The Horrors of christianity

There is no moral indignation.

And every once in a while you mention the ". . . do unto the least of . . ." thing. How will I know these lesser ones when I see them? God it's great to be . . . greater!

 

Please see the material I posted in reply.

I don't think there is anything simple about it. What I do think is that your sect is doing what the other approximately 32,299 sects have done already, and that is to change the christian belief system yet again. Also see what I posted here regarding this.

I disagree, the quest to have their views placed before any others would more appropriately be the cause, that and the greed of those who purported to be the "church fathers" and those who fed off them.

In order to reply to your post, I will have to provide some information supporting my position. You will have to read some of it online for yourself, as I am sure I would get an ass chewing for posting so much here. Links to the subject material are found after most quotes. The bold sentences are mine.


To start, the founders of christianity stated that there is ONE church:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_churches_did_jesus_build


How many are there now?:
As of 2000, there are at least 33,000 different christian sects, each with its own version of the events of the bibles.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm


The early founders of christianity stated that everyone should follow only the one law:


Jesus' view of Scripture did not simply accommodate his culture, a fact that has implications for the view of Scripture Jesus' followers should hold (J. Wenham 1977:21; D. Wenham 1979). Here Jesus responds to false charges that he and his followers undermine the law. First, when Jesus says that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, he uses terms that in his culture would have conveyed his faithfulness to the Scriptures .
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Matt/Christians-Must-Obey-Gods-Law



Jesus illustrates the eternality of God's law with a popular story line from contemporary Jewish teachers. Jesus' smallest letter (NIV), or "jot" (KJV), undoubtedly refers to the Hebrew letter yod, which Jewish teachers said would not pass from the law. They said that when Sarai's name was changed to Sarah, the yod removed from her name cried out from one generation to another, protesting its removal from Scripture, until finally, when Moses changed Oshea's name to Joshua, the yod was returned to Scripture. "So you see," the teachers would say, "not even this smallest letter can pass from the Bible." Jesus makes the same point from this tradition that later rabbis did: even the smallest details of God's law are essential.
Other sages used such language to grab attention and emphasize the importance of the law. But like Jesus, they did not want anyone to miss the point: God has not given us the right to pick and choose among his commandments. As some teachers put it, one should be as "careful with regard to a light commandment as you would be with a heavy one, since you do not know the allotment of the reward" (m. 'Abot 2:1). The sages were not suggesting that they never broke commandments (see Moore 1971:1:467-68), but rather believed that one who cast off any commandment or principle of the law was discarding the authority of the law as a whole (m. Horayot 1:3; Keener 1991a:115-17).
.Jesus concurs: God does not allow us the right to say, "I will obey his teaching about murder but not his teaching about adultery or fornication"; or, "I will obey his teaching about theft but not about divorce." To refuse his right to rule any of our ethics or behavior is to deny his lordship.
In this passage Jesus also warns that teachers who undermine students' faith in any portion of the Bible are in trouble with God. This text addresses not only obedience to the commandments but also how one teaches others (and teaches others to do the same; compare Jas 3:1). I have occasionally taught alongside colleagues who actively sought to undermine students' faith in the name of "critical thinking"; sometimes they succeeded. Critical thinking is important, but it functions best with the firm foundation of the fear of God (scriptural quote omitted).
http://www.remnantofgod.org/The-Law.htm
An indication that the teachings of the supposed Jesus met with resistance from the Jews, and so they turned to Gentiles to preach the message and gather followers:
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Saul of Tarsus states:
According to Acts, Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytes of the gate [scriptural quote omitted] and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws (Scriptural quote omitted). http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus

If someone claims a connection between the Jewish and christian faiths, and that christianity is based on the Jewish traditions, then the following would have to be true, since this is what the Jewish tradition states, and any such claims would HAVE to take into account the Jewish tradition:
According to Judaism, as expressed in the Talmud, the Noachide Laws apply to all humanity through humankind's descent from one paternal ancestor, the head of the only family to survive The Flood, who in Hebrew tradition is called Noah. In Judaism, בני נח B'nei Noah (Hebrew, "Descendants of Noah", "Children of Noah") refers to all of humankind. The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides writes that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noachide laws out of obedience to God. According to what scholars consider to be the most accurate texts of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides goes on to say that anyone who upholds the Noachide laws only because they appear logical is not one of the "righteous among the nations," but rather he is one of the wise among them. The more prolific versions of the Mishneh Torah say of such a person: "..nor is he one of the wise among them."
The Noachide Laws are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a direct and meaningful relationship with God, or at least comply with the minimal requisites of civilization and of divine law.- Wikipedia



