Proof that Christianity is False

[santodomingo]

Dear Santo,

If you were from outer space and saw all of the religions, so many of them claiming within and without christianism to be “the one, true, etc, but really, even if you say that, ours is,” church, you woild see that they are ultimatly local patterns, embodying some degree of truth, that fill what in fact is a universal dynamic. But that dynamic is not a particular tradition. It is the awareness structure of Man in Consciousness or as Soul.

Religion ought properly be the Way that any individual can find their right relationship with their Divine Source without falling into parochialisms except as embelishments consciously known to be local custom or ritual, as that can be a very useful part of developing and understanding such a relationship.

But as it is now, very few systems are aimed at this activity of transforming awareness to be reflexive and to experientially understand its nature and dependence on Divinity. Actual Divinity, not anthropomorphic divinity. As in Catholicism, most of the elements necessary for this transformation to actual living and experiential adoration are included in the canon of dogma. But the living soul dynamic as pointed to by the Founder is largely missing. So it is only certain individuals, like, say Aquinas at the end of his life, who are able to make the transiton. That transition it is in fact the birthright of all the adherents, not just the ones who are so devoted as they tire out the contradictions an incompleteness of their way, and break through to an actual, living Understanding.

This transition idea is not even a vialble concept to anyone past, say, the age of seven who has lived in a household praciticing a particular faith. It takes a monumental event, a great shock to the awareness, to yank one’s perspective into a more neutral place where this phenomenon of parochialism can be seen for what it is, and then transcended. Even then, the thought patterns might be so ingrained as to miss the opportunity of engaging a more Universal empirical understanding of living Spirit.

This is why many traditions have employed shock, fasting, hardship, etc, etc. It is to tire out the rational mind so that it can see itself as it is in relation to Conscious awareness and God. And this is why argumentatons, proofs, emotionalisms, dogmas, and all the sencerity given to devotional pracitce are only to some degree effective in convincing even adherents of the rightness of a particular religion.

It can’t be done that way. There has to be material for transformation and the work done. Belief is only a first step in getting one’s attention. That is why the Charismatic attracton of a Jesus is powerful to many, even as an idea. But unless in the Presence, that attraction can be subvertied by ignorance into a diversion that only mimics an actual Understanding.

This is why I am so adamant about using critical tools to examin one’s way of aquiring religion. That self examination can lead to a radical unfolding of even the most devoted religionist perception of Jesus the Christ, God, and Self. This is why I always agitate for self knowledge. Most of us don’t even put into play all the factors of our belief sytems when we say we are looking at ourselves. We use the very prophylactic that prevents us from undersanding in order to attempt to acheive it. That prophylactic is the thoroughly unexamined religiously habituated mind, convinced of the rightness of its way as “proven” by the system it practices. That system may be exceptionally valid in its own terms, but not necessarily or completely True in universal Fact.

Your indifferentialism is essentially an arrogant excuse for avoiding the “dichotomy” of belief/disbelief. These clever anthropological theories (which are as old as the hills, btw) are used to deny God the capacity to reveal Himself. But this is an absurd reasoning. If God is God, He can surely reveal Himself to Mankind as He pleases. Who are you to prohibit Him from speaking to us? These gnostic arguments, from the XVIII century are self-contradictory, because they start from the premise that God could not possible want to communicate with us human beings. This premise, appart from being false, is gratuitous. How can you prove this?

So from this premise you dismiss all religions as human constructions. The logic is flawless; if God has not spoken to Mankind all religion is simply Man making up belief systems that suit him. But if God has spoken to us there must be one true religion (God, being incapable of lying or deception, would not contradict Himself by giving us conflicting revelations). Why don´t you wake up and start searching for the Truth, rather than “opting out” with your clever excuses? God has given us the intelligence to discern between what is true and false, so get going!!

What if your “Divine Source” is not some impersonal Star Wars “force”, uninterested in you and me, but a loving God who came to Earth as a man in order to teach us, show His love for us and to save us all? How do you know what God should or should not do? How do you find the “right relationship with the Divine Source” if you don´t know the Divine Source? Is it possible to have a relationship with an impersonal being? Do you have relationships with rocks or planets?

Your mention of St. Thomas Aquinas is puzzling. Are you saying he “grew out of” catholicism? If so, you obviously know little about the great saint. Towards the end of his life he stopped writing. This was not because he realized that religion was a waste of time, but because he experienced an intimate relationship with God that so transcended human words that he felt unable to continue writing. He encountered the same God he had written about for most of his life.

