Amos

It is real crazy Ron but worse yet is that religious freedom is our Constitutional right and we will defend that at any cost. We get angry at nations like Russia, China or Afghanistan who do not agree with us and think that it should be a universal human right.

It is easy for me to defend the Catholic position on this and will post this later today. I can agree with all you wrote except for the some of the history of the Church.

Amos

Ron Garrett

Hi Amos:

Glad you joined us.

In point of fact I think the Catholic Church is the only one who can make a response on the issue of factionalism that's worth discussing. But where we will end up I think is my view that at least through the first four centuries of the church there was no RCC remotely as we have it today. Until 445 CE the Bishop of Rome was technically just another bishop. It was a civil authority, Emperor Valentinian III whose edict declared, "that nothing should be done in Gaul contrary to ancient usage, without the authority of the bishop of Rome, and that the decree of the apostolic see should henceforth be law." We have Leo the Great's claim that all bishops have a right to appeal to Rome according to ancient tradition, but my suspicion is that this is nothing more than the assertion that an ecclesiastic tradition of appeal to the capital of the empire that had come into being in imitation of the civil right of appeal to Rome.

It is historically clear, at least to me, that bishops in Gaul, Africa and elsewhere did not acknowledge any authority of the Roman Bishop over the whole of Christendom, and it is historically clear, at least to me, that this authority came into being by imposition of imperial authority which wished to control the Christian religion from the imperial capital as though it were part of the government, which in fact it had become. Leo's authority, and that of his successors was a grant of civil office, not by the assent of the other bishops, and certainly not instituted in any way by Yeshua and his followers, who in my view would have been the last ones to hand the reins of the church over to the Roman government.

In my opinion the Roman church became ascendant purely because of the imperial power with which it had become aligned and by which it would become subverted and would in its turn subvert. It survived and routed its competitors by teaming up with the meanest secular dog in the junkyard, not because of divine imprimatur, theological purity, acclamations of the bishops, other than those with an imperial sword to their throats or imperial coinin ther pockets, or what have you. Cynical of me perhaps, but I suspect accurate nonetheless.

I look forward to your discussion.

doc58

Ron,
Thanks for the article. I am within one year of crossing over to your side of things so articles like yours are very important for me to read because they put down succintly and articulately ideas that are only partially and vaguely formed in my mind but with which I have been struggling to get a handle.
I think your article should be placed in the website article section.

HelenM

Hi Ron

I just found this thread...I wasn't ignoring it. But maybe you didn't exactly mean me when you said Christians were ignoring it

Anyway, you know that many things you touch on are concerns of mine also, to some extent, despite me not being willing to say 'therefore I'm outta here'.

Who knows about the psychology of religion - but I think Christians would be better off if they were willing to accept that their reasons for belief are probably less rational than they think.

The paranoia aspect has bothered me for a while. It came up recently for me when I told a couple of people that I was taking the course at Unity and they thought it wasn't a good idea at all. One said he was very uneasy and the other, when I said "You think it's spiritually dangerous then?" said, definitely.

I was pleased last evening, though, to tell a Christian from my church who didn't freak about it.

I know that I can't have much effect on Christendom or even on local Christians. But as long as I have hope of having some small influence for good then I'd rather be there than elsewhere. Because - as you said - preaching to the choir is boring and easy.

love
Helen

polyglot

Ron...

Would you give your personal testimony as to how you acheived non-believer status? What groups were you involved with? Sounds like an interesting story.

Ron Garrett

I haven't been an infidel much longer than that myself Doc. For me, the case against Christianity is just staggering and irresistable. The more I learn the more I am mystified that I was ever taken in. But I also say that about some personal relationships, and I think for the same reason.

I think we come to accept a superstititon because it either meets or we believe it will meet some need, like the latest diet fad, a new haircut, that new car, a degree from such and such school. We want to believe and we want it to work and we don't want to accept that there is no magic. Religions promise so much and deliver so little, but by the time we realize the delivery isn't there we are subsumed into the culture and depndent on it for reference groups, extended family, personal identity, etc. In short, we are brainwashed and we actively participate in the programming.

What happened for me was the realization that no matter how much I tried to convince myself it was true there was simply no difference in the believers around me that could be attributed to the faith or anything supernatural, and in fact the faith was ruining lives and hurting people. Prayer and piety does not work and the promises of scripture are not fulfilled and there are no spiiritual lurkers in the dark and the world is not ending. In effect, it sucks up an enormous amount of energy that could be spent getting the most from our short lives.

