Thoughts on Christianity

[Joshpantera]

@TrueScotsman

 

I summoned you over to a thread in the spirituality section about Peter Russell's Primacy of Consciousness lectures and my thoughts on them. In that I explore how ideas I've had are similar to the main thrust of Russell's ideas about awareness and the possible scope of it's depth within matter itself. But with the distinction that what I'm exploring is not exactly what's found in ancient Hinduism. Your response here is the most involved response I've had so far, so I hope you'll help me continue exploring this on the Awareness Broken Down thread. 

 

To the point of the Alan Watts video, I think I understand why you have a problem with his suggesting that the late written book of John discloses Jesus esoteric teachings to his disciples. You have a point that according to theological academics there's a clear evolution within the gospels building up to finally calling Jesus god. Ehrman or any number of academics will point this out. Also miracle stories increase in the same direction. I get that. 

 

But for what ever reason or how the book of John came about, the point is that the subject matter has do to with a way of suggesting that the mythical god is present within this concept of A son of god. This doesn't require any working knowledge of the specifics of human consciousness nor philosophical presentations about the possible primacy of consciousness and emergence. That may actually distract us from the point of the thread because it's simply a theological and mythological discussion about how the christian mythology contains elements of the principle mystical realization found in diverse cultures around the world. 

 

I don't think that it's specifically the writer of John trying to teach Hinduism or anything like that, as you seem to think Watts is suggesting. I just think that the book of John starts out with the Platonic Logos suggestion and then continues on as the most mystical oriented of the gospels right on through. In the context of being the most mystical gospel, we find discussion that draws attention to god's presence in his son, and his son's presence in the rest of everyone. And my thoughts have been that this has to do with making an appeal to Gnostic oriented readers of the time. But it's trying to orient these Gnostic concepts to the orthodoxy. 

 

And I had to add some content to the bottom of my last post, but basically I think there's a strong argument to made that just about all christians today have a greatly distorted view and interpretation of the context of the book of John. And that many religious institutions greatly misuse, "I and my Father are one," to make blatantly false claims. Claims that are false according the bible itself without getting into non-theistic arguments. 

 

Your issues with the word usage of mystical realization, oneness, transcendent, and other expressions seems to be an aside to what I've been discussing here. And we'd be best to explore those in depth on the other thread because they'd completely derail this discussion if we go down that rabbit hole. But I'd love to discuss it with you further because I'd like to clarify how different my own perspective is in comparison to the perspectives you're speaking to in the last post. 

[Orbit]

Just a quick comment: I especially appreciate Alan Watts' (who I love anyway) comments on xtianity because he started out as an Anglican priest. I think his observation about xtianity as based on the idea of monarchy is spot on, with a despot at the top. I also like his explanation of how being *required* to love god is not love freely given, and doesn't make sense. I could listen to him all day, on any topic.

[Guest]

 

@TrueScotsman

 

I summoned you over to a thread in the spirituality section about Peter Russell's Primacy of Consciousness lectures and my thoughts on them. In that I explore how ideas I've had are similar to the main thrust of Russell's ideas about awareness and the possible scope of it's depth within matter itself. But with the distinction that what I'm exploring is not exactly what's found in ancient Hinduism. Your response here is the most involved response I've had so far, so I hope you'll help me continue exploring this on the Awareness Broken Down thread. 

 

To the point of the Alan Watts video, I think I understand why you have a problem with his suggesting that the late written book of John discloses Jesus esoteric teachings to his disciples. You have a point that according to theological academics there's a clear evolution within the gospels building up to finally calling Jesus god. Ehrman or any number of academics will point this out. Also miracle stories increase in the same direction. I get that. 

 

But for what ever reason or how the book of John came about, the point is that the subject matter has do to with a way of suggesting that the mythical god is present within this concept of A son of god. This doesn't require any working knowledge of the specifics of human consciousness nor philosophical presentations about the possible primacy of consciousness and emergence. That may actually distract us from the point of the thread because it's simply a theological and mythological discussion about how the christian mythology contains elements of the principle mystical realization found in diverse cultures around the world. 

