Christianity disinformation?

[Laura]

These days I was wondering where I could start to find some clues for this subject.I thank you all for the book recommendations.Also I want to have a better understanding about monotheism and its impact on our way of thinking.Any suggestions?

Start here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/232882-Farming-A-Terrible-Idea-Yes-It-Is-

... and then read Lierre Keith's book "The Vegetarian Myth".

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Bud]My point of view is that there was never an objective problem with anything Jesus is supposed to have said. The problem was/is with the original translations of the Gospels from the Greek to other languages and then the interpretations of these teachings from those cultural mindsets.[/quote]

Actually there are objective problems, and they are in the original Greek texts. One is commonly known as "the Synoptic Problem," which to put it briefly, is that there are contradictions when comparing Matthew, Mark, and Luke that weigh on the understanding of who Jesus was and what he taught; how it was developed in generations that followed.

When studying this the layperson can benefit a lot by knowing a little context of modern biblical scholarship.

Although various degrees of research to reconstruct the historic Jesus had been around for centuries, a greater effort began at the turn of the 20th century, particularly following the publishing of Albert Schweitzer in this regard.

Theologians recognized that there were numerous "Jesus' of faith" in the minds of individuals and doctrinal orthodoxies. Sincere desire for unity and apologetic integrity led scholars to quest for the historic Jesus as an objective measure to safeguard against undo sbjectivity in the developed Jesus' of faith, which they didn't necessarily deny.

To sum it briefly, rigorous application of historical-linguistic research techniques, especially form criticism, eventually showed there is no reliable information regarding the historic person of Jesus within or without the bible (in the original texts) even though the literary form of the Synoptic Gospels was basically biographic. This brought into relief various assumptions that founded both the conventional views of the historicity of Jesus and the Jesus of faith - all of which had to be questioned and revised, some of which include:

- Jesus was a Jew and virgin born.

- Jesus and his teachings were the fulfillment and new exposition of Judaism.

- Jesus was betrayed by the Sanhedrin and delivered to the Romans.

- Jesus was crucified and rose again.

- The existence of an original community of faith headed by the Apostles who assured doctrinal correctness.

Laura and Burton Mack are particularly gifted in explaining to the layman the results of New Testament scholarship. Mack's "The Lost Gospel," "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth" and "A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins" are highly recommended, providing a clear picture of the social context in which these documents evolved.

 

[Buddy]

Indeed, Jerry. I have no problem with any of that. The only thing I refer to is the actual Gospels, which includes the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, to me, it doesn't matter if the Jesus person ever existed, but since so many people do believe it, my view is that the only thing that matters are his teachings (in the form of parables).

This is how I am able to get along with fundaligionists. Not because I subscribe to any of the literal meanings or conventional interpretations of the Gospels, but because from the standpoint of the Work, I can see examples of depth psychology in them.

I've considered the possibility that the Eastern Orthodox tradition (Greek Orthodox Church), which was almost completely wiped out during the split into Roman Catholicism and the subsequent Protestant 'reformation', holds all that wonderful psychology from which Gurdjieff liberally borrowed (possibly) and from other sources.

If this is the case, then it would make sense that "Christianity" is to the depth psychology in 'Jesus's teachings, what Islam is to Ibn Arabi's teachings - nothing but a strategic enclosure.

I don't know this to be true, but it makes treading the jungle a bit safer, anyhoo. :) Besides, I'm still learning.

 

[theokonst]

... and then read Lierre Keith's book "The Vegetarian Myth".

This will be the next after the ''The art and science of low carb living'', thank you.

 

[Barsanufio]

The question I asked earlier in this post would have to be answered such as: http://cassiopaea.org/tag/christianity/
But the truth is that for me is very important that Christianity is disinformation or not.
There are a nebula on the historical origins of Christianity, many similarities with the myths (the result perhaps of an accommodation of the drafters of the sources). But it is striking the faith of early Christians and their ability to humanize society.
Me resulta difícil aceptar que los padres del desierto con su discernimiento, la psicología y la sabiduría espiritual son sólo víctimas de SAS.
From my point of view of genuine Christianity does not lead to mislead. Only anachronistic in a pagan society. Christianity, moreover, that both humanizes and spiritualized.

