BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

It's a love affair... between Jesus and my Hotrod

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Seth
20:02 / 09.08.01
Disclaimer:

Hello. My name is expressionless and I’m a sandal wearing, far-right, gun totin’ god-botherer (support group stands and applauds my honesty).

I’m starting a thread on Christianity. It could be seen as an exercise in preaching. It isn’t. A lot of people here seem to have religious backgrounds, and a lot of the threads have made reference to the subject. I thought it would be good to be able to concentrate the discussion in one place (at least partially through personal guilt at derailing other people’s topics).

This topic is in the Magick (rather than the Headshop) because of my experience in the supernatural, and because I value what you lot have to say about spirituality. I’d like to compare notes about our experiences, to broaden my own understanding. Feel free to respond in any way you want, and say exactly what you feel. I don’t take offense easily.

Finally, I’d like to apologise in advance for the erratic nature of my posts over the coming few weeks. I’m getting married in just over a week, and will be busy shagging like a rabbit in the Maldives.

(NB - this was written ages ago, and since the thread's been revived it's now nomadic, and will crop up in the Headshop, too)

[ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
Seth
20:06 / 09.08.01
quote: Originally posted by Myfi:

From a strength point of view, I'm all for Christianity. I also appreciate that there are many people doing great things who never would have started if Christianity hadn't pulled them together. It is, however the closed minded attitude which seems to me to prevail in the areas I've been which pulls it down, I think. I mentioned in another thread (I think), about the sense I used to have a Jesus protecting and guiding me. I reckon as role-models go, he's a terrific figure, whether real or fantasy.


Couldn’t have said it better myself.

quote: Originally posted by Myfi: Do you think that the fall in numbers going to church coincides with the 'selfish' attitude that many people are supposed to have these days?

Good question. To begin with, the fall in numbers is confined to certain denominations in certain parts of the world. There are many more reserved churches in England that are definitely losing numbers. There are also churches in England (mine, for example), that are growing, often to the extent that they outgrow their building and have to form new, smaller congregations elsewhere. There’s also massive expansion outside in areas other than Europe and the USA. Seoul currently has a church numbering well over a million people (they sound like a pretty cool bunch, too. They bought a mountain for prayer/meditation purposes. The idea is you hollow out your own small cave in the rock for personal use, and use the larger hall for communal prayer times).

I don’t think the word “selfish” is entirely a fair description. Many of my friends who would never set foot in church are among the most caring and generous people I know. Perhaps the word should be “individualistic,” although this isn’t exactly accurate either. I think a lot of it is down to a poor show on behalf of the church. Christians are often their own worst enemy - bigoted, ill-informed, and self-righteous. We make a lot of our own problems. I think we’ve also lost sight of what the faith is all about, under the muck of centuries of useless man-made tradition, misinterpretation and hierarchy. Lastly, the church in the western world has lost its supernatural edge. Even in Charismatic circles, genuine spiritual experience is often lost beneath poor teaching, sensationalism and a lack of discernment.

There is a growing movement of Christians who marry the best of all worlds; intelligent questioning; genuine supernatural understanding and experience; a wide realm of knowledge from areas other than the faith; and social justice formed out of unequivocal love for others. Of course, they’ve always been there (good old GKC), it’s just that the dickheads amongst us seem to get more press. Maybe they shout louder, maybe it’s in the media’s interest to reduce access to reasonable and spiritual men and women. I don’t know. What do you think?
 
 
6opow
20:09 / 09.08.01
Umm...I'll contribute this article that I wrote recently:

What Would Jesus Freakin’ Do?

There is a rising movement of people that are inclined, when faced by the challenges of this life, to ask themselves, “what would Jesus do?” While this seems like a noble question to ponder, and to live by Jesus’ example is a worthy pursuit, how many of these people even know what Jesus was trying to do?

In light of current study into the life and times of Jesus, it appears that he intended to transform the society he lived in (the Jewish society). He looked around him and saw that the Jews who had the power and money were not fulfilling their contract (the covenant) with God. This contract was as much social obligation as it was divine. The people who “had” were required to tend to the people who “had not,” but Jesus saw that this certainly was not the case. The orphans and the widows, the neglected and the mariginalized, were being ignored and ostracized by the community. Thus, Jesus was on a mission (in part) to reform the way that people treat and care for each other.

Jesus urged people to give up their possessions and families. Regardless of the spiritual effect such dissolution of ties was intended to create, we can see that the abandonment of traditional societal values was an act of rebellion against an unjust and rotting community. In this sense, it appears that Jesus was trying to reform society by taking away it’s greatest resource: the people who maintain it through daily transactions and interactions.

