what I call the 6th-Ray current or undertoe as it pulls upon Christians, Christian aspiration and Christian thought, and here I mean that I know firsthand just how distorted this energy can sometimes manifest in the lives of those whom it greatly conditions. I speak about this with the ability to identify and to relate, and while I cannot and DO NOT claim to be immune, I am somewhat aware of where the challenge lies ~ not just for me, but to many of my brothers conditioned by this same Ray energy.

If the current exoteric teachings within Christianity no longer address in down-to-earth, practical terms what Ray energies are, or how they affect us ~ with examples from daily life, from our personal experiences and from society or the world at large ... then I cannot be blamed, and prefer not to be crucified for that lack. Believe you me, Those who stand behind are doing all that They can to help restore some of this Ancient, AGELESS Wisdom to those who so sorely, desperately need, want and aspire to [encounter, experience and APPLY] it. And the little ones shall receive.

 

[taijasi]

Perhaps if more were taught regarding the Seven Archangels, correlated with the Seven Cardinal Virtues as also with their respective day of the 7-Day week ... perhaps then it would be easier to show how these mighty, awesome Beings serve as channels (or distributors: Intelligent, Loving, Empowered and Empowering distributors) for precisely what are called Ray energies. And it would be possible to make further correlations with the Trinity (and Rays 1-3), with its reflection (Rays 7-5) and the Ray of Balance, or Harmony through Conflict, Ray 4 ... which Ray, incidentally, relates so directly to and governs Humanity itself.

But you see, Christianity will not disappear even for several centuries. And when it does, it will not be because we finally decide to toss out the whole kit and kaboodle. No, one thing I DO repeat often, is that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But Thomas, when the baby has been washed, and as it comes time to dry the infant and be on our merry way, we need to LET GO THE WATER. And here, if anything, I don't mean forsaking certain fundamental, sound, symbolic and indicative customs, such as Baptism. If anything, further investigation into that old tradition can shed new Light on what the process of Initiation into the spiritual life is, has always been, about.

The dirty water, in this case, is largely what we have polluted of the original Teaching, brought not first by Christ, or even the most recent Buddha. Remember, esoteric Christians en masse ~ whether using this exact label, or identifying themselves as Gnostics, and so on ~ believe that all of Creation is cyclical, and cyclically governed. We do not believe that things happen at random or by accident, and this includes an acceptance of the Big Bang as setting into motion the present cycle ... whatever we may also believe about the Big Crunch, and about future cycles.

So, to quote Augustine, "That which we call Christianity has always existed."

If Christ came to a) RENEW or ReInVIGorate {even Resurrect} this Ancient, Ageless Tradition, as well as to b) further establish on Earth something NEW of the old/Ancient/Ageless/ETERNAL Kingdom of God ... then let us not be naive, or foolish, and pretend that NOTHING CHANGES, such that "original Christianity" either CAN BE fully known at present, or even exists, ANYWHERE, save directly in the hearts, minds and daily practice of those who are already JUST MEN MADE PERFECT.

It is time that the Doctrines of Christ be made open and available to ALL MEN, just as Jesus of Nazareth, in His own day, decried what the priesthood was doing ... to the true Message of the Prophets. He would not stand for the distortion and deviation from the Law, any more than Moses was pleased when he witnessed the reversion of his own people to the ways of the former Era.

Pisces is ASTRONOMICALLY coming to a close. If Christians can't, or don't want to, or refuse to consider that the Heavenly cycles, or other celestial orbs put there by the Lord God Almighty might just affect us here, on little ol' planet Earth, well then that's their shortcoming. It doesn't mean they are stupid or ignorant (except non-pejoratively) or less than. It does mean, however, that they may find it particularly challenging as we shift from one Era, Age and Ray energy influence [6th] into a Day of another [7th, Uranian, Aquarian].

The shift can be somewhat characterized by a moving from individual and devotional types of religious, spiritual or inner experience ... to those of a Group of students, disciples or aspirants assembled ~ often for the same purposes of the past 2000 years, or of any age. Christians can use this information, and benefit from Aquarian influences - which they already do IN GREAT NUMBER, WORLDWIDE and in accordance with God's PLAN (!) ... or, if they dig their heels in, they can come kicking and screaming.

I dare say that God cares how we approach, and would prefer that we all learn to cooperate and move forward IN Harmony with God's own Heavenly Powers, Purpose and Plan (including a knowledge and observation of the Cycles) ... but frankly, it doesn't really matter. In this one, our `free will' exists within a boundary, and that ring-pass-not will not allow one individual here or there, or even one group or another, to dictate, or dominate, or determine what occurs for the Greatest Good.

This has EVERYTHING to do with shifts in power, balancing of the outgoing and incoming energies as they affect EVERYONE, in EVERY field of human endeavor, and certainly not just religion ... MUCH LESS your religion, or mine. Any person who is too small-minded, at present, to grasp this, at least in essence, should simply set it aside, or on the back burner for the moment, and move on. And when I say small-minded, I mean this. If you can't think beyond your own beliefs, what's been put in your head, or even what's near and dear to you ... then that's quite possibly okay, yes. It isn't meant as a slam; it simply means that there are ALWAYS those who think larger, who think longer, who think from other perspectives than you, and if They/we/all of us did not exist, God's Plan would NEVER advance ... for while Christ may be its Custodian on Earth, He does not simply reach out, as by magic wand, and make things happen willy nilly. To us, given our limited understand, yes, sure, it may seem that way. But Christ, like all LIFE, exists within [if also at the Head of Earth's] HIERARCHY.

That is not a rigid, unmoving, unflexible thing, and it is not merely some kind of Neoplatonic or intellectual idea. As any idea, it either does or does not, to a greater or lesser degree, represent the true state of things. And, last time I checked, nope, we hadn't yet done away with the need for Order, Balance, Rhythm, Structure and PLACE within Cosmos. That's EVEN IF things get a little out of hand sometimes on our backwards little planet, so obstinate, so weary, yet also so determined to finally find her place within the Scheme of things.

Do I have "a low view" of Christians? No, Thomas, not all of them. Not most, even despite what I often observe on a daily basis, and not even ANY entire denominations or groups. The Jehovah's Witnesses, in my opinion and experience, while differing from other groups, do not merit stereotyping and ridicule. Nor the Mormons, nor the Baptists, nor the Catholics, nor the Pentecostals. I don't regard Fundamentalist Christianity as really having much to do with what Christ taught anyway, so if ever I do meet a group of folks who have really gotten it down to `fundamentals' ... and if those mesh with what rings most true in my own heart and mind (not necessarily what I practice, but what I believe and KNOW), THEN I don't think it would be problematic describing such as `Fundamentalist Christians' ~ or Fundamentalist anythings. But the point is, kind of like Forest Gump put it, "stupid is as stupid does," and this goes for ANY adjective, ANY quality, or any tree bearing a certain kind of fruit. Pear trees, typically do not yield apricots.

