December 27, 2009, 11:39 am by dc-agape.

It is time to look at the results collected from this experiment.  This does not mean that the experiment is over, but the observations taken over the past year have lead to some interesting conclusions.  As with any experiment, the results will always be flexible and may change drastically with more observations.  At this point some conclusions can be estimated to have reached “steady states”.  I will discuss these observations in full with individual posts.  First, the results of operating a blog and my personal experiences with this project can be seen.  Making posts, writing daily, controlling spam commenters and trolls are all part of operating a blog.  Second, reading the “Holy Texts” has lead to some changes in my personal outlook.  Not the changes that Theist would expect, but overall some interesting ideas.  Third, unlike other Atheist blogs I have not had to deal with trolls or anti-Atheist bigotry.  This is a good thing, but it leads to an interesting conclusion.  I have obviously not stabbed a caged angry beast where it hurt!  Finally one missing result cannot not be denied, it just has not appeared.  YHWH has not intervened on my blogging.  This has neither been by direct interaction, making me more religious…or less tangible methods, such as attacks at home or cyber-issues.  YHWH has not made an appearance, nor has his followers been directed to intervene in any supernatural way!

From the Atheist perspective the experiment has been successful.  I will continue to read different spiritual texts focused on the Abrahamic faiths.  But I will not expect that YHWH and his minions will interfere with my experiment in any meaningful way.  I am particularly drawn to the Islamic Qur’an and to the Gnostics Nag Hammadi Library.  I will continue to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament, and also the New Testament.  But it is will great interest that the DSC, OT, and the NT have become less than “Truthful” than I had assumed they would be when I started this experiment.  The NT has been the most disappointing.  Recognizing that over 66% of it was written by a man who was determined to destroy the original teaching of Jesus (which is now called Pauline Christianity) has been an eye-opening result of this experiment.  The fact that Paul wrote 13 of the Book in the NT is overwhelming.  Especially considering that there is only 27 Book in total.  Of the remaining book only with certainty can we be assured that followers of Paul did not write seven of the Books: The Gospel of John, James, and 1^st Peter, the Letters from John, and Jude.  These seven Books, in total from the NT, that are not Pauline in nature.  Worse is that these seven are not the central doctrine of modern Christianity!  The Books of James and Jude were written by the half-brothers of Jesus himself, yet neither of these Books are the focus of Christianity.  Peter was to be “Rock” of the Church, yet only one very short Book was written by him!  Does this not look strange to the believer?  It is certainly disappointing to an Atheist that we do not have the “True” teaching of Jesus recorded in historical documents!  Instead we have the teaching of a man determined to eradicate those same teachings (and his disciples) the focus of the modern Church.  What a truly sad state the Theist believes are left in…

Posted in State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »

December 20, 2009, 8:10 am by dc-agape.

The Treatise on the Resurrection

I am changing gears for a number of reasons.   First, I have lingered in the Dead Sea Scrolls for too long.    I had thought that I would post on five additional Scrolls, but they are indeed very dry and very technical with little spiritual importance to modern day Theists.  Secondly, the gotten bored.  For the most important reason is that I have come to a much stronger conclusion that the Pauline doctrines of the New Testament should be questioned.  Both Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi indicate a much stronger understanding and source for the teachings of Jesus.  As a result, I want to go ahead and work on the Nag Hammadi library.    The Treatise on the Resurrection is the next Scroll in this series. 

The scholars who have studied this Treatise can place this document as part of the Valentinian Gnostic doctrine.   The same scholars placed writing of this Treatise near the end of the second century CE.   This was a period of time in the new Christian religion where the concept of the Resurrection had not been firmly established.  Questions still abound as to whether the Resurrection would occur before death, immediately after death, or At the Second Coming (the Judgment Day).   More questions were still related an unresolved about whether the body, the soul, the mind, or a combination of these three would occur during the Resurrection.   This Treatise leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader exactly what the author understands will occur as part of the Resurrection.

The author of the Treatise does add one additional concept that is left out of modern Christianity.  It is certainly not a new one, but it is one that has been forgotten but almost all of today’s denominations.  The author indicates that once the Truth is known about death and the Resurrection one has already been resurrected.  As a result, one should live a life as If they already possess the new resurrected body.  In other words, outwardly the believer should live a life free from the worldly nature of humankind.

