Is Christianity good for our health?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 21 Nov 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

AmounrA	21 Nov 2002
Out of respect for Crickets thread, I think it would be wise to have a separate thread for this, clearly, needed debate. I will nail my colours to the wall. I have no respect for Christianity as a religion. I consider its followers to be deluded. I consider the whole thing to be man made. [i am focusing here on christianity, but in my mind all religion is flawed...even the very smart ones like buddhism] I believe it was at an early stage used by very sharp manipulators to control people.... the masses, by way of superstition, fear of God...well basically fear of eternal suffering unless you joined up. This kept the people in the box. I think we should not underestimate the worldview of humans hundreds of years ago, until Science shone the REAL light. This lack of real truth let in the church. With its truth. As time moved on the Churches power and wealth increased...the scam worked better than could ever have been imagined. Today the scam persists. From SlyR reply to no one in particular on previous thread- "I have been attempting to the best of my ability to remain civil and understanding. Disagreement does not equal bad will."--- I completely agree with you. I feel at no point have you gone to far or been rude in a way that is personally nasty. [the spelling was low :-)] I think it has been a great DEBATE. We don't always have to treat every poster as a best buddy, so long as we don't get to crude.... but the best debates do get passionate.

allibee	21 Nov 2002
I was going to post a thread along these lines, just so we could all share our beliefs, but you've done it for me so here goes. As I said in a previous post, I am a Spiritualist. This is a move onward and upward from Christianity, in my view. The tennents I live by are: 1. The Fatherhood of God 2. The Brotherhood of Man 3. The Communion of Spirits and the Ministry of Angels. 4. The continuous existence of the human soul 5. Personal responsibility. 6. Eternal progress open to every human soul. Note to Sly: no Goddesses there. This now includes my ordination with the ULC as a Reverend, as their main tennent is the freedom of religion. Unlike some, I do not take a narrow view of peoples beliefs, and have taken time to study - however briefly at times - other religions. My findings are that all religions come from the same chaos theory, and all have there prophets and divine lights. It is my view that they are ALL one and the same, but just with different names. I take the law of personal responsibility very seriously, hence my unequivocal apology to Cricket for any upset my remarks might have caused her. I look within so that I may grow instead of seeking to apportion blame elsewhere. I just wish others would consider that too. Reverend allibee :)

Teranar	21 Nov 2002
I've noticed people who say christianaty is nothing but a fraud, like AmounrA, eventually say all religeon is manmade and the new one they usually form for themselves (IF they form one) is nothing like any other religeon. I also notice they are usually similar. Personally I believe any religeon with any hierarchy whatsoever is man made, because man made heirarchys. No divine religeous being that monotheistic religeons preach would place one human higher than another, they would have made them all equal.

AmounrA	21 Nov 2002
I think the basic ideas of these concepts are wise, some are based on the solid foundation of faith and hope- 1. The Fatherhood of God 2. The Brotherhood of Man 3. The Communion of Spirits and the Ministry of Angels. 4. The continuous existence of the human soul 5. Personal responsibility. 6. Eternal progress open to every human soul. I am sure Alibee , you are aware of the sexist overtones in 1-2. Number one in particular means nothing to me. This is a notion in Christianity that I have a problem with..namely 'god' is male [in energy?]. I see this as a massive leap of faith, with nothing to support it whatsoever. Number two is of course correct, except for the maleness of it. I know what you mean though, and I am sure no religon is needed to make this 'tennet' wise for humanity. Religon , I would argue divides humanity [along will other things, of course]. Any man or woman with a well balanced mind should be able to see that we should unite as a species, if we want a future. Number 3......:-) In a sense I agree with this. I well believe in beings which can contact humans from within. I don't see them as angels however, and once again, I don't think religon helps here. I believe in being way in advance of man, but I don't think of them as god. number 4] Faith and hope. number5] I agree, there is to much of a blame culture in the world. I am still a bit of a socialist however, and also believe people should be responisble for each other[perhaps back to number 2] Number 6]I would say limitless exploration within the brain and the mysterious 'conciousness'. I really feel religon gets in the way of true exploration of universe, world and being. We don't need god to tell us its good to be nice! I don't have any aspirations to set up my own religon :-) I promise

cricket	21 Nov 2002
I believe that all religions are, in essence, good. It is the people practicing the religions that tend to twist them into something less than what they should be. It's the people that refuse to let others question their beliefs or to grow by asking those questions, if that makes any sense. Many (not all) religions are based on the same principles. They just refuse to see that about the others. Monotheistic religions usually say much the same thing, just in different words, and have slightly different practices. Polytheistic religions usually have god(s)/goddess(es) with many of the same qualities, have many of the same practices, and preach many of the same things. There is nothing essentially wrong with any of them.

kabuki	21 Nov 2002
As Teranar said all religion is man made and the hierachies within, such as the ones in christianity, exist because men made them. There have been attempts within christianity to remove the hierachies and the control, such as Quakerism, which views everyone on an equal basis, tries not to have leaders or elitism and avoids the 'use' of concepts such as sin and hell as a way of creating fear and control whilst still remaining faithful to their view of the christian message. Just as there will be groups of people practising more 'alternative faiths' who wish to control entry, define and dogmatise the beliefs of others who also practice their faith. Hopefully we are moving more towards a period in history in which people, whatever their faith, Christian or Wiccan (or both) etc, are able to practice their path, their spirituality without being controlled or repressed not by their spirituality or faith, but by mans desire to control and seek power. Don't know whether that makes sense, hopefully it does ...

ihcoyc	21 Nov 2002
The Gospel sets expectations for humanity that are so high that no one can achieve them, and in fact it tells you beforehand that you are certain to fail. This, to me, is close to the essence of what Christianity means to me. Is it healthy? I doubt it. It's true, and that's what matters to me. Christianity, as set forth in the New Testament, is not a "religion." Religion, to me, is about liturgies and commandments and doctrines. Christianity starts from the assumption that you will never get to heaven that way, because neither liturgy nor rules nor dogmas can make you good enough to pass. I will cheerfully agree with you that all of those systems that make Christianity a religion --- that add liturgies, rules, and dogmas to it --- are manmade, have never made anyone a good person, and have acted with monumental hubris, grandiosity, and authoritarianism to boot. But from my perspective none of that stuff is Christianity. The colossal failures of those belief systems do not touch the core of the Gospel. I believe in Christianity. I do not believe in "Christendom," the notion of a civil society somehow filled with Christian values, where the government works hand in hand with the church(es) to create a community that sends most of its souls to Heaven. Anything that starts to look like this is a monstrous lie. The New Testament calls Christians out of the world. Jesus disclaimed any interest in an earthly kingdom, and those who try to act in his name should not seek them. There is nothing in the New Testament that tells Christians how to run a government. There is plenty that says to stay out of government's way. All attempts at building Christendom on earth have ended in disaster, and provoked people to react negatively to the message of the Gospel. Much of the anger directed at Christians seems to me instead to be more appropriately aimed at the false idol of Christendom, and the oppressions and falsehoods that have been perpetrated in the name of "Christian society."

Liliana	21 Nov 2002
Amourna and I have butted heads over Christianity before, no need to go into all that again, because of the very narrowminded view of Christians. Yes the view is right about most of them, but there are more and more like me who are being woke up to he crap the churches are claiming are the whole truth. My Chrisianity is following Christs commandment, Love your neighbor as yourself and God above all. I dont believe everyone of other faiths are going to Hell, I do believe in reincarnation, I do believe God has a femine componant ( in fact theres many names that can be argues as the female component of the Christian God, such as feminine Qabalistic God names which are Jewish, and the base of Christianity, to Wisdom (Sophia) that is mentioned in the Psalms, to the Holy Spirit). I even believe Satan is just an angel with an unpopular job. And I dont believe in evangelism like the bible thumpers, the way to evangelise is by leading a good life that shows God's work, and if someone asks about your religion tel about . And sometimes Id like to argue Christianity being Monotheistic. 3 people is Polytheisitic. Even if they are 3 fces of 1 supreme being. Wicca believes that al the Gods and Goddesses are fces of 1 divine being, does that mean Wicc is Monotheistic? I believe in magick for the greater good (greater good often decided by doing a tarot reading before) and masgickal energy is a natural force put here for us t use, like electricity, we just dont understand it yet. So, some Christians are different, I happen to be very different :) :THP

SlyR	21 Nov 2002
Amoun, I'm sorry you feel the way you do. The way I see it, whether I agree with another's religious beliefs or not, Religion as a general concept is not a negative thing. It encourages in humans a sense of brotherhood and of spiritual purpose. Often bad things are done in the name of religion, but that is the exception, not the rule. Maybe you've had a bad experience in the past that has affected your viewpoint. Or maybe you just arrived at this conclusion through reason and you like to preach about it. But either way, the adage remains true that no one will change their mind through argument. I always question my own beliefs, but I remain inspired to hold on to them. Others feel that they must let go of them. They are none of my business.

jmd	22 Nov 2002
AmounrA, again you begin a thread with the potential to eclipse Sanctum Sanctorum! There are aspects with which AmounrA began which, to me at least, remind me of certain forms which develop out or from a religion, rather than being the religion itself. If a religion is, amongst other factors, that which strives to re-connect (Cf the etymology of 'religion') or re-link us to the spiritual realms, then it is, undoubdtedly, healthy. Notice I use the term 'healthy', rather than 'good' - for what leads to greater health in one context may, in another, lead to disease. As for Christianity, part of its essence, it seems to me, is a recognition of a unique event in the evolving development of humankind: the incarnation of Christ! What significance may this have or have had for us? Here, certainly, various answers have and will be postulated. If there was such an incarnation, however (which is viewed of greater significance than one of an avatar), then whether or not we believe, whether or not we understand, whether or not we seek to emulate Christ's acts or words, some form of redemptive effect impacted upon our very progress. What seems sad, at times, is the very way certain Christians or churches have sought, probably with the best of intent, to be lead and drawn into the hell of fear: certainly not them would have healed or spoken kind words to the Samaritan! So, is Christianity good for our health? I would respond yes, very! Yet, many of its forms , which parody it, are not. May I recommend, AmounrA (and I trust you know me well enough to realise I do not make recommendations lightly or in jest) that you peruse, firstly David Fideler's Jesus Christ, S u n of God: Ancient cosmology and early Christian symbolism ; and afterwards: Rudolf Steiner's Christianity as a Mystical Fact . These two books would not, to be sure, be accepted as correctly viewing Christianity from fundamentalist, Orthodox, Anglican, protestant or Roman Catholic churches - but they are certainly well worth reading!

