# The Book of Judas.



## Martinelv

Well, knock me down with a down with a feather. I could tear up a tissue in rage. It seems that an ancient manuscript has been discoverd, perporting to be the confessions of Judas, which seems to say that Jesus instructed him to be a 'scapegoat' for........whatever.

I'm well pissed about it. That means I can't go to a football match and visciously attack footballers who used to play for my team but now play for another team, calling him 'Judas'. This is most inconvienient. I hope that the church get's it act in order soon, for the sake of Saturday afternoon profanity.

http://modernperfection.com/history/200 ... judas.html


----------



## Dreamer

Shame on you Martin for that blasphemous link. 8)

Here's the deal. To the best of my understanding, that is a book that was already known to the Gnostics, and was banned by the Church at some point, not allowed into the NT. I am VERY poor on the dates of all of this.

I asked my husband (separated, across the country, still friends) about this as he is a font of knowledge on too much...

He wrote:

"This was the plot of The Last Temptation of Christ. The recently
discovered Gospel of Judas was a document written by the Gnostics, a
branch of early Christianity which emphasized "secret knowledge" and the
transcendence of the physical.

The Gnostics believed that the world, including our physical bodies, was created by lesser deities. The true God was entirely spiritual.

Thus the Gnostic story is that Jesus asked Judas to help Him escape from His physical body and reveal Himself as the true God of the spirit.

Much of Gnosticism is similar to Eastern mysticism. The orthodox Catholic church attacked Gnosticism for its elitism (the secret knowledge) and that belief that Christ is a purely spiritual being who never suffered did not provide solace to Christian martyrs who obviously experienced some real pain as they were fed to the lions."

My "ex" isn't knocking any of this, takes this as history/myth/parable, whatever floats your boat, etc. He also throws in a tad of sarcasm, yes. And he is more or less a Buddhist.

What I don't understand is this.... ponderings as I can't sleep again tonight....

The entire event, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection that is the cornerstone of Christianity, would never have happened if it weren't for Judas. (This is my take on it all.) If this were "preordained", if it were set in motion from the beginning, then Judas' participation NEVER made him a bad person. I never understood why he was seen as evil and why he hanged himself.

Jesus says to his various disciples, "[You] will betray me X times" "You Thomas will doubt me." etc. He KNOWS ahead of time what is to happen. The _Last_ Supper is KNOWN to Christ -- it is his opportunity to say goodbye to his disciples. He knows (or at least I thought he did) that Judas would betray him, as this was meant to occur.

This new Gospel is only confusing to me.

My sense is there were so many different sects, much oral tradition that got mixed up, much writing that occurred long after Christ's death, that there is general confusion anyway. This is like urban legend, thousands of years removed.

I have said openly that I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the Resurrection. This however, does not mean I don't believe there was an historical Jesus, his brother James, who knows.

Also, again, as an agnostic, and a DPd person, lol, I don't know what to dismiss and what NOT to dismiss. I believe the spiritual is a part of us, a part of human evolution in some way. Or it could very well be there is a "Higher Power." The world is both horrible and amazing at the same time. Most people need some type of spiritual religion, or at minimum a non-theistic religion like Buddhism to provide structure in their lives. To make some sense of this crazy world.

I'd like to think of myself as a Buddhist sometimes, a Jew sometimes, but I don't believe in the Resurrection ... which means I look like an idiot in Church (going to Easter Service with my cousins) as I have no idea whose hand to shake, what to repeat back, what hymn to sing, and I can't take communion (I was never baptized) and people stare at me when I don't get up, LOL.

Just rambling.

Bottom line.
1. I know you're a devil Martin, but I believe sprituality/Faith is important to most people. And I don't care to take that from them. Sometimes I wish I had it.
2. If Judas was meant to betray Christ so that he could be crucified, so that he could rise from the dead, well.... what's the big problem with Judas. He was only doing what he was supposed to do.

OK, I'm no more tired than I was an hour ago.
And I'm still confused by a lot of missing documents that are very well known. I don't understand the whole story of this gospel, which was sitting in someone's garage for some time? Then my husband says it's old news.

I can't stand the media, and most of the time don't trust 50% of what I read elsewhere. Gets tiresome.

I need to listen to some music.
D 8) 
Homeskooled, need input.
And a genuinely Peaceful Passover and Easter to all.


----------



## MrMortgage

Gnosticism is the key word here! The word Gnostic comes from the greek work nosis which means "I know"

Soooo....Judas didnt write this book, it could of been one man or women or a group....

The reason why there is such negativity to these Gnostic gospels is because anyone could of wrote them and said "GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE THIS SO I'M DOING IT....."

If this was crediable at all I should write a gospel and all of you should read and proclaim me the new christ....right?

Bull crap thats why the gnostic gospels are lame, the only thing they are good for is to get a feel for history and lifestlyes in "those" times, kinda like a history book....anyway hope this clears things up.....


----------



## Dreamer

Mr. M,

You didn't answer my question. Why is Judas considered a bad man? If he was meant to betray Jesus, if this were preordained from the beginning, why is he bad? why do we revile him?

