Yes, lets be Atheist as it allows us to do whatever the hell we want.

Baloney. Non-believers can have empathy and can follow the Golden Rule the same as believers. Do you need the fear of a god to do the right thing?

Fun article, Shannon. Have a gay and merry Xmas!

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/02/07/LimitsOfSatire/

Typical Tyee double standard.

Typical Tyee double standard.

Are all Tyee writers supposed to have the same views?

This could have been an interesting article - if it weren't totally ‘made up’ of Shannon Rupp's musings with her friends.

As it is, a complete waste of time for the reader and it should have a disclaimer at the top.

I'd like my three minutes back.

Maybe nightbloom will post something remotely related to actual scholarship and a 'real' discussion will evolve.
As far as responding to Shannon is concerned, Rupp is, as always, looking for a fight, that's her style. Don't bite folks.

But then again, maybe Shannon Rupp is just one of those girls who wanna have fun.

Have a look at this and draw your own conclusions:
http://athomerome.blogspot.com/2006/12/priest-of-month.html

I sensed you thinking about me, Gwest, and promptly tuned in...

I think Shannon's just aiming to tweak the noses of the self-righteous in a tongue-in-cheek way. Of course, Christianity itself is not gay, nor is the narrative. But people see what they want to see.

There's actually a lot more depth the this subject that a handful of paragraphs allow, and I don't have much time on my hands. You can probably guess what I would say from my history on these threads.

It's actually the central question of human society: how culture is created. So it's not Christianity (the original story & faith) that's gay...it's the many-coloured sediment of culture, the emotive and creative investment that has been added to it over the centuries by the self-alienated male consciousness. That is the origin of virtually all art and culture. No amount of ideology or affirmative action revisionism can diffuse this elemental reality. Culture and social order are created by the male's struggle to forge an independent consciousness and identity from the Big Primeval Mommy, and yet it is motivated by the visceral yearning to return to that state of oneness experienced in the womb. Much of the static ritualism, the elaborate nomenclature of interlocking mutually-supporting doctines (and enclose and subdue the rapcious demands of the rational mind), the mommy worship/suppression complex, the vitriolic anger at anything that disturbs the perfection of this homeostatic inner world, is a temporal reflection of this basic primeval pull back to our point of consciousness and sensual awakening. I'm sure Carl Jung explained it much better, but organized religion has never recovered from what he did to it once his ideas filtered out into mass society in their vulgate form.

As for Christianity, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote about the encoded gayness of the Roman Rite, especially the High Mass. He doesn't do it justice, though. Camille Paglia has produced the best psycho-sexual and cultural analysis of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in particular that I've ever read.

Brain you accuse atheists of an anything goes morality, yet you quote the bible. Anyone who asserts the bible contains a coherent morality is either a fool, a liar or both. Quote all the passages you want of that infinitely revised work of literature. I'm sure you can dig out whatever meaning you want. That is, after all, how it was designed. Hell, just try rereading the gobbledy-gook you tried to write there brain. It is the definition of incoherent.

Ethical behavior depends not on a framed set of rigid codified beliefs. It depends on attention to the details of any particular context, including knowledge of the past that brought the present into being; a knowledge that includes the voices not just of the official elite's understanding of the past, but those of the the oppressed, the other, as well.

The abstracted notions of right and wrong, hopefully driven by empathy, are merely tools to help shape an ethical response. The human mind needs those simplifications to function. They are necessary for right action. But never forget that they are abstractions: oversimplified notions that are about as far from the truth of reality as you can get.

More often than not people use their codified notions of morality to help create and reinforce a system that operates for their personal benefit. But because they propagandize their morality as a perfected black and white, right and wrong, abstraction, without all the shades of gray you find in the real world, they feel they can claim to be apostles of the truth. In fact, all they've done is buy into an illusion that is easy to articulate. They then evoke that fantasy, and cling to it, whenever faced with what really happens in the world.

Clinging to that illusion is probably physically healthier than what drug addicts do to escape, but its effect on society is remarkably similar. People oppress, steal and even murder to feed their illusions, whether they name them the free market, communism, christianity, islam, or even some ideological bastardization of science (a bastardization that every ideology has attempted since science came into existence).

As for Rupp's piece... is christianity just an invention of self-hating gay misogynists? Well it certainly seems to have it's roots in promoting the power of men over women, which certainly would appeal to misogynists whether they're gay or not. Pointing that out is useful because it shatters the illusion of moral superiority christians espouse, and reveals the ugly reality of some of the behaviors that system of belief perpetuates. Of course Rupp failed to acknowledge any of christianity's beneficial accomplishments, but that doesn't invalidate her criticisms.

...it's a mistake to call them "gay" in the post-Stonewall sense. They would not have known what they were, but would have been self-consciously aware that "demonic evil" lurked at the edge of their consciousness, which occasionally possessed them, and that self-purging, ritual cleanliness (inner and outer), and submission to god was their only solace. They had to work their sanity out - for them it didn't happen automoatically.

Look at the society of aesthetes at Qum'ran, the most extreme example of cenobitc religious lifestyle prior to the rise of Western Monasticism. It was a community based on compulsive ritual cleanliness and strict hierarchy, formed in reaction against a dominant group (the Pharisees, who controlled the Temple and Priesthood) that was seen as decadent and degenerate (and implicitly homosexual, a charge probably stemming from the same sort of scandal we've seen so often in our own lifetimes).

That society (contemporary with Jesus, incidentally, but know one knows the extent of his contact...some think he was one of them, others disavow any possible connection...) possessed all the qualities in exteme form that we now associate with hard-core "Opus Dei" style Catholicism, complete with a militant core of celebates who practiced strict ritual cleanliness.

Booker:

Fun article, Shannon. Have a gay and merry Xmas!

Correct!

This was, plain and simple, a fun read. No need for anyone to get all bent out of shape Danish cartoon-like.

Hilarious! Thanks Shannon; I think I'll forward it to my Mum... as devout as she is, she'll get a good laugh, too.

I don't think fundamentalist Christians are a very good example of 'real' Christianity. Certainly the Republicans caught in sex scandals aren't. Not entirely fair to label all of Christianity based upon their actions.

For every marble David, there's a painted Venus on the half-shell. I'd like to hear more about the purported connection to ballet and Christianity, because based on my limited knowledge of either, I don't see it. Certainly singing (as a performing art) owes a debt to the Church, but dancing?

Not great analogies cuz they're just not 'true' enough. Since, as they say, "it's funny because it's true", I didn't find it very funny.

This is typical. Deny that there is even an existence of right and wrong, and it simply furthers ones ability to do whatever the hell they want. Deny God, and we can deny purpose to anything. Morality, the sexes, existence itself... hate to break it to you, but the notion of right and wrong is more than a conditioned behavioral response.

For what its worth, no one will find me saying the "good" book is as pure as the driven snow. Naturally, it has been heavily edited by empirical motives and the motives of organized religions.

But to say that there is no truth contained in the bible or that ALL of it has been heavily edited, is to put forth fallacies, or convienient lies.

All teachings are subject to being questioned. To belong to a group that is religious, political or otherwise that doesn't allow that, is to belong to a cult and likely a dangerous one at that. And when the answers don't function when put to the test, then the teachings are subject to outright challenge... challenge of authenticity and authority.

But to say that right and wrong does not exist beyond simple imagination, is to adopt disfunctionality and I won't simply question someone on this point. I'll openly challenge them, including someone like yourself.

So when I read responses like this, what can I say? Even most children know the difference between right and wrong. Its not some mere programmed response the way you make it out to be.

And for what its worth, I found this article to be more offensive than funny. The jest of it is that Shannon didn't intend for it to be a joke. Mocking ridicule is her primary motive here, not to crack funnies. She is attacking Christianity as an outright cult with BS quips like this one:

Jesus was killed by an authoritarian evil empire and turned into a servant of empirical control. But certain things remain unchallengable to this day... the meaning and message to his life and death. The empire couldn't smear all of it... and neither will the likes of a bitter Shannon.

The brain,

Sorry for such a short post but one question: do you believe that only the pious can claim moral authority?

BTW: I think the article is shite myself, for all of complaints of the intolerance of christians, rupp's article is a tad hypocritical, however typical it is of her smugness.

Where did I deny right and wrong? I just pointed out that they are abstractions of reality, not the other way around.

Aside from that statement being categorically untrue, because you don't need god to have purpose, so what?

Right and wrong do exist. They are abstractions of reality and have their meaning founded in language. The actual practice of ethical behavior is context specific and dependent upon far more detail than the simple labels you deify. What is dysfunctional is the belief in the illusion that right and wrong can be divorced from that reality, from the detail and the context of every day life. They can't be. They can never be other than in people's imaginations, which paradoxically operate wholly within that every day reality.

As for the bible, it has as much truth as any piece of fiction that tries to deal with issues of life, death, right and wrong. And don't get me wrong, literature is frequently the best means to convey truth, outside of direct experience. But most people aren't foolish enough to deify a novel. They consciously suspend their disbelief when reading one, but they don't interpret its story literally. If they did, they'd likely end up in the nut house.

James Burns

Haha! So it's not just me that could make neither heads nor tails of much of brain's posts :)

Dear James Burns; Well, I think you did a very nice essay. But one question I would love to hear your answer to:

What exactly were those beneficial accomplishments of Christianity you mention? Got a list?

And to Shannon Rupp; Nicely thought piece, here. I do love the chance to hear reasoning from observed phenomena. A fading art.

I tend to think your observations might have merit. I have noticed during a long and lurid life that people almost always become what they hate, one way or another. Whenever I hear somebody complaining about somebody else's behaviour, I feel quite sure I know where to look for the best examples.

Especially since, in the tumult of the times, the new Christian cult more or less lifted it's format from Mithraism, a Mother religion that honoured women as the humans who were given actual access to the processes of creation. The Mother of God, you know. Some Catholics still adhere. Maryans.

The mysogyny seems to date from about the same time the two Marys and Elizabeth were booted. John was demoted to second banana and his cousin Jesus given the lead. All four were dead by then. Presumably, anyway.

Interestingly, the seeds of celibecy and an all male priesthood seem to stem from about the same time and the same source. The Rock himself- Peter.

The guy does seem to have really disliked women on a very personal level.

As one who once spent three years in the novitiate of a Roman Catholic religious community, I can certainly attest to the prevalence of boy-on-boy action in the monastery and in the friary (a.k.a. the honeymoon suite).

I recommend the book "Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century" by Graham Robb. He writes eloquently about the "intemperate diatribe" at the heart of Christian theology that is uncomfortable with its own "androgynous and homosexual Jesuses."

Walter Pater and the Hellenists of Oxford identified Christ with Socrates, which enabled them to hint at his partiality for the adoring youths who imbibed his teachings. A painting of the school of Plato, made in 1898 by the Belgian symbolist Jean Delville, sets a white-robed Christ in the place of the classical philosopher, but surrounds him with 12 nude disciples: a purple-tailed peacock even flaunts its feathers in a tree.

Gerard Manley Hopkins doted on the image of the Crucifixion in a mood of ecstasy, picturing the torment of the saviour's 'lovely and lissome limbs'. Christopher Marlowe wrote that Christ and the Baptist were lovers and Jeremy Bentham argued that the naked youth who fled from the soldiers when they arrested Jesus at Gethsemane was a boy prostitute.

And finally ... In "Homosexuality and Civilization" Louis Compton writes: "It is a mistake to presume that earlier ages thought merely of sexual acts and not of persons. Medieval literature speaks not only of sodomy but of 'sodomites,' individuals who were a substantial, clear, and ominous presence. The fact that such beings were perceived from a theological rather than a psychological point of view did not make them any less real, or less threatening."

But Jesus is not just another patriarchal good old boy. On the contrary, everything about his life and ministry was (and is) deeply and profoundly subversive ... which is why he would be just as much a thorn in the side of the churches of today as he was in the synagogues of Judea.

