>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Discussing Christianity >Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:02:53 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >He is an e-mail I received and my comments. I think the teaching of Jesus >are wonderful. I think the people who drag Jesus into every conversation are >following the precise opposite of what Jesus taught. > >By way of example.... > > > >.> Jane Fonda has accepted Jesus Christ as her personal saviour. It seems > > Hanoi Jane recognized the vacuum in her life and has turned her life to > > service in Jesus' name. > >She'll backslide (the Christian term for those who "fall from grace"), >another way of saying, she'll come back to her senses. Literally. >Fundamentalist Christianity is a renunciation of all that is pleasurable to >the senses -- a sad reversal of Jesus' actual teaching to enjoy each moment, >the essential message of the Sermon on the Mount. > > > Hubby Ted isn't at all happy with her, that's > > why they just split up. Old Ted once publicly announced that > > Christianity was a religion for losers, and now he has to confront the > > reality (in his own tepid mind) that his own wife is a loser too. > >Ted Turner's mind "tepid"? I don't think so. Fundamental Christianity is >based on selling illusions to clinically depressed people who should be >receiving medical treatment. It then glorifies suffering so that when people >hurt emotionally they are earning the bliss of Heaven. "I pick up my cross >each day and follow Jesus." Christ! > > > > > Is Jane for real? Yes, she's attending Bible studies weekly in Atlanta > > and her smile will have to be surgically removed. > >Yes, Christians don't smile that often. > > > Seems Jane has found > > something she was missing in her life and has re-established her > > relationship with God. Why is it that those who return to God are > > always so incredibly happy? > >Because they have a minor epileptic episode in a portion of their brain that >gives them an overwhelming experience of "oneness" and pleasure (it's been >scientifically proven). It is interpreted by those around them as "the >holy spirit" and other such inaccurate programming. On this they build an >anti-pleasure existence with the promise of that great feeling forever in >heaven. Psychedelic drugs would be a faster and more certain route. > > > Are they just stupid, > >Well, if you actually read what Jesus said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John >(The Gospels), you find a teaching that is diametrically opposed to the >tenants of fundamentalist Christianity. One must question the intelligence >of a group of people who cannot read something and understand its clear >meaning. For example, Jesus was asked by his mortal enemies, the >Pharisees, "when the kingdom of God should come, he [Jesus] answered them >and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they >say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." >(LUKE 17:20-21). Jesus begins the one and only prayer he ever taught, "Our >Father who art in Heaven..." Now, where is God? Obviously, within us. But >where do fundamental Christians believe God is? God and heaven are "out >there," precisely where Jesus said it was not. The fundamentalists run around >saying, "Lo here! or, lo there!" in a direct contradiction of Jesus' >teaching. >Why? From the church point of view, it keeps the church going. When we know >God is inside us, we don't need to give money to support a building and a >staff so that we can go "there" to "worship God." God is inside of us, and >when we are good to ourselves, we are being good to God. As to the wisdom of the >followers, how can they read in the Bible location of God as taught by Jesus >and hear >the location of God taught by their "religious leaders" and not question, >question, question? "Are they just stupid"? You decide. > > > or have they > > discovered something real? > >Oh, they've discovered something real all right: that ALL human experience >takes place due to electro-chemical functioning of the human brain. In this >case, it's a minor momentary electrical imbalance in the brain that is very >pleasurable. We desire, naturally, to get there again. This has nothing to >do with proving the existence of God, Jesus, the Bible, or anything else. It >proves there is a scientific explanation for most "religious experience." >(It's scientific discoveries such as this one that makes Christians hate >science.) > > > > > Have you ever noticed how rabid and angry the people who don't know God > > are towards those who do know Him? > >It seems the writer of this piece, a knower of God, proves just the opposite >with his next line: > > > They are so pathetic and unhappy. > > Their own lives are totally fucked up, yet they snarl whenever someone > > suggests they look to Jesus to turn their lives back around. It's like > > watching a dog chasing his tail. > >These words seem "rabid" and "angry" terms to me, and they're written by one >who claims to know God, >against those who do not. Most non-Christians I know simply think of >Christians (the fundamentalist type) as sadly misguided people, denying the >pleasures of this life in exchange for the bliss of an afterlife that is by >no means assured. The anger in us who "don't know God" toward Christians >happens (a) when they proselytize -- fundamentalists are tediously >persistent about selling their primitive superstitions and sometimes only >anger will get them to shut up and go away; or, (b) when their religion (or >any religion) is used to justify laws to suppress others. (All the laws against >consensual activity fall into this category and come directly from >"Christian" prejudices, i.e.. "sins.") > > > They reject the rules of God, all the > > while wallowing in their own self-imposed misery that has been brought > > on by their failure to follow God's rules. > >Somehow, the writer of this piece does not strike me as the epicenter of >happiness and light. If he were "always so incredibly happy," as he claims >Christians are, people would walk up and ask him what he did to be so happy. >But they don't. No wonder. All this stuff about "God's rules" is nonsense. >Just read through one page of Biblical rules and you'll see how many rules >modern Christians do not follow (shaving, eating shellfish, etc.). > >http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm#admonitions > >What "God's laws" are changes from church to church and from time to time. >(Obviously the f-word is not forbidden to this writer, although it is to >many Christians.) Just because it's "in the Bible" does not make it a law >even the most devout Christian follows today. (Ironically, those who most >follow Christian "Biblical law" are fundamentalist Jews, not Christians.) >The current set of "God's laws" was selected out of a much larger set of >Biblical laws for a lot of reasons (maintaining control, politics, keeping >members, getting money, and >a lot more), none of them having anything to do with God, all of them having >to do with manipulation. > > > > > Here's a tip: > >What makes me think I'm not going to take it? > > > God didn't give us those rules to ruin our fun. > >See? The writer admits that the rules the fundamentalists currently selected >out of >thousands in the Bible tend to "ruin our fun." > > > God gave > > you those rules to help you avoid the pitfalls you now find yourselves > > in. Only the most stupid would fail to consider that just maybe God is > > a loving God who just wanted to help us avoid the wrong turns in life -- > > the wrong turns we insisted on making. > >Yada, yada, yada. The self-righteous drips off the computer screen. I'm >"most stupid" not to come to the same conclusion as people who watch "The >700 Club"? I don't think so. The Old Testament God a "loving God"? Ha! The >Christian "laws" as a guide to avoiding wrong turns? Hardly. It is a roadmap >to personal suffering and needless denial. If you want to go there, live a >good Christian life -- and write nasty e-mails about those who don't "know >God." > > > > > Think about it. > >I have thought about it. Why don't YOU think about it instead of believing >about it and then running your beliefs on others and calling those who do >not believe as you do "stupid"? That's just not using you head. > >Enjoy, > >Peter McWilliams > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: