erroneous teachings in Christianity

[heavenlyboy34]

What do we do about the fact that most American churches are filled with idolaters?

And, by that I'm not even referring to the theological disagreements we all have. I want no communion with Rome and consider it a completely different religion than mine, but that's to be expected... There have always been different religions. I don't want to debate those types of points in this thread.

But, the military worship, police worship, flag worship, America worship, and so forth that is so prevalent among Christians in America today at least make me understanding of those who are skeptical about the church.

How do we purify our churches?

IDK if this will translate well to heterodox denominations, but here's my suggestion. In the Orthodox tradition, the laity is responsible for holding the clergy to account for their words and deeds. Clergy can even be removed if the laity decides it necessary. This is a safeguard against false teaching, though it depends on the accuity of the laity. FF, you and your brothers and sisters ought to organize yourselves in such a way as to keep your ministers, pastors, etc in check. Hope this helps.

[Ronin Truth]

I don't know about Tolstoy, but that original quote is from the Bible.

Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

These days when I pray this part of the Lord's prayer.....

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven...

I think about Jesus establishing Himself anew in my heart. His will is done on earth when it is manifested in me. I'm not so worried about His will being done anywhere else on earth. If God's will was manifested daily inside every professed Christian, what a wonderful world it would be.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...within-you.pdf

Would it really require anything more than a divine ZAP, and done? I guess other plans must be afoot.

[Ronin Truth]

The most erroneous teaching of Christianity is that a man who walked on earth was God and died for the sins of his own creations

It does raise some additional really interesting questions in a number of areas, doesn't it?

[Ronin Truth]

This is an extremely broad and not too useful description. The good thing about it is that it's broad enough to cover quasi-religious and more or less secular cults as well-such as political parties and some political movements.

It kind of struck me as being like a page from a Deprogramming tutorial. As I read through the outline it is interesting just how many of the entries applied so well to the RCC. I also thought of Constantine that first year after his (ahem) "conversion". It must have been a real shock to his peeps.

Interesting segue above, it leads me to this.

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[heavenlyboy34]

It kind of struck me as being like a page from a Deprogramming tutorial. As I read through the outline it is interesting just how many of the entries applied so well to the RCC. I also thought of Constantine that first year after his (ahem) "conversion". It must have been a real shock to his peeps.

Interesting segue above, it leads me to this.

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

There's some truth to that. However, religion is typically voluntary. The clergy in the Orthodox tradition are accountable to the laity, so they aren't really "controlled". The heavy-handed political religions both old and "reformed" are definitely into the control business. I've attended churches which don't even offer a means to talk to the minister privately. That's a control issue if there ever was one, IMO.

Maybe we'll chat again in the future. Time for sleep. ~hugs~

[Ronin Truth]

The author of that doesn't know what they're talking about.

They say, "Jesus spoke of the time when – early in Church history – His Gospel was replaced with a Gospel about Him, and Christianity became a cult:"

But Jesus's Gospel always was a Gospel about him. And the cult of Jesus didn't start some time later when he was no longer around, it started when he walked the earth with his very first followers, and he was the one who started it.

"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel about Jesus - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle

[robert68]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...within-you.pdf

Not surprising Tolstoy was excommunicated.

[otherone]

There's some truth to that. However, religion is typically voluntary.

[Ronin Truth]

Not surprising Tolstoy was excommunicated.

Cementing the link to the Satanic state? Or was it just a STATE religion already?

“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” - Leo Tolstoy

[heavenlyboy34]

Cementing the link to the Satanic state? Or was it just a STATE religion already?

“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” - Leo Tolstoy

IDR the czars making the ROC a State religion. If you have evidence, plz share. The Soviets certainly persecuted the Church and made the State officially atheist.

[Ronin Truth]

IDR the czars making the ROC a State religion. If you have evidence, plz share. The Soviets certainly persecuted the Church and made the State officially atheist.

No evidence. I didn't check, hence the 2 questions.

[robert68]

Cementing the link to the Satanic state? Or was it just a STATE religion already?

“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” - Leo Tolstoy

It was the state religion from it's founding by ruler Vladimir the Great in Kiev Rus in 980 (not surprisingly a Saint in the EOC). When you see a picture of a lavish ornate Cathedral built centuries ago, it's a good bet it was built by the state.

Christianization of the Kievan Rus'

Coronation of the Russian monarch

Dormition Cathedral, Moscow

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Third_Rome

The idea of Moscow being the Third Rome was popular since the early Russian Tsars. Within decades after the Fall of Constantinople to Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on May 29, 1453, some were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome," or new "New Rome."
...
Since Roman princesses had married Tsars of Moscow, and, since Russia had become, with the fall of Byzantium, the most powerful Orthodox Christian state, the tsars were thought of as succeeding the Byzantine Emperor as the rightful ruler of the (Christian) world...

[Ronin Truth]

It was the state religion from it's founding by ruler Vladimir the Great in Kiev Rus in 980 (not surprisingly a Saint in the EOC). When you see a picture of a lavish ornate Cathedral built centuries ago, it's a good bet it was built by the state.

Christianization of the Kievan Rus'

Coronation of the Russian monarch

Dormition Cathedral, Moscow

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Third_Rome

Thanks for the info. Learn something new every day.

[Ronin Truth]

Faith in the Third Millennium

With the advent of the industrial revolution, the guiding light of religion was dramatically eclipsed by faith in science and technology. Agnosticism was almost unknown at the start of industrialization, but today, little more than 160 years later, simple agnosticism is passe; over one-quarter of mankind has fallen into atheism. Now, while the steam is rapidly escaping from the engine of industrialization, and the nuts and bolts of its values and institutions are weakened from the rust of irrelevance, we have short pause to wonder about the impact that the technological revolution will have on the faith of future generations. Among those believing in God, the largest percentage are converting to the more contemporary faith of Islam. We may not recognize the Christianity that will greet our children's children as the third millennium unfolds.

The most promising careers that will be open to our descendants will be in existent and emerging high-tech fields. Just as hard work was the ethic of the industrial age, so will the systematic investigation of reality become the ethic of the technological era. In the third millennium this new ethic will have shaken the institutions and values to which we cling so tenaciously. If Christianity is to keep pace, much less to lead in providing eternal values during this age of rationalization, it must be regenerated and develop into a system which finally reconciles the original revelation with reason.

To envision an outline of the 21st century church we will look from the field of its genesis and conceive how it could have blossomed in an ideal environment. There were ancient trains of Christian thought that would be more suited to our need for a sensible (rather than a blind) faith in Christ. Past church purges of scientists and philosophers have left us with an inadequate heritage in this respect.

Judaism is a venerable religion that is almost free of the difficult doctrines that we so unconvincingly dignify as "mysteries." Christian doctrines as the trinity, incarnation, fall of man, and existence of a Devil are as absurd to the modern atheist as they are unorthodox and alien to the Jewish tradition. As Christianity was founded by an Aramaic speaking Jew in a Hebrew society, we might ask why it became so divergent.

