Rational Faith

[cj44]

I believe the bible was put together be men for political reasons. I do not believe it is the word of god. Some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are universal truths, the rest is plagiarized from more ancient books and stories attributed to older gods. There is no mainstream Christianity. Christianity is divided into thousands of disagreeing sects. The only way to find the truth is to go to the Source, set up direct communication with your god. Books are BS. They are just someone else's opinions and nothing more.

"If two or more gather in my name" you have religion not spirituality.

You do keep the banter lively, Cliffy.

So, when you quote Jesus - "if two or more gather in my name"..... you do not believe that Jesus said that?

It seems we have drifted off topic. What do you make of Collins?

 

[Motar]

Concerning the relationship between Dr. Francis Collins and Christopher Hitchens:

"Perhaps one of the greatest testaments to Collins’s evangelical Christian faith is that his outreach has extended to those who are non-believers. In December of 2011, famous atheist debater and author Christopher Hitchens died after complications from esophageal cancer. Hitchens, the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, had debated Collins about the existence of God prior to falling ill, and came to call Collins one of his friends, despite their disagreement about religion. 'It is a rather wonderful relationship,' Hitchens said. 'I won’t say he doesn’t pray for me, because I think he probably does; but he doesn’t discuss it with me.'

Collins came to assist in treating Hitchens using results of gene research and, ultimately, experimental drugs. It appears, from Collins’s writing, that the two men grew even closer together as they met to discuss the treatment possibilities. Hitchens described Collins as 'one of the greatest living Americans,' a 'great humanitarian' and 'the best of the faithful' who had approached him since his cancer diagnosis was made public. In a memorial piece after Hitchens’s death, Collins wrote, 'His knowledge of world religions was truly impressive – he had a much more detailed grasp of the Christian Bible than most Christians do. What he didn’t seem to be able to understand was how a thinking person could be a follower of Jesus. Perhaps I hoped to help with that." NIH Director Francis S. Collins: Faith a Conclusion Arrived at Through Rational Thought

Christian is as Christian does:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:15-20 NIV)

 

[darkbeaver]

THIS, is the everything. This is all one needs to believe. Accept Christ into your heart and soul. Accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Believe that he was born, was crucified, died and was buried. That on the 3rd day he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Believe that he came to earth to sacrifice himself for our sins.

The books make it clear that he was crucified by incarnation on the material tree of life. This was the understanding for in excess of ten thousand years. He comes with every child born. His sacrifice is of one tiny spark of himself for each new life that enters the sin of matter (flesh).

 

[Motar]

You do keep the banter lively, Cliffy. So, when you quote Jesus - "if two or more gather in my name"..... you do not believe that Jesus said that? It seems we have drifted off topic. What do you make of Collins?

I think the rational Christian is able to distinguish between Christ-likeness and religiosity, cj.

 

[cj44]

I think the rational Christian is able to distinguish between Christ-likeness and religiosity, cj.

Motar, From your mouth to our fellow posters ears.

Mr Beaver, I miss calling you Beavs.

 

[Motar]

I think the rational Christian is able to distinguish between Christ-likeness and religiosity, cj.

I also think that Christians are rational, cj because God is rational:

“Come now, and let us reason together,' says the Lord,
'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.: (Isaiah 1:18 NKJV)

 

[gerryh]

Gerry - My "ifs" were used in a rhetorical sense. I wasn't actually wondering about who Jesus was

I see you ignored everything else I posted. Typical.

 

[Motar]

The apostle Paul reasoned with Jews and Gentiles alike:

"As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2 NIV)

"So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there." (Acts 17:17 NIV)

"Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." (Acts 18:4 NIV)

"They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews." (Acts 18:19 VIV)

 

[cj44]

I see you ignored everything else I posted. Typical.

gerry, what specific question did you want me to answer?

 

[Motar]

It seems we have drifted off topic. What do you make of Collins?

What do you think of Collins, cj?

 

[gerryh]

gerry, what specific question did you want me to answer?

ya, that's what I figured. I'm done with you 2 hypocrites. If Cliffy wants to "play" with you, he can have at it.

 

[cj44]

What do you think of Collins, cj?

I think the title of his book - "The Language of God", reveals the discovery he made.

I just downloaded his book on my Kindle & look very much forward to the read.