Even if we don't look at Gnosticism, I'm still confused by the New Testament. Jesus supposedly KNEW that Judas would betray him. If Judas didn't betray him, he wouldn't have been crucified and wouldn't have been resurrected which is the foundation of Christian faith.

Ah well.
I just can't sleep when I should these days. Just fits and starts.

Read a little, post a little, read a little, post a little, cheep, cheep, cheep, post a lot read a little more....

(And what musical was that from? 8) )
I've lost it now, lol :shock:


----------



## Martinelv

> Shame on you Martin for that blasphemous link


I do my best, as you know!!! 8)



> Jesus says to his various disciples, "[You] will betray me X times" "You Thomas will doubt me." etc. He KNOWS ahead of time what is to happen.


No he didn't. He never existed. And even if he did, he was in serious need of an antipsychotic.


----------



## agentcooper

MrMortgage said:


> The reason why there is such negativity to these Gnostic gospels is because anyone could of wrote them and said "GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE THIS SO I'M DOING IT....."
> 
> .


isn't that how all scripture come about, you silly person? i mean, come on...


----------



## Dreamer

agentcooper said:


> MrMortgage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why there is such negativity to these Gnostic gospels is because anyone could of wrote them and said "GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE THIS SO I'M DOING IT....."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *isn't that how all scripture come about, you silly person? i mean, come on...*
Click to expand...

A slice of pie for agentcooper, thank you 8)

And Martin, regardless if this is historical or not, the story itself confuses me. I STILL don't understand why Judas should be reviled for something he was meant to do.

Devil man. :twisted: 
L,
D


----------



## Martinelv

So, speaketh the devil, it's all a terrible confusing muddle which almost certainly has no basis in reality, whatsoever. Not just the latest Judas debacle, I mean the whole Christian malarky. Yes?

Sigh. I could have told you all that instead of us bickering about trivialities.

:twisted:


----------



## MrMortgage

Dreamer said:


> agentcooper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMortgage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why there is such negativity to these Gnostic gospels is because anyone could of wrote them and said "GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE THIS SO I'M DOING IT....."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *isn't that how all scripture come about, you silly person? i mean, come on...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A slice of pie for agentcooper, thank you 8)
> 
> And Martin, regardless if this is historical or not, the story itself confuses me. I STILL don't understand why Judas should be reviled for something he was meant to do.
> 
> Devil man. :twisted:
> L,
> D
Click to expand...

Wrong cooper, you must understand that the gospels written in the bible all refer to each other in many ways, sometimes by name, and many other forms. Plus there were many eye witnesses of the people who wrote these gospels. For example the apostle paul who basically wrote a quarter of the bible was a well known Christian killer who changed his ways after God spoke to him and the miracles of God were witnessed through this man.

This example is one you can take to the bank, the apostle pual was not only mentioned in biblical history but HISTORY period.

People have already been back and forth with this gnostic gospel stuff for centuries and what we are learning now is nothing new....its just new to people that have never heard about it before....

we can blame the media for that, most people that dont understand the bible hear something that discredits it and go hog wild with it.

There are 2 things in life people are experts in even though 95% of the people out there know nothing about it this is religion and polotics, people read a few articles and watch cnn and the history channel everyday and think they can argue with people who have been there and done that.

Hope this helps laters.


----------



## Homeskooled

Right. Okay Dreamer. Its Easter Sunday, and I'm in Steubenville, Ohio, after spending Easter night on campus (all night Easter party - see, Catholics CAN live it up :wink: ). In any event, it was preceded by a four hour Easter Vigil service. Only got 2 hours of sleep last night. Here's the scoop:

Human beings greatly overcomplicate God. He doesnt need us. He doesnt need me to proselytize, convert, be perfect, ect...In the Old Testament, he simply tells Moses that he is "I AM". God IS. He is not closer to me and further from Martin. He does not glory in the differences between Christian denominations, and between relgions in general. He has no malice in his heart against the good or the evil. The sun shines on both. He is present in the space between myself and my computer, and the space of time between now and when I go to sleep. He exists in the same capacity in Martin's life. He IS. How we view Him, how we grasp Him, how we understand the capacity in which God exists in human existence - _this_ is what changes. WE change. Our view of how life works - the filter through which we perceive the divine, or the purpose of life, or how these operate - changes. Humanity is more confused than evil. Very few people take pains to reject God. People by nature wish to be happy and to know how the universe operates. The day in which you say "I dont care what the truth is - I would reject it anyways", is the day that you stop growing and stop loving yourself. But God is always there, in those physical spaces around us and the gaps of time in our day. We dont hurt Him, nor does He harm us - we only harm ourselves. He is there, but not in the holycard, cookie cutter image we have created for Him. He is real, in a very _real_ way. And the best way I have found to reach out to this "I AM" is through mystical prayer. Kneel down just once a day for ten minutes, palms facing outward, and just give your questions, doubts, concerns to God, and ask Him to sweep over you. To immerse you in the Him, whoever He is. LISTEN. Dont do any of the work. Dont encourage any feelings. Wait and listen with an empty mind. If God is real, you shouldnt have to do all of the work. The classical way is the way of ascetiscism - striving for God through perfection and work. But I think this leads to arrogance, an overreliance on theological legalism, and burnout - rather, the way I am outlining today is called the _mystical_ path to God. It was more common in the Church Fathers and the Desert Fathers, some of the original Christian monks from before the 4th century.