Kaz	22 Nov 2002
buddism is not a religion kaz

Diana	22 Nov 2002
Kaz: that was short and sweet - lol - My introduction is the same as my conclusion: - Just because someone does Tarot readings, does not mean they are a Tarot Reader. Just because someone says they are a Christian, does not mean they practice Christianity. - I think your thread is a great idea, AmounrA. Although I am glad not to be a moderator of this section, because this kind of thread, like abortion rights, death penalties and such-like normally end up by some mud throwing. But after a nice warm shower, the mud tends to wash off. (Where's my bucket of mud? Oh, here it is…..…) Yes, I definitely think Christianity is good for one's health. If it is practised in an intelligent and thoughtful way, it can only contribute to one's well-being. However, I believe that once Christianity goes out of the realm of one's inner self, and is taken over by some kind of man-made organisation, then it is no longer Christianity. Christianity, to me, represents perfect freedom. It can, and this I will believe until someone proves the contrary to me, open the doors to illumination by drinking of the Essence of Christianity. (I am not a Christian, by the way. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in its infinite possibilities.) But, and this makes me quite sick, the churches have removed that freedom. It started out with the Roman Catholic church (*Diana shudders*), and then other power-hungry megalomaniacs, paranoids and like-minded people took over. And the churches have dispossessed Christianity of its meaning. They have removed the Love and replaced it by Fear. They have removed Freedom and replaced it by Chains. They have taken Jesus of Nazareth's mission on earth and twisted the legacy he left behind beyond belief. It's like someone who receives a great sum of money from an inheritance, and wastes it away in a short time in the local casino. I love Christianity (I repeat, I am not a Christian). What I think of the Church (whether it be Protestant, Catholic or whatever), is unmentionable. To use their cheap imagery, let's say that to me it has horns, a tail and a three-pronged fork. To be polite, I will just say I despise the Church. The evil that has and is being carried out in the name of Christianity there is beyond belief. By brainwashing people right from birth (with the so-called baptism – which is not baptism at all), millions of people unwittingly contribute to this evil. AmounrA, I repeat what I said many threads back: why confuse Christianity with the doctrines of a Church? - Just because someone does Tarot readings, does not mean they are a Tarot Reader. Just because someone says they are a Christian, does not mean they are practice Christianity. -

anjocoxo	22 Nov 2002
I totally agree with diana. It's not that I'm against christianity but I also despise the church, b/c I've always believed that religion (whatever religion) lays inside you. You don't have to follow the church rules, you just have to follow what you feel it's right. I'm not catholic, I'm not even baptised and when I was a kid many other kids use to be very surprised with that (even when I was a teenager that used to happen). The faq was "aren't you afraid you'll go to hell?"; later became "but this way you're not going to marry in the church" :O... I've never felt inferior (on the contrary) and now I'm very proud for not beeing baptised. The thing is I respect the comandments (sp?) of christ, I think that what HE preached should be followed but we shouldn't need the church to be a follower (am I making myself clear, or is this too muddy?). Anyway, I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever he/she wants as long as they don't try to use force to convince others. We should ALL be tolerant. Just look at israelits and palestinians... could they all just get along as PEOPLE and forget religious wars? I think that if are taught from the begining to love the next man/woman, no matter the religion, our life would be much better. So, this is my opinion :) Anjo PS-I also like to have this kind of discussion here, b/c we are different but we all can get along. What a fantastic community we are. *anjocoxo smiles happily* (PS2- hope my spelling + grammar is ok... *kidding*)

Lee	22 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Diana However, I believe that once Christianity goes out of the realm of one's inner self, and is taken over by some kind of man-made organisation, then it is no longer Christianity. Christianity, to me, represents perfect freedom. ... But, and this makes me quite sick, the churches have removed that freedom. I agree with this 100%, and I think it applies equally to any religion. (I'm not Christian either.) -- Lee

aeonx	22 Nov 2002
Hi AmounrA and everybody. :) I have many 'Christian' values and follow several of the 'Christian' guidelines, but I am cautious of identifying myself as Christian. The reason for this is how people throughout history have treated much of the wisdom found in the religion and only aimed to benefit on behalf of Christianity, i.e. using religion as an excuse to step on people. Take for instance the Church and many of the 'top' people within Christianity and the way they have exploited and abused people for centuries. I also think that the Bible contains a lot of hidden wisdom that we really could benefit from today. However, IMO the Bible has been revised by greedy/egocentric people so that it 'fitted' their use. All religions are at the core virtuous, but it's the people that have wrecked it. See for instance how different groups interpret the Bible and the Koran, to mean what suits them. People certainly see things in different lights. Last, I think that all religions and perception of what is real, that be Christianity, Judaism, the Nature religions, Hinduism, Human Universal Energy, Reiki, Buddism, Paganism and all derivations of New Age-religions and so on, comes from the same source. Whoever wrote the sacret writings we have today got their inspiration from one universal source. IMO of course. :) OMG, I'm rambling again. :D I'll certainly join further in this debate, but now I have to go back to my term paper. :rolleyes: ~aeonx~

lupo138	22 Nov 2002
Christianity contains a lot of the truth - but, to my personal belief, not more than 50 percent of the truth. So it is a valuable source, but should not be the only one. Have you ever experienced a catholic mass and watched it from a ritualistic point of view ? I admire the wit and smartness of some of Christ´s speeches. I love his compassion and revolutionary attitude. Anyway: I am never happy with people that claim to be in possession not only of the whole, but as well of the single truth. That is ridiculous - but not a matter of Christianity as a religion, but of ít´s institutions.

Violet Gargoyle	22 Nov 2002
I would say that the basic morals from Biblical Teachings actually can be good for your health. AmounrA, we have had some discussion on this before in other threads, the debate between believing a little of everything or a little of nothing religion-wise, but I think that from a human psychology standpoint that the human mind needs moral structures, and Christian teachings are one method of learning these- and there are others as well. I do not like dogma and doctrines, so I am referring strictly to the "Golden Rule" levels of these sort of morals. Looking at the actions of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi and the like presents a moral stucture of understanding while pursuing spirituality, even if you do not choose to partake in the religious aspect or doctrines, nor agree with their philosophies completely. To me, the wrongs that current religion dogmas did not start with Christianity, Judiasm, Hindu, or Islamic principles. It goes to modern technology meeting the natural aggression of the human mind and the lemming philosophy that all people (the children) should do what the leader (the parent) says. With technology, natural impulses lead to instantaneous actions and consequences. I don't mean in the last 20 years either, I mean in the last 2 centuries. Think of the evolution of war and you can see how the evolution of the mind forgets the structures of basic morals and goes in for mass destruction. This is why I think that it is important to at least study and practice at least some sort of the ethic code of religion, including Christianity. My philosophy has always been to read with grains of salt and retain the ability to ask questions and pursue answers. But keep reading, keep learning, allow yourself to see what other people see. Mostly it is a matter of psychological conditioning in order to prevent ourselves from becoming animals with thumbs to use dectructive toys against one another. So in that manner I do think that Christianity or religion can be good for your health, because for all the complaining that we do about wars over religions, the other side of matter is: What would happen if we lost all moral structures at all? Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Kiama	22 Nov 2002
I have had this discussion many times with a friend who is adamant that all religions are bad thigs for society and that they should all be banned. This friend makes the disctinction between spirituality and religion, with spirituality being the part of belief that remains entirely inner: Christianity itself, and religion being the outer part: The Church usually. I don't know if I agree with his line of thought, because it does have some rather unpleasant consequences. I certainly woudl NOT want the Church banned. There are millions of people who find solace in it, and they see in it the things they need, just as I see in Nature the Divine... It all dpends on who you are. Why do we all need to find our spiritual succour in teh same places? What;s wrong with sombody finding theirs in the Church? True, it may not be ideal for me or for many of the posters here, but for others it is ideal. That's why the Vatican itself is actually a country, and why there are so many Roman Catholics and nuns out there! :) Secondly, I do not ever use the word hate, and I am trying to get to a point where I can say wholeheartedly that I do not dislike any religion or spirituality out there. After all, it's not up to me to judge the place or religion that gives somebody their reason to live...! Thirdly... Christianity being bad for the health? I personally don't think so. I have met many Christians, and some of them are my best mates. As said in a previous thread, we spend alot of time comparing beliefs and practices, and learning from each other's differeces. Diversity is a beautiful thing, and even if these friends believe I am going to Hell, what does it matter as long as we repsect each other... Of course, what does it matter as long as I know I'm not going to Hell? Personally, I am quite happy that I have friends who are concerned for my spiritual well-being in that way, even if it is in a way I am not faniliar with. If they wanna pray for my soul, well, no harm can be done can it? The only way harm can be done here is if they start trying to convert me, and luckily we all live by the rules of 'love thy neighbour' and the universal law of respect for others, so this doesn't happen. These people find alot in their religion, and they are very spiritual people because of it. They feel a unity with God, the Universe, and people around them. They feel the need to care for others and the planet, cuz of course, they are stewards of God's creation. They feel the need to pray for those who are sick or injured, and love all of those who need love. They raise money for charity, actually volunteer to help in charities such as St John Ambulance and Oxfam, and many also work in places like Nursery schools and homes for the elderly. These guys do everything I do, but in a different context. They pray to God and Jesus, and reckon the Holy Spirit is within them and gives them the power to speak in tongues. I pray to the great big Divine thing that is everywhere (Here's where Major Tom's words come in...) It's in You, Me, The Cup of Tea... I believe in magick and believe that everybody is, essentially Divine. I do the same volunteer work as them, try and gie love to those that need it, etc... In conclusion, I'll go back to the first paragraph of this post... My friend made the distinction between religion and spirituality, and I've come to think that these Christians are so wonderful because they have the spirituality aswell as the religion... Those without the spirituality become what we may call fundamentalist... Maybe we need to respect the Christians who do have the spirituality going for them? And tehre are loads of them out there, it's just that you don't notice them as much as the fundies, cu\ the fundies are louder and more offending! Personally, I am a spiritual person living in a religious world. I wouldn't say I have a religion, but a spirituality (Which is man made, cuz I made it myself... But then, as I belive that all of mankind is Divine in essence, where's the difference?! ;)) Whilst I call myself Pagan, that is only cuz of my affinity with Nature and the Universe, and now and then, specific deities from Pagan cultures.... Hope I haven't rambled too much and that everybody got the main point of this post! Kiama

