Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-14-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad:


I don't like him. I've read some of his books/letters and he seems like the first fundamentalist to me.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]

Paul was the driving force behind the new Church and needed to make things believable. He needed to speak from the metaphysical point (and never lose sight of truth there) and twist this to into its most believable form to attract followers.

As an eidietic image, Paul was the unbeliever motivated by doubt. That is why he was pagan and never the undergoer of the spiritual event, yet he wrote about it from the outside and probably had the most realistic view of all. In this sense Paul was opposite to Joseph who was motivated by faith as a Jew.

02-14-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder:
In any case, the bottom line is Protestant and Catholic theology both agree that Jesus died for the sins of the world. I realize there are many nuances to this but that's the overall view of both theologies. 

OK, fair enough, Catholics will say that Jesus died for the sins of the world but it is not Catholic theology that Jesus died for my sins and now I do not have to. Some Catholics run away with this and adopt the protestant concept that "Jesus died for my sins and now I owe untill I die" etc.

In the Synoptics, Jesus appears to have no idea that he is supposed to die for the sins of mankind. There is one verse which mentions his life as a ransom but many scholars agree that it was probably inserted by the writer or editor. By the time the first gospel (Mark) was written, the idea that Jesus had died for the sins of the world was well known so it's not surprising that it showed up in the gospels. The writers and editors of the OT wrote in much the same manner.

To solve the paradox sinful yet saved we must die to the sins of our own world. Interesting is that the "stake" is symbolic of protestants dying at the foot of the cross because they fail to take Jesus from the cross and place themselves upon it. Hence their devotion to the cross but they die there nonetheless while burning with desire to ascend. The imagey is profound and speaks loudly of the difference. 

What many atheists and non-atheists seem to miss is that the Jesus of the gospels (particularly the Synoptic gospels) is very different from the Christ of the churches. The doctrines of Christianity come mainly from Paul and the early Church fathers. Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it is the religion about Jesus. 

Jesus was a the reborn Joseph who was a Jew. The end of Judaism is salvation and after salvation religion will have served it purpose and becomes a liability because faith must be removed prior to ascention (only knowledge frees). This is why the last event prior to ascention was the conviction of Thomas, who was the twin of faith, and so with the removal of doubt also all faith was removed. Hence, ascention followed.

The Gospels take place in purgatory, which is between rebirth and ascention. This is where we are "son of man" on our way to become "fully man" and since it is our own purgation period "son of man will have no place to lie his head" and must "work our his own salvation in fear and trembling." If this was not true there would be "temples in the New Jerusalem." This now means that he who calls himself a Christian and goes to church is either a liar or has been given a scorpion instead of a fish. This same happened to the children of Israel who remained "children" until they died. Their problenm was that they failed to mature and become fully Israel (one-with-God).

snip

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Waning Moon Conrad · 02-14-2002, 02:40 PM

Amos,

Okay, now (concurring with Sidewinder) I think you're a mystic, at least as I understand mysticism and I can't find anything to disagree with in what you've said.

02-14-2002, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad:
Amos,

Okay, now (concurring with Sidewinder) I think you're a mystic, at least as I understand mysticism and I can't find anything to disagree with in what you've said.

It is a very simple argument but lots of induction is needed. This means that you must know the rest of the story before you begin.

sidewinder · 02-15-2002, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


It is a very simple argument but lots of induction is needed. This means that you must know the rest of the story before you begin.

Amos, it seems you have this huge story about religion in your head and it is slowly revealed on these boards.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2002, 02:40 PM	#13
Waning Moon Conrad Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Victoria. Australia Posts: 1,417	Amos, Okay, now (concurring with Sidewinder) I think you're a mystic, at least as I understand mysticism and I can't find anything to disagree with in what you've said.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.