Jesus does not stand against an empire (all empires condemn themselves by virtue of their very existence): he stands against the accuser who stands against the writer of this article. It is not for me to be offended by a supposed attack against "Christian values," because my sense of having been offended by such an attack would itself be a betrayal of the values I attempt to uphold. Self-described Christians who are offended by caricatures of their religion have completely missed the point and will probably continue to miss it. Other (non-Christian) faith traditions haven't missed the point at all: they just think it's ridiculous, and they totally reject it. At least they know what they're looking at.

Well modern science is in large part a product of the christian monastic tradition (although the influence of ancient greek and islamic scholars was also huge). The roots of a lot of western philosophy, and particularly notions of individual rights, are linked to parts of the christian traditions of morality, such as the "meek inheriting the earth".

Of course far to little mention of the sacrifices of the oppressed when advocating for their rights, which is the real engine of social change, is ever mentioned.

The elites, who usually write the history books, chalk change up to foolishness like documents such as the Magna Carta, or particular special individuals like Jesus. Those myths are simply someone finally getting around to codifying beliefs people have already begun to accept after long hard battles. It is in part a way to simplify the story to make it easier to tell to other people, but mostly it's a mechanism that perpetuates the very notion of a need for a ruling class. It (god) or they (take your pick of ruling elites) provide us with our existence and are thus deserving of their privledge.

I'm oversimplying rather complex historical processes, but I think a holistic understanding of history, that recognizes not just the bad and the ugly of religion, but the good as well, is important if only for the sake of accuracy.

Oh, now, James. You just made that up. Admit it.

Not that I blame you, finding good works done by Christianity is not easy. But.

Science was preserved through the
Christian darkness that covered Europe for a thousand years in Arabic, not Aramaic.

Who was it that burnt the library at Alexandria? Constantine? Wiped out a lot of preserves then, in hoc signo. Science is not alone on that list.

Anyway, that's OK, but I do want to protest your calling Magna Carta foolish. Without it the king would still be above the law, and at present the rich and powerful are doing their best to repeal it.

They like the idea of being above the law. I don't like that idea one bit, and if you think about it, I believe you won't either. Do you?

If you believe God is pious.

This could be a mistake on my end in understanding what you say. My view is that Right and Wrong is not an abstraction of reality. It IS reality. I mean, think about what else comes from abstractions of reality for a moment. Lunacy? Madness? War, needless suffering and on and on...

Jimmy Laroux:
You want a condensed version of my babble? Show me where in any Christian doctorines of actual legitimacy, that Jesus preached homosexuality is in itself a holy act. I don't find much humor in this. All I find when I read Rupps trash talk is a bitter smear of the truth.

Just a note for the brain that empire as an adjective is imperial not empirical. When I read that line about Empirical Rome I always laughed out loud...

I was trying to indicate that what is foolish is the notion that the Magna Carta and its writers are what provide us the laws that protect us. It is only through the continual efforts of the commons that our rights have existence. It's not a piece of paper, ritualized tradition, or even belief that give us whatever freedoms we enjoy. It is the actions of people that create an ethical society, every day, with every small action. The Magna Carta, or a constitution, are just useful symbols, and vague codifications of those daily ethical practices.

People should put less stock into symbols and a lot more into each and every one of their actions, because it is the latter that really matter. Not some piece of paper, or some story about some guy from a few thousand years ago who's supposed to be the son of god.

I know. But you're making the mistake of thinking those two things are mutually exclusive.

Jesus didn't make a stand against Rome? Highly debatable. And with those who believe he died and became resurrected to make that stand, there is no internal debate. And Jesus would agree with Shannons historical account of his sexuality and teachings of sexuality? As usual, you are putting words in the mouths of others that can no longer defend themselves... yet.

To me, your just another hypocrite who condemns criticism that you don't agree with (and Christians who aren't so self described don't call a spade a spade? As if Jesus didn't use the word Hypocite from time to time himself). For what its worth, if you condone the wrong doings and false teachings of humanity by looking the other way in silence, then by all means, practice what you preach. Otherwise, you are the very example of what you say you are against. And that, dear Bluenose, makes you a hypocrite.

Shannon Rupp has had articles like this on the tyee before and they are no less inflammatory to Christianity as a whole. She has and is labelling the whole of Christianity as a cult... not just a few sects and organized religions here or there, but the entire works.

While there are a good deal of Christian cults beginning with the largest one in the world, the one we all know as Catholithism as an example, the one thing that is being missed here which gets me highly upset is the major distortions of what Jesus taught and preached. It was peace, love and forgiveness (and if one doesn't ask for forgiveness, should it be given to them?) if anyone wishes to recollect. And Jesus and his followers got slaughtered for it.

For anyone including yourself, Bluenose, to condone a writer's material that submits the view that Jesus practiced and preached homosexuality while knowing full well that it is a smear of the truth and then condemn any criticisms against such smears... lets just say I'm hardly curious as to what kind of belief system you consider as equal or superior/inferior to your own conduct.

If we were to equate ugly human behavior as an equal to enlightened teachings, there would be nothing worth studying or believing in. Its like throwing out the baby with the bathwater and on that note, seeing as how this seems to be your intention, why should I believe in the future, a single word you say?

apollyon: point taken. :-)

James Burns:
An interesting word to describe reality was born from the Greek definition of "paradigm". Back in the day (2,000 years ago there abouts), it meant "good along side evil to the open shame of many". Later, in the mid teens centuries, it meant literally, "the word of God", due to its limited usage within theological interpreters of old doctrines. In the modern era, it has shifted to mean from a phycological perspective, "the view of reality from the eye of the beholder". There have been misuses of the word as well, I believe that mirror the definition of "paragon", etc. but the main use of this word has always centered around reality and that reality is often most seen by comparing and contrast, which is what words from the "para" tree do.

I guess where I'm going with this, is that there is the way we want it to be, and then there is the way it is... reality, the summation of the big picture with all of its inclusive parts, and I highly doubt that there is a living breathing person who can see the full extent of reality for all that it is within this large universe of ours we simply do not possess this kind of knowledge, wisdom, and especially intention to do so.

The modern day usage of "paradigm" or individual perception of reality is next to impossible to break out of, to see ourselves or others from the outside looking in... and I would be a liar if I was to say that I don't, like the rest, suffer from this limited view.

My point? I'll go with the Greeks of old on this one. Good alongside evil to the open shame of many, is the reality I see. Don't mean to push it on you, but it is most certainly the way I percieve this world and just because others, perhaps even yourself doesn't see it that way, doesn't exactly mean that it isn't so. And, as I believe you are suggesting, it has its limitations in definition. Is a rock capable of good or evil? A blade of grass? A star? A ripple in a pond?

Nevertheless, only life that has the potential to look at the causal effects of actions, as I agree, are far more important than symbols or words and yet, symbols and words nevertheless inspire and shape the will, goals and plans behind such actions and cannot be taken lightly for such reasons. Communication helps, does it not?

Bluenose, that's fascinating. Your observations are certainly borne out by those of other novices and former seminarians I've spoken with. Just curious (and only if you don't mind saying): which Order did you do your novitiate with?

Libelous drivel. How ironic that many who return to heterosexuality from homosexuality do so as a result of a Christian faith experience. You can read their stories on peoplecanchange.com

Dear dolphin; Delusional drivel. One of the many enormous ironic lies Christians tell to justify the harm they do.

I point out that many Jews converted to Christianity as a result of torture or the promise of torture at the hands of the Inquisition. And I also claim that their experience WAS the template of a Christian faith experience.

Christians now organize and lobby and bribe legislators to express their hatred of homosexuals in a similar way. Not too surprizing that some will react in the same way the Spanish Jews did, when the authorities stole their children and nullified their marriages and confiscated their homes and made them wear yellow hats.

"Wait! Wait! I see Jesus! Really! Now can I have my civil rights back please?"

The Brain wrote:

Poor deluded creature. So much misplaced anger. Typical.

I don't think you should believe anything. You shouldn't even bother to respond to my posts. Please. Just don't bother. They're not worth it. Try cooking cabbages instead.

I do mind saying. I cannot disclose that kind of information on a forum like this. Suffice it to say that the Order no longer has a presence in Canada: lack of vocations, despite the fringe benefits. Or perhaps because of them.

While I'm here I'd like to reply to James Burns as well. James, I understand what you mean, and you're right of course. No written law will prevail if people don't offer it their own behaviour.

But without codified laws no amount of behaviour will prevail on it's own. There are so many different kinds of people, so many ways of being human. Somebody somewhere is bound to behave badly to others in the most unpleasant ways without the protections of written laws to educate and regulate them.

At present, among the people of the book as they say, we're having the most difficult time coping with the behaviours of rich and powerful psychopaths, who managed to get enough power to repeal the laws that prohibited their preferred ruthless behaviours.

There's a growing fear that the actual Earth may die of it. And the madmen continue to repeal the laws that prevented them from killing it off long since. They wouldn't do that if they thought they could manage it without.

brain wrote:

Of course not, and I'd go further: nothing, nobeing ever will.

brain wrote:

baily wrote:

I agree with both of these quotes. As I mentioned earlier, our simplifications are a vital part of our making meaning. They are a synergistic part of how we create our reality. We couldn't do it without them. The problem is that people all too often deify or reify those simplifications. Instead of recognizing those simplifications for what they are, they become more real in their minds than what they represent. That leads people into trouble. The details of every day action are set aside or ignored in favor of the worship of abstracted principles, or worse, the fictionalized stories about those principles.

The all too sad result of this kind of thinking is the sort of stupidity we see coming from the US. The US, as a symbol in the minds of its citizens, represents freedom and goodness. It's actions in Iraq are the polar opposite: mass murder and oppression. Their worship of a symbol not only obscures the reality of their government's action, but obscures their part in that catastrophe.

Looking at the Church of Rome and its offshoots, it is important to remember that the injunction against homosexuality originates with the Old Testament. I think it was considered a abomination for two reasons:
1. Go forth and multiply tends not to happen unless gay men are forced into marriage.
2. Everbody surrounding the Hebrews, especially during the Babylonian exile (and for that matter most cultures,) figured out a way to harness the energy instead of surpress it. Declaring gayness off limits is just one of the things which helps to perpetuate the 'Us & Them paradigm.

It is why the US Military persues the destuctive "Don't ask, don't tell." policy. Check out how both closetedness and forced homosexuality is used to blackmail the upper ranks by googling "Kay Griggs". And while we're at it...remember the initiation rituals of Scull and Bones.

In my utopia, religion gets seen for what it is...another way for intelligent sociopaths to climb a hierarchy whose mandate is fearbased control of large populations by turning natural behaviors into sins. Marvelous racket!

Which biologists? I don't have the cite handy, but there's more than one zoological paper on the prevalence of alpha-beta male homosexual/bisexual behaviours in nearly all animals, ranging from penguins to giraffes to lions and even chipmunks. I seem to recall something about female chimpanzees driving away a male from their mutual jollies. "Official" human culture is the aberration in the animal kingdom.

Using Michaelangelo's David and the various muscular-naked depictions of St. Sebastian (and so many others) isn't any valid observation on the church, but rather on art and the artists who the church hired. As I recall, the Cardinal in Florence wasn't particularly happy about David's "beauty". Somehow tying this into the unknown and speculated-upon nature of earliest Christianity - before imperial politics began to influence its scriptures and doctines) - has no connection; Michaelangelo was over a thousands years later.

What strikes me about Rupp's article is there's a vaguely homophobic tone to her account; I'd be more specific and say androphobia - the feminist equivalent of gynophobia; which dykes often do - cutting down male queers as "just men" and behaving like boys. She also missed on a lot of potentially juicy stuff - Paul's epistles to the Romans and Corinthians and certain others were addressed to Christian communities where the centuries-old standards of libertine sex were part of daily life; Paul was lecturing them that they had to become as uptight as HE was. Always remember when there's someone loudly going "don't do this" and "don't do that" there's quite likely to have been a lot of "this" and "that" going on....or else why bother saying anything, huh?

