Vmarco

Exactly,...people think (one of the 6 senses) that their conditions can enter the Unconditional, and that the Unconditional will remain Unconditional,...although the conditions of Other's can't. Descartes, one of the eminent priests of science, said, "I think, therefore I am," which could be written in Latin as Cogito ergo sum; just to confuse New Liturgy Catholics. This so-called first principle in resolving universal doubt is insane. How does the "I think," the little i, the ego, come before the "I Am"? Thinking does not and cannot experience the world directly; thinking is always and necessarily a result of the past. Simply try to think in the now; it is impossible. Thinking is a product of space-time. Our thinking-selves are one of ego’s means of reinforcing the false through an imagined continuity in separation. In the process towards full-spectrum consciousness, however, thinking becomes an ally of the undivided, sapiential mind. We do not cease thinking; we transcend the divided ego and its control of our thinking. The thinking remains in the past, but it is filtered through an undivided consciousness, instead of an imaginary, divided one.

No exaggeration,...if you're in the US, go take a course in Christianity at a State University. For example, as previously mentioned,...In the 1980s, a biennial gathering of Biblical scholars concluded that only the word father could be traced to Matthew’s so-called Sermon on the Mount. The greater part of the sermon consisted of words placed in Jesus’ mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period in the 1980s, over a hundred Bible scholars at another seminar agreed that Jesus never promised to return and that he never had any intention of starting a religion. Commenting on these scholars’ conclusions, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said, "These are not maverick scholars; they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts." So, considering the Sermon on the Mount, less than 1% can be seen as factual. Yes,...please read my Christian posts in this thread,,...the information presented was reviewed, and expressed to be 100% accurate, by several theologians and Religious Studies scholars. In the first century of the Common Era (CE), a traveling sage taught among the people in the Middle East. He performed numerous works and miracles. He healed the lame and the paralyzed, raised the dead, and cast away evil spirits. This prophet taught a way of salvation and the laws of the only true god. This prophet was said to have been born of a virgin, and it was said that he had walked on the Sea of Erythra (the Red Sea). He was esteemed by many as the Son of God, although he claimed to be only a son of man. He was arrested for inciting the people, and after his death, it was alleged that he had risen from the dead, walked with his followers, and then ascended to heaven. We all know who this was, right? Of course we do. His name was Apollonius, and his story is found in Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus. However, some who are predisposed to a particular religion and its theo-beliefs may have thought the person referred to in the above narrative was someone else. Religion and its theo-beliefs, for those caught up in that groupthink, are difficult to recognize as something discordant in our lives, let alone as a barrier that obscures the truth of who we are from ourselves and prevents the uncovering of our light. Those of religious faith typically cling unquestioningly and tightly to their beliefs, which are usually reinforced through repetition of selected Bible stories, which they come to believe as if they had actually observed them firsthand. These believers have bought into a view that humanity is inherently inferior, yet through religion, their sinful nature can be redeemed if they follow its continually reinterpreted myths. The reward for supporting their legally protected superstition is a promise of eternal life. However, is that really the truth? If one’s roots or foundations are permeated in falsity, then even common sense suggests that one’s life will be equally as false. For truth is not an invention, and truth is not a consensus reality born from a fixation with self-authenticating holy books devised by our flat-earth ancestors. Truth is not a thing to be discovered, but a reality to be uncovered. There is no liberation until false beliefs are confronted forthrightly and dissolved. V .