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
Where to start ? I guess firstly , I should underline a point I raised earlier, I was brought up a Roman Catholic [but never believed a word!]. The result of this, I am sure has tainted by view of what Christianity is. Catholics use all the tricks, hellfire, superstition, sexism,anal repression, hierachies.....so perhaps I am corrupted:-) Thanks for those book recomendations JMD, The early roots of christianity is something I would like to learn more about. I feel the early [just after jesuses death] formation was based on love , compassion and wisdom. However , I feel it was corrupted and 'hijacked' at a very early stage.....perhaps even with the appearence of the 'new testiment'. There seem to be so many schools of Christian thinking , I am confused. I read a book called 'holy blood, holy grail' a few years ago, that underlined for me, that I have no hard feeling towards Jesus himself, but that his legacy is so tainted by the manipulation of man, that I don't know what to trust. What , I think, you can take out of Jesus's life is that its good to be kind . compassionate and loving....and some great one liners! But I am not about to follow him and call myself a christian:-) Budda said some smart stuff aswell. This is in a way, where I think following one religon closes doors of experiance . Jesus is certanly one wise man..but there have been others....whose actual words and teaching have survived in a less corrupted form. I think the 'dead sea scrolls' where mentioned earlier. Have these be released yet to public reading?..or are they in private hands. I would like some more on this...the jesus rebel fighter.[peoples front of judia:-)] Would Jesus, if he returned call himself a christian? Or would he rebel against it and be shocked by how wrong it has all gone? This wrongness is what interests me most, in my dis-missing of the Christian outlook..........Why did god let it happen? One thing I really don't understand , is this 'he died for our sins' thing. What does this mean? quote diana-"I think your thread is a great idea, AmounrA. Although I am glad not to be a moderator of this section, because this kind of thread, like abortion rights, death penalties and such-like normally end up by some mud throwing. But after a nice warm shower, the mud tends to wash off. (Where's my bucket of mud? Oh, here it is…..…)----I don't think this thread will start getting personal :-) Perhaps instead of being bad for mental health...Christianity is bad for mental wealth if it is taken seriously, and exclusively as 'truth'. A bit like those people who believe every word in the bible,......who where the people of Nod? who did cain and abel marry:-)

PurpleGoddess	22 Nov 2002
hi all, thank you all for your honesty and not beating yourselves up with the mud! it comes off..anyway, i was raised a lutheran and in my search for peace and serenity came to believe in a Higher Power who was God for a long time. I needed a father figure and now I have Goddess the Mother to help balance my spiritual energy. Today's Christianity is man made and stolen from the female religions around the time of Jesus becaues the men of that time and today fear the power of the feminine. by doing this they have off set the balance of power in society and now we are all suffering. we have more wars and mass destruction. we have AIDS, cancers and other dis-eases that are not curable just held at bay. it is the spirituality of one's belief's and actions outside in the WORLD that is the true religion. it is when we lose sight of the light and neglect to keep weaving our lives together that "religion" will die out and the world will self-destruct. as the early humans evolved they found a sense of wonder and strength in the spiritual unknown (anthropology excellent course) and because to find solice in "worshipping" or recognizing a higher being in control. we need to let go of our egos to the higher universal power that created us and practice the inherent good and kindndess we all have inside ourselves. i feel need to share this with you. i was very active in my church for a few years w/the youth group and confirmation class. i felt that that's what "God" wanted me to do and that i would be blessed for this unselfish act. guess what! i was left drained and unfulfilled by these ungrateful teeny boopers and my spiritual faith disappeared. a friend of mine feels that she'll make it to heaven by sacrificing 3 yrs of her life to the church in committee meetings and other duties. guess, what? it's not what you do in the church according to the male rules, it's what you do randomly w/o want of recognition on the outside of the church in the light of the God/Goddess that will set her spirit free. she doesn't understand that and refuses to talk about it. it's something that we forget. reaching out to another human being that is in need of support, love and peace. i reach out with my inner light to others that need it more than i, like the homeless man in my home town sitting in a bus stop station w/his bedroll. REALITY! i'm grateful to have a home, car and a job to go to everyday. that is a gift from the universe. i have my health my family and friends. i have my right to believe what i want to believe and so do all of you. we are all one creation, there's only so many strands of DNA out there! so this debate is good. i have woven my studies in other religions and spiritual beliefs into something i feel comfortable with and i feel no need to have to go to a church or a coven to worship. me and my cat snuggling on a sunday morning is enough for my god and goddess! peace and light to all! PG :)

fairyhedgehog	22 Nov 2002
I don't believe in a Creator or any other supernatural being. To me, spirituality is a psychological phenomena. Some spirituality seems to me to be healthy and necessary but not all. Religion is when people put their spirituality into a more lasting form and agree with others that this is how it has to be. I think that some religions are more healthy than others - religions that tell people how to think don't get my vote, nor do religions that put women down. Christianity is too diverse to make a single judgement on, if you want to make a judgement. I don't think it is helpful to dismiss some Christian groups as 'not Christian' - it is more realistic to accept that this is a religion with huge diversity. Clearly some people find some Christianity hugely meaningful and healthy but there are some aspects of Christianity that I do not welcome. So, I'm an atheist who only likes some bits of some religions. But I still have morals :) If we didn't have religion, it would not mean that there would be no morals in the world. But they might be different ones, based less on religious texts and more on science and common sense.

Lee	22 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by PurpleGoddess Today's Christianity is man made and stolen from the female religions around the time of Jesus becaues the men of that time and today fear the power of the feminine. by doing this they have off set the balance of power in society and now we are all suffering. we have more wars and mass destruction. we have AIDS, cancers and other dis-eases that are not curable just held at bay. I disagree with the suggestion that the reason we have AIDS and other diseases is because men fear the power of the feminine. -- Lee

Laurel	22 Nov 2002
IMO, in order to be spiritually "healthy", a person must be generally ethical, dynamic, life-embracing, loving, and tolerant. Spiritual Health is a condition to ever strive towards and improve, not a static absolute divided into haves and have nots. IMO, any personal spiritual belief system which generally enables us to grow as ethical, dynamic, life/love/tolerance embracing human beings and communities is generally "healthy". IMO, there are people who consider themselves (or are considered by outsiders) to be Christian, and have a personal belief system that enables them to grow as ethical, dynamic, life/love/tolerance embracing human beings. IMO, Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament, is an archeype of an ethical, dynamic, life and love and tolerance embracing human being. IMO, St. Paul, as presented in the New Testament, and church patriarchs beyond him, were not good archetypes of ethical, dynamic, life/love/tolerance embracing human beings- they lacked at least one of these charactistics I guage to determine if a peronal belief system is generally "healthy". IMO, there are more 'unhealthy' presentations of Christianity in history than healthy ones. Right now, Western culture continues to spiral into humanism, and paints religion as a whole in an unfavorable and undesirable light while at the same time acknowledging a growing alienation within the average individual that seems to be caused by a lack of spiritual wellness caused by a lack of belief in "goodness", divine or human. IMO, there are more unhealthy and unhappy people currently living in the world than happy people who are striving towards spiritual health. Religion itself has little bearing on whether or not someone is happy and healthy- its how one applies a reliqion, lives it, that counts. So I believe that Christianity ~can~ be healthy and unhealthy, but I don't rate its value against other paradigms, including my own. I only look at an individual's own general happiness, ethics, actions, tolerance, etc. and seek to improve my own. Laurel

ihcoyc	22 Nov 2002
Perhaps a better question is whether "health" is such a be-all and end-all that we should presume to judge a religious creed by whether it is "healthy" or "unhealthy." Frankly, a civil society where we are required to be "healthy" strikes me as even more hellish than a society that required us to be religious. And unfortunately, it looks like we may be dragged in that direction. Christianity is deeply pessimistic about human nature. This is for me one of its largest attractions. It may not promote self-esteem or social adjustment, it may not help you keep thinking Happy Thoughts. It may not be what's thought to be "healthy" today. It's still a reliable guide to what we can expect from other people.

