Christianity Uncovered

[vicente]

The following essay by JV Marco won the 2007 SWW International Christian Writing Competition, and is included as Chapter 3 in the book Full Spectrum Consciousness



Christianity Uncovered

In the first century of the Common Era (CE), a traveling sage taught among the people in the Middle East. He performed numerous works and miracles. He healed the lame and the paralyzed, raised the dead, and cast away evil spirits. This prophet taught a way of salvation and the laws of the only true god. This prophet was said to have been born of a virgin, and it was said that he had walked on the Sea of Erythra (the Red Sea). He was esteemed by many as the Son of God, although he claimed to be only a son of man. He was arrested for inciting the people, and after his death, it was alleged that he had risen from the dead, walked with his followers, and then ascended to heaven.

We all know who this was, right? Of course we do. His name was Apollonius, and his story is found in Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus. However, some who are predisposed to a particular religion and its theo-beliefs may have thought the person referred to in the above narrative was someone else.

Religion and its theo-beliefs, for those caught up in that groupthink, are difficult to recognize as something discordant in our lives, let alone as a barrier that obscures the truth of who we are from ourselves and prevents the uncovering of our light. Those of religious faith typically cling unquestioningly and tightly to their beliefs, which are usually reinforced through repetition of selected Bible stories, which they come to believe as if they had actually observed them firsthand. These believers have bought into a view that humanity is inherently inferior, yet through religion, their sinful nature can be redeemed if they follow its continually reinterpreted myths. The reward for supporting their legally protected superstition is a promise of eternal life. However, is that really the truth?

If one’s roots or foundations are permeated in falsity, then even common sense suggests that one’s life will be equally as false. For truth is not an invention, and truth is not a consensus reality born from a fixation with self-authenticating holy books devised by our flat-earth ancestors. Truth is not a thing to be discovered, but a reality to be uncovered. There is no liberation until false beliefs are confronted forthrightly and dissolved.

For me, the undoing of religious barriers and subsequent indubitable spiritual breakthrough came by way of a continuum of the transformational events that are being presented throughout this discourse. The first to occur consciously happened when I was eight years of age, a few days after an irascible cousin announced to the neighborhood that my dad was not my biological father, which I had not known until this paradigm-shifting announcement. This was a traumatic revelation, but it was nothing compared with the words uttered by my third-grade parochial school teacher, Sister Rose Kathleen, later that week. She said, reading from Deuteronomy 23:2 during daily Bible study, “No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord, not even to the tenth generation.” (“Non ingredietur mamzer hoc est de scorto natus in ecclesiam Domini usque ad decimam generationem.”). The newer translated versions of this law, which penalizes children for their parents’ indiscretions, smooth out the wording; for example, the New American Bible now says: “No child of an incestuous union,” an expedient shift in meaning, considering that finding a nonbastard child today is somewhat like seeing someone who doesn’t have a tattoo.

So what does a little boy do when he has been denied something, especially being included in the congregation of the Lord? He pursues it! At least, I did. Therefore, for the next two dozen years, I was a major consumer of religious material, looking for a backdoor into heaven. After all, I felt that I had no choice, for no one, not even God, was going to save a bastard. I had to find a way to save myself, which is fundamentally contrary to Christian beliefs. The New-Age idea advanced by moderates is that God the Father changed, and now we can be saved through Jesus, the Son. This idea merely fortified my quest for something more changeless, a more enduring truth.

Along that way towards something true and unchanging, I have collected and read fifty-three different translations and versions of the Bible while looking for my loophole to heaven. How amazing it is that so many people believe that there is only one version of the Bible, especially considering the tenets, for example in Matthew 5:18, which suggests that “not one letter shall be changed.” Each Abrahamic sect (Christian, Muslim, and Jew) claims that its version is the correct version, just as each says that its god and only its god created the universe, thus insinuating that all other religions are both wrong and incomplete.

There are more than a hundred New Testament versions in English alone, all of which were translated from one of two sources. This first source is called the Textus Receptus, manuscripts from a Byzantine text base. Most of the seventeenth-century King James Version uses this source, with a sprinkling of the Latin Vulgate. The other source is known as the Alexandrian text base, which includes the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which were compiled in the fourth century. All original versions have been lost or destroyed. Can you imagine? The literature about the most valuable thing in your life consists of thousands of copies transcribed by thousands of scribes without one original or close-to-original copy left. This is even more suspicious considering what was once conveyed to me by the Religious Studies Department at Montana State University, that of the over 200,000 early manuscripts after the fourth century, no two are identical in content.

Over the years, the persistence of that little eight-year-old paid off, and I uncovered a door, not so much through a study of the texts, but moreso through what remained after I thoroughly reviewed the contents of the texts. Like the Eastern philosophy of neti-neti, that is, understanding what is, through uncovering what is not, what the texts did not say put a different perspective on what they did say. The philosophical nature of neti-neti served as my constant companion.

A religion’s set of beliefs stands between you and your direct experience of the source of who we are, a source that is not a personal deity or deita (female gender) outside us. Theism is not even a proper theory. Theism (or a belief in a god) is not a theory in any sense of the term. God is a belief based on faith. Neither faith nor belief rests on logical proof, material evidence, or common sense.

Being a good person of faith in a theo-belief system does not bring one closer to the source. Source is not a patriarch or matriarch who only loves those faithfully obedient to its authority, as proselytized by various self-appointed religious agents who claim to have an exclusive on the moral path to a heaven. Source does not need our love or attention. Only that which sees itself as lacking has needs. Theism, as will be shown clearly, is a human construct, an invented belief system that keeps its faithful followers separated from the reality of source.

Theo-beliefs disengage us from a conscious connection with source reality, a connection that comes through the letting go of theo-beliefs, not the clinging to them. Theo-beliefs do not liberate us from suffering; they contribute to suffering. The realization of our eternal self happens when we realize the illusion of our perceived external self. That which is external, each manifestation of our perceptions, is a simulation or holographic projection. By releasing our bondage to beliefs, our sapiential mind is uncovered and assumes its position as sovereign master of soulestial expression, instead of being always almost satisfied in an existence of diversions to which the ego—and its sciential mind—gives meaning.

Many consider Thomas Paine to be the most eminent of America’s founding fathers. He once said,

It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority and cannot be admitted as proof of anything.

JV Marco

[vicente]

Part 2

However, only in recent centuries have we begun to discern the holy books of our theo-belief systems critically, rather than deliberating on them solely for display and devotion. Devotional reading is not Bible study. Bible study is engaging in the activity of asking the same questions that we normally ask of other books. We commonly inquire: Who wrote this? When was it written? Why was it written? Where was it written? For what purpose was it written? Many of us ask ourselves these questions every time we pick up a secular book. However, such questioning, especially in an environment of hope, fear, and faith-driven moderatism or conservatism, is viewed as a threat.

Muslims, for example, unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. To understand the dynamics of that, simply ask a Muslim why he believes in the Qur’an, and he will say, “Because the Qur’an is the infallible words of Allah written by his prophet Muhammad.” If you continue the inquiry and request that he divulge how he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, the Muslim will, without the slightest pondering, respond that he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet because it says so right in the Qur’an. This is a faith-driven circular reasoning common to all three Abrahamic religions and their hundreds of denominations.

Today’s Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all sprang from the same germ: the story of Abraham, an Aryan migrant, who was probably from south central Asia in what is now Pakistan (see Jos. 24:2–3). Abraham (meaning multitude) appears to have fancied himself as Brahma (the root meaning of which is to expand). The similarities between Abraham and Brahma, the Hindu god born from Vishnu’s navel, are striking. For example, Brahma’s consort was his sister Sara, and Abraham’s wife was his sister Sarah (Gen. 20:12). It was through Sarah’s mendacity that Abraham’s first son, Ishmael, father of the Arabs, was swindled out of his inheritance, a fraud being perpetuated today by Sarah’s descendants upon the Palestinian people.

Muhammad (570–632 CE), the Abrahamic teacher who, prompted by persecutions upon Arabs, such as those continued by Pope Gregory (540–604 CE), the Father of the Dark Ages, invented the Arab version of monotheism. Interestingly, this new religion supplied the pedophile prophet with many attractive wives, the youngest of whom was a nine-year-old. However, as I don’t wish to be detained by the Mutawa—the Islamic religious police—and I don’t fancy having a fatwa issued regarding me as it was for Salman Rushdie, perhaps readers here can unravel for themselves the Qur’an’s self-authenticating meaning, and I’ll unriddle Christianity. For when Christianity falls, and it will, the other Abrahamic religions will soon follow.

Let’s broach this subject with a question. Who is the most important figure in what is commonly known as Christianity? If you use the same answer that most may have thought in the beginning of this third chapter, then we have a lot of work to do on these beliefs. Also, keep in mind as this subject begins that the terms Christ and Christian, as will be shown, were used hundreds of years before the Common Era. Thus I often refer to the Christianity alluded to in the New Testament as neo-Christianity. Neo-Christianity (today’s Christianity) is synonymous with Orthodox Christianity. Orthodoxy literally means “a growing belief or opinion.”

The most important figure in what Westerners understand as Christianity was the mass murderer, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. According to eminent theologians, such as Robert Eisenman, the Essenes called this self-ordained apostle of the Gentiles “the Spouter of Lies.” Among scholars, the Biblical Jesus/Yeshua usually appears in about the fourteenth place in importance. Was he an actual historical figure? Even Paul did not appear to believe that Jesus was an historical figure; for example, see Hebrews 8:4. That is to say, Paul never identified Jesus apart from an entirely mystical setting. Without Paul and several other Church fathers and aristocrats, Christianity, as known today, would not exist.

Today’s Christianity, including Catholicism and every other religious sect that uses, in whole or in part, the so-called Christian Scripture, was woven from a hybrid of Pauline doctrines, a few historical facts, and various fabrications. Several early Christ sects, for example, the Sevrians, Encratites, Ebonites, Naassenes, Nazarenes, etc., rejected Paul’s epistles. Strictly speaking, Catholics do not consider themselves Christians. In the 1970s, I raised the point of Catholics’ not being Christians with Vatican officials in reference to Gentiles, specifically Matthew 10:5 and Acts 10:28: that they cannot personally know Jesus.

The Vatican replied that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church, but the “One, True, Apostolic Church” and as such, can legitimately know Jesus through the apostles. In other words, technically speaking, only Jews can be Orthodox Christians.

That Orthodox Church, which formed as an offshoot of Paul’s ministry, had no gospels that referenced an historical Jesus. The canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were contrived later, three of them no earlier than the second century. All tacitly supported the myths espoused by Paul. The Pauline letters or epistles presented no knowledge of the four canonical gospels. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, compiled when today’s Christianity was allegedly taking form, an historical Jesus is literally missing, as it was from all other pre-95 CE records. What does this mean? How did this neo-Christianity crop up, apparently without a personal founder, and then claim that a personal founder existed? The answer is not very difficult; it even has some interesting twists.

There remains sufficient evidence to discern the deliberate fabrication perpetrated by the early neo-Christian movement for the idea of a Christ and a new belief system that benefited its creators’ agendas. People such as Theophilus, the patron saint of arson, and various Christian mobs did their best to destroy as much of the preserved wisdom as they could. Like today’s fundamentalists, the early neo-Christians had little tolerance for anything not within the narrow predetermined view of the zealous pre-Nicene Church fathers.

The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul’s followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada, the locally notorious Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite]. This Jesus, born in 7 BCE during a Jupiter–Saturn conjunction, had a stepfather known as Joseph and a mother named Mary. On the eve of Passover in 28 CE, he was convicted of sedition by Pontius Pilate and subsequently hanged. His hanging was not the planned means of death, but proceeded because those who were to stone him were late. Since the end of the day was near, which would have postponed his burial until after Passover, the soldiers allowed the alternative death by hanging. Following his death, his followers dubbed him the Passover Lamb.

A Nazarite or Notzri, meaning consecrated, was a Jew who took the ascetic vow described in Numbers 6:1–21. Among famous Nazarites was James the Just, whom the Ebionites revered as the legitimate apostolic successor of the Nazarites. Jesus the Nazarite (not of Nazareth or Galilee) is probably the same Jesus whose sayings were collected by Didymos Judas Thomas in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. This Gnostic or cardio-centric gospel of “secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke” appears to have been compiled in response to Paul’s new cerebro-centric religion. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Paul predate the canonical gospels by at least a generation. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q source contained a crucifixion, the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of others; a resurrection; or a personified Christ. Thus they conveyed nothing that would support the divinity of Jesus, which later became one of the core beliefs of the new Christianity.

The story of present-day Christianity is part of a larger mythology. The evidence suggests that the actual principle of Christ grew out of Memphite philosophy—literally, the Krst, the anointed ones, like the Risen Horus/Apis. Then in the fifth century BCE, the word Christos, referring to an “awakened one,” crept into Greek subculture, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history. Curiously, this was the same time in which Siddhartha Buddha, the light of Asia, realized that religion is a man-made fabrication and a direct result or consequence of the desire for things to be other than what they are. According to recent research, many ideas in the New Testament were lifted from Buddhism.

In the third century BCE, through Ptolemy Soter, a lover of all things Egyptian, a bearded, long-haired Greek image was merged with Egypt’s mystical Krst philosophy. This image, Sarapis, would become Christendom’s representative portrait of their Jesus/Yeshua. If there was an historical Jesus/Yeshua as presented in the gospels, he would have had short hair and a close-cut beard, as was the custom of the Jews and the command of Paul. For example, 1 Cor. 11:14 suggests that long hair brings shame to a man. More similar to the Sarapis model was the link that Jesus/Yeshua was a Nazarite, like the Old Testament Samson. Members of the religious sect of Nazarites were said not to cut their hair. In addition to their unkempt hair, the Nazarites also vowed to abstain from the manufacture or consumption of intoxicating beverages and from contact with the sick or corpses. Jesus/Yeshua being a Nazarite does not harmonize well with certain fabricated gospel tales, such as the ritual consumption of wine and the raising of the sick and dead, which were woven into the canonized version of the myth. This reminds me of the fanciful story of Mason Weems, invented after the death of George Washington, about George Washington and the cherry tree. Weems fabricated this story to broaden the character of America’s first president and to make him seem more appealing.

The Jesus Christ myth was interwoven from many sources, including the Egypto-Greek Sarapis, whose devotees, according to Hadrian, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. Sarapians had temples in most of the major cities of the time, including Alexandria, Rome, and even Bithynia, where Pliny the Younger was governor at the beginning of the second century CE. Under Trajan (who was married to Pompeia Piso), Hadrian was governor of Syria. As every Bible hobbyist should know, as per Matthew 4:24, Jesus’ fame was said to reach throughout all of Syria, yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus’ followers as Christians until well into the second century. Why was that?

[vicente]

Part 3

Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ.

Neither Paul nor his followers could grasp gnosis, that is, to gnow themselves through the heart of essence. Like many today, frozen in their conceptual experiences, Paul needed a more physical, hope-driven, fear-based path. The ignorant respond to hope and fear. Thus, from the expectations infused through the Pauline church, the concept of a personified Christ grew and entered the groupthink of the anti-Gnostic Paulines and those, like the Roman aristocrats, who wished to exploit it.

Before 95 CE, when history suggests that Apollonius died and rose from the dead, there is no mention of a personified Christ or the four gospels. There is no known contemporary scriptural record of the life and times of Jesus/Yeshua. For neo-Christians, so fond of quoting Bible babble, what wasn’t said in the first century that which is curiously missing, is as interesting as the fabrications and contradictions of what was said then. For example, in the writings of Clement Romanus, the Pauline bishop of Rome circa 95 CE, there is not even a tinge of gospel references. Yet Luke 1:1–2 specifically implies that many eyewitness followers had already been writing. Adding to the intrigue, Clement, whom Tertullian and Jerome suggest was the direct successor of Peter, was also said to be a Flavian, that is, a relative of the men who were then the emperors of the Rome.

Sciolistic Christians vaunt that the historian Josephus, in two remarks that have been taken out of context, verifies that Jesus/Yeshua existed. Today, however, even conservative scholars agree that those quotations from chapters 18 and 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews, were later Christian interpolations. Such conclusions are consistent with Origen, an ante-Nicene father, who in the third century CE indicated that such a declaration from Josephus of a Jesus Christ did not exist in his copy of the Jewish Antiquities. Furthermore, no one else before the fourth century CE ever mentioned such an important reference from this often-cited source. Another claim by neo-Christians as to Jesus Christ’s historicity comes fromTacitus’ Annals 15.44, the comment of how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians after Rome’s fire of 64 CE was actually about Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus or Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the second-century Gospel of Matthew called false Christians. Neo-Christians appropriated the name Christianity, as they lifted terms from most of the cultures that they absorbed.

Considering a set of all knowledge for that period, not a single Jewish, Roman, or Greek historian, scribe, or writer mentions before 95 CE the Jesus Christ depicted in the gospels. There are no artifacts, no works of carpentry, and no physical evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed. For such a famous person, professed to have been known far and wide, it is notable that there is not a single word of him from Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Gaius Petronius, the Syrian Mara, Philo Judaeus, Pausanias (who traveled throughout Syria), Theon of Smyrna, Thallus of Samaria, Silius (Consul of Asia Minor), or the Syrian-born Lucianus.

However, the word scribe(s) is mentioned at least sixty-six times in the New Testament. Thus, repeatedly, what was not mentioned says much regarding the history of the invention of present-day Christianity. For instance, why was the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, known as the ornament of Galilee, just four miles down the hill from the archeological site of Nazareth, not alluded to in the Gospels, although they all mention Nazareth? Could it be that the authors of the gospels were unaware that the city existed because Rome leveled it during the Jewish Revolt of 66–71 CE, some forty years after the Talmud’s Jesus was hanged for sedition? It is unlikely that Nazarites lived in Galilee, but were instead Jerusalemites.

