Tuesday, November 08, 2005

clarifying the mess

I am trying to promote healthy relations between the various approaches to spirituality in the people close to me. This is largely for my own benefit, but for everyone else’s just as much. I feel that we will only be close to an understanding of the nature of reality when we can take off the blinders and recognize another person’s perspective as another piece of the puzzle.
Antagonism and combativeness are not in my opinion very efficient ways to communicate, though they can be fun and entertaining. I find it much more constructive when we can focus on the reasoning behind our individual approaches to spirituality without getting caught up in why everyone else is wrong. This sometimes requires that we make distinctions, compare and contrast systems and separate traditions or denominations within a system, but I do not feel such comparisons necessarily imply value judgments.
We are not here to make conversions. Every contributor to this conversation is a strong minded individual who is well established in the reasoning behind their particular beliefs. I am interested in what those reasons are, and the experiences and thoughts that led to them, not in ripping people down for what they believe or the way they believe it.
I think it is a bit unfair to hold one person accountable for the crimes that have been perpetuated in the name of their particular religion, and to equate this abuse with the religion itself.
It would also be helpful if we were not too easily offended by the ignorance or lack of understanding of another, or too ready to jump on semantics or unintentional phraseological inaccuracies, ignoring the core essence of what is being said. I would like to see intelligent dialogue, not clever attack and defense. We are all adults, deserving of equal respect and capable of giving it also.
I am especially interested in enhancing understanding between the magick based and Christian based camps, for obvious reasons. Neither one really understands what the other is about. Is this because we have not cared to listen? I have to listen now, and I have to speak with deeply thoughtful care to one who is listening intently to me.
I would not tolerate him attacking any of you for your particular beliefs, not that he ever would, and so I ask that everyone speak with love for the subject, not distain for the other contributors. I don’t know how to make it any more clear than that. If certain individuals are unable to see the difference between this and censorship, they will be deprived of a learning experience as well as the opportunity to teach.
I insist on this because he has already made a bigger effort to understand my spirituality than I expected. I have met lots of decent Christians, but few who were willing to come down from the pulpit long enough to try to understand me. He had his own preconceptions about paganism, which I have challenged and largely succeeded in clearing up, while at the same time re examining many of my own Ideas and revising certain things. He has come to embody the best aspects of Christianity for me, the greatest of which is Love. He has not made the least effort to convert me, and has shown great respect for my beliefs, even going so far as to create for me the most beautiful gift of magical artwork i have recieved. I am learning a great deal from this man who is not unwilling to learn from me, who is my Priest and counterpart as no trained magician ever was, and is fully deserving of inclusion in the circle of the Wise.
What I am saying is I have chosen. Get used to him.
It is worth noting that so far not one of his Xian friends has taken issue with me for my religion, or with him for dating a witch.
I have begun to make a point of separating my feelings about Christ from my feelings about Christianity, my feelings about Christianity from my feelings about the church, and thanks to increasingly in depth conversations with my Priest I have also begun to make the distinction between the church as an institution and the church as a spiritual community. Then we go one more step and address the individual members of that community as themselves alone. Examine that idea, you guys.
Because so many modern manifestations of magickal traditions are marketed as being alternative to establishment religions, the negative aspects of those religions, their leaders and institutions, tend to be emphasized, possibly to the point of exaggeration. If we fail then to research these traditions with the same objective willingness to learn that we show our own it becomes very easy to vilify them as oppressive. The church turned our gods into devils for the same reasons and now we are doing it to them. Once upon a time the religious systems we borrow so freely from WERE the establishment, and they got toppled.
Can anyone else see this endless cycle for the laughable hubris that it is?
Something that has always appealed to me about the magickal paths is that, while they are exclusive unto themselves they do not deny the validity of other paths. That does not stop many practitioners from being as narrow minded and ignorant as the establishment guys we all poke such fun at, but ideally we should be striving to learn what we can from any and all sources. I am a big fan of appropriating and incorporating whatever tidbits of other religious practices please me, much to the chagrin of strict purists, not naming any names. I believe that it is all one. I believe such lofty Ideas as "world peace" will only be possible when people quit being so fucking tribal and realize that we are all part of this, we are co creating this, it is all from one source. In recognition of this, the central truth of my personal belief system, I freely share magickal "secrets" with whomever I think can use them to enhance their happiness and expand their awareness. I often use words like "art", "affirmations", "psychology", "nurealizm", etc., because of the stigmas that have become attached to magick and psychism, either through fear of its power or contempt for what is viewed as superstition. The things I teach are effective, not because of the names they are called by, but because of the changes they produce in the psyche and the corresponding positive changes that are then created in the world as a result. I am a good priestess, but I preach in the names of wholeness of being, totality of awareness, and general, self evident (to me) good sense.
An awful lot of stupidity and bigotry gets to parade around calling itself religion or philosophy. Everybody up on a high horse thinking they have found the "one truth", dismissing all others, showing nothing but a blind ignorance of the ideologies they arrogantly sweep aside or demonize in favor of their own. It has been pissing me off my whole entire life and that is why I am increasingly such a rabid advocate of universal inclusion.
We will never see the whole picture if we keep tossing out pieces of the puzzle.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.

I'm sorry about all the drama lately. I guess now as we're working out this choice (or this response to the experience that has come into our lives), there are a lot of sensitive issues we're working out. And I know for myself, a lot of ego and pride that has to be detatched.

I do love you though. Very deeply, very truly.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

Cory, do not be sorry for anything, just be....
that is enough

12:41 PM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

This site certainly does have some interesting conversations doesn't it....
Well, let us let the cat out of the bag...
I am a gypsy.
I am a gypsy new age priestess...and tho I may lift my brow at times I am certainly not well paid for all that I do.
As to my question of priests getting paid...let me point out that I ask it because I have often thought of becoming an ordained minister, seeing as to how I now do many of the things they do anyway.
As to a congregation of one?
Well that would work well for me, especially if it meant more time with my family.
Especially when my congregation isn't all local, and often requires me to travel to Vancouver, or Greenwood, or Alberta, or even just recently as far as Pheonix Arizona to work on.
Allow me to point out right now, that I really do not consider any of the ppl I administer too to be real 'congregation' I just use this terminology, to try and find an open ground between what the two of us do.

"unfortunately, because we are not "organized" we also have no support stucture in place to keep us fed while we go about our priestly business, so we have to charge for readings and house cleansings and stuff."

Actually, I offer a lot that I do not charge for...
House cleansings and exorcisms, etc, I do on a donation basis, if you are poor, feed me dinner, if you are rich, I point out I get paid $65/hr, so you can base your donation off of that.

I can and often do find myself working 8 to 15 hr days, travelling from one home to another, healing the sick, and performing rites on the dying, and often I don't get paid there either.

While I am lacking the 'organization' for a backing, and the church for a home, I can still draw a lot of similarities between what you do and I do.

I can and will charge $500 just for one workshop, when it fits...but at the same time, I can and will do $1500 of work for free on a dying cancer 'client' just because they asked me to and the Universe directs me in my calling.

Deciding in any vocation to put yourself out there for 'God' 'Allah' 'Universe', or whatever you feel the name and pathway is, is definetly not easy.

