I'm a Christian, but think the OT God is a false god

interesting thread, and you are not alone to be a christian who believes this as you may have seen in the posts.
And about you being still christian, ya you are if christian means follower of Christ.
Then i am too, even as a muslim, i follow teachings of Christ.
.
I agree and disagree with Adjensen. There are many "christians" who dont agree with the creed, believe Jesus pbuh was a man etc yet strongly feel christian. Its about emotions not a thousands of years old definition by a creed.
.
And God is just One, yes His descriptions in texts could be wrong, i would never get the statements "God of OT", "God of NT" etc. OT more says about the people who wrote it than their God. They were too faithless and punished for it even Jesus pbuh couldnt manage much faith from them, would they write about God and His Prophets in a good light?
A simple test can solve this problem before taking a book especially a religious text, study the character of the people/person who wrote it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well now..

I really have a difficult time giving my ear to an "authority" who claims Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman empire. Mainly because Theodocius I did that. Constantine only legalized Christianity.

I swear I think some people get their history from cartoons.

You think Theodocius was alone in his endeavours? Come on now. We have all of historical knowledge at our fingertips, so no need for cartoons.

The flood killed Nephillim, go re-read Genesis 6. They were demigod offspring of fallen angels and women.

Perhaps there is some loss of context

“The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” (Gen 6:6)

Originally posted by Unity_99
And you, nor any pope, nor any minister can even begin to define whether or not I believe in Christ or not or whether or not I'm a Christian.

Why do people get so bent out of shape when they're told that, by dismissing significant portions of what has been Christian doctrine for 2,000 years, they are not Christians? That's not a judgement, I'm not saying that you're wrong or damned or anything, I'm simply saying that, by the definition of the word, you are not a Christian. Why is that such a big deal?

The early Peter based Christians were essenes/gnostics/nazarenes.

Good grief, no. Go read some history -- the Essenes were Jews, not Christians, and the Gnostic Christians didn't come into existence until over a hundred years after the death of Christ, founded by a man who was rejected for the office of Bishop of Rome (ie: the Pope.)

Originally posted by dominicus
The end result being the Great Schism of 1054, where Eastern Orthodoxy had to break off from the Christianity that resulted in Europe and the Nicea Counsel version of Christianity had become cerebral and literal, lacking the mystical and direct experiences that are held in such High esteem to this very day in E.O. All of Western Christianity has since become a bastardized corruption of the original since then, and I can back this up with volumes of scholarly and theological works.

I don't think that you have the foggiest idea of what the history of Christianity is. The Eastern Orthodox church split off for political reasons -- basically, a rejection of the Pope's claim of Papal priority. The Schism of 1054 arose from three words, "and the Son", which the Pope added to the Nicene Creed, and which the Eastern church (which wasn't as influenced by Augustine) did not support.

Im not badmouthing God, I'm saying the OT doesn't apply to me.

Go back and read what you wrote -- you aren't saying that the Old Testament doesn't apply to you (which is a common Christian claim,) you're saying that God, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is evil and not really God.

I'm not calling Jesus a liar either. I'm saying he had to use the OT to get through to the Jews. It was his only source of historical scripture, albeit crude. Yet even the OT speaks of his coming and changing everything. The OT is based on Jesus' coming. Once he's here, OT is null & void. Everything is streamlined, simplified, and becomes universally accessible, instead of just "Jewish."

Again, by claiming that the God of the Israelites is not the "real God", you're repeating Second Century heresies which were rejected because they made Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, out to be a liar.

the Gospel of Thomas is the oldest surviving written copy of, what fundies consider Gnostic, yet is even older than any know NT book. The Thomas gospel has some very interesting things to say that a Fundy would not understand, Zen type Koans and highly potent intellectual discriminitive knowledge that if one can decipher properly, can lead into a direct experience of God

There are parts of the Gospel of Thomas that may well be authentic sayings of Jesus that pre-date the other Gospels, but the majority of the text was written in the Second Century. We know this, because they reflect Gnostic Christian beliefs that were introduced by Valentinus and his followers around the year 150AD.

It's basically Intuitive, inner, esoteric knowledge and since I have been baptized, I've had a TON of these gnosis experiences come to me even though I used to think gnosis was false. Gnosis doesn't belong to Plato. It has origins all over the world.

Either you are confused about what the Gnostic Christians of the Second Century claimed, or you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing that you've said there is accurate, as far as that group went. As I said, I have spent a lot of time studying this group, their origins, their history and their theology, and it's apparent that you've done none of that.

reply to post by dominicus

Welcome to the realms of the Neo-Marcionites.

I personally dropped the title "Christian" because of the implication that the name meant "believer in Old Testament Messiah". Jesus didn't sit on David's throne with iron scepter in hand in order to smash Gentiles into submission to the Old Testament god of Zion as the "prophecies" implied.

reply to post by pthena


Just as I believe that atheism is a reasonable position that I wouldn't think to try and talk someone out of, I think that your position is reasonable, as well. I just disagree with people like the OP misrepresenting it as a "Christian" position, which it is not.

reply to post by adjensen

Again, by claiming that the God of the Israelites is not the "real God", you're repeating Second Century heresies which were rejected because they made Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, out to be a liar.

There is a reason that Christian writers made a point of writing that "the Law came through angels" see Acts 7:38, 53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2

Did you ever wonder about those 2 solid gold angels on the lid of the Ark of Covenant? Don't they seem to break one of the so-called 10 Commandments? Something about images?

Pseudo-Paul seems to be putting the character the Jews called god in his place when he wrote for Gentiles:

Colossians 2:16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day, 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s. 18 Let no one rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

As long as modern Christianity holds that the Old Testament character is somehow God, modern Christianity will remain in bondage to Jewish rabbis, descendants of the Pharisees. see the questions I raise in the thread:
History of the Jesuits and "oath" of the K of C

Edit to add: The Nicene Creed presents God the Father in abstract terms (not directly identifying Him with any specific Old Testament story). I wouldn't want to talk you out of Nicene Creed, I followed it myself for years.

reply to post by adjensen

I don't think that you have the foggiest idea of what the history of Christianity is. The Eastern Orthodox church split off for political reasons

yea yea yea, let's just live in assumption world. I have friends that are professors, authors, and theologians and some of the biggest Universities and Seminaries and have been discussing these very same topics and none of them have ever told me that I don't have the foggiest idea so there must be a loss in translation on your part.

One of the political reasons for the Great Schism:

The Eastern Orthodox reject the rational and philosophical foundations of Western Christianity as pagan and heretical and assert that until the Western Church learns to see God and know God as the Eastern Church does, there cannot be even the remotest possibility of reconciliation.[citation needed] These doctrinal issues center around the Orthodox perception that the Catholic theologians lack the actual experience of God called theoria and thereby fail to understand the importance of the Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty. It is what they consider to be the Catholic Church's reliance on pagan metaphysical philosophy and rational methods such as scholasticism rather than on intuitive experience of God (theoria) that causes Orthodox to consider the Catholic Church heretical. Other points of doctrinal difference include a difference regarding human nature as well as a difference regarding original sin, purgatory and the nature of Hell.

This right here is single handedly one of, if not, The Most important and biggest issues in the split between East and West.

Whereas E.O. has the closest claims to Original Christianity, holding in the highest regards the life of monks, hermits, desert fathers, and mystics as those who seek Union with God and all aspects of Theoria. The Western version of Christianity, beginning with Catholicism, grew forth as a head based intellectual dogmatic fundamentalism that lacked any of the Experiential knowledge that is KEY in this spiritual life of every Christian and is the aim and goal for us all.

The Intellectual Bastardized version became the POP version, giving birth to all the break aways including protestant, lutheran, and all the others, ....eventually coming to America and bring forth Evangelical, Baptist, and all the other POP versions of a Bastardized Head Based Westernized version of the Original.

I'm working on a transcript and book co-authored with an Eastern Orthodox monk from mount Athos about this very subject right here. It is common knowledge to all the Monks and Eastern Orthodox Christians that Westernized Christianity is a bastardized watered down version and a hopeless and dying church.

Go back and read what you wrote -- you aren't saying that the Old Testament doesn't apply to you (which is a common Christian claim,) you're saying that God, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is evil and not really God.

Well is that not Evil to order Moses to kill Children? IF someone says. "Well God told him to do it." The we take the notion of who are we to question God and we let it go. However, inherently killing children is evil. If we consider the Demiurge theory and then study globally the Demiurge idea, we come across Demiurge's being mentioned in pretty much every world religion.

Some parts of the OT may very well be referencing the True God, like perhaps in Psalms and other portions. However there are some things attributed to God, that perhaps wasn't God. Just like George Bush told the people that God told him to Invade iraq. Seriously??? How does he know that this voice he heard was from God and not some lower Being?

Again, by claiming that the God of the Israelites is not the "real God", you're repeating Second Century heresies which were rejected because they made Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, out to be a liar.

Call me a heretic then. God knows my heart so I could care less what any man calls me. Seeing OT God as a lower demiurge doesn't make Jesus out to be liar. It makes him out as a Truth Bearer. Someone who came to set the story straight. No more sacrificing innocent animals to a blood thirsty God who requires Blood to cover for sins. Sins which come from the passions and lusts of the physical adamic body and false illusuory ego.

reply to post by adjensen

There are parts of the Gospel of Thomas that may well be authentic sayings of Jesus that pre-date the other Gospels, but the majority of the text was written in the Second Century.

Second Century? Doubt it:

Richard Valantasis writes: Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature

We know this, because they reflect Gnostic Christian beliefs that were introduced by Valentinus and his followers around the year 150AD.

Yea? Where did Valentinus get it from? ANd where did that guy get it from? There is an original source to all of this obviously and One can take the teachings of Jesus, separate them from the fundamental dogma, and come away with a Gnostic message of Salvation & Enlightenment.

Either you are confused about what the Gnostic Christians of the Second Century claimed, or you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing that you've said there is accurate, as far as that group went. As I said, I have spent a lot of time studying this group, their origins, their history and their theology, and it's apparent that you've done none of that.

No confusion here. I've studied Gnosticism as applied to all the world's religions and branches, as applied to Jesus teachings, as applied to personal direct experience. You might want to check the Bias of the sources your studying, as there is a GIANT HEAPING stinking pile of Westernized Fundamentalist Dogmatic based sources that attack and misrepresent Gnostic Christianity from every angle and every chance they get.

It's apparent your taking your sources from Right-Wing baised fundies so you really don't have a well rounded perspective or idea about the intrinsic add inherent semantics of the word Gnostic

reply to post by dominicus


You need to provide a source to your comments on Eastern Orthodox views of Christianity.

Second Century? Doubt it:

Richard Valantasis writes: Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature

Geez, did you ever read that before you posted it? "As late as AD 140" fairly well demonstrates my statement that parts of Thomas originated in the Second Century.

Where did Valentinus get it from?

It's not unreasonable to say that he just made it up. Valentinus was rejected from the post of Bishop of Rome, effectively the leader of the Christian church, so why not come to the conclusion that he created a dissident view of Christ's message to create his own church, of which he was the leader?

No confusion here. I've studied Gnosticism as applied to all the world's religions and branches, as applied to Jesus teachings, as applied to personal direct experience. You might want to check the Bias of the sources your studying, as there is a GIANT HEAPING stinking pile of Westernized Fundamentalist Dogmatic based sources that attack and misrepresent Gnostic Christianity from every angle and every chance they get.

It's apparent your taking your sources from Right-Wing baised fundies so you really don't have a well rounded perspective or idea about the intrinsic add inherent semantics of the word Gnostic

Frankly, none of this makes any sense.

My studies of the Gnostic Christians are of their own texts, and I have no idea what you're reading that is "applied to all the world's religions and branches", since they would have rejected everything, apart from their own views. Hinduism? Buddhism? Utterly ridiculous from the Gnostic Christian viewpoint. If you don't see that, you've not read the Gnostic Christian texts, or, if you have, you haven't understood them.

reply to post by adjensen

You need to provide a source to your comments on Eastern Orthodox views of Christianity.

Google, Wikipedia, various books, authors, monks and abbots at actual E.O. monasteries, various published theologians, professors, etc

Geez, did you ever read that before you posted it? "As late as AD 140" fairly well demonstrates my statement that parts of Thomas originated in the Second Century.

As early as 40 A.D. demonstrates my statement that Thomas could be the earliest of all NT works and possibly linked to Jesus

It's not unreasonable to say that he just made it up. Valentinus was rejected from the post of Bishop of Rome, effectively the leader of the Christian church, so why not come to the conclusion that he created a dissident view of Christ's message to create his own church, of which he was the leader?

Are you serious? Made it up? Come on now. That's such a weak and sorry statement. Gnostic thought is historically rich and older than NT, and is inherent in Philosophical and religious thought the world over. He was rejected as Bishop of Rome, the same Rome that corrupted and basterdized Christianity. Rome means absolutely nothing to me in my view, nor to E.O as a whole, other than a group of misunderstood and ignorant politicians.

My studies of the Gnostic Christians are of their own texts, and I have no idea what you're reading that is "applied to all the world's religions and branches", since they would have rejected everything, apart from their own views. Hinduism? Buddhism? Utterly ridiculous from the Gnostic Christian viewpoint. If you don't see that, you've not read the Gnostic Christian texts, or, if you have, you haven't understood them.

You know what? Just nevermind. No matter how I try to explain gnosis to you, it's above your head. You've mentally confined something that by it's own nature cannot be confined.

Id need to sit you down with books on semantics & philosophy, then months or years later, books on Buddhist and nondual thought, Hinduism, Perennial Philosophy, all before we ever approach Gnosticism of the Christian kind. So just never mind

Greetings, adj.

Without distracting from your own course of inquiry, I'd like to comment on this aspect of the OP, and so address that poster. But please see below on a matter that came up.

... found that the original Christianity (Eastern Orthodox) also has Mystic schools that work on Union (Merging) with the True God.

We need to be clear here. What you are talking about is called theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is taught by the whole church, not only by "mystic schools" within the church. It is taught to be the desired outcome for the entire human race, and to be available to everyone as a consequence of Jesus' sacrifice. The union does not annihilate the human participant; there is always a distinction between the created and the Creator.

In that much, Eastern Orthodoxy is in full accord with the Roman Catholic Church, whose term for theosis is the beatific vision. The two churches are equally old, stemming from the common root of the original apostles of Jesus. They are also both thoroughly exoteric; there is no secret "school" of anything in either one. Mystics are guardedly welcomed by both, some clerical or monastic orders are even devoted to mystical practices, but all church teaching is available without restriction to anyone who wishes to examine it, no questions asked, all questions answered.

Currently, the two churches divide on how much of theosis can be achieved during mortal life. It is a rarified disputation, since so few people even come close to reaching the more restrictive Roman conception of the mortal limit. Almost nobody, then, will have occasion to regret personally a resolution to cross that bridge when they come to it.

Did the Buddha attain what the Eastern Orthodox would identify as a measure of theosis? It could well be. Does this rebut the Orthodox in some way? Not so much in their view. I can just hear in my mind's ear an Orthodox priest (or a Roman Catholic one; they have identical holy orders) pointing out that the Buddha might have profited from some religious counseling in how best to interpret his experience. As it happens, there is a traditional Buddhist story which makes much the same point.

And, um, on another matter. What on earth makes you think that the living Eastern Orthodox church doesn't teach the Nicene Creed, or that their bishops' predecessors in apostolic succession weren't the very bishops who attended the councils? Or is that you know these things, and feel they are irrelevant to the defintion of what is ordinarily called Christian?

Finally for the original poster, just a simple question of fact,

You think Theodocius was alone in his endeavours? Come on now. We have all of historical knowledge at our fingertips, so no need for cartoons.

Constantine made Chrisitanity overtly legal, after it had successfully weathered the last systematic ecumen-wide persecution before he took over the reins. What he did is called "throwing in the towel." Smart move. Christianity did not become the state religion until decades after Constantine died (and in another thread, I would tilt with adj about whether Constantine himself ever became a Christian).

Speaking of adj, some very inside baseball:

The Schism of 1054 arose from three words, "and the Son", which the Pope added to the Nicene Creed, and which the Eastern church (which wasn't as influenced by Augustine) did not support.

The Roman position is that the Greek Nicene Creed is as authentic as the Latin. So, in addition to its rarified content, the dispute is also fascinating for the delicacy with which it is pursued. In practical terms, the overt difference in the filioque matter is far less significant than their difference in a case where they agree on the wording, but disagree on the interpretation - what does the "one" mean in the phrase "one ... church?"

Anyway, I think the developments of 1054 are best viewed as a formal recognition that East and West were in essential schism (from each other and from the small, but still alive today, Nicene Christian Oriental Orthodox) from sometime in the Fifth Century. It is probably constructive that all stakeholders recognized this, and so the pretexts for their finally doing so melt away into insignificance. IMO, as always.

Of course, what the OP quoted about the Great Schism resembles history less than it does the backstory for a fantasy role playing game. Popes and Patriarchs, maybe?

Hmm.. that's not such a bad idea for a game, is it?
-

reply to post by dominicus


You claim the OT god to be false. Then you state that other gods

forget their origins, and so they actually have tricked themselves into believing that they are the True God....

But, you also claim that you are still a Christian. ??? When does your intelligence declare to you that it's all a bunch poorly thought out fairly tales?

We're all infinite parts of infinity That being said, if there is a God, as One Infinite Being that does not complete itself as One, but is the Love and Light Connection Between all souls, the Spirit of Love and Essence of Light of our Spirit/Souls, that interconnects each person, without joining and coming together as One, infinitely there, then that could be what we call God. If we're like fibre optics, our soul orbs.

Because One, fully realized, and comprehending self as One is Finite. Any boundaries or limits on infinity in person/place or thing is finiteness. And if its finite, it has a beginning and and ending and would be long past.

All things are infinite, within and without, and in all directions, infinite strands of life, of energies of all kinds.

I see Spirit/God as the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Love between all Beings of Intellect. But we need to be plugged into that Love. God isn't dualistic. But our spirits, light orbs, infinite themselves, can be halved or doubled in growth infinitely as well, so all consciousness contains that light, to some degree or other.

Christ came from the real Light, Goodness, Love and our very Soul Essence, as opposed to the annanuki. Not that I think all the elohim and ETs are negative.

But some like power over others, and some like worship. Some are on the run from those who might round them up, and graviate to lower level planets, say during ice ages and times when the sun is dimmed.

Imagine your guide, not Higher Ups, but middle management group, watching over schools and working for their own progression, some would be your Guides, Guardian Angel, some would be caretakers of the schools and lower level worlds and systems.

The skies above, the universe we perceive, whether we're in a hologram and not yet in the real world, or not, is all a part of Heaven(s), there are infinite layers/planes of Heaven, which is all that is.

reply to post by jiggerj

But, you also claim that you are still a Christian. ??? When does your intelligence declare to you that it's all a bunch poorly thought out fairly tales?

No fairy tales. As an intelligent man, I tested the precepts/teaching of Jesus like a spiritual scientist, and eventually was inundated with a vast array of spiritual experiences leaving my previous stance as an Atheist, burned up in ashes.

Were I to have stayed an Atheist and kept a hardcore hardened skepticism, that skepticism would have been a prison from ever unbiasedly studying or penetrating the depths of any subject, which remains the case today.

_____
reply to post by eight bits

 

Did the Buddha attain what the Eastern Orthodox would identify as a measure of theosis? It could well be. Does this rebut the Orthodox in some way? Not so much in their view.