So far, I have presented an abridged review of what was not said. Now comes a summary of what was disclosed: the refashioning of Gnostic mythology into a religion that advocated slavery, dependency, ignorance, and submissive obedience. This new religion was never a threat to Rome, but rather, it was one through which its adherents, servants of Rome’s ruling class, were morally obligated to suffer meekly what Caesar wished or, as Titus 2:9 says, to please their masters in all things. Christianity is a pro-Roman religion. Did not Paul say that Roman magistrates were only a threat to evildoers or that the man who rebels against his master is opposing God’s will? What Roman would want to persecute the philosophy that said that tax collectors are God’s ministers (Romans 13:6)? It was the Jewish zealots and Gnostic Christians who threatened Rome, not the anti-Gnostic Paulines and neo-Christians.

The first canonical gospel, the Gospel According to Mark, began to appear in Rome after 95 CE; however, it was probably drafted following the First Jewish Revolt (70 CE). Contrary to allegations of Papias, as reported by Eusebius in the fourth century, this gospel is clearly Roman in origin and intention. Besides the use of Latin-rooted words not found in other canonical texts, it also does not refer to Jewish law. Authorship points to members of the aristocratic Piso family, who according to genealogists were descendants of Herod the Great and intermarried with the Flavians. These members of the Piso family were the forefathers of Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, and Charlemagne. The Pisos had strong ties to Syria in the first and second centuries, when anti-slavery sentiments began to grow from the First Jewish Revolt. They had firm reasons to introduce a new theo-ideology that encouraged passive servility, thereby suppressing another costly servile war similar to the Spartacus slave insurrection. The womb of the birth of Christianity was Rome, not Judea. The Gospel According to Mark was unknown before 95 CE apparently because of a contention between the Pisos and the Emperor Domitian, who ruled between 81 and 96 CE.

Following Mark came the Gospel According to Matthew, which was probably compiled by Ignatius, a Pauline bishop of Antioch, a town in Syria, about 102 CE. Ignatius appears to have harmonized his gospel using some six hundred of Mark’s 661 verses. Considering the numerous references to money, he may have also used the Ebionites’ Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as a source, the writer of which was said to have been a tax collector. Other players in Ignatius’ story include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic text of sayings, which may have been a source for the Hebrew Matthew. Like the Gospel of Thomas, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is purported not to have contained a virgin birth or resurrection story. Then, along with oral traditions, the copyist of the canonized Matthew comported his story with the Old Covenant, contriving citations that verified scriptural prophecy to address various questions of the times. To me, his genealogy is more amusing than reconciling. For instance, of the four women mentioned, Ruth was repurchased, Tamar was a prostitute, Rahab was a harlot, and Bath-Sheba was an adulteress. I recall pondering whether the Biblical Jesus/Yeshua was a bastard like me. Matthew’s encouragement of sexlessness is also amusing; for example Mt. 19:12 suggests that blessed is the man who has been castrated, but even more blessed is he who cuts it off himself.
In the 1980s, a biennial gathering of Biblical scholars called the Jesus Seminar concluded that only the word father could be traced to Matthew’s so-called Sermon on the Mount. The greater part of the sermon consisted of words placed in Jesus’ mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period in the 1980s, over a hundred Bible scholars at another seminar agreed that Jesus never promised to return and that he never had any intention of starting a religion. Commenting on these scholars’ conclusions, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said, “These are not maverick scholars; they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts.”

Unlike the Epistles of Paul or the Gospel According to Mark, which say nothing about Jesus/Yeshua’s birth, the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Luke, which followed Matthew, constructed the virgin birth in their attempt to corroborate that their Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled Jewish prophecies about a messiah, for example Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, Micah 5:2, and Luke 24:24.

The third of the synoptic gospels is my favorite. The Lucan discourses, that is, Luke and Acts, were probably authored by a well-educated, effeminate physician from Greece during the second century. These books, having the most extensive vocabulary of any in the New Testament, were obviously written through a healer’s eyes, but also from the point of view of an effeminate or homosexual life. Luke is a girl’s gospel; Luke is the only Biblical author to describe women’s inner life. There are women everywhere in Luke—Elizabeth, Herodias, Anna, Mary, Joanna, Susanna, Jairus’ daughter, the Queen of the South, the Widow of Nain, Simon’s mother-in-law, the crippled woman, a hemorrhaging woman, the widow of Zarephath, women who prepare spices, women in parables, a wailing woman, women grinding grain, and at least five women at the tomb.

Although Luke and Matthew both use Mark as a source, and the author of Luke probably read Matthew’s compilation while in Antioch, these two evangelists’ accounts contradict each other in many ways. To name an example:

Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was Jacob.
Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father was Heli.

According to the theory of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so who cares whether Joseph was a descendant of King David? Some Christian priests would have their faithful believe that the Luke genealogy was of Mary, that Heli was Mary’s father; however, Luke 3:23–24 actually negates such a claim.

Matthew 1:20 An angel appears to Joseph.
Luke 1:38 An angel appears to Mary.

Matthew 2:11 Jesus was born in a house.
Luke 2:7 Jesus was born in a manger.

Matthew 2:14 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt.
Luke 2:22 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem.

Most Christmas season reenactments use Luke’s manger, but Matthew’s escape to Egypt.

Matthew 28:2 An angel
Luke 24:4 Two men in dazzling garments

[vicente]

Part 4

John was the last of the canonical gospels. Theophilus of Antioch appears to be the first person to mention its existence as a gospel (during the later half of the second century). However, the Rylands Papyrus, which could be part of a copy of John, has been paleographically dated to 150 CE, fifteen years after the Bar Cochba revolt. John’s gospel resonates more with the Jesus of the Talmud than the Jesus in the synoptic gospels. For example, John has his Jesus dying on the eve of Passover, as the slaughtered lamb, not following the Passover meal as the Jesus of Matthew and Luke. Actually the documentation of the time points to the so-called crucifixion as actually a fabricated cruci-fiction, invented along with the resurrection story after 95 CE. Rabbinic law called for criminals to be stoned, not to undergo a Roman-style crucifixion, although hanging was acceptable for lesser offenses. Jesus was killed “by hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:30 & 10:39); Jesus was “hung on a tree” Galatians 3:13; his “body [was] on the tree” 1 Peter 2:24.

The so-called Evangelist John and the John who authored of the Book of Revelation were surely two different persons. Unlike the Gospel According to John, written in traditional Greek style, the Apocalypse (Revelation) is characteristically Semitic. The Apocalypse is said to have been written while John was in exile on Patmos, one of the Dodecanese Islands about a hundred kilometers southwest of the city of Ephesus.

Although evidence shows that the New Testament is a subterfuge of zealously crafted myths, letters, and sayings, the last entry is somewhat different. The Apocalypse or Revelation of John reportedly was admitted into the canon of the New Testament in the late fourth century by one vote. That one vote margin of acceptance is said to have been attained only after the addition of the first three verses, which is quite humorous, considering that the last verses of Revelation say, “No man shall add unto these pages.”

The Apocalypse might be considered a quite informative, multilayered prophetic disclosure. That is not to say that the Apocalypse predicts future calamities for humanity, but rather appears to reveal intrahuman animating principles written through subconscious symbolism, woven together with the messianic events associated with the forty-two-month Bar Cochba revolt. The Bar Cochba revolt occurred circa 135 CE, when Jewish towns and temples became Gentile, as per Rev. 11:2 & 13:5.

Coming to terms with the Apocalypse or the Book of Revelation was one of my tremendums or direct transformational experiences that dissolved another layer of beliefs into which I had been indoctrinated during childhood. I came to terms with that book in Bozeman, Montana, in 1983 after a discussion on anti-Christs and the predictions of apocalyptic catastrophes with a friend, who had been traumatized by a group of Russellites. Russellites are followers of Charles Taze Russell, who like to be called Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was saddened by being unable to answer her questions, so in my empathy, I withdrew to a windowless bathroom and cried. Then, as my supplication diminished into surrender, I realized that the story of John’s Revelation was dreamlike in composition.

Normally, to decipher one’s own dreams is formidable enough, yet interpreting the vision of this eighteen-hundred-year-ago dead guy was not that difficult. I simply put myself in his sandals, that is, into the first half of the second century CE, when Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia Minor, which historians say was founded by Ionian settlers in the eleventh century BCE.

As a center of mysticism, Ephesus was famous for its great metaphysical colleges, where Gnostic and Platonic philosophies like the Logos were expounded and where priests at the Temple of Diana were said to recite the mystic words Aki Kataki Haix Tetrax Damnameneus Aision. Even Apollonius of Tyana, the ardent Pythagorean, had an esoteric school in cosmopolitan Ephesus. One could imagine this city as something like present-day New-Age towns of Sedona, Santa Fe, or Tepoztlan, where a variety of philosophies converge, but in Ephesus, perhaps this occurred on a grander scale.

Serpent or Kundalini worship is prevalent in the records of the era. There were Naasenians, a serpent-worshipping Gnostic sect, the Ophis-Christos, the Serpent Christ, the Nabians and Nabatheans, a sect almost identical with the Sabeans, whose secret rite of baptism, according to the 1918 Theosophical Glossary, was taught by the Buddhist Boodhasp. In fact, Buddhists and Nagas, or Tibeto-Burmese wise men, had already been traveling into the area for a few hundred years along the Egypt–India trade route.

Naga, meaning wise serpent, is one of the few words that span both centuries and continents. For instance, Nargals were Chaldean chiefs of the Magi, and Naguals were and are brujos of some tribes of Mexican Indians, dating back at least to Quetzlcoatl, the Plumed Serpent. The Nagualist community, at least until a few years ago, had an annual gathering at Lake Catemaca, where intimate discussions of duality’s multifaceted reality were held.

Ephesus was indeed a happening place. John must have had a grand time there. At least he probably did before the ante-Nicene Fathers may have instigated his arrest and exile. Polycarp of Smyrna and perhaps Irenaeus were irritated by any dialogues with Gnostic sages or spiritual travelers, like the Buddhists or Tantrics. Just imagine the likes of today’s faith-driven evangelists hearing of John learning how to raise Kundalini, unsealing the chakras, and discussing the old-style spiritual vortices count. The Kundalini vortices were described as petaled flowers. In the old-style, the first six chakra flowers, or energy wheels, had petals that added up to one hundred and forty-four. When those were combined with the thousand-petal lotus of the crown chakra, it was endearingly called the 144,000, a number known to readers of the Bible as the number of the elect (those who shall be saved because their names are written in the Book of Life).
Once the circumstances of John’s life before the Revelation narrative can be seen, the Apocalypse is no longer viewed as a scripture of eschatology (end times). When viewed as a dream-inspired discourse, the clarity of the symbolism, interlaced with the ominous Bar Cochba period, the Book of Revelation is a guide for personal awakening through the Tantric practice of Kundalini.

In the Kundalini model of Revelation, the seven churches denote the seven chakras that are associated with the seven human endocrine glands. The seven seals, angels, candlesticks, head and crown, lamps, mountains, spirits, etc., have to do with the various levels in our continuum of awakening. In Tantric philosophy, the chakras are commonly discussed as being sealed or unopened. The mark of the beast represents the ego expressing itself through the physicalness of the hands or the mental activity of the forehead. This is to say, 666 on the hands symbolizes a physical self-centeredness, whereas the 666 on the forehead symbolizes a mental self-absorption. These are common Buddhist/Gnostic ideas, filtered through dream metaphor. If the ante-Nicene or subsequent church fathers had any idea of the Gnostic nature of John’s vatical writing, it would have been consigned to the flames, like the other compositions that they felt threatened their neo-Christian viewpoints.

Any relationship of the Book of Revelation with an anti-Christ is in regards to those like Bar Cochba, the Jews’ messiah and “prince of Israel,” whom the new Christian leadership rejected as the their “messiah returned.” To the neo-Christian leadership at the time, Bar Cochba was an anti-Christ. As for the false Christ of Matthew 24:24, that, as noted above, seems to be in connection with the Gnostic Christ, whose followers Hadrian (71–138 CE) called “bishops of Christ” in his letter to the Consul Servianus. A false Christ or anti-Christ was anyone at that time not chained to the new orthodoxy. Where and when the author of the Gospel According to John has his Jesus say, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except by me” is in response to the Bar Cochba period.

The Gospel According to John commences with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He [Jesus] was with God in the beginning.” Although some argue that this was a later, fourth century interpolation, the idea of the Word or Logos is not a Christian conception. The Western idea of Logos can be found among the fifth century BCE writings of Heraclitus of Ephesus. At the time of the Jewish Messiah’s revolt (132 –135 CE), Buddhists were known to be traveling the region, and those visitors would surely have been queried about the Logos or inherent order in the universe. In response, they would have presented the principle of Sabda, the Unmanifested Logos. Pinda Kacha, Sabda Sacha - the Body is Perishable, the Word is Eternal. From a different perspective, the Hindu, in accordance with Sabda Brahman, would say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Brahman, and the Word was Brahman.” Or the Tibetans of the time may have said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Padmapani (the first divine ancestor of the Tibetans), and the Word (the Unmanifested) was with Padmapani (the manifested). The author of John however, wanted his Jesus, his messiah, to be the first manifested from the Unmanifested, so that his fellow faithful would not follow the followers of Simon Bar Cochba, the Prince of Israel.

In addition to the influences of Eastern and the Greco-Egyptian Sarapic philosophies, neo-Christianity integrated other cults into its new myth as well, just as Romans meshed the beliefs of those they subjugated. The Christmas story, for instance, is closely related to Mithraism, which Plutarch said was practiced in Asia Minor during the first century BCE. Mithras, who was also called Chrestos, was born of a virgin in a cave at the winter solstice, and his birth was celebrated during the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invictos. The tradition of giving Christmas gifts appears to have been partially adapted from the Pasque Epiphany, the goddess cult of Bari. On the other hand, Easter and the resurrection story are another neo-Christian modification, in this case an appropriation of the spring Eostar celebration of the death of Attis, who, three days following Black Friday, was resurrected. Attis, the savior, was often represented with a shepherd’s staff. One traditional theme of the Attis cult is said to have been “as our Lord was saved, so we shall be saved.” Salvation is, ironically, a belief that leads to disempowerment because it places the idea of redemption outside the self.

The cult of Attis, whose priests were called Gallaens, strongly influenced the invention of modern Christianity. In fact, the Vatican, named for mons vaticanus or Vatican Hill, which antedates Christianity, was the place of worship of Cybele, and her fertility rites with her youthful lover Attis were performed on Vatican Hill. In other words, Vatican City sits atop the most sacred place of the Phrygian religion.

JV Marco

[vicente]

Part 5

Today’s Christianity, the Christianity founded in the second century CE, did not arise from the teachings of an historic Jesus/Yeshua. In fact, many contemporary scholars suggest that the majority of the words attributed to Jesus/Yeshua in the gospels could not possibly have been said by him, even if he did exist. Neo-Christianity was formed through the schemes of Roman aristocrats, along with the ante-Nicene and latter Church fathers, who rejected gnowledge, Gnothi Seauton, that is, to “gnow thyself.” Instead, they opted for a conditional cerebral process dependent upon, and serving, the human ego, that is, to “know thyself”. The salvation cults that make up neo-Christianity, whose hideous cross became their symbol in the third century CE, was designed to perpetuate control of the masses. Christianity is a religion that separates us from our direct experience with the source of who we are. Christianity is a religion contrary to gnosis and understanding through sapience, in that it neither contains, nor points to authentic love, through which our true mystery is understood.

Most of today’s Christians believe that their religion is one of love. Nevertheless, their scripture says that Jesus came with a sword to bring dissension, as in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 14:26. Their scripture says, “Abandon your family” (Matthew 19:24; Luke 14:26). Their Jesus not only promotes slavery, but also instructs how slaves should be punished, as in Luke 12:47–48. In fact, the idea that their God is love was not introduced until the late second century apology of 1 John, specifically 4:8 and 4:16. However, neo-Christians do aspire to agape love, a love described in the first letter to the Corinthians. For example, “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). However, the love depicted in that description is not authentic love. Bearing, believing, hoping and enduring are not love. Those are conditions based on object-ive indoctrination, not on unconditional love. In other words, Christendom’s great chapter on love is merely a discourse on past limitations and future hopes, a love that strives to sustain conditions of conflict, separation, and limitation. Conditional love is born of belief, and as such, it can only be experienced through the conditions of those beliefs. If we ponder that, it is rather amusing. Their god, as other gods, is clearly a conditional god.

Today’s Christianity, as a whole, is quite amusing, that is, from a full-spectrum-consciousness point of view. I often ask Christians why they go to church. This is both a joke and a superb litmus test for estimating someone’s self-built barriers to love. Why do Christians go to church? Because they have faith. Get it? Faith is the unquestioning acceptance of something in the absence of reason. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a thing that is hoped for without evidence that it exists. Faith is an unsupported belief. Faith is a hope, a belief in an expectation that arises from the perception of lack. Beliefs, especially religious beliefs, are hilarious because they are not true and could not possibly be true. If something were true, we would not have to believe it. Thomas Jefferson said, “It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.”

There is humor woven throughout Judeo-Christian literature. In Genesis, the Elohim (a plural for God) create “male and female” in Gen. 1:26–27. Then in Gen. 2:21–25, the second creation story, the Elohim cast Adam into a profound sleep to make out of him a faithful, subservient companion called Eve. This Eve was not “created” or equal, as the female in the first creation story. The deeper comedy, however, is that nowhere does it say that they ever woke Adam up. Perhaps this ties in with the Awakened Ones, the Bodhisattvas of the East, who have been suggesting through recorded history that we wake up. Interestingly, the events of the two Abrahamic creation stories do accommodate a different explanation of how the serpent got into the Garden of Eden in chapter two of the Book of Genesis. It never did; for what happened after Adam was put into a deep sleep is just a dream. Even the “no boundary” quantum theory could support that view; that is to say, if there is no time, how could there have been a creation, except in our brains, which are, as neuroscientists say, what connects us with the perceived universe?