So, in modern times when we ask ourselves, “what would Jesus do?” we had better be prepared to answer this question in a serious and dedicated manner. It is not enough to decide intellectually that Jesus would have done such and such. We must reflect our answer in our deeds. Jesus would look at our modern society with apprehension—really, what has changed? There is still a minority of people who control the majority of wealth. There are still the few who lord over the many. There is still social inequality, injustice, and down right ignorance. Jesus desired that we live as a family striving to manifest the Kingdom of God here and now. It’s been over two millennia since he walked the earth, and we still live in the ghetto that sprawls outside of the glory.
 
 
Seth
20:33 / 09.08.01
Fantastic post. Isn’t it amazing how people have simply ignored how Jesus responded to the religious institution, adopting the same pharisaical attitudes that He openly attacked?

On another note, I’m very interested by the What Would Jesus Do? phenomenon. It seems that a lot of Christians are wearing WWJD necklaces/bracelets, while being the same people who attack the Catholic tendency towards icons and talismans. Smell a rat?

If it’s an NLP exercise informed by an understanding of Jesus as detailed in your post, it’s a totally worthwhile endeavour. However, with the emasculated Jesus being preached about in some quarters, you have to wonder.
 
 
Kobol Strom
20:38 / 09.08.01
Hi,(support group pauses,then somebody else stands up),I was brought up as a Catholic,and found that their system was in direct conflict with my personal growth as a confident human being,so I rejected every part of the faith physically,then ,through dreams,managed to fight most of the mental damage caused by this conflict.Some remnants may remain.
The confession I'd like to make is,Now that my developement has reached a stage where I am looking beyond the veil of what is commonly thought possible for human mental potential,and thats magick to you and me,I find new conflicts have arisen.I am experiencing a lot of things that I know I'm just never going to be prepared for. Surely,if it were a product of a mind under the influence of drugs or sickness or sleep,then I would completely understand your scepticism.It isn't.If I were delusional,whos to say I can't fit into society whilst maintaining this relatively 'unorthodox' sytem of experiencing reality anyway?.No-one yet.
I'm often truly scared.I have a feeling that this fear -is a kind of truth,in an environment whose rules are so indistinct.And at the end of the day,all magick users will have to be their own walking talking collection of beliefs,held to none.If fear is the only truth in the face of the unknown,then I am truly blind.

(sound of squeaking,as trolley of biscuits is brought into the room,annhiliating Kobols dramatic build up.)
Sits down.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: kobol strom ]
 
 
grant
15:19 / 10.08.01
quote:Originally posted by kobol strom:
I am experiencing a lot of things that I know I'm just never going to be prepared for.


who said you had to be prepared for everything?
just be limber.
 
 
6opow
20:27 / 10.08.01
quote:Originally posted by expressionless:
Fantastic post. Isn’t it amazing how people have simply ignored how Jesus responded to the religious institution, adopting the same pharisaical attitudes that He openly attacked?

[blushes a little, smiles a little]Uh...gee, thanks. [/blushing, smiling]

Yes. This (and the "ratty" observation of your second paragraph) makes me a little apprehensive about many Xtians. I used to be anti-Xtian (quite awhile ago now...), but now I do my best to see the merit in all things, and this includes Xtianity.

I think that people ignore, or simply are unaware of, much of what Jesus the human was about. The sad truth is, much of the Xtian preoccupation with Jesus is as the Christ: the Passion, and post-Passion narratives (which, btw for any not aware, the Passion is the J's death on the cross and the following resurrection). It seems (and perhaps because the Jewish religion is so integrated into the social realm) that people ignore J's defiance not only of the religious institution of his time, but his defiance of the socio-political economic institutions as well.

Jesus was a 'hick' from a small rural community: he had nothing in the way of possessions, and was not concerned with acquiring them. How many Xtians adopt this attitude? Drives me crazy to go by a church on Sunday see the lot full of shiny new cars and know that the people inside the building are 'sending their prayers out' to the less fortunate, but aren't in the habit of backing this up by giving away their excesses...
 
 
Mordant Carnival
20:41 / 10.08.01
Yeah... I remember hearing about some seriously radical preacher who had a copy of the Bible from which he'd scrupulously ecxized (sorry- spelling?) every reference to the idea that maybe God isn't so big on rich bastards, and just possibly there are more important things in life than accruing shedloads of wonga. He'd go onstage waving the resulting book, which by now resembled a bus timetable with leather covers, and shout "You see this? This is your Bible!"

If I ever meet him, I'll be sure to buy him a pint.
 
 
Blank Faced Avatar
11:04 / 11.08.01
When Christ goes into the wilderness for forty days & forty nights, & survives even though no-one brings him food or water, we can see him as being in a relationship with God & nature we recognise in the Austalian aborigine - truly a part of the environment, in conversation with God etc.
When he preaches ' cosider the birds.. ' he is talking about the same thing - an organic relationship with nature. When he talks about the camel & the eye of the needle, he really does mean that all material posessions are a bind, that God in nature, ( & consequently, via man's spiritual awareness of nature )will provide food, shelter & comfort as well as a meaningful existence as part of the life system on Earth. He may mean a lifestyle of total immersion in nature resembling rainforest tribes, former native American aboriginal tribes etc, ie all interaction with nature is in a balance; All materials taken from renewable resources; A continuing relationship, through signs in nature, with the spirit that connects all living things.

