Unfettered Through Demise

If, when, or once a Christian follows the idea; the concept; the path of Repairing the TornVeil, where will it lead them?

Is this a jumping point to a Mu Portal? I believe it is; it has to be, because the most common type of Christianity today (Churchianity) is, by its very nature, entrapping. The most common 'brand' of Christianity today (well intended or not) is some form or variation of having had attempted to repair the torn veil. It is reestablishing a system that Yeshua broke – and more importantly – left broken.

From what I've seen, experienced and witnessed, all churches are delivery systems. 

They are supposed to deliver you to God - and many legitimately intend to - but they all ultimately have small print at the bottom of the contract. They all - in some form or another - have themselves and their own interests, as part of the deal. They will all delivery you into their church as well.

I don't think a church's job is to deliver you to God; maybe to Solace or Compassion... but not God. It suggests that God can't be found outside a church, or that any alien encounter with the divine outside of church is in need of proper interpretation. 

In my personal experiences with God, the vast majority and by far and away most powerful encounters, have been anywhere but associated with a church. They have always been in the wild (figuratively). They have been raw, untamed, and unorthodox. They have always been impossible to conveniently fit into a box or neat category. If anything, they defy categorization.

I think - at some point - Christians and Christianity, need to realize and admit and embrace the facts of the Torn Veil. Christianity needs to abandon its obsession with membership and attendance. It needs to abandon its ambitions of Empire. It needs to give up its addiction of the ancient and obsolete tithing system. It needs to understand any system resembling a Leviticus one is long since done.  If anything at all, possibly a Melchizedekian one. (Whatever that looks like, if anything).

Yeshua broke religion as a system itself.

He attempted to free us from the fetters of religion. He failed so far. Sadly, in their ignorance, most Christians follow a God who failed... and his failure is on them.

Christianity is one of the few world religions that is pregnant with potential. It has a potential that few or no other religions do.

It has the potential to realize its full fruition and evolve past religiosity. To my limited knowledge, no other religion contains within itself that seed.

But it's only a potential at this moment in history. It necessitates a drastic paradigm shift. To those few within this confined entrapment that may see, will only see it as a potential for self-destruction. They will put their energy towards hiding or preventing this paradigm shift, hoping to arrest what they perceive as their only hope for emancipation.

Christianity's only hope and salvation lies in its abandonment and demise. It can lead the way. It can set the example. How ironic that teaching comes directly from its founder.

The Paths We Walk

Fear or concern for a lack for resources for our continued survival drives us towards community or tribalism. Whether individuals or corporate entities, all begin from this position.

One is a legitimate concern for a lack for resources for continued survival. This ultimately will lead to co-dependence and build Community. The belief that our pooled resources are more valued than our individual resources.

The other is the Fear of a perceived lack for resources - possibly motivated by error, paranoia, or greed. Ultimately the lack of resources in this case isn't real. It is based upon fear and the error that their resources are a commodity; that their resources make them powerful compared to others.

There is a difference between fear and concern, but in this early stage they are difficult in not impossibly to differentiate. Early on, I am sure both are true to some degree. It only becomes important when a direction of growth occurs. Either one can easily morph into the other in these early formative stages. But ultimately once their footing is established they will develop along distinctively difference paths.

A legitimate concern for a lack of resources necessary for continued survival will build Community. This kind of social structure will eventually begin non-zero-sum thinking. It will also see the introduction of a limited or conditional compassion. This is important because, further down the road, there's the potential for the birth of true Compassion.

A perceived fear of a lack of resources (or simply a desire for a surplus) will breed Tribalism. This kind of social structure views the world in zero-sum terms. It has no choice but to develop Envy. Not only coveting what another has (whether an individual or rival tribe) but believing the other's loss is somehow their gain.

It is important to understand that we are redefining the terms Community and Tribalism here to identify two separate paths of development. These paths can and do apply to individuals, institutions, and corporate entities. 

But it is critically important that we pause for a moment and thoroughly understand what is meant by "resources". 

Yes, most definitely "resources" can mean food & shelter. But it can also include safety & security, affection & love. Even a newborn baby finds itself in this position of 'being driven by fear and/or concern for a lack of resources towards community or tribalism'. Its mother's milk and safety and warmth & affection are the baby's "resources". Its community or tribe can be its mother's relationship and family. It can live in community with its siblings, or it can live in tribal competition with them. 

But "resources" can be expanded to include a great many things. Resources can be anything needed - or perceived to be needed - for continued survival. For example, from a religious industry point of view, Salvation could meet these criteria. After all, by this thinking, Salvation is needed for "continued survival". And if this resource is mistaken for a commodity (power), we are led well into Tribalism.

Continuing along this path from Tribalism and its zero-sum mindset, there is no other direction for development but eventually to embrace Envy. And as mentioned earlier, Envy not only allows oneself to justify why they deserve what another has, it also can allow them to rationalize why the other doesn't even deserve what it has. Envy is created by Fear and breeds hatred.

But the individual or group/institute/entity/etc. is not yet without hope. At some point - whether directly or indirectly - they will be forced to face the fact that this Envy is at their heart or center. It is at this point where Confusion enters.

Although existing in a state of Confusion is not good or healthy, there is at least the potential for change and growth.

It is at this point where two paths emerge.

One path (Reflection) reverses its direction. It identifies the unfounded Fear that initially created its tribalism, accepts the truth for what it is ("Dharma"), purges its Envy and Fear, and undoes it. It learns and grows and evolves in a more positive and healthy direction.

In its alternate path (Denial) it continues in its Confusion, in denial of the truth. It attempts to justify and keep its Envy. It will delude itself into believing in a mock-compassion in order to perpetuate the illusion of community; this mock-compassion being really little more than Pity. In reality it practices Pity and Envy but convinces itself that it is Compassion and Righteousness.

At this point their ability to lie to themselves is well established; they have believed their own lies and non-truths. They have entered an existence of Delusion.

Delusion, Envy, and Fear are the key operative demons, with each solidifying and strengthening the other. It is a difficult position to escape from, primarily because there is no desire to escape. Its defense is to have convinced itself that it is right and correct - no change is needed. (On a side note, I think this is what ails modern day Christianity. It has evolved down this path of Tribalism under the disguise of "Community". It has mistakenly justified its Pity as Compassion and Envy as Righteousness. Where it should have followed another path...)

These are the paths to Entrapment. These are the warnings we must be aware of and mindful of. But what is a better path? What is it that we should strive for?

Once we can find ourselves able to Reflect is the turning point.
It is the escape from a state of Confusion.
It is the beginning of the end of being Ego-centric.
It is at this point that we self-question, self-analyze, and when Doubt enters.
Contrary to much religious thought, Doubt is anything but a lack of faith. Doubt is hope. Doubt is the beginning of spiritual growth. It is the prerequisite to approaching The Mu Portal.  Without Doubt we cannot self-assess.
Once we can begin to purge our competitive habits - our Envy, Fear, Delusions - once we can clear the Confusion and abandon our Tribal zero-sum thinking and begin embracing true Compassion, "Dharma", and begin finding Solace for ourselves are we on a healthy and spiritually enriching path - not only for ourselves, but for all those around us.

~

This confusing and seemingly meandering path applies to everyone and everything. Whether they are individual beings, organized institutions, religions, businesses, social groups, or corporate entities. The paths we walk apply to our internal, individual journeys, as well as to how our communities function and grow or stagnate.
Only if we are aware of the paths we walk, do we have any hope to effect their directions.

The Quarantined Church

Ignorance and arrogance go hand-in-hand so I think there should be a degree of awe and wonder – like a child's – as well as humility and open-mindedness. The only way around ignorance is education, not indoctrination, and the only way to become successfully educated is the abandonment of arrogance.

Although many Christians have honed their Humility down to an art form, when it comes to issues of Belief that humility and open-mindedness are replaced with a knowledge-filled arrogance. These rigidly-denominational Christians are the modern day Gnostics. Those that unswervingly and unquestionably follow their denomination's teaching and swear that it is truth and righteous.

And although I've just labeled it “rigidly-denominational Christians” it manifests itself in other less obvious ways. My favourite are the self-titled “Bible Christians” who claim not to follow denominations or traditions but only the bible... please. They are no different; just a little bit more creative and a little bit more dishonest.

At the end of the day, the only thing all these have in common is that they believe in the bible. Where they all differ in what it says or means. With so many interpretations and numerous proper hermeneutics and various doctrines and heretical views accepted and denied, it should become obvious that the simple truth, the answer, is anything but obvious.

In time it becomes a private issue of tribalism and being right over pursuing the truth. Then we enter the realm of ulterior agendas and the Evaginated Christian emerges. (No, I didn't misspell “Evangelical”). Something else is being sold, either instead of, alongside of, or on condition of, the truth. They have done worse than turn it inside-out. They have evaginated it; they have turned it outside-in. There are those on the outside and there are those clearly on the inside.

Historically, we have seen this on a near 500-year cycle. There was the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (and the purging of the Christian Gnostics) by Emperor Constantine c. 5^th century. There was the Schism of the Eastern Orthodox Church c. 10^th century. Then there was the Protestant Reformation c. 15^th century (and what followed to be The Splintering are numerous denominations. Maybe this Splintering is more of a byproduct of Americanism. “The Church of the Individual”. Maybe these numeral denominations should be collectively referred to as “American Christianity”). Now there's the appearance of the Emergent Church c. 20^th century.

I would imagine the real 'church' (community) to be varied and should include non-believers. A place where questions and struggle and doubt are not discouraged or treated with The Stick & The Carrot.

I think Christianity could learn a lesson from Taoism's idea of four types of societies. The lofty idea that a perfect society's people are not motivated by reward or fear of punishment.

The Stick & Carrot vs. Grace & Mercy. These concepts are polar opposites yet both seems predominant within modern Christianity as they preach Grace & Mercy but they practice The Stick & Carrot). Maybe that is what is wrong with Christianity today? The existence of the Stick & the Carrot methodology is a trademark of Religiosity. However, truly unconditional Grace will do away with Religiosity and Religions for that matter. They will be the hallmark of the End of Religion. Christianity comes so close to this, but at the end, at the very last minute, cling to their individual Ego-driven collective identity as a “Christian” and undo the entire process.

You know what? Maybe the church of “True Believers” sitting in their pews, singing their hymns, safely tucked between their church's walls, bound by their unspoken rules and regulations of what you should and shouldn't do and can and cannot be, is a great idea! Maybe they should be quarantined off. I can't think of a better way of stopping the spread of this marketed corporate mentality.

We should strive to be a perpetual student. Always learning, our focus on continual growth, not continual stagnation.

The real questions we much each individually ask ourselves are, Am I only following what I've been taught but never questioned it? Am I following my priest, my minister, my pastor, my Rabbi, or my Imam? If I were born in a different culture would I still believe what I claim to hold a true? Have I looked outside of my quarantined world? Am I loyal to my belief-mechanism or to the truth and wisdom and source behind it?

Am I spiritually in motion in my faith, or am I static in my belief?

Am I a member of The Quarantined Church?

If not, then what are you? Are you a fringe-dweller, existing on the outer frayed edge? Are you a mouse living between the walls of the rooms we call Denominations? Or are you living in a spiritual wilderness? Are you a Wanderer, and if so, are you lost or on a quest?

Human Resources and the Pursuit of Empire

HR: Human Resources

Although I understand the term, I have always hated it. It more than suggests that people are a resource to be used - and when no longer needed - discarded.

