Re: The "Who is God?" Tirade

>Somehow your arguing really seems to me like a tirade here because you lump
>everything about religion together...

Bernd:

It WAS a tirade, as advertised on the subject title.

>So let's try to put things right.  Religion consists essentially of three
>elements:  the rite (which is necessary because people want to feel and touch
>their religion), the teachings, and the spiritual value (which I think we are
>mainly concerned with in this thread).

OK, as I've attacked only the Xtian faith here (easiest and most familiar
target, you see), let me say this: for a religion which claims to be
completely and utterly devoted to the truth (the word "gospel" means
literally "the truth"), calling itself literally "the word of God," any
dilution of its rites or teachings or spiritual values (all of which I see
affected) make it null and void.

>The celebration of the major Christian holidays is only part of the rite.  For
>the teachings and the spiritual value of a religion, it doesn't matter how the
>rite exactly looks like - as long as no humans are hurt or sacrificed, every
>religious rite is tolerable, and of course it will always look strange or even
>ridiculous to followers of other confessions/religions.

You see that I don't agree with that. If you call it a horse and it's really
a donkey, then you're lying to yourself and everyone else, AND perpetuating
the lie through generations. Until no one recognizes that it IS a lie. And
that is what has happened.

>The Christian teachings behind Christmas and Easter (the `truth' as you put it
>- not a very good word here) are that Jesus of Nazareth was by the same time a
>human and divine being.  That is theologically interesting, and it invites to
>controverse discussions, but for the spiritual value of Christianity, it
>matters as little as the rite does.

Truth is the word they chose to use. So it is the best standard to hold them to.

>This spiritual value consists IMHO (feel free to disagree) of two parts:
>
>   (1)  The old Jewish tradition:  Only if you try to be virtuous will you be
>   able to live in dignity and peace with yourself.

See, that I can go with. I greatly admire the Hebrew faith. The only
argument I would make has to do with the dietary laws, which naturally made
sense in a world without refrigeration...but this is 1996.

>   (2)  The Apocryphal and Christian supplement:  Even if you have to suffer
>   from inevitable injustice, illness, or pain, accepting these hardships
>   without superfluous complaint will preserve your dignity and peace of heart.

A philosophy of sheep. Translates well to: don't worry, put up with
suffering, don't bitch about someone stealing from you or hurting you and
your family, take it in stride and know that God's gonna reward you in the
end. Now, does this seem suspiciously like something the government might
approve of? To keep the people in line and happy in their poverty? Maybe
that's why the churches aren't taxed? Ya think? Is religion truly the opiate
of the masses??? (see, I told you I was once a Marxist)
Oh, and let's not forget: don't seek revenge. Turn the other cheek. Vengence
is mine, sayth the Lord. All I can say is: Baaahhh! Baaah!
The Universal Mind gave us instincts and the means to survive. And the Xtian
faith says to deny these things. The basic problem here is that the two can
not coexist. They are completely at odds. It has to be one or the other.
Since one is obviously survival-oriented (and therefore definitely from the
Creator) and the other smacks of a means of control...which a supreme being
wouldn't need, being all-powerful...

>As far as I know, the exact birth date of Jesus of Nazareth still is very
>uncertain.  Most likely it was some time between 7 BC and 4 BC.

There is historic evidence for October, but its value is merely as high as
the individual places it. Some wouldn't believe if they saw the Birth
Certificate. It's been too long to expect any positive proof. Like with the
Shroud of Turin, which has now been identified as coming from the Middle
Ages...some still believe that it's real.
For that matter, there's a Flat Earth Society here in America...

>As for the pagan elements of Christmas:  The early Christianity, based on the
>Roman Empire (Southern Europe, Near East, Northern Africa), considered
>Christianizing the pagan tribes on the British Isles and in Central Europe as
>their greatest task.  In order to achieve that goal (which in fact took several
>centuries), they were willing to accept compromises with respect to the rite.
>Christmas replaced the pagan Yule celebration by choosing the same date and
>preserving the rite, yet giving the cult another meaning.

Yes! Giving the cult another meaning, changing it from its core beliefs,
diluting and twisting it to meet the standard of another belief. Exactly!

>Originally, Easter was always celebrated on April 25 (four months after
>Christmas) which seemed to be roughly the date when Jesus of Nazareth had been
>crucified.  (Today's historians believe that in fact the date of crucification
>had been April 9, 33 AD, so Easter should have been celebrated on April 11.)
>Like Christmas, Easter absorbed rites of pagan festivities which used to be
>celebrated at about the same time.

And was just as diluted.

>Mark, again:  The pagan influence changed the rite, but it had no effect on the
>teaching or the spiritual values.  So I don't see any corruption here.

If a group bases its beliefs on a falsehood, then it is corrupt and
therefore no longer valid. We're talking about the main two holidays here.
AND how many falsehoods are there for each one we spot? I could tell you
about more, risking the wrath of Paul, but if you want me to let's do it via
EMail. Here's an easy one for you: proof of evolution (which is denied by
the Xtian faith). When your arm gets cold you get goosebumps (or
chillblains, in England). Why? Well, animals have this reaction to raise the
hair on their body and keep warmer. Of course, humans don't have enough hair
to make that meaningful...unless there was a time when they did have more
hair! When they were in a lower form.
So, there you go. You either have to accept that we evolved (which doesn't
deny a Creator...just the Xtian beliefs) or believe that the reaction was
purposely put there to "fool" us. Like fossil remains...they're real, or
they were put there by someone to throw us off track.

>> But if one ONLY studies this one religion, they wouldn't know things like
>> this. I'd also advise a detailed study of history AROUND the religions,
>> especially written by non-members.
>
>I fully agree with you here.  Learning about different religions opens one's
>eyes for what religion is all about and may either help you to appreciate your
>own religion or to find another one that better fits your spiritual needs.

Right. If your beliefs are the truth, then you shouldn't shy away from
studying others. There's nothing to fear. However, 99% of the Xtians I've
met haven't studied any others and refuse to when I suggest it. They have
the arrogant attitude that they already know the truth and that is that.
Now, arrogance is something *I* can understand...but in this case, they're
on the wrong track. No one should be proud of their ignorance...



                   Cheers                   ML (champion of the new QUAD)

"I think you should keep on playing Rock as long as you have an axe to grind
and then if you haven't got an axe to grind you should go into cabaret."
                                                                 Pete Townshend