It was after realizing that it did not work that I commenced to wonder why and began in earnest to examine the critiques and learn the facts the church has tried to burn out of human memory with bonfires, murders and propaganda. I felt really stupid and first and later outraged, now most often just disappointed that our species has been hamstrung by the superstitions of squatting savages.

In any case, I know first hand what you are going through is not easy, as many here know, but it gets better. Truly it does. Getting used to thinking and living without shackles takes a while. I'm still getting used to it myself. But I am lot happier for it.

Ron Garrett

No I wasn't since you're only a Christian in the British sense of being a decent person. You have not gone out from them, but you are not part of them. I think they all, at some level, realize their beliefs are silly and superstitious, but when you think eternal life and bineg buds with God are at stake, you convince yourself its rational. WE just have to be careful that the only message you get is our message, don't ya know. Like we've discussed before, good people are good people. Even a false religion has difficulty changing that. That has nothing to do with you being a Christian though. You're a Christian flavored Unitarian for all intents and purposes, pursuing your own spitirual path in the company of others who are essentially unaware there is such a thing as a path. But that's we like about you! Honest doubt combined with live and let live is always attractive.

Ron Garrett

Dan Barker had suggessted I write it up for his planned book of testimonies of ex-pastors, ministers, etc. I'm not trying to evangelize for unbelief, or at least I don't think I am, but sooner or later I'll sit down to write it all down. For now my ascent from the mire of religion is still a work in progress. I also haven't figured out quite how to tell the tale while changing the names to protect the guilty. It's something I'll have to make time for I think.

Amos

Hi Ron, I am a Cynic with a capital C and happy to agree with you on the history of the Church. I would add that not just "the meanest dog" was at work but also "the most clever serpent" to prepare the way. These two must go hand in hand if ever anything has to get done.

So I am not really joining you because I am 'a nobody' in your league and don't wish to go into the history of the Church either because I can't remember enough about it to argue with you. Instead I find your post very interesting as I read it but will not remember much about it tomorrow because to make it 'truly mine' I would have to do an indept study and actually join the argument. Thanks, but no thanks, and it is much better that you swing the ax and I just wanted you to know that your essay serves me well. Instead, my ambition was to point out the philosophical difference between Catholic and protestant and your use of the word "Christianity."

I will be the first one to argue that the protestant church can find apostolic tradition to Jesus on the anathema side of the Church and that they actually go further back to the children of Israel who died for the same reason that many protestants died and will continue to do so today. In fact, I wrote that some/many of them are in hell today and that the "rising smoke of their torment" is the basis for the objection of most atheists. If I add to this that Jesus died for the children of Israel and showed them the way to eternal life (instead of eternal damnation in the paradox "sinful yet saved"), it follows that the "iota argument" (Jn.6) is precisely what represents the difference between heaven and hell.

Catholics, according to my interpretation, are not "Christian" but at best "Christian-in-becoming" much as Jesus was a Jew and "Christian-in-becoming" but not until "his time had come." It is also true that Jesus was never addressed as Christ in any of the four Gospels until after the resurrection and even told Peter to tell noone that he was "the messiah" (or "Christ"), which now means that the "follower of Jesus" should be called a Jesuit instead of Christian because the secret of salvation is how well he/she can keep it a secret if ever he/she is to become a Christian after the manner of Jesus-the-Jew, who himself became Christian but not until after his own resurrection. Therefore, Catholics are Catholic in Christendom until they ascend into heaven without the paradox sinful yet saved. Accordingly, heaven is a state of mind and if heaven is a state of mind so is hell and thus both are etenal and last until the second death do us part.

Christianity is the end of religion and not a religion nor denomination but a mature state of mind in which the "father and the son" have become one in the hypostatic union of both hemispheres of the brain. Notice, no promise of anything after we physically die.

You may call it semantics and I agree that it is difficult to remain Catholic in Christendom with so many wolves in sheeps clothing around that are eager to scatter the flock. It never was easy but to make spiritual fornication part of the human rights act is absurd.

Amos

Ps I was born in Catholic country where the pasture was so big that the sheep couldn't get lost. It was a great courage builder and I never knew a protestant or heard the word "salvation" or "Christian" until I came over to Canada and here that is all that was talked about. "Gods country," they called it, and I am now convinced that just the opposite is true.

HelenM