Maani, The scripture you quote could also represent what I had been trying to say to you throughout our correspondence. I finally reached the point where I felt I was conversing with myself…..Nobody wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I was only trying to point out that “scripture”, like statistics, can be made to dance to any number of tunes and cannot be the final arbiter of faith….unless you live south of the Mason-Dixon line. Things were added to the Gospels that never occured…..Lots of things were left out, as John tells us. We either try to use the little lights that God gave us or we glom onto a rigid scenario that will not allow questions to be asked…...I wanted to lay this to rest. It isn’t getting either of us anywhere.

Ed:

Thank you.  I had forgotten to say that I never consider any discussion (as opposed to debate) a matter of “scoring points” - particularly with respect to faith and the salvation of a person’s soul.  In that regard, I want to add a comment with respect to something you said earlier.

I absolutely realize that the creation of the New Testament - the decision on which books to include, and which to EXclude - was as much a “political” matter as a spiritual one, and thus may not completely and accurately represent the faith of Christianity as it might have, or should have, been.

However, I do not believe that means we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater: i.e., I believe that the NT - as “imperfect” as it may be - still represents the essence of what Christianity is “supposed to” be.  Yes, the Gospels may contain “editorial” comments - and perhaps even an added quote here and there - and the other books may not be completely accurate, and the books that were left out (particularly the other gospels, including Thomas, Phillip and Mary Magdalene) have things to teach us.  But from everything I have read and studied over well more than three decades, I am led to believe that the NT canon represents the solid and accurate “core” of Christianity.

In that regard, I would offer one final Scriptural passage:

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”  (2 Tim 4:2-4)

Peace.

Mekhong,  I don’t know, but perhaps the problem you have with “religion” is similar in a way to the one I had. ....We are told we must love God, but being the limited creatures we are….we are not told how to love someone or something we have never encountered. Forget about organized religions….these are a waste of time. ....a community of like minded people would be beneficial, but I have not been able to find one….Jesus pointed us toward a God he said was like a father to us. ....So what are the things we love about the idea of a father when we stop to think about it….compassion, forgiveness, justice, an understanding of our quirks and failings and a readiness to embrace us nevertheless?? I arrived at an understanding that said to God…. these are the things I love and aspire to….if you are the embodiment of love and justice, forgiveness and compassion then I love these things about you and I love and respect Jesus for pointing the way….. This is a spirituality that can be just between you and the things you love. It can provide a spiritual connection so that we don’t have to wander through this world like lost dogs. It isn’t my intention to intrude on your private beliefs or lack thereof. Something abou the way you presented your story prompted me to write….Onward.

Maani, ....a very interesting journey you’ve been on. I wish you all the blessings you may need for for the remainder of it.

Maani, ....a very interesting journey you’ve been on. I wish you all the blessings you may need for for the remainder of it.

Regarding David Sirota’s last paragraph ...

“Thus, the findings from Britain, a country similar to the United States, evoke our own history and potential. They remind us that such a congruent convergence of theology and political ideology is not some far-fetched fantasy—it is still possible right here at home.”

... may it be from his mouth to God’s left ear.

Regarding the last David Sirota’s last paragraph ...

“Thus, the findings from Britain, a country similar to the United States, evoke our own history and potential. They remind us that such a congruent convergence of theology and political ideology is not some far-fetched fantasy—it is still possible right here at home.”

... may it be from his mouth to God’s left ear.

Ed:

I find it interesting that you assumed that I “inherited” a tradition.  Not so.  I was raised in a secular Jewish household by a mother who is a scientist (to whom all religion is “hooey”) and a father who was a Marxist (to whom religion was the opium of the masses).  There was no God in my house.  I did not even become a “seeker” until I was 15, did not believe in “God” per se until I was 19, and did not become a Christian (i.e., get baptized) until I was 22.  So I am not a Christian who was “indoctrinated” since childhood.  Quite the opposite.

I was raised in a house in which empiricism, rationality and reason were the norm, and because of that I have a fairly extensive grasp of both “hard” sciences (particularly physics, geology and astrophyics) and “soft” ones (e.g., psychology).  Nor did I somehow “cast off” my love and respect for science (including reason and rationality) when I became a believer.

My belief came from two things.  First, a spiritual seeking that began when I was ~15.  At that time, I began taking yoga and studying Eastern philosophy with a well-known Swami (Satchidananda), as well as beginning a mostly self-directed 5-year study of comparative religion, during which I read the underlying texts of virtually every religion and belief system in the world, including (but by no means limited to) Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, the various Native American “great spirit” beliefs, and the Australian aboriginal “dreamtime” system.

It was through this study that I came to actively and “rationally” CHOOSE Judeo-Christianity, both because it “felt” most “right” to me, and because it was what the “world” seemed to be showing me, particularly vis-a-vis prophetic Scripture, to which I had taken a keen interest early on.

Although I was baptized at 22, I did not really become a “walking” Christian until almost a decade later, at which point I became more and more serious about “walking the talk.”  In 2002, I was “led” to the ministry, and was ordained in 2003 (non-denominational Protestant).

So I am neither an “indoctrinated” Christian, nor one who “needs” it as a “crutch” or out of “fear” (of death of anything else), nor one who had the type of “conversion experience” that all too often leads to a (misguided) hyper-conservative form of the faith.

Having said all that, you still seem to be conflating two very different things: the temporal life - how we are to live in the “here and now” as Christians - and the “afterlife”; i.e., what is “required” for salvation.

Re the former, you and I are very much on the same page: it is about love.  And not just love, but agape.  The kind of love Jesus talks about in Matthew 5 re not simply loving our family, friends and the needy, but also loving our enemies, doing good to them that hate us, praying for those who spitefully use and persecute us.  It is about the eleven precepts of Jesus’ ministry.  In this, I agree with you 100%.

But that is not the path to “salvation.”  Indeed, although “faith without works is dead,” we CANNOT “earn” salvation THROUGH “works,” but only by grace through faith: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”

As I noted, salvation by grace through faith is dependent upon the single “requirement” in Romans 10:9, as underscored by John 14:6 (“I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me”).

When we are children, parents set the rules.  And if we break those rules - or if we do something dangerous or self-destructive - we are punished.  Would you consider such punishment “unjust?”

God is our Father.  He has laid down a single “rule” for our salvation: honor His son, who died for us.  If we fail to follow that rule, is the punishment for not doing so “unjust?”  I think not.

Peace.

Gary:

I admit to being enormously impressed with your sophistry.  It is among the best I’ve seen.  But in the end, that’s all it is” sophistry.

You have spent this entire discussion making assumptions, “reading into,” and generally (and I believe deliberately) obfuscating in your comments and responses.  It is thus self-defeating for me to even try to get you to see just how intellectually dishonest you are, since you will simply “project” the same accusation onto me.  Oh well.

You are entitled to your beliefs and your disdains.  If they make you happy, who am I to question them.

Peace.

Manni, thank you for your comment (April 25th at 12:31 pm). While I understand your response, as it roughly reflects what others have said to me over the years, like those other observations, it doesn’t resolve (for me) the contradiction, or contradiction in my eyes anyway.

I’m not criticizing you, Manni, nor your response. I don’t know that the contradiction CAN be solved, at least on this side of whatever the hereafter turns out to be. In some people’s eyes, I’ll be prancing around in the fires of Hell, at best, and probably consigned to Dante’s frozen Ninth Circle. In others (fans of Richard Dawkins, in many cases) figure I won’t exist so won’t care.

I myself am a contradiction. I’m not an atheist—exactly. I’m not an agnostic—exactly. And I’m not religious—exactly. Yet some of my friends feel that in many ways, I’m in fact deeply religious, in a philosophical sense, in that I do believe that all the major religions have something to offer us about living life.

And I don’t know which I am (LOL!).