I'll talk to you about the Judas problem later.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Dreamer, 
What I was trying to ouline above, in my sleep deprived state, is that I see so many people wrapped up in the _theory_ surrounding God (the religious and atheist alike seem to fall into this category), that many people forget why they are asking the questions. Very few people actually test the theories. We debate, in this Spirituality Forum, constantly, whether God is real. But how many people really put it to the test? How many actually just sit and wait for God to touch them on His own? Through silent prayer? Mystical prayer? It just seems to me that we are too sophisticated for our own good, relgious and atheist alike, when it comes to God. And this even pertains to the pop culture fascination with Apocryphal books, which I like to refer to as Davinci-mania.....

Now for the book of Judas. There's the Book of James the Just, Thomas, Book of Peter, etc.....thousands of apocryphal works. Do I think this one is valid? I have absolutely no idea. Sounds silly to me, actually, but thats because I've heard this philosophical problem before. I've heard it in this context, but lets rephrase it into the classical philosophical problem - if God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then do we really have free will? Arent we predestined then? This question used to fascinate the ancients, and good ole' classically trained Catholics like myself (as well as good old Thomas Aquinas). To use another metaphor to explain it, its like me predicting the card someone will choose when I do a magic trick. If I know the person really well, I can do a "cold reading" of them, and foretell what object, card, etc....they will choose in a place on the table. I have nothing to do with forcing them to choose a particular object. But I know them like the back of my hand. The same with God and Judas. If Judas, using his free will, had decided not to betray Jesus, someone else would have. In the New Testament, it states that the Pharisees "wished to arrest him in the Temple, but he walked through their midst, as his time had not come." According to the New Testament, He was actually postponing what would have naturally happened in the temple - he was forestalling the inevitable. It is not necessarily true that Judas was "necesarry" for the work of salvation to be accomplished. He had to suffer and give his life for humanity. I have a feeling that there was really more than one way to "skin a cat" in this regards. Free will having its way with human nature, however, Judas freely chose to be the instigator. God knew what he was going to do then, just as He knows what I am about to type now, but he does not instigate things in me or force me to accomplish them. He lets it play out like a spectator at a reality show. Fully realizing what is about to transpire, but powerless to overwhelm free will.

Incidentally, the reason _why_ God knows the future is because he exists in eternity. Eternity contains past, present, and future simultaneously. As far as God is concerned, we are all dead buried, and the world over - or conversely, we are not yet born, and the universe is just being created. Its like a timeline. And in eternity, the entirety of the timeline is playing simultaneously. God is the Alpha and the Omega - the beginning as well as the end. We are simply playing our part in this universal drama. Where does it lead? Only God knows.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer

I have to read this about six times again.

I do like the concept of God as being always a part of eternity, which in a sense is a Buddhist concept. Eternity is now.

And yes, we have free will. I have to believe that, maybe. But, did you see M. Night Shamylan's "Signs" ... there are no coincidences? It does take your stand to a degree. You must. It is about a priest who gives up his Faith when his wife dies. Enter an alien invasion and a rather poignant story. A billion times better than War of the Worlds.

And now that I have the existing story to grapple with, I am confused by a Gnostic Gospel that would indicate that Judas told Jesus to go ahead with this. Confusion. But that's another story.

Appreciate your comments.
And I agree, for many, one simply has "Faith". Nothing more is needed.
Sadly I don't have that.
But I have a degree of comfort in Buddhism, "No Death, No Fear" Thich Naht Hahn.

Have to read this 800 more times I think, lol.

Best,
D 8)


----------



## Martinelv

Homeskooled - I bow to your stratasphoric levels of intelligence. And that's not sarcasm.

However, how can you make something so obviously simple so mind-bendingly complicated? You're arguing about a 2006 year old book and a Schizophenic who, may or may not, have existed. I thought a couple of lines would have sufficed.

I wonder how many trees in the amazon rain forest have been cut down to provide paper for the toilet paper (sorry - bible)?


----------



## Scattered

Harsh words.

Philosophizing about the will and nature of God is a self-reinforcing act of mental masterbation that, while ridiculous, has to be commended for the amount of energy one is willing to expend doing it. It's self-reinforcing because it presupposes the existence of a being for which there is no evidence of in the first place. Its like comic book geeks who sit around all day wondering who could win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman. Who cares? They're both made-up characters created to capitalize on our built in tendency to simplify the world into good, evil, light , and dark.

I really have to sit back and agree with Martin that while you may be an intellectual giant in some respects, its above you to understand that when prayer works its because one wants or *NEEDS* it to work. It's a placebo effect. The very act of praying presupposes that there is a God there who is going to listen. So how does prayer prove that God exists...even subjectively? Another analogy....its as if I believed in a particular theory and set out to gain evidence for its truth while ignoring any disconfirming information.