This concept is truly appealing to a gay Atheist.  First of all, this Treatise does indicate that predestination elects the believer.  No amount of persuasion is involved in believing in this religion, it is truly based on faith.  Second of all, this Treatise indicates that Christians should be noticeably different from the mortal unbelieving human.  Both these attributes fit what is observed in today’s modern Christian religion.  In other words, the unbeliever cannot be persuaded to have faith, and this faithful should not be identical (in nature) to the unbeliever.  Since neither of these concepts are applied in modern Churches it becomes obvious that the Valentinian faith is more accurate than the Pauline religion.

Posted in Resurrection, Treatise on the Resurrection, The Nag Hammadi, Biblical topics, Readings, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »

November 21, 2009, 3:18 pm by dc-agape.

Well I happen to have taken a trip to Wilmington, NC and forgot to bring my copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  As a result, I will have to make some posts from the Nag Hammadi Library which I can get on line at The Gnostic Society Library.  Since I have finished the Pray of the Apostle Paul and the Apocryphon of James, I will introduce you to the Gospel of Truth.  Two translations of this gospel are available, so I will explain which one I have chosen to read and why.

Two translations exist on the Gnostic Society’s website.  The first translation is by Robert M Grant.  RM Grant is a prolific writer about Gnostic Christianity and early Church history.  The Second translation is translated by Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae.  Dr Attridge is a professor at Yale Divinity School and Dr MacRae received his doctorates from Cambridge University.  I have look at both translations and I enjoy reading Attridge and MacRae’s version better.  Grant writes with a very spiritual mumbo-jumbo style, probably very similar to the original, but more difficult to understand and read.  Attridge and MacRae have made a stronger attempt at making this material reader friendly.  Neither have offered an introduction on-line.  So I have done so here as my first post.

This Gospel seems from historical perspective to be written during the era of St Valentinus’ (120 – 160 AD).  During this time Valentinus was nearly appointed a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.  This would have lead to the first recording of this Gospel to between 140 and 160 AD.  Irenaeus (175 – 185 AD) does report Valentinus using this Gospel as Scripture and possibly being the author.  If Valentinus was the author, The Gospel of Truth was written by a 2^nd generation Pauline Christian.  One must understand that Valentinus studied with Theudas , who was a pupil of Paul of Tarsus.  This information is recorded directly from Clement of Alexandria (130 – 160 AD).  If this is the case then the Gospel of Truth is as significant as the writings of Luke (The Gospel of Luke – written between 59 and 89 AD, the Book of Acts – written between 63 and 70 AD), Timothy, or Barnabas (The Book of Hebrews – written before 70 AD).  The history of Theudas (a disciple of Paul of Tarsus) is sketchy at best.  Little is known about him, yet many of the Gnostics claim direct training from him and indicate that he was a contemporary of Luke, Timothy, Apollos, and Barnabas.  As a result, this Theudas could not be the same Theudas that died in 44 AD after starting a revolt against the Romans.  We can be certain of this because Paul did not write the First Letter to Thessalonica until 50 AD.   

Posted in Gospel of Truth, The Nag Hammadi, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »

October 16, 2009, 9:51 am by dc-agape.

This post I want to introduce the shorter Scrolls that have survived that deal with the life and beliefs of the Jewish Sectarian Association.  This group is not the Sadducees, Pharisees, nor Essences that you might be familiar with.  They have similarities to these three better known Jewish “denominations” of the 1^st century BC, but they are less political (similar to the Essences) yet more fundamental (like the Sadducees) and more importantly the Yahad (unity – the writers name for themselves) are similar to the Zealots and the Sicarii (they were prepared for a Messiah that would come and destroy the Romans (and all Gentiles).   Since these Scrolls do not lead well to placing the Yahad into one category I will take the position that they were independent of all the other Jewish groups present from the 2^nd century BC until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  

There are number of shorter Scrolls that I want to cover over the next couple of weeks.  The first one is called The Book of Secrets.  This will be followed by The Charter for Israel in the Last Days.    To describe the Yahad’s tendency towards being a Masonic or even Sicarii group I want to cover the Scroll titled the War of the Messiah.  I also want to cover this Scroll titled A Vision of the New Jerusalem.   Following that will be the Scroll titled The Coming of the Melchizedek.   The three last short posts will be prefaced with a guide entitled “A Reader’s Guide to the Qumran on Calendar Texts”.  These three short Scrolls are entitled Calendar of the Heavenly Signs, Synchronistic Calendars, and Priestly Services as the Seasons Change.  In total this series of short Scrolls will take about 10 days to cover.

The Book of Secrets

This Scroll is only four pages long.  It is rather fragmented.  This Scroll is of the same form of “Wisdom books” like the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job.  As the title implies there is a secret hidden in this Scroll.  That secret is that wisdom only comes from YHWH.

The Charter for Israel in the Last Days

This Scroll is also only four pages long.  Is not nearly as fragmented and seems to be in rather good shape.  This Scroll is about what will happen when the Messiah comes to redeem Israel.  It is very Christian like, and shows that at least some Jews had specific believes about the results of the “begetting” of the “son of God”.

The War of the Messiah

This Scroll is two pages long and when discovered created quite a controversy.  As more research was placed on the meaning of this document, the Yahad were determined to believe that the Messiah would be victorious and bring Israel to become a leading nation in the world.

A Vision of the New Jerusalem

This Scroll is five pages long but many parts are missing.  The quality that stands out the most in this text is a similarity between the New Jerusalem of the Yahad and the New Jerusalem described in the Book of Revelation.

The Coming of the Melchizedek

This Scroll is barely a page long and is somewhat fragmented.  The author ff this Scroll intended it to be a true interpretation of the jubilee year, which occurred every 49 years.  When I get deeper into the scroll I will explain how the jubilee year and Melchizedek are related.

A Reader’s Guide to the Qumran on Calendar Texts

This guide is to attempt to explain the difference between a lunar year and a solar year.  During this period of time (2^nd century BC to 1^st century AD) some nations, and even groups within the nations, were using one or the other of these methods of marking time.  To understand the next three Scrolls the full understanding of this difference is helpful.

Calendar of the Heavenly Signs

This Scroll is written in a way that is rather confusing to the fact that it is actually an almanac.  But since such documents had not been created at this time the format is rather odd.  What it does do is described how the solar year and the lunar year are related.

Synchronistic Calendars

This Scroll is so fragmented that it can only be described as being as being four pages long.  What it does do is synchronize the rotation of the priestly family between the solar year and the lunar year.

Priestly Services as the Seasons Change

This Scroll is a single paragraph.  What it does do in that short paragraph is explain the other three month-long seasons relates to both the solar year and the lunar year.

In conclusion, some of these Scrolls will seem extremely boring.  Fortunately, they are also very short.  Together these Scrolls actually give great insight into the Jewish histories of the 2^nd and 1^st centuries BC.  When I finished these shorter Scrolls undo plan on moving on to a couple of the longer ones.  These would include Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Association, the Book of Jubilees, Secret of the Way Things Are, and the Temple Scroll.  I’ll just have to seeing if I actually make it to all of these before deciding to move on to the Nag Hammadi Library.

Posted in Genesis Material, Dead Sea Scroll, Introduction | Print | 3 Comments »

October 4, 2009, 8:19 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

Today make a special anniversary for dc-agape.com, and for more than one reason.  The biggest reason to celebrate is that today is the anniversary of my start to this experiment.  I have actually posted 371 posts within that year.  I had hoped to get 9 posts per week, but being a grad student in the field of Chemistry has minimized the time I can allot for posting.  Adding to that is that my advisor wants me to finish in 3.5 years (most students take 4-5 years), publishing my first article, preparing a second article, finishing my matriculation into the PhD program, and just the normal day-to-day hassles.  I am happy to say that I was able to at least average a post a day! 

I have also reached the point where (even if it is robots and spammers) I have averaged over 50 hits per day on my RSS page.  I know that I only have 2-3 regular commenters, but there are a number of guest who continue to return without making a single comment.  I hope that I can change that and bring in more viewpoints and discussion.  I know that with more commenters I will have to enforce the policy of being tolerant, something that many people have difficulty with.  I certainly do not want to blacklist anyone!  But if new voices are not humble (Christians) or too arrogant (Atheist and Christian alike), I will be forced to intervene. 

This year alone, I have reached the point where 40 of my posts have reached the surprising level of 277 hits (that is averaging one hit per day – for the entire year…with many not written until very recently).  I was not sure if I would be a minor blog that had no subscriptions or if people would take not of my slightly different approach to the issue of communication between Atheist and Theist.  The dc-agape.com still is rather small, but it is obviously growing, should I ask for more?  That was, of course, one of the initial questions that the experiment was to address.  The data is still coming in for that part of the experiment.  Another aspect of the experiment was whether I could keep up the blogging (my own interest) with all the other competing demands for my time.  This seems to not be a problem.  With the addition of the Nag Hammadi Library, the Holy Qur’an, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, I will not end up getting bored, and will have an unlimited selection of source material for my posts.

One more additional interesting thing about this blog is the post that has had the top hits. That would be freewill-punishment-salvation. I knew that posting on the Biblical concept of freewill would spark interest, but it is interesting which of the many posts actually reached the highest number of hits.At this point, it is averaging over 13 hits per day, since I wrote it at the beginning of March, 2009.  What is most odd about this post is that it comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls!  To be exact it is from my reading of the Damascus Document.  And yet not a single comment has been made, neither spammer, nor hate, or nor agreement.  Does this mean that the tracking software that I am using is faulty?

As far as registrations to this website go…it is not a paltry number.  I have 315 users who have actually hit the registration button.  Now even if some of these are robots, that would indicate that some of you out there are actually interested in this project.  The question is how many?

Now comes the request to my elusive and quiet visitors.  I may be sorely embarrassed by the response to this request, but the time has come to make it anyway!  If you have subscribed to my RSS feeder, or even if this blog is something that you visit on that rare occasion, would you be so kind as to speak up?  If you would let me know even the barest details…which side you lean toward (between Theism and Atheism), what brought you to this blog, and what you would like to see changed (I am thinking of changing my host – 1&1 hosting is good for beginners, but it is limiting to what I can do on my own blog site).  If you want to add your contact information, blog site, etc go right ahead.

Related articles by Zemanta

• An introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls (network.nationalpost.com)
• Dead Sea scrolls at ROM Saturday (thestar.com)

Posted in Comment Policies, State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 3 Comments »

September 7, 2009, 6:43 am by dc-agape.

Last week I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  I had a reason for each of the questions.  I have posted why the first question:

How do True Christians respond to the desire of homosexuals to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals to marry the person they love?  Specifically I asked how my commenter responded to the approval of California Prop #8.

In response I have received two replies that need to be addressed:

Please explain compassion and justice from a materialistic world view.

I am not clear how the issue of Gay Marriage relates to your understanding the teachings of the Bible though.

It would seem that our True Christian is not clear on the concepts of compassion or justice even while living in the USA.  It would also appear that our True Christian does not understand that to be “Christ-like” one must show compassion and act in a just manner towards one’s fellow human.  Let me see if I can clear up some of the confusion.

Dictionary.com makes answering the first part of the first request very simple.  The definition of the English word “Compassion” is:

A feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it

It would seem that our Christian does not understand that one must not only claim to have compassion, but that one must also wish to relieve it!  The “stricken by misfortune” can certainly be a disqualifier to the subject of Gay Marriage until you combine justice with compassion.  Even thought the second definition “a deep awareness of the suffering of another” is clear enough to show that by banning/protesting Gay Marriage the Christians, who do this, are not showing a deep awareness of the suffering of others.  In fact, they are not even aware of the suffering that they are inflicting on other citizens in their own country.

But to truly understand that the Gay Marriage protest is causing suffering and striking the homosexual community with misfortune one must include the concept of justice and having a just attitude.  Using dictionary.com two of the meanings of the English word noun “Justice” are appropriate for the “materialistic world view”:

These are the “top” definitions of the English adjective “just”!  Notice the words justice, fairness, equitable, and lawful.  Dictionary.com has two definitions of the word justice that are in direct relation to this topic:

Conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment

The maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings

These are not the “top” definitions of the English noun “Justice”; they are definitions of the word.  In my original post I described what was just by law: equality of all citizens in the USA.  The denial of equal rights to marry the person one loves is in the United States a fundamental denial of the right to pursue happiness.

I must admit that the concepts of compassion and justice are difficult to comprehend, especially to one that already receives both with abundance.  Of course that is what makes it difficult for one who claims to be compassionate and just to “forget” how to be exactly that: compassionate and just!  Since they receive it without thinking about it they “forget” that other people do not have the same experiences in life.  In fact, the people who deny compassion and justice to the gay community, here in the USA, are lulled into believing that everyone receives the same treatment that they themselves receive.  They are being taking their own freedoms for granted.

I think that I have hinted at the controversy of Gay Marriage and the teaching of the Bible.  Maybe I have not been clear enough.  If Christians are to be “Christ-like” does that not mean that they should show compassion and justice as Jesus did in the Gospels.  One thing that is missing from the Gospel is the concept that the “sinner” should be treated as less valuable, less human than the righteous believer.  In fact, the exact opposite is the case.  Jesus turned water into wine for a wedding festival – John 2:1-11 (gluttony), Jesus ate with the tax collectors and the prostitutes (greed and sexual amorality), and Jesus even taught in the Beatitudes:

Matt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy”. 

And further in Jesus’ ministry Jesus tells his followers this:Matt 22:37-40 Jesus replied. “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

To love your neighbor but to deny them the same right that you take for granted is a hypocrisy.  How can you love your neighbor “as yourself” yet demand that your neighbor cannot have the same rights as you!  So from a Biblical stand point and a “materialist” stand point there is no difference. 

It is true that some Christians believe that all homosexuals will go to hell…how “loving”.  But should not Christians have the decency to show mercy, compassion, justice, and love to the “sinner” while we are here on Earth?

Posted in Important Questions, Love, Personal Responsibility, State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 13 Comments »

September 1, 2009, 9:01 am by dc-agape.

BJ you will have to forgive me for turning this response into a post! His first question is this:

1) How can I share with you what I a follower of Jesus Christ would do, would like to do, believe, experience conviction about, and so on if you continue to lump me with all who call themselves Christian (including those that deny the basic tenets of the faith and/or act contrary to these teachings)?

As I have explained before, those that call themselves Christians and those that are Christians are very difficult to distinguish between by the non-believer.  A number of things are common between the two: rationalization of verses to make them not apply to particular groups, lumping all humans into the requirements of living a “Christian” life, and attacking non-believers with the use of words such as “propaganda and agendas”. 

Further about rationalization: The Word of God was intended for the believer.  It is supposed to help the non-believer learn about YHWH.  When a believer claims that one verse or another does not apply to themselves, it makes the non-believer questions the veracity of the believer’s intentions.  Either all the Word of God is designed for the believer or it is a piece of fiction written by men. 

More about the lumping all humans into being required to live the Christians lifestyle.  The non-believer (Atheist, Jew – NT, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, New Agers, etc) does not believe the Bible is the only Word of God.  By suggesting that I can only understand the Word of God by believing the Word of God (being open-minded) eliminates my skepticism, eliminates the possibility that another religion/philosophy is correct, and to be blunt is extremely arrogant. 

At this point I need to ask you some questions (you can reply in a comment, send them to my direct e-mail – if you don’t want them published, or on your own blog).  I have to ask these questions and get a response or I cannot determine if you are just one of the crowds.  Do you believe that homosexuals do or do not deserve the same rights as the average American (the right to civil marriage to the person they love)? How did you respond when California Prop #8 was voted down?  Do you believe that the government of the US had the right/was required to attempt to intervene with the Terry Schivo case (the right to a dignified death – euthanasia)?  Do you believe that Doc Death (Dr Jack Kevorkian) was evil or was he helping relieve suffering?  How did you respond to the outcome of both court cases?  Do you believe that Creationism should be taught in the science classrooms?  How did you respond to the recent Penn court case (Kilzmiller vs. Dover Area School District)?  Do you believe that all abortions should be illegal?  Even in the case of rape, incest, and the risk to the mother’s life?  Do you believe that the only form of sex education is abstinence?  How did you respond to former Pres Bush’s comments that “Atheists should not be considered citizens”?  How did you respond to the Catholic Church pedophilia case and cover-up?

The use of words like propaganda and agenda has been turned into “catch phrases” by the Religious Conservative Right.  There is the “Gay Agenda” and the “Atheist Agenda”.  Even though, in both cases, these groups want (their agenda) equal rights in the US and to be recognized as legitimate parts of society.  Television shows were “gays” are portray as OK is considered “propaganda”.  The recent “Atheist bus ads” have been called “propaganda”.  The fact that you have used these words in attacking my replies (usually not my posts) makes me wonder if you are not “just one of the crowd”.

2) Are you asking me then to accept those things that I agree with you and to not respond to those areas I think you are in error?

I have not required you to hold back on your disagreement.  On the contrary, I have allowed every comment that you have made to stay as you wrote them.  My filters do take time to (and require me to approve) comments with numerous links.

3) Who gets to define “broken church?”

You will agree that false teachers exist in the Christians religion (or at least those calling themselves Christians)?  You will agree that those same false teachers give your religion a bad name?  I have described how these false teachers have made it difficult for non-believers to separate Real Christians from the false teachers.  Unless you are claiming that the false teachers do not belong to the Church, then the 45,000 denomination that exist (some of which are mutually exclusive) would indicate that the Church is broken.  If as you claim (and the Word of God agrees) there is only one YHWH, one Jesus, one Spirit, and one Body…does this not indicate that the Body is broken?  To be more specific, which “Churches” are broken and which one is “Real”?  And does that make any sense if there is only one “Body”?

4) If the Holy Spirit shows me some point that you may have gone astray on am I allowed to post it?

If the Holy Spirit exists and it guides you, would it use words that attack (propaganda and agenda) or would these corrections be guiding me to more correct links and passages in the Word?  I am not a believer; would the Spirit treat me as a false teacher or as a seeker?  Many times you have not distinguished between the two.

5) Does hypocrisy negate the truth of the message?

Hypocrisy makes it very difficult for the non-believer to trust that any supernatural force is guiding the hypocrite.  If human motives are overwhelming the message, which parts of the message are to be trusted?  Why is it that both Jesus and Paul warn about the Traditions of Men so much in the NT?  Is it not because the Traditions of Men nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13)?  And is not hypocrisy how the Traditions of Men start?

6) Is it possible for a group to have those that are hypocritical and those who are not? If so wouldn’t make since to make a distinction?

All groups are diverse.  In a human society not everyone will agree.  But the Church (Body) is not human in nature.  Remember this passage:

1^st Tim 1:3-4 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.

In the passage Paul urges Timothy to command the hypocrites to stop!  Why are the Real Christians not doing the same thing?  And what about this passage (Col 2:18-23), does this not remind you of the Catholic Church?  Yet it has not followed this verse:

Col 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

But they have not perished, worse they have thrived and become the largest sect of Christendom!  By allowing the weakest (in faith) to control the actions of the disciples of Jesus, Traditions of Men have become common place in all the Churches.  Your religion has become a very large house of mirrors with many false paths (and the mirrors are all perfectly polished).  Where is the Holy Spirit’s guidance through the maze of false teachings and Traditions of Men?  How do you distinguish between a vague Spirit’s guidance and your own personal desire?  As Susan B Anthony once said:

I distrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice that it always coincides with their own desires.

As I said before, to fully understand the implication of this experiment I must address the topics of Love, Discipleship, and the Holy Spirit.  All three topics are complex and will require a number of posts.  Until I have separated out the Traditions of Men from the Biblical meaning of these three topics, the full process of this experiment is still in the earliest stage of development.  Once I have finished these three topics, many more questions will arise, that is the way of experiments.  To this I must include all the writings of the Abrahamic Faiths: Islam, Judaism, Gnostic, Catholic, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  If I focus on only one belief system, I would be denying the possibility that these other teachings from YHWH are the true form of Yahwism. 

Posted in State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 5 Comments »

August 13, 2009, 9:17 pm by dc-agape.

We know that the Gospel of John was written by Apostle John, or at least we have no indication that this was not written by him.  I chose to start the New Testament with the Gospel of Mark because of the Synoptic Problem.  I did this because both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke seem to draw much of their material from the Gospel of Mark.  As a result, both of these Gospels will be very similar to my posts on the Gospel of Mark.  Choosing the Gospel of John next seems more appropriate.  This will alleviate repetitive posts and give a different perspective to my posts on the Gospels.  I will continue with both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke prior to addressing the later books and letters of the New Testament.

In some respects, the Gospel of John is possibly the only Book in the Word of God that was actually an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  Even the Gospel of Mark was written by a student of Peter near the end of Peter’s life.  If the Synoptic Problem is correct, then neither the Gospel of Matthew nor Luke were eyewitness accounts.  In any event, the recordings of these Gospels did not occur until over 20 (and possibly 40 years) after the events.  Unfortunately, the Gospel of john is even later…dated to about 50 years after the events described.  Yes, there is the possibility that all the documents were written shortly after the events and the final versions, that we have today, were not finalized until later.  But to follow this idea would lead to agreeing with the Nag Hammadi Library…especially The Apocryphon of James.  In the Apocryphon, James admits that all the Apostles were recording their experiences when Jesus returned to them!  But since these documents are considered heretical to modern Christians most of the Gospels of the actual Apostles are ignored and Paul’s letters become the preponderant foundation of the modern Church.  Odd how that work out…because I clearly recall that:

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet we have not recordings of Peter’s teachings!  The Gospel of Mark is the closest we have and it was written by John Mark.  Even the authorship of the two Letters of 1^st and 2^nd Peter are questioned.  So why is Peter’s teachings not at the core of Christian doctrine?

The safest way to address this issue is to attempt to use the writings of eyewitnesses.  But since the Synoptic Gospels are questionable at best, the Gospel of John is the strongest source of the events that took place during the critical years of the formation of Christianity.   That is why I will be posting from the Gospel of John prior to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Posted in Gospel of John, Readings, Introduction | Print | 26 Comments »

April 18, 2009, 6:45 pm by dc-agape.

I have recently been asked what attributes a Supreme Being/God/Force would have from my perspective as a Gay Atheist.