 

[darkbeaver]

That Christianity after its inception was a ferment confined largely to the poor and untutored classes is indicated both by the Gospel story itself and by much data of history. Some authentic testimony may be useful in impressing the little-known fact upon general knowledge. The cultured Celsus, writing about 200 A.D., cannot refrain from commenting on the social complexion of the Christians of his day. He wrote:
"It is only the simpletons, the ignoble, the senseless--slaves and womenfolk and children--whom they wish to persuade . . . wool-dressers and cobblers and fullers, the most uneducated and vulgar persons . . . whosoever is a sinner, or unintelligent, or a fool, in a word, whoever is god-forsaken (kakodaimon), him the kingdom of God will receive."5
Edward Carpenter, an unbiased and kindly student of early Christianity in relation to its contemporary faith, says:

56​

"The rude and menial masses, who had hitherto been almost beneath the notice of Greek and Roman culture, flocked in; and though this was doubtless, as time went on, a source of weakness to the Church, and a cause of dissension and superstition, yet it was the inevitable line of human evolution, and had a psychological basis."6
Many additional statements in the same tenor could be quoted, but it is needless to enforce what is known and indisputable.
But one hears the protestations of Christians that the ministrations of their faith to the simple and the downtrodden was its glory and demonstrated a sounder humanitarianism than the Mystery Schools displayed. Let it have whatever praise goes with this part of its program. It is to the credit of any system that it gives to the lowly the food they need. The default of Christianity is that it gave to one class and withheld from another. Even to that one class it gave the poorest of bread--truth vitiated, devoid of nourishing sense, corrupted and corrupting--as witness its own unconscionable history. It attempted to furnish to the uncultured the easily digested provender they required, but swung with such zeal into this labor that it denied the need of strong meat to more capable digestions. Christianity’s culpability was not that it fed the outcast and the sinner, but that it denied the Gnosis to the intelligent--or to any. Its Roman revolt against the spiritual esotericism constituted its betrayal of the innermost heart of all religion. It chose to feed the religious hunger of all grades of people with food that was not even wholesome for the simple.http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm

 

[Nuggler]

Nothing much changed, DB.

 

[cj44]

ya, that's what I figured. I'm done with you 2 hypocrites. If Cliffy wants to "play" with you, he can have at it.

Gerry, I shall comment on your previous comments.

Regarding the gospel - Yes, those who believe in Christ's atoning work on the cross shall be saved. I'm not suggesting any additional requirements are needed.

I assume you are referring to the Apostle Paul as the "middle man". Here we depart from agreement. Where I see Paul's epistles are in harmony with Christ's teaching, you do not.

 

[Motar]

ya, that's what I figured. I'm done with you 2 hypocrites. If Cliffy wants to "play" with you, he can have at it.

Having read through the New Testament a few times, Gerry, I have yet to find a crude or condescending word from Christ. Quite the opposite, Christ is especially kind and gentle with women:

"While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. 'Why this waste?' they asked. 'This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.' Aware of this, Jesus said to them, 'Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” (Matthew 26:6-13 NIV)

That Christianity after its inception was a ferment confined largely to the poor and untutored classes is indicated both by the Gospel story itself and by much data of history. Some authentic testimony may be useful in impressing the little-known fact upon general knowledge. The cultured Celsus, writing about 200 A.D., cannot refrain from commenting on the social complexion of the Christians of his day. He wrote:
"It is only the simpletons, the ignoble, the senseless--slaves and womenfolk and children--whom they wish to persuade . . . wool-dressers and cobblers and fullers, the most uneducated and vulgar persons . . . whosoever is a sinner, or unintelligent, or a fool, in a word, whoever is god-forsaken (kakodaimon), him the kingdom of God will receive."5
Edward Carpenter, an unbiased and kindly student of early Christianity in relation to its contemporary faith, says:

