The Catholic Church: Deceptions and Control

knowledge is very important it seems

Proverbs9.10-
knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Isaiah11.9-
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

Hosea4.6-
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

2Peter3.18-
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever!

Philippians2.9-
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight

Colossians-
have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
It seems there a few in this thread who have proven what we were talking about before. I think what people aren't understanding is that there is a difference between what Jesus taught and what "The Church" has done with it. The Gospels are full of quotes in regards to this, Jesus says many will use his name but He does not know them, Jesus tells us that people will hear and see but not understand, He refers to those "with ears to hear".

There is a significant difference between what Christ taught and what some people have done in his name, both within and outside of the Church. However, to paint the Church (Catholic or otherwise) with some broad brush and dismiss it all, is both foolish and shortsighted. Claiming past actions (in particular, actions hundreds of years ago,) condemn current religion, or that the actions of few (pedophiliac Priests, for example,) condemn the actions of all are both invalid claims, for obvious reasons.

I believe that when Christ says "Many will say 'Lord, Lord' but I did not know you" he is referring to "checkbox Christians" -- those that claim the faith but don't practice it -- or to hypocrites in the church, much as there were in his day. I do not believe that it applies to those whose adoption of heretical thought, such as Gnosticism, which is fundamentally incompatible with both Christianity and its predecessor, Judaism.

Christ says that things are simple -- love God, love everyone else, accept his sacrifice. Nothing to "work out", nothing to discover, just a very basic theology that is open to all "with ears to hear."

reply to post by adjensen


Christ's teachings were fairly simple, at least on the surface, yet the church insists on ceremony and symbolism. No one would attend church if it was simply spending time with each other and talking about spiritual things. People go to church for the ceremony, they go because they need someone they've been told is "ordained by God" to serve wine and bread, to burn incense, to anoint with oil, to bless, all these things are fundamentally esoteric and are, as you say, fairly incompatible with Christ's teachings of Love God, Love each other, Do good works.

People recite what they've been told to recite yet rarely give it a second thought. If you truly are a disciple of the divine then you have no need to openly profess your faith, by oath, every week. God knows all that is in our hearts, be it good or evil. What use is constant supplication, kneeling, begging, praising, invocations to the Most High, creator of all things? These things serve only an Earthly purpose.

Did Jesus not say "Where two or more are gathered, there will I be"? When Christ died was the curtain of the tabernacle not torn apart? Christ taught us that we don't need an intermediary, we don't need Pharisees, Priests or Pastors to speak to God for us. We are all children of the Divine, we all have the power to know God.

God is not concerned with "Sin", you do not need to be granted forgiveness from some "Divinely ordained" leader, the only true sin is to do harm to others for in doing harm to others we do the most harm to ourselves and take ourselves farther and farther away from truly knowing God.

reply to post by Shadowflux


I'm largely in agreement with most of what you say, with the exception of the claim that we don't need the church. We don't need any particular church, no, but church provides community, and Christians need community, every bit as much as we need food and water.

Beyond that, we need reasoned (and reasonable!) authority, scholarship and guidance, because, left on our own, most people would tend toward a lazy Christianity, reading into the scriptures what they like, and winding up with something that is only tangentially related to the faith. If you believe in Christ's teaching and salvation, that's not a viable solution.

As I've said before, my approach is threefold -- faith, religion and theology. Faith is my personal statement of my belief -- I believe in God, I believe that he wants a relationship with me, and that relationship comes through Christ, who says acceptance, and loving God and everyone else as myself is all that I need to have that relationship.

That's all well and good, and it is the core of my belief. However, without any backing, without any authority, I might as well have decided that God wants me to eat block cheese, flagellate myself daily and tell everyone that he lives in a teapot halfway between here and Mars. A belief that is ungrounded is fine, but ultimately indefensible, and the likelihood that it is true approaches zero.

That's where religion -- the community of believers, scripture and religious writings, and traditions of faith -- comes in. It moulds and validates my belief. I can look for support in scripture, I can talk to other believers about questions or doubts, and I can feel grounded in my faith, or know that if I get off the beaten path, I will find guidance back.

