Let me know if you find one. I do recall it praising faith multiple times, but I'm not a biblical scholar.

As for your quote, I think it means, "Stop thinking so much and just believe." Bobby Jindal once called his own Republican Party "the party of stupid." Look around you. Christianity, in many forms, is the religion of stupid. That's how many young people brought up in the faith view it - as anti-intellectual.

Should Christians be embarrassed by what they have been called by many faith leaders to believe? I think so. I think any form of dogmatic belief in the absence of evidence is a bad thing. That atonement doesn't make sense is bad enough. That some Christians are happy that a man had to supposedly die to save them from something this man/his father created in the first place is just completely immoral.

Say what you will Chansen, can you deny that you are constantly arguing against what the cross represents?

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are persishing" but the message of the cross is not foolishness to those being saved" Corinthians

1 Corithinians 1:23

"We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness"

Look! Words! In a bound book and everything!

A book that sings the praises of itself is hardly newsworthy, it's marketing.

Many find truth within it's pages, much like you find truth in other books that have been written. Your truth has become common knowledge, the words within the Bible are uncommon and challenge us.

Agreeing with you, Waterfall. At least in part. 

For it to be worth anything, it seems to me that religious faith needs to involve both the mind and the heart.

Growing up in the United Church at the time of the New Curriculum, I don't think I was ever encouraged to stop thinking or to "leave my brains at the door" as the saying goes. But I agree that the pendulum has swung towards logic and the intellectual understanding of faith.

Not that there is anything wrong with thinking, talking and debating matters of faith, but sometimes it simply needs to be experienced and held in the heart. 

Christs message certainly humbles us in more ways than one.

Yes, I too think we have to learn to strike a balance between the logically thinking mind and the emotional/intuitive heart. "Thinking from the heart," that's how some people describe this intellectual/emotional/intuitive balance.

Jesus' blood sacrifice and substitutionary atonement are Pauline doctrines. They are part of Pauline Christianity; they have little or nothing to do with Jesus' teachings. The Christianity that emerged out of Paul's teachings was so different from Jesus' original teachings that it could well be regarded as a different religion.

The original Jesus movement was a Judaic movement. Paul went to great length to distance himself from Judaism and the Jesus movement. He made little or no attempt to become personally acquainted with the Jesus community of Jerusalem. Paul's mythical Christ, as well as the doctrines surrounding it, are a Pauline invention. 

In my personal opinion, a religion that does not pursue the Divine Union—meaning union with everyone and everything, including the creative force of the universe and the unitive love which is an inevitable outcome of the Divine Union—is not worth adhering to. Most of these convoluted and seemingly nonsensical, absurd or bizarre Christian doctrines distract form the Divine Union. 

I agree with you 100%, Arm. Paul was a complete asshole who ruined what good there was in the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Arm I have to go out I will comment later. In the meantime possibly others will agree or disagree with what you are saying. ;)

"attributed to Jesus" is right, because we don't know for certain what he said and taught. But there is nothing wrong with having a legendary person, or avatar, on whom we confer everything we think is great and good about a human being, and make him into our ideal. I think it is good for us to have such idealized personages as models for our own moral behaviour. 

Absolutely. There is danger, however, in elevating these charaters literally to gods. Amazing, inspiring people can fall. Think Lance Armstrong. Gods, in the minds of believers, can't. What gods do, becomes acceptable for all.

And so, we have people being willfully ignorant or hateful because they think God would want it that way.

Yes, it is good to bear in mind that our heroes are no more, or less, godly than we.

But maybe they are more aware of their small "g" godliness? However, even if they are, they are as prone to falling from grace as anyone else.

Too many fall from grace and good

For you to doubt the likelihood. 

-I forgot the author of the above lines.

Robert Frost, Arminius. 

The poem begins: 

The witch that came, the withered hag

To wash the steps with pail and rag, . . 

Meant to quote first see next post

Proverbs 4:2-7 (OT)

Wisdom is demonstrated by Jesus in the NT but he doesn't explicitly talk about intelligence.

...was once the beauty Abishag.

The picture pride of Hollywood,

Too many fall from grace and good,

For you to doubt the likelihood.

