Well there's a lot of things that can be said about the Church which is more of a cultural thing and has very little to do with religion. In part because times change and the Church is not able to provide current answers to keep up. However, that doesn't mean the Church was initially set up due to a lack of God. This I'm afraid is where most people are mistaken, and they only misconstrue things even more by judging the Church based upon the people who go to Church. Does that make any sense?

So, rather than the belief in God, it tends to get replaced by meaningless ritual. While here a couple of excepts from the Internet Infidel Forums' thread, My Problems with God ... which help reiterate this.

Oh well, enough said.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

In JREF the atheists describe what sort of Easter Baskets they will get for their kids so things must be more complicated than aphorisms. Rituals didn't spring just like that, if the church didn't try to conform the rituals with the actual needs of the common people it wouldn't have succeeded that much.

Otherwise I cannot understand why people who instruct their kids not to participate in the school prayers spend time and money in easter baskets.

Yeah, if not Christian it's still some sort of Pagan practice, and it still boils down to religion. What is Christmas all about? It has nothing to do with Christ's (actual) birthday does it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

The Romans called it Saturnalia, named after the god of crops and farmers and (whatever rural). They used to celebrate for about two weeks, exchanging presents (sic!) and eating alot (sounds familiar too) and f***ing alot (that has been forgotten somehow ).

Most other European cultures of course celebrated the winter solstice (21.12.).

Is there any christian holiday of non-pagan origin?

Ask three "true" christians and you get four answers.

I guess most of them would consider themselves as a true X, depending into what church they were born.

Most christians I know are not really organised, they are in a church but don't attend services often. They have a loose concept of their God, picking the good pieces from bible as they suit them and ignoring the ridiculous, brutal, obviously wrong stuff... In my eyes those are certainly not "true" christians, because they make up their own religion. The word "Christian" has so many definitions that it has almost lost its meaning.

A catholic, protestant, mormon, etc. is precisely defined - well protestants split up in a bazillion of groups, but the general attribute is "not catholic and no other book than the bible (not necessarily literally interpreted)" I guess.

I define a "true" christian as someone who believes in the bible literally, Jack the Chick style. Interesting enough those people do not consider their belief system to be a religion . My main argument for this is: If you do not take all of the bible for granted, i.e. came directly by god, some human has to decide what's right or wrong (that human may be you yourself), and then it is all made up by man and not by god.

Actually I do follow those fundies' line of reasoning and their statements what is wrong with the church (esp. the ecclesia catholica). I draw other conclusions though...

The way I see it is cat has three names: 1) the name his master calls hims, for example say "Raph"; 2) his scientifc name (feline whatever); and 3) the name that nobody knows but the cat himself.

Hence there are the three degrees to the development of color TV which, I like to compare to the development of the Christian Church. First you have the development of radio, which allows you to hear but not truly see, because there is no picture. Second you have the development of black and white TV, where you can now see but, because it's in black and white you can't see the true picture. And third you have the development of color TV, where you can now truly see, in which case the whole thing goes without saying.

Thus in the beginning there was the Roman Catholic Church, which preached to the masses in a foreign tongue (Latin), to where the people can hear but not see (like radio). Then came the Protestant Church, which made the Bible accessible to the masses (in their native tongue), to where they can now see as well as hear (like black and white TV). However, because there was no true interpretation (color), everyone resorted to their own interpretion. Ever wonder why there are so many denominations to the Protestant Church? Finally there's the only True Church which, because it's the only genuine interpretation (like color TV), it can be seen for what it is and pretty much goes about it's own business. Meaning, it doesn't find the need to draw a lot of attention to itself. Meow ...

If you would like to know what Church I'm referring to, please refer to the Swedenborg Foundation.


P.S. In case you hadn't guessed, this is me, Iacchus32.

__________________
Hey, did you know that a cat has three names? ... 1) The name that his master calls him ... 2) His scientific name and ... 3) The name that nobody knows but the cat himself? Meow ...

Iacchus32, I have to say that whenever someone starts to talk about the TRUE CHURCH I usually grab my car keys and start edging towards the door. If any one thing defines the difference between spirituality and religion for me, it's this insistence that there is only one way to faith in God and the nextlife. This seems to be the root of the problem with most organized religions, the fact that each one says they are right and everyone else is going to BURN! In fairness, though, I have requested a catalog from Swedenborg and I will definitely give it a read.

When a "true Christian" gets too hard line with me, I ask them if they've ever read the Gospel of Thomas. They usually haven't, so I get to tell them that, even though it was written by one of Jesus' disciples, it wasn't included in the New Testament because it mentions Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, not as a prostitute. While they stand there blinking, I mention the children Jesus and Mary had together and wonder if any divinity rubbed off on them...

Greetings Phi for All! Welcome to Dionysus Forums!

Well, I think you should be pleasantly surprised. And, while there are churches which have moded themselves after Swedenborg's precepts, the Swedenborg Foundation is a non-profit organization there to distribute Swedenborg's materials. Nobody is going to twist your arm. While I doubt very much if you were to visit any one of these churches you would have a problem with them either.

I have a couple of posts here referring to Swedenborg's material under Heaven and Hell, plus you might want to check out his Expanded Biography at the Swedenborg Foundation. I also just posted something at Comparative-Religon.com regarding the multi-denominational nature of the Christian Church with respect to the Swedenborg Church.

I have heard about the Gospel of Thomas but I'm not really familiar with it. However, I have to admit that the idea of it sounds a bit foreign. Albeit there was a program on the Discovery Channel awhile back (around Christmas) that kept talking about how particularly fond Jesus was of Mary Magdalene and it may have been about that. I would question its authenticity though, because I don't believe much else of it is mentioned in the Bible. But then again some of that may be due to my being unaccustomed to it (no doubt).

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

From what I've read, there were several Gospels written by those who knew Jesus best. The Council of Nicea, chaired by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, edited them down to the four we see today in the New Testament. Part of this reason was that the council had agreed to elevate Jesus from the Son of Man to the Son of God. All writings which detailed his mortal weaknesses were actively purged from the Canon. Efforts were also made to discredit all the women from Jesus' life and teachings, except his Mother Mary, and they decided to make her childbirth a virgin miracle as well, denying Joseph his true place as Jesus' father. This was because paganism, Constantine's former religion (and one of the most prevalent at the time) gave equal if not greater importance to women. Women are considered almost divine in pagan culture because they were the only ones capable of bringing forth new life into the world. Gnostic theory on this is that the dominant male leaders of the time saw the deification of Jesus as a way to destroy the divine feminine in their new religion, thus insuring compliance from those they saw as the weaker sex.

So they made Mary Magdalene a whore that Jesus took pity on, instead of a woman he loved with all his heart who bore him mortal children. It actually makes more sense to me. Whoever heard of a hard-working, compassionate, thirty-year old Jew in those times being unmarried & childless?

Politics huh? I don't doubt that that's how the Bible could have come together. But how do you know what their intent was? Was it well documented or, pretty much word of mouth? You're speaking about a pretty drastic change in perception here. However, I will admit that these are the same characteristics I would ascribe to just about any other religion. I just thought Christianity was different in that it was the ultimate expression of God, hence the official version, from which all the other religions were merely representations of. If in fact this was their intent throughout these proceedings, then they certainly accomplished what they set out to do!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Please don't think I am slamming the Bible. Jewish tradition in meticulously copying at least the first five books (the Torah) letter by letter, a page at a time, insured that the Bible would not become a malleable tool of politics. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all recognize the importance and accuracy of the Bible, although only the Christians call it the Old Testament. The Talmud, the Quran and the New Testament are addendums to biblical traditions penned by followers and prophets of Judaism, Islam and Christianity respectively. These texts define the practices and beliefs of their respective religions, but they all accept the historical accuracy of the Bible.

There are many things that bother me about parts of all these writings, most notably their desire to put women in a submissive role. God created the animals, fish and birds as both male and female, so why would He err by creating Adam alone, then recognize his loneliness, and create Eve from a piece of Adam? Does this sound omniscient? I view men and women, or rather the masculine and the feminine, as two halfs that make a whole. Strip away our bodies and you have either a masculine or feminine view of things, views which are limited on their own. The masculine view is very detailed, very much centered on the immediate surroundings, looking for things to affect directly NOW. The feminine view is much more big-picture oriented, more concerned with the future, looking at everything which may affect the overall outcome. When the masculine and the feminine can recognize this difference in perspective, these views, they can work together to accomplish incredible things. Feminine view can do the long-range, strategic planning and the masculine view can carry out the immediate, tactical tasks. Everyone is happy and no one is pointing the finger and screaming, "Illogical!" or "Insensitive!"

It really bugs me that women have been the victims of a smear campaign initiated so Constantine could solidify his empire by wiping out the predominant pagan beliefs. To the pagans, men were the right hand, women were the left hand, a symmetry that defined the beauty of human spirituality. After Constantine and the religious purge that continued through the Inquisition, where over five million women were burned over a three hundred year period, the english language adopted the latin word for left, sinistra, to mean sinister, or devious. Copulation became the tool of the Devil, who was shown repeatedly in paintings of the time cavorting with women while the men looked on in shock. Pagan symbols like the pentagram and the horns of the fauns became the Devil's symbols, and women who could heal with herbal medicines were labeled as witches and sorcerors (pharmekia in Greek, where we get the modern Pharmacy). Yes, we have the Christian church to thank for making sex a bad thing.

OK, I have to stop and breathe now. Thanks very much for this forum!

Excerpt from the booklet, Sex, Eros, Marital Love, available through the Swedenborg Foundation ...

I believe this goes along the lines of what your'e speaking about here, and shows men and women were meant to be joined interiorly, and in effect complete themselves through each other. This is also a basic tenet of Swedenborg's teachings, that Marital Love (through the joining of the sexes) is the first and primary love which proceeds from the throne of God. It's a bit of a contrast don't you think? from the legacy of what's been handed down from the Church which we now associate with Christendom.

Have you seen my post on A Vision of Marital Love?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I intended to reply to this here but, it seemed more applicable to the category, Bridging Differences, and I decided to create the thread, Science is the Bridegroom? Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You have to remember that historically the separation of church and state is a very recent (post-Enlightenment) and very western idea. It was not part of the way westerners thought prior to the 18th century and is not part of the thinking of non-western cultures. In Islam, for example, it is unthinkable to separate matters of state from matters of religion. In Islamic conception, a state which provides maximum freedom to all is one that provides maximum freedom to the practice of Islam.

So, any time one is dealing with religious matters pre-Enlightenment (including the whole of pre-Christian Judaism) one is also dealing with politics and vice versa. The prophets of Israel were seen by the kings as political advisors (Nathan/David; Isaiah/Hezekiah) or agitators (Elijah/Ahaz; Jeremiah/Jehoiakim). That was not an incorrect assessment.

Amen and Amen!

One of the things I was alerted to recently is the extent to which the repression of women by the church affected all aspects of life including academic life and the rise of western science. I highly recommend the book A World Without Women: the Christian Clerical Culture of Western Science by David F. Noble, Oxford University Press, (sorry, the paperback edition I have does not indicate year of publication, but sometime after 1989 as sources go up to that date.)

One key decision that impacted very strongly on the development of academic life was Charlemagne's support of the cathedral school. Prior to the development of the cathedral school, the primary centers of learning in medieval Europe had been the monasteries and abbeys. And many of these were double abbeys (a convent and monastery placed in the same compound) under the direction of an abbess, where men and women studied and worked side by side, separating only their private living quarters. The double abbey at Whitby in England served as a university for the children, both male and female, of the English nobility of the time, and the abbess was highly influential as a political advisor.

The movement of the centre of learning to the cathedral placed it within the confines of the male-only celibate clergy. Only boys were accepted as students. And the eventual closing of the double abbeys in the 11th to 13th centuries denied women access to higher education right into the 19th century. The cathedral school became the forerunner of the university, and for many centuries, the celibacy expected of bishops was also expected of doctors at the principle academic centres. Did you know that long after the Anglican clergy were permitted to marry, it was still required of Oxford dons that they be bachelors?

A natural result is that the misogyny of academia rivaled and still rivals that of the church.

Wow, that's one I haven't heard of! Thanks, gluadys, I just requested that from my local library (published 1992 according to them). I remember reading somewhere that celibacy among priests started when the Church of Rome realized it received less money from tithes as its clergy fostered larger families. By requiring the priests to remain unmarried (the original meaning of celibate; chaste meant abstaining from sexual relations), the papacy assured itself of a bigger piece of the pie.

I just started The Fall of Sophia by Violet MacDermot, pub. 1978, Lindisfarne Books. The first 30 pages are a forward, a preface, and an introduction, but are a wealth of info on historical context, from the Nag Hammadi to Carl Jung. Have you read it (Iacchus, chapter 3 of Part One is entitled Swedenborg and the Human Body as Microcosm )?

It is typical of the masculine to assume that accumulated knowledge (like size and strength) is a true test of superiority. I believe that knowing ultimately what to DO with that knowledge, size and strength, how to apply them, is equally important, and is something the feminine seems to do best.

No doubt ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Because it's a fun way to celebrate spring.

__________________
Once you find your way, you're there.

It also doesn't pose a perceived threat to the Constitutional separation of church and state so precious to the USA democracy. Strange though that painting eggs and talking about the Easter Rabbit at school isn't seen as a violation of that same union of church/state prohibition. After all, Easter is definitely tied in with religion.

So perhaps what we have here is another glaring example of the double standards which humans are prone to hold whenever it becomes personally advantageous to hold them.

Hi all, me again.

actually, a if you asked a 'True' Christian what it means to be a Christian---> they would, or should say that, a Christian is someone who realised that they needed to be saved, and realised that the only way they can be saved is through Jesus Christ...

wow, was i preaching there...oops!

oh, and No-one plz think of Christians as supposadely 'good' people...because we all do bad things...yes, even you!

__________________
Nobody likes the Good Guy, thats the TRUTH!