truthsayer	22 Nov 2002
about 5 years ago i was in severe and chronic spiritual distress. the situation can't be described in just a few sentences so i'm going to objectify a subjective experience. i was in a situation where i felt my spiritual beliefs were being targeted at every venue. i felt like i was under full fledged attack from all the christians i knew. i went into counseling b/c my life was being so severely impacted. she found a christian minister to work w/ me who was liberal and accepting. i really gave that poor man he** for a long time my anger towards christians was so great. i don't remember exactly when i started hearing him but it took 3 years of working with him to get myself in a healthy place with spirituality. i wasn't a christian then and i'm still not but i no longer feel threatened or as threatened by the church. sam embraced and accepted my spiritual being as what it is. he taught me to celebrate who i am and who i am in my spiritual life. he assured me that my beliefs about the afterlife was okay and really no one knows for certain what happens. the fact he could accept who i am and he is a christian i came to the point my spiritual health improved and i learned to accept myself. one of the biggest hurdles for me was the idea of a male god. for my reasons, i wanted a female side to god but this felt unacceptable. he encouraged me to see god as neither male nor female or but neutral. male and female are human concepts than anthropomorphize god into an ideal humans can relate. when god became neutral to me then god became. how do i handle christians who try to pry into my personal life? i used to go ballistic and tell them off. now i just state that i consider religion and politics private matters and that i do not discuss them w/ others. if they press the issue, i leave or somehow terminate the conversation as politely as i can. you win more flies with honey than vinegar. my father confronted me recently about it and to my regret i was honest about it instead of refusing to talk about it. he told me i was going to hell and that he couldn't have anything to do w/ me b/c i am a sinner. i didn't go off like i once would have. he brought it up again a few monthes later but in a kinder tone. this time i basically told him the same thing and he was okay w/ what i said. it's all trial and error, checks and balances. imho, it is not religion itself that is unhealthy. there are good reasons for the existence of it. what can become unhealthy is how we treat each other and ourselves over spiritual issues. there was a time i internalized all the messages christians said to me and "i chose" to let it hurt me. i doubt the person wanted me to hate myself for not being like them. they wanted my heart to change to their spiritual beliefs b/c they sincerely believed i needed to be led to the light. i always took their words as insulting but i believe many try to speak in love. they honestly don't realize how offensive and intrusive non-christians see this behavior. this doesn't mean christians are bad--just human like us. now that i have learned to externalize what i hear, i deflect their words and no longer take their words personally. i realize that they are repeating doctrine that they have learned and internalized to be true for them. the best i can do is respectfully decline to listen.what they do is part of their belief system and it's not my place to attack it. often it really isn't personal. most sincerely believe this is their mission. however, if the person aggressively continues, then they are the disrespectful person, out of line and you have a right to feel angry. even i fyou get angry, i find it best not to get angry to b/c that makes me part of the problem. a large part of my spiritual distress was b/c i had internalized the negative things they said into a bad perception of myself. i let their well meaning words hurt me when i doubt that was ever the true intent of those words. part of my spiritual unhealthiness i brought on myself b/c i listened and took to heart things others said about me instead of knowing and trusting myself to choose the right spiritual beliefs for myself. last week, a man was at the college giving out new testaments. i felt the old me in the background growling and itching for a fight. but i took a deep breath and accepted the bible. i left it in the ladies room where i knew someone who needed it would find it. i had to pass by this man several times that day. i made myself look him in the eyes, smile and speak each time i passed. eventually, my tension eased when i saw that he wasn't going to verbally attack me. he seemed like a kind gentle person who was doing something from his heart. i appreciate heart messages. regurgitated messages from the pulpit bother me. i still didn't take another bible! i'm pagan and i love me. i'm not threatened anymore and if i am i know how to deal with it.

aeonx	22 Nov 2002
truthsayer: I just had to say that I was very moved by your post, and I'm so happy to hear that you fought your demons away and that you feel comfortable now with your life-path. Stories like this one help people feel better with themselves. Thank you. :) ~aeonx~

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
A couple of weeks ago, my son who does not attend a religious school, class was visited by some Christian group, who gave a talk and gave them all 'new testaments'. A few years ago I would have been straight up to the school screaming murder...I to have [believe it or not] mellowed. We just laughed. I have done some digging on the Dead Sea scrolls, and bought a book about them. From what I gather [with a quick speed preview], is that Jesus is not really in them. The problem seems to be more about the scrolls casting doubt on the new testaments [n.t] truth. It seems to contain stories, which are later echoed in the N.T . It also underlines things and peoples missing from the N.T. As far as I can gather, there is not much evidence to support the Jesus story, especially if the N.T was taken out of the equation. This is the real perceived threat from the scrolls. The N.T certainly appeared long after 'Jesus' died, and as it is a book of such UNIMAGINABLE import to the Christian faith, doubts about its literal truth, would change everything. The bible can be traced back like this; stories go back into other cultures [mesopotainia has texts which seem to tell stories later included in the bible] Can any one shed more light on the origins of the N.T In a true historical sense....:-) ?

truthsayer	22 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by aeonx truthsayer: I just had to say that I was very moved by your post, and I'm so happy to hear that you fought your demons away and that you feel comfortable now with your life-path. Stories like this one help people feel better with themselves. Thank you. :) ~aeonx~ thank-you aeonx. i wasn't sure how others would take my story b/c i'm trying to be in the middle. i certainly can't tell others how to be but i can offer is to tell what happened to me to receptive audiences. i'm very pleased and moved that it meant something to you.

allibee	22 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA I have done some digging on the Dead Sea scrolls, and bought a book about them. From what I gather [with a quick speed preview] , is that Jesus is not really in them. The problem seems to be more about the scrolls casting doubt on the new testaments [n.t] truth. It seems to contain stories, which are later echoed in the N.T . It also underlines things and peoples missing from the N.T. As far as I can gather, there is not much evidence to support the Jesus story, especially if the N.T was taken out of the equation. This is the real perceived threat from the scrolls. The N.T certainly appeared long after 'Jesus' died, and as it is a book of such UNIMAGINABLE import to the Christian faith, doubts about its literal truth, would change everything. Okies, I watched a series of programmes about them recently ( read within the last year for that, lol) and basically they were found with other artifacts in a cave where the desert meets the rocks in somewhere in the general region of Palestine, if I remember rightly. They were carbon dated by science, and verified by historians, archeologists, and theologists from all over the world. As I said in my post on the other thread, it was transcribed in aramaic by the followers of Jesus, in hiding from the followers of Paul, who had basically hijacked the religion by then, changing it until it suited his purpose. The real threat from the scrolls, the thing the Church has tried to hush up for sooooooo long, was the content. The translation of Jesus's last message to his followers was that they should tear down their churches, as God lives inside each and every one of us. Now the import of that is not the blow it deals to Christians, but to the Church establishment. You know, that rich, well stuffed, bejewelled, opulent lot. They would go out of business pretty quick if people didn't need them to worship in, wouldn't they.... allibee

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
Truthslayer, I could relate very well to your post :-) I have just done some digging on the web, and add some links.. http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/deadsea.html http://www.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm and on the NT http://www.konformist.com/blasphemy/piso.htm I think this is a key area to spotlight. I would be keen on getting the Christian take on it. Why do you believe in the new testament? Without it, would we ever have heard of Jesus? Did the writers have a motive and logical reason, for hyping Jesus up [a lot]? In between the time of the N.T's writing and Jesuses death.....did the stories change.....or by some bizzare reversal in the nature of humanity, where passed on, literally true , in every way, with no exageration, or blatent lies?Also, I think it is important to view the mindset of religious peoples under domination from and outside force. Like the Judeans and the Romans. People start looking for ways out, messiahs, god to do something...they will even lie to themselves, or be lied to by the leaders to keep up hope. The will start looking for old prophecies to come 'to pass'.... and self fulfil them [like jesus did [in the book!] With the donkey gate. I feel this must be taken into serious consideration before joining up, heart and soul.

jmd	22 Nov 2002
The Dead Sea Scrolls are certainly wonderful documents which add to our historical research into, especially, Essene or Essene-like communities - including possible information on Jesus the Nazarene. I have only read but little research into the area, and only some of the extant translations (they are not, on the whole, 'enjoyable' reads - unless one really is into that era of history!). Personally, I have not found in them any item or items which would affect one's Christian views. It should be remembered that they do not form part of the Christian canon, and thus are peripheral (I suppose that from a Christian perspective, any passage found wanting could always be used as evidence that heresies occured then as they do now ;)). Interestingly, however, I have been told that the Vatican is in the process of looking at their canon precisely as a consequence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What this means in practice I have no idea! With regards to the link given proclaiming the Roman creation of Christianity, it just seems like hogwash to me, and reminiscent of Nazi propaganda about both Judaism and Christianity - to me as worrying as fundamentalism or twentieth century 'historical' revisionism (a latter-day version of 19th century cultural evolutionism, which postulated an 'ascent' from certain forms of polytheistic and feminine deities to Christianity's 'pinnacle').

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
Thanks for your reply jmd, and your thoughts concerning the Roman link....it seemed to good to be true :-)( but still, it's an outside possibility . What's your take on the date and who wrote the new testament?

jmd	22 Nov 2002
Off the top of my head, the Mark Gospel was written around 60 CE, and John's (the last) after 110 CE. I would have to check the dates - or someone else correct me. Paul's letters were also very likely composed after the synoptic (the first three) Gospels. Again, as I said, I would have to check these.

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
Is there evidence , I wonder, which confirms Pauls letters as genuine? 60 c.e, that common era , 60 years is a long time to find stuff written down. Why I wonder is there so little[ if any] wriiten accounts of Jesus from his actual time?

