Evangelicals and the ' Fight for Jesus' squad

[jacjon]

I would like to know whether Jacjon holds the beliefs that Christ was indeed born as the son of God, died for our sins and was resurrected to advance and sit on the right hand of that God and that belief in Him and confession of our sins after being baptized will result in life everlasting.

If Jacjon does hold them beliefs then I can't see this thread going very far, but like Alderplax said if it's possible to synthesize the beliefs I stated above with the truths discussed here then I'm all ears.

Hey Moonwalker... Somehow I'm being made out to be exactly what I'm railing against. Yes, I am a Christian and have the FAITH in Jesus Christ. Did he rise through resurrection....I'm afraid I'm as skeptical as most men of reason. Do I believe in an afterlife, I have no knowledge, either a posteriori or apriori ( and consequently, without a basis to formulate one, I ahve no OPINION!!! Does that mean I can't discuss it?? I hope not, or I really am in the wrong FORUM.
pLEASE DON'T FORGET, THIS THREAD STARTED WITHMPlease don't forget, this thread started because of my opinions, based on the facts, of the ABC's new coverage of the - and I paraphrase - " Warriors for Jesus."
The FACTS are that millions of people are being 'cultizised" (my word) by those with extradordinary intentions.
I thought the preface to my "rhetoric??? " swas axiomatic. Apparently not.
Doesn't mean we can't chew it over!!

Jacjon I'm not coming after you or anything what concerned me was your preface. On one level it was self-evident yet on another level you go on and state that Jesus was your Lord. That straight away sets alarm bells ringing and I admit kind of irritates me because I wrongly assumed you were coming from a dogmatic position.

It seems to me like what you believe in is a stripped down version of christanity, no firm belief in the after life or the ressurection, which to me seem core tenents of the faith. I'm still not clear on what you believe. So may I ask - when you say have faith in Jesus Christ does that mean that you have faith in him returning, forgiving your sins, saving you or something else completely?

M

Moonwalker -- I guess I consider faith to allow me the right to believe in God, believe in Jesus and have HOPE that somehow my sins will be forgiven. That said, I really do question the 'so called' religious dogma that seems inseperable from modern theological convictions.
Do I believe in the second coming, that good will ovecome evil or that I must adapt to a pre-ordained set of ideas - or rules - ?? in order to have faith?? No, I don't. Therein lies the answer to your last question. I lead a spiritual life solidly cemented in faith that has a sound foundation in God but carries also a preeminent requirement of accepting the realities of life. Does that mean I am a combination of an evolutionist AND a creationist??? Yes, I guess it does. Does it mean that I can't find a place for God in my scientific acknowledgement of the 'Big Bang' theory??? ( or even 'M' theory if you like ) Absolutely not.
Let's look at it this way. I can perhaps be accused of covering my bases when in reality having faith allows me to cope with the day to day occurences that tend to materialize when I least expect them. However, that brings me nowhere near the religious dogma preached by most ( perhaps all ) churches - real or pretenders - today.
As in my original thread, my agruement with the Evangelists is that they preach ' something for something.' Or, in order to receive the position of being a " Born Again Christian' ( and yes, I DO know what that means ) one must ascribe ONLY to the teachings of those very same Evangelists. Now that's just pure ' cultizising ' and angers me deeply. I DO NOT believe that the 'flock' should require proselytization in order to acquire a set of beliefs. Hope that helps and makes sense
jacjon

 

[jacjon]

jacjon, it would be considerate to other readers if you could avoid quoting huge segments of the thread each time you want to add a one-liner. Also, spellings can be corrected on the original post, without duplicating the post, by clicking 'edit' on a post you have made.

All this helps to reduce the noise level, and so make it easier to get to the 'signal'

SV - thank you. Verbosity is one of MY originals sins. As I learn, I grow
jacjon

 

[jacjon]

Jacjon, I'm not sure what your reply was, could you please restructure it so that your replies are separated from the text to which you are replying? Here's a help page that gives a short but sweet overview of how to use the quote tag (among other things): http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/help.php
And if possible, please try to only quote the parts of the text to which you are replying, instead of including the entire post. It would make it much easier to read imho.

(quote=jacjon) SAO - thx for the advise. I admit I'M having trouble finding what I said. (/quote)

 

[Hildegarda]

Has anyone seen Jesus Camp? It's a documentary that focuses on this very issue (militarizing christianity), and shows how children, young kids, 5, 6, 7 etc are happy to be training combat techniques as to be "god's army" in hopes they could "give their life to the lord".

have read about it just today, and it is as creepy as all get out. here is the NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/movies/22camp.html?_r=1&ex=1159070400&en=d698645fe1b6848d&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

and here is the movement's site:

http://www.kidsinministry.com/

my favorite quote:


"I like what the filmmakers have said to the press in interviews when they've been asked if they felt we were brainwashing the kids. Their response was that they had to re-evaluate their position on brainwashing and came to realize the if someone doesn't like what someone else is teaching their children, that's considered brainwashing. But when they teach their own children their own belief system it's just good parenting."

