chistians are hypocrites

[Medicine*Woman]

Yorda: The separation between things is an illusion. I'm sure that humanity will be dead in a billion years, although, the self of all things will never die.
*************
M*W: Humanity as we know it today may be dead in a billion years, but the powerful force of positive energy that dwells within all creation will always exist. A more perfected humanity will have evolved toward an androgynist body (both male and female), one mind, and one spirit.

 

[Yorda]

M*W: Humanity as we know it today may be dead in a billion years, but the powerful force of positive energy that dwells within all creation will always exist. A more perfected humanity will have evolved toward an androgynist body (both male and female), one mind, and one spirit.
*************
Yorda: The outer form is only a shell, a reflection of the internal being. If one knows the inner being and IS this inner being, the outer form is not needed except as instrument to express oneself. The self is both male and female and thus it is neither.

If one identifies oneself with the body, one also becomes like the body, and a person is created which reflects the outer core. Because man identifies himself with his body, which through natural laws only shows one side, he seeks completion from outside, in another human which manifests the other side. Two things can't exist on the same space and time in the material world, but in the consciousness it's fully possible.

The material core can only be one sided because where these sides create a oneness, there is no physical existence. If the complementary sides would unify and become one, the matter would completely be destroyed, just like when a great star explodes and unifies with its opposite side, the gravity. Androgynism can only exist in spirit.

The body and the personal self is only half of the true self, the other side is invisible in the consciousness.

 

[CritiquingChrist]

okinrus: The Irish Brigid around the time of St. Patrick? There seems to be quite a lot of evidence she existed.

Not necessarily the Irish Brigid. Brigid was a Celtic deity known through out Europe, her mythos originates in Germany, not Ireland. During the persecution a great ammount of Continental Celts left for the safety of the islands which is how a good majority of their mythos came there. The eldest Christian writing we have Brigid is the Vita Brigitae, by Cogitosus, which dates to the seventh century AD. Although Brigit is said to have been the founder-abbess of Kildare, there is no firm evidence for the abbess as a historical figure: descriptions of her life are base almost entirely on legend, which gives rise to the suspicion that she may be a mythic figure who underwent a humanisation-process and was thus endowed with a false historicity. The point of which was to assimilate pagan mythos into Catholic doctrine.

The accounts of Saint Brigit's birth and childhood show a direct association with Celtic paganism. She was reared in the household of a druid who was her father. The young girl was made ill by the pagan druid's food and was, instead, fed on the milk of a special white, red-eared cow. (Which is a pagan symbol for the Goddess Io, any human with powers of divinity was said to have suckled from Io. This is very significant because creatures of this colouring belonged to the Celtic mythic tradition of the Otherworld. Why would Catholicism report such a pagan symbolic story?

The druid realized that Brigit's rejection of his food was because he was unclean and she was pure, full of the Holy Spirit, a quality which he recognized and respected. The druid's susceptibility to Christian influence is shown by the vision which he had when the infant Brigit joined his household: three Christian clergy appeared to him in a dream, one proclaiming 'Let Brigit be the name of the girl for you.' So the druid was apparently divinely inspired by a Christian apparition to give the baby the name of a prestigious Celtic goddess. The maternal uncle of this druid was a Christian and it was he who announced the child's holy status. (Again, all of this admonishing of paganism, with use of pagan mythology, for the sake of upholding Christian mythos, reeks of assimilation interpolation.)

The life of Saint Brigit is steeped in magic and miraculous happenings, some of which bear a strong resemblance to those surrounding a superhuman, heroic figure of pagan myth. Brigit's association with fire, liminality and prophecy serve to illustrate this connection with pre-Christian tradition. The fire-symbolism is related to a story of the saint's early life, when Brigit's relatives saw a fire rising from the house where the child and her mother were asleep. The fire was shown to be magical: like the burning bush encountered by Moses in the Old Testament, the fire glowed but did not consume the house, and the occupants emerged unharmed. (Maybe not to you, but to must this is cause of speculation. To attribute such bizarre mythos of burning bushes to an earthly woman is cause to raise an eyebrow.)

Brigit's monastery at Kildare had an ever-burning fire, like that of the Vestal Virgins of Roman religion. When the Normans arrived at Kildare in the twelfth century, they found a fire constantly alight in the saint's shrine there, a symbol of hearth and home but also of purity. Now, isn't it a little odd that a Christian temple is said to exist in a Celtic territory during the three hundreds? This was before the pact of Charlemagne. This is while the Celts were still relentlessly fighting the incoming Romans and their belief systems. So how did a Christian temple led be a celtic brigid with a druid father manage to reach Ireland? It violates what we know of what was happening historicaly.

Many saints are associated with fire-imagery, a symbol of the link with the power God. But some scholars have argued for a connection between Saint Brigit and the pagan goddess Sulis Minerva, whose sacred fire at Bath was recorded by Solinus in the third century Ad. Knowing this, it seems far more likely that Catholics assimilated these early pagan myths and places into their tradition for the sake of assimilation. It's a common thing done in theology, the idea that you must build your new temple upon the ruins of the old. The early Jews engage in this, and it's recorded in the Bible. The Aryans did this with the Hindus, the Muslims do it with Arab paganism, and so did Christianity do this with Roman and European mythology.

When one seeks to alter a belief system, you are most successful to borrow and incoporate previous myths to soothe the transition. Just as Muslims claim that Jesus is a prophet of God, while overlooking the divinity the Bible ascribed to him. Bahai's are doing this right now by claiming their prophet is the seal, and not Muhammad. People really shouldn't get offended by their religion doing these things, its a common tactic in human history, and makes perfect logical sense.

Boy this answer is getting longer than I thought, so I'll just highlight things which comparative religions scholars point to as evidence for assimilation interpolation:

-Certainly both Brigit and Minerva were patrons of crafts. 'Brigit's Crosses' are solar emblems which are still set up in Ireland to protect crops and livestock.

- Both the goddess Brigit and the saint of that name were closely associated with prophecy and divination. She was a patron of poet-seers.

-The saint's own childhood was marked with portents and omens, of which the most significant was a prophecy uttered by Brigit as an infant, when she was heard to murmur in her sleep while still too young to speak. The druid was able to interpret her words, which were that the land where she dwelled would belong to her in the future. (The very same words which we find in Druidic oral tradition for thousands of years.)

-Although virgin, she stimulated fertility and, indeed, was able to cure frigidity in women. Now why would Catholics pray to a virgin saint to increase their fertility? Could it be because in Celtic mythos she was the holy virgin mother who was prayed to for thousands of years for fertility?

-The image of Saint Brigit as a generous provider is indistinguishable from that of the pagan mother-goddesses. The Catholics didn't even bother to alter her symbolism or appearance. The same symbols associated with her during the paleolithic era are still associated with her in Catholic mythos!

- Her prowess as a provider was reknown in both cultures. Like her goddess-predecessor, she was patron of the ale-harvest and, at Easter-time, one measure of her malt could make sufficient ale for seventeen of her churches. Why would this type of ancient Celtic agricultural mythos be tacked on to a Catholic saint? Again, because it is most likely she is an assimilated interpolation.

There's alot more, but I could write a virtual novel on this, and I have been missing in action for so long that I want to move foward. Let me just put it as such: The idea of a temple in 300 ad that is attributed to her in 700 ad, is not fair evidence in the book of comparative religions scholars. Especially when we have earlier writings which state that temple was for the Goddess and not some saint. The "evidence" for her existence fails miserably when we analyze what is attributed to her, and the historical setting of Ireland. The fact is, the first recorded missionary to Ireland was Palladius, in 431 ad. The idea that a Christian Saint existed there with a Christian temple 100 years before the first Christian missionary ever came there violates the same evidence the church presents to us concerning how Christianity came to Ireland. The Church admitted in 800 ad under Pope Leo that assimilation interpolation was occuring.

During ancient Greek there were ancient philosophers, even Christians were acused of being atheist. But there use of the word, to me, suggest disbelief, not merely the lack of belief.

I understand this is your view, but please understand to the atheist, disbelief is a lack of belief. It's the same thing. Yes, Christians were accused of being atheist. Anyone who did not worship the Grecco-Roman pantheon were deemed atheists, because they were "away from belief in theos". Atheism means the same thing today, it is away from a belief in theos. The only difference is that Christianity is the world religion now instead of the Grecco-Roman pantheon. But the atheist doesn't see a difference here, because to them, Christianity is essentialy a hybrid of Judiasm, esoteric mythraism and the same Grecco-Roman belief systems. They are still without belief in the pantheon.

If this were so, then we could doubt any historical figure existed.

I understand it seems that way, but it is so, and that does not mean we must doubt every historical figure. We can look to outside sources to prove existence of claims. For instance, the Bible mentions the emperor Nero. Now we KNOW Nero existed because we have outside sources for him. We can find coins minted by him, we have written records from other cultures with no vested interest and align in dating, etc. That can not be said of the apostles. We do not have outside sources of their existence like coins, tax records, birth documents, historical writings of sources outside the field. Like I said earlier: "Theology is NOT like other fields in that documentation is merited proof. Theology evolved under faliciousness, political agendas, and persecution. Cryptology is heavily used, as well as dedication writing, hence authorship claims are never used as proof in theology. We must go to outside historical sources to say anything is a fact in my field. This is the first thing you learn when entering a theology course." The bottom line is outside historical sources. If we lack them, we have no compelling reason to believe in the existence of a character. They are required in order to divide mythos from fact, and my field is RIGHT in doing that. If we didn't, then we might as well say that Zeus existed as much as Jesus, and Allah is as fact as Vishnu. Outside documents have to be a dividing line.

No, it didn't. The Spanish Inquisition was started in 1478. The effort to root out the Albigensian heresy was the first officially declared Inquisition, I believe. At other points in times such as the Aryian heresy, there was an inquisition but it was not officially declared.