People are most often willing to forget this aspect of Jesus, that he said give away all the posessions you own, they never really does you any good in the end. Go and live in a tree or something.

The main problem Christianity has now is that for us to go back to a healthy relationship with nature, we either have to have a lot of deaths, or advance our technology until we can make Eden projects of rainforest & set things straight. The orthodox churches are dumb when it comes to integrating new ideas into the dogma, they don't understand it. But there must be decent modern christian groups somewhere.

Just a theory - if you were raised as a christian, then your basic spiritual language is that of christianity; & therefore you don't really grasp any magical truth that you can't transmute via the christian mysteries. Ergo I Am Christian.
Discuss.
 
 
Seth
14:27 / 11.08.01
quote: Just a theory - if you were raised as a christian, then your basic spiritual language is that of christianity; & therefore you don't really grasp any magical truth that you can't transmute via the christian mysteries.

I guess if that’s true, then the reverse is also true. However, it’s a bit simplistic. There are plenty of people who have started out as one thing and then completely overhauled their belief programming at a later point.

quote: He'd go onstage waving the resulting book, which by now resembled a bus timetable with leather covers, and shout "You see this? This is your Bible!"

I might use that (he doesn’t sound like the kind of Godspeed...! sampled preacher who’d have his act copyrighted). Wicked illustration.

quote: Drives me crazy to go by a church on Sunday see the lot full of shiny new cars and know that the people inside the building are 'sending their prayers out' to the less fortunate, but aren't in the habit of backing this up by giving away their excesses...

Makes me sick, too. But then, walking past an office block with row upon row of sparkly new Beamers parked outside makes me feel the same. The other side of the story is that we don’t know the motives or backgrounds of anyone in those churches or offices. Some of them may be crazed by materialism - but there may be a few who give as much (if not more) than they spend. It’s easy to judge by appearances.

quote: I rejected every part of the faith physically,then ,through dreams,managed to fight most of the mental damage

I went through a period in teenage years when I turned my back on Christianity altogether. It’s that point at which you realise that most of what you see is totally false; the social club church; the man made hierarchy; the bad leadership; the gossips; the mistrust; the division; the apparent gulf between the modern reality and what was originally written.

My belief system at that time was pretty close to a sort of social Darwinism, the kind of stuff you hear members of the Church of Satan say about self-respect, self-discovery, and self-empowerment. Needless to say, it wasn’t long before I became self-absorbed and selfish (see all the pretty parallels between the philosophical strands of Satanism and capitalism. And the kids think Marilyn Manson is a transgressive hero: it seems however much you rebel you always turn out like your parents). I think this is what made me realise that individualism can be just as much of a prison of harmful beliefs as any “organised religion” (I would add that I hate the word religion. So many negative connotations).

I then went back and dealt with the damage my Christian experience had caused. The main difference being that I did that by going back to what was written, sticking to that and unlearning everything else. The idea is to get back to some kind of concept of faith in its purest form, uncorrupted by all the rubbish that’s been built up around it (particularly after its acceptance into the Roman State). I’m not even close to realising half of that task, but it’s a fun, painful but rewarding journey.
 
 
SMS
20:48 / 11.08.01
Jesus' teachings can be interpreted a number of ways, many of which are quite contradictory, and I have trouble believing that any one of the interpretations could capture an essential Christianity. What this means is that Christianity may paint itself upon a culture, but never break it to pieces and resculpt the culture. Perhaps this is for the best. Telling people they need to abandon that which has permeated their collective soul may never be "good news" --- may never be gospel.

The Catholics had a good idea when they turned others' gods into saints. It is analagous to a debate, for one way to give yourself an advatage in a debate is to define the words you use, and thus the fight takes place on your playing field. To make a god a Saint more fully destroys the god than any kind of idol-destruction could hope.

I have used this word mutilation on myself, as I found that the definitions I was given were detrimental, or unacceptable. In doing so, I have taken the guilt away from sin and the condemnation away from sinners, I have made pride and lust things to be avoided while encouraging self-confidence, love, and sanctifying infatuation and sex.

But these are how they work for me. I might tell of it to others so that they may find use in it, but I can never know if anyone else will find it useful, nor can I know how fully they even understand what I say. The translation of a thought from my brain to that of another carries with it too much noise to be perfectly clear.
 
 
Seth
18:12 / 12.08.01
quote: Jesus' teachings can be interpreted a number of ways, many of which are quite contradictory, and I have trouble believing that any one of the interpretations could capture an essential Christianity.