History reveals how Pauls Hellenistic presentation of Christ's message developed into today's Christianity. The Church would be appreciably different if St. Peter's more traditional interpretation had prevailed over that of the self-appointed Apostle to the Gentiles. Despite St. Peter's spiritual primacy being ordained by Jesus Himself ⁽¹⁾ - Paul's supremacy is obvious; Peter's role in Christianity is as a doorman at the gates of Heaven and the subject of many a popular joke and crude bodily reference. Nobody jokes about Paul. St. Peter - the simple fisherman - stands in the shadow of the educated and travelled Paul - a Pharisee who was intimately acquainted with the Gentile's irrational pagan beliefs. Paul's immensely successful syncretisms of pagan ideas with Christian and Jewish teachings justified his saying "I have become all things to all men." Though the lions share of the New Testament consists of Pauline writings, the prolific Paul only sees fit to quote the sayings of the Lord once.⁽²⁾ Paul's picture of Jesus is not that of a heavenly teacher: He is a mute babe in the manger and the saviour on the cross. Wilhelm Nestle drew the conclusion that "Christianity is the religion founded by Paul which replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a Gospel about Jesus." ⁽³⁾

At its genesis, however, Christianity was the teachings that Jesus gave to His twelve pure-hearted Jewish apostles. Nazarene Christianity grew from James' Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, but these believers were castigated by Paul as being "false brethren" and stigmatized by later Churchmen as heretical "Ebionites" and "Jewish Christians." By the fourth century the persecuted Nazarene movement had petered out, leaving only fragments of their pristine Christian writings. Their very different approach can be seen in this portion of the Ebionite document - The Proclamation of Peter:

Then says Peter: "For we apostles are sent to expound the sayings and affirm the judgements of Him Who has sent us; but we are not commissioned to say anything of our own, but to unfold the truth of His words." And Peter said: "But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us, for there is one true Prophet, whose words we twelve apostles preach; for He is the accepted year of God, having us twelve apostles as His twelve months."

The reasonable beliefs of this ancient church offer us the pattern for a logical Christian faith in the coming millennium. Let us no longer rob Peter to pay Paul. Rather, giving absolute loyalty only to Christ's revelation and using the interpretation of His chosen Apostle and some common sense, we will envisage a spiritual, constructive and reasonable Christian faith for the third millennium.

http://www.jesuscult.com/F3M.htm

[Christian Liberty]

IDK if this will translate well to heterodox denominations, but here's my suggestion. In the Orthodox tradition, the laity is responsible for holding the clergy to account for their words and deeds. Clergy can even be removed if the laity decides it necessary. This is a safeguard against false teaching, though it depends on the accuity of the laity. FF, you and your brothers and sisters ought to organize yourselves in such a way as to keep your ministers, pastors, etc in check. Hope this helps.

If it was just pastors, that could work. But it isn't. Most PEOPLE in American churches support the kind of idolatry that I'm talking about as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel about Jesus - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle

Hmmm...you sure like to quote people who don't know what they're talking about. Normally people use quotes that are credible and actually help advance their argument. You are an interesting case study of exactly what not to do in a debate (assuming the goal is to make the superior case, as in traditional debate oratory/writing). Plz link this thread to your friends so that they may learn from your failure. ~hugs~

[Ronin Truth]

Hmmm...you sure like to quote people who don't know what they're talking about. Normally people use quotes that are credible and actually help advance their argument. You are an interesting case study of exactly what not to do in a debate (assuming the goal is to make the superior case, as in traditional debate oratory/writing). Plz link this thread to your friends so that they may learn from your failure. ~hugs~

Does that kind of bogus crap, phony bluff and bluster tied in with that very thin pseudo-intellectualism coupled with an undeserved arrogance, often work out well for you? Whoever taught it to you owes you a full refund of whatever you had to pay for it, because it's really just nonfunctional and bottom line, merely silly. I think you have been spending way too much time with "Church Lady" TER.

And you sure seem to like to criticize and bad mouth folks without spending even the minimal energy necessary to investigate who they are first.

I believe that is often called intellectual sloth and laziness. Thanks for providing me with goals. Though I believe that I'm just going to have to pass on that offer. I'm afraid that you are just going to have to find some more kiddies to play your boyish testosterone poisoning games with.

[heavenlyboy34]

Does that kind of bogus crap, phony bluff and bluster tied in with that very thin pseudo-intellectualism coupled with an undeserved arrogance, often work out well for you? Whoever taught it to you owes you a full refund of whatever you had to pay for it, because it's really just nonfunctional and bottom line, merely silly. I think you have been spending way too much time with "Church Lady" TER.

And you sure seem to like to criticize and bad mouth folks without spending even the minimal energy necessary to investigate who they are first.

I believe that is often called intellectual sloth and laziness. Thanks for providing me with goals. Though I believe that I'm just going to have to pass on that offer. I'm afraid that you are just going to have to find some more kiddies to play your boyish testosterone poisoning games with.

Well, that has nothing to do with my post that you quoted. Actually I don't "like to criticize and bad mouth folks without spending even the minimal energy necessary to investigate who they are first". I play the hand folks like you deal me. That's how discussions in the adult world work.

What's this business about "kiddies"? You're the only kiddie I particularly spend any time with here. You're the one who always tries to play "boyish testosterone poisoning games". I just return your volleys. Don't like it? Don't start the sort of threads that you usually do.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, that has nothing to do with my post that you quoted. Actually I don't "like to criticize and bad mouth folks without spending even the minimal energy necessary to investigate who they are first". I play the hand folks like you deal me. That's how discussions in the adult world work.

What's this business about "kiddies"? You're the only kiddie I particularly spend any time with here. You're the one who always tries to play "boyish testosterone poisoning games". I just return your volleys. Don't like it? Don't start the sort of threads that you usually do.

Up your game, if you want to play with the big guys. Review the thread, which of us cast the first stone? Now you seem to somehow think you are qualified or authorized to tell me what kind of threads to post. Give me a break. GROW UP!

[Ronin Truth]

Returning to the thread topic: "Jesus Cult", after yesterday's attempted temporary diversion and distraction.

Here's one, perhaps plausible, scenario and explanation.

Christianity Hijacked - Far Beyond Terra

the illuminati's hijacking of christianity

Yes, Jesus was and is an ET. Get over it. If you get hung up on who or what he was, you're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter if he was black, white, red, Catholic, Hebrew, Lutheran, human, ET or a Cabbage Patch Kid.

What matters are the spiritual lessons he taught. Period. Everything else is a moot point and immaterial. Your illustrious military leaders missed that point and look where it got all of THEM - and you right along with them.

So set aside your preconceived notions about him, they're neither here nor there. They're just nitpicking and a complete waste of your time and energy.

Ancient earth civilzations were exposed to various races of ET's, including the Dracs or "Annunaki". This is how these ancient civilizations (Babylon, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.) came to worship "gods of the skies". These ancient earth civilizations pagan religions incorporated occult/mystical/satanic rituals into them as a result. The Annunaki being worshiped as "gods of the skies" was right up their Drac alley as were these occult satanic rituals being incorporated into earth religions of the time.

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." -- David ********, Director of Planetary Initiative United Nations

It's been my experience this is the topic that gets humans undies all in a twist, especially those of the religious. For the life of me I don't understand this. Why would anyone want to cling to lies and deceptions designed to lead one to a Luciferian initiation into a One World Church of Satanism??? If I asked these same religious people (And I have!) "Would you ever worship Lucifer or Satan?" they indignantly scream in my face (And have!) "I WOULD NEVER WORSHIP SATAN AND HOW DARE YOU..."

Yet they cling to the Illuminati lies and deceptions designed to lead them to do just that like a junkyard dog with a bone. ?????????
Furthermore, telling Angelics "We know what we know so shut the hell up!" is like 3D kindergartners telling 7D grad students "We know more than you do, so go spread your BS about our beliefs elsewhere."

