Christianity has always been a religion of coercion and force. That's what this article fails to understand, in my opinion. "What death is worse for the soul than the freedom to err" (St. Augustine)
I’m a lifelong atheist/agnostic but in the last 2 years have become fascinated with the growth of early Christianity, I mean say what you will about the religion it’s just a fact that about 20 illiterate peasants (a dozen men and a few women) from the backblocks of empire got so upset at the unfair state murder of their friend that they started a movement that changed the world, that is just objectively a fascinating story
But for Ali, she seems only interested in embracing bullying Christianity, doesn’t seem to believe in God, let alone the Trinity or any other of the fascinating theological interpretations but just is a political Christian and there is nothing more boring
Early Christianity was not uniquely nice to women. The Stoics, the Epicureans, and other schools of Late Hellenistic philosophy were also open to women. The idea that Christianity is somehow "egalitarian" is totally ahistorical, in my opinion.
When you compare what’s in Paul’s letters with what we can be fairly confident Jesus of Nazareth said (or similar) you see so much right wing evangelical Christianity is really Paulism (and then the letters under Paul’s name that were almost certainly written by other people are often even worse than the genuinely Pauline letters
Well said. “Pauline Christianity” deeply annoys me - making Paul the primary foundation of one’s Christian faith instead of the Tanakh is why so many Christians can seem so crazy so often.
As a deist, I have great sympathy for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. But even still, you'd have to reject biblical inerrancy (and therefore, divine revelation) as a meaningless and inaccurate concept. You can't be a freethinker and an orthodox Christian at the same time, at least that's my view.
Paul and Jesus are different, some people say. But as I see it, Christianity's most grotesque ideas can also be found in Jesus' words. Jesus talks more about eternal hell than anyone else in the Bible. He said to hate your family, and sacrifice everything for his seek. "If you're not with me, you're against me." Pure insanity, in my view.
It is only insanity if you make the mistake of reading everything literally and oversimplifying. Both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists make this same mistakes.
Not sure if I agree. Once you admit that the Bible is man-made, then you're no longer a Christian. Then it's "game over" for divine revelation. You can still find spiritual, moral, or intellectual value in the Bible, I agree—but you can't call this Christianity anymore. At least that's my take (as a deist).
Your take is incorrect. Of course the Bible is “man-made.” That doesn’t mean it wasn’t divinely inspired.
You keep thinking that fundamentalist, literalist, childish Christianity defines the whole religion. It doesn’t.
Reminder: I am not an “orthodox Christian,” I am a “mystic Christian.” These are different traditions and your raging against the former does not refute the latter.
That's a legitimate perspective. Historically, you could argue that the Enlightenment's doctrine of human rights is steeped in English Protestant Christianity.
But my perspective is this: Jesus never talked about rights or freedoms. He didn't talk politics at all. He was nothing more than a sandal-wearing peasant from Roman Judea, who urged his followers to abandon worldly possessions and join the cult. All of this "rights" talk came from the Enlightenment, with ideological roots in Greece and Rome (I'm thinking Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, etc.).
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
As Tom Holland pointed out any military campaign now the military make a point of saying how few civilian casualties there were and we have rules around protecting civilians that we think are self evident but you go back and read Caesar or other Roman war memoirs and they glory in how many people they killed, Caesar in his Gallic War writings brags about killing 2 million people, so this stuff isn’t self-evident at all but a way of seeing things that you can argue are based in the enlightenment/Christianity fusion
First, I will say that I still greatly respect you for your fight against antisemitism.
Secondly, I now know how to pray for you more specifically.
And that is because I believe the message of the Bible as a whole condemns anything remotely connected with the occult as a worship of Satan.
I believe you have embraced a different gospel from the one presented in the Bible.
And therefore, apart from complete repentance of such, you have no hope of an eternity with God. No need to hash this out further. I am as convinced of my position as you seem to be of yours.
I say all this from a sincere belief, and concern for your soul. I will continue praying for you.
When you say "the occult" what specifically are you referring to? "Occult" can mean many different things. Because we may not be referring to the same thing. I worship the God of Israel, not Satan. And mystical or "occult" practices aid toward that end. There is a long tradition of Judeo-Christian belief and mystical-occult practices being compatible rather than enemies.
Synonyms include: literalism and Evangelicalism. The theology of Billy Graham and others in his ideological territory. Those who take an overly simplistic view of scripture and insist everyone who disagrees with them is going to hell.
As far as having a “saving faith“ goes, God makes it very clear how to come to him and to please him. It only makes sense that a loving God would do it like that.
Unfortunately, so many people, determined to be God themselves, create a false religion that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, and then claim that they have the truth.
