Superpowers
Posted on August 29th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryThere are times I wish I was a Scientologist. Christians get fire and brimstone and 10 weeks of tithing sermons.
Scientologists get Superpowers.
(Thanks to Pete for sending this in).
RSS feed for posts
August 29th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Wow, they admit to using brainwashing techniques! CBC has installed plasma screens in the lobbies…coincidence?
“OBEY MY DOG! KILL THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER!”
August 29th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
“Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious…It is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit.”
— Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London
“Institutional church is both moral and socially obnoxious…It is corrupt, greedy and dangerous to true Christianity. It is corrupt because it is based on favoritism and financial wealth.”
-B.T. Beauty, ruling in the High Court of Blogsters
August 29th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Perks Of Working For Scientology:
-You are tax exempt.
-Commissions. In some cases they get commissions of ten percent of the take from people coming in the door.
-Considerable amount of free use of Scientology’s private country clubs and properties.
-You might get to star in one of their Sci-Fi movies as an extra.
-You acquire “a regular following” who will give you “fair monetary exchange” for your services.
-Nice salary (May start at $30,000-$40,000)
-Food and lodging can be provided. (No rent/food bills so you can
really save $$)
- Medical/dental insurance.
Hey…doesn’t sound bad!
August 30th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Ya got me thinking, BT.
I have to confess, these days, when someone asks “are you a Christian”, I wince. It doesn’t have to do with my love for the Father and Son, nothing to do with falling into error, etc. Rather, after coming out of religious institutionalism, and what I’ve learned along the way, I know that His name was NOT Jesus, His name was NOT Christ, the early believers were NOT called Christians, they did not ‘go to church’.
No, the early name for the faith was “the Way” (as in “I AM the way, the truth and the life”). His name was Hebrew - something like ‘Yeshua’ or ‘Yahshua’. Hebrew language uses a completely different alphabet, and consonants are not recorded, so we really don’t know the exact pronunciation of His name on earth.
Not sure exactly when the word “Christian” was introduced, but likely since it is greek, came from Rome. Same with the word Church.
Some of the more sobering studies I’ve read, have suggested even that the name “Jesus” is rooted in paganism - as Constantine sought to unify pagans and followers of the way, Constantine had to deal with a host of pagan gods and pagan holy days. Some suggest that “Jesus” is a blend of “Yahovah” (Jehovah) and the pagan god “Isis” or the like. A few of the most rabid ‘messianic jewish’ types point out that there is no letter in the Hebrew alphabet that makes a “J” sound, and that to worship “Jesus” is to worship a pagan idol - since there never was a “Jesus” as taught by the ‘orthodox’ / ‘catholic’ church.
In terms of how the information affects me, it is as if the whole ‘tree’ of institutionalized churchianity / religion is rotton since so much of western christianity is rooted in Rome - the greek takeover of the faith - porting the original scriptures from Hebrew / Aramaic to Greek, changing words and definitions, co-mingling with pagan tradition (Christmas and Easter), introducing a heirarchical government structure, etc. And I’ve come to the point where all of that, having been exposed as falsehood, needs to be cut down / rooted out and burned.
So these days, when someone asks me “Are you a Christian”, my answer is “no; I’m a follower of the Way” … and what’s funny - most bible-believing Christians are SO IGNORANT of what the book says, that they’ll run from me as if I’m a vampire, screaming: “He’s not a Christian”. And yet, if you simply do a word search on the New Testament, you’ll find that the faith was originally referred to as ‘the Way’ and not ‘Christianity’ - as in “the way of the Lord” or “the way unto salvation”.
Acts 9:2 EMTV and requested from him letters of authority to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he should find any who were of the Way, both men or women, he might bring them, having been bound, to Jerusalem.
(Note, the above occurred in Jerusalem, where the faith ORIGINATED and was called ‘The Way’)
Acts 11:26 EMTV and having found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for a whole year they assembled with the church and instructed many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
(Note, the above occurred in Antioch, a greek-speaking city in the Roman Empire).
About Antioch, Wikipedia says:
Antioch was a capital city for many different cultures because of the economic, military and religious activities of the region. This is the reason why Paul of Tarsus gave his first sermon to the Gentiles (Acts 13:13-52}, and visited the city once on each of his missionary journeys, helping to make Antioch a center of Christianity in Anatolia.
The Emperor Constantine’s liberalization of Christianity in 311 and the passing of new laws supporting it, caused people to adopt themselves to the new religion. Antioch played an important role as a metropolitan city at meetings of the church councils. It became the capital city of the Christian Pisidian Province, founded in the 4th century and welcomed the mayor of state and archbishop.