There are always going to be people who choose not to take an empirical look at the text (indeed, it’s arguable whether such a thing is possible for anyone to do). However, hermeneutics allows a great degree of research into what was originally meant, as opposed to what we think was meant. It allows us to grasp the difference between what is of Jesus time incarnate, and what is timeless.

Wisdom and understanding have always been powerful and effective weapons against a poor belief/approach. Yeah - I agree that we’re dealing with quantum uncertainty to a great degree. I also believe the Bible contains vast amounts of spiritual language through which the meta-object can be mapped. This may explain some of the apparent contradictions you mention: when touching up the invisible man, his penis will feel very different to his cranium.

quote: Telling people they need to abandon that which has permeated their collective soul may never be "good news" --- may never be gospel.

Something I find hard to understand. I have periods of virtual monasticism and abstinence (but then, I would hope any spiritual person from any background would, too). I also drink, smoke, swear, have a wide range of belief that may be seen as extracurricular to my faith, and am attracted to a range of fairly extreme art. The concept that salvation is sacrifice is a myth - the only things to burn away are usually the things you always hated about yourself anyway.

This goes back to something I hinted at on the “Out, Vile Thing” topic: that interacting with God is analogous - or exactly the same as - a relationship to a particularly benign and powerful spirit ally. My experience has always been of the Holy Spirit works as His title “Counsellor” suggests. He leads us in self discovery, teaching us things about ourselves. Then He points out things that happen to be unhelpful or damaging, highlights the root that needs to change, explains the problem, and offers advice and support in dealing with it.

In this respect, I strongly question the experience of Christians who are totally condemning, self-righteous and inflexible in the way they publicly shun influences they see as ungodly. It seems to stink of a desire to be seen to be law abiding, without any experience of the grace that many (including myself) would say is the genuine “good news.” The implication (which isn’t in my mandate to decide upon - I’m not going to judge, just raise questions), is: if the true root of faith is friendship with God, and the way to that friendship is via grace, are the people who display no outward signs of understanding of either of those tenets actually Christian? Being as the word Christian means “Christlike” or “Little Christ,” I would say that it’s likely that you’re not part of the faith unless you’re fulfilling the job description.

But then, God deals with different people in different ways, it’s all about the journey, let's undermine any real point with a desire to show lurve and be as inclusive as possible, yadda yadda yadda.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
SMS
01:31 / 13.08.01
quote: The implication (which isn’t in my mandate to decide upon - I’m not going to judge, just raise questions), is: if the true root of faith is friendship with God, and the way to that friendship is via grace, are the people who display no outward signs of understanding of either of those tenets actually Christian? Being as the word Christian means “Christlike” or “Little Christ,” I would say that it’s likely that you’re not part of the faith unless you’re fulfilling the job description.

Didn't Jesus say something like: love each other and in doing so people will know you are my followers ?

Doesn't seem that way, does it? Many people ideantify Christians by their judgementalism and condemnation of people unlike them. Your probably right that, if we were able to build the language from scratch, "Christian" proabably shouldn't apply to many of those claiming to be Christian today. But the word has been charged with various meanings, one of which is "a good person."


quote:The concept that salvation is sacrifice is a myth - the only things to burn away are usually the things you always hated about yourself anyway.

I'm unclear on this. Didn't you just say you thought periods of monasticism or abstinence are important? This is a form of sacrifice. [I think I understand your meaning, but, if not, the next paragraph will make it very apparent]

On the subject, I have heard the idea that Jesus was the beginning of a new era, in which lambs no longer needed to be sacrificed to God and that a new kind of sacrifice would take place. Giving to God your sould and such. I may off by quite a lot, but here's what this sounds like to me. The practice of sacrificing an animal to God is not, according to Judeo-Christian belief, an act of giving God anything he doesn't have already, but of affecting chainge on your own sould (making yourself loyal to God, I guess). The problem for me, though, with doing something like this, is that I don't have a lamb. I don't need a lamb. And if somebody gave me a lamb, it would be a big burden, so killing it for God's sake wouldn't do anything to my soul. So what I see is the sacrificing of the lamb during Moses' time makes sense, and the sacrificing of one during modern times makes no sense, but I don't see a connection to Jesus.
 
 
Seth
11:19 / 13.08.01
I just re-read my last post, and realised it was a bit simplistic. Sorry.

quote: I'm unclear on this. Didn't you just say you thought periods of monasticism or abstinence are important? This is a form of sacrifice.

Sacrifice
1. A surrender of something of value in order to gain something more desirable or prevent some evil.
2. A ritual killing of a person or animal as an offering to a god.
3. A symbolic offering of something to a god.
4. The person, animal or object being offered.
5. Verb – to make a sacrifice.
6. Chess - To permit or force one’s opponent to capture a piece as a tactical move.

Depends how you look at it (those pesky language barriers again). I see it as a means of attaining something; what you leave behind (often temporarily) being insignificant compared to the purpose of the exercise and what is gained. I can’t think of a time that I’ve made an offering of anything to my God and not received something better in return.