 

[Detales]

Sorry, Santo, but I did say there were overlaps, and since we are not talking about gravity, certainly there are exceptions. Don’t be silly. What country did you grow up in, if I may ask? You became a Christian about the same time I very involuntarily discovered it’s inadequacy. I was an active proselytizer for the Church, even having missionary meetings with my non-Catholic firends and lecturing them at every opportunity. They were very patient, LOL!

I am, as anyone who knows me well will tell you, anything but indifferent, and I propose that my arrogance is only a perceptual error on your part due to your own atheist/christianist dichotomy, as I percieve it. The beleif/disbeif dichotomy syndrom is reserved for the subject/object portion of our much vaster awareness abitlity, something, it seems, most folks aren’t aware of, and shun the idea of due to inexperience.

As to God revealing Himself, the christianist system for accounting for that is, IMHO, about the most convoluted and confusing misinterpretation of Teaching going. Life itself is God’s constant revelation. Your need for the type of anthropomorphic God you espouse is commensurate with your need for having a personal relationship. Nothing wrong with that, just call it what it is. God is not a person, as that defeats Eternality. If there is a God such as christianists describe, it is a God next to the Ultimate, His “executive branch,” if you will. That God is called Ishwara in some sysems of thought, though I am not speaking of a thought system.* And such a God still wouldn’t be so unloving as to confuse its children with such stuff as the Bible and what the Church has made of a perfectly good Son of God. Again, you have stuck me in a dynamic of dichotomey to which there is a way out of, but few, it seems, are aware of it. The dichotomy is too strong a drug. You know, “The sins of the fathers shall be passed on…”

If God has “spoken” to us, it is, in my assessment, impossible that “He” confine “Himself” to such convoluted constraints. Scripture is about the least way God communicates, if that is possibly an applicable word, with His manifestation. If the Bible is the Word of God, why are there so many constantly revised translation and discoveries of alterations and insertions? A book is not God, nor a personal letter from Him. It is certainly inspired, but no more or less than is any other writing or act of aesthetic creation. It is, though, a great way for us to enmesh ourselves in a mire of references that allow for the construction of our own God in our own image and likeness in the s/o realm. The “loving God/came to Earth” story is useful as a stepping stone, but that is not apparent until another step is taken.

And as I said, I don’t give a whit if you are a Catholic or whatever, I care only that you, or anyone, carry and use tools that allow you to think critically with an ability to detach from your belief system. Quite a trick for most folks, as that is not encouraged. Like Hitler said, “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.” The history of human debacles tends to prove him right. If you are going to be a Catholic, practice it Consciously.

Where does your relationship with inanaimate objects take place? Where does your relationship with yourself take place? Where does your relationship with God take place? As my Mentor said, “You have seen what your imagination has done* to *you, now see what it can do *for *you.” Jesus pointed the way away from bifurcation. I think if He saw what we’ve done with His example, He’d have a good chuckle and get back to what He was doing. Or maybe He would be so moved as to weep again.

As for St. Thomas, I wasn’t there, something I have freely conceeded. I’m conjecturing that since he was capable of making such a statement about his writings, he actually tranformed in his awareness and was capable of the type of awareness that is beyond our mundane subject/object awareness. That former s/o awareness would be the the one that allows us to have such a conversation as this. It would not be the axis on which goodness actually exists, that axis of experience being far different form the one religion exists on. Religon and goodness only appear to be coincident. A brief survey of any religion’s history, or any history, will illustrate this. Religion is a limited attempt at explanation from a limited standpoint, not the Source of existance or experience.

So, once again, my thesis about the inefficiency of christianism is that it operates only in two dimensions, the dichotomy you so entusiastically support and exemplify. I am stating on the basis of my experience that there is more, and that it bears with it a simpler, more encompassing and universally applicable exegesis than christianism. I also state that christianism is one of the prophylactics that prevent this perception, and that it takes a shock to the entrenched awareness to jog it out of its habitual s/o stance in order to percieve this.

*I am not, emphatically not, a Gnostic. I only have a way from belief.

 

[santodomingo]

*I am not, emphatically not, a Gnostic. I only have a way from belief.

I´m sorry, but everything you write screams “I´m a gnostic!” You talk of higher knowledge, going “beyond” dogma, etc. All this is a rehash of the ancient Enemy of christianity, gnosticism, that has appeared in many guises throughout the History of the Church. Read about it; you might even discover you want to “convert”. Whether you realize or not, your beliefs are gnostic.