It requires many, many hours of thankless work, dedication, self-sacrifice, learning and growth.
It is not an easy path and not one just anyone can follow. I often reflect on that during the times, where two days have gone by, and I am still struggling to get home to my husband and children, and yet there is just one more client left to deal with.
I often fight about it with my husband, when he feels I should be a little more selfish and spend more time with him.
I often regret it when I am pushing for political issues revolving around poverty and human rights, that have nothing to do with us, but yet have a drastic effect on the whole.
I face the same general antagonisms that you do here Cory, with the exception of being thrown out of most churches as a heretic and a devil's daughter.
I will admit, that a lot of the administrative area I avoid, as it is just me and I don't claim the income...but one day I will have a place of business and non-profit agency to run, so I will have to get around to it.
Do I try and impose my will upon my 'congregation'?
Most definetly not...and to do so would quickly result in not having any.
However, every time I pray for them, every time I channel, heal, fight, help and grow, I am directing their wills...I am assisting them in directing things towards their desired outcomes. I become, for them, a moving body through which their god directs, answers, or sometimes just listens to their prayers, hopes and will.
As are you each and every time you work with your flock, to try and help and guide them, wether it is your intention or not.

As to a 'one truth' I most certainly do not believe in that.
As I stated clearly in the beginning there are many ways to find your way, many truths and many paths to follow. Everytime you think you have found that 'One Truth' up you go to a new level of thinking, where there are a million new truths to discover.
I have already stated once that a true christian can be a very beautiful thing Cory, but equally so, is the simple FACT that Christianity has been at the base of more bloodshed, poison and evil, then any other organized religion ever.
The very job of the Religion is to convert or destroy everyone around it, historically speaking.
But we needn't get into that here.
Perhaps, much like how the religions of the old aeons, are now finding a new light today, and becoming less of the heretical, hierarchial, serve me or die attitude that they held a millenium ago, through Christians like you, so to can your religion be reformed...
I would like that very much, honestly.
And you are right to feel you shouldn't have to pay for the sins of your ancestors, however, is it not YAHWEH himself who decreed the generational curse? Not that I buy into it really, just a thought at what you are facing and dealing with now.
M, in reading your post, I have a few words just for you as well.
He is your priest, and I do accept him as such, and I think it is beautiful, what the two of you have, and the acceptance which you met amongst his peers.
It is too bad that the both of you are taking our discussions so personally, as I feel I am learning a lot from the conversations ebbs and flows.
I find it a little sad, and perhaps, shall I say bordering on hypocritical, that each time the rest of us open our mouths about or beliefs, view points, areas of study or expertise, we are being attacked as well.
This last blog strikes me a lot like, hail Cory or go to hell.
Take a look a D for example. Many of D's statements, are not religious at all, the information he is choosing to share with us, comes from 20 years or more, of studying archealogy, history, ancient cultures and religions. Having nothing to do with religious beliefs at all, more importantly having to do with science, and scholarly approaches.
Strixy? Well in my humble opinion he is not trying to thwart anyone, just saying what he knows and has learnt and the truths he has found for him as well.
He of the many names?
Ok well, perhaps a bit antagonistic, but he is like that with all of us anyway, and always has been. I like to think of it in terms of the devils advocate, challenging my beliefs to see just how firm I am in them.
Cory, interesting insight, still a bit feather ruffled, and it is unfortunate that you cannot 'read' facial structure and tone, because Cory, I swear, my questions are not attacks, merely an attempt to draw out of you what you know and who you are.
I am able to negotiate conversation, without slight at the hidden insults layed at me, and I have caught a few....
Neutered, priestess of one. High Browed gypsy new age flake. That sort of thing.
We cannot blend and know unless all can speak, and all cannot speak, if every time our convo differs from ones point of view, we are told to shut up, accept and quit talking...
At least that is my view.
But once again, as your latest blog so clearly defines M. One does tend to get a little heated, and overreactive, when one feels threatened in viewpoint or beliefs....
I think the kiddies should be best left to figure it out for themselves...can they get along, or will they fight? Can they discuss their differences, so as all can learn and grow, or shall we be silent, and listen purely to what Cory has to say, allowing ourselves to be converted to his line of thinking in order to keep the peace.
Just which puzzle pieces are getting tossed in this equation anyway?
And then again, the same back to ourselves i suppose, as I am quite sure, I have just taken wrong all you had to say.
Beautiful defense of your chosen lover M....
Do not get me wrong.
And Cory, I accept you as all she presents you to be...I would like just to learn a little more for myself is all.

Neph

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a gypsy.

Neat, so am I. Or at least, my dad thinks that Romani is somewhere in the Balkan background of my maternal grandfather.

As to a 'one truth' I most certainly do not believe in that.

Which is itself an affirmation of truth. It is nearly impossible to get around the performative contradiction, which is simply that one follows what they do, in fact, believe to be true.

What matters to me are not "cosmetic" appearances of being multicultural, but rather, what does your truth-claim have to say about people who do not share your truth-claim. That is where one's true multicultural mettle is demonstrated.

the simple FACT that Christianity has been at the base of more bloodshed, poison and evil, then any other organized religion ever.

I completely disagree with that.

I think one of the most interesting experiments in all of human history was the separation of Church and State. It started with one apparent goal, which was to bring humanity out of a dark age of superstition and inhumanity by divorcing the evils of religion from the mechanisms of government authority.

After the bloodiest and most violent century in all of human history, we learned something very interesting: all along, apparently it was the government authority that was the problem, not the evil religion. Divorced from secular power, Christianity seemed to revert quite easily back to its social justice roots...

To the point, if one wants to blame Christianity for the evils of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, and the residential schools, then one must also be honest enough to admit the positive things that Christianity has been responsible for in terms of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, Archbishop Oscar Romero and Liberation Theology, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Truth Commission, Tommy Douglas and universal health care, the Famous Five and the recognition of women as persons under British law, the Confessing Church, the Social Gospel Movement, the abolition of slavery, and Martin Luther and his zany little Reformation, to whom all of us owe the debt of being able to "think for ourselves".

You said before that our society is indellibly marked as Christian by it's bloodshed. I dispute that given the prevalence of bloodshed in secular and non-Christian times and societies. I do agree, though, that our society is indellibly marked by Christianity, and you see that mark every time you as a woman get to vote, when people of different races get to drink out of the same water fountains, and you can afford to go to the emergency room.

I admit though, the State pulled a good fast one. People still cling to the notion of the Church's evil and absolve the State of all wrongdoing, though the State has not changed it's habits one whit. That is a pretty good trick indeed.

I do, for the record, support the separation of the Church and State. It's been nothing but bad news for the Church, and I think the State should stand alone and exposed as the instrument of violence and power that it is. And I don't just mean the Christian Church. How easily we seem to have forgotten the Romes and Greeces and Egypts that arise when paganism is wed to power. Speaking from the Christian experience, I'd rather save Wicca the embarrassment of fracturing off into warring denominational factions while slaughtering anyone who didn't subscribe to Wiccan dogma. Because if you get political power, that will happen. And don't think that your dogma makes you immune, since prior to 313 AD, we thought so too.

The very job of the Religion is to convert or destroy everyone around it, historically speaking.

