Hey everyone. As I have said many times before I think Christianity is a valuable contribution to mankind. However you all know that I disagree with many of the mainstream institutionalized religious interpretations and the using of religion to serve ends that are less than selfless and allowing the religion which serves as a means to a unitive-knowledge end to become so idolized that it is even considered by the priestly cast and followers that they have a "holy"or "righteous" right to override morality. Instead of worshipping God the church ends up worshipping itself. This is what disgusts me.

True christians are in essence the same as all perennial philosophers of other religions around the world, and that is practical as well as theoretical and proves to those that devote themselves to it to be empirical. Some true Christian perennial philosophers are St John of the cross, St Bernard, St Thomas Aquinas, Miester Eckhart, George Fox, William Law, J.J Olier, St Augustine just to name a few. The doctrine they hold true to is that of the pure Christian religion. I recommend you look them up. The spirituality is so radically different from the organized interpretation which instead of preaching and concerning themselves with the eternal gospels and universal truths which are everlasting and beneficial for all mankind, are too preoccupied with events in time which very well could be fabricated and false. Instead of teaching the message of love which Jesus(real or symbolic) taught, they are too busy disparaging other spiritual beliefs and religions which ironically most of the times teach the same principles and values. Christianity is about tolerance of other religions and beliefs and yet it is sad how large a measure of corruption has twisted and manipulated the pure simple message of the perennial philosophy which is based on the teachings of Jesus. Anyway enough of me talking. Here are two pieces of writings written by two articulate perennial philosophers. It is my belief that all christians,buddhists, muslims, hindus and anyone interested in spirituality can find something to relate to in these two marvellous pieces of prose.

If you, illustrious Prince (the words were addressed to the Duke of Wurtemberg) had informed your subjects that you were coming to visit them at an unnamed time, and requested them to be prepared in white garments to meet you at your coming, what would you do if on arrival you should find that, instead of robing themselves in white, they had spent their time in violent debate about your person--some insisting that you were in France, others that you were in Spain; some declaring that you would come on horseback, others that you would come by chariot; some holding that you would come with great pomp and others that you would come without any train or following?

And what especially would you say if they debated not only with words, but with blows of fist and sword strokes, and if some succeeded in killing and destroying others who differed from them? "He will come on horseback." "No, he will not; it will be by chariot." "You lie." "I do not; you are the liar." "Take that"--a blow with the fist. "Take that"---a sword thrust through the body. Prince, what would you think of such citizens? Christ asked us to put on the white robes of a pure and holy life; but what occupies our thoughts? We dispute not only of the way to Christ, but of his relation to God the Father, of the Trinity, of predestination, of free will, of the nature of God, of the angels,of the condition of the soul after death--of a multitude of matters that are not essential to salvation; matters, moreover, which can never be known until our hearts are pure; for they are things which must be spiritually perceived.

-----Sebastion Castellio


Selfishness and partiality are very inhuman and base qualities even in the things of this world; but in the doctrines of religion they are of a baser nature. Now, this is the greatest evil that the division of the church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish, partial orthodoxy, which consists in courageously defending all that it has, and condemning all that it has not. And thus every champion is trained up in defense of their own truth, their own learning and their own church, and he has the most merit, the most honour, who likes everything, defends everything, among themselves, and leaves nothing uncensored in those that are of a different communion.

Now, how can truth and goodness and union and religion be more struck at than by such defenders of it? If you ask why the great Bishop of Meaux wrote so many learned books against all parts of the Reformation, it is because he was born in france and bred up in the bosom of Mother Church. Had he been born in England, had Oxford or Cambridge been his Alma Mater, he might have rivalled our great Bishop Stillingfleet, and would have wrote as many learned folios against the Church of Rome as he has done. And yet I will venture to say that if each Church could produce but one man apiece that had the piety of an apostle and the impartial love of the first Christians in the first Church at Jerusalem, that a Protestant and Papist of this stamp would not want half a sheet of paper to hold their articles of union, nor be half an hour before they were of one religion. If, therefore, it should be said that churches are divided, estranged and made unfriendly to one another by a learning, a logic, a history, a criticism in the hands of partiality, it would be saying that which each particular church too much proves to be true. Ask why even the best among the Catholics are very shy of owning the validity of the orders of our Church; it is because they are afraid of removing odium from the Reformation.