The concept of a created man and a “made” woman “fashioned out of a rib” in chapter two of Genesis repeats over and over in the literature of the Abrahamic religions. The sons of the Elohim took the daughters of men as they chose (Gen. 6:2). The woman’s husband shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The didactics are not limited to the Old Law and the impositions of the God of Jacob. In Ephesians 5:22, wives are instructed to submit to their husbands; in 1 Cor. 11:9, we learn that woman was made for man. Again, in Col. 3:18 and Titus 2:11–12, “let women learn in silence and be completely submissive, for no woman shall be permitted to teach or have authority over men.” The Malleus Maleficarum, a fifteenth-century Catholic text, summed up women by saying that women, being formed from man’s rib, are only imperfect animals, whereas man belongs to the privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged. And to give equal time to the Protestants, Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century, reportedly said, “Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops.” However, my favorite Martin Luther quotation is: “Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.” Hey! That makes sense, for without reason, no one would challenge his hollow, faith-based reality.

Perhaps that last quotation, about destroying reason, explains why today’s roughly 500 million Christian women concede to the loathsome view of them taken by their Bible and Christian leadership. In the early twentieth century, they seemed to have displayed enough reason to effect an emancipation through women’s suffrage. They questioned political authority, but why not religious authority? Do women honestly feel that they can play “pick-and-chose” with these theo-beliefs by saying yes, I like that verse, it’s true, or no, that verse is no longer relevant? Do they really feel that they can change their god into a more loving god/goddess version, and somehow that will make the reality of their ridiculous and intolerant religion, and their submission to it, more palatable? Why do they give patronage to a reality that demands its adherents to be unquestioningly attached to beliefs through faith, thus the nonacceptance of truth, honesty, or a life that pivots upon unconditional love? If they would simply allow the Bible to speak for itself, they would see the intolerance that the scripture demands, and they would clearly recognize their error. Yet do Christian women ever ponder the teachings advanced by the three Abrahamic holy books? The theologian Clement of Alexandria summed up the Abrahamic teachings perfectly when he said, “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.”

As mentioned above, the word woman, that is “of and for man” is a disempowering word. References from various Samarian and Mesopotamian texts suggest that the feminine entity in the first of the two Bible creation stories was Lilith. Later, Lilith was demonized by the Hebrews, and subsequently by the Christians, for leaving Adam in Eden’s garden. She was labeled a dark goddess. However, when viewed in context with the whole of various creation stories, Lilith was the quintessence of femininity. The second feminine entity in chapter 2 of Genesis is Eve. Eve was a wo-man, the subservient partner of Adam, a feminine parallel to man, made out of his flesh. Lilith, on the other hand (for those who recall chapter one of this book), was a cunt, a freethought goddess without original sin, a feminine parallel to nature.

Why do people engage in such an absurdity as present-day Christianity? It does not take a degree in religious studies to see how this new Christianity got its deep grip on society. History is quite clear regarding the roots of this deception, which was firmly grounded by the end of the sixth century. Theodosian laws, for example, condemned all non-Christians, thus promoting ardent persecutions of freethinkers, deists, pantheists, polytheists, pagans, and others whose confiscated property enriched the new church. Then came the barbaric reign of Justinian, which barred anyone outside specific neo-Christian beliefs from civil service, and whose forced baptisms upon Arabs encouraged the way for the establishment of Islam. Christianity was spread through violence and now propagates its faith through the fortune raised from that violence. In the United States that is a serious felony, and their propagators are nothing less than accessory felons.

However, what has kept neo-Christians ignorant of their complicity during two millennia of treachery and crimes against humanity and nature? What is the expected value that they hope to realize by the acceptance of this unquestioning belief through faith in their scripture? Is it because of their fear of death? Is it because of hope and the anticipation of heaven? Perhaps their fear and insecurity is perceived to be reduced through the hope that the meek will inherit the earth. Maybe their fear of not being good enough is tranquilized by the hope of salvation. The truth is that today’s Christianity offers no wisdom about reality or how to trigger direct, authentic experiences with the source of who we are. Christianity only desires to feed and sustain faith in its beliefs, a faith that steps between both individual and collective, and their direct experience, so that what is false continues to perpetuate itself.

There is indeed a source, which will become clear as we unveil who we are. However, before this source can be grasped, first we must uncover the false as the false, that is, what source is not. Sabdana’s, those who venture beyond beliefs, call this the process of neti-neti. Through neti-neti, the true is recognized by realizing what is not false. As the false is seen, it dissolves, and the real is revealed. To paraphrase an idea known to first-century Gnostics, when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments [beliefs] and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid. That is the process to an unobscured heart and the source of who we are. Without fear, there is no hope; without hope, there is no fear.

Source is not a god of death, nor would source prescribe death for cursing one’s parents (Lev. 20:9), death for adultery (Lev. 20:10), death for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), death if the tokens of virginity could not be found at the time of marriage (Deut. 22:20), or death for not being good enough in God’s eye (Gen. 38:7). How about death to Anamias and Sapphira for not tithing enough to the Apostles’ satisfaction (Acts 5:1–10)? Neither is source interested in the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, like being subject to a master with all fear (1 Peter 2:18), obey your masters in all things (Col. 2:22), slaves both male and female, thou shalt have (Lev. 25:44), and slaves shall be submissive to their masters and please them (Titus 2:19). Christianity is a religion designed for Roman world domination, not the birthing of human beingness, or co-creating peace on earth.

Although some of today’s Christians see their god as a loving father, the Bible clearly shows that their patriarch is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillating, petty, racist, conditional god. They say their god is omnipotent, yet if we have “free will,” how can that be? How can their god do whatever he likes, regardless of whatever we like? Why was I, and all bastard children, denied access to heaven (Deut. 23:2)? How can God’s omnipotence and human free will exist at the same time? They claim that their god has causal powers, yet source, as will be shown, is causeless. Their god is outside themselves in some sort of multiple dimensionality, whereas source is dimensionless. Their god is a reflection of fear and hope, yet source’s presence is changelessly in the now. Their scriptures say that sin is real; however, source’s reality is one of peace; thus sin is not even considered. Their god demands worship, obedience, and prayers. Yet for those who genuinely seek peace, the notion of such attributes in a god does not exist.

The Abrahamic-rooted Christian god is, by all evidence, a supernatural concept invented and reinvented within the evolution of our ancestors. Simply looking at the progressive names for God gives an idea of how this pernicious myth developed. The first Hebrew god was Elohim, a plural word, meaning gods. In the Bible, it is used roughly 2,570 times. For example, “Elohim said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ “ (Gen. 1:26); “Elohim said, ‘Behold, man has become one of us’ “ (Gen 3:22)”Let us go down and confound them” (Gen 11:17); “Who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8). The singular of Elohim, which is El or Eloah, appears 226 and 57 times, respectively. The first time a singular god is revealed in the Bible is in Exodus 6:2–8.

Evangelical apologists come up with interesting reasons why the word god is plural hundreds of times in the Bible, for example, by suggesting that the verbs nearby are singular. What these apologists seldom care to share is that what they call the Old Testament was oral tradition until the Common Era, and it wasn’t included in their canonized Bible until the tenth century CE, during the Church-sponsored Dark Ages. In other words, singular-thinking writers transcribed those singular verbs after hundreds of years of oral tradition.

[vicente]

Part 6

Religion and its accompanying beliefs are too important for Humanity to blindly submit to in such lockstep. Could there possibly be one thing regarding what someone so intimately pivots his or her life upon that shouldn’t be honestly questioned? When will we admit that truth is not created or invented; it’s uncovered. If a god were true, it would have been uncovered and clearly understood in our daily lives. No Bodhisattva who has uncovered enlightenment has ever uncovered a god with it. No Bodhisattva who has uncovered enlightenment ever hid the truth from those seeking it. But because God was invented, and thus not true, god(s) can only be defined through the condition of faith. Like Christian love, the Christian god is founded on conditions. The Christian god is a cause-and-effect-driven creator, yet the source of who we are does not create, for creation implies that time—a before and an after, a past and a future, fear and hope—is real. Source is in the now, the present instant. There is no instant in time, conditions, or beliefs. Source is timeless. The time of duality is forever changing: energy, neither created nor destroyed, being manifested into something else. Quantumly speaking, creation is simply a perception of a projection. From the now’s point of view, source travels no distance in no time, thus has no need of space or time. No god is required for the universe’s perceived existence. Natural laws arising from the nine-planed optic matrix within which this dream continues is enough to explain the illusion of our world.

I clung to an indoctrinated monotheistic viewpoint in various forms until the summer solstice of 1999, when unexpectedly, through a fuller realization of light, came the awareness that there is no god beyond belief. In other words, understanding light is the evidence and proof that no god(s), as presented in the Abrahamic religions and defined in English language dictionaries, exist(s). By light, I am not speaking of 1 John’s apology that says that the Christian “God is light, and in him is no darkness.” I am also not speaking of the duality of photon particles and their waves, which are merely manifestations of the simulated, divided light projected from the still, causeless fulcrum through which duality effects its motion upon the holographic-like screen that we call reality. Understanding light exposes the source of us. From the point of view of source, there is no god(s). Like the conceptual attributes of God, there is no energy in, or of, source. Energy, as you will also see below, is a product of the perceived separation from source. When scientists stop glorifying the illusion of energy and creation, perhaps they will come to realize what light really is. Yes, in duality, E = mc2, but to realize enlightenment, we must understand that mc2 < c.

Belief in a god is one of the last barriers to awareness, and this belief is a significant obstacle to peace. The last emancipation will be a letting go of the “one-based” monotheistic philosophy of our ancestors. The idea of a supernatural Supreme Being needs to fade away onto some back walls of local museums as soon as possible, if humanity is going to take its next step in evolution. To realize that reality quickly, we must begin as soon as possible to divest religion’s words from our vocabulary. Religion and its propagators use words to disempower, distract, and disconnect us from the now. By now, I mean that which is neither in the past nor in an anticipated future. We can indeed cease feeding the distraction and disempowerment of those religion-based words. Words such as faith and those associated with faith have dense vibrational patterns that limites both our sapiential and sciential capacity to discern wholly. Consequently, the use of these words suppresses our direct relationship with source. Remember, the people whom we encounter are reflections of the vibrational pattern that we radiate. By using and identifying with religious words, we maintain barriers through which our life force must filter through, so our true self is not reflected back to us because it was not clearly given or expressed from us to begin with. By using and identifying with religious words, what is presented in the mirror is the reflection of religious beliefs, the veils that cover us, not our authentic selves. For example, put a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Filtered through the hand, the light is no longer bright, but merely dim and reddish. When we present this hand to a mirror, it has no choice but to reflect back to us that very same dimness. Yet our unveiled selves are more brilliant than a thousand stars.

In 1995, at Stanford University, physicists made two particles of matter by supercharging a trillion-watt laser through a linear accelerator. If they had access to all of our sun’s power in one spot, there might have been enough power to make one ounce of matter. Thus, it would take more than a thousand stars to make the physical mass of a person. Even then, we are much grander than our physical vehicles.

Identifying and letting go of the language that fosters religions’ deleterious agendas is intrinsically a pro-freedom activity. In the West, freethinkers such as Thomas Paine, the father of the North American Revolution with the British, and the person who coined the term United States of America, often spoke of the insidiousness of Christian scripture. Thomas Jefferson, another U.S. founding father, said, “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with other fables.” Jefferson insisted, “Religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his belief.” Both of these gentleman and many others have encouraged a primacy of a very high wall of separation between any religious faith and a Constitutional sectarian government. The American Revolution guerrilla leader Ethan Allen was even said to have stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that “God” referred to Nature and not to the god of the Bible.

However, since the Joseph McCarthy Era, during the post-World War II years, Christianity has infiltrated nearly every aspect of the United States government, trimming that wall of separation into a small hedge, which now, inescapably, allows their beliefs to pollute our everyday environment with its virulent, theocratic moralistic views. These views may have all the good intentions of its faithful, yet that does not reduce the irrationality of the superstition or diminish the threat to the nation of my birth from that faith’s agenda for a monotheistic, theocratic government.

The U.S. Constitution is not a body of laws that evolves at the whim of the majority. Many Christians, however, in their pursuit of a Christian theocracy, not only preach that religion plays a vital role in holding society together, but also that the nations founding fathers would have wanted God in the public square. The facts are clearly the opposite. Most of the U.S. founders had a deep disgust for Christianity and its god. Their creator, although not specifically defined, was certainly not the god of the Bible. If Charles Darwin had been born in 1709 instead of 1809, the word creator probably would not have appeared in the Declaration of Independence.

In my American nation, the symbols of Christianity are being forced upon its citizens everywhere. “In God We Trust” was adopted as the new national motto and added to currency in 1956. Could there be a more irreverent homage to the portraits of Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and Washington than putting an invocation to the Christian god next to them on coins and currency? Every dollar I use is an advertisement for the Judeo-Christian religion. Other offensive pseudo-patriotic slogans exclaim “God Bless America” on public mass-transit vehicles and even in post offices. These signs further erode any semblance of a separation between church and state, promoting instead the propaganda of a theocratic government. The majority of the U.S. citizenry, who are inflicted with the Christian meme, not only think that the government’s endorsement of their monotheistic religion is acceptable, but also that it’s honorable for them to inhibit and deprive freethinkers, pantheists, atheists, spiritual nontheists, deists, polytheists, Wiccan, etc., of their liberty and full membership in this American nation. Most of these Christians even think that their majority status gives them the right to oppress and offend nonadherents to their faith. They espouse public prayer, the election of politicians who claim that God called them, annoyingly express their “God bless”-ing of everything, and advocate an evangelical agenda to legalize what is Constitutionally illegal. They believe that it is their Christian duty and mission to indoctrinate others with the falsities to which they cling. In that process, what has become lost is the reality that the United States of America is one nation under a Constitution, not under a god and certainly not under their neo-Christian groupthink.
The fact is, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion.” That declaration was drafted in 1796 under George Washington, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. And even though that document, less than two pages long, was read aloud in Congress without dissension and well-publicized at the time, there were no complaints, and there was no public outcry, as would be media-ted today. Before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation, published in several national newspapers of the time:
“Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof” (p. 383).
The people of that era knew well that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution said: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law the Land.” The people of that time wrote Article VI of the Constitution. Despite that indisputable event, Christian revisionists continue to media-te their faithful towards the reactionary side or the far right of even an appearance of religious neutrality. The past sixty years have shown that they have been quite successful in forcing their theo-beliefs on the common citizenry. They cleverly removed the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one,” which was coined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, from U.S. currency and public places. They successfully proselytize that the U.S. was founded as “One Nation under [their] God” and one nation under their religion. However, the historic truth is, according to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population.

Few people realize that in 1850, only about one percent of Irish-Americans attended church. But as anti-Catholic bias grew and the Anglos tormented the new Irish immigrants, the Vatican ordered all parishes to provide schools so that Irish-Americans would have a sense of community. By the late 1880s, church attendance among the Irish is said to have grown six-fold. In nineteenth-century North America, an Irishman was treated less favorably than a Negro. Hate is religions favorite fuel.

In 1954, the U.S. Congress, in direct violation of the First Amendment, began to secure the presence of Christianity’s monotheistic God in government. For example, pressured by McCarthy-era hysteria and Christian groups such as the Knights of Columbus, the Pledge of Allegiance went from a patriotic oath declaring liberty and justice for all, to a religious invocation through the insertion of the words “under God.” This made the Pledge of Allegiance into a Judeo-Christian prayer advocating, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2002, “an impermissible government endorsement of religion [that] sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” What was America’s response to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court? Kill those liberal judges!

It is now time to get religion out of the state. It is time for Christians to start rendering to the United States of America what is the United States of America’s, in compliance with Matthew 22:21. It is time to remove “In God We Trust” from currency, and public places. It’s time to remove me, and other pro-Constitution Americans, from this “We” that these Christians promote. As long as a nation allows its government to endorse monotheism, that nation will be a divided nation, and the world as a whole will be suppressed, disempowered, and disconnected.

The United States was established through common law. On February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law

is that system of law, which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England . . . about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. . . We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

Christian values are not American values. Christian values are not nature’s values. Christian values can never lead the world towards an era of peace.

The United States is a secular nation, a nation whose founding principles arose from freethought and deism, not evangelism and theism. The U.S. was designed to be a guiding model for the world. Yet Christians (with their legally protected and privileged superstition) fail to realize that their First Commandment is in direct opposition to the United States Constitution’s First Amendment. In fact, for the most part, their Ten Commandments are everything that the U.S. Constitution is not. Christian values are inherently un-American and unnatural values. Christianity needs immediate marginalization, such as its addition to the NC-17 laws, along with cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography. That is to say, no children under 17 should be allowed in or exposed to faith-based environments. There should not be a single religious school for children in the U.S., especially tax exempt one’s, that indoctrinate our youth into the ignorant and superstitious beliefs of hollowness.

Wherever we see Christians polluting our environment through burning Harry Potter books and other literature, we should gather for huge Bible collections to compost their un-American literature. Wherever we see their crosses of suffering polluting our environmental landscape, we should send letters asking for its removal. The need for suffering is a delusion. We need to employ constructive, creative tension to produce an environment that nurtures peace and the liberation from suffering.