I just finished reading this post for the first time.
Please correct me if I misunderstood you.
It sounded like you were saying that flirting with the occult is OK.
It also sounded like you were saying that Jesus is not the only way to God.
If that is what you were saying, what do you do with Jesus’ statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me.“ ?
1. I'm not just saying flirting with the occult is OK, I'm an occultist who advocates for the tradition as well as its compatibility with Judeo-Christian values. I've been a practicing occultist for 20 years now, most heavily influenced by Robert Anton Wilson. https://godofthedesert.substack.com/p/7-great-counterculture-authors-who
2. Yes, I think it's possible to return to God through any number of religious traditions and that we all eventually return to God in the end. I'm a universalist. Hell is only temporary and people can leave it and return to unity with God when they so choose.
3. What I make of that statement is that it's theologically wrong for Evangelical fundamentalists to insist that based on that one verse alone everyone must share the same theological views they do or else be tortured in endless burning fire forever. I am a Judeo-Christian mystic and Christian fundamentalists -- really fundamentalists of any religion -- are my enemies.
Christianity has always been a religion of coercion and force. That's what this article fails to understand, in my opinion. "What death is worse for the soul than the freedom to err" (St. Augustine)
Always?
Yes, in my opinion. Let's go over the history:
1. Early Christianity- forced ordinations, wars against heretics (Arianism, Donatists, etc.)
2. Middle Ages- Charlemagne's Saxony Wars, medieval Crusades
3. Renaissance- Inquisition, Spanish Conquest of the New World, Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy
4. Early Modern- England's persecution of the Puritans, Cromwell's conquest of Ireland, Salem Witch Trials
5. Today- Catholics/Protestants in Ireland
You are making the common error of equating “Christianity” with “Christendom.”
I’m a lifelong atheist/agnostic but in the last 2 years have become fascinated with the growth of early Christianity, I mean say what you will about the religion it’s just a fact that about 20 illiterate peasants (a dozen men and a few women) from the backblocks of empire got so upset at the unfair state murder of their friend that they started a movement that changed the world, that is just objectively a fascinating story
But for Ali, she seems only interested in embracing bullying Christianity, doesn’t seem to believe in God, let alone the Trinity or any other of the fascinating theological interpretations but just is a political Christian and there is nothing more boring
Early Christianity was not uniquely nice to women. The Stoics, the Epicureans, and other schools of Late Hellenistic philosophy were also open to women. The idea that Christianity is somehow "egalitarian" is totally ahistorical, in my opinion.
Over 20 years ago when I was a teenager I wrote an essay that I titled “Sick of Christianity, Still in Love with Christ.” That’s still my position.
That “orthodox” Christianity can be deeply cruel and oppressive much of the time does not refute the legitimacy of the Christian mystical tradition.
Paul has a lot to answer for
When you compare what’s in Paul’s letters with what we can be fairly confident Jesus of Nazareth said (or similar) you see so much right wing evangelical Christianity is really Paulism (and then the letters under Paul’s name that were almost certainly written by other people are often even worse than the genuinely Pauline letters
Well said. “Pauline Christianity” deeply annoys me - making Paul the primary foundation of one’s Christian faith instead of the Tanakh is why so many Christians can seem so crazy so often.
The Old Testament promotes many evil ideas, such as genocide, slavery, and warfare against non-believers (take the Elijah story, for example).
That’s a standard fundamentalist misreading of the texts.
As a deist, I have great sympathy for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. But even still, you'd have to reject biblical inerrancy (and therefore, divine revelation) as a meaningless and inaccurate concept. You can't be a freethinker and an orthodox Christian at the same time, at least that's my view.
Paul and Jesus are different, some people say. But as I see it, Christianity's most grotesque ideas can also be found in Jesus' words. Jesus talks more about eternal hell than anyone else in the Bible. He said to hate your family, and sacrifice everything for his seek. "If you're not with me, you're against me." Pure insanity, in my view.
It is only insanity if you make the mistake of reading everything literally and oversimplifying. Both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists make this same mistakes.
Not sure if I agree. Once you admit that the Bible is man-made, then you're no longer a Christian. Then it's "game over" for divine revelation. You can still find spiritual, moral, or intellectual value in the Bible, I agree—but you can't call this Christianity anymore. At least that's my take (as a deist).
Your take is incorrect. Of course the Bible is “man-made.” That doesn’t mean it wasn’t divinely inspired.
You keep thinking that fundamentalist, literalist, childish Christianity defines the whole religion. It doesn’t.
Reminder: I am not an “orthodox Christian,” I am a “mystic Christian.” These are different traditions and your raging against the former does not refute the latter.
All of the best ideas come from Jesus though, the ones we take as self evident now in the west but were actually not the norm before Christianity
The idea of universal human rights you can (and many people have, persuasively) argue that Universal Human Rights are a Christian invention
Now I’m no Christian but if Christianity had kept its focus on what Jesus said and not what Jesus was then it might have had a chance of sucking me in
I think the focus should most be on what Jesus did.
But we don't really know much about the historical Jesus, apart from the written sources of his followers. It's like Pythagoras or Socrates.
That's a legitimate perspective. Historically, you could argue that the Enlightenment's doctrine of human rights is steeped in English Protestant Christianity.
But my perspective is this: Jesus never talked about rights or freedoms. He didn't talk politics at all. He was nothing more than a sandal-wearing peasant from Roman Judea, who urged his followers to abandon worldly possessions and join the cult. All of this "rights" talk came from the Enlightenment, with ideological roots in Greece and Rome (I'm thinking Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, etc.).
Mark 12:28-31
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
As Tom Holland pointed out any military campaign now the military make a point of saying how few civilian casualties there were and we have rules around protecting civilians that we think are self evident but you go back and read Caesar or other Roman war memoirs and they glory in how many people they killed, Caesar in his Gallic War writings brags about killing 2 million people, so this stuff isn’t self-evident at all but a way of seeing things that you can argue are based in the enlightenment/Christianity fusion
Thank you for clarifying.
First, I will say that I still greatly respect you for your fight against antisemitism.
Secondly, I now know how to pray for you more specifically.
And that is because I believe the message of the Bible as a whole condemns anything remotely connected with the occult as a worship of Satan.
I believe you have embraced a different gospel from the one presented in the Bible.
And therefore, apart from complete repentance of such, you have no hope of an eternity with God. No need to hash this out further. I am as convinced of my position as you seem to be of yours.
I say all this from a sincere belief, and concern for your soul. I will continue praying for you.
Thank you, Bob.
When you say "the occult" what specifically are you referring to? "Occult" can mean many different things. Because we may not be referring to the same thing. I worship the God of Israel, not Satan. And mystical or "occult" practices aid toward that end. There is a long tradition of Judeo-Christian belief and mystical-occult practices being compatible rather than enemies.
I am at least partly referring to such things as king Saul consulting the witch of Endor.
I believe that at least part of his condemnation was due to this.
By the way, I also believe that universalism is a doctrine engineered by Satan.
Yes, the witch of Endor story is a common fundamentalist misunderstanding when it comes to these matters.
I believe that fundamentalist Christianity is “engineered by Satan” and is really a form of paganism.
What do you consider fundamentalist Christianity?
Please tell me you’re not painting with a broad brush any Christian who takes a strong stand on historic doctrine.
Synonyms include: literalism and Evangelicalism. The theology of Billy Graham and others in his ideological territory. Those who take an overly simplistic view of scripture and insist everyone who disagrees with them is going to hell.
No one is going to hell for disagreeing with me.
Only for disagreeing with God.
As far as having a “saving faith“ goes, God makes it very clear how to come to him and to please him. It only makes sense that a loving God would do it like that.
Unfortunately, so many people, determined to be God themselves, create a false religion that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, and then claim that they have the truth.
I just finished reading this post for the first time.
Please correct me if I misunderstood you.
It sounded like you were saying that flirting with the occult is OK.
It also sounded like you were saying that Jesus is not the only way to God.
If that is what you were saying, what do you do with Jesus’ statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me.“ ?
Happy to offer corrections.
1. I'm not just saying flirting with the occult is OK, I'm an occultist who advocates for the tradition as well as its compatibility with Judeo-Christian values. I've been a practicing occultist for 20 years now, most heavily influenced by Robert Anton Wilson. https://godofthedesert.substack.com/p/7-great-counterculture-authors-who
2. Yes, I think it's possible to return to God through any number of religious traditions and that we all eventually return to God in the end. I'm a universalist. Hell is only temporary and people can leave it and return to unity with God when they so choose.
3. What I make of that statement is that it's theologically wrong for Evangelical fundamentalists to insist that based on that one verse alone everyone must share the same theological views they do or else be tortured in endless burning fire forever. I am a Judeo-Christian mystic and Christian fundamentalists -- really fundamentalists of any religion -- are my enemies.
I give up
Something wrong?
What is it about religion?
The bigger a group grows, the more oppressive against the individual it becomes, the more extreme its dogma explodes.
Perfect
The two are not mutually exclusive at all as history clearly demonstrates. But I understand how that is too complicated for fundamentalists to grasp.
If that were true you wouldn’t have bothered commenting.