portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality | political theory

The pacifist strategy of Jesus - 1. The lost message

Throughout history there have been people who have faithfully read about Jesus in the Bible over and over again and yet for all their reading, not once did they ever understand a thing that the man was really saying. The following investigation is intended both to expose how religion functions as a brainwashing tool, as well as recovering the Lost Message of Jesus.

The Roman Nazi Party

You can recognize a tree by the fruit that it bears. No one picks apples from a pear tree, and thistle produces no fruit at all. By examining the fruit, we can identify the tree.

It also logically follows that if we find fruit that does not belong on the tree, we have discovered a curious contradiction. Why would a harvester present us with thorns, while claiming that this was the fruit of a fig tree?

We know that the cross was an instrument of torture employed by the ancient Roman state. The Roman economy was arranged as an hierarchical male patriarchy, wherein a small clique of dominant male patriarchs accumulated wealth which was the product of slave labor. No Roman patriarch could get as rich as one hundred or one thousand based only upon their own labor, for this would require them to work one hundred or one thousand times more, which is not possible, which is why the Roman patriarchy relied upon slaves and forced labor in order to produce the wealth required to make the patriarch rich. Slavery is not a voluntary occupation, but rather such a system of domination requires brutish force and terrorism to maintain itself, and for this reason the cross was employed as the instrument of terror. There are many ways to murder another human being. A quick blow over the head would do the trick, but such a death did not incorporate the essential element of terror which is incorporated in such a gruesome form of execution as the crucifixion.

Therefore, to be crucified is to become the victim of terrorist attack. This is obvious. We know that when Spartacus led a failed slave uprising in the Roman Empire, five thousand rebel slaves were crucified alongside all the roads leading into Rome as a demonstration of patriarchal power. According to accounts of the time, the bodies were then left to rot on the crosses, and the stench was unbearable. To be crucified was the consequence of challenging the power of the Roman state. To attack the practice of crucifixion was an attack on the economic foundations of the patriarchal order.

For this reason we know that in its earliest form, what became 'Christianity' was an attack on the Roman patriarchy and was also a sword aimed at the heart of the Roman economic system. The reason for this is that you cannot spread the story of a crucified victim of the Roman imperialists who was rescued by God, without making an insulting commentary on the system of Roman patriarchy. We could then summarize the content of this insulting message by saying, 'Caesar crucifies slaves, but God rescues his victims.' Therefore the early Christian movement contained at its heart a symbol which was a deeply offensive insult to the Roman patriarchs and since you cannot maintain a slave driven system without the terror of crucifixion, the Christian movement represented a revolutionary challenge to the Roman system and must have demanded revolutionary change in the economic order as well. You cannot 'reform' a system of patriarchal domination and slavery. Such a system can only be burned to the ground.

For this reason we will consider the symbol of the crucifix to be a fig, and since you can know a tree by the fruit that it produces, we can also identify the tree that produced such a fig as being a fig tree.

This leaves us to wonder how it was the case that we wound up with such a thorn as that Christian religion which followed, because thorns do not come from fig trees. Such thorns come from thistles, for thistles produce no fruit, but rather they produce thorns.

We can also draw the conclusion that Caesar probably did not have much of an appetite for figs, and yet we are told that Caesar chose the fig, and also chose the gardener who picked the fig to share his throne. We see another contradiction here, in that no such figs were ever produced, but that is understandable when we keep in mind that Caesar actually did not like figs, and that it would be impossible for any gardener of such figs to be found sitting on a throne in the first place. This would then explain the thorns that were produced instead.

For you see a gardener went out to sow some seed. At a later time the garden was found to be choked with those thorns, and so the gardener was asked, 'I thought you used good seed in your garden. Why is it then that your garden is now choked by thistles.' The gardener replied, 'during the night, while everyone was sleeping, an enemy came into my garden and scattered the seeds of a thistle in my garden.'

We know from our recent historical experience that doctrines of torture and whole sale genocide are the doctrines of the right wing extremist, the Nazi. We also know, by the study of the historical record, that Caesar was also a genocidal torturer, and since slave driving is based upon authoritarianism and patriarchal domination, we know that Caesar must have been a right wing extremist, and a Nazi, as well. Which then explains those thorns.

For while the cross may have been a fig, that religion that became known as 'Christianity' was not. It was a thorn, being as it was a doctrine of torture which threatens humanity with genocidal crucifixion while demanding obedience to the authorities. The first patriarch becomes Jesus, the Lord and Master, who then passes his authority on to the state, so that to 'obey Jesus' is to 'obey the patriarchs', and much as in ancient Rome, to fail to do so is to be tortured by Jesus. This is the thorn. Since we know that Caesar did not care for figs, and since we also know that Caesar produced a similar crop of thorns, and since we also know that Caesar invited the harvester of such a thorn to share the throne, we can draw the logical conclusion that what Caesar did was to invite the Roman religious right to share the throne, since he preferred the thorns they produced for him over those figs he was being offered prior to that time.

Religion aas a brainwashing tool

It is for this reason that we can determine that there must have been an 'historical Jesus'. It is highly unlikely that a clique of Nazi forgers would have begun, as their first step, by embarrassing themselves with a cross, and then embarrassing themselves further by their incessant attempts to get rid of that thing.

But embarrass themselves they did, and the result of their humiliating efforts was the production of that notorious thistle known as 'Christian religion'. We can learn a lot about systems of brainwashing and propaganda by examining the process of substituting that thistle for a fig, and also from the prodigious effort that went into assigning that thistle to the botanical class of a fruit. For no thistle is turned into a fig overnight. That task took centuries of ceaseless effort by theologians, and assorted scribes and pharisees, as they labored to hide the keys and keep the door to understanding locked tightly shut. They had not intention of ever going through that door themselves, and they were also determined not to allow anyone else to enter that door. The result was religion, which is a way to lock a door and keep it locked, preferably forever, or that very least, for thousands of years, just depending on how well it all worked out at the end of it all.

Since they were stuck with a fig, and being right wing imperialistic hawks, they did not care for figs, it was required that they spend at least four hundred years in researching the various techniques that could be employed to redefine a fig as being in actual truth not a fig at all, but rather a thistle, since it is pretty obvious that it was a thistle they wanted, since it was a thistle they produced. The amount of time they spent working on that botanical research is an indication of just how passionately they detested they taste of figs and of just how determined they were not to serve figs, even though they were stuck with a fig which they just did not want. This then explains the evolutionary development of what became known as 'theology', which it turns out is a way to convince people that a fig was not a fig at all but actually was a thistle instead.

We can tell by the study of such a religion that the task of the brain washer is to find some way to turn figs into thistles. The fig remains a fig, since it is impossible to turn figs into thistles, but that is not important. All that matters is that a way to be found to brain wash the herd so that they can be told that a fig is not a fig but rather that a fig is a thistle thus causing them to believe what is false while becoming blind to what is true so that they won't find out what just happened to them. This is the essence of the technique of brain washing and since religion is a form of brain washing, this is also the very essence of that form of pseudo-philosophy known as 'theology'.

For this reason we are told that Caesar did not crucify Jesus. Rather it was Lee Harvey Oswald who did it, Lee being God who 'crucified Jesus for our sins.' Since it is required that people be crucified for a reason, and since that reason cannot be to undermine the patriarchy or threaten the economy with justice, it must therefore be the case that Jesus was crucified 'to pay for out sins'. It would also be required that God crucified Jesus, which would be better than saying that Caesar, and thus the entire Roman elite, were responsible, and since someone had to take the blame, better God than the rich and the powerful, or so went the thinking of the religious right.

Using this method it was possible to then claim that a fig was a thistle, or to reverse the process it was possible to claim that a thistle was not a thistle at all, but actually a kind of fruit. You can see that thistle being regarded as an acceptable fruit whenever you hear someone say, 'Jesus took my place on the cross. He died for me and paid the full price that was due for my sin.' Torture has been normalized, since everyone deserves to be crucified, and therefore we can see that when the patriarch imposes the death penalty, even something as gruesome as that crucifixion, that is a holy act and there is nothing wrong with the practice.

Just to make sure that torture was normalized, and the patriarchy could remain in power, requiring torture as they did, Jesus also became both a domineering patriarch himself, as well as a torturing monster, a true right wing Nazi, threatening all humanity with genocide unless they submitted to authority. Once again you can determine what the fruits of such a tree will be when you consider that Hitler, who only managed to get under a third of the vote in Germany at the peak of his electoral success (he was undemocratically hoisted into power by a cabal of German elites) , nevertheless achieved large majorities in the German Bible Belt, since the religious right provided him with his political base. From this base he was then able to achieve absolute power as a torturing genocidal undemocratic dictator, just like Jesus. Which explains why the religious voted for Hitler, for those two ideologies, the Christian doctrine of torture and genocide, and the Nazi doctrine of torture and genocide are kissing cousins. This would then explain those humiliating sermons preached by all those ministers wherein they ecstatically celebrated the rise to power of Hitler using decidedly messianic language, for the coming of Hitler was the closest thing on earth to the second coming of Jesus, and until such a time as Jesus could return and do the job of genocide and torture thoroughly, Hitler would do just nicely (for you see, the Kingdom of Heaven had come to Germany - as in heaven, so on earth, the saying goes, which then explains the need for theology, which is a way of reversing that process and saying as on earth so let it also be heaven).

The doctrine of sin

If a fig cannot be a fig then it follows that it must be asserted that a fig was something else, like perhaps a tangerine, or better yet, a thistle. Following the same principle, we can see that if a crucifixion was not an act of terrorism and torture, employed to maintain patriarchal domination, then a crucifixion would have to become something else as well, like, for example, perhaps a divine cosmic drama of some sort, whereby instead of being tortured to death by right wing Nazis, humanity was actually receiving salvation through crucifixion.

If crucifixion can be justified, so that the patriarchs could carry on murdering humanity for a few more thousand years, it would be required that humanity deserved to be crucified from time to time, thus explaining why after everyone became so religious, nevertheless patriarchy continued, and therefore, given the nature of domination, which requires the employment of terror and force, crucifixion continued as well.

To achieve this highly desirable result it was required then that crucifixion not be about elites torturing slaves to death, but rather it should instead be the case that humanity deserved to be tortured to death, which then meant that there was nothing wrong with the practice. Now we know that elite patriarchs have always been the 'ruling class' and that they are the 'responsible authoritarians' and therefore if it is to be the case that a dominant clique of such patriarchs can continue to rule while at the same time they continue to produce the same crop of thistles as the product of the gardening efforts, and if they are to be considered the tenders of figs rather than the sowers of thistles, then it just logically follows that someone else will have to take the blame for everything that is wrong with the planet. The most straight forward conclusion to draw is that the dominating male patriarchy was to blame, since they were the 'ruling class', but if we are the right wing, we would want to replace a crown of thorns with a crown of laurels, not to mention a crown of gold, and for this reason the blame must be placed some where else. This must be done so that the system can escape criticism for the sorry state of that perpetually weed infested garden. For you see, normally when a garden is choked with weeds, one would question that gardener, but when that is unacceptable religion comes to the rescue and it turns out that the problem is the soil itself. The gardener can then be granted the right to use a destructive hoe from time to time.

The function of the doctrine of 'sin' is to divert criticism away from Caesar, and dominating patriarchs in general, and instead move the blame to the slave. Given how sinful that slave is you can then understand the need for Caesar, and you can also understand the need to employ a destructive hoe from time to time to control that weed problem in the garden. It turns out that gardens are found to be full of weeds not because of neglect, nor because someone came at night and sowed weeds in the garden, but rather the garden was 'born weed choked'.

The doctrine of 'original sin', which is an innovation of theology, goes all the way and places the blame for sin directly on those most shameful of organs, the genitals. Sin, it turns out, is inherited. If one is not religious, then one could keep the same doctrine and achieve the same diversionary result, by insisting that sin is the product of millions of years of evolution, thus explaining the sorry state of the planet, not to mention reminding people of just how much they need the patriarch, and Caesar on the throne. This would also explain the need for that destructive hoe, and also explains why trillions would be spent on purchasing new hoes for the task, instead of spending trillions on such things as sandwiches, since hoes are required but apparently sandwiches are not.

Now when people don't have sandwiches they can become violent. This is important to keep in mind as you study the history of a world that has been existing perpetually in a state of being short on sandwiches. Unfortunately with all the violence in the world, it is required that we spend money on hoes to deal with the problem of original sin, which then requires that we keep the world short on sandwiches. You will understand that when you consider the dreadful nature of that problem with sin, that it would be unthinkable to come up short on cash for that destructive hoe, and that the sandwich shortage should not be considered a sin that would then be blamed on Caesar, who ruled the world in such a way that caused a shortage of sandwiches, but rather Caesar was blameless in purchasing all those hoes throughout history, and deserves our support for having done so.

From time to time it is required that people have their sandwiches taken away. Think of a pie. Let us suppose that ten people share ten slices of pie. The pie has been shared. Now consider a planet wherein exists the notion of the alpha male patriarch, who if he is to be an alpha male, and thus a dominating patriarch, requires more pie. Now this brings us to the essential problem confronting the right wing, which is to justify competing for as many slices of pie as one can seize rather than cooperating and sharing the pie (that wonderful and celebrated ideology competitive capitalism, as just one example), which would then explain the need for armed force, since no one will willingly give up their pie, and therefore their pie must be taken away by force. For example it would be required that slaves always keep that concept of the crucifixion in the back of their minds if they were to continue to give their pie to Roman patriarchs, which would be just one example of how that sort of thing must work if it is to ever work at all.