Which part of history? I agree that this is what State authority did with cosmetically Christian glosses, but so to did Egypt and Rome and Babylon and Greece and Japan and China and India and the Iroquois and Maya and Aztecs and Coast Salish and... Now that we've seen what happens when you divorce State authority from religion, it is apparent that the only common factor is the State authority.

through Christians like you, so to can your religion be reformed...

Or reclaimed, as the case may be.

And you are right to feel you shouldn't have to pay for the sins of your ancestors, however, is it not YAHWEH himself who decreed the generational curse?

Looking at it from a social justice and power relations perspective, the sins and corruptions upon which a system is built can affect generations as a natural consequence. A society built on injustice will suffer the consequences of that injustice for generations. That's just what happens. YHWH's generational curse is just a poetic way of stating it.

It is too bad that the both of you are taking our discussions so personally, as I feel I am learning a lot from the conversations ebbs and flows.

Well, I think I articulated that reason for myself... It is part the difference in how we relate to eachother in my liberal Protestant ghetto and another part reaction against what I feel to be unfair generalizations and double-standards.

my questions are not attacks, merely an attempt to draw out of you what you know and who you are.

Okay.

I am able to negotiate conversation, without slight at the hidden insults layed at me, and I have caught a few....

I apologize for any that have slipped into my posts.

or shall we be silent, and listen purely to what Cory has to say, allowing ourselves to be converted to his line of thinking in order to keep the peace.

I don't really want to dare to think I can speak for Mandi, but I'm pretty sure that's not at all what she's getting at. For myself, I don't require that anybody agree with me. I simply ask for a fair hearing, as opposed to "when did you stop beating your wife?" sorts of questions.

1:53 PM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

"What matters to me are not "cosmetic" appearances of being multicultural, but rather, what does your truth-claim have to say about people who do not share your truth-claim."

I agree actually totally of the point you have made above that statement...
I would also really like to know how you are getting the previous comments italicized, as for me it is either all or nothing....do share....

What does my truth-claim have to say about ppl who do not share it?
ummm, hmm interesting question.
In my practice, I tend to wrap my 'wording' around which ever particular diety or expression of truth my clientele desires, personally...
Live and let Live would be my best answer there...;)

"I think one of the most interesting experiments in all of human history was the separation of Church and State."

In that I can agree...
Perhaps with your points you are correct in some ways...
You see, here I revert back to earlier conversations about clergy and organized religion,
and how I feel that All organized religion, tends to sway a persons perspective towards their own...to organize, categorize, labelize, truth, and then to suggest that everyone view it as their own.
Examples in every religion appear, but we have tactfully avoided the primary basis, to which all examples point....
In the bible itself, it is declared that those not following the 'christian way' are going to hell does it not?
That appears pretty secular.
Listen to God YHWH, or pay...really, is what I see out of that...

I agree also, that there are certainly many good, positive and just things that have resulted from Christianity, although, I will point out that prior to the Christian movement, and the cutting out of the Goddess, many societies were in themselves Matriarchal, and that in a lot of ways, women only lost the right to vote, through the good Christian perspective of honoring thy father, and the new Patriarch version whereby woman was honored as no less then a dog to be her husbands servant.
A classic example of this history, on our own soil, is in the Native American Culture, where women, where highly honored and respected and well sought after for advice, healing and leadership, that is until the Residential Schools and the Reforming of the native peoples into good christians.

While I do not disagree, that there was a prevalence of bloodshed, amongst any and all organized religion (and even many of the not so organized religions) I point to the fact that no one religion made it to global hieghts other then Christianity. Truly this religion has conquered the globe as no other, and it is simply through this large scale domination that it wins the cake...
Were it the Celts, I would be equally as quick to attack them....and frankly, I have swords there too.

Were it the Wiccans, I shudder at the thought, for at least with christians there is a place for darkness....no other group have I encountered to day that is more festered by be like me or be damned.
Except for maybe the Lightworkers....lmao.

Church and state...hmmm
I agree with you there...that is something that should be kept seperated, and when stripping the Christian of the ability to combine teachings with power and authority, we have gone a long way to end the corruption that has so stained your religion for sure. Also, I agree with reclaiming it. It should be claimed by the meek...perhaps then it would not be so hypocritical.

State is definetly behind many of these things as you point out. State, and Power.

"You said before that our society is indellibly marked as Christian by it's bloodshed. I dispute that given the prevalence of bloodshed in secular and non-Christian times and societies. I do agree, though, that our society is indellibly marked by Christianity, and you see that mark every time you as a woman get to vote, when people of different races get to drink out of the same water fountains, and you can afford to go to the emergency room."

Here I would tend to disagree, as it was the proper christian way, and well taught in the times prior to this, that the White man was king, and authority, that slaves were meant to serve and women bow down to master. Before women earned the right to vote, and a few good voices were raised, first it was trial by fire, and they were burnt at the stake.
I would tend to put more faith in a few good Gnostic, Pagan, and Native American beliefs finally emerging to make some sense of a fine christian rule, persuading the hearts and minds of men,
but of course this is semantics....

The Romans, are really the primary essence of the corruption of Church, State, and Power in my books, not so much the Lutherans, who have a much more open mind I believe, so no, that is not paganry wedded to power.

Also the Egyptians, I believe, were more about Occult studies and Magick then about Pagan beliefs and superstitions....

as too Babylon, my posts are long enough without that inference....
The problem with so many of these other examples, is so few were organized, rather, bands of barbarians eternally warring each other, which banded together to destroy one common enemy....
Rome and the Church...
all in the name of Freedom.
Unfortunately, they were not the smartest, nor the most successful. And yes, there pride was their fall in the end, look at ancient Albion, who could so easily have defeated Rome in a heartbeat, had they but just listened to Caradoc the first time.

Unfortunately, in this, christianity won out by playing on the greeds and injustices of those who came before, then, in my eyes, proved themselves to be just another tool for those greeds and injustices, before a few good men had the reason and ability to stand out and say I will not condone this any longer.

"YHWH's generational curse is just a poetic way of stating it."

Possibly, that may be true...however there truly are those cursed by God...and this goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, are we not ALL cursed, because of two people a millenia ago, who had nothing to do with us now other then simple ancestry?

"I am able to negotiate conversation, without slight at the hidden insults layed at me, and I have caught a few...."

No Xtian you have layed none at me, nor am I insulted by any which have been layed, just me trying to point out we are a bunch of jackals, with attitudes, and plz don't take it all personally.

On further step needs to be made in our discussions, and that is seperating church, or religion from individual...
There are many factions of Christianity, and they are equally as diverse as the other religions.
I may not agree with your Church, especially not Church and State, but you are right in pointing out that a few at the top corrupted it for many,
And belief in a gentle, compassionate and loving god is not something to be crucified about.
A true Christian, does not try to force their beliefs on another, nor try to rule a kingdom, a true christian recognizes the need for justice and equality, for helping the meek, and feeding the poor. Most Christians today no very little about the politics, gameplaying, and real agendas of the fathers who built the church before them.
Then again, most are brainwashed like sheep, believing with out question, challenging with nothing to back it either.
Please keep going Cory....I like your perspective.

As to M, I am pretty sure it isn't either, I just wanted to point out similarities....