And I grew up in Belgium, in the shadow of the monstrous European Union, which I have now come to see as a potential source of huge evil… But that´s another story.

 

[Detales]

Yes, I know Gnosticism. Sorry, not a Gnostic.

 

[santodomingo]

As to God revealing Himself, the christianist system for accounting for that is, IMHO, about the most convoluted and confusing misinterpretation of Teaching going. Life itself is God’s constant revelation. Your need for the type of anthropomorphic God you espouse is commensurate with your need for having a personal relationship. Nothing wrong with that, just call it what it is. God is not a person, as that defeats Eternality. If there is a God such as christianists describe, it is a God next to the Ultimate, His “executive branch,” if you will. That God is called Ishwara in some sysems of thought, though I am not speaking of a thought system.* And such a God still wouldn’t be so unloving as to confuse its children with such stuff as the Bible and what the Church has made of a perfectly good Son of God. Again, you have stuck me in a dynamic of dichotomey to which there is a way out of, but few, it seems, are aware of it. The dichotomy is too strong a drug. You know, “The sins of the fathers shall be passed on…”

If God has “spoken” to us, it is, in my assessment, impossible that “He” confine “Himself” to such convoluted constraints. Scripture is about the least way God communicates, if that is possibly an applicable word, with His manifestation. If the Bible is the Word of God, why are there so many constantly revised translation and discoveries of alterations and insertions? A book is not God, nor a personal letter from Him. It is certainly inspired, but no more or less than is any other writing or act of aesthetic creation. It is, though, a great way for us to enmesh ourselves in a mire of references that allow for the construction of our own God in our own image and likeness in the s/o realm. The “loving God/came to Earth” story is useful as a stepping stone, but that is not apparent until another step is taken.

And as I said, I don’t give a whit if you are a Catholic or whatever, I care only that you, or anyone, carry and use tools that allow you to think critically with an ability to detach from your belief system. Quite a trick for most folks, as that is not encouraged. Like Hitler said, “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.” The history of human debacles tends to prove him right. If you are going to be a Catholic, practice it Consciously.

You are quite wrong about my “anthropomorphic God”. It´s actually the other way round: God made US in His image. We are all therefore “theomorphic” beings, if the word exists. It´s really your view that is anthropomorphic. You have reduced God to a neat, manipulable concept, which you apply according to YOUR interests. More to come later…

 

[santodomingo]

I really don´t get you gnostics. On the one hand you reject the Bible as a load of rubbish. You claim (without any evidence, of course) that it has been manipulated. And then you spout on about how the “real” Jesus is not like what the CC wants us to believe.

How do you know ANYTHING about the “real” Jesus, except thanks to the Bible? If you want to throw the Bible in the rubbish, do so by all means. You have no historical reason to doubt the New Testament as a reliable document, but of course if you took the NT seriously you´d be oblidged to admit certain truths about Jesus that make you uncomfortable. However, what makes NO sense is to talk about Jesus as if you knew anything about Him, independently of the NT that you rididule.

Did Jesus appear to you in a private revelation, as He did to saint Faustina Kowalska? Did He whisper secrets in your ear that perhaps you´d care to share with us? If not, stop talking about Jesus. If you deny the historicity of the Bible, you have no basis on which to speak about Jesus at all.

 

[Kristopher]