My ... and I thought good parenting is teaching children about your values via your normal actions, every minute of your rich, purposeful and fulfulling life ... where have I been? %(

The kids there, being subjected to an intense "study"/indoctrination regimen for hours each day, are already in a dissociated state. Throw in some doctrinal statements, delivered in a precisely patterned way (those preachers seem to know how to do that), "very moving Christian songs (worship music) playing in the background that is very powerful and impacting", peer pressure to break a wall -- and we have a scene from a SERIOUS mind control op.

The result is that:

"What many times will happen during these times of prayer and worship is children will see visions, hear God speak to their hearts about issues in their lives, they may feel more love than they have ever felt in their entire lives, especially children who come out of dysfunctional homes. Sometimes there is a healing of emotions taking place and it's like the tears are washing out anger, frustration, rebellion, etc.

For others they may truly be repenting for sins or attitudes that they are sorry for and that the Holy Spirit has brought to their attention. Some of them experience a physical healing in their bodies. This is often where children are "filled with the Holy Spirit" for the first time and receive their "prayer languages" otherwise known as speaking in tongues. Sometimes children don't know why they are crying but they love what they are feeling. Typically this kind of intensity will go on for an hour or more. Nobody wants to leave because the atmosphere is filled with the sweet presence of God."

This is negative disintegration, a trauma which can potentially open doors to posession, MPD, schisophrenia, you name it -- we are talking about kids as young as 7 for crying out loud!

This IS mind control, no doubts about it -- and yet the masterminds sure have a way of twisting things so that black appears white and fluffy.

 

[Peam]

Moonwalker -- I guess I consider faith to allow me the right to believe in God, believe in Jesus and have HOPE that somehow my sins will be forgiven. That said, I really do question the 'so called' religious dogma that seems inseperable from modern theological convictions.

Of course, you and everyone else have the right to believe anything, but I think we have to be very careful not to believe something blindly, because it can fool us into disregarding valid info and evidence that refutes that belief.
For instance, what if there isn't any god who judges you and forgives you your sins? What if the whole idea of people sinning was a crock lies woven into religious dogma for control purposes? What if Jesus didn't feed a crowd with fish and bread, raise folks from the dead, water into wine etc. and those that wrote the bible slipped this stuff in to convince people to believe he was the son of god?
If you found overwhelming evidence that contradicted one of your beliefs, would you question those beliefs and realign them if necessary?

BTW, I noticed your question mark at the end of 'STS' in an earlier post, as though you didn't know what it meant. Am I right in thinking you haven't read much on the cass site yet? There's a lot of good stuff.

To get back to the original topic. What can I add that hasn't been said? It's HORRIFIC!!

 

[Yossarian]

Or maybe he can somehow synthesize his beliefs with the truths discussed here and he'll do just fine. I could never manage such a balancing act, but maybe he can.

So far I have been able to Alderpax. I admit it has been very challenging at times, easier at other times. I'm not always successful. Like jacjon, I a consider myself a follower of the one now called "Jesus Christ." What that means I would have great difficulty defining clearly right now, as my understanding/thinking is in a constant state of flux and I am holding many different conceptions of what "God" or the Divine, is, and what "reality" is, in tension, differently at different times.

(Though so far I wouldn't be able to use jacjon's particular formulations or explanations to explain my thinking--I can definitley sympathize with what jacjon has to say and admire his courage in sharing his thoughts "belief''s" and "faith"on this wonderfully challenging and enlightening forum--[thank you jacjon]--which is rightfully suspicious of organized religion. I put belief and faith in quotes because I would have to carefully define these words before using them myself on this forum).

For example, I am very suspicious about the concept of sin--at least as defined in the Hebrew Bible--the O.T.-- as a tool of the control system. I am also very suspicious about the way that the beliefs of the Hebrews, the O.T., were grafted onto the teachings of the one(s) called "Jesus Christ" as a probable corruption and tool of the control system. I understand that the early Christians, (gnostics/marcionites/manichaeans, etc.) thought the gods (alien or hyperdimensional beings actually--I suspect) of the o.t. were "evil" (definitly a relative concept) perhaps I could say STS or anti-life.

The commandment, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself" could be what I consider to be the essence of the Christian message at this time. I would translate this commandment into what this forum would understand as something like, "align yourself with the concepts of STO," to my understanding at this moment.

If you found overwhelming evidence that contradicted one of your beliefs, would you question those beliefs and realign them if necessary?

Yes, Peam. I surely could and have and will.

It seems to me that religion wasn't created by one being or one person for one purpose. It's a compilation of many things, with many different intentions, many different purposes on many levels all in one place. So while I perceive the entirety of religion itself as a control mechanism, the very same things that are used for control within that religion could be profound esoteric truths that were distorted in meaning intentionally. Like if Jesus says "I and the Father are One" - is he talking about himself being as THE son of God and/or God incarnate, or is this a general reference to the unity of all creation, the idea of God being inseparate from us all? Well the former interpretation leads to elitism and control structure, the latter does not (although in the New Age religion, the latter concept of "we're all one" is used to disempower by distorting it as well). But although I cannot state with certainty that the "initial intention" of religion was for control (because the question I'd have, if it was a compilation of many things from many sources, is there even such a thing as the initial intention?), the overall effect is one of control of the mind, because that's what it is used for.

SAO's description closely aligns with my thinking (hypothesizing) at the moment.