Also comparing the gnostic and ambiguous bisexual/biphiliac nature of early Christianity to what happened after the Conversion and the establishment of monasteries is likewise antithetical; the latter destroyed the former as the disorganized and rather libertine character of early Christians was replaced by the idea of sin and salvation and The Church. Which focussed on the patriarchial and homophobic/anti-sexual mores of St. Paul. The gnostic and other early Christian scriptures were specifically excluded from the official Bible by the Councils of Nicaea because they didn't support the imperial order, the patriarchy, and the repression of what was seen as pagan-style sexuality.

And if a bunch of guys following around this carpenter dude is implicitly queer, I gather Ms. Rupp would pass the same judgement on Gautama and Confucius and Zoroaster and others? Surely Socrates ane Plato, granted, as far as that kind of thing goes, and given Roman standards it's not unlikely the "bad Roman habits" got picked up by Jews in Palestine. But come to think of that, there's other bits in the stories of David and Solomon that are more pertinent, and predate Roman influence and also can't be blamed on paganism.

As for the homosexual undertones to the Mass, it's worth mentioning that the structure of the Mass ritual - and much of its actual text - is a pastiche from the rites of the Cult of Isis (a female cult). And like in most female-cult rites, the male is at least ritually (if not literally) dismembered.

I hope Ms. Rupp will give equal time to the brutal and savage history of the matriarchal religions and their millennia-old victimization of male sacrifices for their "fertility rites". There's a good REASON why the patriarchal "sky gods" overthrew the matriarchal "earth cults" - they were anything but pacific and progressive, and men were treated as only chattel by the oppressive rulership of women. This was Strindberg's opinion, and beyond early 20th Century corollary writings by Yeats, Graves and Crowley on the mother cults and their emasculatory nature. Funny how feminist writing never wants to address such material.

Except to denounce it as "having been written by men".

I also meant to add that early Christians weren't just a bunch of guys following Joshua ben Miriam around; that account was written/edited by people writing women out of the story; the Gnostic accounts make it clear there was many women in the entourage as men. And given what's been observed about Peter and others in the party, those women weren't following THEM around....

Calling such organizations as Christian is highly debatable. For whatever reason, some commentators including Shannon Rupp, seem, from the way I percieve it anyways... seem to be hugely struggling with what actually truly "defines" a christian.

Are we to think for example, that priests who teach the parables of Jesus one hour and then diddle boys and girls the next are Christian? Are Arians of the Nazi race Christian? Men who believe having many wives and children simetaneously somehow pleases God? Christians who break their own laws set forth by Moses and Jesus Christ? (that's right, Jesus had some commandments of his own) Christians who control the masses with polluted doctrines, Christians who say this and do that, Christians who mock the teachings of Christ and his apostles, Christians who treat others including themselves, like pure crap? "Be Ye not decieved, for there shall be many false Christs."

To me, as I understand it, to be a Christian is to have Christ "within". How many do? Me? And this is where honest self examination begins all over again revealling all of its painful truths, if I/we have the capacity to be honest at all. Let it be said that few on this earth live the life of a saint. Few of us have had the luxury of living in a conflict free environment filled with love. Do we expect bumper crops in droughts? Thank God for mercy.

There is an evolution to all things and the origins to growth should never be mocked. Who sounds better than three blind mice the first time they play a guitar? Who has proportion mastered in their first scupture? Did Davinci paint masterpieces as a child? Did Steven King write best sellers at the age of two? What child hasn't learned to roll before the child crawls, to crawl before it walks, walk before it runs? Is there an infant that can feed itself? We begin this world in dependancy and so it the same with spiritual growth.

So it is the same for one who pursues the love and teachings of Christ to share with their own. It takes time for this tree of knowlege to grow, takes time to end the internal conflicts within oneself to see permanent change towards goodwill for everyone... including oneself. It simply takes time to change. But when the will is there, and the goal is there and pursued, a new level of conciousness is born. Who expects adult conversations from babes?

So much human devastation has been caused by the marrage of church and state. So much damage has been done by those who have not learned to forgive... to respect the one principle that God upholds... FREE WILL. But with the allowance of freewill comes all that goes with it. Freedom and oppression. To choose to follow leaders and their commandments, or challenge them. The freedom to make war or peace. Freedom to love or hate. For all life is a test and in that test, we see clearly who we are or aren't, unless we lack the honesty or desire to see reality for what it truly is instead of just for what we think it is... and this reality strongly suggests that we are born into circumstances and environments that we did not choose... but in the end, if we live long enough, we moreso become a product of our own choices... and the mother and father look for their own.

Bluenose - I understand. My curiousity is academic. I'm interested in the different charisms expressed by the various Orders and their founders.

As an agnostic who is a "cradle Catholic" literally from birth, I still think that one of the pinnacles of human culture is expressed in the Roman liturgy and High Mass (and other pinnacle being the Byzantine or Orthodox liturgy), with its Gregorian Chant, it's masterful employ of all five senses, the overwhelming architectural genius, the overflowing artistry and erotic sensibility (until our parent's generation, the Church had a monopoly on pornography, in a manner of speaking). Not to be pithy, but it's truly the first multi-media sound-and-light show. And the institution and hierarchy itself remains the most successful experiment in multi-generational planning and corporate survival. Whatever its detractors say, and whatever its future from henceforward, nothing like it has ever existed before, and probably never will again. It remains the single most successful cross-cultural, global collective endeavour to have ever come into being.

I think you’re maybe just a tiny bit subject to Stendhal’s Syndrome, nightbloom.

Given limited memory and even more limited experience in time I'd say that's just a few degrees over the top. For a conjunction of the temporal and the sublime, sound, light and atmosphere included, I'll take an early evening prairie thunderstorm any time. No language, no liturgy and no cultural indoctrination needed. Try taking a group of Canadian 12 – year olds to a medieval cathedral and see how quickly their attention wanders.

Dear Brain; Let me see if I can help out.

No struggle here: a Christian is anyone who, through a means recognized by a Christian group, been accepted as a Christian and claims to be one. Christening, baptism, etc.

Yes, if they qualify as above and call themselves so. Even the false ones, I'm afraid.

Yes. Or no. If anyone does, everyone does. Either Christ consiousness is a quality that's part of the makeup of all, or else it's just hooey.
Whether you're honest or not; self examined or not is a matter of your own. You deal with it. Or don't.

It's unlikely either way to be comprehensible to others whatever you say about it. Only your behaviour is available as a means for anyone else to judge this.

Nature is supreme; tell us something we don't know.

My point about human creativity, culture and society stands. Much of pop culture is little more than a glitzy, mass-produced send-up of sub-themes already contained within the Christian fusion of Athens and Jerusalem. Take the basic narratives in movies, novels, comic strips; or the real life projections of the mob onto cyphers placed before them (from Che to Diana). Those geniuses two millennia ago really did hit all the right buttons. That's why it has endured.

And we still won't see anything like it any time soon.

A friend who got interested in Tibetan Budhism once remarked on the same use of chant,costume and incense and how impressed he was on its ability to induce trance. He was brought up in a minimalist Protestant sect so had never encountered anything like it. I told him too bad he'd never experience the old Mass so he'd understand what was not was not unique about his experience.

I've got to admit I wouldn't swap Palestrina for anything.

Well..l.l.l.... you also said this:

Still a bit over the top my friend.

I'm not too keen on mass popular culture either. I think, in the end, its the introspective nature of meditation and the way one can sometimes move into the absolute present that brings me closest to what I'd call the sublime - but it takes ages to get there - all on your own - very lonely and very hard to describe.

But music, as you say, Nana, is definitely a high of another kind.

Yeah, they hit all the available buttons, as mentioned already from the Cult of Isis as well as from the ideas and in fact the very legends and miracles of various Greek gods and demigods (especially Apollo but him not alone), and also from other Pantheons (as so famously in Ireland and France, but also in modern Brazil and Africa). So they took everybody else's buttons, rebranded them (with imperial sanction) and then made all the other buttons illegal. Big deal. It helps when you've got a government lockdown on making unofficial versions of religion quickly repressed by means of the death penalty. Just ask the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Cathars, the Bogommils, the Arians, the Monophysites, and Knights Templar, the Diggers and various and many other decidedly Christian (often "more Christian" in terms of practice than the state/church-controlled religion/ritual/doctrine). Er, you can't ask them because they were done away with.

The reason "it" has endured for 2000 years is that it forbade the existence of all comers; not because it was somehow superior or "built to last". And the shape of the church and its institutions have changed drastically since the end of the line of emperors, and also because of the Great Schism.

Sensual experience? I'd take the Greek mass over the Catholic for that. As for Gregorian Chant, it came into existence as a church purge of the sensual and emotional flavour of church music until that times, which was redolent with the pagan/folk legacy and also inherited from the "oriental" church and pagan rituals. Gregorian Chant may sound all serene and beautiful now, but it resulted from a ban on rhythm, musical instruments, singing in parts, and any display of emotion in the music.....

And as for the mass, once again what has survived is the ritual of the Cult of Isis and Osiris. Right down to the Shrine of the Virgin (Isis herself, no less in the traditional blue and white robes...). The emperor and his appointed bishops knew a good draw when they saw one - and a bunch of people meditating quietly, without a leader or a sacrifice, just couldn't be sold as a state religion. They needed something with pomp and mystery, and at least a touch of blood sacrifice, where the flock would have to listen-and-respond, not do their own thinking. The cult of Isis and Osiris was current in the Empire, especially its eastern parts, at the time, and so while the liturgy itself was changed (though echoes of the Book of the Dead remain in spots...) you're talking about a ritual space which has lasted 6000 years or more. Not 2000.

Christianity always wants to seem to take credit for other people's good stuff. Like, for example, Christmas and Easter....the pagans really did have more fun IMO.

Even the monogram for "pax" used by the church - looks like a p with an x crossed on the lower stem - is not just accidentally similar to the Eye of Horus...which also survives to the present day in the Rx prescription symbol.

Skookum1
If you keep this up, I'm gonna have to run and pull out some of my texts on medieval iconography.

Interesting stuff. One problem we have today, looking back, is that it seems such a grand and carefully organized and plotted plan. Did you read the review article about the uses of 'violence' by the church I posted at the other place?
Truth and Consequences by David Nirenberg

Especially have fun with Honorious the Great and Albertus Magnus. The grimoires I mean; there's other compendiums of esoteric symbols but those are important because they're church figures, one a pope. Much of what is there is partly important because it represents an integration of what remained of ancient textual/symbolic traditions within an ostensibly Christian context; nothing as dark as the Malleus Maleficarum which is the textbook for exorcism since it was written (as late as the Counter-Reformation maybe?). It's also implicit that some of the same symbolic lore as in those grimoires as, er, maybe, did I say that?, in the secrets of the Masons and other hermetic organizations, all inherited from the same source: the Serapeum in Alexandria, where esoteric lore from around the lore was collected and integrated into a relatively consistent body (including all available from within the known world, apparently including India and Afghanistan). The Pax-Rx-Eye of Horus thing is fairly common; I'm not sure where to point you on accounts of the rites of Isis; maybe in The Golden Ass, I'm not sure. The comparison of the cult of the Virgin with that of Mary is fairly common but often kind of swept aside as if impolite.