This is a preposterous and entirely gratuitous statement. …

I see your point. Allow me to clarify myself: I understand, that St. Thomas travelled to India. This is a reasonable explanation, assuming it is true, that much of what I learned, through following a guru; so strongly has been comparable to Catholicism. Additionally, since St. Thomas, I understand, travelled to India–it is believable, that others not only with a Christian message, but also a gnostic message, may have done so as well. Since there are more than reasonable comparisons between gnosticism, and beliefs attributed both to Hinduism, and to Buddhism, it does make sense, that what I came to follow as given by gurus across at least, two or more centuries, that among Indians, particularly those in the north, less influenced by the Catholisim, which seems to have originated in the south, that these beliefs mixed; additionally, it is plausible, that according to the freewill as an attribute of the soul, in Catholic belief, St. Thomas, might have with some familiarity with gnosticism, appealed to Indians and their beliefs in reincarnation, by a presentation to them, of Christians, who also either through conjecture, or speculation, formulated ideas about reincarnation–it is a practice among some of the more reasonable evangelists with Catholicism, and seems to be evidenced in more than one European church, to place artififacts of one religion, within a Catholic Church, that generalizations may be drawn; particulars discerned, and a choice based upon freewill asserted toward Catholic belief, and teachings. In other words, St. Thomas, I trust, would use gnosticism to evangelize Indians; just as Jesus used Judaism to evangelize Jews, and the apostle, John, I believed used much Greek thought in his Gospel, to evangelize the Gentiles. Now, you may from what I have written; become more clear as to how orthodox Catholic beliefs may be attributed to Indians, particularly in the south, and less so in the north. I hope this is less preposterous and gratuitous than you falsely concluded, initially. Prior to my return to a Catholic Church, many Christian leaders with Christian communities, pastors, Bible study teachers, and the like, across more than a decade, stated on the basis of what I had related to such persons, as Gnostic. I had no understanding of the word, and found it difficult to fathom, that Christianity had any bearing at all, on beliefs, which I understood could only be born from the likeness, of Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, and perhaps Animistic religions. St. Thomas, it would seem, makes perfect sense to me, that he would evangelize even with concepts, perhaps several centuries after his death, now recognized as heretical; though, recently, I understand: they are undergoing re-examination. St. Thomas, you know, doubted Jesus’ existence after the Crucifixion. He would appear to be quite an expert Evangelist particularly with doubt, as a tool, to cause unrest, then certitude–when doubt is required. It does take doubt to convert from something dubious, to something more worthy of trust, at times.

 

[Kristopher]

I read, recently, somewhere: Catholicism is hated, because it has a broad embrace; Islam is hated, because it has a narrow embrace–sometimes, Catholicism is a false religion, because its members have a very narrow, very Islamic embrace.

 

[Kristopher]

I don’t have proof that Christianity is false. …

Your story makes points, and it may not prove Christianity false, but it would seem to be a contradiction, that you do not have proof, but have such a story.

I am uncertain, that your story addressed the destination the vehicle is certain to reach at some point; given such destinations as heaven or hell exist–it seems: only the mechanic as a destination exist, and a wealthy benefactor has allowed it.

 

[Kristopher]

I read, recently, somewhere: Catholicism is hated, because it has a broad embrace; Islam is hated, because it has a narrow embrace–sometimes, Catholicism is a false religion, because its members have a very narrow, very Islamic embrace.

I know, that this is a very sloppy statement, and I do disagree with it. Sometimes our embrace as Catholics is very narrow at risk, of being too broad; and too broad, at risk of being quite narrow. No real examples to provide, but with regard to whom, and or what is an enemy of the Church, not to whom and or what, soul is intended to be saved in accord, with God’s plan, of salvation.

 

[elzoog]

Your story makes points, and it may not prove Christianity false, but it would seem to be a contradiction, that you do not have proof, but have such a story.

I am uncertain, that your story addressed the destination the vehicle is certain to reach at some point; given such destinations as heaven or hell exist–it seems: only the mechanic as a destination exist, and a wealthy benefactor has allowed it.

Well, imagine that you are continuously taking this car to the mechanic. The mechanic tells you that if you keep taking your car in and it eventually becomes a total junker, that the rich benefactor will eventually come and make your car perfect. But if you don’t take it to the mechanic, if you try to fix it yourself, or you take it to a mechanic not paid by the rich benefactor, your car will not only become a junker, but will continuously burn for all eternity.

While telling you this, you notice that all cars eventually become junkers. You can even go to the junk yard and see all the car parts that came from cars that became junkers. Occasionally, the junk yard owner sells the car parts to be used by working cars. Some of the cars have been in the junk yard for thousands of years.

How credible do you think is the story of the rich benefactor coming to make all the cars in the junk yard new?

 

[santodomingo]

This car story is a stupid and pointless analogy. I thought the thread was “proof that christianity is false”. If this is “proof”, I must be losing my mind! Stop making up silly stories and get onto something REAL.

 

[elzoog]

This car story is a stupid and pointless analogy. I thought the thread was “proof that christianity is false”. If this is “proof”, I must be losing my mind! Stop making up silly stories and get onto something REAL.

Again, I can not prove that Christianity is false. I also can’t prove that Santa Claus is false. But Christianity is highly unlikely to be true. For example, I don’t see any evidence that someone who has been dead for a month, let alone hundreds of years, can come to life.

The car analogy is good because would you trust someone who says that eventually he will fix your car, but after months you find the car is not fixed? What if it’s been years? Or hundreds of years?

 

[santodomingo]

Again, I can not prove that Christianity is false. I also can’t prove that Santa Claus is false. But Christianity is highly unlikely to be true. For example, I don’t see any evidence that someone who has been dead for a month, let alone hundreds of years, can come to life.

The car analogy is good because would you trust someone who says that eventually he will fix your car, but after months you find the car is not fixed? What if it’s been years? Or hundreds of years?

I´m glad you admit that you can´t prove that christianity is false. What explanation do you offer for Christ? If you cannot prove that He was a fake, nor that His disciples were mad, isn´t it necessary to admit that He really was God? If there is no other rational explanation, you have to follow logic, and reach a conclusion.

It´s not good enough to say “I can´t prove it´s false”, and leave it at that. I repeat: what is your explanation for Christ? You say you don´t see any evidence that Christ came back from the dead and that He is alive. Have you bothered to LOOK for evidence?

What is “likely” really has nothing to do with this issue. Anyway, your idea of likelihood probably differs a lot from mine. If you get into what is likely, you have to admit that the Universe itself is extremely unlikely, that Life is unlikely, and that civilization is unlikely. Yet they exist.

 

[anon5216]

No one can prove that the reminiscences and anecdotes we have of Jesus are of the nature of documentary facts. (I’m including the Bible in this, just in case it’s not obvious).
Therefore no conclusions that assume these reminiscences are literally factual can be considered valid.

Regarding claims of Jesus’ appearing physically to his followers after death:
This is not a unique story to Jesus - India has many such stories
I certainly wouldn’t base any faith in the unique truth of Christianity on a ‘miracle’ that is not unique.

 

[elzoog]

I´m glad you admit that you can´t prove that christianity is false. What explanation do you offer for Christ? If you cannot prove that He was a fake, nor that His disciples were mad, isn´t it far more likely that He really was God?

No because there are a lot of other possibilities that are more likely than that this “Jesus” (if he existed) was God.

Many of the stories about this Jesus could be made up. Consider that people have made up stories about Mohammed and Joseph Smith. People also die for these made up beliefs (as evidenced by Islamic suicide bombers for example).

Here is a question for you. Why are there no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, whereas there are contemporaneous accounts of Caligula (both of whom lived in the same time period). For example, Seneca the Younger lived from 4 BC to 65 AD. So he lived at the same time as Caligula and writes about him. Also, Philo of Alexandria is another contemporaneous source for Caligula. However, we have NO writers who lived at the same time as Jesus, who wrote about Jesus.

Also, for many of the Roman emperors, we know within reason, the dates they were born. We are reasonably certain that Julius Caesar was born in July of 100 BC.

However, not only do we not know the date Jesus was born, we don’t even know the year. That’s very strange for someone who is supposed to be so important in history.

Also, in the gospel accounts, it says that darkness covered the land when Jesus was crucified. Why don’t any other historians write about this? What is more likely, that other writers of the period didn’t notice the darkness covering the land during the daytime, that they didn’t think it was important enough to write about, or that the gospel writers made that story up?

Also, why would a god need to send his son down to sacrifice his son to himself, in order to forgive humans of breaking his rules?

Anyway, none of this proves Christianity false. It’s just very unlikely that Christianity is true.

It´s not good enough to say “I can´t prove it´s false”, and leave it at that. I repeat: what is your explanation for Christ? You say you don´t see any evidence that Christ came back from the dead and that He is alive. Have you bothered to LOOK for evidence?

I, and many others have researched history and ancient myths and have concluded that the Jesus story is unlikely to be true based on the evidence. The god described in the Christian bible can’t exist exactly as described in the bible if you apply the principle of non-contradiction in logic. Of course you can get out of that problem by saying that some things in the bible are metaphorical.

 

[cranster]

I think the statement that we are all miserable creatures is false. There is some good and some bad in all of us, but that doesn’t mean we’re miserable.

If God, and I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are infinite in all ways good which includes infinite goodness, infinite purity, and infinite holiness. Compared to that our goodness is filthy, and our purity is putrid when measured against God.

