True Follower's Of Christ

[Ouroboros]

To me it's obvious that Paul made up his own version of Christianity. And all the rest just came naturally when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the original version of Christianity was lost.

HanSolo, it seems Paul is a very misunderstood person. May I ask what it is that he has said that is found so offensive? He is the one that lays no criteria for salvation of everyone! He corrects Peter's assumption that people have to be Jewish first. Paul is the one who says it is not of works, but grace. He drives home that salvation is more free than the air you breathe, hence universal salvation.

It's not that he said one particular thing that is offensive, but I do find it extremely peculiar that somone could pull of what he did. Let me compare this to a today's religion.

 

Let's say I'm a strong believer in Islam. I hear about a new movement of Muslims that they say are heretics. I get to know a little about them, but since I believe they're heretics, the chance that I misunderstand what their teachings are about are extremely high. This happens all the time.

 

Let's say I start a war against them, persecute and kill them. Instead of talking to them and understanding them, or even learn anything about them, I just kill them.

 

One day I have a vision, or get an epiphany, an idea pops up in my head. I see that this new cult make some sense, based on the little I know.

 

I go back to my home country. Don't talk to the followers from this cult. Read the Quran. Do this for years. Then start traveling missions to spread the new cult.

 

Many years later I go to visit one of the original followers, and I chew him out for misunderstanding the teachings.

 

How can I claim to know the teachings better than the originators of the cult, when I never spoke to them, never learned from them, not even spent time with anyone of them, but drew up my own version of it in a far away place?

 

By Paul's own account, the only way he could have the "real" gospel, would be if Jesus did exist and really did show himself in visions to him. And not only that, but the Apostels that spent 3 years with Jesus were fooled or misled by Jesus, since they didn't get the real and true message, but Paul did through visions.

 

Do you see there's something that doesn't add up here?

 

Another example would be that you would tell me a little about yourself, say that you live in Canada. And immediately I start telling people that you are a lumberjack. That's an idea that was my personal extrapolation of the information you gave me, and not the truth. And then one day we meet and you confront me and tell me you're not a lumberjack, and I tell you that YOU are wrong, because I had a vision about that you were a lumberjack.

 

In the end, Paul didn't bring us the "true" Gospel, it was twisted to fit whatever he wanted it to be. Eventhoug some of the stuff he say is good too, but it's because he got a whole bunch of ideas from existing philosophies and other religions. During his little research time, the 3 years or more, he put together the new theology to fit all these religions into the little he knew about the Christians.

 

And how do I know Paul didn't know much about the early Christians? Because he say that all he learned he got from visions of Jesus and revelations from God, and not from humans. I suspect he barely knew much at all!

 

Yes, I too think the original verson of Christianity is lost... yet much can be recovered, IMO. It is a matter of recognizing allegories and parables, and to reasonably sift through mythology superimposed by all the cultures that adopted these teachings. Go back to the original manuscript these versions, such as KJV was taken, and reanalyze.

Nowdays they go back before that one. KJV was based on Vulgata, which is the oldest complete canon, but from manuscripts and papyrus that are older, they have compiled better translations and closer to the origin.

 

The problem though, is that even the fragments already are copies of a merged and full blown idea. The oldest fragment is dated somewhere between 120 and 190 AD. There's nothing earlier. The compilation had already gone through several phases. IMO.

 

 

And of course, to undo what people have done for their own political agendas. Fortunately, there are other ways to get the same teachings, but perhaps people would be better informed that tend to do such atrocities based on lies. :ohmy:

It's a hard job, and I'm glad that there are people that like doing this. Without the scholars of today that spend time analyzing the documents, we wouldn't know these things at all. We would still be in darkness.

[Sparrow]

Could the early “Christianity” be a political movement in the beginning and later became a “spiritual movement as a result of the strategies used?

 

Could not the original “Jesus” have been a political agitator in occupied Jerusalem who used the “God is my Father / I am God incarnate” argument for achieving a rebellion against what was seen as suppression?

 

Perhaps it could have been true that this “Jesus” person (or Jeshua if it is to be believed) was some sort of descendant of David and had a very charismatic personality.

 

If he thought he had a right to the Jewish throne, justified his claim with a “birthright given by God” argument and tried to raise a resistance to the Roman occupation, then it seems to me that there was, at least in the beginning, no real “spiritual or religious” aspect but rather a political message.

 

At least in my opinion it might explain some commentaries, quotes and rather mixed-up dialogues attributed to Jesus. E.g. Jesus not coming for peace but with a sword contrasted with “Prince of peace” and other aspects of his “godliness”.

 

If this Jesus turned up as a trouble-maker whose actions made it decidedly harder for the already suppressed population by stirring up revolutionary thoughts and guiding anti-establishment activites, then it is not at all surprising that he was eventually turned over to the occupying authorities of the time and the rather brutal punishment metered out on him. Even the claims of the resurrection could be a just a claim by his followers to keep the revolution going after he was tried and put to death.

 

The divinity of Jesus could be an after-affect of the suppression of the Jews and the eventually, what would have been very brutal, put-down of the rebellion. His “godliness” could just be the resultant of a claim to the throne and justification of “Birthright given by God”.

 

Just an idea.

 

Thanks

 

Sparrow

[Antlerman]

Nowdays they go back before that one. KJV was based on Vulgata, which is the oldest complete canon, but from manuscripts and papyrus that are older, they have compiled better translations and closer to the origin.

 

The problem though, is that even the fragments already are copies of a merged and full blown idea. The oldest fragment is dated somewhere between 120 and 190 AD. There's nothing earlier. The compilation had already gone through several phases. IMO.

I agree that we can never have the original "word of God" so called, and frankly as such it's really ludicrous for someone to claim a literal interpretation of a non-existent document! What good it that? Not only do no two literalists agree on a single true literal interpretation, there is no "true document" on which to interpret from!

 

Now what we have are two camps: those who use literary scholarship to try to piece together a representation of what may have happened based upon existing documents and analyzing them in light of modern literary criticisms applied to all ancient documents to get to the kernel stories behind the stories; and then we have the faith only camp who, though they cannot deny the non-existence of the original documents, nevertheless accept the existing ones a infallible "in effect", relying on faith that the god they worship preserved it in "good enough to be infallible form", of course denying all criticisms to the contrary, as they do with their pseudo-sciencitsts pretending to do valid science.

 

So there it is once again: Rational Scholarship and Science vs. Faith-Based Scholarship and Science. Which method is the most reliable method to approach the subject objectively? To me that answer is clear.

[Ouroboros]

Could the early “Christianity” be a political movement in the beginning and later became a “spiritual movement as a result of the strategies used?

 

I think you're partially right. There were people like these back then. There were other "Jesus"-s that caused problems, and got executed. I think one possibility is that you had several different movements. One that was a renewed religious movement within the Jewish community, like the Essenes, Helenistic Jews, Neo-platonic philosophics religious ideas etc... And at the same time you had some very inspiring political movement that were rising up against the Roman empire. And over time, maybe after the destruction of Jerusalem, they got merged into one common ideology. Suddenly they had a name to give to the "teacher" that gave them the new spiritual truth from Heaven. The only problem is how to merge that with Paul's references to Jesus before the destruction. So most likely the merge must have happened earlier. But who knows, it's possible that the cult Paul was persecuting was a political uprising rather than a religious sect.

 

I agree that we can never have the original "word of God" so called, and frankly as such it's really ludicrous for someone to claim a literal interpretation of a non-existent document! What good it that? Not only do no two literalists agree on a single true literal interpretation, there is no "true document" on which to interpret from!

Damn good point. How can it be a "literal" understanding if two literalists can't agree? Should women literally shut-up in Church or not? When should you be baptised?

 

Oh, here's a question for any Christian apologist. Where the apostles baptised? Is there any records that they got the dunking in water to prove their faith?

[Checkmate]

..............

Oh, here's a question for any Christian apologist. Where the apostles baptised? Is there any records that they got the dunking in water to prove their faith?

I've heard Christians claim that the apostles received John's baptism, yet the bible is silent on the issue. So once again we see the invention factory at work.

 

A better question, though, is to ask when did baptism become a Jewish tradition? Nowhere in the Old Testament is there even a hint of baptism to cleanse/take away sins practiced by Israel. (A whole lot of animal's blood is spilled, but no water rituals.) If you try to stretch a point and claim that Naaman's leprosy cure of 2 Kings 5 counts, then you're just being silly. That was no baptism, but a one-time miracle using the muddy Jordan to clear up a disease. Baptism is NOT a Jewish tradition.

 

So where did the bible writer's get the idea? (Hint: They made it up, or "borrowed" the idea from another culture. )

[Open_Minded]

Open Minded, I have a few things to add.

.....

 

Look, that's just my opinion, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to add it. I'd also like to add that these are but minor objections in the bigger picture, of which there is most likely a great deal of agreement.

 

Hello Julian:

 

I am not ignoring you, I promise.

 

Your comments and questions are worth a very long discussion and have given me much to think about. Sometimes it is challenging to bring ones thoughts and feelings into cohesive words. And so, I've been thinking through a response - in addition to preparing for the holiday weekend. I will answer you - I promise.

 

Thank you for your patience -

[Amanda]

By Paul's own account, the only way he could have the "real" gospel, would be if Jesus did exist and really did show himself in visions to him. And not only that, but the Apostels that spent 3 years with Jesus were fooled or misled by Jesus, since they didn't get the real and true message, but Paul did through visions.

 

Do you see there's something that doesn't add up here?

 

You definitely make a good and valid point. However, let me ask you this... If Paul had looked for evidence to determine if someone were a Christian, before he killed them, might he had access to some "sacred" documents that were so inspiring it caused people to risk their life to have them? Also, Paul was really the only academic scholar amongst the disciples, could he perhaps been trained moreso in reasoning skills, and sought the more congruent picture? Heck, MAYBE he was able to expound on the thrust of these teachings by grasping the core ideas. Would that be such a bad thing?

 

In the end, Paul didn't bring us the "true" Gospel, it was twisted to fit whatever he wanted it to be. Eventhoug some of the stuff he say is good too, but it's because he got a whole bunch of ideas from existing philosophies and other religions. During his little research time, the 3 years or more, he put together the new theology to fit all these religions into the little he knew about the Christians.

 

I always thought it was Jesus who did this. None-the-less, whoever did it, I think was a really good concept. If we could get some harmony on a philosophy that had altruistic goals in recognizing and incorporating everyone's ideas, that might be a really unifying accomplishment. It's when it gets hijacked and used for egotistical means, that it seems to foster organizational agendas, everyone loses.

 

As for discerning what the initial movement was trying to say... maybe we could just look at it and determine what makes sense? I don't think we need the top world scholars either. IMO, there are people right here who could determine that.

[Ouroboros]

So where did the bible writer's get the idea? (Hint: They made it up, or "borrowed" the idea from another culture. )

Or the great example of the eucharist.

 

It is unlawful (a great sin) in Jewish religion to drink human blood, even to imagine or fabricate the idea of such a notion would turn their religious stomachs. It's close to impossible to think that the Jews could convert to a religion where they would figuratively drink human blood. But you do have that idea in other pagan religions. So that tradition is very clearly a pagan tradition, incorporated into the Church. Basically all the references in the letters and the stories in the Gospels are fabricated afterwards to give this tradition a "valid" foundation. And btw, where is it prophesied in the OT that Jesus would give them his blood to drink and flesh to eat?

[Ouroboros]

You definitely make a good and valid point. However, let me ask you this... If Paul had looked for evidence to determine if someone were a Christian, before he killed them, might he had access to some "sacred" documents that were so inspiring it caused people to risk their life to have them? Also, Paul was really the only academic scholar amongst the disciples, could he perhaps been trained moreso in reasoning skills, and sought the more congruent picture? Heck, MAYBE he was able to expound on the thrust of these teachings by grasping the core ideas. Would that be such a bad thing?

The problem is that it's so hard to really know why and what someone did something back then. Since the surviving version of Christianity destroyed the other versions, and even through pious fraud re-wrote or changed some documents to fit their belief. There are serious discussions if Paul was really "Paul" at all, or if some or all the letters where written by other authors and then attributed to Paul, to give them some legitimacy.

 

But by Paul's own accord he is boasting that he didn't get anything from human hands or mouths, but all came from the visions and revelations of Jesus. He was proud of it, and used that as the argument in some letters that what he said was the Pure and True Word from God himself. Basically he was intentionally overriding the other apostles teachings with his own, by claiming supernatural knowledge and insight that the others would not have.

 

And when it comes to the other apostles to not being scholars. I don't think we can claim either or, since the disciples in the Gospels most likely are fabricated. There probably were Apostles, but I think that the idea that these Apostles also were Disciples under Jesus could have been a stretch of the truth or a complete invention. I'm not saying it is the truth, but it is just as plausible as any theory.

 

If we turn the tables a little bit, if the apostles/disciples were not scholars, how did they write the Gospels? Either they can't write or they can. We can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. How come Jesus is told to be able to read from the Torah? Jesus was only a carpenter, but he was educated enough to read (and write in the sand). So why wouldn't a tax collector be able to?

 

I always thought it was Jesus who did this. None-the-less, whoever did it, I think was a really good concept. If we could get some harmony on a philosophy that had altruistic goals in recognizing and incorporating everyone's ideas, that might be a really unifying accomplishment. It's when it gets hijacked and used for egotistical means, that it seems to foster organizational agendas, everyone loses.

 

As for discerning what the initial movement was trying to say... maybe we could just look at it and determine what makes sense? I don't think we need the top world scholars either. IMO, there are people right here who could determine that.

It is tricky, just because the oldest documents (fragments) are from 120-190 AD, and nothing earlier. Probably we can only construct our own little speculations about it.

 

But I find it interesting to read into the Essene sect for instance. There are similarities and views they have that you can see were in Jesus' teachings too (and of course some is not, and some is contradictory to what Jesus taught). Our current existing Christian Essene sects have the idea that Paul was a false teacher and corrupted the "real" Christian belief, which then would be the Essene faith. I just read from a Christian Essene website, how they claimed to believe that Paul couldn't destroy the Essene sect with violence, so he decided to infiltrate and destroy it from within. That's a very juicy conspiracy theory. And what's scary is that it could be truth as any explanation. This website also claims that the training to become a minister would take 3 years, which was the 3 years Paul went to Tarsus to become an Essene. Then he goes out to teach and slowly corrupt the system. It doesn't fit with the Acts, but then again, Acts is a later book that more likely written to validate Paul as an Apostle, after the fact when his corrupted Christianity had taken over. There's many ways to look at all this.

[julian]

Hello Julian:

 

I am not ignoring you, I promise.

 

Your comments and questions are worth a very long discussion and have given me much to think about. Sometimes it is challenging to bring ones thoughts and feelings into cohesive words. And so, I've been thinking through a response - in addition to preparing for the holiday weekend. I will answer you - I promise.

 

Thank you for your patience -

 

No problem whatsoever. Take all the time you need (and here's to a happy holiday weekend).

[dibby]

Jesus is the WORD and The WORD is Jesus.

 

Just thought I,d mention that the concept of" the Word" is from the pagan world. Usually when christians use the phrase "Jesus is the Word", they mean to equate Jesus with the Bible in some way. This is not what "the Word" means. What do you mean Amy when you use this phrase?

[Ouroboros]

Or the great example of the eucharist.

 

It is unlawful (a great sin) in Jewish religion to drink human blood, even to imagine or fabricate the idea of such a notion would turn their religious stomachs. It's close to impossible to think that the Jews could convert to a religion where they would figuratively drink human blood. But you do have that idea in other pagan religions. So that tradition is very clearly a pagan tradition, incorporated into the Church. Basically all the references in the letters and the stories in the Gospels are fabricated afterwards to give this tradition a "valid" foundation. And btw, where is it prophesied in the OT that Jesus would give them his blood to drink and flesh to eat?

 

Didn't Christianity sink it's roots in Rome? I always thought that one of the reasons the Romans persecuted the Christians is because they believed the followers of Jesus practiced cannabalism. To me it doesn't make sense that the movement would gain strength in Rome where the citizens were replused by the thought. And why would the writers of the Gospel place the Eucharist in a Jewish context? Wouldn't peeple scratch their heads and say, "Huh? The Passover? Jews? This is My body?"

Why did the writer's make it harder for themselves? Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

No the OT doesn't say anything about Jesus giving us His flesh to eat. Jesus takes the story of the Manna that nourished the Jews is the wilderness and says that He is the Living Manna that nourishes the soul.

 

You see the tradition to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of their savior was already in the Mithraism religion before Christianity. Mithraism was prevalent in Tarsus, Pauls home city, where he went to after the "vision" for 3 or more years to study the "scriptures". It most likely got borrowed from that religion into the Paulinian version of Christiantiy.

 

And the Gospels were written long time after Paul's preachings to substantiate and validate Paul's version, rather than the opposite. Paul didn't have any Gospels to support his ideas, and he say that he's proud to have not recieved anything from any humans, but only through visions from Jesus. All Paul's teachings were "revealed" through dreams and visions and not through any Gospels or teachings from the Apostles. That is his own words.

[Golden Meadows]

Amy: Didn't Christianity sink it's roots in Rome? I always thought that one of the reasons the Romans persecuted the Christians is because they believed the followers of Jesus practiced cannibalism To me it doesn't make sense that the movement would gain strength in Rome where the citizens were repulsed by the thought.

The romans, nor Greeks, practiced cannibalism in its purest sense but they did indeed have religious ceremonies where an animal became a token for the God and that by eating the animal they entered into communion with the God. The rites associated with Dionysus are particularly important in a xtian context because Jesus's evangelists would seem to invite his followers to draw comparison with them, e.g at the marriage feast of Cana Jesus turning the water into wine is a miracle specifically associated with Dionysus. They also invite us to draw comparison with Jesus and the passover lamb which was eaten, as was Dionysus, in the consumption of animal flesh.

 

Slightly off the topic of cannibalism but still relevant: one of the sub-texts to the gospel account of the stampede of Gaderene swine is associated with the God Pan. We in the west get our word "panic" from the name of this God who could be somewhat wild at times and cause flocks to stampede, just as Jesus did.

 

Jesus went to Caeseri Philipi to announce that Simon would become the Rock (Petros) of the Church. Why did Jesus take his disciples to this strange place to announce such a thing? Caeseri-Philipi was the biggest site for the worship of Pan in the whole of the pagan world. When Jesus says here that "upon this rock I will build my Church.." is he suggesting not just Simon, not just the physical rock face here, but rather that the foundations of the xtian religion are not to be exclusively Jewish in their origins but will draw heavily on paganism? I like to think that this was the case since it doesn't demonise and persecute pagans the way his followers were to do - even today. The fundamentalists of today would in reality have rejected the astrologer/magicians, i.e the magi, that were supposed to have come to Bethlehem invoking all the OT prohibitions: "This is the word of God!!, keep out you demon worshipers!!" In my own mind I don't see any great difference with the pharisees of NT times and xtians zealots today - I was once one of them and could just as easily put an anti-pagan demonisation spin in the little drama acted out at Caeseri-Philipi that day

 

And why would the writers of the Gospel place the Eucharist in a Jewish context? Wouldn't people scratch their heads and say, "Huh? The Passover? Jews? This is My body?"

From the above you can see that the gospel writers were trying to place the eucharist in to a pagan and Jewish context.

 

Why did the writer's make it harder for themselves? Do you understand what I'm saying?

In fact in a certain sense they seem to have gone to great lengths to make it easy for people to make their way into the Church, it it had obvious appeal to some Jews who could see the symbolism of the passover lamb being fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus and to the pagans who by there very nature were open to seeing the works of their Gods in the Gods of other cultures, not like door closers of xtianity today.

 

No the OT doesn't say anything about Jesus giving us His flesh to eat.

The passover lamb was eaten. Jesus and his followers claimed he was the true passover lamb that the animal sacrifice of the OT prefigured.

 

Jesus takes the story of the Manna that nourished the Jews is the wilderness and says that He is the Living Manna that nourishes the soul.

Hence some church's emphasis on the eucharist as both sacrifice and sacrament (food for the journey), i.e Jesus is the passover lamb who is sacrificed/eaten and also the manna that has come down from heaven who is eaten during pilgrimage on earth prefigured by wanderings in the desert before entry in to the promised land/heaven. The orthodox and catholic church's do indeed claim it really is the flesh and blood of Jesus in the eucharist but its not cannibalism in the purest sense since only the substance of the bread is supposed to be changed but not the externals. Its very close in spirit to what the pagans already knew in, for example the rites of Dionysus and the sacred meals of Mithraism and even the essenes.

I choose the description pagan under my avatar because its a true indicator of what I believe but also as an act of defiance towards those xtians who continue to demonise everything outside of their self-righteous world not realizing the roots of their own religion.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Julian:

 

Finally I’ve some time to respond, thanks for waiting.

 

You're right, Jesus is a "complete fictious character".

Well.... I didn’t say “Jesus is a complete fictious character”. I said ....

 

Although I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably did live - and that a legendary, mythical narrative grew up around him - I also recognize the reality that one can never know for sure. That reasonable people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is a "complete fictious character”.

For my own part – I do believe Jesus lived and walked this earth. I believe that a movement grew up around this person. But, there was a time in my life where I did not believe this. I can see where others would look and see mythology. I accept their position as valid – but it is not my own position. It is simply an area where I am willing to let things be because it can’t be proven one way or the other. And in the end ...

 

What's important - really isn't whether he lived - or did not live. For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if "faith" is based on the physical body of Jesus, then it is lacking indeed. I can very easily see how someone would be agnostic about this issue - I was there once myself. And where I'm at now, isn't so far removed from that position. If someone found archeaological evidence tomorrow that proved Jesus was fictious it wouldn't change the core of my faith. The core of my faith is the belief in Alpha and Omega (beginning and end - ONENESS). The core of my faith is believing that this ONENESS is intimately connected with LOVE and WISDOM. I find this in the gospels. I believe that there was a man named Jesus in whom his followers saw this Divine Love and Wisdom manifested. But, I accept that my beliefs are not concrete, provable, physical fact.

 

But, Julian – your points are valid...

 

However, the thing I think you miss is that the whole basis for the Christian mindset is built upon him actually being what he was supposed to be in the Bible. If you try to say that Jesus is irrelevant, you are mistaken because his "life" is central to Christianity.

 

The whole basis for the LITERALIST Christian mindset is “built upon him actually being what he was suppose to be in the Bible”. I am NOT a LITERALIST Christian. I do recognize different layers to the gospels. I do recognize that what came first was an oral tradition of sayings – followed by embellished accounts of the life of Jesus. See the discussion around the Q Gospel in the Here Is Why I Don't Believe thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193163

 

 

I do have another thing to say. The "Alpha and Omega" implies that there is a beginning and an end, correct? That doesn't make sense when you look at the world, as there is continuity through creation, life, destruction and so on and so forth.

It makes sense when one allows the “Alpha and Omega” to be symbolic of Infinity of ONENESS.

 

However, that is somewhat minor. Why do you believe that there was any sort of "Divine Love and Wisdom" in something that is clearly fiction?

I believe “Divine LOVE and WISDOM” to be intimately connected with infinite ONENESS. INFINITE ONENESS is a lot of things – but fiction it is NOT. There is at some point – UNITY – ONENESS. At some point all that IS – is all in ONE. I connect LOVE and WISDOM with this.

 

Furthermore, why do you think that there is this "love and wisdom" in a mindset which is clearly intolerant, spiteful, myopic, illogical and worse? The assertions that Jesus and/or Christianity is the only way to "divinity" and "truth" by many including the supposed "Jesus" are evidence of this. IMO (and this is just an opinion), you are trying to inject something into something that doesn't exist.

 

Julian it may help you to look through a few other discussions I’ve been involved in around these issues. Following are links to other posts I’ve made in other threads where people asked me questions about my beliefs:

• About my overall views in The Silly-Putty® Bible Thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108991
  
• About the exclusive view of Jesus in Reading The Bible Literally Is Not A Requirement Of Christianity thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=148696
  
• About the Jesus is viewed in Reading The Bible Literally thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=149269
  
• About the resurrection in Reading The Bible Literally is Not a Requirement thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=149530
  
• Entire thread: More Specific Questions For Liberal/universalists Christians: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=141966
  
• Entire thread: Questions For Our Universalist And/or Liberal Christians: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=139992
  

Julian – sorry to send you to so many different threads. But, I honestly do believe you’ll have a better understanding of my position in reading through some (if not all) of them. If you choose only a few – choose the resurrection first. This is the question people most often ask me. Another one people ask very often is about the exclusive view of Jesus – so you may want to check that out.

 

Beyond all of the above – let me expand a bit on some other things.

 

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the major difference between someone from a contemplative non-literalist Christian perspective and say an atheist – isn’t that we don’t acknowledge an overall interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS to all that is. I think – generally speaking – most people acknowledge this. This acceptance that there is interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS is pretty common.

 

But, there are differences in the way humans perceive this. For my own part – I perceive this ONENESS as intimately linked with LOVE and WISDOM. This ONENESS IS the Alpha and the Omega to me. It is the Infinite, eternal I AM, the “WORD” (LOGOS) unspoken.

 

So... yes... I do see a connection between Jesus/Christ and all of this...

 

I did not always perceive this ... I do now ... and I did not arrive where I am at now by logic. I can’t put into words why I perceive what I do. I can tell you this – it is the last place I thought I’d ever end up.

 

Does any of this even begin to answer your questioning?

[julian]

Hey Open Minded, thanks for the response.

 

First, I want to say that I haven't yet read any of your links but that doesn't mean I will. Second, these questions are mostly for clarification. Last, my criticisms are again minor and quite insignificant in the big picture.

 

Well.... I didn’t say “Jesus is a complete fictious character”. I said ....

 

Although I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably did live - and that a legendary, mythical narrative grew up around him - I also recognize the reality that one can never know for sure. That reasonable people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is a "complete fictious character”.

For my own part – I do believe Jesus lived and walked this earth. I believe that a movement grew up around this person. But, there was a time in my life where I did not believe this. I can see where others would look and see mythology. I accept their position as valid – but it is not my own position. It is simply an area where I am willing to let things be because it can’t be proven one way or the other. And in the end ...

 

Hmm, I took you out of context on that. Thanks for the clarification.

 

The whole basis for the LITERALIST Christian mindset is “built upon him actually being what he was suppose to be in the Bible”. I am NOT a LITERALIST Christian. I do recognize different layers to the gospels. I do recognize that what came first was an oral tradition of sayings – followed by embellished accounts of the life of Jesus. See the discussion around the Q Gospel in the Here Is Why I Don't Believe thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=193163

 

Is Christianity not centered around the assumption that Jesus is somehow a "saviour" (among other things)? I mean, Christianity is the -ianity of Christ. This is very important, because IMO if you take away that assumption as well as the conclusions that go along with it (being saved from sin, one "god", heaven and hell, etc...), what are you left with? To be honest, it is difficult or perhaps impossible to separate the claims of a "saviour" and the like from Christianity and the Bible. So my point is that even if you are absolutely not a literalist, the Bible is still what it is, no (sorry if you explained that in the thread you gave me)?

 

I believe “Divine LOVE and WISDOM” to be intimately connected with infinite ONENESS. INFINITE ONENESS is a lot of things – but fiction it is NOT. There is at some point – UNITY – ONENESS. At some point all that IS – is all in ONE. I connect LOVE and WISDOM with this.

 

Just to clarify, would you say that this oneness would mean that any rock is fully one and unified with you and I and everything else? Would you say that this lies within the entity itself? Would you say that this point of unity is everything and all things?

 

Julian it may help you to look through a few other discussions I’ve been involved in around these issues. Following are links to other posts I’ve made in other threads where people asked me questions about my beliefs:

 

Thanks, I'll definitely read them but it might take some time.

 

Julian – sorry to send you to so many different threads. But, I honestly do believe you’ll have a better understanding of my position in reading through some (if not all) of them. If you choose only a few – choose the resurrection first. This is the question people most often ask me. Another one people ask very often is about the exclusive view of Jesus – so you may want to check that out.

 

I should read up on that stuff because I'm probably making you rehash stuff you've already covered in depth. Thanks.

 

Beyond all of the above – let me expand a bit on some other things.

 

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the major difference between someone from a contemplative non-literalist Christian perspective and say an atheist – isn’t that we don’t acknowledge an overall interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS to all that is. I think – generally speaking – most people acknowledge this. This acceptance that there is interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS is pretty common.

 

In what way does the Bible show any suggestion of oneness? I personally don't think that the Bible provides for such a basis. The point of unity is this one "god" (which is not only an illogical and flawed concept but also unethical and worse). If you look at the Bible, it very clearly puts divinity squarely in the hands of one "deity" which is completely removed from our world, while "his" "spirit" dabbles with us (oh, and other animals and nature is just our toy, too); this is the very much opposed to the concept of unity and oneness IMO. Moreover, Christianity claims that it is the only way to divinity, the only way to life and truth (John 14:6, for example). That, IMO, is opposed to the reality that there is truth in all things. I could go on.

 

My main point is that the beliefs you put forth seem to be in spite of the Bible and Christianity and not because of it. Please believe me when I say that I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but what you're saying is far from Christianity.

 

But, there are differences in the way humans perceive this. For my own part – I perceive this ONENESS as intimately linked with LOVE and WISDOM. This ONENESS IS the Alpha and the Omega to me. It is the Infinite, eternal I AM, the “WORD” (LOGOS) unspoken.

 

So... yes... I do see a connection between Jesus/Christ and all of this...

 

OK, nothing to object to the first paragraph, but I'm not sure how Jesus is involved. Is it simply what you identify with more than anything else? How could a person who supposedly said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) connect with unity?

 

By the way, I once again agree with you on what you say, but I again disagree with what you connect it to.

 

I did not always perceive this ... I do now ... and I did not arrive where I am at now by logic. I can’t put into words why I perceive what I do. I can tell you this – it is the last place I thought I’d ever end up.

 

That's very interesting. I think the place where we belong can oftentimes be at first disguised from us. However, it makes the journey all the more wonderful.

 

Does any of this even begin to answer your questioning?

 

Most certainly. Thank you for your response.

[Golden Meadows]

Forgive me but since Christians were talking about a Human body and blood and not an animal wouldn't most Romans find this offensive? Wasn't that one of the charges leveled against Christians during the persecutions?

Sure most Romans would have found cannabilism in its purest sense offensive. What may have fuelled the rumours was the secrecy surrounding the xtian mysteries. I think that any teaching relating to the "real presence" of Jesus/God in the eucharist was only revealed as part of advanced catechetics - it was not for announcing the gospel to a general audience. Traces of that teaching legacy was carried rightdown until the late 20th century when the still unbaptised potential initiates had to leave the mass just before the consecration, i.e the supposed transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. That some antagonists of the early xtians would try and twist the idea of eucharists into pure cannabalism for their own purposes is not surprising for such things have always happened when a scapegoat is being sought, i.e xtians blamed the Jews for sacrificing babies, fundamentlist muslims accused Jews of using muslim babies in their passover meal, .............. As a general principle though a roman or greek who had been initiated into the more famous of their mysteries would have understood the idea of being in communion with God through eating some material thing. We don't have a lot of information on the details of their beliefs in such matters because they were never written down despite them being practiced for over 2,000 years, so tight was the secrecy in these mystery religions. If a roman persecutor wanted to know the truth about xtians eating "real" flesh and blood they could have easily found out and saw that the xternals of bread remained bread. I don't think the idea of the eucharist would be a positive barrier to membership in rome and its wider empire, in fact it would to the more spiritual person have been very attractive. The early xtian's would have been targets for persecution through their demonisation of all other God's save their own. This seemed like religion of hate to outsiders, as it still does for many today, because the pagans were generally very tolerant of other peoples beliefs.

The Jews in rome would not have been the same kind of target since their monotheism was not really a kind that overtly sought to reach out to pagans whereas proseltyising xtians, with their anti-family doctrines cult, could potentially be a source of strife.

[NotBlinded]

We witness the birth of Crisstianity...

OMG...that is too funny.

 

No offense to anyone, but that is an extremely funny play on words!

 

Varokhar....

[Antlerman]

Alas..to love the words without the Man or the Man without the words I cannot.

 

Jesus is the WORD and The WORD is Jesus.

 

Or the Man without His Divinity or the Divinity wihout His humanity...I cannot.

 

You know me....

Have you never loved another, to see them in the joy and hopes of your own heart; then to grow beyond the eyes of youthful love and see them in a new and different light: and love them as they are, and as you are?

 

There are many faces of God.

 

Absolutely! Yet I can't say my past knowledge or experienece of the beloved is of no importance. They are stepping stones or puzzle pieces that complete the entire picture. Each piece is important.

I would never suggest your past experience or knowledge is of no importance, but I would safely say it was not the understanding you grew into today. Though you may have had limited understanding before, it did not mean that what you knew at that time was not “truth” to you then, even though now you may see things in a different light, or in ways that to others appears to contradict what you said or did before.

 

All these stages are indeed stepping stones, and each stone is the truth for you at that stage in your understanding. But have you ever noticed how in the youth of understanding we tend to think we KNOW we’re right? Ask me about my son in his early 20’s! Ask me about me in my early 20’s. When I was in my early 20’s my understanding of God could not be shaken! I had the words of God right there on the pages in front of me, in clear black and white language. “You’re not arguing with my words, these are God’s words you’re arguing with,” I would say to others, or even more relevant, I would argue to myself.

 

Those words were so clear to me. Even those other Christian denominations who read something different from the same verses did not escape my judgment. “How could they be so blind? It says right here that what our group is teaching is the truth. They are choosing not to believe God. They are not sincere!” I kid you not Amy, this is how I really thought being a Biblical literalist, fundamentalist Christian.

 

Yet as studied and studied – with an open mind and heart – I began to see that others also had valid ways of reading the same passages, and in fact in a great many regards, they were spiritually more mature and sincere than the “We’ve got the Truth!” group I was with. I began to see that “The Truth” was far less black and white as I clung onto in my youthful desire for the world to have clearly defined boundaries. I wanted answers! Alas, answers turned out to be only valid for a while.

 

Religious truth is personal truth. They are answers for the spirit. If we are growing and changing as people, then our answers also must change. If our answers never change, then we are no longer growing.

 

I have discovered that when I say, “I have found the truth”, it’s a valid statement for me, for around two minutes tops! I can say that today, and then something else comes along that adds something new to the equation, and that truth I had found must now either change and adapt, or be abandoned altogether for a new truth, which itself then must be able the change and adapt or suffer the same fate. The other alternative is this: Shut out the world, bury our heads in the sand, and deny life, as life by definition means growth.

 

When I see other’s who approach their personal faith in differing ways, and you would be included in that number, I recognize the validity of it for each of them for where they are at, at that time. I look at you and can, and do, admire certain elements of it, but I know that I cannot fit that into my world because I have variables to address that your answers do not fit with. If I were to adopt how you see the world into my world, it would cause harm to my spirit.

 

In the same sense, you do not have the variables in your life that I have in mine, and so how I see life through my eyes would likely cause a catastrophic failure in your spirit! However that said, were you to download all my thoughts into your mind directly, then it would make sense for you – for about two minutes, till you had some new experiences of your own to incorporate, and so on.

 

Bottom line, in your own experiences of faith, the faces of God has changed for you. Can you accept that because you haven’t seen those other faces that others do, that those differing face are equally as valid for them as they are for you?

 

 

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the major difference between someone from a contemplative non-literalist Christian perspective and say an atheist – isn’t that we don’t acknowledge an overall interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS to all that is. I think – generally speaking – most people acknowledge this. This acceptance that there is interconnectedness, unity, ONENESS is pretty common.

 

But, there are differences in the way humans perceive this. For my own part – I perceive this ONENESS as intimately linked with LOVE and WISDOM. This ONENESS IS the Alpha and the Omega to me. It is the Infinite, eternal I AM, the “WORD” (LOGOS) unspoken.

 

So... yes... I do see a connection between Jesus/Christ and all of this...

 

I did not always perceive this ... I do now ... and I did not arrive where I am at now by logic. I can’t put into words why I perceive what I do. I can tell you this – it is the last place I thought I’d ever end up.

 

Does any of this even begin to answer your questioning?

OM, how do you see this ONENESS in light of our dualistic perception of our own relationship to the universe? You speak of CHAOS as against this ONENESS, yet any perception of “God” must include this as part of it. In other words, is DEATH against LIFE? Life is dependent of Death, not only for its very existence, and for our definition of it. Without Death there is no Life. Life without death is not Life, but something else.