The thing is, Buddha said to test his theores and see if they are true for yourself. I did so with Christ's teachnigs and they resulted ego deaths and mystical insights. Did the same with Buddha's teachings, and found very profound practical insights that Christians should know about and should also include in their practice.

On top of this, when I went to the Church leaders with my Mystical experiences, NONE of them knew what I was talking about. Keep in mind I was going to published theologians on global speaking tour circuits, leaders of mega Churches, and none of them knew what's up. Finally someone suggested I contact a E.O. monastery where the Abbott finally knew what I was talking about, and mentioned that you'll find that the majority of leaders of Western churches are Blind leading the blind.

SO I found this to be true. The Westernized Dogmatic Fundies have all become intellectuals, all head and no heart, no direct experience. It's a matter of apostasy now.

And, um, on another matter. What on earth makes you think that the living Eastern Orthodox church doesn't teach the Nicene Creed, or that their bishops' predecessors in apostolic succession weren't the very bishops who attended the councils? Or is that you know these things, and feel they are irrelevant to the defintion of what is ordinarily called Christian?

I never said that they don't teach it. E.O. goes further than that and says that since the beginning of E.O, which traces its roots to the Disciples, and Jesus himself, they've been in the Heart, experiencing God himself, being followers of The Way as taught by Jesus and it was never about some counsel to clear up all the different views on what makes one a Christian or not. Yea there were clarifications necessary, but inherently there was already too much butting heads, and that one of the biggest issues that should be at the forefront is that the Mystical and direct access to Theosis, but the West became heady, dogmatic, fundy, etc and lost its roots, which is true today.

Constantine made Chrisitanity overtly legal, after it had successfully weathered the last systematic ecumen-wide persecution before he took over the reins. What he did is called "throwing in the towel." Smart move. Christianity did not become the state religion until decades after Constantine died (and in another thread, I would tilt with adj about whether Constantine himself ever became a Christian).

Yes that's fine. My point was that there was a number of Characters that took Christianity and integrated it into the power and pagan structures that were already there at the time, creating more pharisees and saducees gripping their positions of power & control, themselves not having any Theosis or true wisdom and creating a further corrupted Church that has spread to the whole West for the most part.

Of course, what the OP quoted about the Great Schism resembles history less than it does the backstory for a fantasy role playing game. Popes and Patriarchs, maybe?

Speak for yourself. It's common knowledge in the E.O. community that one of the biggest hearts in the matter between the split & bastardization is in the Westernized version of Christianity being infiltrated by Rome political influence and power structures making Christian thought & practice mostly intellectual mind based discussion and very little practicality. So much so that any of the Mystics/monks/hermits who began to speak of the Inner wisdom were jailed, killed, tortured, excommunicated. The same Inner wisdom we are all called to and is the direct Truth of the living God, accessible to man in the heart, became the enemy of the ego/mind based intellectual man in the head.

This the Key and Biggest issue at the crux of the matter. Head vs. Heart. Ego Vs. God. West vs. East. The Schism still remains today greater than ever as we can see by the droves leaving the dead churches.

Originally posted by dominicus


They won't let you question it in Church though. Luckily for me I became a Christian Mystic Non-Dualist(due to alot of mystical experiences and graces) and found that the original Christianity (Eastern Orthodox) also has Mystic schools that work on Union (Merging) with the True God.

Anyway, since then I've come to embrace Buddhism as well and find very practical and scientifically/philosophically applicable blueprints on going within and different states of consciousness which I have personally experienced just by following some of these blueprints.

Upon further investigation of Buddhism, I found that after Buddha achieved Enlightenment and would travel Spiritually into the Spiritual realms, he would come across these Lower Creator gods, who took themselves to be, The Absolute God.

By your own admission your no longer a Christian, and in a historical note, after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, a few wealthy Roman anti-Semites(Rome was still mad at Jewish people for the old revolt) tried the same garbage as claiming the OT creator was different(thus the name "Jehovah" was entered into existence, but later came to mean the OT creator anyway).

Christianity is merely Judaism fulfilled. You can argue the abuses Paul committed(in discarding Jewish traditions), but Christianity is the belief that the promised Messiah has already returned, while Judaism is the belief that the Messiah has not returned(plus adherence to the Law/ and traditions of the tribes of Israel, as well as their inheritors in a genetic sense).

To deny the Creator is to deny the Messiah, and to deny the Messiah is to deny being Christian. I am saddened you bought into pagan nonsense, and hope you recover your sanity soon.

OT God, is God, the NT testament and its teachers/ followers have made a pagan, trinity, God.

One god = OT

many gods = NT pagan forms of worship where many gods were seen as a single God. Or Gods with more than one identity, that were in essence one God.

I don't have a vested interest in it either mind you....I have developed my own spirituality that is, to be honest, superior in all ways FOR ME, than the Judeo/ Christian approach.

I believe in one God though.

The thing about Christianity is that no matter how you swing it, you are idolizing Jesus. You are worshiping a MAN..maybe part divine, or whatever, but he is still a MAN...and you worship him....NOT what your book tells you, no matter where you look in it. God is one, That is what it repeats ad nauseam, never says 3....yet somehow....

The way Christianity has developed, IT is the perversion....IMO, Christ followed the Torah and Jewish law. Early Christians did as well.....the reforms the church made under Rome made the current pagan religion known as Christianity.

Sorry if that offends. It is my opinion.

dominicus, the OP

Thank you for replying.

The thing is, Buddha said to test his theores and see if they are true for yourself. I did so with Christ's teachnigs and they resulted ego deaths and mystical insights. Did the same with Buddha's teachings, and found very profound practical insights that Christians should know about and should also include in their practice.

I'm squarely in favor of testing, and we agree that the Buddha asked his followers to test his teaching. But with respect to the specific piece of my post that you quoted, comparison is a bona fide aspect of testing, and specifically, comparison between the Buddha's teaching and the Catholic-Orthodox teaching was invited in the OP.

In my experience, many Christians who are intersted do have the opportunity to compare practices within Christianity and across world religions. I think many who do compare note the similarities, and perhaps, also note different approaches to "counseling" and instruction available within different traditions. Of course, I support your adding to the opportunities available for comparison and testing.

On top of this, when I went to the Church leaders with my Mystical experiences, NONE of them knew what I was talking about.

I don't doubt that you made overtures, but I really think you had bad luck in the specific people you asked. Not every expert is expert in every aspect of their subject. But, hey, if an amateur like me knows something about the situation, then you know there are professionals who work on this stuff all day. Maybe it was just quirky that you didn't run into them in your search.

I never said that they don't teach it. E.O. ..

Then maybe you need to get clear on what they do teach. They recognize the Roman Catholic Church as their peer in apostolic succession, that is, the origin of one is the origin of the other. The Orthodox teach the legislative authority of councils. I agree that a fair paraphrase of an often-heard criticism by Orthodox of Catholicism and Western Protestantism is "all head and no heart," but to be candid, I've seen a few heady exegeses from Orthodox authors in my time.

The whole filioque controversy, regardless of who's right (if either and if not both), is as far removed from ecstatic contemplation of the mystery of God as intellectual activity ever gets. It is also plainly situated within a shared full acceptance of conciliar authority.

I still sense that we profoundly disagree on the degree and character of "pagan" influences within the living Christian churches. Since the practices of the Orthodox and Roman churches are strikingly similar, I don't see that there's any chance of successfully arguing that one is "more pagan" than the other. Pagan for both or not so pagan after all seem to be the only possibilities.

Speak for yourself.

Too late. I already did. In the passage you quoted, I am speaking to the other poster, not for him. What I'm saying to him (and to the whole community) is that I disagree with something you quoted in your post. What more "speaking for myself" were you looking for?

It's understandable after hearing Christ having difficulty with God teaching mankind lessons 'the hard way', but when we start judging God, we're assuming a place higher than Him. Very dangerous. Jesus says he and God of the Old Testament are One, and God answered to all of us in Matthew 3:17 (and other places).

adjensen, thanks for your contributions, there's a lot of wisdom in your words.