If all humans were granted entrance to heaven as we are without a significant change from what we currently are then heaven would be populated by murderers, thieves, drug addicts, rapists… etc. You could no longer rationally call Heaven, Heaven. It would necessarily have to become something less than the abode of perfection. We absolutely have to become elevated to a point which we currently are not to be in the presence of an infinitely pure, holy, and good God. We have to become perfectly pure and holy. It is beyond our power to do that. We know that certain things are wrong such as murder, rape, and theft. We are inclined toward things that we know are wrong. To become disinclined toward those things there has to be a condition to achieve that state, and it requires a supernatural intervention because it is not natural for humans to live as pure beings without the inclination to do wrong. The supernatural intervention that gave us the potential to achieve a state of perfect purity and holiness was the death and resurrection of none less than God Himself. first of all to satisfy the Justice of the offense we committed against an infinite being, and secondly to reconcile ourselves to that being. The demands of justice for offenses committed against an infinite being could only be sated by an infinite being.

After the event of the death and resurrection of Christ we now have the potential to achieve a supernatural end. We cannot achieve a supernatural end by natural means. Now that the potential to achieve a supernatural end exists there has to be a means by which to reach the state of perfect purity and holiness. That means by God’s wisdom is through suffering. We are literally going to be purified as gold going through fire. God allows suffering to bring about a greater good. The greatest evil was the killing of God, and it became the source of the greatest good… mans reconciliation with God. The greatest act of love was the infinite being of Jesus suffering all things for us. We are now invited into that mystery of love through suffering. Suffering is the crucible we must go through to become pure enough to be in the presence of God. We will have to suffer out every last atom of impurity, and every last debt down to the last penny before we can be in the presence of this infinite being provided we are in a state of Grace. We all have to suffer regardless of where we end. So we can either choose to cooperate with Grace and allow our suffering to purify us or not. When we cooperate with Grace suffering is truly the mercy of God because it is the means of our perfection. Without the state of Grace that means we ourselves would have to pay an infinite debt against an infinite being. We are not infinite so it’s not possible.

If we choose not to be with God He made a place for those who wish not to be with Him. That place is hell. By far the chief punishment of hell is separation from God. Loss is is the greatest thing a person in hell will suffer, because they will have seen Him as He is during the judgment and know what truly was lost. Hell is the alternative to being with God and it isl the only alternative. We cannot compare any suffering here to the infinite joy of seeing infinite beauty face to face.

 

[elzoog]

If God, and I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are infinite in all ways good which includes infinite goodness, infinite purity, and infinite holiness. Compared to that our goodness is filthy, and our purity is putrid when measured against God.

Let’s compare that to how humans relate.

Some humans really love dogs. Dogs are much less intelligent than humans, but humans know that right? So do humans normally expect dogs to do math problems, or to read the manual so they can help you build a shelf? Of course not! Why not? Because it’s a dog. Anyone with any brains would know that a dog can’t read or do math problems. Also, because it’s a dog, we usually don’t get as upset about a dog peeing on the rug as we would a grown human peeing on the rug because we expect a human to be smart enough to know better.

So, if our abilities are so terrible compared to this “god”, then this god would expect much less of us. Just like we expect less of dogs.

Basically, Christianity doesn’t make sense unless you believe that human beings are terrible and that you need a supernatural entity to fix them.

 

[Detales]

I would refer anyone on here as well to The Jesus Project, The Jesus Seminar, and the two recent books by Tom Harpur, former cleric and long standing religion editor for the Toronto Star. Those two titles are *The Pagan Christ *and Water into Wine. Above all, I would recommend F. Merrell-Wolff’s diary of transformation and his scholarly exegesis of that experience. His two titles are *Pathways Through to Space *and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. There is a great library of other such work, but his is one of the many contemprary ones originally written in English about this critical area of consideration.

Despite mostly spurious claims to the contrary, christianism is fundamentally a faith based (read “let’s pretend for grow-ups who stoped actually thinking about this as children”) activity. That means that most christianism, especially Bible based christianism, tends to be self-verifying and not rely on genuinely inclusive scholarly methods, interiorly valid as they might be on their own premises. Further, christianism, as do the exoteric Abrahamic religions, tend to substitute emotionalism and lack actual depth, discouraging it by fostering dualism. Christianism is therefore at least incomplete, if not false. We cannot say that something is completely false, as truths may be included, but wrongly attributed or connected. My claim is that Identity statements attributed to Jesus suport this.

