Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Yes. It is. Zen people thrive on contradiction. As in the sound of one hand clapping. Zen is the path, which is not a path.

Yes. It is. I'm surprised to see you make that statement, considering Christian history all over the world.

I think what this speaks to, is our silly invisible assumptions about enlightenment. We gain enlightenment. Sparkles fall from the sky. The mundane drudgery of daily life dissolves in wonder and joy. No. After enlightenment; do laundry, cook dinner, wash dishes. Life goes on.

Things change. Things don't change. Now that technology is here --Do laundry. Cook dinner.

This is a case in point about invisible assumptions. To my understanding, religion is largely about making magic -- Not logic.

There is reasonable and there is reasonable. Not everything has to "stand up to scientific scrutiny." Sometimes, it is enough to indicate that further investigation might be interesting.

We may be stumbling over semantics. I think it would help if you give a few examples of what you mean by supernatural; instead of a broad definition. For instance, the gods. What do we mean by a god? For that matter, an angel? Or a fairy? When we see these words, it is easy to get sucked into a vortex of invisible assumptions. Perhaps we don't mean the same things at all. If any of these things can be said to exist, they would be part of Nature. It follows that limiting the question to the Supernatural, could be highly misleading.

That is so true.

When ever I pick up the phone, and I'm addressed as Reverend -- I know that I'm about to be asked for money.

In the beginning, my ordination was a joke to me. To my surprise, over the years, I have grown into it. My ordination from ULC -- and others -- is on my Facebook page.

I think you missed my point. Neither the dead, nor those who follow them, are interested in theological prissiness over who is a true Christian -- or who is not a true Christian. It's too late for that. The past lives.

I could have said family history. Consider it done, retroactively.

1. Yes. My point exactly. 2. Yes. When was the last time anybody blamed the Italians for the death of Jesus? Not a trivial thing for spreading propaganda throughout the Roman Empire. When the Emperor is Christian, they really have to shift blame. 3. The Gospel propagandists were not "most people." Perhaps you can tell me why they lied. The phrase that comes to my mind is "pious fraud."

That is a very big if. The Gospel accounts stink of propaganda, politics and ulterior motive. If there is any reason to regard any of it as truthful history; it is not apparent. In any event, I am concerned with history. Not theology. There is small point in quoting these Scriptures. That is where I formed my opinion. At best, I find them implausible. That is me being nice.

Conspiracy theory? No. My maternal grandfather came from Russia. To my grandfather, the worst, most awful thing that one person could say to another was -- "You have a Christian heart. " Just an observation. This is what Christian Love means to me. It is part of my heritage. It's too late to tell me that they weren't true Christians.

It sounds like an expression of Christian Love to me.

The details differ. I was brought up Jewish. Still, I can relate.

An addendum to my previous comments. There is the matter of intent. The Beatles did not intend their music to lead to violence. By contrast, the propagandists who wrote the Gospels clearly had a plan. They intended to shift blame for the death of Jesus, from the Roman government, which killed him. Who did they choose for the substitute? "The Jews." Not even some Jews. No. The blame was shifted to "the Jews." It worked, as demonstrated by history. Now a bit of family history. My mother still recalls how, when she was a child, the girl next door wouldn't play with her. Because she, my mother-to-be, had killed Christ. My own experiences were more subtle. I had them. This slur is something that the Catholic Church did not repudiate until Vatican II. The passion plays continue. Of course, the various Protestant churches still have not confronted their own history. I grow weary of people making excuses for the Gospels. They are what they are. A source of misery.

If I understand what you are doing, you are using the Beatles' music as an analogy to the Gospels; and Charles Manson as an analogy to Christian history. Really. This is clever. Was Charles Manson anything more than an aberration? 2,000 years of history is not an aberration. It is the norm.

There is always the Agnostic Way. "I don't know." I hope this doesn't seem argumentative. I think that sometimes the search for answers is more interesting than the answers -- which frequently are not available. I think that sometimes, "Maybe" is good enough. At least, for now.

Since the Law came from God, and God is all good, it must follow that the Law is all good. Unless of course, you care about external reality. Since the Law came from Scripture, and Scripture came from a less than perfect priesthood -- (this is me being nice) -- the Law can also be less than perfect. Much less.

Why stop there?. In the Gospels, Jesus is reported to have said, "I and my father are one." Unless he was talking about Joseph, he meant God. That means that all the kill them all statements which are attributed to God, also can be said to be Jesus statements. Since I do not take the idea of God seriously, or the historic reality of Jesus, or the Authority of Scripture -- there seems small point in cherry picking. What is worth looking at is 2,000 years of Christian mayhem -- which did happen and which continues to happen -- and I don't really care where these blood thirsty butchers got their inspiration. We would have to ask them what was in their hearts. What we do have is the battle cry from the last 2,000 years, that they gave their Jewish victims. "You killed Christ!" Now, where did they get a crazy idea like that? Oh, yes. The Scriptures. And from Dan who insists on quoting the Scriptures as though they were history; which he believes. In Dan's reality, Belief trumps facts. After all, God said so.

No. I'm bored and can't be bothered. I asked myself why I was bothering to argue Scripture -- which I don't care about -- with someone who is indifferent to history, reason, evidence or even external reality. There is no point. I'm bored and can't be bothered.

No. Simple irritation. I observe 2,000 years of Christian mayhem. Dan tells me that they weren't real Christians. Where does the mayhem flow from Scripture? I show him an example and he tells me that I don't understand Scripture. I'm not arguing. I'm done.

What is the point? No matter what I come up with; you will tell me that I don't understand the Scriptures. That whole not having the Spirit thing. When it suits your purposes, it's allegory. When it does not suit your purposes, it's history. Or you argue that its not relevant. I observe atrocity and you say it's because I don't understand. Or you argue for a historic chain of events that defies reason. It gets old.