56​

"The rude and menial masses, who had hitherto been almost beneath the notice of Greek and Roman culture, flocked in; and though this was doubtless, as time went on, a source of weakness to the Church, and a cause of dissension and superstition, yet it was the inevitable line of human evolution, and had a psychological basis."6
Many additional statements in the same tenor could be quoted, but it is needless to enforce what is known and indisputable.
But one hears the protestations of Christians that the ministrations of their faith to the simple and the downtrodden was its glory and demonstrated a sounder humanitarianism than the Mystery Schools displayed. Let it have whatever praise goes with this part of its program. It is to the credit of any system that it gives to the lowly the food they need. The default of Christianity is that it gave to one class and withheld from another. Even to that one class it gave the poorest of bread--truth vitiated, devoid of nourishing sense, corrupted and corrupting--as witness its own unconscionable history. It attempted to furnish to the uncultured the easily digested provender they required, but swung with such zeal into this labor that it denied the need of strong meat to more capable digestions. Christianity’s culpability was not that it fed the outcast and the sinner, but that it denied the Gnosis to the intelligent--or to any. Its Roman revolt against the spiritual esotericism constituted its betrayal of the innermost heart of all religion. It chose to feed the religious hunger of all grades of people with food that was not even wholesome for the simple.http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm

What are your thoughts, DB?

 

[cj44]

That Christianity after its inception was a ferment confined largely to the poor and untutored classes is indicated both by the Gospel story itself and by much data of history. Some authentic testimony may be useful in impressing the little-known fact upon general knowledge. The cultured Celsus, writing about 200 A.D., cannot refrain from commenting on the social complexion of the Christians of his day. He wrote:
"It is only the simpletons, the ignoble, the senseless--slaves and womenfolk and children--whom they wish to persuade . . . wool-dressers and cobblers and fullers, the most uneducated and vulgar persons . . . whosoever is a sinner, or unintelligent, or a fool, in a word, whoever is god-forsaken (kakodaimon), him the kingdom of God will receive."5
Edward Carpenter, an unbiased and kindly student of early Christianity in relation to its contemporary faith, says:

56​

"The rude and menial masses, who had hitherto been almost beneath the notice of Greek and Roman culture, flocked in; and though this was doubtless, as time went on, a source of weakness to the Church, and a cause of dissension and superstition, yet it was the inevitable line of human evolution, and had a psychological basis."6
Many additional statements in the same tenor could be quoted, but it is needless to enforce what is known and indisputable.
But one hears the protestations of Christians that the ministrations of their faith to the simple and the downtrodden was its glory and demonstrated a sounder humanitarianism than the Mystery Schools displayed. Let it have whatever praise goes with this part of its program. It is to the credit of any system that it gives to the lowly the food they need. The default of Christianity is that it gave to one class and withheld from another. Even to that one class it gave the poorest of bread--truth vitiated, devoid of nourishing sense, corrupted and corrupting--as witness its own unconscionable history. It attempted to furnish to the uncultured the easily digested provender they required, but swung with such zeal into this labor that it denied the need of strong meat to more capable digestions. Christianity’s culpability was not that it fed the outcast and the sinner, but that it denied the Gnosis to the intelligent--or to any. Its Roman revolt against the spiritual esotericism constituted its betrayal of the innermost heart of all religion. It chose to feed the religious hunger of all grades of people with food that was not even wholesome for the simple.http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm

Mr. Beaver,
Do you have any examples from your text sources that suggest the cultured, rich or educated became Christians. Or do you have examples of people accepting this "Gnosis" you refer to?

 

[darkbeaver]

Nothing much changed, DB.

There's nuttin new under the Son.

Mr. Beaver,
Do you have any examples from your text sources that suggest the cultured, rich or educated became Christians. Or do you have examples of people accepting this "Gnosis" you refer to?

Certainly they did, compelled by the sword millions professed belief in the impossible lest they share the fate of those original true Christly Gnostics.

 

[cj44]

There's nuttin new under the Son.



Certainly they did, compelled by the sword millions professed belief in the impossible lest they share the fate of those original true Christly Gnostics.

Mr. Beaver, are you suggesting that anyone who professes to be a biblical Christian has either been coerced or deluded?

 

[darkbeaver]

Mr. Beaver, are you suggesting that anyone who professes to be a biblical Christian has either been coerced or deluded?

Yes. Idolators all of you.

And now let us hear what the

7​

Bible says as to our solar constitution, and determine for ourselves whether it is silent on the groundwork of religion or not. Let us hear first the Psalms. "Our God is a living fire," say they; and "Our God is a consuming fire." "The Lord God is a sun," avers the same book. "I am come to send fire on earth," says Jesus, meaning he came to scatter the separated sparks of solar essence amongst mankind, a spark to each soul. In Revelation the angels scatter the fire and the incense of their seven censers over the earth, among the inhabitants. Then says John the Baptist: "I indeed baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire!" Jesus says: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Satan was the descending Lucifer, or Light-bringer, before he was lifted up and divinized.) The fire that falls on Jeremiah's altar and many another in the Bible narrative types the deity coming to dwell with mortals. Says Jesus: "When I am in the world I am the light of the world." Again he said: "Ye are the light of the world," and "Let your light so shine that others may . . . glory your father which is in heaven." The Lord, say the Psalms, "made his angels messengers and his ministers a flame of fire." The New Testament Jesus, following the well-known Egyptian diagram of the Ankh, the solar disk with the spread wings, is described as "the sun of righteousness, risen with healing in his wings." John has Jesus saying that the condemnation of the world lay in that it rejected the light when it was sent into the world. Says Job: "Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. The light shall be dark in his tabernacle and his candle shall be put out with him." Isaiah writes: "Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks; walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks that ye have kindled." We are adjured to "Rise, shine, for thy light is come." "The Lord is my light," reiterates the Psalms. And again: "In thy light shall we see light." "Light is sown for the righteous." "We wait for light," cry the souls in the darkness of incarnation, far from their original fount of light. John declares that the Christos "was the true light" which was to come Messianically for the redemption of our lower nature. And again he declares that with the Christos "light is come into the world." No cry echoes with more resounding intensity down to this age than Paul's exhortation to our souls buried in lethal darkness: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine upon thee!" And in Revelation there are those mighty pronouncements: in the spiritual resurrection "there shall be no more need of the sun to shine by day nor the moon by night, for the glory of the Lord did lighten it." And there is no more heartening assurance anywhere in the Bible than Jesus's statement: "Ye have light in yourselves."

Hence finally, Jesus is the seventh cosmic principle, announced in all religious lore as he who comes to bring peace and good will to men. And as such he was announced in the Christian Gospels. But there was more than one Jesus or IUSA or IU before the coming of the alleged historical Jesus. Startling as are the implications of this bit of etymology, a far more amazing denouement of Bible study is the revelation that not only were there over thirty Sun-god figures in the cults of the various nations of old, but there are immediately in the Bible itself, in the Old Testament, some twenty more Sun-god characters under the very name of Jesus! Are we speaking arrant nonsense or sober truth when we make a claim which seems at first sight so unsupportable? Twenty Jesus characters in the Old Testament! Let us see. We have noted the many variant forms of the Jesus name. There are still others in the Old Testament, never suspected as being related to the name of the Christian Redeemer. There are Isaac, Esau, Jesse, Jacob, Jeshu, Joachim, Joshua, Jonah and others. All these are variant forms of the one name, which has still other forms among the Hebrews in secular life, Yusuf, Yehoshua, Yeshu, etc. Joshua, Hosea and Jesse are from this name indisputably. A few might be the subject of controversy.
Furthermore, beside these that bear the original divine name, there are other Sun-god figures in the Old Testament under a wide variety of names. They are Samson (whose name means "solar"), David, Solomon, Saul

6​

(equals soul, or sol, the sun--Latin.), Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Jephtha and the like. Their actions identify them as solar representatives.
Now let us see what the conception of our divinity as a Sun-god in reality meant to the sages of old, and what it should mean to us. It meant that the divinity within us, our divine soul or Self, was itself the Sun-god, or solar deity. And what does this signify in concrete terms for us? Just this; that the god within us is constituted of the imperishable essence of solar light and energy! In short, we ourselves, in our higher nature, are solar gods in potentiality! Our highest nature is an incorruptible body composed of the glorious essence of the sun's energy! The gods in the Bible were always symboled by the light or fire of the sun. We are now enlightened to see it as a description of our nature as veritable truth and fact.We are Sun-gods. Our immortal spirits within us are composed of the radiant substance of solar energy.THE GREAT MYTH

It is the truth before whose altar both science and religion can kneel at last and find themselves paying tribute to the same god,--the god of solar radiance. It is a sentence from the learned Proclus, last of the Great Platonists: "The light of the sun is the pure energy of intellect."