I'm toying with the idea that "I and the Father are one" is a reference to the "fusion of the magnetic center," that one has fused the magnetic center--that one has a soul--that one's "higher self," the part of ones self that is a spiritual being existing on the "other side of the veil" is in residence/communication/communion with the rest of one's being/consciousness-- I'm thinking further of including one's "spirit," the third part of the trinity--one's subconscious/unconscious mind as also integrated into one's consciousness--as being Jesus the Trinity--the whole person--three in one. But I realize that I am mixing 3rd way metaphors and concepts with others that may be unrelated and am working on it.

I understand that the C's have definite things to say about prayer in the name of Jesus and the nature and object of "faith" that I think have been useful in trying to keep the "synthesis" going.

Frustratingly, it seems that every channelled source, even the one's that I hypothesize to be the most reliable, i.e. (C's, Ra, Bringer's of the Dawn, Seth, Edgar Cayce and Cosmic Awareness, also Rudolph Steiner) has a quite different "take" on the one called "Jesus Christ." One thing seems certain: The "inbreaking" of the Christ Consciousness (a term I am reluctant to define) into our 3rd density reality (a hypothesis in itself) was a major and important event.

Alas, I am a mere student on many levels--yet I am deeply concerned with the present reality--I'm trying to learn to observe it and myself objectively--and I am, like jacjon, very concerned (angry actually, that something that could be--should be--a force for uplifting humanity--IMO--Christianity--is being used so effectively to bring it down instead.) But, my seeing this is a huge factor in my beginning to "wake up."

I think jacjon represents a huge segment of Christianity in the U.S., for example, that is not well understood by persons on this forum (in general--I include myself) and I think they could somehow become allies in the struggle to spread an awareness of objective reality.

 

[primechild]

For others they may truly be repenting for sins or attitudes that they are sorry for and that the Holy Spirit has brought to their attention. Some of them experience a physical healing in their bodies. This is often where children are "filled with the Holy Spirit" for the first time and receive their "prayer languages" otherwise known as speaking in tongues. Sometimes children don't know why they are crying but they love what they are feeling. Typically this kind of intensity will go on for an hour or more. Nobody wants to leave because the atmosphere is filled with the sweet presence of God."

This is negative disintegration, a trauma which can potentially open doors to posession, MPD, schisophrenia, you name it -- we are talking about kids as young as 7 for crying out loud!

I was 11 when I experienced the above for 2yrs at a Xtian Private School. Still dealing with it. They had the bible on speakers at night in a very low setting. Their enviroment system (A/C is controlled to come on and off or get hot at certain times).

It is horrible being in that kind of enviroment. They play with your mind that you do what they want and like doing it. It took me about 10 years to even come close to questioning their brainwashing. My stomach hurts (feel like vomiting) and my mind begins to shut down everytime I try to think about it. I'm Angry at my self for being so stupid and often I keep judging myself and others by their standards.

oh and therapy does not work because most psychotherapists are xtian or new age.

The only good that came from xtian brainwashing is that I know I cannot trust anything I see, hear, touch, feel(ings), think(ing) or smell. I must question everything including the answers.

What Helped
Kybalion - ignore the arrogance that hermetics found the principles first
http://www.amazon.com/Kybalion-Hermetic-Philosophy-Ancient-Greece/dp/0911662251/

Who Wrote the Bible?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho1.htm

The Gods of Eden
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Eden-William-Bramley/dp/0380718073/

Gnostic Texts

When people ask me what religion I belong to I say "myname religion, only me, no leaders, no followers" and for fundies "gnostic xtian" which most won't know what that is and usually don't ask since it includes the word xtian.

I read all posts here but at this time can not join in rest of conversation.

 

[Cyre2067]

My problem with modern christianity is that it's not "of christ" at all. Gnosticism reads much closer to something that would get christ hanged in his day. I even have doubts that "Jesus Christ" was the person who showed up around 1AD and started teaching these revolutionary ideas and performing miracles.

Esp considering modern christians accept the old testament as the word of their god, which obviously, contradicts christs teachings, so we have another problem.

 

[Renaissance]

I even have doubts that "Jesus Christ" was the person who showed up around 1AD and started teaching these revolutionary ideas and performing miracles.

If you haven't already, you might find Burton Mack's 'The Book of Q' to be of interest. He delves into the Jesus issue and the 4 gospels of the N.T. producing some interesting stuff - among his research is the miracles and mysteries which he shows were added much later on. Laura also wrote a review on the book here. I found it to be a fun and interesting read, especially the last chapters.

 

[jacjon]

My problem with modern christianity is that it's not "of christ" at all. Gnosticism reads much closer to something that would get christ hanged in his day. I even have doubts that "Jesus Christ" was the person who showed up around 1AD and started teaching these revolutionary ideas and performing miracles.

Esp considering modern christians accept the old testament as the word of their god, which obviously, contradicts christs teachings, so we have another problem.

Cyre
I'm not sure if you use the term 'modern christianity' as a contemporary belief in Jesus Christ or, as I suspect, its used, at least in my opinion, a being synonomous with Evangelical christianity.
Further, you suggest that these 'modern christians' accept the old testament as TRUTH.