Other Christians here, be careful not to be angry, bitter and condescending. It does not make your points seem more valid, just haughty and haughty eyes God debases (Proverbs 16:5). Rather speak with temperance, compassion and understanding so that you are a blessing to both the listener and God (Ephesians 4:29).

reply to post by dominicus


Forgive me for speaking as if I have some authority on the matter.

When I work with ministers, priests, or just laypeople in general the question about the OT God comes up often. What happened? God's an A****** until he gets laid and has a son, and then he's cool guy? No.

Each "Messenger" crafts the message for the audience, and the time period.

Moses lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. At this time, they were a relatively primitive people, they were mostly servant class, slaves, had little to no opportunity to develop as a whole, at a philosophical level, or as a culture. Moses takes the people out of Egypt, and these folks are pretty barbaric. They'd rape and pillage a village and thank God for the abundance. They were still very much in the mindset that, you see a woman you want, if you're strong enough, take her. But for a fledgling society you can't have people fighting and killing each other over property, relations, etc. Get two guys fighting and they kill each other, not only is a chaotic, but you just lost the baker and the candlestick maker.

So, Moses, being the messenger at the time adopted the teachings to his people. We speak commonly of only 10 commandment. But there were 613 Laws of Moses to obey. When they spoke of God, he was strict. He was about Justice. You hurt someone, you will be hurt. You go after someone's family, you will be punished. The message was to teach people, at a very, very low level, to be good to each other, or else. So the teachings that were passed on(Note, the Hebrew tend not to think the OT is literal) were meant to convey morals, but mostly, that there are consequences for their actions.

Then, they had a few thousand years to develop philosophically, and as a culture, Jesus came. Now, for all of this time, people were breaking some of these 613 laws. They felt so guilty. The Hebrew, always being a mercantile people, also really had a sense of property, and "what's mine is mine". So, Jesus came and he taught about forgiveness, to people who truly felt they were wicked, and he preached of charity, to give what you have that they other may benefit. You don't really own anything anyway, God does. If the teaching that God forgives all things(actually God created you, he knows everything, how could he even be offended when you act in the way he knows you will?) and that He is all loving was given back when the Hebrew were freed, they would use it as an excuse to fight, and rape, and steal.

Evolving humanity, one step at a time.

Since you included that Buddhist passage I will show you how this played out in India.

Thousands of years ago in India, people were so strict. Their spiritual practice was hard. Life was difficult. Krishna came and taught them to handle their responsibilities, to fulfill their duties, but to celebrate, to rejoice in life, to have fun in their union with God.

Thousands of years later, many people in India were suffering, there were wars, there was plague, there was a lot of confusion in the doctrine. What are we to do? The Buddha, Sakyamuni came. He taught many things, but his primary wisdom was about compassion, to teach people how to relieve their suffering, and use their painful experience to help them to gain wisdom.

I won't go too deeply into all of this, but since you mentioned you were non-dual, I thought I'd toss this out there.

People tend to over-complicate the wisdom. Thinking, for example, that Jesus preached cannibalism, vampirism, eating flesh, drinking blood. No. He wasn't theatrical, or dark, but so everyone can see, he raised a piece of bread high, broke it and more or less said "Look. I'm taking my resource, and I'm giving it to you. Sharing. Do this to remember me." The wisdom of Holy communion, Jesus knew himself as that which pervades all existence. He had that non-distinction oneness experience, but his disciples wouldn't understand(actually, those they would pass the story on to wouldn't understand). So he said to eat of his flesh, drink of his blood, not to be careless, but to eat and drink, knowing that with each bite, God provides them with nourishment, and that Christ is always with them, even in this form. This is similar to the Buddhist mindful eating practices. What you do, you do it with God. (Love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart, with all of thy mind, with all of that strength, with all of thy soul...and love the neighbor as yourself.) This is Jesus' teaching of oneness. Love God foremost, but take care of your neighbor, God is in him too.

I think if we look at scripture globally, the people these words were addressed to at that time, we can come to understand why certain words, phrases, and teachings were given. It makes things very clear.