Are the Atheists Right?

[Bennettresearch]

I came to be a christian through personal epiphany and revelation. Subsequently, I have not become a member of any sect. I simply call myself a christian. In another thread I was informed that I could not differentiate myself from the domestic crusaders, such as the Albigensis, Waldensian, and Hussite crusades to name a few. The argument is that I am stuck with my “faith’s history� and that the Atheists have put forth a simplistic stereotypical definition on the title of christians and have conveniently dumped them into one large basket. They claim the crusaders were just as real of a christian as a modern christian. Are they right? What do you think about this? Atheists need not reiterate this claim so don’t waste the space.

Craig

[bernee51]

OK Bernee, I was going to shine you on but I'll respond to a polite post.

“Shine on�…that must be an ‘Merican turn of phrase with which I am not familiar.

Much of the rhetoric we see over this issue results from bickering that arises when, for example, atheists are told they are responsible for all the mass murders in the 20th century..

I'll stand right beside you and put down anyone who makes irrational claims.

Does that include your own…?

Is it. I get told often enough that people who claim to be christian and support something that another self avowed christian is against is not a 'true christian'. It could be construed as differences in morals..

The argument about the RCC is not about this. It is not merely a difference of opinion. I don't condone someone saying someone is not christian just because they disagree with them on an issue. The RCC put the books into the NT. They set about demanding that this was the word of God and you were in danger if you disagreed with them. The issue is, they themselves didn't even follow their own scriptures and created something else entirely out of the religion. This is where my argument originates from.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, you claim the medieval RCC (which at the time of the non-domestic crusades was not known as the RCC) was not ‘truly christian’. This ignores totally the cultural milieu in which the church then existed. It is putting your 21st century interpretation on medieval happenings. Just as you put your 21st century interpretation onto Roman occupied Palestine.

It is not your history but it is the history of a religion you associate with by calling yourself a christian.

I'm working on just what I am associated with and have ran up against more than one person stereotyping me according to what they thought a christian was.

If someone calls themselves a ‘christian’ who am I to say they are not?

Are those that would wish to change the laws of the land to discriminate against a woman's right to do what she will with her own body, or those who choose to have a same sex relationship to be considered 'true christians'?.

The Supreme court does not have the right to demand that people accept something that is counter to common values. Like it or not, there is a prevailing tradition in the United States that you can't just wash away with the stroke of a pen.

You have your state given right to practise your religious belief. Just as others should have their state given right to deal with their personal beliefs. The fact that their person beliefs may conflict with yours is not relevant.

I don't reject christianity per se. I reject the existence of god.

That's fine, but you can't blame me for wondering why you bother with religion at all, unless this is some kind of morbid fascination.

Because religious belief CAN impinge on my rights.
Because religious belief is built on superstition – mankind, to survive, must evolve beyond this.
Because religious belief is, by its very nature, divisive.

I don't hold modern christians responsible for the actions of their forebears. That does not mean to say however that chrisianity is absolved of actions carried out in its name. Merely labelling the perpetrators as not 'true chrisians' doesn't cut it.

I have every right to say that it is not my heritage or is it an example of what christianity really is.

You can say whatever you like today, but it was then what christianity really was.

[Beto]

The frustrating thing about the Gnostics is that they were kind of bizarre and ultimately not something I would follow.

Why aren't you disassociating the "bizarre Gnostic" from modern Gnosticism? You demand the word "Christian" be disassociated from the history of Christianity, so why the double standard?

[Bennettresearch]

The frustrating thing about the Gnostics is that they were kind of bizarre and ultimately not something I would follow.

Why aren't you disassociating the "bizarre Gnostic" from modern Gnosticism? You demand the word "Christian" be disassociated from the history of Christianity, so why the double standard?

Sorry Beto,

I was referring to what I know of the Gnostics in the 2nd century. I didn't know there was a different new Gnostic church. I certainly wouldn't deny this church the right to assert its own doctrine and dissociate itself from the original. You have to admit that it is hard to keep up with all of the different churches. 26,000 was the last I heard. I consider the concept of looking within to be very valid obviously. I'll try to get updated here.