 

I don't think that it's specifically the writer of John trying to teach Hinduism or anything like that, as you seem to think Watts is suggesting. I just think that the book of John starts out with the Platonic Logos suggestion and then continues on as the most mystical oriented of the gospels right on through. In the context of being the most mystical gospel, we find discussion that draws attention to god's presence in his son, and his son's presence in the rest of everyone. And my thoughts have been that this has to do with making an appeal to Gnostic oriented readers of the time. But it's trying to orient these Gnostic concepts to the orthodoxy. 

 

And I had to add some content to the bottom of my last post, but basically I think there's a strong argument to made that just about all christians today have a greatly distorted view and interpretation of the context of the book of John. And that many religious institutions greatly misuse, "I and my Father are one," to make blatantly false claims. Claims that are false according the bible itself without getting into non-theistic arguments. 

 

Your issues with the word usage of mystical realization, oneness, transcendent, and other expressions seems to be an aside to what I've been discussing here. And we'd be best to explore those in depth on the other thread because they'd completely derail this discussion if we go down that rabbit hole. But I'd love to discuss it with you further because I'd like to clarify how different my own perspective is in comparison to the perspectives you're speaking to in the last post. 

Hi Josh,

 

That forum is specifically for those who left Christianity for another religion, or theism, and I am an atheist so it is not appropriate for me to post over there.  If you'd like, we can make a new thread in the General Theological Section with the arguments I gave so that you can respond to them there?

[Joshpantera]

 

Hi Josh,

 

That forum is specifically for those who left Christianity for another religion, or theism, and I am an atheist so it is not appropriate for me to post over there.  If you'd like, we can make a new thread in the General Theological Section with the arguments I gave so that you can respond to them there?

 @TrueScotsman

Good idea, but I'm atheist as well. We have the pantheisms as part of the spiritual element of ex-christianity. That's basically what I'm discussing, either as pantheism or spiritual atheism. Also, the Sam Harris variety of atheism pretty much qualifies. We have a discussion there about his book on spirituality. 

 

But the topic clearly fits in the GTS as well, and perhaps we'll have more participation there. If you think it's better to do it that way then let's do it there. I can tell already that the discussion will hold value and provoke another degree a growth in myself, and perhaps other people following along, just due to the content we'll be analyzing. I look forward to diving into this. But I will have to digress at first and explain what I've already laid out the in the spirituality discussion. 

[Geezer]

I was Church of Christ for 27 years. I'm obviously no longer a believer but I'm still active on a site called Ex-Church of Christ. Most of the folks there are still Christians having replaced the legalistic Church of Christ doctrines with some less legalistic version of Christianity. I'm pretty much in their face with facts and evidence that reveals the fact the Bible is neither literally true or historically accurate.

 

To their credit the administrators and mod's haven't censured me. I've had a few believers even acknowledge the Bible isn't literally true. Some of those believers have adopted the position that myth is a strong as truth and maybe stronger. They call this concept Theological Myths. In other words empirical truth is often found in symbolism. And in some ways symbolism often conveys truth more effectively.

 

In my opinion, what's going on here is rationalizing a cognitive dissonance. Some people want to believe God and Jesus are real so badly that they rationalize the truth as a way of resolving their dissonance. This is the way most dissonance is resolved be it religion or something else. The mother that finds out her precious son has murdered four people in cold blood can rationalize why he's still a GOOD BOY.

 

People that want to believe in God and/or Jesus will simply find a way to do that and there is virtually nothing anyone can do to change their minds. The only way they will ever change their minds is to acknowledge a problem with their belief that they can't rationalize away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

In my opinion, what's going on here is rationalizing a cognitive dissonance. Some people want to believe God and Jesus are real so badly that they rationalize the truth as a way of resolving their dissonance. This is the way most dissonance is resolved be it religion or something else. The mother that finds out her precious son has murdered four people in cold blood can rationalize why he's still a GOOD BOY.

 

People that want to believe in God and/or Jesus will simply find a way to do that and there is virtually nothing anyone can do to change their minds. The only way they will ever change their minds is to acknowledge a problem with their belief that they can't rationalize away.

 

I've tried this in real time with people here and there, if they seemed open minded enough to get into it with. I've seen it work itself out over time. I suppose that's how we all got here in the first place. Either we or someone else was able to change our minds due to some point or points that we could no loner rationalize away. Our existence as formerly fundamentalist christians demonstrates that mind changing is possible, and inevitable given certain circumstances, 

 

[florduh]

Damn. This is getting deep.

 

I was just hoping that some Christian might put assumptions aside and just watch the damn video with an open mind. If they did, their view of the religion might change, at least a little. I wasn't looking for a "Wattsism is right and Christianity is wrong" kind of dynamic. Watts is (was) in an almost unique position to get the overview of Christianity regarding its history and current iterations, the Bible's history, Hindu and Buddhist thoughts that predate Abrahamic inventions, and how they all relate to each other. Mysticism, consciousness and salvation aside, the world is not black and white as mainstream Christianity likes to portray it. The dominant religion in any region arises from the culture and is highly colored by it's political and social norms. Christianity is just one such example, having been born in a monarchical culture it reflects that in its structure and dogma.

 

That's all. 

 

[Guest]

 

I was Church of Christ for 27 years. I'm obviously no longer a believer but I'm still active on a site called Ex-Church of Christ. Most of the folks there are still Christians having replaced the legalistic Church of Christ doctrines with some less legalistic version of Christianity. I'm pretty much in their face with facts and evidence that reveals the fact the Bible is neither literally true or historically accurate.

 

To their credit the administrators and mod's haven't censured me. I've had a few believers even acknowledge the Bible isn't literally true. Some of those believers have adopted the position that myth is a strong as truth and maybe stronger. They call this concept Theological Myths. In other words empirical truth is often found in symbolism. And in some ways symbolism often conveys truth more effectively.

 

In my opinion, what's going on here is rationalizing a cognitive dissonance. Some people want to believe God and Jesus are real so badly that they rationalize the truth as a way of resolving their dissonance. This is the way most dissonance is resolved be it religion or something else. The mother that finds out her precious son has murdered four people in cold blood can rationalize why he's still a GOOD BOY.

 

People that want to believe in God and/or Jesus will simply find a way to do that and there is virtually nothing anyone can do to change their minds. The only way they will ever change their minds is to acknowledge a problem with their belief that they can't rationalize away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find its best to just make the argument, if you disagree explain why and include some substance, that seems to be the best way to get people who might sincerely be interested in discourse to go further with you.  And if not, then good riddance, such people (especially referring to fundamentalists here) who don't wish to ever entertain other perspectives are too boring for me to have in my life.  This isn't the case for all Christians, and I have found that when I sincerely engage with them in a context where there is an established relationship and it is is person, that I have had many great discussions.  Granted, the friends I made as a Christian were the theology nerds who love philosophy and all of this stuff too, so I think if people have a general interest in knowledge then a reasonable discussion can be had without putting the condition that someone must give up their worldview to properly enter the discussion.  

 

After all, is our aim to just deconvert people?  Its kind of like the Matrix, I don't want to necessarily show someone the truth unless they're ready and some people probably would not be better off without it because of how invested they currently are.  However, its a deeply personal decision and my hope is to increase respect for arguments from other perspectives, so Christianity becomes less absolutist and fundamentalist in nature.  Fundamentalism I view as more of an unhealthy dissonance generating phenomenon, while more moderate expressions of spirituality and religion seem to be content with contradictions and this might even be a temperamental contribution according to some research.  

[Guest]

For those interested in the discussion, particularly @Joshpantera head over to the General Theological Issues for an expansion on the subject he and I brought up in this thread but is kind of a derailment of the thread (sorry florduh).  

 

Link below:

 

[Joshpantera]

Ok, since we took the off topic on consciounsess to GT, I'm going to continue on topic here. 

 

I've gone over Watt's video again while away traveling last week. The main contention here is that TS seems opposed to all of the cosmic christ talk and suggesting that christianity is something akin to Hinduism with mystical ideas about oneness with the god. Also that christian is an absolutist religion, so the book of John could not or must not be talking about what Watt's is suggesting. I both agree and disagree with certain aspects of this critique. 

 

Christianity is obviously 'interpreted' as an absolutist religion. And that's mainly due to the orthodox, exoteric and literalistic interpretations of the myths which rose to power and have dominated christian thinking for centuries. That's sort of the surface level of consideration here, though - the level that we all started out familiar with. Where Watt's is going is deeper than the surface level into unfamiliar territory, the old esoteric and mystical territory which lost out to the orthodox interpretations of the myths. 

 

The book of John is the most mystical oriented of the gospels. This is well known. The content speaks several times of what is known in mythology as the mystical realization, where one changes their perspective of the god and themselves as two separate unconnected things, one down here and the other out there somewhere, to the god and man interconnected in unity. This is a clear intention on the part of the writer of John. And I know it's a clear intention because he's trying to force fit the mystical realization by quoting the scriptures out of context in Psalm 82 for the specific purpose of making it look like the scriptures suggest that we're all gods, sons of the most high. The writer is suggesting that it's not blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be A son of god. 

 

But he's wrong, actually. Psalm 82 is about El Elyon and the Elohim pantheon of gods from pre-monotheistic Judaism when it still retained elements of polytheism. The context of Psalm 82 is where El Elyon the most high god of the pantheon is saying to the other gods of the pantheon, "you are gods," "you are sons of the most high." "but you will die like mortals." It has nothing at all to do with the eastern mystical concepts and realizations, at all. That's not the context, and it's not actually god telling the common people, "you are gods" as the writer of John suggests.

 

So the writer of John seems to display this old belief going around in early christianity that Jesus was A son of god, and that all of Jesus' followers were one with Jesus, who is one with god. He's taking Jewish thinking people through baby steps from the god, to Jesus who realizes god within him, to the followers of Jesus. He had to quote mine Psalm 82 way out of context in order to try and substantiate this old 'sons of god belief' apparently going around at the time, which the Jewish religious authorities condemned as blasphemy. And which led to the persecution of christians as blasphemer's, apparently. You can see this funnel into the Saul to Paul conversion. He was hunting blasphemer's, apparently, and then became one of them himself. If that part of Acts is even true in any way. But as a mythological whole, that's the suggestion going on. And why the Jews rejected the belief is obvious too, because it was something new that people were making up and claiming to be in scripture, when it actually wasn't. So the Jews didn't buy into any of it. Let's face it, it was a New Age religious spin happening among Jewish scripture knowing people around the turn of the common era, when the astrological age changed from the age of Aries to the age of Pisces. Not dissimilar to the time we're living in now where the ages are changing from Pisces to Aquarius and it's prompted a lot of New Age thinking and assertions, many of which are baseless when analyzed closely. Same thing seemed to be going on back then at the last age change. 

 

And there's a lot more to this 'sons of god' belief to be discovered while analyzing all of the arguments from Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier and the historical Jesus skeptics. Because they comb these old beliefs with a fine tooth comb and uncover a lot of things that also play into what we're seeing here plainly in the book of John coming out of other sources as well. There seems to have been this mystical oriented belief going around and it was clearly stamped out by orthodox thinking at some point, only after a struggle. To where the old mystical religious belief is nearly unrecognizable to most christians today. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I disagree with Watt's suggestion that the book of John was earlier than the synoptic gospels. And that it probably traced back to an historical Jesus' esoteric teachings to his disciples. I see the book of John as late to arrive. But representing beliefs that were floating around in the early days for whatever that's worth. 

 

But I do agree with Watt's in that the mystical realization described here, where the writer has the hero character (Jesus) having the mystical realization (oneness with the god) and then relating directly to his followers, is what is meant by "no one goes to the father but through me." In other words, no one goes to the god except through the 'realization' that you are one with the god. 