I also hate companies who make the claim that they are like “a big family.” Families don't lay-off family members. Cut the pretension. Call it what it is.

From this world-view people are little more than a resource pool to feed the needs of economics and industry. Sadly, it may be true, whether I like it or not.

In today's world there is a limited pool of 'resources' available. And let's be honest here; to the modern day church, people are seen as a resource. They draw from the same pool and ultimately accomplish one thing only. Intentionally or not, they only further divide the church into smaller and smaller splinters. The direction the modern day church is headed in is “The Church of Me”; total individuality.


Ironically, it is a position the church condemns many “Spiritual-but-not-Religious” people of being guilty of.


What we have here is the Religion of the Institutional Church.


There are two Sacred Holy of Holies in the Institutional Christian Churches today.
Sabbath Observation (going to their church), and Tithing (revenue stream)
Membership and proselyting.
If simplified further, the modern day Institutional Christian Church is simply a business functioning under a business model.
Human Resources.

These two Sacred Cows – Sabbath Observation and Tithing - are absolutely untouchable. However, membership and church attendance has been and continues to drop. They know they are dying.

From my observations, this gives birth to two types of reactions. There are those out there – I'd hate to say spiritual predators because it sounds so harsh – who would take this opportunity to create their own little churches and communities (only quickening its demise), and there is the Religion of the Institutional Church who know something needs to be done but aren't sure what.

Ultimately, they will state a revival is needed - a much needed revolution is at hand! What they attempt to do however, is repackage and re-market the same old religion (with its two Sacred Cows). (New wine into old wine skins?)

(Unfortunately, I am going to be naming names and taking numbers). Of the numerous book reviews I have done over the years, John Crowder's “Seven Spirits Burning” and “Mystical Union”, Jay Bakker's “Fall to Grace”, and Andrew Farley's “The Naked Gospel” are all indicative of this; the business of Repackaging.

It is interesting that so many people turn to religion hoping to find succor  emancipation, and freedom. It's also interesting what the word 'religion' means.

“The literal meaning of the word religion is, ironically, “to return to bondage.” This word comes from two words, the prefix re meaning “to return”, and the root legare meaning “to bind”. Since everyone wants freedom, and many turn to religion to find it, the regrettable consequence is that often they get greater enslavement”. Steve McSwain's "The Enoch Factor", Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2010, pg. 45

I think the one question that the Religion of the Institutional Church feels so desperately needs to be answered is the wrong question.
How do we save the church?

We don't.

Although I cannot say the following authors or their books hold this position, they are definitely looking in the right direction. Aaron D. Taylor's “Alone with a Jihadist” and Steve McSwain's “The Enoch Factor” are good examples. Even Matt Mikalatos' “Imaginary Jesus” because it speaks of truths through fiction.

I happen to agree with the Dalai Lama when he said, “Until there is peace among the religions of the world, there will be no peace in the world”.

There cannot be peace among the world's religions when some are so focused on proselyting, membership, building numbers, and – ultimately - dreams of empire.

What does the future of Churchianity look like?
I hope there isn't one.
What does the future of Christianity look like?

I don't even think these are the correct questions.
I think Steve McSwain might have put it best,

“I feel more strongly today than ever that the future of humanity is at stake. Unless there are profound changes in human consciousness – that is, changes in how we look at each other and how we treat each other, there is little hope for humanity's survival.”Steve McSwain's "The Enoch Factor", Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2010, pg. 44

A Closed Christianity

Illusions are dangerous.

They are dangerous because they delude us.

It is not that we make a mistake, and it's not that illusions only hide or conceal something; it's that illusions misdirect.

What is the Bible?

The bible is a library.
Contrary to popular opinion, the bible is not a book.
This is an illusion. The fact that these pages are bound - wrapped in a single cover - suggests that it is a single book. It is not. It is a library of books. This is a somewhat innocent illusion. However, a more sinister one awaits.

The question is whether it is an omnibus or not. ("The complete works of..."), and equally important, why would we believe it is?

Many Christians build their entire faith on the premise that the bible must be God's omnibus. (Complete and total and final works of...), and these are what constitutes a Closed Christianity.

But aside from wanting or hoping the bible to be God's omnibus, why would we believe this? Is it because it is 'Canon', or that its Table of Contents list its 66 books (73 in the Catholic bible)?

Ultimately, the bible's Table of Contents and it being 'Canon' are, for all intent and purposes, the same thing.
I am not questioning whether the books in the bible are divinely inspired or not. I am questioning whether its Table of Contents was divinely inspired  or not (and who was divinely inspired to write it)?

The bible's Table of Contents - the bible's Canonicity itself, was a man-sanctioned construct (and please note, I did not say man-made fabrication).

The problem with a Closed Christianity having built its faith on the assumption that the bible is God's omnibus is twofold. Firstly, it necessitates the exclusion of any and all other 'Holy Script' (The Qu'ran, the Tao Teh Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Apocryphal Books, etc.)
It puts a limiting man-made cap on God's ability to communicate.
It also makes God a bigot, judging people because of where they were born, their country and their culture. Favouring and discriminating for no reason.
A Closed Christianity reverts thousands of years of theological evolution and spiritual growth and returns God to that of a petty Tribal Deity.

And secondly, a Closed Christianity is an umbrella term encompassing a variety of denominations and views with a commonality not overtly obvious. That commonality is Bibliolatry. (The authenticity and centrality supersede even God).


I think many Christians fail to recognize that they themselves are part of a subculture. (Christianity itself can be a subculture and if they truly believe that their faith is the truth, then the truth should transcend culture and subcultures. (Although culture is the lens in which we view the truth through, Culture does not dictate what that truth is).

If we can understand and accept that a minority council of bishops 1400 years ago cannot limit God's ability to communicate or express Himself, then we can be free to treasure an Open, unbound, and 'coverless' bible. We can also be enriched to hear God's Sophia whispering her Wisdom down through the corridors of time, throughout many cultures and subcultures.

This is an Open Christianity. This is a truly wild and untamed God. Not only a God that cannot be conveniently defined and put into a box, but one that refuses! A 'God' that shares the same traits as the eternal Tao from the opening verse of the Tao Teh Ching.

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

~

(Continued on An Open Christianity)

Half-Assed Efforts

Recently I read two books in particular. Three points stood out to me. Although these three points were not to main issues of these books, it struck me that these points were far too often dealt with in half-asses efforts.

I decided, in order to avoid plagiarism, I'd put this post together nearly exclusively with quotes. I hope you can forgive me. ;)


Agnosticism:
The English Oxford Dictionary defines Agnostic as follows:

""One who holds that the existence of anything beyond or behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable". In other words, we can guess, we can hope, we can believe or not believe, but whatever we believe or don't believe we don't know and we're not likely to.

""Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an 'unknown and unknowable' God"."

The New Columbia Encyclopedia says this of Agnosticism:

""...form of skepticism that hold that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved".

"So an agnostic might believe in God, or might not believe in God. But regardless, what the agnostic also believes is that there is no way to know. Some on both sides of the theist/atheist fence find this unsettling. The agnostic says to the Atheist, "You might be right". But the agnostic also says to the Theist, "You might be right". Equivocation? Consider. It's hard to establish "right belief" when the question of who is "right" becomes something unknowable.

"Some may think of this as weakness. I look on it as a strength: the strength to admit something that is always excruciatingly hard. It is the strength to say, "I don't know" and then carry on." Steven Greenbaum, The Interfaith Alternative; Embracing Spiritual Diversity, pg. 50-51

It is wisdom to know when to cut your losses.

"Real ignorance is not knowing what you don't know. When you think you know something you don't, it can lead to a kind of make-believe wisdom, an imaginary sense of knowledge that is powerless to free you from your confusion.

"We actually need intelligent doubt and skepticism; they protect us against mistaken views and propaganda. A healthy dose of doubt and skepticism will lead us to precise and clear questions". Dzogchen Ponlop, Rebel Buddha, pg. 21

Tolerance:
It's funny sometimes how accurately we can pin-point a memory of exactly when we learned a word.
Tolerance is one of those. Years ago, I think shortly before high school, when I first began playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, I remember reading how the various races views one another. Dwarves and Elves were listed as having tolerance towards each other. Not friendly, but tolerance. I think I knew that tolerance wasn't a good thing. Granted, it wasn't hatred, but it wasn't something we would want to strive to attain.

Fast forward decades later and tolerance is a word I have heard far too often in the wrong context through numerous churches and religious institutions; using like it is a good thing; like it should be the goal to strive to attain.

It never struck me that way... ever.
Tolerance to me is a half-assed effort. It is something that I am forced to settle with when my friendliness or my Love for others has simply failed.

"We think of tolerance as a good thing. We see it as positive. Beneficial. It isn't. Or rather, it's beneficial in the same way that not kicking people in the teeth is beneficial. Without doubt it is a good thing not to kick people in the teeth. But that hardly qualifies it as a worthy life goal. Tolerance, while better than mindless discrimination, should be seen for what it is: a patronizing, self-congratulatory form of prejudice and power.

""You're beneath me, but I'm a terrific person so, within reason, I'll tolerate your existence".

"Or, "You're wrong. Your religious beliefs show you have no idea of the truth about God. But I'm open-minded. I'll tolerate your right to believe those heathen, atheistic, blasphemous ideas that you embrace. Of course, I sit in the smug confidence that God won't let you into heaven because of your wrong-headed beliefs, while i will enjoy eternal bliss, but hey, I'm great. I'll tolerate you".

"Or, "You're wrong. Your religious beliefs show you have no idea of the truth about what you call God. But I'm open-minded. I'll tolerate those infantile, outmoded ideas that you embrace. Of course I know science. You're too naive to understand that 'God' can't possibly exist,and that your beliefs are nothing but childish myths. Any thinking person knows that you're nothing but worm food once you die, but if you want to cling to nonsensical beliefs I will cheerfully tolerate your inability to think".

"The bottom line is this. Tolerance becomes a great enabler. The concept of tolerance allows us to continue with the paradigm of "right belief" (I know the "truth" and you don't) and yet still feel good, even proud of ourselves (even thought I know you're "wrong", I will tolerate you).

"In this day, in this age, stopping at "tolerance" is a sin. For it to be the "comfort zone" where we live is inexcusable. We need to move beyond tolerance. Way beyond it.... We need to start respecting each other's beliefs and heritages, not simply tolerating them."Steven Greenbaum, The Interfaith Alternative; Embracing Spiritual Diversity, pg. 54-55

Compassion vs. Pity:
I had an experience a few years past.
I will change the individuals names, for I have no desire to embarrass any of them.
I had at one point privately approached Margaret and explained the financial troubles that had befallen our mutual friend, Debbie. It was my hope that, as a church elder, Margaret would have offered through the church some kind of financial aid or relief.
Margaret offered to pray for Debbie with me. Debbie was allowed to continue her tithing, whether she could afford it or not...and that was the extent of this church's help.

It bothers me to this day still, but it has only been recently that I could very specifically pin-point the why of it.
In a word, pity. Where the church should have shown compassion, they showed pity and chose to name it compassion.

One definition of compassion is "the sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it".
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines pity as the "sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy".

What's the difference between compassion and pity?
One wishes to alleviate suffering, distress, and  unhappiness and does something about it. The other just sits back. I fear this happens far too often. In fact, I think this may very well be a blight of the modern day church.
Pity is easy to do. It costs nothing. It's self-serving because it allows one to believe they are a good person, but requires nothing of them.
Compassion is not so easy. It can cost dearly.

