GakuseiDon

Transient, I agree completely. In fact, Toto and I exchanged some PMs on this earlier. I don't think Pete's theory pans out, but he isn't some hit-and-run poster like Archarya S fan Dave31. Pete sticks around and argues his case; annoyingly so, sometimes. But he has collected a lot of good information on his website, esp on early primary sources. I genuinely recommend those interested in early writings to check out his website. He raises good points on this board about how we date early artifacts and how arbitrary it can be. There's no harm in people like Pete and Earl questioning the current consensus!

Yeah, that too. Once you've seen the real Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, not much point hanging around Emerald City. The voices of the munchkins start to grate after a while.

Transient

Transient

So we have Eusebius doing very little but collating and massaging things to produce a cohesive NT and trying to keep a few of the closer factions happy with the result.
As I have said, if he was doing much more than mild tinkering then he would have made the NT look much better than it does.
So now we have 300 years or so to see the NT develop with the books and letters looking much they do now.

mountainman

Thanks for the questions Song of Erra.
I have attempted my best answers but if they are wanting
of further elaboration, please let me know .....


Well obviously, I think that last opinion is debatable.



I am not sure that there is an end of the road for ancient history.
Certainly historical paradigms will continue to rise and fall.
The available evidence is being added to on a regular basis.
Technological innovations are providing greater analytical tools.
Academic communications are more open and accessible than ever before.

If we are dealing with a purposefully broken record then sooner
or later ancient historians will have techniques to confirm this,
and to recover edges and fragments and start a reconstruction.
We should not underestimate the modern discipline of the ancient historians.




Dont you think sixteen centuries is long enough? I do.




The idea or hypothesis or theory that Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the
Christian literature and history is often perceived as a conspiracy theory, although
I myself have never called it that. The best term I have come up with to date is
revisionist history. See below for more on "Conspiracy".

We have received through a tradition of over 1600 years an "Official Story".
However the "official story" is the "Story of the Imperial Official Orthodox Heresiologists".
Those who established orthodoxy by dividing and conquering the heretical schismatics
Heresiology was the mouthpiece of the 4th and subsequent centuries of the "Othodox Christians".
And we are in theory its benefactors.



But paradigms are not permanent. As research continues and new evidence
is added to the collection, the paradigm itself must adjust or ultimately fail.



Well, hang on a minute, it has to.

If we are entertaining an objective assessment of the theory, then it is
immediately apparent that the following segments of evidence need to be addressed:

(1) The evidence prior to 312 CE, previously assumed to support the existence of the "Official Story".
(2) The evidence immediately after 324/325 CE, when the "Christian literature was widely published".
(3) The evidence of the social, religious, political and philosophical controversies which resulted.
(4) The evidence of a final phase of "Conspiracy", when the supreme orthodox church covered its tracks.

The entire series above lasts over a century, and obviously many generations after Nicaea.
There is a great deal of evidence to unify.




If the theory is to stand up then it MUST not only encompass and explain
all the known evidence. There are two types of revisionist history, one
is seen as legitimate and one is not. If I am to present my case and ideas€
as a legitimate work of revisionist history, then I want to make sure that I do
cover all the evidence that is known. I dont see a problem with this.




Hang on a sec. I have attempted to produce positive items of evidence.


But this is to be expected for any form of revisionist history.
And believe me, I have attempted to refute myself with the evidence.
I have examined all the citations made in the recent popular and
academic literature on "pre-4th century Christian evidence", and
there is really not a great deal of it, and when it is examined
with just a bit of skepticism it is IMO quite tenditious.



Well I had considered that Constantine could have found the new testament
in the burning wreckage of a UFO associated with a metor impact c.312 CE.
Such an explanation I ruled out as unlikely.



I am glad you mentioned this specific issue.
I have taken the time to read Gibbon, Grant and Momigliano.
Yet when I present what I consider to be a pearl of wisdom
from one of these ancient historians, it often is not understood.
Take this for example, quite relevant to things here:
The opening 4 sentences from Momigliano's Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious (2).
The victory was a miracle — though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine.
The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum (3).

Momigliano a little further again mentions this "miracle".

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.