3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn, why do I have to be stuck in Edmonton on business??! I need a bumper sticker that reads, "I would rather be blogging".

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also really like to know how you are getting the previous comments italicized, as for me it is either all or nothing....do share....

All you have to do is close out the HTML code. At the end of the section you want to italicize, put in another HTML tag with a "/" right before the "i".

...I feel that All organized religion, tends to sway a persons perspective towards their own...to organize, categorize, labelize, truth, and then to suggest that everyone view it as their own.

I would argue that disorganized religions do the same. It's the performative contradiction again, and it wouldn't be possible for someone to argue for universalism if they didn't think it was superior.

In the bible itself, it is declared that those not following the 'christian way' are going to hell does it not?

Not necessarily. There are several passages which hint at a belief in universal salvation (that all people are saved through Christ; 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10 are examples).

One must also remember that when talking about salvation, they're not just talking about accepting certain dogmatic propositions to attain an afterlife reward. They're talking about a whole way of life in contradiction to the Roman and Hebrew power establishments. It isn't that if you accept their dogmas you get into Heaven and if you don't you are punished with Hell, but rather, that you will lead a better, more fulfilling way of life in Christ and be living a kind of "Hell" if you don't.

I will point out that prior to the Christian movement, and the cutting out of the Goddess, many societies were in themselves Matriarchal,

Some were, some weren't. And even then, these matriarchal agrarian societies had some pretty unsavory features. Human sacrifices to retain crop fertility amongst them.

and that in a lot of ways, women only lost the right to vote, through the good Christian perspective of honoring thy father,

Actually, one of the major features - and criticisms - of Christianity was how egalitarian it was towards women at the crossroads of extremely patriarchist Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures. Roman anti-Christian propagandists made much ado about how the faith "preyed" upon the inferior minds of women, children, the slaves and the senile.

Besides, the commandment you're half quoting is "honor thy father and mother".

A classic example of this history, on our own soil, is in the Native American Culture,

Which Native American culture?

One of the major fallacies of dominant white society is the notion that there is some kind of single, universal First Nations culture and religion. There isn't. Over time and distance, the First Nations were every bit as culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse in North and South America as the "First Nations" of Eurasia and Africa are. Pan-Indianism is a relatively recent invention of post-colonialism.

I point to the fact that no one religion made it to global hieghts other then Christianity.

Which is a function of historical incident more than any supposed inherent bloodiness to Christianity. Technology simply made it possible for Christianity spread as far as it has, first piggybacking on the roads built and protected by the preexisting Pax Romana, and now piggybacking on the internet developed by the US military. In that regard though, we absolutely cannot downplay the efforts at world conquest made by the Alexanders, Caesars and Kahns of the world. And there is simply a sounder argument to be made them to Charlemagne than suggesting that somehow Christianity was uniquely worse in the world conquest game than anybody else. Which still implicates everybody else.

I would tend to put more faith in a few good Gnostic, Pagan, and Native American beliefs finally emerging to make some sense of a fine christian rule, persuading the hearts and minds of men,
but of course this is semantics....


Perhaps it is semantics, but it further girds up my hypothesis that apparently any injustice is enough to condemn the whole while no act of justice is enough to redeem anything. The bad things are taken as type - even if they were a type that existed long before Christianity ever came on the scene, in cultures routinely idolized by our critics - while the good things are taken as exceptions which cannot be attributed to Christians actually getting their shit together.

The Romans, are really the primary essence of the corruption of Church, State, and Power in my books, not so much the Lutherans, who have a much more open mind I believe, so no, that is not paganry wedded to power.

I was thinking of the Roman Empire, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Also the Egyptians, I believe, were more about Occult studies and Magick then about Pagan beliefs and superstitions....

Same thing in the context in which I was using it.

The problem with so many of these other examples, is so few were organized, rather, bands of barbarians eternally warring each other, which banded together to destroy one common enemy....

It's all the same. Only the scale differs.

christianity won out by playing on the greeds and injustices of those who came before, then, in my eyes, proved themselves to be just another tool for those greeds and injustices,

To this I defer to G.K. Chesterton: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." Christianity did not play on the greeds and injustices of anyone... It got played by the greeds and injustices of others.

and this goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, are we not ALL cursed, because of two people a millenia ago, who had nothing to do with us now other then simple ancestry?

Well, I don't take the second (or the first) Creation story as history. It's not about some historic personalities named Adam and Eve. The Fall isn't a punishment arbitrarily placed by God, but rather, an observation on the human condition.

Most Christians today no very little about the politics, gameplaying, and real agendas of the fathers who built the church before them.

This isn't a shot at you, but most of our critics don't either, for that matter.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

thanks on the italics...
"I would argue that disorganized religions do the same. It's the performative contradiction again, and it wouldn't be possible for someone to argue for universalism if they didn't think it was superior."

Ummm no actually, not superior...kinda a yin yang sort of thing, each has their place and time...but you are right tho :) I am doing exactly what I am suggesting an organization does..;)

Not necessarily. There are several passages which hint at a belief in universal salvation (that all people are saved through Christ; 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10 are examples).

Good Form....

"They're talking about a whole way of life in contradiction to the Roman and Hebrew power establishments"

An interesting perspective, but still a political move nonetheless...again church vrs state...

"It isn't that if you accept their dogmas you get into Heaven and if you don't you are punished with Hell, but rather, that you will lead a better, more fulfilling way of life in Christ and be living a kind of "Hell" if you don't."

Interesting again, one person's heavan.....haha
live and let live....

"Some were, some weren't. And even then, these matriarchal agrarian societies had some pretty unsavory features. Human sacrifices to retain crop fertility amongst them."

I most certainly agree...in this we can thank Christ also, for Christ gave his blood so no more blood needed be spilt, guess Bush missed that one ;)

" Roman anti-Christian propagandists made much ado about how the faith "preyed" upon the inferior minds of women, children, the slaves and the senile."


hmmm. these same Romans who threw their slaves into the gladiator arena? Rome, nope, no point in bringing up Rome.
Roman Christian Propagandists rape and murder small boys, burn villages and torture good women.

Rome itself seems to be a central figure in the 'fucking things up' arena.
Let us not forget that Rome was the very center of the theft and bastardization of all that is once holy and enlightened.
Not just the crucible, or hub upon wich the entire christian faith decays, but that of a great deal of deeper and older religions also.
There is nothing but evil from Rome.
Bush's Holy war and Rome equate the same face for me.

"Besides, the commandment you're half quoting is "honor thy father and mother".

Umm no actually, I am surprised I half quoted a commandment actually.
I am referring more directly to the Patriarchal God, He, ect.
I am referring to the fact that the idea of a Goddess is actually cut right out of the picture, and a mortal woman is brought in instead.

I am referring to a "Good Christian Home" Such as one I spent a great deal of time in as a small child.
And a great white american atmosphere where this point of view prevailed before the womans movement and womans lib...
After all it was a part of the whole 'civilizing' movement.

"Which Native American culture"

Actually, woman seems to have a place that is consistent throughout the many and varied cultures that different tribes and bands developed.
which is why I kinda tied it all together...
However that comment kinda sources it for me...