It is true that the Church has been heavily distorted throughout its history to the point of offering to provide a caricature. Currently I do not think she lives in Christianity, but its opposite.
The very fact of its strong distortion or ponerization their ideals may pose the following question: Contamination is the epiphany of alien origin, or is the footprint of the opposing forces?
Can a divine institution have an end opposite to its origins? (If there is a genuine Christian ofcourse I do not mean to him).
My observation is that the more sublime or humanitarian is an institution, yet it is colonized by pathogens. And strange it is that everyone accepts this as normal. Looks like a charm!
The issue is that many worry about is the religion of monotheism as authentic or deception.
Only one thing, the world without spirit of the Gospel becomes a nest of demons, but the church too! As you understand this?
I think it all depends on the instruction received by the people, at least in general.

 

[Buddy]

The issue is that many worry about is the religion of monotheism as authentic or deception.

Historically, it doesn't seem to really matter to most religious people if their religion is considered monotheist or polytheist. In practice, thinking patterns and attitudes of worshippers tend to end up elevating one god or principle to the supreme position, and reinterpreting the others as its agents or manifestations; they become, in other words, essentially monotheistic. This occurred, for example, both in late Paganism and in Hinduism, according to Stanford U.

Basically, of three major religious traditions that are considered monotheistic (The Kabbalah, Christianity and the Shri Vaishnavas), many authors have pointed out the various interpretation inconsistencies that would allow a person to make a case either way.
_http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/

Only one thing, the world without spirit of the Gospel becomes a nest of demons, but the church too! As you understand this?

Yep. Where you find genuine empathy between people is where you'll find the "spirit of the Gospel", OSIT. "Where two or more are gathered together in my name (Empathy), there am I also".

I think it all depends on the instruction received by the people, at least in general.

Indeed. The key word being 'received', perhaps. The deep intuitive understanding of another's perspective is only open to those who can have deep intuitive understanding. "He who has ears to hear...and all that."

 

[Barsanufio]

Yep. Where you find genuine empathy between people is where you'll find the "spirit of the Gospel", OSIT. "Where two or more are gathered together in my name (Empathy), there am I also".

Above all I am not at war with anyone. I face a strange reality and objective not finally swallowed by it.
But the empathy not always responds to the Evangelical spirit. It often responds to other motivations.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Barsanufio]I think it all depends on the instruction received by the people, at least in general.[/quote]

The sad truth of the matter is that the major religions are social institutions that provide its adherents cultural structure through indoctrination. Generally speaking, people are either capable of responding in their hearts to the truth in their daily activities or not.

Life often has a way of juxtaposing doctrine and spirit.

 

[Buddy]

...
But the empathy not always responds to the Evangelical spirit. It often responds to other motivations.

I understand your words, but I don't get whether you are agreeing or saying something else. FWIW, I see the "Evangelical spirit" as mere intoxication. The kind that overruns and drowns out the "spirit of the Gospel".


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

The sad truth of the matter is that the major religions are social institutions that provide its adherents cultural structure through indoctrination.

From my perspective, what I think is sad is that "religion as social institution" has long outlived it's usefulness and become irrelevant to man's possible evolution, yet still seems to desperately cling to life. IOW, fundamentalism = form gone wild.

I believe there was a time in the past (after the 'fall') where this social institution was the only way people could get in the correct frame of mind ("empty their cup"; "acknowledge a 'higher power' that might represent 'higher functions' or higher Self") to try and reconnect with something of what was lost - to try and Self-remember to whatever extent possible.

Tangentially, ambiguity, whether in the Gospels, or elsewhere, is (or perhaps should be) like a flag to pay attention, I think.

The power in ambiguous messages is that they do indeed have two meanings; it is how you use those double meanings that will affect the person you are talking to. The double meanings will speak on one level to the conscious and on another to the unconscious so you can be sending a message unconsciously that has a completely different meaning than what the person hears.
_http://covert-conversational-hypnosis.blogspot.com/2007/11/basics-of-conversational-hypnosis.html

May as well know about this stuff because as Derren Brown points out: it's everywhere! :)


------------------------------
Edit: additions for clarity

 

[mcb]

From my perspective, what I think is sad is that "religion as social institution" has long outlived it's usefulness and become irrelevant to man's possible evolution, yet still seems to desperately cling to life. IOW, fundamentalism = form gone wild.