…
Note the reference to “Gentiles” in Antioch … and so the name “Christianity” came not from the founder of the faith and the apostles in Jerusalem, but rather, from gentile influence in Roman Antioch.
…
All this is why, after getting an eye-opening at the hands of the Father, the only reasonable approach to the faith, is a quiet sojourning with Yeshua. If ‘Christianity’ is corrupt from the start, why identify with it? It was Jesus who said, after all “a little yeast spoils the whole batch” - and clearly, yeast has spoiled the faith as it is known by the greek word ‘Christianity’.
About all of this, I am reminded of the encounter between Yeshua and the woman at the well, where He tells her:
John 4:22 GW You don’t know what you’re worshiping. We Jews know what we’re worshiping, because salvation comes from the Jews.
I think the same could be said of most so-called “Christians”. They do not know what they’re worshipping. Jesus is a myth, a mixture of Greek and pagan influence, and the real son of Yahweh who was a Hebrew/Yudah.
In some ways, that passage in John 4 about the woman at the wall, she being from samaria, and worshipping a god of tradition, at a traditional location - all seems very ‘prophetic’ of what is going on today. Yeshua confronting people of ‘tradition’ who don’t even know what (or whom) they are worshipping, and simply saying “come to me for living water”.
I am a follower of the Way.
I am not a christian. 
Jack
August 30th, 2006 at 5:57 am
I read every word of your long post, John 444. You have added someone else to the list of followers of the Way…me. Thank you!
I don’t go to a church but I do go to a home gathering every Sunday night with others like me…the rejected and the hurting.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:27 am
I have also referred to myself as a “follower of the Way” just as the early Christians did in Acts. It really seems more descriptive than “Christian” now and it is a good way to spark a conversation about Christ.
Oh, and when will CBC institute a “punishment detail?”
“Former Scientologists Bruce Hines and Chuck Beatty, once staffers at the church’s international base in Hemet, Calif., said that while on punishment detail, they made chairs of various sizes - ones big enough for a giant, others too small even for a child - that were set up in a room designed to hone one’s sense of relative sizes.”
August 30th, 2006 at 6:52 am
You’re both EZ.
Heretics. 
August 30th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Here is what a friend of mine had to say:
John444’s comment was written (most likely) by a man who is a follower of a cult group called “The Way International” I believe. Or maybe just “The Way.” I disagree with most of his conclusions.
Even though a couple points were valid, most were ridiculous. Especially the name Jesus. It is not a pagan conglomeration; it is simply a language thing.
By his reasoning we should all speak Hebrew if we wanted to be doctrinally correct. We could go with Aramaic I suppose, since that is the language Jesus and His followers used most. In that case, His name should be Yesu. I’m ok with that; I even have it on my license plate, but let’s not strain at gnats and swallow a camel.
The term “Christian” was used by Luke, and the context certainly didn’t make it sound like a bad thing. Even in Luke’s day, it was the common term for followers of Christ. It simply means “Christ in one.” As for eliminating the “traditions of men,” I’m all for that. By the way, (no pun intended) The Way doesn’t believe in the diety of Christ either.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:10 am
You’re friend smokes camel shit.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:40 am
I cringe sometimes when unbelievers use the word because it usually carries such negative connotations of extremist freaks who profess to be Christians and represent everything that is wrong with mainstream Christianity. But I don’t shy away from calling myself a Christian but at the same time take advantage of opportunities to express my beliefs and distance myself from the wackos.
John444, I think you’re just playing with lexical issues regarding the names and it’s just silly. To build a framework of belief around those kinds of word games is dangerous, and it’s no wonder that other Christians shy away from you when you talk like that. To deny the label and profess the same beliefs makes you sound crazy and detracts from your ability to share the Way. You’re a Christian whether you like being called that or not. Get over yourself.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet.”
*puff* *puff* /passes the pipe
August 30th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Ah, someone with a little more wisdom.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:48 am
How much distance is enough distance, FICM?
I can remember in one ‘church membership’ class, long ago, they depicted church history in graphic form, using the likeness of a tree. Naturally, it claimed to be rooted in Christ, but the trunk immediately branched off through the Catholic and Anglican (?) churches - from which there were numerous branches representing the denominations, annotated with names of ‘reformers’ such as Luther, Calvin, etc.
The question I ponder is, how far back must the tree be trimmed, to root out all the erroneous doctrines of men and dogma that have been introduced by the influences of the ecclesiarchs, paganism, Rome, etc.?
And to BT’s friend who said:
Why thank you, BTF. Since you have set the standard for judging someone by a single post, I shall do the same for you, after a short examination of what you wrote.
First, I’d like to nominate you for theologian of the year. Never before have I been so dazzled by a demonstration of scriptural knowledge, church history, and wisdom. I stand in awe.
Considering the jist of my message about historical ‘christianity’ and her love for the tradition(s) and teachings of men, about which you said “I disagree with his conclusions”, but then by the end of the message you slap a coat of radical white-wash on yourself saying “I’m all for eliminating the traditions of men”, I can only conclude one thing.
Specifically, you are an indecisive double-minded dumbass. Still, I’ll give you 1 point for being BT Beauty’s friend. She’s OK.
BTF, my double-minded friend, if you really wanna judge me, please do so only after checking out my web site - especially before implying that I deny the divinity of the Son of God. That was most offensive.
Jack
August 30th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Hey, John444…I think you’re OK too. However, I’m not fowarding your last comment to my friend.
My friend is also my boss.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Jack, you seem to be taking this fight rather personally. Are you trying to be avant-garde, or are you dealing with some bitterness against the Church at large? It just seems like you’re taking this to an extreme to prove some kind of point. I think you should relax and not take it so seriously. You’ll give yourself an ulcer or something.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Piles, but that’s too personal, don’t ya think?
It just strikes me funny that someone says “I’m all for doing away with the traditions of men” - a glib statement for sure - but doesn’t seem to consider that it is traditions of men by which we call Him “Jesus”, call the Father “God”, call ourselves “Christians”, baptise infants, go to church. The original scriptures are interpreted by tradition and became translations, books themselves are included / excluded by tradition. Ad nauseum.
Personally, I refer to Him as Jesus most of the time - in my writing and music - its the best way to relate to my brothers and sisters who are still in the institution - I know the difference and think He is mature enough to let me and everyone else slip by with mispronouncing His name - in the same way I let my kids call me by many names.
But where the rubber meets the road - am I a Christian, as it has come to mean in this culture? No - which seems to be your answer as well. For me, it is just easier to say “I’m a follower of the Way” than say “Yes, I’m a Christian, but not like those wack jobs who voted for Dubya, protest gays, bomb abortion clinics, and advocate anihilating anyone who is not an evangelical” and then have to tell them all I believe or spend 20 minutes comparing notes to see if we agree on doctrine …
I get tired of ‘christians’ always feeling some need to feel one another out to see what they believe - comparing notes - just to see if they can agree enough to break bread or pray together. Why isn’t “I love and follow Y’Shua (or Jesus, etc.)” enough?
Oh - and I’m bitter about everything.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Uh oh. Yo, boss person - please don’t fire BTBeauty just because I called you a double-minded dumbass. I’ll even take back the “double-minded” part if I have to.
Sincerely, John444
August 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Thank you, sweetie…:)
August 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
John444,
I stand very strongly by your side in what you say, and share your concerns about how Christinaity has evolved and changed over the years, and the many influences it has seen during its growth as a religion.
I am also aware of your suggestion that the name “Jesus” was a conflation of Yeshua/Zeus. It seems that Constantine may have tried to combine, both elements of Christianity and paganism, in order to create a religiopolitical atmosphere that satisfied his need for control.
According to what I have read, among the early Christians, Yeshua/Jesus was not necessarily considered divine; however, he was a sapiential teacher of “the Way”. Constantine and his administrators chose to deify Christ in order to make him more appealing to pagans and other popular roman cults and traditions. The incorporation of pagan traditions into Christianity was probably done to increase peoples tolerance towards it, and attract new converts.
The Cult of Mithras is a good example of some striking similarities between traditions.
Personally, I am very conservative in the sense that I have a high regard for what Yeshua/Jesus said, and what his original movement was about; however, I tend not to accept as readily the entirety of the Bible, and contemporary church doctrine.
I tend to favor this interpretation of Jesus.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:05 am
Muddles,
Both links were interesting reading; I’d never heard of Mithraism before - but recognized several beliefs in common with Christianity. Nor did I know there was actually a sect in Jesus time called ‘Cynics’ (OK, so I’m not well read in history
) There were some highly-charged statements in the link This interpretation of Jesus, such as:
And:
There was a time in my walk, where such statements would have shaken me deeply, as there was no room in my religious belief system for dissention. Perhaps that is because I relied on my beliefs for salvation rather than upon Y’Shua.
Yet in my personal experience, there has been one scripture in particular working within my members for several years now: “everything that can be shaken will be shaken, so that only that which can not be shaken remains” (paraphrase of Hebrews 12:27). The shaking has tumbled most/all of my long held beliefs, where now about all that remains, is Y’Shua (Jesus), and walking in concert with the Rauch Qodesh (Holy Spirit).
That to me is the reason Revelation 12:11 says not that it is not our belief system / theology that saves us, but the blood of the Lamb and our testimony of Y’Shua’s ongoing work in our lives.
Revelation 12:11 GW They won the victory over him because of the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony. They didn’t love their life so much that they refused to give it up.
History, archaeology, culture, and reasoning together with my brothers and with the Lord, have undermined and toppled many ‘Christian’ teachings - but my relationship with Y’shua remains and the deposit of the Holy Spirit within me remains. As such, I know my security rests in the hands of the Messiah, where radical ideas and assertions don’t phase me, and the door to fellowship is open to everyone for me.
Thanks for sharing the links, Muddles!
August 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am
Muddles, I appreciate the view point but this guy’s arguments depend so much on similarities to other religions and scenes from a fictional movie rather than the actual history of Christianity. His accusation that Paul was just using Christ as a figurehead is far-fetched considering the collaborative evidence of other Christians during that era, as well as Paul’s own reputation for enduring extreme physical suffering for the cause of Christ. He was a man of high political and religious esteem within Judaism and persecuted the followers of this “cult”. To say his conversion and lifelong pursuit of preaching the Gospel is his attempt at some kind of power play - it just doesn’t seem reasonable for anyone. He never benefitted from his position as an apostle, either financially or politically. He was a confirmed bachelor who provided for his own needs and was ultimately (it is believed) to have been martyred for his beliefs. I just can’t imagine a motive (other than lunacy) that would support such a theory.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
John444,
Again, I agree with your response. The “shaking” you speak of has also left me with major doubts about Christianity; however, I maintain the teachings of Jesus. It is important for people to fully understand what Jesus’ words meant in the historiccal context that He lived. Jesus’ instructions to the peoeple were not passive and held strong implications.
Here is another good link detailing what Jesus was actually saying. You will find that his words take new meaning.
I don’t necessarily believe in everything Jason Godesky writes, nor does he, I suspect. His theories remain very possible, and are always insightful, however.. Whether Paul actually perverted the teachings of Jesus, we will not know; but, it seems likely that, between then and now, Christianity has passed through some dirty hands, and no longer represents the Jesus movement (imho).
To better understand the kind of dynamics that were going on during ancient Palestine, and the whole patron/brokered system that dominated society, is to better understand Jesus, and who He WAS. I recommend the “The Historical Jesus: The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant” by JD Crossan, it paints a very vivid picture of life in ancient Palestine.
I think your on the right track
and I hope that you continue to trust your own experiences as truth, just keep growing.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Muddles, I read the link about “what Jesus was actually saying”. Great stuff, and I think those passages make a little more sense - the trick is to retain your dignity while exposing the evil of the offender without retaliation - it’s not just passivity.
However, I think you contradict yourself by saying you maintain the teachings of Jesus, but are skeptical of Paul and his teachings about the Gospel, and even accuse Christianity of distorting His Message. We don’t have the writings of Jesus or even a true first account of what He said. We only have the writings of early Christians, and the Gospels are written accounts of traditions handed down from the apostles and others. Don’t you think that even that Gospels are then subject to the distortion and perversion? (Not to mention error due to copying by scribes, etc.) The Epistles are the only first hand accounts of early Christian history which makes them much more reliable than the Gospels in the eyes of an historical skeptic. To doubt Paul’s writings and integrity without giving equal skepticism to the origin of the Gospels is a bit unfair.
I’m not saying your ideas about Jesus and his teachings are incorrect, but I think you would do well to consider all the sources and where they came from before judging one or the other based on someone’s pet theory.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
FICM,
Reasonable to anyone? Did you mean reasonable to you?
I don’t necessarily believe that Paul was THE betrayer of Christ, but I think that Jason Godesky’s theory is a sound one. The guy is a genius, and has a tremendous amount of knowledge and information on Christianity. I think that a lot of your doubts about the case made by Godesky are a bit capricious. I am not sure what kind of background you have in ancient history, anthropology, and Christian theology, but Jason Godesky definitely has his bases covered. He rarely boasts about his credentials, but he is considered an expert in many areas.
Anyways, I would encourage you to read the comments and feedback at the end of that essay, if you have not already. I would also encourage you to voice your criticism to him, and see what happens. He loves it when people engage him, trust me.
The legitmacy of the essay is not really important to me, it doesnt change anything for me. I brought it to attention because I agree with the picture it paints of Jesus’ character, and what kind of person he was in ancient Palestine. The Historical Jesus, imho, is much different then the “Jesus Christ” that is taught in mainstream Christianity … So, for me, the essay offered a potential explaination of how things might have gone wrong. That is all.