I believe, although I can't presume to speak for them, that I am among those 'modern' Christians. What does it take for me to accept this??? Although I do believe that He was here on the earth around the time accepted in the new testament I would also recommend that to believe in the reported 'miracles', ( such as ascension into heaven ) insists that I keep in mind certain basis tenets. I need to remember the writings in both the old and new testaments were gathered, over a large period of time, by accepted ( at least in the day ) scholars - or prophets - under the presumption that not only their memories were accurate but that there was no personal bias in the text. I do hold the position that there is evidence of truth in the new testament but find there to be glaring contradictions in the old.
I started this thread being critical of what has become known as the 'Evangelical ' movement. In NO way do I describe this type of religious indoctrination as being a truly positive practice for most who are exposed to it. I DO NOT believe that their teachings and practices are necessary for salvation anymore
than I believe that Armeggedon is a requirement for our deliverance.
When any body of idolatries uses blatant proselytism to further their personal agendas, I quiver in fear. When the numbers of those followers reaches 70 or 80 million that fear becomes a reality.
All this -- when, in finality, I REALLY do try to keep an open mind!!
jacjon

 

[Yossarian]

All this -- when, in finality, I REALLY do try to keep an open mind!!
jacjon

I'm aware that I can only speak for myself, but I'm going to try to explain why I state that I think there is a large segment of Christianity within the U.S. that are open minded and could be allies in the struggle to increase awareness in objective reality. This argument could be a little bit long, so I will continue to add to it with additional posts on this thread as I find time. I am speaking about the U.S. mainly because that is what I know. I risk making grave misstatements because I am generalizing, nevertheless, I am making general points.

As a second example, I lift up David Ray Griffin and his book, "The New Pearl Harbor and Questions about the Bush Administration and 9-11." His book has sold over 100,000 copies. It was published by the Presbyterian church's official publishing house. Professor Griffin is a Christian Theologian I believe and taught at the Clairmont School of Theology, a school that is funded in part by the United Methodist Church and trains United Methodist Pastors. I consider Prof. Griffin as a powerful ally in trying to spread awareness in objective reality.

I think myself, jacjon, and Prof. Griffin represent a segment of Christianity that can be called "liberal." Liberal Christians can be found in all Christian denominations but especially those labelled as "mainstream," such as Presbyterian, United Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican and yes, Catholicism. I think that U.S. Christianity, like every other segment of society, has been divided and controlled by "Cointelpro" type activities for a very long time. Most churches are so divided between their liberal and conservative wings that they are totally ineffective in speaking or standing for anything. I think these divisions have been powerfully amplified by Cointelpro. This explains why "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" Christianity is the variety that is heard, amplified, empowered, and known by the majority of the world and U.S.--especially in the last 10-15 years. At it's root, I think, this form of Christianity is largely (though surely not totally) being energized and controlled by Cointelpro. The liberal Christians are largely unheard, disempowered politically, and their views are not well known or understood. One reason, of course, is because they represent a huge spectrum of views not easily generalized. I think what I'm saying about liberal Christianity could also be said about Islam, and Judaism as well, in that the tolerant, open minded, politically progressive, disempowered side of these faith communities have been "divided and conquered" or Cointelpro'd so to speak. When these segments of faith communities try to stand or speak out for peace, truth, tolerance, free will, justice, political freedom, etc. they are simply silenced (or distorted) by the total media control system that exists. Often they are talking, but nobody knows 'cause what they have to say isn't transmitted (to a degree that has any level of significance). In addition, they, like the rest of the population, are ignorant (generally speaking) of Cointelpro, the near total media control of any valuable information, or the political lockdown that exists, so they are ineffective.

My understanding of liberal Christians is that they are generally well educated, open minded, un-dogmatic and free thinking. The "trick" is how to reach this segment--without turning them off or insulting them--so that they can hear about what is really going on. I think we can agree that those that get their information from mainstream sources and most alternative sources are being fed nonsense, lies, contradictions, propaganda and mind control. That includes all Americans, including liberal Christians--so yes, many of them are very deluded as well--but they are not hostile to free will, service to others, free thought, and probably can grok hyperdimensional realities. IMHO. That's all I have time for today, more later.

 

[jacjon]

All this -- when, in finality, I REALLY do try to keep an open mind!!
jacjon

I'm aware that I can only speak for myself, but I'm going to try to explain why I state that I think there is a large segment of Christianity within the U.S. that are open minded and could be allies in the struggle to increase awareness in objective reality. This argument could be a little bit long, so I will continue to add to it with additional posts on this thread as I find time. I am speaking about the U.S. mainly because that is what I know. I risk making grave misstatements because I am generalizing, nevertheless, I am making general points.

As a second example, I lift up David Ray Griffin and his book, "The New Pearl Harbor and Questions about the Bush Administration and 9-11." His book has sold over 100,000 copies. It was published by the Presbyterian church's official publishing house. Professor Griffin is a Christian Theologian I believe and taught at the Clairmont School of Theology, a school that is funded in part by the United Methodist Church and trains United Methodist Pastors. I consider Prof. Griffin as a powerful ally in trying to spread awareness in objective reality.