 

If we therefore acknowledge as living human beings an interconnectedness and ONENESS of life, we must include a NON-ONENESS in there somewhere in order to call it ONENESS. What is that sense of NON-ONENESS, a reality or a perception? If it is a perception, then is ONENESS only a perception of human thought? If it is a reality, than is GOD dualistic in its nature? If it is reality and external to GOD (i.e. a fallen spirit being), then ONENESS is doesn't exist.

 

Is this making sense? This is touching on why I see this as all centered in the human perception of the universe it finds itself contemplating in its particular biology organ called the brain. Is it possible to know reality outside of opposites? Even transcendent experience is rooted back into the perception of opposites through our brains. Your thoughts?

[NotBlinded]

>snip<

 

In what way does the Bible show any suggestion of oneness? I personally don't think that the Bible provides for such a basis. The point of unity is this one "god" (which is not only an illogical and flawed concept but also unethical and worse). If you look at the Bible, it very clearly puts divinity squarely in the hands of one "deity" which is completely removed from our world, while "his" "spirit" dabbles with us (oh, and other animals and nature is just our toy, too); this is the very much opposed to the concept of unity and oneness IMO. Moreover, Christianity claims that it is the only way to divinity, the only way to life and truth (John 14:6, for example). That, IMO, is opposed to the reality that there is truth in all things. I could go on.

 

My main point is that the beliefs you put forth seem to be in spite of the Bible and Christianity and not because of it. Please believe me when I say that I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but what you're saying is far from Christianity.

 

>snip<

 

OK, nothing to object to the first paragraph, but I'm not sure how Jesus is involved. Is it simply what you identify with more than anything else? How could a person who supposedly said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) connect with unity?

 

By the way, I once again agree with you on what you say, but I again disagree with what you connect it to.

I'd like to give a few examples if I may.

 

First, here is a link that has this information. Paul was very much into the oneness idea. Oneness within Christianity and Eastern Religion

 

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

 

This verse alone doesn't speak of oneness, but when the Jews were about to stone him, he goes on to say:

 

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

 

He is referencing a verse in Isaiah (I beleive). He is teaching that everyone is the son (gender specific language of the time) of God that hears (understands) God's word. IMO, I don't think he was claiming to be any more the messiah than Isaiah. He was trying to get them to understand their own law...notice he didn't claim it was his law ("...in your law").

 

Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

 

Jhn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.

 

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

There is many more.

 

I never noticed this from a literal mindset. I guess I just assumed he was only talking to a certain people and that it didn't apply to everyone. Now that I believe this, the concept of oneness is a major theme of Jesus.

 

I actually believe he was misunderstood and the enlightenment he was teaching was turned into an exclusive belief system.

[Antlerman]

I never noticed this from a literal mindset. I guess I just assumed he was only talking to a certain people and that it didn't apply to everyone. Now that I believe this, the concept of oneness is a major theme of Jesus.

 

I actually believe he was misunderstood and the enlightenment he was teaching was turned into an exclusive belief system.

I have looked at what OM is doing and have seen this as a necessary step in the continued evolution of Christianity to speak to the modern world, but I am wondering actually if it isn't really more of a devolving back out of a church/state religion with united tribal deities into the earliest manifestation of the religion? There certainly appears to be indications of this in places in the sayings collections.

 

Certainly the comparisons of the Pharisees with the modern Fundamentalist are abundantly obvious. They are religious institution of today that Christ would have wished destroyed.

[NotBlinded]

OM, how do you see this ONENESS in light of our dualistic perception of our own relationship to the universe? You speak of CHAOS as against this ONENESS, yet any perception of “God” must include this as part of it. In other words, is DEATH against LIFE? Life is dependent of Death, not only for its very existence, and for our definition of it. Without Death there is no Life. Life without death is not Life, but something else.

 

If we therefore acknowledge as living human beings an interconnectedness and ONENESS of life, we must include a NON-ONENESS in there somewhere in order to call it ONENESS. What is that sense of NON-ONENESS, a reality or a perception? If it is a perception, then is ONENESS only a perception of human thought? If it is a reality, than is GOD dualistic in its nature? If it is reality and external to GOD (i.e. a fallen spirit being), then ONENESS is doesn't exist.

 

Is this making sense? This is touching on why I see this as all centered in the human perception of the universe it finds itself contemplating in its particular biology organ called the brain. Is it possible to know reality outside of opposites? Even transcendent experience is rooted back into the perception of opposites through our brains. Your thoughts?

Hi Antlerman!

 

I hope you don't mind if I put a little something in here too.

 

You might like this...maybe.

 

No Mind

 

 

Does the mind exist as mind?

If so, who to? to mind?

 

Objectivity can only arise if 'mind' is objective, if thought is

objectively real. By objectively real is meant real to a subject. But

there is no subject apart from mind, apart from thought.

 

So there is no 'mind'.

 

If there is no mind existing in objective relation to the subject, to

the self, then all is Self, all is one.

 

Even this 'mind', these 'thoughts' are just Self in motion.

 

 

© Gary Merrill Gary Merrill's Website

 

 

I never noticed this from a literal mindset. I guess I just assumed he was only talking to a certain people and that it didn't apply to everyone. Now that I believe this, the concept of oneness is a major theme of Jesus.

 

I actually believe he was misunderstood and the enlightenment he was teaching was turned into an exclusive belief system.

I have looked at what OM is doing and have seen this as a necessary step in the continued evolution of Christianity to speak to the modern world, but I am wondering actually if it isn't really more of a devolving back out of a church/state religion with united tribal deities into the earliest manifestation of the religion? There certainly appears to be indications of this in places in the sayings collections.

 

Certainly the comparisons of the Pharisees with the modern Fundamentalist are abundantly obvious. They are religious institution of today that Christ would have wished destroyed.

Oh...I couldn't agree more! More like an "Old Age" movement.

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman, almond to that.

 

And Antlerman, you touched a subject in one of the earlier posts that I have been thinking about lately.

 

I'll try to make my argument short and hopefully not to short that it doesn't make sense.

 

We make our decisions (free will) based on our experience, knowledge (information input) and ability to reason.

