Christianity - Rewiring my Brain

[NightL]

If an individual's belief (in whatever) ceased to exist overnight - would the world change?

Obviously an individual can influence a collective, but in the moment, an individual believing or not believing in whatever is really going to have zero impact on the sun shining tomorrow.

It is all SO irrelevant...

 

[Hypoxia]

If an individual's belief (in whatever) ceased to exist overnight - would the world change?

That leads to a definition of reality: Whatever remains after you stop believing is real. Or, reality is what remains DESPITE what anyone believes. One may disbelieve in gravity -- after all it's only a theory -- several theories, actually -- but a fall still hurts.

Another definition: Reality is whatever bites your ass. IOW if it affects you it's real and if it doesn't then it's irrelevant. One may believe in the wildest bullshit -- big deal, it's still a fantasy. But when one ACTS on that belief, it becomes real. Religious believers (zealots) may indeed bite (and burn and rape and kill) your ass so they are all too real. My prayer: {YHWH}/Allah, please protect me from your followers, for they be ratshit nutzoids.

 

[NightL]

That leads to a definition of reality:

and if an individual ever had the power to blanket Earth from the sun - it would not be under the banner of "not believing".

So the way I see it - all of the "believers" are evil fuckers. What ever side they fall they are a negative on my life... in one way or another - to whatever degree. I have not yet witnessed a "believer" who has not thought themselves superior to another. Their reality is one I have no wish to be guided by.

I rise in the morning - the sun shines - I smile - if anyone tries to intervene in that simple process with their beliefs or their reality I instantly remove myself from their nonsense.

 

[NightL]

Reality is whatever bites your ass.

I'm fine with that - but it has to bite, probably hard. A lesson learned through hurt is different than delusion.

 

[suckonsimon]

Hey Yasuo and wow!

Please consider that even before his trial, and ever since, there have been people and powers determined to undermine the simple and subversive message of Jesus. Might it just be that those promoting the 'take' on events of the first and second century that you've been looking into, have that incentive?

If what they say is accurate, how is it that the four Gospels which did find their way into the canon of the New Testament are so very counter-institutional? Just to give two examples, from either end of the story: Luke has the mother of Jesus, pregnant with him and meeting her aunt, announcing a revolution of the existing order; then at the end of it John tells us about the first encounter anyone had with the risen Jesus and guess what she's a woman, with a bad name in the village she lived in, who used to have mental health issues. You telling me this stuff reads like the construction of a few control freaks who were suppressing the 'real' story?

Oh to meet up with you and have a drink and talk into the night. I would love that and I so regret the Atlantic Ocean just now!

 

[Aphro]

What I am saying is: Humans by nature are inherently corrupt. If we were not inherently corrupt, we would be able to live together in harmony without any form of government. We would simply treat each other with respect and do the right thing; however, since we are inherently corrupt, we have to have some form of government to set limits so we don't kill or abuse each other. The "catch 22" with governing ourselves is that our leaders being human are also inherently corrupt. Without arguing whether man created God, or God created man, the solution to human corruption is to create a religion based on a perfect God. In theory, any moral compass laid down by a perfect God, also has to be perfect, and man following a moral compass laid down by a perfect God can live in harmony. At least that is the theory. A good example is the 10 commandments. Commandments 5 through 10 are common sense rules to help people live in harmony. Commandments 1 through 5 are the basis of the religion.

The point I was making about whether you would rather be a money loving asshole, (as you put it), or the poverty stricken schmuck was: if there were only two choices, which would you rather be. To understand my point, all we have to do is look at the world around us. For example: Stalinist Russia, (a regime that banned any form of religion), executed an estimated three million people who opposed socialism. Without any form of moral compass, governments become absolute. While Stalinist socialism was touted to be the ultimate way of life, people in Russia during that period suffered more than people living in western nations based on Christian values. Another example is a Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a third world country where religion has been weakened by the nation's leadership. The leader of the Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, lives in the opulence of a god, while his followers scrape to put food on their table. Where you find weak religion, you find oppression. Where you find a strong Christian church, you find wealth and freedom.