Now if a crucifixion is not to be about taking lots of pie, then it must be the case that crucifixion is not about sharing pie at all, but rather a crucifixion is about sin, for when a crucifixion becomes about 'paying for our sin', this allows people to carry on sinning some more, which was apparently the whole idea behind the development of such a concept.

We can see how the doctrine of 'original sin' encourages people to go on sinning, when we consider that 'moral values' have much to with orgasms, and very little to do with the sandwich shortage. You can see that quite clearly in the last American election, where suddenly moral values became a big issue, and it turns out that moral values always have something to do with sex and in particular those criminally illegal orgasms, which we are assured, are the kinds of criminal acts that would land a person burning in the flames of hell for sure. Therefore the doctrine of sin is a way of blaming an ant eater for eating ants, which apparently just should not be done. It logically follows then the blame for sin cannot lie with Caesar but rather the doctrine of 'original sin' blames God for all the sin in the world, since no one ever chose their own DNA coding, but rather it was forced upon them (although it is in the peculiar nature of dogma to never admit that God is being blamed, but to proceed to blame people for their own genitals).

The sin of sin

Now it has been said that the love of money is the root cause of all the evil in the world. Or then again it could be that sex and the sinful flesh, in particular genitals, are the cause of that evil in the world, just depending on who you ask.

We do seem to have a choice here, for the pattern emerges that whenever people are found complaining about criminal orgasms and sex in general, they never complain about money, and the reverse is also true, in that those who complain about that love of money do not typically have much time to waste on doctrines which try to shift the blame to God for the problem by claiming that sin is programmed into everyone's DNA, as you can tell by making note of the fact that everyone has genitals. Someone must take the blame, and I guess at the end of it all, it must be either God or Caesar and the alpha male patriarchy in general, which means that we must blame sin on either sex or money, depending on how right wing we are and how much therefore we love stacking nickels into big stacks, which I deduce is going to be the determining factor here when it comes time to pick and choose among positions.

It might help some people to clear the fog out of their heads left by thousands of years of religion if we were to consider the myriad ways in which that doctrine of sin actually encourages and fosters sin, which is the opposite to what one would expect the result to be of holding to such a doctrine, which is a notable contradiction.

This is best revealed by consideration of the very obvious and hypocritical blindness exhibited by those who have given their minds over to religion and thus to the right wing and their doctrine of sin. For such hypocrisy is the signal indicator of the contradiction, in that the true purpose of the doctrine of sin is only to divert attention away from the sin of the system of patriarchal domination and inequality, in short to divert attention away from the love of money, which would seem to be the only sin worth considering.

Just recently some young males had a gun shoot out down at the mall, and some civilians were cut down in the cross fire, and thus became collateral damage. Now it turns out that when young males are raised in the system of alpha male patriarchy, and when they absorb the 'moral values' of the dominant male patriarch, they become horrible sinners. For this reason, religion focuses much attention on the outbursts of violence by these males, but only when the male doesn't have money and power. If it is an average male acting out the aggressions of the rich and powerful male, then it is a sin, which is why religion makes such a fuss about it. However when the powerful alpha male opens fire and cuts down civilians in the crossfire, who then become collateral damage, as part of some plot to steal their sandwich money, well in that case we all must pray for our troops in Iraq. In that case it is not a sin, because you see Caesar is crucifying Iraq on the orders of God Almighty, who wants crucifixions, because the employment of that hoe is the only way to deal with the problems of original sin until such a time as Jesus gets back and tortures and performs his genocide thus getting rid of every unwashed sinner who hasn't repented of having such bad DNA coding, and thus gets the ax.

Now the world is full of violence and bloody feuds break out, such as the one in Rwanda, where the general scarcity of sandwich money causes people to kill other people so as to have some extra sandwich money left over, since dead people don't eat sandwiches, and thus by killing them you can eat everyday perhaps, instead of perpetually skipping meals for a day or two until such a time as another scarce sandwich is found. Now it is characteristic of religious coverage of such a conflict to ignore the fact that people have gone crazed by the perpetual lack of sandwich money, and instead focus on the need for Jesus in such obviously sinful places as Rwanda. This will of course require more spending of trillions on hoes, to hoe out the sinners, since as everyone can see, from time to time violence breaks out, and thus requires the employment of a trillion dollar hoe to keep back the hordes of unsaved original sinners. No criticism is ever made of the lack of sandwiches, nor is a peep heard about that really bad idea of competing for as many sandwiches as possible (capitalism) nor does anyone hear anything about that bad habit of taking a million sandwiches and freezing them for later, even though no alpha male patriarch could ever eat a million sandwiches, but still feels the need to freeze that many sandwiches for some reason. Call it the love of sandwiches.

This will then require the spending of trillions on the purchase of hoes and other implements to be employed in destroying weeds, such as for example chemical weapons of mass weed destruction and so on, since it turns out that when you have a freezer stuffed with millions of sandwiches someone might try to take them, and therefore they will have to be crucified so they won't.

Needless to say, no criticism will ever be heard from religion about those sandwiches, but rather the moral values professed will always be about sex, since it turns out that ranting about criminal orgasms is just a substitute for morality, just as 'original sin' is a substitute for the truth about crucifixion.

The historical Jesus

Now given that our genocidal torture religion was invented by right wing Nazis who loved patriarchal domination and the cash receipts from slavery, which is pretty obvious, it logically follows that you cannot believe a single word that comes out of the religious mouth. Which creates a problem when it comes to discovering the message of 'the historical Jesus', who must have existed, given how convoluted and tortured the theology was that had to be invented to hide the obvious truth.

For this reason, given that the religious right went on a book burning frenzy, and then only canonized their own selection of documents, which then allows them to quote themselves to supposedly prove something (a process of circular reasoning) it turns out that discovery of the message of Jesus requires intensive labor and is not simply a matter of reading some gospel just the way it was written down. Because the door has been locked and the key was thrown away because the religious right did not plan to go into the Kingdom of Heaven themselves, and were also determined to not let anyone else enter in, for this reason it is required that one become a house breaker and learn to pick locks.

Well this is a laborious process, as I said, and thus not for everyone. But just as you cannot hide a cross, you can only brainwash people, it turns out that while you can bury Jesus under a pile of right wing manure, in the process of doing so, you have no choice but to reveal at least a few things about Jesus in the process, which is just an unfortunate, unavoidable by product of that process of shoveling manure.