I think myself, jacjon, and Prof. Griffin represent a segment of Christianity that can be called "liberal." Liberal Christians can be found in all Christian denominations but especially those labelled as "mainstream," such as Presbyterian, United Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican and yes, Catholicism. I think that U.S. Christianity, like every other segment of society, has been divided and controlled by "Cointelpro" type activities for a very long time. Most churches are so divided between their liberal and conservative wings that they are totally ineffective in speaking or standing for anything. I think these divisions have been powerfully amplified by Cointelpro. This explains why "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" Christianity is the variety that is heard, amplified, empowered, and known by the majority of the world and U.S.--especially in the last 10-15 years. At it's root, I think, this form of Christianity is largely (though surely not totally) being energized and controlled by Cointelpro. The liberal Christians are largely unheard, disempowered politically, and their views are not well known or understood. One reason, of course, is because they represent a huge spectrum of views not easily generalized. I think what I'm saying about liberal Christianity could also be said about Islam, and Judaism as well, in that the tolerant, open minded, politically progressive, disempowered side of these faith communities have been "divided and conquered" or Cointelpro'd so to speak. When these segments of faith communities try to stand or speak out for peace, truth, tolerance, free will, justice, political freedom, etc. they are simply silenced (or distorted) by the total media control system that exists. Often they are talking, but nobody knows 'cause what they have to say isn't transmitted (to a degree that has any level of significance). In addition, they, like the rest of the population, are ignorant (generally speaking) of Cointelpro, the near total media control of any valuable information, or the political lockdown that exists, so they are ineffective.

My understanding of liberal Christians is that they are generally well educated, open minded, un-dogmatic and free thinking. The "trick" is how to reach this segment--without turning them off or insulting them--so that they can hear about what is really going on. I think we can agree that those that get their information from mainstream sources and most alternative sources are being fed nonsense, lies, contradictions, propaganda and mind control. That includes all Americans, including liberal Christians--so yes, many of them are very deluded as well--but they are not hostile to free will, service to others, free thought, and probably can grok hyperdimensional realities. IMHO. That's all I have time for today, more later.

Yossarian
Well said. I agree with your thoughts. I guess I look to SOTT as solace due to a flagrant inability to access for my feelings.
I wonder how we can reach ( although I have no idea what the current 'reach' is for SOTT ) the myriad out there looking for someone, anyone - to honestly reflect their thoughts and views!! To once again give them a voice in things. I truly believe we are a extremely large, but unspoken, majority.
Watched Moyers ' In America' special last night surrounding Abramoff, Delay and that crowd. Good--- but mentally fatiguing as well in that hope for change is a VERY long way away!!
Check out my thread " Bad week for Dubya."
jacjon
ps: I'm interested in hearing more when you have time

 

[Yossarian]

First, as I've done many times, I would like to state that I support SoTT and QFG because I think they are doing the best job at trying to spread the truth and penetrate the lies that constitute most of the "consensus reality" that substitutes for objective reality here in Amerika. I have no better plan than to financially support SoTT, and try to steer people towards SoTT and hope that the power of truth helps them "wake up." I think asking people questions that cause them to think may be helpful as well.

This is my dangerous attempt to "simplify" reality: I learned in Poly Sci that the essence of politics is: How the wealth of the political body is divided (in our centralized form of government, we can call it the "wealth of the nation.") Who gets the goodies? Every political decision can be understood and analyzed on the basis of the fact that someone benefits and someone loses. Every political decision, every law, every word that comes out of a lying politician's mouth is based on this fact--someone is going to benefit and someone is going to lose. Every time a talking head opens his/her mouth, she/he is trying to influence others so that one group will benefit at the expense of another group. Who Benefits? In our world, benefit is about money. The axiom to determinining who benefits is to, Follow The Money. This is the Poly Sci method of getting down to the truth--Follow the Money. Where is the money going? What is happening to wealth in this country and world? What is the distribution of wealth and what is the trend? It's simplistic thinking to the extreme, yet most people can't ever seem to get even this far in their thought and understanding of "What's Really Going on Here?"

Of course, understanding psychopathy and the control system (exemplified by many elements including Zionism) is essential to penetrating the lies, I think. Again, SoTT is the best. It was their work on psychopathy that first attracted me to the site. I had experienced psychopathy probably several times in my life and when I first learned that there was such a thing as a psychopath Gongs started going off in my head. Then years passed with me never hearing about it again until SoTT and Cassiopaea. There's lots more to it than that. I guess the bottom line is that reality is highly complex and when we try to simplify it or turn issues into black and white, we are headed towards distortion, lies and unreality.

I stumbled upon entries in Wikipedia entitled Evangelicalism found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism and Liberal Christianity found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity that very clearly explain what I have been trying to explain. I'm going to quote some from the above noted entry on Liberal Christianity that exemplify the diversity in thought, the emphasis on open mindedness and emphasis on love, mercy, and justice found in this version of Christianity. The bottom line is that the split between evangelicals and liberal protestants is so divisive (so well handled by the control system) that Liberal Christianity is virtually dead as a force to oppose the current oppression while Evengelical Christianity is pretty much a tool of the current oppressors. Like Laura says, there is pretty much a cointelpro for everybody--a distorted version of truth and reality promulgated to vector every one towards irrelevance and impotence:

Diversity of opinion is a central characteristic of liberal Christianity, and one which makes it difficult to define with precision. Because of its relations to progressive thinking, liberal Christianity is often described as Progressive Christianity. In truth, there may be a a continuum of views from conservative to moderate to liberal. Thus among theological liberals, some would be more liberal than others, and among conservatives evangelicals may be "more liberal" than fundamentalists. It is quite possible for someone to identify as liberal or progressive in their politics and be strongly orthodox or conservative in their theological view.