What does the ancient historian mean when he uses the term "miracle"?
I agree with you - a "miracle" is the least likely of all historical options.
IMO Momigliano was being ironic, and like Gibbon perhaps sneering at the "church".
One should immediately see how central Momogliano makes Constantine to all this.
It's simply miraculous!



So do theories of revisionist history.


This is the way I look at it, again, as expressed by Momigliano.
I could subtitle the following as The reliability of historians - and what is not history

But I have good reason to distrust any historian
who has nothing new to say or who produces novelties,
either in facts or in interpretations, which I discover to be unreliable.

"Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths.
No doubt they must turn their research into some sort
of story before being called historians.
But their stories must be true stories. [...]
History is no epic,
history is no novel,
history is no propaganda
because in these literary genres
control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory"


~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260

For a start, I have never referred to it as a "Conspiracy Theory".
This label has been attached by my detractors at every opportunity.
Certainly, I think there was a conpsiracy to cover over the historical truth
of exactly what happened during the rule of Constantine, when the state religion was started.
But I dont see the fabrication of a new religion by the legal "Pontifex Maximus" as a conspiracy.
Certainly fraudulent, and a massive reversal of tradition, but a conspiracy?
The Emperor Nero called forward the Olympic Games and competing in all events, won all the laurels.
Did the Emperor Nero require a conspiracy to act in this manner?
Nero was obviously off the planet, and my argument is that Constantine followed him off-planet.
The resultant "State Christian Church" which outlasted Constantine, covered over the facts.
My argument thus is that the conspiracy was the obscuring of the facts that it was "made from nothing".


The defining of the theory as a "Conspiracy Theory" so stacks the cards.
But I am not so sure that it can be simply classified as such - it is more complex.
Perhaps the best way to explain this is by an analogy.
Instead of dealing in "religions" the analogy is "gaming".
To be specific - cards - and the game of poker - say Texas Holdem.

Someone coined the phrase "God does not play dice".
I would like to coin the phrase "God does not play poker".



A Very Tame History of the Christian Poker Association (CPA)

A Trinity of Historical Phases in Three Segments

Segment One - The Transcendental Logos Phase

Chistianity is like a legendary poker game using an unknown deck of ancient playing cards. Once upon a time a game of poker was played in the 1st century. The Good God who was the Chrestos God Christos was really a Hebrew King of the World won a Big Win The Christian God won with Four Aces and the King of the Acts of the Ace Holders . The Big Win saved all Poker Players' souls forever. The Big Win was preserved as the Legend of the Four Gospels and the King of Acts. The Early Christian Poker Association (CPA) accreted about the gravitas of the Legend of the Four Aces Many centuries passed - the Good News went underground on loney and untrodden paths

Segment Two - The Constantinian Imperial Support Phase

Constantine who was on route to Rome was handed a CPA pamphlet in the streets of Trier. Constantine took time out to learn all about the Big Win of the King of the World Constantine became a Believer in the Big Win and actively supported the CPA Eusebius researches the lonely and untrodden path of the Christian Poker Association Constantine decrees that CPA Members shall not be persecuted any more. Constantine placed the Four Aces on public display Constantine ratified the correct results with the CPA The ratification was unanimous but three: Arius and two others were expelled from the CPA A creed was drawn up and signed by the 318 Attendees all of whom were CPA Members Constantine lavishly published the Four Aces Big Win via new technology - the codex Constantine legislates "All gaming privileges are reserved for CPA Members" Constantine constructs many extravagant CPA Casinos in the major cities and provinces.

Segment Three - The Aftermath Phase

The Four Aces Big Win is Canonised by later CPA councils despite the Arian Controversy The rest is history: The Four Aces Big Win is employed as "Western Religious Dogma".




The Official CPA 1st Century "Big Win"

The ACE of Matt, the ACE of Mark, the ACE of John and the ACE of Luke, with the KING of the Acts of the Aceholders.

That's been the "Official Story" of the "History of the CPA" for a long time.
Until that is, the playing cards of the "Gnostic Poker Systems Inc."
started turning up in archaeological discoveries.

Introducing the "Gnostic Pker Systems Inc" (GPS)

We know that Constantine shut down the Gnostic Poker Systems Inc. who were operating from their own casinos. There were a great collection of sub-groups within the Gnostics, including the Platonists, Pythagoreans, Stoics, even Manichaeans and Buddhists. In the analogy, Constantine obviously wanted to take complete and supreme control of the Poker Business. To this end, he ised the army to thoroughly destroy the GPS Casinos (ie: the temples) and in some cases has rhe casino operators (ie: gnostioc priests) executed. He conducted a purposeful and thorough purge of gaming. The only Poker Business in all cities was only to the the official and registered CPA (Christian Poker Association).

But how legitimate was it?

But in this analogy, it is a fact that the GPS started to also fabricate their own playing cards.
The manuscript evidence has exploded in the last few decades - NHC and gJudas etc, etc

The Playing Cards fabricated by the GPS

The At Least Twenty "Hidden Aces" {{{ Gospels }}}

An Arabic Infancy Ace, The Ace of Bartholomew, The Ace of Gamaliel, The Infancy Ace of James, The Ace of Judas, The Ace of Mary [Magdalene] The Ace of Nicodemus, The Ace of Peter, The Ace of Philip, The Ace of Pseudo-Matthew, The Ace of the Ebionites, The Ace of the Egyptians, The Ace of the Hebrews, The Ace of the Lord [by Marcion], The Ace of the Nativity of Mary, The Ace of the Nazoreans, The Ace of the Twelve Apostles, The Ace of Thomas, The Ace of Thomas - A 5th Century Compilation, The Infancy Ace of Thomas [Greek Text A].

The At Least Thirty "Hidden Kings" {{{ Acts }}}

The King of Peter, The King of Andrew, The King of Andrew and John , The King of Andrew and Matthew , The King of Barnabas, The King of Bartholomew, The King of John the Theologian, The King of Luke, The King of Mark, The King of Matthew, The King of Paul and Thecla, The King of Peter and Andrew, The King of Peter and Paul, The King of Philip, The King of Pilate, The King of Polyeuctes, The King of Simon and Jude, The King of Thaddaeus, The King of the Martrys, The King of Timothy, The King of Titus, The King of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca, The Death of Pilate, The History of John, The History of Joseph the Carpenter, The King of Andrew, The King of John, The King of Paul, The King of Peter, The King of Thomas, The King of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.

SUMMARY

We have had experts standing up for 1600 years telling us all about the official story of the
Christian Poker Association, and the Big Win of the 1st century, magnified by Constantine.

What we have not yet had happen is get some experts on the official story of the Gnostic Poker Systems Inc.
which was suppressed and serached out and destroyed and prohibited and illegalised and buried by the
orthodox heresiologists.

We have not had this happen because the hidden story of what happened between the Gnostic and the Christian
Poker Players during Constantine's rule and throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, has been purposefully
obscured and "harmonised" by the eventual orthodox Christian Poker Association.

I apologise if this analogy is as yet incomplete.
I just thought I'd mention it in order to discuss religious issues less formally.


Yes of course, evidence is everything. But I am hopeful that the evidence
either does exist or will exist by which the theory can be either vindicated
or refuted, as Popper would require. I have elsewhere made a list of items
that could be presented as evidence, which obviously must commence from the
Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The key figures are:

(1) Arius of Alexandria (who was not a christian).
(2) Pachomius (editor of the NHC, and no a christian)
(3) The invectives of Emperor Julian against the Christians.
(4) The Arian Controversy - was about the impementation of Christianity.
(5) The Origenist Constroversy - about the forgery of additional books of Origen.
(6) The Nestorian Controversy - about Cyril trying to stop Nestorius's reporting.

Understandably, I have to address the actions of the 4th and 5th century.
The problem is, everyone want to return back down Eusebius's "Yellow Brick Road" to the 1st century,
and wonders why anything important at all happened in the 4th and 5th centuries.




Well thanks for your questions and sorry for the lengthy response.
At the end of the day, IMO our "Official Story" has been authored by the victorious heresiologists.
I dont trust them as far as I could kick them.
These heresiologists have perverted our understanding of history.
Specifically the reception of the state Christian religion by the Greeks.
I think the Greeks savagely satired the new testament canon by authoring the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
and that these were, in the first instance, performed in the theatres of Alexandria,
as described by Eusebius .....