Thanks for refreshing my memory, p3

I must be getting old, eh?

I'll put you down as "still looking."

Hi waterfall,

That the good news (aka the Gospel) was not a rhetorical device.

In the world which Paul speaks the Cross is for losers.  It is for nobodies.  People who only excelled in causing trouble as much as for the Roman authorities as for their  indigent neighbours.

The cross was meant to strip you of your dignity and your name which were about the only things most folk on crosses ever had to cling to in the first place.

The cross is repulsive, a final resting place for the worst sort of criminal.  It holds no beauty for the average folk.

It held the same attractiveness in Paul's day that lethal injection and the electric chair have in ours.

And yet, it is the Christian belief that Jesus on the cross turns the world inside out.

By dying on the cross as he did Jesus shows the world up for what it is.  In much the same way the Selma to Montgomery marches and accompanying violence showed America how ugly its racism was and how it needed to change.  By dying on the cross Jesus opens up the possibility of another way of being that is different from, even alien to the world as we know it.

Because Paul spends most of his time dealing with a Greek audience that brings with it a different understanding of how the gods operate Paul has to address the growing notion that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross (who ever heard of a god dying?)

Which is why, for Christianity, the cross represents something multi-faceted and why in Christianity we attribute to Jesus more because of it.  Designed to strip a person of their dignity the cross of Christ becomes the ultimate glorification.  Designed to make a persons name a cursed thing the cross of Christ makes the name of Jesus a name above all names.  Designed to destroy traitors to the empire the cross of Christ becomes the standard of an eternal Kingdom.

And normally, that would be nonsense.

If I started swinging a noose around and claiming that it was the most glorious thing because of Robert Turpin folk would stop and stare because of the spectacle.  Once they googled Robert Turpin they would quickly lose interest.  Or they would become animated for purposes completely other than what I was trying to aim for.

Apart for that there is the snake-oil aspect that new faiths were examined for.  A slick talker could feather a nest nicely and the more you liked what the slick-talker had to say the more money you would loosen from your wallet.

Making the cross something of a centre-piece was, at that time the furthest thing you could find from slick-talking.  Thanks to Christendom and so many years of separation from the practice of crucifixion the cross is, more often than not, reduced to bling.  A corporate logo that helps to identify but is in danger of losing its meaning.

Compare that to today where the notion that somebody else would die for my sin is considered a great offence.  Of course most of the offence is related to the notion that I am sinful than it is that anyone would die for me.

Almost full circle.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm not upset that Jesus sacrificed his life to bring his message to the world. I am upset that he had to- that we (humanity) didn't get the message first. There's this contradiction in belief of Christians- that the cross and the blood of it is a loving beautiful thing, and part of God's redemption plan. And yet, we still (rightfully) point to the brutality of those who called for his death. We know he endured brutality- and we celebrate it. Because if it weren't for the brutality he would not have died on the cross. The thing that is redemptive is recognizing it was brutal, and not doing it. And yet criminals are still executed, innocent people wrongly get the death penalty or die in places where the laws are unjustly stacked against them. And we ritualize and celebrate Jesus story- as a beautiful thing that had to happen. The beautiful thing is that he still lives in our consciousness, our imaginations- but I believe we need to rethink the brutality bit.

Kimmio, here you are exactly correct. Christianity is brutal and immoral in it's message about vicarious redemption.

But, there it is.

The Cross( was) Evil Kimmio because of the men who made it and used it. But GOD made something very beautiful  from That CROSS. He turned it from death into LIFE For All who would recive it. No I think there was no mistake, what was death is now LIFE.  ALL GLORY IS GODS. ---God Bless--airclean33

My understanding is that Paul was raised a jew but was also a Roman citizen. He was never a Christian but became intent on bringing the Gospel of Jesus to the Gentiles rather than teaching the Torah.

Do you think Paul just believed that through Jesus, God changed his plans for the non Jews (or Gentiles)

Jesus being the pivoting point that creates the gospel for all Gentiles?

Thankyou.

For myself, I absolutely don't celebrate the brutality of Jesus' death but I have always admired those who outsmart the bullies by effectively rendering the bully impotent.