To alter the division that has become the United States and which this theocratic agenda has perpetrated upon the world, we need to explore immediate redress. At the top of the list should be the swift reversal of the current constitutionally illegal Christianized national motto, “In God We Trust,” which replaced “E Pluribus Unum.” In its place could be the motto “In Love We Trust.” As Christians think that their god is love, it shouldn’t be too difficult to persuade them that it’s in the best interest of the U.S. and the world to change the national motto to a less offensive, more inclusive wording. Whenever they hear or say “love,” they can think of their god. That’s much more palatable than to have pro-Constitutional Americans, many whom are not Christian, being forced to hear, say, or swear to monotheistic concepts, which Thomas Paine would say was an outrage to common sense. Fortunately, I have never had to be a witness in a courtroom. However, if I were, and if I were asked to swear to their god on their Bible, the presiding judge might declare me in contempt because of my laughter. It would be like swearing to Bobby Henderson’s Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The U.S. Founding Fathers, including George Washington, abhorred the “age of Ignorance and Superstition” imposed upon humanity by Christianity. However, the time has arrived to for the U.S. to realize the ideal of Annuit coeptis, Novis ordo seclorum, by finishing the pyramid on the Great Seal, as seen on the one dollar bill, both before and after its desecration by “In God We Trust.” It is time for my nation to ascend, and lead a new order beyond ignorance and superstition, into an era of human beingness, peace and love. Time for an emancipated United States of America to be first nation in history to “Trust in Love.”

JV Marco

[...]

Proof reading FAIL!!!1!!!1!!

[vicente]

Proof reading FAIL!!!1!!!1!!


Perhaps "Abandon all hope of ego, ye who enter here" Otherwise, ignorance is bliss.

The essay above was reviewed by Religious Studies scholars, and edited by Wilfrid R. Koponen PhD., Yale University Divinity School. Every sentence is factual.

The 2007 SWW International Christian Writing Competition (which this essay won 1st place) was judged by competent scholars.

My only response to “Proof reading FAIL!!!1!!!1!!” is that someone is disconnected from reality,...probably do to fear.

"When people say 'I have faith', what they really mean is 'I don't want to know the truth'." Nietzsche



Vicente

[the_aphid]

Religion and its theo-beliefs, for those caught up in that groupthink, are difficult to recognize as something discordant in our lives, let alone as a barrier that obscures the truth of who we are from ourselves and prevents the uncovering of our light. Those of religious faith typically cling unquestioningly and tightly to their beliefs, which are usually reinforced through repetition of selected Bible stories, which they come to believe as if they had actually observed them firsthand. These believers have bought into a view that humanity is inherently inferior, yet through religion, their sinful nature can be redeemed if they follow its continually reinterpreted myths. The reward for supporting their legally protected superstition is a promise of eternal life. However, is that really the truth?I will start here, with this paragraph, as I feel this is where the unfortunate generalization is taking place leading to much confusion. If you believe that all Christians are of this dogmatic type, then I can understand why you suggest that their 'faith' stands between them and enlightenment. The problem however, is that not all Christians fit into your 'generalization'. This is a reply (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90588&postcount=62) from the Fundamaterialism thread over in the Philosophy forum.However, I found it interesting to read that apparently 30% of Christians do not believe in the literal resurrection of Christ, as this is often cited as the foundation of Christian faith and practice! So, I clicked on the link to the Barna Research Group (http://www.barna.org/) (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barna_group)), and got the 404 error, so I decided to look into this referred statistic and the group myself. This is a particularly interesting article that I came across, Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis).So ultimately that it all depends on how you define your 'Christian', or your 'Short Path Buddhist' for that matter. Religions are truly very much like organisms, branching and spreading, undergoing the process of selection, etc. Every time there is a split in the method of religious practice, it would seem that a new denomination is born. Truly though, I don't think that any two people are alike, and realistically no two people should be considered part of the 'same religion'. By this I simply mean that so much of the spiritual life is determined by ones unique, personal experience, that while it might be convenient to suggest that two different people are both simply 'Christians', it is actually incorrect.

So then, when you suggest that no 'Christian' can attain enlightenment based on your generalization of what a 'Christian' is, I have to disagree. Belief in God, as an old man with a white beard living amongst the clouds, that does not make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is how you decide to define yourself. If you take a great deal of guidance from Christian teachings, and try to implement those teachings into your life, then I believe it is reasonable to consider yourself a Christian.

[vicente]

I will start here, with this paragraph, as I feel this is where the unfortunate generalization is taking place leading to much confusion..... So then, when you suggest that no 'Christian' can attain enlightenment based on your generalization of what a 'Christian' is, I have to disagree. Belief in God, as an old man with a white beard living amongst the clouds, that does not make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is how you decide to define yourself. If you take a great deal of guidance from Christian teachings, and try to implement those teachings into your life, then I believe it is reasonable to consider yourself a Christian.

Belief in a god, in any form, is an ego construct. Belief in no god, is also an ego construct. No one is a Christian without belief and faith. No enlightened person clings to belief or faith.

No one can uncover their Heart-mind through belief or faith. Belief and faith obscures the true Heart. Religion can be summarized as a "set of beliefs." Religion in any form, is a barrier built against one's light.

No one who clings to a religion for their identity, nor their "little i's" personal interpretation of religion, can uncover the Heart-mind or realize enlightenment.

Buddha's have said, that even identification with the universe as whole is an ego delusion.

As I have mentioned before:

Visualize a keyhole for a moment, one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, as in old Colonial and Victorian homes. Now, describe that hole. Some may say that it has the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle aligned on the bottom; others could respond that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate that is attached to the door, which is connected to the wall, etc. Perhaps the hole could be looked through, so one could remark about what is seen on the other side. However, none of that actually describes the hole; all of the preceding descriptions are narratives about what is around or can be seen through the hole. Nevertheless, that is how most persons, especially Westerners and scientists, perceive their own wholeness: by what is around it.

JV Marco

[abaris]

theAphid:

I will start here, with this paragraph, as I feel this is where the unfortunate generalization is taking place leading to much confusion. If you believe that all Christians are of this dogmatic type, then I can understand why you suggest that their 'faith' stands between them and enlightenment. The problem however, is that not all Christians fit into your 'generalization'.


If they don't fit the generalization, then they are NOT Christians. It really is as simple as that, however it can be difficult to leave labels behind due to something I like to call cultural inertia. I speak out of personal experience here. I grew up in a strictly christian environment but never really accepted christian doctrine, I rather tended to interpret Christianity according to my fancies. And just as you do, I would argue against criticism of Christian dogmatism by saying that "Not All Christians are Like That". Until I discovered that Christianity is EXACTLY like that, at which point I reconsidered my Identification with that particular faith. Christianity is what it is, don't try to redefine or reinterpret it. Whoever does not agree with it should stop consider himself a Christian.

[Malinson]

...No one is a Christian without belief and faith. No enlightened person clings to belief or faith...


JV Marco

There is that word again - enlightenment. You speak as though you know what happens after death when in fact you don’t. No enlightened being can have faith or belief?? Do you posses true enlightenment? Are you now suddenly equal to the father of Buddhism?

If you want to be truly wealthy, then don’t take advise from broke people, even if they think they are on the path to great riches.

-Malinson

[vicente]

There is that word again - enlightenment. You speak as though you know what happens after death when in fact you don’t. No enlightened being can have faith or belief?? Do you posses true enlightenment? Are you now suddenly equal to the father of Buddhism?

If you want to be truly wealthy, then don’t take advise from broke people, even if they think they are on the path to great riches.

-Malinson

Yes, it just so happens that I do understand what happens when the physical body no longer functions. For the most part, what occurs depends on a persons level of beliefs. For those with few beliefs, and who can approach light without fear (as a naked child), theirs is a much different experience then the level of "religious terminus" that believers are limited to.

I also fully understand that most people cannot see beyond their beliefs,...and so, seeing anything real is difficult at best. As I often say, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.

Basically, people with beliefs don't want to see that what they view as meaningful, is really meaningless,..thus the light that they are is concealed from them.

I could type out thousands of truths (not the relative truth of my ego), but the truth of truth. However, unless you have a direct experience, unless you fully realize a single truth, all I write will be jibberish to your thinking mind.

A Tibetan once freely acknowledged that for him, “Cultivating flowers reveals the innocence still seedling in whatever is beheld.” Can anyone understand that? Can anyone understand one thing through which they can understand everything?

Vicente


Vicente

[Malinson]

Yes, it just so happens that I do understand what happens when the physical body no longer functions.

I not buying it. It’s impossible to truly know without doubt. Faith is critical for even Buddhism requires one to put trust in the master. What if I decided not to believe there will be a next life? You can’t prove anything other than your own speculations.

If people walked around not believing that anything exists after death, just what do you that brings? What kind of moral foundation are you going to be able to provide in a society that wouldn’t care? Why would anyone care? Suddenly your certitude of the absents of faith is not so certain now is it?

-Malinson

[the_aphid]

No enlightened person clings to belief or faith.Beliefs are held, faith is held, and when they can no longer be held in confidence, they can be dispatched. I agree that anyone who 'clings' to beliefs has an obstruction to overcome, but the disconnect in your logic (IMHO) is that you believe that each and every Christian clings to their beliefs. The teachings of Jesus Christ can be followed without forming attachment, and that is what faith is all about. There are many Christians out there today that are open-minded, more than willing to consider or accept new ideas (such as evolutionary theory), and dispatch with old ones (intelligent design). This is what true faith is, commitment and devotion in the absence of evidence. You seem to assume that all faith is 'blind' and 'stubborn', and I feel that is a grave mistake to make. Particularly because every person requires some degree of faith or belief in something. You might claim that you do not hold beliefs, but I won't believe that for a second.

And as Malison said, even in Buddhism a degree of faith is required. Buddhist faith (as advocated by the Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) in various scriptures, or sutras) nevertheless requires a degree of faith and belief primarily in the spiritual attainment of the Buddha.

"Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith (saddha) to meet it." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism)

So, unless you were alive in the time of the Buddha, how do you know that the Buddha actually attained enlightenment? Actually, scratch that, even if you were there at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment, how would you know it was legit? The answer is belief, you believe he did, you are convinced. You believe that the cessation of suffering is possible, despite the fact that you have not actually experienced it yet. So this is where I would agree with you that no enlightened person holds beliefs, however until you are enlightened they are absolutely necessary.If they don't fit the generalization, then they are NOT Christians.Of course, and if they don't like hockey, drink beer, and eat maple syrup with their bacon...well, they aren't Canadian. :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Maple syrup is essential! :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

I not buying it. It’s impossible to truly know without doubt. Faith is critical for even Buddhism requires one to put trust in the master. What if I decided not to believe there will be a next life? You can’t prove anything other than your own speculations.

If people walked around not believing that anything exists after death, just what do you that brings? What kind of moral foundation are you going to be able to provide in a society that wouldn’t care? Why would anyone care? Suddenly your certitude of the absents of faith is not so certain now is it?

-Malinson

Just because you believe it is impossible, does not mean it is impossible. As for Vajrayana Buddhists, no only is faith not required,...faith is a barrier.

In regards to moral foundations,...I like what Osho said:

"Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. It can only be pseudo, false, a façade, it cannot become your real being…morality is bound to be nothing but a deep suppression. You cannot do anything while asleep; you can only suppress. And through morality, you will become false. You will not be a person, but simply a "persona"—just a pseudo-entity. . . . Only a dishonest person can be moral."

"The preachers have convinced the whole world that "you are all sinners." This is good for them because unless you are convinced, their profession cannot continue. You must be sinners; only then can churches, temples and mosques continue to prosper. Your being in sin is their success. [Churches] are built on your guilt, on your sin, on your inferiority complex. Thus, they have created an inferior humanity. "

"We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…A child is born in a society, and a society is already there with its fixed rules, regulations, behaviors and moralities which the child has to learn.

When he will grow he will become false. Then children will be born to him, and he will help make them false, and this goes on and on. What to do?"

[vicente]

Beliefs are held, faith is held, and when they can no longer be held in confidence, they can be dispatched. I agree that anyone who 'clings' to beliefs has an obstruction to overcome, but the disconnect in your logic (IMHO) is that you believe that each and every Christian clings to their beliefs. The teachings of Jesus Christ can be followed without forming attachment, and that is what faith is all about. There are many Christians out there today that are open-minded, more than willing to consider or accept new ideas (such as evolutionary theory), and dispatch with old ones (intelligent design). This is what true faith is, commitment and devotion in the absence of evidence. You seem to assume that all faith is 'blind' and 'stubborn', and I feel that is a grave mistake to make. Particularly because every person requires some degree of faith or belief in something. You might claim that you do not hold beliefs, but I won't believe that for a second.

And as Malison said, even in Buddhism a degree of faith is required. Buddhist faith (as advocated by the Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) in various scriptures, or sutras) nevertheless requires a degree of faith and belief primarily in the spiritual attainment of the Buddha.

"Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith (saddha) to meet it." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism)

So, unless you were alive in the time of the Buddha, how do you know that the Buddha actually attained enlightenment? Actually, scratch that, even if you were there at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment, how would you know it was legit? The answer is belief, you believe he did, you are convinced. You believe that the cessation of suffering is possible, despite the fact that you have not actually experienced it yet. So this is where I would agree with you that no enlightened person holds beliefs, however until you are enlightened they are absolutely necessary.Of course, and if they don't like hockey, drink beer, and eat maple syrup with their bacon...well, they aren't Canadian. :lol:

An Open-Minded Christian? That's an oxymoron.

As for Shakyamuni, or any other Buddha, they need not physically present for you to see if they were enlightened,...all you need is to understand a single truth. When you understand a single truth, and read a sutra, you will understand if that sutra is true, or fabricated.

For example, the Diamond sutra is highly fabricated, or at least greatly misinterpreted, thus could not be the accurate words of Buddha. The Heart sutra contains no direct falsity, thus comes through the experience of a Buddha.

All you have to understand is a single truth.

The Mahamudra of Tilopa (28 verses) contains no falsity,...anything that contadicts this Mahamudra is false.

But first,...uncover one thing that is absolutely true.

Most scientists say nothing is true. Yet if that was the absolute truth, then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, thus an absolute truth,...which should obviously be not true.

I often say,...before you can realize WHO you are, you must first recognize WHEN you are.

Again I suggest that you uncover an understanding of the truth that there is no present/now/instant in time. Find WHEN you are. No maple syrup requirred.

JV Marco

[Malinson]

Just because you believe it is impossible, does not mean it is impossible.

Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Until then I can reverse it to you so I don't get your point.


. . . Only a dishonest person can be moral."

I couldn't disagree with this more. People who say this can not possibly know right from wrong.


"The preachers have convinced the whole world that "you are all sinners." This is good for them because unless you are convinced, their profession cannot continue. You must be sinners; only then can churches, temples and mosques continue to prosper. Your being in sin is their success. [Churches] are built on your guilt, on your sin, on your inferiority complex. Thus, they have created an inferior humanity. "

This compleatly dodges the questions I asked.

We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient…

I'm actualy dumber from reading this trash. It doesnt even make sence!

I don't know...maybe I need to smoke more weed. :wallbash:

-Malinson

[vicente]

Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Until then I can reverse it to you so I don't get your point.

I couldn't disagree with this more. People who say this can not possibly know right from wrong.

This compleatly dodges the questions I asked.

I'm actualy dumber from reading this trash. It doesnt even make sence!

I don't know...maybe I need to smoke more weed. :wallbash:

-Malinson

There is no good or bad, right or wrong, hope or fear, beyond ego's illusory world. Positive and negative only appear to exist when we see them such. Buddha uncovered his light when he realized that suffering is a consequence of the desire (always about the past) for things to be other than they are.

Weed is not going to help,...you'll still "think" it's trash.

Unfortunately, there is very little accurate literature on the subject. Perhaps Wie Wu Wei "The Open Secret" or as I've mentioned Tilopa's Mahamudra.

However, I really don't feel you're ready for the Short Path in this lifetime. So it would probably be best if you skip my posts here,...for until you uncover a single truth, you will believe you need weed to decipher my rather simple worded posts.

Let me finish with a prose by John DeRuiter:

Waking up is not necessarily pleasant:
you get to see
why all this time,
you chose to sleep.
When you wake up
the first thing you will see is
Reality does not exist for you,
you exist for it.
Shocking as it is
when you let it in,
there is rest.
You do not have to labor anymore
to hold together a reality
that does not exist;
forcing something to be real
that is not real.
You and this life you have been living
are not real ...
In letting it in,
even through the shock... pain... shattering,
there is rest.
Reality is when
all you want to know is
what is true ...
just so that you can
let it in
and be true.
Reality is not a safe place for you -
the you that you have created.
It is the only place where
you would die;
where there is no room for
your hopes, your dreams.
Once you have let it in,
once you begin to re-awaken;
to let Reality wake you up,
nothing can get it out.
That is the beginning of your end.
Waking up can be much more painful
than the agony of your dream,
but waking up is real ...
And there will be integration:
a merging of Reality and you.
You and Reality will become one
in a world that does not
accept nor want one,
but two.
John de Ruiter
February, 2000
Edmonton, Canada

Vicente

[the_aphid]

Maple syrup is essential! :lol:Yes, absolutely essential. Actually, maple syrup is excellent in Chai tea.An Open-Minded Christian? That's an oxymoron.That's interesting. And here I thought that 'Short-Path Buddhism' was an oxymoron. :unsure:As for Shakyamuni, or any other Buddha, they need not physically present for you to see if they were enlightened,...all you need is to understand a single truth. When you understand a single truth, and read a sutra, you will understand if that sutra is true, or fabricated.A single truth? Which single truth? Emptiness for example? My understanding of emptiness does not directly validate Buddha Nature and the potential for enlightenment. If I understand emptiness, but have still failed to experience Nirvana, I must make a choice whether or not to remain faithful on the topic of enlightenment.

What I cannot understand is your opinion of belief. Beliefs are a necessity of sentient existence, it seems absurd to debate this point. But I am afraid we will simply have to disagree on this issue.

However, I would request that for the sake of maintaining a tolerant and compassionate environment, that you would abstain from the slander against Christianity. It is one thing to point out the readily agreeable fact that Christianity is fraught with dogma, but it is another to suggest that all Christians are blind, ignorant and lost. So please, save the Christian-bashing for your next book. :thumbsup:

[Malinson]

There is no good or bad, right or wrong....


Stop right there! I can read your trash anymore! If you truly belief this then you have concept of right and wrong and I pity you! At this point there really isn’t anything I can say or want too say.

Unless you abandon this supercilious mentality, I don’t see how you can ever establish any kind of moral standard. Not as long as you listen to people who say only the dishonest can be moral. That’s got to be the most irreverent and profane spews of mental trash to ever come out of such a philosophy.


-Malinson

[vicente]

And here I thought that 'Short-Path Buddhism' was an oxymoron. :unsure:A single truth? Which single truth? Emptiness for example? My understanding of emptiness does not directly validate Buddha Nature and the potential for enlightenment. If I understand emptiness, but have still failed to experience Nirvana, I must make a choice whether or not to remain faithful on the topic of enlightenment.

What I cannot understand is your opinion of belief. Beliefs are a necessity of sentient existence, it seems absurd to debate this point.

No,...Short Path Buddhism is not an oxymoron, although it could be repetitious, like Pizza Pie, or ATM Machine.

You will NEVER understand "emptiness" from an egoic point of view,...nor will you understand "emptiness" without also understanding that there is no present in time.

Another way to look at enlightenment is through WELCOME. It is said that Love Only Waits On Welcome. That is a very profound truth. Ego doesn't welcome anything that challenges the status quo of its belief patterns.

As for you final paragraph,...the Absolute Truth is this:

True Compassion is intolerant of all religions (sets of beliefs). People are not their beliefs.

You can recognize a True Bodhisattva through their insistence that nothing should step between people and their direct experience.

A true bodhisattva has taken a vow to assist in the liberation of all sentient beings. The liberation from belief.

In a not too often discussed aspect of Buddhism, lamas spend years developing spiritual awareness in preparation for a journey to Shambhala, an invisible, hidden kingdom—a place of shamatha, where all have a full-spectrum consciousness of self. Shambhala is hidden because the world-at-large is attached to the insanity of religions. If religionists knew of the existence of Shambhala, they would seek to destroy it in the name of their god. If scientists knew of the existence of Shambhala, they would view it as a disorder, as psychology views a transgender person as a "gender identity disorder."

Shakyamuni Buddha predicted that a holy war would take place among humanity. This internal spiritual battle will also play out in the external world, as the Abrahamic religions and their infrastructure collapse. Through the righteous intolerance of religions’ ignorance, a new wave of compassionate ones will shine light upon the dark age of belief, thus bringing Shambhala into view for those who can go beyond their beliefs.


These compassionate ones are said be of the Red Hat tradition, the practice of Tilopa, and through magick and the mystic arts will rise to be Shambhala warriors, bringing the path of liberation to all sentient beings. Their weapons are compassion and insight.
Chögyam Trungpa said, "Compassion is not so much feeling sorry for somebody, feeling that you are in a better place and somebody is in a worse place. Compassion is not having any hesitation to reflect your light on things. That reflection is an automatic and natural process, an organic process. As light has no hesitation, no inhibition about reflecting on things, it does not discriminate whether to reflect on a pile of shit or on a pile of rock or on a pile of diamonds. It reflects on everything it faces."
The existence of the Abrahamic religions is proof that there has been little true compassion in the world. However, an age of compassion and light is near. Whether this means the legend of Shambhala and the holy war to move humanity beyond faith-based ideas of good and evil is true is not for me to say. But the holy war, a worldwide inner battle with the five skandhas, has already begun, and is not likely to be contained in this ever-advancing age of authentic spiritual consciousness. The days of the Abrahamic meme-plex are numbered. In our lifetime, they will be consigned to the back walls of museums.

Tens of thousands have actually been instructed about the holy war through presentations of the Kalachakra initiation, a path to the birthing of spiritual beingness, which at its heart is an empowerment to elevate the precepts of love and compassion as per the teachings of the Vajradhara. The Kalachakra initiation is meant to plant a seed of a love that is not based on the insanity of fear and hope. It inspirits a fierce compassion that does not arise from the five skandhas.


JV Marco

[kris]

I don't have much to say as I could not bring myself to read the first 5 or 6 posts that Georgia wrote. :D

[the_aphid]

I have to walk away from this Vicente...you won't even listen to a simple, reasonable request. That being, don't be so insulting. You are on a discussion forum presenting opinions, not facts. It is unfortunate really, because I know you are a smart person. I believe that you are even smarter than your ego is permitting. Your essay is a very interesting read, aside from the illicit jabs that pop up from time to time, I would say it is quite excellent. However, posting so many links to your books, attempting to 'qualify' your opinions with awards and honorable mentions, it all simply smacks of egotism. Well founded arguments speak for themselves. As you said, truth is there to be uncovered. So why do you feel the need to stamp your posts with such accreditation? That's what salesmen do when they are trying to unload a lousy product; "if you don't believe me, listen to these testimonials!"

I can't help but feel that your negative experiences with Christianity as a child have profoundly affected your current state of mind and outlook towards all the Abrahamic faiths. I suppose Thomas was correct when he suggested in another thread that if someone has such disgust for any particular faith, it is a safe bet that the disgust stems from a traumatic experience with that particular faith. It seems reasonable I suppose, you harbor resentment against this 'entity' which has caused you a lot of pain and grief, and you identify this 'entity' as Christianity. I believe you would benefit by realizing that 'Christianity' is not to blame, it is the people (the 'Christians') who you have encountered that are to blame. Turn the other cheek and forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing...

Lastly, I can't help but feel that you are neglecting to understand the beauty of myths. You talk about Christianity as though it is founded entirely on lies and deception. But as Joseph Campbell says, myths are not lies, they are metaphors, and therein lies the truth to be uncovered. It doesn't matter if the historical Jesus was from Nazareth, or if the teachings within the New Testament are sourced to him, or if Christ even existed for that matter. All that matters is how you interpret those teachings and draw truth from them. The same can be said of any faith, even Short Path Buddhism.

[vicente]

I have to walk away from this Vicente...you won't even listen to a simple, reasonable request. That being, don't be so insulting. You are on a discussion forum presenting opinions, not facts. .... You talk about Christianity as though it is founded entirely on lies and deception. But as Joseph Campbell says, myths are not lies, they are metaphors, and therein lies the truth to be uncovered. It doesn't matter if the historical Jesus was from Nazareth, or if the teachings within the New Testament are sourced to him, or if Christ even existed for that matter. All that matters is how you interpret those teachings and draw truth from them. The same can be said of any faith, even Short Path Buddhism.

I truly was not aware that this forum was based on opinions, not facts. My apology for offering facts that are not disputed by members of the Westar Institute, nor any credible scholar. A credible scholar is one who has no interest in justifying a particular religion (set of beliefs).

As for the historic Jesus,...it is of the upmost importance to understand that he was a Nazarite, and not a Nazarine. The implications of this simple fact are game changing,...one reason is because in actuality, Jesus' tomb has been uncovered in Jerusalem, but Christian proselytizers closed down the discussion on the grounds that it could not be Jesus' tomb because Jesus was from Nazareth. Facts regarding the above statement are in the essay "Christianity Uncovered."

Of course, Christians have no interests in facts, or reason.
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." -- Martin Luther

Such a directive is easy to indoctrinate Christians with, because as Johann Wolfgang Goethe exclaimed, “Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” And Nietzsche, commenting on people who cling tightly to a faith-based mentality said, “What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’

John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, said that despite many variations, Christians generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults, and all Christians must evangelize.

"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!" -- Thomas Paine

Then again, since this forum is based on "opinions" and not facts or reason, truth is useless.

Oh well, happy dreaming!
Vicente

[the_aphid]

I truly was not aware that this forum was based on opinions, not facts. My apology for offering facts that are not disputed by members of the Westar Institute, nor any credible scholar. A credible scholar is one who has no interest in justifying a particular religion (set of beliefs).That is not what I said, and it would appear you are entirely missing the point of my reply. Your 'facts' do not support your all of your opinions, opinions which you present as though they are indeed facts. That is what I meant. I'm not suggesting facts do not have their place within the forum, I'm simply pointing out that emphasizing your opinions as though they are undeniable absolute truths, is simply tactless. For example, it is not a fact that faith is a hindrance on the path to enlightenment, that is your opinion, let's keep that much absolutely clear. I mean, where do your Westar Scholars corroborate this opinion of yours?

I know that Karen Armstrong (one of the fellows of the Westar Institute) would absolutely disagree with your views on compassion and religion. Listen/read her TED prize wish (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/karen_armstrong_makes_her_ted_prize_wish_the_chart er_for_compassion.html):And I found some astonishing things in the course of my study that had never occurred to me. Frankly, in the days that when I thought I'd had it with religion, I just found the whole thing absolutely incredible. These doctrines seemed unproven, abstract. And to my astonishment, when I began seriously studying other traditions, I began to realize that belief -- which we make such a fuss about today -- is only a very recent religious enthusiasm that surfaced only in the West, in about the 17th century. The word "belief" itself originally meant to love, to prize, to hold dear. In the 17th century, it narrowed its focus, for reasons that I'm exploring in a book I'm writing at the moment, to include -- to mean an intellectual ascent to a set of propositions: a credo. "I believe" -- it did no mean "I accept certain creedal articles of faith." It meant: "I commit myself. I engage myself." Indeed, some of the world traditions think very little of religious orthodoxy. In the Qur'an, religious opinion -- religious orthodoxy -- is dismissed as zanna: self-indulgent guesswork about matters that nobody can be certain of one way or the other, but which makes people quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian. (Laughter)

So if religion is not about believing things, what is it about? What I've found, across the board, is that religion is about behaving differently. Instead of deciding whether or not you believe in God, first you to do something. You behave in a committed way, And then you begin to understand the truths of religion. And religious doctrines are meant to be summons to action; you only understand them when you put them into practice.

Now, pride of place in this practice is given to compassion. And it is an arresting fact that right across the board, in every single one of the major world faiths, compassion -- the ability to feel with the other in the way we've been thinking about this evening -- is not only the test of any true religiosity, it is also what will bring us into the presence of what Jews, Christians and Muslims call "God" or the "Divine." It is compassion, says the Buddha, which brings you to Nirvana. Why? Because in compassion, when we feel with the other, we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and we put another person there. And once we get rid of ego, then we're ready to see the Divine.

And in particular, every single one of the major world traditions has highlighted -- has said -- and put at the core of their tradition what's become known as the Golden Rule. First propounded by Confucius five centuries before Christ: "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you." That, he said, was the central thread which ran through all his teaching and that his disciples should put into practice all day and every day. And it was the Golden Rule would bring them to the transcendent value that he called ren, human-heartedness, which was a transcendent experience in itself.

And this is absolutely crucial to the monotheisms, too. There's a famous story about the great rabbi, Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus. A pagan came to him and offered to convert to Judaism if the rabbi could recite the whole Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg. Hillel stood on one leg and said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and study it." (Laughter)

And "go and study it" was what he meant. He said, "In your exegesis, you must make it clear that every single verse of the Torah is a commentary, a gloss upon the "Golden Rule." The great Rabbi Meir said that any interpretation of scripture which led to hatred and disdain or contempt of other people -- any people whatsoever -- was illegitimate.

Saint Augustine made exactly the same point. Scripture, he says, "teaches nothing but charity, and we must not leave an interpretation of scripture until we have found a compassionate interpretation of it." And this struggle to find compassion in some of these rather rebarbative texts is a good dress rehearsal for doing the same in ordinary life. (Applause)
Of course, Christians have no interests in facts, or reason.See this is precisely what I am talking about. Where is the compassion in such a statement? :shakehead:

[vicente]

For example, it is not a fact that faith is a hindrance on the path to enlightenment, that is your opinion, let's keep that much absolutely clear. I mean, where do your Westar Scholars corroborate this opinion of yours?


I know that Karen Armstrong (one of the fellows of the Westar Institute) would absolutely disagree with your views on compassion and religion.

I've met Karen years ago and consider her a misguided scholar who attempts to protect her belief in God. Her books, which I've also read (in hopes of some facts instead of mere opinions, are a shame that they ever were printed.

As for faith,...I'm unaware of a single Buddha or Mahasiddha who did not suggest that faith was a direct hindrance to enlightenment.

The basic problem with this dialogue is that you are unaware of a single truth. If you were aware of a single truth, these posts would be much different.

And with that,...I will depart, for awhile. Not much interest at the moment for facts or discussion about the Short Path.

As I said, Real Compassion is intolerant of all religions,...for the truly compassion wish for the liberation of all sentient beings.

Vicente

[the_aphid]

The basic problem with this dialogue is that you are unaware of a single truth. If you were aware of a single truth, these posts would be much different.

And with that,...I will depart, for awhile. Not much interest at the moment for facts or discussion about the Short Path.One single truth that I feel absolutely aware of right now, is that even 'Short Path Buddhism' is a path towards enlightenment. My dispute was not about the legitimacy of your 'path', but simply about the means of critiquing others whilst on your path. As I said, Real Compassion is intolerant of all religions,...for the truly compassion wish for the liberation of all sentient beings.The truly compassionate also need to realize that there is more than one way there.

[kris]

The truly compassionate also need to realize that there is more than one way there.

So then, was the one who said this truly compassionate?I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. (John 14:7)

[vicente]

The truly compassionate also need to realize that there is more than one way there.

No,...there is only one way. All the Buddha's and Mahasiddhas uncovered who they were through one-way only. There many have been many external situations when they uncovered who (and When) they are, but only one way.

What is known, is that one way is literally beyond all religion, that is, all sets of belief. BeLIEf denies, disempowers, and suppresses all truth, because a belief cannot exist in truth, just as hate cannot exist in real love.

The truth and love recognized by a Buddha has no opposites.

The vow of the compassionate to liberate all sentient beings from suffering, is a vow to shine light upon the shit of religion and belief. Why would a bodhisattva take a vow to liberate sentient minds from suffering and allow the continuation of the suffering?

Suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...all religion, all belief, contribute to the desire for things to be other than then are.

Real compassion does not avoid truth, nor turns the eye to the causes of suffering. Real compassion arises from a burning passion for self-existing wisdom, thus, truly compassionate people will surrender any limitation that impedes or steps between them or others from direct (non-belief) experience.

The nagual Don Juan Matus reportedly said, "From where the average man stands, sorcery is nonsense. And he is right, not because this is an absolute fact, but because the average man lacks the energy to deal with sorcery."

Likewise, the average or ordinary man has not interest in the Short Path, which is the only path that uncovers ones light, because it is the only path without beliefs.

JV Marco

[Michael]

No,...there is only one way. All the Buddha's and Mahasiddhas uncovered who they were through one-way only. There many have been many external situations when they uncovered who (and When) they are, but only one way.



JV Marco

When you say there is only one way, vicente, who is speaking and what are you speaking of?

Is it possible that you are the way? If that is so, then there is only one way.

Consider also that when Christ spoke the living word, he had no religion.

[the_aphid]

So then, was the who said this truly compassionate?Yes, you've mentioned this before. Certainly it can be interpreted that way, which leads people to assume that 'Christianity' or specifically 'Jesus Christ' is the only way to God. I think it is important to emphasize the 'but by me' in that line. Jesus is the light, the beacon, and no one comes to the Father without simultaneously approaching the truth represented by Jesus Christ.

It's like suggesting that no one comes to Antarctica without crossing the Antarctic Ocean. Ultimately there are many 'paths' there, in actuality an infinite number of 'paths', but all the 'paths' are fundamentally the same. They all pass the Antarctic circle, and ice and snow are a given! ;) This is what Karen Armstrong is suggesting when she says that compassion is the common thread amongst any true form of religiosity.

Thomas already provided you with (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90521&postcount=25), what I feel, is an appropriate interpretation of this passage by looking at the ones preceding it. But for some reason you are still stressing a literal interpretation of this one line amongst many. Perhaps it is time to consider those words of Saint Augustine?Saint Augustine made exactly the same point. Scripture, he says, "teaches nothing but charity, and we must not leave an interpretation of scripture until we have found a compassionate interpretation of it." And this struggle to find compassion in some of these rather rebarbative texts is a good dress rehearsal for doing the same in ordinary life.

[abaris]

theAphid

Jesus is the light, the beacon, and no one comes to the Father without simultaneously approaching the truth represented by Jesus Christ.


Is that now fact or your personal opinion? You speak as if you knew of evidence for the existence of the "Father", the existence of "His Son", and the Value of his teachings in "Getting you" to the Father.

You also speak of "Enlightenment" but you use the term in a somewhat obscure way. So tell me, please, what is this "Enlightenment" of yours and what factual evidence are your observations regarding faith based on?

[kris]

Thomas already provided you with (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90521&postcount=25), what I feel, is an appropriate interpretation of this passage by looking at the ones preceding it. But for some reason you are still stressing a literal interpretation of this one line amongst many. Here is something that precedes it.He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God. (John 3.19)This does not exactly support Thomas's interpretation. Does it? Clearly, it is his way or damnation (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3532). Besides if John 14.7 needs Thomas to make it in any meaningful, is there any inherent value to what Jesus said in 14.7. Jesus could have said the Holy Spirit was speaking through him in stead of leaving it to Thomas.

[vicente]

When you say there is only one way, vicente, who is speaking and what are you speaking of?

Is it possible that you are the way? If that is so, then there is only one way.

Consider also that when Christ spoke the living word, he had no religion.

The historical Jesus most definitely had a religion and set of beliefs, which were associated with the Notzri or Nazarites.

Is it possible that "you are the Way"? Actually yes. Not the you that you think you are, but the you (Higher Self) that you are. In a way there are two you's,...the you in the past, and the you in the present.