I have no reason to beat this dead horse. It's just that when I see you talking about these "tests" it seems crazy. Just admit that this is solely and completely an act of faith. Prayer is another manifestation of that faith. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that. For time immemorial people have devoted their lives to fantasies, conjectures, and wishful-thinking. It serves a purpose, its probably another mechanism that lies within us, the God gene.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Let me clarify your paragraph. I am NOT arguing about a 2006 year old book - I am arguing about an apocryphal work, the Book of Judas, which may or may not be 500 years old. Second of all, the Bible itself, while it would be nice to think that it was only a fantasy of incredibly well-written, unmedicated (and these two attributes contradict one another), schizophrenic religious zealots, I beleive that this too is a fantasy. More than likely, no matter what we think of Him, a figure who thought himself the Messiah (as many, many men did in Judea at that tumultous time) lived and died by the decree of a provincial Roman governor named Pontius Pilate. Whether he has been misrepresented, whether the books that tell his story were chosen correctly, or whether some of the apocrypha is true (such as the Book of Judas, the Book of Mary Magdalen, the Book of Thomas, etc...) is up for debate, and as always, is the province of historians, theologians, antiquities dealers, and the Church as a whole. Most of the writings about Alexander the Great occur after he died. Do I doubt that he existed? No. I think you have to have reason to doubt - not just an absence of evidence. And there is a document written by an eyewitness and not subject to the Synoptic problem - the Gospel of John. Simply because the only existing copies of this Gospel date to something like 100 AD does not make me doubt that an original (supposedley written in 80 AD) did not exist. I honestly think that the debate about whether the historical figure existed a semantical smokescreen, as it is not equally applied to other historical figures.

Lastly, I agree with you. God is simple. THIS, these words on this screen, overcomplicated Him. Theology, is in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Sometimes it is necessary and adequate, but most of the time, it causes spiritual unrest and even physical wars. Nuff said. I wish both you, and yes, even the moody Scattered,

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer

What's wrong with mental masturbation, lol? What's wrong with even wondering why certain things were written down the way they were? Their history? It's all part of history. One can examine the Bible as history, as literature -- that's where I'm coming from.

Scattered, why does it matter that we are discussing this? I don't think it does anyone any harm. Homeskooled isn't forcing his POV on anyone and goes through his own doubts, asks questions, etc.

How many words he spends on this is his own choice.

You go to university and discuss various topics such as this. I suppose then that anything one studies, safe math/science/engineering/computer technology, is mental masturbation. Art, music, philosopy, literature -- masturbation then. :roll: We should just have vocational schools I guess.

All any of us is trying to do is understand this strange place we live in -- the world, life.

I personally don't seek eternal life. I really don't, though I'd like to be around 100 years ago to see what's up. I'd rather be alive, that in "a better place." For some people, yes "salvation" is a better place and it is a desire to escape "Hell on earth."

My problem with any theistic, or non-theistic religion (such as Scientology), being forced on others. THAT is another story.

Ah well.
D


----------



## Scattered

There's nothing wrong with thinking about this. I think about questions I'll never be answer all the time, obsessively. But I recognize that that is what they are...questions I'll probably never be able to answer. The only reason I moodily responded...and I don't think its any more moody than Martin's toilet paper comment, is because Homeskooled wondered why people never test these ideas via the techniques of mysticism such as prayer that looks for direct confirmation or feeling of the existence of God. I just sort of had a problem with that comment because it seems obvious that any evidence of God's existence that one gets from prayer is not really "evidence" so much as it is the hopes and wishes of the individual being manifested through a physical or emotional response. That being said I could care less whether or not one prays or experiences ecstatic visions or speaks in tongues or handles snakes...etc etc etc. I was just throwing in the observation that this is all based on one's personal experience, and ultimately faith.

If God opened up a cloud tomorrow and spoke directly to me, I'd speak to a psychiatrist first..and if everything checked out...I'd probably believe in God afterward. However, I wouldn't consider this scientific evidence or proof in any larger context.


----------



## Dreamer

Scattered said:


> If God opened up a cloud tomorrow and spoke directly to me, I'd speak to a psychiatrist first..and if everything checked out...I'd probably believe in God afterward. However, I wouldn't consider this scientific evidence or proof in any larger context.


Hmmm. Firstly, Martin is Martin 8) He has been sort of given free reign to carry on in the manner he does. lol

Strange, I don't dwell on these things -- understanding everything really. I mean I do in one sense -- people will say "You're obsessed with X or Y", but in uni, that gave me A grades. I just like examining things. It is an intellectual thing, as is any other topic I like to discuss, like film, or (bad idea) politics, or art, etc.

I also do have a "control" issue in that "understanding" = control, yet the existence of God is not on that list for me. When I had severe existential thoughts, yes they were attached to my horrendous DP episodes which have gotten much better over time.... a Loooooooong time.

*Funny thing is, I always say -- and Homeskooled, please take no offense -- what always bothered me was, if Jesus knocked on my door, right now, came into my apartment accompanied by two angels. Performed miracles and offered me eternal life. I'd believe He existed, BUT....

then I'd say, "But where did YOU come from? Where did GOD the Father come from?" In that sense, this answers no question for me, so I don't seek the answer.

The existence of God answers no questions for me. Though I am curious why we're all here.*

But, that doesn't stop me from asking questions, mainly psychological about why we think this way. If there is something in our brains that makes us want this, that protects us this way. Or ... is there indeed a higher power.

I don't know. I understand I will never know. Or perhaps one day, I will "give myself up" to something greater. I don't know. It's funny, but when I have been in the depths of despair, I have cursed God. At this moment, recalling the depths of depression, I think .... why was I so down? why was I suicidal? But in my worst episodes of DP/DR/depression, when I have some contact with my emotions, I curse God, even though I'm not sure there is a God. It is "something" to direct my rage at ... if that makes any sense. And I have "bargained with God."

No hard feelings. And I know I carry on endlessly myself. I didn't realize Homeskooled had taken my title! :shock:

*?Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) One thing is, I find the Bible, and many quotations from the Bible (King James, not modernized) very beautiful.*

Best,
D 8)


----------



## Martinelv

I'm not obsessed with religion. It bores me. I'm just stirred into life when the bigotry rises from the sludge.

More than anything I'm curious about people who are 'offended' by people criticising their religion. Why is this? Surely if they are so sure in their faith, then whatever this devil cocubine's views are willdiscarded without a second thought.

I'm not offended when I walk past a church, even though there are 365 of them in my town of 150,000 inhabitants. All that space could be given over to the 'really' needy - the homeless, the mentally ill, the physically ill, and so on. But it's not. It's given over to hypocrits, usually, dripping with gold, who are just there for a bit of god-fearing and reassurance that things are going to be nice after death. It pisses me off, but it doesn't offend me. Strange, these religious people.



> ?Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) One thing is, I find the Bible, and many quotations from the Bible (King James, not modernized) very beautiful.


Surely that should read - 'faith is something makes you feel nice, but cannot be proved, ever, and is frankly a load of tosh'.

Dreamer, sure, there are some nice bits in the bible. About as many as there are in a automobile manual. The rest, 75% at the latest count, is concerned with death, rape, muder, war, etc. But we are meant to take that in historical context. :shock: If that isn't convienient then I don't know what is. Imagine if 75% of a automobile manual was meant to be taken in historial context ! LOL.

Dreamer, you of all people, being the most female of females, should throw the bible on the fire. Women are filth in the bible. Utter, utter filth.


----------



## Scattered

Faith isnt a load of tosh (I'm assuming this is brit-speak for sh!t), because its worth something in and of itself. There's no reason to put the actually act or practice of faith down. There's nothing to argue against really. It's the ideas that one has faith towards that are worthy of criticism. And more importantly, when one begins to claim that his or her *FAITH* can be validated or proved through spiritual practice, then this seems suspect as well. Otherwise, faith can be positive the same way having hope in seemingly hopeless situations can be positive, regardless of validity.


----------



## Homeskooled

Scattered, 
You will eventually need to test the theory. Silent prayer. Just sit there. Ask God if he's real. Thats it. If He is, He'll do the work. If He doesnt, then oh well. Your right. The universe has no purpose, and evolution throws random mutations in our DNA for the sole purpose of making us feel good (usually its the other way around - the DNA has a necessary function, and the pleasure is there to make sure we, the hedonistic race that we are, do what's necessary. You seem to put the cart before the horse in this respect, and I never quite get it. Be skeptical of your own skepticism man!). I'm not validating a religion - I'm validating God. God exists whether or not I think he does or not, whether or not I argue the point or not. But you lack insight into the fact that you are not a risk taker. You need the proof before you take the leap. The word "Skepticism" cushions your own life and self insecurities. Which makes you dwell inside your own mind - incessantly. Relax. Live.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled

By the way, Dreamer. Thanks for the defense. Its kind of like having another teammate on the basketball court. I've always loved the game. Especially one on one, or myself against two other guys. But still, sometimes its nice to have someone to pass the ball to, you know?

Martin - I can think of at least 220 different buildings I would rather raze to create places for the poor. High on the list would be pornographers and strip joints ( I consider them to be almost as disrespectful of women as the Bible, but not quite), followed closely by my backyard and yours. Oh - wait a minute. I guess we dont have to wait for that. We can just do that right now, and instead of endlessly complaining, actually _do_ something to make a difference. Gosh that was easy.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## MrMortgage

Ultimately, religion is a take it or leave it type of thing. You either believe it or you don?t. Jesus said it perfectly "And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your word, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14

As far as Christianity is concerned, it's not my job or anyone?s job to convince anyone about Christ, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me..." John 10:27

It makes me sick, that some Christians go out and beat people in the head about God, to the point where people come to church because they feel guilty or sorry for the guy that tried to get em' in....this isn't the will of God, it's not are job to shake people up, that's the holy spirits job.

Worse yet, people compromise the word of God to make it more appealing... Why the hell does God's word need to be more attractive, that's like slapping God in the face and telling him he didn't do a good enough job.... People compromise the word of God because it makes them money, it keeps the seats warm, and the ultimate downfall of this is weak doctrine that doesn?t hold up.

There will always be doubters, there will always be hypocrites, there will always be division, the Apostle Paul says this "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you;
and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." There are many different translations of this scripture, but overwhelmingly the reason for this scripture is to bring home the fact that there must be division in this church so you can see who is approved.

Hope this helps guys.


----------



## Martinelv

That's true Homeskooled, but brothels and so-forth occupy very little ground in this country.

After the Queen, the church is the largest landowner in this country.


----------



## Dreamer

Martin said:


> Dreamer, you of all people, being the most female of females, should throw the bible on the fire. Women are filth in the bible. Utter, utter filth.


 :shock:

Bless you for calling me the female of all females ... I think 8)

However, the Bible has never caused me a bit of trouble in my life. You know my mother was an atheist, but I find myself tolerant of all relgions. I believe in freedom of religion as I do in freedom of speech.

There is a show on TV here called "The Man Show" which is so insulting to women it is laughable. It enforces the stereotype of the basest of the male view of women -- sex machines, but what can I do... it's freedom of speech. There is far more in the media that is demeaning to women and we are bombarded with it everyday.

The Bible is indeed a piece of literature, as is The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Greek Mythology, etc., etc., etc. I look at each, fascinated by similarities that Joseph Campbell spoke of in "The Mythic Image" and "The Hero of a Thousand Faces".

And women throughout history have always been thought of as lesser, or feared by men and hence oppressed, for many reasons, in many many cultures.

Also in terms of my loving the words ... they have been the inspiration for the great choral works I am so fond of. Brahms Requiem, Mendelsohn's Elijah, which I have sung as a student of music. Also studied as works of art.

Whether I believe in the psalms, I find them beautiful, like poetry:

One of my favorites:

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down,
yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"
- Psalm 137 -

It has many meaning for me personally, about oppression in general, of abuse of the human spirit.

I have also performed (Years ago) in Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell.

This is like saying, ignore the Illiad and the Odyssey as it is only myth, or not being interested in Egyptian religious practice, or Islam, or Shinto, or... whatever.

Never in my life have I been treated as "less" by my religous friends. I know many families who are Christian where there is no "restriction" on a woman's ability to work, to be seen as an equal or a complement to her husband. I have a cousin who is a Fundamentalist Baptist ... that's heavy duty. Both he and his wife have worked most of their lives. She chose to stay home early on to raise their 3 boys who have turned out to be some of the most decent people I know. I have been spending more time with them recently as they are my only close family.

I can do without my 1st Cousin's preaching a bit much, but his wife -- he has had no problem with her going to college at age 58 or so to get her BA and an MSW. She is not a servant in his home. Neither are the wives of his three sons. 2 work, one is a housewife by choice. They are given complete respect.

I hate to say this, but though they don't preach, these folks are extraordinarily productive, giving people. And I hate to say this, but gentle lessons in morality have produced so far some beautiful grandchildren.

There is something to be said for a loss of morality everywhere. One of my little cousins -- 5 years old -- during an Easter hunt with HER cousins discovered she had not gathered up enough eggs to "win" the game.

She said, "It's OK, everybody wins, we had FUN! Thank you grandma!"

Someone can be moral and raise good children without being Christian or anything else, but it is impressive how wonderful this family is. Mine was totally screwed up --my mother's atheism, nihilism, disdain for others destroyed my sense of self esteem, my father's, and everyone around her. She had no empathy, no kindness in her.

She was very sick, and a shrink.

I just don't like stuff pushed down my throat is all. And that doesn't happen that often.

Maybe I'm lucky. I grew up in an Upper Middle Class neighborhood, went to a private college prep school my entire life where there were various religions represented and also many secular individuals. I later went on to study at a large well respected university -- B.A. and M.A. where religion was discussed in various ways, but wasn't hammered. And my agnosticism was accepted fully. (Of course some were less tolerant over the years), but bottom line the Bible has never hurt me as a woman in any way.

I could go on and on. But I am really surprised you would say that, and it also implies I don't have the ability to measure what is written in the Bible and make decisions for myself -- as a woman.

Best,
D


----------



## Scattered

Homeskooled - You make the assumption that I never believed in God before, and that I have never earnestly and sincerely prayed in my life because of my skepticism. Nothing could be further from the truth. My skepticism arose out of my own belief in God and fundamentalist christianity for that matter. I tried to go beyond some of the more ridiculous concepts, as a child mind you, and try to make sense or what seemed to be a senseless doctrine to me. I was never a devout christian but I did believe in Christ and I prayed many times. Yet, I was never shown any reason to believe that anyone was listeniong to my prayers. I was surrounded by other religious people as well who turned to God out of tradition and stayed with him out of desperation. Their prayers were never answered. God worked in mysterious ways and was always let off the hook when something horrible happened and praised when something wonderful happened. This type fo religious devotion is so pathetically predictable, its just a docile acceptance in the face of a world that is confusing and unstable. People believe in God because they *NEED* to believe in God, not because God has shown himself to exist in any way.

This is why we have hack evangelical preachers on television everyday defrauding people of money by capitalizing on some of the most basic fears and questions about being alive. This is also why we have large institutions such as the Catholic Church perfroming the same function, except on a greater level.

The only answer to this is to say that I wasn't sincere enough, spiritually adept enough, or I didn't have enough "faith" in God. There are many reasons a theist will come up with to discount numerous individual's complaints about prayer and its ineffectiveness.But, I suppose prayer is only helpful to monks who cloister themselves in monasteries and dedicate themselves to the creation of circumstances necessary for spiritual practice and experience. A kind of self-programming that allows one to create a sense of reverence necessary to self-validating claims of spiritual union. I leave you with a study that will in no way change your mind because you are, obviously, a true believer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/healt ... nd&emc=rss


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Scattered, 


> Homeskooled - You make the assumption that I never believed in God before, and that I have never earnestly and sincerely prayed in my life because of my skepticism.


No sir, I do not. I dont forget what I've read, and I've read your posts stating that you've tried "faith", praying, and beleiving before, and I take you quite literally.

You do not, however, read mine, as I coverd the Benson prayer study in a recent post to Martin. Like the New Mexico study, it found same or worse prognosis for those given intercessory prayers. And as I said in my earlier post, a previous study also found _better_ prognosises for people prayed for. By painting things as black and white, as either/or scenarios (either I get answers now, or God doesnt exist) or painting everyone in your own image (my prayers dont work so noone's does), you still lose your objectivity, and it is objectivity that allows for greyscale. Scattered, what do you think of vitamin E? Would you take it? Have you followed the conflicting studies of it in medical journals? How about DP? Have you followed the conflicting studies that show that migraines occur more frequently in those with DP (the London IOP clinic study) and the ones that found they dont happen frequently at all in us (Simeon's)? What would you postulate from this? That migraine headaches dont exist? The problem is that you _have _to paint the problem of prayer as black and white, because this whole issue causes, and caused, you alot of anxiety. Look at your statements. Unqualified, blunt, generalizations :



> People believe in God because they NEED to believe in God, not because God has shown himself to exist in any way.


You are saying what Lenin said before Stalin's Russian purges - Religion is the opiate of the weak. Noone can hunger for God for any other reason than weakness. Not for beauty, or truth, or reason. No, only fear and weakness drive people to their knees. Scattered, I've read your posts. I remember them. You dont always talk like this. You are intelligent enough to be evenhanded - except when it comes to religion. Something about it either scares or enrages you. And only you can answer why.

You've prayed before. You were a child, and had no direct connection with the divine. Well guess what, I didnt either - noone does! But you can reconnect as an adult, without the placebo effect. Like I said before, do nothing. Scattered, I can appreciate skepticism. I can appreciate doubts. I can appreciate DP. I can appreciate reveling in DP to the point that I'm not sure if its a disorder. Been there, done all of that. A beleiver doesnt lack anything an atheists got. I've got everything an atheist does - reality, education (probably too much knowledge for my own good), exasperation with religious fundamentalists, hypocrites, theological doubts - and then something he doesnt. An ability to say, "Yes, I dont know if God exists. The idea is beautiful. The virtues make sense to me. Theology doesnt. God, as presented to me as a child, doesnt. But if God's real, I'm open to Him, and I hope He exists. God, if your there, teach me. If you are real, guide me. If you exist, touch me." Then I go about my day just as a skeptic would, running into the same world everyone else steps into in the morning. Maybe sometimes God touches me. Most of the time, this occurs when I dont expect it. Nobody _knows_. But then again, I dont know if vitamin E is good for me either. I'm willing to hedge my bets, beleive _parts_ of all the studies, and keep an open mind, free of fear.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- Martin, I see what you're saying. The Church of England is indeed a different animal than I usually run into over here in the States. Although they dont have enough people attending to keep the Churches open, they keep them open with government funding. Its original rift with the Catholic Church was fraught with corruption to begin with, and the execution of an excellent minister, Sir Thomas More. Its not wholly devoid of goodness, but I _could_ see stopping the government subsidation of it, allowing the land to be used for better public purposes if it did not remain self-sustaining. I dont, however, take back the moral of the post, however, which is that it is better to do than it is to complain. Cheerio.

Oh, and Dreamer - nice post. I'll pass the ball back to you any day.


----------



## Scattered

I'm agnostic, I actually allow far more lee-way than I do in any of these posts. The reason why I feel the need to polarize my opinion in these posts is because I had the unrealistic expectation that by taking an atheistic viewpoint I'd receive a theistic response that addressed my concerns. Apparently, thats not going to happen. My point with the study is to say that there is little to no proof that prayer works. To have to cherry pick from these studies shows that if prayer does work, then its ineffective, inconsistent, and wholely dependent on either luck or some other chaotic variable. If prayer worked it would be easy to demonstrate that it did. There would be strong statistical correlations that simply do not exist. In the light of this lack of evidence the theist must make reference to only special circumstances in which prayer works or only special individuals who are able to harness this power of prayer.

I offer vague generalizations because it's not my responsibility to offer proof of the nonexistence of God. My experience comes from the inner-city where people routinely rely on Chirstianity to assuage them of their sufferring. It didn't help me and I never saw it significantly help anyone around me. So if your point is that prayer definately works but only under certain circumstances then I'd be interested in a list of conditions under which prayer does and doesn't work. I think something like this would be extremely beneficial to those who rely on this spiritual aspect of their lives as an emotional salve against a harsh reality.



> But if God's real, I'm open to Him, and I hope He exists. God, if your there, teach me. If you are real, guide me. If you exist, touch me."


Thats all that you had to say really. That your belief in God stems from a hope and a wish for him to exist. Once you say that your belief in God is based on hope and faith, theres really nothing else for me to argue about. As for the belief in God as a way to access truth, beauty, and reason, this seems a bit redundant because there is plenty of truth, beauty, and reason in a world without God. I don't see people as earnestly seeking God for these abstract concepts. People want solidity, safety, comfort, and the promise of a future that is free from fear and suffering. If this is a vague generalization that you see as being completely wrong, then I'll post again with statistics and perhaps a works cited or bibliography page.


----------



## Homeskooled

Scattered, 
You want to paint me and this as black and white- you cant. If prayer works, you say, it'd be easy to prove. Oh really? Since when is ANYTHING easy to prove using the scientific method, huh? You cant rely on selective journal articles to prove your points, but *not consistently follow medical journals*. You will, of course, get a skewed view of any one issue that science is trying to tackle, whether its Vioxx, the cardiovascuar risks of Vitamin E, the cardiovascular benefits of Vitamin E, the use of chemo on glioblastomas, or the power of prayer. And to be quite honest, the nature of prayer (you cant measure dosages and gauge the strength of this medication), make it very, very difficult to quantify. I'd be suspicious if the bulk of the studies came out either wholly positive or wholly negative.

How should you pray? Like God exists. Leave the work to Him. Follow your heart, not your head. But I've told you all this before. You want statistics, darn it, and you wont be happy until you do! Well, better put your life on hold, Scattered, because contradictory, ambiguous findings are a part of science. Begin following science in its entirety (and not just selectively) and you will begin to understand how studies and stats work in a practical and a clinical sense.

No, my faith does not stem from hope, although that fortifies it. It stems from a deep sense that there is a reason that life and art exists, and a point to my life. It then follows a path of reason in which I was trained. As all rational creatures should, I'm going back over my training, picking through what is useful and what is not. It is here that I have hope. A wish? Wishes are pointless. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. I have hope that the truth is a good thing to know, and so I seek it, free of fear (or as free of it as I can make myself).

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Scattered

All I see this amounting to is science's inability to test or verify the existence of God or the effectiveness of prayer. Although I'm interested in your comment about how I'm using selective scientific information. I'd be interested in all the other studies as well as their methodology that show how effective prayer really is. I don't really see prayer or God as being beyond science, I just see a common excuse that is used to get beyond the fact that religion is entirely based on faith because it has to be. There is an absence of any real evidence to verify it. It's interesting how we have accounts of the vast power of God, the healing power of prayer, as well as the everpresence of God yet there is no way to see this or know this beyond sitting around and trying to "feel" God. It doesn't make any sense to me. I have this strange idea that if God was so powerful, and if prayer was the method to directly communicate with this omnipotent, omniscious, and omnipresent being, there would be some way to show this scientifically. So in this confusing situation what makes more sense? That God is here and prayer works but there is absolutely no way to show this? Or perhaps the reason we can't show this is because it exists entirely in our heads, and as long as it does will not be subject to science..and in that case..will never be subject to a critical process of examining its truth.


----------



## Martinelv

Homeskooled - the Church of England is nothing more than a disgarace. It has no fundamental values (it has disregarded the concept of heaven and hell, the immaculate conception...etc)..and is so watered down that it barely exists. It's utterly pointless.

Oh, that and it is the major shareholder in one of the worlds major arms firms. Their excuse? 'Because the weapons they make don't kill our troops'. :shock: Retards.

According to Google, 75% of Brits believe in 'something'. About 30%(ish) of them believe in a omnipotent god, of whatever flavour. The rest are either agnostic, atheist, or don't give a damn.

The statistics, according to Google, regarding church attendence are even more shocking. Only 12% go regularly. And of that 12%, 8% said that they only go for special occassions - weddings, funerals (not that it's a special occassion), Kung-Fu lessions, that sort of thing. So there is only 4% of the population that 'worship' regularly. And they defined reguarly as once a week!

Goodbye C of E.


----------



## falling_free

Martinelv said:


> According to Google, 75% of Brits believe in 'something'. About 30%(ish) of them believe in a omnipotent god, of whatever flavour. The rest are either agnostic, atheist, or don't give a damn.
> 
> The statistics, according to Google, regarding church attendence are even more shocking. Only 12% go regularly. And of that 12%, 8% said that they only go for special occassions - weddings, funerals (not that it's a special occassion), Kung-Fu lessions, that sort of thing. So there is only 4% of the population that 'worship' regularly. And they defined reguarly as once a week!
> 
> Goodbye C of E.


----------