How do you people continuously outdo yourselves?!? Dying is suddenly "outsmarting" the bullies? How the hell can you say that in an age when we realize that kids are committing suicide to get away from bullies?!?

This is fucking insane. You'll use absolutely any excuse to justify this, without a single fucking synapse firing in your brain. Anything, anything to justify how you profit from a death. Disgusting.

Where has the wisdom of the world led us? It seems to me if we search and look to the heart of Christianity, the answer lies within it's teachings, and it's not a path to brutality, it's a path towards loving one another.

For one thing, to realize the importance of clean water and clean hands in reducing transmission of illness, saving millions of lives.

Where did Jesus say, "Wash your hands and boil your water?" Maybe an all-knowing and all-loving deity who had our best interests at heart might mention something.

And, the end of the world.

Settle down Chanson, your indignation is showing! Interesting how you've translated and compared this to kids committing suicide in order to run away from bullies or oppression. I said no such thing.

You said that death is a way to outsmart a bully. That's stupid.

It is stupid when you put it that way (you have a remarkable ability to oversimplify things). I think Jesus was human, while here on earth. He was outnumbered and placed in physical chains. What would you do? Kick and scream? Beg for mercy? Recant? Forgive your oppressors?

Why isn't "start a scam religion" one of my options?

Really??? Jesus wanted to start a scam religion? Do you really believe that?

No, I doubt Jesus existed. I think Paul wanted to start a scam religion.

Present your case then. Why?

It's a suspicion. Nothing more. The important point is that Christianity is a completely hopeless hypothesis. Ask most of your own kids.

Maybe you should confirm that with Via rail.  :)

Are you saying that suspicion is a valid response to your allegations about Paul?

Hi waterfall:

Yes, Paul was a Jew, but he also was a learned Roman citizen and a so called "Hellenistic Jew." He was from Tarsus, in present-day Turkey, and it looks like he had a preference for the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, because many of his statements are almost direct quotes from the Stoic writings that were available at his time. It seems to me that he wanted to convert his fellow Stoics, and any other Gentile who cared to listen, to this new religion of his, which had been founded by him but, incongruously, had a Jew named Jesus as it's figurehead.

Why he chose a Jesus as the figurehead of his new religion, while being otherwise seemingly anti-semitic, only he knew for sure. It may have had something to do with his mystical conversion experience on the road to Damascus, an experience about which we know very little.

What is special about Paul is that most of the writings attributed to him were actually written by him. Scholars who compared his writings to the Stoic writings of his day detected remarkable similarities.

I don't believe in a separate, supernatural God who has a pre-designed master plan for the universe or for humanity. I regard God as the unified universe in which creator and created are one unified whole. If this "holy whole" wants anything for us, then it is the awareness that we are united with IT. Anyway, as I said, I regard the experience and awareness of our innate divinity, or our union with God, as humanities' highest goal.

By proclaiming only Jesus as divine, and leaving the rest of humanity in the mud, Pauline Christianity did a great disservice to humanity.

Oh no! You, too?

I thought Paul referred to himself as a Pharisee. He was taught by Gamaliel, so he must have excelled in his Hebrew studies.

Acts 24:14 confirms that Paul believed in the Hebrew God and the Torah.In Romans he stated that the Torah is Holy. He taught from the Torah and in the language of the Jews, Hebrew. He was circumcised and he circumcised Timothy in Acts 15:2. How could he have been anti semetic? What Stoic statements are you referring to Arm?

Hi waterfall:

Paul was fluent in Greek and Roman. He belonged to the strongly Jewish community of Tarsus, and was well educated in the Jewish tradition, albeit in Greek translation. Most of his letters were written in Greek. His Letters to the Galatians and Romans show a distinct Stoic bent. Stoicism was particularly popular among the educated class of the Roman Empire, of which Paul was a part.

My granddaughter, DIOTIMA COAD, just published her Master Thesis in Greek and Roman Studies at the University of Victoria on the subject of the Stoic influences on Paul: "PAULINE CHRISTIANITY AS A STOIC INTERPRETATION OF JUDAISM." It contains many examples of Stoic influences on Paul, too numerous to mention. Seneca, for instance, who was very popular with the Romans.