 

How else would you get to the god? 

 

The kingdom of the god is within you, as described just before in Luke. And elaborated upon in much more depth in Thomas. 

 

You get to the god who's kingdom is within you, through 'realizing' that you and the god are one. 

 

This flies in the face of all existing christians today who think that Jesus means the only way to god is through a church institution who claims to represent Jesus here and now.

 

That is in fact opposing, or opposite to the realization of god within yourself. 

 

Which brings me to a follow up conclusion. 

 

If the gospel message is oneness with the god - the idea of sons of god through the example set forward by the Jesus character, and that's essentially the christ (the realization that makes one anointed) - then the ANTI-CHRIST is to suggest the very opposite!!!!

 

It's to suggest that you're NOT one with the god and that sons of god DOESN'T suggest a unity with the eternal. 

 

That's the current state of christianity - a very "anti-christian" message masquerading around as truth, life, and light. When in fact it represents spiritual darkness and spiritual ignorance with respect to the content of the mythology. The revelation of which, would result in much "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by those who have fallen victim all along to this large scale spiritual deception pretending to represent the truth. It's a good metaphor for how those people deceived by their religious leaders would feel. 

 

By this measure, the anti-christ is not something to look forward to arriving, but rather something that's been in control of the churches for a long, long time already. And if anything, approaching the END of it's centuries long reign now, not on the heels of it's beginning. The message of this anti-christ being:  you are not one with the god! You are down here, the god is way out there somewhere isolated and distant. You only get to the god through membership in a church group which has absolute authority and which you pay attribution, and only a christian church group qualifies as, "the way, the truth, and the life." This therefore completely conceals and undermines the 'mystical realization' described by Jesus in the texts and keeps people from venturing out looking at other belief systems in the world who do have the mystical realization upfront and obvious for the understanding. And it ends in the very absolutist religion that TS is referring to, which, is by all means "anti-christian" in scope and depth with respect to the mythology that it operates from. As the texts themselves are written, more importantly, by taking scripture alone as it reads! 

 

This is something that I have no problem preaching to, or back at christians! And the deeper issue here is that this lost gospel message, may in fact represent something in the way of a final protestant reformation - the most logical conclusion in correcting what the catholic church fowled up... 

 

 

 

[ironhorse]

Comment on John 14:6-7:

 There will be people, I believe, who enter the Kingdom of God who never heard of the name Jesus or any of his message. They enter the same was as believers; They enter through Jesus’ accomplished work of salvation. Jesus is the door. He is the only gate.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/the-goodness-of-god/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard/objection-1-dont-people-need-to-hear-jesus-name-in-order-to-get-into-heaven/

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There will also be people who avoid answering BAA's questions.

[bornagainathiest]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There will also be people who avoid answering BAA's questions.

 

To be fair Prof, Ironhorse didn't avoid this one.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77210-the-world-needs-atheism/?page=2

 

[bornagainathiest]

6 hours ago, ironhorse said:

Comment on John 14:6-7:

 There will be people, I believe, who enter the Kingdom of God who never heard of the name Jesus or any of his message. They enter the same was as believers; They enter through Jesus’ accomplished work of salvation. Jesus is the door. He is the only gate.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/the-goodness-of-god/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard/objection-1-dont-people-need-to-hear-jesus-name-in-order-to-get-into-heaven/

 

Sorry, but that's a circular argument, Ironhorse.

 

Using your faith in the truth of scripture to confirm to yourself what you believe by faith about John 14 : 6 - 7.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/2/2017 at 8:25 AM, ironhorse said:

Comment on John 14:6-7:

 There will be people, I believe, who enter the Kingdom of God who never heard of the name Jesus or any of his message. They enter the same was as believers; They enter through Jesus’ accomplished work of salvation. Jesus is the door. He is the only gate.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/the-goodness-of-god/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard/objection-1-dont-people-need-to-hear-jesus-name-in-order-to-get-into-heaven/

 

So is the point we've driving about Jesus representing the mystical realization of oneness with the god completely lost on you thus far, IH? 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎03‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 2:18 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There will also be people who avoid answering BAA's questions.