DarkElectric	22 Nov 2002
I think any religion is good when it helps the faithful become better human beings. I think any religion is evil when it hurts and corrupts the very people it is trying to help. Therefore, we have a bit of dichotomy here, don't we. I believe human beings have a need for spirituality, and that is an emotional need on the par with love, friendship, community. Although I've heard people try to deny they have emotional needs, from what I've seen, the ones who deny it the most are unfortunately those who need it the most. And "religion" is constantly confused with "spirituality". Religion is, all too many times, something which starts out as a revolutionary, people helping idea, and winds up as a business, replete with anti- people dogma, and a huge profit margin. It is the factor of human nature which determines whether the religion in question is truly a life affirming, spiritual path, or a means to control large groups of any given populace, their money, their thoughts and ideas. The ability of said religion to produce consistant results in this department is what determines, for the most part, whether this religion will continue. It has very little to do with spirituality. Christianity is very good at doing this, but, unfortunately, none of the major religions are exempt from this ugly practice. I think if there were more emphasis on true spirituality, and less on power trips, we all would be a lot better off. I think this would mean that instead of turning to religion for absolution of those nasty bits of human nature, we would have to acknowlege them, own them, and change them. With or without some "Great Holy Leader Person" telling us what to do. Bad ideas kill people.

DeLani	22 Nov 2002
It's hard to say if "christianity" is good/bad for our health, when there are so many sects and versions of it. I'll just say it this way: Any religion that claims that it is the *only* way to heaven/enlightmenment/whatever, Any religion that puts some lives as having power over others (people over animals, men over women, whites over blacks, etc.), Any religion that believes the earth is just a "thing" that we humans can use and exploit as we see fit with no regard for other lives, Any religion that uses violence to enforce its beliefs, Any religion that uses lies to enforce its beliefs, Any religion that plans to take over the world by any means possible (government, violence, conversion, etc.) Any religion that believes that our bodies, the earth, joy, sensuality, and pleasure are evil, Is Bad for our Health. Amen, Blessed Be.

Red Emma	22 Nov 2002
Fascinating thread! Right now I'm engaged in some pretty Q of P activities -- it's 6 p.m. Friday on the PNW coast of the USA and I'm baking some chicken -- so I can't make the full reply I have in mind. I'll try very hard to do it tomorrow. Okay? But I have a question for Allibee. Unless God wants to reproduce her/himself, why is it necessary for him/her to have a gender? Secondly, having fought the good fight to bring economic, social, and other parity for women*, I wonder if it might be preferable to use the word "community" rather than "brotherhood." Best wishes until tomorrow. Goddess Bless, Red Emma *I began demonstrating, sitting in, lobbying congress and the state legislature in the early sixties. Now, every day when I read the paper and see some of the strides women have made, I feel very proud of my accomplishments and those of the women and men who fought with me.

jmd	22 Nov 2002
I do not know what kind of evidence would be considered acceptable to determine the 'legitimacy' of Paul's letters. What is remarkable, however, is their content. Nowadays, we are always so concerned with the individual authorship and copyright issues. Whether the letters have been altered in the process of incorporation into the New Testament I just do not know. A friend of mine (an Anglican priest who also has Kabbalistic interests) finds Paul's writings fundamentally Kabbalistic. As to why there may not be more written records of Christ's activities, this could be for manifold reasons (there were more which have now been lost, hidden or destroyed; there wasn't a perceived need to write what could either be directly heard or observed; the written word wasn't regarded as important; and probably others I just cannot think up at this instant). Irrespective, people are certainly presumed to have existed on flimsier evidence (without even knowing of their own parents' or brother's names, nor of their various activities, even if these have been enriched). To be sure, Mithraic correlations also need to be investigated. But I see that three other replies have been made as I write this very response... Regarding the term 'health' and an earlier post, I certainly do not consider the excessive focus some communities appear to have on what they deem 'health' to be very healthy at all - I certainly didn't even consider that this term may have had unhealthy connotations (aah, the wonders of 'newspeak')!

AmounrA	22 Nov 2002
Dark electric-""I think this would mean that instead of turning to religion for absolution of those nasty bits of human nature, we would have to acknowlege them, own them, and change them. With or without some "Great Holy Leader Person" telling us what to do.""-- I totally agree here. It passes the buck of responability. ----------------------------------------------- De Lani-""Any religion that puts some lives as having power over others (people over animals, men over women, whites over blacks, etc.),"".-- This is the reason I got out of buddism. I could not accept that the wheel of Samsara places [other] animals in a lower braket that 'humans'. I don't mind eating a cow--but I would never consider it an inferior being. ----------------------------------------------- Red Emma"", I wonder if it might be preferable to use the word "community" rather than "brotherhood.""-- I was looking for a better termto rephrase the brotherhood of man tennant:-) -------------------------------------------------- JMD:-)-""Nowadays, we are always so concerned with the individual authorship and copyright issues. Whether the letters have been altered in the process of incorporation into the New Testament I just do not know""-- Considering the importance that rests on the new testament being true and genuine, I feel this is a very important concern. JMD""I do not know what kind of evidence would be considered acceptable to determine the 'legitimacy' of Paul's letters. ""-- Yes, this is a bit of a snag...do they have a postmark ?[chuckle] [Regarding hidden Kabbala [I will now have to read paul's letters:-)..would this mean the kabballa was known to the 'christian' creators of tarot?--to go helplessly out on a tangent :-)

jmd	22 Nov 2002
Now wouldn't that be something to find the postmark upon Paul's letters :) I suppose that controversy would then develop about its legitimacy. One can imagine a headline from the International Truth Inquirer: Quote: Postmark found on envolope under Paul's letter to the Corinthians! Experts have determined that the stamp bearing the date 'third day of Nissan, 1 BC' has been declared genuine. Rev. Prof. Dr. R. Cranium, of the Research College from the Evangelical Born-for-a-third-time eighth-day Adventists has argued that as the imminent birth of Jesus was known, the 'BC' stamp is legitimate! But back to serious stuff... must be the heat!

Sea Sprite	22 Nov 2002
I agree with Diana's post 100% :) New Testament authors: Gospels Date Written Author MATTHEW A.D. 60-65 Matthew (Jewish Tax Collector) MARK A.D. 55-65 John Mark LUKE A.D. 60 Luke (doctor) JOHN A.D. 95-90 John the apostle

truthsayer	22 Nov 2002
i have long been a student of world mythology. i've never read the entire Bible even though i've read many parts of it. below are some of my own theories that i've gained from reading and my pastoral counselor. no offense is intended in any way. i don't claim to hold any claims on the truth. 1. parts of the old testament seem to have historical relevance. others mythological like the creation and garden of eden. significant mythologically b/c most if not all cultures have a creation myth and first man, first woman story. (see the "the power of myth" by joseph campbell and bill moyer). 2. i question why the 3 separate accounts of the new testament are so different. is it kind of like we find in police cases that eye witness accounts are not always reliable or true? when i questioned my father's minister, i was gently guided away from that topic. why? he didn't know how to answer my question probably and i made him uncomfortable. 3. parts of the Bible are poetic and lyrical like the psalms. i find these parts have value as literature. 4. others somewhat erotic like the song of solomon. these folks weren't pristine and non-sexual beings like has some sect of the church would have us believe. why take away qualities of humans that make us who we are unless controlling these characteristics are important for some reason. 5. anyone ever read the last temptation of christ or read the book? i really enjoyed the insights i gained from the movie. 6. anybody ever read the aquarian gospel of jesus the christ by levi? supposedly these are channelings or lost works about jesus. 7. the pastoral counselor put this following idea into my head and it makes sense to me. was jesus christ the person i perceive him to be--a rebel who went against the grain for social change? did he risked his life in a gamble to educate his ppl who were ruled by rome to encourage and teach them why they needed to question the rule of rome? educated ppl question the status quo and his teachings in the NT would indicate a desire to raise the consciousness of others. if so, then possibly jesus would be condemned by the very ppl who claim to be his servants. i suspect he would have been more comfortable with the idealists of social change like martin luther king, gloria steinem, demonstrators against wars or other perceived social injustices. i can empathize more readily w/ this jesus than the one i've been told about. 8. this is only spoken w/ the idea of speculation to see if anyone else has experienced this. i have noticed that the ppl who are the most hard core at "saving souls" and most often disrespectful of the boundaries of others are the most conservative and least likely to be open to social change and reform. i find this concept a real paradox. i remember telling my stepmother who is a charismatic that i didn't trust minsiters who weren't well educated. she said she didn't trust ministers who were educated. my father goes on about how "the lord isn't going to stand for all things ppl are trying to change in the world. he's going to come back and reack vengeance on all sinners, etc." usually a diatribe against homosexuals, women's rights, etc. and tends to be xenophobic. do you see the irony here? how could they possibly accept the idea of an educated jesus who rebeled against the status quo? a lot about the kind of christian one becomes depends on the level of education and acceptance towards social change one finds acceptable. 9. i have christian friends but they tend to be more liberal and willing to accept other ways to perceive jesus and/or the Bible. even though my father and stepmother have often hurt my feelings over religion, once i realized that this is the only way they know how to communicate caring and love to me then i could accept this only as a method of communication. it's not one i enjoy but that doesn't mean it isn't meant w/ love. the fault only lies in the method of delivery of the message. so i can forgive and let go of past history. i don't forget though b/c it's important to avoid repeating past hurts.