Christianity did play a tremendous role in banding together all of these various factions of different beliefs, the whole reason they succumbed to begin with is because they could not unite long enough to fight it.
However, I do not believe that just because that was so that it is invalidated.
Again reflect for a moment upon our modern society...
Is there anything beautiful in what humankind has become, and what it is doing to itself?

Perhaps we agree on your supposition that it was not the religion, that brought this blight upon itself, but the state, or politics that piggy backed it's way across Christianity.

Was it Christ himself that was the Inquisition, no, nothing more then a greedy man or two with strong sadistic urges.

"Same thing in the context in which I was using it."

I see a big difference, pagan superstition is almost in opposition with the detailed science and mathematics involved in occult magick and ritual.
However, again, taken in context, fair enough, traditionally the two are banded together in an axis of evil for the Christian viewpoint

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

There are those who would beg to differ...

"Christianity did not play on the greeds and injustices of anyone... It got played by the greeds and injustices of others."

Fair enough. depending upon context.

"Well, I don't take the second (or the first) Creation story as history. It's not about some historic personalities named Adam and Eve. The Fall isn't a punishment arbitrarily placed by God, but rather, an observation on the human condition."

An interesting analysis....

"This isn't a shot at you, but most of our critics don't either, for that matter."

I completely agree...

you are a very interesting christian aren't you?;)

9:44 PM  
Blogger idnami said...

"This last blog strikes me a lot like, hail Cory or go to hell."
woah.
my dear neph i very much hope you know me better than that. i am crazy mad in love with this guy, but i have never been like THAT.
cory is unaccustomed to the ordeals we all put each other through, and the ways in which we all routinely challenge each other. even if he were, i still maintain that we will have a better discussion if we speak of our own spirituality and refrain from taking unnecessary pokes at others. i was not pointing fingers at anyone specific in my frustration. i myself have not been above certain forms of prejudice. i just think that we should try to be aware of our prejudices and try to behave better.
listening objectively is also helpful but i dont believe i demanded that any of us simply believe everything we read. nor did i attempt to shut down anything but the snarky attitudes. everyone can speak of the things they know without having to attack others.
he and i have quite intense discussions on these matters (yes he really is an interesting xian) but there is a deep respect for one another that makes us measure our words carefully. this puts one into a very contemplative consciousness that is excellent for forming clear statements and also for understanding clearly what you are being told, whether or not you agree with it. i have begun to think it may just be a good way to relate to everyone. instead of coming out agressively, make it safe and comfortable to speak freely and openheartedly. openheartedly i say, with compassion and respect. i like the tone of the preceeding comments a great deal.
i do not insist that you like him, though you will if you look at him for the person that he is. all i said was get used to him, and i meant it. it is not an imposition i make on you, but something i have come to realization of in myself. he will be sticking around, and all them as loves me are stuck with him by extension. as to the rest, he is doing just fine speaking for himself.

11:50 PM  
Blogger idnami said...

universal inclusion does not neccesarily imply universal method. it implies a lot more tolerance and open minded willingness to overcome boundaries, fears and prejudices than most of the world of humans is ever likely to show. we all have our pipe dreams, this is mine.
i dont think hatred for ones previous state naturally follows ascension to higher states of awareness. i dont think hatred and intolerance has any part in true spirituality. i will go so far as to say that if your new state demands these attitudes in order to justify itself as "better" maybe you arent really advancing at all. the higher one moves in states of consciousness the more compassionate attitudes it produces as one comes to more complete understanding of the larger picture. as one enters these states, opposing viewpoints become much less scary and we no longer need to defend our ways of thinking by making negative comparisons. thats whatcha call "inner peace". doesnt mean you agree with everything, but it does mean that you are responding to the world from a place of thoughtful understanding instead of reacting to emotional angst, and when you can understand a thing there is no need to hate it.

7:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An interesting perspective, but still a political move nonetheless...again church vrs state...

Yeah, I don't deny at all that there is an inherent politics to the Beatitudes. It's not a politics of power, however, and that's what proves it for me.

Interesting again, one person's heavan.....haha
live and let live....


Unfortunately, one other person's Heaven resulted in someone else's Hell, and there were perfectly valid reasons for questioning how Heavenly the other person's Heaven is. A modern equivalent would be a kid in a sweatshop developing a Heavenly ideal that doesn't involve near-starvation, slavery and mutilation, and then having the wherewithal to point the finger at the ambivilance towards life of the society that owns the sweatshop. As we in the West dally about with entertainments, commodities and liesure spirituality, we have absolutely no real concept whatsoever of what life is like for the other 2/3rds of the world. I think this is quite comparable to the world that Christianity entered into in the 1st century.

I most certainly agree...in this we can thank Christ also, for Christ gave his blood so no more blood needed be spilt, guess Bush missed that one ;)

No kidding.

Roman Christian Propagandists rape and murder small boys, burn villages and torture good women.

I'm not about to defend the Catholic Church, but it's been a pretty long time since any villages have been burned and women tortured.

Not just the crucible, or hub upon wich the entire christian faith decays,

Or even "at all".

I am referring to the fact that the idea of a Goddess is actually cut right out of the picture, and a mortal woman is brought in instead.

That, I think, is a product of poor theology on the part of both lay-people and clergy. Properly understood, the Divine includes and transcends both masculine and feminine (which for the most part I view as simply being products of evolutionary biological happenstance, generally unconvinced that there are any necessary masculine and feminine attributes). Unfortunately, to many, that can be seen as "cutting out" the feminine, and so the next best thing is found: Mary. But regardless, that isn't a properly nuanced theological understanding.

Christianity did play a tremendous role in banding together all of these various factions of different beliefs, the whole reason they succumbed to begin with is because they could not unite long enough to fight it.
However, I do not believe that just because that was so that it is invalidated.


Are you talking here about the Pan-Indian movement?

I see a big difference, pagan superstition is almost in opposition with the detailed science and mathematics involved in occult magick and ritual.

I actually don't see the difference. The idea of magic as a personal spiritual path seems to be a relatively recent invention, and I'm still not entirely sure that it drops all that far from the tree of a "scientific" method of control. In the best expressions it certainly does, but for a good number - like their "consumer Christian" kin - it definitely falls into that.

There are those who would beg to differ...

It was to them that Chesterton drafted that quote and the book it is found in.

Very few people have tried to live according to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the rest of the actual teachings found in the New Testament. Those that have done so have led exemplary lives that speak for themselves.

The evils that have been done with the gloss of cosmetic Christianity are not the Christian ideal. They are a divorce from the Christian ideal. It has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.

you are a very interesting christian aren't you?;)

I yam what I yam ^_^

7:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if i see your xian saying he doesnt direct peoples will in one sentence then say does in another, i may point out the contradiction. in spite of the semantics the hypocrisy is still apparent.

Call what one will. I think I explained it clearly enough.

a greater motivator was civil unrest and the progress of consciousness developement in society through education and experience. certainly christian opportunists used it as a vehicle for their agenda of expounding christian propaganda and still do as it is seen here.

"Christian opportunists" is an interesting way of talking about people possessing such obvious character and dedication who have earned their universal regard. Thankfully, the depth of their accomplishments speak for themselves. Personally, I am flattered that you would even put in a comparable class with MLK, the Famous Five, Tommy Douglas, Oscar Romero and Desmond Tutu. I pray that I may live up to such high standards.

What I find really interesting is how readily you seem to suggest that progress is some kind of force that comes down from on high and which these Christians simply leeched onto rather than as a historical process engaged by individuals, of which many involved were Christians motivated by what they believed to be the demands of their faith.

The error in this ahistorical perspective (which seems to crop up a lot in your criticisms, where you frequently divorce a text or an event from the historical and contextual forces that gave rise to it) is well contradicted by the laundry list of how Christianity has been a force for progress, from the socially progressive teachings of the New Testament to the egalitarianism of the early Church to the academics of Scholasticism to the Church's patronage of the Renaissance to the liberality of the Reformation to the social justice work engaged by the Social Gospel.

certainly moral idealism can be rationalized but this christian ideal is based upon the assumption that people cannot learn to behave without christian moral stricture.

On the contrary, "Christian moral structure" requires thinking through things for oneself and seeking the Spirit of the Law as opposed to simply following the letter of it. In fact, one of the biggest conflict points between Judaism as a whole and the little Jewish sect called "The Way" was the radical notion that some Laws may need to be broken so that justice can prevail.

to lead a 'good life' one does not need christian moral stricture, to believe one does is foolish disregard of an individuals own intelligence and their ability to reason without need of biblical superstition.

As many have noted, however, Reason is an instrument, not a conclusion. You made this same leap when you stated that skepticism is opposed to Christianity. Skepticism is not "opposed" to anything. Skepticism is a tool, an approach.

So too is Reason. It does not supplant. It supplements. But it is ultimately unladen by values, and Reason can be applied to some pretty dastardly values (the mechanization of human destruction in the 20th century, for instance).

To invoke Reason but insist that in inherently leads one to what is taken for granted as a "moral path" by 21 centuries of Christian influence is simply to smuggle in one's own religious values undercover.

7:58 AM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

woah.
my dear neph i very much hope you know me better than that.


yes I most certainly do, I was using this as an example of how quickly and easily things can be taken out of context, to create insult and injury for everyone....:)
Perhaps not all things written are meant as to how they may appear!:)

3:21 PM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

i do not insist that you like him, though you will if you look at him for the person that he is. all i said was get used to him, and i meant it.

Actually I already like him...
And he does speak quite well for himself....

I was reading your blog Xian, and you were right...

"It isn't so much that we individual Christians are blamed personally for the crimes of the past so much as we are blamed for following a belief system that they believe led to those crimes. Much like how an individual skinhead may not have actually engaged in any hate crimes against Jews, but are still held in contempt for adhering to Naziism."

You are right that is exactly what I have been doing...
I guess you are well aware of what my analysis of Christianity, leading up to the 21 Century, and the influence it has made on spiritual evolution.
I am aware you have a definetly more uplifting perspective...

I like some of the things you have written on your blog, about who you are and what kind of christian...

I also like the fact that you source more then just the bible at me...
What is your perspective of the King James Version?
Seeing as to how you see much of the legend as myth or fable, does this mean you can see the correspondance between biblical texts, and ancient, pre-dated texts with the myths they have created?
If so how do you explain that?
Do you see christianity as a continual refining of those myths and tales?
How, as an individual Christian, do you relate yourself to god?
Aside from the service and self-sacrifice?

You are correct in the accusation of having you stand up to the sins of your religion...and you stood well against it...most xtians i speak with don't make it that far.

oh and by the way...

"I'm not about to defend the Catholic Church, but it's been a pretty long time since any villages have been burned and women tortured."

Perhaps but not since residential schools and the raping of small boys...however, seeing as to how you are not Catholic, we needn't banter that out...
Aside from which, like I said, I liked John Paul...


You are right somebody, live and let live does not bring about world peace....
it is an apathetic cop out

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you are well aware of what my analysis of Christianity, leading up to the 21 Century, and the influence it has made on spiritual evolution.
I am aware you have a definetly more uplifting perspective...


I just think you focus on the negatives, which is understandable given your personal experience, while downplaying or ignoring the positives, and do so from a context that doesn't feel the necessary compulsion to wrestle theologically with these things. The negatives are all there... It's just not a complete picture if that's all that is looked at.

I also like the fact that you source more then just the bible at me...

The Bible isn't the only source of wisdom. It's just the source that we Christians have compiled and decided upon as normatively authoritative for our faith. And even that doesn't absolve us of thinking about what's written.

What is your perspective of the King James Version?

Beautifully poetic, but there are far better and more readable translations out there.

Seeing as to how you see much of the legend as myth or fable, does this mean you can see the correspondance between biblical texts, and ancient, pre-dated texts with the myths they have created?

Certainly. I don't exclude the wisdom to be found in other mythologies, philosophies and religions. I happen to find The Epic of Gilgamesh particularly interesting.

However, as I examine these correspondences, what I am increasingly impressed with is how the Jewish renditions of them differ and subvert their meanings. Walter Wink, for instance, has discussed much on the difference between the Hebrew Creation myths and those of the surrounding Mesopotamian culture. Where something like that becomes important is when we consider how the "pagan" (in the broadest sense) Myth of Redemptive Violence supports systems of oppression.

But yeah, it is awfully tempting to say that Jews and Christians just plagiarized others. But the really interesting insight into the whole thing is to be gained by examine what we changed about them. That is where you find what is, in my opinion, the subversive brilliance of the Hebrew mind.

Do you see christianity as a continual refining of those myths and tales?

Christianity is less of a refinement of mythology as much as a refinement of the idea of the Divine and the implications of that for human behavior.

What I would love to see put together some day (and perhaps I will take on such a project in my career) is a Bible arranged according to when the books were written, beginning with Job and ending with John's writings. When arranged chronologically, one definitely sees a progression in the idea of God from a tribal sky deity to the Cosmic Christ, and the continual expansion of social orders from the tribal "Chosen Ones" to the egalitarian "there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female". Though lacking nuance, one is easily given to looking at YHWH as a typically capricious Mesopotamian god. But by the final books of the Bible, it is affirmed "God is Love".

How, as an individual Christian, do you relate yourself to god?
Aside from the service and self-sacrifice?


That question would take a lifetime to answer. But the basic principle underlying it is the verse of Rumi's: "Any movement or sound is a profession of faith, as the millstone grinding is explaining how it believes in the river!"

God is Love, and this Love is the source of my whole being. My purpose is to live in the embrace of this Love, and all that entails.

Perhaps but not since residential schools and the raping of small boys...

I've sat across the table from Native men who survived the schools and I have in my acquaintance sincere people of the United and Anglican Churches who are working with Native communities to restore healing and identity.

I know you didn't intend it as such, but I find that the more involved I am with a particular issue, or the more I am acquainted with those who are, the less inclined I am to dance with it as a point of abstract debate. It's a sensitive point to have these sorts of things thrown up in our faces when we are, in fact, working through them. I also feel bad for the victims who are having their tragedy used as a talking point.

Again, I'm sure you're not guilty of that yourself and didn't mean it in any such way. But in case I get all mushy angsty liberal Protestant, that's part of why. If you really want to see me pop off, ask me about the German civilian experience during and after WWII ^_^

7:03 PM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

"It's a sensitive point to have these sorts of things thrown up in our faces when we are, in fact, working through them."