Another standard classics-related comparison between paganism and Christianity is between the image of the seated Zeus - and the seated Emperor - to that of God the Father enthroned, and also Christ Enthroned; this was an icon of power, and emulated by both popes and kings in the centuries since. It's not incidental that the mantle of the Great Statue of Zeus in Olympia was for many years the sacred veil of the Temple in Jerusalem, either. Likewise the adaptation of the original teachings of Jesus into a religion of submission to authority - "the patriarchy", quite literally and symbolically put by the image of the seated lord/king/god, whether religious or temporal, but the various adjustments and excisions which formed the modern Bible. Not even the Resurrection has anything to do with that, although it's another thing that was layered on top of the original teaching, which was about transcendence NOW, not salvation whenever it is that the end of the world comes along. That's the central Gnostic teaching (one Gnostic teaching is that the Church is the work of the devil, and is itself heretical on many accounts. An extreme account in Gnostic literature says that Lucifer and Christ are one and the same, and this world is Lucifer's penance for his crimes; in that tradition the divine world can only be accessed through knowledge and meditation, as this world, all of it, is an illusion based in the consequences of angelic disruptions to the divine fabric (an account shared by Tolkien's Silmarillion). A variant on this is that the world is am embodiment created of by the demiurge, the being that appears to be The Deity but is the manifestation of this world, unknowing of the truth even to him/her/itself. The true divine (Kether in the Qabbala I think) cannot be perceived by human senses - as also in various Hindu doctrines and also Platonic idealism, especially in neo-Platonism which gave birth to the esoteric tradition and the magickal tracts and literature already mentioned.

The Celto-Germanic and Greco-Roman "divine world" was much more tangible - with humans encountering gods and demigods in the flesh - at least until Socrates came along (Heraclitus beat him to it) and posed the idea of incorporal and unknowable god as the true nature of Zeus (Dio in Greek, meaning both the Christian God and Zeus). All these connections between east and west and the Fertile Crescent and Egypt and our own tradition on this particular issue should not be surprising; it was as mentioned somewhere else in Greek-ruled Bactria that Buddhism found its first safe stronghold, and the already existing affinity established between Greek and Indian schools of philosophy from Alexander's time onwards had their effects. It happens that it was during Alexander's time that the idea of a transcendent single divine being was first made universal, partly because the similarity between the various pantheons (other than Persia's) was so noticeable and the local icons and images weren't as important as whatever truths lay behind that.

It's the body of ideas - and crazy prophets - from that age that are the most interesting; Jesus was just another one, as the storyline in The Life of Brian nails on the head; others in the previous three centuries, some with large cults (Apollodorus of Rhodes comes to mind) claimed to be or were claimed to be of divine parentage (Jesus himself never did, though certainly his followers made up a good story and a nice holiday to go with it), and their histories have all the same kinds of miracles as at Galilee (not that nifty trick with the wine, though). It's also not incidental that the cults of these various prophets and miscellaneous syncretic deities spawned by the tradition (e.g. Mitra and the aforementioned Serapis among many others) were all over the place in Palestine and the Levant in the late Roman period; Christianity was just a systematizing of a random array of cults with many similar tales of miracles and prophet-lore; these were among those banned by Theodosius II ("the Great") when he restored Christianity, and whose cults prior to the Conversion had also slowly merged with the growing Christian element around them, as the beliefs were all similar. But when it emerged, there's no mistaking a lot of the story is a pastiche of very similar lives and teachings from previous centuries.

Came across an interesting book on the Mandeans and all this sort of thing in the SFU library; all about their particular take on The Son Of Man, and the different wranglings on the meaning of that; as with Gnosticism/Qabbala's wranglings over The True Adam. Fascinating stuff, at least the few chapters I could handle; a window on the supposed darkness before the Light of the World made its way to Bethlehem etc (on a nice warm April night, to boot). Mandeans and Manicheans were throughout Palestine at the time of Jesus' emergence, and as with Apollodorus and Mitra all the teachings bore a certain resemblance to each other. And the Cult of the Mother is so ancient as to need no further explanation for its survival, except by way of its pervasiveness in the region during the evolution of official Christianity when it was deemed to be of too much value and sanctity to not consider including. (unlike the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and another gnostic text, Thunder, Perfect Mind, attributed to the Magdalene, cf. Elaine Pagels).

So all this is kind of pointed at nightbloom, who if he's read this far must have grimaced to be reminded of them.

Ack; the whole point of the enthroned deity that's the intro to those posts is that the use of the image by the pope is a direct inheritance of the official symbology of the Roman State. As is the office/title of Pontifex Maximus - High Priest - formerly a title of the Emperor as officiator at the temples of Jupiter and the Pantheon. Somehow the Bishop of Rome inherited the title and panoply (including the pointy hat and splashy robes) but originally it was the Emperor's. The Emperor himself being, also of course, divine....

And my point to nightbloom about the discussion of Gnostic and other "heretical beliefs" is that Catholicism, like the neo-Protestant fundies, like to claim that they are Christianity; in Catholicism's case proof of Christianity's durability and relevance simply by it being (supposedly) 2000 years old (1600 tops given the Councils of Nicaea, under a thousand if counting from the Great Schism). The neo-Protestants take it a step further with the notion that only their churches, and people who believe the same doctrines in similar churches, are saved and free of sin because of the light of Christ in their heart and so on. That no one else is right and unless you play their game you're going to burn in everlasting hellfire. The church - meaning the Catholic Church - taught exactly the same thing as the Evangelicals do, and look where it got them. Centuries of buggery-filled monasteries and seminaries on the one hand, sex-and-drug-crazed TV pastor-hypocrites on the other; both making boodles of money and having people running scared to do God's bidding, including giving money to your church/pastor. Hellfire and damnation seems to fill the donation buckets a lot quicker than eternal salvation, especially given the either-or of the choice (and no middle ground allowed). No wonder Dante's Inferno is populated by popes and priests. Including most of the inmates encountered in the ninth malebolge, where sodomites are stuck in the rock by their ankles, with devils "tickling" their feet with lashes of flame.

Haggard, if he winds up in Dante's Hell, would be somewhere deeper in the Pit, as he'd come under mountebank preachers, sorcerors and others who sought profit from false teachings of the Lord, I think in the 11th malebolge. Don't know what circle of hell that lying-to-yourself thing gets you though, as far as Haggard is concerned. He might be consignable to the frozen lake of Cocytus, where traitors are locked in the ice...(and he would seem to be a traitor on both sides of the fence, poor guy).

It's not just the iconography and the adoption of pagan imagery to divine purpose that we tend to forget today.

It is also, as the Gaddis book illustrates in that review article, a whole different 'Christian' approach to the 'message' and who must accept it. This makes the nominal outrage in the west about the more violent interpretation some Islamic groups make of Mohammed's message sound a little tin to my ear.

Just 3 short paragraphs give the proper flavour of the dish, I think:

Saint Mercurius, standing before the Lord, wore a gleaming iron breast-plate.
Hearing the command, he disappeared, and then he reappeared, standing before the
Lord, and cried out, "The emperor Julian has been fatally wounded and has died,
as you commanded, Lord."

To those raised in more modern versions of Christianity, these ancient stories
may sound more like The Godfather than like the God of love. This is not because
our ears are better than theirs, but because theirs were attuned to a register
of Jesus' voice that many today can no longer hear: "As for my enemies who did
not want me for their king, bring them here and execute them in my presence."

Sound familiar?

Early Christianity wasn't just 'gay' Shannon.

G West wrote:

You move into the present sometimes? Lonely? Are "you" sure you're "doing" it "right"? *wink*

Well I agree its hard to describe the ever present present, and being aware of your awareness of it non-judgmentally. Words tend to put of lot of do into being.

I was referring to the ability to be conscious of the present, to be ‘in’ it so to speak; to slow down and truly focus on what is happening "now" and not on what has gone before or on what will come next - a kind of middle way. It is not the kind of thing that lends itself particularly well to the written word. And the non-judgmental aspect, as you say, is very important.

And awfully tough for me, at least, to attain. And lonely.

We’re used to crutches, of all kinds, one stumbles without them.

And no, one's never 'sure' of anything.

Skookum1 writes:

Je conviens complètement.

In contrast see Jacob Boehme and George Fox: "Now the Lord God opened to me by His invisible power that every man was enlightened by the divine Light of Christ."

Nana writes:

Precisely! The Guru trap is part of the package too.

G West writes:

Fearfully and wonderfully expressed.

Nightbloom writes:

Interesting perspective but I don't believe the charism of the Order I served my novitiate in had anything to do with what went on beneath the sheets. It went on in many Orders regardless of their particular "-ism."

I know. That wasn't what I had in mind. I wasn't even thinking of the sex thing. My interest is the the "personality" of each order, and the inspiration provided by the particularly founder that has allowed them to survive for so long, and the footprint they have left on society over time.

G West wrote:

I'm sure you're right...oh...wait... ;)

Bluenose wrote:

Yes, it's fascinating how some people will critique established religion, yet unskeptically swallow whole all manner of new age nuttery.

Well, JB, I think that the former Anglican priest,Tom Harpur said it best years ago on Peter Gzofsky's Morningside. There is a great well of Spirituality in the world and the people are thirsty and the Church has built walls around it.

The problem is there are a great many charletans connected with "New Age", but there are also great truths. Look at what Richard Tarnas has done for Astrology. http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/tarnas.html

Here's the website for Cosmos and Psyche
http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/

Tarnas:

Ah yes, gotta luv how people make careers out of misinterpreting science.

All aboard, next stop Nirvana!
Woooo-woooo chugga chugga chugga chugga.

That is often the way Science has been used. How about this for Contempt before examination.

from Readers Comments

Now THAT stands on its own!!!

Spare me, but that is gay. In its original sense.

I kept my hand on history's wrist for 20 minutes - no sign of a pulse - or an archetype. Trouble!

Hey, all you thirsty horses, I've shown you a creek full of water, the rest is up to you.

Excellent observations, Skookum1. There is no doubt in my mind that the Roman empire did what they could at the time to squash any kind of Christianic counter to their own purpose of authoriarian control from the get go.

Were the teachings of Christ a danger to Judaism? Only to their cults. Who was Christs greatest enemy? Rome. It was Rome that murdered him, not the Jews. It was Rome that murdered his apostles, all of them. It was Rome that did everything Rome could do to destroy or edit any doctrines written by the apostles that didn't suit them (good thing they didn't understand some of it) and it was Rome that brutally slaughtered by the Catholic archives own account, 52 million Christians and pagans over a 300 year period before Constantine. It was Rome that institutionalized the power structure of church and state. It was Rome that tried to systematically destroy every and all doctrines that countered or diametrically opposed their own belief structures and the might of Rome herself. It was Rome that stripped the female aspects from Christianity and heavily edited, deleted and added to the doctrines it chose as a template for its own will... to control. It was Rome that spun humanity into the dark ages and sent humanity backwards by a thousand years in areas of science and human rights. It was Rome that shed the blood of the innocent and slaughtered the saints and if the population wouldn't have grown 7 fold with an explosion of science to counter the lies of Rome, we would still be subjects to the evil of Rome unto this day. And for a billion of us Roman Catholics, we still are to some degree... at some point in time, we are simply going to have to give the devil its due and assume responsiblity for our own prejudices... or there will be no peace.

I have viewed in my research spurred on by experiences that have been literally a confirmation that the story of Christ is no fairy tale... angels are no mere pulseless beams of light. And it has led me to acknowledge that Rome was opposed by a man who cared far more for us than he cared for Romes oppressive, murderous, brutal control of free will. Enough that he gave his life for it. And what I've seen is truth that has been smeared over and over again to suit a selfish, destructive agenda. This article is yet, just another example of it, albeit, a reactionary one that does seem to be, as Skookum1 alludes to, percieved as having a sexist bias.

Organized religions with a twisted will to pursue worldly power, all offer the same thing in common... a smear of the truth disguised as the truth itself, an imposter that dribbles half truths, fallacies and outright lies to promote its own internal lies to suit its own selfish destructive wants.

As Skookum1 has in detail noted, the "official" imperial version of Rome's Christianity has its patchwork of religious crossover, from astrological Gods, to blended beliefs. For 8 years, Zorastians and Christians held shared official "status" as a religious belief, until Constantine gave political power to the Catholics and they murdered the Zorastian magi that lingered around.

