Joan of Bark

Sorry, Chili, but as is the case with many of your posts, your arguments are going over my head.

What is triple S, just out of curiosity?

bacht

Uh huh, and how about those who profess to be Buddhists, or Muslims, or liberal democrats, or progressives, or communists... this is high school stuff, calling someone you don't like a hypocrite.

You might want to consider the phenomenon of bureaucratic institutionalism as more of an issue here. Negativity and repression come from US, from human nature, the institutions just facilitate our goals. If you want some kind of egalitatarian utopia then start your own hunter-gatherer clan, that's about the only place you'll find it.

Bashing the Western tradition is so passe. This is political correctness at its most mindless imo. Name one culture that has spent more time and effort analyzing and deconstructing itself as much as the West has.

Chili

Sorry Joan there is nothing personal in this post and I am not here to assualt anyone especially not you since you have always questioned "Christianity" for its righeousness claimed, to say that you are on my side in your own kind of way.

I will elaborate and say again that Catholics profess to be sinners as Catholic just as Joseph was, the upright Jew, to stand convicted later on under the burden and by the evidence of the very cross that he carried, and as such was he to stand convicted by his own people who shouted "we have our own Law and by that he must be crucified to die" . . . and they shouted this to Pilate who represents his own faculty of reason and nothing more than that, but that sentiment resounding in the empty vaults above where even his own wisdom had forsaken him after he left Gethsemane to create the echo that reverberated in the hollows of his mind, wherefore then Herod had befriended Pilate so that peace of mind could be restored after he had died.

It is just high drama folks and that is all it is.

And so my point was that Catholics as sheep are not even part of this event but are just the bleeding hearts that Veronica and Simon represent while the 'prots' [in the strict form of definition] are the Romans as born-again insiders who drive the whip to make crucifixion come about for they uphold the Law as saved sinner and pharisee to the very bitter end.

To recapitulate: Rome has 3 conceptual Churches of which only one is active and that is the church Militant where Catholics are sinners and not 'spiritally aroused' or born again so it is fair to say that their eyes are shut as sheep and to remain sheep and as part of the flock with the obedient shepherd assigned to lead them hither and tither and feed them snippets of truth on Sunday to plant the seeds of awakening as I wrote on here before.

It is during this time that they go to church where they park their evils on the abutment and flying butresses of the Church that so is for sinners only (no social club) still subject to the law that makes known the [artificial] difference between right and wrong with the hope that they be identified as lost sinners by the good shepherd from above and be received by Him as a lost sheep in Lorca's "thornbush thicket" in its complicated web it had created in its own world here below and so to Him a beautiful 'upright' rose indeed.

This then is where the world ends for him/her and so the involutionary period of life comes to an end and along with it goes the Church Militant to now venture into the Church Suffering and that is where the Gosples begin for him or her. To wit, at this time in life the disticntion between him and her are blurred in that both now are called 'son of man' in the androgyne form wherein they were first created by God himself in whom they henceforh seek to find their own origination and thus their own lineage back to God to come full circle in their own mind and so know who they really are as it is shown in Luke.

This is called Purgation in a Galilee of their own and is to last no more than 42 months (1000 days) as shown in Rev.13:1-10 and there about and it really is all over but here it is most profound so that the Church Triumphant may be next and so purgation has done its thing and so is also left behind with Ascension instead of a return to Galilee as it shown in Matthew and Mark who are there only for us to see the difference between right and wrong after we have left the Church behind.

This then is 'where' I say that [born-again] Christians are mentally at in one form or another and from where they judge the Catholic Church Millitant who are not even part of their league still in the 'old involuntary period of life' and remain not subject to their judgement (tho wicked they may be), because they have their own law to stand convicted by. They [those born -againers of Galilee] so become the Romans of way-back-then to crucify the poor suffering Catholic and doing him the greatest favor that could ever be done to him while the Church Triumpant above is really entertained by the folly that goes on down below.

Perhaps I romaticise this a bit but the fact remains that according to this paradign the Church Militant is not Christian by proper defintion of their triptych religion with even 3 altars to foreshadow that (I think the Jews had that too but I just forgot their name with Hebron being one of them), and contrary to this is the Church Triumphant is no longer Catholic with religion left behind in the same way that Jesus was a Jew until Christ was born to him now with a 'dual nature' in the Gospels [only] wherein he was both Christian and Jew until his Jewishness was crucified as the very cross he carried and whereopon he died to be a Christian in the end and so no longer was a Jew to arrive in the same heaven that we share with them as Catholic in our very personal own past.

Chili

He fails to understand that heaven is mythology/religion specific and so the hipocrite will be.

bacht

• And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"

This is the punchline for the passage cited in the op. It's a simplistic teaching which assumes that most wealthy people are corrupt and most poor people are innocent. It's almost Marxist in its reduction of human nature to economic class.

It's also dishonest, because in the early church people like Paul were supported by more affluent believers. I believe some of the gnostics also recognized two classes of membership, the enlightened elite and their sponsors. The mission story in the gospels echos the same pattern, apostles living off the charity of ordinary people. The Cynics were early practitioners of this sort of alms for wandering philosophers.

A hypocrite in modern terms would be someone who teaches poverty while enjoying the benefits of unequal distribution of wealth (eg. some tv evangelists, maybe some of the Vatican staff).

Joan of Bark

Buddhists, Muslims, and communists don't constitute 70% of the western population. I don't know what percentage liberal democrats and progressives (whatever they are) make up, but I don't believe it's anywhere close to that of Christians.

And who says I don't like Christians? (Some of my best friends ... etc). I don't like Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or any philosophy that is based on the idea that a belief system must be absolutely correct because it comes from an omni-benevolent being). It's hypocrisy I don't like, and while we all practice it to some degree, with Christians it strikes at the heart of what they claim is the most important aspect of their lives; namely, their relationship with Jesus.

To go into more detail on this issue, what annoys me is the moral superiority implied by almost all Christians (and no, I'm not exaggerating with that statement). The nose-in-the-air, chest-thumping I'm a Christian attitude that accompanies those who want to believe that God is on their side. They want our admiration merely because of what they claim to be, not because of anything they actually do. My experience is that Christians don't just ignore the core teachings of Jesus (whether he be mythological or real, for this argument it doesn't matter), they don't even attempt to follow them. Christians want to be loved and admired merely for having the title of Christian, without ever having to do a damn thing to prove it. They don't want to make any sacrifices (such as giving up their wealth), they don't want to change their basic natures (such as embracing pacifism), they don't want to remove the log from their own eyes in order to see the mote in their neighbor's eyes. They want whatever lifestyle they choose to be seen as pious and sanctified by God. Well, actions speak louder than words, and the Amish might be the only people who actually act like followers of Jesus.

I'm a realist. I just want people to be honest about what they really believe.

I don't know, since world anthropology isn't my field. But I'm all in favour of analyzing and deconstructing our society. That's how we improve.

And there's more to western tradition than Christianity, and it's influence, from my reading of history, has been far more con than pro.

Joan of Bark

Are you saying here that Jesus was simplistic? And couldn't it be that many in the early church were also hypocrites? (Although living off ordinary people wouldn't be a problem, as long as they weren't getting rich doing it).

I still argue that to claim to be a follower of Jesus whilst acquiring wealth is hypocritical. This includes, for instance, the leader of a certain Irish rock band who is always asking taxpayers to forgive third-world debts while doing all he can to increase his personal wealth and avoid taxes.

And why wouldn't Christians want to give away their disposable income to help others? Aren't they saying that a new car is more important to them than helping someone who doesn't get three square meals a day?

Chili

I realize that my comment may not have been for you directly but to your reply would I say that knowledge is by far the greatest richess to 'onload' since that is what makes 'us' the person that we are and since our personhood (persona) is the usurper to be supplanted it is a liability and a liability only to be nihilated so it can be raised, but difficult to walk away from it since this cannot be a rational attempt.

For example, if one would give all its worly possessions away it would mean nothing with regard to gaining heaven in if you ever do it would soon become known that that was the wrong thing to do because instead of your money God just wanted you but wanted all of you (impersonal), and that would frost your balls in a hurry and no longer much good there.

This then is why it is not easier for monks and priests or even hermits nor the Jesuits in a cloister who have nothing at all and must go hungry for three days before they can ring the bells of the chapel on a time other than normal. It is the same for all, rich and poor, and since the balance of power lies between the left and right brain wherein the left brain must be vacated it is our education as untied knowledge that counts for most.

Chili

Please not that "untied knowledge" are not retained within the soul and therefore are a liability while tied down knowledge is an asset to the soul to be raised with the apostles at the last supper convention later to become the mansion (good works) of the saint as is shown in Rev.14:13.

bacht

First, this forum isn't the place for critiques of contemporary religion.

I think you're making a lot of generalizations about "Christians" in the West. We've been officially secular for several generations. Then there's the question of which Christians you want to criticize, Catholics or Anglicans or evangelicals or whatever. You also seem intent on ignoring any positive aspects of mainline religion.

Hypocrisy is universal. No religion invented it or monopolizes it. Claims of supremacy or exclusivism are only claims, not laws. Controversies about who is a true believer and who isn't probably occur in any social group. The New Testament itself contains such arguments.

There is no compulsory church membership in modern Western countries. Joining or leaving any church one names is completely voluntary. There is also no compulsory atheism or agnosticism [I realize that children can be born into various faith traditions, that falls under the subject of minor's rights]

Free speech in a pluralistic society means we have to listen to things we don't agree with. But our behaviour is not controlled by any religious institution. Christians have the right to run for pubic office, but they must work together with people from other backgrounds.