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius.]

mountainman

Hey GD, we are discussing traffic problems in a two way street. I dont think the mainstream "Story of the Canon Books" is a one way street - although it has been forever, and still is to some degrees, presented as such. I think it does have a history, but not the one that we received from the heresiologists who, after all is said and done, have defined "Christian orthodoxy" by authoritative and intolerant, and sometimes despotic, non acceptance of billions of heresies. (ie: annoying opinions ).

avi

You may be correct, and I may be wrong, but, in my opinion, Eusebius would have had much more to accomplish, than simply authoring a phony Ecclesiastical Historia.

He would have had many other documents to alter, than simply the gospels, etc. He would have also been obliged to change, or create Lactantius' description of the persecution of Christians under Diocletian. Such a forgery operation must have failed, because we still have extant copies of Lactantius, dating from the sixth century, which describe those persecutions of Christians, while Constantine's father was still alive, in 302 CE, i.e. evidence that Christianity preceded Eusebius.

avi

Transient

Got to remember tho that Constantine and Eusebius etc were not writing for the generations that were coming in hundreds and thousands of years time - they couldn't give a stuff about future generations.
So they were not creating some great new religion that would stand in thousands of years time. They were solving current problems.
When I look at the NT I do not see a very cohesive set of letters and books. At first glance it seems full of holes and does not appear at all as tho it was forged - or else they did an incredibly lousy job of it which I do not believe they would have - if they had wanted to they could have created a cohesive and much more compelling volume of stuff.
Sometimes it's best to forget evidence when it is lacking and to make value judgements when they are fairly obvious.

mountainman

But in addition to Eusebius, Lactantius is also well known to have been on Constantine's gratuitous payroll, responsible for the education of Constantine's children in Trier.

Song of Erra

I always enjoy reading your posts, Pete. They are seldom without merit.

I knew “conspiracy theory” would be problematic, but against my better judgement I made no attempt to clarify. Coming from me, let me tell you, it's not a term that I use carelessly, and I never mean it as a pejorative. I don't know what others generally mean when they say “conspiracy theory” (I'm out of touch, I guess), but for me it's not a bad thing. I'm a great fan of them, in fact. Watergate happened, Iran-contra happened—conspiracies do happen, and conspiracy theorising is legitimate because of that.

But let me explain why I invoke the term in your case. Conspiracy theorising follows a pattern that is for some reason very regular. I've fallen victim to it, so to some extent I'm speaking from experience. It's a pattern that's easy enough to spot if you know how it goes, and I've come to believe that this skill is a vital “check and balance” when theorising. Now, I won't claim that I understand every detail of your theory, but to me it seems like a “fuzzy match” for the pattern of conspiracy theorising.

Do you honestly think so? I can't see the record the way you do without filling-in some invisible details. That's why it brought to mind my thought experiment, where it's impossible to read the record correctly without first correcting it. I can't bring myself to accept that the historical record should be manipulated in that way. (Though I don't mean to suggest the problem is unique to you.)

Neither should we overestimate our ability to deal with the past. The exchange between Neil Godfrey and Andrew Criddle was rather telling, I think. Historians don't like to deal with epistemology, since it takes away their beloved ability to finish the puzzle.

It's a human difficulty, though; we're all guilty of it. One of my favourite films is “Zodiac”, by David Fincher. It's a big, exciting puzzle of a story, and the writers carried their understanding of the audience's needs right to the end—to a fault. It ends with the implication that Arthur Leigh Allen was the culprit, when it would've been more honest to leave the question hanging.

I wasn't thinking “temporal” room to breathe, but rather a little more leeway. I've yet to see a paradigm that fits the evidence in a way that I'm completely happy with, but I try to remind myself that with a broken historical record there can never be a neat and tidy answer. I've already used the term “fuzzy matching”, and your CV leads me to think you'll understand its relevance here. Anomalies aren't an excuse to replace a paradigm; discovery of a substantially better paradigm is the only safe reason.