The you in the past, is the you of the Five Skandhas,...all thinking, beliefs, memories, ego consciousness is in the past. Of course, the you, you believe you are, that is, the you in past does not exist,...although the thinker thinks it does.

The historic Jesus was a believer. He believed in a god, he believed slavery, and for slaves to honor their masters, he believed that the best men castrate themselves, etc. In other words:

WHAT MORAL ADVICE DID JESUS GIVE? --"There be eunuchs (Webster defines a eunuch as 'a castrated man in charge of an Oriental harem or...any man or boy lacking normal function of the testes, as through castration or disease'--Ed.), which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12). Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.

The "Golden Rule" was said many times by earlier religious leaders. [Confucius said, "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you"]. "Turn the other cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence. "Love they neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the peacemakers") are acceptable, but they are all conditioned on future rewards, not based on respect for human life or values. (As I have said so often, you should do the right because it is the right thing to do, not because you expect rewards or kickbacks someday-Ed.)

On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).

WAS JESUS PEACEABLE AND COMPASSIONATE? --The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36), "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). In a parable, but spoken of favorably. the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..., and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Jesus looked at his disciples "with anger" (Mark 3:5) and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matt. 8:32) and refused to heal a sick child until pressured by the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).

The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. "The Son of man (Jesus himself) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:41-42). "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:43). Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind and peaceful idea?

JESUS' FAMILY VALUES? --"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36). When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him by saying "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Jesus never used the word "family" and he never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4).

WHAT WERE HIS VIEWS ON EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE?--Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servantt(read: slave), which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). He never denounced servitude, but quite the contrary, incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always" (Mark 14:3-7). No women were chosen as disciples (or apostles-Ed.) or invited to the Last Supper.

Whereas many scholars say Jesus never existed, I've found compelling circumstantial evident that he did. Many scholars say:

1. there is no mention of a Jesus from any historian, scribe, letter, etc before 95CE,...even though the Bible says Jesus' fame reached throughout all of Syria, which was at that time most of the Middle East. And Luke 1:1-2 specifically implies that many eyewitness followers had already been writing,...yet neither writings, artifacts, works of carpentry exist.


2. there is no evidence that the Gospels existed before 95CE,...not even Clement Romanus, the Bishop of Rome, circa 95 CE, heard of the Gospels. The evidence does show however that Christianity was originally a religion with a personal historical figure.

3. Jesus is mysteriously missing from the Qumran documents. Not even one comment in all the Dead Sea Scrolls mention a Jesus, yet Paul is frequently discussed and known as the Spouter of Lies. The Dead Sea Scrolls have, in fact, liberated many of the scholars who worked on it, from the myth of Christianity.

My evidence, such as mentioned in the essay Christianity Uncovered, debunks those statements.

Vicente

[the_aphid]

Is that now fact or your personal opinion?It is my opinion, or to put it another way my "compassionate interpretation of it."You speak as if you knew of evidence for the existence of the "Father", the existence of "His Son", and the Value of his teachings in "Getting you" to the Father.Really? :think: Allow me to highlight what I actually said:Certainly it can be interpreted that way, which leads people to assume that 'Christianity' or specifically 'Jesus Christ' is the only way to God. I think it is important to emphasize the 'but by me' in that line. Jesus is the light, the beacon, and no one comes to the Father without simultaneously approaching the truth represented by Jesus Christ.So I feel it is fairly clear that the sentence you quoted, without the preceding ones to put it in proper context, is my expression of the compassionate interpretation of the referred passage. If I knew of evidence for the existence of the "Father", wouldn't I have said "I know it is important", or simply "It is absolutely important?"You also speak of "Enlightenment" but you use the term in a somewhat obscure way.You feel the abstract and ineffable concept of "Enlightenment" can be expressed in an manner that is not obscure?So tell me, please, what is this "Enlightenment" of yours and what factual evidence are your observations regarding faith based on?This "Enlightenment" might be expressed as an "Infinite Understanding" or "Absolute Clarity." Attainment of a mode of perception that is simply "Truth" or "Divine." That is my best effort at articulating something that I believe transcends the limits of articulation. You are absolutely right if you are suggesting that I am not Enlightened, I am certainly not making such a claim. However, I am faithful that attainment of Enlightenment is possible.

The evidence I base it on is my personal experience. I have experienced profound moments of clarity in my life, along with dire moments of confusion. But over the years since my first 'moment of clarity' (around the age of 19 - nearly nine years ago now) I have noticed that moments of clarity are becoming more frequent, and the moments of confusion less. To put it bluntly, I am happier, more peaceful, more content. Meditation and investigation seems to be very helpful for me in bringing about this change, and I feel that this observation is corroborated by a long line of people throughout history in many different cultures. Not only 'spiritualists' such as Mahatma Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh, but 'philosophers' and 'empiricists' from Aristotle to David Bohm.

But the point I'd like to stress is the responsibility of every individual to realize that they have to do the work, they have to motivate themselves to drawn the truth out of the experience and the teachings. Just as I suggested that Enlightenment cannot adequately be expressed in any limited language, so it goes with any teaching. All scriptures are limited in that they can only guide someone towards truth, they can't spontaneously induce them to realize it.

Here is something that precedes it.This does not exactly support Thomas's interpretation. Does it? Clearly, it is his way or damnation (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3532).Once again I feel you are emphasizing the logos of the passage, which only demonstrates that such a dogmatic interpretation can be drawn from the scriptures. But do you honestly feel that is the most reasonable interpretation? Is the most literal interpretation necessarily the most accurate interpretation?

For example, it says "He who believes in him..." And to return to what Karen Armstrong said about belief, is that it mean[s] to love, to prize, to hold dear. So I feel that this passage is about realizing the manifestation of a compassionate life or compassionate person, and compassion is the "way to God." If you don't know who Jesus is, that is not the same as 'not believing' in him. As for the "only son of God", I can only refer back to my last reply. Essentially that all the paths are the same. There is only one path, there are many paths, it's just the way you look at it. If Jesus is the only son of God, then Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, indeed any 'Enlightened Being' are all one, they are all the same manifestation of God. That's my interpretation.Besides if John 14.7 needs Thomas to make it in any meaningful, is there any inherent value to what Jesus said in 14.7. Jesus could have said the Holy Spirit was speaking through him in stead of leaving it to Thomas.:lol: Just because Thomas was the one that provided that interpretation does not mean only he could interpret it that way. The interpretation was always there to be drawn, you could come to interpret it that way yourself, as can anyone who is willing to diligently investigate all possible interpretations. Jesus could have said a lot of things that might have lead to fewer 'misunderstandings', but I assure you if he said things differently there would be different sources for misunderstandings. This is simply the nature of language and expression, it is fallible.

[abaris]

theAphid

It is my opinion, or to put it another way my "compassionate interpretation of it."


Interesting, how often you see the need to highlight your "compassionate" nature in situations that don't call for it. Why is that? do you feel that your personal capacity for compassion is somehow out of the ordinary? Do you feel that it sets you apart, makes you better then others? Does your "Interpretation" deserve consideration solely because it is compassionate?
You really haven't provided any rational arguments in support of your Interpretation of Christianity.


theAphid

This "Enlightenment" might be expressed as an "Infinite Understanding" or "Absolute Clarity." Attainment of a mode of perception that is simply "Truth" or "Divine." That is my best effort at articulating something that I believe transcends the limits of articulation. You are absolutely right if you are suggesting that I am not Enlightened, I am certainly not making such a claim. However, I am faithful that attainment of Enlightenment is possible.


In other words: you Believe that something you don't understand, something that you can't even describe in clear terms, is attainable for you?


theAphid

You feel the abstract and ineffable concept of "Enlightenment" can be expressed in an manner that is not obscure?


Sure, just reading through the posts here on theBigView gives you a very clear picture of what is meant by it. Here is the road-map to Enlightenment:

1. Convince yourself that the reality of live sucks. That's because all things real, all material things are impermanent which leads to loss and thus to pain proportional to the degree to which we attach ourselves to them.

2. Now convince yourself that there must be some perfect, permanent plane of existence that lies beyond the material world we actually live in. An existence in which attachment does not hurt because all that belongs to it is eternal and imperishable. The pain that accompanies loss is unknown in this heavenly sphere of perfect harmony.

3. Seek to detach yourself completely from the impermanent, imperfect reality you live in and you are on the path of "Enlightment"

4. If you manage to leave your nature behind and to completely detach yourself from the Impermanent, you ascend into the higher sphere of existence and thus have achieved "Enlightenment".

Does that pretty much sum it up? I want to draw your attention to the passage in Luke quoted by Vincente:


Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple".


The key phrase here is "Hate His Own Life", that's what sets one on the path for enlightenment. A deep seated dissatisfaction with, yeah even hatred for life itself. Life is samsara, suffering pain, life is futile, unjust, harsch even cruel. So lets leave it behind and flee into the imaginary paradise or nirvana and what not. Thats the delusion of enlightenment. Is it not?

[francis]

..So lets leave it behind and flee into the imaginary paradise or nirvana and what not. Thats the delusion of enlightenment. Is it not?

Not at all. I think you are mixing the Christian belief in heaven with Buddhist awakening and enlightenment. Understanding the mechanism of conditioned existence is the key to free will. Which is is bit different to blind faith.

[abaris]

francis

Not at all. I think you are mixing the Christian belief in heaven with Buddhist awakening and enlightenment. Understanding the mechanism of conditioned existence is the key to free will. Which is is bit different to blind faith.


I'm not mixing it up francis for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a generally accepted Christian belief in Heaven and Hell. Such belief is just another Interpretation of Christianity and by no means the most popular among the Theologians. Christianity, especially the Eastern Orthodox variety of it I grew up with, is a bit more spiritual than that.

Christ separated himself from his divine nature, the Father, and became man in order to demonstrate that the Impermanence of material existence can be overcome by unconditional adherence to the Divine principles. He went through death as a man, obviously since Gods can not die, but returned in Union with the Divine nature he previously stripped off. The Idea behind the Gospel is that Human nature can achieve Union with the divine. Salvation in Christianity means Participation in the Divine Nature, Union with God, absolute clarity, the ultimate truth. Damnation on the Other hand is the final separation from the divine nature and ultimately oblivion. The gift of Christ is that he became man and suffered a mortal life in order to demonstrate by example that the Union with the divine is attainable. Unconditional belief that he really pulled it off, that's the way to salvation. You MUST believe that HE did it and thus that it can be done, otherwise whats the point. That's in essence the Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Christianity.

That's not at all different from the Buddhist concept of Nirvana as Oneness, Union with the Ultimate Truth. And just as Christians need to believe that Jesus rejoined with his divine nature, Buddhist need to Believe that the Buddha achieved enlightenment. Otherwise, what would be the point of following his teachings?

In Essence, Christianity and Buddhism are Nihilistic Faiths of the Platonic variety. Nihilistic because the ultimate goal is to escape the wheel of existence and reach a permanent final unchanging state which strongly resembles the nothingness of non existence. Platonic because both are based on Platos Idea that material existence is imperfect and that it leads to suffering, while there is a higher plane of existence that is perfect and permanent.

[vicente]

The key phrase here is "Hate His Own Life", that's what sets one on the path for enlightenment. A deep seated dissatisfaction with, yeah even hatred for life itself. Life is samsara, suffering pain, life is futile, unjust, harsch even cruel. So lets leave it behind and flee into the imaginary paradise or nirvana and what not. Thats the delusion of enlightenment. Is it not?

....That's not at all different from the Buddhist concept of Nirvana as Oneness, Union with the Ultimate Truth. And just as Christians need to believe that Jesus rejoined with his divine nature, Buddhist need to Believe that the Buddha achieved enlightenment. Otherwise, what would be the point of following his teachings?

In Essence, Christianity and Buddhism are Nihilistic Faiths of the Platonic variety. Nihilistic because the ultimate goal is to escape the wheel of existence and reach a permanent final unchanging state which strongly resembles the nothingness of non existence. Platonic because both are based on Platos Idea that material existence is imperfect and that it leads to suffering, while there is a higher plane of existence that is perfect and permanent.

No Buddha or Mahamudra I've heard of ever said that enlightenment is realized through self-hatred,...self-hatred (what you resist, persists) would keep one locked into the dream.

Nor is Vajrayana Buddhism nihilistic. The ultimate goal of the Short Path is not to escape, but uncover the love and light you actually are. The Abrahamic faiths may believe in original sin, and that people are good for nothing without the Abrahamic God,...the Vajrayana view is that our Unborn Awareness is pure love and undivided light,...the veils of delusions grow as a condition of the 5 skandhas.

In Vajrayana Buddhism, the so-called divine is a human concept. As such, anything to do with an idea of divinity should be let go of,...to shine one's light on such a pile of shit, and Chogyam Trungpa implied.

Enlightenment is not a search for nihilism, but an uncovering of the ego complex to reveal the consciousness we had before we were born, and thus become aware that everything we perceive is just a dream.

Enlightenment is fully understanding that there is no present in time.

JV Marco

[the_aphid]

Interesting, how often you see the need to highlight your "compassionate" nature in situations that don't call for it.Oh, where to begin? In the sentence you quoted I was directly referring to the quote attributed to Saint Augustine, that "[Scripture] teaches nothing but charity, and we must not leave an interpretation of scripture until we have found a compassionate interpretation of it." Nonetheless, you are right that I am very much concerned about compassion. I think the discourtesy being brought upon Christianity, and Religion as a whole, warranted my ‘compassionate’ opinion. I am not one who can stand idly by while a group of people are illicitly demonized and disrespected.Why is that? do you feel that your personal capacity for compassion is somehow out of the ordinary? Do you feel that it sets you apart, makes you better then others? Does your "Interpretation" deserve consideration solely because it is compassionate?Were you expecting me to answer those questions with a resounding yes? :rolleyes: All I can say in response to this is that I do precisely the same thing when people speak so vehemently of anything, homosexuality for example. Why? Because I feel it is a form of violence. It is destructive and harmful, and no good can come from it.

From our interactions abaris, I have come to understand that we have similarities and differences. Seemingly like you, I don't prescribe to any particular (organized) faith, and I have great respect for Philosophy and Science. But I feel we differ on the topic of Religion, particularly theism. You might believe that a Dawkinian attack against theistic faiths as "delusional" is beneficial, I on the other hand do not. I think much more harm than good is going to come about by insulting those who hold beliefs that you do not share.

It has the potential of becoming the Witch Hunt of the 21st century - These people are possessed by evil forces, deluded into believing in a transcendental God, and we must do them the service of casting those evil forces out by setting them aflame – surely there has to be a better solution.You really haven't provided any rational arguments in support of your Interpretation of Christianity.Firstly, I am not here to detail my interpretation of Christianity. I am in no way a Christian, not even raised in a Christian family. Perhaps that is the reason why I have not formed such a consuming disfavor* of it. Anyways, I am simply trying to inspire tolerance and compassion. (*notice the italics - see comments below on hate)

Secondly, the rational argument can be posed as a question: Which do you think is more likely to bring about a peaceful resolution where view points clash? Compassion or intolerance? I think it is fairly obvious that only one of these has the capacity to engage both parties in dialogue, potentially leading towards a resolution. The other is simply like slamming doors.In other words: you Believe that something you don't understand, something that you can't even describe in clear terms, is attainable for you?Once again, that is not what I said. I feel I do have an understanding or an impression of what “Enlightenment” is. Likewise, I have an impression of what “Love” is. But can “Enlightenment” and “Love” be articulated in so many words, and be related between people in a manner that is not in some way obscured? Well, let’s just say it is extremely rare that two people have the same understanding of “what love is.”Does that pretty much sum it up?:think: Not quite, no.
1. “Convince yourself that the reality of life sucks.”
I don’t think that’s correct at all. Life is precious, but attention to the nature of existence tells us that life inevitably entails attachment, which in turn causes suffering. It isn’t suggested that Samsara is ‘hell’, or even that Samsara is the ‘bad place’ and Nirvana is the ‘good place’. They are the same place, or differing modes of perceiving the same place, but one entails suffering (and rebirth into suffering) and one does not.

2. “Convince yourself that there must be some perfect, permanent plane of existence that lies beyond the material world we actually live in.”
I have to agree with francis here, it seems like you are detailing a Christian concept of ‘Heaven’, not ‘Nirvana’. As has already been mentioned, Samsara and Nirvana are the same place. Or to put it another way, Nirvana is a state of being, and as such one can be in Nirvana while in the present, material life.

“An existence in which attachment does not hurt because all that belongs to it is eternal and imperishable.”
From everything I have ever read on the subject, it is simply a contradiction to talk of ‘attachment’ in Nirvana. If you are imagining Nirvana as a place in the clouds where material things can be conjured up and exist for eternity, and thus you can form attachment to them and not suffer, once again I think you are talking about the prominent Christian concept of Heaven, not the Buddhist concept of Nirvana.

3. “Seek to detach yourself completely from the impermanent, imperfect reality you live in and you are on the path of "Enlightenment".”
This seems reasonable. I might phrase it differently myself. Relinquish the attachment to worldly affairs, but do not disengage from worldly affairs. The only reason would be to stress the importance of the middle way, that asceticism is not the path to enlightenment.

4. “If you manage to leave your nature behind and to completely detach yourself from the Impermanent, you ascend into the higher sphere of existence and thus have achieved "Enlightenment".”
I can agree with this expression. But as you can see, this four-point explanation is by no means transparent and easy to understand. Just about every commentary on the nature of Nirvana I have ever read emphasizes that it cannot by wholly understood or described by those who have not experienced it.