Columbia: 90% Christian
Swaziland: 82% Christian
Guatemala: 87% Christian
El Salvador: 81% Christian
Belize: 76% Christian
Venezuela: 88% Christian
Honduras: 88% Christian

Yup. Being in a predominantly Christian country really makes it so much safer.

 

[SheaLima]

Thank you for posting your story. I grew up catholic and was heavily involved with the church. In my opinion, it saved my life. The world left me and my older sister to fend for ourselves at a young age. The church was my safe haven, but not my older sister. She was in trouble often. In my opinion, church and the teachings are a life saver often for those who fear. It has kept me from getting into a lot of trouble, and there was plenty of it in the rough area where I grew up.
As far as God, I believe we all have to find out on a personal level who he. I am not sure the church had much to do with my experience of the mystical. I would love to keep in touch with you. We share a lot of the same struggles.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Talk to the God you think doesn't exist and if he answers you.....if you listen......then you will know he is real. If it is a struggle then two opposing forces must exist.

A couple of years back, a Christian friend gave me exactly that advice. I was sceptical, but I had a lot of respect for her, so I thought okay, I'll give it a try.

The year that followed was pretty much the worst time I can remember. Death, death, major betrayal by someone I loved, death, death... I won't labour the point, but take it from me, it was like a bad country song. I would have been VERY happy to believe there was some sort of Supreme Being who was going to make things right in the end, and I found a quiet place and said something along the lines of "hey God, if you're there, I'd like to hear from you."

Nothing. I was the only person in the room. Tried again some time later, and then again. Still nothing.

When I told my friend about this, her response was that I must be deceiving myself, or that I must not have asked in quite the right way. For her, it was INCONCEIVABLE that her experience of the universe, of feeling some sort of divine presence, might not be universal.

So I'll ask you - if somebody tries your advice and then tells you that it didn't work, would you believe them? Or would you dismiss them? Because I gotta say, having a dear friend accuse me (very politely) of lying about my experience really didn't make things better for me.

Then she told me a story about how when a shepherd has a lamb that keeps straying from the flock, the shepherd will break the lamb's leg with his crook and then carry it around on his back until the leg heals, to remind the lamb that it needs the shepherd, and after that the lamb will never stray again. "And that's why you've had such a bad time lately. It's God trying to bring you to him, and you won't have any peace until you answer the call."

...which is fucked up on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. (And the story itself is bullshit - RL shepherds don't do that, for reasons that should be obvious. My friend is smart in some ways, but she's horribly gullible as regards anything that fits into her world-view. I've since discovered that she also believes FEMA is stockpiling guillotines for executing Christians and the Nephilim are creating chemtrails for Jade Helm, yada yada yada...)

ps ... why is it that fundamentalist creationist extremist versions of Christianity are the ones which surface constantly on the web, while the version which is on the street corner and in church-aided schools and the chaplaincies of prisons and universities and hospitals, the version supporting the Fair Trade movement and untold attempts to address the inequalities and hurts of humanity and bridge the great divides between cultures - that version, my version, doesn't get a look in when it comes to web-based global discussion?

I really am asking the question!

Same reason atheists like me have to keep muttering "not Richard fucking Dawkins AGAIN, why can't that tosser just shut up and stop making us look bad? We're not all like that, you know."

Which is to say, "it's complicated", but in part:

- Human nature tends to focus on the negatives much more than the positives. (I have lovely Christian friends, plenty of them! But they don't give me cause for complaint so I tend not to mention them.)

- The people who are focussed on helping others tend not to be as good at self-promotion

- The ones who are doing something crappy tend to lean on their religion/atheism more, because they can't sell their shitty ideas on merit so they need to invoke tribal loyalties. (See also: crappy musicians who rely on labelling themselves as "Christian music" to sell records, vs artists like Alice Cooper who are Christian and have Christian themes all through their work, but don't need that label to sell it.)

- The good ones are often reluctant to call out the bad ones within their tribe because of notions of loyalty or politeness; the bad ones have no such qualms, so the dickheads dominate the conversation.

That one is hard. Every time somebody like Dawkins says something fatuous and harmful, it's tempting to say "well he doesn't speak for us". But the truth is, he DOES speak for a large number of atheists. We do have big problems with sexism and racism, and it's better that I acknowledge those flaws and take some responsibility for improving the situation - even though it means potentially antagonising people who might otherwise be on my side.

I will note that the coverage of Christianity isn't all critical. For example, right now the Pope is getting a TON of favourable publicity for the good things he's said and done, and a very easy ride on areas where the Vatican's position is still badly flawed.

 

[MatthewVett]

I don't live in France or Sweden.

What kind of rebuttal is this? "My opinions are based on a singular anecdote, not any kind of data." Yeah, that's convincing.

 

[MatthewVett]

The overall murder rate has gone down, but the irrationality of the violence has escalated drastically. You have to keep in mind that the attack on 9/11 was also murder. Thousands in a single act of insanity.

I take it you voted for Obama. How are you doing with the rose colored glasses?

I'm sorry, are you using 9/11 to show the acceptability of murder in the US? Your argument is that US accepted 9/11?

 

[MatthewVett]

I'm glad you put your Christians in "marks". Come on: you know full well that no Christians are rejoicing about the tragedy today.

What's your checklist for someone to be a Christian? I thought it was basically "Believe Jesus Christ is the son of God." Are there more secret prerequisites I'm unaware of?

 

[NippleMuncher]

There's this whole secret handshake thing, but they're not allowed to discuss it.

 

[Emerson40]

SNIP

- The ones who are doing something crappy tend to lean on their religion/atheism more, because they can't sell their shitty ideas on merit so they need to invoke tribal loyalties. (See also: crappy musicians who rely on labelling themselves as "Christian music" to sell records, vs artists like Alice Cooper who are Christian and have Christian themes all through their work, but don't need that label to sell it.)

/SNIP

 

[Messier82]

A couple of years back, a Christian friend gave me exactly that advice. I was sceptical, but I had a lot of respect for her, so I thought okay, I'll give it a try.

The year that followed was pretty much the worst time I can remember. Death, death, major betrayal by someone I loved, death, death... I won't labour the point, but take it from me, it was like a bad country song. I would have been VERY happy to believe there was some sort of Supreme Being who was going to make things right in the end, and I found a quiet place and said something along the lines of "hey God, if you're there, I'd like to hear from you."

Nothing. I was the only person in the room. Tried again some time later, and then again. Still nothing.

Pretty much mirrors my own experience (but substitute different negative life experiences). If God is real then that was the perfect opportunity for some kind of personal experience, which I didn't get.

When I told my friend about this, her response was that I must be deceiving myself, or that I must not have asked in quite the right way.

I was told pretty much the same, it must be the standard response.

Then she told me a story about how when a shepherd has a lamb that keeps straying from the flock, the shepherd will break the lamb's leg

...which is fucked up on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. (And the story itself is bullshit -

Had someone told me that tale I would have told them the same in no uncertain terms. Not least of all because a broken leg has potentially fatal consequences, as far as fabricated parables go, it's moronic.

Same reason atheists like me have to keep muttering "not Richard fucking Dawkins AGAIN, why can't that tosser just shut up and stop making us look bad? We're not all like that, you know."

A friend of my from my post-grad days had RD as his Personal Tutor at Oxford, I told him my problem with RD was he hd no sense of humour and tended to be 'up his own arse', which my friend confirmed as true. It's a pity, he's a smart guy but doesn't understand why his arguments need a more human touch.

The Ministers from my Alpha Course experience made much of John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician who is openly Christian. I read his "7 days" book and as much I appreciate his efforts, his arguments failed to make Christianity sit comfortably with modern science due to his adherence to the concept of the Bible as "the inspired word of God".

 

[Messier82]

What's your checklist for someone to be a Christian? I thought it was basically "Believe Jesus Christ is the son of God." Are there more secret prerequisites I'm unaware of?

I think that was meant to imply that those apparently rejoicing weren't, by definition of their actions, Christians, regardless of how they choose to define their selves.

 

[Messier82]

What I am saying is: Humans by nature are inherently corrupt. If we were not inherently corrupt, we would be able to live together in harmony without any form of government. We would simply treat each other with respect and do the right thing; however, since we are inherently corrupt, we have to have some form of government to set limits so we don't kill or abuse each other.

So.... all these wars around the world, (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, IS etc), no involvement by any major Governments there?

 

[suckonsimon]

What's your checklist for someone to be a Christian? I thought it was basically "Believe Jesus Christ is the son of God." Are there more secret prerequisites I'm unaware of?

A phrase from Paul's letter to the church in Rome [New Testament of the Bible] is regularly and helpfully used as that 'checklist':

"Confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead".

The beauty is that this is so much more than a 'religious position' or something. When someone is ready to do this, they have come to a glad acceptance of what God has done for us in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, and they are putting themselves in relationship with Jesus - a multi-relationship with him first as Lord but also as Saviour and Friend and Brother.

Using a 'checklist' such as this is not to be exclusive, but to get to the reality of what it is to be Christian: to have a dynamic at the heart of your life and impinging on all your relationships which is transformative in the direction of love and selflessness.

To put this in the context of my previous post which you quoted, nobody, but nobody, who is into the stuff I have described above would take delight in Muslims dying in a crush on their pilgrimage; that kind of mean and cold-hearted response actually ceases to be a possibility, and that process is part of the meaning of Paul's concluding phrase in relation to what I quoted from him: "you will be saved". For Christians, salvation is among other things a process of losing what is the worst of ourselves and enhancing what is the best of ourselves, in ways which make a difference to our neighbours, including our Muslim neighbours in far away places.

There's this whole secret handshake thing, but they're not allowed to discuss it.

It's much more dramatic than a secret handshake! You get very wet indeed! And we love to discuss it!

I think that was meant to imply that those apparently rejoicing weren't, by definition of their actions, Christians, regardless of how they choose to define their selves.

Thanks Messier and I've attempted to set that out above I guess.

Simon

 

[jaF0]

Anybody remember the US TV show 'Becker'?

"Becker: [on religion] Religion is supposed to be about people being nice to each other, but frankly, I don't see a lot of that. You know, what I do see is people using the Good Book to say that they're morally superior. I see people building TV stations to bilk Grandma out of her pension cheques, all in the name of God, you know. And how about all those God-fearing people who are killing other God-fearing people because they don't fear God in the same way!?"

 

[jaF0]

SALT LAKE CITY (CBS/AP) — A rare confluence of a lunar eclipse and a supermoon set to happen this weekend has prompted such widespread fear of an impending apocalypse that the Mormon Church was compelled to issue a statement cautioning the faithful to not get caught up in speculation about a major calamity.

Sunday night’s “blood moon” and recent natural disasters and political unrest around the world have led to a rise in sales at emergency-preparedness retailers. Apocalyptic statements by a Mormon author have only heightened fears among a small number of Mormon followers about the looming end of time. The eclipse will give the moon a red tint and — because it will also be at the closest point in its earth orbit — it will appear larger than usual. This combination won’t happen again for 18 years.

The Mormons preparing to hunker down Sunday night aren’t alone. Some from other religions also fear a doomsday scenario. A Christian pastor in Texas has written a book predicting a world-shaking event.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/09/25/mormons-fear-supermoon-eclipse-portends-end-times/

Rational?

Or raving lunatics?

 

[Harold_Hill]

Left web site due to censored messages by chargergirl

 

[Messier82]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/09/25/mormons-fear-supermoon-eclipse-portends-end-times/

Rational?

Or raving lunatics?

No such hysteria here BBC News, we don't like to make a fuss

 

[fire_breeze]

What I have learned over the past few days have been very interesting. Most of you probably already knew this, but I followed blindly.

The 4 Gospels of the Bible were originally 50+ Gospels. The 4 chosen were based on politics, power, and profit. In one of the earliest Gospels written, The Book of Thomas, Jesus said that your relationship with God is personal and that there is no need for churches. Bishops and other religious authority figures found that to be threatening and called it heresy. Furthermore, the man responsible for Rome's acceptance of Christianity was a devout Pagan and all of the traditions we accept today are more of Pagan origin. Some would argue that Jesus himself would not even recognize Christianity if he were to see it today. The Halo, the entire story and symbols of Christmas, the bloodshed, Communion - it's all centered around the sun god Mithra (son of Apollo).

Constantine, the Roman Emperor, was a power hungry man who adopted Christianity solely for political unity and personal power. He went on to create his own city where his face was the face of the gods. Never did he live a life of Christ. Never did he believe the teachings of Christ. Yet he is the man responsible for the creation of the "Holy and Perfect Inspired Word of God."

And it's not to be questioned, not to be considered anything else except perfect. It's a book created by organized sin.

Sadly, the only reasonable argument for the source of Perfection is "God works in mysterious ways."

Why? Why is that acceptable?

Eh, not quite.

I'm here to dispute the historical facts; the personal ones I cannot answer, because I just do cultural-historical anthropology .

The history of the collecting of the New Testament was in the making for at least 300 years, culminating in the Council of Nicaea in 325. There were many reasons for the council, and yes, politics did have a play. On the other hand, in order to survive, the various Christian groups realised that they have to stand together and figure out what they truly believe in (hence the Nicene Creed). It was actually called to settle the issue on the relationship between God and Jesus, and in that council were many many many different leaders of many many many different Christian groups were called (again, nothing new. Early Buddhism did the same thing). And yes, it was here that the New Testament that we recognise it today was codified. However, the arguments and debates continued for centuries after.

Gospel of Thomas (and I'm assuming you do not mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) is believed to be written between 70-100 CE at the earliest, with the probably date of composition (the one that most scholars accept based on grammar and vocabulary usage) as mid 2nd C. Hardly the earliest text we have when Paul wrote in the 50s and Mark in 66-70. And what we have are in fragments. The so-called complete form of the Thomas (or any other ancient writings, to be honest) is in fact the translators putting in their best estimate by taking other found fragments, dating said documents, sifting through the common grammatical patterns and putting them together. It's a difficult science and art. Like, really really difficult, with multiple doctorates before you can even attempt difficult.
As for calling it heresy, it isn't clear whether or not it was this one, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

There are more than 50, try closer to 150, gospels, acts and other early Christian writings that we know of. However, you make it seem that this is a truly a Christian phenomenon. Actually, most written traditions have a period where scriptures were written, inspired or otherwise, that claim a source of inspiration and that just don't make the cut, for whatever reason. I'm sorry, but Christianity is pretty late in the game for that.

The connection to Mithraism is tenuous at best. Was there cross-influences? Sure. Just as you are going to create a religion now, you will be undoubtable influenced by the various traditions and philosophy that surrounds you. This is fact. Even if you systematically create something in opposition of the environment in which you grew up in, that environment still influenced you. Also, what we have as written source on Mithraism was written in the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE, way after the composition of the New Testament.

Much of what you have described is actually part of a much later tradition, or actually part of the Jewish tradition, which makes sense seeing as Jesus was Jewish and the early followers of his messages were Jewish themselves. It was a Jewish sect around one of the many messiah (there were many messiahs, by the way. It just means 'anointed one' and all kings of Israel were anointed. There were also many other messiahs who claimed powers or were held to be a special person due to their political/military/intellectual prowess; Jesus is the one with the best press release). For example, December 25 and Sol Invictus? Most scholars realise that only one place claims that Sol Invictus took place on Dec. 25 and that was in the Calendar of Philocalus. It was actually a general festival of the sun, as that was the day light was born across the Empire and not reserved for Mithraism. So yeah, the birth of the light coincides with the birth of the sun, even though Jesus was probably born in the summer.

However, what people seems to forget that both Christianity and Mithraism are mystery religions - that is, at the time, they did NOT have a public face. People knew about it, but weren't exactly sure what went on, sort of the basis of definition of mystery religion. In other words, you had to experience the mystery in order to understand it, and how would you try to explain it to someone who doesn't know? I like to use the parallels of trying to explain what love it (or a wonderful dish). You often try to describe it and they end up saying, "You have to live/eat it to fully understand it." Boom. Same thing.

Constantine was a jerk, an asshole and yes power hungry (my professional opinion ) but was a good ruler. His creating a new capital, naming it after himself and putting his likeness on the various images of gods? Standard procedure. Alexander did it. All the Ptolemies did it. All the fucking emperors did it. Really, him not doing it would have been considered to be so unusual that he would have probably been removed for insanity. As for the reasons for the calling of the council (which he did invite all bishops) is incredibly complex. But that he wanted some power? Probably. It was beneficial as he did declare religious tolerance in his empire in 323.

As for Dawkins mentioned in a previous post about Muslims, he knows as much as the study and sociology of religion as I know about evolution biology. In other words, he only knows something like 'religion' exists. His methodology and theories about religion is fundamentally, intrinsically, at its very foundation and core flawed. I can't spew enough about him. He is dogmatic (something that he accuses all religions of being) - read 'The God Delusion'; dismisses the complexities of traditions; generalises (all people who believe in a higher power are delusional or all Christians and Muslims are extremist and terrorists); claims that people who follows a religion have a mental capacity of children; conveniently ignoring the scientific contributions of people of faith; and he pretty much does what he accuses religions of doing: being radical. Not to mention he is a misogynist, racist pig, but I digress.

I'm not defending Christianity or religion, but as someone who spent years studying the various historical-cultural context of worldviews, who looks at the history relatively objectively, I had to sort of put in my inflated 0.02$, just to set the history straight . Again, your personal worldview, your personal belief system, I cannot comment on, especially your very valid final point.

I do suggest that you take Said's framework at heart and context context context, because it is with context we can make informed decisions.

There are excellent critics of religion who knows what the bloody hell they are talking about. Also, you may wish to consult Secular Humanist writings, many of them are trained philosophers, scholars of religions, and anthropologists who give a fair and balanced critique of religions.

 

[Messier82]

So yeah, the birth of the light coincides with the birth of the sun, even though Jesus was probably born in the summer.

Given the references to 'shepherds being in their fields', several sources have cited JCs birth to be in springtime as generally this is when lambing occurs, though calling Him 'the lamb of God' might have brought in the shepherd reference on its own. Either way, even many Christians accept it wasn't December 25th. Also his year of birth is out by three or four years, IIRC it is the references to Herod which confirm this (I'm guessing you'll probably know more about this than I anyway).

 

[suckonsimon]

Eh, not quite.

I'm here to dispute the historical facts; the personal ones I cannot answer, because I just do cultural-historical anthropology . ....

fire_breeze, what a breath of fresh air and clarity. Thanks muchly!

... Either way, even many Christians accept it wasn't December 25th. ...

It was a matter of public knowledge at the time when the date of 25 Dec was chosen, that this was kinda like the Queen's 'official birthday', as clearly no-one had any idea of the day of the year when Jesus was born, but it seemed like a grand idea to celebrate his birth some day. NO church as EVER promoted the idea that Jesus was actually born on 25th Dec. But we love it that we gave him a birthday anyway as it's grand to read those narratives and sing our carols and celebrate - and how is that not just fine?

... OK it was a little more devious than that: the pagan midwinter festival just would not die a death so the church decided to pinch it and make it something else - and so it continues, the glorious muddle of birth of Jesus and Yule Logs and holly and ivy and santa - and even he's pagan and Christian both!

 

[Messier82]

My beef with December the 25th centres more on the modern Retail Industry

And lets not forget those people who put their Christmas Tree up in November, FFS...