So everyone just calm down. Like you, I had these same Illuminati lies and deceptions ingrained in my noggin growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. But when the Angelics gave me the truth of the matter, I did not attack them and scream in their faces. I listened, opened my mind, examined the logic in what they were telling/showing me, and then decided they were right. The Illuminati lies and deceptions made no logical sense whatsoever. And I survived having my entire belief system turned upside down! You will survive it too. Besides, what truly does exist is far, far better than what their religious lies and deceptions have lead you to believe exists. So would you rather eat hamburger or steak? If you chose steak, then keep reading and keep and open mind. I'm not telling you what to believe, that's up for you to decide. I'm just going to put the truth out there, as given to me by the Angelics and Council of Elders.

The Angelics saw what was going on and weren't real happy about this. Perhaps they should send someone down there to straighten the children out and get them back on the right track. Scotty, let's beam Sananda down. NO, he was not an "immaculate conception". He arrived the same way the modern day ground crew did and certainly none of us are "immaculate conceptions". Nor were the stolen fetus' of female abductees impregnated by the Greys "immaculate conceptions". We all incarnated here the same way - advanced technology.

By this time, things had progressed a step further. Now humans themselves (Roman Emperors being just one example) were declaring themselves "gods" to be worshiped by their people. Apparently, they learned about reincarnation from their ET contacts and adapted it to suit their needs so they too could be worshiped as "gods". This made it very easy to get the masses to do whatever they wanted them to - pay exorbitant taxes to them to make them rich, etc. This playing gods was a good gig!

Along comes an upstart Hebrew boy/rabbi by the name of Jesus, preaching his new religion of Christianity - including belief in ONE universal creator, not any "gods of the skies" or human self-proclaimed "gods". Which made those like the Roman Emperor Tiberius none too damn happy. They liked being worshiped as gods! Who was this upstart Jewish boy to upset their apple cart? Something had to be done to preserve the Roman empire and their idol worship! What to do to deal with this Jesus guy?

Remember, the Drac Illuminati are OBSESSED with symbolism, believing it gives them more demonic power. So they knew crucifying Jesus would turn Jesus into a very powerful symbol. Everybody loves a martyr and that was the last thing they wanted. So via politics of the day, it was arranged Jesus would be exiled but they'd make it APPEAR as though they'd actually killed him. They had to do this in order to carry off their planned hijacking of his new religion, Christianity in order to preserve the Roman empire and their idol worship. Too many people had started following this Jesus guy and his new religion, causing a split to begin to occur within the empire between Christians and pagans.

They resorted to the very same tactics the Illuminati uses today. Substitute a look-alike imposter of Jesus on the cross to make it appear as though they'd crucified Jesus.

Lay the real Jesus in the tomb. No, he wasn't dead when they laid him there. If you notice, there's a period in the bible where Jesus simply disappears from the scene.

During those years, he was traveling the trade routes with his uncle and along the way, lived with Tibetian monks for a time, then in India for a time - where he learned how to put himself in a deep trance state. ET's have this ability to begin with - case in point, the Greys paralyzing abductees simply by looking into their eyes. So it was no problem for ET Jesus to learn how to very effectively do this. He was in this trance state while lying in the tomb. It worked. Everyone was convinced Jesus had been crucified and died - at which point he was then exiled. I mentioned the Angelics planting evidence to prove all of this to humanity. Evidence that Jesus lived to be approximately 80 years old, continuing to preach under various aliases will be uncovered in the not too distant future.

And what happened to Mary Magdalene, his wife? At the time, she was protected by a society called the Knights Templar. She was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion so for her safety, her Knights Templar protectors whisked her off to France - where she gave birth to a daughter. By that time, births were being recorded so records of this royal child's birth existed. (Where did the royal holy line of the Merovingian Priest-Kings that was the Tribe of Dan originate? France.)

Now the hijackers of Christianity had a couple of serious problems to deal with. In order to lead the masses to their One World Church of Satanism in the future, a monopoly on the "road to salvation" had to be created, all "salvation" accomplished via only that road. Turn mortal human Jesus into the "Divine Son of God" in order to create that monopoly, all salvation coming only through him. Combine the new Roman Catholic Church of hijacked Christianity and their pagan practices. Now everyone's happy, no more split in the Roman empire between Christians and pagans, Jesus is out of the picture, emperors and the like can continue to play gods and worship their Annunaki gods of the skies.

There was only a couple problems with their plan. First of all, the bible had been given to humanity at least 200 years earlier and contained numerous references to the fact Jesus was not their fictional "Divine Son of God" but a human mortal man, married with kids. Enter the Council of Nicea - edit the bible, removing 66 chapters and all references to Jesus having been a mortal man with wife and children.

Humor me here for a moment. Go grab your bible or go online and look up John 2:1-11 - the parable about the wedding in Cana in which Jesus' mother comes to him and tells him the guests have no wine and Jesus then turns water into wine. Whose wedding did Jesus do this at? Don't know? Don't feel bad, I didn't either when DE had me do this same exercise. You couldn't know because whose wedding it was, was edited out by the Council of Nicea. There's a clue in the parable though. It's Jesus' own mother that approaches him on the fact the wedding guests have no more wine. Looking after guests at her own son's wedding would be a natural thing for a mother of the bridegroom to do, yes? Jesus performed his first public miracle at his own wedding to Mary Magdalene. Yes, it's just a parable...but this is how DE taught me to look for clues as to what had been tampered with in the bible.

But back to the saga...

Here's the rest.

http://farbeyondterra.weebly.com/chr...-hijacked.html

[acptulsa]

Returning to the thread topic: "Jesus Cult", after yesterday's attempted temporary diversion and distraction.

Here's one, perhaps plausible, scenario and explanation.



Here's the rest.

http://farbeyondterra.weebly.com/chr...-hijacked.html

So, this individual states outright that the important part is not Jesus, but his message, and then goes on at considerable length manufacturing a new Jesus for us, mostly out of a few Bible innuendoes and a bunch of whole cloth.

Never mind that it's a conspiracy tale centered around Illuminati and extra terrestrials. It's stupid because it says Jesus isn't the point then proceeds to talk about Jesus for days on end.

Jesus isn't the point, people. First people crucify the messenger, then they worship the messenger. They talk no end about reaching God through Jesus and petitioning Jesus to intercede on their behalf with God, when they also concede that Jesus is God. It's like asking how to get to New York City and being told to take the East Side Throughway. If you're on the East Side Throughway you're already in New York City. And if you've convinced Jesus, you've already convinced God.

God took the trouble to inhabit a body and bring us a message. He didn't give a damn what happened to the body because once He delivered the message He was done with it. Now we worship that long gone to dust body and beg that body to get us into Heaven without doing more with the message than parsing it for loopholes and ignoring the parts that have no promising loopholes.

Stupid.

[Ronin Truth]

So, this individual states outright that the important part is not Jesus, but his message, and then goes on at considerable length manufacturing a new Jesus for us, mostly out of a few Bible innuendoes and a bunch of whole cloth.

Never mind that it's a conspiracy tale centered around Illuminati and extra terrestrials. It's stupid because it says Jesus isn't the point then proceeds to talk about Jesus for days on end.

Jesus isn't the point, people. First people crucify the messenger, then they worship the messenger. They talk no end about reaching God through Jesus and petitioning Jesus to intercede on their behalf with God, when they also concede that Jesus is God. It's like asking how to get to New York City and being told to take the East Side Throughway. If you're on the East Side Throughway you're already in New York City. And if you've convinced Jesus, you've already convinced God.

God took the trouble to inhabit a body and bring us a message. He didn't give a damn what happened to the body because once He delivered the message He was done with it. Now we worship that long gone to dust body and beg that body to get us into Heaven without doing more with the message than parsing it for loopholes and ignoring the parts that have no promising loopholes.

Stupid.

Well, I don't really know whether it's accurate or not. At least it attempts to provide some explanation of some of the Christianity "weirdness".

I particularly agreed with and enjoyed this line because it supports a position of mine, I've held for several decades now.

What matters are the spiritual lessons he taught. Period. Everything else is a moot point and immaterial.

I've yet to find ANY "Christian" (so-called) Church that predominately focuses on that. I wonder why that is?

Did you happen to check out the rest of the article, at the link?

Thanks!

[Ronin Truth]

Constantine "the Great" and King Ashoka the Great

A biography of two people so similar they are practically interchangeable: A man with considerable influence and legitimate claim to rule the most powerful empire in the world is introduced to a new religion with a small minority following as a young man, but does not convert. This new religion values peace over all else. As his claim to rule is strengthened, so is the resolve of his enemies. Predictably, violence results, but, in the end, the winner is unquestionable--all others chasing power are dead. At the end of this struggle, a decisive battle to consolidate power results in overwhelming victory. The man officially converts to the new, minority religion, and decrees religious toleration within the empire's borders.

That is where the similarities end.

Emperor Ashoka surveyed the carnage of his last battle, the annihilation of the last defenders of Kalinga. He smelled the foul odor of burning corpses. He saw unborn children, dead. He saw dead women, dead children. He saw discarded, mangled limbs strewn about the ground. His ambitions had brought this suffering. He had destroyed countless lives and created a wailing mass of widows, orphans, and permanently maimed. Beyond the human suffering, his orders had caused a large scale destruction of buildings and nature. This devastation was what the Romans inflicted on Galilee and Palestine during Jesus' childhood. According to legend, as Ashoka staggered through the ruins, sickened by the results of his thirst for glory, he spoke to himself:

What have I done? If this is a victory, what is a defeat?

Ashoka formally converted to Buddhism and resolved to never wage war again. He adopted the Buddha's abhorrence for war wholeheartedly and went to great lengths to avoid further conflict. Ashoka's armies never fought another battle. He fully adopted the principles of his new religion, launching an incredible new campaign for peace. Providing basic public services throughout his empire became a top priority, and many of his subjects were given access to drinking water, improved farming techniques, and improved transportation. He opened many universities and did not discriminate by caste or ethnicity as all his predecessors had done. In edicts, he apologized for the wars he had waged and promised that he no longer harbored ambitions of expanding his empire's borders. Make no mistake--with his huge, unified, and disciplined army, he had ample power to do so. He reformed judicial system to make it more humane, and executions were banned. Though a devout Buddhist, a patron of Buddhist monasteries, and a great proselytizer of Buddhism, toleration of other religions was of foremost importance. One of his edicts read (note: Beloved-of-the-Gods was a formal title adopted by emperors; Ashoka refers to himself here as King Piyadasi):

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds. But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

(source, including all surviving edicts of Ashoka)

This was the best thing that ever happened to Buddhism. Buddhism did not have many adherents before Ashoka, and was confined to a relatively small geographic area. Ashoka changed all this, but the importance of Ashoka on the history of Buddhism cannot be overemphasized for another reason: The major proselytizing effort of Buddhism came from one of the best rulers in the history of humankind. Buddhism would be forever associated with peace and a hatred of war.

Constantine similarly surveyed the carnage he had caused at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Most enemy troops had gruesomely drowned when forced into the Tiber River, their bodies grotesquely disfigured and bloated. Now that he was in clear control of most of the Roman Empire, he converted to Christianity (the first "Christian" political leader in the world) and decreed religious toleration within his borders. But did he adopt Christian ideals as Ashoka adopted Buddhist principles? Did he internalize Jesus' teaching that war cannot be used to create peace? Did he adopt a policy of nonviolence like Jesus taught? Did he take Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" seriously? Did he hate war, instead turning to peace and justice as Jesus did? Did he do anything differently now that he was a "Christian?" No. He continued fighting wars. Arguably, his continued civil war can be seen as self defence. But his invasion of Dacia--which he claimed was a war against religious heathens--was not self-defensive. It was a war of conquest, a war of expansion, and Constantine used Christianity the way he used everything else in his life--as a tool for selfish ends. He set the precedent of "pious Christians" fighting a "holy war" (there is no such thing) according to "God's will." Worse, Constantine brought the same suffering and devastation on Dacia that Caesar Augustus had inflicted on Jesus' family and the rest of Galilee and Palestine. Constantine embraced war like a brother. He turned wives into widows; sons and daughters into orphans; soldiers--as well as innocent men, women, and children--into corpses or victims with limbs missing. He killed, and killed, and killed. Even as a "Christian," he continued to kill without regard for Jesus' teachings. He inflicted war wounds that never heal, and sowed suffering wherever he went.

Constantine "the Great" was what historians would later call him. To raise a weapon in violence--is that what makes a man "great?"

Constantine had no respect for Christian teachings. Shortly after bring war, death, maiming, and sorrow to Dacia--as a "Christian"--he planned to invade Persia. Constantine very nearly launched the first crusade, demanding that Christian bishops accompany the invasion force, but he thankfully fell ill and died before the war preparations were complete. Constantine was a bloodthirsty, ruthless dictator, with no regard for human life. He brought death and destruction instead of peace and justice, in utter contempt for the teachings of Christianity. Did he outlaw execution like Ashoka or make the justice system more humane? No. There is no record of how many people he had executed, but suffice it to say that among those he executed were his own wife and son. He had no plan to improve the lives of ordinary people or feed the hungry within his empire--as Jesus would have demanded--and he threw open the doors of no new universities. With complete disregard for the teachings of Jesus--was this man really a Christian?

Compare Ashoka's reasoning for honoring other religions (essentially, interactions with other religions improves one's own life) with an excerpt from the Edict of Milan, where Constantine officially sanctioned religious toleration:

...that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence.

(source, full Edict of Milan)

Constantine's religious toleration was based in fear. Constantine worried that if a supreme being's "correct" followers were being persecuted, that the supreme being would punish their persecutors. Unlike Ashoka, Constantine had no concern for the teachings or ideals of religions--he was afraid of divine retribution. These views are childish--there is no other way to put it. But there is still further hypocrisy. His "religious" justifications for the invasion of Dacia and Persia indicate that he did not ever intend to tolerate the religions of Germanic tribes or the Zoroastrianism of Persia--in stark contrast to Ashoka's edict. In other words, Constantine tolerated Roman paganism because it was politically convenient to do so, but he did not tolerate any religions that did not bring him some personal benefit.

Constantine's adoption of Christianity*--though it definitely prevented further persecution and execution of Christians--was the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. Christians before Constantine never resorted to violence. While other Jewish groups took up arms against Roman soldiers, Christians (and Pharisees) did not. Even when threatened with gruesome execution by crucifixion, beheading, or being fed to lions--as well as countless methods of physical torture--Christians never tried to protect themselves with violence. They valued the message of Jesus too much to use violence even as a last resort. Indeed, Constantine's conversion was inherently violent. His heart was converted when he became convinced that the Christian God had help him win a battle. But where in Jesus' teachings does God encourage warfare and fighting battles in the first place? Before Constantine, no one had been forced to convert to Christianity. This was no longer true after the invasion of Dacia. Constantine's influence on the religion as the first emperor to formally tolerate it was so great that his interpretation overshadowed all others--even though his understanding directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, it was Constantine who called the Council of Nicaea, the first Church council, which established Christian orthodoxy--further demonstrating his stranglehold on the future of "Christian" doctrine. It was Constantine's idea to unify the "correct" way of being Christian, and the Council's participants felt pressure to conform to Constantine's goals. But Constantine's most enduring legacy is Christianity's association with war. Because Constantine used Christianity to justify his brutal invasion of Dacia and his planned invasion of Persia, Christianity and war became forever inseparable. Fighting religious wars, forcing conversions, and religious intolerance forever became a part of Christianity, despite the fact that Jesus--as well as Christians in Constantine's time--were completely revolted by these very practices. All subsequent "Christian" rulers followed Constantine's most un-Christian example. Within the century, Roman "Christians" were murdering Roman pagans. Nothing could be more hypocritical, given Christianity's long history of being victim to the very same persecution. Because of Constantine, to be a "Christian" meant using violence--no matter how explicitly Jesus forbade war and violence. Violent people eagerly followed Constantine into this new religion, Romanizing it's message in the process. They quickly outnumbered and overpowered the voice of Christians who actually followed Jesus' teachings. Being a "Christian" no longer meant adopting any teachings of Jesus that were inconvenient.

This legacy continues today.


*Prior to Constantine, Christian symbols focused on the Resurrection of Jesus; Constantine made the cross the official symbol of Christianity, which it remains today.

http://justicebeforecharity.org/constantine.php

[Ronin Truth]

The Romanization of Christianity ( AKA the "Jesus Cult" )

Roman paganism offered an afterlife only for a few, very special people, such as Caesar Augustus. One of the major causes behind the spread of Christianity was that it offered an afterlife for everyone. However, in Christianity, this only occurred after people made the Kingdom of God a reality on earth. Following the example of Jesus, Christians needed to be willing to let their enemies kill them rather than kill their enemies, and fight for justice even if it cost them their lives. Only if the Kingdom of God was a reality on earth would there be eternal life. But the Romans were not interested in abandoning war or treating their conquered subjects with justice. Once the Roman mainstream got a hold of Christianity, they turned it into a simple equation: You do nice things for your friends, people you like anyway, instead of mean things, and you go to heaven. Christianity in mainstream Roman practice did not ask Romans to do anything they would not have done in the first place. Christianity was distorted in order to justify Roman politics, unjust wars, unjust treatment of subjugated peoples, and the oppressive rule of a privileged elite, just as Roman paganism did.

Manicheanism, another counter-culture religion contemporaneous with Christianity, taught that the physical world was evil and the spiritual world was good. Manicheans performed incredible acts of asceticism in order to avoid as much contact with the physical world as possible. They believed that separating themselves from the evil, physical world was the only way to achieve salvation. Manicheans always taught a two-tiered system of believers; priests lived an ascetic life, releasing good into the world, while everyone else, the "hearers" provided for the priests' needs. In this way, the hearers would live by a less stringent code of asceticism and, in exchange for helping the priests, would share in their salvation. There indeed were Manichean monasteries throughout the Roman Empire, but Roman hearers, like Roman Christians, ignored the inconvenient aspects of their new religion. Roman "Manicheanism" mirrored Roman "Christianity;" in both "religions," it was a simple matter of doing nice things to people you liked anyway (in addition to supporting the clergy, which adherents to Roman paganism were expected to do anyway) in order to gain eternal life. The Romans simply wanted a religion that earned them eternal life, but they did not want to work hard for their eternal life, either. They saw what they wanted to see in Christianity and Manicheanism, and these two religions became essentially indistinguishable--an easy path to eternal life--as the Romans perverted them both beyond recognition.


A modern example of this is Croatia. For centuries, Catholicism, the dominant religion of the Croats, was violently repressed by Muslim Turks and then atheist Communists. Thus, the struggle for freedom of religion got wrapped up in the struggle for basic human rights. That was fine, but now Catholicism's place is to preach a message of toleration. Croatia neighbors the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and much of the tiny country is predominantly Croatian Catholic. Bosnian Muslims in these areas suffer from Croatian intolerance, which is wrapped up in Croatian Catholic religious display:

But the aggressive display of Croatian nationalist emblems and insistence on payment in kuna both express defiance of the post-1995 Bosnian peace agreement, the former in spirit, the second by letter...Foreign pilgrims innocently wander through the shops and restaurants, blind to the subtext of ethnic prejudice and nationalism bubbling around, which belie the message of love and tolerance they have traveled so far to hear.

The pilgrim town of Medjugorje blends Croatian nationalism and Croatian Catholicism. And the result is not simple prejudice. Muslim children are forced to enter schools through the back door (audio**); only Croatian Catholics are allowed to enter through the front door. Extreme speech like this comes from Croatian Catholics:

Some who fought cling to the dream of separation from Bosnia even now - the dream of a separate Croatian ethnic state here - even if the cost is a return to war. "We have the right to start a war - it is our right," Petar Milic a nationalist member of parliament, told me.

Yet the Croatian Catholic clergy cannot find its voice to speak out against this hate and prejudice. Croatian Catholicism--sadly--is still a part of Croatian nationalism. When Croatian nationalism centered around basic human rights--including freedom of religion--this was Croatian Catholicism's proper place. But no longer. Croatian nationalists are no longer the oppressed, but the oppressors. The Croatian Catholic clergy belong on the side of the oppressed, even if the oppressed are not Croatian Catholics, but Bosnian Muslims. But the Croatian Catholic clergy remain unmoved, in tacit support of the Croatian nationalists. Just as Christianity was hijacked by Romans for selfish ends, so too has Catholicism been hijacked by Croatian nationalists in Bosnia to help oppress their neighbors and countrymen.

http://justicebeforecharity.org/constantine.php

[Ronin Truth]

DECEMBER 24, 2008 5:21AM

How Christianity was Hijacked 2000 Years Ago.

It's Christmas Eve now, and I have no intention of being a dumper on this lovely time of year. Jesus was a cool guy, and although I don't personally believe he was the son of God, those that wish to may celebrate perhaps more heartily than me. This was a time of many pagan celebrations so I won't ride on the coattails of Christianity too much, and tend to say Happy Holidays for all of you pagans out there, and the Jewish community which celebrates Hannukah. Truly, enjoy yourself.

My beef is with the New Testament (which is in its own terminology rather an insult to the Jewish contingent, as they certainly don't consider the 'Old Testament' to be 'old' at all, it is the book of their beliefs). The gospels were written at minimum, thirty years after Christ died from oral tradition passed on by a variety of Christian communities. Who wrote them? - hard to say, but they were indeed Christian, and if they are read carefully - they portray a man who was little interested in anything but reform inside the Jewish community. At the time, Jews were under the thumb of their Roman leaders, and what Jesus saw as a corrupt bunch of priests (i.e. see Pharisees and Saduccees - not fans of Jesus' teachings). He brought hope and new vision to a people long opressed. By the way, he NEVER said he was the Messiah.

Jesus reached out to the marginalized in the Jewish community, he supposedly healed (or cared for, who knows) the sick, he cared about the poor. This is the historical Jesus that we are presented with in the Gospels. When it was clear his time was up, he turned to 'his rock', Peter, and gave to him the duty to continue his teachings and not let them die. Peter accepted and did his best with the Jewish followers of Jesus in and around Jerusalem. James, Jesus' brother, did the same (with a little more gnostic swing to his game), elsewhere, but these were without question, Jewish groups.

Then came Paul. Paul, who started out as Saul, a Jewish pawn of the Romans who hunted down Christians, was riding along the road to Damascus, not feeling too great about rounding up his own people (my interpretation) when he fell off his horse and was treated to a blinding light and a vision of Jesus telling him he was to prosilitize to the Gentiles. Now, I just have trouble with this. Jesus never even hinted at converting Gentiles, and the Jewish faith rest in my great admiration for not running around trying to get everyone else to believe what they do. It is clear in the Gospels that Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, his interest in the Gentile community was nil. So, whatever Paul experienced, heatstroke maybe, I do not believe this revelation as described in the Bible.

Saul, changed his name to Paul in order to be reborn after his conversion, and set about doing his best to convert the Gentile population of which he seemed to now consider himself. (Another question - was Paul a self hating Jew? Just a thought). He did a great job, no question, but other than the Gospels, the majority of Paul's teachings are what dominates the Bible, thanks to our canonical Church Fathers.

The teachings of Peter are not mentioned except when Paul and Peter disagree (and they did). When this occurs, Paul is conscious of the fact that Peter is indeed the nominal head of the Jewish reformers and in order not to seem out of line, refers to Peter as 'Cephus' in the Bible which in Aramaic means 'rock', a direct reference to Jesus' reference to Peter as the new 'rock' of his teachings. They fussed over circumcision, kosher food and probably much more not mentioned, but it is Paul's version of Christianity, particularly through his Epistles that is taught as God's word today.

(A brief mention of Revelations here. They were not written by Paul, but a really ticked off member of the Jewish Christian community, who cleverly disguised his treatise on the evil oppression of Rome (i.e. Whore of Babylon, Seven Hills - ring a bell?) and the Romans future comeuppance when the Messiah came.)

Fine, back to Paul. The Epistles are his attempts (quite succesfully) to keep the various Christian communities he began in line of how he believed this new religion should be enacted. Women weren't supposed to speak in church, homosexuality was a no-no (Romans - sorry it is in there) etc. Jesus never touched on that, and the only other reference to homosexuality for example is in the first part of the Bible. If one is to go by the 'old' Jewish law, then all you shrimp eaters are also abominations, and we should all have slaves, be stoning adulteresses, and you buddies who are clean shaven had better start growing a beard. How easy it is to pick and choose.

Jesus embraced the marginalized, the sick, the lepers who no one would go near. The tale of the Samaritan woman who touched Jesus robe in order to heal her non-ending menstruation was at first horrifying to the crowd and the Apostles. Why? Because she was not Jewish. Although I do not believe Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, he made her, a woman, one of his most beloved followers and most likely one of the Apostles but that didn't sit well with the church fathers OR Paul, so they didn't dwell on that. You should see what they left OUT of the Bible. It was Mary to whom he revealed his reserrection (for those of you who believe in that). Paul's admonishishments that women had a secondary role in the church seems to fly in the face of Jesus' actions. But it suited the those in charge of the canonical Bible. It is interesting that the Pope is considered to be part of the long lineage of "rocks" in the name of Peter, but we know nothing of Peter's teachings. They were too Jewish. So, the word of Jesus is followed - largely through Paul's interpretation and it is he who is the true Rock of current Christianity. My intent with this posting is, again, not to dump on Christianity, but to point out that the historical Jesus was a kind man (ticked off at times, no question) who reached out to those in his community to be more loving to each other and reach for God, not through the priests, but through themselves.

So, all - please enjoy this time of year, without judgement, without rancour, and with an acceptance of heart. That is what Jesus taught.

http://open.salon.com/blog/madcelt/2...2000_years_ago

[Jamesiv1]

http://open.salon.com/blog/madcelt/2...2000_years_ago

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ronin Truth again.

Nice one.

[Jamesiv1]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ronin Truth again.

Nice one.

C'mon HB, don't take the wimpy way out. Put your money where your mouth is and give us a breakdown.

I like it, not the least because it resonates with my feelings about Jesus and what I consider the co-opting of his message.

Break it down.

oh... and thanks for the +rep

[acptulsa]

C'mon HB, don't take the wimpy way out. Put your money where your mouth is and give us a breakdown.

He would if he could. But those errors are in the eye of the beholder. They are 'errors' of opinion. So, he won't.

Just be thankful he didn't negrep you for disagreeing with him.

[Ronin Truth]

Tolstoy on Paulinism

Overview

In My Religion (1884), Tolstoy explains Christianity went off the rails initially with Paul who knew nothing of Jesus's ethical teachings:

"The separation between the doctrine of life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul who knew not the ethical teachings set forth in the Gospel of Matthew, and who preached a metaphisico-cabalistic theory entirely foreign to Christ; and this separation was perfected in the time of Constantine, when it was found possible to clothe the whole pagan organization of life in a Christian dress, and without changing it to call it Christianity." (Leo Tolstoy, My Religion (1884) at 219.)

Later Tolstoy will explain what happened by an analogy to an original pilot who had rules replaced by a new pilot who has no rules but only dogma to accept:

"Imagine a number of men rowing a boat, a pilot steering. The men rely upon the pilot, and the pilot steers well; but after a time the good pilot is replaced by another, who does not steer at all. The boat moves along rapidly and easily. At first the men do not notice the negligence of the new pilot; they are only pleased to find that the boat goes along so easily. Then they discover that the new pilot is utterly useless, and they mock at him, and drive him from his place." Id., at 225.

Tolstoy perceives the church led by the new pilot (i.e., Paul) is now recognized as useless to give meaning to life. Regardless, men who do know about Jesus and even hate his name are still drawn to Jesus' principles that they have unconsciously absorbed. In this time when people might be prepared to call back the first pilot (Jesus), the church is afraid to call upon Him to return to restore the right principles of living. Instead, the majority of society and the church as a whole are clinging onto the belief that the only rules for life come from government. In the modern world, most think it is not important to return to Jesus and His principles. Instead, most believe the state must be obeyed as ministers of God (as Paul taught in Romans 13:1). As a result, life has now become devoid of meaning to the great masses:

"The distinctive trait of civilized man is to obey what the majority of men regard as iniquitous, contrary to conscience. I seek in vain in civilized society as it exists to-day for any clearly formulated moral bases of life. There are none. No perception of their necessity exists. On the contrary, we find the extraordinary conviction that they are superfluous; that religion is nothing more than a few words about God and a future life, and a few ceremonies very useful for the salvation of the soul according to some, and good for nothing according to others; but that life happens of itself and has no need of any fundamental rule, and that we have only to do what we are told to do." Id., at 233.

Tolstoy says the solution is now to go back to the original pilot - Jesus. We need to restore the church to Jesus-Words-Only (to use my phrase), and leave the old dogma-laden church to its dissolution:

"The truth of the doctrine of Jesus, once unconsciously absorbed by humanity through the organism of the Church, must now be consciously recognized; for in the truth of this doctrine humanity has always obtained its vital force. Men must lift up the torch of truth, which has so long remained concealed, and carry it before them, guiding their actions by its light.

"The doctrine of Jesus, as a religion that governs the actions of men and explains to them the meaning of life, is now before the world just as it was eighteen hundred years ago. Formerly the world had the explanations of the Church which, in concealing the doctrine, seemed in itself to offer a satisfactory interpretation of life ; but now the time is come when the Church has lost its usefulness, and the world, having no other means for sustaining its true existence, can only feel its helplessness and go for aid directly to the doctrine of Jesus." Id., at 238.

Tolstoy concludes with an exaltation of Jesus' doctrine as shining forth still boldy if anyone would but read it:

"The doctrine of Jesus is the light. The light shines forth, and the darkness cannot conceal it. Men cannot deny it, men cannot refuse to accept its guidance. They must depend on the doctrine of Jesus, which penetrates among all the errors with which the life of men is surrounded. Like the insensible ether filling universal space, enveloping all created things, so the doctrine of Jesus is inevitable for every man in whatever situation he may be found. Men cannot refuse to recognize the doctrine of Jesus; they may deny the metaphysical explanation of life which it gives (we may deny everything), but the doctrine of Jesus alone offers rules for the conduct of life without which humanity has never lived, and never will be able to live; without which no human being has lived or can live, if he would live as man should live, — a reasonable life. The power of the doctrine of Jesus is not in its explanation of the meaning of life, but in the rules that it gives for the conduct of life." Id., at 239.

Tolstoy concludes the chapter with this simple principle: "The faith that triumphs over the doctrines of the world is faith in the doctrine of Jesus." Id., at 244.

Step-by-Step Reading Of Tolstoy

Let's go back now and see Tolstoy's reasoning in the greater context. Leading into the first quote about Paul, Tolstoy writes, beginning on page 218:

"I became convinced that the doctrine of the Church, although bearing the name of 'Christian,' is one with the darkness against which Jesus struggled, and against which he commanded his disciples to strive...."

But, with regard to the doctrine of Jesus, as with regard to all other doctrines, men wander from its precepts, and they always find some one to justify their deviations. Those who, as Jesus said, sit in Moses' seat, explain the metaphysical theory in such a way that the ethical prescriptions of the doctrine cease to be regarded as obligatory, and are replaced by external forms of worship, by ceremonial. This is a condition common to all religions, but, to me, it seems that it never has been manifested with so much pomp as in connection with Christianity, — and for two reasons: first, because the doctrine of Jesus is the most elevated of all doctrines (the most elevated because the metaphysical and ethical portions are so closely united that one cannot be separated from the other without destroying the vitality of the whole) ; second, because the doctrine of Jesus is in itself a protest against all forms, a negation not only of Jewish ceremonial, but of all exterior rites of worship. Therefore, the arbitrary separation of the metaphysical and ethical aspects of Christianity entirely disfigures the doctrine, and deprives it of every sort of meaning." Id., at 218.

Then appears the quote on Paul above where Pauline doctrine creates this separation which "deprives" Jesus's message of "every sort of meaning." Then the text continues on page 219:

"After Constantine, that arch-pagan, whom the Church in spite of all his crimes and vices admits to the category of the saints, after Constantine began the domination of the councils, and the centre of gravity of Christianity was permanently displaced till only the metaphysical portion was left in view. And this metaphysical theory with its accompanying ceremonial deviated more and more from its true and primitive meaning, until it has reached its present stage of development, as a doctrine which explains the mysteries of a celestial life beyond the comprehension of human reason, and, with all its complicated formulas, gives no religious guidance whatever with regard to the regulation of this earthly life." Id., at 219 -220.

One senses here that Tolstoy balks at the Council of Nicea, and the emphasis about the correct formula to depict Christ, taking the emphasis away from the ethical teachings of Jesus. Tolstoy next makes the point that a religion where belief is all that matters becomes a peculiar one where behavior no longer holds central importance. Tolstoy calls this Pseudo-Christianity:

"All religions, with the exception of the religion of the Christian Church, demand from their adherents aside from forms and ceremonies, the practice of certain actions called good, and abstinence from certain actions that are called bad. The Jewish religion prescribed circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the giving of alms, the feast of the Passover.

Mohammedanism prescribes circumcision, prayer five times a day, the giving of tithes to the poor, pilgrimage to the tomb of the Prophet, and many other things. It is the same with all other religions. Whether these prescriptions are good or bad, they are prescriptions which exact the performance of certain actions. Pseudo-Christianity alone prescribes nothing. There is nothing that a Christian is obliged to observe except fasts and prayers, which the Church itself does not recognize as obligatory. All that is necessary to the pseudoChristian is the sacrament. But the sacrament is not fulfilled by the believer; it is administered to him by others. The pseudo-Christian is obliged to do nothing or to abstain from nothing for his own salvation, since the Church administers to him everything of which he has need. The Church baptizes him, anoints him, gives him the eucharist, confesses him, even after he has lost consciousness, administers extreme unction to him, and prays for him, — and he is saved. From the time of Constantine the Christian Church has prescribed no religious duties to its adherents. It has never required that they should abstain from anything. The Christian Church has recognized and sanctioned divorce, slavery, tribunals, all earthly powers, the death penalty, and war; it has exacted nothing except a renunciation of a purpose to do evil on the occasion of baptism, and this only in its early days : later on, when infant baptism was introduced, even this requirement was no longer observed." Id., at 220-21.

Tolstoy next comments that this has led to a Christianity without Christ:

"The Church confesses the doctrine of Jesus in theory, but denies it in practice. Instead of guiding the life of the world, the Church, through affection for the world, expounds the metaphysical doctrine of Jesus in such a way as not to derive from it any obligation as to the conduct of life, any necessity for men to live differently from the way in which they have been living. The Church has surrendered to the world, and simply follows in the train of its victor. The world does as it pleases, and leaves to the Church the task of justifying its actions with explanations as to the meaning of life. The world organizes an existence in absolute opposition to the doctrine of Jesus, and the Church endeavors to demonstrate that men who live contrary to the doctrine of Jesus really live in accordance with that doctrine. The final result is that the world lives a worse than pagan existence, and the Church not only approves, but maintains that this existence is in exact conformity to the doctrine of Jesus." Id., at 221.

Tolstoy then says the light from Jesus's words are still powerful, and sometimes break through the cloud used to keep them from us:

"But a time comes when the light of the true doctrine of Jesus shines forth from the Gospels, notwithstanding the guilty efforts of the Church to conceal it from men's eyes, as, for instance, in prohibiting the translation of the Bible ; there comes a time when the light reaches the people, even through the medium of sectarians and free-thinkers, and the falsity of the doctrine of the Church is shown so clearly that men begin to transform the method of living that the Church has justified." Id., at 222.

Tolstoy sees steps have been taken despite the church that approximate better Jesus's teachings, e.g., end of popery and divine rights of kings, charity of property, etc. But this movement of civil rights breaks down the authority of the church, transfering power to secular authorities. The church which abandoned Christ long ago is left with empty dogmas and buildings:

"And in this way the conduct of human life is freed from the control of the Church, and subjected to an entirely different authority. The Church retains its dogmas, but what are its dogmas worth ? A metaphysical explanation can be of use only when there is a doctrine of life which it serves to make manifest. But the Church possesses only the explanation of an organization which it once sanctioned, and which no longer exists. The Church has nothing left but temples and shrines and canonicals- and vestments and words." Id., at 222.

The church which abandoned Christ's teachings for dogma alone finds itself abandoned and powerless in the world. What the church professed that came from Christ but which the church abandoned lives on in the modern movements for progress. However, the church has no influence over them because the church abandoned these equality-promoting messages long ago:

"All these churches — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant — are like so many sentinels still keeping careful watch before the prison doors, although the prisoners have long been at liberty before their eyes, and even threaten their existence. All that actually constitutes life, that is, the activity of humanity towards progress and its own welfare, socialism, communism, the new politico-economical theories, utilitarianism, the liberty and equality of all social classes, and of men and women, all the moral principles of humanity, the sanctity of work, reason, science, art, — all these that lend an impulse to the world's progress in hostility to the Church are only fragments of the doctrine which the Church has professed, and so carefully endeavored to conceal. In these times, the life of the world is entirely independent of the doctrine of the Church. The Church is left so far behind, that men no longer hear the voices of those who preach its doctrines. This is easily to be understood because the Church still clings to an organization of the world's life, which has been forsaken, and is rapidly falling to destruction." Id., at 224-225.

Tolstoy then explains how the church became a shell following Paul's dictum to obey the government in all things. (Paul's Epistle to the Romans ch. 13). Tolstoy laments our faith is not entwined with ethics, but instead is all about dogmas / beliefs. Thus, rather than transforming the world with higher ethical principles to stop evil, the church now defends all things which promotes the ruler's interest:

"A century ago, and among the ignorant now, the nominal Christian makes this reply: " Compulsory military service, wars, tribunals, and the death penalty, all exist in obedience to the law of God transmitted to us by the Church. This is a fallen world. All the evil that exists, exists by God's will, as a punishment for the sins of men. For this reason we can do nothing to palliate evil. We can only save our own souls by faith, by the sacraments, by prayers, and by submission to the will of God as transmitted by the Church. The Church teaches us that all Christians should unhesitatingly obey their rulers, who are the Lord's anointed, and obey also persons placed in authority by rulers; that they ought to defend their property and that of others by force, wage war, inflict the death penalty, and in all things submit to the authorities, who command by the will of God." Id., at 227.

This leads into my favorite passage. Tolstoy says that when he asks Christians why they live at odds with what Jesus's teaches, the Christian responds by despairing of the skepticism of the age, as if anyone who wanted to restore Jesus's words to a priority were a traitor of Christianity:

"When we ask a Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox believer why he leads an existence contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, instead of making a correct response he begins to speak of the melancholy state of scepticism characteristic of this generation, of evil-minded persons who spread doubt broadcast among the masses, of the importance of the future of the existing Church. But he will not tell you why he does not act in conformity to the commands of the religion that he professes. Instead of speaking of his own condition, he will talk to you about the condition of humanity in general, and of that of the Church, as if his own life were not of the slightest significance, and his sole preoccupations were the salvation of humanity, and of what he calls the Church." Id., at 228-229.

When dogma and opinion about Christ is all that is left to Christianity, and Jesus' ethical messages are ignored which give us life, there is no answer one can give to the meaning of life that suffices:

"This subterfuge is employed simply because the believer and the philosopher, and the average man have no positive doctrine concerning existence, and cannot, therefore, reply to the personal question, '' What of your own life ? " They are disgusted and humiliated at not possessing the slightest trace of a doctrine with regard to life, for no one can live in peace without some understanding of what life really means. But nowadays only Christians cling to a fantastic and worn-out creed as an explanation of why life is as it is, and is not otherwise. Only Christians give the name of religion to a system which is not of the least use to any one. Only among Christians is life separated from any or all doctrine, and left without any definition whatever." Id., at 230.

Where does that leave anyone? The state becomes the new religion. In other words, when Christians now say that Christianity is not about ethics but belief, and thereby empty Christianity of the religious quality that Jesus also taught besides belief, the masses have one choice left: to have as their religion the obedience to the state's morality. This is the last condition of Christianity without Christ (in reliance upon Paul's dictum to obey rulers):

"Now their faith is in what they are told to do. The faith of those who deny religion is in a religion of obedience to the will of the ruling majority; in a word, submission to established authority." Id., at 231.

And thus believers in Christianity and skeptics end up with the same religion:

"Ask the believers or sceptics of this age, what doctrine of life they follow. They will be obliged to confess that they follow but one doctrine, the doctrine based upon laws formulated by the judiciary or by legislative assemblies, and enforced by the police — the favorite doctrine of most Europeans." Id., at 232.

Tolstoy says it is ironic that the only exceptions to these rules are a group of those resisting the current order and who continue the message of Christ but hate his name. (They hate his name because they confuse Christianity as it exists in the Pauline-deformed version of today with the Christ-version which was founded by the true apostles.) Tolstoy explains:

"Fortunately there is a remnant, made up of the noblest minds of the age, who are not contented with this religion, but have an entirely different faith with regard to what the life of man ought to be. These men are looked upon as the most malevolent, the most dangerous, and generally as the most unbelieving of all human beings, and yet they are the only men of our time believing in the Gospel doctrine, if not as a whole, at least in part. These people, as a general thing, know little of the doctrine of Jesus ; they do not understand it, ....; often they have nothing but a hatred for the name of Jesus ; but their whole faith with regard to what life ought to be is unconsciously based upon the humane and eternal truths comprised in the Christian doctrine. This remnant, in spite of calumny and persecution, are the only ones who do not tamely submit to the orders of the first comer. Consequently they are the only ones in these days who live a reasonable and not an animal life, the only ones who have faith." Id., at 235.

The necessity at this juncture is to consciously restore the doctrines of Jesus which are unconsciously being followed by a dissenting but egalitarian movement. Tolstoy encourages us to abandon the church which is devoid of Christ's doctrines:

"The truth of the doctrine of Jesus, once unconsciously absorbed by humanity through the organism of the Church, must now be consciously recognized; for in the truth of this doctrine humanity has always obtained its vital force. Men must lift up the torch of truth, which has so long remained concealed, and carry it before them, guiding their actions by its light."

The doctrine of Jesus, as a religion that governs the actions of men and explains to them the meaning of life, is now before the world just as it was eighteen hundred years ago. Formerly the world had the explanations of the Church which, in concealing the doctrine, seemed in itself to offer a satisfactory interpretation of life ; but now the time is come when the Church has lost its usefulness, and the world, having no other means for sustaining its true existence, can only feel its helplessness and go for aid directly to the doctrine of Jesus." Id., at 238.

Tolstoy in the next chapter says following just Jesus's doctrines is the path to happiness and salvation:

"I BELIEVE in the doctrine of Jesus, and this is my religion: — I believe that nothing but the fulfilment of the doctrine of Jesus can give true happiness to men. I believe that the fulfilment of this doctrine is possible, easy, and pleasant. I believe that although none other follows this doctrine, and I alone am left to practise it, I cannot refuse to obey it, if I would save my life from the certainty of eternal loss; just as a man in a burning house if he find a door of safety, must go out, so I must avail myself of the way to salvation. I believe that my life according to the doctrine of the world has been a torment, and that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus can alone give me in this world the happiness for which I was destined by the Father of Life. I believe that this doctrine is essential to the welfare of humanity, will save me from the certainty of eternal loss, and will give me in this world the greatest possible sum of happiness. Believing thus, I am obliged to practise its commandments." Id., at 245.

Tolstoy was the greatest modern proponent of what I call the Jesus' Words Only principle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study Notes

In Wikipedia's article "Pauline Christianity," it records that Tolstoy in Church and State (1882) wrote: "This deviation begins from the times of the Apostles and especially from that hankerer after mastership Paul." We have preserved Church and State on our website at this link. For a PDF version of Church and State, see this link. For a text version from Internet archives, see this link. For a face plate from the 1891 edition, and a copy of the text, see this link.

In Church and State, Tolstoy teaches that Jesus did not teach church was in a building, subject to hierarchies, nor that it should focus on dogmas such as the immaculate conception, Jesus' relation to the Father, etc., subjecting to punishment and judgment those who do not believe like the hierarchy insists they should. Tolstoy said this system of dogmas is a delusion of faith, and is not true faith in the doctrines of Jesus - which only do us good, while dogmas put us under power - either of the church or state. Tolstoy blames this change from original Christianity upon the influence of Constantine who first offered support, but in time imposed dogmas as the focus of attention. The clergy was created, and it succumbed because if the moral teachings were any longer taught, the clergy would have to give up their powers. So the church, now a building filled with dogmas and power, focused upon dogmas that do no good, and ignores those that would, if applied, destroy their power. Tolstoy says this condition afflicts both Protestants and Catholics. The germ of this power system, Tolstoy says, can be found in the words and practices of Paul.

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recomm...paulinism.html

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pd..._and_State.pdf

[Jamesiv1]

He would if he could. But those errors are in the eye of the beholder. They are 'errors' of opinion. So, he won't.

Just be thankful he didn't negrep you for disagreeing with him.

It's all good.

HB, I love you anyway, and I'm going to pray for you (is it me or is that just soooooo dismissive lol)