So don't stand there, acting like a jerk (whomever), then pin your religion to your sleeve and say, Hey, I'm a good Christian. In this, and apologies to Saltmeister for losing the post I meant to post yesterday ... in this, I have to disagree somewhat. Sure, we're almost all of us, short of Perfect, as yet. But if you study what Christ taught, what the Hebrew Scriptures taught, and what has ALWAYS been taught in the Wisdom of God, I think you'll find that ~ sure enough ~ we ARE meant, we ARE supposed to be, PERFECT.

Yes, that's a high standard, and it's especially difficult to aspire to such if we truly have no clue what it's like. But that's a cop-out for us at this point, just like, "oh, but so few people really live up to that ideal." No kidding? You think maybe that has something to do with part of what's wrong with us? With our communities? With our economy? With our politics and politicians and political policies? With our society, and with our world?

Yes, you see, there ARE solutions, and to be quite blunt, Christ has them ALL. Christ, holding God's Plan in hand for US ALL, knows exactly what it is that our world needs, at any given moment, for He has come to be qualified enough to receive that knowledge, that Wisdom, that degree of Divine Understanding ... and also the Empowerment necessary to, ultimately, one way or the other, sooner or later, make SURE that this Plan is restored on planet Earth. There are no ifs, ands or buts about that.

It's a question of what we are willing to do, to help Him. I will re-type that, because out of this post, everything else can be a throw-away. If you see ONE line, however, and take that with you, then you perhaps you can see, understand, FEEL and Know ... what I believe, think about and hope for ~ both you, and for Christianity.

It's a question of what we are willing to DO to help Christ with God's Plan.
​

I hope it's important enough to see beyond certain differences, but ... I do wonder.

you are loyal to your masters and their dogma on that point. But I must say you do have a very puffed up view of yourself if you think I'm going to abandon 2,000 years of reasoned philosophical tradition, acclaimed by spiritual masters of every tradition, and jump on the Andrew bandwagon, for no other reason than it's what you happen to think.

I am committed to upholding the Tradition I have come to know and experience, and yes, I know enough about what's gone wrong and why ... perhaps even had a hand in it, once upon a time, to know a little about what needs fixing. You may not see things the same way, you have your own traditions, and certainly you have your own agendas. I think the puffy one is the fella who can toss out idea after idea, but doesn't have the wherewithal to THINK FOR HIMSELF ... and to come to his OWN conclusions.

Thomas, I did this, some of it as early as 17, although I also draw from my own memories and experiences as early as 2 or 3 years old. Perhaps, if you had ever seen a Master ~ either your own, or ANY ~ you would be willing, able or more inspired and encouraged to do likewise. I'm sorry that certain elements, or experiences, are as yet lacking in your own life. You will never deny those from another individual, however; and I assure you, there are some things which, once you've experienced, known or BEEN, can NEVER change. That is why they are the true bedROCK; that is why they are foundational and fundamental.

We 6th-Rayers, may regard it this way at tiimes, but what you'll find, eventually, is that on the other side of your high-falutin' learnin' and fancy theological degrees ... there is something called the experience of the REAL. And that includes the UNDERSTANDING of which the Master spoke (for Christ is the Master of Masters), as well as the PEACE which passeth it. It's there, and yes, I know you will find it. But meanwhile, clearly you are out of touch with what's Real, for you do not know me yet, and Thomas, since I quite content saying that I Love you, as a Brother ... I feel it's pretty fair and honest to say that yes, I DO know you.

The bandwagon you will not abandon is your own, but I do not blame you for the Inquisition, or for the foolishness of every small-minded theologian down through the ages. What karma you deal with, precisely, I cannot claim to know. I just know that by your words, by your proclamations and declarations, and by various of your refusals, you make it clear enough what your outer understanding is, and where it lies.

On the Inner Planes, now that may be another story, and sure, yes, you are familiar with a number of esoteric teachings. I'll give you that. You do not understand them, however, because you have dismissed them, and struck certain allegiances with Roman Catholic lines of thought [accepting errors, whole hog], as well as a certain type of skepticism which sometimes remains so blind to what you yourself love to refer to as that which is HIDDEN [occult] in plain sight.

If you could realize that God's Wisdom speaks beyond language, beyond thought and BEHIND Tradition, including ALL TRADITIONS, then you would stop persecuting Christ's OWN ... including those who believe differently than yourself. Instead, you rail on and on and on, and if you and I share certain character defects and unfortunate personality tendencies along these lines, I assure you, it is not to the advantage of our Brothers at this site, who are forced to endure it born out in print, over and over again.

Yes, I am tired of it, but I have made clear that you cannot browbeat me. Thomas, you are a very small man. But your head has grown very, very large. I only hope that your HEART learns to help bridge the gap ... in between.

 

[taijasi]

Thank you, but I am aware of how poor a Christian I am, without your constant sniping and offences offered to me and my tradition.

Yes, you are a poor Christian, at times. Prove me wrong, for once (you have never done so, and apparently it doesn't matter, even when you're a pompous ass, when everyone knows it, sees it, and sometimes even point it out). Prove, not that you, like all of us have your shortcomings, but prove that when the Lord spoke, you were paying attention.

Your Tradition is just fine. It's those who muck with it, muck it up, and stand in the Light, blocking what's trying to come through ... that get in the way. I don't mean you, or you alone, or you primarily. I probably agree with you on plenty of points. But I can only smile at the times when you demonstrate just how far we've left to go. I smile, because I know I'll get there, and I also know that so will you.

Suffice to say I will stand with my kind, and I rest in the knowledge that what you so despise has produced

God has nurtured His own, and they are ~ on the whole ~ doing just fine. We are called to help with that process. It's up to us whether we choose to be part of the solution, or part of the problem. It's a call we make, sometimes day by day, hour by hour, line by line.

Eckhart and an Aquinas, a Bonaventure and a St John of the Cross, numerous Teresas, some Benedicts and Bernards, a Dionysius, a Maximus, a few Gregories of renown (and some Thomases, and some Andrews)

Fine, wonderful. I'm with you here.

... for sadly, I must inform you, if its not already obvious, the line of thought you present doesn't hold a candle to any of them.