I want to draw your attention to the passage in Luke quoted by Vincente
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Let me make it clear that I am not going to spend much more time analyzing passages from the Bible, this could simply go on forever. But yes, that word hate does pose a pickle doesn’t it. It would seem at first glance that Jesus is telling us to abandon our families (as vicente suggests), and perhaps even abandon our own life. But honestly, does that interpretation make sense when compared to all the other teachings in the Bible? Do you really think that Jesus is telling you to abandon your family? What happened to honoring your father and mother? Nonetheless, I think this interpretation all hinges on the word ‘hate’. And, if we look at another place where the word ‘hate’ is used in the Bible, we might be able to better resolve what is actually meant here.
Genesis 29:30,31
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
So first Leah is loved, not as much as Rachel, but then she is hated? Seems like a contradiction is being posed within these two adjacent lines. But perhaps hate is not supposed to be interpreted the way we use it today, meaning intense dislike or strong aversion, but should instead be interpreted to favor one over another. “The LORD saw that Leah was not favored” seems to make more sense to me.

Now, if we go back (or forward) to Luke 14:26 and reconsider it with this in mind:If any man come to me, and favor his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Now it almost seems like Jesus is talking about attachment, does it not? Perhaps what is meant here is simply that God comes first, and no person, not even your own life (Self), should be favored over God (Enlightenment).
In Essence, Christianity and Buddhism are Nihilistic Faiths of the Platonic variety. Nihilistic because the ultimate goal is to escape the wheel of existence and reach a permanent final unchanging state which strongly resembles the nothingness of non existence.What happened to Parmenides?!? How can any existential thing vanish into the oblivion of nothingness? Perhaps this description of Nirvana will be helpful:
“There is Disciples, a condition, where there is neither earth nor water, neither air nor light, neither limitless space nor limitless time, neither any kind of being, neither ideation nor non-ideation, neither this world nor that world. There is neither arising nor passing away nor dying, neither cause nor effect, neither change nor stand still.”
I am still very much a beginner to the various Buddhist teachings, but I find it helpful to consider the Enlightened state as neither a state of being nor non-being. The view that Buddhism is nihilistic seems to be a very common view, but I don't think that is an accurate view to adopt.

[kris]

But do you honestly feel that is the most reasonable interpretation? Is the most literal interpretation necessarily the most accurate interpretation?Honesty and truth are more important than fake compassion any day.


So I feel that this passage is about realizing the manifestation of a compassionate life or compassionate person, and compassion is the "way to God." Where is the compassion in condemning "he who does not believe"? Should there be no compassion for those who do not believe?

[abaris]

Vincente,

In the "More then One Atheism" Thread you express an enthusiasm for "Nihil" that could easily be mistaken for "Nihilism". You state:


Vincente

Both Christians and the priests of science need the concept of oneness to keep their beliefs palatable. As such, except as a "place number," they abhor discussing the nature of zero, let alone its spiritual significance. Zero upsets their flawed logic and both their theism and atheism. The companions of zero—causelessness, nowness, timelessness, unconditionality, undivided light, and love—along with everything that encourages our direct experience of reality, is frowned upon within the current social structure.

Undivided light is the zero dimension, the razer (or undoer) of object-ive logic, and the holder of the whole. Through the clear light of original mind (unborn/unindoctrinated) conscious, the illusion of motion, space, and time is evident.

...

Understanding Zero then, is not about a concern regarding what objects are, or are not, but in the "seeing" of objects from Zero's point of view, which is by the way, the point of view of an opened-Heart. In other words, we cannot understand Zero without seeing objects the way Zero sees. Just as we cannot understand undivided light outside of undivided lights own point of view.


Seeing things the way Zero sees them? Perceive the world the way it is Perceived by the non existent! Now that's nihilism squared. And yet, despite your undeniable enthusiasm for zero, you feel compelled to counter my assertion that Buddhism is a Nihilistic religion.


Vincente:

Enlightenment is not a search for nihilism, but an uncovering of the ego complex to reveal the consciousness we had before we were born, and thus become aware that everything we perceive is just a dream.


I'm quite sure that you are not talking about the consciousness of a fetus here. So I assume you meant to say "the consciousness we had before we were Conceived" instead of "Born" that would be more consistent with your line of reasoning. And again, we did not exist before we were conceived and neither did our consciousness since it can not exist in vacuum, nothingness.
If the revelation of the nonexistent consciousness of the non-existent non being is what your brand of Buddhism sees as enlightenment then it is extremely nihilistic indeed.

Vincente, perhaps you should run your self diagnostic subroutine from time to time. May get you to "know thyself".

[the_aphid]

Honesty and truth are more important than fake compassion any day.Fake compassion? Interesting. Why is it that people are so concerned about the literals and facts of the Bible? I remember seeing a television documentary on the crucifixion, and nearly half of the show was specifically dedicated to the empirical investigation of whether Jesus was crucified through his hands (palms) or wrists. As interesting as it was to hear the differing opinions and evidence, it has absolutely nothing to do with the type of 'Truth' the Bible represents.

When you enjoy any work of art, music, literature, or film, do you sit there picking apart the work piece-by-piece for factual information? I mean, was Georgia O'Keeffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_O%27Keeffe) really just painting vaginas, or was she expressing something about beauty, form, contour, and femininity?Where is the compassion in condemning "he who does not believe"? Should there be no compassion for those who do not believe?I do not feel that it's about control and dogma. It isn't so much about condemning and punishing those who do not believe. The same is true in Buddhism or even in Science. If you do not believe in Enlightenment, and feel that the Four Noble Truths are not honest or truthful, and ignore the Eightfold Path and commit your life to the carnal pleasures, than there is little hope that you will ever actually attain Enlightenment. Similarly, if you ignore persisting symptoms of a serious illness, and neglect to have it examined by a doctor, there is little hope for a cure.

So, I don't think it is about becoming a Christian, but simply recognizing that Christianity is a means to an end, a path to Enlightenment or God (however you want to put it).

[abaris]

theAphid

From our interactions abaris, I have come to understand that we have similarities and differences. Seemingly like you, I don't prescribe to any particular (organized) faith, and I have great respect for Philosophy and Science. But I feel we differ on the topic of Religion, particularly theism. You might believe that a Dawkinian attack against theistic faiths as "delusional" is beneficial, I on the other hand do not. I think much more harm than good is going to come about by insulting those who hold beliefs that you do not share.


We both belong to the same animal species so how different can we really be? However, circumstances we experience lead us to see some things differently. And you are right our views on theism are in diametrical opposition but please do not place me in the Dawkins camp. I follow more or less the Ionian tradition which is in essence pure materialism, faith or belief has no place in my world view. Actually the word DOXA (Hellenic for belief) has a strong negative connotation in the Ionian tradition.

Now Dawkins, even though I share many of his views, is in my opinion as much of a believer as the Pope is. His main stream scientific orthodoxy is any bit as dogmatic as Catholicism for example.

Now as I pointed out previously you mention "compassion" quite often in your posts, which you seem to understand as some sort of a universal principle. I do not share this view. I see compassion as a behavioral pattern that is unique to social animals such as we Humans are. We developed compassion because it aids the success of a social group and ultimately the survival of our species as a whole. The Wolf on the other hand doesn't have compassion for the sheep, the cat doesn't have compassion for the mouse, the snake doesn't have compassion for the frog. That would lead to her demise. Observation of the natural world around us leads to the inescapable conclusion that far from being a universal principle compassion is nothing but an evolutionary conditioned Human behavior beneficial to a social collective. Keeping that in mind, let us revisit St Augustine:


Augustinus

Scripture teaches nothing but charity, and we must not leave an interpretation of scripture until we have found a compassionate interpretation of it


Sounds very compassionate does it not? But how much compassion does St Augustine show those who don't submit to Christian doctrine? It was Augustine who said:


Augustinus

The Emperor has a duty to suppress schism and heresy.


And you can't deny that Christian Emperors did a lot of suppression. So how can the compassionate Augustine endorse suppression? The answer is very simple. Augustine preaches compassion where it benefits the success of his flock but doesn't have any compassion for outsiders. I think in your quest for compassionate interpretation affects your objectivity. For example, you quote Genesis:


Genesis 29:30,31

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.


You use this passage to support your Interpretation that hated just mans not favored but if you check out the context of this passage you'll see that hated here means just that: Hated.

Jacob labored seven years for Laban and the agreed price for his labors was Rachel whom he loved. As time for payment came, Laban gave Leah to Jacob, and he went into her, allegedly unaware of the fact that Laban pulled the good old daughter switcheroo on him.

So Jacob was cheated of his price but he takes Leah and keeps her bound to him although he has no love for her don't you see a cruel intend here? Leah was Hated. She was Hated by her Father who gave her away like a piece of cattle, a less valuable piece than the more precious Rachel, to a man who did not love her. And Jacob hated her because he took her and kept her in bondage instead of walking away from the deal. Try looking at it from Leah's perspective. You don't think she must have felt Hated?

Now, Is this Interpretation of Genesis 29:30,31 less accurate than the one you offered just because it isn't as "Compassionate"?



Finally, allow me to quote Augustine one last time.


Augustinus

Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think.


Does that sound "Enlightened" to you?

[kris]

I do not feel that it's about control and dogma. It isn't so much about condemning and punishing those who do not believe. The same is true in Buddhism or even in Science. If you do not believe in Enlightenment, and feel that the Four Noble Truths are not honest or truthful, and ignore the Eightfold Path and commit your life to the carnal pleasures, than there is little hope that you will ever actually attain Enlightenment. Similarly, if you ignore persisting symptoms of a serious illness, and neglect to have it examined by a doctor, there is little hope for a cure.

So, I don't think it is about becoming a Christian, but simply recognizing that Christianity is a means to an end, a path to Enlightenment or God (however you want to put it).All this is totally irrelevant to my question. This is the fragment of the quote I cited earlier. .... he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God. (John 3.19) I don't care what "believing in the name of the only son of God" means. Here is my simple question as plainly as I can put it. Is it compassionate to condemn he who does not believe in whatever?

[the_aphid]

I follow more or less the Ionian tradition which is in essence pure materialism, faith or belief has no place in my world view. Actually the word DOXA (Hellenic for belief) has a strong negative connotation in the Ionian tradition.I didn't mean to suggest you were a member of the Dawkins camp, and I was very conscious of putting the word 'might' in that sentence, but I can understand why you would want to remain disconnected from that group. What I am really trying to do though, is form a distinction in this thread between orthodoxy and faith. It would seem that people today automatically associate belief and faith with orthodoxy and dogma. That is the whole reason why I provided the excerpt from Karen Armstrong's talk, where she mentions that the term belief has really been skewed in the past few centuries from it's original meaning "to love" or "to hold dear".

Now, you've mentioned the word doxa and done precisely that, suggested that it means belief, and has a negative connotation in the Ionian tradition. Where it is my understanding that doxa means common belief or popular opinion, things that are unquestionably held to be true. It is fairly obvious that the term orthodoxy is a derivative of the Hellenic doxa.

For example, the theory of evolution is readily becoming a common belief in secular societies today, but there is a difference between the theory of evolution and the popular opinion of the theory of evolution. Go out and ask all those 'believers' in the theory of evolution how evolution works, and chances are you will get a mix of accurate representations on the process of mutation and natural selection, and other opinions that resemble Lamarckism rather than evolution. Basically you will get beliefs and orthodoxies.Now Dawkins, even though I share many of his views, is in my opinion as much of a believer as the Pope is. His main stream scientific orthodoxy is any bit as dogmatic as Catholicism for example.Precisely! It is the orthodoxy that is the problem, not belief in general. As I said many times, everyone holds beliefs, everyone has to have faith in something. They just need to be questioned and not thoughtlessly accepted.Now as I pointed out previously you mention "compassion" quite often in your posts, which you seem to understand as some sort of a universal principle.You are right, I tend to side with moral realism rather than moral relativism.Observation of the natural world around us leads to the inescapable conclusion that far from being a universal principle compassion is nothing but an evolutionary conditioned Human behavior beneficial to a social collective.I don't feel what you are describing is compassion. It is a form of biological altruism, a behavior that is beneficial for eusocial groups like ants, bees and wasps. E.O. Wilson and Bert Hölldobler. - co-authors of the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Ants and their new collaboration The Superoganism might refer to what you are describing as nondescendant (collateral) kin selection. But if you asked these scientists whether any of these eusocial species were compassionate, they would likely say no, they do not have the sentient capacity for compassion. Even humans, who are sentient, aren't being compassionate when they adopt such a social behavior.

But, for the sake of argument let's say you are right, and compassion is an advantageous social construct brought about by evolution. Now, where is the logical argument for abandoning it in a global society with differing faiths and cultures? If it is advantageous, why should we become intolerant of all systems of faith (note: faith not orthodoxy)?Keeping that in mind, let us revisit St Augustine.
...
Augustine preaches compassion where it benefits the success of his flock but doesn't have any compassion for outsiders. I think in your quest for compassionate interpretation affects your objectivity.Yes, I had a feeling this might come up.:unsure: However, if you look back, I am not adopting Augustine's view of compassion. The quote of Augustine was secondary to the excerpt of Karen Armstrong's plea for compassion, and hers is the view I am relating to. Nonetheless, I think the sentiment in Augustine's quote - that one must examine scripture until it yields a compassionate interpretation - is valid, despite the fact that might not be what he intended. Augustine is a complicated character, living as a pagan, resisting Christianity, only to adopt it and oppose heresy. I will grant you that, he is not the best source.So Jacob was cheated of his price but he takes Leah and keeps her bound to him although he has no love for her don't you see a cruel intend here? Leah was Hated. She was Hated by her Father who gave her away like a piece of cattle, a less valuable piece than the more precious Rachel, to a man who did not love her. And Jacob hated her because he took her and kept her in bondage instead of walking away from the deal. Try looking at it from Leah's perspective. You don't think she must have felt Hated?No, not in the way we use hate today. You are right, she is a victim of neglect. She isn't being valued or appreciated, she isn't being favored, probably not even being loved, but nowhere in there is it suggesting that she is despised. She wasn't being tortured, she wasn't being punished, she was being traded, which was a readily acceptable practice for the time.

It only seems to muddy up the waters when you apply the moral compass of the 21st century to the time of Christ or Muhammad. For example, to label Muhammad as a 'pedophile' as vicente has in his essay, is simply callous, but anyways I digress.

If I go to a pawn shop and feel cheated by the pawn dealer, I don't despise what little money I got. Do you see what I mean? I think this provides a more reasonable interpretation of Luke 14:26, where Christ is being followed by multitudes of people and he is beginning to question the commitment of these followers. He is essentially stressing that in order to be a disciple of his that one must loosen their grip on the value of family and even their own life, not abandon them outright. If your parents or siblings stand between you and God, then that value or attachment to them is a barrier.Now, Is this Interpretation of Genesis 29:30,31 less accurate than the one you offered just because it isn't as "Compassionate"?It is not less accurate because it isn't compassionate, no. I think it is less accurate because of what I have said above. I am not suggesting the compassionate interpretation is necessarily the accurate interpretation either. Certainly there are sections of the Bible that ought to be set aside as they have little value, since no accurate and compassionate interpretation can be drawn from them. But the whole argument I am making is that the Bible should not simply be cast away as useless, and Christianity and it's followers disrespected. We simply need to continue to search for compassionate interpretations, and consistently question them to prevent the solidification of those interpretations into dogmatic orthodoxy.

[the_aphid]

All this is totally irrelevant to my question.
...
Is it compassionate to condemn he who does not believe in whatever?I really feel it is relevant to your question, but I'll try again. You seem to be interpreting it as though they are condemned by someone other than themselves, condemned (punished) by God, for not believing in Christ. This seems to be the orthodox view of a judgmental Lord which I feel needs to be recognized as a metaphor.

What it says is they are condemned already, they are already spending an eternity in Hell. Nobody other than yourself is responsible for your condemnation. And as I explained it is because they are refusing the call to Heaven, or God, or Enlightenment, and opting to remain in Hell or suffering in Samsara. Does this make more sense?

[kris]

What it says is they are condemned already, they are already spending an eternity in Hell. Nobody other than yourself is responsible for your condemnation. And as I explained it is because they are refusing the call to Heaven, or God, or Enlightenment, and opting to remain in Hell or suffering in Samsara. Does this make more sense?I think every true Christian will condemn you to Hell for reading Samsara in the Bible. :lol: Are you interpreting the Bible or rewriting it?

Is this God really worth calling to? He believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (John 3:36)How does one obey the Son to please this wrathful God?

[the_aphid]

I think every true Christian will condemn you to Hell for reading Samsara in the Bible.Maybe orthodox Christians would, but not every true Christian. ;)

It's not like I'm the first one to do this. In fact it was Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ that drew me into theological study. He very effectively points out the abundant similarities between Christianity and Buddhism. Before this book I saw Religions (or what I now realize as orthodoxies) as a problem for the world, a world that would be better off without them. The book reminded me that the popular opinion is not necessarily the most accurate or the most beneficial. It also reminded me that scriptures are not books of rules, the are works of art, they are creations of humanity that need to be appreciated as such.Are you interpreting the Bible or rewriting it?I am attempting to draw out the meaning of the Biblical metaphors, which is the way I feel all people should approach religious scripture. We've had this conversation before, haven't we?Is this God really worth calling to? How does one obey the Son to please this wrathful God?As I said to abaris, I'm not about to analyze the Bible line by line here in this thread, it's not going to do any good if you refuse to consider the verses as metaphors. As I also said to abaris, I'm not denying that there are sections of the Bible which probably have little value, and perhaps should not be emphasized.

With this line however, I would interpret like this:
He who commits (believes, obeys) to the Son (the teachings) will find eternal life.
He who commits (believes, obeys) to the Buddha (the dharma) will find Enlightenment.

He who does not commit (believe, obey) to the Son (the teachings) will only find the wrath of God.
He who does not commit (believe, obey) to the Buddha (the dharma) will not be liberated from Samsara.

[abaris]

theAphid

Now, you've mentioned the word doxa and done precisely that, suggested that it means belief, and has a negative connotation in the Ionian tradition. Where it is my understanding that doxa means common belief or popular opinion, things that are unquestionably held to be true. It is fairly obvious that the term orthodoxy is a derivative of the Hellenic doxa.