I understand you like official declaration as a dividing line, but it doesnt suit the evidence. Sounds crazy, I know, but let me give you an example: Vietnam. We never officially declared a war, so does that mean it didn't happen? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of survivors. It DID happen, and we can't trust official declaration because we know that like theology, politics is riddled with agendas that censor the truth. This is why we must always look at the evidence versus official declaration. It is our duty to be skeptical of fields that have bias.

Now I'm gonna show you the evidence of the inquisition before it's official declaration. I'm gonna piss some people off because a lot of people don't know that the inquisition actually didn't start to harm the pagans (which is what ALOT of wiccans would like to believe.) It started to deal with the Knight Templars. The Crusade "officialy" began August 01, 1119ad. (Never mind Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095 gave a dramatic speech urging good Christians to swarm towards Jerusalem and once again make it safe for Christian pilgrims by taking it away from the evil Muslims. Which incited the first true Crusade.) The knight Templars were guides into the holy land who were recruited to aid the Crusaders. The knight templars were owed high debts by the aristocracy of Europe, France especially was seeking to cull the Templars to relieve the debt. January 13, 1128 Saint Benard issued to the Templars a new formal order of rules, in hopes of easing the animosity between the templars and the aristocracy. December 01, 1145 Pope Eugene III announced the "second crusade".

Now, there is something ESSENTIAL you must understand here concerning Catholicism. It was never a clean and cut dry apostolic tradition as it appears to be now. There was actually a division in Catholicism, in which there were the popes of the Vatican, and the popes of Avignon (who are now refered to as the anti-popes.) These popes were warring against each other for power. (Oh man atheists, you wanna read about how sick these people were, read up on the crap the vatican popes were doing to the cathars and the popes of avignon.) These popes were using the soldiers set aside for the crusades to attack one another, which is why it took a series of crusades to become successful. Now as I said the Templars were associated with the popes of Avignon, but they turned towards the vatican during the rule of pope innocent. Even though the Templars switched loyalties, they were still regarded as dangerous and the wealth they received from the avignons was highly desired by the vatican. Soon war was being waged on the Knight Templars by the crusaders (around the 1145). This undeclared war continued until on March 25, 1199 Pope Innocent III issued a bull to establish the Inquisition. The mission of that Inquisition? Outright war against the Knight Templars and the people of Avignon (Western Europe). To eradicate their "heresy". The inquisition only began to gain promise in the 1400's which is why it was officially declared, but all evidence and edicts state that it was in existence FAR before that official declaration.

This is unsettling for most people to read, I know. It's a blow to the catholics because it knocks their illusion of a solid tradition. It's a blow to Christians because it reveals their absolute barbarism to the Muslims and their own people. And it's a blow to people of the pagan persuasion, because we find that they weren't merely attacked due to their matriarchy (which they like to believe) but because they were competing for the wealth and assimilation of Christian power. This strips them of the idea they were a peaceful matriarchy which was merely attacked because they had opposing views. In truth, the Pagans helped to cut their own throats by vieing for power under avignon. It proves that they would have became Christian regardless of what the Vatican did, because they were already buying into it.

Okay, I wrote alot and I have more stuff to do, so I'll tackle the rest of your post later. Hang in there people! And thanks for understanding my absence. School starts on the 24th so I've been a busy lady

 

[stuff057]

christians arent perfect theyre like the rest of the world.

 

[stretched]

Hi CC,

Thanks for the interesting post, have you studied the Gnostic text "The Thunder, Perfect Heart" ? (link: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html)

If you have, what do you think the author is trying to convey?

Allcare.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

christians arent perfect theyre like the rest of the world.

but they are hypocrites woody/stuffy.
not writing in text speak no more.

 

[CritiquingChrist]

Stretched: Thanks for the interesting post, have you studied the Gnostic text "The Thunder, Perfect Heart" ?

I have studied the dead sea scrolls, and I'm SO excited you're bringing them up! (For those of you who do not know, the Nag Hammadi are the dead sea scrolls. There is a lie circulating the Christian community that the dead sea scrolls are exactly the same as our Bible, and hence christians can be assured God protected it. It's a massive falsehood. The Nag Hammadi contains many gnostic texts and extra gospels that were taken out of the Bible. Its significance is not in testifying to the reliability of our modern scripture, but in showing us how politics has managed to askew the scriptures.) Anyway, as I said I have read the missing books, and took a short gander at the books such as Isaiah to watch for late interpolations. So yes, I have read this book before, It has been years however, so I took the liberty of going back over it. As I read it I cut and pasted certain lines that appealed to me, that made me have thoughts concerning what was occuring during that time. I'm pasting them here with my thoughts because it will show you my intial reactions as a reader of religious texts. I will then go back over the text utilizing my theological education and checking it against my initial reactions to come to a conclusion about the purpose of the text.

You who deny me, confess me,
and you who confess me, deny me.
You who tell the truth about me, lie about me,
and you who have lied about me, tell the truth about me. (This sounds like the peeved Asheroth. The feminine principle was being surpressed at the time of these writings, and it seems the divine female is angry and calling out those who have supressed her. Yet it is equally a duality, which speaks to the Hebrew/Greek pistle sophia wisdom. Lastly, it's a gospel text, and there is a tradition in which the Magdelene argues against the apostles for refusing to see her divine nature alongside Jesus.)

Why have you hated me in your counsels? (Council? That could be a reference to the ancient council of deities of Asheroth.)
For I shall be silent among those who are silent,
and I shall appear and speak, (Yet Asheroth was never silent, she is the logos, hence, could this be the magdelene? The one who is asked to suffer in silence at the apostolic councils? It could be either, which simply means again this is the feminine principle.)

I am the one whose image is great in Egypt (Ah, this right here is HUGE! The one who is worshipped in Egypt is Isis, and Asheroth is one of her many avatars. Isis was not worsipped in heathen lands, at least not a related avatar. The heathen lands stuck to her prototype Kali.)

I am the one whom you have scattered,
and you have gathered me together. (Again, reeks of the Isis and Osiris story where he is cut and she gathers. The Goddess repairing her consort, who is also herself for she births him. The duality here reeks of Platonicism, you can see the gnostic ideaology just premeating this verse.)

I, I am godless,
and I am the one whose God is great. (This is all out Alpha-Omega speak. This deity is the formless one, the creatrix of God, and yet God is an extension of herself and great. So much duality here, yet it reminds me of Proverbs eight. Such terminology shows the hybrid of Hebrew, Greecian & Egyptian philosophies.)

Why do you curse me and honor me?
You have wounded and you have had mercy.
Do not separate me from the first ones whom you have known.
And do not cast anyone out nor turn anyone away (Again, this is feminine principle speak, echoing of Magdalene, Sophia and Asheroth.)

Okay, just got done rereading a second time, and I am certain that this document does not represent a specific deity but the femine principle and it contains three ideologies: Isis worship, Hebrew wisdom & Platonic philosophy. The point of it is to show the duality of deity and existence itself. That understanding duality is the ultimate gnosis. Let me expound: the blending of the three beliefs I mentioned led to deep questions the early apostles were asking. Questions concerning purpose and origin. If I remember correctly, the Gospel of Thomas talked at length about liberation, and what liberated us is knowing who we are, where we are from, etc. It seems this document seeks to answer those questions by defining the origin and nature of the divine feminine principle. It also seems to serve the purpose of expounding on the great polarities of the creator/creatrix. All of these contradictions of nature are placed there to sum up the totality of the being and the absolute all that it is, much as in Revelation God is referred to as the Alpha and Omega.

Another point, there is so much defense and defining of the feminine principle that I believe this document may serve as initiatory text. "come forward to me, you who know me...and establish the great ones among the small first creatures." Jesus spoke like this. Many Christians aren't aware that early Christianity was iniatory, there were those who heard the word, and those who may understand the word. (Like I've said so many times in this thread, Jesus said there was a difference between those who know the law, and those who live it. The livers being "counted first" and "greater".) This is because Christianity was initially esoteric. The text divides "hearers" from "knowers", like a heirarchal system. I believe this document may be warning those who hear that if they truly wish to know then they must accept the duality of creator, which includes the feminine principle. They must guard themselves from those who hear, and yoke themselves with those who know. Because as it states in the begining those who "confess": "lie". This could be a hint to how the feminine principle was being squashed. The text is so urgent, it has no eschatology, but an urgency of displaying duality. When there is urgency in a text it is typically because there is a theological crisis. And there was one at this time, the "lying carnalizers" were attacking the "knowing spirits", that's why the dead sea scrolls were burried in the first place.

But what is there to "know"? The answer is right there in text: duality. In order to be enlightened, one must understand that existence is a great polarity. This document works like an asian koan. It keeps giving contradiction and ends with a come and know me. It's very much an exercise in breaking down perceptions and accepting being. This is the intellectual Christianity that we have lost. This is "gnosis" at its finest, an exercise in trying to understand the true nature, and non nature of all things. In knowing these things we answer the great questions of the apostles concerning who we are and what is our nature. "One cannot understand the nature of the speaker or the world until one becomes a part of it, and all the parts of it." This right here is the answer. Deity is telling us: You want to know me? Then come to understand all that I am, come to understand I can not be personified, and neither can you. Come to understand I am what is, and that is my nature. It echoes of the Hebrew: "judge not lest ye be judged, for so shall you judge, I shall judge"... Essentially what that means is if you condemn something, you too shall be condemned as you condemned because your nature is the same as all nature, and vice versa.

All that I'm writing here is a mental screw to Christians, and anyone who has not studied eastern philosophy. I can hear the people reading this and saying "that's the message, to simply be? It makes no sense!" It is our nature to want something grander, to want redemption of the human condition, but that is what deity says is our lesson, to come to accept our nature and when we understand it, only then can we rise above it. We save ourselves through enlightenment. It's seems easy enough, but it's not. To conquer the self is the hardest act anyone can achieve. Every religion and philosopher professes this.