Ultimately, the word liberal connotes a more progressive attitude towards Christianity based on individualism, in its emphasis on individual subjective experience, and liberalism, in its respect for the freedom of the individual to hold and express views which fall outside the boundaries of conservative orthodoxy and tradition. Disagreements between conservative and liberal Christians arise most frequently when the latter perceive that the former are exhibiting a lack of compassion, mercy, love and inclusiveness, and when the former perceive the latter to be abandoning essential Christian doctrines.

Certain of these principles have always formed a major tradition carrying through the early church, the monastic movement, the ministry of healing, the Catholic and Protestant churches, to the Progressive Movement in the 19th-century United States and the Social Gospel-the basis for FDR's New Deal; and the Civil Rights Movement for racial justice in the American South, and Liberation Theology for justice to the poor in South America.

Since the 1900s Progressive Christianity has formed a major portion of Americans' traditions for what constitutes the values by which a good society is run. Christian Progressives were among the first to advocate equal treatment of Jews and Catholics from within the Protestant establishment, basing their understanding of human rights on a faith in the worth of other human beings derived from the gospel. PRogressives formed the Progressive Era and were pivotal in the Temperance movement. Progressive Christianity stresses fairness, justice, responsibility, and compassion, and condemns the forms of governance that wage wanton war, rely on corruption for continued power, deprive the poor of facilities, or exclude particular racial or sexual groups from fair participation in national liberties.

Progressive Christians have continued to be active in the peace movement, anti-racism, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, various denominational committees on relief, Habitat for Humanity, and a wide variety of other outreach programs.

Characteristics of liberal Christianity

Different and varied views are encouraged in liberal Christianity as part of the goal of experiencing Christianity on a personal level. Self-avowed Liberal Christians may even over-define conservatives as taking a "hard-line" approach towards doctrine in order to distinguish themselves as having "unorthodox," "fresh," or "unique" ways of approaching God and talking about Christianity. With this sense of personal freedom and emphasis on individual experience, dogmatic statements and claims of absolute truth on fine doctrinal points are not part of liberal Christian discourse. Liberal Christians can, and not infrequently do, hold to conservative positions; the contrast between liberal and conservative Christianity that appeals to history, tradition, or authority carries substantially less weight among liberal Christians. The search for truth is an ongoing task rather than something that has been completed.

A non-literal view of Scripture is common among liberal Christians. Many view the Bible as a book written by people who were inspired by God, rather than endorsing an inerrant view of the Bible as a book written by people who were directly guided by God. Historical contexts and scholarly criticism of the Bible play an important part in how liberal Christians relate their faith and beliefs to the modern world.

The freedom to construct one's personal view of God is another hallmark of liberal Christianity. Each person comes to their own understanding of the who, what, how, and why questions relating to the nature and purpose of God. Each person has their own perception of how God moves and works in their life.

Liberal Christianity tends to have a wider scope in its views on salvation (including universalist beliefs). This inclusiveness characteristically extends to those outside of mainstream Christianity who do not declare themselves as "Christians" in the orthodox sense of the word. Right action generally takes precedence over right belief: integrity and love are regarded as more important than assent to a particular set of theological propositions.

Many nontraditional views on heaven and hell are prevalent among liberal Christians. These range from ideas about separation from God or temporal punishment to the belief that there is no hell. Views on heaven are similarly diverse.

There is an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community amongst liberal Christians. With their more inclusive views on God, anthropology, salvation, women, homosexuality, Scripture, and creation, emphasis is placed on community-based life centered around values of compassion, mercy, and affirmation of human dignity; this is seen in contrast to the focus on sinfulness and moral rectitude one is more likely to find in conservative Christian thought.

It seems to me like we are all going to need to have compassion, mercy and affirm human dignity if we're going to help each other survive the nightmare that's going on around us. That must be how the Palestinians are surviving. They must be living in true community to overcome the oppression they are being dealt.

 

[PopHistorian]

Another gay prostitute scandal -- this is the same guy that was intertwined quite heavily with Jesus Camp, I do believe:

ht(tp://w)ww.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html

<< Evangelical leader quits, denies gay affair

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned after accusations by a male prostitute that the pastor paid him for sex over three years. The Rev. Ted Haggard said he also is temporarily stepping aside from the pulpit of his church in Colorado Springs. The church official filling in for Haggard said there has been "some admission of guilt," but not to all of the allegations. >>

Jones: There's some stuff on there (the voice mails) that's pretty damning
ht(tp://)cbs4boston.com/national/topstories_story_306183433.html

 

[Yossarian]

Yes, this Haggard thing is interesting. I hypothesize that Haggard, like other leaders in the evangelical movement are "greebaum's." Why set Haggard off now? Because of the incident's power to divide all Christians and Christianity from mainstream U.S. society and weaken the wing of Christianity that would oppose the current oppressors. Ironically, the side that has been vectored into supporting the oppressors will only become more "entrenched" by incidents like this.