Basically, I think, that somewhere a long the line, people stopped caring about Jesus and his movement, and started caring more about Christianity as a religious institution.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
FICM,
I agree with you.
Although, it may not have appeared so in my posting, I am well aware of the things you highlight.
Yes, I believe that the Bible is mostly ancient literature. However, through multiple attestation, I think that there are some things we can be pretty sure of, but not 100%. Quite a few of Jesus’ sayings have multiple attestation, however.
I don’t view the canonical Bible as something divinely inspired by God, it is the product of hundreds of years of redaction. The Bible is useful, but in my opinion, not something to take literally. If you can compare sources, you can find much redaction in the Gospels.
I don’t quite know how to respond, I don’t recall ever saying that I believe in the Gospels. Just that I maintain the teachings of Jesus, I think that its good stuff, and some of it we can be fairly certain of.
My worldview does not require me to know everything, whether Jesus was divine, whether he resurrected, etc — this might sound blasphemous, but to me, those things don’t really matter. There are many things that I have not found personal closure on, and I suspect that I probably will not. I am okay with accepthing that some things are not currently knowable to us, as humans.
I think its important for us to concentrate on things that we can know, but to continue working towards understanding things that are not presently knowable. We should experience life as children, and embrace the world with wonder and awe, spending our time investigating the magic of life. Something that very few people do.
Nobody believes in magic anymore.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I do.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Muddles, you said:
I’d like to ask you if that means you’ve experienced Jesus? I hesitate to use the christianism “have a personal relationship with Jesus” - in my experience, He had to come to me, show me His love, do a lot of healing within me, where our relationship was really hit and miss, even jerky at times - lopsided for sure. But over the year, I came to see that His desire was for one-ness with me. IMO, the whole “personal relationship” thing stops short of “one-ness” with the Father in Jesus.
A number of Christians, myself formerly included, seem to be of the mindset that they wait for Jesus to tell them what to do and then do it - sort of like a spiritual game of “Simon says” - and that always seemed silly to me because the essence of a “command and do” type relationship leaves a person trying to accomplish what Jesus asked of them in their own strength, and, it seems to foster a notion of separate-ness. The real message of Jesus seems to be “one-ness”, where He lives in and through us, loves through us, speaks through us. The one-ness is natural, graceful, peaceful and is what I believe He intended with sayings such as “Live in me, and I will live in you. A branch cannot produce any fruit by itself. It has to stay attached to the vine. In the same way, you cannot produce fruit unless you live in me.” (John 15:4 GW)
Sorry if you stated it previously Muddles, if you did, I missed it. I’d just like to know that you have met Him, and know Him even as He knows you. My question is out of genuine love for seekers.
Jack
August 31st, 2006 at 11:39 pm
John444,
Your question is difficult for me to respond to, especially after returning from a night with friends (re: alcohol), but I shall do my best to satisfy your inquiry.
I was born into and raised at BT/CBC, was homeschooled (but also attended TCS/CSS, and the public school system), and was also involved in church programs such as FACT classes, church plays, summer camps, life groups, conferences, etc. I left CBC and stopped attending completely, shortly after highschool. So, roughly, for about 18 years I was pretty extensively involved in CBC life.
While at CBC, there would have been times that I might have told you that I had experienced Jesus, but looking back on all of that, I am quite certain that I was feeling something different — you know, the whole hype thing. I had mostly bad experiences at BT/CBC, but there were some moments of peace. I cannot say whether this was Jesus, or God, or anything divine for that matter, as I often feel similar sensations when invovled in a large group (concerts, protests, rallies, etc.) activity or setting.
I think a lot of what I have experienced of Jesus was self induced, and I am not quite sure how much, if any, was genuine. I tend to think you can be trained to view things in a very specific and biased manner, and I think thats what happened to me at CBC.
I was baptised, and given the gift of tongues, all of that — I went through all the motions, and at the time, I thought it was authentic — but now, well, I kind of have to look back and chuckle. None of that means anything to me now, and as far as I am concerned, its something that I did out of a persuaded mentality. I don’t want to suggest that I was coerced into doing these things, but there is a certain kind of acceptance that is associated with making these decisions.
Personally, I have found peace through prayer. My idea of prayer, however, is more like a meditative kind of process that I go through that helps me internally verbalize and organize my life. This is a different kind of prayer that I used to practice while involved at the church. Essentially, it is the same, but I have very different expectations of my prayers. I think of prayer as a way of collecting yourself, visualizing changes that need to be made in your life, and submitting them before God. I also pray for other people in my life, but do so in a focused and visual manner. I have seen success in my prayer life, and it has given me much peace, assurance, and confidence. I think that prayer is an awesome way of connecting with yourself.