Blah.... I could really go on a tangent here concerning what I take away from the text on a personal level, but then I start entering the dangerous ground of personal interpretation, and I don't want to do that. I'm most impressed you know of the Nag Hammadi, not many do. And it's such a wonderful collection because it answers contradictions of our modern bible. Like how Jesus can say "the kingdom of heaven is within me". How he can be "equal to the father" and yet "the father is greater than I". It makes us ask: Why is the Jesus who said "the body is the temple", gave sermons from mountain tops and talked about enlightenment being a state of mind; is now immortalized in a literal church of earthly wealth? It makes us ask what's the purpose of a church if heaven is enlightenment that one attains via self-reflection? Why would the church seek to hide these texts then, and still hide them now?

I love that you brought up this collection because in the Nag Hammadi, we have this thing that if Christians would simply study, they'd come to know that their religion is not necessarily how it came packaged to them. If they would for once test the idea that the bible is a protected and perfect book never being added to or taken away from, and simply did a little research, they could free themselves from those who enslave them in Jesus' name. They could come to understand that the Jesus they think they worship is far more grand and compassionate in his earlier forms. Christian woman could once again find honor in their condition, and a nurturing of the intellect can take root. These texts are "blessed" in that they help us to understand the diversity of this early faith, and know the path to heaven is not as "narrow" as the interpolation suggests.

What made you inquire to this text? What is it that you enjoy about it? What is it that you get from it? How long have you studied it? Do your observations differ from my own? I think it would be exciting to have a "reasoning together" of the gnostic texts. I simply love it when people have done their homework. Thank you again!

I'll still get to the rest of the posts, but this one REALLY piqued my interest so I had to jump aboard.

 

[okinrus]

Not necessarily the Irish Brigid. Brigid was a Celtic deity known through out Europe, her mythos originates in Germany, not Ireland. During the persecution a great ammount of Continental Celts left for the safety of the islands which is how a good majority of their mythos came there. The eldest Christian writing we have Brigid is the Vita Brigitae, by Cogitosus, which dates to the seventh century AD.

650AD, actually, by St. Broccan Cloen.(this is from the Catholic enclopedia) But the famaliarity of the names do not necessarily mean a St. Brigid never existed. Brigid may have been a common name, or perhaps St. Brigid was named after the goddess.

Although Brigit is said to have been the founder-abbess of Kildare, there is no firm evidence for the abbess as a historical figure: descriptions of her life are base almost entirely on legend, which gives rise to the suspicion that she may be a mythic figure who underwent a humanisation-process and was thus endowed with a false historicity.

Many saints have legendary stories. While these stories are not necessarily true, evidence of the saints existence might be still true. For instance, St. Dominic's life story was chronicled by an overzealous nun, who, in portraying St. Dominic's holyness, may have exagerated quite a bit. The life story of St. Brigid may have been confused with tales concerning the goddess. It might not have.

The point of which was to assimilate pagan mythos into Catholic doctrine.

Your acting like there was some rational reason for St. Brigid to exist, when in fact the Catholic church didn't canonize saints at that time. The saints we know of that time are only by their testament of holiness and by them being called saints by later Christians.

The accounts of Saint Brigit's birth and childhood show a direct association with Celtic paganism. She was reared in the household of a druid who was her father. The young girl was made ill by the pagan druid's food and was, instead, fed on the milk of a special white, red-eared cow. (Which is a pagan symbol for the Goddess Io, any human with powers of divinity was said to have suckled from Io. This is very significant because creatures of this colouring belonged to the Celtic mythic tradition of the Otherworld. Why would Catholicism report such a pagan symbolic story?

Well, it's possible that imagery of pagan stories were used to exemplify St. Brigid.

Brigit's monastery at Kildare had an ever-burning fire, like that of the Vestal Virgins of Roman religion. When the Normans arrived at Kildare in the twelfth century, they found a fire constantly alight in the saint's shrine there, a symbol of hearth and home but also of purity. Now, isn't it a little odd that a Christian temple is said to exist in a Celtic territory during the three hundreds? This was before the pact of Charlemagne. This is while the Celts were still relentlessly fighting the incoming Romans and their belief systems. So how did a Christian temple led be a celtic brigid with a druid father manage to reach Ireland? It violates what we know of what was happening historicaly.

I don't know what you mean, here. St. Brigid, some stories say, was baptized by St. Patrick. St. Patrick's existence in Ireland is well recorded. He even wrote his own confession, around the year 450AD. I don't think the Romans put up to much of fight in Ireland. They never fully invaded England.

The fact is, the first recorded missionary to Ireland was Palladius, in 431 ad.

I think your confusing the dates. 300AD is before St. Patrick but if she's placed near the time of St. Patrick, then she was born some time around 450AD. Pallagius, who is also claimed by some to be Irish, would have been there sometime around 400AD.

For instance, the Bible mentions the emperor Nero.

The Bible mentions some political figures such as Herod, but does not mention Nero, unless of course you mean the 666 of Revelation.

I understand you like official declaration as a dividing line, but it doesnt suit the evidence. Sounds crazy, I know, but let me give you an example: Vietnam. We never officially declared a war, so does that mean it didn't happen? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of survivors. It DID happen, and we can't trust official declaration because we know that like theology, politics is riddled with agendas that censor the truth. This is why we must always look at the evidence versus official declaration. It is our duty to be skeptical of fields that have bias.

Where is the evidence? If there was an Inquisition in southern France, then the Albigensian crusade would likely never to have happend. Furthermore, during the time period before, the crusades and the black plague were going on. The Popes, then, were far too concerned with the crusades, I would think, then to heresy.


Now I'm gonna show you the evidence of the inquisition before it's official declaration. I'm gonna piss some people off because a lot of people don't know that the inquisition actually didn't start to harm the pagans (which is what ALOT of wiccans would like to believe.) It started to deal with the Knight Templars. The Crusade "officialy" began August 01, 1119ad.

(Never mind Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095 gave a dramatic speech urging good Christians to swarm towards Jerusalem and once again make it safe for Christian pilgrims by taking it away from the evil Muslims. Which incited the first true Crusade.)

Well, Pope Urban II had heard reports of pilgrims being tortured by "evil" muslims.

[
The knight Templars were guides into the holy land who were recruited to aid the Crusaders. The knight templars were owed high debts by the aristocracy of Europe, France especially was seeking to cull the Templars to relieve the debt. January 13, 1128 Saint Benard issued to the Templars a new formal order of rules, in hopes of easing the animosity between the templars and the aristocracy. December 01, 1145 Pope Eugene III announced the "second crusade".

Now, there is something ESSENTIAL you must understand here concerning Catholicism. It was never a clean and cut dry apostolic tradition as it appears to be now. There was actually a division in Catholicism, in which there were the popes of the Vatican, and the popes of Avignon (who are now refered to as the anti-popes.)

The Orthodox Church also split from the Catholic church. The apostolic tradition is the laying of hands, from Bishop to Bishop in the Church. This tradition has been upheld within both the Orthodox church and the Catholic church. The conspiracy at Avignon, I believe, has to do with king of france not liking an Italian pope.

Outright war against the Knight Templars and the people of Avignon (Western Europe). To eradicate their "heresy". The inquisition only began to gain promise in the 1400's which is why it was officially declared, but all evidence and edicts state that it was in existence FAR before that official declaration.

Pope Innnocent III called for the crusade against the Albegensians in 1208.

 

[geistkiesel]

All the hypocricy shown by Jesus in the bible? Oh please do, this should be good.

This isn't all the hypocrisy, but a major part. Matthew 6:5-6

6:5 J is quoted as those praying in public "the broasd ways" "for all to see", including synagogues are hypocrites. "...as the hypocrites do..."

In 6:6 J quotes that when praying one should gp into his/her room close/lock the door etc.

Later J uses the "Lords Prayer" as an example of how to pray , which is widely repeated in christian public meetings without any reference to the Master's admonishions.

I gotta agree with the aut hor of the thread. Most, Christians are hypocrites.

Hey David F., how do you pray?

Geistkiesel

 

[Jenyar]

I have studied the dead sea scrolls, and I'm SO excited you're bringing them up! (For those of you who do not know, the Nag Hammadi are the dead sea scrolls. There is a lie circulating the Christian community that the dead sea scrolls are exactly the same as our Bible, and hence christians can be assured God protected it. It's a massive falsehood. The Nag Hammadi contains many gnostic texts and extra gospels that were taken out of the Bible. Its significance is not in testifying to the reliability of our modern scripture, but in showing us how politics has managed to askew the scriptures.)

That's not correct.

"During the middle years of the twentieth century two important but very different collections of ancient religious texts were unearthed in Palestine and Egypt: the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Visitors to the Gnostic Society Library often do not understand the distinction between these two discoveries... [emphasis mine]

What are popularly called The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of a very large number of scrolls – most poorly preserved and many surviving only as tiny scraps – discovered in a series of eleven caves near Qumran and the Dead Sea beginning around 1947. Over 800 separate texts of several divergent types are now recognized among this find. The scrolls date from the "intertestamental period" – a period ranging from about 250 BCE to 100 CE, the epoch after textual formation of the "Old Testament" but still before the formation of Christianity and rabbinical Judaism.

In contrast, The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945 and is comprised of 13 ancient leather- bound books (or codices) containing in total 55 texts. - The Gnostic Society Library​

The texts found at either location were never included in any "Bible" (there's no evident canon), and they had never been "taken out" of one either.

I have never even heard a rumour -- much less a believed lie -- that the Dead Sea Scrolls (which contain loose, mostly pre-Christian scrolls) are "exactly the same as our Bible". You are thinking of the remarkable correspondence between the Qumran texts of such OT books as Isaiah, with the received Masoteric texts (which are almost a thousand years later).

Another point, there is so much defense and defining of the feminine principle that I believe this document may serve as initiatory text. "come forward to me, you who know me...and establish the great ones among the small first creatures." Jesus spoke like this.