Maani, This is becoming something like a basketball game where the point seems to be to see who can score the most points. I’m not going to run up and down the court with everything you said in this last go round, but I’ll make a few comments and then, hopefully, put this thing to rest. We seem to be getting nowhere except as an exercise to expound on what our preconceived ideas are. I don’t mean this as an insult….please don’t take it that way, but I am not sure of what the absolute truth is concerning these issues. I am a pilgrim here and am trying to grope my way in the direction, hopefully of the truth. You, on the other hand seem certain that you have the truth all tied up with a ribbon….You will let nothing enter the chamber where you keep your illusions. I don’t mean , by using the word ‘illusion’ that none of your thinking is accurate or true. I mean that you come across as having certainty about things for which there can be none. .....You say that there was no “hierarchy” for some time after the crucifixtion. Excuse me,. but what were the Apostles doing….and if they did not claim to be the “authority” for the new dispensation, why did Paul feel it necessary to go to Jerusalem to get an okay for his ministry? Didn’t Peter decree that new adherents to the “Way” had to be circumcised and follow Jewish dietary laws? Call this what you want. I call it a hierarchy.
  You say you agree that there is no such thing as “God like infallibility.” Then perhaps you can explain the passage in the New Testament that has Jesus saying to Peter…..  Whatsover you bind on earth is bound in heaven ,and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven etc. etc.  It can’t be explained because the reasonable, logical, light that God gave you….says that this is something He most probably never said….And if He never said this, what else may have been attributed to him that He never said ? Is this possible ? Couldn’t men have added things into the testament that added strength to what they already believed? .....Now, as far as the evangelists telling us what they witnessed…. all my reading has led me to believe that the only one who MAY have traveled with Jesus is John….It’s true, however, that I don’t bother to read commentators on the bible who spring from areas like those of, for example,the Southern Baptists.
    “Salvation is not”, you say, ” about how you live here….It’s about preparing yourself for the post-temporal world life.” Maani, who taught you this stuff ? How can you prepare for a life you can’t imagine unless you try to do the best with “how you live here”? Or, to put it another way….how can you conform yourself to a world you have no experience of,
except by trying to live correctly in the world you know something about?
    And, to me, most importantly, is the question you ask….“just by whose standards” ? And “how do we know that the human concept of justice is the right one”? God is beyond our feeble attempts to constrain Him. I think we agree on that. WHAT HE IS NOT BEYOND IS A SENSE OF JUSTICE THAT IS OPPOSED TO THE JUSTICE CHRIST TOLD US TO LIVE BY. He is not a Trickster. And justice tells us that we should not condemn people to harsh punishment for not believing in things it is impossible for them to believe in….. If we don’t know whether or not our sense of justice is right or wrong… what the hell are we doing here? How are we to put into practice the teachings of Jesus if we don’t know whether we’re coming or going?.....I sense that you believe in the tradition you inherited in toto. I am not one whit better than you for being a seeker, but I stand with whoever it was who said….there lives more faith in honest doubt than in all the creeds combined. Onward.

Like I said, this one-sided dialogue is pointless and my part ends here.

Since you seem quite content to write both sides of this dialogue, you certainly don’t need my input.

You write: “Nice try.  Show me where I said or suggested that faith/religion was “solely responsible” for the items I listed,...”

Your words: “Do you mean “change” like creating more hospitals, orphanages, colleges and universities (open to all), and community centers than anyone with the possible exception of the U.S. government itself? Or do you mean “change” like abolition (mostly Southern Baptists and Northern Protestants, along with Quakers and Mennonites), the end of child labor laws (led by the faith-based community), suffrage (Northeastern Protestant women), and civil rights (led by the faith-based community)?
Or do you mean change like providing emergency and disaster services gratis, globally, without respect to gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. (Salvation Army, Red Cross)?

Now, please add up all the non-religious people and organizations you listed above as being responsible, or even partly responsible for these deeds. Ooops! None! Guess that pretty much means that you intended to imply that religion did it all eh.

==========

You write: “ I did not say “no one else” ever built a school or a hospital, that “no one else” was involved in major socio-political movements, or that “no one else” was involved in providing disaster relief.  I merely noted what faith/religion HAS done”

You did not say that the sky was pink either and I charge $2000.00 an hour - in advance, one hour minimum - to do mind reading - but please note that I make no guarantees of the results.

=======

You write: “I was noting that you are incorrect, and that the Church – NOT just adherents - was involved as well.  Of course, I could just as easily argue that since the adherents ARE “the Church,” “the Church” was responsible for the items I listed.

Once again, you have made the same claim, that the Church is solely responsible, since you just discarded the portion of my statement that mentions those who are not adherants and then immediately assume that since all that was left were adherants and “since the adherents ARE “the Church,” “the Church” was responsible for the items I listed.”

=======

And finally, just to make my point for me,

You write: “...estimate the number of people murdered in all of the holy wars…”, and then carry on about crusades and whatnot, when I said nothing at all about murders, or deaths of any sort.

My words, which you are obviously incapable of reading even when they were posted twice in nearly identical form, are:

1....since the list of horrors that this belief has spawned throughout history would make your list of good deeds pale by comparison.

2....the list of horrors your religion alone has spawned throughout history still makes your list of attempted good deeeds…”

I am however, not altogether surprised that you see death when you read horror, as religion is the nipple that those who fear death intensely tend to suckle on.

As I said before, you have no need of my input, since you cannot actually read or respond to what I write, so why don’t you just carry on and continue doing both sides of this dialogue. Or not…

Gary:

Nice try.  Show me where I said or suggested that faith/religion was “solely responsible” for the items I listed, or all the “good” done in the world, or anything else.  I merely listed things that the faith-based community – including the Churches – were responsible for and either directly led or were at the forefront of.  I did not say “no one else” ever built a school or a hospital, that “no one else” was involved in major socio-political movements, or that “no one else” was involved in providing disaster relief.  I merely noted what faith/religion HAS done – which was a direct response to your comment: “Certainly there were people with religious beliefs involved in these events and endeavors, but the only part the church/religion played, was to claim the high ground after the fact….The Church does nothing.”  This is why I stated that the Church was “actively involved.”

Your exact statement was: “I actually stated that these efforts were carried out by people - many who were suckered into believing in the escape-from-death fantasy you so love - the adherents - along with numerous others who simply wanted to do the right thing ‘without’ the promise of a heavenly reward - and the church leaders merely claimed the glory for the church after the fact.”

I was noting that you are incorrect, and that the Church – NOT just adherents - was involved as well.  Of course, I could just as easily argue that since the adherents ARE “the Church,” “the Church” was responsible for the items I listed.

You add, “And even were I to pretend that religion was solely responsible for all the things you listed, the list of horrors your religion alone has spawned throughout history still makes your list of attempted good deeds that the ‘faith-based community’ was ‘involved in’ look downright pathetic in comparison - a fart next to a nuke.”

Once again, your history fails you.  According to a great many scholars – faith-based and secular alike, including R.J. Rummel, a scholar who knows more about the history of death than anyone else – estimate the number of people murdered in all of the holy wars, Crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, etc. – in all of human history – at ~50-75 million.  Yet Lenin, Stalin and Mao – committed atheists and anti-theists – either murdered directly or through specifically atheist/anti-theist policies caused the death of - over 100 million people – in just 75 years.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

So you may want to rethink yet another canard about religion being the cause of more unnecessary death than anything else in history.  In actual FACT, atheism and specifically anti-theist policies caused more death in less than 100 years than religion has in its entire existence on earth.

Again, nice try.

Peace.

Once Upon a Time Continues….

Manni: If you are challenging the veracity of any of the statements I made re historic efforts of the faith-based community, then your history is not simply faulty, but either revisionist or downright in denial.

Well knock me over with a pen, now its the faith based community, not religion like I posted - you can look it up in the post, or just read your own quote that starts off like this: “Religion’s primary purpose…”

And suddenly you add this little addendum to your argument: ...institutions created, U.S. socio-political movements led or co-led, int’l disaster relief – the Church (and in some cases Jewish leaders as well) was actively involved.

Actively involved now, rather than solely responsible.

If you alter the original text, you almost always change the meaning of the text, much the way the numerous rewriters of biblical texts have done.

I actually stated that these efforts were carried out by people - many who were suckered into believing in the escape-from-death fantasy you so love - the adherants - along with numerous others who simply wanted to do the right thing ‘without’ the promise of a heavenly reward - and the church leaders merely claimed the glory for the church after the fact.

The rest of your response argues similarily, by first changing the original statements I wrote and then arguing against your own version. You must be a biblical scholar by trade. If not, you missed your calling.

And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of tossing strawmen about…. or was that just a standard school yard tactic designed to prevent me from accusing you of doing exactly that, by accusing me first?

Like this one: “As for your implication that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, this is the most ridiculous canard in the book.  Need I remind you that many – perhaps most – of our greatest scientists were also believers?

When what I said was: “The truly “awe"ful part of religious belief, is that once you have learned to believe in something for which absolutely no proof exists, it becomes incredibly easy to lie to yourself about almost anything, especially if it helps solidify or reinforce your original make-believe system of Skirting Death.”

The “canard” is your own, not mine.

It would be nice to meet a deeply religious person who was honest - just once. I guess that once you have actually convinced yourself that the pink dancing spaghetti unicorn really exists, you just naturally stop caring about truth VS fiction. After all, faith is everything right, so truth is un-necessary.

You’re no fun at all.

And even were I to pretend that religion was solely responsible for all the things you listed, the list of horrors your religion alone has spawned throughout history still makes your list of attempted good deeeds that the “faith-based community” was “involved in” look downright pathetic in comparison - a fart next to a nuke.

Death is the only thing that is absolutely guaranteed. To waste your life in a vain attempt to convince yourself that you can somehow avoid it, or change it into something else through stubborn faith in an ancient oft-adulterated fantasy story, is pure childishness.