 

Priceless burn

[Deva]

I enjoyed listening to the Watts video.  The divinization of of humans is a part of the teachings of the early Church Fathers and still exists in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churcheshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian).  The esoteric teachings of Christ are present in the Bible as Watts points out. But, as we all well know, it was abandoned wholesale by most Protestant Churches and is never preached there, as Watts says. What we have today is a false Christianity.  I really doubt if any Christian from the 2nd or 3rd centuries would recognize it. Mostly the Bible is used as an idol, and it is a dangerous one, as Watts points out.  Church is a talk shop.  Absolutely correct. 

 

In my recent experience it has also become politicized here in the U.S.  You have the far right Baptists and the far left Episcopalians and other mainline churches.  I visited a Congregational Church last year and found it was nothing more than a social club for far left liberals. Nothing really about Christ except in a very superficial way, dumbed down for the ignorant, it was all about being inclusive and welcoming to everyone.  This is a reactionary type of "religion" only.  It does not seem to be spiritual (for lack of a better word) at all.   

 

One of the great things about the Buddhist center I attend is the beauty of the shrine room.   Also, its not a talk shop. It can't be if you are simply there contemplating the beauty and chanting in a language that is unfamiliar to you.  A totally different atmosphere is available and it is on some different plane that is hard to explain.  I have only been in a couple of Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which also have this atmosphere, but then they start talking and then its gone.

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, Deva said:

I enjoyed listening to the Watts video.  The divinization of of humans is a part of the teachings of the early Church Fathers and still exists in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churcheshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian).  The esoteric teachings of Christ are present in the Bible as Watts points out. But, as we all well know, it was abandoned wholesale by most Protestant Churches and is never preached there, as Watts says. What we have today is a false Christianity.  I really doubt if any Christian from the 2nd or 3rd centuries would recognize it. Mostly the Bible is used as an idol, and it is a dangerous one, as Watts points out.  Church is a talk shop.  Absolutely correct. 

 

In my recent experience it has also become politicized here in the U.S.  You have the far right Baptists and the far left Episcopalians and other mainline churches.  I visited a Congregational Church last year and found it was nothing more than a social club for far left liberals. Nothing really about Christ except in a very superficial way, dumbed down for the ignorant, it was all about being inclusive and welcoming to everyone.  This is a reactionary type of "religion" only.  It does not seem to be spiritual (for lack of a better word) at all.   

 

One of the great things about the Buddhist center I attend is the beauty of the shrine room.   Also, its not a talk shop. It can't be if you are simply there contemplating the beauty and chanting in a language that is unfamiliar to you.  A totally different atmosphere is available and it is on some different plane that is hard to explain.  I have only been in a couple of Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which also have this atmosphere, but then they start talking and then its gone.

 

 

Jesus tells us in the bible that we are gods but Christians just ignore those scriptures because it doesnt align with the church culture. What Jesus says goes against what is taught in the church. My pastor back in the day redirected my attention from these divinization passages in the bible to other verses less dangerous to his source of income.

 

[florduh]

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Jesus tells us in the bible that we are gods but Christians just ignore those scriptures because it doesnt align with the church culture. What Jesus says goes against what is taught in the church. My pastor back in the day redirected my attention from these divinization passages in the bible to other verses less dangerous to his source of income.

Whether one buys into any kind of woo or not, I think it's clear that religion is the natural enemy of spirituality.

[midniterider]

8 minutes ago, florduh said:

Whether one buys into any kind of woo or not, I think it's clear that religion is the natural enemy of spirituality.

 

Christianity is an army of robots all thinking and spewing the same church approved shit. I prefer independent and (somewhat) creative thought.

 

I agree that the structured organizational thinking of Christianity (or other religions) is not spirituality.

 

My Facebook feed is becoming infested with new converts spewing the standard garbage. I'm spending less and less time there.