The last leg is theology, which is the study and analysis of God, doctrine and belief. It is what tells us, intellectually, that the scripture, traditions and teachings of religion are correct. A Pastor, Priest or other leader is most often our connection to theology, as careful study, thought and understanding are generally needed to comprehend theology and to make use of it. There is nothing to say you can't pick it up yourself, as I have, but for more people, theology is kind of dull and a bit incomprehensible, just as the study of physics or anthropology would be for the casual observer, who just "nips in" because he wants to learn about Dark Matter or the role of land rights for Aztec nobility in 1500AD.

In short -- faith without religion is shallow and indefensible and religion without theology is arbitrary and subject to the control of whoever happens to be preaching at the moment.

However, and this is a big however, these three, faith, religion and theology are in DECREASING order of importance, and necessitate reconciliation going both ways. I have faith that God is good, so if I wander into a church that preaches that God is bad, then I'm a bit suspicious of that teaching. I have faith that Christ's core message, which trumps all, is to "Love God, love everyone else", so if you came to me to say that God told you to blow up the abortion clinic, I'd weigh that against my faith, come to the conclusion that your proposed action is not in accordance with that core message, determine that God said no such thing, and attempt to talk you out of your plan.

There is nothing to say that one need bow to what someone with a vestment or collar says, and I agree that we come to God through Christ, not through another person, but if you rely on faith alone, ignoring church, community and educated authority, you run the risk of simply believing what you like or what randomly comes to mind, regardless of truth, viability and logic. As religion is the search for the ultimate truth, and most believe that we're held accountable for that search, "going in on your own" seems like a pretty bad idea.

This is, by the way, valid for any faith, whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Gnosticism or anything else.

I'm largely in agreement with most of what you say, with the exception of the claim that we don't need the church. We don't need any particular church, no, but church provides community, and Christians need community, every bit as much as we need food and water

.

I'm a Christian, in the sense that I believe that Jesus was a divine messenger. However, I don't need community.

Beyond that, we need reasoned (and reasonable!) authority, scholarship and guidance, because, left on our own, most people would tend toward a lazy Christianity, reading into the scriptures what they like, and winding up with something that is only tangentially related to the faith. If you believe in Christ's teaching and salvation, that's not a viable solution.

I disagree. What you are saying sounds a lot like control. Maybe not blatantly, but to say that people need this guidance and they need it or else they will stray from the faith, don't you mean the religion? How can you stray from your own faith, if it is your own?

That's where religion -- the community of believers, scripture and religious writings, and traditions of faith -- comes in. It moulds and validates my belief. I can look for support in scripture, I can talk to other believers about questions or doubts, and I can feel grounded in my faith, or know that if I get off the beaten path, I will find guidance back.

I think church can be a very positive environment for those who are looking for that. I think it can be psychological beneficial to many as well, such as any support group. But you say that if you get off the beaten path, you will find guidance back. I know this is getting redundant, but whose beaten path will you be straying from? I think in a more 'my faith', 'my journey', sort of way. I think that much of what I believe has much in common with Christian based religions. But it may have some in common with Buddhism or Taoism and that's okay with me. The path, as long as I'm continually seeking, will take me where I need to be.

In short -- faith without religion is shallow and indefensible and religion without theology is arbitrary and subject to the control of whoever happens to be preaching at the moment.

Faith without religion is shallow? I feel like you are taking the spirituality out of faith. We won't agree on much in regards to the overall importance of religion, but I value your opinions and appreciate what you have to say.

Hi Lambs to lion,

you have started a darned good thread, both concerning form and content. And I would like to approach it from the following direction (a bit boring maybe at first).

We have (at least) two levels of relating to existence. The ordinary mundane, where our standard senses recieve information and where we operate from intellect, emotions and body.

Then there's the level, where we sometimes experience something, which is 'outside' the mundane world. We have in such situations 'enhanced' perception, a 6'th, 7'th or more sense is functional. Some such experiences will be a part of the 'natural' universe, following cosmic laws (which we know nothing of yet), and other experiences will maybe be 'supernatural' ('beyond event horizon'). For convenience I'll call such enhanced perception of the possible 'supernatural' for epinoia, even if the word isn't 100% precise in this context.

The mundane experiences can be described by language, if we remember to use it in a proper contextual frame. But epinoia experiences have in the west no co-sensus value, no proper semantics and few epistemological tools or methodologies to evaluate epinoia from. So epinoia is basically an individual EXPERIENCE.