Regarding the deficiencies of my original post: There are a good many people who link their mental programming directly to their external influences (and vice versa). Therefore, the easiest way for them to rid themselves of harmful programming is to change their input mix. Once the stimuli are gone, they are free to work on rewiring themselves – and many of them go back to their old stimuli once they have a way of safely processing their experience. As a result, many of those who appear to be abstaining from something unnecessary are engaged in a very personal form of self-growth. For example, a few years ago I drank too much for my own good. A period of near-total abstinence helped me to unlearn the self-destructive thought patterns I’d gotten into, and I now drink quite healthily and happily, in control an area that had been doing me harm. Again, this is a (possibly temporary) sacrifice for purposes of a greater pay-off.

I guess my response was directed at your comment, “Telling people they need to abandon that which has permeated their collective soul may never be ‘good news’ --- may never be gospel.” When I used the word “sacrifice” it was in relation to this. I think it’s absurd to say to people that they must abandon their previous existence before committing to a tee-total lifestyle of AOR rock/gospel, dinner parties and absolutely no dancing (for fear of being tempted into a raging orgy through – shock! gasp! – physical contact with members of the opposite sex). This is bullshit, and hopefully more and more Christians are realising that. Was that what you meant? Hope that’s a more complete answer.

quote: If we were able to build the language from scratch, "Christian" proabably shouldn't apply to many of those claiming to be Christian today. But the word has been charged with various meanings, one of which is "a good person."

Yeah, language use changes with time. The value of hermeneutics is to try to get a sense of what was originally meant and said in its proper historical context. I guess either way a lot of professed Christians (especially in the western world) just don’t seem to have acknowledged the implications of the term: even if it means “a good person.”

quote: So what I see is the sacrificing of the lamb during Moses' time makes sense, and the sacrificing of one during modern times makes no sense, but I don't see a connection to Jesus.

Theologically, the connection is that God himself became a sacrifice, rather than continuing with the old customs (which is good, because most of us aren’t be farmers, making livestock and harvest sacrifice irrelevant). Access to God is therefore something we can’t attain by our actions (through personal sacrifice), but by accepting the action He performed for us. Seen in this light, the existence of self-righteous Christians should be a contradiction in terms, as they have no righteousness besides that which is bestowed upon them. Self-change then comes because of gratitude and positive personal development, not through a fevered attempt to gain approval from a disapproving parent.

Make of this what you will - my only purpose in posting it (besides answering your question) is to make the point that a self-righteous attitude is "sinful" according to Christian theology. Again, I'm comparing the bastardisation of the system as it is now with the beauty of the original intention.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:18 / 15.08.01
This is a fascianting thread. I don't really know where to start interacting with it... So I think I'm going to start by asking expressionless the slightly flippant and possibly rude question (but trust me, there's a point to it and I'm just trying to kickstart my own thoughts on this): do you consider the kind of Christianity which you live by to be heretical in any sense?
 
 
Seth
20:56 / 16.08.01
The question was neither flippant nor rude. A quick question of my own: I rarely see you post around these parts, Flyboy. Do you often read the Magick, or do you just stop by once in a while? As for your question, I’ll paraphrase Moby: my main hope is that Jesus doesn’t find me heretical. However, I think your question concerned the thoughts of other Christians, so I’ll do my best.

“Heresy” depends on the perspective of the onlooker. There are a lot of people who would probably see me as very traditional: equally, there are a lot of Christians who would think I’m a nutter. I remember taking my djembe (African hand drum) to a conference in Belgium. I tend to get pretty physical with the instrument, and a several of the traditional types in the congregation initially thought I was very dodgy (picture it: a sweating skinhead freak in baggy jeans, looking as though I was having an epileptic fit and playing my drum with such over enthusiasm that I was visibly causing myself a lot of pain). As the conference wore on, they reassessed their opinion, because they could see the fruit of my actions (in the context of that conference, that meant seeing me being involved in delivering two people from demonic oppression/possession through the worship).

If I felt I were heretical, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian. I’d probably invent a very flowery term just for myself. It’s important that people realise that my criticism of some Christians is from a perspective within the faith. I’m part of a church (I’ve just had a lovely Indian meal - and a lot of beer - with a good many of them). I hope I haven’t gone so far in expressing my distaste for religious hypocrisy as to make people think I see myself as outside of church community.

When I we met up before Nick Cave, I remember you saying that you came from a Christian family yourself (apologies if I remember incorrectly). What do you think? Would the Christians you’re used to call me a heretic?

(PS - Two days ‘til my wedding. I’m sorry if I can’t reply properly for a while).
 
 
SMS
00:57 / 17.08.01
The Christians I grew up with wouldn't call you a heretic, including my minister.

My frineds Dominic would call any non-Catholic a 'rebel' though. Good guy.
 