Prof. Barrie Wilson ( http://www.barriewilson.com ) of York University wrote extensively on the subject of Paul and early Christianity. According to Barrie Wilson, the parts of the Acts concerning Paul, or attributed to Paul, are not authentically Pauline but, like the Gospels, were written later as an attempt to graft Pauline teachings onto the Jesus movement and weld the two into one religion. Barrie Wilson, however, is of the opinion that Paul's Christ Movement and the original Jesus Movement were different enough to qualify as different religions.

Hi Waterfall

Here's an old hymn that I love.

Amazing what we find in the memory bank from high school!

I have his book but haven't spent much tiime with it. Maybe I will give it another try. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGbtQQo5iyY

Hi Inanna:

Excellent video! I remember you posted it before, on a different thread.

Barrie Wilson's research is impeccable. He asserts that Paul's Christianity was based on Paul's vision and interpretation of the mythical Christ, was different enough in origin, belief, and practice from the Jesus movement to qualify as a different religion, and that the canonical Gospels and particularly the Acts were later attempts to link Pauline Christianity with the Jesus movement.

Barrie Wilson's papers "Taking Paul at his word" and "If we only had Paul, what would we know about Jesus" are both quick and easy reading and are available as free, downloadable pdf documents on his website, under "publications."

Arminius,

he seems like a sweetie; someone I'd invite over for tea

'e's an archeologist of sorts, digging and uncovering the many threads of meaning that people have created & discovered, dusting them off, and presenting them for others to ponder

where does what we believe 'belong' to?  it starts with all of us and can be traced back to Originators, the dreamers, poets, rhetoricians who hew meaning out of their experiences and then, with luck, some skill, their particular pov becomes 'reality'...

which is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense...

Contrary to Mr. Russell, the Gospel does have something to say about the exercise of intelligence. It clearly calls for a disciplined practice of critical thought in this short phrase: "You must love the lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." These words are spoken by Jesus when being examined by leaders of Jerusalem's religious institution. He is referencing Deuteronomy where the same exhortation is expressed.

Arminius reminds us of this consistently when he speaks in terms of "...this intellectual/emotional/intuitive balance..."

A democracy rests on the foundations of critical thought. This is clearly articulated in Plato's Socrates, who notes that the unexamined life is not worth living. And there, as it has been said, is the rub. People do not want to think. It is so much easier to simply follow the crowd, uttering slogans and cliches as though they were somehow above question. How many prayers have I heard which begin by giving thanks for the great freedom and prosperity we enjoy in Canada? Freedom and prosperity for who is what I want to know.

Jesus, like Socrates, and many others in all times and places, thinks through what he has learned as a child. He sees through the hypocrisy of religion as it is practiced and promulgated by men hungry for power and its privileges. He tells stories, by which the oppressed in the land may come to realization of the arbitrary rendering of their traditions to serve profit and power and, in the light of that realization, work towards an alternative personally and collectively. He makes plain that choosing against status quo leads to risk and peril.

The truth of God, as Jesus makes it present, is hostile to those well served by religion as the means to suppress thought and compel obedience under threat of punishment and death. Jesus is murdered by the establishment because he has popular appeal. Those exploited and oppressed are encouraged to what can only be considered sedition. By that encouragement they take their own experience as the start point for re-imaging their place and possibility in the world.

The murder of Jesus, by the collusion of Religious and State powers, is distorted and inverted in the metaphysical diversions of the Holy Roman Empire, as inaugurated by Constantine in collusion with Christian bishops at Nicaea. Now the gospel is about heaven and hell. A complete fabrication by which Roman totalitarian practice is founded and maintained.

I am not saved from hell and admitted to heaven by what I find in the gospel. I am liberated from passivity in the face of injustice. I am animated to resistance of power abused by Church and State in the service of avarice and greed. Being so animated I become liable to the repression of Church and State, through their representative beneficiaries and the mindless mob following their slogans and dictates.

Though not given to the impotence of disdain and profanity, I sympathize with the frustration chansen expresses in this place.

George