Kiama	23 Nov 2002
AmounrA and JMD: Some books and films you might like, all about the legitimacy of the Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Church... The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus A Pagan God? - Timothy FReke, Peter Gandy Jesus and The Goddess -Same guys Stigmata - A great film, with Gabrial Byrne (Swooooon!) in it! :D Kiama PS- AmounrA: In Yr 7 when I was at school, the 'Gideons' all came round in assembly and gave us New Testemants. It's apparantly something most schools do. Hopefulyl your son will fid it uful for something... RE lessons... Fuel... ;) Sorry, I'm being mean there. No offense meant to anybody!

allibee	23 Nov 2002
Okies Red Em and Amounra, I was a bit tied up with devirginising myself on the reading exchange board but I did see your posts and wanted to reply. Fatherhood of God, whilst not being politically correct, is a 'time served' statement that many can relate to. But the 20th Century is just the one century out of the last 20 where equality has been known, and the previous 19 being male dominated - and thousand before that too, we are agreed. Spirit is all around us as energy all the time, just as there is also energy in everything including rocks and air, intangible, but there. This energy 'is'. Therein you find Source. Neither male nor female, it simply 'is'. Yes this tradition of the 'Fatherhood', has been handed down from less gender aware times, and although it can be seen - I hope - as a generally recognisable statement, I for one use it as a starting point, not an end. It is a lot easier to say than ' the he / she/ or it of God'. To say that this source is feminine, the 'Motherhood', is also sexist. It is the balance of male/female, yin/yang that keeps everything together. I'm so glad that there is so much more demonstrable spiritual awareness these days, because the more people that become aware of their own spirituality - in whatever form - this then becomes a more open topic and people as a whole can evolve, if you will. With evolution, new things come into being, with new identities. And I look forward to the evolution of the terms 'Fatherhood of God' and 'Brotherhood of man'. As I said ' Motherhood of Goddess' and 'Sisterhood of Woman' is equally sexist. So what would be a good, identifiable term? 'The Energy of Is'??? hmmmm, don't think so. Come on peoples - thinking caps on!

allibee	23 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama ........with Gabrial Byrne (Swooooon!) in it! isn't he just .... fancy turning down a gorgeous looking fella like that ! :D allibee

allibee	23 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA [b] [regarding hidden kabbala [i will now have to read paul's letters:-)..would this mean the kabballa was known to the 'christian' creators of tarot?--to go helplessly out on a tangent :-) [/b] In my travels on the net recently, I came across a piece of writing that claimed that the tarot originated a thousand years ago in Morocco, when leaders of different religions from many parts of the world came together in a sort of World meeting. The purpose of their coming together was to pass on the tennents of all their different beliefs and cultures before they were lost and consumed by lack of faith on one hand and narrow minded religions on the other. The results of this meeting was the production of 78 tennents for living a full and spiritual life. The Tarot. I can't remember what site this was on I'm afraid as there is always one uproar or another in my house, which generally means stopping what I'm doing in mid flow to stop one child or another from beating the crap out of another. Don't ya just love kids ;) allibee

AmounrA	23 Nov 2002
JMD-""Now wouldn't that be something to find the postmark upon Paul's letters""-- Yes, but sadly I don't think they kept the envelope :-). Do the original letters still exist? ----------------------------------------------- sea sprite- "MATTHEW A.D. 60-65 Matthew (Jewish Tax Collector) MARK A.D. 55-65 John Mark LUKE A.D. 60 Luke (doctor) JOHN A.D. 95-90 John the apostle" This seems to show a minimum of 55 years before anything was written down. A bit odd that:-) ----------------------------------------------- Truth slayer-"" I question why the 3 separate accounts of the New Testament are so different. Is it kind of like we find in police cases that eyewitness accounts are not always reliable or true? When I questioned my father's minister, I was gently guided away from that topic. Why? He didn't know how to answer my question probably and I made him uncomfortable.""-- I think this is certainly an area where Christians start to 'mumble:-)'. I have seen last temptation; it showed some interesting angles of the 'boy wonder':-) There’s a whole chain of thought which tries to link Jesus as having a child my Mary m, these went on to be the merovinigan kings. --------------------------------------------------- Another interesting thought about Jesus is this-he seems to have had this 'magickal' birth-mangers king’s etc., and then does nothing for 30 years. Then he suddenly shows up doing magick / miricles. Then on extremely weak evidence was resurrected and went to 'heaven'. The miracles where standard fair, and there is such a 'righteous man' mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls, which did similar stuff. It does not however seem to be Jesus. This adds doubt to the Jesus miracles stories [propaganda?] Even Christians accept the evidence for the resurrection is suspect. It seems obvious to me that this is propaganda. [alibee-how about human community? the origins of tarot is lost in mist i am afraid, although i certainly think they are very old in essence, if not in the 78 card format] [kiama-it was the gideons, a little red book, reminded me of the old chinese little read book:-) fuel.lol ]

Kirali	23 Nov 2002
I too was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school for 9 years. ugh. It was horrible. I didn't learn about other religions, infact I didn't know there were any other religions for a while. I learned about them through my parents, TV, and films. The School viewed them as thought "they're not one of us so no need to be educated on them" Anyway by 7th or 8th grade, I had developed an extreme fear of Satan/ the devil, anything "evil". I stopped sleeping in my room, and I collected angel figurines because I thought that would help me somewhat spiritually. (yes I was a very dumb little girl). I always heard that the devil was ALWAYS there watching me and that I sin all the time etc. So I became terrified of anything to do with the devil. It was a mortal sin to miss Sunday mass even though the school would make us go to mass on Fridays, and on Sunday they repeat the exact same sermon and readings. Mass was so boring. I would go through the motions of mass and prayers robotically. Never listen in religion class and then the pastor would come in and question us and scold us for not knowing more. Luckily there weren't any nuns by the time I got older. I remember when I was 6 or so and saw a nun pulling a tall 8th grader by the ear to somewhere. So that also instilled fear in me too. I was so afraid that I was going to hell or purgatory etc. We had to go to confession every month and I would make up sins to tell the priest because my mind would go blank because I'd be so nervous about confessing my sins. So then I'd feel horrible because I lied to the priest! hahahhaa it's funny to me now, but then I felt guilty. Anyway I went to a public high school instead of moving on to a catholic high school where the majority of the class was moving onto. The public schools here are pretty bad, and I might have gotten a "better education" as some consider it. But I don't regret it at all. Public school had so much diversity in it, I loved it. I learned to be friends and accept others and met a couple former catholics like myself. I didn't want to believe that my friends of different beliefs were going to hell like my former church told me they were so I stopped going to mass. After I stopped going to mass and having anything to do with that church, I got over my angel/devil obsession. I'm still freaked out by stories of evil spirits but now I enjoy studying greek mythology now and am fascinated by all types of pagan mythology. I don't really like any organized religions because I don't want to listen to lectures or go to masses or talk about spirituality that much. Many of my friends and my family are still catholic so I still hear a lot of religious statements that I'd rather not hear. My brother wanted to become a priest but my parents vetoed that. I like to give him a little hell about it sometimes, mostly because he's my brother, but I like to remind him of the dark past of the Catholic Church a little just to make sure he knows about it. Okay after all that rambling, I do not hate christians or certain religions. I think it's really great that you can find solace in your beliefs! I just hate my elementary school which happened to be a private Catholic school and church, and how I was treated there. I have a bunch of christian friends and since I was a catholic, I can understand what they're talking about. They just think of me as weird or "witchy" even though I am not a witch or wiccan. I just like nature and feel connected to the earthiness of nature. So Truthsayer and Amounra, I can definitely relate. Oh yeah about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the movie Stigmata is based on the Catholic Church unacknowledging them, with Gabriel Byrne and Patricia Arquette (not sure if I spelled their names right) It's more of a horror film where a mad dead priest possess a non-religious woman, but it was still interesting.

lupo138	23 Nov 2002
I do no think that it was really 20 centuries of male rulership - rather 17th to beginning of the 20th century. (This is only meant for Europe and the heartlands of it´s former "colonies")

DeLani	23 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by lupo138 I do no think that it was really 20 centuries of male rulership - rather 17th to beginning of the 20th century. (This is only meant for Europe and the heartlands of it´s former "colonies") Yes, and let's please not forget the many thousands of years of human culture where men and women were generally equal, perhaps women held more public offices, according to the archeolgical evidence. It shows that the concept of Creator as Mother was around much longer and in more parts of the world than the concept of Creator as Father. It just seems more logical/natural: where does life come from but the womb of a woman? Sources: The Language of the Goddess by Marijas Gimbutas When God was a Woman by Merlin Stone The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler

allibee	23 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by DeLani ....... than the concept of Creator as Father. It just seems more logical/natural: where does life come from but the womb of a woman? Well, actually, there would be a lot of barren land if there wasn't the male seed to plant in the first place, so, I assert again .... male/female, God/ Goddess, yin/yang - Balance - that's what makes the world go around. Amounra - Human community, that's good. Presumably that is the evolution of the Brotherhood of Man. But does it really describe the Fatherhood of God any better? Need to keep looking for that one. What does the fatherhood represent? Nurturing, accepting, learning, loving - to name but a few - so how about: 'The Spirit of Love'. Spirit here in the sense of Divine Source, but could also apply to the brotherhood of man in the sense of 'In the Spirit of Love' allibee

DeLani	24 Nov 2002
Yeah, I know it takes two to create life. I believe in balance, too. I was just responding to the point that was made implying that the God the Father concept was older, and since it had worked out so well in the past, well, no need to switch to an "equally sexist" teminology... So I was just trying to point out that actually, Goddess the Mother is older and lasted longer. And, in the Goddess-worshipping cultures, there is artwork depicting a male father or consort balancing things out. Not so on the artwork and dogma of monotheistic God worshippers. In fact, even entertaining the idea of a feminine aspect of God (ie., Sophia) was considered heretical and liable to get you burned or strangulated before the stake. Now, of couse, followers of non-orthodox branches of Christianity might take this statement as offensive, since they don't believe that way. I don't mean to disrespect any Christians. I'm just talking here about the historical Church with a capital C. I understand the difference between an institution and individual spirituality. I ask that we have the maturity to separate rational institutional analysis from personal attacks on an individual's religion.