 
Seth
06:29 / 17.08.01
I wonder how Catholics would treat Jesus if He were incarnate in 2001. I wonder how Jesus would treat Catholics.

Discuss. And then we'll find some Catholic websites and e-mail them this page.

-- On reflection, I'm much more interested in how He'd respond to me (and me to Him, I guess). Faith relationship is one thing, personal interacion in the flesh something else. Although there's a good argument for saying all relationships are faith-based. --

[ 17-08-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:56 / 30.08.01
Hey expressionless - sorry this has taken me a while to get back to (although right now you're probably off being honeymoony and blissful, congratulations btw)... I've been prompted to try and finish off the reply I started (a while ago) by the 'Does God have a complex?' thread – I figure maybe we need a space for a more, um, considered critique of Christianity… I'd appreciate if anyone (eg Jack Fear, Jack the B) who wants to respond to anything below would do so as well…

quote:Originally posted by expressionless:
A quick question of my own: I rarely see you post around these parts, Flyboy. Do you often read the Magick, or do you just stop by once in a while?

Stop by once in a while. Although I've experimented a bit with a couple of basic techniques since I joined Barbelith (with quite remarkable and wonderful results in at least a couple of cases), magic isn't something that plays a very large part in my life at the moment, and while I find some of the ideas involved very interesting, the nature of the discussion here tends to be <diplomacy mode ON> not quite as closely suited to my personal headspace as some of the other forums. And the intensity of the belief system which I was brought up in and heavily involved with until quite relatively recently (see below) is probably a factor in why I'm reluctant sometimes to get into these discussions (despite or maybe because of the fact that I find your take on things particularly interesting, at once both familiar and strange).

quote: As for your question, I’ll paraphrase Moby: my main hope is that Jesus doesn’t find me heretical.

As punchable as Moby is, that makes a certain amount of sense... but in a way, it's kind of obvious/self-fulfilling: whatever your believes are, your understanding /interpretation/ conception of Jesus seems to be fairly central, so of course your Jesus wouldn't find you heretical. Does that make sense? (I'm allowing for the fact that your Jesus and *the* Jesus are one and the same for the purposes of this part of the discussion.)

In addition, I think you have to realise I think that the character of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is one of the least problematic aspects of Christianity for many non-Christians. Jesus rocks. This is fairly plain to see. It's the insistence on his connection with everything else in the Bible that's harder to swallow: the idea that the values, insights, beliefs and principles that he seems to stand for in those books are not only reconcilable with those of Moses and Jehovah before him and Paul (and subsequent Church decisions as to, for example, canonical authenticity, doctrinal interpretation, etc etc).

quote: “Heresy” depends on the perspective of the onlooker. There are a lot of people who would probably see me as very traditional: equally, there are a lot of Christians who would think I’m a nutter.

Right... I wasn't really thinking of something like your chosen method of worship here. I'm aware that various branches of the Church can be pretty intolerant in that area, but I'm thinking more about the nitty gritty, doctrinal stuff.

The Bible has a built-in clause that says that all scripture is the Word of God (it's in one of the Timothy books, I believe, although I don't have a copy to hand – feel free to correct me… . As I understand it (or understood, when I was a Christian), the validity of all scripture as one of Christianity's principle tenets, as is the idea that it's the same God throughout (though his methods may change). In other words, a Christian who believed that there was nothing inherently sinful about homosexual acts, or that the God they worshipped would never order His chosen people to slaughter the men, women and children of a neighbouring nation/tribe, or that there are other gods apart from theirs – that person would be a heretic.

More thoughts, including response to other parts of expressionless' post, to follow.
 
 
deletia
13:35 / 30.08.01
Not having been a Christian, except for one week when I got confused, I'm not equipped to enter this on a faith-based level. Hooever, I am becoming intrigued by different representations of Christ, Christianity and particularly by the impact of what Expressionless calls hermeneutics.

Simply put, I'm curious how these hermeneutics function - there's a line by Cupitt about historical approaches to Christ tending to mistake exegesis for hermeneutics - and the role of linguistics within them, since the highly speicalised *languages* of the New Testament and New Testament study are fascinating.

For example, The Godog says above

quote:the Passion is the J's death on the cross and the following resurrection

On a basic level, this is a factual error (the Passion refers only to his suffering on the cross, not his resurrection), but has broader linguistic implications. Because it's not a surprising mistake to make. What the Hell has passion to do with the death of Christ?

Passion. It's a curious word. General modern usage holds it as strong emotion, driving sensation, an antithesis to reason. But when did this become the real scoop? Passion, after all, is from the Latin verb patior - I suffer. But it also means I endure - hence that King James classic "suffer the little children to come unto me" - "allow the little children to come unto me". Either could work - Christ hangs crucified on the ambiguity between the two. But when did Passion become a specialised term of church vocabulary, like the Ascension, to describe a very specific period in the life of Christ? When did usage and specificity tear apart?