Christian views on the old covenant vary. Most Christian denominations incorporate the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, and The Golden Rule, however some believe in the complete Abrogation of Old Covenant laws. The only Noahide law that is not part of the standard moral teaching of mainstream Christianity is the prohibition against eating the flesh of an animal while it is still alive (number 6 above). By many interpretations, Acts and the Pauline Epistles make clear that the Jewish dietary laws as a whole are not binding on gentile Christians, though the Apostolic Decree which is still observed by the Orthodox includes some food restrictions.
The 18th-century Rabbi Jacob Emden proposed that Jesus, and Paul after him, intended to convert the Gentiles to the Noahide laws while allowing the Jews to follow full Mosaic Law.-Wikipedia
It stands to reason, then, that if christianity is going to lay claim to its ties to Judasim as the basis for its belief system then these original laws are still valid today, and those who don't adhere to them will not have their “life in the world to come”
The Talmud laid down the statutory punishment for transgressing any one of the Seven Laws of Noah (but not other parts of the Noahide code) as capital punishment by decapitation, which is considered one of the lightest of the four modes of execution of criminals. According to some opinions, punishment is the same whether the individual transgresses with knowledge of the law or is ignorant of the law. (Sounds pretty similar to how Islam views infidels, doesn't it?)


Even Congress claims to recognize the validity of the Noachide Laws:


The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.​

And:​

In January 2004, the spiritual leader of the Druze community in Israel, Sheikh Mowafak Tarif, signed a declaration calling on all non-Jews in Israel to observe the Noahide Laws as laid down in the Talmud and expounded upon in Jewish tradition. The mayor of the Galilean city of Shefa-'Amr (Shfaram), where Muslim, Christian and Druze communities live side by side, also signed the document. The declaration includes the commitment to make a better, more humane world based on the Seven Noahide Commandments and the values they represent commanded by the Creator to all mankind through Moses on Mount Sinai.



Commentary on the formation of the “New Testament”, again, we have to take into account the views of the Jews, since christianity is supposedly based on their beliefs:
The name of "New Testament" was given by the Christian Church, at the close of the second century, to the gospels and to other apostolic writings, inasmuch as they were composed with the purpose of showing that by the advent of Jesus of Nazareth the Messianic prophecies had been fulfilled and a new covenant (LXX., διαϑέκη; Vulgate, "testamentum") or dispensation had taken the place of the old Mosaic one (Gal. iii. 15-22; Luke xxii. 20; Heb. ix. 15-22; comp. Ex. xxiv. 7; II Kings xxiii. 2, 23; Ecclus. [Sirach] xxiv. 23). The idea of the new covenant is based chiefly upon Jer. xxxi. 31-34 (comp. Heb. viii. 6-13, x. 16). That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel (Jer. xxxi. 35-36; comp. xxxiii. 25); he obviously looked for a renewal of the Law through a regeneration of the hearts of the people. To Paul and his followers, however (see Rom. x. 4; II Cor. iii. 14), the Mosaic dispensation ended with Jesus, and consequently the Hebrew Scripture became the "Old Covenant," or "Testament," while Jesus was regarded as the mediator of the "New." But the names "Old" and "New Testament," when used by Jewish writers, serve only as terms of identification, and do not imply acceptance of the principle implied.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament#717





Some reading on the issue that might interest you, from a Jewish perspective:
http://www.mesora.org/jesusisfalse.html
http://www.mesora.org/christianity1.html
Please note that I have only ever discussed these matters with orthodox rabbis. It is my opinion that if you want to be as close to the truth of a matter as possible, then the people who work diligently to stick to the original premise would be the ones to talk to. Jews in the Conservative and Reform movements have, to my mind, strayed from the original intent of their faith.
If you are going to be true to your beliefs, then you have to look at the source of them, in order to validate them. IF you do that, then you have to look to what Judaism says on the matter.

 

If you look at my reply to Okiefreak, and read what that says, and maybe hit some of the links, you may change that opinion. It is all about the book, it has to be, otherwise everything else is just made up after the fact.

This just describes a feeling, you can get that from any feel good activity, it does not prove anything.

No, we were looking for the truth of the matter, something tangible.

If you believe that is so, then it is not trite bullshit. I just don't agree.

Not really, I tried a little weed when I was around 16, but all it ever did was give me a headache, and I never had any desire to try any of the others.

But, our bodies are made up of various chemicals, adding psychedelic chemicals into the mix produces experiences that are not real, so while they may be fun for some, they don't lead to truth, just an experience based on a chemical reaction.

.
I don't doubt that people have what they believe are religious/spiritual experiences, I just don't believe they are what they are believed to be. The mind can play some pretty weird tricks on people, especially when under the influence of drugs.

 

Okiefreak:

Do you think there was something divine about the death of Jesus?


thedope:

Love is discriminating. It desires itself, to know itself. Love and life are eachothers condition. If I find a kind of life less than lovely, then I fail to possess it, that's all. Do you find torture lovely?

You say it is the "christ" mind that loves without reservation. I say all minds love, and do so unreservedly.

I love everyone, I don't love everything, though I belong to both. A case of personality, of physicality. You say you point to a phenomenal god, but all I see you pointing to are phenomena.

Jesus loved people. I don't believe he really understood worship. You believe there is being beyond personality, beyond embodiment.

All things not being equal except to themselves, I have a point. Prediction need have nothing to do with loving phenomena.

No, only a weariness. A self-imposed limit by the mind tired of self-conception. Nor is moralism a disease, just want of strength.

 

Judgement is discriminating, love is what you are.

Failure to possess life? Being and having are the same truth.

I don't find torture. I find the redundant conditions of life.

If sporadically?
I hear people say they hate one thing or another. Are you taking some kind of poetic license here?

Yes, phenomena display real/true things. Perception of phenomena can be garbled thus making real things seem obscure and difficult to apprehend.
The thing that garbles perception is the unreliable metric of the sliding scale of good and bad. Understand that this scale that you call discriminating love does not apply open eyed apprehension of phenomena.

There is being beyond personality that we each possess and that is our common creaturehood in relation to a phenomenal world.

Love has nothing to do with overcoming phenomena but love makes all things right.

Pitiful you. Strength has appeal only to the weak. You cannot be tired but you can weary yourself.

 

And where do you think the book came from? The book was written by people. Some think they were just taking dictation. Others think it "was just made up." I think it was written by humans just trying to make sense of it all. The Tanakh and the New Testament alike were written by many anonymous authors trying to get it right. Some had some good ideas. I'm glad they wrote them down.

Agreed. It's a datum to be assessed along with other information in forming our working hypotheses. My experience was profound enough to change my life, and I still take the basic insight as my prime directive, because it seems compelling. If and when you have one, let me know what you think.

Good luck on that!

 

Books don't do anything, they are inanimate objects. It is all about interpretation of the book and then from there application of interpreted principles.

No. It describes a personal transformation, a perceptual shift into a new model of the universe. One which no longer controls you, but one which you control.

What would you do with the truth if you had it and, how would you accomplish it?

We find those most agreeable whom we agree with.

Here is an error in logical progression. If all experiences result from chemical induction then psychedelic induction is no less real. It only represents a different quality of human consciousness. It is from peculiar states of consciousness that innovation arises.

I rarely do this, but I suggest a book by, Chilton I believe, the crack in the cosmic egg, regarding this phenomena.

See above.

.

What is that, spiritual experiences?

Frankly few regard the world with any kind of clarity at all, regardless any influence of drugs. The insidious influence being the focus of attention on achieving moral/cultural compliance rather than open minded appreciation of phenomena.

 

I'll ask you one question.
Can you please indicate an experience, sensation, thought, emotion, tactile sensation, sight, sound, dreams, etc. that is NOT the result of a mix chemicals and electrical impulses?

Can you please show me the line in the continuum of human consciousness that separates "real" from "not real".

p.s. Everything we experience is the result of "chemical reactions"

and yes to the book "The crack in the Cosmic Egg", I read that when it was first published. Good read

The work of Charles T. Tart is also a good place to delve into the study of consciousness, which is after all what we are ultimately talking about here.

 

Ah but what about the righteously indignant, the ones that feel god is on their side?

It is to say, no matter how depraved/deprived you think another human being to be, his qualities are essentially, equal to those of christ. Most predominantly innocence. And that our compassion/mercy not be restrained by the perception of guilt, or unworthiness.

 

You're preaching to the choir here. I agree with most of what you say, except the punchline. What we know of Jesus and his ministry can only be inferred from the various somewhat conflicting scriptures (including gnostic ones) that were written decades after His death. My guess is that his views were probably similar to those of his brother James and the Jerusalem church who were Christianized Jews worshiping at the Temple, keeping kosher, practicing circumcision, and preaching the message of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and adopted Son of God. Those people were wiped out in the risings against the Romans in the 65-70 c.e., leaving us with Paul's adaptation. I think your sources do a pretty good job of describing the metamorphosis. I'm not an originalist. I think the continuing development of Christianity and other world religions is, for the most part, wholesome and, in a sense, divinely inspired.

I disagree completely. The orthodox rabbis are heirs to the Pharisees whom Jesus disputed. Judaism has its inspiring features, notably the Prophets, Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom literature, etc. But orthodox Judaism, like all fundamentalism in any religion, is surely as badly screwed up as Christianity. It is chauvinistic, obsessed with mindless trivia, and preoccupied with the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit. It served its purpose of keeping Israel alive as a nation during centuries of domination by nasty neighbors. But today it's as much part of the problem as any other dogmatic superstition.

 

The authors name is joseph chilton pearce.

 

thedope:

It's what we do too thedope. Why deny it?

A kind of life. Can you appreciate it?

I'm pleased you don't. But do you deny that it exists? I can appreciate your not wanting it to in finding it to be redundant. But then you say life itself is redundant.

All minds love unreservedly. That is not to say they are incapable of other actions.

I don't understand that. There is no indiscriminate love. Love is always of life. Understand that there is no scale in discriminating love.

How could we possess what is beyond us? I did not have to study the meaning of words to say what I mean. There is nothing to us beyond our personality.

Which things do you have in mind? How are they not phenomenal?

You have found moralism to be a disease, where I have found it only to be a weakness.

 

Okie neglected to answer my question.

Does he find something divine in the death of Jesus? lol

Am I to be horrified or disgusted? The suspense is kidding me. :-D

 

What, discriminate? What doing in a space time continuum is there that is not immediately done some other way?

Discriminating against a kind of life is not appreciating it.

No, but i do not cultivate it's existence. We are still working on this,
No description, no condition, no conditioned response. It is the conditioned response that allows the condition to persist.

So in your estimation, we love sporadically?

Yes, there is a scale. Discrimination is arbitrary. Love is not always of life if it discriminates one life from another in terms of value.

You didn't have to but you did and you chose one particular conjugation of the word personality that you feel supersedes every other.

I refer to personality in the sense that it represents somebody's set of characteristics and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time, but, they do not endure indelibly.

I don't understand the question? I said that love does not overcome phenomena. I did not say phenomena are not real.

Do you mean weakness as in a lack of strength, power or determination?

 

Excuse me. I mean exploring the crack in the cosmic egg.

 

for any interested, The Crack in The Cosmic Egg;

http://selfdefinition.org/science/Joseph%20Chilton%20Pearce%20-%20The%20Crack%20in%20The%20Cosmic%20Egg.pdf

 

Thank you.

 

thedope:

No, love. Love is discriminating. You cannot show me where it isn't. Do you want to?! lol

Not discriminating against. Love is not indiscriminate. But finding a certain kind of life "less than lovely" is failing to possess it, failing to discriminate it as ones own. To suggest anything else is just moralism. All life is a matter of taste. No accounting for it as you say, no scale beyond taste itself.

lol We? You will be working on that for the rest of your life, if you really are 'working' on it!

We love in time. Not out of it.

A misconception on your part. Love is always of life no matter what or how it discriminates.

It makes no difference. There is no being beyond personality despite your particular 'conjugation' for it! lol Our creaturehood is beyond it you say, but that is only behind it thedope. :-D

You said love makes all things right, I asked which things you have in mind. Does love make the denial of love 'right'?! lol Your moralism is weakness.

A side effect of the desire for strength, which in itself is not weakness. Strength, power, determination etc etc can't help but desire more. :-D

 

Don't take it so personally. I was replying to a very substantial post of Stillkicking. I also had to pick up meds for my dog. I find the crucifixion of Jesus to be a powerful metaphor for the triumph of divine truth over human inhumanity.