As I said, Thomas, you are small, but you try and eclipse others with your puffy intellect, your overblown ego, your smug, stuffy, over-educated special status, to make up for it. Well, you know, it's true, I am not altogether different. Not so far off, actually, even if I may draw from slightly different background and set of experiences. I know where my Soul has walked the Earth for 7 or 8 lives now, and I can only smile when you, or anyone else, tells me that we do not reincarnate. I cannot, as easily as once, glimpse who and what you've been, what you've done and when ... but it doesn't really matter. I refer again, to the Forest Gump philosophy. And Thomas, in this case, your put-down is not simply mean-spirited; it is, at least somewhat, inaccurate. But for that, you'd have to have certain insights ... which currently, in the brain and on this plane, you do not have.

If I find myself in the company of their tradition, then that is good enough for me. As for us poor, impoverished Christians, devoid of all your insights into everything, then I trust in the love of my Maker. And as Milton said, "They also serve who only stand and wait"

No, Thomas, just because you read the thoughts of great men, this does not make YOU great. At best, it puts you en rapport with great men, great minds, but what happens next is ENTIRELY up to YOU.

And that is something which, again, I wish more Christians would consider. The shoe fits both ways. I may know of the Masters; I may have had plenty of experiences which make you the fool. These I try not to bandy about, for you already look bad enough, and I already RESTRAIN myself when you spout off like such a stuffy, know-it-all GIT.

The truth is, the moment a person denies a certain thing, or comes down authoritatively with regard to thus and such, s/he already makes quite clear, up to a certain point, just where his or her outer/outward understanding lies. This is not to say that you, we, many of us do not have another, much more developed, even enlightened understanding in the subtle world. But there, just as here, the Forest Gump philosophy still applies.

While I know you there in somewhat a greater Light, we are still engaged in different work, with slightly different objectives and even differing motives, though I like to believe that all of this nonsense which we mutually perpetuate is seen ~ far more clearly ~ for the foolishness which it is.

Do I perpetuate the crap, here in the physical, from to time? Oh yes, most certainly. But let's remember, I admit it, I don't advocate it, and I'm even careful enough to explain it at times ... the reasons for it, the issues involved, and so forth. Are they relevant to our discussion on Christianity, and why folks try to change it? You darn well better believe it.

In this case, I am standing toe to toe with you, Thomas. And this pin here says your over-inflated ego, no matter how many times you try to puff it up and sound superior, is just that ... over-inflated. Back down to earth, now. And back down to letting the folks know just what it is that you believe, what you think might be beneficial or in keeping with some one or another tradition, and claptrap like that.

Perhaps you'd even like to discuss what this argument and support is that you mention. But that's what I'll wait for: a concise statement, which gives me something actually worth looking at, and possible of discussion. If all you want to do is start up with the mutual ego-deflating, and cry foul and scream bloody murder about someone daring to challenge your feelings of authority and allegiance to Mother Church ... then perhaps you'd better not waste your time, breath, and keystrokes.

I'm used to the crap, but I won't waste time reading it. Just get to the point. No one cares that I know you for exactly whom and what you are. They know it, they see it, too. They can judge a tree by its fruits every bit as well as I can. And they know, they can tell, when you DON'T. Folks may not, necessarily, believe what I believe, as I believe or because I believe. But when I tell you that in my experience there are certain things which inform, shape and guide my current Faith, my beliefs and my practice, I expect you [anyone] to take that at face value.

If it's worth discussing, interesting, relevant, etc., then in the short run someone will call attention to that, or question it, or draw certain parallels, or analogies. You see, Thomas, I can do that, with what you write, no matter how many times you assail me, my beliefs, my tradition ... and, quite frankly, prove your ignorance. Are you ready to stop pretending, and just talk about what YOU believe, what YOU find to be relevant, interesting, etc.?

I think you'd rather flap your wings and stir up the feathers here in the henhouse. But then, would ol' Thomas here make a stink, cry foul, cry fox, cry wolf? Nooooo. THAT's never happened before.

So to hell with all your B.S. about respect and Christian charity and heavenly virtue(s), if you can't, or won't practice any of it yourself. What use is a headful of theology or a piece of paper to hang on the wall, since others will ~ in seeing that ~ wonder why on earth there is such a disconnect?

I Corinthians 13:1
Time to start talkin' turkey, or at least, to get the frick over the illusion that God wants yet one more lousy cymbal player.

I feel like saying, stop doubting me and get on with it. But, besides not being fair, I realize that I must ALSO give you something by which you can KNOW me, or take me at my Word. [And yes, that word deserves capitalizing, for once upon a time, it was possible to know when another person was being honest, speaking truthfully and of earnest. Nowadays, people cannot even recognize a good leader when they finally get one; they cannot recognize God's own. And folks, we couldn't do it before, so we had Him nailed to a cross like a common criminal. Yes, there are some people who are still of their Word. When they say something, they mean it, and even if they prove to be wrong, it is not for want of striving after TRUTH.]

Perhaps that's nothing more, then, than the admitting that yes, I do come on strong at times, and yes, I realize that I share plenty of the same character defects, or shortcomings, or negative tendencies which I point out in others. Thomas, why the hell do you think I DO have the authority to speak thus (if not always the right, or free license, or `mandate') to do so?

The wheel of karma never ceases; somehow or another I still have a head at the present moment; and this evening I think it's worth pointing a few things out, as I've done, about why people clash ~ whether as individuals, within groups, between groups, etc. Groups, remember, comprise religions or religious bodies ... and these Energies in the Heavens, emanating from God's own Being in some High and Holy place, are not just simply out there, reaching us at best in such watered-down, unimportant form that we can simply dismiss with them, or relegate them to `the Mysteries.'

There is not a Soul on Earth or in Heaven that is not conditioned by the Seven Rays, under whatever language or motif we wish to consider them. They are Mighty INTELLIGENCES and influences in our life, and I believe this to be one of the most important studies which any human can ever undertake on our little world. Why do I believe this so? Because the prism told me so. And yes, at one time ~ prior to such being non-politically-correct ~ the Hierarchy was known as the Great White Brotherhood.

If the Christian has such a concept as Christ and His Church, and more specifically, Christ and His Elect, then why is s/he so resistant to the idea that indeed, there are Those gathered around Christ, Ascended as He is, though perhaps some of Them serving here in our very midst ... assisting with God's PLAN?

Or, more to the point, why is it that YOU are so prejudiced in this case, Thomas, and refuse to look at what your OWN TRADITION teaches?

Shakespeare, by the way, has long been questioned as possibly being related to, identical with, none other than Sir Francis Bacon. One of the most Senior Masters was both Bacons: Sir Francis, and Roger. And plenty of us believe, on good faith and with good reason, that indeed, it was this Master who was responsible for Shakespeare's writings. That he may have been a Catholic, just as some of the Masters are outwardly Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and so forth, seems irrelevant. Sir Thomas More was willing to lose his own life in order to stand firm by his chosen Faith. He, too, is known by some as a Master.