And what's with "Passion", anyway? That's Latin. It should be called the Pathos. And what would that do to it? What is the significance of a set of terms appropriated into English from a Latin-speaking Church hierarchy, describing events written down in koine by (notionally) four men, one of whom was actually a native Greek speaker?

I ask because one of the curiosities of Bible reading seems to be that the significance of the language it is read in seems often to be elided. Sure, you can look up a word and see what the "original" (earliest surviving) word was, and what that can be made to mean in translation back into your native language, but is true comprehension available on a textual level without a deep knowledge of koine at least and Hebrew and Aramaic for preference? Does the word of God transcend linguistic communciations?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:52 / 30.08.01
The interesting thing is that certain branches of modern Christianity get round such issues by claiming that God ensures we get the Bible we need at any particular point in time. And that understanding of the Bible comes as much through revelation as through study. Which might strike one as something of a get-out clause...
 
 
SMS
22:47 / 30.08.01
quote:The Bible has a built-in clause that says that all scripture is the Word of God (it's in one of the Timothy books, I believe

Yeah, the ol' book of Tim. I never quite understood how this could be applied to the new testament, since nobody decided which books would be in there until after Timothy was written.
 
 
Seth
21:48 / 03.09.01
Allo. You’d be amazed at how tanned I’m not. I am the whitest of white trash.

quote: Flyboy: …whatever your believes are, your understanding /interpretation/ conception of Jesus seems to be fairly central, so of course your Jesus wouldn't find you heretical

On the contrary – when He does find me heretical, I make damn sure I reassess the troublesome belief. But then that description of interaction doesn’t preclude my subconscious forming some kind of idealised Jesus with whom to “interact.”

quote: Flyboy: …the idea that the values, insights, beliefs and principles that he seems to stand for in those books are not only reconcilable with those of Moses and Jehovah before him and Paul

This is something I’ve noticed, too. I agree that there is a difference in tone between the two Testaments. However, the cause of the difference is debatable (and the debate could fill out several boards the size of Barbelith): is it just the clash of languages/beliefs/cultural understanding? Is it because of a shift in the character of God or the actions of God? Personally I would opt for a difference in the actions of God, but we’d be forever siting examples for me to be able to back that up to anyone’s satisfaction. As for the “subsequent Church decisions,” I’ve probably covered my feelings regarding that in previous posts.

quote: Flyboy: …I wasn't really thinking of something like your chosen method of worship here. I'm aware that various branches of the Church can be pretty intolerant in that area, but I'm thinking more about the nitty gritty, doctrinal stuff.

I was, too. My mistake for picking an example that illustrated style instead of content. Sorry. I might add that I’ve met a good many Christians who I would say are heretical (see my above posts). I have to restrain myself from judging too quickly on occasion.

quote: Flyboy: As I understand it (or understood, when I was a Christian), the validity of all scripture as one of Christianity's principle tenets, as is the idea that it's the same God throughout (though his methods may change). In other words, a Christian who believed that there was nothing inherently sinful about homosexual acts, or that the God they worshipped would never order His chosen people to slaughter the men, women and children of a neighbouring nation/tribe, or that there are other gods apart from theirs – that person would be a heretic.

Haus of Willow: I'm curious how these hermeneutics function… I ask because one of the curiosities of Bible reading seems to be that the significance of the language it is read in seems often to be elided.

Flyboy: The interesting thing is that certain branches of modern Christianity get round such issues by claiming that God ensures we get the Bible we need at any particular point in time. And that understanding of the Bible comes as much through revelation as through study. Which might strike one as something of a get-out clause...

I always argue wholeheartedly for the validity of Scripture. I also make the point that there are a good many ways in which it can be seen as “valid” or “true.” The Bible contains many forms of writing (letters, poetry, accounts, analogies, mythology, songs, proverbs, law, prophecy). Each must be taken within their context, with the appropriate usage of the word “validity.” This may go some way to explaining some of the misinterpretations (ie; theologies that attempt to draw significance from every detail of a parable, when it is an allegorical story designed to make a single point).

Hermeneutics involves contextualising the Bible, both linguistically and historically. Some texts simply do not work without a historical context (some “scholars” erroneously believed there to be a gateway in Jerusalem nicknamed “The Eye of the Needle,” which involved a camel kneeling to near ground level in order to get through. Actual geographical and historical records show this to be horse shit: Jesus really meant the eye of a sewing needle) – others are greatly diluted (reading about the water/wine miracle is greatly enhanced through an understanding of Jewish society and wedding customs. Also, understanding Jesus’ depiction of Hell suffers without the knowledge that the word He used – “gehenna” – referred to a rubbish dump just outside of Jerusalem). Other texts are open to a wide variety of interpretations depending on their original linguistic root (for example, there are several Greek words that directly describe homosexual activity. However, these aren’t the ones used, which has led some scholars to take up the opinion that the actual crime being depicted is anal rape, not loving homosexual expression. This correlates historically as a prohibition of the actions of some Roman soldiers to their defeated foes. Doesn’t account for all Bible references on the subject, but you’d have thought if God - or the author/s - had wanted to stigmatise an entire orientation He’d/they’d have a bit more to say about it). Hope this rambling mess helps.