I really see no purpose in continuing this one sided dialogue, but I’m sure you will want a last word.

So be it.

Ed:

First, with respect to the Gospels, we know that the first one, Mark, was written about 25 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection (i.e., ~60 A.D.), with the others following fairly closely thereafter.  And given the context, they make perfect sense exactly as they are.

Let me offer a thought experiment.  Let’s say there is a “big man on campus” at a college, and he has four very close friends through the college years.  They all do things together, sometimes it’s only three of them, sometimes only two.  But they share most things.  25 years later, the BMOC dies, and the four friends are asked to write “remembrances” of him.  What is likely to occur?  Some things will be common to all four texts, some to only three, some to only two.  Statements made by the BMOC will not always be word for word in all four (or fewer) texts, but the basic idea behind the statements will be there.  You see where I am going with this.

The Gospels present EXACTLY that.  The remembrances of four people who were “there” with the “BMOC.”  And while it is true that the “introductions” of each Gospel are different, and are aimed at a “target audience,” the overwhelming substance of the texts is exactly what we would expect from four people providing memories of someone 25 years later.

I also don’t agree (from all I have read) that “the fledgling hierarchy was already in existence by then.”  That makes no sense even historically.  Even in Paul’s time (decades later), there was little or no hierarchy: the owner of whatever house “followers” met in was the “leader” of that meeting, which usually consisted of discussion, prayer, praise, early “worship,” and, if it was available, the reading of the latest epistle or other writing from Paul, Timothy, etc.  There was no “hierarchy” until MUCH later – well over 100 years later, and perhaps even later than that.

I agree with you that there is no such thing as “God-like infallibility” of the kind claimed by the papacy - which I consider an apostate form of the faith.

Re “I care about trying to conform my life to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and in order to do that I have to use the little light that He has granted me in order to see the path I think must be followed….I absolutely do not believe that He expects me to extinguish that light and travel along without it,” I agree with that statement, and I’m not sure why you would think that I don’t.  But that statement only related to your time here in the temporal world.  You seem to be ignoring the eternal nature of your soul.  “Salvation” is not about how you LIVE HERE; it is about preparing your soul for its post-temporal-world life.  THAT is what Romans 10:9 is about.

As for whether God is “just,” let me ask you a truly controversial question: “just” by whose standards – man’s or God’s?  I think your error is in assuming that the human concept of justice is necessarily the “right” or “true” one – no matter how “right” it SEEMS to our limited human minds.  In that regard, and with due respect, I think it is arrogant to expect God to apply a HUMAN concept of justice that may fall well short of how God sees justice.  You are certainly entitled to believe that your human concept of justice is “better” or “fairer” or less “arbitrary” or less “monstrous.”  But that is a HUMAN assumption based on limitations that do not apply to God.

Peace.

Gary:

If you are challenging the veracity of any of the statements I made re historic efforts of the faith-based community, then your history is not simply faulty, but either revisionist or downright in denial.  In all cases – institutions created, U.S. socio-political movements led or co-led, int’l disaster relief – the Church (and in some cases Jewish leaders as well) was actively involved.  You scream ‘til your head turns blue, but history is against you.  And I never said or suggested that these things could not have occurred “without the guidance of the Gospels” – only that they DID.

As for your implication that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, this is the most ridiculous canard in the book.  Need I remind you that many – perhaps most – of our greatest scientists were also believers?  Copernicus, Bacon (who gave us the “scientific method”), Kepler, Galilei (who remained a devout Catholic even after he was nearly ex-communicated), Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin Planck, Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Darwin (who had “doubts in faith,” but remained a deist his entire life) – all were men of science AND faith.  And I have only provided the names of scientists: there are plenty of other “men (and women) of reason” – in philosophy, psychology and other areas – who did (and do) not see any contradiction in being both believers and people of reason.

You then say, “The entire notion that claiming to believe in something unprovable immediately bestows upon a person a superior morality, is just about the most absurd idea I can imagine.”

Talk about setting up a straw man!  When did I ever say or suggest that?  Indeed, find me the use of the word “morality” in ANY context in ANY of my posts.  You cannot.  Because I never brought it up.

As for “needing” faith or God, once again you simply broadbrush what you don’t understand.  Although I suppose some people “need” faith, people come to faith from many different angles and under many different circumstances.  It is not automatically a “need.”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your disdain for faith and religion.  But you should try to come up with some more original – and supportable – arguments.

Peace.

Mekhong Kurt:

Thanks for your thoughtful and honest comment.  I have always believed that “Christianity” is made far more complicated than it actually is, or needs to be.  There seem to be two basic elements: how we live in the “here and now,” and how we prepare our eternal souls for their “future” (salvation).

Re the former, we are called to “live by example” the eleven precepts of Jesus’ ministry, many (though not all) of which are encompassed in Matthew 5.  I have stated those precepts elsewhere.  Yes, we will all “fail” at times (since no one is perfect), but that is what repentance is for: acknowledging that we have failed in some aspect or other, and then “picking ourselves up” and making best efforts not to fail in the future.  This is pretty much the sum of the application of Chrisitanity in the temporal world.  The rest is details of dogma and doctrine that certainly have their place, but are not the primary focus.

Re the latter, as I noted, the primary focus is Romans 10:9, which comes out of Jesus’ own statements about Himself and the “kingdom of God,” including (but not limited to) John 14:6 (“I am the way…”) and Matt 7:13-14 (“Enter at the strait gate…”).

I would agree that the former (living a Christ-like life, to the degree each of us is able to do so) should - or at least could - come out of the latter: i.e., if we are sincerely humble and honest in “confessing Jesus with our lips, and believing in our hearts that God has raised Him from the dead,” then it is certainly more likely that one would “automatically” live the example of Jesus as much as possible.

Re the issue of tensions among the three Abrahamic faiths, the “theological” roots go back to Isaac and Ishmael (Judaism “v.” Islam), and then (of course) to Jesus (Judaism “v.” Christianity).  And, of course, there is the more limited (in duration) tension that arose between Christianity and Islam, mostly, nut not entirely, over Jerusalem.

That the three faiths all claim to have “the” answer is certainly not surprising, since they arose at different times among different peoples under different socio-politico-economic-etc. circumstances.

Peace.

Maani, I don’t want to turn this into a nit picking contest, but you continue to pass over the injustice of your position as though it either doesn’t exist, or is of no consequence. I am not an infallible man. Perhaps there is something in my thinking that is askew. I haven’t found it yet, but I’m willing to admit the possibility. I did not arrive at this point lightly. It was many years in the building.
  God has never asked me for anything. The Church which claims to represent Him did lay a load on me for many years, claiming that it knew what I needed to do to be “saved”. But there were other churches also clamoring to be heard with differing claims. Now, in recent times we have witnessed a group of biblical scholars called the Jesus Seminar who have taken the scriptures apart from every possible angle and come up with with they consider to be the authentic sayings and teachings of Jesus as opposed to things that are in the New Testament that are considered inauthentic. ( I think I’m
right in assuming that none of this is going to go down well with you.) The first gospels don’t appear until decades after the crucifixtion of Christ. The fledgling hierarchy was already in existence by then. Undoubtedly, things were added to the gospels that boosted their claims to authenticity. For example, that part about Peter being the Rock upon which a church would be built….that Keys of The Kingdom business always struck me as a bit twangy. The overall impression we get of Jesus is that he was very astute when it came to understanding the desires and weaknesses of the human heart. The think that he would have given the God like power of infallibility to a human being ( Peter ) and his successors is prety hard to swallow for anyone with a more than rudimentary knowledge of psychology.
  I believe there is enough in the New Testament upon which to build a faith in the message of Jesus….And the core of that message is LOVE. He tells us that we are beloved of the Father. That this love is freely given. He tells us that we are to love God with our whole being and our neighbor in the same way. As far as I can see…this is the whole gospel….... I don’t care about belief systems that have more requirements or fewer….I care about trying to conform my life to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and in order to do that I have to use the little light that He has granted me in order to see the path I think must be followed….I absolutely do not believe that He expects me to extinguish that light and travel along without it.
  You say your God is also big. Is He also just? Or is He some anthropomorphic creature setting down arbitrary rules that we must follow in order to be saved, and which automatically exclude 80% or more of the human race. This being that I have just described is not a Supreme Being in my humble estimation.. It is a monster ....even by human standards….. Thomas Aquinas is reputed to have said…. Love God and eat an ox…meaning that if you love God you will also love your neighbor and everything else is extraneous. Onward.

Dear Manni,

You have listed a great number of things which the church/religion, is, in your mind, responsible for, but which in truth were accomplished by people of all sorts of different walks of life including the non-religious.

Certainly there were people with religious beliefs involved in these events and endeavours, but the only part the church/religion played, was to claim the high ground after the fact. Standard PR. The Church does nothing. Where the church is apparently directly involved in any area of human advancement, its adherants do all the work and it claims all the glory.

You seem to think that none of these things would have occurred without the guidance of the gospels.

Since you are obviously intelligent, you are obviously self-deluded.

The truly “awe"ful part of religious belief, is that once you have learned to believe in something for which absolutely no proof exists, it becomes incredibly easy to lie to yourself about almost anything, especially if it helps solidify or reinforce your original make-believe system of Skirting Death.

The entire notion that claiming to believe in something unprovable, immediately bestows upon a person a superior morality, is just about the most absurd idea I can imagine. Your fear of death wins you no bonus points among men, regadless of your claims of piety, righteousness or superior morality.

These things are claimed by despots all the time - GWBush comes to mind immediately

I know what is right and what is wrong and avoid doing wrong and try to do what is right, whenever possible, not because I’m going to be rewarded with a nice place in heaven down the road from Jesus after I die, but because I know its the right thing to do while I’m alive.

The fact that you need, and believe everyone else needs a 2000 year old oft-re-written book of “right and wrong” rules to live by, makes me sad and rather nauseous, since the list of horrors that this belief has spawned throughout history would make your list of good deeds pale by comparison.

Nuff sed.

Maani, in a reply to Ed on April 24 at 5:38 pm, you wrote, in part, “The ONLY thing we are required to do is honor His son (believe in Jesus as His son, and that Jesus was raised from the dead).”

I’m nearly 61 and grew up on a small ranch right outside a tiny town in northeast Texas, an area well-populated (some might say “overpopulated) with an abundance of rather conservative versions of major Christian denominations, in this case, Methodist and Southern Baptists, plus one each Assembly of God, Seventh-day Adventists and Church of Christ congregations. A town and immediate environs had as many as 16 churches to serve a population of about 600.) A few miles further afield, add in a Nazerene congregation and a Catholic one. And the county seat had pretty much the rest—Episcopal (American Anglican), Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc., even Unitarian (if one considers it under the broader umbrella of the label “Christian.”) A scattering of disorganized Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses (though each had formal representation in neighboring counties).

Despite their considerable disparity, there was one point on which they all apparently agreed, at least as far as I knew: there were three requirements to be truly “Christian”: belief in Christ as the Son of God, adherence to the Ten Commandments, and then proving it by living in a Christ-devoted/Ten-Commandments obeying life.

I was raised Episcopalian (the “high church” version—the competing parish across town was the “low church” variety), a compromise between a Catholic-by-choice father and a raised borderline fundamentalist mother—a compromise. I was an altar boy and, as a teenager, my parish’s rep to the local Ecumunical Youth Council. And as a young college student, I gave genuinely serious consideration to becoming a priest.

But I ultimately decided against entering the priesthood, and this question of “what is required of a Christian?” was a chief reason; I couldn’t, and still haven’t been able to, answer it. I kept coming back to it, asking my priest repeatedly to explain how the first two parts could be reconciled (and driving him nuts in the process!). Friendly with a number of area pastors and the Catholic priest at the parish across the street from mine (a parish with whom mine famously got along extremely well), I pestered many of them as well.

*All* were unwilling or unable to point-blank say, “Yes—if all you do is accept Christ as your Savior, then Heaven will be yours.” The second bit, adherence with the Ten Commandments, drew them up short.

Yet it was, and remains, a very real and clear-cut question: either belief in and acceptance of Christ does the trick—or it doesn’t. But they would argue that the second would flow naturally from the first; I don’t think that’s (necessarily) so. And even if it does, then the third part kicks in, since it seemed like every single different congregation had its own—and unique—idea of just what proved you were doing the first two. In fact, even within a single congregation, there were oft-bitter disputes on this point.

I don’t think this was unique to my small area, as I’ve seen it across the South as well as elsewhere. However, neither do I know if it’s true of Christians *everywhere.*

I had other questions, also serious. How come everyone I knew pretty much hated Jews? (Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. weren’t even on the radar back then, though Muslims certainly are loathed pretty much universally there now, regrettably). Initially, I questioned why Christians insist on retaining the OT—well, cherry-picked parts of it—*and* hate the Jews. Christ was a Jew. So were His followers, at first. Later, I had the same question re Islam—the youngest of the Abrahamic religions, all worshipping (theoretically) the same God.

And all insisting the they—only they—have “The Answer.”

Now I’m pretty much done with religion. If you want it, fine, but I’ll pass.

FYI,,,,possibly….

http://www.alternet.org/story/155118/was_jesus_gay_probably/

Night-Gaunt:

Like the very OT Christians you abjure, you are taking Scripture out of context.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.”

Do you understand what is to be “accomplished?”  It is Jesus’ “fulfillment of the law” - which is “accomplished” via Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection.  Thus, the OT “law” “passes” upon Jesus’ resurrection.  Indeed, Matthew 5 is Jesus’ “restating” of the law via the Beatitudes, the “You have heard that it was said…But I say unto you” passages, and the “love your enemies” passage.

I would go through the passages you remove from context in order to explain each one, but it would seem to serve little purpose, since your mind is set, and nothing will convince you otherwise.  Suffice to say that, with due respect, you have a very limited grasp of Scriptural reading and interpretation, and your understanding of the passages you cite - which you are taking out of context - is also limited.

Ed:

You are absolutely correct that we, as Christians, should “lead by example” - the failure of which is the cause of most atheists’ denigration, and charges of hypocrisy.  But that does not change the underlying doctrine.  You note that there are precious few who actually “walk the talk” of Christianity, and you are correct.  That is not surprising:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

“I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one cometh unto the Father but by Me.”

My God is also “big.”  Indeed, Christianity has fewer “strictures” for acceptance than Judaism, Islam or almost any other belief system.  Indeed, as I noted, all one is “required” to do to earn salvation through Christianity is to accept Romans 10:9 honestly and humbly.  But God does expect us to follow the very minimal “rule” that He has laid down.

I, for one, do not see this as particularly cumbersome.  All He asks for your salvation is for you to honor His son.  Nothing else.  The rest is negotiable.  One could hardly seek a “bigger” God than that.  Show me any other belief system that includes any form of salvation that requires LESS of its adherents.  It does not exist.

Peace.

Maani, What is complicated about it is that Faith is not certainty. And in order to inherit an eternal punishment certainty would be required in justice. Most of the reading I have done over the course of my life tells me that Faith is a “gift”. A gift is not given to everyone. We have about 4 million people on the planet who are not tuned in to Jesus….many have probably never heard of Him. Of the 2 billion or so Christians I would hazard a guess that maybe 2 or 3 % are in reality ... Christian according to the teachings of Jesus. So no, I’m sorry, you didn’t make it clear. Some people are just not capable of believing in the “substance of things hoped for”....they are unable to believe in “the substance of things not seen”. That is our job if we are Christian to show them Jesus by the love we display for one another. If you beleive in a God that is ready to condemn them to an eternal punishment….that, in my estimation, is a real tragedy. My God is a lot bigger than that.

The problem is that even now you refuse to see that the Old Testament was never negated. Look at this—

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die”  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,...” (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.”—Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Every one of them says that you Maani needs to follow the Old Testament. Aren’t you a naughty person. So it means that the Bible says you are wrong an you have been wrong an you need to decide what you are going to follow. Ready to take on slaves? Kill bad children? Wear garments of only one type of material? Not eat shellfish or animals that don’t chew cud? Leviticus have some very serious an harsh laws. (Islamic Shari’a Law got it from there.)

Night-Gaunt:

As I have noted many times, you are referring to what are called “Old Testament Christians.”  But not ALL Christians are such.  I do not like OT Christians any more than you do.  So please stop broad-brushing the entire faith based on the misguided and incorrect words and actions of some of its adherents.

Peace.

Ed:

“He tells is what we must believe and do in order to be saved.  But he doesn’t give us all the tools we need to accomplish the task.”

Excuse me?  I thought I made it pretty clear.  The ONLY thing we are required to do is honor His son (believe in Jesus as His son, and that Jesus was raised from the dead).  What other “tools” are you talking about?

The only “tool” required is faith.  And that is the entire POINT: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

God gave us free will - the ultimate use of which is the free will to accept or reject the God who gave it to us.  Free will would cease to be free will if He provided “certainty.”  That is, if God decided to reveal Himself to every single person on earth - so that there was no questioning His existence - you would no longer have the “free will” to believe in Him or not; you would be “forced” to.  But God does not want “automatons” who believe in Him because they are “forced to.”

Faith is the only “tool” we need, and acceptance of Christ as His son who was raised from the dead is the only “ticket” we need.

What’s so complicated about that?

Peace.

I guess you didn’t like the Biblical quotes I used. Sorry but that is there an you being a cafeteria Christan can ignore it if it is too harsh for you. To me it just shows what is allowed by you so-called “peaceful religion of love.” Love with a red hot iron boot on our collective necks. Not thanx.

Gary:

“Religion’s primary purpose, aside from offering a good living at the top of the food chain to those sons and daughters of the wealthy too stupid to become good businessmen, is to prevent people from using their combined strength to cause change.”

Do you mean “change” like creating more hospitals, orphanages, colleges and universities (open to all), and community centers than anyone with the possible exception of the U.S. government itself?

Or do you mean “change” like abolition (mostly Southern Baptists and Northern Protestants, along with Quakers and Mennonites), the end of child labor laws (led by the faith-based community), suffrage (Northeastern Protestant women), and civil rights (led by the faith-based community)?

Or do you mean change like providing emergency and disaster services gratis, globally, without respect to gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. (Salvation Army, Red Cross)?

‘Nuff said.

Peace.

Maani, no problem with the various strains of Gnosticism which ran the gamut from things worth thinking about to some pretty far out brain benders….. But I differ where you say that He can determine the rules for justice and salvation once He gets the ball rolling. His justice must be perfect or he is what the gnostics would probably call a lesser spirtual being. But according to the thinking you described He is not even the equal of a human being when it comes to justice…..Imagine this….He tells is what we must believe and do in order to be saved.
BUT he doesn’t give us all the tools we need to accomplish the task. In order to inherit an eternal punishment a person would have to have invincible knowledge. To condemn a person to an ultimate punishment when they do not possess ulimate knowledge would be an act of injustice. Even human law does not go to this limit. If God has the end in mind that you describe He would have to have given us a modicum of certainly. We don’t have that and as as result we see well meaning people who are in a quandry concerning this issue…..Finally, we must admit that we have no proof that God has told us anything. What we have is the word of other men telling what God has said…. These “problems” are not simple ones to deal with….I believe the main problem historically has been with believers who claim to have “faith ” and then proceed in the world as though they had certainty….When Chistians do this….the anti abortionists….the ones who want to have anti gay laws passed…. the once who want certain books banned from libraries…. the ones who want to have the teaching of evolution banned in schools…. the list goes on…. when Chrstians do this they are actually as far from the Christian message as it is possible to get…. Wow ! What a rant. Time for a little Johnny Walker.

Pure Hollywood.

The man commonly called Jesus, was an heir to the Jewish throne, waging a guerilla campaign of hit and run sabotage against the occupying Roman Legions, with his trusty band of rebels.

He was on the top of the Roman’s 10 most wanted list, but none of the Romans had any idea what he looked like.

The man known today as Judas, was selected by Jesus to become a “snitch” and point out a “Jesus” to the Roman Military for money - something the Romans could readily understand.

Judas pointed out the man known today as Simon, the truly dedicated disciple who had actually agreed to pretend to be Jesus, so that the Romans might believe they had captured and killed the leader of the rebels.

Simon died in Jesus’s place, and after the body of Simon was removed from the crypt and witnesses were trucked in, Jesus publically “rose” from the dead, fulfilling the well played prophecy script.

Pure Hollywood.

Politics has not changed one iota in 2000 years.

Religion’s primary purpose, aside from offering a good living at the top of the food chain to those sons and daughters of the wealthy too stupid to become good businessmen, is to prevent people from using their combined strength to cause change.

Instead, the populations gather together and expend their enregies on the vacant hole commonly called God, accomplishing exactly what the rulers desire - nothing at all.

Ed:

There are many scholars who believe that the gnostics were essentially “Buddhist Christians,” since their “belief system” has as much in common with Buddhism as it does with Christianity.  As well, there are almost as many gnostic “denominations” as there are Christian ones.  LOL.  However, gnostic “philosophy” varies far more than does Christian philosophy, which is more “consistent.”

That said, as with so many things, the “truth” is probably somewhere in the middle of Christianity (as it become) and gnosticism - though I think it falls more heavilty toward the former.

Re the use of the OT in Christian theology, there is certainly good cause for this, if for no other reason than the prophets, some of whom prophecied Christ, as well as aspects of what has come to be called the “end times scenario.”  However, since Jesus came to fulfill “the law” (the OT law), it is true that quite a bit of the OT has little relevance to the moral, ethical and practical philosophies of Christianity.

During my ministerial training, my primary minister provided a five-level system that I am “led” to believe is the “correct” way to apply the Judeo-Christian ethic to all types of issues and problems.  First, what did Jesus DO with respect to that issue?  Second, if He did not do anything, what did He SAY about the issue?  If He neither did nor said anything about it, what can be “reasonably inferred” about the issue from things He DID do or say about similar issues?  (This admittedly gets a bit sticky…LOL)  Fourth, if none of these three apply, what does rest of the NT say about the issue?  And finally, if none of the above applies, what does the OT say about the issue?

This seems to me a very appropriate way for “Christians” to approach issues and problems.

You say, “If God exists,and He/She is the Author of Justice…He must save us. He has no choice. He is the dealer in a game He invented. Our torment comes from not striving for Love with every fibre of our being.”

Fine.  But because He is “the house,” HE determines the rules for justice and salvation.  And if one of the rules is that we honor His son, Jesus, then He is entitled NOT to save anyone who does not.

Indeed, according to Paul, “salvation” is a very simple two-part process: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”  (Romans 10:9)  That’s it.  of course, we are also called to live “Christ-like” lives, to the degree we, as imperfect humans, can, living the example of the eleven precepts of His ministry.  But salvation per se is in Romans 10:9

Night-Gaunt:

“Such thinking as yours as you relate above can get some people to think they will ‘help’ God end it.”

I don’t see the connection.  However, the idea of “helping God” vis-a-vis the end times is as silly as it is Scripturally and theologically incorrect:

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”  (Matt 24:36)

To think that one can “hasten” the end times is arrogant in the extreme.  After all, it is absurd for any Christian to think that anything they attempt in this regard cannot be “undone” by God; i.e., if they do something to speed it up, God can always do something to slow it back down.

Peace.

If God chooses to destroy everything “at the end,” He has every right to do so, since He created it.  And if He chooses to destroy only part of it, or only some people, or whatever, He also has THAT right, since all is His creation.  I see nothing particularly odd in this.—Maani

I simply quoted from a Bible. Verbatim if you have problems take it up with that Bible. Oh an such thinking as yours as you relate above can get some people to think they will “help” god end it. Self fulfilling prophecy. Mind rot an social destruction will happen among the more sensitive among us.

Maani, I’m home and rereading the last part of what I wrote it not well put together. What I would say is that if God exists ( I have faith that He/She does)and He/She is the Author of Justice…He must save us. He has no choice. He is the dealer in a game He invented. Our torment comes from not striving for Love with every fibre of our being. This failure has produced the history of the human race….hell enough for anyone.

Maani, Boy,( or girl as thje case may be )could we have some rip roaring debates…..Our modern conception of God is of a Being who is responsible for all of creation. In the early days of the Christian era there were many religious thinkers who questioned this. These were the so called Gnostics. These people were driven out of history by the Church once Constantine made the Church the state religion of the Roman Empire. But a common theme among the various gnostic Christians was that the God of Jesus was not the creator of the physical universe. Gnostics looked out upon a world that they considered flawed to a great degree. They concluded that an all powerful God could not have created this terrible existence that we find ourselves in. There is no evidence that they were wrong anymore than there is evidence for the creation myth in Genesis. But the Gnostic version does have the mental vigor to ask a few questions skipped over entirely by the orthodox….I’m too weak this morning to go looking for the book….but one of the leading Gnostics, I think it may have been Marcion, taught that one of the biggest mistakes made by the early Christians was to drag the Old Testament into the new dispensation…..Okay, my wife is insisting on taking me to the hospital….let me slap this together if I can….Philosophically, God , if He is the author of justice, can destory us if He takes the notion. We did not ask to be created, and since that creation is attributed to Him /her, He is responsible for our ultimate ebd. Otherwise, His/Her justice is inferior to our.  Got to go now…..later

Night-Gaunt:

You make a common error in your citing of Scripture.  If we are assuming “God,” and, further, if we are assuming the monotheistic Abrahamic God (which seems to be the instant case), then we are assuming that God made humankind “in His/Her/Its” (spiritual) image.

Thus, extrapolating backward, as it were, God must have all the same “attributes” as man - not just the “good” ones (like love and peace and compassion) but also the “bad” ones (like anger and vengeance and retribution).  And God is even more entitled to a “bad” side than we are, since He is the one who created everything that WE are screwing up.

If God chooses to destroy everything “at the end,” He has every right to do so, since He created it.  And if He chooses to destroy only part of it, or only some people, or whatever, He also has THAT right, since all is His creation.  I see nothing particularly odd in this.

No, I do not generally quote from “hellfire and brimstone” Scripture - though, contrary to what you say, quite a few Christians do (particularly the fundamentalist Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal types).  But that is because it serves little purpose to do so (at least right now…), when what needs to be preached (and PRACTICED!) is the loving, peaceful, compassionate, forgiving, humble aspects of Christianity, and life in general.

Peace.

Old is New

  Dear friends, I am not writing a new commandment, for it is an old one you have always had, right from the beginning.  This commandment – to love one another – is the same message you heard before.  Yet it is also new.  (1 John 2:7-8 NLT)

God Will Kill Everyone

  “I will sweep away everything in all your land,” says the LORD.  “I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die.  I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity,” says the LORD.  “I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship.  I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear.  For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars.  They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too.  So now I will destroy them!  And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do.  They no longer ask for the LORD’s guidance or seek my blessings.”  (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)

God’s Human Slaughter Fest

  Stand in silence in the presence of the Sovereign LORD, for the awesome day of the LORD’s judgment has come.  The LORD has prepared his people for a great slaughter and has chosen their executioners.  “On that day of judgment,” says the LORD, “I will punish the leaders and princes of Judah and all those following pagan customs.  Yes, I will punish those who participate in pagan worship ceremonies, and those who steal and kill to fill their masters’ homes with loot.  “On that day,” says the LORD, “a cry of alarm will come from the Fish Gate and echo throughout the newer Mishneh section of the city. And a great crashing sound will come from the surrounding hills.  Wail in sorrow, all you who live in the market area, for all who buy and sell there will die.  “I will search with lanterns in Jerusalem’s darkest corners to find and punish those who sit contented in their sins, indifferent to the LORD, thinking he will do nothing at all to them.  They are the very ones whose property will be plundered by the enemy, whose homes will be ransacked.  They will never have a chance to live in the new homes they have built.  They will never drink wine from the vineyards they have planted.  “That terrible day of the LORD is near.  Swiftly it comes – a day when strong men will cry bitterly.  It is a day when the LORD’s anger will be poured out.  It is a day of terrible distress and anguish, a day of ruin and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, of clouds, blackness, trumpet calls, and battle cries. Down go the walled cities and strongest battlements!  “Because you have sinned against the LORD, I will make you as helpless as a blind man searching for a path.  Your blood will be poured out into the dust, and your bodies will lie there rotting on the ground.”  Your silver and gold will be of no use to you on that day of the LORD’s anger.  For the whole land will be devoured by the fire of his jealousy.  He will make a terrifying end of all the people on earth.  (Zephaniah 1:7:18 NLT)

—————

Just a bloody taste of the kind of stuff you normally don’t hear them quoting from. Such a kind an gentle god. (Sniker, sarcasm)

David:

Thank you for your kind words.  BTW, that’s Matthew 10:28, not 10:24.  However, I believe you may be misinterpreting Jesus’ statement there.  Read in context, it is as follows:

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Note the change from “them” to “him.”  The former refers to “people”: human beings, who can kill you, but have no effect on your soul.  The latter - “him” - is Satan, who is the only one who can destroy both your body and your soul, particularly “in hell.”

So this is not a “dooming corallary”; rather, it is an admonition - specifically to the apostles, by the way, not to all “Christians” - that when they go out “like sheep in the midst of wolves,” they should not fear “man,” but only Satan.

Peace.

Ed:

You are welcome.  And thank you for your discourse as well.

You say, “Love your neighbor? How are we loving him when we travel to his land. shoot him, burn his house and kill his family?”

I could not agree more!  Indeed, that passage is worth citing in its entirety:

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”

Not just love your enemies, but do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you or persecute you.  Wow!  Christianity is, indeed, “simple, but difficult.”  How many people do you think could TRULY live by this passage?  The question is, of course, rhetorical.

Yet TRULY living by that passage would mean the end of war, violence, aggression, etc.

Simple, but difficult!

Peace.

you don’t always see a psychiatrist sometimes you only see the roiling in their
wake.

Maani. Appreciate very much your thoughtful response. Polite discourse is not often found in these forums….The Jews, who asked Christ if it was lawful ( according to their religious laws ) to pay tribute to Caesar, were trying to trap him. If he said yes , he would be bringing the wrath of Jews down upon himself because they hated the Romans…..If he said No, he would be bring the Romans down on him as a trouble maker.  They figured no matter what his reponse they had him trapped. His response in effect said…if you think Caesar has anything coming…give it to him.He never said what, if anything, that might be. He first asked the questioners to show him the coinof tribute. They did this. He then said who’s image is on the coin? They said Caesar…thus hanging ythemselves, because they showed by this that they were already in commerce with Rome.
  But the more telling episode was the one you raised about Judas. Judas betrayed Christ (according to the New Testament) because he REFUSED to take the political path. The message of Christ is anti political precisely because love rules out the desire for political power. The two values are antithetical. Love your neighbor ? How are we loving him when we travel to his land. shoot him, burn his house and kill his family ? ....Christianity is simple…difficult but simple…. you proceed in this world either by love or coercion. You can’t have it both ways without becoming schizoid. Of course, the faux christians have been trying to accomplish this since the days of Augustine.

Ed:

Christ as anarchist is an interesting thought, certainly.  However, He made it clear that He was not.  When asked about paying taxes, He famously said “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar, and to God that which is God’s.”

As well, Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus was NOT as “anarchistic” (or at least “anti-Rome,” from the political standpoint) as Judas had initially thought He would be.

If Jesus had been an anarchist - or even simply a “political animal” of any sort, He would have taken actions or made statements to that effect.  However, He spent his three-year ministry teaching about the “kingdom of God” which is NOT “of this earth.”

With respect to the “temporal” life (i.e., the “here and now”), as I noted, Jesus lived and taught that we should be living a life of love, peace, compassion, forgiveness, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.

I suppose that under many socio-politico-economic systems, these virtues can be seen as pretty radical, if not exactly anarchic.

Peace.

twas more than anyone else at the office gave you, Ed…. but sorry if my donation
was too meager.

Hetero, I tried to give a bare bones idea of why I thought he may fit into the ctaegory of - anarchist.
You gave me a bare opinion.

ED- tweren’t , he was no more than a subversive radical, not an anarchist like
Lucifer.

A few days I wrote that a good case could be made that Christ was an anarchist. I thought this would bring the wrath of the- burn ‘im at the stake - crowd down on me. But a lot of them seem to be too intent on talking about modern, mainstream faux christians as though these people really were christian….. The foundation for a discussion of Christ. or christians as anarchists is this…..whatever else it may be politics is the struggle for power over man, and the christianity of the New Testament is the antithesis of this struggle. Difficult as it may be the christian message is that we are to form community with our brothers and sisters by love not coercion. Coercion and force are not the tools of christians…..We can argue that the world, being what it is, requires a coercive force to keep the rabble in line (us). To many that will seem a valid argument. But to claim that a coercive force can also be christian is to miss the message of christianity entirely.

Urgent side issue regarding “abuse”:
  Recent events point clearly and directly to the fact that we here in the USA (if not world-wide) need to have a conference and get together to discuss the meaning of the word “abuse”—what it means, its effects, and why it is a common occurrence at many levels and in many contexts of “modern” human (and inhuman) relations. The relation if any between abuse and empathy.
  Events pointing directly the need:
  1. Guantanamo, torture,  and successive problems such as universal electronic surveillance of personal information, particularly internet. Problems of increasing child porn. Causes of child abuse.Is there such a thing as a psychology of abuse?
  2. Decay of prison management regarding increase of inhuman “punishment” techniques and tolerance of rape and sexual abuse—all as “private enterprise” which prospers from increasing the prison population
  3. Cruelties of modern weaponry and military abuses such as “cluster bombs”, nuclear weapons and drones.
  4. Tendency toward over-militarization of police.
  5. Increases in rape and suicide occurring among military forces.
  6, Increase in children being forced into labor or
military engagements.
  7. Massive efforts to decrease race and religious prejudices and decrease economic gaps to stop legalizing economic exploitation.

  All these subjects, though exceedingly difficult to “solve”, would be improved by broad circulation of factual knowledge and a sense of general agreement on ethical standards. Some discussions could come under a national ecumenical project on “The Meaning of Mercy” or “What does ‘mercy’ mean to you?”  or “Why is ‘the golden rule’ promoted everywhere in the world?”
  Governments could pitch in by cooperating through UNESCO to promote a year-long educational video contest, prizing the best ten videos on “Disabusing
Our Communities of Abusive Practices.”
  Or ... think about it.  A great deal that could be done, isn’t, and the emptiness is sucking everybody in. 
  Yeah, yeah .... but ....???

Maani—please re-read my comment to see that I was advocating NOT singling
them out and abusing them ...in my own way.

hetero:

You are absolutely correct that, despite the hyperbole, the GOP has steadily been losing the religious vote.  The difference in Bush’s support by religious voters - even white Protestants, such as evangelicals - between 2000 and 2004 dropped by a few percentage points.  And in the 2008 election, Obama not only carried Catholics, but made further inroads into the white evangelical vote.  And given that Romney is a Mormon - and mainline Protestants distrust Mormons even more than Catholics do - it is likely that many white Protestants (including evangelicals) will probably simply sit this one out.

As for Christians who give Christianity a bad name, not only are they NOT entitled to abuse, extra or otherwise, but (at least as far as other Christians are concerned) are to be shown the same love, forgiveness and compassion that any other person - believer or not - should be shown.

Peace.

M Kurt——they’re ebbing in influence nationally even as the number of
Evangelicals is swelling.

They WERE the coming thing in the days when the Republicans were rising and
Rushdoony’s ravings were hot, Pat Robertson was a force in the party and Ralph
reed was a major force and seemed headed to the top of the heap…..but the
party has been harmed by the nutters and Robertson’s a senile embarrassment,
Reed was humiliated in 2006 and nothing the devout could do worked in
preventing Romney from smashing the half-dozen Christianist twits. We’ve
reached a time where the pragmatist, sane rump of the Repubs are realizing
that they have to save the party from those who contend that placing a Mormon
in the White House endangers the nations spiritual health.

@Doubtom, you asked, Who gives a crap where the religious come down on political affiliation?”

Well, I do, and I do a lot. Why? Because they’re so influential in our national political discourse. If you aren’t already familiar with the Dominionists and New Apostolic Theology, to name but two movements/groups, you should be. They seek to establish a “Christian” theology that would be, in essence, a “Taliban Amerika.”

And they’re making progress.

From the article: “Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and ‘proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations’.”

And such is exactly what I heard from a great many deeply religious Christians in rural northeast Texas when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 60’s. (They also made parallel arguments in strong support of segregation.)

Well when the Empire of Britain started to shake it was around the outbreak of the first world war. Fervid religious sentiment grew to tremendous proportions an was backing the go-to-war sentiment among them. As a way of re-asserting than the British Empire was still strong an would survive. But after two wars so close together an too close to home that sentiment died down as did the religious fire that supported it. I wonder if it will happen here or go the Britain could have gone——-to a small faction of big money religionists an nationalists take over an turn this country into a more dictatorial empire inside an out.

gerard,

Your many fine points are noted, I was refering to the title of this particular post, when religion is cited, christianity follows but it is Judaism which has most of the media and congress in its pocket.

tic,

You are welcome to GFYS as well.

Patrick Henry:  An interesting comment.  I can’t say much on that particular subject without bringing down a good deal more heat than light.  Why is that?
Because I’ve worked with and known many Jews and Palestinians in the context of the beleaguered
“peace movement” and found all of them horrified by the Israeli and Islamic extremisms and sympathetic and helpful to the abused Palestinians. Also my friends were Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Armenian, and a few Ba’hais.  Most of them were either business people or academics. None of them were in favor of the shenanigans of the Israel Lobby and actively worked against it in educational and media contexts, over a period of ten years when I lived in a large metropolitan area. All of them were sincere, straightforward, honest, dedicated and loving people. Most had been educated here and admired American liberalism. All were religious moderates. Some had been brought by their parents when they were children. A few had miraculously escaped the Holocaust. They all respected each other and cooperated with each other.
  So the rabid comments that appear here from time to time are coming from people with very different experiences than mine, apparently.

PH—if you followed the comments, you would understand
that it was anything but condescending.

as for the rest of your comment, you’re pretty much
just fucked-up. go blow your Gibson.

tic,

g—- your opinion is always welcome

Sounds pretty condesending to me, who are you? a greeter, welcome wagon or self sanctioned editorial expediter?

Alot of emphasis has been placed on this blog as to the christians, how about the jews?, as a religion, culture or organized voting block, they constitute a larger influence on American politics than the christians could ever hope for.

hetero: ,,,” we shouldn’t treat Christians any worse than we do others unless and until they necessitate extra abuse.”  Most of that sentence (!!) seems eminently reasonable to me—(except for the inclusion of that troublesome word, “extra.” I thought all abuse is “extra” and that’s part of the meaning of the word “abuse.”???
  As justifiable punisihment has never been equated with “abuse”, can we agree that nobody—absolutely nobody—“necessatates abuse” ...extra or otherwise?
  Whatever horrors are lurking behind the shadows of that remark, we have to be very very careful about what we really mean. Otherwise many people get carried away and start cutting people up, photographing their arms and legs etc., and pissing in their faces.
  The Christian types that worry me are apparently at least partly unaware of the harm they do to others, and are used to having their semi-blindness overlooked.  But you gotta watch out, though, for those “Crusader types” who too-often either favor or are indifferent to flagrant abuses, Wars slip into torture, race prejudice and all types of atrocities commonly committed freely in and out prisons every day of every year and cavalierly tolerated by “the public” with the inane justification:  “They brought it on themselves.” It’s just a hop, skip and a jump from “extra abuse” to Calvary.

g—- your opinion is always welcome…..but I’m gonna go with the idea that we
shouldn’t treat Christians any worse than we do others unless and until they
necessitate extra abuse.

Maani: “,,, not ALL Christians can be neatly lumped into a box labelled “Intolerant, Bible-thumping, creationist, misogynist, homophobic, flat-earth ignoramuses.”  You are absolutely correct.  But there are too many—and of those too many, most of them are mixed up about politics as well.  That works as a double whammy because the government panders to them and treats us like—well, Muppets and sheeple and (increasingly) as potentially potential “terrorists”—whatever that means in the White House at any given moment, or whether the Supremes got out of bed on the right side or the left side of their beds on any given day.

My answer to Hetero, though he didn’t ask me:
Treat them all gingerly till they do quite a lot more to uphold and act on the teachings of that poor, downtrodden, reviled, abused and vilified people’s advocate, that nonviolent warrior, insistent public speaker, rabble-rouser, anti-authoritarian protester and critic, finally crucified to shut him up, and later sanctified as Jesus Christ.

Maani——as you start out characterizing “many” US Christians as misguided and
some of those as “wouldn’t know Jesus if He bit them on the ear” and end by
cautioning that non-Christians shouldn’t think badly of all Christians, perhaps you
might supply your estimates of how many Christians we should think badly of .

Part of the problem is that a great many U.S. Christians are “Old Testament” Christians, some of whom wouldn’t know Jesus if He bit them on the ear.  And that problem is caused, in part, by the leaders of the (mostly Protestant) churches who espouse an OT-Christian philosophy.  And this is one of the reasons why England has less of a problem in this regard, even in its Protestant churches: the leaders of those churches come from an “older breed” of faith leaders, who understood not simply the salvation Gospel, but the social Gospel as well.  You will find precious few (if any) intolerant-judgemental faith leaders in England, the kind who who too often take Scripture out of context to support unloving, unforgiving, and ultimately un-Christian viewpoints.

Jesus’ ministry was based on eleven precepts: love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.  Any self-proclaimed Christian who does not at least make concerted efforts to live those virtues (even though all will fail at times, since none of us is perfect) is a Christian in name only.  And, sadly, those Christians continue to give Christianity a bad name.

The only thing I would ask of the athiests and other non- or anti-theists here is not to paint with too broad a brush when speaking of “Christians.”  Make it clear WHICH Christians you are talking about since - as this article suggests - not ALL Christians can be neatly lumped into a box labelled “Intolerant, Bible-thumping, creationist, misogynist, homophobic, flat-earth ignoramuses.”

Peace.

proletariatprincess:

“Like true love, religion has no logic.  No argument can change religious belief or non belief.  It sure generates a lot of discussion, however.  And no one likes that better than we atheists…lol.”

Uh…you unwittingly give “we believers” a nice piece of ammunition: concretely and empirically prove the existence of “love.”

Peace.

Postsript for Romana:  Hint: in order to smile, it is necessary for the corners of the mouth to be turned up,not down.

Gerard, Thanks. I won’t

Romano:  That’s okay.  Don’t worry about it.

for gerard and her non-monstous regiment of women fusiliers

http://youtu.be/O9HFjErMMlA

Gerard, I have absolutely no idea of what the hell you’re talking about.

Ed Romano:  As an ancient crone, I am one who never learned to shoot a cannon, though I have often wanted to do just that—in spades!
  However, I have some increasingly enfeebled female fans who have approched me regarding the possibility of organizing a regiment of female fusiliers armed with some fantastic fusils imported from Gaul—fine oorkscrew-shaped missiles fired from a light flintlock musket, not to be confused with “fusilli, which ia a long, thick corkscrew-shaped pasta. 
  I understand (vaguely) that a guy named Gerald Fusil created the first Raid Gauloises, a “venture raid” now considered as a French sport entitled “The Gauloises Cigarette Raid World Championship (from the Latin fusies, fire etc.) Leave it to the French!
  Would you care to engage?
  P.S.—In times like these I think I’d go mad without Wikipedia!  Crack it open and it’s crammed full of ideas like this.