 

[Thomas]

And there's a difference between us. Not only did I find more than sufficient answers to my very best questions, but I found material which makes more sense to me than ANYTHING else I've ever encountered.

OK. That's a subjective opinion, though.

Frankly, it just knocks over anything that the theologians (the MEN interpreting Scripture, God's Word and Christ's Teachings), or anyone else, has been able to come up with and slap onto Christianity as `official.'

Actually, if you think about it, as those 'MEN' are from the same source as the Scripture itself, I think reason and logic will observe it's you who's 'slapping' meanings onto the teaching.

And you really don't know enough about those theologians you so summarily dismiss — if you did you'd have picked up on St Gregory Nazianzen: "... we who are a portion of God and have slipped down from above ... " (Oration 14) and be throwing that at me as evidence of your doctrine.

Umm, since Plato was an Initiate probably more advanced in his own day than you are in yours ... I'm of the opinion that you're the one who's behind the times.

Oh, Andrew, Andrew ...
I argue by offering data sourced from my Tradition.

And the best you can do is throw insults to your opponent.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Christianity is a way of thought. It has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not argue with the moral and philosophical thoughts of Jesus as described in the gospels and Paul's writings. I oppose the false Cult of Christianity which has nothing to do with Jesus who they tried to reconstruct into a new god. I argue with Post-Constinine Christianity which as been so harmful, hate inducing, and the cause or excuse for wars that have killed over 70 million people. I oppose it when it suppresses knowledge of the real universe for a mythical place where magic rules.



I support the teaching of Jesus to feed the poor, heal the sick, scold the rich, throw the money changers out of the Temple (opposition to multi-billion dollar megachurches who goal is profit,) his teachings of justice and forgiveness.

I believe that if Jesus knew what the church that stole his name was doing:
1. getting wealthy while the poor starved
2. killed "infidels",
3. tortured dissidents,
4. burned scientists,
5. killed women on false charges of witchcraft
6. encouraged spouse abuse.
7. supported Kings in wars of conquest...against heretics
8. advocate an inquisition to find dissidents, for execution.
9. ignores Jesus the great teacher, converting him into a god who will lead a Dark Side Army of killer angels. That is horrible and insults the memory of Jesus the peace maker an philanthropist.



I dismiss nothing that is true and at least neutral or positive on promoting mental health, peace, and freedom. I am a Jesus admirer but the Christian Church is evil and violates the ideals of Jesus.

Amergin

The Christian Church is the people who form the church body, not the elected or appointed leaders. Don't confuse institutions with communities.

Religions are not the only thing to cause the loss of life of people and Christianity over its 2000 year history seems to be the least of the offenders.

Stalin, for example had over 48 million killed in the span of 35 years. Iraq and Iran killed over 2.3 million in the span of 8 years. Iraq gassed to death over 5000 people in five minutes. Hitler executed over 12 million in 10 years.

Not saying the "Christian Politic" is innocent, but that is certain people in offices of power, not the individual Christian.

You can't group all into one set. To do so is ludicrious.

And Christian thought is the thoughts of Jesus. The truest sense of the concept of Christian thought that is.

And just because you declare Jesus is not God, don't make it so, since he declared it himself. He just put aside his divinity for a time, to truly understand us...

Q

 

[c0de]

He just put aside his divinity for a time, to truly understand us...

You do understand all the implications of this comment, rite Q?

... I don't wanna debate you (on the Christian forum...)
I just wanna make sure you're not taking this lightly

 

[Quahom1]

You do understand all the implications of this comment, rite Q?

... I don't wanna debate you (on the Christian forum...)
I just wanna make sure you're not taking this lightly

Code, I would enjoy your thoughts on the matter.

 

[c0de]

Code, I would enjoy your thoughts on the matter.

Okay but just know that I'm not judging

He just put aside his divinity for a time, to truly understand us...

The implication here is that God did not "truly understand" us before this event

Of course, this automatically rules out the possibility of omniscience

Also, since you hold that God was bound by this requirement, it also rejects His omnipotence

Therefore, you seem 2 be saying that God is neither all-powerful, nor all-knowing...

Is this your understanding of the God of Abraham?

 

[Quahom1]

Okay but just know that I'm not judging



The implication here is that God did not "truly understand" us before this event

Of course, this automatically rules out the possibility of omniscience

Also, since you hold that God was bound by this requirement, it also rejects His omnipotence

Therefore, you seem 2 be saying that God is neither all-powerful, nor all-knowing...

Is this your understanding of the God of Abraham?

Hmm good points. Perhaps I should have said, "To be just like us".

And yes, I am saying a part of God gave up his divinity, for our sake. The obviousness of this thought is twice revealed by Jesus himself...

Once when he was 12, and the other time when he was 30. Both times his "mother" had to correct him...

 

[Amergin]

The Christian Church is the people who form the church body, not the elected or appointed leaders. Don't confuse institutions with communities

The Christian people have no say in the dogma and rules of the Christian Church. They are told to obey or will not be saved. Dogma is the ideas of Church fathers and synods of bishops. Father Murphy preaches what the Church demands, not what he might dissent about.

Religions are not the only thing to cause the loss of life of people and Christianity over its 2000 year history seems to be the least of the offenders.

Stalin, for example had over 48 million killed in the span of 35 years. Iraq and Iran killed over 2.3 million in the span of 8 years. Iraq gassed to death over 5000 people in five minutes. Hitler executed over 12 million in 10 years.

Stalin killed in the name and teachings of Marx and Lenin. His laws and land confiscations were not the will of the people. He slaughtered them for resisting. Stalin was the Pope of the Religion of Marxist-Leninism. It was not democratic. Iran and Iraq were not democratic. Hitler started the Religion of Nazism with its dogma of Aryan Superiority, Christian Religion mixed with Nordic and the Nazi have two Bibles (the Bible and Mein Kampf.) The German people did not determine Christian Nazi policy.

Not saying the "Christian Politic" is innocent, but that is certain people in offices of power, not the individual Christian.

The dogma of Christianity is the ideas of Theodosius I, and II, Augustine, Athanasius, and Aquinas. It was not put to a vote of the peasants of Early Dark Ages Europe. People are the slaves of meme ideologies along with great fear for violating those decrees of Theodosius II, Jean Cauvin, Martin Luther, Popes, TV Evangelists, and numerous cult leaders. Voting is not part of the process.

You can't group all into one set. To do so is ludicrious.

Right. You can't group all into one set. But it is not ludicrous to notice the compulsory group thinking and adherence to dogma without challenge. I am on the side of innocent Christian people whose minds are shackled by mythology and chained by superstition. Adherence is accompanied by various forms of punishment (excommunication, assassinations, witch trials, heretic burnings, free thinker beheadings, torture, and social isolation with division of families. Sorry, but this is history.

And Christian thought is the thoughts of Jesus. The truest sense of the concept of Christian thought that is.

Wrong. Jesus taught healing of the sick, distribution of wealth to the poor, forgiveness of sin (without requiring the sinner pass a dogma exam), distrusted the ethic of the wealthy in exploiting the poor. Jesus taught love. The Church teaches fear.

The Church post Constitine/Theodosius taught obedience of the masses, punishment for dissent, torture or execution for heresy, death for infidelity, threatening pain and punishment for scientists (Giordono Bruno, Galileo) who inquire about errors in dogmatic superstition

The Organised Christian Church formed in the mid 2nd Century and 3rth Century made a irrepairable creation of a second religion with Jesus as a new god, conveniently forgetting his Jewish heritage. Jesus never claimed to be a god. You cannot show me such a verse.

And just because you declare Jesus is not God, don't make it so, since he declared it himself. He just put aside his divinity for a time, to truly understand us...

It is not me simply declaring Jesus is not God. Jesus himself did not claim to be god and he never answered that question affirmatively. Metaphorical riddles like "no one gets to God except through me (Jesus). That does not claim Jesus, a human being is a god. It is more like Jesus is prophet or teacher whose teachings lead one to God. If Jesus had been a God, he would have said so in unequivocal terms. He would not deliberately make his divinity a paradoxical riddle for generally ignorant people to figure out. He would not say he was God if he was not God or mentally insane. If he were God why would he be so evasive and speak in riddles? Think about it.

I keep hearing Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus said he was God. The truth is that Jesus did not say he was God. He did not claim to be divine. He said he was sent by God, to do God's work, and preach God's message. He did not claim to speak his own ideas but those of God. He said he did not know, only God knows.

How can Christians refuse to see the obvious message in the Gospels? God was God (as so believed) and Jesus was human who worked for God as God's servant and agent.

Read the Gospels carefully and pay attention to what the words mean.

I would like to consider you a friend and not make our discussions angry. We just disagree. Don't hate me for being an Atheist. I only seek truth or dispose of false beliefs.

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

The Christian people have no say in the dogma and rules of the Christian Church. They are told to obey or will not be saved. Dogma is the ideas of Church fathers and synods of bishops. Father Murphy preaches what the Church demands, not what he might dissent about.

That is simply not correct. The church moves one though the Vatican might not, usually causing the Vatican to play catch-up "like it is trying to do right now".

Stalin killed in the name and teachings of Marx and Lenin. His laws and land confiscations were not the will of the people. He slaughtered them for resisting. Stalin was the Pope of the Religion of Marxist-Leninism. It was not democratic. Iran and Iraq were not democratic. Hitler started the Religion of Nazism with its dogma of Aryan Superiority, Christian Religion mixed with Nordic and the Nazi have two Bibles (the Bible and Mein Kampf.) The German people did not determine Christian Nazi policy.

I don't understand this part. These did more damage to human live in less than a generation than Christianity did in 2000 years...what are you getting at? One life or a million, any loss is a loss? agreed. Persons invoking or a concept by a mass, I do not agree.

The dogma of Christianity is the ideas of Theodosius I, and II, Augustine, Athanasius, and Aquinas. It was not put to a vote of the peasants of Early Dark Ages Europe. People are the slaves of meme ideologies along with great fear for violating those decrees of Theodosius II, Jean Cauvin, Martin Luther, Popes, TV Evangelists, and numerous cult leaders. Voting is not part of the process.

There were no dark ages at the time of the official invocation or ordination of the official Church. Rome was 150 years from being devistated, and was still powerful enough to create a religion to the faith of Christianity.

Right. You can't group all into one set. But it is not ludicrous to notice the compulsory group thinking and adherence to dogma without challenge. I am on the side of innocent Christian people whose minds are shackled by mythology and chained by superstition. Adherence is accompanied by various forms of punishment (excommunication, assassinations, witch trials, heretic burnings, free thinker beheadings, torture, and social isolation with division of families. Sorry, but this is history.

This isn't the history of Christ, but rather the history of those who took advantage of Christ's message/authority, in order to get foot hold for their own advancement, to the detriment of the rest of society, or the world. We were warned that there would be people like this, and we were to watch out for them...we didn't.

Wrong. Jesus taught healing of the sick, distribution of wealth to the poor, forgiveness of sin (without requiring the sinner pass a dogma exam), distrusted the ethic of the wealthy in exploiting the poor. Jesus taught love. The Church teaches fear.

I don't follow this line of thinking. The sermon on the mount is pretty specific. Jesus' instructions for salvation are pretty specific, and our obligation after being saved is pretty specific. The government of the church has as much power as the church gives it, much like civil governments. Be vigilant, and the government/church heiarchy is on its toes, be catatonic, and you get what you get, and it is the church's fault.

The Church post Constitine/Theodosius taught obedience of the masses, punishment for dissent, torture or execution for heresy, death for infidelity, threatening pain and punishment for scientists (Giordono Bruno, Galileo) who inquire about errors in dogmatic superstition

As I stated previously, ignorance is not bliss, and people paid dearly for the *******s who wore the Papal and Vatican robes...

The Organised Christian Church formed in the mid 2nd Century and 3rth Century made a irrepairable creation of a second religion with Jesus as a new god, conveniently forgetting his Jewish heritage. Jesus never claimed to be a god. You cannot show me such a verse.

Not correct. The Jewish faith (Clerics), kicked the "Nazarenes" out of the Synogagues, starting in 7 AD (ACE) and finalized in Circa 70 AD (ACE), The New "Christians/Nazarenzes" were forbidden to come to the temple to pray and worship. They went underground. They were persecuted, but persisted, and then we get to the story of Constatine (which is a whole different story in and of itself)

It is not me simply declaring Jesus is not God. Jesus himself did not claim to be god and he never answered that question affirmatively. Metaphorical riddles like "no one gets to God except through me (Jesus). That does not claim Jesus, a human being is a god. It is more like Jesus is prophet or teacher whose teachings lead one to God. If Jesus had been a God, he would have said so in unequivocal terms. He would not deliberately make his divinity a paradoxical riddle for generally ignorant people to figure out. He would not say he was God if he was not God or mentally insane. If he were God why would he be so evasive and speak in riddles? Think about it.

Again, you miss what Jesus stated. God the Father made a simple statement in the OT (but so profound). He said "I AM" sent you. This is a statement that Humans are supposed to understand in the core of their nature/being. That means "everything". Literally, for the creator to Identify Himself as everything, is pretty much to the point. Would you not agree? Then when asked who he was, Jesus stated "I AM WHO AM." Amerigan, Jesus declared he and God the Father were one and the same...or, if you wish, Jesus by his caviat "Who Am", was declaring himself to be part of the God that ruled this people, and not just a part like we could be...