This leads to some thoughts based on your post, Flyboy. Behold the Marvels of The Incredible Mutating Bible, perfectly adapted to Our Times! Of course, this has never strictly been the case: even in English, there are a great deal of different translations and “spins” that have been put on the text (including the woefully misguided “Cockney Bible" ). Which one are they referring to? Is one of them more infallible than the others? Surely we’re having to deal with the theological prejudice of the translator? I would say that the “Bible we need at any particular point in time” could be some meta-text of all the various available options and interpretations, guided by human wisdom and the revelation of the Holy Spirit (sorry – one man’s get out clause is another man’s close friend). This leads to the observation that we have wider and deeper access to the text at this point in history than at many instances in the past: widely available translations, study guides, historical account, etymological and anthropological research, with fragments of source texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Quelle and whatnot materializing here and there to verify what has been passed down in translation. In short, if uncovering the original meaning is an act of quantum uncertainty, we have an advantage today that many people did not have in the past – our meta-Bible may be far more penetrable than theirs.

Sorry. Thinking on my feet. Not sure if any of that works in practice. I’ll leave it to you lot to see what sticks.

quote: SmatthewStolte: I never quite understood how this could be applied to the new testament, since nobody decided which books would be in there until after Timothy was written.

Exactly. Begs the question – was this added to Timothy after its inclusion? If not, to what books was he referring? If it was added retroactively, does this effect the validity of the text? And has “House of Leaves” totally fucked my understanding of authenticity/validity? Answers on a torn off scrap of manufactured memory…

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
deletia
10:08 / 04.09.01
I've always suspected that Jesus, or more precisely the writer, was referencing Herodotus with that "eye of the needle" schtick. But I've never been entirely sure why.
 
 
Seth
10:51 / 04.09.01
What's the reference?
 
 
deletia
11:13 / 04.09.01
Eeep - you catch me far from my Herodotus. But, essentially, bloke learns how to gob/lob chickpeas (arguably - ambiguity as to what the word actually means) through the eye of a needle (arguably - ambiguity as to what the word actually means). Takes this trick to one of the Xerxeses, or possibly one of the Darii. Big Mede duly rewards him wiuth something as useless as the skill is.

Cue lengthy debate about how big the eye of the needle was. Cicero gets dragged in at one point, IIRC. It's all a bit ugly.
 
 
Seth
11:31 / 04.09.01
I guess we’ll never know. Unless someone’s got a Bible with a bibliography .
 
 
Seth
14:11 / 06.09.01
Hmmmm. Any takers?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:50 / 05.02.02
Bump.
 
 
Seth
16:02 / 05.02.02
Bumped in response to this thread, and some of the debate it sparked.

quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
Have we ever had a thread that was intended to be solely "a considered, mature... [d]iscussion relating to the Christian church"? Might be worth starting one in the Magick or elsewhere in the Revolution (hey, how about a Nomadic Thread for this)?

I reckon we should migrate this between the Magick and the Headshop, Fly. It moves if it gets no responses for three days...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:06 / 05.02.02
I guess one of the big questions we might want to ask here is this: of all the terrible things that have been committed in the name of Christianity historically, and still are today, had any inherent connection to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith?
 
 
grant
17:07 / 05.02.02
Abortion rights vs. life of the unborn.

Sex scandals vs. a celibate order of, well, magicians, capable of turning unleavened bread into Magick Meat.

Emphasis of the soul over the body. You can explain a *lot* of atrocities that way.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
17:11 / 05.02.02
How are we defining 'Fundamental Tenets'?

Are they solely what is in the New Testament (especially the Beatitudes) or do they also include the policies and 'canon' of the Vatican and other Christian political entities?

Grant's examples above seem to me to be the product of political choices, not of the textual tenets those political entities are supposedly based upon.
 
 
grant
17:20 / 05.02.02
Well, I was trying to draw political choices out of scriptural positions: soul over body, sacredness of all life (that is, every creature possessing a soul), that sort of thing.
Mortifying the flesh/denying the flesh = encouraging the spirit, in the traditions. And if that's what you're after, well, physical torture (as in the Inquisition) doesn't really matter as much as spiritual salvation.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
17:40 / 05.02.02
quote:Originally posted by grant:
And if that's what you're after, well, physical torture (as in the Inquisition) doesn't really matter as much as spiritual salvation.

Except that it arguably goes directly against the commandments laid down by Jesus in Matthew 5. Especially the ones about mercy and the ones about loving and doing good to your enemy.

By that reckoning the inquisitioners would have been considered the least in heaven:

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply