The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by undo
It was a parable, not a command to God's people.

This is one of those things I can't grasp with Christianity. Is the bible to be taken literally or is it open to interpretation? You can't have both. You can't pick and choose what you want to be taken literally and chose what you want to be parable. The problem is that people do. Then they say, all those who dont agree with my interpretation of what is literal and parable are not true Christians. It doesn't make sense.

You dont need to be Christian to be Christ like. Thats my take on all of it.

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by undo
It was a parable, not a command to God's people.

This is one of those things I can't grasp with Christianity. Is the bible to be taken literally or is it open to interpretation? You can't have both. You can't pick and choose what you want to be taken literally and chose what you want to be parable. The problem is that people do. Then they say, all those who dont agree with my interpretation of what is literal and parable are not true Christians. It doesn't make sense.

You dont need to be Christian to be Christ like. Thats my take on all of it.

I agree - you don't have to be Christian to be Christ-like. Perhaps there have been other posts that indicate that this is fact, but most educated Christians will not argue that point at all. Indeed, my pastor spoke at length on the subject in his homily the other day.

As to the concept of biblical intepretation. I have mentioned in this and other threads that 'God is perfect, man is not.' While Christians - and others - believe the bible to be divinely inspired, our translations and understandings are imperfect. Often, we find ourselves reading about the dilemma of a 2nd century Christian and wondering how - or if - this applies to us today. Rather than botch up a treatment of such a deep and valid questions, I refer the interested reader to a link that deals with the Roman Catholic teachings on biblical intepretation.


www.bible-researcher.com...

Good argument Xephon! The Bible is the bible. When I speak of context and intepretation, I am discussing taking a passage in the bible as a whole and not taking slected 'chunks' out of context. As to intepretation; many of the problems are those historians face every day. How do we project ourselves back 20 or more centuries? How do we apply things in light of two millenia of history and experience? How have nuymerous translations influenced or altered the texts? The article I linked to explains one approach of dealing with these questions and more.

I hope that people take the time to read and comment - I would welcome any further discussions or u2u's...

Originally posted by shantyman
In my defense, I made a number of reasoned responses and counterarguments. Sorry that you don't like them.

I never said I didn't like your interpretation of the verses. I didn't comment on them. You're entitled to interpret the verses to mean whatever you want them to mean, I didn't judge you for that. But you did judge me for the interpretations I had. Basically you were saying I was wrong, and you were right.

All quotes are out of context. The whole point of a quote is to take it out of context and put it all on it's lonesome.

Originally posted by shantyman
"Christians care to explain these? Especially the very judgemental quotes from the book of John" - this is a quote from your missive. Sounds fairly confrontational to me.

I'm a confrontational person.

Originally posted by shantyman
And - playing devil's advocate - you COULD have built a more convincing argument using some of those sources.

The point was 'interpretation'. You seem to be saying that one interpretation of The Bible is wrong, yet another 'yours' in this case, is right.

Originally posted by shantyman
Finally - why is it always, always, always 'attack' when Christians defend their positions?

Am I attacking you?

This begs the question: 'why do Christians feel the need to defend their position'.

I could guess the reasons, but better to have responses from Christians, who reguarly defend their position/belief/religion etc.

Yes, the statements you made were confrontational. There is no other way - and please forgive the seeming pun - to intepret your comments as confrontational and an attack on the values espoused in the Gospels.

As to the issue of intepretation that remain unanswered in your posts. I don't object to how you spin what you read, simply that you place your intepretations in quotes following the chapter and verse. This is either an deliberate attempt to convince the casual reader that these are the EXACT words as written or simple ignorance of the correct way to cite quotations. This may seem to be a piddling thing, but I think that in a forum such as this it is important that we are careful in how we cite authority from any source. Any argument - however well reasoned - based on flawed sources is not a terribly good one. How can you build a strong house with a flawed foundation? How can you build a strong argument with sources that are not legitimate. When you build an intepretation on intepretation, what resemblence does it have to the original argument? What validity? I would have enjoyed reading a reasoned argument on your position based on quotes from an actual bible - any bible would have done.

Once again, feel free to express your opinions. I certainly do.

As to why Christians feel the need to defend themselves. Well, I feel the need to advocate for my faith - this is part of our doctrine. As an educated Catholic, I can argue the points of my religion from a perspective gleaned from years of study and centuries of church teachings. As I teacher, part of my job is to educate. As a Catholic, part of my responsibilty is to enlighten people to the reasons and rationale of my faith. The Roman Catholic traditon has a discpline called Apologetics. It is a reasoned, philosophical, and theological corpus of work and tradition of expressing our values and beliefs. Of course when I post, I am going to defend my values and religion. And I value opinions other than my own, as I have expressed in numerous other posts.

I heard a story about how people of faith are finding themselves in an uncomfortable position because for the first time in centuries, we are finding ourselves marginalized. Perhaps that has merit, but I don't feel that way. I don't support abortion or capital punishment nor am I a fan of gay marriage. I will certainly advocate against those policies and argue to support my beliefs - no matter how unpopular. I also note that it is perfectly acceptable in the media and in the court of public opinion to beat up on Christians for their values. If it's contrary to a religious position, it is acceptable. But when a religious person expresses their point of view, the validity is dismissed without merit as being reactionary, obsolete, prejudiced, ignorant, or intolerant. So - non-religious can have their say, but religous people are automatically dismissed or branded?

Jesus used alot of parables. It's a sad thing to think that some folks used the parables as excuses to continue Old Covenant extremes. But you can really tell, if you read His style of teaching, when He was in the process of telling a parable. The language style would change. He'd use alot of past tense words, similar to "once upon a time." It must've been a popular form of discourse, like Aesop's Fables, where a life lesson or morality message is embedded in a story unrelated directly to the current events, but which apply symbollically to something else.

The REALLY poignant part is that He gave them exactly what they asked for. They didn't want Him to be their Messiah. Without that desire, their gifts related to the Messiah, were pointless. In effect, they slew themselves spiritually. They tossed out their own talents and hid them so they wouldn't gain any benefit, because they didn't approve of who the Messiah turned out to be.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Christians care to explain these? Especially the very judgemental quotes from the book of John.

I didn't go threw each of these verses individually. Let me say though, for the record, that I prefer to read Jesus almost exclusively - where the text is relating what He said directly to the people or the disciples.

To me, that's the crux and pinnacle of christianity. The apostles and disciples were obviously wise men and representatives of Jesus, but they were still men, as Paul points out in relating the story of the thorn in his side (his secret problem, whatever that was). Even the wisest prophets and learned men have made mistakes in judgement, such as the incident with Moses (he never got to enter the promised land because at the very last, he made some blunder). So to be on the safe side, I mainline Jesus and occassionally gnaw on some Acts, Romans or Revelation (et.al, i mostly stick with the Gospels, which are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (not to be confused with 1 John, 2 john, etc. There's the Gospel of John, and then the Epistles of John. I prefer the Gospel.

When in doubt, go straight to the source. If the ideas don't match, you either don't get the crux of the message or something else is wrong. When there's a contradiction, stick with Jesus' words. Seems the safest route to take, from my perspective.

And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them. Mark 6:11 NIV (New International Version)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mark 6:11 KJV (King James Version)

The 'interpretation' of Mark 6:11 in the NIV, is that the 2nd part of the verse isn't important enough to keep in.

I've read that the first part means; not that people aren't recieving Jesus, but instead that if you aren't recieved, then don't make a scene, just move on. Hence, it's a parable in the NIV. However, it has a completly different meaning in the KJV. The 2nd part of the verse instructs that on judgement day their fate will be worse than Sodom and Gomorrha. So the 2nd part of this verse makes the 'not recieve you' and 'nor hear you' about Jesus. It's no longer a parable for everyday people, that if you're not recieve, don't make a scene, it's now about Jesus, and that if you don't recieve him, you're fate will surely be a terrible one.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. 2 John 10 KJV

I've interpreted this to mean that if a person comes to you and doesn't recieve Christ (bring this doctrine) then don't let that person in to your home. It even says to not wish them 'God speed'. Another saying for 'Good Journey or Safe Journey'. It can be interpreted in many ways. But we know that John wishes Christians to not wish a non-Christian God speed.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22 KJV

My interpretation of this is if you deny Jesus is the Christ then you're a liar. You are also an antichrist who denies the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus). I don't think this one could be any more straight forward.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19 KJV

'We are of God', i'm interpreting that as Jesus' followers, the people who recieve and accept Jesus. The rest of the world 'lieth in wickedness' (under the power of the wicked one, hence Satan).