xlar54	24 Nov 2002
This is a very interesting subject, and one Id like to add my $.02 to: I used to be a devout Christian. Im mean serious. I had found what I was looking for in life. But then something started to happen. In learning about a religion, one should look at all aspects of it - including its history. I didnt like what I was seeing. Attrocities in the name of Jesus was beginning to make me nervous. Daily examples of Christianity started to bother me as well. Everyone's a Christian - on Sunday. Everyone's a Christian, but talking about Jesus as the topic of an ordinary conversation (at work, school, etc) makes you some kind of religious nut. Chirstianity began to define itself for me. And I didnt like the definition. I no longer believe that one has to only say "I believe in Jesus" to be a Christian. I believe that one has to LIVE it. As much as I disagree with the beliefs of those door-to-door folks, at least they live their beliefs. As much as I despise the Islamic extremists (the killing kind), they are willing to die for their belief. I just dont see it in today's "Christianity". 9/11 was a major turning point for me. I realized that most forms of organized religion have done nothing but harm to the human race. In the old days, religion = power. The segregation and the constant fighting and hatred. Age old. Today I believe that organized religion separates people. And that is not what a God would want. Im me. Im real. And I live what I believe. Anything less is an illusion for the masses. Ok, maybe that was $.04 X

Umbrae	24 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by xlar54 I no longer believe that one has to only say "I believe in Jesus" to be a Christian. I believe that one has to LIVE it. Nailed it…Good job xlar54! So many folks with “I believe”…but few walk the walk. Few Christians have even read the teachings of ol’ JC. Matthew 5-7 is a good place to start. Here’s a run down for you…Don’t bother talking the talk – walk the walk, and by your actions ye shall be known. The original instructions from the creator are universal and valid for all time; compassion for all life and love for all creation. We must realize that we do not live in a world of dead matter, but in a universe of living spirit. However, man needs illusion. The strength of your illusions is dependent upon the strength of your will. The stronger your will, the more you will rule, for other men will always flock to him whose illusions are the most potent.

SlyR	25 Nov 2002
"In the old days, religion = power. The segregation and the constant fighting and hatred. Age old. " That's a very popular idea, because so many religious types have started holy wars. However, the origins of religion suggest the contrary. There were actually a number of instances in the Bible when Pharisees tested Christ to see if he encouraged an uprising against Roman domination. Time and again, he only spoke of peace. At last, while being questioned by Pontius Pilate, Pilate himself, who was desperate to find an excuse to crucify Christ and appease his subjects, couldn't coax a single inflammatory comment out of Him. "Today I believe that organized religion separates people." You're half right there. Organized Religion separates _religious_ people from other religious people. Before dismissing organized religion as a general concept, be it represented by a Christian congregation or a Pagan coven, remember that there is much power and mutual benefit in collective vs. solo worship. I'm not much of a church-goer myself, but I can't help but wonder where my religion would be if it didn't have an organized body of believers to carry on the tradition.

jmd	25 Nov 2002
.... and so now we begin to enter the field of not whether religion, and specifically Christianity, is good for our health, but how it can be so. Specifically it becomes healthy as one communes with others; seeks to emulate the acts of Christ; and more importantly, pay heed to Christ's answer when asked which was the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40): Quote: You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself. Of these two commandments hang the whole Law (Torah), and the Prophets too. as also he similarly said in John 13:34: Quote: I give you a new commandment: love one another; you must love one another just as I have loved you. It is by your love for one another, that everyone will recognise you as my disciples. it should be noted that this 'new' commandment is an extension from the old testament one. I suppose that here I must also agree with Umbrae: read especially from Matthew 5 onwards - for many who have not read the Bible, these are quite astounding passages. However, I would also like to differ with another comment made above, which I personally find particularly problematic, viz: 'However, man needs illusion. The strength of your illusions is dependent upon the strength of your will. The stronger your will, the more you will rule, for other men will always flock to him whose illusions are the most potent'. Do we in fact 'need' illusions? That we may oft time not see clearly, or may, even, at times be deluded, or that some will, rather than slowly develop their own sense for the essence of what is, and unfold their valuing of truth and love of inner freedom, prefer to unfortunately be overcome with delusions or react with fear, does not imply that the stronger the attempt to impose (for that is what is effectively described) one's will results in greater potency - quite the contrary, despite appearances... And so, again, Love is the Law - pure and simple.

Umbrae	25 Nov 2002
Personally, I do not “need” illusions. I do not think that any need illusions. However, during any 24-hour period, we are bombarded with and by them. On an average day, how much stuff, are we told that we “need”? We are constantly being “sold” – religion is another product, which we are told we need to buy – the price is cheap – it is a fire sale, and the medium of exchange is our immortal soul. I believe and practice the spiritual – however, I shun the marketing genius of religion. A feeling towards your fellow man should come from within. The commandments should be felt, lived, and walked. A spiritual lifestyle should not rammed down my throat by a militant follower of a marketing guru (Jim and Tami Baker were brilliant). Love is the law, and blind followers have always tended to abuse the powers provided by their shield (religion). Someone in these forums once said, “Which is more of an illusion? Illusions built upon belief, or those built with reasoned disbelief?” I have always been wary of the “Religion” that serves to encourage blame, or focuses on political affairs; and serves not the spiritual growth of person’s soul; the “Church” (Christian) that claims heaven as its own, which makes war in a peacemaker’s name. Ultimately, those types of organizations, or “Churches”, are not havens of spiritual enlightenment. They enclose the spirit. They organize mystery, and undermine its essence. When you box and compartmentalize, you lose the magic.

AmounrA	25 Nov 2002
I wrote this reply to Umbrae last night. Unfornunatly I had problems with my net connection, so here it is belatedly- Umbrae-""However, man needs illusion. The strength of your illusions is dependent upon the strength of your will. The stronger your will, the more you will rule, for other men will always flock to him whose illusions are the most potent."" Illusion is such a beautiful word. Illusion is not far from delusion. Reality, the one we perceive is powerfully influenced by our senses. The world we 'see', recreated in our minds is defiantly an illusion of what it actually is. It’s a reality based upon our gadgets [eyes, ears etc. devices]. I wonder how much our minds are also 'boxed' by the limitations in the brains design. How much illusion is pre-programmed, how free from it can we be. It is interesting to look at the effect 'LSD' has on consciousness perception, and how similar the reported effects on perception are with people who have done serious study of it. It seems to shake the illusion so much, that people report time and view of the inner and out world to be 'unlike anything they ever expected or believed was possible'. I have been told that to meditate on 'lsd' is an experience so profound that if can change people forever.’the world never seems the same again’. Perhaps these are delusions, they certainly are illusions. What I mean to highlight in this is, is the 'stable' reality we perceive, only perceived as such because of the chemical balances held in the Brain. The effect various drugs have on consciousness is real. In the case of LSD it is reported as a very spiritual eye opener. It has to be said, that most people who have taken LSD, stop believing in Christianity, and seem far more attracted to Buddhism. [perhaps its the colours;-)] A religious mind might never experiment with LSD [for example], saying it’s morally corruptible...but is it? Does religion stop us experimenting with the illusion, and let encourage us to sit back into delusion? An in this way is it bad for our 'spiritual wealth'. Our ancestors used all times of consciousness effecting plants and mushrooms for spiritual ‘development’. Major religion seems to condem such actions. Is this motivated by a pursuit of purity, or because they fear/ed people taking such experiments would stray into the ‘old ways’. Is it possible some types of plant/mushrooms effects on consciousness are ‘left there ‘for us’?

AmounrA	25 Nov 2002
JMD-“Love is the Law – pure and simple” Indeed JMD :-), but if it’s that pure and simple…who needs religions and spiritual texts? Crowley used [as you will know] this line…but added the extra phrase…”love under will” When Mathew says ‘you must love your god ‘. Is this giving freedom to the seeker to find their own god? To pursue their own path, so long as it is grounded in compassion and love? If so, these are wise words. Perhaps to some extent the Christian delusion is healthy, when stripped back to these principles. However, how fitting is such an idea, in a book that also contains revelations? How fitting is it if the god being spoken of is Yahweh, a spiteful and bitter and vengeful deity? I have no doubt that the bible and New Testament, are valuable, beyond words, in the sense of ancient texts, but to see them as literally true, seems a bit much. Why not go to the Egyptian book of the dead, and believe what it says about ‘god[s]’. I can understand reading these books, not as a literally true story, but more as a type of aessops fables, to learn and pass on ‘life experience and insights’, but to go about condemning non Christians, or to go about saying ‘I believe in Jesus Christ is my saviour’ seems to be taken the delusion to far. Instead of needing our illusions…do we need our safety blankets?

Diana	25 Nov 2002
In the canton (equivalent more or less to a State) in Switzerland where I live, the kids still have Biblical studies at school. They're studying Jesus right now. My son (11) came home rather puzzled and asked me: "Would Jesus consider himself a Christian?" I looked at him for a long time, not knowing what to answer. And then I said "probably not". Interesting question, he raised.

lupo138	25 Nov 2002
oh god, I love this one - usually I am not into "kindermund" but this is marvellous !

Umbrae	25 Nov 2002
Jesus himself was Jewish…which is why Christians eat ham on Easter.