I keep hearing Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus said he was God. The truth is that Jesus did not say he was God. He did not claim to be divine. He said he was sent by God, to do God's work, and preach God's message. He did not claim to speak his own ideas but those of God. He said he did not know, only God knows.

I'm not a fundamentalist. But I understand what Jesus was telling us (he always had a two fold message (the current times and our time). He gave up his divinity to walk for a time with man, to feel and suffer as a man, to show man how to live a pure life, despite the temptations presented him (Jesus never sinned).

How can Christians refuse to see the obvious message in the Gospels? God was God (as so believed) and Jesus was human who worked for God as God's servant and agent.

The obvious message is clear Amerigan. God is God, and Jesus walked among us as a man for a time. He then took back up his divinity and is seated along side the Father. Currently we are graced with the Holy Spirit among us.

Read the Gospels carefully and pay attention to what the words mean.

Every day the Gospels reveal new meaning, that I missed the day before. Sometimes it bothers me, and sometimes not. But patients seems to weigh out, and I learn what my stumbling block is...

I would like to consider you a friend and not make our discussions angry. We just disagree. Don't hate me for being an Atheist. I only seek truth or dispose of false beliefs.

Amergin

No worries, I am not angry, nor concerned. This is a debate, and you and I have questions...as it should be. I am your friend.

v/r

Q

 

[Ahanu]

As we have seen, Thomas has successfully defended Christianity’s core beliefs from Bishop Shelby Spong. I assumed that the clear organization of the miracles in the gospels undermines the literal interpretation, but Thomas has shown that the analysis of the Jewish seasons is not sufficient proof to change anything at Christianity’s core. For this reason I’m putting Spong down and taking up another Jesus seminar scholar: Kathleen Corley. She’ll probably appeal more to Thomas, because she does not just write for the layman, but for religious scholars in general.


It still remains that something supernatural happened during the Easter moment. Nobody on the forum has offered any evidence to counter Christianity's core belief. However, I’m writing to show that the Easter moment is nonsupernatural, and, therefore, I need proof.

John Crossan asks an important question in the forward of Kathleen Corley’s book Maranatha:


“How should funerary rituals, Eucharistic meals, and mortuary laments be given their rightful role in Christian origins, their full and female, creative and constitutive contribution to the origins of Christianity?”


Most scholars (including my friend Thomas here) suppose that the passion narratives in the gospels are a “scribal product” and an “originally written document from a subculture dominated by well-educated men” (Corley 125). It is time to challenge that belief. I see Corley’s main claim as dealing with Christians using funerary meals as a continuity with the living and the dead and how women’s ritual laments are at the “oral core” of the belief that Jesus “was raised and appeared,” as Paul had written, so our “bold claim” is that this quote from 1 Corinthians 15 and the belief it entails has its origins in “women’s grassroots practice of funerary rituals, meals, and lament, rather than in the experiences of a list of elite leaders and male apostles” (Corley 4).


I’ll give three examples of how the writers of the gospels drew on oral laments as their source for the passion narratives. It explains the following:


(1) Oral laments explain the “use of lament psalms (especially Psalm 22) in the development of a written passion narrative” (125). Corley notes that “Aramaic words are preserved in the Markan narrative, Golgotha (Mark 15:22) and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Mark 15:34, cf. Ps 22:1). Rather than preserving Jesus’ actual words or representing Markan attempts at local color, we can explain the Aramaic in Mark 15 as remnants of an early sung lament by women, given that fragments of women’s laments are preserved in Aramaic in rabbinic sources” (125). Therefore, “scriptural proofs” and “scribal activity alone” do not entirely make up the creation of the passion narratives.


(2) Oral laments explain the elements in the passion narratives: “settings in time, place-names, proper names and other details found in a lament” (126).


(3) Oral laments explain the variations in the gospels. For example, why does John vary from Mark? They could be explained in differences in individual oral performances of a lament (127). “John’s narrative contains a doubling of the tradition of a Jewish official assisting in burial (Nicodemus, John 19:39), as well as a second Aramaic place-name (the judge’s bench, Gabbatha, 19:13); he also expands the wording of the titulus to ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,’ the knowledge of which in several languages must be explained (John 19:19-20); he lists a fourth woman at the foot of the cross, Mary Clopas (John 19:25); and he identifies a new tomb for Jesus in a garden” (John 19:21) (127). As said before differences in individual oral performances of a lament can explain these variations.


One would have to disprove the points above to show that women’s ritual lamentations of the dead played no part in the Jesus movement. If Jesus was historically lamented by women, then there was no supernatural resurrection of Jesus. However, the gospels do not feature women doing the one thing they are expected to do: lament the dead (115). Why is this? Well, women's lamentations could be easily associated with things that proved to make theological problems, such as necromantic associations. The earliest creed in Christianity (1 Corinthians 15: 3-5) says that Jesus “was buried” and then “raised on the third day” (115). “Raised on the third day” hints at “the association of women with the death and burial of Jesus,” because there was a “commonly known Hellenistic custom of tomb visitation, often three days after death” (115). In fact "funerary rites were regularly held on the third day after death, the ninth day after death, and the thirtieth day after death, and then annually throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. The emphasis on these rites was on communing with and propitiating the spirit of the deceased, who was thought to be present in the memorial meals and whose presence was invoked by the lament of women" (2). One may say "raised on the third day” is a reference to Hos 6:2 . . . but it’s not used as a proof text in the New Testament, or that of any early Christians (as far as I know); thus women's ritual laments is a more preferable explanation.


By the way, comments on phenomenology still in works; its not easy to understand.

Source:

Corley, Kathleen. Maranatha: Women's Funerary Rituals and Christian Origins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

For this reason I’m putting Spong down and taking up another Jesus seminar scholar: Kathleen Corley. She’ll probably appeal more to Thomas, because she does not just write for the layman, but for religious scholars in general.

And no little criticism. I have read two brief documents of hers: "Women and Greco-Roman Meals" (2002 Corley Paper.pdf) which, in reference to Christianity, I find fanciful, and which makes claims I think are unfounded and insupportable.

Her critique of 'Jesus was a feminist' (6342_6909.pdf) was equally poor, and unsupported and in fact erroneous in its assertions.

As per the critique of her on Amazon, someone with an axe to grind, and it shows.

+++

John Crossan asks an important question in the forward of Kathleen Corley’s book Maranatha:
“How should funerary rituals, Eucharistic meals, and mortuary laments be given their rightful role in Christian origins, their full and female, creative and constitutive contribution to the origins of Christianity?”

Cart before the horse. Hasn't made a case yet.