The feminine personification of wisdom, and her inextricable relation to God, is a Jewish, not Gnostic, concept -- easily seen in Proverbs 1. So it should be nothing new to modern Christianity either (at least not authentic Christianity -- it's popular, materialistic and prosperity-driven manifestations are poor representatives). It's not a long stretch for the gnostics to look for a female manifestation in Mary Magdalene, in the light of their perception of Jesus. However, such a step marks the start of a heretical departure from the uncontestable unity of God.

The parallels are clear, but Proverbs separates wisdom, a creation of God not to be deified:

Proverbs 8:22-23
The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
...
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.
..
35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favour from the LORD.
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.​

All that I'm writing here is a mental screw to Christians, and anyone who has not studied eastern philosophy. I can hear the people reading this and saying "that's the message, to simply be? It makes no sense!" It is our nature to want something grander, to want redemption of the human condition, but that is what deity says is our lesson, to come to accept our nature and when we understand it, only then can we rise above it. We save ourselves through enlightenment. It's seems easy enough, but it's not. To conquer the self is the hardest act anyone can achieve. Every religion and philosopher professes this.

Not even the Gnostics believed we can save ourselves, even though they emphasized the personal experience of salvation (which you call 'enlightenment'). They believed that figures (which they called the "Messengers of Light") like Seth, Enoch, Melchizedek and Jesus, supplied the secret knowledge required to rid one of the human ignorance that causes sin. So salvation came by knowledge and experience -- not a "conquering of oneself" ("For whatever is from itself is an empty life; it is self-made" (Eugnostos the Blessed); "For whatever is from itself is a polluted life; it is self-made" (The Sophia of Jesus Christ)).

The "secret knowledge" of gnosis is "secret" because it is only available to those who attain that wisdom. According to earlychristianwritings.com "The term 'gnostic' derives from 'gnosis,' which means 'knowledge' in Greek. The Gnostics believed that they were privy to a secret knowledge about the divine, hence the name." While they believed that such divine revelation was accessible to any man, it does not make their other beliefs irrelevant. Unless you want to construct your own version of "gnosticism". Yes, I said any man:

(Gospel of Thomas: 114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."​

Blah.... I could really go on a tangent here concerning what I take away from the text on a personal level, but then I start entering the dangerous ground of personal interpretation, and I don't want to do that. I'm most impressed you know of the Nag Hammadi, not many do. And it's such a wonderful collection because it answers contradictions of our modern bible. Like how Jesus can say "the kingdom of heaven is within me". How he can be "equal to the father" and yet "the father is greater than I". It makes us ask: Why is the Jesus who said "the body is the temple", gave sermons from mountain tops and talked about enlightenment being a state of mind; is now immortalized in a literal church of earthly wealth? It makes us ask what's the purpose of a church if heaven is enlightenment that one attains via self-reflection? Why would the church seek to hide these texts then, and still hide them now?

Jesus preached a kingdom of heaven that was entered into by repentance (Matthew 4:17) and complete righteousness (Matthew 5:20, 7:21), which are "within". Yet He says it "does not come by careful observation". And Paul confirms this:

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit".

1 Cor. 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.​

Jesus linked it in the same breath to the visble coming of the Son of Man (Luke 17). Although proto-gnostic ideas are visible in Matthew's parables, and Jesus' explanation of them ("He replied, The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." - Matt. 13:11), they are parallel to Mark and Luke's "kingdom of God". It is something we are born into, which we inherit from God himself through Jesus:

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.​

Indeed, the body is a temple if God resides in it. But God does not live with sin. Jesus' sermon on the mount is an even stricter interpretation of the Commandments that condemn sin. Enlightenment is all but a state of mind, Jesus is our enlightenment, our forgiveness of sin and our salvation:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. (John 8:12)​

To believe that Gnosticism provides some kind of "free-for-all" Christianity is simply nonsense. People would like to believe the same of the Apocryphal or Pseudogryphal scriptures. It's a symptom of not wanting to be wrong, but not wanting God to be right, either.

The Gnostics "defined three types of men; the spiritual, the carnal and the ones in-between (the Soulish). The spiritual ones were said to be saved regardless of what they do, the carnal were assumed to be beyond salvation, and the in-betweens were believed to be capable of salvation if they followed the Gnostic way and played by the rules. This doctrine of some being saved regardless of what they did caused many to live reckless lives. However, this made the Gnostics seem even more heathenistic..."
- Maged S. Mikhail, "The Gnostics, A Survey of Gnostic Beliefs and Gnostic-Christian Ties"​

 

[stretched]

Hi CC,

How wonderful at last to find a kindred spirit! (oops! Is “spirit” o.k?) Thank you greatly for your response, I had a sure sense that you would have a definite view of this text. Your detailed knowledge and understanding of mythology, religions, their interplay, and religious texts are so glaringly obvious from your posts I hoped that you would have a view on what I would consider my favourite text from Nag Hammadi. But your passion really gives me a thrill. I reached very similar conclusions to yourself regarding the “Thunder, Perfect Heart”, maybe I underestimated the scale of the feminine principle and interpreted the duality more along the lines of light and dark. But perhaps those terms are essentially interchangeable. To me the essence of the text has been the principle of ying and yang. The integral duality of the universe and nature, including human nature. The mystery of psychology. To be whole (happy), one must have the balance of negative and positive. Male and female. Light and dark. I noticed your comparative references to Eastern religions like Buddhism regarding some aspects of Jesus`s teachings, and I concur. So the “Thunder, Perfect Heart” in my opinion, is not only a beautiful poem or piece of prose, but it contains the very fundamental truths or criteria for enlightenment. And yes, voiced perhaps in a fairly cryptic manner that may have been necessitated by circumstances at the time. These thoughts are purely personal observations, I am no scholar, I am merely blessed (oops!) with an insatiable curiosity.

*Just some of your comments that stood out for me.

Quote CC:
“The point of it is to show the duality of deity and existence itself. That understanding duality is the ultimate gnosis.”

*Yes, yes, yes! And that the truth may well be revealed even as it hides in plain sight.

Quote CC:
“This document works like an asian koan. It keeps giving contradiction and ends with a come and know me. It's very much an exercise in breaking down perceptions and accepting being. This is the intellectual Christianity that we have lost.”

*Instead of seeking without, seek within. The common human condition of looking for happiness in relationships, wealth and power, when the path to happiness lies in acceptance of what just is. And embracing the joy as it flies.This line from the text comes to mind here: “I am the utterance of my name.”

Quote CC:
“I can hear the people reading this and saying "that's the message, to simply be? It makes no sense!" It is our nature to want something grander, to want redemption of the human condition, but that is what deity says is our lesson, to come to accept our nature and when we understand it, only then can we rise above it. We save ourselves through enlightenment. It's seems easy enough, but it's not. To conquer the self is the hardest act anyone can achieve. Every religion and philosopher professes this.

I agree totally. And once achieved, serenity is the touchstone.

Quote CC:
“Like how Jesus can say "the kingdom of heaven is within me". How he can be "equal to the father" and yet "the father is greater than I". It makes us ask: Why is the Jesus who said "the body is the temple", gave sermons from mountain tops and talked about enlightenment being a state of mind; is now immortalised in a literal church of earthly wealth? It makes us ask what's the purpose of a church if heaven is enlightenment that one attains via self-reflection? Why would the church seek to hide these texts then, and still hide them now?”

Because as I see it, as one attains enlightenment, one conquers the ego. And when one conquers the ego, earthly wealth becomes inconsequential, and that would not be acceptable to the church coffers. Best keep the masses in fear and bondage. Thus the sleep of reason and the Dark Ages. Why is the Vatican so glaringly opulent when according to Christianity, this world and its gold and diamonds are only a stepping stone to the heavenly kingdom?
Now how hypocritical is that?






Quote CC:
“If they would for once test the idea that the bible is a protected and perfect book never being added to or taken away from, and simply did a little research, they could free themselves from those who enslave them in Jesus' name. They could come to understand that the Jesus they think they worship is far more grand and compassionate in his earlier forms. Christian woman could once again find honor in their condition, and a nurturing of the intellect can take root.

*I couldn’t` agree more. The mere fact that the Nag Hammadi texts exist (and that they were carefully preserved) is a red flag for religious complacency. Thank god (oops!) for modern information technology. There is no longer any excuse for ignorance. All these texts are freely available to those who wish to know more. For almost one and a half millennia, the masses had no choice but to absorb only what the Church disseminated. It was a crime for the common man to poses scripture. So the so-called book of salvation was denied to the masses. Now how hypocritical is that?

Quote CC:
“What made you inquire to this text? What is it that you enjoy about it? What is it that you get from it? How long have you studied it? Do your observations differ from my own? I think it would be exciting to have a "reasoning together" of the Gnostic texts. I simply love it when people have done their homework. Thank you again!”

My main field of interest is psychology, so a natural gravitation to religious inquiry was inevitable. The big questions being:
a) What is humanities fascination with religion? What is the primal driver therefore?
b) How in the modern age of information can man choose superstition above obvious logic or common sense?
c) What animates the dark and violent side of man and why?

So these type of questions lead to reflections on the influences of religions, hence my interest. I have spent a fair amount of time over many years, poring over amongst others, the Gnostic texts, and I was immediately struck by the beauty of the literature and the focus on the metaphysical or mystical as opposed to the mainstream Christian canon. I think what really turns me on about the Gnostic texts is the apparent resilience of human nature to try and understand their place in the cosmos, and the obvious intellect at play in the writings, especially texts like “The Thunder, Perfect Heart”.

Maybe you can share some of your favourite texts, and your observations in a new thread, I am very keen to learn more. One thing I do know is that I know nothing!

Thanks for your passion.

Allcare.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: That's not correct.
*************
M*W: You are the one who is not correct. You really fear the truth, don't you?