Your question to me is troubling, Jack, because I feel very strongly that I have experienced spirituality, but whether this is Jesus, God, or whatever, I don’t know. I pray to Jesus, yes, but I am still very unsure of a lot of things.
For me, religion — Christianity, to be exact — has been programmed into me since birth, so its very significant in the way I view the world and interpret things. I like to compare it to a piece of software. Let me explain, we as humans, are given hardware, our physical components, like the brain, heart, etc … it is my belief, that we can be programmed by our environment to view things in an almost exclusive manner. Your senses can be viewed as the BIOS, and language is the OS. Religion is a kind of software package to me, that stipulates how I understand certain events in my life. There are many religious ideas and philosophies that could have been installed: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Animism, Taoism, etc, etc — but, for me, it was Christianity, and thats what my parents thought was best. Now, I see the world through the eyes of a “Christian,” which means, that spiritually, things manifest themselves with that understanding in mind.
So, none of this probably makes any sense, but what I am trying to say, is that the same experiences I have had in my life could be viewed very differently, if say, I was raised into Hinduism.
So there lies the problem, and to me, its not necessarily a problem. I kind of think that its ridiculous to assume that Christianity is the only “Way” to achieving spirituality and a one-ness with your Creator. Yes, I have a very strong bias towards Christ, and the Judeo-Christian mindset, but imo, that is only because I raised to understand things in such a manner.
With that said, I try to be very tolerant of other religions, because I view them as different cultural understandings of the same God.
I understand that at this point you are probably disappointed and discouraged by my response, because I have stated that I do not exclusively believe in Christ. Please note, however, that I do believe in Jesus’ movement.
This is going to turn into a convoluted mess if I keep on. Just let me say, that I believe very strongly in the “one-ness” that you espouse, and I constantly invite God into my life, and pray that His spirit will inundate my life. I feel like I have achieved a degree of that “one-ness” but there is much growth to be made.
The “shaking” that I spoke of had to do with the dismantling of certain ideas, or the deletion of certain “software,” if you will. I am now very open minded, and try to embrace life as it comes, seeing the beauty and the magic, and the life that has been breathed into this world by God.
So in conclusion, I have felt and experienced something similar to what you describe as being Jesus, but I probably have not reached your level of closure on this issue. At this point I am veering away from dualism, and have some problems with it. I tend to foster an animist view of the world, but am very tolerant, and find plenty of room for Jesus in my life.
September 1st, 2006 at 6:09 am
Muddles…
Welcome to the ranks of the deceived.
I have been away from BT for twenty years and have come to view my spirituality in a very similar manner to yours. Thanks for describing it so well. But then, Sister Edie told me that if I ever left BT and started believing anything different that it was because Satan has my mind. Actually I have been afraid to actually verbalize what you have said, because there is a part of me still haunted by Sister Edie’s words. I’m sure that was part of her intent.
I remember it being said at BT that denominations were churches that put God in a box. But it seemed to me that BT just had a bigger and differnet box in which to put God…but it was still a box. I wonder why God can’t reveal himself in different ways to different people and cultures and still be the same God we believe in.
Thanks Muddles, and welcome to the ranks!
September 1st, 2006 at 6:58 am
Hi Muddles,
‘Religion’ programs are actually of the classification of software known as “antivirus protection” and “firewalls”.
I loved your description of it and appreciate your analogy. Now I know that when speaking of achieving “one-ness” with the Father in Christ, I should have used the word “integration” like I wanted to do. 
(I used to work for Boeing Aerospace in Seattle, in various system and software integration type organizations - and so the idea of making everything work together ’seamlessly’ really relates to me). 
I’m not disappointed at all, Muddles. Christ has to reveal Himself to us, such that our belief and faith in Him is even a gift from Him. The ONLY reason I believe in Him is because He came up on me, confronted me, and basically said “I’m the one you have been looking for”. Of course, the ‘coming up on me’ has a lot to do with a life that has been externally orchestrated by the Father to bring me to an interface point with His Son. Not unlike the whole ‘Transfiguration’ scene in scripture, whereby the Father revealed the Son to his followers. Jesus must be revealed before we can see and know Him (see 1 Cor. 2:10-16).
Years ago, right after my 1st marriage of 16 years tanked, the Father or Holy Spirit (?) spoke to me in response to my desparate prayers for my family. I heard a voice, not with my ears, but with every cell and fibre in my body say “Do you think I would heal only half your heart”? I mean man, my body lit up with the resonance of those words. I knew it was the Father as I was alone at the time. Well, during the 2-3 years it took to get through the divorce, I tried desparately to cling to those words, but finally found mself in a heap on the floor confessing to Him that though He spoke them, wherefore they must be true, I did NOT believe that He would heal my ex and our marriage. Finally, after that confession of disbelief, He led me in reading some select scriptures, in which he opened up Psalm 45 to my spirit (the wedding psalm) and I said “Oh Father, I want to meet this woman” … He led me to another scriputure in which it says “this time next year”, whereupon I yelled at Him “I don’t want to wait a year, I want to meet her NOW!” But there was no reply.
Well, the divorce completed shortly thereafter, and my belief / faith was in the crapper. When almost a year to the day later, I met my wife Karen on AOL. I was 40 - she was 41 and had been waiting on God for her husband for 20 years. We are so compatible - even soul mates - and it wasn’t until meeting her, and falling in love with her, that I understood what the Father meant by “healing the other half of my heart” - for Karen had been heart-broken for many years, waiting on God for His choice in a husband for her. What is most amazing to me, is that when Karen was in her 20’s, she had a knock-down-drag-out with the Father demanding to know where her husband was and demanded that the Lord give her something she could hold on to. Nearly 20 years before she met me, she demanded the Lord at least “tell me his initials”. And the Lord said to her “JH”. That night, 20 years ago, she wrote me a love letter - to her “JH”.
Well, in 20 years of course, that’s a lot of time to write all that off as a pipe dream - to let doubt choke out a word from the Father. And so as I was confessing my disbelief in “Do you think I would heal only half your heart”, Karen dismissed and forgot about her “JH”.
And then we met. She didn’t know my name other than “Jack” at first. My handle on AOL where she met me was Eze3626 (after Ezekiel 36:26). Only after writing her for several months did I tell her my last name “Helser”, whereupon the Lord awkened her memory of the “JH” promise, and the letter she wrote 20 years before. To hear Karen tell it, she “launched” when the Spirit quickened all that to her.
My point in telling you this Muddles, is that the institutional church tries to make quick work of salvation - filling your hard drive with doctrines and dogma, creating religious programs to titliate your senses and mimick spiritual experience, use group settings to coerce pseudo-spiritual behavior. But the Father works differently - like a gardener who pants and works the fields to bring about a crop of fruit, of which one is faith. In my life, and in Karen’s life, the Father laid the groundwork and worked the soils of our life around us for nearly 40 years before bringing us to a deep and abiding faith, and to a rewarding / fulfilling relationship with Him through His Son.
All that is to encourage you - not to judge your life by your circumstances, by the barren-ness around you, but to take heart that God is working, and bringing you to a point of encounter - where that systems integration (one-ness) that you seem to know deep down is the ultimate design goal, will be accomplished.
The big problem with the IC (BT/CBC, et al) as I see it is, they have ignored one of the most simple scriptures - where Jesus says:
“When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to me” (John 12:32 GNB).
The IC lifts up many things, peripheral things, non-value-added things, and seldom lift up Jesus. It is my observation that when we lift up (exalt) Jesus by our actions and testimony we are drawn together in unity (John 17:21-23). But when we lift up things OTHER than Jesus (doctrines, dogma, programs, et al), it divides us.
I’m sorry you have seen so many things other than Jesus exalted, Muddles. And I pray that the Father is lifting Him up for you to see and experience.
Thanks so much for being vulnerable with me and sharing. I love and appreciate that so much! With love! Jack
September 1st, 2006 at 7:05 am
John444, thanks for sharing your love story! That gives me hope…
September 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Chinook,
I’m glad to hear that my words have resonated with you. I wish you strength in overcoming any guilt associated with your Christian experience. As long as you choose to live in the hands of God, and remove yourself from the hands of man, I have faith that you will be okay
“To save your life is to lose it; to lose your life is to save it.”
September 1st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
John444,
I agree with this characterization, John444, but understand it in a way that is not exclusively achievable through Jesus. I, however, do think it is possible to achieve this “one-ness” with God through Jesus, because he teaches the “Way”–His interpretation of it as revealed by God.
Is the “Jesus Way” to reaching a one-ness with God the only way?
Jesus’ ministry impacted a very small and specific cultural region of the world many thousands of years after humans came onto the scene. So, for many thousands of years we have all these religions and cultural traditions that are evolving across the world simultaneously. Is it fair for us to presume that none of these people had achieved a spiritual one-ness with God?
Jesus was mostly concerned with Jews, and his ministry was focused on Jewish peasants, poor destitute peoples in ancient Palestine, suffering from a very aggressive Roman occupation. It is very likely that he believed the world was going to end in his own life. Jesus’ movement was shaped and characterized by the squalor of the poor and their ability to overcome oppression. He was probably killed because of the potentialy subversive nature of his movement.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that, all over the world spiritual teachers, shamans, healers, and thaumaturgists etc., existed before and after Jesus. Did none of them find God? Why did God not reveal himself to these peoples? Or, maybe he did?
For me the idea that God chose only to reveal himself through Jesus to the Jews is laughable — and, I suppose everyone who did not come in contact with Jesus, or any of the OT patriarchs etc., would be damned to hell by default– yeah, right!
So, John444, let me say, that I am very happy you have found peace and one-ness with God through Jesus, honestly. And one day I will probably resolve to understand my spirituality through Jesus as well, because of my upbringing. However, I still maintain, that there are indeed other ways to reach God outside of Jesus and Christianity.
“Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”
I recognize that you have found Jesus to be a successful way of interfacing with God, and that you have found a desired one-ness with your Source. I must continue to assert the fact that I believe strongly that there are other ways to “interface” with God, however.
September 1st, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
He was either telling the truth or he was a complete lunatic. His life is not that of a lunatic. I therefore conclude He is telling the truth.
September 1st, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I believe every person is separated from God by their sin and in need of forgiveness. Because God is a God of justice as well as being a loving God, we cannot cross this gulf and have a relationship with Him (eternal life) unless the penalty for our sin is paid–eternal death. If God did not judge our sin, He would no longer be just.
I know for sure that living a good, moral life cannot save a person because good works do not pay the penalty for sin. If you get a $50 speeding ticket, you can’t pay for it with homemade cookies! Only death can pay the death penalty for sin, nothing else.
God sent Jesus to die in our place to pay the death penalty we deserve for our sin. Jesus chose to do this because He loves us, and was the only one able to do this because He is fully God and He is fully man.
On that cross, God judged Jesus for my sin so that I wouldn’t have to be judged. That’s why He is the only way to God–only Jesus was willing and able to die for us to pay our death penalty, thus providing forgiveness for our sins. No one other religious leader has done this; no one else could have done this.
So now there are two options. Either a person can pay this penalty themselves–and so not be saved–or Jesus can pay it for them–and be saved. In both ways, God is just because the penalty is paid.
I choose to have Him pay the penalty for me.
Considering the sacrifice Jesus made, we shouldn’t think it is unfair that there is only one way, but we should be glad that there is any way at all!
September 1st, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I’m going to open another fortune cookie to sort this whole thing out.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
It says: Your conclusions are simply the places where you got tired of thinking.
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Yes, I believe that to be true.
As far as I know of other religions, all of them promote salvation through works, living by a creed / law, exercising various self-disciplines to draw nearer to God. And so the other religions (again as far as the ones I know of go) all maintain that you save yourself by your efforts.
Jesus teaching is a departure from other religions, in that He says in effect “you can’t save yourself, I must save you”.
Any person who truly follows Jesus teachings, sooner or later has to contend with the ones which say: “I am the Way, Truth and Life - no one comes to the Father except through me”, and “Take up your cross, and follow Me. For if any man wants to save his life, he shall lose it, but whoever loses His life for my sake shall find it again”, and “I am the vine, you are the branches; apart from me, you can do nothing”, and “my flesh and blood are real food and drink - you must eat and drink them to have life”. Jesus teachings included the exhortation to accept Jesus for who He said He is. And so to accept and live by His conduct-oriented teachings, but not his Savior-related teachings, would certainly make you a good and loving person, but not a saved person, according to His teachings. I don’t think the teachings of Jesus can be separated from the person of Jesus.
That said - I do think people can know Jesus, but refer to Him by another name. There was an old documentary (movie?) about Hellen Keller years ago, wherein one of the people who was anxious for her to learn to communicate, was a priest / preacher. He was concerned for her salvation, since she could not see, or hear. How would she receive the gospel without 2 of the basic senses?
And when the priest was finally able to communicate with her, and told her about Jesus, her reply (at least in the movie), was “Oh, HIM!” That struck me - about the faithfulness of the Father to reach out to us when we are in darkness, and to reveal Himself to people. It wasn’t until the priest / preacher talked to Helen about Him that a ‘name’ was assigned to ‘Him’. Obviously, she already knew Him, but not the name by which most people refer to Him.
I think the movie was Helen Keller: The Miracle Continues (1984) with Mare Winningham playing the lead role. I believe the movie is based in fact.
I do believe, when you arrive at your destination, you will find it is Him, and Him alone.
Blessings! Jack