The epinoia experince can in itself also vary in clarity and authenticity, ranging from pure scam or self-induced hysteria to authentic contact with non-corporeal entities and/or transcendence, but from my perspective of metaphysics, I have no doubt, that true epinoia exists (and much more scam or wanna-be pseudo-epinoia)

A majority, if not all, of organised religions origine from more or less true epinoia experiences, and while some disciples of the intial experiencée may be able to repeat epinoia for themselves, most followers will not, and they will soon try to formulate a semantic description around the situation. Such semantic descriptions are doctrines, and are found in most organised religion, where they form a structural basis.

From the moment a pen is set to paper (or whatever it's set to), the true experience of epinoia looses its value. Language is completely unsuited for this purpose, and the few parts of the epinoia experience which survive this verbal massacre, will be meaningless bits of information without context.

On top of that, any organised group is for sociopaths, what sugar is to wasps. So whatever was intact from transforming epinoia to language, will soon be hijacked to be (mis)used as an ideological powerbase.

The whole process of doctrine-formation is so filled with pitholes, that I personally gave it up years ago. Especially as epinoia isn't completely out of reach for most individuals, without any need of doctrine.

There's no need for much 'middleman' actitvity, once an individual gets started on the path of direct experience.

reply to post by bogomil


Thanks bogomil, and thanks for your input. I've never heard of the term epinoia before, although I think I understand its meaning. I'm going to look into it more and get a better grasp on it. As far as what you said regarding large gatherings of people...I've always felt uncomfortable when entering a populated church. Now, if the church is empty, or if there are people but they aren't all worshipping, then it's a nice place to be. Especially, some of the old and beautiful Catholic churches in my area. As far as the "middle-man" goes, once again, I'm in agreement with you.

Originally posted by lambs to lions

I'm largely in agreement with most of what you say, with the exception of the claim that we don't need the church. We don't need any particular church, no, but church provides community, and Christians need community, every bit as much as we need food and water

.

I'm a Christian, in the sense that I believe that Jesus was a divine messenger. However, I don't need community.

Christ needs to be more than a divine messenger, by definition, because his message was, effectively, that he was the fulfillment of Jewish Law. People who say "Christ was a good teacher, but he wasn't God" fail to recognize that the whole of his teachings was the climax of Jewish prophecy and expectations (though in a way that most Jews didn't expect, or want.) Taken out of the Jewish faith, Christ's message is largely generic platitudes that mean little, and removing his divine nature makes him a liar and blasphemer of the worst sort.

I disagree. What you are saying sounds a lot like control. Maybe not blatantly, but to say that people need this guidance and they need it or else they will stray from the faith, don't you mean the religion? How can you stray from your own faith, if it is your own?

Unless you are of the mind that we create our own realities and that God, to us, becomes whatever we want him to be (in which case, I'd ask you to support that claim -- I've seen a number of people who believe this, but they can never sustain that belief,) then religion is a quest for the truth, and there is, can only be, one truth. As I said, if one merely imagines a reality, without any basis, that is counter to established belief and thought, the likelihood that this is the one truth is, effectively, zero.

As the saying goes, all religions may be wrong, but only one religion can be right. If your independently arrived at faith, counter to all other religions, is the true one, my hat is off to you, but I think this absolutely unlikely.

In short -- faith without religion is shallow and indefensible and religion without theology is arbitrary and subject to the control of whoever happens to be preaching at the moment.

Faith without religion is shallow? I feel like you are taking the spirituality out of faith. We won't agree on much in regards to the overall importance of religion, but I value your opinions and appreciate what you have to say.

Yes. As I noted before, and above, without a basis, a faith is merely something that seems right to you in the moment. There is nothing wrong with this, inherently, and whatever belief you might have is yours, is important to you, and I respect your conclusions. But without a rational basis, a theological backing and religious backing, this is a shallow, indefensible faith.

Put another way -- if I arbitrarily adopt a set of beliefs, when challenged I won't be able to say much other than "It seems right to me." If my set of beliefs, however, is in accordance or in harmony with existing theology, tradition, scripture and doctrine, I have a reasonable defense, and my faith is more likely to be correct. Not necessarily correct, mind you, just more likely to be.