Conspiracy theories begin with the overthrow of a reigning paradigm because of anomalies. Then, and only then, does the search for a replacement paradigm begin—so what you get is something painfully ad hoc, the continued use of which is “justified” by the fact that the previous paradigm wasn't perfect.

I don't know how the “Constantinian fiction” theory germinated for you; that's why there are several “shots in the dark” in my previous post. I was hoping I could persuade you that your pattern of thought has been “precarious”, and bears no small amount of resemblance to conspiracy theorising. (I realise now that I hadn't defined my terms.)

“Revisionist history” captures very well your theory of what happened, but I feel that “conspiracy theorising” is more adequate to describe how the theory itself has developed. Once more—let me stress—I'm not using the term dismissively. I hope you can forgive my continued use of it.



I know you have, but you've also “commandeered” the non-canonical literature. Do you see what I'm getting at? Ordinarily that evidence would be considered as supporting the “official story”, but your theory has subsumed that evidence by calling it “parody”.

A high degree of skepticism isn't bad, per se. But I do see it as an indicator of “precarious thinking”.

:lol:

In the context of what you quote, it means “exceptionally fortunate”.

Well, yes. On your understanding, Constantine colluded with Eusebius to perpetrate a vast deception. In my books, that ranks as a conspiracy worthy of the name.

Supposing we don't want to call it a conspiracy theory, doesn't it still belong to a class of events that are quite rare? And as such, aren't we talking about an exceptional burden of proof?

Doesn't this sound dubious to you? For me, it sets off alarm bells.

And thank you for your response, which was substantial and not just “lengthy”.

mountainman

Good Day there Song of Erra,

Thanks for sharing your unique approach to this discussion.
I'd like you to know that I have already gained much through it,
particularly in identifying my reluctance to see this theory as
a "Conspiracy Theory"




I will for sure take on board and consider your observation.


You raise interesting issues, but first thanks for sharing your thought experiment. I too explored a "thought experiment" of imagining a future 21st century scenario in which a major Christian University stumbled onto some method of "time travel" and had a meeting together to decide where they would travel to first. The critical decision, cloning Jules Verne, might be mooted thus .....




I see the evidence itself as merely data, to which we as historians (in this case)
associate various attributes and give each of these attributes values, just like a database.
It is therefore the historical interpretation of the evidence that we are dealing with.
This interpretation can be and is very much influenced by the ruling paradigms.


When you mention above the "correction" or "filling-in"
of certain details in your "later reconstructed historical record" I think
I know what you mean. But I think it relates to the values which we
allocate to the data. We certainly can make changes to these attributes
in many theoretical ways, similar to the examination of multiple concurrent
"WHAT IF" tests. I dont know that we alter anything but our own notions
about the data items themselves.

Of course, evidence can be fabricated, so we must also be aware of this.

I guess for me the critical thing is trying to report on the the data in such a way
that not only are all data elements in agreement (and any that are exceptions
are identified) but that the apparent exceptions and anomalies, which are present
as things like "controversies" in the Official Reporting Story, are resolved by this
new view of the data. As such, it seems an exercise in examining the relational
integrity of all the data sources. Nothing should be excluded or overlooked.

But I am not sure that I am reponding to the issue you raised about "correcting"
or "filling in" data.





I may have missed that exchange.
Could you link to it? Thanks.


My current leaning in philosophy is that the puzzle may never be finished,
only further resolved, like taking dust off a mirror. As regards the issue
of epistemology, I have attempted to address this in a separate philosophy
related article here.

I guess its an issue which could be kicked around for a while, but I
will be more interested to read the above exchange between Neil Godfrey
and Andrew Criddle to determine your context here.



To be honest, for some reason, I had always associated the "Council of Nicaea"
as more of a military council than a religious council, and way back in 2005,
I was just discussing this idea with a bunch of surfers in alt.surfing.

This subject came up recently in another thread, and you can see my original
formulation of the idea at this post.

So I guess I started with the hypothesis that Constantine colluded with Eusebius.


Well, I think you have done so. The pattern of thought is precarious because I have
simply launched myself off to follow a single hypothesis that Constantine may have
been responsible for the commissioning and fabrication of the whole shooting match.