Most scholars (including my friend Thomas here) suppose that the passion narratives in the gospels are a “scribal product” and an “originally written document from a subculture dominated by well-educated men”

Do I? I don't think so. John was certainly highly educated, and probably independently wealthy. I have no such certainties about the rest. Mark wasn't well educated at all, his Greek was very poor.

I see Corley’s main claim as dealing with Christians using funerary meals as a continuity with the living and the dead and how women’s ritual laments are at the “oral core” of the belief that Jesus “was raised and appeared,”

Then why do we not have other examples of where the dead are physically resurrected? Why do not the Jewish laments have physical resurrection? Why would the women composing the lament turn their Jewish heritage on its head? (When you're dead, you're dead).

Why, if influenced by Hellenism, would they suggest something the Hellenic sensibility found repulsive?

I would have thought the core of the Resurrection stories were from the witnesses of the resurrected Christ. I doubt that 'well-educated men' who dominated the women in their subculture would have believed a load of nonsense dreamed up by a group of grief-striken women?

And why would they lend their names to such?

as Paul had written, so our “bold claim” is that this quote from 1 Corinthians 15 and the belief it entails has its origins in “women’s grassroots practice of funerary rituals, meals, and lament, rather than in the experiences of a list of elite leaders and male apostles” (Corley 4).

Paul here is arguing against those who suggest a spiritual, but not physical, resurrection. So he names those witnesses who are alive and who assert to the Resurrection. So I think the text itself refutes Corey's thesis on three points:
1: The resurrection was physical, not purely spiritual,
2: There are plenty of witnesses to it,
3: If, as Corey seems to claim, the idea of resurrection came about as the mythologising of the women, then the whole idea is false, and the faith is in vain.

There is no reason to suppose a lament, which would follow the norms of the lament process, would have insisted on a physical resurrection, which all the men do.

I’ll give three examples of how the writers of the gospels drew on oral laments as their source for the passion narratives. It explains the following:
Oral laments explain the “use of lament psalms (especially Psalm 22) in the development of a written passion narrative” Corley notes that “Aramaic words are preserved in the Markan narrative, Golgotha (Mark 15:22) and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Mark 15:34, cf. Ps 22:1). Rather than preserving Jesus’ actual words or representing Markan attempts at local color, we can explain the Aramaic in Mark 15 as remnants of an early sung lament by women, given that fragments of women’s laments are preserved in Aramaic in rabbinic sources” (125). Therefore, “scriptural proofs” and “scribal activity alone” do not entirely make up the creation of the passion narratives.

Well, Corey would have to demonstrate that Psalm 22 was a lament, and not, as it so evidently is, a profound theological and Liturgical treatise. What Corey means by 'early' (early Christian or early Jewish?) I have no idea, but if she means early Christian, then she's talking rubbish, and if she's talking early Jewish, then how does that impact on the essential message of Christianity?

Oral laments explain the elements in the passion narratives

No they don't. They haven't even explained themselves, their own existence.

Oral laments explain the variations in the gospels. For example, why does John vary from Mark?

Because Mark was written, probably in Rome, around 60AD from oral sources, whereas John was written from eye-witness testimony some considerable time later, and is indeed a 'commentary' highlighting certain aspects of the Revelation of Christ.

Put another way — from where did the women who created the Johannine lament data get their material? The Christology is highly sophisticated, way beyond what laments are about ...

They could be explained in differences in individual oral performances of a lament

I wouldn't have thought so, it's far more sophisticated than that. The theology of John throughout explains the differences. To suggest the core is a lament, which then required the development of a Christological theology, would not stand for a moment.

As said before differences in individual oral performances of a lament can explain these variations.

Or the differences in oral tradition, without the lament at all.

A lament is a lament, not a testimony as the Gospels are.

One would have to disprove the points above to show that women’s ritual lamentations of the dead played no part in the Jesus movement.

Oh no ... one would have to demonstrate some material evidence for the lament thesis, which overthrows the material evidence for the development of the Gospels themselves ... and by so doing completely rewrite 'The Synoptic Problem' as well as the consensus underpinning the two Books of John's Gospel, the 'Book of Signs' and the 'Book of Glory' ... so your lament thesis has a long and lonely road, and so far has made no headway whatsoever.

If Jesus was historically lamented by women, then there was no supernatural resurrection of Jesus.

Precisely.

So why, if we have early hymns (such as Colossians 1) do we have no Jesus laments?
Why did the men, to a man, die promulgating a mythology invented by women?
Why does Paul demonstrate that, if there is no resurrection, then one's faith is in vain?
Why did no-one ask the supposed witnesses, who were still alive and present, what they supposedly witnessed?
Why would women make up such a preposterous tale, unprecedented in lament literature?
Who were these women who fabricated Christianity, and why were they not challenged?
Why are they laments, if in fact they hold out the hope of resurrection?
Why invent the whole Eucharistic meal as part of the lament?
Why invent a whole backstory for the lamented dead prophet?

It's a non-starter.

However, the gospels do not feature women doing the one thing they are expected to do: lament the dead (115). Why is this?

Because Jesus rose from the dead.

Well, women's lamentations could be easily associated with things that proved to make theological problems, such as necromantic associations.

Not really ... even your average joe can tell the difference between grief and necrophilia or necromancy. And you've got to remember the time and place.

Women's lamentations would reflect their religious experience — their Judaism —

The earliest creed in Christianity (1 Corinthians 15: 3-5) says that Jesus “was buried” and then “raised on the third day” (115). “Raised on the third day” hints at “the association of women with the death and burial of Jesus,” because there was a “commonly known Hellenistic custom of tomb visitation, often three days after death” (115).

Well of course there was a custom, that's why the women went there ... but you'd have to explain why they started inventing a mythology.

... thus women's ritual laments is a more preferable explanation.

So you're saying that Christianity is the invention of a group of hysterical women?

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Hi Ahanu —Her critique of 'Jesus was a feminist' (6342_6909.pdf) was equally poor, and unsupported and in fact erroneous in its assertions.

Sorry I did not read her writing. My view is that Jesus was interpreted as a feminist by the Gospel Writers who appear to come from Greek Culture. They show Jesus comforting women in sin, having friendships with a number of women, several Mary's. Jesus supposedly stopped a crowd of fanatical Jews from stoning a woman. His beloved apostle was Mary Magdalene. Mary was his close confidant according to the other gospels. He identified his father as Mary's father, and his god as Mary's god. I saw a religious special on telly in which Peter fought against Mary for influence. Peter may have been an anti-female bigot. His followers included later Popes who slandered Mary by falsely calling her a prostitute. There is speculation that Mary may have been a lover and/or wife of Jesus, whose daughter was taken to Egypt and on to Gaul to prevent Peter's followers from killing her.

Because Jesus rose from the dead.