My life’s experience does not fit into the mainstream of America’s religious or political delusions. I am a Christian insomuch as I believe in the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ. I mostly keep this under my hat, however,for fear of being lumped in with the looney tune, nutcakes calling themselves evangelical or born again Christians.( As someone once famously asked….what’s the matter , didn’t it take the first time ?) I also don’t belong to any organized church, believing as I do that organized religions are a scourge on the earth. ...And finally, I am an anti-capitalist who believes that any so called Christian who supports capitalism intellectually is a good person to avoid….I also believe a good case can be made to support the idea that Christ was more of an anarchist than anything else…..Okay, boys and girls….load your cannons.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran for offfice as a devout born-again Christian, and a Southern Baptist as well. That was before this label was hijacked by Jerry Falwell’s so-called “Moral Majority” that not even Billy Graham wanted to touch with a ten foot pole, but that seems to have launched a campaign of political-ideological brainwashing from the pulpits and through TV-preachers throughout the U.S. What is masquerading as “Christianity” in the Christian Right/Tea Party movement is nothing but a gross caricature and falsification of Christ’s teachings. I seem to recall that Bill Moyers had a documentary on this theme in the late eighties, on PBS.

The headline was merely a typographical error of sorts…

The last few words were inadvertantly dropped from the sentence, which should have read:

“Christians ‘More Likely to Be Leftwing’ And Have Liberal Views on Immigration and Equality, than Adolf Hitler, Ghengis Khan, George Walker Bush or Richard “Dick” Cheney.”

There, now the headline makes some sense.

—The link between good universal public education and moderate religious belief
is probably essential. It is probably also true that as adequate public education has
decreased (for various reasons), religiohs fanaticism has increased in direct
proportion.—-

sounds good as good public education is highly, highly desirable….

but the decline of public education isn’t quite as pronounced as the propagandists
would have us believe.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html

Like true love, religion has no logic.  No argument can change religious belief or non belief. 
It sure generates a lot of discussion, however.  And no one likes that better than we atheists…lol.
I adhere to the words of the great religious philosopher, George Carlin, who said:
Religion is in your heart and god is in the bushes.

The link between good universal public education and moderate religious belief is probably essential. It is probably also true that as adequate public education has decreased (for various reasons), religiohs fanaticism has increased in direct proportion.
  If people do not have enough education to realize the basic validity of sciences, social, political and biological, they do not have the “tools” to work with to help them decide what to do in a crunch situation or how to react when troubled and confused.
When fear is added into negative equations like those, they look for help in leadership and turn to ancient orthodoxies for relief. Superstition and prejudice answers fear willingly enough, and reaction becomes both the mode of defense and the method of endurance.
  Support and improve public education if we want to moderate religious fanaticism.  Neglect public education at everybody’s peril—including the powerful forces of business exploitation and organized violence.

—-There’s
not suppose to be any mixing of religion and politics.—-

sez who?  that sure ain’t what the First Am says.

Who gives a crap where the religious come down on political affiliation?  There’s
not suppose to be any mixing of religion and politics.  Many religious wackos and
their churches should be losing their tax exempt status because of their direct
involvement with politics.  The authorities are too chicken to take on the religious
crowd, that’s almost as taboo as criticizing Israel’s policies.

what you have to do is to convince them that there’s nothing worth fighting for….
and that’s after you convince them that war is actually killing democracy in the
US.————

I don’t suppose it’s possible to convince you that war is merely bad for democracy
in the US rather than fatal and that there might raelly be things worth fighting
for….but that task might be easier than the one you set….

I may not agree with you, but wish you well in the endeavor.

Now that we’ve pretty much put that question to rest, what do we do about all those Christians, semi-Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims and Christian Scientists, Buddhists, Self-Realization Fellowship people and the Humanists (all of whom agree that war is killing the Democratic Republic of the United States of America,)—what do we do to get them to do something to stop it, and absolutely refuse to start another one?

Zing, that was quite a heartening explanation of your earlier comment and I thank
you for it.

No, Vidor, Texas certainly does not represent
America.

But Christian fundamentalism in America certainly
represents bigotry. 

I applaud you, heterochromatic, for your post and for
your song.  But it’s not me you need to be talking
to. It’s your fellow Christians who have allowed
themselves to be manipulated into supporting bigotry
and racism. 

Moderate Christians have allowed fundamentalist
Christians to take over the voice of Christianity. 
Moderate Christians need to speak out and take back
the voice of Christ from the nutcases who bastardize
Christianity in an amoral quest for wealth and
political power. They rule the airways with their
superstition and malevolence. They prey on ignorant and
vulnerable adults. They abuse children into believing
ancient fairy tales and books of ancient laws are
literal stories of truth and science. It is
despicable. 

I have known and continue to know many wonderful
Christian families in the south and elsewhere. Some
of the people I love the most in the world are
Christian. 

I would urge them all to speak out against the
bigots, charlatans and sociopaths posing as
Christians, who seek only to spread hatred and
hasten the destruction humanity, all because
of a sick belief that this will result in the
second coming of Christ. 

All the best.

Zing

JoeT. I agree completely.The human data stream is severely corrupted by lies, legends, and for profit disinformation.

The Christian church of England and for that matter the Christian abolitionists are/were quite different than the “free-wheeling Christians” of the right, where crackpots like Nugent, Palen and Bachmann slither about the United States. They are unreasonable, they are disgusting and they are, I think, losing power. We American atheists, humanists and agnostics need help from the more reasonable Christians, Jews and Muslims to root their squawk-box voices from our social discourse. I think with the Occupy movement we are pushing back. It will take time, but we are moving forward.

Strawman appologies for my disjointed response to your post.

Neoconned for some reason the first words of my post were chopped they were as an Atheist

theist using the Dawkins definition is some one who has examined the evidence for gods existance, and found it rubbish. Having done so dismisses, the topic from his or her mind, as he journeys through life. Being devout about anything means its on your mind, do you understand the difference? If I’m asked about or challenged on my Atheism I respond as necessary.

Zing——I guess that you figger that Vidor, Texas
represents all of America.

I was pretty young at the time, but if I’m
remembering all correct and such, the Abolitionist
movement sprang from Christian churches and religious
folk.

we all liked to sing along with this little ditty
during the war….

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across
the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and
me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men
free;
While God is marching on.”

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/h/bhymnotr.htm

Aaron Ortiz,

How true:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

Devout atheists like me consistently outscore bible thumpers on their knowledge and understanding of religion.

I like the spirit of this article but I think it
overlooks an important part of what drives many
Christians in America:  racism. 

The article overlooks slavery and The Civil War.  It
overlooks how the south became wedded to devout
Christianity while at the same time many of its
residents regarded other members of their own species
as animals, animals to be beaten, sold and tortured
when necessary.

Don’t believe me?  Then go, Mr. Sirota, with a black
woman and book a motel for three nights in Vidor,
Texas. See how that works out for you.  What would be
even worse would be for a black man to book a motel
with a white woman for three nights in Vidor. 

Now drive down Interstate 10 through Vidor and count
the churches on the left and right. They are
everywhere. 

Many Christians in the south are driven by a single
issue that they cannot speak publicly about, and it
is their own racism.  From there, all the other crap
the religious fundamentalists espouse looks good. 
Jesus was a banker.  Jesus hated the poor. Jesus was
anti-immigrant.  Jesus was pro-Israel.  Jesus was big
on law and order. All nonsense, but it doesn’t matter. 

They’re racist and they will support any other
nonsense as long their racism is supported with a
wink and a nod. 

Ken Burns asked the right question:  Are we still
fighting The Civil War?

Indeed we are.  Indeed war.  Praise the Lord and pass
the hatred. Praise the Lord and pass the fear.

Dig peace. Don’t bury it.

Zing

I found this article intriguing and worth examinig further. Once again it goes historical when promoting the left. The English of the article are mainly Anglicans and first generation Muslims, who have a much larger presence in the halls of power in Britain. Trying to relate it to the deeply right wing evangelical and catholic groups of the present era in the States is a stretch.

“Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.”

Agree 100%

there are enormous differences between a belief in a deity, belief in the bible, and a
belief in any sacerdotal class.
perhaps new generations are seeing this fact. i think that finally they have espied the
fact that islamic, christian, and judaic sacerdotal classes are selfserving and almost
always side with personal supremacists and personal supremacism and ferociously
reject any equality building.
i believe that priests know that at a point of time our ancestors did not have
organized religion [a mafioso org, really] but did have an idyllically egalitarian
structure of society.
and we have survived mostly because our ancestors lived a life one-for-all,
all-for-one. 
so, once we return to that kind of a structure, organized religions wld probably
entirely evanesce.