I think it is important to say that my main focus has been on the book of Revelation and the myriad of tangents that one goes on when interpreting prophecy. As to all of the other different sects, I am really not saying anything about them nor would I cast any judgement towards them. My focus is on the RCC.

So maybe you and Melodius can give me an idea of what your churh is all about.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

Yes, the Gnostic cosmology myths appear quite "bizarre" to a person who is not familiar with the symbolic and metaphorical language of myth. And even then, I'll admit, they're a bit complex. But the basic philosophy of a direct knowledge, or gnosis, of the divine is quite simple and straight forward - they did not believe in the intervention of the church for the sake of salvation; they believed in a kind of self-liberation, much like the Hindu or Buddhist. They were docetists (not believing in a flesh and blood Christ), and they had perfectly logical and spiritual reasons for being so. If you read the mass amount of Scholarship done on historical Jesus (Gerald Massey, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Tom Harpur, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Earl Doherty, Acharya S, etc.), you will see, if you have an open mind, that all of the evidence points with steady directness to this truth. So the scholars weren't the first to "burst the bubble" of the religiously and spiritually immature. In fact, in the first century the "bubble" wasn't really there, and was only created later in the second century by the Literalist churches, later promulagated by the RCC to assert Rome's political agenda of subjugating the masses (especially the Jews).

Well some of this sounds fine to me but Jesus was flesh and blood and I think this is where the Gnostics have taken it someplace that can't really be verified. Revelation chapter 13 says that Jesus was a man. In the process of interpreting prophecy I have come to understand metaphors very well, but it seems to that you are saying that Jesus was like some kind of hologram and I can't get behind that. BTW, I didn't know there was a new Gnostic church, I was referring to the 2nd century church.

Here is what I see as the problem with the "I hate the RCC for messing up Christianity" view, yet at the same time not accepting that orginal Christianity was a Gnostic religion only to later be perverted into Christianism (the literal belief in a flesh and blood savior/godman). First of all, it is a fetishizing of one man, one culture, and one time, which by theological definition is a kind of idolatry. This was definitely against the Gnostic's view of a spiritual Christ - the archetypal "Son of Man," or Son of Adam - representing the struggle and suffering of every human being, while also expressing a divine potential for humanity.

Well I hope you certainly aren't saying that I am "hating the RCC for messing up christianity". No such thing. My position is based on Revelation and what it has to say about it. Very critical. Not happy with what kind of doctrine is represented. So this is not me, before I took this prophecy on I could care less about the RCC.

Son of Man means a prophet. Don't be fooled by the capitalization, that is a modern developement. The original gospels were written in Majuscule. All capital letters. Revelation disagrees with this universal suffering concept which is actually a product of Paul judaizing the crucifixion. Overcoming is the message. I've had some people try and tell me the letters in Revelation were actually against the Gnostics and not the church forming from Rome by Clement and Ignatius. From my studies, I don't think that much of Jesus really existed in any of the churches from this period. Peter and James were taking the orthodox Jewish road, Paul was giving us the take on christianity of a converted Pharisee, and the other churches like Antioch disappeared into historical dust. Things didn't really get going until the 2nd century when there were many different takes on christianity. The complaint that Revelation has is that the Roman interpretation would win out. This is the state of affairs that Revelation is addressing. I think everyone should be ready to accept the fact that the church that would have been formed by Jesus could be far different than anything we've had to date. It would take Him being here and pointing out this or that aspect as being right or wrong. So what we have, at least from the modern churches, is that they are probably right on some things and wrong on others.

Second of all, the Protestant movement brought about many liberations within Christianity, yet, really only screwed things up more by leaving it open for anynody with a religious idea to start a new Christianity (granted, it was necessary in a certain way). As a result, we have even more "bizarre" Christian religions like Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, and on and on it goes. To me they are much more "bizarre" than Gnostic Christianity, which is quite sobering in comparison to the phantasmagoric beliefs of these Christians who live in a religious and historical "bubble."

Won't argue with how far out there people can go with relgion. Still, you wouldn't exist if the RCC were still in charge. They tended to take out any alternate viewpoints and I read a blurb that Pope John Paul II was considering reinstating the Inquisition. Can't verify that but it's kind of scary.

It seems there are a lot of people who are confused about the whole RCC conspiracy. You see, the RCC is the Gnostic church that has been hi-jacked by imperial politicians and carnalizing/historicizing religionists who love to wear big fish-hats to make themselves feel important and above joe-public. To conclude, the first Christians were Gnostics (this would include Paul), and the Gospels are spiritual allegories created by Hellenic Jews to reform the old Jewish faith into a type of Mystery Religion that was common among the Greeks and the entire Mediterranean region - the most early evidence of this religion coming from Egypt and India (Krishna and Osiris/Horus).."

Well, I'll say that you should refine this statement a little better. The Roman church definately took over. They also were into temporal control. They also had some of their own bizarre ideas and I will say that the Trinity concept was rationalized from other relgions representing things in threes. The gospels took on a very heavy Jewish saga influence, however, these were Hellenized Jews and Paul was definately a Hellenized Jew. This is where I'm not quite agreeing with your statement that Paul was Gnostic. Even though he was an antinomianist, he was still very much a Pharisee.

There is no doubt that the RCC got quite bizarre and the fact that the reformation that was brewing, originating from John Wyclif, and sparked by Martin Luther, had to come at some time. It was too much for a thinking person to grasp.

Craig

[byofrcs]

I don't see how one so-called self-identified 'x'-tian complaining how another bunch of self-styled 'x'-tians has anything to do with the original claim that,

" Atheists have put forth a simplistic stereotypical definition on the title of christians and have conveniently dumped them into one large basket."

So far no evidence has been put forward to support this. In fact attempts at narrowing down why the labelling has occured have been met with a distinctly nasty response. I would call it very un-christian-like but then I'd be stereotyping christians as some kind of moral beacon, and we couldn't do that now could we ?

I think this thread not been started in good faith but has simply been for the OP to rave on about some perceived slight about the crusades by Atheists.

A quick google shows what vague stereotyping of atheists this is,

crusade christian = 5,750,000
crusade muslim = 2,410,000
crusade microsoft = 2,240,000
crusade idiot = 1,010,000
crusade linux = 969,000
crusade jew = 790,000
crusade atheist = 659,000

Hey it's not scientific but it shows that "atheist" and "crusade" are not clearly related as much as say a Unix-like Operating System.

[melodious]

Thanks for the response, Bennettresearch. Here's my thoughts:

Well some of this sounds fine to me but Jesus was flesh and blood and I think this is where the Gnostics have taken it someplace that can't really be verified.

On the contrary. The burden of proof lies on those who say he was a flesh and blood savior. The material in the gospels (and Revelation) is obviously expressed in stereotypical mythic/symbolic language, much like the stories of his predecessors (e.g. Osiris/Horus, Iusa, Dionysus, Attis, Serapis, Krishna ...). It is all too obvious what we are dealing with in this literature. However, it does not take away the importance of the message it contains of spiritual transformation. In fact, it is because the gospels are a version of the perennial mythos that I even consider myself a Gnostic Christian. To further probe: Who were those other godmen? Were they just made-up myths but Jesus was the real deal? Jesus turned water into wine (classic miracle), but Dionysus, the wine god, didn't? Jesus died for the sins of humanity, but Horus or Krishna didn't? I'm sorry, Craig, but "story-time" is over, and though it looks like you've done a bit of your homework, I believe you are missing the deeper points of what the "Teacher" was trying to convey.

Revelation chapter 13 says that Jesus was a man.

First of all, Revelation is not an original work. It is a re-working of a very ancient piece of astro-mythology. The verse in question here was very likely an interpolation by the "orthodoxy."

In the process of interpreting prophecy I have come to understand metaphors very well, but it seems to me that you are saying that Jesus was like some kind of hologram and I can't get behind that.

Jewish prophecy was more about forthtelling rather than foretelling, and this is the fundamental mistake people assume when reading prophetic literature. I never in any way alluded to a belief in a "hologram Jesus." That's rather silly. What I am saying is that Jesus is a Jewish version of an ubiquitous mythos, and that if anybody ever did "see" Jesus it would've been no different than Paul's vision of the Christ (if you want to call that a hologram projected from the inner psyche, then I'll say "yes, I believe in 'hologram Jesus'"). However, the Passion was dramatized in a kind of play form and presented to people in order to initiate them into the Mysteries. This is why Paul criticizes the "stupid Galatians," "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly displayed on the cross" for looking to a "material" rather than "spiritual" understanding of salvation. Are we really to believe that this Christian community in Asia Minor had witnessed the crucifixion in Jerusalem and that Paul, who never claimed to have known Jesus, felt justified in calling such witnesses "stupid?" Paul's comment would make sense, however, if the Galatian Christians had rather witnessed a dramatic representation of Christ's passion. These type of initiatory dramas were common in the ancient world long before the development of Christianity - they are what scholars now call the Mystery Religions, and Christianity was a latter part of this religious movement.

BTW, I didn't know there was a new Gnostic church, I was referring to the 2nd century church.

Gnosticism thrives in the freethinking artist, musician, and/or philosopher of today in a way that is not directly and obviously religious. Also, there are modern Gnostic churches, or, some prefer, circles, and Gnosticism has developed considerably since the 2nd century. Gnostic Christians greatly revere the scriptures (especially the Gnostic ones) and uphold a hope for a future spiritual humanity, sometimes referred to as the Sethian generation.

First of all, it is a fetishizing of one man, one culture, and one time, which by theological definition is a kind of idolatry. This was definitely against the Gnostic's view of a spiritual Christ - the archetypal "Son of Man," or Son of Adam - representing the struggle and suffering of every human being, while also expressing a divine potential for humanity.

Son of Man means a prophet. Don't be fooled by the capitalization, that is a modern developement. The original gospels were written in Majuscule. All capital letters. Revelation disagrees with this universal suffering concept which is actually a product of Paul judaizing the crucifixion. Overcoming is the message.

Yes, yes, I'm very well aware of that (all caps. in original manusripts - it should be a hint to the mysterious nature of the writing). I think you missed my point, though. Indeed, overcoming is the message - overcoming the power of the demiurge and archonic forces which keep us trapped in ignorance of our divine origin. We must "die" to our apparent nature (body/ego) and "resurrect" to our essential one (spirit/Christ).

The complaint that Revelation has is that the Roman interpretation would win out. This is the state of affairs that Revelation is addressing. I think everyone should be ready to accept the fact that the church that would have been formed by Jesus could be far different than anything we've had to date.

Yes, that is the general message: That the church would become perverted into something false and altogether un-Christian, hence, the anti-Christ. But the material is, again, a re-working of ancient astro-mythology that is lending a more universal message about the struggle between the material and spiritual worlds. It also conveys the dramatic turning of the ages, or aions, that occurs approximately every 2150 years - the Precession of the Equinoxes. It is a very old and complex piece of astro-theology/mythology that has been transformed into Christian literature and is extremely misunderstood in a kind of feverish way today.

It would take Him being here and pointing out this or that aspect as being right or wrong. So what we have, at least from the modern churches, is that they are probably right on some things and wrong on others.

No, it does not! As Paul puts it, "This is the secret: Christ in you!" The answers are within us if we would only seek them. This is a kind of romantic rationalism that you are presenting, and is, in my opinion, quite funny (no offense). The outer, unspiritual churches today have gotten very few things right - more wrong than right, that's for sure - and ask yourself why. Why? Because what we inherited as "true" Christianity was no more than the outer husks of a very ancient spiritual tradition of the wonderful and sacred mystery of the Incarnation. It is a vulgar and profane caricature of religion and spirituality.

Still, you wouldn't exist if the RCC were still in charge.

Oh yes I would - just like the Gnostics existed under the church's nose for centuries: in secret, if they were smart (most Gnostics weren't into martyrdom). But thanks to the power of the True Christ Spirit, we are no longer subjugated! Amen.

... and Paul was definately a Hellenized Jew. This is where I'm not quite agreeing with your statement that Paul was Gnostic.