Ask why no Protestants anywhere touch upon the benefit or necessity of celibacy in those who are separated from worldy buisness to preach the gospel; it is because that would be seeming to lesson the Roman error of not suffering marriage in her clergy. Ask why even the most worthy and pious among the clergy of the Established Church are afraid to assert the sufficiency of the Divine Light, the necessity of seeking only the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit; it is because the Quakers, who have broke off from the church, have made this doctrine their corner-stone. If we loved truth as such, if we sought it for its own sake, if we loved our neighbour as ourselves, if we desired nothing by our religion but to be acceptable to God, if we equally desired the salvation of all men, if we were afraid of error only because of its harmful nature to us and our fellow-creatures, then nothing of this spirit could have any place in us.

There is therefore a catholic spirit, a communion of saints in the love of God and all goodness, which no one can learn from that which is called orthodoxy in particular churches, but is only to be had by a total dying to all worldly views, by a pure love of God, and by such an unction from above as delivers the mind from all selfishness and makes it love truth and goodness with an equality of affection in every man, whether he is Christian, Jew or Gentile. He that would obtain this divine and catholic spirit in this disordered, divided part of the church without partaking of its division, must have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind.

First, that universal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and makes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most divine, the Godlike state of the soul, and is the utmost perfection to which the most perfect religion does any man any good but so far as it brings this perfection of love into him. This truth will show us that true orthodoxy can nowhere be found but in a pure disinterested love of God and our neighbour.

Second, that in this present divided state of the church, truth itself is torn and divided asunder; and that, therefore, he can be the only true catholic who has more of truth and less of error than is hedged in by any divided part. This truth will enable us to live in a divided part unhurt by its division, and keep us in a true liberty and fitness to be edified and assisted by all the good that we hear or see in any other part of the church...Thirdly, he must always have in mind this great truth, that it is the glory of the Divine Justice to have no repsect of parties or persons, but to stand equally disposed to that which is right and wrong as well in the Jew as in the Gentile. He therefore that would like as God likes, and condemn as God condemns, must have niether the eyes of the Papist not the Protestant; he must like no truth the less because Ignatius Loyola or John Bunyan were very zealous for it, nor have the less aversion to any error, because Dr. Trapp or George Fox had brought it forth.

---William Law


WASN'T THAT BEAUTIFUL?? HONESTLY, IF ALL CHRISTIANS THOUGHT AND PRACTICED LIKE WILLIAM LAW ,WHO WOULDN'T BE ONE? Any thoughts or opinions on this? I hope you enjoyed reading it.

Some small grammatical errors I had to fix. Hence the edit

It seems the mythologies and the church are more important then the teachings. You will never see a war or a debate start over "love your neighbors". Strip religions of their mythologies and their governments and you will find that all religions ar ebasically the same and teach the same message...which is basically don't be bad.

Yeah. Such simple beneficial commandments become complex arguments which end in wars, mass persecution and mass proselytizing. Such a shame. Thank you for your post.

Most people won't disagree with most of the commandments. Most people won't disagree with the "loving nature" ideas of some pagan religions. Most people won't disagree with the "finding yourself" idea of Buhdism. But somehow when you throw in deities it all gets thrown away.

the difficulty is that it is not so easy to "love thy neighbour" when thy neighbour would easily kill you to secure resources for his own survival.

this is much like how the west sits upon its (porcelain) throne and proclaims how it is so wealthy, so much so that it helps all those without about the world. It conviently overlooks how the exploitations of the west put it in that position. It is easy to give something back after you have taken more than you need.

One of the root messages of the abrahamics is that "dominance" claim. A claim moved aggressively forward by the christian sect. So perhaps we could say that once christianity is finished securing all the world's resources for itself that it might well give that rosey, loving, appearance. Lets not forget the cost paid for it to be so gentile.

All religions have a beauty about them, but when you really look into the history of different religions you'll see each has a dark side. Histories/events that are quite disturbing, but yet they contain a sense of calm and beauty and peace. In my opinion, I think each should hold religion/faith in their own way..instead of being of an organized faith. The key is to be at peace with ones self ..

You are right about the dark side of religion. But is it really the religion or the way people interpret some of the commands/expectations? For example, is there anything in the message of "Love God with all that you are and love people" which gives anyone permission to go around attacking those who don't want to accept that belief and/or have different beliefs? If there is I don't see it, but somehow throughout history many have used "Christianity" as the justification for what would otherwise be easily perceived as xenophobia.

iams,

that is called picking and choosing which parts of the mythology you wish to focus on.

dominion is granted in genesis. Do you deny the book of genesis? If so, what other books do you choose to disregard?