First, the question would have to be constrained to the difference between a personal God/Divine/Force and an impersonal one.  For the impersonal “Force” one already exists: Nature.  I don’t mean Gaia, even though the image does fit.  But I mean the nature of gravity, space, time, and relativity.  In the past I have made jokes about worshipping the “Gods of Chemistry”. 

Biochemistry is the god of life; it controls all the functions, actions, and consequences.  For example, overpopulation causes starvation, disease, and predation.  Within the body, hemoglobin carries oxygen and carbon dioxide because of a core of iron and the iron’s electronic state.

Analytical chemistry (my favorite) is knowledge.  We can learn the make-up of any substance due to the power of analysis.  We can also learn how to put the pieces of knowledge we have together to form a full picture using analytical techniques.

Physical chemistry is the creating force of the universe.  Without it we would have nothing…no atom would form, not star produce heat, no gravity to hold us on the earth.

The other chemistries all play a part as well (polymer, inorganic, textile, wood, soil, organic, etc).  I have also joked at the cruel sense of humor these “gods” have!  I am on the cusp of my most hated topic in chemistry: organic.  For a while I actually worked in a position as an organic chemist.  That I tried my hardest to avoid the topic and then to find myself making a living do exactly what I hated most…truly a cruel, cruel joke! 

If on the other hand the question is asking about a personal Devine Being …this experiment of mine is related to that question.  Ever scientist will tell you “give me the evidence, and I will believe”.  Two things might help explain how this is relevant.  First, all hypotheses, theories or Laws of science can have a chance of being wrong, some as small as 99.99%, but new evidence can disprove any of them.  Just as the Theory of Relativity changed the Newtonian Laws (but did not break them), these things happen.  An Atheist feels the same way about Theism.  The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is that an Atheist has seen enough evidence to disprove the existence of a god.  The Agnostic only doubts the existence of a god.  Enough evidence can be as great as 99.99% but is usually only above 95% confidence.  But at the 95% confidence level extraordinary evidence must be supplied.  Second, a hypothesis is only a “working guess” until it is tested.  Even though I am above the 95% confidence level, it is still a hypothesis and not a theory or a Law that no god exists.  My hypothesis is being tested by this experiment.  By reading the Holy Texts of the Ancient Religions (starting with the Abrahamic ones), recording my observation, and allowing peer review of my “data”, I am doing exactly that: testing the hypothesis.  I of course cannot, in a single lifetime, read all the religious documents, nor can I become a scholar in any single one of them.  I also cannot remove my bias (existence of god), I may be able to limit it or soften it, but it will exist.  But in experimentation one must always battle bias, everything is open to interpretation.  Some people see things in a different light or at a different angle, and some people use a different measuring device.  Science is not cut and dry and there lies another one of my biases.  The world is not black and white; how can the Truth be only one thing? 

A personal Devine Being would have to conform to (or at least obey) the Laws that govern the known forces of existence.  The connection between natural and supernatural would have to be reasonable without arbitrary boundaries and without the whimsical nature of the Biblical God.  The Sky Daddy concept of modern Christianity would not work.  The concept of “I love you, but I am still sending you to hell (your room)” is just not appropriate for a Supreme Being.  The concept of “I give you freewill, but if you don’t do what I want…I’m sending you to hell (your room)”, just cannot fit a proper concept of a Supreme Being.  You will notice the “your room” concept in both of these.  A Supreme Being of the entire universe is not just a bigger and more powerful Father.  Such a creature would have way more important things to do than watch every living (and past living) human being and record all of our actions and intentions.  But then, maybe, I am expecting a more perfect Supreme Being than the one that exists.  Maybe I expect too much, like actually communicating with us instead of leaving bread crumbs to follow that have been eaten by scavengers.  Or maybe I expect too much, like thinking that if humans were so important (and loved) by “Him”, he would have sent the same message to all of us from the beginning of time, instead of allowing some to grow into huge nations with a false “Truth”.   But most of all, a personal Supreme Being would have to fit the evidence.  Instead, what I see is many different people attempting to make the evidence fit the Supreme Being. 

The evidence I see today is that everything has a cause and none of those causes need an exterior supernatural source.  Yes, the Big Bang and the formation of Life are not answered by scientific evidence.  But even emotions and motivations of the human mind are being revealed as having physical natural causes.  Little in this world is left that does not have a natural explanation, a personal Supernatural Being would have to prove first why it was needed and second what purpose it had in the greater scheme of existence.  Is there more out there than we puny humans have measured, seen, or experienced?  Certainly.  Is love for your enemy better than killing your enemy?  Without doubt.  But are concepts like these (Spiritual Truths) supernatural?  Why do they need to have an external source?  Yes, humans are puny in the sense of the size of the universe, and it should keep us humble.  Individual humans are miniscule, but our collective ability is overwhelming.  We, as a species, are intelligent enough to send people to the moon, cure polio, and be curious enough to explore the entire planet…what would a personal Supreme Being bring to us, personally, and the universe, in general?  Answering that question would be the attribute that a personal Supreme Being would have if one could exist in my perspective as a Gay Atheist. 

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism, State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 59 Comments »

April 4, 2009, 8:19 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

In the process of performing this experiment I have come across an interesting hypothesis.  What if Saul (the Apostle Paul) succeeded in destroying the disciples of Jesus?  The result would be a fake religion with no “Power”.  We know that Saul hated the disciples, what if he changed his purpose from killing the individual to destroying the “Gnosis” that Jesus taught. 

During the process of carrying out experiments the original question leads to many more questions.  The answers to some of these questions are answered during the research others lead to new fields of experiments.  The hypothesis that Saul was determined to stop the teachings of Jesus is well known:

Acts 8:3 But Saul began to destroy the church.  Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Acts 9:1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.

At some point he must have realized that one man persecuting individuals was futile.  Could he have chosen to “be saved”, could he not have known where Ananias lived in Damascus?  Once he gained Ananias’ trust everything else would be a cake walk until he was ready to die.  Could his thorn in his side:

2^nd Cor 12:7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

Actually be knowledge of the “Truth”. 

The first thing that must be known about the other Gospel writers of the 1^st Century CE was that they were Gnostic Christians.  The Gnostics believed that the roles between YHWH and Satan were reversed.  YHWH was an abomination created out of ignorance by a higher power.  The snake in the garden was actually the first attempt by Jesus to bring knowledge to humans.  He was sent by his father a second time, but his father was not YHWH.  No his father was something (yes, neither male nor female) the Gnostic Christians called the Father of Light.  They believe that YHWH’s purpose has always been to keep humans from understanding that he is not the most powerful supernatural being to exist.

I want to show how this hypothesis might be true.  First, where are the writings of the actually Apostles?  They are collected in the Nag Hammadi Library a Gnostic Christian codex.  Second, why has the Rock that Jesus built his church on been superseded Paul’s teachings? 

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Paul wrote two-thirds (Answers.com) of the New Testament.  Should it not have been Peter that wrote more of the NT?  Third, Paul gives no good excuse for why the First Church at the time of the Pentecost does not continue to happen.  Should not the power of the 1^st century CE church still be visible today?  Third, Barnabas was passed over for becoming an Apostle by Matthias (All Saints Episcopal Church).  Why?  And why is Barnabas the companion of “Paul”?  The writings of Matthias were destroyed with the other Gnostic Christians teachings.  All the writings of the Apostles were destroyed, yet have been found in the collection of Gnostic Christian teachings!  Most of which were recorded in the 1^st century CE.

A hypothesis is not just to ask questions that seem to contradict/fit what is observed.  The hypothesis is also supposed to fit the facts.  I did that twice while asking questions in the last paragraph.  That was about the Apostle’s teachings being Gnostic.  Also, how Barnabas and Paul became the major writers of the NT.  But what about the Gnostic teaching that the roles are reversed between Satan and YHWH?  Does this not explain suffering in the world?  If the “Lord of Lies” is YHWH then does it not fit that suffering is allowed because YHWH is not “Love”?  Then this verse:

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Now, with this hypothesis, that verse makes complete senses.  All the contradictions in the Bible are also explained.  A “god of confusion - Satan” would purposely place them there to keep the knowledge away from humankind.  The multiple religions and even the multiple denominations within “Christianity” would make sense. 

Oh it’s true that 99% of what “Paul” taught was Christian, but by leaving out the one kernel of truth – that Jesus was not the son of YHWH – changes everything.  By that one act of omission Saul was able to pervert Jesus’ teaching and succeed at eliminating what he despised.  Reread Acts 9:1, would not that type of hatred carry someone to their death?  Would not that explain Saul’s “thorn” a messenger from Satan?

As a gay Atheist, I must admit that for a religion this one seems the closest to actually understanding the world we live in!  It still has a lot of “woo” in it, Gnostic Christianity is nearly as bad as Alchemy.  What if Paul never really converted to Christianity?  Where would it leave mainstream Christianity today?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Marcion: Inventor Of Alternate Philosophies (healthlifestyleforever.com)
• The Crowds, Disciples and Apostles (palamas.info)
• Shit and Being (teabreak.pk)

Posted in State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 5 Comments »