But aside from Rome's version that weaves astrological God/ess's together, Christianity (the lamb) has much in common with the Bull (Zorastianism). Anyone who see's the similarities should also note, however, that Moses gives credit to both as valid churches (with the smears removed). This link provides a good deal of crossovers, even with the origins of tarot card figures that come into play.

http://www.crystalinks.com/mithra.html

I should mention, Skookum1, that wine is defined as the word of God, and bread is defined as a group who is following God's will (quite literally, a church), while fish imply students of a school or discipline. Wine comes from wine, fish comes from fish, bread comes from bread, no real miracles on the Mount, other than leaders speaking and followers nodding their heads.

the Brain
DID you read the review article posted at the other place?

It's worth a minute too.

The Sermon on the Mount can be interpreted several ways. The bread was the sacred meal, shared in community, dispensed by those ordained to do so. These latter people were the "fish". Too many people, not enough presbyters (or Fish), so Jesus broke with tradition and illicitly ordained more "fish" to dispense the bread. Big scandal, since some of these were presumeably gentiles, and Jesus was no priest. He was flouting convention, religious norms, and the strictly controlled priestly hierarchy.

Same double entrendre with the other miracle stories - for example, the walking on water, in which Jesus soon upon the priest's platform over the water to dispense his benediction to the fishermen. Another big scandal, since he was usurping the monopoly of the priests, who alone could "walk upon the water" and bestow the blessing.

Same sort of thing with the whole "turning water into wine", in which Jesus again broke with convention and ordered the sanctified wine reserved for the devout inner circle of the Hebrew community to be dispensed to all the guests at the wedding. Or when Jesus "healed the sick", those who had always been forbidden to participate in religious observance (since they were seen as unclean or cursed). He opened the doors to the community for them, and brought them into the fold. Same thing with poor Lazarus, expelled from the community in the traditional fashion (ceremonially entombed in his burial shroud and mourned by his family, as though dead) - Jesus revoked his exile, thereby "raising the dead". Another big scandal - and one which particularly outraged the Pharisees.

This isn't new - theologians have been debating these things for generations. It doesn't diminish the resonance or essential meaning of the Jesus narrative.

Bailey:
Your definition of a Christian is comparable to defining a lie as truth, simply because it was presented as true. In other words, I disagree with your assessment of what a defined Christian is with this in mind, and wish to offer further clarity. :-)

Being a practicing Christian also takes the participation of a ritual known as a water baptism with the participants of such a ritual having full knowledge of what water means, at least, in terms of being protected by God's angelical servants. Simply put, rituals are the doorway from the natural to the supernatural.

Water is defined in spiritual terms as life. It is also known as feminine, with co-regeneration and preservation lending added meaning. To be baptized with water is to commit ones life to the preservation/regeneration of life itself... quite literally to be spiritually feminine in terms of how female is accurately spiritually defined. What gives this ritual power is the sincerity behind the commitment to a promise... and observers who know what to look for, know the sincerity of this commitment.

Which in relation to today's political figures who say this (I am a Christian) and do that (make war), I agree with Jimmy Carters direction of polarizing further, a majorly polarizing president (GWB) in his latest book. GWB is hardly an environmentalist peacemaker, but the opposite of what he claims to be for war profiteering motives. Actions do speak louder than words, and thus reveal him and his spiritual followers/leaders in approval as hypocrites.

As for religious symbols and spiritual meanings and definitions behind them, there are loads and loads of them. For example, those who follow the teachings of the lamb (and note again, the similarities of the lamb and the bull (Zorastianism) in relation to its blood) have borrowed symbols and other meanings from sources that predate Christ, of which evangelicals claim as evil, such as the Pythagrean 5 pointed star which is likely one and the same as being the ring of Solomon.

Part of this reason lies with the astrological usage of the pentagrams points (Jupiter, mercury, mars, saturn, Venus), which Romanized Christianity polarizes as the opposite to its own teachings. The neo definitions follow Earth (natural), water (life), fire(destruction, cleansing), air(communication), spirit(celestial), which are confused as being elements, but are instead environments. The early Christians/pagans used this symbol on their grave sites up to the latter 2nd century, lending to the idea that Christians/pagans held the pentagram in reverance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

Several different meanings have been put on its points, with everything from the 5 senses, to planets, to environments, to directions, as well as the pentagrams offset from these meanings to mean the reverse intention. But its most noticable meanings are geometrical. Interlacing the geometrical design can build spheres of complex magnitude, inferring the meaning of the pentagram as a multilayered building block of life.

Point is, this one symbol (pentagram) has meanings that differ far and wide, with each ideological order or religous disipline. Are they all accurate? Within each circle, their own usage is believed to be... but that doesn't necessarily make it true, other than to witness a distorted paradigm that manifests its own distortions. The only way to verify symbolic signifigance is to put it to the test... in ritual or practice to see what is functional from what is not. But then, some doors should remain closed in terms of what might be waiting at the other side... to which there is a far easier and safer method of determining functionality. Just ask someone who already knows.

In conclusion, is it wrong for any one religion to borrow or integrate symbols or beliefs that others possess from different disciplines as Christianity borrows from Judeaism? It isn't if earlier beliefs have common denominators or threads of principle and ideology and this is where Judeaisms prophecy of a savior, as it also is in Zorastianism, implies. It most certainly is justified if Jesus Christ was in fact, an incarnation of an ark angel, and the old testament does infer this with God telling one of his prophets that he would send the "prince of truth" to bring peace to mankind and that it would be such a difficult role, that only the prince of truth could pull it off, of which the prince of truth could not be mistaken for anyone else other than the arch angel Michael himself.

In such light, it would mean that evangelicals are once again getting it wrong, that Jesus was not the direct manifestation of God (which should in itself be a givaway, God doesn't hypocritically pray to himself or ask himself why God has forsaken his own self, duh), but an ark angel incarnate that comes with a purpose... to save the world.

Agreed, Nightbloom:
Various religions of complexity, with their sects wrongfully interpreting intended spiritual meanings as natural ones, have led to major gross misconduct, especially when it comes to the spiritual meanings brought to the analogies of warfare. Spiritually, within death there is life, a new identity quite literally born, with the old one laid to rest, but not necessarily forgotten. But to confuse these spiritually intended meanings by accident or on purpose with their natural defintions of these words, gives licence for cult leaders to inspire war, sexism, and sanctioning judgements. Just as easily as it happens in Islam in countries that have a high illiteracy, so too, does it happen within Christianity in the western world. Its is observed to be a mockery by those who know better, and a horribly inaccurate example used by those who believe that there is no truth whatsoever in these beliefs. To that end, it should be mentioned that Islam is a spinoff of Mohammed's interpretation of Christianity, and he didn't get it all right, although some parts of it are close.

With a further look into the spiritual meanings, the meaning to sword (truth) as dual edged, swinging to the left (received) and right (given) as it is used in Christianity, or the dagger as it is used in Islam (right only), is evident within the scriptures usage.

And while the bull is mocked by evangelicals, the magi of which its most notable are Isaiah and Daniel, were of the bull. Certain disiplines, however inaccurate, have drawn from the bull, most notably Tarots and astrology, of which mainstream Christianity percecutes and diametrically opposes with labelling polarities. The symbols of the suits, the pentagram's, swords, cups (grail), staff (creativity), and the major and minor archane's (of which are borrowed from the bull) are a direct spinoff of two merged beliefs, although it is highly up to debate as to whether one should shuffle the deck to see into the future of which, some things are better off not being known. Its the visitation of Adam and Eve's story of the apple in the spirtual garden all over again, where the tree of life now remains protected by a flaming sword (cleansed truth) at the east (awareness) of Eden (spiritual plane).

And naturally, few historians would ever discover these meanings or reasons for crossovers unless they were actual believers or practicing seekers of Gods word.

Do you mean Free Columbians, G?

Holy mackeral! You been giving this some thought, haven't you brain?

Clearly you're feeling attacked, I didn't mean to do that. I promise not to lie to you, too. Very harsh of you, I must say.

I stand by my definition. A Christian has identified as one and been through whatever ritual baptism or Christening is required by the rules.

There's nothing that says they can't be hypocrites. Lots and lots of them seem very much like that to me. Nothing that says they can't be evildoers, or even evil itself.

Thanks for all the doctrine and historical references. The point of ritual is to prepare the ground for whatever is intended to occur. All ritual is adapted from other rituals in other traditions that were trying to accomplish the same ends. Just reworked to fit into the new liturgy so the participants can identify as whatever.

Of course Christian mysticism has its origins in Jewish mysticism, and Mythran, and Roman and Zoroastrian. The pentagram is found in all sorts of interesting places.

But I must differ with you about the nature of doctrine. If evangelicals all claim that something is doctrinally 'true', then it is. Likewise conservatives, traditionals, pagans, alchemists and Rastafarians.

The doctrine of any sect or religion is whatever they say it is. Just like a Christian is anybody who joins up and claims to be one.

However repellant that might be in actual practice, them's the rules.

the Brain
YEP! Check it out.

One last thing about Paul's letters, as well. Paul's writings were always adressed to churches who centered their beliefs around Christ. This is highly important, since often, his writings are taken completely out of context. Is it wrong for example, to impose ones beliefs on a person or group who is not willing to listen or learn more about such beliefs? If one is imposing his will on another "or else", it most certainly is.

But Paul's writings weren't targeted towards unbelievers. He was communicating moral and principled guidelines to those who had at least, in ritual terms, made indications that they wanted to know what those guidelines are, leaving Paul the right to teach them.

Were these teachings accurate? In first Corinthians, Paul describes himself as dying. In Romans, Paul describes himself as dead. One should have room for error, while the other should not at least, in terms of Paul's new spiritual identity.

Point is, who were these letters and teachings targeted to? The unbeliever? Women? Followers in general? To not even bother to ask this, is to take these messages and meanings out of context. Paul's percieved forcing his will and teachings upon others who didn't ask for it, is perhaps, reaching at best and the same could be said for those who believe Paul's teachings give Christians the right or authority to force specific lifestyles upon others. As Nana says, "you can lead a horse to water"...

Which brings up the notion of whether or not critique is deserved for Shannons view or spin on Christianity, politics and sexuality. When anyone publicly goes there, they automatically invite public criticism and scrutiny, especially if their interpretations or views are inaccurate and in this case, inflammatory as she is speaking to a mainstream audience over a targeted one.

Did Paul write these letters with the notion that Rome would choose his words to verify Christian conduct? I highly doubt it and hence, his works should be put within the context of where they were placed... as should Shannon Rupp's or anyone else's beliefs including my own.

In terms of evolution, there are, of course, slips and lapses of reason. But in the overall, Bailey, there is such thing as truth and fallacy, of which both claim to be true by its promoters. And the same goes with a Christian. Some are real, and some are not, or true and false. So in this context, let me politefully disagree with you in this regard. :-)

You need to read that review article, the Brain. The church, and not just the RC church, though that's the one dealt with in the article I mentioned, has a history steeped in blood and coercion. This is why anyone who pretends that the members of Islamic sects who espouse violence and force are unique must have a tin ear.

The Council of Nicea (and Constantinople) hammered out precisely what it means to be a Christian. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed, simplified into the "Apostles' Creed" is the sina qua non of what a Christian believes:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

The original text arrived at during the First ecumenical Council at Nicea runs roughly parallel:

We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
and the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the one holy catholic
(Christian) and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I noticed the Wikipedia entry for "Nicene Creed" contains a passage-for-passage comparison of the texts arrived at during the first ecumenical councils at Nicea (325 A.D.) and at Constantinople (881 A.D.)

All other rituals and tenets are secondary, including bapitism (which is treated differently by all the major Christian faiths).

What the..? Listen brain, this just gets worse and worse.

Slips and lapses of reason? You mean whether you agree or disagree, don't you?

Real and not real? True and false? According to who? You? Or somebody who agrees with you?

Sorry. If hypocrites or maniacs get baptized and say they're Christians, then there are hypocritical Christian maniacs. Even if it embarrasses you.

If you want a real eyeopener, check out the rules for schism. Or the Societies Act procedures for filling a vacant charter.

There's a lot of juicy bits above that I wish I had time to weigh in on in detail; but I don't profess to discuss religion as an expert, only as an interested bystander. My own spiritual tendencies/experiences are by comparison much harder to talk about. I just happen to have read a lot about theology and christology and other religions in the course of my historical and philosophical interests. Not that I was a seeker, or wasn't one, just that I kept an eye open to everything. Hence obscure knowledge of gnostic theology, pagan metaphysics, the hermetic traditions, and the rebel churches and prophets.

Someone above mentioned Chalcedon, I brought up Nicaea; two different rounds of councils, same upshot; it happens that Chalcedon is where some of the Oriental churches branch off from both Orthodoxy and Catholicism; the Assyrian Church (the old patriarchate of Antioch, I think, the Persian Church, most of the Thomasine churches, technically the Armenian Orthodox, also the Ethiopian; all rejected Chalcedon although the Armenians and I think the Ethiopians have made reconciliations with Rome, though while Yerevan now acknowledges the seniority of the Bishop of Rome, Axum and Lalibela still don't. The point with Benedict's meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarchate was supposedly rapprochement; but the edicts of the Great Schism have still not been repealed, and I can't see the Patriarchate surrendering its ancient seniority, even if that office only has a shadow of its onetime power.

Can't remember whose bit this is; had it in clipboard:

In reference to the rational explanation of the miracles. The essential meaning of the Jesus narrative here I have to take as the non-miraculous, non-divine account, i.e. none of these events, miraculous or rational in origin, do not back up the story of the Resurrection, which is one of the principal fictions of Paul and the other follower-revisionists (And it wasn't Rome who devalued women within Christianity, it was Paul). What they do back up is the idea of compassion, and also of the rebellion against the existing social and cultural order; food for the poor, admission to gatherings for those defiled or otherwise profaned or (worse yet) gentile. But they don't back up any faith-based declarations that they are evidence of divinity; similar miracles (other than the wine thing) were claimed by Apollodorus of Rhodes and many others, just as faith healers still work the crowds in the South (well, on any number of channels anywhere) and in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Casting out demons isn't the prerogative of the divine-born, nor is being divine-born a totally new idea in terms of the 1st Century AD (or "BP" as the p.c. un-Christian term runs).

I was going to write more about gnosticism and anabaptist Christian sects but will leave that for another post; likewise some of the more arcane end of the hermetica including but not limited to the mysteries of the Templars and Sufi and Hashasheen. There's a certain Catholic history-cum-tract demonizing the Cathars I'd like to find as examples of the historical distortion practiced by the Church. Even today. Hmm. Maybe I'll just look in the Catholic Encyclpedia, which is conveniently on-line. Might have some dirt on the Templars, too....

You guys might find these interesting:
http://www.nestorian.org/
http://www.cired.org/
http://www.indianchristianity.org/assyrian.html
http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/chaldean.htm
http://www.nineveh.com/chalchurch.htm
I'm trying to find.... - ah, found it!! -

http://www.aina.org/aol/link2.htm

Which is a chart/timeline of the various splits and relationships in officially-organized Christianity; Donatists, Arians and other heresies aren't shown, although it's worth mentioning that all the Oriental Churches are as far as I know Monophysite in character (the popularity of Monophysitism in areas that converted to Islam is often noted by historians; official repression from Constantinople became associated with growing rebellion that found substance in submission to the new Faith; but the Eastern Churches also shared further similarities with Islam, and also in the course of their development in times since largely lived under the shadow and even patronage of Islam (except for the Keralan church, the Ethiopians and Chinese Nestorians).

Interestingly the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Cathari: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm is largely a listing of when and how many heretics were burned (in very matter-of-fact tone) and various descriptions of how this "evil" and "heretical church" would surface in the population. Milder than I expected, given the aforementioned history of heretics and witchcraft I'd like to cite if I could remmeber the author; a MacDonald I think, Scots Catholic anyway; much more demonizing than the CE entry, which is curious for its antiseptic but no less righteous attitude towards the extermination of heretics; haven't followed the links to the Arian and Albigensian articles yet....

This thread is what makes the Tyee exceptional; - the commentary digs past the weeds (original mocking article written by Rupp) to find the garden that exists despite the pestilence. Just touching upon that divisive commentary by Rupp - it brought to mind the level of maturity used in the "Yo Mamma" jokes - where wit is witlessly deployed for the sake of insult without bearings. "Yo mamma so gay you were conceived by self-fertilization..."
Anyhow, the stuff that followed from such ponderings is analogous to the fertilizer used for flowers. I think that various "religious" dogmas not only borrow from other faiths, there exists a spiritual evolution of beings - paralleling our physical and mental evolution. The earliest spiritual concepts had polytheism as their basis - which eventually evolved into monotheism. The tenent didn't change - the expression of the concept changed - kind of like single-celled organisms coming together as one organim with multiple cells.
Skookum1 would be a great one to drag to a philosopher's cafe - coming from a neoplatonic sufi background harkening back to the Fatimids; I find his/her knowledge running deep - the type that is fun to take a dive in.

Now look guys - I don't have a shred of belief in everlasting life and I think I can live a pretty decent earthly one without God. It's all about balance.

But we mustn't fall into the same literalist trap as the fundamentalists. The Resurrection narrative, like the other miracle stories, contains a number of poetic and spiritual truths. Jesus was pretty emphatic that the Kingdom of God was waiting in the here-and-now (i.e. this world, this lifetime) provided people opened their hearts to each other. Actually, he could not have been clearer. Pretty simple fare, wouldn't you say? Death and rebirth for the non-literalist must be seen in this light.

Yes, Paul certainly left his imprint upon our sexual morality, even to this day. Rupp didn't delve into this in her article, but the "queer steam" issuing between the lines of Paul's writing has been the topic of informed commentary among theologians for a long time. The title of Rupp's article applies more aptly to him than to any other Father of the Church.

The Resurrection narrative recorded by Paul also has other meanings. Some who believe Jesus survived the crucifixion believe that Paul's post-crucifixion encounter with Jesus (not to mention Thomas, John and Mary's in the Upper Room; or Peter's outside of Rome years later, in which Jesus told the fleeing Peter to go back and face the music for the sake of their movement) are literal.

Deleted. Please refer to Tyee comments guidelines. If you can't stay within them, you risk being banned from posting. Tyee editor

That is a repetition of the Pauline message, and is not in the core teachings. "I am the Way" and other comments were noted even by Edwardian theologians, never mind many since, as referring to the path, rather than any embodiment of special divinity for himself; God/the Way/the Light is within you is the core message, not any eucharistic notion about wine or bread and, in the protestant version, "accepting Christ into your heart" and suddenly being redeemed of all the vile things you've gone and done and you're now guaranteed a place in the afterlife at the right hand of the Lord etc etc.

The core message is much more like Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and the Egyptian philosophers and certain of the Greeks; life is in the now, renounce suffering and attachments, have compassion and poor and do not kill or violate others, and embrace the way/the dharma and everything'll be fine, or at least you'll get a better chance next time around if you do right. Not much different than Pythagoreanism also. Pacifism plus personal spiritual revolution; no salvation required except by means of your own self.

Gnosticism, for all its elaborate mysticism, and especially in its neo-Platonist and hermetic forms, is basically about exactly that; all the rituals and ceremonial magicks of the church are stripped away in the pursuit of the "Gradus ad parnassum", the steps to Paradise. The Gradus ad parnassum was a series of levels of initiation and knowledge in some gnostic paths, with parallels in the mysteries of the Templars, masonic orders, alchemical theory, and also in Sufism and the Hashashin and other mystery groups within the Islamic world; but at its top, so the story goes, when the final mystery is revealed, it is that all the ritual and hierarchy is a lie, an illusion held to demonstrate the irrelevancy of this world. Hence the head of Baphomet in the lore of the Templars and its alleged presence among other heretical groups: a symbol not just of Satan, but of the Old God, the Horned God, not so much revered as put on display to remind the initiates of the true nature of the order of this World. Of its absurdity and inherent evils. Like solving a koan, masters of the riddles of the higher mysteries were meant to unlock awareness, and allow you to see beyond the ceremonial and textual to the truths beyond expression or ordinary comprehension.

That's what I understand about it, and it's a common theme, whether in the lore of the Hashasheen

Sacramental wine is the gift of Dionysos; oils, unguents and blood were used before the entry of his craft and his cult (apparently from somewhere in Anatolia originally). Its appropriation by the church as a symbol/embodiment of The Blood was in part an inheritance of the widespread Dionysiac cult; though of course its rituals were rather different from those of the church.... ;-)

...or in the castles of the Templars or in the laboratories of the alchemists and others....

Yes, I found a lot of overlap with the Eastern religions as I "read my way through" my Cathoholic upbringing and started to look beyond the narrative tought to children.

Gnosticism is fascinating, and certainly had a highly developed philosophical and intellectual side to it. But it also had some very perverse strains which we wouldn't recognize as being particularly Christian today. With the renewed interest in Gnosticism since the Nag Hammadi discoveries (and more recently the popularization of some of its ideas through the success of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code), I find there's a tendency to homogenize and idealize Gnosticism in the popular mind.

Yes, many pagan elements were cleverly appropriated into Christianity. When you take Gnosticism at face value, it's actually a religion of the few. The masses would have found few certainties to comfort them. Ritual, magical stories, mystical explainations upon which to project their expectations and hopes....I think all religions must address these popular cravings if they are to survive the generations. It cannot just be religion for the professors, for the monastics, the educated, or for the leisure class of a given age.

The Eucharist - a form of god-eating with primordial antecedents - is a fascinating phenomenon. I never felt compelled to lecture the devout believer that it did not actually contain the physical essence of Christ. Some people need those sorts of things, and it is a mistake when the professors or the atheist fundamentalists seek to rob the poor of their chosen religion. The true believers are the people who give a religion life, not the tourists and dabblers. One of the great ironies of the rediscovery of Gnosticism in the post-modern age is that it is precisely because it was suppressed that it is now being rediscovered. If it had been left to run its course, it is doubtful that it would have survived. It simply didn't lend itself to institutionalization along the lines that Orthodox and Roman Christianity actually developed.

LOL, why should this embarrasse me? I see it EXACTLY the same way as you do, and no, I'm not the authoritarian judge of the matter, but anyone who reads the opinions of commentators on this site would know this. (I thought my own expression of how I view reality "in limited fashion" would have given this away) If you want to hear it from me specifically, than there it is, but it certainly doesn't diminish what opinions I do have, and often, when I call a spade a spade, it really is a spade! I don't know what's truly in the hearts of people, I don't have those eyes. But I do have common sense and actions surely do speak louder than words.

Take GWB for an example. The guy hasn't lifted a finger for peace in 6 years but has instead gone entirely away from not attacking other nations without first being attacked on home soil itself, and no, 911 just doesn't cut it, where the U.S is invading nations over terrorist acts. 911 and Iraq? They had nothing to do with each other.

And what has GWB done for the environment? Nuclear disarmament? The dangerous and ugly marrage of Church and state? The reversal of habeous corpus? Of making class action lawsuits against multinationals almost non existent? Search and seisure of any U.S. citizen without just cause?

His environmental and foreign policy stances are shameful, hardly walking the way of peace and love, and for what its worth, any so called self professed "Christian movement" that can call GWB's warmongerning for personal profit actions as following the way of Christ, should be labelled with an ugly stain, with what it is that they represent... a bunch of powermongering hypocrites that believe the control of masses own free will with polluted political doctrines and agenda's is somehow Gods will.

To me, the Republican party and its religious rightwingnutted support is a cult led by greed and a lust for power and control to which likeminded flies are drawn to the same cult driven stench, hardly fitting to be held in the same esteem or stature as anyone, Christian or otherwise, who actually does follow God's will... and for anyone who is still guessing as to what that is, it is will that is good. :-)

As for my own Christian values, I do believe less than a week ago writing to the effect of how it wouldn't be a bad idea to take out some hell's angels with a 201b propane tank along their travel route to Nelson for its grow op produce "or else"... hardly befitting of a Christian who has sworn to preserve and protect life. Will, pass. Goal, pass. Plan, fail.

Am I so beyond criticism? Of course not, and the reality of it is, that if I recant, repent, ask for forgiveness and accept a little public humility when needed, am I not worthy of rejoining the fold? So your assertions that Christians can be hypocritical, or evil doers, and all the rest is true... when its in fact, the case... but when self professed Christians were never Christians to begin with? What are they now? Certainly not backsliders or followers who are stumbling or falling flat on their faces. No, they would be all out fakes from the get go and I don't see to many of them ever really trying to be anything other than this.

As for the water bapism ritual, one can still consider themselves as being Christian without participating in such a ritual, but that ritual, if done sincerely, does put its observers on notice and opens doorways regardless of what its skeptics believe. But then, so does the way we treat all other life including our own. Again, action speaks louder than words. And in terms of how many Christians actually do it right or even know what water stands for, it is rather telling, don't you think?

And finally, Rome did have a play in the sexist slant of the bible but far moreso, did the anglican church. Not to many people realize just how much doctrinal control the Anglican church had on the bible. They held it for over 200 years, after all. Their translations and doctrinal changes were many and varied and the sexist slant of the NT is owed largely to them.

As for Paul, I'll take his defense. Take for example Paul's letter to 1st Corinthians where he was talking entirely to a group of men. In Chapter 11, he puff's up the male pride with mention of how man was created first and woman came from the rib and such, with an ordinance of prayer that confuses all but those who understand what male/female actually represents in terms of spirtual definition. And why does Paul do this? Why does Paul build them up in Chapter 11? To cut them down in Chapter 12. But hey, if I was a sexist cult leader, would I spend much time on chapter 12? Nope. I would cherry pick to suit my own agenda.

And if I'm not the authority on the pontifications of a mere example put forth, than who is? A preacher? And what school defined their thinking? And if they are taught that the bible is pure as the driven snow as many are, how can I accept the words of a teacher who won't bother to question the functionality of his/her own teachings?

And getting back to Paul's writings, especially with Timothy, one should read between the lines as to what the times were really like in those days. Anyone who opposed Rome was more than just taken out back to the wood pile and... nope, they were taken up front and hung high on a cross for all to see... and the Romans took their time... I would have backed off from teaching women to be teachers of Christianity myself, an act that would have surely been followed by death.

So judge Paul as sexist all y'all want. But be wary that when you do so, the very words you use to judge him may not be his own, some words of Paul's do come into the defense of women, cherry picking Paul's potential words that have been put in his mouth should be noted by cult led intiatives to silence women's rights in the modern world, and finally, his words have been taken out of context by most from the get go.

Just look at Paul's entire life, for an example. He was a Roman soldier, all that Rome represented. Male supremacy, Imperial rule, control by force and might as opposed to free will through murder, violence and oppression... and when you are there and present to see the first martyr of Christ go down by Romes hand, witness to Stephen's prayer for his own murderers and captures... well, that might make you rethink things just a little if you were Paul as well, but can a man like that change overnight? It takes time... and I've mentioned enough, evolution, death/rebirth and their signifigances in all of the worlds religions within timelines that mark permanent change as integral to their teachings since participating on this site.

Did you read the review article Brain?

Fascinating posts Skookum1 - Thanks for putting in the effort.

Ummmm...I thought Paul was a former Pharisee who left his high education behind after his meeting with Jesus? I do not recall any mention of him being a Roman soldier... will have to check that out.

As for all I've read, as a former JW I found it all very interesting to read. Especially skookum1. I empathize with how you feel re: Christianity, Brain...altho I definitely lean more towards the 'religion to control the masses' line of thought and loop it in with all the other great conspiracies of history. Jesus taught great things, but they were not necessarily new things, just a new spin on old things.

As for Shannon's column, I found it to be an interesting read, despite the obvious bias.

ACCURATE religious history is something that members of ALL religions should have access to. This is not the case, as internal history is always written with bias. It is only with comparing outside histories with internal ones that we can find the truth for ourselves. As interesting as that would be, it is something I am saving for when I have far more time on my hands to devote to something I currently find has little importance in my day to day life.

My life guide is to be true to yourself so you may be true to others. Honesty trumps everything.

Paul was a Roman citizen (by virtue of his father's possession of citizenship), born in Tarsus (Cilicia), but not a Roman soldier. Not quite sure what Brain is on about. Paul was a Hebrew born into the Tribe of Benjamin who observed the Pharisaic traditions until his conversion.

Speaking of Pharisees,just so RC priests don't have to shoulder the whole burden of institutionalized child abuse, it seems it is sanctioned in the Babylonian Talmud... for boys to nine and girls to 3 1/2. For the girls it is supposed to be no worse than a poke in the eye and soon forgotten. How's that for for a gob smacker!

Anna, it's just a banana!

That's a little off-colour. The title of the article is "Christianity is so Gay". Let's not mix the two. You know the diff as well as any literate person.

I also find the assertion totally outlandish, bizarre and off-kilter. Every culture and age takes the acceptable age for sexual congress a little differently...but 3.5 year old--? That's pretty dubious. Besides, I've never even heard of a "Babylonian Talmud".

http://www.rense.com/general74/csex.htm

It was Israel Shahak who first exposed the Babylonian Talmud's oddities
.

There is also the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud which predates the Babylonian by about 200 years. You may know them as something else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Talmud

Yeah Nana, Jeff Rense is a great resource, eh?

Shockingly racist and anti-Semitic is more like it.

A zundel lover and crackpot. The moral equivalent of Rush Limbaugh in my opinion.

Do you know what he said about Monica Lewinsky?

As for Shahak, anti-Semites and anti-Semitic groups "utilize unduly Shahak's criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews. They have continued to do this either by citing and/or using out-of-context some of Shahak's points. They allege that what Shahak wrote confirms their generalizations about the 'evil nature' of Jews."

Strange company.

The quote is from Norton Mezvinsky, Shahak's co-author of Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel

GWest

Zundel isn't anti Jew, he's anti slander of Germany. You ought to check out what his two year illegal imprisonment in solitary confinement in Canada was like. I would never have sought out info on Zundel, since I thought as you think.
But I also think the idea of thought crimeis outrageous and if one is not allowed to question the details of history, that is religion.

Judaism has and is repudiating those who use ancient scripture to justify bad behaviors, but they are still around and it is particularly unfortunate that Zionism picked them to be the religious authority in Israel.

I suppose it was the thought that in trying to avoid the sin of homosexuality, pedophilia was allowed that led me to post the article. It mentions this site:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/
which I checked out and found that
Conservative rabbis have voted to ordain gays. Would that our own dear Pope could be so far sighted.

Everybody's religious closet needs airing and plenty of discarding.

I've told you before Nana, I completely disagree with you and I disagree more profoundly with Zundel.

I happen to know Doug Christie as well.

And I know exactly what he's all about too.

I'll let Jews like Uri Avnery air their own closets, thank you very much - I think you'd be well advised to do the same.

Ummm... unless I'm mistaken GW it looks like you're either talking to yourself in your last two above posts, or the comments you're referring to have been deleted.

You're absolutely right James Burns, the comments, I think there were two or perhaps three of them, have been expunged. Different procedure than usual as well - normally the offending poster's name and a small note is retained indicating that comments have been removed & etc.

I'm certain that you can, if you're interested - and I can't understand why you would be - figure out the general nature of their content.

If you want more details, send me an email

Thanks Brain, Skookum1 etc. for the thoughtful evolution of the topic. I confess (lapsed Catholic that I am) that I enjoyed the cleverness and the political thrust of Rupp's piece but enjoyed the erudition of the commentators even more.

Ah, yeah I just wanted to confirm the post deletions. I've noticed Nana's eerie undercurrents before on other threads.

I'm unfortunately familiar with the names Christie and Zundel.

I'm also familiar with Shahak, but I wouldn't want to use his name in same sentence as those two idiots above. And I agree his words get taken out of context by the rabid fundamentalists of all sides.

Jeff Rense I've never heard of, but after a quick Google, realized I probably don't want to know anything about him.

I'll never understand why some people get such bugs up their asses about jews. While Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is abominable (on that topic I recently watched a powerful documentary by Israeli filmmaker Avi Mograbi called "Avenge But One of My Eyes"), and I agree with Norman Finkelstein on many aspects of the overzealousness of the ADL; I have to say the jewish world domination conspiracy nuts and anti-semitic crazies really are a freaky bunch.

James Burns
You have the picture and I very much agree with your analysis.

Shahak was one of the 'sources' quoted - which was why I used a quote from his co-author to make the point I did.

Creepy's the right word. I'm glad people on these threads are starting the draw the line on crap like that.

Speaking of creepy, David Duke hung himself on CNN, where he was being interviewed live from Tehran (where he was attending the "Holocaust Denial" conference) by Wolf Blitzer. Andrew Sullivan has posted the clip on his blog. It just amazed me that people like that can still hoodwink enough folks to stay in public life. It's scary to imagine what his supporters must be like:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/duke_vs_blitzer.html

That WAS brutal. The irony is that the current US administration itself is so steeped in lies and half-truths and contradictions that Duke's nonsense and the usual conspiracy clap-trap seems somehow 'reasonable' in comparison.

I think it's no accident that the looney toons have more credibility when the lies and double dealing of the ostensible 'servants' of the public are so obvious.

I don't doubt a lot of the people who watched Duke believe him. And that's what is truly frightening - I think he and his devilish fellow travellers are far from self-destructing - sadly.

Speaking of conspiracy theorists, there was a very good documentary series by UK journalist Jon Ronson called "Secret Rulers of the World". What Ronson did was actually spend time with the conspiracy believers, filming them not simply in interviews, but mostly just during their day-to-day activities while engaging them in conversation. What was especially fascinating was how his technique both managed to humanize the conspiracy believers, yet at the same time reveal the intensity of their paranoia and their willingness to jump to elaborate conclusions. What was almost equally as interesting, however, was how Ronson himself sometimes started getting sucked into the mindset.

Secret Rulers of the World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Rulers_of_the_World

Jon Ronson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ronson

You can watch the "Satanic Shadowy Elite?" episode about Bohemian Grove from his series on Google video here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1557513752286923372

Thx - James Burns

Can't say I disagree with anything Duke had to say. What I found interesting is what he didn't say in reponse to Blitzer's question as to why CNN chose to interview Duke on the conference. The obvious answer is it was an attempt to smear the conference with Duke's perceived and CNN reenforceddisreputableness.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/holocaust

, Nana?

Then I guess you and kjc are equally delusional.

TO call the Holocaust a propaganda device is beyond the pale.

I'm beginning to think Shannon Rupp was right about both of you.

The editors shouldn't just remove your offensive posts, you should both be banned, permanently, in my opinion.

No, my dear G.West. You will not twist what is clearly written. What happened or did not in WW2 clearly was used just as stated above. We all saw the umpteen movies that awoke in our hearts enormous compassion for the people against whom atrocities were committed because of their religion, that we overlooked the atrocities some of the originally persecuted group perpetrate against another group of people because of where they live.

As for banning, that's so totalitarian of you. The thought police are ever with us.

Gwest, I agree.

Although I seem to recall that you were part of the virtual lynching party after Nightbloom's hide when he first started blowing the whistle on this kind of crap on these threads. Now that it's run its course, you can see what motivates these people. Any discussion, however tangentially related, will simply be an opportunity to grind that old rusted axe of theirs. They should ask themselves why they feel motivated to pronounce on the Holocaust at all - it's clearly not out of love for the truth.

But I agree with you on the vandalism that has been done to public discourse by the obfuscations of the neo-cons, and that this has opened the door to a whole new slippery slope. I seem to recall a time when a Republican president defied his own party and publicly endorsed a Democrat out of principled opposition to what David Duke stood for. If I'm not mistaken, that Republican was named George Bush, albeit the elder one.

nightbloom, you first:
My objections to what you were on about pertained entirely to what I took to be your evident satisfaction at the seeming banishment of Coyote. My position as to anti-Semitism of the kind kjc and Nana have just been indulging in has been constant and entirely consistent.

Nana, you next:

I think not. You know perfectly well what you've been up to. You also are clever enough to know that the juxtaposition of these two phrases:

and

is, at best mischievous and at worst something far more sinister – not dissimilar to the kind of loud–mouthed obfuscation David Duke seems to have convinced you is just fine and dandy.

When such a highly placed and cultured German as Albert Speer never stooped to such excuses for his complicity with Nazi evil I'll take no arguments from revisionist historians who make such a dishonest case.

Whether or not the editors of this place notice is none of my affair. I for one don't care if you continue to post hate in the guise of inquiry; but, every time I see it, as long as I am able - I'll post a rebuttal and an expose in the strongest terms I can muster. I won’t stoop to Shannon Rupp’s gutter tactics either.

I defended your citation of Koestler's work the last time this phenomena reared its ugly head on this site because I don't think his work was, as a piece of scholarship, de facto racist and anti-Semitic. But that's as far as I go in your defence.

I'll criticize Israel and her activities in the Middle East whenever I feel it's appropriate as well.

The other stuff, whether it targets Jews or Muslims, is evil and needs to stop.

Nightbloom
Please understand I took the time to examine Dukes position which is essentially the old 'separate but equal' all dressed up. His claim is that unlike what he calls "Jewish Supremacists' he is not advocating supremacy. His position is luny toones on the grounds of been there done that up until the Freedom Riders and I don't endorse it. All I remember about him was when he was running around in Nazi drag...I never bothered to look farther.

Far from principled, Bush Sr.s move to endorse Clinton was cynical, using DD as the excuse. The Bushes and the Clintons really get along just fine on many issues, especially CIA drug running.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/clinton.html

G.West
Check this out. I did not invent the position I take on the uses to which the tragedy has been put.
http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html

As to what was removed, I'm glad it was....it was over the top. I apologize.

Now, get back to the topic, I met a man about 10 years ago who had been heavily traumatized during the Russian takeover of Hungary. He was 5 1/2 on the day he saw many family friends executed in the street.

The family got out during the revolution and came to Canada. They were very devout RC and both he and his sister had religious vocations. He entered a seminary at 18 and was told he asked too many questions after about 1 1/2 years and it was best that he leave. It was kindly done, but it totally pulled the rug out. I asked him why he didn't become a Jesuit. He just said he hated them, but did not explain.

Just before he left the seminary, he was contacted and recruited by "the Americans", I guess CIA. In the name of anti-comunism he was recruited and trained to be an assasin.

He said he did 5 hits all over South East Asia in the early 60's. It was expenses only, no payment was involved. He never heard from them again.

He told me about this on the phone after having confessed to his sister. We were the only two to have ever heard the story. I was too stunned to ask for more details.

He died by misadventure a few months later....a portable heater in the camper..CO asphixiation. I thought he knew better.

He drank heavily all those years when he could not explain to his sister why he had left the Church. His guilt was only partially helped by the realization of the role the Church had played in his becoming a murderer.

The gay church I can handle, the Church of Betrayal I can't.

Sorry Nana.
I don't accept your 'version' of evidence and I don't accept anyone's appology for David Duke. I had relatives with the Canadian Army in occupied Germany in the latter part of the war and for some months after.

Anyone who ever apologizes for Nazis is beyond the pale. PERIOD.

That is total nonsense...who is apologizing for the Nazi's? I'm not apologizing for David Duke either. I said that I couldn't disagree with what he'd said to Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer was a lobbyist for AIPAC.

Your relatives who saw Germany after the war.....did they get to Dresden perhaps?

In my book that means the same thing as agreeing with him.

You won't find me apologizing for Bomber Harris either.

I appreciate your apology on the other matter; but it doesn't excuse excusing David Duke.

Blitzer's behavior in that interview was beyond reproach.

G West
Excuse me for being dense, but just what did I excuse DD for when I supposedly excused him?

Nana:
You'll have to decide that for yourself.
Here's what you wrote:

Now, the way I use the language, to ‘not disagree’ is to agree. If you don't disagree with David Duke and the way he expressed himself in that interview it follows mutatis mutandis that you agree with him.

If you agree with him, you are excusing his excesses in my view. With some people I don’t believe it’s possible to sit on the fence. Duke is one of those. David Frum is another – has an almost equal aversion to the truth but comes at these questions from the opposite side of the compass.

Clear. I don't think you are dense at all, Nana.

OK, yes I thought what he said in that interview was valid. What wasn't? I'm serious. He didn't say anything more that what has been said in numerous articles on AIPAC. Wolf Blizter did have a job as a paid lobbyist for them. What did he say in that interview to which you object?

Where would you like me to start?

His ad hominem references to Jews; his allegations that law breakers like David Irving and Zundel are somehow victims and champions of free speech instead of the real criminals and liars they are; his allegation that there is any legitimate scholarly purpose behind this absurd conference; the notion that Wolf Blitzer himself had done anything (relative to the questions asked) which deserved the tone Duke took; the implication that the interview was improper or unfair because of Blitzer's ethnicity; his general manner and its apparent hatred of Israel and its citizens; his completely unproved allegations that the media is necessarily pro-Israeli.

I could go on. These characters, usually accompanied by a coterie of ‘scientists’ like J. Philippe Rushton, have these ‘conferences’ on a regular basis. I’ve posted information and links to them several times before. I can’t believe you haven’t seen them unless you’re avoiding them by design.

I object to virtually everything the man says and the way he says it - he's a thug and a bully and I see no indication that has left his KKK heritage behind him.

Sorry, I do not agree with you on any of what you've said above and I haven't really paid too much attention to the Tyee before being invalided so I am not familiar with your postings on the issue.
I said I looked at Duke's site and I don't agree with his racism, but that I agreed with what he said to Blizer and also the woman on MSNBC.

Actually, I do disagree with him about the amounts of money going to the Reps& Dems. I read recently it's the Dems that get 60% of their funding with Zionist tags on it, the Reps only get 40%. AIPAC lobbys for Israel and is neither registered nor are donations to it taxed as any other lobby group for a foreign power is. Thats a tail wagging a dog if I ever saw one.

I think Revisionists have a perfect right to review and seek out evidence. People should not be thrown in jail for thought crimes.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

I don't know anyone who's in jail for thought crime.

It's not their thoughts that got Zundel and Irving into hot water Nana. Not in the slightest.

I'll defer to the Germans every time on questions of Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers. And to the British courts.

I'm only ashamed my own country didn't pursue the war criminals in this country more vigorously.
I seriously doubt those funding figures too, by the way, - and, you're still succumbing to labelling people.

I think you know everything I've posted on the issue Nana.

Who did I label what in my last posting? You're the one doing the labeling.

You win. Your right on everything.
I've been on this merry-go-round before with you...and here ain't no brass ring.

holy crapoly....

Nana you should do something about all that cracked pottery.

This is what you wrote:

And this,

.
sure reads like labelling to me.

I think your terminology is wonky. An example of labelling:
"you are a left-wing gatekeeper"
or
"you are a net-nanny"

The above quote from what I wrote is a not a label.

The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras

I was off by 5% on the Rep. amount and I used the word Zionist instead of pro-Israel which are pretty close in meaning.
In my view....

James Burns

It's been my feeling that Waco was about seeing how far the forces of repression could go before the American public objected.. There was the totally illegal use of Delta Force (Posse Comitatas Act.) There were also observers from 5 NATO countries plus Israel there.
Waco: The Rules of Engagement
Emmy Award Oscar nominated
http://www.waco93.com/

New Waco Film Exposes Government Fraud
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | May 9, 2001
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1009_0_2_0_C/

The Jon Ronson film on Bohemian Grove was very good.
I had no idea Alex Jones is only 28,so he's too young to tell whether he might become a demigogue, but he sure shows potential for it. I tended to agree with Mary and Harry who were interviewed. Bohemian Grove is a summer camp in which powerful, aged, repressed preppies can network and be naughty.
I just wish the people who make the decisions about our lives weren't such creeps.

David Ike...? Shape shifting reptiles is a wonderful metaphor for psychopathy, but I can't help but think he's more about giving thinking outside the media version of events a bad name.

Calling people Zionist isn't labelling?

News to me nana

Petras is an interesting and dedicated guy. He doesn't seem to do much original research and his contentions about the power of the 'Zionist' lobby are based upon his own extrapolations of others' writings and Richard Cohen's musings in the Washington Post. Hardly an expert opinion.

I can't find even a mention of his book having been reviewed by the New York Times but I do know Chomsky diagrees with his allegations and conclusions.

Next point?

THE NEW YORK TIMES has had lots of problems with credibility lately and always has.
I gave up on it years ago when they supported the Greek military junta.

As for "original research", few academics do more than comb other peoples books anyway. Chomsky always disagrees with anything that might have a whiff of "conspiracy" about it....he absolutely buys the official stories on both the JFK assasination and 9/11.

We could probably save lots of time by getting straight on where you stand on JFK...I know you buy the official fairytale of 9/11.

Support for Israel=Zionism...Hello?
May I remind you of the Christian Zionists?
http://christianactionforisrael.org/czionism.html

Just so you understand that being outraged by Israel is not anti-Jewish.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/[B]

If that's the best you can do as a defence of your champion Nana, I won't even bother with a further comment on your preferences in reading material. Why do you think I was prepared to confront Shannon Rupp when she was doing exactly the same thing to you when you quoted Arthur Koestler? Whose work has been often reviewed in the New York Times and widely elsewhere as well and whom I’d also read myself.

She too, didn’t have a clue about what she was saying – just like a lot of people who attack the imagined ‘conspiracies’ of Zionists.

If you're not anti-Jewish, you shouldn't post anti-Jewish stuff or suggest someone like David Duke is more than an ignorant thug. In my view.

I don't buy anyone's fairytales and I don't spend all my time on the internet paying obeisance to conspiracy theorists.

I read real academics from cover to cover and follow serious debates. I try to make a difference in the real world rather than throwing around a few grains of truth liberally leavened with other's prejudices, fevered imaginings and wishful thinking.

I think I understand things pretty well.
But I'm not so arrogant as to think I couldn't be wrong. And, when proved, I'll admit it.

Till then, I'll stick to my guns.

West
You're raving. I have never defended David Duke's racism. You interpret my words to suit your notions of my supposed beliefs and predjudices. As I said earlier, I've been on this merry-go-round with you before and since it is a complete waste of everybody's time, I withdraw. You win whatever you think you win.

Now watch
http://www.pluralia.tv/nablus/

Really?

It's not my posts that got expunged.

si fecisti nega! appears to be your motto.

nana wrote:

I don't agree. I think the tragedy at Waco was a cluster fuk gone wrong. Whenever you get a gazillion different government agencies from municipal to state to federal, most of them armed to the teeth, and employing everything from blasting loudspeakers to armored personell carriers, and all of them treading on each other's respective "turf" you're going to get mass confusion. Add the media, and the interference of politicians at all levels, with the cherry on top being the desire for revenge on the part of some of those very government agencies, because of the death of some of their members due to an ill advised attempt at violent resolution.... well you get a massacre like Waco. It was incompetence meeting cultish religious nuts with a paranoid persecution complex.

Waco was yet another example of how dangerous the wild west gun culture of the US really is, not to mention the willingness of the government to avoid responsibility for its actions once the tragedy took place. Coresh's messiah complex (damn those Branch Davidians had a lot of those complexes) certainly didn't help matters.

What exactly are you so afraid of?

Nana
I appreciated the video.

Have you seen this?

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Ryan_Sid/2006/12/15/pf-2805677.html

kjc
I'm not afraid of anything that might appear on these pages. I'm also not afraid to call anyone who makes statements like this:

what I think they are.

Nana, for her part, acknowledged she'd gone over the top. You can find her admission above here if you're interested.