I can respect that...

7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

M - I love you and your choices. I don't need to understand them. I will say that Cory has a beautiful vibe about him, and I would consider myself lucky to count him as a friend. I can't wait to discuss intersubjectivity, circular logic, art, music, and movies with him. It seems to me that I would debate with him and anyone else about any of those topics. It is simply that existentialism has been the topic if choice of late. So, let's talk about something else. I think a good debate on the merits/flaws of the cut on action shot in the "stuck in the middle with you" scene of Reservoir Dogs would be enlightening. Pardon the pun.

Seriously, I wish you both the best. (and him the best of LUCK! HA!)

-Mike

10:39 PM  
Blogger idnami said...

i hated reservior dogs and never want to see it again. the end. back to existentialism.

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no i see social progress as an indictor of the general level of human intellectual developement within a society. there are many causes that are worthwhile in terms of social progress that are not achievable due to the current level human intellectual developement.

And I would agree with you. Where I see the ahistorical error is in your divorcing the dominant global intellectual, moral and religious force of the past 2 millenia from this process. Except, it seems, when you wish to ascribe blame for the bad things, which only reveals a bias every bit as propagandistic as what my bias is being accused of.

To rip Christianity out of this progress of intellectual development, only to reapply it as an "oppertunistic" gloss later on, is to commit a grave historical error. The fact is that Christianity is a historical movement that has shaped Western and global civilization and contributed both conceptually and specifically to social progress.

Examining the origins of Christianity is, I hope, illustrative of my point. One could say that when it entered the world of the 1st century, Christianity opportunistically exploited the outcasts, slaves, widows and orphans, old and young, the meek and the otherwise disenfranchised. Or one could say that Christianity was a movement of the outcasts, slaves, etc.

It's kind of like your conspiracy theory that on my side of the fence, we're just appearing open-minded to sucker Mandi. Or maybe it is that we just actually, y'know, are open-minded. I suppose it depends on how one's relative perspective assesses the available evidence. I happen to know, from the inside, that converting Mandi isn't what the Queen Spider of the Vatican assigned me to do.

In the case of the early Church, I would suggest that it being a movement of the lower classes is more tenable given the social status and often grisley deaths of the Founder and foundational adherents. Christianity isn't divorced from the egalitarian movement of these underclasses: it is a part of it.

And so it continues with every example I gave. Christianity is inexorably intertwined with the intellectual world of the Middle Ages, patronage of the Renaissance, liberality of the Reformation, and social justice movements of the Late Modern era. You simply cannot divorce the influence of Christianity from the progress and development of the last 2 millenia, only to selectively acknowledge it as it suits you to do so.

Your attempt to divest Christianity of any blame for social progress can just as easily be used to exonerate Christianity of any of the crimes you wish to pin on it. The Crusades also developed out of broad social and political dynamics for which Christianity cannot be exclusively blamed. Furthermore, the approach of blaming them squarely on Christians ignores the very real dynamics of chivalry as a warrior ethic, the development of chivalry as an alternative to monasticism, and other like concerns. Ditto for the Inquisition, and last I heard there was no clear blame to be placed for the burning of the Library at Alexandria.

Ironically, though I am happy to take the compliment on the Reformation, I'm suprized you didn't up the dynamics between the relationships of Germany and England to Rome or the development of the printing press.

And like all movements, these movements towards social progress (and social disaster) are comprised of people acting according to their motivations. To divorce the works of Martin Luther King Jr. or the Famous Five from their faith which they themselves claim to have inspired them is to do both them and history an injustice. It simply isn't crafting an accurate picture of what's going on. It's ahistorical and disrespectful to the memories of people who, I already noted, are of quite obvious character and deserved regard.

But then we're faced with this issue of whose bias is right, yours or mine? You wish to exonerate Christianity of the blame for any good and I wish to exonerate Christianity of the blame for any bad. I suspect that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Coming at it from the perspective of an insider who is facing a greater compulsion to actually makes sense of the mess that is Christianity history, the most honest perspective seems to be that Christian cocepts misunderstood can cosmetically justify great evil while Christian concepts properly understood can deeply gird up great good.

When examining the arguments of those who have used Christian concepts for things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, they are simply not as theologically sound as the arguments of those who have engaged social justice and progress through the motivation of Christian faith. This isn't to say that the Crusaders weren't sincere... They certainly were. It's just that they were sincerely wrong in what they were doing and what they thought was Christianity.

One of the swell benefits of having a book to go back to is that we can examine how well what someone says compares to what Jesus is quoted as teaching. And if we cannot go back to source and inquire, then what do we have brains for?

3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"converting Mandi isn't what the Queen Spider of the Vatican assigned me to do."

I don't mean to be pointedly arguementative, but if I recall correctly it is ones place as a good Christian to convert others to the one "true god".

If I am incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This isn't to say that the Crusaders weren't sincere... They certainly were. It's just that they were sincerely wrong in what they were doing and what they thought was Christianity."

So, what proved them wrong? Aside from time? If the faith and the church did not change over time then we would still be crusading through the deserts.

So either the church (as an institution) has not changed and we are still crusading through the deserts, or the church has changed in the past.

If the church has changed in the past then it stands to reason that the church could, presumably, change yet again in the future. I think it is important to note that any future changes could be for good or for worse.

I think there is enough history to prove that the church as an entity has done both over time. Sometimes they make positive steps towards change, and sometimes they fall backwards.

I don't think it's too much for me, at this point, to assert my position once again. The church needs to change and I, for one, would very much like to see that change go in a positive direction.

I don't think that Xian, M or anyone else here would be in disagreement in this position.

I do think that there is some disagreement in how the church needs to change, why it needs to change and in what way it should or even could change.

If you are under any notion that change in the church is a realistic expectation, I have some thoughts and background material for your consideration.

"We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west... " From: deoxy.org


"...in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing." From: about.com

The church was wrong in 1613 and admitted it 379 years later in 1992.

How long do you think it will take the church to admit it was wrong about...

"Children accused more than 4,000 priests of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002, according to a draft survey for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

The survey also said that several factors contributed to the problem, including failure to grasp its gravity, overemphasis on the avoidance of scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive and insufficient accountability.

More than 44,000 priests serve in the United States, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

From: CNN.com


4500 priests accused (How many abused refuse to admit it on record) 44,000 priests in the US... if we do a little math that means 1 in 10...

How many churches are in your community? If you answered 10 or more then isn't it about time you took a moment and asked yourself if your church is that 1 in 10?

How long do you think it will take for you to get an apology from the church for the crime it's clergy has committed against so many young boys and girls?

379 years?

"According to the Toronto Star: The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has been named in more than 300 lawsuits by more than 1,000 claimants. According to Archdeacon Jim Boyles, the church's general secretary, the claims total hundreds of millions of dollars and far exceed the church's assets. Many of the claims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and cultural assimilation are alleged to have occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, before the church had insurance coverage to cover these forms of abuse." From: religioustolerance.org


54 years and counting... 325 to go?

"before the church had insurance coverage to cover these forms of abuse." The church has insurance coverage against this kind of abuse? That alone kind of makes me sick to my stomach.

And who do you think pays the premiums on these insurance policies? The congregational members of the church it self, every time they pitch a dollar into a plate.