That is of course a wild speculation. Only a few people claimed to have seen a Jesus alive after being buried. Could the body of dead Jesus have been removed from the crypt by his followers who wanted to perpetuate the mythology of resurrection. There are only a few questionable witnesses to his rising from the crypt. The Jews apparently did not notice anything strange. The Romans did not note anything at all about a Jesus who was crucified and/or died. The classical myth developed after Roman Pagans became followers of a Jesus Cult.

Well of course there was a custom, that's why the women went there ... but you'd have to explain why they started inventing a mythology.


So you're saying that Christianity is the invention of a group of hysterical women?

Thomas

I think women did this in many cultures. I fail to find the source of all of the hoopla. Christianity was certainly not the invention of hysterical women. It was more likely the invention of a group of hysterical and irrational men. If anything those men hated women for unclear reasons. It may have begun with Peter's jealousy of Mary Magdalene.

It seems like it may have been a throwback to the Old Testament's verses calling women dirty and inferior. Increasingly the Catholic Church treated women as shameful and dirty. This trend was probably the origin of the Papal Council that ordered priests to be celibate. This celibacy seems to have led homosexuals to enter the priesthood, or priests and bishops (homosexually oriented) may have wanted celibacy. This happened in the Dark Ages.

Curiously in Ireland, where Celtic Christianity allowed and encouraged priests to marry. Part of the issue was that Patrick (Padraig) converted Druid sages by promising to allow them to marry women. After the Norman Conquest (Roman Catholics), forced Celtic priests to be celibate. If not for the Normans, perhaps so many Irish priests would not be homosexuals and paedophiles. Unfortunately they did not keep records of such crimes.

What the church needs now is abolishing the celibacy laws for priests. Perhaps that would reduce the paedophilia scandals and HIV epidemic in priests.

Amergin

 

[bob x]

Paul here is arguing against those who suggest a spiritual, but not physical, resurrection.

I have to disagree with you there. In 1st Corinthians, Paul is arguing that the "resurrection" body was not made of gross physical matter, but of some more ethereal stuff; his principle motive is to claim that his own "visionary" experience of the risen Christ was actually the same as what the original disciples saw, so that his authority is the same as theirs. He mentions a crowd of hundreds seeing the risen Christ, which none of the gospels do, evidently referring to the Pentecost when a big crowd "felt Jesus in their heart" or however you want to characterize it: not an encounter with a physical body, certainly, but Paul will not concede that those who encountered Jesus right after the tomb was found empty had any different, more physical, kind of encounter than he himself or the Pentecost crowd had.

 

[Thomas]

My view is that Jesus was interpreted as a feminist by the Gospel Writers who appear to come from Greek Culture.

I think this is rather a retro-fit view, as 'feminism' is a relatively modern concept.

They show Jesus comforting women in sin, having friendships with a number of women, several Mary's. Jesus supposedly stopped a crowd of fanatical Jews from stoning a woman.

Scripture also shows Him comforting the sick, the disabled, the seeker, soldiers, government officials, tax collectors ... in fact anyone who came to Him with a halfway open heart.

Although He saved the woman from stoning, His was making a point about hypocrisy, not suggesting she was innocent. He did acknowledge that she had sinned, however, so hardly a feminist position.

His beloved apostle was Mary Magdalene.

The list of those whom people put up to be the 'beloved disciple' goes round the block, but really no-one can displace John as the most likely candidate ... all the othes, including the Magdalene, have elements that can exclude them.

Mary was his close confidant according to the other gospels.

Only in the G of Philip, I think.

He identified his father as Mary's father, and his god as Mary's god.

He identified God as the father of everyone, so this seems a somewhat partisan comment.

I saw a religious special on telly in which Peter fought against Mary for influence.

That's probably the Gospel of Philip again. A 3rd century composition of gnostic origin, with a marked anti-orthodox bias, as one would expect. It makes sensationalist television, but few scholars treat it as anything more than a side-show.

That is of course a wild speculation. Only a few people claimed to have seen a Jesus alive after being buried.

Including all the main players.

Could the body of dead Jesus have been removed from the crypt by his followers who wanted to perpetuate the mythology of resurrection.

A good question. But it does raise the point that the mythos would have to be invented prior to, or during the crucifixion, for them to be ready to act so promptly. The question then is why? If resurrection proves such a contentious issue, then as now, then why bother? A better mythos would be simply of a spiritual resurrection, seen in the heart's eye by those who are illumined ... a lot easier to put out, a lot easier to defend, simpler all round — like the Theosophists who claim to hold the 'real' sacra doctrina that no-one can see, or the Mormons and their tablets ... or Mohammed's visitation by an angel ...

But physical resurrection would put more people off than it would attract.

The classical myth developed after Roman Pagans became followers of a Jesus Cult.

Well again, you're getting your history all in a muddle.

Christianity was certainly not the invention of hysterical women.

No, I don't think so either.

It was more likely the invention of a group of hysterical and irrational men.

That's as unlikely as the above.

If anything those men hated women for unclear reasons. It may have begun with Peter's jealousy of Mary Magdalene.

See, now you're buying into a myth ...

Increasingly the Catholic Church treated women as shameful and dirty. This trend was probably the origin of the Papal Council that ordered priests to be celibate.

Again, you're muddling your history in an attempt to discredit the Church. Celibacy was favoured, although not enforced, from the very beginning. The Orthodox patriarchies favour celibacy too,

This celibacy seems to have led homosexuals to enter the priesthood, or priests and bishops (homosexually oriented) may have wanted celibacy. This happened in the Dark Ages.

I'd like to know where you're getting your history or your homophobia from.

That some homosexuals found a cover in the priesthood is a matter of record, and I am sure there are many homosexual priests who fulfil their office admirably, as there are many heterosexual — one's sexual orientation is not the issue, celibacy is — and celibacy is no easier or harder for man of either disposition, so celibacy is not the issue, concupiscence is, be it hetero or homo. The belief that celibacy is the cause of homosexuality of of paedophilia is a flawed argument, as flawed as saying that all homosexuals are paedophiles.

It's homophobic in that it assumes that homosexuals are unable to control their appetites.

Curiously in Ireland, where Celtic Christianity allowed and encouraged priests to marry.

Did it? Another myth, I think. Celtic Christianity is essentially Eastern (Greek), having been established before the schism took effect. And the East does not allow priests to marry.

Much of modern 'Celtic Christianity' is as about as authentic as Irish theme pubs.

If not for the Normans, perhaps so many Irish priests would not be homosexuals and paedophiles.

So homosexuality and paedophilia is the result of repressed heterosexuality? Really? You really think that?

And yet you think that giving heterosexuality free rein will cure the problem? Have you put this idea to a homosexual, ever?

God bless,

Thomas