Commenting on people who cling tightly to personal, individual truth, Nietzsche said, "What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god. 'Gnothi Seauton', as inscribed over the portico of the Temple at Delphi, means Gnow Thyself, not Know Thyself. In other words, those who say they know, most likely do not Gnow. Knowledge is a barrier to Heart-Mind,...Knowledge is all in the head. When 5th Century BCE Greeks spoke of Higher Mind, they used the word Thymos, and pointed to what is called the Heart chakra at the chest,....as for Lower Mind, it was called Psyche, and arose from the grey-goo in the head. If you reduce knowledge to its lowest common denominator, knowledge is always in the past. It arises from the skandhas, and can only be part of the skandhas. Gnowledge on the other hand, arises from the present,...although it is not itself the present. know\no, v. knew, known, know-ing, knows; OE gecnawan, be able to; akin to L. gnovi. 1. to perceive directly through the senses; comprehend through the intellect (the 6th sense); psyche. 2. to have fixed in the intellect or memory, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have a practical understanding of, as through sensory experience; know how to cook. 4. to comprehend noologically; through thought/intellect. gnow\no, v. gnew, gnown, gnow-ing, gnows; from Gk gnosis, understanding through Heart-Mind. 1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness (beyond the 6 senses); comprehend through the heart of essence or thymos. 2. to experience, without media-tion, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love. 4. to comprehend ontosophically; through prajna/gnosis.

That is total BS. How can anyone say what Bushmen did a hundred years ago,...let alone thousands. Who is to say that same-sex relationships went on for a millennia, before some Justinian or Gregory-like figure submerged everyone in a horrific Dark Age,...which most Westerners are still in,...as can be seen in the number of Abrahamic believers.

Empirical truth? That's an oxymoron. There's empirical evidence,...which is, information derived from sense experience,...what Lao Tzu calls "monkey mind." Personally, I'd love to live in a world without homosexuality,...and without heterosexuality,...a world of Human Beings who practice Human Beingness. I haven't met any prehistoric African san men to see if they had what Europeans call same sex relationships. Few here seem to grasp the ignorance of binary gender,...that ignorance produces homophobes, transphobes, gynophobes, etc. I'm not saying that so-called gender identity leads to so-called sexual preference,...but attempting to point to man contrived beliefs that not only are utter nonsense, but undermine spiritual evolution. "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go" Lao Tzu

Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The word Christos, referring to an "awakened one," crept into Greek subculture during the fifth century BCE, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ. Jesus the Nazarite (not of Nazareth or Galilee) is probably the same Jesus whose sayings were collected by Didymos Judas Thomas in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. This Gnostic or cardio-centric gospel of "secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke" appears to have been compiled in response to Paul’s new cerebro-centric religion. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Paul predate the canonical gospels by at least a generation. Christianity isn't a thing one can understand through sound-bites,...a quote here or a quote there,...but as the whole of all information, whose only rational conclusion is that Christianity is 95% fabrication. All the evidence, when considered as a whole, point to Christianity as a refashioning of Gnostic mythology into a religion that advocated slavery, dependency, ignorance, and submissive obedience. This new religion was never a threat to Rome, but rather, it was one through which its adherents, servants of Rome’s ruling class, were morally obligated to suffer meekly what Caesar wished or, as Titus 2:9 says, to please their masters in all things. Christianity is a pro-Roman religion. Did not Paul say that Roman magistrates were only a threat to evildoers or that the man who rebels against his master is opposing God’s will? What Roman would want to persecute the philosophy that said that tax collectors are God’s ministers (Romans 13:6)? It was the Jewish zealots and Gnostic Christians who threatened Rome, not the anti-Gnostic Paulines and neo-Christians.

I don't think any credible scholar would say Jesus did not exist,...although all stories of his divinity have been shown to be fiction. Like most fiction, it arises for a reason. For example, the fanciful story of Mason Weems, invented after the death of George Washington, about George Washington and the cherry tree. Weems fabricated this story to broaden the character of America’s first president and to make him seem more appealing. The Jesus Christ myth was interwoven from many sources, including the Egypto-Greek Sarapis, whose devotees, according to Hadrian, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. Sarapians had temples in most of the major cities of the time, including Alexandria, Rome, and even Bithynia, where Pliny the Younger was governor at the beginning of the second century CE. Under Trajan (who was married to Pompeia Piso), Hadrian was governor of Syria. As every Bible hobbyist should know, as per Matthew 4:24, Jesus’ fame was said to reach throughout all of Syria, yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus’ followers as Christians until well into the second century. Why was that? Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ. Neither Paul nor his followers could grasp gnosis, that is, to gnow themselves through the heart of essence. Like many today, frozen in their conceptual experiences, Paul needed a more physical, hope-driven, fear-based path. The ignorant respond to hope and fear. Thus, from the expectations infused through the Pauline church, the concept of a personified Christ grew and entered the groupthink of the anti-Gnostic Paulines and those, like the Roman aristocrats, who wished to exploit it. Before 95 CE, when history suggests that Apollonius died and rose from the dead, there is no mention of a personified Christ or the four gospels. There is no known contemporary scriptural record of the life and times of Jesus/Yeshua. For neo-Christians, so fond of quoting Bible babble, what wasn’t said in the first century that which is curiously missing, is as interesting as the fabrications and contradictions of what was said then. For example, in the writings of Clement Romanus, the Pauline bishop of Rome circa 95 CE, there is not even a tinge of gospel references. Yet Luke 1:1–2 specifically implies that many eyewitness followers had already been writing. Adding to the intrigue, Clement, whom Tertullian and Jerome suggest was the direct successor of Peter, was also said to be a Flavian, that is, a relative of the men who were then the emperors of the Rome. Sciolistic Christians vaunt that the historian Josephus, in two remarks that have been taken out of context, verifies that Jesus/Yeshua existed. Today, however, even conservative scholars agree that those quotations from chapters 18 and 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews, were later Christian interpolations. Such conclusions are consistent with Origen, an ante-Nicene father, who in the third century CE indicated that such a declaration from Josephus of a Jesus Christ did not exist in his copy of the Jewish Antiquities. Furthermore, no one else before the fourth century CE ever mentioned such an important reference from this often-cited source. Another claim by neo-Christians as to Jesus Christ’s historicity comes fromTacitus’ Annals 15.44, the comment of how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians after Rome’s fire of 64 CE was actually about Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus or Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the second-century Gospel of Matthew called false Christians. Neo-Christians appropriated the name Christianity, as they lifted terms from most of the cultures that they absorbed. In his letter to the Consul Servianus, Hadrian (71–138 CE), who was the governor of Syria under Trajan, called the Sarapian leaders "bishops of Christ." Up until the beginning of the Second Century, the Egypto-Greek Sarapians, including those in Syria, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. As you will read, there was no reason for Rome to kill the followers of Paul and the Gospels which arose from Mark. Considering a set of all knowledge for that period, not a single Jewish, Roman, or Greek historian, scribe, or writer mentions before 95 CE the Jesus Christ depicted in the gospels. There are no artifacts, no works of carpentry, and no physical evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed. For such a famous person, professed to have been known far and wide, it is notable that there is not a single word of him from Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Gaius Petronius, the Syrian Mara, Philo Judaeus, Pausanias (who traveled throughout Syria), Theon of Smyrna, Thallus of Samaria, Silius (Consul of Asia Minor), or the Syrian-born Lucianus. However, the word scribe(s) is mentioned at least sixty-six times in the New Testament. Thus, repeatedly, what was not mentioned says much regarding the history of the invention of present-day Christianity. For instance, why was the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, known as the ornament of Galilee, just four miles down the hill from the archeological site of Nazareth, not alluded to in the Gospels, although they all mention Nazareth? Could it be that the authors of the gospels were unaware that the city existed because Rome leveled it during the Jewish Revolt of 66–71 CE, some forty years after the Talmud’s Jesus was hanged for sedition? It is unlikely that Nazarites lived in Galilee, but were instead Jerusalemites. V

"it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti

"prove all things" 1 Thess 5:21. So give Christians a chance. Let them PROVE that they are not False Christians. Let them accept Jesus’ litmus test for determining the true christian faithful, as published in the canonized text,…Mark 16:16-18. A true Christian, "the man who accepts baptism,…will be able to drink deadly poison without harm".

In Christianity, there are 4 Gospels: The first canonical gospel, the Gospel According to Mark, began to appear in Rome after 95 CE; however, it was probably drafted following the First Jewish Revolt (70 CE). Contrary to allegations of Papias, as reported by Eusebius in the fourth century, this gospel is clearly Roman in origin and intention. Besides the use of Latin-rooted words not found in other canonical texts, it also does not refer to Jewish law. Authorship points to members of the aristocratic Piso family, who according to genealogists were descendants of Herod the Great and intermarried with the Flavians. These members of the Piso family were the forefathers of Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, and Charlemagne. The Pisos had strong ties to Syria in the first and second centuries, when anti-slavery sentiments began to grow from the First Jewish Revolt. They had firm reasons to introduce a new theo-ideology that encouraged passive servility, thereby suppressing another costly servile war similar to the Spartacus slave insurrection. The womb of the birth of Christianity was Rome, not Judea. The Gospel According to Mark was unknown before 95 CE apparently because of a contention between the Pisos and the Emperor Domitian, who ruled between 81 and 96 CE. Following Mark came the Gospel According to Matthew, which was probably compiled by Ignatius, a Pauline bishop of Antioch, a town in Syria, about 102 CE. Ignatius appears to have harmonized his gospel using some six hundred of Mark’s 661 verses. Considering the numerous references to money, he may have also used the Ebionites’ Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as a source, the writer of which was said to have been a tax collector. Other players in Ignatius’ story include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic text of sayings, which may have been a source for the Hebrew Matthew. Like the Gospel of Thomas, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is purported not to have contained a virgin birth or resurrection story. Then, along with oral traditions, the copyist of the canonized Matthew comported his story with the Old Covenant, contriving citations that verified scriptural prophecy to address various questions of the times. To me, his genealogy is more amusing than reconciling. For instance, of the four women mentioned, Ruth was repurchased, Tamar was a prostitute, Rahab was a harlot, and Bath-Sheba was an adulteress. I recall pondering whether the Biblical Jesus/Yeshua was a bastard like me. Matthew’s encouragement of sexlessness is also amusing; for example Mt. 19:12 suggests that blessed is the man who has been castrated, but even more blessed is he who cuts it off himself. In the 1980s, as mentioned earlier, a biennial gathering of Biblical scholars concluded that only the word father could be traced to Matthew’s so-called Sermon on the Mount. The greater part of the sermon consisted of words placed in Jesus’ mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period in the 1980s, over a hundred Bible scholars at another seminar agreed that Jesus never promised to return and that he never had any intention of starting a religion. Commenting on these scholars’ conclusions, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said, "These are not maverick scholars; they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts." Unlike the Epistles of Paul or the Gospel According to Mark, which say nothing about Jesus/Yeshua’s birth, the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Luke, which followed Matthew, constructed the virgin birth in their attempt to corroborate that their Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled Jewish prophecies about a messiah, for example Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, Micah 5:2, and Luke 24:24. The third of the synoptic gospels is my favorite. The Lucan discourses, that is, Luke and Acts, were probably authored by a well-educated, effeminate physician from Greece during the second century. These books, having the most extensive vocabulary of any in the New Testament, were obviously written through a healer’s eyes, but also from the point of view of an effeminate or homosexual life. Luke is a girl’s gospel; Luke is the only Biblical author to describe women’s inner life. There are women everywhere in Luke—Elizabeth, Herodias, Anna, Mary, Joanna, Susanna, Jairus’ daughter, the Queen of the South, the Widow of Nain, Simon’s mother-in-law, the crippled woman, a hemorrhaging woman, the widow of Zarephath, women who prepare spices, women in parables, a wailing woman, women grinding grain, and at least five women at the tomb. Although Luke and Matthew both use Mark as a source, and the author of Luke probably read Matthew’s compilation while in Antioch, these two evangelists’ accounts contradict each other in many ways. To name an example: Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was Jacob. Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father was Heli. According to the theory of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so who cares whether Joseph was a descendant of King David? Some Christian priests would have their faithful believe that the Luke genealogy was of Mary, that Heli was Mary’s father; however, Luke 3:23–24 actually negates such a claim. Matthew 1:20 An angel appears to Joseph. Luke 1:38 An angel appears to Mary. Matthew 2:11 Jesus was born in a house. Luke 2:7 Jesus was born in a manger. Matthew 2:14 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt. Luke 2:22 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem. Most Christmas season reenactments use Luke’s manger, but Matthew’s escape to Egypt. Matthew 28:2 An angel Luke 24:4 Two men in dazzling garments 　 John was the last of the canonical gospels. Theophilus of Antioch appears to be the first person to mention its existence as a gospel (during the later half of the second century). However, the Rylands Papyrus, which could be part of a copy of John, has been paleographically dated to 150 CE, fifteen years after the Bar Cochba revolt. John’s gospel resonates more with the Jesus of the Talmud than the Jesus in the synoptic gospels. For example, John has his Jesus dying on the eve of Passover, as the slaughtered lamb, not following the Passover meal as the Jesus of Matthew and Luke. So, who was Jesus? The most important figure in what Westerners understand as Christianity was the mass murderer, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. According to eminent theologians, such as Robert Eisenman, the Essenes called this self-ordained apostle of the Gentiles "the Spouter of Lies." Among scholars, the Biblical Jesus/Yeshua usually appears in about the fourteenth place in importance. Was he an actual historical figure? Even Paul did not appear to believe that Jesus was an historical figure; for example, see Hebrews 8:4. That is to say, Paul never identified Jesus apart from an entirely mystical setting. Without Paul and several other Church fathers and aristocrats, Christianity, as known today, would not exist. Note: some question Paul’s authorship of Hebrew’s, however, that does not necessarily alter the message. Interestingly, American Founding Fathers have chimmed in these ways: "All this [Paul's writing] is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told." Thomas Paine "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul..." Thomas Jefferson