7:33 PM  
Blogger Duilliath Siondrake said...

In a heavily gnosticised Judaism, Jesus is thoroughly explicable-one jewish magician among many-but then there seems to be no reason for Christianity's sectarian success, short of good public relations. Halacha was what the jewish nation always stood for: law, reason, and ethics. Piety, as embodied in works such as the Mishna and the Talmud, circumscribed the right sort of life for a human being, which was guided by ritual and observance. This way of life is called "The horizontal path". It's primary characteristic is that it is continuous rather than apocalyptic; so continuous that it can even include the prophetic tradition. The horizontal path deals with linear time and slow, incremental progress. Redemption occurs at the 'end' of time, when the Messiah will finally appear. In the meantime, life is about ethics, charity, ritual observance, and social organization. All religions offer the experience of the horizontal path; and it is impossible to imagine any sort of society without it. The problem is that all religions also offer another, very different sort of experience-the "vertical" path-and in the case of Judaism, the predominance of this has been overlooked. The vertical path is discontinuous, visionary, or ecstatic. It involves a process of psychic ascent. Through certain disciplines, the individual soul can acsend to heaven, find god, encounter death, learn the course of history, etc., and return to tell(and presumably liberate) the world. It was this aspect of Judaism that most interested early Christians, and the truth is that it was the vertical path that was the normative. The norm is not rational, and those who finally codified it-Plato in the greek case, Philo Judaeus in the jewish-were merely the tip of the iceburg, building on a vast underground tradition of soul travel, astral projection, and other standard occult techniques. In order for Christianity to become so completely hellenized and gnosticised after Christ's death Judaism must have been farely well along in 'it's' hellenization by the time Christ came along. Because of a later rabbinical whitewash, a suppression of Apocryphal texts occurred in Judaism, in the same way that the Gnostic gospels uncovered at Nag hammadi got suppressed by the Church fathers. We have inherited a form of Judaism that is as "safe" as it is inaccurate. In the context of early christianity the mystical Judaism of someone like Philo Judaeus was the norm, and the Pharisaic horizontal path the exception. There we have a small number of "uptight", literate rabbis with an oral magical tradition, so large it could scarcely be called "underground". It only became underground because the rabbinate had managed, via control of the written word, to literally paper it over with the halachic tradition.

6:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Theodosius I had no religious motivation to destroy the Pagan churches at the end of the 4th C, but was compelled to do so for more political reasons (to satisify the motivations of people with religious causes).

IMHO.(In My Humble Opinion).

9:12 AM  
Blogger Nephilim said...

IMHO
If I were to rape a small child, and then pay that same child's tuition through college...
Would that clear me of the raping?
If I were to murder a woman...
Then put the woman's children to work, feeding them, clothing them and housing them...would that absolve me of murder?
A crime is a crime...a debt has been made...
Once again I ask of you...is this new world of Christianities, enough to save it's soul?

11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, these actions do not resolve you of your crimes. Your crimes will always exist. You can't change that. Actions such as the ones you have suggested can only help heal those affected. Healing or helping to heal those affected does not absolve you of the crime. Certainly, admitting the wrong doing is a step. Payment of damages is a step in the right direction, yes. Firther, I think that it is important to see to it that these things never happen again and to take steps in that direction is important as well. I also think that there should be some accountability of the individuals responsible for acts of barbaric violence.

let me recap the questions that I have been leading to for some time. Your question, Nephilim, is only a part of it.

1. Does the Church need to change?
2. Can we expect the Church to change in a reasonable time frame?
3. Can we expect the Church to change in a positive direction?
4. If so, in what ways can the church change and when can we expect it to change? (I suppose it would be prudent to include the question of who is responsible for seeing these changes brought about?

I have provided a historic case as well as recent case. Each shows a need, a time frame and the result of action.

And the answers, I hope, will bring us around, eventually, to the original topic our hostess set out for us. I hope you'll all stick with me on this.

9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*whew* Finally, some time to respond...

Somebody,

i dont think that it is a fault of the bible, its a result of human ingenuity being applied in a religous context to rationalize faith motivation through reframing biblical writing to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Um... Yeah, I agree.

making what jesus is quoted as saying in the biblical canon as the standard to analyze what someone said is too assume that the bible is a valid 'catch all' reference.

I do believe that it is useful to the point of normative for the broad scope of the important issues. In fact, the usefulness of the texts is generally what got them canonized and accepted by tradition as normative. If we get into particulars, which are usually highly contextualized, then we have to go to more specific and contextual texts.

I'm not one of those people who believe that the Bible contains all possible knowledge on any possible subject. It is a collection of texts offering spiritual and moral guidance through many different styles of literature. And even within that framework, I don't believe it is the only useful text either. There's a heck of a lot of useful stuff out there.

But as that kind of guide (which I once heard someone interestingly frame as a computer manual... at first you need it a lot, and still do whenever there's a complexity you don't have figured out yet, but eventually as you grow in expertise, you cease to need it quite so much), I do hold it at authoritative. It is perhaps the only source in which we have Jesus' teachings within spitting distance of reliably quoted, not to mention the incredible depth and sensitivity found throughout its books.

to consider the bible as 'the source' seems to me to be a bit condesending and minimizing to the value of other spiritual works.

I should have clarified that I meant "the source of the Christian tradition". It isn't minimizing other spiritual works at all to note that Jesus isn't even mentioned in the Upanishads. This doesn't mean that Upanishads aren't useful, but just that they're not considered authoritative for us Christians.

--------------------

Duilliath,

Thank you for the interesting history lesson!

--------------------

Strixy,

I don't mean to be pointedly arguementative, but if I recall correctly it is ones place as a good Christian to convert others to the one "true god".

But one does not do so for its own sake. You can't divorce Jesus' "Great Commission" from His teachings about the Kingdom of God as a reconciled way of life that is both immanent and emanent.

When He talks about "making disciples of all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", He isn't talking about inducting them into a dogma or an institution. He's talking about transforming a way of life to build this Kingdom of God of peace, unity, reconciliation, humility, charity, etc. and so forth.

How we go about doing that varies depending on the time and context. How I would go about doing that is different from how a St. Paul would go about doing that. For me, I take my que from St. Francis: "Witness at all times and at all places, and if necessary, use words." I feel myself called simply to live a life, and "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you". I'm not out to brashly convert anyone to my dogma. I'm just out to be a Christian, which to me is simply to be a deeper, fuller human being, and let the chips fall where they may.

1. Does the Church need to change?

Well, working actively as one of those agents of change within the Church, I would say yes.

2. Can we expect the Church to change in a reasonable time frame?

Depends which part of the Church you're talking about. The Catholic Church changes relatively slowly, the United Church of Canada relatively quickly. It is impossible to affix a particular time frame for change because you are dealing with so many disparate elements.

3. Can we expect the Church to change in a positive direction?

Can we expect anything to change in a positive direction?

I don't think so. But we can work towards positive change, since any change, good or bad, comes about through actions of people. That positive change is what I pray I am helping work towards.

4. If so, in what ways can the church change and when can we expect it to change? (I suppose it would be prudent to include the question of who is responsible for seeing these changes brought about?)

Whew, and that is a whole other discussion.

7:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home