And isn't that a major problem? When we substitute pity for compassion and then add a mistaken understanding of tolerance into the equation, we are left with a crisis scenario that I think the modern day church is facing today. Factor many religious institutions' demonization of agnosticism into this and we end up with the self-serving, small minded, insular religionists we find today, so frightened of doubt within their belief must be a certainty.

I don't believe the ever shrinking world we live in today can afford these kinds of half-assed attempts of making a better world. In fact, they do not make for a better world but for a far worst one.

A Line in the Sand

Recently I had posed the question, what is the crux of Christianity?

I am quite certain many if not most Christians' answer will be the crucifixion or resurrection; that is the crux, the centrepoint, the fulcrum of Christianity.

I disagree.
I don't like that answer.
I don't like that answer because that answer in itself doesn't mean anything.
It's a squirrel-answer. It's a mindless answer members of Churchianity have been conditioned to recite. It's a mantra.

What does the crucifixion and resurrection mean? WHY are they important? Is it important that they literally happened? Is it important what they signify? Are their meanings intrinsically linked with their historicity? Do they hold metaphoric meanings? Do they represent spiritual evolution, healing, growth, or transcendence?

These are questions that have divided the church throughout history and continue to divide the church and Christians today.

I believe the Crucifixion and the Resurrection signify two things. The end or death of Religion (or more accurately, Religiosity) and the unique concept of Grace – Unconditional Grace (because conditional Grace is no grace at all).

I have long since moved past the argument of whether these two events literally happened or not. I'm more concerned with what they mean; what Yeshua gave us through his crucifixion and resurrection.

...the end of Religiosity. Freedom from trying to jump through hoops, to try to get right with God. But not just the Judea-Christian God, but also our attempts to get right with any God, or other forms of gods or “gods”. Whatever concepts we're shackled and enslaved by.

The end of religion. The end of the task-master. To be freed of our shackles, our bonds. To be unfettered.

How? Grace. Unconditional Grace.
Unconditional?! But there's gotta be some boundaries, doesn't there? I mean, it's a slippery slope to anarchy and chaos otherwise, isn't it?


At some point we have to draw a line in the sand, don't we? I think, ultimately, that is the main question the church has always asked. Where do we draw that line in the sand? Where does Grace end? At what point does Grace lose its power? Where does that line in the sand lie?

When do we say, “here and no further?” Isn't that the sad summation of church history?

A line in the sand?

I think Christians are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be where do we draw that line in the sand. The question should be WHY are we drawing a line in the sand? After all, a line in the sand is a boundary, a border; a point of defining “them” from “us”.

Maybe a much better question should be, what are we trying to protect? What conditions are we trying to maintain? I think this has been the genesis of Churchianity.

What saddens me about Churchianity is that it is a path that leads its flock back into captivity; back into shackles; back into fetters; back into religiosity.

Churchianity undoes what Yeshua gave the world through the crucifixion and resurrection.
A line in the sand.

What is the crux of Christianity?
Sadly, a line in the sand. That is where my hopes lie and where my hopes are shattered; in a simple line in the sand.

Although I haven't yet abandoned Christianity, I have moved past it.

Why Christianity Failed for Me

Why Christianity Failed for Me

I'm not a pretentious man. I don't suppose that I'm all that unique or the exception, or all that different from the average block. I'm actually quite common.

I fear for my wellbeing and safety.
I worry for my security and the security for those that I love and especially for those I've been entrusted to care for.

Like everyone else, I cannot know the future and the future is a devious thing. Since I cannot know the future, I need to grasp on tightly to the illusions of stability I have.
Because Stability is the antithesis of Change, therefore Change is never a good indicator to the maintenance of this desired illusion.

The last thing I want to hear is that I am going to be prosecuted and discriminated against.
The last promise I want made is that I will endure hardship.

Yet these are the very promises and statements Yeshua makes. (Now, it's debatable whether he's making these statements and promises specifically to me, a 21st century, while male, or specifically to his early first-century audience). But they don't bide well with my hopes of stability.
They're kinda a slap in the face!