DOXA means opinion in Greek. It doesn't say anything about the opinion being commonly held (KOINOI) or not. Christianity did of course affect the meaning of the word. Sometime during the Byzantine age the word came to mean Praise and that's what it means in contemporary Greek. "Doxa ton Theo" for example means "Praise God". However the ancient derivative "Doxasia" still maintains its original ancient meaning which is "Pointless Opinion" or "Idle Speculation" used in a religious context it means "Superstition". In the Pauline epistles you'll find the word "Pistis" which means Faith. The verb "PISTEUO" means I'm convinced without proof, I believe. Now in Greek there is a very clear separation between DOXA, PISTIS and Gnosis (knowledge), Episteme (definite Knowledge). When I say PISTEUO in Greek I implicitly admit that I do not KNOW (I lack Gnosis).


theAphid:

It is not less accurate because it isn't compassionate, no. I think it is less accurate because of what I have said above. I am not suggesting the compassionate interpretation is necessarily the accurate interpretation either. Certainly there are sections of the Bible that ought to be set aside as they have little value, since no accurate and compassionate interpretation can be drawn from them. But the whole argument I am making is that the Bible should not simply be cast away as useless, and Christianity and it's followers disrespected.


As Kris pointed out, you are not just reinterpreting the bible, you are rewriting it until it conforms to your conviction that the Bible contains a message of compassion. Let me give you a concrete example:

You quote two consecutive verses from Genesis:


29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel , and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.


29:30 Says Leah was "Loved Less"
29:31 Says Leah was "Hated"

And here your prejudice towards the compassionate interpretations sets in. You can't accept that the Lord saw Hate as it says in 29:31 because of your conviction that hatred has no place in the Holly Bible. So you go back to 29:30 were it says "Loved Less" and reinterpret hated to be an exaggeration of loved less, not favored.

An Impartial reader may be inclined to proceed in the opposite direction.
Take Hate in 29:31 literally and then go back and interpret Loved Less in 29:30 to be a euphemism for "Hated". But lets not be Hasty. Lets double check if our interpretation fits in the context.

1. Is it imaginable that Jakob Hated or at least resented Leah? You bet. He was screwed over by Laban and Leah is the living reminder of Laban's treachery. So yes, Jacob in his impotence to confront Laban may very well resent or even Hate Leah.

2. Is Hatred an alien concept in the Bible? Certainly not. Just ask the Medianites.

I think this is a more objective interpretation than the one you offer. But then again that doesn't seem to matter because if the passage doesn't fit your prejudice or "compassionate interpretation" as you call it, you just set it aside. At least that's how I interpret your statement:


theAphid

Certainly there are sections of the Bible that ought to be set aside as they have little value, since no accurate and compassionate interpretation can be drawn from them.

[vicente]

"EVERY TRUE CHRISTIAN" ???

The term true christian is an oxymoron,...christianity, as known today, through the Bible, is indisputably false.

Thich Nhat Hanh is an Interfaith Appeaser,...and in my opinion, as more fully detailed a few years ago, has no business wearing the robes.

Until people like Thich cease proselytizing these comparisons between a real enlightened being such as Buddha, and the Roman created fictional character Jesus, humanity will remain unliberated, imprisoned, spiritually impoverished, etc.


In the book Tantric Transformation, Osho said, “Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don’t know. Somebody asks you. “Is there a God?” and you say, “Yes, God is.” Remember: Do you really know? If you don’t know, please don’t say that you do. Say, “I don’t know.”. . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge.”

Sam Harris said, “Moderates [and appeasers like Thich Nhat Hanh] do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. They do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the god of their fathers because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. However, we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price that we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance."

To support ignorance and tolerance for faith-based agendas is not compassion. To not support ignorance and faith-driven agendas is righteous intolerance, a quality of real compassion. Perfected, spiritual practice is not accessed through false compassion. To use a pun that suggests an offense against social conventions, false compassion is bad form, and void of any recognition of emptiness.
JV Marco

[kris]

Maybe orthodox Christians would, but not every true Christian. ;) And then you give an example of Thich Nhat Hanh who, I suppose, is aBuddhist. :goodlaugh:

He very effectively points out the abundant similarities between Christianity and Buddhism.So was there a need for Christianity since Buddhism already existed at that time? It seems to me there is nothing original in Christianity at all, based on what you are saying. Was it that Jesus was on an ego trip or something?


With this line however, I would interpret like this:
He who commits (believes, obeys) to the Son (the teachings) will find eternal life.
He who commits (believes, obeys) to the Buddha (the dharma) will find Enlightenment.

He who does not commit (believe, obey) to the Son (the teachings) will only find the wrath of God.
He who does not commit (believe, obey) to the Buddha (the dharma) will not be liberated from Samsara.

You are nothing but a blasphemer. I order you to face the inquisition. You ought to be judged harshly and afterward subjected to be burnt alive at the stakes or quartered. :D

[the_aphid]

So, I've been doing some thinking, and this will be my last post in the this thread on the topic of Christianity, the Bible, and Belief. I feel that this is simply drifting away from my original argument and spiraling into an apologetic defense of the Bible, which I have absolutely no intention of continuing.

For the record, I do not believe the Bible is the factual word of God. I do not believe it is absolutely accurate. I don't even believe that the New Testament is necessarily attributable to Jesus Christ and what might have been his actual teachings. But I do believe that it is a historical canon of scripture within which insight can be found. Let's just say that I have respect for the Bible and for those who make an honest attempt to understand it without subscribing to orthodoxy, and harmoniously adapt what teachings they find into their daily lives.

The whole reason this thread was created was due to the questioning of a number of statements made by vicente, implying that no Christian can be enlightened. This first and foremost made me ask, what does it even mean to be Christian? According to abaris:
If they don't fit the generalization, then they are NOT Christians.
...
Christianity is what it is, don't try to redefine or reinterpret it. Whoever does not agree with it should stop consider himself a Christian.
So then, if being a Christian means adopting the 'correct belief', than which Christians are actually Christians? Some self-described Christians believe in an all powerful God in the image of man, old man in a beard who resides in the clouds. Other self-described Christians believe that one cannot describe God, as he transcends our limits of conception. Some believe that Jesus literally died on the cross, and physically reanimated, he rose from the grave and ascended to Heaven. Others assert that Jesus is figuratively resurrected, as his teachings and life live on in us.

Aside from the fact that abaris failed to provide a definition of what a Christian is, she made it fairly clear that all Christians are fundamentally orthodox. Personally, I do not care for this generalization, because I feel it is a prejudicial opinion without reasonable justification, one might even say it is a superstition or stereotype. I think a far more reasonable definition of what it means to be a Christian can be found here. Why do I feel this is more reasonable? Because I have personally met heterodox Christians. Some of them relating to the Ebionites, but each of them willing to admit that they lacked certainty in their faith. Furthermore, religioustolerance.org has encountered the same, but admits that, "Many, perhaps most, Christians believe that their personal definition of "Christian" is the correct one."

But even if that is true, and most (not all) Christians see themselves as Christians and all other "Christians" as mistaken, where is the harm? I would say that so long as each self-described Christian is willing to tolerate other self-described Christians calling themselves so, than there is no problem. It's not unlike self-described vegetarians, some who eat fish, others eggs, and so on. So then, Mormon's can call themselves Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses can do likewise, and each can think that the other is illegitimate, but yet justified to hold their belief.

This is just my opinion, but I feel that tolerance is vital here, as it is absolutely necessary for maintaining a peaceful inter-faith society. Why, because despite what people are claiming in this thread, everyone has beliefs. However the ancient derivative "Doxasia" still maintains its original ancient meaning which is "Pointless Opinion" or "Idle Speculation" used in a religious context it means "Superstition".And you feel that belief and superstition are necessarily synonymous?

Pierre Bourdieu makes the distinction I am looking for: "Doxa and opinion denote, respectively, a society's taken-for-granted, non-questioned truths, and the sphere of that which may be openly contested and discussed."

Now, isn't that precisely what we are all doing here on this forum? Openly contesting and discussing each others opinions? I'm not actually going to debate the meaning of the word doxa, you obviously know more about Ionian tradition and language than I do, but do you understand the differentiation I am emphasizing here? That I see a difference between faith and dogma, belief and superstition. Belief is something you hold to be true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not something you assert to be true despite evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it all depends on how you interpret the evidence. I don't personally believe in a creator God, but you cannot deny the fact that world operates in an orderly manner. I might not think this implies intelligent design, but I am perfectly content to allow others to think that, just so long as they do not attempt to teach it as 'Science.'

I'm not denying that knowledge should be held in a higher regard than belief, but without beliefs how would we ever acquire knowledge? Aren't beliefs an integral part of the process? The testing of suspicions leading to observation and the acquiring of knowledge? Sometimes the suspicions are confirmed, other times they are not, and yet other beliefs simply fail to provide a means of testing them. Does that mean that they should be entirely abandoned? What if some way of testing a suspicion arises in the future, but there remains no record of what that suspicion was, and therefore cannot test it? Some of the greatest and most influential empiricists throughout history did not directly validate their own beliefs and theories. It was their passion and faith that inspired others to test and validate those beliefs whats the means of doing so became available.

As Kris pointed out, you are not just reinterpreting the bible, you are rewriting it until it conforms to your conviction that the Bible contains a message of compassion.I really don’t feel that loosening the word hate from the common usage constitutes a rewriting of the Bible. Furthermore, I never said that the Bible only contains a message of compassion, that was Augustine. What I was trying to suggest is that everyone should make their best effort to find a compassionate interpretation, a metaphorical interpretation, rather than simply the most literal interpretation. However, you will inevitably be forced to concede that some parts of the Bible are simply not compassionate, and others just incomprehensible and erroneous. That is why I said some sections should be set aside, as they have little or no value to them. The point is that you find the good, and apply that to your daily life.And here your prejudice towards the compassionate interpretations sets in. You can't accept that the Lord saw Hate as it says in 29:31 because of your conviction that hatred has no place in the Holly Bible. So you go back to 29:30 were it says "Loved Less" and reinterpret hated to be an exaggeration of loved less, not favored.So, I am prejudiced because I don't immediately accept the most literal interpretation available? Let’s be clear that I am not saying that my interpretation is certainly the correct one. I am merely considering some alternatives. Alternatives that aren’t being considered by me alone (http://worldebible.com/luke/14.htm):25 Now great multitudes were going with him. He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to me, and doesn't disregard his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple. 27 Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doesn't first sit down and count the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Or perhaps, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, everyone who sees begins to mock him, 30 saying, 'This man began to build, and wasn't able to finish.' 31 Or what king, as he goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an envoy, and asks for conditions of peace. 33 So therefore whoever of you who doesn't renounce all that he has, he can't be my disciple.
Now, I think that this is simply a more reasonable interpretation than the other, which is that Jesus is suggesting that his disciples are required to despise their families and themselves. There are other areas in the Bible where the word hate appears too, but I will not even attempt a reinterpretion because it is obvious that hate really means "to hate": 19 If only you, God, would kill the wicked. Get away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
20 For they speak against you wickedly. Your enemies take your name in vain.
21 Yahweh, don't I hate those who hate you? Am I not grieved with those who rise up against you?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred. They have become my enemies.
And then this leads to the comments where I suggest setting some of the Bible aside, because I cannot see the value in it. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, with admitting that it is not an all or nothing deal. If every book were expected to be 100% accurate lest be considered useless, than the books would be very short, and very few in number.So was there a need for Christianity since Buddhism already existed at that time? It seems to me there is nothing original in Christianity at all, based on what you are saying. Was it that Jesus was on an ego trip or something?Do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion? I simply think he was a traveler who came to a certain understanding, and tried to relate this understanding to others. His understanding was enlightening, and he acquired a lot of followers. Once being labeled the messiah and failing to live up to some doctrines, well some people got a little angry, and eventually he was executed. The followers that remained were numerous, and not all in agreement on what his teachings actually were (they weren't taking very good notes, and some perhaps sleeping through class). And I think that what survives today is a mere collection of what survived, dating back to 4th century long after Jesus and any of his disciples were gone.

Does this mean we should discard what remains? Absolutely not!You are nothing but a blasphemer. I order you to face the inquisition. You ought to be judged harshly and afterward subjected to be burnt alive at the stakes or quartered. :DYeah, yeah. People get ticked when you don't subscribe to orthodoxy, just look at the Ebionites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites). It is ironic that those disciples, who could very likely have had the most accurate account of Jesus and his teachings, got washed away because their views were unorthodox.

And with that, I am done. Too much time has been spent trying to convince three people that religious tolerance is the only chance for harmony.

[vicente]

I'm not denying that knowledge should be held in a higher regard than belief, but without beliefs how would we ever acquire knowledge? Aren't beliefs an integral part of the process? ....


Furthermore, I never said that the Bible only contains a message of compassion, that was Augustine. ...
Do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion? I simply think he was a traveler who came to a certain understanding, and tried to relate this understanding to others. His understanding was enlightening, and he acquired a lot of followers.


....And with that, I am done. Too much time has been spent trying to convince three people that religious tolerance is the only chance for harmony.

Yes, beliefs are indeed an intregal part of the process of forgetting who we are. Beliefs are always untrue. If something were true it would not be a beLIEf. Beliefs deny, distrack, disempower, suppress, etc.

The Christian religion, as it is known today, was created by Romans to protect Roman interests. Christianity is a religion for the advancement of Rome, its tax collectors, it slavery, etc. A Christians rewards comes in another life,...in this life, one must render to Caesar what's Caesars,...to NEVER disobey the tax collector, slave Master, or authority.

Unfortunitely, there is VERY LITTLE Bible Study in the world,...the millions who read the Bible regularly are devotional readers. The essay at the beginning of this thread is about the historical facts of Christianity. However, most people have no interests in fact.

As for Augustine, he knew as much about compassion as a fear-driven pit bull owner.

Augustine: “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man, if one excludes procreation. If the woman is not given to man to bear children, for what help could she be? And also, “For woman is not the image of God. Man alone is the image of God.”

[abaris]

theAphid

Aside from the fact that abaris failed to provide a definition of what a Christian is, she made it fairly clear that all Christians are fundamentally orthodox. Personally, I do not care for this generalization, because I feel it is a prejudicial opinion without reasonable justification, one might even say it is a superstition or stereotype. I think a far more reasonable definition of what it means to be a Christian can be found here. Why do I feel this is more reasonable? Because I have personally met heterodox Christians. Some of them relating to the Ebionites, but each of them willing to admit that they lacked certainty in their faith. Furthermore, religioustolerance.org has encountered the same, but admits that, "Many, perhaps most, Christians believe that their personal definition of "Christian" is the correct one."


"She" made nothing fairly clear I'm a dude. Dude.
Anyhow, I did provide a precise definition of what I consider to be at the core of Christian belief.


Abaris:

Christ separated himself from his divine nature, the Father, and became man in order to demonstrate that the Impermanence of material existence can be overcome by unconditional adherence to the Divine principles. He went through death as a man, obviously since Gods can not die, but returned in Union with the Divine nature he previously stripped off. The Idea behind the Gospel is that Human nature can achieve Union with the divine. Salvation in Christianity means Participation in the Divine Nature, Union with God, absolute clarity, the ultimate truth. Damnation on the Other hand is the final separation from the divine nature and ultimately oblivion. The gift of Christ is that he became man and suffered a mortal life in order to demonstrate by example that the Union with the divine is attainable. Unconditional belief that he really pulled it off, that's the way to salvation. You MUST believe that HE did it and thus that it can be done, otherwise whats the point. That's in essence the Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Christianity.


However, don't mistake Interpretation of core belief for the definition, of what a Christian is. There are "Christian Leaders" such as John Hagee for example, who deny that Christ was the Messiah, and yet they call themselves Christians and are accepted by other denominations as such. So if you really want a definition here it is: A Christian is an active member of a religious community that is by consensus considered Christian. What they all have in common, is unconditional faith in the doctrines of their particular denomination. Christianity without indoctrination DOES NOT EXIST.

Now there are the "cherry pickers" the ones who choose for themselves what to believe and what not, and there is nothing wrong with that, I'm a cherry picker myself. But some Cherry pickers choose to label themselves "Christians" despite the fact that no Christian church would accept them as such. Why they do that? My best guess is they do it because they are conditioned to a degree that does not allow them to leave the label "Christian" behind even though they don't fit within the fold of any Christian denomination.

[kris]

Do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion? I simply think he was a traveler who came to a certain understanding, and tried to relate this understanding to others. His understanding was enlightening, and he acquired a lot of followers. Once being labeled the messiah and failing to live up to some doctrines, well some people got a little angry, and eventually he was executed. The followers that remained were numerous, and not all in agreement on what his teachings actually were (they weren't taking very good notes, and some perhaps sleeping through class). And I think that what survives today is a mere collection of what survived, dating back to 4th century long after Jesus and any of his disciples were gone.

Does this mean we should discard what remains? Absolutely not!
Based on your interpretation here of what Jesus said and that of countless other Christians I have come across, it seems to me we cannot really tell what he wanted to say. How can we even talk about his understanding when he has not said anything that can be interpreted consistently. Certainly he seems incapable of saying the most simple ideas in a way that could be understood by anyone. Isn't that why so many people describe themselves as Christians but do not agree with each other? I don't know whether he wanted to start religion or not because he was not even clear about that. But his closest disciples started a religion. Apparently, even they must not have understood him, if he really did not want to start a religion.

For the record, I think religion is nothing but a form of insanity.

[the_aphid]

"She" made nothing fairly clear I'm a dude. Dude.My apologies. I wondered if that was correct when I was writing it, but I could have sworn that you mentioned your gender in another discussion. In fact I thought I had referred to you as male in the past and you corrected me. Obviously I was thinking of someone else. My bad.