 

Experience is mostly out of our control. We can control where we're going and what we're doing, but experience is about seeing, finding, discovering, observing things that he not before. Otherwise it wouldn't be an experience. So can we completely control it? Yes and no. We limited control to the situation, the setting and the timing. We can decide to go to Grand Canyon, but we can't control the feeling of magnificence and awe that we get from having the actual experience. A form of transcendence.

 

And to jump to the third component, our ability to reason. That is mostly out of our control too. We can affect it somewhat by conditioning it through mental training, right diet and healthy lifestyle. But we're born with a certain degree of mental capacity, and it can't be changed.

 

And to go back to the second component, knowledge. Knowledge is somewhat in our control. We can decide what we read, who we listen to or trust to listen to, and what we observe, or see on TV etc. But here's the problem with information flow. We can't control the quality of the data (information) that is given us.

 

If I decide to buy a new washing machine, and I go to consumer reports and they recommend a certain model. I get it, and I start having problems with it, because it wasn't as great model after all. The Consumer Report had made a mistake, and I didn't know about it. Now, whose fault was this? Mine or the source? Well, of course the source made the mistake, and I did my best to find the best quality information. How could I know that the information was flawed.

 

This argument also goes for religion. How do I know that the information about one religion is better or have higher quality than another? If belief or faith is based on decision, and my decision is based on experience, knowledge and ability to reason, and all of these are mostly or partially out of my control.

 

If faith is based on decisions, and decisions are based on experience, knowledge and abilities that our outside our control, how can God judge our faith?

 

The only judgment God could make would be on how well we followed our decisions or understanding. If I knew it was wrong to lie, but still did it, that would be a base for judgment, but if I didn't know it was wrong to lie and did lie, then it is not a base for judgement.

 

In the end, God's (if he/she/it exists) can't judge us by our faith or which religion we belonged to, but only how well we adhered to the understanding of the world and existence.

 

Does this make sense at all?

[Antlerman]

If faith is based on decisions, and decisions are based on experience, knowledge and abilities that our outside our control, how can God judge our faith?

 

The only judgment God could make would be on how well we followed our decisions or understanding. If I knew it was wrong to lie, but still did it, that would be a base for judgment, but if I didn't know it was wrong to lie and did lie, then it is not a base for judgement.

 

In the end, God's (if he/she/it exists) can't judge us by our faith or which religion we belonged to, but only how well we adhered to the understanding of the world and existence.

 

Does this make sense at all?

Yes this makes sense. This is why you hear me using the words "sincere" and "insincere" as the highest form of praise and the worst sort of criticism. I many times joke that mosts atheists will be in heaven because they acted sincerely in not serving what to them amounted to a lie. That is being sincere. If someone sees God as real and does not serve him, then they are being insincere. If they say they serve Him and yet act inconsistently with what they profess they are insincere, or as Christ called them "Hypocrites!"

 

Sometimes I ponder the ultimate idea of heaven and hell manifesting itself as part of the death experience. If we lived a sincere life, being true to our beliefs made out of a sincere desire to be honest with ourselves and others, then in facing ourselves in the final moments of our lives here, we should find peace in the final notes of our own existence. Those who live insincere lives, who lied to themselves and to others, will face the insincerity of their lives in the final notes and meet remorse and the dishonor of the own conscience. They will die condemned. This idea to me is more terrifying that being judged by someone’s interpretation of a theological thought. But the answer is simple: Live Sincerely.

 

I do not believe people can live insincerely at not be affected by it, in how they feel day to day, in how others respond to them, and in how they shall judge themselves on the final day of themselves. Those who condemn others while claiming to serve God are insincere. "Judge not lest you be judged."

 

Thought for the day

[Ouroboros]

Well put Antlerman.

 

And it explains the purpose of some of the Gospels sayings, like "I didn't know you." It's a pointer to the Christians: be sincere and honest.

 

In a sense all comes back to something that I learned in the thread about Odin. The Asatru tenets are (from Wikipedia): personal character and virtue is emphasized: truthfulness, self-reliance, and hospitality are important moral distinctions, underpinning an especially cherished notion of honour.

 

These are all better guidelines or notions than to be forced to obey a particular set of rules. And curiously enough, it also connects to the Jesus' sayings that it's what is within you that makes you clean or unclean, not your actions. What is inside is what matters. The honesty and purity of the heart.

 

I saw these things as very important when I was Christian. That I thought and lived pure and honest during the week, not only on Sundays. And one problem I could clearly see predomniant in Church was the people who bless others with their mouths, but would easily throw them under a bus if they had the chance. I saw them as more evil than any good hearted Atheist. So in the end, I found people everywhere that had a good heart, independent of faith, and I found a lot of rude, arrogant and "evil" people in the most fundamentalistic religions.

[Amanda]

This argument also goes for religion. How do I know that the information about one religion is better or have higher quality than another? If belief or faith is based on decision, and my decision is based on experience, knowledge and ability to reason, and all of these are mostly or partially out of my control.

HanSolo, if you didn't have the belief of the impending retribution of a literal eternal fiery hell, then you could use logic and determine for yourself if these are valid and useable ideas and principles. Maybe you would find that it ALL might be a fable, or maybe not, but to let the teachings still stand on its own merit. If it does not make sense.. throw it away. However, if there is a beneficial transformation process, then keep it. The thrust of the matter is to THINK for yourself instead of blindly listening to one guy telling everyone how to think. :wink:

 

In the end, God's (if he/she/it exists) can't judge us by our faith or which religion we belonged to, but only how well we adhered to the understanding of the world and existence.

I know... that's the beauty of 'grace'. Everyone is just doing their best, can't be angry at someone for not doing better than their best, so forgive them because they don't know or understand what they are doing! If they did, they wouldn't do it! They still have to have accountability, IMO.

 

I agree with you and Antlerman. It is from the religous right that the character of Jesus is trying to liberate us. Today it would be the fundamentalist, IMO! *sigh*

 

NBBTB, I always love the thought provoking insights you share. I will look up that site you posted. Along with you and OM, I also believe in the ONENESS of ALL things. If everything came out of the Big Bang, wouldn't that mean ALL things came out of the same thing? Maybe the only conflict we have is how each of us define God?