 

[stretched]

Jenyar,

"John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

Quote J:
Indeed, the body is a temple if God resides in it. But God does not live with sin. Jesus' sermon on the mount is an even stricter interpretation of the Commandments that condemn sin. Enlightenment is all but a state of mind, Jesus is our enlightenment, our forgiveness of sin and our salvation:

"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Jenyar, you are so close, yet so far. (my opinion only) What exactly is the "Kingdom of God"? Do you believe this is a literal, physical place?

And what about,
"but will have the light of life" = enlightenment

Does this ring any Buddhist bells? John`s gospel from the canon does seem to have the closest affiliation to the style of the Gnostic Gospels.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, you are so close, yet so far. (my opinion only) What exactly is the "Kingdom of God"? Do you believe this is a literal, physical place?

Its historical Jewish perspective is Israel, or "David's throne". It was prophesied in Daniel 2:44, and the messiah was expected to restore this kingdom (on earth: Acts 1:6). This is the title Jesus claimed before Pilate, saying he was the "King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:11 &c.), but He said something more:

John 18:36-37 Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.

You are a king, then! said Pilate. Jesus answered, You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.​

It is not a physical place, but its seed (the gospel and its people, Matt. 13:38; Luk 2:11) has been sown -- through Israel (the Jews, who Jesus was addressing in Luke 17), and in those who accept God's judgment. So it already exists in people, who "force their way into" (Luke 16:16) or are "being born into" it, and among them, in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man (Luk. 17:22), its King. But flesh and blood cannot inherit it (1 Cor. 15:50), so it requires a change: a new life, a new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1).

God's kingdom is not something you work to gain for yourself, because it cannot be gained; it's not something found at last after "careful observation" (Luke 17:20). One must be invited into it, and accepting the call, work in its service as one who already belongs to it (Revelation 1:6) -- taking hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of you (Phil.3:12).

And what about,
"but will have the light of life" = enlightenment

Does this ring any Buddhist bells? John`s gospel from the canon does seem to have the closest affiliation to the style of the Gnostic Gospels.

Maybe, but can you spot the difference between 'enlightenment' as CC and the Buddhists use it (personal transcendence), and someone saying "I am the light"?

Col. 1:12-14 ...the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.​

Why is the Vatican so glaringly opulent when according to Christianity, this world and its gold and diamonds are only a stepping stone to the heavenly kingdom?
Now how hypocritical is that?

Very hypocritical.

James 2:5-7
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?​

But the same could be said for this search for personal salvation, as if it's a kind of spiritual measure of success, like money is an earthly measure of success. Just a chapter before Jesus declared "the kingdom of God is within/among (Gr. entos) you", he was looking into the hearts of the Pharisees:

Luke 16:15
He said to them, You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.​

 

[CritiquingChrist]

MW thank you, most whole heartedly. But I must concede I can see where Jenyar states his case. This is a highly debated topic in theology. As most things, it arrives from bias. As I stated earlier, we have a hard time in my field because scholars according to their belief will express an opinion and hold it as fact. Such is the case with Nag Hammadi/Qumran scrolls. It is further compounded by constraints of classifications.

Essentially there was a mass of execavations held around the outlying roman empire providences in the 1940's which lead to several discoveries in ancient Biblical texts (even using the word Biblical here will freak some people out because if a text was not in the canon then christians will insist you can not use the word Biblical. I however will use it because Biblical means nothing but little little scrolls anyway, the fact they all revolve around the deity as expressed by Yhwh and Jesus only further strengthens their ties.) Much to do revolves around the canon, I don't obey it because from studying theology I know the Catholic canon was not formed until late in Christian history and every sect contained different texts so what is modern canon was not the canon of the johannine group, the marcions, the arians, etc. Why should I dissalow what is scripture according to the interpretation of one denomination (catholicism) in comparison to the 2,500 other denominations which have existed through out history? I won't put Christianity or scripture in such a tiny box. (I need to observe, the fact that I don't do this is what leads to many arguments between Christians and I. They are not used to dealing with people who will stick to lexical definitions and classical roots versus modern consensus.)

Anyway, back to the scrolls:

"Visitors to the Gnostic Society Library often do not understand the distinction between these two discoveries"

I do understand their distinction, and I equally understand this distinction is majorally created by those who wish to maintain the division between gnosticism and modern Christian interpretation. That's why I don't obey it. Ever read the scrolls unearthed? Ever read about how there is monopoly on the scrolls and how we had to wait for them to be properly divided to specific teams of interpreters and how unless you were elected to join these teams you are not able to view the scrolls? And the only way an interpreter can be released is if the original interpreter died and left an appointee? Isn't all of this secrecy and monopoly strange? It is to me. So I asked why, and did the research accordingly. This is where I found a lack of distinction, and this is why my view differs from your own.

"What are popularly called The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of a very large number of scrolls – most poorly preserved and many surviving only as tiny scraps – discovered in a series of eleven caves near Qumran and the Dead Sea beginning around 1947"

That is all true. I don't have any problem with this statement what so ever the following is where things converge: "Over 800 separate texts of several divergent types are now recognized among this find." Yes, over 800 texts, a great amount of them being the same gnostic texts we find in no other than the Nag Hammadi. Which is reiteration that the modern canon we have has been the victim of interpolation and ommission. So I look at this and think, we have two successfull digs, both turn up gnostic scripture that was hidden from man, the same books which marcion proclaimed to have had and the church destroyed. And here we are two thousand years later with two finds that contain these same books and the church STILL fails to mention them. Why did we have to wait from 1945 until the secular writing of the Da Vinci codes before Christians are debating the role of magdelene? Why did the church not engage in these discussions within that time? Why have all the official statements been that we can be assured the Bible is in the same state as originally intended? Why that bold face lie?

Why, when I state that the Nag Hammadi contains that which the Dead sea scrolls do, is it a red flag? I know why. It's a logical argument over semantics, that is based on a hidden agenda. Yes they were found in different providences, thats the semantic part. BUT the reason why Christians in droves deny their connections is because then they can deny their contents are very similar. Qumran is tooted all over the place, that's because the full list of the texts is very easy to hide. And the gnostic texts we have we can say are too damaged to make sense of. But we can't do that with the Nag Hamadi, its all there glaring in our face, so we cut the connections and deny the Nag Hammadi. That's the response of the Christian community and it peeves me to no end! I assure you it doesn't peeve me because of my bias. As an atheist more texts about Jesus only harms my position. I urge the existence of this text because it shows what scholars know to be true: Christianity has a long standing history of gnosticism. It is the Christian which has the vested interest to deny this, not I.

"The scrolls date from the "intertestamental period" – a period ranging from about 250 BCE to 100 CE, the epoch after textual formation of the "Old Testament" but still before the formation of Christianity and rabbinical Judaism."

This is another problem I have with what is said about the dead sea scrolls, the dating conflicts with the fact that it contains gnostic texts. This means that Gnosticism preceeded Christianity (which is exactly what marcion stated) and that is why it can be contained in such an early writing. Which equally means that the Church has been lying to us all this time about the influence of gnosticism. They know this glaring contradicition. So, their response is to limit the discussion of the gnostic influence found in the scrolls, and maintain the nag hammadi is a result of some confused little sect in Egypt which has no true bearing on their religion. They equally refuse to publish the texts en masse, claiming they are unrenderable, and the parts which are just so happen to be the gnostic ones. And they supress all information about the findings which arose in that same period, by closing the scholar community which has access.

"The texts found at either location were never included in any "Bible" (there's no evident canon), and they had never been "taken out" of one either."

This is why I said in an earlier post that the canon was formed very late in Christian history. We use the word canon and insist that is the rule by which all scriptures should be measured. Yet, do laymen have any idea what constitutes what was holy scripture? How many people know about the council of Nicea? Where it was debated what christianity meant, and when it was decided by debate and political agenda, war was raged on the denominations that did not comply! Marcion (the first creator of a canon), Arius, the johannine community, the gnostic community, the apostolics of Thomas, etc. all had their own "canons". Yet their's are ignored in favor of the Catholic one. Many of these texts were in their canons. Their followers were murdered for having these texts! Look at what happened to the Cathars and their texts. I maintain that to say only one denomination has a canon and the million other believers were just heathens reeks of distorting history. Christians continue that controlling nature today when they claim that any scripture outside of the canon is heretical. That we must stick with their narrow little defintions given to them by a denomination which has caused the greatest amount of misery to human progress and life. I refuse to define Christianity by the Catholic denomination, we could just as easily define it by the greek orthodox which is just as old, and just as much as the "apostolic tradition". People who part take in narrowing a faith by one denomination are practicing bias, not theology. Being a scholar of religion, I can not deny all of my knowledge of the rich history of Christianity in lieu of one favored denomination.

"I have never even heard a rumour -- much less a believed lie -- that the Dead Sea Scrolls (which contain loose, mostly pre-Christian scrolls) are "exactly the same as our Bible"."

Good for you! I'm glad it hasn't touched you, because the lie really needs to die before it touches more ears. In closing, please know when I state something here in regards to religion I make sure I have evidence or logic to back that position. I don't make statements out of pure ignorance when it comes to this topic. I'm so tired of having conversations turn into atheist v.s. christian, this is supposed to be about understanding theology, not debating if it is right or wrong. If that was the case this thread would be titled Christians are wrong, not Christians are hypocrites. I'm not a believer, I don't say things for bias, and I certainly don't say things to back up atheism; because believe it or not: I WISH there was a deity, I do have theistic longings. If I don't know something or am wrong on something, I have the integrity to say so. I hate having "wrong" screamed at me before the person has even tried to figure out WHY I have the position I do. (No offense okinrus, but you do this all the time.) Like I said earlier, I can see where you arrive to your conclusion about them being separate, and semantically you are right. But so am I right, in that their context is reflectant of the Christian tradition and can fairly be grouped as such. I am at fault by not explaining this thouroughly in my earlier post. There is so much I have to convey that I sometimes sum up what I am saying and not realize how peple will object to it. I too easily assume that people will understand why I say the things I do instead of getting caught on legalities (which is logical). That is my struggle as a debator, I too easily assume that people will comprehend my position, you would think I should know by now that people will look for such things because my position as an atheist is catalyst LOL.

I have a great deal more that I wish to counter on. But as always, I have to counter simply because someone's defintion is narrow. For instance, your claim that wisdom is a Hebrew concept. I covered this earlier in the thread. You can go look it up, but essentially: Sophia is a late interpolation of the Goddess Asheroth of the Jews. It's gnostic concept that was inserted to cover the history of asheroth. The gnostics believed in duality, so of course they had a dualistic deity. The idea of a feminine principal is NOT solely hebrew, its universal. Your contention that I said the gnostics could save themselves is taking more from my writing then what is intended. They save themselves through gnosis much as Christians save themselves through faith, the idea that Jesus imparted these things is a given. Your idea that Jesus said salvation is only through repentence is another narrow defintion. We covered earlier that the bible conflicts on what is necessary for salvation. Among them are: repentence, good works, faith, baptism, etc.

"To believe that Gnosticism provides some kind of "free-for-all" Christianity is simply nonsense."

And to believe there was only ONE form of gnosticism and all the gnostics everywhere must appeal to your ONE defintion is nonsense. Gnosticism is as broad "free for all", as carnal Christianity is broad. The first thing you should know about religion is it is diverse. As diverse as culture and language. You can not take one example and measure all by it. If I'm snippy here and you don't like it, let me remind you: you were the first to call my view "nonsense". Let's go back to being civil here instead of flinging sublime judgments because we disagree.

 

[CritiquingChrist]

Stretched my dear!!! I had so much fun reading your post, and I'm gonna hop on a few things. First, let me say I share your passion concerning the psychology of religion. Joseph Campbell is my hero in regards to what we can extract psychologically by studying theism. I read heavily concerning archetypes and find myself pondering the human condition and how religion plays into it.

a) What is humanities fascination with religion? What is the primal driver therefore?

I have toyed with this question a million and one times. And I arrived at a Freudian view: Religion is the coping mechanism of man. An irrational response to the very rational fear of death, and the psychological trauma of the huamn condition. Here we are, these fragile little finite beings who exist in a vast cosmos filled with omnipotent matter. Nature bestowed upon us the powerful and fundamental instinct for survival. Yet through evolution we were able to evolve the frontal lobes which give us the ability to make intellectual thought, to evoke deep emotion, to be creative, etc. And these things which are our beauty our or curse. Because through them we are able to comprehend our role of insignificance in the cosmos. We are able to comprehend that we are at the mercy of nature, and can not escape our condition. That we are finite in infinity, and as we realize these things we battle the nagging concept of death. And so humanity has been upon a quest not only to explain that which we do not understand, but to give ourselves purpose so that we may face the insignificance of life. We create deities so that through them, we can escape out condition and retain our consciouness in the infinite and eternal cosmos. We are creative, we strive to build grand temples as memoirs to our existence. We are driven by breeding and feel the need to impart ourselves in our traditions so that we can in some way gain immortality. Religion, to me, is expressly that: our exercise in transcending our condition. It reminds me of voltaire: "Humanity is the cosmic tradgedy" and I wonder if he had these same thoughts as I when he uttered those words. Freud is right, we are all neurotic because we have the minds of deities and are stuck in mortal bodies. And so too was the observation correct: "religion is mankind's devotion to itself". It is our attempt, our feeble little collective cry to nature and to ourselves. The primal driver MUST be our survival instinct, magnified through our intellect. This must be why out of all the species we are the ones which struggle with ego and death more than any other. The fact that the more intelligent a species, the more they mourn their deaths must be evidence of that I suspect.

My father, a phd in cultural foundations of education, a professor of sociology for 30 years; said something to me once, which REALLY rocked my boat. I'm going to give it to you because I want to hear your ponderings of it: "Charlotte, if religion is inherant because of our condition, then all those inquisitions, crusades, holy wars, and murders could be why atheists are so few in number, they have literally been draining our kind from the gene pool." This messed me up! I had to run right away and look up studies done on the atheistic brain versus the religious brain. Sure as shit, there is a neurological difference! Atheists tend to be left lobe dominant. When given a piece of literature, the atheist shows more activity in the left lobe which fundamentally controls logic, mathematics, reason, etc. The religionist has more right lobal activity which fundamentally controls deep emotion, sensing rythmic patterns, etc. These studies freaked me out. Because it seems religion might not just be a matter of indoctrination, it may be genetic. What do you think of this? I wonder if it will make you run and study as it did to me. I found myself taking lots of psych courses after that. In psych we studied how phobias can actually be genetic as well. IE: People in one geographical location may have a fear of heights, because those who had fear of heights were able to pass on their genes. And in another geographical location there may be a fear of spiders, snakes, etc. I found this all very fascinating, just how much nature is balanced with nurture. The classical debate of psychology.

b) How in the modern age of information can man choose superstition above obvious logic or common sense?

This I think is related to what I said above. If religion is a coping mechanism of man, then what do we have when we stop believing? Nothing.... There is no more security blanket, one is left to their own devices of how they shall cope with insignificance and death. Those of my fellow atheists who were previously religious must know that feeling. That utter fear, that realization that you are enterting into oblivion and no one can help you. Man, after I deconverted I had anxiety attacks for years. I would sit and think about death, how its coming for me and I can do nothing. It would leave me so depressed, feeling as if I should never have studied theology. But then it hit me: What did I gain from atheism? As a Christian I was so fearful of anything that contradicted my "truth". As a Christian I was judgmental, I was proselytizing, I par took in the ceasing of progression because I thought it was "God's will". I was highly apathetic. Witness any social injustice and you feel a moment of empathy, pray for a minute, and leave it to God. My only purpose as a Christian was to please god, and I had to constantly try to ignore that which pleased god was often unethical.

Atheism gave me integrity. A personal security blanket no longer was the goal, instead truth was the goal. (Christians are going to get pissed at that so let me expound: religion requires faith, and faith has no evidence, hence it can not be considered at this moment in time a truth. Atheism is the lack of belief. And though we can not say for certain there is no god, we can say that there is no compelling empirical reason to believe in a god, this is what atheism does and hence, that is a truth.) When truth becomes the object of desire, everything that you stood against before falls to pieces, and everything that you so easily shirked before is now glaring. I no longer was fearful to study that which contradicted my convictions. And in that very bizarre way, I was able to become that which God said in Genesis. I could embrace "ye shall be like gods, knowing good from evil." When I was a Christian many pieces of knowledge frightened me, but as an atheist science was no longer my enemy. History, medicine, anthropology, archeaology, these became my dear friends when I became an atheist. I finally stopped confusing what is fact from faith, what is truth from what is speculation. I no longer had to twist words to support my convictions, I no longer had a vested interest, I was free to follow that which made logic and reason.

As a Christian I judged. I was told God didn't like gays, so I didn't like gays. I was told abortion was wrong, so I didn't like abortion. I was a bigot, a homophobic and a sexist in God, and I thought it was right! But as an atheist I became free to really have "the sum of the law be love". As an atheist gays stop being evil fornicating soddomites. They became people who sought love out side of the societal norms. I seen them as loving, consentual, beings who were being persecuted due to 6,000 year old bigotry. I went from their persecuter to their fellow fighter. Is this worth losing the security blanket? As an atheist all of a sudden women who aborted weren't selfish murderers. They were confused, distraught, mothers in pain who had to face the decision of sacrificing their children because they didn't have the resources to raise them. All of a sudden I no longer found greatness in proselytizing to them, I found it in helping them to receive the aid they need, while assuring them choice was their right. I helped bring more children into this world and eased the misery of the needy as an atheist than I ever did as a Christian. And I did it by "giving alms" and "judging not". I took the greatness of Christianity with me, but I left the supression behind, I was more of a Christian in atheism, than ever as a believer. Is that not worth a security blanket?

When you see misery as a Christian it's too easy to be apathetic. A kid got raped? "Oh that's terrible! I will pray for her hoping that she comes to understand that it was God's will!" "Oh, we're waging war on the Libyans, but it's God's will!" How fucking sick and disgusting was that of me? And I did in Jesus' name! But as an atheist, "blessed art the peace makers" is my motto. I picket constantly against this war in Iraq. I stand with thirty atheists, two buddhists and three missionaries. We get flipped off by little grannies who have Christian fish bumper stickers on their car. We are right outside of a church and get MOONED by the people exiting! Yes, what "love" Christianity teaches people. And why is that? Why does the atheist embody what the morality of Jesus' teachings but not the Christian? And security blanket is EXACTLY the answer. Like I said in an earlier post, Christianity is majorally ego-centric. People are in it for the reward, and that's the the bottom line. They aren't compelled in any way to do anything greater because they chalk it up to God. Too few get the message, and those who do are condemned by their brethren. Why? Because the church, the apathy, the ignorance is pulling the fucking wool over everyone's eyes. It's sad, so god damn sad, that I came to be Christ like in leaving Christ.

I never ask Christians to take my path, to join atheism, but I DO shout from the hill tops they are hypocritical. And I'm right on that. If they aren't out there RIGHT NOW doing something to relieve the misery of the world, then they aren't striving very well to earn the title of Christian. Now, I'm not saying that every Christian is ego-centric, apathetic, ignorant, in love with reward and NOT God. But I am saying the majority of them are, as shown by their actions. I get battled about this, I don't know if it's because I am an atheist or they are defensive because they know they are failing in the message, or maybe because they honestly do think they don't have to do these things. In either event, they spend their energy debating with me rather than actually go out there and prove me wrong with their actions. And the people who do this don't even see I'm not challenging the validity of their beliefs, I'm challenging them to live the beliefs. I feel bad to say it, but the only Christian so far on here I have seen that hasn't made excuses for their scripture and admitts to the calling is Cole. And that's how most religions typically are, the greatest amount of followers being defensive and ego-centric. It saddens me. Cause if they aren't doing it for God, what will possibly amke them better human beings?

And how can mankind chose religion over reason? Because its easy, its convienant, it doesn't demand any veracity from them. It would strip them of their security blanket, and make them fend for themselves on the frontier of neurosis of the human condition. This is why people choose their religion, and then not follow the religion they choose. That's my opinion, if it's right, who knows? It's not like anyone can find any empirical evidence to support an opinion concerning your question, but we can look at sociological trends, and we see this in every division of religion. Its in Christianity, its in pureland Buddhism, etc.

c) What animates the dark and violent side of man and why?

Freud said the reptilian brain, right? I think that should be coupled with what I hinted towards above: we are creatures of convienance. We pick that which is easiest, because we know our time is so short. Violence is prevalent in the natural world. Its a part of our very nature. We are territorial, we are neurotic, we are constantly belittled by our insignificance. Violence gives us power, it is easy to committ and it satiates our primal nature. Religion is about transcendence, that is why it preaches non violence. Take a look at our great revolutionaries: Ghandi, Buddha, Jesus, Shiva, Tara, Dalai Lama, etc. All say in some words or another, to beat the sword into a plow share. All say to turn thine cheek, all challange to arise above this primal nature. Our lives are so short, and the mistakes we make now, echo through out eternity; so if we can rise above our nature we can give utopia to our future generations. We can create heaven, nirvana, peace by ceasing our violence. "Be candles onto the world of darkness". All of them preach it, the problem is living it. It's about recognizing what our nature is, and defeating our condition with our knowledge, THAT is what the gnostics preached. We can chose to respond with our reptilian brain, or we can use those human frontal lobes to face our nature and utilize what little power has been bestowed upon us. But as long as mankind chooses ignorance, it shall never happen.

People like you give me hope, Stretched. You ask these deep questions, and you aren't scared of the answers. You realize they are necessary to explore in order to create "heaven". You have a revolution in that blessed head of yours. You're a fellow non-believer who is very "Christ like". I smile from ear to ear when I read your posts.

I think what really turns me on about the Gnostic texts is the apparent resilience of human nature to try and understand their place in the cosmos, and the obvious intellect at play in the writings, especially texts like “The Thunder, Perfect Heart”.

Yes! It's so beautiful. That's what annoys me about so many religions. It's based on debasement, scraping, bowing, sin, demeaning of humanity. The resilience of our species, our longing, our love, our works, they are all looked over. We censor the God we KNOW is in us so we can look for a God which most likely does not exist, outside of us. We throw down the towers of babel and say it is good. Yet we do not see the beauty in the story: These people were pulling together to create that which they desired, to escape the nature of limited condition. They are cast down in their valiant efforts, and the Christian says this is good. How can loving the self and wanting to escape the limits of our condition be good? There is something wrong with this picture here! This is a very specific example of how religion hurts human progress. And anything which hurts our progress must be questioned. We owe it to our species. We owe it to ourselves to NOT be ashamed of our existence, but to come to accept it and make the most of it, because it is all we have. We can free ourselves from our neurosis, but it requires a collaboration, we are social creatures after all. Jesus gave us the key, but no one REALLY hears it: "Love your brother as you love yourself", "The kingdom of heaven is within", "there is power in many", "we must reason together".

As far as my favorite writings I have a special place for, you probably know by now I'm a lover of Doubting Thomas.

The coptic gospel of thomas says the following verse which reminds me very much of deconversion:

"Jesus said, 'Let him who seeks continue seeking until he
finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes
troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.'"

"Jesus said, 'If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty.'"

"Jesus said, 'Recognize what is in your sight, and that which
is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing
hidden which will not become manifest.'"

The book of Tobi is simply a riot. A bird shits in his eye so he he becomes blind, and all these crazy things occur like a huge quest to marry a cousin, etc. It's great for showing some of the ludicrous ideas that were circulating during that time.

The book of Esdras 1 is very near and dear to me because I grow excited when I find women and romatic love exalted in this patriarchy. in Esdras 1, 3 there is a wonderful tale where a king desires to find the wisest man, and shall give him a piece of his kingdom. So he calls for the three wisest and asks them what is the stongest thing. The first man replies it is wine because its influence brings forth honesty, merriment and strength. The second replies the king, because he rules over all the people. The third says the following:

"O ye men, it is not the great king, nor the multitude of men,
neither is it wine, that excelleth; who is it then that ruleth
them, or hath the lordship over them? are they not women?

Women have borne the king and all the people that bear rule
by sea and land. Even of them came they: and they nourished them up that
planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh. These also make garments for men; these bring glory unto men;
and without women cannot men be.

Yea, and if men have gathered together gold and silver, or
any other goodly thing, do they not love a woman which is comely
in favour and beauty? And letting all those things go, do they not gape, and even
with open mouth fix their eyes fast on her; and have not all men
more desire unto her than unto silver or gold, or any goodly
thing whatsoever?

A man leaveth his own father that brought him up, and his own
country, and cleaveth unto his wife. He sticketh not to spend his life with his wife. and
remembereth neither father, nor mother, nor country.

By this also ye must know that women have dominion over you:
do ye not labour and toil, and give and bring all to the woman? Yea, a man taketh his sword, and goeth his way to rob and to
steal, to sail upon the sea and upon rivers; And looketh upon a lion, and goeth in the darkness; and when
he hath stolen, spoiled, and robbed, he bringeth it to his love.

Wherefore a man loveth his wife better than father or mother. Yea, many there be that have run out of their wits for women,
and become servants for their sakes. Many also have perished, have erred, and sinned, for women.

And now do ye not believe me? is not the king great in his
power? do not all regions fear to touch him? Yet did I see him and Apame the king's concubine, the
daughter of the admirable Bartacus, sitting at the right hand of
the king, And taking the crown from the king's head, and setting it
upon her own head; she also struck the king with her left hand. And yet for all this the king gaped and gazed upon her with
open mouth: if she laughed upon him, he laughed also: but if she
took any displeasure at him, the king was fain to flatter, that
she might be reconciled to him again.

O ye men, how can it be but women should be strong, seeing
they do thus? Then the king and the princes looked one upon another: so he
began to speak of the truth."

The Gospel of Philip is my favorite from the Nag Hammadi writings:

"As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him 'Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.'"

In this Gospel, Mary Magdalene appears not only as the disciple Jesus loved most but she also appears as a symbolic figure of heavenly wisdom. These stories of Mary - as Jesus' closest companion and a symbol of heavenly wisdom - are in sharp contrast with the Mary Magdalene of Catholic tradition. They are literally a smack in the face to the patriarchal church, and for that very reason, I adore them.

"Some said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said 'My Father who is in Heaven' , unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply 'My father'."

"Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, 'If you know the truth, the truth will make you free'. Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment."

Oh man, I have written WAY more than intended. I have class tonight so I'm afraid I have to pack it in. Thank you stretch for letting me ramble. It is appreciated. And please know I look foward to more of your posts. (Hey Michael! I haven't forgot about you, I look foward to your posts as well!)

 

[Michael]

Hey Michael! I haven't forgot about you, I look forward to your posts as well!)

Hi CC, I’m very much enjoying your posts – this last one was especially enlightening. For some reason I was under the impression that, yes the scrolls were a guarded secret, but I thought someone had secretly taken photos of the texts and posted them online? (maybe another internet rumor!?!)

Oh, I took some time to take a look at “Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” I’m looking forward to giving it a read.

Anyway, at present I have to fly to Perth to give a presentation at a neuroscience meeting there. Afterwards I’m taking a few needed weeks of vacation! So there is no rush, and I am enjoying each post enthusiastically regardless of whether it coincides with my particular questions or not!

Take Care,
Michael

 

[stretched]

Jenyar,

Quote J:
“God's kingdom is not something you work to gain for yourself, because it cannot be gained; it's not something found at last after "careful observation" (Luke 17:20). One must be invited into it, and accepting the call, work in its service as one who already belongs to it (Revelation 1:6) -- taking hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of you (Phil.3:12).”

*Thanks, for trying to explain what is very difficult to express in words, but I need to hear what your expectations from your faith in Christianity are. What do you envisage as your reward for persevering in your faith, and following the path spelt out for you?

*If you are saying that you want to share in the “kingdom of god” how do you see your condition within this concept? Are you going to sit on the right hand side of Jesus or what? And what exactly does that entail? What is your perceived outcome for your unshakeable faith? All the sacrifices that a “Christian” needs to make in the name of his faith gets you what? Or gets you where? I am trying to understand what you envisage.

Quote J:
“Maybe, but can you spot the difference between 'enlightenment' as CC and the Buddhists use it (personal transcendence), and someone saying "I am the light"?

*These are all just words. If we accept that the translation is correct, and that the “light” in:

Col. 1:12-14 ...the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of “light”.

*Is light as in illuminated, then what is difference to spot? Light is symbolic of illumination (enlightenment) or lack of darkness (confusion). Did you not have a personal transcendence which led you from darkness to the light of Christ? No one was there at the time to give us the bottom line. This entire discussion is built on speculation. So who gets the vote? It is a matter of faith indeed.

Originally Posted by stretched
Why is the Vatican so glaringly opulent when according to Christianity, this world and its gold and diamonds are only a stepping stone to the heavenly kingdom?

S: Now how hypocritical is that? ”
J: Very hypocritical.

James 2:5-7
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

*On this basis do I disregard the Vatican as non-Christian?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

*Thanks, for trying to explain what is very difficult to express in words, but I need to hear what your expectations from your faith in Christianity are. What do you envisage as your reward for persevering in your faith, and following the path spelt out for you?

*If you are saying that you want to share in the “kingdom of god” how do you see your condition within this concept? Are you going to sit on the right hand side of Jesus or what? And what exactly does that entail? What is your perceived outcome for your unshakeable faith? All the sacrifices that a “Christian” needs to make in the name of his faith gets you what? Or gets you where? I am trying to understand what you envisage.

I do not envisage a reward. One does not get a reward for doing what one ought to (Luke 17:7-10). I see not doing what I ought to as a neglect of duty, and evidence that I have no right to be called a citizen of God's kingdom. But perseverance and faith is an expression of wanting to be and to remain in that kingdom -- that is a gift in this life, and a reward in the next. I have already been invited and accepted as a citizen, and I have no wish or to prove myself an impostor. The lithmus test is always Christ himself (2 Corinthians 13:5). I merely work to produce its fruit (Matthew 21:43), and be a living testimony, a visible "parable", to it (Matthew 24:14).

After a few weeks in the desert, some Israelites wanted to return to slavery in Egypt, because freedom seemed too hard, not a "gift" at all. Lot's wife wanted one last look at the city who treated them with contempt. But "No-one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). Sacrifices and sufferings produce perseverance, and "perseverance, character; and character, hope" (Romans 5:4; cf. 2 Thess. 1:5); it means looking forward. Perseverance proves one fit for service (James 1:4), but it adds nothing to the end for which you suffer, which is nothing but life in a kingdom that will not end: eternal life.

Hebrews 12: 28-29 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.​

“Maybe, but can you spot the difference between 'enlightenment' as CC and the Buddhists use it (personal transcendence), and someone saying "I am the light"?

*These are all just words. If we accept that the translation is correct, and that the “light” in:

Col. 1:12-14 ...the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of “light”.

*Is light as in illuminated, then what is difference to spot? Light is symbolic of illumination (enlightenment) or lack of darkness (confusion). Did you not have a personal transcendence which led you from darkness to the light of Christ? No one was there at the time to give us the bottom line. This entire discussion is built on speculation. So who gets the vote? It is a matter of faith indeed.

Don't worry, the translation is correct: Phos eimi (ho) kosmos; the light of the cosmos. The difference is in who provides the light. If everyone were intrinsically "the light of the world" there would be no darkness. We can try to rid ourselves of the sin that obscures our purpose, but we cannot show ourselves where to go. It would be like following your own flashlight. We need a light to expose what is within us, a light to follow (1 John 1:7); "See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness" (Luke 11:35).

I did not attain any "personal transcendence", I follow Christ, who followed God "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no-one has seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16). All light comes from and must follow the first Light (which is btw the statement Genesis 1 makes; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6).

John 1:4;8-10 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
...
He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him.​

*On this basis do I disregard the Vatican as non-Christian?

Allcare.

No, on that basis you cannot regard its wealth as evidence of its Christianity. Gold and silver are earthly things of no eternal value. But you can condemn every instance of selfish materialism and the idolatry of wealth, in the light of Christ's message.

PS. On God's coming kingdom, from Revelation:

Revelation 21:23
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.​

 

[stretched]

Hi CC,

Thanks for the valuable time spent on your post. I am deeply grateful to soak up the wealth of your knowledge and conclusions. You have a wonderful way of summarising the thoughts in my head, which I can not always adequately express!

Some points that stand out:

Quote CC:
“I have toyed with this question a million and one times. And I arrived at a Freudian view: Religion is the coping mechanism of man. An irrational response to the very rational fear of death, and the psychological trauma of the huamn condition.”

*Indeed, from what I have experienced, people experiencing deep trauma, very often reach out to a “god” for help or redemption. Basic instinct, it would seem. I also have ample first hand experience of trauma victims and addicts using god as a (often very successful, but ultimately temporary) tool in recovery. So as you say we have these frontal lobes that bestow an extreme sensitivity of emotion upon us, so where then do we seek relief, but in the arms of religion. To rediscover the warm and safe, soft curve of mothers breast and the wishful belief that all will be well. There, there.

Quote CC:
“It reminds me of voltaire: "Humanity is the cosmic tradgedy"

*And to sum up the Gnostic worldview:

“Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.” (http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm)

Quote CC:
“The primal driver MUST be our survival instinct, magnified through our intellect.”

*Magnified through our intellect! Beautifully put. And yet religion forces man disregard and ignore his instinct for survival, by holding on to faith even to the extent of facing certain death. Think about suicide bombers and Christians martyrs.

Quote CC:
“"Charlotte, if religion is inherant because of our condition, then all those inquisitions, crusades, holy wars, and murders could be why atheists are so few in number, they have literally been draining our kind from the gene pool."

*And,

“These studies freaked me out. Because it seems religion might not just be a matter of indoctrination, it may be genetic. What do you think of this?”

*Tabula Rasa or not? Not I would think! Along these lines:

“If a gear with a broken tooth goes clunk on every turn, we do not conclude that the tooth in its intact form was a clunk-suppressor. And so a gene that disrupts a mental ability need not be a defective version of a gene that is “for” that ability.” Similarly, genes can influence a wide variety of complex traits (altruism, competitiveness, and so forth) without being “for” such narrowly defined phenotypes.”
(from: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker)

*I firmly believe our genes play an overwhelmingly more important role in who we are (personality, etc.), and what we do, than we would like to believe. My experience with addictive behaviours running in families, generation after generation, has pretty much convinced me. Ever heard the remark made in a family: “The apple does not fall very far from the tree”? Now ask a couple of parents of adoptive children whether they concur with that statement! There are a fair amount of horror stories in that chapter. (but, yes also some wonderfully inspiring success stories)

Quote CC:
“As a Christian I judged. I was told God didn't like gays, so I didn't like gays. I was told abortion was wrong, so I didn't like abortion. I was a bigot, a homophobic and a sexist in God, and I thought it was right! But as an atheist I became free to really have "the sum of the law be love".

*For a religion that preaches non-judgement, there seems to be nothing on earth more judgmental than the average Christian. What seems even sadder, is that so many Christians are seemingly unaware of their behaviour. Thank god (oops) for atheism and agnosticism and a thing called “unconditional love”!

Quote CC:
“And I did it by "giving alms" and "judging not". I took the greatness of Christianity with me, but I left the supression behind, I was more of a Christian in atheism, than ever as a believer. Is that not worth a security blanket?”

*You have a truly awesome way with words CC! I could not have expressed it better.

Quote CC:
“It's sad, so god damn sad, that I came to be Christ like in leaving Christ.”

*It is indeed sad, but yet in studying the sayings attributed to Jesus, I have an uncanny feeling that this concept of yours was central to his message. Lost in translation though, unfortunately.

Quote CC:
“And how can mankind chose religion over reason? Because its easy, its convienant, it doesn't demand any veracity from them. It would strip them of their security blanket, and make them fend for themselves on the frontier of neurosis of the human condition.”

*And also, I believe religious belief feeds the ego. If you are important in gods eyes, than that makes your very life meaningful, and is a practical tool for gaining self worth. A cop-out for procrastination and as you mentioned, gross inaction.

Quote CC:
“Freud said the reptilian brain, right? I think that should be coupled with what I hinted towards above: we are creatures of convienance. We pick that which is easiest, because we know our time is so short. Violence is prevalent in the natural world. Its a part of our very nature. We are territorial, we are neurotic, we are constantly belittled by our insignificance. Violence gives us power, it is easy to committ and it satiates our primal nature. Religion is about transcendence, that is why it preaches non violence. Take a look at our great revolutionaries: Ghandi, Buddha, Jesus, Shiva, Tara, Dalai Lama, etc. All say in some words or another, to beat the sword into a plow share. All say to turn thine cheek, all challange to arise above this primal nature. Our lives are so short, and the mistakes we make now, echo through out eternity; so if we can rise above our nature we can give utopia to our future generations. We can create heaven, nirvana, peace by ceasing our violence. "Be candles onto the world of darkness". All of them preach it, the problem is living it. It's about recognizing what our nature is, and defeating our condition with our knowledge, THAT is what the gnostics preached. We can chose to respond with our reptilian brain, or we can use those human frontal lobes to face our nature and utilize what little power has been bestowed upon us. But as long as mankind chooses ignorance, it shall never happen. “

*That paragraph is so well said, I would not change a word. What then is the hope for humankind? Are we the infinite victims of a perpetual and bloody history, or does mankind have the ability to rise up out of that cycle of insanity. For me the hope would be in the free accessibility of information today. Never before in known history have we been exposed to so much brain food at the tip of our fingers. Surely the sway of logic and reason has a fighting chance? But then in the mighty land of the free, we have George Bush threatening to sink the world back into the dark ages with his god given righteousness.

Quote CC:
“Yes! It's so beautiful. That's what annoys me about so many religions. It's based on debasement, scraping, bowing, sin, demeaning of humanity. The resilience of our species, our longing, our love, our works, they are all looked over. We censor the God we KNOW is in us so we can look for a God which most likely does not exist, outside of us. We throw down the towers of babel and say it is good. Yet we do not see the beauty in the story: These people were pulling together to create that which they desired, to escape the nature of limited condition. They are cast down in their valiant efforts, and the Christian says this is good. How can loving the self and wanting to escape the limits of our condition be good? There is something wrong with this picture here! This is a very specific example of how religion hurts human progress. And anything which hurts our progress must be questioned. We owe it to our species. We owe it to ourselves to NOT be ashamed of our existence, but to come to accept it and make the most of it, because it is all we have. We can free ourselves from our neurosis, but it requires a collaboration, we are social creatures after all. Jesus gave us the key, but no one REALLY hears it: "Love your brother as you love yourself", "The kingdom of heaven is within", "there is power in many", "we must reason together".”

*I hear you clearly, and that is my conclusion also. If a religion insist you suppress and denies you the right to your god given human nature, yes I would say there is something terribly wrong with this picture. How intelligent people can willingly believe and follow the lie painted in this picture, with all the conflicting information freely available to them, is the mystery. But then, we all know the comfort zone is like an old woollen blanket. Safe, cosy and smelly!

In parting, from the Gospel of Thomas :

"Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is."
(http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html)

Keep sharing your thoughts CC.
Allcare.