I'm a believer in "close enough" Christianity -- that doctrine and religious dogma that man has piled on top of Christ's message isn't really all that important, but if one's view of Christianity doesn't cover the core of Christ's teachings, then one is some other faith, not a Christian.

Re Deny Ignorance

you can find suggestions of your 'negative force' practically everywhere in organised religion, though it's not exactly the same 'negativity' described everywhere.

E.g. in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, you find the 'archons', who are somewhat zombie-like non-corporeal beings, which in an almost psi-technological way interferes with mankind, often to the point of brainwashing.
(OT Yahweh is said to be one of them). They are not considered 'evil' as such, rather insane or deeply ignorant.

There's a parallel to that in some buddhism, where Mara also represents ignorance rather than 'evil'.

These guys are known globally under different names, and personally I believe, that not a few organised religions or twisted doctrines come from them. They like to pretend, that they are representatives of some ultimate truth.

adjensen wrote:

"Put another way -- if I arbitrarily adopt a set of beliefs, when challenged I won't be able to say much other than "It seems right to me." If my set of beliefs, however, is in accordance or in harmony with existing theology, tradition, scripture and doctrine, I have a reasonable defense, and my faith is more likely to be correct. Not necessarily correct, mind you, just more likely to be."

But 'accordance with existing theology, tradition, scipture and doctrine' goes for practically ALL religions. So all of them are more likely to be correct (and only one can be the MORE likely correct).

Now what?

reply to post by adjensen

Unless you are of the mind that we create our own realities and that God, to us, becomes whatever we want him to be (in which case, I'd ask you to support that claim -- I've seen a number of people who believe this, but they can never sustain that belief,) then religion is a quest for the truth, and there is, can only be, one truth. As I said, if one merely imagines a reality, without any basis, that is counter to established belief and thought, the likelihood that this is the one truth is, effectively, zero.

No, we don't create our God or change him in any way. What we understand of reality is far from what we eventually will understand of reality. Yes, you said it when you mentioned 'truth', which is what I seek. But not because someone else tells me that it is the truth, but because I know it is.That is my goal, to find the truth. Do you believe you can have a relationship with God? Do you believe that He can "speak" to you? If so, why is it so hard to believe that one can connect with God without the need for faith in a religion and doctrine, but rather faith in a personal way? Also, I never said that my beliefs stand completely aside from any religion. Much of what I believe can in fact be found in religions. However, my beliefs will not or ever be confined to religion. I can't be true to myself and search for my answers if my hands are proverbially tied.

Originally posted by bogomil
adjensen wrote:

"Put another way -- if I arbitrarily adopt a set of beliefs, when challenged I won't be able to say much other than "It seems right to me." If my set of beliefs, however, is in accordance or in harmony with existing theology, tradition, scripture and doctrine, I have a reasonable defense, and my faith is more likely to be correct. Not necessarily correct, mind you, just more likely to be."

But 'accordance with existing theology, tradition, scipture and doctrine' goes for practically ALL religions. So all of them are more likely to be correct (and only one can be the MORE likely correct).

Now what?

That is where one's faith, arrived at directly or indirectly, becomes the final arbiter. I have spent a fair bit of time studying Christianity and Judaism, and some, but not a lot, studying Hinduism, and I find that my personal faith, my real life experiences, points me to Christianity as the religion which is most correct, closest to the truth. I can defend that theologically, I can call up tradition, doctrine and scripture to support it, but in the end, I am convinced by my own mind.

The danger, which is my point in this, of summarily dismissing established religion and theology, is that it opens oneself up to going in a direction which is hardly likely to be correct. If it's something you have just dreamed up, your chances of being right are effectively zero. If it's something that someone else just dreamed up, but they put forth an effort to build a religion on, frankly I believe that you adopt their odds, also effectively zero.