It is precarious, and has always been precarious, because I had always expected to
be proved wrong via refutation via evidence, and I myself took every opportunity to
find the "silver bullet" evidence which I could not argue against, which would make
the theory untenable. Five years, stone by stone, papyri fragment by fragment, text
by text, this research indicates that the hypothesis still in there with a chance.

Certainly, there are some detractors who have made the claim that certain evidence
(ranging from Eusebius to the Dura-Europos "house church" to Mani to Pliny, etc)
is at variance with the hypothesis/theory. In all these cases however, I dont see
that the contra evidence as critically compelling and/or unambiguous enough to warrant
the discarding of the hypothesis at this point.



Absolutely. I have learnt something here.



I'd like to point out again the situation in which the "Official Story" is in
fact the accepted testimony of "Orthodox Heresiologists", and that these
authors were the confessed "enemies to the death" of the Gnostic heretics.

In preparing a historical narrative to represent a sketch of a revisionist history,
I feel it is mandatory for me to address the history of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
with just as much importance as that usually reserved for the Canonical Gospels and Acts.

Any new or replacement theory must be able to explain as much of the evidence as possible.

Logically, if Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the new testament, THEN
the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" which use the NT as one of their sources, also must
have been authored after Nicaea, after publication of the NT.

However I have done a considerable amount of research on the texts and the ms tradition
of the non canonical books, and have prepared an entirely independent argument,
that these may have appeared after Nicaea. I have not just accepted this as a corollary
of the invention hypothesis, but have examine it as a separate thesis. If you are interested
in the details and sources employed in this separate idea, a recent summary can be found
in the thread C14 dating the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" to the 4th century .


In fact, some time ago I revised my ideas, and ordered them as follows:

Three New Ideas in the Field of Ancient History

Thesis (1) The New Testament Apocrypha (NTA) were authored as Greek satires after Nicaea 325 CE

Thesis (2) The NTA were largely authored by the satirist Arius of Alexandria (a non-christian)

Thesis (3) The New Testament Canon (NTC) was fabricated by Constantine between 312 and 324 CE

I thought that I could not make any progress with # 3, so I relegated it behind #1 and #2.

Having said all this, it cannot be disputed that the noncanonical books are certainly
part of the mystery or the puzzle of "Christian Origins", and that this evidence needs
to be addressed by any theory of "Christian origins". Yet, so few people bother about
this "far side", or "other side of the coinage".

I have called that evidence parody and/or satire and I have attempted to illicit it
from all the various texts that are presently available as English translations of
the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and Nag Hammadi. On this page
I have listed an attempted identification of satire in more than 20 of the NT Apocryphal texts.
As you must be aware, satire is notoriously context dependent.
At the end of the day I have not found much agreement with this assessment.




On this issue I think you have persuaded me not to avoid thinking of it as such.


I have identified a number of similar events.
Before Constantine, we have the precedent of Ardashir creating the Persian State
monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism. See a detailed analysis.

After Constantine we have Muhammad's creation of Islam.
All of these involve military supremacists who canonise "Holy Writs".
These events may be rare, but they have happened before and since.



How does it sound dubious and set off alarm bells for you?

The statement alludes both to future evidence to be presented,
and present evidence which is being interpretted in specific way,
at the moment to the benefit of the "Storyline" which was recorded
by a bunch of 4th century heresiologists, and their "spokespeople"
like Irenaeus, retrojected in the literature before Nicaea.

I have alwats demanded that the theory be severely stress tested
by reference to all the known and available evidence.
If it fails I will be the first to walk away from it.
If I am wrong about this, I will be the first to admit it.
I have been wrong about things before, and I am happy to admit this.
If I am wrong I'd like to move on to something else.

As I mentioned to stephan, I am not married to the idea, I am just dating it.

At the end of the day I seem more attracted to a religious philosophy
that involves a nondual deity, shared by all living beings innately,
rather than one involving a monotheistic deity represented in a "Holy Writ".

I just thought I'd add that. It may provide some persective on my personal approach to life.

Thanks very much for the analytical dialogue - it's refreshing.