I'm going to post, in the future, research that supports my hypothesis that the religious right is thoroughly "cointelpro'd." One good example, off the bat, that also has implications regarding creating the legend, "cult," is the Jim Jones event. The entire operation had CIA written all over it. Another example is the Mark David Chapman--John Lennon Assasin-- connection to the Christian Right (via. World Vision--a likely CIA front)--another greenbaum example as well as secret government connection--but on another day I'll post that research.

This is really pretty humorous, as well as pointing out the contradictions and divisions within Christianity, excerpted from "The Sinner's Guide to the Religious Right," found here: http://alternet.org/story/41031/

Editor's Note: The following excerpt has been reprinted with permission from The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right by Rob Lanham, Penguin Putnam, 2006.

"The real theological problem in America today is no longer the religious Right, but the nationalistic religion of the Bush administration." -- Reverend Jim Wallis, God's Politics.

Fundamental Contradictions: Picking and Choosing

Anyone who's read the Bible knows some of its disturbing content could give "Grand Theft Auto" a run for its money.

War, murder, rape, slavery, men who wear sandals -- parts of the Bible should come with adult content warning labels. If you want a peaceful religion, even Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals says, "Choose Buddhism." Nevertheless, many evangelicals love the Bible so much they're willing to accept the whole darn thing, even the bizarre parts, at face value. They brag that they don't "pick and choose" from the Bible and refer to themselves as "Bible-believin'" Christians.

Yet the glaring list of passages that typical evangelicals ignore could fill Falwell's dessert refrigerator at the Moral Majority to capacity. Leviticus 19:27, for instance, prohibits shaving, a commandment to which millions pay no attention. Likewise, Leviticus 19:19 forbids the wearing of mixed fibers. Needless to say, Pat Robertson is clearly guilty of defying this commandment, given his collection of polyester flag ties.

And most glaringly, as progressive evangelical leaders like Jim Wallis continue to drive home, there are roughly three thousand verses in the Bible devoted to helping the poor, yet typical evangelicals spend more time griping about the costs of welfare or bashing The Da Vinci Code than choosing to help the less fortunate.

Truth be told, Bible-believin' evangelicals are more guilty of "picking and choosing" than the liberal Christians they often accuse of the same transgression. Here are some key verses Bible-believin' evangelicals pick and choose to ignore.

Key Verses Bible-Believin' Evangelicals Pick and Choose to Ignore:

On slavery: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18, NIV)

On rape: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver." (Deuteronomy 22:28, NIV)

On women wearing veils: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." (Corinthians 11:5, NIV)

On illegitimate children being barred from church: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)

On Falwell's apparent love of McNuggets: "...put a knife to thy throat, if thou [be] a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23:2, 3, KJV)

Homosexuality: God Hates Fags (and Shrimp Scampi)

Since much of the Bible reflects archaic customs (the blood sacrifice of animals is commanded by God in many scriptures, for instance), deciphering which biblical laws Christians should abide by has become the jurisdiction of theologians and televangelists, the latter group being completely unreliable since they're often stoned from their own hairspray fumes. When faced with troubling or inconvenient laws -- like the Bible's promotion of slave owning or its ban on shaving -- most evangelicals say, "That's an irrelevant Old Testament-era commandment," and change the subject to activist judges. Still, when the Bible says God finds an act "detestable" or calls something an "abomination," evangelicals insist it must be avoided at all costs. According to most evangelicals, the big abomination is (no shocker here) homosexuality.

True to form, evangelicals don't pay attention to some of the other things the Bible designates as being abominable. Most glaringly, Leviticus 11:9-12 says eating shrimp is an abomination:

9. ...whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas...they shall be an abomination unto you: 11. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Forget picketing abortion clinics. Head over to Popeye's and Red Lobster! The devil is in the scampi. Evangelicals should be organizing boycotts against Long John Silver's if they want to be consistent. Evidently every person in Maine is going to hell too. Last time we looked, lobsters don't have any fins or scales either....

How to Argue with Ultraconservative Fundamentalists

* On Defending the Environment (what they call "Creation Care"):

Fundamentalists say: God says in Genesis "let mankind have dominion over all the earth." Plus, the Rapture is coming soon, so why bother picking up our beef jerky wrappers if the end is near?

Sinners say: God also promoted stewardship of the Earth in Genesis. And dominion isn't a synonym for pillage. Otherwise Genesis would state, "kick the living shit out of that tick-infested dump, it sucks worse than Hell." Environmental disasters, like Katrina or polluted waterways, hit the poor the hardest. In fact, the progressive Christian charity, Christian Aid, released a report in 2006 warning that close to 200 million people could die in Africa by the year 3000 as a result of famine, drought, and floods brought on by climate change. And remember, Revelation 11:18 says God will destroy those who destroy the earth.

* On Gay Marriage:

Fundamentalists say: What's next? Are you gonna let them have sex with cocker spaniels? God calls it an abomination.