Sea Sprite	25 Nov 2002
re: I no longer believe that one has to only say "I believe in Jesus" to be a Christian. I believe that one has to LIVE it. re: Here’s a run down for you…Don’t bother talking the talk – walk the walk, and by your actions ye shall be known. Well said !! :D One excuse I've heard for the lack of walk is "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

SlyR	26 Nov 2002
It just occurred to me that this discussion is pointless. I think we can all agree that the fundamental teachings of Christianity are harmless if not beneficial. It's only man's corruption of Christianity that has given it a bad rap in certain instances. Therefore, we must abstract our view of the subject: To discuss the inherent merits or liabilites of the Christian faith is to do the same for ANY faith. When we point a finger at another, we are pointing at ourselves. All traditions, whether Christian, Pagan, Buddhist, or even Atheistic, are created by collective agreement between like minds. To be outside of the collective is to have an unqualified opinion. Amoun, your comment, "Even Christians accept the evidence for the resurrection is suspect. It seems obvious to me that this is propaganda," is very typical of many of your comments, in which you assert that Christianity is based on weak evidence and rumour. I thought the whole point of ANY religion was to accept myths as reality on pure faith. Religion is _faith based_. There's no way around it. Believers don't need proof; that's what makes belief what it is. With proof, belief becomes mere acceptance. If I PROVED to you that Christianity was absolutely the Truth, you would HAVE to accept it, but you wouldn't appreciate it. Believers are appreciators. Come to think of it, in modern society, wouldn't an open statement accusing members of a certain faith as being "harmful" be considered religious discrimination? This whole debate about whether Christianity is all it's cracked up to be serves no purpose, like debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or like debating which came first - the chicken or the egg. It's just mental masturbation. If you're not a Christian, you are only asserting a viewpoint that reinforces your own bias. If you are, then you only find yourself defending your faith against cold hearts. Nothing happens, no one progresses or learns. I, even as a Christian, enjoy learning what I can from Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and others. I do not condemn other religions as "harmful" (although I have lately been suspicious of Islam, but I'm not forming an opinion until I actually read the Koran). The central message of all religions is one that seeks to bring people together in peace. Do not misconstrue that message. Only point your finger at those who would pervert the teachings. I guess everyone's been saying that all along; but, you know, $0.02. Oh, by the way: There's been some commentary on the Masculine slant of Christianity. I'd like to clarify that we use labels like "Father" figuratively. In reality, "Elohim" is a feminine plural.

Kiama	26 Nov 2002
SlyR: With all due respect, I do not think any discussion to be pointless. If it wasn't for this discussoin, maybe people wouldn't have formed new opinions which are good for them... Although I do agree with you that: Quote: To discuss the inherent merits or liabilites of the Christian faith is to do the same for ANY faith. When we point a finger at another, we are pointing at ourselves. Which is why I responded as I did previously. :D Again, please do not just look at what you see as negative aspets of teh discussion... There are many here who have posted who agree with you. Kiama

Magic Bean	26 Nov 2002
very interesting topic!

AmounrA	26 Nov 2002
SlyR-“ To discuss the inherent merits or liabilities of the Christian faith is to do the same for any faith. When we point a finger at another, we are pointing the finger at ourselves”. Firstly, why when discussing the evidence to support the New Testament, and even the existence of Jesus, the merits and liabilities of Christianity, does this mean we have to bring in every religion? The religions you list are all DIFFERENT fundamentally in their beliefs and worldviews. To discuss one is not to discuss all! Secondly, I admit that many times when we point a finger at another, we are pointing it at ourselves…. but not every time. It is not a universal law. SLYR-“ I thought the whole point of ANY religion was to accept myths as reality on pure faith” I agree! That’s why I have little time for religion in any serious way. Slyr” Come to think of it, in modern society, wouldn’t an open statement accusing members of a certain faith as being “harmful” be considered religious discrimination?” NO. In a “ modern society” it would be considered FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION AND SPEECH. [perhaps if i sacked you from my company because you where a christian, that would be discrimination!] SLYR “ This whole debate about whether Christianity is all its cracked up to be serves no purpose.” I disagree, this debate has clearly shown an almost total distancing from the church, and the very shady roots of Christianity as a religion. I am surprised, with all these people claiming to believe in Jesus, and saying the Church, is basically a perversion of his teaching, That you don’t, WALK THE WALK, and head straight down to your local church, and do a ‘Jesus’ [basically cause a riot]. Stand up for the words of your master…. stop the perversion! Religion is not needed to understand the world needs to unite, and love needs to be rated above profit. No religion is needed to tell us war is wasteful and foolish. No religion is needed for us to believe the universe was not born of chance. Religion doesn’t have the moral ball when it comes to these issues. A world without religion does not mean a world of pain, violence, greed and futility. I agree with Kiama, there are many here who have posted to defend [weakly;-)] Christianity, and ALL POWER TO THEM. I just disagree!

jmd	27 Nov 2002
AmounrA, I have much to agree with your post, as well as the previous ones including SlyR's - so maybe I should try to pin my own position first. In terms of morals or ethics, I am what is called an ethical individualist (Cf, for one example, R. Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom ) - definitely not a position which mainstream church groups would find acceptable, even if agreeing with whether or not a specific event or action is considered moral. With regards to the existence of Jesus, I have never found any serious evidence to suggest he didn't exist - and I just don't see why some people want to erase his name... For me - and this, along the lines indicated by Umbrae, SlyR and others - Christ's redemptive tasks stand. Whether there is any 'proof' remains for those who have eyes to see - the rest of us have to either accept, with-hold judgement upon, or reject their views. There is certainly a difference between a religious impulse and the inner side of the religious activity, and a communal expression developing into formalised religion. Nonetheless, any community has impulses which will manifest into structured forms. What becomes intolerable is the intolerance which may result from its ossification. For it to remain a 'true' religare , renewal must be ongoing. AmounrA mentions that a Christian ought to follow in Christ's footsteps and 'head straight down to your local church' and copy Christ's actions in the synagogue - I suppose that if one was Christ, one may very well do it. Otherwise, by whose 'authority'? I do not agree that discussing the merits or otherwise of one religion has any implications for discussion on the merits or otherwise of others. Certainly, pointing the finger at the faults of 'Christian' expression, or forms which arise from 'christianity', can either take the form of healthy self-reflection or debased attacks - if we are christians, the finger pointing may highlight certain aspects we may be blind to. Attacking the messenger because the message isn't liked, on the other hand, certainly does injustice to the pointing. Finally, I suspect that most anti-christian views are not to do with Christianity (or, as expressed earlier I think by Fairyhedgehog, christianities), but in its variously atrophied expressions. Certainly, Christianity is more than being a member of any church having appropriated the 'christian' title - but also, any group of individuals seeking to work with Christ's words and impulse are likely, at some stage or other, to 'consolidate' their communal strivings into forms which may solidify - whether these are healthy or not probably needs to be ascertained case by case... But enough of my (again) longish post... and await further developments!

AmounrA	27 Nov 2002
JMD-""With regards to the existence of Jesus, I have never found any serious evidence to suggest he didn't exist - and I just don't see why some people want to erase his name..."" I have never seen any unquestionable evidence that he did exist. Saying that, I do believe Jesus existed and was a HIMOG, [highly illuminated man of god]. I certainly, whilst not believing every word of the New Testament, do accept that Jesus was trying to educate the people with a really good and wise message, and was a rebel against oppression and tyranny. His name stands, and should stand amongst some of the best examples of Humanity. When it comes to virgin births, kings following stars, walking on water, feeding 5000, raising the dead, raising himself from the dead...I consider this to be non-sense, and an unneeded sideshow from his message and true worth. -------------------------------------------------- JMD""AmounrA mentions that a Christian ought to follow in Christ's footsteps and 'head straight down to your local church' and copy Christ's actions in the synagogue - I suppose that if one was Christ, one may very well do it. Otherwise, by whose 'authority'?"" I said this, half joking...but half very serious. I don't see any need for authority, especially if it’s a Catholic church..., which is so obviously an unforgivable corruption of Jesus’s legacy. Only Christ can make a stand? Or if it’s a mere mortal, they must seek authority? Whom do you go to, to get such authority:-)? ------------------------------------------------ JMD""Finally, I suspect that most anti-Christian views are not to do with Christianity (or, as expressed earlier I think by Fairyhedgehog, christianities), but in its variously atrophied expressions.""- I see what you mean, and yes in many ways, indeed. I might think becoming 'a Christian' is a bit of a shame, limiting the size of the box, but there is no real harm in it. So I guess.” Is Christianity bad for your health?’ has the answer ‘NO’...but there is a big BUT...'the church' is an unneeded middle man, which whilst at its best, can be very giving and rewarding [i suppose], but in most cases, and perhaps in spirit, is just a desperate stagnant dogma machine.

Shadow Wolf	30 Nov 2002
While I don't think it's wise to call all Christians deluded, I'm pretty much in agreement that the world's "major" religions are Manmade. I was raised Catholic, and now consider myself a spiritual explorer. I feel angry, hurt and betrayed by all that has gone on and is going on in the Catholic Church. I cannot continue to support an organization that has condoned or at the very least looked the other way while innocent children were being molested by parish priests. I'm still sending my kids to religious instruction in the Catholic Church, because I feel that it gave me a solid foundation to make the spiritual choices I'm now making. But I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this. My oldest son is 12 and he will receive Confirmation next year. I will keep him in religious instruction until after he receives Confirmation.......ONLY because he really wants to do this. I'm seriously thinking about taking my 8 yr. old out after next year. I can teach them all the spirituality they need to know to grow up to be decent , loving, compassionate people. The more I read, the more I find out that much of Christian doctrine has been "borrowed" from Pagan spiritualities, and manipulated to suit the church's purposes. Anyway, I'm pretty much totally fed up with organized religion, and am happily going my own way, relying on the wisdom of the Universe to get me by !!!!!

jmd	01 Dec 2002
There is no doubt that part of the vast richness of the Christian movement includes its aeclectic syncretism, incorporating many important sacraments and disciplines previously or independently found in other religions and spiritual disciplines. For me, this is very much part of its strength. As an example, of course Christmas is more than just the symbolic birth of the Jesus child(ren). It incorporates Mithraic, Nordic, and other pagan and non-christian elements. Does this, however, take away? That the male hierarchy of the Catholic Church has sought to avoid properly protecting those it really ought to have protected (whether children or 'indecent' women) is certainly to its detriment. That it has actually wiped out many other Christian expressions deemed in its past heretical is also to its detriment. That many remain - and will remain - outside its enclaves remains, in my view, its own making. Living in New York City, you may also be interested in checking out another Christian group the Catholic Church would no doubt also brand heretical given its own syncretic arising, naming itself the Christian Community.

The Is Christianity good for our health? thread was originally posted on 21 Nov 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.