Let's see here: The word 'gnosis' comes from the Greek word meaning 'knowledge'. Hellenized Jews were cultured in the Greek ways and language, many even being initiates of the Pagan Mysteries. Paul, also familiar with the Greek Mystery Religions, helped in the promulgation of a type of Mystery Religion of a dying and resurrecting godman for the Jewish people, much like the cults of Orpheus and Dionysus. The Jews needed their own version of it to be able to accept it (actually many did not accept it, because gentle Jesus did not match their expectations of a militia messiah), and this is where the enlightened Hellenic Jews of Alexandria came in. I will quote Elaine Pagels to further consider the probability (which is pretty big) that Paul was a kind of Gnostic Christian.

Much of what passes for "historical" interpretation of Paul and for "objective" analysis of his letters can be traced to the second-century heresiologists. If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic, how could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher? How could they say they are following his example when they offer secret teaching of wisdom and Gnosis "to the initiates?" How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own, citing his words as decisive evidence against the ecclesiastical doctrine of bodily resurrection? - Elaine Pagels

There is no doubt that the RCC got quite bizarre and the fact that the reformation that was brewing, originating from John Wyclif, and sparked by Martin Luther, had to come at some time. It was too much for a thinking person to grasp.

I believe that most religious doctrines, which are perverted into a literal interpretation by the vulgar masses, are difficult for most any thinking person to grasp... or stomach.

[Bennettresearch]

Thanks for the response, Bennettresearch. Here's my thoughts:

Well some of this sounds fine to me but Jesus was flesh and blood and I think this is where the Gnostics have taken it someplace that can't really be verified.

On the contrary. The burden of proof lies on those who say he was a flesh and blood savior. The material in the gospels (and Revelation) is obviously expressed in stereotypical mythic/symbolic language, much like the stories of his predecessors (e.g. Osiris/Horus, Iusa, Dionysus, Attis, Serapis, Krishna ...). It is all too obvious what we are dealing with in this literature. However, it does not take away the importance of the message it contains of spiritual transformation. In fact, it is because the gospels are a version of the perennial mythos that I even consider myself a Gnostic Christian. To further probe: Who were those other godmen? Were they just made-up myths but Jesus was the real deal? Jesus turned water into wine (classic miracle), but Dionysus, the wine god, didn't? Jesus died for the sins of humanity, but Horus or Krishna didn't? I'm sorry, Craig, but "story-time" is over, and though it looks like you've done a bit of your homework, I believe you are missing the deeper points of what the "Teacher" was trying to convey. .

Don't ask me to defend everything that is written somewhere or in the gospels. Mythology runs across the board when you start tracing the origins of this subject and I would agree that mythology found its way into the story of Jesus. Revelation does not back up the Jesus as God myth.

Revelation chapter 13 says that Jesus was a man.

First of all, Revelation is not an original work. It is a re-working of a very ancient piece of astro-mythology. The verse in question here was very likely an interpolation by the "orthodoxy.".

I'm sorry, but your generalized statements are not based on any facts that I know of. You have also overreached in your dismissal. It is written in the tradition of classic OT prophecy and its subject is very clear.

In the process of interpreting prophecy I have come to understand metaphors very well, but it seems to me that you are saying that Jesus was like some kind of hologram and I can't get behind that.

Jewish prophecy was more about forthtelling rather than foretelling, and this is the fundamental mistake people assume when reading prophetic literature. I never in any way alluded to a belief in a "hologram Jesus." That's rather silly. What I am saying is that Jesus is a Jewish version of an ubiquitous mythos, and that if anybody ever did "see" Jesus it would've been no different than Paul's vision of the Christ (if you want to call that a hologram projected from the inner psyche, then I'll say "yes, I believe in 'hologram Jesus'"). However, the Passion was dramatized in a kind of play form and presented to people in order to initiate them into the Mysteries. This is why Paul criticizes the "stupid Galatians," "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly displayed on the cross" for looking to a "material" rather than "spiritual" understanding of salvation. Are we really to believe that this Christian community in Asia Minor had witnessed the crucifixion in Jerusalem and that Paul, who never claimed to have known Jesus, felt justified in calling such witnesses "stupid?" Paul's comment would make sense, however, if the Galatian Christians had rather witnessed a dramatic representation of Christ's passion. These type of initiatory dramas were common in the ancient world long before the development of Christianity - they are what scholars now call the Mystery Religions, and Christianity was a latter part of this religious movement..".

I'll concede the point of Judaizing, and the fact that Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion is not in line with what actually happened or is justified in the popular mantra. Revelation is not too crazy about Paul for this very reason. I am noticing however, that there is a tendency by you to fill in the blanks without any historical documentation or verifiable writings as to just what did happen. If I am to be persuaded then you must meet the same criteria as to the support of the Gnositic interpretation.

BTW, I didn't know there was a new Gnostic church, I was referring to the 2nd century church.

Gnosticism thrives in the freethinking artist, musician, and/or philosopher of today in a way that is not directly and obviously religious. Also, there are modern Gnostic churches, or, some prefer, circles, and Gnosticism has developed considerably since the 2nd century. Gnostic Christians greatly revere the scriptures (especially the Gnostic ones) and uphold a hope for a future spiritual humanity, sometimes referred to as the Sethian generation..

First of all, it is a fetishizing of one man, one culture, and one time, which by theological definition is a kind of idolatry. This was definitely against the Gnostic's view of a spiritual Christ - the archetypal "Son of Man," or Son of Adam - representing the struggle and suffering of every human being, while also expressing a divine potential for humanity.

Son of Man means a prophet. Don't be fooled by the capitalization, that is a modern developement. The original gospels were written in Majuscule. All capital letters. Revelation disagrees with this universal suffering concept which is actually a product of Paul judaizing the crucifixion. Overcoming is the message.

Yes, yes, I'm very well aware of that (all caps. in original manusripts - it should be a hint to the mysterious nature of the writing). I think you missed my point, though. Indeed, overcoming is the message - overcoming the power of the demiurge and archonic forces which keep us trapped in ignorance of our divine origin. We must "die" to our apparent nature (body/ego) and "resurrect" to our essential one (spirit/Christ)..

The complaint that Revelation has is that the Roman interpretation would win out. This is the state of affairs that Revelation is addressing. I think everyone should be ready to accept the fact that the church that would have been formed by Jesus could be far different than anything we've had to date.

Yes, that is the general message: That the church would become perverted into something false and altogether un-Christian, hence, the anti-Christ. But the material is, again, a re-working of ancient astro-mythology that is lending a more universal message about the struggle between the material and spiritual worlds. It also conveys the dramatic turning of the ages, or aions, that occurs approximately every 2150 years - the Precession of the Equinoxes. It is a very old and complex piece of astro-theology/mythology that has been transformed into Christian literature and is extremely misunderstood in a kind of feverish way today..

I would like you to point to any astro-mythology in Revelation. OT prophecy and Revelation aren't using numbers as anything other than red herrings to steer the uniniated off course. Numbers have no significance in the meaning of the metaphor. This is what has distracted would be interpreters from bringing out the true message within the prophecy. They tend to become obsessed with numbers and can't seem to read what is in the passages. I'm afraid you have fallen into this trap also.

It would take Him being here and pointing out this or that aspect as being right or wrong. So what we have, at least from the modern churches, is that they are probably right on some things and wrong on others.

No, it does not! As Paul puts it, "This is the secret: Christ in you!" The answers are within us if we would only seek them. This is a kind of romantic rationalism that you are presenting, and is, in my opinion, quite funny (no offense). The outer, unspiritual churches today have gotten very few things right - more wrong than right, that's for sure - and ask yourself why. Why? Because what we inherited as "true" Christianity was no more than the outer husks of a very ancient spiritual tradition of the wonderful and sacred mystery of the Incarnation. It is a vulgar and profane caricature of religion and spirituality...

Maybe you should take the word christian out of your Gnosticism if you don't think that it all doesn't hinge upon Jesus. I have not heard anything here that would convince me that your church has the final answers. It is also rather arrogant to presuppose that it would. It seems that your Gnosticism overreaches like other religions putting themselves at the center of it all and claiming that all historical events led up to their religion. I didn't say Paul was anti Gnostic, only that he was a converted Pharisee. There is no proof that he was Gnostic. I'm going to bow out of any further discussion on Gnosticism. You have your beliefs and that is your right. My work is with Revelation and Jesus and historical events predicted within it.

Talk to you later

Craig