The missing dimension, Identity, in christianism is pointed to by the dictum “Gnothi Seaoton” or “Know thySelf.” (Sorry, Santo, still emphatically not talking Gnostic here.) I have recommended the above books as a survey of this and other ideas critical to this discussion, and as an invitation to practice some method of interior discovery not prophylactic to self knowledge as are christianist dogmas for the most part. Those dogmas and assumptions tend to be primarily exoteric and limit experience to the ordinary subject/object mode of perception habitually engrained in human children. That is not the only mode of awareness we are easily capable of. It is just the one we are trained out of by parochial necessity. So I’m just saying that the ordinary person is denied a vast treasure of experience and personal wealth. They are instead stuck in a habitual two dimentional single level logic experience that constitutes the box most are burried in. That is the “dying in ignorance” that many speak of. Don’t do it. Wake up, so that “the second death has no sting.” Believing or not believing in the christainist god is a diversion from interior work that could far more profitably be applied to an adventure of rewarding self-discovery, if one is so inclined. At least it is a choice in another direction that promotes depth of experience.

And to my Catholic critics, once again, I have profoundly and complety been where you are. Is it not a matter at least of intellectual curiosity why someone so adamantly Catholic would reluctantly leave the “fold?” Do you not suppose that on God’s Earth there might actually be a valid and true reason? So, again, be a Catholic or whatever you wish, but it is better, IMHO, to do so consciously beyond your adamant belief that you are now awake. “You have seen what your imagination has done to you, now see what your imagination can do for you!”~KGM

 

[Kristopher]

… imagine that you are continuously taking this car to the mechanic. The mechanic tells you that if you keep taking your car in and it eventually becomes a total junker, that the rich benefactor will eventually come and make your car perfect. … How credible do you think is the story of the rich benefactor coming to make all the cars in the junk yard new?

I am uncertain about how to explain this. If a soul is analogous to a car in this story, then every time a soul goes to confession, and is granted absolution, that soul is welcome into heaven: this is what it means to be forgiven. Each soul has freewill. Not every soul has need of confession, but at times, (It is reasonable to assume.), every soul has need of confession. Forgiveness is a gift: hence the Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation, Penance, etc., is a means of God’s grace. Being a recipient of this grace, it has the effect / affect on my self, as a person, to do something obedient to God’s will with my own freewill. As much difficulty as there can be at times, in going to confession, once I have gone: I am in a position to never again return to confession–it may be I will avoid sin to such an extent, that I will have no need of confession; it may be, that I will sin to such an extent as to need confession; however, I may avoid confession as a consequent of some problem, standing between myself and confession.

In terms of the story, myself as a car may go to a mechanic, not because I am told to do so, but because I choose to do so; additionally, to whatever extent I might be made new by what ever is provided to the mechanic for me to become new–it can be a lasting affect / effect. I am looking at this from the view of a Catholic. Other cars avoid the mechanic, and this is due to problems, a variety of them, and the burden placed on other vehicles because of these problems may ultimately be the responsibility not of the burdened vehicles themselves, but other vehicles, that have changed the signs and therefore, the course of events, which ordinarily and honestly, would have led burdened vehicles to the appropriate mechanic. A wealthy benefactor ultimately has the final judgement: whom shall reach his home as their destination; whom shall be denied his destination, because their use of freewill, warranted condemnation?

Each vehicle has a responsibility within reason, to avoid theives. Nonetheless, the ignorance, fatigue, stupidity, or even denial, is not a cause of theft, but an opportunity for it, to theives whom exploit such weaknesses: as we may find among vehicles, that are stricken by poverty; assualted by generously provided, yet, unhealthy products, and condemned as inferior through bias, elitist viewpoints attributed to what others have earned to the benefit of those, who have yet to earn, etc.

We all run the risk of being deceived, and even when the truth is known: we run the risk of being destroyed.

It may be: a mechanic telling me, my car will become a total junker–no matter the number of repairs, yet, it will become new by the manufacturer–and all I see are junkers, bought / sold, and remains, which have been witnessed for thousands of years; will cause doubt, or it may be I know, that the repairs along the way were worthwhile; the remains have been recognized as mortal; the resurrection of the remains, an event to occur at some future time with the soul of the remains, already new, or saved and in residence at the feet of a Triune God–the remains of junk, able to await the coming of the manufacturer, again. A vehicle and the driver are being assumed to be a person: a mortal body, a vehicle, an immortal soul, a driver. A driver may take up residence in heaven, when granted; a vehicle may be the remains on earth, for a considerable length of time. The two may one day, again, have their travels in heaven, on earth, or with heaven on earth, a “world without end.”.