Suppose my dictionary is outdated. Although I did recognize that both Roman catholicism and Eastern Catholicism were included in that definition. Anyway,...I could never be a Pope,...not even an anti-pope.

Don't know if you meant it that way,...but that really cracked me up.

Yes,...most of us would like to adhere to the idea that there is "free will"...but will having such a belief undermine your success in uncovering truth? Jim Walker, in "The Problems with Beliefs," mentions: Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a god that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, and that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Isaac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory; however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time. Therefore, he formulated his famous theory of general relativity, yet his own beliefs could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics.

I take issue with that. A Pope is specifically associated with Catholicism,...thus, if everyone is a Papa of Catholicism, which is a cancerous meme http://www.christianitymeme.org/ we would all be guilty of crimes against humanity.

I'm surprised that there was no mention of that in the post you were apparently responding to. Perhaps the St Malachi Prophesy could trickle down some peace for you. Look at it like this,...most serious Religious Scholars today understand that Christianity is a meme. For example, in the 1980s, a biennial gathering of Biblical scholars concluded that only the word father could be traced to Matthew’s so-called Sermon on the Mount. The greater part of the sermon consisted of words placed in Jesus’ mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period in the 1980s, over a hundred Bible scholars at another seminar agreed that Jesus never promised to return and that he never had any intention of starting a religion. Commenting on these scholars’ conclusions, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said, "These are not maverick scholars; they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts." What if the new Pope is such a scholar, and admits that Christianity is a meme? If Christianity is proved wrong,...where does that leave Islam, which was built upon the Christian meme? As many people begin to be more honest regarding their beliefs, ideas like "honest appraisal" would take on a new meaning. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson When faith-based folks realize that everything they thought was meaningful is actually meaningless,...they're not going to become instant anarchists,...they are going to the truth, and philosophies that promote truth realization. What if Christians considered their religion from a Buddhist viewpoint, like: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf The info is there,...the attention isn't.

For Connected Breathers, there is no space between in-breath and out-breath,...in fact, according to those practioners, those who do not breath connectively, are stuck in a birth trauma,...that gasp while taking the first breath in a forced way. The Now cannot be realized while inhaling, exhaling, or no-haling. And, as the Now never moved a centimeter in all eternity, no movement, whether breath, energy, sensory notion, or thought, can ever recognize it.

Although repetitious, I'll chime in with this,...yes,..."Sexist Racist or Homophobic attacks constitute a personal attack",...even if it's not personally directed. As you said, "they are attacking what someone is, personally." A persons sex, gender identity, race (although race really doesn't exist per se), or sexual perferences, are not indoctrinated beliefs,...but the inherent characteristic of the vehicle (body) they are using. It is their Life. IMO, the insane groupthink of binary gender plays a large part in sexism, gender identity, and homophobia. The idea of binary gender is as ridiculous as the concept of race. There are at least as many gender identities as so-called races. Race is an illusion, perpetuated by abhorrent thinking: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm There is no White race, Black race, Brown race,...there is only the Human race. One is not either male or female gender,...nor limited to male or female societal roles,...there are a myriad of gender identities. Consider this....the medical profession says that an average male introduced to female hormones, experiences dramatic negative emotional changes, and cannot stay comfortably on them for more than 3 or 4 days,…whereas a transgender male has a positive emotional response... In other words....before starting hormones, some transgender males are as imprisioned within a field of negative emotional experiences. Eugene Debs said, "Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." I recognize my kinship with all living things,...I'm intolerant of beliefs that set between all human beings and their direct experience,...but I'm neither intolerant or tolerant of human beings,...they're human beings,...I don't tolerate them, nor intolerate them,...the essence of every one is part of the Whole. I merely argue that their beliefs are not part of the Whole.

ad hominem,....attacking an opponents character, rather than answering or discussing their argument. Honest appraisal, lol,...first, one has to be honest,...and I've yet to see that from any of your ad hominem posts. To call ad hominem an appraisal, isn't even clever,...more of child denial sort of thing,...as when a bully exclaims,..."I was just playing." Unlike you,...I don't do the report thing. If you cannot communicate in a healthy, non-attacking way, instead of addressing the argument, then nothing I do is going to change that. Of your numerous neurosis CowTow, going with the flow is a huge one for you. You harbor such insane attitudes,...just go back the past year with every reply you made to me,....all were unsolicited,...all prompted by some predisposition. One cannot go with the stream of life if one continually puts predispositions on the nature of the stream.

Actually the documentation of the time points to the so-called crucifixion as actually a fabricated cruci-fiction, invented along with the resurrection story after 95 CE. Rabbinic law called for criminals to be stoned, not to undergo a Roman-style crucifixion, although hanging was acceptable for lesser offenses. Jesus was killed "by hanging him on a tree" (Acts 5:30 & 10:39); Jesus was "hung on a tree" Galatians 3:13; his "body [was] on the tree" 1 Peter 2:24.

I feel this fellow has a good grasp of human nature:

As a Religious Studies major I could read, write, and regurgitate some Latin,...however, I'd rather be a caretaker on Putuo Shan, than the last Pope of the Christian meme. Christians will need much help after they realize that everything they thought was meaningful is actually meaningless,...and from that, a Birthing of Human Beingness will spawn.

Look at a dollar bill,...look at the Pledge of Allegence,...look at the crosses that pollute the Western landscape,...look at who makes the laws you must follow. Many consider Thomas Paine to be the most eminent of America’s founding fathers. He once said, "It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion". President John Adams, 1797 On February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law "is that system of law, which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England . . . about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. . . We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." Christian values are not American values. Christian values are not nature’s values. Christian values can never lead the world towards an era of peace.

Well,...thanks for example of ad hominem. I don't recall ever suggesting I'm good with English,...however, I am trying. Been watching The Great Courses. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=2368 That wasn't posted fot you, but for others following the thread. Wait a minute,...I must not be too bad with English,...heck, I won first place in an International Writing Competition,...but yes,...those Cambridge, Harvard, Rice PhD's who were the judges were likely not too good with English either.