The Christian faith claims God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, as its founder, so the odds are a bit more favourable there, if one accepts Biblical canon as being in any way valid (if one believes that the Bible is complete nonsense, then one is not a Christian, and one wouldn't expect them to believe Christianity to be even fractionally true.)

reply to post by adjensen


It kind of sounds like you are saying that picking a religion is a lot like “rolling the dice.” It also sounds like you have chosen your religion based on your belief that there is a higher probability that it is the most correct religion. Religions have been engaged in war with one another for thousands of years. This is partly because each side firmly believes that they are correct in the religious superiority. Do you believe that non-Christian based followers will be damned? For example, it is most likely for someone to inherit the religion that is predominant in their region. So, if I was born in Southeast Asia I may be exposed to Buddhism. Let’s say my parents are Buddhists, as well as my friends and entire family. Let’s say since I was a child I was taught the Buddhist ways and read the Buddhist texts. Those texts were supported by the faith of my entire ancestry. Let’s say I’ve embraced Buddhism and strived to be peaceful and respectful of all living things. Let’s say I’ve heard of the “Christ”, but it is a part of a foreign religion in a foreign land, not to mention I’m happy with my path. Having said all of this, I ask you, what happens to me when I die?

I’m trying to say that I believe there are many paths. God gave us free will, sharp minds, an innocent soul with an innate moral compass to know right from wrong. A divine spark resides amongst us all, as we are the creation of the Creator. We have a lot of growing to do before we are ready to understand what He truly is as well as understanding His Kingdom. I feel like such an omnipotent presence would indeed judge a man by his actions and by his heart. Not by his membership in a group, or the man’s ability to follow a path laid out by others two millennia before him. Not that the path was wrong, but that it isn’t his own. You will argue that that way of thinking is turning the truth into what you want it to be. Perhaps your religion, or your church were the ones that have already done that. Maybe they have handicapped you, from two thousand years ago.

The Bible is a great book, which teaches important lessons. The lessons are timeless. However, it’s possible that the information conveyed within the Bible was limited because of the lesser ability of mankind’s comprehension at the time. Do you start a child on reading by introducing them to War and Peace, or do you open up The Giving Tree?

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by adjensen

 

Do you believe that non-Christian based followers will be damned? For example, it is most likely for someone to inherit the religion that is predominant in their region. So, if I was born in Southeast Asia I may be exposed to Buddhism. Let’s say my parents are Buddhists, as well as my friends and entire family. Let’s say since I was a child I was taught the Buddhist ways and read the Buddhist texts. Those texts were supported by the faith of my entire ancestry. Let’s say I’ve embraced Buddhism and strived to be peaceful and respectful of all living things. Let’s say I’ve heard of the “Christ”, but it is a part of a foreign religion in a foreign land, not to mention I’m happy with my path. Having said all of this, I ask you, what happens to me when I die?

I will assume that you understand Christian theology and the Doctrine of Atonement (if you do not, just ask.) By this belief, which I have come to through searching, reading, thinking and prayer, Christ is necessary for salvation. That is a fundamental belief of Christianity, it came from Christ himself, and, as a Christian, it is my belief, as well. A person who claims that Christ is not necessary for salvation, by their very definition, is not a Christian.

Now, with that in mind, it doesn't really answer your question, because there are those who posit a belief that non-believers, or followers of another faith, are given another opportunity to accept him, once they understand fully his gift, and they no longer have the intellectual or cultural blocks to doing so. This also affects "Christians" who may have accepted him, but didn't live by his teachings.

This "second chance," purgatory, is a Catholic teaching, accepted by a few Protestant denominations, and I'm okay with it, but it's not a part of my heritage, so I can't say one way or another.

I’m trying to say that I believe there are many paths.

No, both religion and logic tells us that there is only one path to the truth, and many paths that lead away from it. If, for example, Hinduism is the correct religion, then following Christianity will not bring you closer to Vishnu. Similarly, spending time seeking Thor isn't going to bring you closer to Nirvana.

I feel like such an omnipotent presence would indeed judge a man by his actions and by his heart. Not by his membership in a group, or the man’s ability to follow a path laid out by others two millennia before him. Not that the path was wrong, but that it isn’t his own.

I've had some interesting discussions along these lines, but it comes down to this -- expecting God, the creator of everything, to live and act according to your expectations and values is lunacy. Christianity teaches that none of us is worthy of salvation, that we all fall short of perfection, and we do not deserve to be with God. Argue with that all you like, but, again, you're arguing that you, and you alone (since your values are not necessarily anyone else's) have the right to determine what God should do.

However, in the face of that downfall, God offers us his company through an act of grace -- atonement and sacrifice on the part of Christ, who was, of course, God. If you accept this grace, it is yours. If you do not, you reject the method by which God offers to be reconciled to you.

The Bible is a great book, which teaches important lessons. The lessons are timeless. However, it’s possible that the information conveyed within the Bible was limited because of the lesser ability of mankind’s comprehension at the time. Do you start a child on reading by introducing them to War and Peace, or do you open up The Giving Tree?

Unlike Jews, who are reconciled to God through the Torah and Talmud, and Muslims, who are reconciled to God through the Quran, Christians are reconciled through the person of Christ, and the Bible plays no role, beyond informational, in that reconciliation. Once you accept Christ's two commandments of Love God and love everyone else, which he explicitly says are what are necessary for eternal life, and you accept the salvation he offers, the means by which you accept God and he accepts you, that's about it.

While we believe that the Holy Spirit is the aspect of God that is with us, and working in the world today, and who helps us to understand God's word and plan in the current age, I again put forth that God is not an elitist, who hides "true salvation" and expects us to throw away the obvious, clear and traditional message to go seeking something foreign.

Under Christianity, the same salvation was available to the illiterate peasant in 200AD, the king of England in 1590. and you, today. Why would the eternal God need to evolve to keep up with our capability of understanding?

reply to post by adjensen


You are more educated in theology than I am, and its obvious that you've done your homework. Just for fun I'll ask you your stance on those who have not been introduced to Jesus. I am honesty curious to hear your opinion. I'll elaborate, I'll throw out indegionous tribes secluded from modern civilizations from any time period. I'm sure we can both agree that there have been thousands if not millions not introduced to Him. So I ask you, how will they be judged? I hope you don't find my questions condesending. I truly appreciate this debate, and hopefully I will learn something from your point of view. I have a hard time believing that we have been given the grave task of deciding between dozens of religions, with the heavy burden of our souls being 'on the line'. I will tell you that I do pray, I do ask for forgiveness. I have been babtized as a child, and I strive to do what is right by Him. I wonder, how do you think I will fare on judgment day? Having distanced myself from religion in order to quench my desire to seek out my own path? Thanks in advance for our conversation.

Originally posted by adjensen
No, both religion and logic tells us that there is only one path to the truth, and many paths that lead away from it.

My friend, could you expound on what this Truth is that is only achievable by one path? What is it?

Originally posted by adjensenI've had some interesting discussions along these lines, but it comes down to this -- expecting God, the creator of everything, to live and act according to your expectations and values is lunacy. Christianity teaches that none of us is worthy of salvation, that we all fall short of perfection, and we do not deserve to be with God.

My friend, does Christianity teach that God makes mistakes? If not, who are we to say we are not perfect, God created us did he not?

Originally posted by adjensenHowever, in the face of that downfall, God offers us his company through an act of grace -- atonement and sacrifice on the part of Christ, who was, of course, God. If you accept this grace, it is yours. If you do not, you reject the method by which God offers to be reconciled to you.

Where is the Christian God? I thought he was all around us, within us, and without?

Originally posted by adjensen
]Once you accept Christ's two commandments of Love God and love everyone else, which he explicitly says are what are necessary for eternal life,

If these are Christs two commandments, why do you add to them the below conditions?

Originally posted by adjensen
and you accept the salvation he offers, the means by which you accept God and he accepts you, that's about it.

I am just trying to get a better grasp of your position before I share my own. I hope you understand.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by adjensen

There is a significant difference between what Christ taught and what some people have done in his name, both within and outside of the Church.

You don't have a clue as to what the "significant difference" is between what Jesus taught and what has been taught in his name. Or you would explain what that difference is.

The difference is that Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', whereas the Pharisees, like Paul, taught the Egyptian doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave; which is why Jesus had to be eliminated.

However, to paint the Church (Catholic or otherwise) with some broad brush and dismiss it all, is both foolish and shortsighted. Claiming past actions (in particular, actions hundreds of years ago,) condemn current religion, or that the actions of few (pedophiliac Priests, for example,) condemn the actions of all are both invalid claims, for obvious reasons.