It is about as useful as it ever was, to 4D STS. It has lost some of its grip, but it still works, and it is a vitally important institution in terms of keeping people from noticing the truth all around them. And in cults like the one I grew up with (now essentially defunct, but there are others) it still has a great deal of power over believers. I left mine when I was 21 and returned when I was 40. This second time I quickly came under the influence of the "groupthink," thanks to the earlier indoctrination, but I fought it and never completely succumbed the second time. It was a valuable lesson: keep those nagging questions front and center.

I couldn't say exactly how one (4D STS) would go about having people not notice the truth all around, but perhaps the religious folks are the ones that would find it on their own if not distracted, while the more secular folks would be less inclined to do so. Then there are the people that do see but do nothing. And some that actually seek to do something.

 

[Barsanufio]

I do not should write because translation leads to donfusión, but you can capture the essence.
The discussion is approaching its goal:: strong ponerization of religious institutions.
This is indicative of ponerization alien origin or the expression of "colonization" post?
It offers believers a double message: the "real" and one that is opposite "strictly carnal"
There are religions that plunge people into an underworld, although their message "official" is not that.
This insight led me to the hypothesis of a negative hyper-dimensional manipulation.
But I think that religions have a role to uplift the souls after the fall. Without this help the vast majority do not know what to do.
To me, personally, I served the Gospel to know and practice the "spirit" of service that did not know because it is absent from society.
So I hardly see in the Gospel an alien origin.
The problem is that those who promulgate the Gospel spirit actually live another "different spirit".
What is the reason?
This phenomenology if it's alien!

 

[ana]

I do not should write because translation leads to donfusión, but you can capture the essence.

More or less but an accurate communication is necessary for real understanding to take place, so maybe you can write your post here in Spanish and I'll try to translate it, anyway it would not hurt to take some English lessons so you can communicate effectively for yourself and do not depend continuously on a online translator or others.

But I think that religions have a role to uplift the souls after the fall. Without this help the vast majority do not know what to do.

The only role of these religions is to inculcate rituals, beliefs and worships to external deities that stifle the soul, and prevent the nature of some consciousnesses to achieve its purpose in life wich is to know and be.
Hopefully brave souls will find their way nonetheless, meanwhile those who prefer chains suffer their own ignorance, is this the uplift of the souls you speak of?

 

[Buddy]

Barsanufio, apologies if I missed it, but have you read the book: Lost Christianity by Jacob Needleman, or any works by Gurdjieff ("G")?

Here are two quotes for you and a link to further reading below:

[quote author=ISOTM]
"I do not know what you know about Christianity," answered G., emphasizing this word. "It would be necessary to talk a great deal and to talk for a long time in order to make clear what you understand by this term. But for the benefit of those who know already, I will say that, if you like, this is esoteric Christianity.[/quote]

And in an interesting essay, William Patrick Patterson writes:

Gurdjieff makes clear in Meetings With Remarkable Men, he was raised as a Christian—“I know the rituals of the Greek Church well,” he would say many years later, “and there, underlying the form and ceremony, there is real meaning.”

Both books: In Search of the Miraculous and Lost Christianity (Cristianismo Olvidado, El) are available in Spanish and you may find lots of helpful information, including those quotes, on this thread:

Gurdjieff: The Soul, The First Initiation and Christianity

 

[Barsanufio]

Thanks Bud for the signs.
The truth is that Christianity impregnated history from 2000 years ago and can not go unnoticed.

Thank you Ana for your kindness too. The link tells me to translate my answers just for this topic or for all?

If it is true what you say. Then he thought better. Religions serve those who can discern the essential from the addition. If you can not discern corral you into a netherworld of rituals without a soul.
The problem of religion is to become an earthly institution that keeps the soul rise.

You can trust a religion if you already know very spiritual and distinguish gold from straw.
You can also rely on a religion if the pastor is truly spiritual. I mean religions forever.

 

[Buddy]

Religions serve those who can discern the essential from the addition.

Yes, but as Gurdjieff says, a person should first prepare himself to learn.

If you choose the Work then you can view all of life from the standpoint of the Work. If you don't believe that life in 3D is an end in itself, then even Life can be your teacher.

You can then understand what is meant by "all is lessons." There is nothing else, OSIT.