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 7 KJV

Again my interpretation of this was from a straight forward point of view. It's telling me that people who don't accept Jesus are deceivers and antichrists.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10-11 KJV

This is the actual part from Philippians. Albeit the interpretation was laid out moreso than what the actual quote said. However, the Book of Mormon rather than saying 'should bow' and 'should confess' says:

Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Mosiah 27:31 BOM

So rather than saying we should worship Jesus, we 'shall' worship Jesus. Again this is just another interpretation. My interpretation was:

Everyone will worship Jesus.

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Romans 8:33 KJV

God's elect I have interpreted to mean 'God's people', hence in this case 'Christians'. 'Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect' is a rhetorical question. 'It is God that justifieth', hence it is God that justifies me, and no one else. God is the judge and the jury, no one else is worthy to judge me. That's my interpretation of that one. Again like the quote from Philippians, it was laid out as the interpretation moreso than the wording of The Bible.

Have I move up from my D- or D+ I can't remember what you gave me before. I'm really hoping for a B or an A.

Originally posted by shantyman
I don't support abortion or capital punishment nor am I a fan of gay marriage.

I've never been a fan of a person making their mind up before they've heard the case. To be 100% against abortion, capitol punishment and gay marriage is absolutely ignorant. Moreso if you've never been in the situation to understand each, and likewise that you've made your mind up before the case has even been put forward. I've never been a fan of people who do that.

Originally posted by shantyman
I also note that it is perfectly acceptable in the media and in the court of public opinion to beat up on Christians for their values.

That's you personal oppinion of how the media portrays Christians and their values. I think like many forms of media, it's open to interpretation. I think at some point on this thread 'The Simpsons' came up in the discussion, and was deemed 'anti-Christian' by some Christians. I actually think The Simpsons is good publicity for Christians. Christianity and religion is never seen as 'in' or thought of as 'cool'. I think Simpsons has tried to make Christianity more down to earth and tried to make it fun. I remember the episode where Ned is walking in to church and there's a band on stage, his first thoughts are 'Electric guitars in church!'. Then the girl singer says 'This song is about a sleezy guy I met in a motel room', which makes Ned's face turn blue or red, or which ever color makes you looked shocked, but the girl singer finishes the sentence with 'And his name was God'.

But some people seem to think that The Simpsons is anti-Christian. I guess it's matter of oppinion, and open to interpretation.

Originally posted by shantyman
If it's contrary to a religious position, it is acceptable. But when a religious person expresses their point of view, the validity is dismissed without merit as being reactionary, obsolete, prejudiced, ignorant, or intolerant. So - non-religious can have their say, but religous people are automatically dismissed or branded?

When you've got people like Kent Hovind as part of your organisation it's hard to take any of you seriously. Don't get me wrong, i'm not lumping all Christians together. I know you're not all like Kent Hovind. But there's other people who believe in Jesus who say just as wacky things as Hovind. And the problem is that people like Hovind bring down the validity of Christians. I read something Hovind, a Christian, says, and we get the feeling 'well if this person is a Christian, and is saying we lived with dinosaurs 5000 years ago, then why should I take any Christian seriously'.

I thank you - this is the mark of making a good argument. And there is a more compelling argument that you make throughout the last posting.

I ask that you now consider the element that I mentioned earlier. One of the historian's ggreatest temptations is to project our values, standards, and experiences into historical situations. Historians spend so much time building a deep understanding about the period they are studying in order to understand the histroical context of the texts they are studying.

As I explained earlier, the passages cited that deal with non-Christians are commonly accepted as injunctions for defending the nascent Church. As you expand the reading from verse to chapter, you will see that John is writing about the organization and importance of doctrinal purity in the Christian communities scattered about the Roman Empire. At the time, mystery cults, secret societies, and splinter groups in Christianity itself abounded. John is cautioning to be vigilent.

Has the Bible been intepreted by Christians - and others - to justify immoral and hateful actions. Unfortunately, it has. More blood has been shed in the name of Christ than perhaps any other name in human history. And that, my friends, is the tragedy. The whole intent of my arguments posted here was to make sure that we are all playing on one field that at least starts unbiased. It is with great sorrow that I admit that there are far too many Christians who believe what Shaunybaby argued. I maintain that those people have warped the Gospel so far out of context as to have lost sight of the message.

Christ spent a fair amount of his ministry preaching forgiveness and compassion. Indeed, at the Garden of Olives, he healed one who had come to arrest him. He preached that it is more important to love your enemies than your friends - what reward is merited in loving friends?

When you look at Christianity, education has always - and is again - the key. That history is studded with Christian intellectuals is no accident. I have always considered my ROman Catholic faith to be an intellectually driven faith. To deeper understand my faith, I have delved into a lot of reading, study, and reflection. I and a number of other people are working to educate our congregations and other interested people by hosting reading groups, bible studies, and other opportunities to be more educated and discerning in intepreting and understanding our faith.

I must leave - I have to get ready for mass. I wish all a Happy and Blessed Easter.

I still don't get it.

In the bible, you'll find the words of Jesus in the WHOLE THING! It's not just the NT. Why not?

Because Jesus and the OT god are the SAME BEING, according to Christianity.

So, Jesus made the bet with Satan on Lot.

Jesus told the Israelites to murder their enemies, including children and animals.

Jesus exterminated the earth with water.

Jesus sent bears to kill 42 kids who made fun of a bald prophet.

And so on...

There's no way to escape the crimes rampant in the OT by saying "that wasn't Jesus," while at the same time saying the father, son, and the holy spirit are the same being.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I still don't get it.

In the bible, you'll find the words of Jesus in the WHOLE THING! It's not just the NT. Why not?

Because Jesus and the OT god are the SAME BEING, according to Christianity.

So, Jesus made the bet with Satan on Lot.

Jesus told the Israelites to murder their enemies, including children and animals.

Jesus exterminated the earth with water.

Jesus sent bears to kill 42 kids who made fun of a bald prophet.

And so on...

There's no way to escape the crimes rampant in the OT by saying "that wasn't Jesus," while at the same time saying the father, son, and the holy spirit are the same being.

You make an excellent point and one that has been given much argument. The only way I can even come remotely close to reconciling the differences between Yeshua (Jesus) and Yahweh, is to separate them as 2 different applications of a similar idea.

I.
The first application is purely physical. The circumcision is a physical event. The laws are literally applied in the physical realm. The sacrifice is a literal sacrifice. The blood, is literal blood.

II.
The second application is almost entirely spiritual. The circumsion is a spiritual event. The laws are spiritually applied in the spiritual realm. The sacrifice is a spiritual sacrifice. The blood, is spiritual blood.

The first application provides the venue for the second application, which essentially, is supposed to render perfected spirits and bodies. Of course, it is here that a new argument arises, that of the resurrection of the physical body into a perfected state that is the compliment of the perfected spirit.

Some argue the material plane, this physical reality we currently function inside of, has no such state of perfection. That due to its negative and dark nature, it will never be capable of perfection on any level, supernatural or not.

I'm willing to guess, the answer to such questions will solve the entire riddle of the physical laws of Yahweh vs. the spiritual laws of Yeshua.

Another important matter is understanding the setting of the OT, in which we find a jealous and angry Yahweh behaving like the average adolescent male, armed with the biggest and best machine gun, and the longest memory for retribution. We can't comprehend that level of, what appears to be, malevolence. And it certainly doesn't seem to be a hallmark of Yeshua's teachings, making the entire thing a huge contradiction. What essentially is going on is a massive war between the Serpents, the Serpent Seed and the Seed of Adam, and all paths leading away from that and to that, are as a result of that war.

By Serpents, I refer to the Seraphim (angelic race), and in particular, the fallen Seraphim. The war is not just a war of ideas, but a war of genetics, as you can clearly see by considering how the bloodlines divided into diametrically opposed camps, almost exclusively based on DNA and at the head of which, were various "gods" (the seraphim as progenitors of the races).

This genetic problem should really be a point of extreme interest for people who study these topics because it's such an odd manifestation. Few tread there, however. Many female christians view the OT like a big dark scary room in which dark angry people reside, who do not love or care for each other, at all. And you can see why they feel that way, when not armed with any other information - it IS a big dark scary place, most especially because the "fallen" physical state was the primary focus.

This concept of "fallen" has been a highly debated topic. Were they fallen because they were somehow evil, inherently? Or were they fallen because it meant they came down to the planet - thus implying the word was descended instead of fell? Or both or neither? To find the answer, requires again, understanding the situation for what it was.

Early on, humans were modified, if you will, by fallen angels, by Seraphim, by Serpents. This happened in stages for most of the human species.

The first stage was to teach us the laws of the universe and of God. This was a Serpent production. Prior to that, we flourished in our innocence. After that, the law condemned us and judged us, because we were made aware that our innocence was not as a result of understanding but as a result of not understanding the nature of the universe - this was not true innocence, the Serpents contended.

Of course, they knew we couldn't attain true innocence once the law had judged us, that it would be forever outside our grasp. So it was a deliberate downgrade, specifically meant to provide them with new resources capable of being utilized for whatever they might want or need. Our free will in these matters demanded choices and these choices were easily manipulated by the Serpents, It was the potentiality and reality of such choices that determined the next modification.

The second stage was when our DNA was modified so that our genetic code and the organs associated with it, would begin to break down at a specified time. This was God's response to the first stage. A trigger was placed in the program that would start a cascade event in which the various body functions slowed and then shut off. This was done deliberately, because what was once innocent, although blissfully so, was now very much aware of its options.

Because our free will had been subjugated by the Serpents, diverted into knowledge without the capacity to use that knowledge for true good, we were a danger to everything else in the universe. The Serpents intended to raise us up as warriors, slaves and minions for their own dreams of domination. If we were somehow able to retain immortal bodies, the numbers of the Serpent faction would skyrocket to devastating size and essentially destroy every living thing in this physical dimension.

The third stage was when some of us were upgraded to be "better, stronger, faster, smarter" and placed in positions of authority over the rest of us. This was the Serpent response to the second stage. The hybrid beings thus created were called Serpent Seed. As you can see, it became a battle of wills and destinies, with humans stuck in the middle. The Serpents would infiltrate a community, infest the populace with Serpent Seed leaders and rulers, subjugate them, enslave them, create lesser hybrid children, teach them to sin against their own bodies, and use them in their struggle against God.

This became so prevalent prior to the mesopotamian flood, that hardly any humans remained. To add insult to injury, the planet became so war torn and polluted, the ecosystem began to break down. Animals were no longer edible. Humans became the food of choice for the hybrids. solyent green was a reality. All this pain, suffering and discomfort, was no biggie for the Serpents, as they could simply go somewhere else, use up some other species, dominate some other culture on some other planet.

But it was a big deal for the human inhabitants as we were isolated to this planet. Our situation was dire. We were about to go out of physical existence forever. This is where we encounter Yahweh's anger and seeming unending vengeance. What we are seeing manifested in the OT, is not the murder and wholesale slaughter of humans, from what I can tell. It's the murder and wholesale slaughter of hybrids, the Serpent Seeds who were not supposed to be here to begin with. Who had been employed to enslave the rest of us, with the idea in mind that they were more qualified to do the job and therefore, we humans owed them whatever we had of value to give them.

Now someone else could argue that what we were seeing was just 2 warring factions, each proclaiming that their particular race of people was the superior one, the end of which was just a long bloody battle of kill and be killed. However, I invite you to look around the planet. As the bible does declare that in the last days of this planet, it would be again, just like it was in the days leading up to the flood.

Do you taste good with ketchup?



[edit on 9-4-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Do you taste good with ketchup?

I taste great with ketchup.

If the apocalypse imagery from Revelation and other chapters of the bible are interpreted relatively correctly, then I see a similarity in the message there and many other ancient cultures' predictions about the current era. It is notable to me that numerous millenia old texts from every corner of the globe can all be seen to agree in general on many points regarding this coming 'shift', or what have you. I personally find the KJAV wording is more interesting to contemplate than all others I have read, though I have not fully read many versions. In my reading, different bibles have got information that is diametrically opposed to each other. For examples, see Joseph's lineage in Luke, or the different accounts of the empty tomb discovery by Mary Magdalene. In the last one, depending on which bible you read, she is accompanied by different people when she visits the tomb. When two or more bibles give opposing information, such as different names, what does one do? I wouldn't say that any church is right or wrong, and I cannot imagine anyone knowing for sure what happened 2000 years ago. I am with Undo in one thing, Jesus' words are generally wise and positive.
But, as for the thread topic, which it seems we have left behind somewhere, if there is an increased prevalence of public commentary which is contrary to and critical of the past Christian domination of western society, that is not a concerted or organized effort to conspire against the church. I see it as a liberation of the free thinker or non-Christian people. They always felt this way, but it is only recently that they have felt safe to state that. In many minds there is an inequality which needs to be addressed. That is, in part, the concept that it is okay for Christians, missionaries and such, to convert others to their way, yet it is offensive for any other group such as secularists, Muslims, or shamanists to do so. Liberal minds are speaking out, and that is good. Christians need to accept that the old world is gone. Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, etc., are not something to be stamped out, as was the goal of many Christians up until now. The different faiths are all our neighbours, and the earth's people are one family, Mitakuye Oyasin.

When reviewing scripture, one looks at the things which Christ said. He claimed that he was not a peacebringer, but that he would set father and son against eachother.

Later, he bids that others take up their own crosses and follow him.

Much of what Christ said relates to me not that one should follow the words of the bible, or his words alone... but that one should be a rabble rouser. A disturber of the peace... someone who is ill-contented to accept the mere answers given.

Let no man come to the father but through me... does that mean the literal interpretation of swearing fealty to the Lord Thy God?

Or does it mean that one should live by the example of his Son, that you might find freedom and true eternal life in the peace that is found at ones own center?

I feel that the conspiracy in the non-religious world is against the view of Christianity as the rule of law. There is a struggle to be free of nonsense in science, but nonsense is defined by those who feel they know better.

It just so happens that the nonsense as defined happens to be religious thinking. Many believe that religious thinking is SPECIFICALLY the thinking that common era Christian rabble tend to spew forth in great promulgation.

It is important to note that all religions do NOT have the same kind of thinking at their center. They are NOT centered on specifically nonsense, and do NOT behave in the same way. Any apt theologian can provide an opulance of examples for such.

Is there a conspiracy? Yes. There is a desire to stamp out religious thinking. It is viewed as a threat to the future of humanity. It is viewed as a heavy anchor to progress and forward momentum.

Because that is what it has been forged into within the western culture. It is the ties that bind. It is the morality rubber stamp that the west wishes to populate the world with, a universal consensus of rightness and wrongness.

The gnostics once believed that the entirety of the earthly realms were but a prison, an unceasing distraction of the immaculate soul. They viewed living not in the light of sin and sainthood... but in the effort of gradual enlightenment. The betterment of the self, it being divinely seperate of the flesh.

Where modern day christians look upon sin as the design that turns gods eyes in shame, Gnostics viewed it as an impertinent waste of time. Unavoidable without proper self discipline, but not soul-damning... merely perpetuating the trap which reality has placed upon the self.

Interestingly enough, many western non-religious thinkers wish to have their morality without the window dressing. They wish to hang onto concepts of right and wrong, but do not want to be bothered with strict definitions. Both tend to balk at violations of their own perceived moralities, and many of them tend to meet on the same points of sin and remorse.

And in many cases, it is reasoned the same with or without religion.

Back on the topic subject, the conspiracy is more to do with a particular kind of spiritual thought associated with particular kinds of christians. It just lacks focus, because focus would reveal a bias. Thusly, the claim is that all religious thought is flawed... even though other religions are rarely focused upon.

Well said, Cold Dragon. In my study of scripture and my own personal spiritual journey, I have found myself feeling similar sentiments.

However, those thoughts are slightly flawed, and, again, I understand how easy it is to fall into believing along those lines. I would like to first preface this by saying the Church, in no way, is perfect. This is evidenced by Revelation 19:7 (emphasis mine):

Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory, for for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His Bride has made herself ready

She (the Bride) is also to have presented herself to Him in garment without spot or wrinkle. That does not describe the Church as it stands today. Even so, it will.

You have grabbed things Christ said, and have used them to come to the conclusion that Christ wants us to be rabble rousers. However, there is more to this book than just those statements. While the Gnostics may believe sin is simply a waste of time, God, as is evidenced through His Word to us, sees it as something far, far worse. It's not something that causes a delay in our journey to Him, but, in fact, widens the schism, pulling us farther and farther from Him. Christ said, "If you love Me, you'll keep My commandments" as well.

On top of that, the Bible consists of 66 separate books that all compose one congruent story of God's creation, man's fall, God's plan for our redemption, that redemption on an individual scale, and what that redemption is going to look like on a global scale. We cannot be intellectually honest and still pick and choose things that fit what we want to believe. As the late Rich Mullins said about his faith in Christ, "I did not make it, no, it is making me."

If we create a God of our own design, using bits and pieces from areas that seem to fit best with what we want now, we're only going to find ourselves worshiping ourselves or a god that exists to approve of us no matter what we do. Something easy. If we take scripture on the whole, though, it will be tougher, it will not be an easy walk, because God is God, He is I AM, Alpha and Omega, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He doesn't change with us, it is we who are called to change to reflect Him. While it may not be easier, He does promise us that He will come through this journey with us, giving us the strength to do it, because ours isn't sufficient. We can make the change, revolutionize our lives, because we give Him control, and let Him run with our lives. Not only will He do this, He promises He will if we come to Him and, honestly, ask Him to.

He's not a tame God, but He is good.

TheColdDragon,

The bible has a format for translation into common terms. It's what they call: In context. You don't lift out ideas without the rest of the ideas. It all works together and when it doesnt, I take the default position. That is, if it matches or assumes the stance to what Jesus is quoted as saying in the first four books of the New Testament, then it's fine. If it doesn't, then I assume Jesus' position as the default. Some of that position is extrapolated via common sense and via an understanding of Old Testament concepts. I'll explain what i mean shortly.

When asked about obeying the laws, Jesus said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and Render unto God what is God's. He also said to be truthful. Not to lie. So if the two things (Caesar's laws vs. God's laws) come into contradiction with each other, always pick the truth. This assumes God's laws will always be the truth. The only way it's possible not to be the truth is when someone has tampered with it and called it the truth. The next step is to determine what truth is, if indeed the text doesn't appear to be matching up. This is why I choose Jesus as the default position, scripturally, when and where possible.

Now for what I mean about extrapolating and common sense:

When Jesus said that He was bringing a sword between members of the same family, He was talking about (remember In Context) how changing your world views, your life choices and your moral stance, can create enemies in the same household much less the same family. It's a commentary on the human condition. It's also a warning that, although the most important thing is love, that those who love you may have a hard time understanding your new stance. It's hard to explain to partying buddies that you don't drink anymore, or that you don't go to bars anymore, for example. But if the partying buddies are in the same house, that can put a huge crimp in the normal activities and smooth functioning of the home. For example, many alcoholics have a significant other who provides them with the booze and the reason to drink it (thus we find normally rational people who happen to be addicts, seeking out people who inspire them to drink for whatever reason. in return, the addict provides the supplier with the feeling of superiority, i'm better than you cause you're a junkie, type of thing. and around and around it goes. it's the vicious cycle, based on a co-dependent relationship. when that vicious cycle changes, due to a change in belief systems, you gotta know the caca is gonna hit the fan).

Anyway, Jesus also said something to the effect of, if you're asked to carry a load for the army for one mile, carry it two miles. He didn't teach subversion or anti-socialism. He taught truthfulness.



[edit on 18-4-2007 by undo]

We differ on interpretations of the bibles meaning, but not as much as you may think.

To render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's is, as you said, not so much anti-established paradigm as much as it is asking of the individual to give what is rightfully due to all. It essentially promotes fairness to those that watch over, but not so much that you forgo the honor of ones self to your divine path.

To bring the sword into the home and cause divisiveness I would agree means that in change conflict will occur to those close to the individual. However, I do not feel it has anything to do with sin as much as the path to spiritual growth is fraught with many who are stuck in the mud, and refuse help. Seeking only to lodge you in said quagmire.

That many christians "Follow the rules" because they are God's Laws to me is not enlightened. Or that they follow them "Because they are right" results in same. "Good?" Same.

I forgo the rules, and act only out of honor, trust, and compassion. Ones own guiding principles should be followed to the best of ones abilities, even should those cause strife and conflict amongst others. To act out of ones own will to be a decent person to others has far more weight than to do so because the bible told you so... The first is free will at work, the second is good children following the rules for the reward at the end.

The first is free will at work, the second is good children following the rules for the reward at the end.

Some folks seem to have a problem understanding the definition of "moral" behavior as regards the bible. It's really not any different than any other religious teaching wherein you are encouraged to treat your body well, to not overdo anything (moderation), to be kind to others, and so on. These principles are in almost every religion and philosophy on the planet because they make sense. They are proven mores and standards.

When a buddhist exercises, he's following a religious creed that has the added perk of making him healthier and more in tune with his belief system. When a hindu meditates, he has the added perk of having a more relaxed body, a healthier mindset, and it has the added perk of making him more in tune with his belief system. It's the same for christians. If we exercise, we exercise because it makes us healthier and has the added perk of being in tune with the belief system. If we pray, we do so because it helps us to be better individuals, with clearer minds and more in tune with our belief system.

No matter where you get the ideas from, the final result is that you are a better person after than before. You've apparently accumulated an outlook that you derived from reading other peoples thoughts and ideas on various subjects, watched life play itself out and reached a paradigm. Religion is the exact same thing, with the exception that some believe you are currently in a temporary holding facility (your body) and that once you are outside it, you will still be you, just minus the temporary holding facility.

i think you all need to see this video.

video.google.com...

I feel there is importance as to WHY a person commits to a good act. There is little sincerity to do so because it is godly, as you are then emulating what you feel is worthy.

Worthiness itself comes from discerning ones own actions as desirable, outside of a structured belief system. To be good for goodness sake, as it were. Not for the sake of God or ones own soul, but for the sake of the choice.

To choose, with no strings attached, kindness and compassion is a better choice than to be kind and compassionate because God favors it. One is a personal empowerment of spiritual self, the other shows deference to the divine. I strive to be godly in the sense of being equal to, though that is an impossible task in itself.

Some may feel that my lack of deference to the Divine is either insulting or blasphemous, I see it differently. I respect what the Divine is, and that fulfillment of potential in each human soul. I wish all mankind to rise and ascend to become "AS GODS". To act divine and by so doing be divine in action.

Yet that is never possible with the current paradigm of Christianity, for it demands deference to the Divine. It demands a strict and specific seperation, that we are lesser and always shall be. That we submit to the will of the Father, which essentially means to eternally be seperate from such.

Even in heaven, current Christian Paradigm demands submission, if one subscribes to the concept of the casting out of the fallen angels. It demonstrates a demand for submission even when one is "HEAVENLY", which again eternally seperates ones self from being one with the Divine.

Thusly, I believe Jesus, the Christ, wants all to become undying, to make each soul one with the Divine. In the shadow of the Father, that will never be possible... we will be beloved children forevermore.

I believe more is possible. I believe it is possible to grow up, as it were, in the eyes of the divine. It is just very hard with the prison of the flesh... but then, Forgiveness itself is divine, and there should be no end to forgiveness unto those that trespass.

To boil it down, I do not ascribe to the idea of usurping God. I, as much as any Christian, wish to be one with God. We all want to go home, in that sense... to be embraced wholly and without reserve as eternal love washes over us.

Originally posted by Funkydung
i think you all need to see this video.

video.google.com...

Eek, the poor Tibetans!

that tibetan woman's doctor was so wonderful. what a bedside manner. he was actually weeping. touching.