Turning the Teaching of Jesus on the "resurrection" upside down required the replacement of that Teaching with another 'explanation' for the crucifixion. (That is, if Jesus was not crucified for teaching the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'--in opposition to both the Sadducees and the Pharisees--why did he have to be eliminated?) Paul appealed to the idolatrous doctrine of "vicarious atonement" which required that Jesus be 'God' for that atonement to be sufficient. That doctrine lead directly to the slaughter of millions of Jews and at least tens of thousands of Albigensians, who taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'. It also resulted in these followers of Paul denying the Revelations received by Mohammed, who was Elijah and John the Baptist 'raised from the dead'. In other words, this "current religion" is pushing this civilization towards annihilation as a result of conflicts between Jews, Christians and Muslims over Jerusalem. This is not merely something that happened "hundreds of years ago".)

I believe that when Christ says "Many will say 'Lord, Lord' but I did not know you" he is referring to "checkbox Christians" -- those that claim the faith but don't practice it -- or to hypocrites in the church, much as there were in his day. I do not believe that it applies to those whose adoption of heretical thought, such as Gnosticism, which is fundamentally incompatible with both Christianity and its predecessor, Judaism.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "belief in gnosis". There is gnosis, or knowledge, or Revelation; and then there is belief or thought.

"Gnosis" includes such things as the Vision of the "Son of man", the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

Such Knowledge or Revelation is, of course, incompatible with the thoughts of the "beast of the earth" 'thinker' -theologians, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

Christ says that things are simple -- love God, love everyone else, accept his sacrifice. Nothing to "work out", nothing to discover, just a very basic theology that is open to all "with ears to hear."

Jesus was murdered for teaching the Truth about the Revelation and Doctrine of "resurrection".

Things are simple.

People live more than one life; but only very few people have memories of previous lives; and even fewer have received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation; which is what is meant by the phrase "the path is narrow".

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I have often wondered if we are reborn, perhaps over and over again until the point where we are ready for the afterlife. Having said that, if this is the case, do we repeatedly come back until we as an entire population are all ready, or just ourselves?

reply to post by IAMIAM


IAMIAM, I hope that you do indeed share your thoughts in this discussion. I am interested in hearing multiple points of view on this subject. Thanks for your input!

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by adjensen

 

Just for fun I'll ask you your stance on those who have not been introduced to Jesus. I am honesty curious to hear your opinion. I'll elaborate, I'll throw out indegionous tribes secluded from modern civilizations from any time period. I'm sure we can both agree that there have been thousands if not millions not introduced to Him. So I ask you, how will they be judged?

There are a number of perspectives, though the one that I have seen most commonly, and which makes sense to me, is that we all have a desire to do right, a desire to care for others, and that those who do not know Christ, because they came before his time, or lived under circumstances that prevented exposure to the Gospel (as per Native Americans in 1300AD, for example,) but who lived in accordance with his teachings, inherently sought him out without knowing it, and thus, are brought into the New Covenant even in Christ's direct absence.

I hope you don't find my questions condesending. I truly appreciate this debate, and hopefully I will learn something from your point of view. I have a hard time believing that we have been given the grave task of deciding between dozens of religions, with the heavy burden of our souls being 'on the line'. I will tell you that I do pray, I do ask for forgiveness. I have been babtized as a child, and I strive to do what is right by Him. I wonder, how do you think I will fare on judgment day? Having distanced myself from religion in order to quench my desire to seek out my own path? Thanks in advance for our conversation.

Thank you, as well. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these sorts of issues, as the questions often cause me to rethink about my own perspective, which is healthy for everyone, religious or not.

The fundamentalist view is cut and dry -- no Christ, no salvation. We have the responsibility to not only live a good life, but to accept God's gift, while we are still in this material form. From a practical standpoint, one can view it relationally as God loving you unconditionally, and him wanting you to love him too. Not to love him out of fear, but to love him for who he is. Sort of the same way that we want to be loved. Loved for ourselves, and nothing else. But if we are living beyond faith, if we are the Thomas of the New Testament, who needed to see the risen Christ before believing, it will be hard to say if we would be wanting to live by his teachings because we love him and want to, or because we're afraid not to.

That said, I am not a fundamentalist. I began as one, but decided that it wasn't for me, though I can understand the perspective. I can see the upside of purgatory, but this again is me, a person, saying what I think that God should do, so I don't think that I'd feel super confident in counting on that.

If what God asked was all that onerous, that would be one thing, but it isn't, and it sounds like you're already doing most of it anyway. As a person who has had a strong faith for a number of years, I can tell you that there is significant benefit in this world, irregardless of the next.