Sinners say: Why do evangelicals always use cocker spaniels as an example? Cocker spaniels are straight. Greyhounds, on the other hand. Now they're into that gay shit. Despite evangelicals' rhetoric about the institution of marriage being placed under attack by the liberals and the gays, the real assault is coming from within their own ranks. According to Barna Research, Born Again Christians have a higher divorce rate than any other social group in the United States.

* Intelligent Design

Fundamentalists say: Humans are too complex to not have a Creator.

Sinners say: Who created God? He's complex too, right? Does God have an Intelligent Designer as well? Plus, there are many unintelligent imperfections in nature, such as the human eye, whose inside-out retina causes a blind spot in our field of vision. And come on, would an Intelligent Designer really create Matchbox 20, Vin Diesel, or men with nipples? If you want to teach Intelligent Design, save it for philosophy class. It's not science.

* Euthanasia:

Fundamentalists say: The Youth-in-Asia worship oriental dragon gods and don't realize that the fortunes inside those cookies are tools of Satan.

Sinners say: God never intended for us to be kept alive on machines, otherwise he'd have included a power switch on our asses.

* Michael Moore:

Fundamentalists say: He's annoying.

Sinners say: He's annoying.

* Women

Fundamentalists say: Women need to accept their traditional gender role as casserole-cooking servants. They allowed sin to enter the Garden of Eden and are weaker than men emotionally and physically.

Sinners say: The Old Testament often compares God to a mother. Jesus loved women too. He appeared to Mary Magdalene first after resurrecting instead of revealing himself to some smelly disciple with a fig-leaf jockstrap.

* Capital Punishment

Fundamentalists say: The Bible says an eye for an eye.

Sinners say: The Bible also says thou shall not kill. Jesus spent his time on earth forgiving and healing sinners, not strapping them to a chair and shooting lightning bolts.

* The Iraq War

Fundamentalists say: We support the troops but often wonder why there was no cool T-shirt line, like in Operation Desert Storm.

Sinners say: We support the troops but wonder why there was no planning or exit strategy.

* The Holidays

Fundamentalists say: A banner at Target says Happy Holidays! Quick, tell the kids to crouch beneath their desks! There's a war on Christmas!

Sinners say: It's true. We've waged war on the holiday because there is strong evidence to support that Christmas has tried to obtain highly refined aluminum tubes from Africa to reinstate its WMD program. Come on...Nobody, except Falwell and O'Reilly, cares if you want to call it Christmas or even Baby Jesus Birthday Cake Day. As long as you're okay with Jews wishing you Happy Hanukkah and sending you a Cracker Barrel gift basket where the pork sausage stick has been replaced with Kosher liverwurst, a decorative menorah, and a yarmulke. And incidentally, Bush has sent out a generic "happy holidays" card every year since he's taken office.

* Faith-Based Initiatives

Fundamentalists say: Church-based social services groups should definitely receive government funding, as long as they're not of an immoral non-Christian faith, of course.

Sinners say: People in need of social services and relief should be able to find help without having to visit a government-subsidized group of faith healers who want to convert them and teach them how to handle rattlesnakes. Many "secular" groups have been losing funding to faith-based initiatives, especially if they promote condoms, education about abortion, or break with the evangelical agenda. George Bush even created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001. And let's be honest, "faith-based" means Christian. Buddhists and Wiccans aren't getting the money to run sex-ed classes and operate homeless shelters.

* Stem Cells:

Fundamentalists say: We couldn't hear what they said...it was something inaudibly shrill about babies, the Holocaust, and Ted Kennedy.

Sinners say: You've got to be kidding. Why not defend the rights of the psoriasis flakes from Pat Robertson's scalp. Or how about boogers?

* The Poor:

Fundamentalists say: We don't want no welfare nation. Tax-'n'-spend Communists like Howard Dean want to give our money away to the lazy people in society.

Sinners say: The Bible mentions helping the poor over three thousand times. It mentions tax-'n'-spend liberals, um, zero times.

* Abstinence Education:

Fundamentalists say: Sex education sends a mixed message. Virgin does not mean loser.

Sinners say: Did you wait until marriage? Probably not. And to be clear, virgin does, in fact, mean loser. Look it up.

* Abortion:

Fundamentalists say: You're pro-death, not pro-life.

Sinners say: A member of George Bush's own bioethics team, the neuroscientist and author Michael Gazzaniga, claims that embryos are about as aware as "sea slugs" in their first twenty-six weeks.

* Booze

Fundamentalists say: God condemns getting drunk.

Sinners say: Jesus's first miracle in John was to turn water into wine for a bunch of drunk people: "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you [Jesus] have saved the best till now."

* Affirmative Action

Fundamentalists say: Minorities don't know how good they've got it here. In fact, they just hired a couple of them coloreds down there at Roy's Discount Muffler Shop. Roy even lets 'em work the cash register when the cameras are turned on!

Sinners say: End affirmative action when equal opportunity actually exists.

* The Rapture and End-Times

Fundamentalists say: Once the prophecies are fulfilled, Jesus will Rapture the church, just like in that Kirk Cameron movie "Left Behind."

Sinners say: The word "Rapture" is never once mentioned in the Bible. And with regard to Jesus returning, Matthew 24:36 says, "No one knows about that day or hour." Sometimes we also say, Are you insane?