The reason why this critical approach can work to a certain extent, is that the Jesus figure was controversial, and in the process of addressing those controversies and making Jesus palatable to the followers of John the Baptist, and other religious right elements of that time, it was required to tell us, in a backwards sort of way, something about what Jesus was really like. In addition, the Jesus figure spoke in parables, and collections of these parables were already on the loose, and so it would also be required that these parables be incorporated and thus reinterpreted by placing them within the ideological framework of the doctrine of sin, which was the doctrine of John the Baptist, thus making those parables acceptable to the religious right, as well as providing a role model for how to go about the process of such redefinition. If you did a good enough job at this task, you got your document canonized by the religious right later on, when they finally achieved their proper place, which was sitting on a throne beside Caesar, which is where they belonged, and then in the fourth century used the power of the state to canonize only those documents they wanted, while using the police state to destroy the documents of everyone else, which then explains the hawkish right wing orientation of Christian scriptures.

We know from the Gospel of Mark, and its controversy stories, that the Jesus figure did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, attacking such things as the food laws and the clean and unclean laws found in such documents as Leviticus as 'human traditions.' This has been changed in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus has become a right wing fundamentalist who insists on the infallibility of scripture, since the Gospel of Matthew is just an edited, twiddled with copy of Mark's Gospel, with certain 'required corrections' made to the 'errors' in that mistaken Gospel of Mark. Starting from chapter six onwards, after providing its own introduction, the Gospel of Matthew begins to copy the Gospel of Mark, and such a close literary correspondence is not a coincidence, and by studying the way the author of Matthew twiddles with a line here in there in Mark's gospel we can tell that the author was a fundamentalist of a sort who hated criticism of the Bible, thus explaining that pile of twiddling twaddle, and that the author also expunged and twiddled with anything that might suggest that Jesus was not a god like superman, which is the second reason the author of Matthew felt it necessary to edit the Gospel of Mark, as you can tell by comparing that second pile of ideologically biased spin doctored twaddle.

The controversy stories in their original and untwaddled with context (Mark's gospel) tell us that the Jesus figure attacked the validity of the Bible, did not keep the rules of religion, fought with and challenged the religious authorities, did not think much of Caesar or his money, and that he partied all the time and drank with the worst sinners in town, getting a reputation as a sacrilegious 'gluttonous drunkard'. All of this really upset the religious folk, who we are told were after Jesus all the time, in particular the preachers and minister types, who were plotting against him incessantly and damning him as a notorious sinner because of his conduct.

In particular the religious right followers of John the Baptist (and his doctrine of giving people a bath to wash off their sins) were offended by Jesus, and in particular his partying and drinking. To deal with these problems the author of Mark's gospel becomes the spin doctor for Jesus, finding various excuses for Jesus in his efforts to reconcile Jesus with the expectations of the religious right. As part of this agenda, he explains to the Baptist followers that Jesus only partied and boozed with sinners because he knew they were going to burn in hell, and that therefore 'they were sick and they needed a doctor.' This concept of saving sinners by sinning with them, thus setting a bad example, is typical of the really bad excuses offered by the author of Mark, who after all, had a hard time finding good excuses for such conduct, considering the sorry example he had to work with in the life of Jesus, thus forcing him to come up with whatever the hell he could come up with and try peddling that as an excuse, since it is hard to do the impossible and expect it to turn out really well. That would be asking a bit much of any author, and that the author always offers such lame excuses is therefore forgivable, since it is unlikely that anyone else could have done any better with an agenda like that one.

At the end of it all, the author of Mark's gospel deals with the controversial Jesus, by getting rid of him, and instead he converts Christians to Baptists, instead of converting Baptists to Christians. You can understand how hard it would be to convert followers of the sour mortification of John the Baptist over to the drinking and partying life style of someone like Jesus, and so the author instead decided to convert the Christians over to the sour mortification of Baptists instead, since apparently the author shared the attitude of those Baptists and thus did not want to encourage any more partying and drinking. For this reason he tells us that while Jesus partied and drank, from now on all Christians must spend their time in mortification for their sins and become like the followers of John the Baptist.

Our gospel writers also tell us that just the day before he died, Jesus took a solemn oath never to touch a drop of liquor again. I call this the death bed repentance of Jesus, and the only reason I can think of that Jesus would wait until the very last minute to go on the wagon is that he just liked partying and drinking with sinners to much to kick the habit, and while he knew he was going to have to repent of that sin sooner or later, better later than sooner, thus explaining the delay. But you can see how with Jesus on the wagon, it just logically follows that church went on the wagon as well, for as in heaven so on earth, which meant that partying was out.

You see, the message here is 'don't be like Jesus, but be like John the Baptist instead.' For this reason, given how the religious right decided that this was the best way to bury Jesus and promote the required doctrine of sin of John the Baptist instead, thus canonizing this gospel while burning others, all throughout history the church became the followers of John the Baptist. It is for this reason that when Christians get saved the first thing they do is swear off liquor, and it is for this reason that you never see a Christian hung over after a long night of saving sinners from hell by partying with them, thus following the example of Jesus, which no Christian could ever do, because they would burn in hell if they got caught behaving like that.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this laborious lock picking is that it is no surprise to find that the Jesus of religion is a weird opposite to the real historical Jesus, when you consider the message of the cross is also a weird opposite of the real meaning of crucifixion. All this turning things into opposites was required if the door was to be locked and keys thrown away, so as to make Christianity into a right wing Nazi doctrine of torture and genocide, which it became. As well, since 'sin' is a substitute meaning for the cross, and since sexual neurosis is offered as an equally obvious substitute for morality, it was required that Jesus go on the wagon so that the church could then get rid of him and run off with that right winger known as John the Baptist instead, since he preached the doctrine of sin, and insisted on washing sinners and then forbid them to do such things as drink and party anymore, which was an effective substitute for morals, thus explaining the strong preference the religious right had for John over someone like that Jesus.

The pacifist political strategy of Jesus

With great difficulty we can also pick the lock and open the iron door to discover the message of Jesus. This will not be a simple matter of cracking open one of those spin doctored gospels and beginning to read, since it turns out that the parables of Jesus have been embedded within the doctrine of sin, which then provides a kind of ideological lense which blinds the reader to the true political significance of what they are reading. Which is also a powerful testimony to the brainwashing effects of that doctrine of sin, since it turns out to be the case that throughout history there have been examples of people who have faithfully read the Bible over and over again and yet for all their reading, not once did they ever understand a thing that the man was really saying.

For them it was listen and listen yet again, and yet never hear. Look and look yet again and yet never see a thing. For them everything was in the form of parables, so that while hearing they would not hear and though seeing they would not see, for the message had been locked away and hidden from them. To them their whole religion was about 'sin', and therefore it just became rule upon rule, and line upon line, a little quote here, a little quote there, so that as they walked they fell backwards, and they became injured, permanently trapped and snared.

It turns out that the big ideological struggle engaged in by the Jesus figure was an attempt to discover someway to make pacifist political activism into a viable alternative to violence, rather than a dead end road which has always typically been the case throughout human history. It is because his message was political and that he was also a type of revolutionary, that he spoke of what he called 'the Kingdom of Heaven' which was intended to replace the Kingdom of the World, which was ruled over by powerful and violent patriarchs. The slaves of the system were confronted with the impossible task of achieving their freedom while being confronted by crucifixion by the powerful alpha males. To deal with this problem Jesus recommended the tactic of not attempting to run from the cross, but rather he preached that you must pick up that cross and carry it. This might sound counter intuitive, but the logic that informed this strategy is that there are very few wealthy alpha males and there are a lot of slaves, and while they can attempt to bully and intimidate humanity, they cannot crucify everyone, so therefore if everyone is carrying their cross, they are screwed.

Combined with this is the approach of confronting and destroying systems of propaganda using unrestrained free speech. Instead of talking among themselves in secret meetings and whispering together, they were to 'shout the truth from the roof tops.' Since systems of oppression require the cooperation of humanity in order to survive, and since they are fundamentally corrupt and immoral by definition, it is required that such propaganda be confronted and exposed. Therefore the strategy of carrying the cross and free speech must be employed together, since to speak freely and destroy propaganda is to invite crucifixion. It is for this reason that all systems of oppression are found to be the enemies of free speech, since they are reliant on brainwashing, and while Achilles might seem like an almighty god, victorious in battle, he does have that problem of the vulnerable heel, and it is there that all arrows must be targeted for that very reason. He is to well armored and invincible to be hit anywhere else (which also gives us some insight into why 'terrorism' is such an ineffective strategy when it comes to battling a god like Achilles, since it does not target his vulnerable heel).

This emphasis on the power of free speech as a weapon to target the propaganda on which the system of domination relies is the ideology underlying many of the parables of Jesus, as you can see in the following summation of the content of some of his parables.

'The Kingdom of Heaven' is like 'yeast' which is kneaded into bread dough and then over time raises the entire loaf. (The yeast in this case is the 'truth'.) The Kingdom is like a mustard seed, the tiniest and most insignificant looking of all the seeds, but once planted, it grows into the largest of trees and birds nest in its branches (the idea expressed here is that you must not be pessimistic about the power of truth as a weapon). If you were planning to plunder the house of the rich and the powerful man, first you must tie him up. Then, once that has been done, you can plunder his house. To tie him up requires that you must pick up the cross and carry it, and instead of hiding out or whispering together in secret, you must shout the truth from the roof tops. If you take away the armor on which the strong man places his trust, then he has been overcome, and his spoil is divided (the armor is the brainwashing propaganda on which he relies). Any tree which heaven has not planted must be uprooted and thrown into the fire (here once again the emphasis is on false systems of oppression and their propaganda). You can know these trees by the fruit that they bear. Do not wash the outside of a cup, when it is the inside that requires washing. No one should put new wine into old wine skins, for the skin will burst (which means that there is no point in trying to 'reform' the old system of patriarchy, which is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, nor is there any point in keeping old structures or old religions, but rather what is required is revolutionary change). It is the stone that the builders reject which is the key stone (for example, capitalism resorts to McCarthyism, because it is thin skinned and this is because it cannot withstand unyielding criticism). You can tell who it is who is going to inherit the vineyard (the Kingdom) for the owners of the field will try to kill them or will be seen to persecute and beat them because they know that they are the heirs of the vine yard, and it is therefore their hope that by ridding themselves of the heir they can keep the property for themselves (typically those being persecuted and beaten are demonized by the propaganda system, but here these are the people who are the trues heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven). Therefore the blessed are those who are cursed and persecuted, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, for they are like prophets for all prophets have been killed and beaten. For there is nothing that is being kept hidden that not will be revealed, and nothing that is being kept secret that will not become known. What people have only dared speak of in secret they must now shout from the rooftops. No one lights a lamp and then hides it under a barrel, rather lamps are lit and placed onto a table, thus giving light to the entire house. The kingdom is like fire, which has been cast upon the world, and then is fanned until it begins to blaze. No one plants a seed and then fretfully watches over it until it grows. Rather seeds are planted and then following a natural process they grow of their own accord.

You will notice that none of these parables inherited by the church have anything to do with the doctrine of 'saving sinners from hell', which ironically would mean saving sinners from that genocidal torturer named Jesus, which is the insulting doctrine of the religion that claims to speak in the man's name. .Rather the content which can be recovered from the few remaining scraps of the man's message which have survived, concerns the destruction of systems of propaganda, which he considered key to a pacifist political strategy, confronting the 'strong man' and taking away his strength (by destroying the brainwashing on which he relies), and rather than saving sinners from hell, the content is political, intent on revolutionary change leading to the destructive of the patriarchy of that strong man, intent on plunder and spoil, and the installation of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' in its place. It is a testament to the power of brainwashing as regards that 'doctrine of original sin' that it has overwhelmed and thus hidden the pacifist political strategy of Jesus, replacing it instead with religion, which is worthless for any other purpose than maintaining the system of patriarchal domination and has resulted only in the spread of sin into every crack and crevice of the planet.

homepage: homepage: http://www.awitness.org

santa or Jesus... 07.Feb.2006 17:33

kirsten anderberg

"they ever understand a thing that the man was really saying"

The man? Christians constantly want to refer to Jesus as something other than mythology. There is no proof ANYWHERE that Jesus even lived at all! It is pure mythology. So please, at least phrase this as you would say, Santa, saying something...to argue this or that is not what Jesus really said is ridiculous. It is like arguing what Santa really said.

And you want free speech....try this one. Christians killed my ancestors. Christians kill pagans. Christians are in the White House and Congress and they want WAR on Muslims, regardless of their rhetoric. Christians banned Native AMerican rituals and languages. Christians stripped African cultures and tried to force feed this Jesus thing to native cultures that predated the Christ myth. Christianity has been the flag flown for many a destruct of a native culture, and so please, do explain that before you go on any further. And don't get me started on the RAMPANT SEXISM in your beloved bible. A man begat another man who begat anther man who begat another man...that is some respect for mothers. And then Eve FORCED adam to eat the apple, so now ALL sin is blamed on women. Oh brother! Give me a freakin break..."Ah, men."

Get back to me when you can finally accept a woman godhead which makes WAY more sense than a male godhead since WOMEN GIVE BIRTH, and when you can respect mothers and women and people that are not white and who do not worship this white male mythology called Jesus and Christianity, which wants to exclude all gods but the white male God.

but it's RADICAL religious bullshit 07.Feb.2006 18:39

i guess that's good, but it's still bullshit

i think brent's heart is in the right place, but basically he's just another guy claiming to "understand what Jesus really meant," just like all the other guys who think they understand what Jesus really meant, who don't agree with each other about any of it. jesus said some good stuff and some bad stuff, and you're no more likely to find the answers to important questions in the Bible than in a refrigerator repair manual.

No "Way" 07.Feb.2006 19:11


Are we to expect that there will come a time when all will agree as to all of the unbounded "interpretations" of the invisible? The discussions and parsings about the invisible sap and subvert the communities' yearnings to truly understand and reconcile their relations with all beings. The cult of the invisible, the keepers of the past and the future, crush the present. When there is no boundary of the sacred, no orderly arrangements of symbols, no divisions of labor, all will be visible and time will vanish.

Cheese sauce... 07.Feb.2006 19:27

Pravda or Consequences

That darn power/materialistic thing keeps us all on the defensive and coerces our creativity from expressing love and instead directs it towards commerce.

It seems that any dogma has its discipline element and that becomes a real sticking point for those that need to be free to choose.

What is the payoff for those that expect immediate gratification for doing good? Maturity.

offended! 07.Feb.2006 19:56

Born again Frigidaire CZaphodb42@aol.com

How dare you say that about Refrigerator repair manuals, a Refrigerator repair manual changed my life!

Though I get the point of what is being said here and a lot it, like the stuff about the tacked on doctrine of heaven and hell and the obvious perversion of revolutionary ideas is right on, I'm not sure if the almost sermon like repition of the "thistle and figs" works best to get the points across.

And Kirsten: The people in Washington (or the people that put them there) did not invade Iraq because of their religious beliefs or cultural hatreds, that should be painfully obvious from any noam chomsky influenced perspective on world events (which could perhaps be wrong, but I doubt many on indymedia would disagree). (Nor did the terrorists who masterminded the attack in NY city in 2001 do it because they hated Americans and wanted to kill as many as possible. As someone, I forget who, pointed out, a nuclear power plant not far from New York would have caused a much bigger disaster) The happy coincidence that the people the Administration kills in our name have dark skin and pray to a "foreign god" is just an extra bonus for them. And in regards to "Get back to me when you can finally accept a woman godhead which makes WAY more sense than a male godhead since WOMEN GIVE BIRTH" Yeah but, women also have to BE birthed, as do all mammals. So really, any kind of anthropomorphic godhead is kind of ridiculous. If you saw the material (the word 'matter' coming from a root word that means 'mother') world as a kind of womb, then some extraterrestrial or hyperdimensional male god could fertilize it with his seed, creating life, or the big bang, or whatever. On the other hand, all fetuses are female untill a certain stage in development. Neither of these biological paradigms lend credence to a godhead of any gender. Then again, it's quite possible the godhead is beyond sense, which means that it's all up for grabs. And hey, just because technological progress has basically made males unnecesary for the reproductive process, we deserve SOME credit. Those spermatazoids swim their little tails out (maybe the godhead is a metaphysical sperm, or egg, or like..uh, ameoba).

Kirsten, please don't take offense at these comments, they're not meant to sound hostil. I'm a left-wing freak who enjoys religious speculation and experimentation, loves goddess worshippers and hates the Patriarchy (despite that I'm an honorary member). Email me if you still think I'm a jerk and we can have tea some time! (why you would agree to have tea with someone who you think is a jerk is beyond me though)

The Myth of Jesus as Pacifist 07.Feb.2006 21:02


Would a pacifist have whipped the money changers and sellers of live animals (sacrificial) out of the Temple? Would a pacifist have told his followers to sell their coats and buy a sword? Would a pacifist have told his disciples that he comes back to world with a sword in his mouth?

Jesus-the-pacifist remains one of the most worn out old shoes of theological debate. God is not a pacifist.

For more details:  http://momentin.com/revstudy/revstudy.html

LIVE ON!! MOVE ON!! 07.Feb.2006 22:41

peace maker

Why must one drone on and on and on over something no one will ever agree apon.
First, to Kirsten Anderberg: Please learn your history. There is more historial proof to prove the physical existance of Jesus Christ then there is to prove the existance of Julius Caeser. The question has never been "Did Jesus exist?" the question has always been about who he was and what he did. Secondly: Christianity along with any other doctorine can be used and manipulated for the persoanl wills of man. Just as the United States deems all muslims as terrorists, many label all christians in the same motif. Please....use your time wisely.... whether you believe in Jesus, Buddah, Mohammed, the Great Spirit, the Elements, whatever...look past the blurred vision and history of man to read in between the lines, because the message is the same, no matter where you read it: Hope. Truth. Justice. and Peace. Not a bad code to live buy, no matter what you believe.

penny 07.Feb.2006 22:43

his thoughts

'god is not a pacifist.'

because god is the mirror

Could you repeat that please? 08.Feb.2006 00:32


Jesus always has been and continues to be tied up in politics and economics. Or perhaps more accurately depending upon your level of regard for the concept of jesus as savior, distilled by power brokers into a tool that could be used to wrest authority from a powerful incumbent.

Rome was a major metropolitan city of extraordinary sophistication, populated by highly intelligent and educated elite people, as well as vast numbers of poor, uneducated, subordinate people. A major metropolis needs such an enormous pool of labor to build, sustain and expand its infrastructure, but this working segment of the population must also be managed so that they continue to be accessible as labor.

The roman elite managed their working class no less different really, than succeeding or preceeding civilizations. While it's generally regarded that they managed their working class in a particularly vicious, bloody, theatrical and undisguised way, their objective was really no different than it was in the 20th century or looks to be in the 21st.

I wrote the above comments as I read BH's novel approach by which to attempt to analyze the relationship of christianity and its components to civilization and society, but then I just stopped. That he was able and inclined to come up with such a complicated mess, seemingly as part of an effort to understand and encourage the understanding of jesus/christianity/the bible, illustrates one of the big problems with that theological triumvirate.

Typically, what BH and so many other biblical scholars and theologians have come up with based on the triumvirate, is so complex and far removed from the simple and pure message that jesus might represent, as to be beyond value for most people in touch with reality.

There are some excellent, basic, simple principles; love, personal sacrifice, forgiveness, that the bible seems to have been designed to hide behind and use so as to allow one group of humans to exercise control over individuals and other groups that are either spiritually weaker or simply contrary in philosophy than christianity.

While many horrific acts against innocent people have been performed through devious intent, or unwitting participation by christians, so are christians capable of doing wonderful gestures of compassion for others in need, even as they're blind to damage that the structure of christianity allows for when used by those with devious intent. Just how the assets weigh against the deficits is something I'm not totally sure about.

My feelings towards christians and christianity are very conflicted. On an individual level, except where the service offered is a reflection of an obligation owed to the theology, most personal warmth offered to non-christians is conditional upon acceptance of biblical rhetoric.

They might give you the soup and the bread with a beaming smile on their faces, but let them know that you aren't prepared to resign your personal galactic view of all embracing spiritual authority for the confined limitations of biblical rhetoric and you'll see how much they really love you.

On a basic level, christianity doesn't seem to direct its adherents to include those of contrary spiritual orientation under the canopy of protection offered by the god defined by the bible. Christianity isn't inclusive or tolerant; it looks upon those of different spiritual orientation as targets for assimilation, their unique spiritual outlook to be dismantled, thereby weakening perceived and often real, often self-inflicted threats against christianity.

I'm sorry, but I don't particularly like the bible. I don't like what a lot of christians have done with jesus. They've manipulated and mis-used jesus repeatedly, for their own agenda. When this realization occurred to me some years back, it rather dismantled christianity from jesus as far as I'm concerned. I wish christians well, but, except for the pain they inflict on others, I feel sorry for them. They have dis-enfranchised themselves from the real acheivement that sincere, unvarnished realization of an all loving, forgiving, sacrificing consciousness could accomplish.

i know my history, do you? 08.Feb.2006 05:24


Excuse me, but no, you are absolutely WRONG and lost in MYTH re there being more evidence of Jesus than "Julius Caeser." Please cite your sources here and now. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE of Jesus' EXISTANCE again? Please cite, and I mean something not from some religion, but from archaeology, from science, from FACT, not from mythology...I have been on top of the Jesus myth having no evidence to back it for about 3 decades now and no, nothing has changed. If you have some new info, share it now. I just read a long article in Archaeology Magazine about just this topic about 3 months back, as a matter of fact.

Yes, women give birth and are birthed. Men only are birthed. Women were the original Gods. That was changed when men got threatened because they could not control birth, so they began concocting strange male myths of men giving birth, such as Zeus or the book of Genesis in the bible...and they shamed menstruation out of fear and jealousy, and they shamed birth as painful as trevails for the Eve thing...The move to make God MALE WAS POLITICAL and done to strip women of the innate power they have as mothers.

ANd those of you trying to pretend that America is not in a RELIGIOUS WAR, get real. First off, almost every one of those hijackers that slammed the WTC, etc. were from Saudi Arabia. Why are we bombing Iraq? Oh yeah. weapons of mass destruction, oh yeah, they don't exist. But we keep on bombing. If Iraq was not Muslim, and was white and Judeo-Christian like Israel, look at how different we would treat them. Israel has nukes. Israel is committing terrorism daily against Palestine. No, this is a race and religious war that America is engaged in and there is no amount of rhetoric that would convince me otherwise. THis is about the same old Christian Imperialism...and yes, it IS about religion as much as anything. Christianity is INEXORABLY INTERTWINED WITH CONQUERING AND DESTROYING AND TAKING THE GOODS THEREAFTER, AS WELL. ONLY WHITE MALES benefit from Christianity, plain and simple. "A White Man's Heaven is a Black Man's Hell." - Public Enemy, and to expound on that in terms of Christianity, "A Man's Heaven is a Woman's Hell..."

But I am inspired to see I was not the only one to spew "bullshit on this" here on this post. I feel a drive to keep this Christianity shit under check as it seems Christians keep trying to slip this shit onto the IMC here, and we must keep a reality check on this oppressive religious imperialist racist misogynist group called Christians as much as anyone in my opinion. Religions kill people, we need to watch and keep in check, those promoting it.

Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Anti-Chritians: what's the difference? 08.Feb.2006 06:36

Spastica Rex

Kirsten made me spew milk out my nose!

The entertainment factor of IMP has been much improved since her return!!!

not about religion 08.Feb.2006 09:43


If the war on terror were about religion only BUSH WOULD BE BOMBING SAUDI ARABIA instead of cutting deals and giving them money.

Kirsten 08.Feb.2006 09:52


Cite your sources....a mere article in your second post will not do it...as I am not religious I do beleive that there was a guy names jesus who did some pretty great stuff, along with millions of others who are our ancestors....and what of oral history kirsten? oral history is so important in many cultures, would you be as quick to dismiss these stories because they have no written proof? give me a break---you're narrow mindedness is painful...

wow 08.Feb.2006 11:09


My piece sure as generated a flood tide of 'ad hominen' attacks...I am left wondering if people just read the title and then added comments without reading the piece

You know there is such a thing as 'objective truth'
For example 'the sky appears blue' and there is a reason for that (the way refraction of light works on the atmosphere)
My philosophy is as follows
No one is entitled to their own opinion
There is a big difference between something as worthless as an 'opinion' and an 'hypothesis'
That bit about 'having a right to something as worthless an an opinion' is just a canard which is employed as a device to denigrate 'an objective truth' by making it seem that 'truth' is just as worthless as some big pile of 'opinions'
I am distressed that we live in the 21st century and that people still have not given up 'opinions' and instead substituted a more critical method such as an hypothesis
The way to counter an argument is not with a floodtide of 'opinions' but rather by formulating 'an hypothesis' and then making a reasoned argument in favor of that 'hypothesis'
Just to summarize here
Let us suppose that you find in some gospel a controversy story about how Jesus partied and drank with sinners, and the complaint expressed here is that 'the followers of John the Baptist did not party and drink, but instezd they practiced sour mortification and self denial because of their sins. Why didn't Jesus act like John the Baptist.' We are also told that Jesus associated with sinners, which John the Baptist followers refused to do because they were sinners. This is a controversy story and what it tells us is that Jesus partied and he drank with sinners. The spin doctoring that the Gospel offers is that while Jesus once did party and drink with sinners, he took a vow to kick the drinking habit, and we are then told that from now on all Christians must act like followers of John the Baptist and swear off drinking and partying. The point then is 'don't be like Jesus. Be like John the Baptist instead.' Thus Christians don't ask 'what would Jesus do' because they were ordered not to do that by their Gospel writers.
This is a controversy story, and by ignoring the spin doctoring of those right wing gospel writers, who supported John the Baptist, we can then state that it must have been the case that Jesus partied and drank with 'sinners', the idea then being that partying and drinking was just one more rule broken by the Jesus figure, which we can also determine just by examing the rest of those controversy stories, and ignoring the spin doctored excuses for Jesus, which are intended to talk Christians out of acting like Jesus and following John the Baptist instead.
Which would also suggest that there was an 'historical Jesus', for the gospel writers were stuck with a 'partying drunkard' and went to work to get rid of Jesus for that reason...stop and think critically...who does something that ridiculous...It is quite obvious, but only if you become a critical thinker and lock picker besides...

this is formulating a hypothesis, and not just an 'opinion' of my own, and the reasoned argument makes sense if you think about it for a moment...
So then I ask again, did anyone actually read the piece before having a reactionary response, probably just to the title?

the lost message 08.Feb.2006 11:14


as for the parables, some stated, 'brent is just one more religious crank who things he knows the message of Jesus'

I have sketched out the surviving parables of the Jesus figure, and I would think that the message is pretty obvious, is it not?

Once again I will say that if humanity is to rise up out of the swamp lands of confusion something has to be done, especially by people who might call themselves the 'progressives' or the 'revolutionaries' to get rid of that tired old thing about 'everyone having a right to an opinion' so that people can start thinking critically and making reasoned arguments instead of dishing up such useless strategies as 'ad hominem attacks'

taboo 08.Feb.2006 11:20


someone else made the comment 'we really don't need to be discussing religion here'

you might keep in mind that religion gave you Hitler, since religion was the political base of Hitler, and that religion is also tbe solid base of Bush

Who could possibly think that religion is not an important subject to be discussing under these circumstances, in particular given the wide spread public ignorance about religion and the lack of critical analysis so characteristic of discussion about religion

Even more important is how that rotten doctrine of 'sin' pervades the unconscious minds of a society that for thousands of years has had that right winged hawk religion, as you can see when juries agree to throw the switch in the death chamber, while at the same time their big time murderers, who set the example, go on killing

Religion is not some taboo subject for a 'progressive' or 'a radical' and here we see just a questionable attempt to use a taboo to such down a discussion for some reason or another, which is similar to that other thing about the ad hominen attack.

we are screwed 08.Feb.2006 11:26


one last comment
I am distressed by the primitive level of the so called 'discussion' found on this particular thread
If this is as good as it gets, then its no wonder that the right wing is trampling down the 'progressives' in America, and its no wonder that Hitler came out on top in Germany. Just the last few days I have been reading a sociological analysis of Hitler's rise to power and what stands out is the sorry nature of the opposition to Hitler, which consisted of ad hominen attacks on Nazis by that sorry SPD party, which took the discussion into the level of the gutter, and since gutter politics were what Nazis were best at, they won
What is required here is no more ad hominen attacks, no more 'opinions',
What we need is a strong reasoned approach and a sensible strategy of going for Achilles heel and doing a thorough job of it, or what happened to Germans could happen to Americans

Beginner's Mind 08.Feb.2006 15:09

Spastica Rex

Oh come on, Brent!

Think of it this way: your post generated a slew of comments (although many of them are your own). How many Indymedia "news" stories generate this kind of response? At least people are thinking -- because of you! I would venture that most folks *did* read your article, and whether or not they got out of it exactly what you intended is beyond your control.

It's all Buddha-nature. ;)

why why why do i read this nonsense 08.Feb.2006 15:21

oh yeah, to kill time

> Would a pacifist have whipped the money changers and
> sellers of live animals (sacrificial) out of the Temple?

He might have done so as an individual. He probably wouldn't have directed his followers to surround the money changers and slaughter them. But then he didn't, did he? If you believe the story at all.

> Why must one drone on and on and on over something no one will ever agree apon.

Good advice. Why didn't you stop there?

> First off, almost every one of those hijackers that slammed the WTC, etc. were from Saudi Arabia

That's a story the FBI told us the day after the demolition. Several of the people in the list are still alive. It's physically impossible for three steel WTC buildings to have fallen down, especially straight down in free fall, because two of them were hit by airplanes. It just doesn't work like that. An enormous amount has been written on this.

> Cite your sources....a mere article in your second post will not do it...as I am not religious I
> do beleive that there was a guy names jesus who did some pretty great stuff, along with millions
> of others who are our ancestors....and what of oral history kirsten? oral history is so important
> in many cultures, would you be as quick to dismiss these stories because they have no written
> proof? give me a break---you're narrow mindedness is painful...

Dude, you're an idiot. Go bother your parents.

> did anyone actually read the piece before having a reactionary response

No, Brent, probably nobody in the entire world read the whole thing. That's how valuable and relevant it is to people's lives in the modern world.

> get rid of that tired old thing about 'everyone having a right
> to an opinion' so that people can start thinking critically

Religion, by definition, is not subject to critical thought. When you apply critical thought to Christianity, there's nothing left at the end of the tunnel. You only stay in the Christian club if you apply SOME critical thought and carefully step around OTHER religious assumptions without touching them. Every religious writer does that, they pick different assumptions to keep, and they all come to different conclusions. None of them is talking about "the Truth," and they are all just constructing slightly different irrational erroneous religions to sell people, none of which stand up to "critical thought."

> Who could possibly think that religion is not an important
> subject to be discussing under these circumstances

If you really think you can reach religious Christians and convert them to a less psychotic version of their own faith, then go for it, but you're not reaching them here. This is not where they hang out.

> I am distressed by the primitive level of the so
> called 'discussion' found on this particular thread

This is what unfiltered discourse looks like. Everywhere. All the time. If you don't like it, post somewhere where everything is moderated, if they're interested.

Jesus' Message 08.Feb.2006 15:56

Dr. Know

Regardless of what version of Christian history you subscribe to, the central message of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., is that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Roman mythology eventually gave way to Christianity; however, one ancient religious sect that preaches racial superiority survived. That lives on the Bablylonian Talmud, which is held above the Torah (an egalitarian and pacifist text) by Zionist extremists. To Zionists like Jack Abromoff, who couldn't attend a function at Bush's ranch in Crawford because it was "Shabbos", stealing from people who are not Jews is ok, according to the Talmud. Likewise, stealing from and killing Palestinians is ok.

It should be noted that such extremism amongst Jews is rare, maybe 15-20% of the population at best. Most Jewish people don't buy into such extreme Rabbinical ideas, but those that do feel quite justified in their religious conditioning.

My Penny 13.Feb.2006 17:35

Faithful Outcast

... Maybe we're all mirrors (reflections) of God, that he may explore infinite ways of experiencing his creation.

I love the fact that Portland Indymedia doesn't shy away from religious discussion, because even though it's not very likely any specifics can be resolved once and for all, I think we all have to recognize that people are spiritual creatures, and what's going on in the world is forcing us to examine our views about good and evil, our personal responsibility to the Earth, and the possibility of a higher power directing things. At least that's what I've been confronted with after Sept. 11, 2001, I don't know about you.

I agree with Dr. Know -- maybe it's time for us to examine what all religions (at their core) have in common, and what those in power have done to systematically twist their message -- we could learn a lot by doing that. I do know this -- there's something Satanic about trying to twist our own spirituality against each other and our own interests, as well as the interests of the Earth. The hidden meaning of "diabolic" after all, is "to divide."

the message is what matters, not the alleged messenger 14.Feb.2006 19:21


The message in the Gospels is what matters. Whether or not Jesus said what is attributed to him, or indeed, whether or not he ever even existed, doesn't matter. The basic message is about love and compassion; the rest is detail. Cut through the nonsense erected by institutionalized Christian churches.

BTW I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, affiliated with a Christian church. But I have read the Gospels.