Not that it isn't the norm to do so. After all, man created, and edited, the mythology of christianity (just like all the other mythologies) so if a group of men can pick and choose what its foundation is than surely adherents can pick and choose as well.

religion is not about loving thy neighbour. religion is about codifying the rules of conduct within a society in order to provide the long term stability necessary for it to function. It is rather funny that this very function of stability on a social scale breeds such dysfunction on an individual scale.

love is your being......you ever in your life done anythnig just because ??? its just who you are, you need no reason???? by the very statement you feel you need to love or are required to in and of itself shows your awareness of love which is conditonal.....

Thank you Brave new World for starting this thread. I agree with you that the real message of Christianity is so often forgotten amidst sectarian squabble of one sort or the other. I grew up a member of a small Christian minority in a predominantly non-Christian society. Discrimination by the majority was a constant, whether active or passive. Most of the members of the Christian minority are followers of the native Orthodox church, but many other Christian denominations are present: Anglicans, Catholics (eastern and Roman), Lutherian, Adventist..etc. One thing all had in common was to condemn the other Churches even amidst the discrimination of the larger society. I read once that if all the bibles were destroyed, only one survived, and that bible was torn so that only one page remained, and on this page only one phrase remained "God is Love", then the bible and it's message have survived. Sorry I forgot the source so I can only paraphrase. IMO the source of this squabbling, all the way even to genocides and atrocities throughout human history, is the "US" vs "Them" world view. If we cant use religion as a pretext, we will find something else, even football! Look at the killing fields of Pol Pot, Rwanda and Burundy..etc. But religion, any religion not just Christianity, is an easier excuse/motive. One can feel righteous and justified even while committing a crime. Other higher primates, mostly chimpanzees display the same aggressive behavior and gang up against other groups of chimpanzees. Christianity , as I understand it, puts us on the path to transcend self-centeredness,aggression and learn to love, share and forgive.

If this be true, then it has grieveously failed...look at the history of the religion and you will see that most of the evil during that 2000 years was perpetrated by the religion or at it's instigation! In fact a good read of the bible actually shows less love and more hate than the average documental output of modern extremist organizations!

Mako

I do not know whether it is Christianity that failed or us! Violance occurs with or without Christianity. My point is that it has been used as an excuse for bloodshed. How many millions were killed during the 20th century even without religion as an excuse? how many died in WWI,WWII, by Stalin, Hitler ( other than in direct battle like in concentration camps etc), Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot, Ruwanda & Burundy.... I think the number of victims far exceeds those of religious wars. Why would seemingly sane mature people run amock over a football/soccer match and start tearing the place, and each other, apart? I think it is the human nature that has a violant streak. Hooligans take their identification with a football team to such an extreme that for them it is the defining factor of the "US" vs "THEM". Something in the human nature makes us identify ourselves with a group while viewing the others different from us as antagonists. The difference could be religion, political ideology, skin color, language or even football teams. It is PEOPLE who interpret religion and twist its message...any religion, not just Christianity. Like Brave New World's post, the true message lies deep in the spirit, in truely loving the other, regardless of difference, love, mercy, charity & seeing the divine in the mandane. Personally, I think that the parts of the Bible which best crystalize the essance of Christianity is the Sermon of the Mount and Corinthians 13.

It is PEOPLE that created the religions specifically to define the "US" and the "THEM"! The abrahamic trio sets a classic example of this. Three groups, all of the same deity, thinking the world is theirs to have dominion over. It doesn't get any more US/THEM than that.

Hitler was a professed Christian, contrary to the screams of denial from the present day adherents!

Even if he was a professed Christian, WWII was not a religious war at all, nor was it used as an excuse for it. The main players in both Axis and Allies were "professed Christians" ,with the exception of Japan, no one claimed to go to war for the "glory of christianity" or to spread it. And what about the others then, in Africa and Asia ? If violance occurs in the absence of Christianity, then it cannot be it's sole cause. Also, there are no New Testament texts that I know of which permit or encourage the killing of non believers or aggression against others. Religion is only an easy convenient excuse. Unfortunately, humans are closer to the chimpanzees than the bonobos !

Picking and choosing? What are you talking about? I merely mentioned that I see nothing in the command to love God and love people that entices people to commit acts of violence against others. How do you get picking and choosing from that?

Apparently you want to argue about something, which is fine, but I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth or assign your own reasons to my actions.

What are you talking about?

Do you even bother to read the posts?

Yes, I know, you have every right to post on any thread. I really have no problem with that. And yes, you have the right add your viewpoint to any conversation on any thread, but PLEASE PLEASE if your going to quote my post, then please read it, if you don't understand what I'm talking about ask me or even hyper, if you feel more comfortable with him, and ask for an explanation.

Please explain what you are talking about because I really have no idea.

simple answer iams,

you focused on one message. We must measure a mythology by the entire text, not just select parts. Sure it says to love your fellow man, but when combined with the rest of the texts it says love the fellow members of your clan.

I guess that's your interpretation, but I don't believe that is what the message is at all. And since I believe the New Testament depicts the new covenant God made with mankind... all of mankind instead of just Israel, the message is not just "love the fellow members of your clan," it does mean love all of mankind. Your interpretation seems to support my point that some people somehow see an invitation to attack others in a message that is exclusively about love.

I don't know about Christianity being beautiful, and I have no experiences or even a concept of love, but I'll say unification and peace, two common concepts of various religions is beautiful, certainly. It's too bad religions seem to have a knack for pulling the two apart.

You can not deny the foundation of the mythology.

I see no invitation to attack anything. I see a need to clarify; to separate the purpose from the propaganda.

The foundation of "the mythology" is God putting man in the perfect situation and man deciding to do his own thing anyway and God providing a way to restore a broken relationship. No real command to kill others there either.

hmmm.... what about the fact that judaism is designed as a social contract to keep the tribes united and distinct from other tribes?

that is the foundation.

Thank you for your post.

Your post is much appreciated.

Yeah I agree, he was a "professed" christian. The aim of my topic post is to show the contrasting difference between professed christians and actual christians.

Good post, thank you for posting it. Yes many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But let us never forget that it the religion itself shouldn't be the blame but the people who have selfish hearts and use the religion fulfill one's own selfish desires and cravings for power. I agree whole heartedly that organized religion is only good insofar that it helps one cultivate one's own religion in one's own heart. And the many horrific acts perpetuated in the name of organized religion throughout history up to the present day is very ugly and so evil that nature itself left to itself would be ashamed to own them.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and Great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.----Jesus Christ

Isn't this such a lovely preaching? This is the base of christianity. It amazes me how such a beautiful commandment can become so corrupted by men

This next preaching is from in my opinion the greatest sage of the twentieth century, Ramana Maharshi(Allah bless his soul ). Anyway here it goes:

The ultimate truth is so simple; it is nothing more than being in one's natural original state. It is a great wonder that to teach such a simple truth a number of religions should ne becessary, and so many disputes should go on between them as to which is the God-ordanied teaching. What a pity! What a pity! Just be the Self, that is all. Because people want something elaborate and mysterious, so many religions have come into existence. Only those who are mature can understand the matter in its naked simplicity.

Don't you just love simplicity? "Just be the Self" is the equivalent here to what Jesus said when he said The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Now if one finds the "kingdom of God" within oneself, where is the need for organized religion? Organzied religion is only good insofar as it can help you achieve this, anything besides this is in my opinion pseudo-religion and unnecessary.

You did ot read my entire post earlier in this thread......

The first that comes to mind is this:

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."



"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"

That would be part of the parable of the ten minas. And if read in context it is clear that it is the man of noble birth that said it at the end of the parable.

Shame, shame, zandore.

That was COMPLETELY taken out of CONTEXT!

That verse is the end of a parable and the one who said it was a nobleman who had gone to another country to be declared king and who had countrymen who did not want him as king.

Luke 19:11=27

Actually, if anything you might claim that is the foundation of Israel. That does not necessarily make it the foundation of Christianity.

Sorry Zandore for not replying earlier to your post, I can only plead week-end, single parent, other side of the globe !
Your quotation should be read in context. It is part of a parable about a king who during his absence gave some of his servants various amounts of money to invest for him according to their abilities. Some did, others didn't. Upon his return, the king was angry with those who ,instead of investing the money, hid it, because they did not trust him, so he (the king) said this quotation. The parable is about sharing. The king is God, the servants us, the money: whatever talents, money, education, positive attributes we have. The parable is simply about us being custodians of what we have with an obligation to share it and invest it to the benefit of others. This is our obligation and duty towards God and fellow men to which we are answerable to God. The sin is to hoard and be selfish instead of trusting in God.
To illustrate the real message, I prefer other quotations, "All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword" Matthew 26:52.
"Recompense to no man evil for evil...if it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" Romans 12::17-18.
" Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you.Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" Luke 6:27-28.
Zadore, the failure is ours. It would be so much easier and convenient if we can blame Christianity for our own shortcomings! We can profess to be Christians as much as we want, but the only measure that counts is "let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knowth God. He that loveth not knowth not God; for God is love....If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar..and this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also" 1 John 4:7, 20-21. 'Brother' here does not mean only fellow christians, but ALL people. Christians are urged to be "blamless and harmless". Unfortunately, ours is the failure and the blame!

really?!?!?!?!

lets measure the mythology by its own declarations and standards.

christianity is not different from all other social contract mythologies in its design to unite a group using the tools of distinction. There is nothing easier to bind a group than a common "threat", the "them". Show historically where the treatment of the non-christian has been weighted more towards welcoming of a different belief/culture and less of a welcoming for the purpose of conversion or slaughter. No, there is nothing special about this christianity in its means or its intents. It is all too tribalistic, just like that which it would march against. Granted dominion? The christian mythos would certianly proclaim so. The christian mythology takes the judaic social contract and applies an emperical expanist dogma to it. The best way to compare them would be to say judaism is like a benevelant tumor and christianity is like a malignant tumor (and yes, one can see beauty in a tumor).

This kind of debating is exactly what my topic post is talking about and how unconstructive it is to christianity and spirituality in general. Do any of yous have any comments about William Law or Sebastian Castellio?

so thinking, questioning, and reasoning are now unconstructive?

I didn't even imply that.

ah, but it would seem you did imply just that!

You have suggested to select quotes you find "beautiful" and classify them as the core meaning of christianity, ignoring all those unpleasant things that need to be evaluated and balanced against this supposed beauty. In other words, you seem to be saying, look at this lovely message, ignore the rest, don't think about the history and the formation of the religion, don't ask questions, just smell the pretty spores. Sounds like the old hippy gargon of "drop out, tune out..." (forget what their flower power mantra was word for word).

It does not fly with me. It is akin to saying "look at the visious sadistic serial killer. He has such a pretty face his message must be one of love"

I think brave is talking about the "core" aspects of the religion witch would be "love your neighbor", "be good", etc. Without those core ideas the rest of the religion is pointless.

The mythologies of religion are pointless. Believing that God exists, Gays are evil, or believing that Genesis happened doesn't make you any better of a person.

"A few dirty drops of water doesn't make the whole ocean dirty"

Even though I did not directly refer to either William Law or Sebastian Castellio, I do not see how my posts could be seen as deviating from the subject of this thread. In responding to the other posts I meant to stress what you referred to as the universal truth or simple message of Christianity, using quotations from its primary source, the Bible. Castellio and Law were discussing the division of the church, an expression of human frailty which distracts from the true spiritual message of Christ. Violance in the name of religion is another aspect of the same frailty. In my second post I tried to say that it is how we interpret and practice Christianity that casts a shadow over its message. I have experienced first hand how extreme and even ridiculous situations arising from the division of the church could be ( I was baptized Orthodox, grew up Episcopalian and married Catholic). After so many years of "ours is the One and Only true church"from all sides , I throw up my hands and prefer to cite the Bible! I think Ghandi once said that had it not been for christians, he would have been a christian. The spirituality and mysticism and sense of peace which could be found in christianity is so often overlooked. Dont shoot me ( or shoot me if you want, just join the line) but this is what I believe!

No if you read my topic post I actually point out that there is an ugly side to the religion...Both william law and sebastian castellio both point it out also. What am I ignoring? I also wrote myself that religion when used by people who are selfish becomes base and more base because of the fact it is in religion. It is all there in the posts. Especially william law. It is all there. Did you even read what they said? I think not.

Thank you!

yes, the core is "love your christian neighbour"....

the point of it is is that it is the formation of a social contract, derived from its judaic roots. it uses the power of "others" to reinforce itself consistantly.

brave, you are reading it the way you want it to be rather than how it is!

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.

Yeah you have no idea how aware of this fact I am. I follow according to my own conscience. I interpret it how It makes sense to my conscience because that way I always keep the higher moral ground. When we lose the higher moral ground we cease to be religious.

Just my opinion

Also the core isn;t "love thy christian neighbour" it is "love thy neighbour" jesus makes very clear in the gospels to love all peoples whether pagan or christian.

I liked both of them, specially the first one, considering how true it is. However, I've always been more fond of St. Francis of Assisi (you know, the one who tamed the wolf at Gubbio and founded the Franciscan Order, between many other chapters that I'm not telling because I don't know how to say them on English ), not so much because of his words but rather because of the example he gave with his life and the message he delivered with it: that the very fact that we're here, on this Earth, and all the experiences that come with it, good and bad, are little gifts from God, and we should be thankful for it (you can say that it comes from his love to the natural world)

Thank you for your post.

The core is "Love your neighbor," regardless of who your neighbor is

Luke 10:25-37

It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe that lures him to evil. ----Buddha

That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from, within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornifications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deciet, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come fro within, and defile the mind.--Jesus

Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.--Jesus

If you want to get rid of your enemy, the true way is to realize that your enemy is delusion.--Kegon Sutra

These few examples here are why I see Buddhism and christianity as preaching the same perennial philosophy.