Truth be known, I have found more comfort in Taoism with its statement that the only thing we can be certain will never change is Change. The entire universe – every aspect of it and us – are in a constant state of flux. Change is the only norm.

~

How Christianity Succeeded for Me

I can't honestly say that Christianity as a whole has succeeded for me. But certain, very powerful aspects, have.

The escape from the binds and shackles of religiosity; being made free from the endless rules and regulations and conditions needed to appease God and “get right” and “earn” the divine love, only to discover you've always had this divine love since your very conception. You've never needed to earn it.

The totally freeing concept of the death of religion. The idea of a truly unconditional Grace. I think that's unique.

I think that's unique to the heretical rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth's teachings. Hell! He's the ultimate Religious Heretic of all time! (Including the Religion of Christianity).

~

I no longer get bogged down with issues or questions regarding the nature of Yeshua's divinity – or even if he was divine. It's a silly question really. Mu. We're clearly asking the wrong question.

I've come to realize that I hold an odd and strange relationship with Christianity's founder. I don't see him as a close friend or confidant. He's too dangerous for that. He's even a little scary at times. He needs to be kept at a distance. But at times he speaks truths that are undeniable and world-shaking. It's a love-hate sort of thing really. If anything, this peculiar tension allows me liberty. It allows me to springboard into outer, stranger, and undiscovered areas of spirituality. Without fear of getting lost and without fear of (a least divine) judgment.

~

How did it succeed and fail for you?

The Walking Dead

I thoroughly enjoy watching and attempting to see the shadows and echoes of our society's, our culture's concerns, fears, and beliefs in our fictions – because they are truth.

And I think this is also true with the new AMC series The Walking Dead.
If we look at the small band of survivors as the whole of society or civilization we can see two conflicting leaders.

Shane (the cop's partner), whose underlying agenda seems to be survival (not living), and potentially and more accurately, self-survival, embodying little more than an animalistic nature.
But it is within the leadership of Rick Grimes (main character) that we see the dichotomy set up.

A willingness (nay, a need) to help a potentially threatening and dangerous stranger (Merle Dixon). He is told by numerous people that Merle doesn't deserve it, to which he answers, it isn't for Merle, it's for me.

He doesn't necessarily embody the survival of the group, but survival of the very sense of morality itself. He juxtaposes to Shane's animalistic nature.

What I find so interesting about The Walking Dead is that it really is not a story about zombies, or survival or post-apocalypse world. Neither is it a reflection or commentary of consumerism like the entire George Romero's zombie-genre has been.

This story could be told as a Western with cowboys as the main characters; the zombies being replaced by the obstacles and threat of Indians and wild animals.

Ironically, The Walking Dead, really isn't about zombies at all. (And on a side note, I don't believe the title is referring to the zombies, but rather to the survivors).

It poses the question of the moral state of our society. It questions the moral fiber of our society. Are we innately altruistic and good? Or are we nothing more than savage animals in need of being kept in check?
...or maybe it's making the statement that there needs to be some sort of balance betwixt the two...

Christianity has attempted repeatedly, in times past and present, to question the moral fiber of our society and has most often times failed – or at worst been ignored. (Often taking a finger-pointing and accusational tone).

I think that may very well be the defining difference between Spiritual Growth and Religious Growth.
When we question the moral fiber of our society we are really inviting spiritual growth. However, I don't believe this is what Christianity has attempted. Religious growth questions the world around us and is an attempt to change that world into what we are. Spiritual growth questions ourselves.

...and if we are only interested in Religious growth (proselytizing) and not at all with spiritual growth, we become dead on the inside. How funny – how ironic – that the lifeless and walking dead – zombies – have succeeded where God's chosen people have failed...

Cultural-Mythologies

"Insular Christianity has a very serious and crippling disability with modern cultural mythology.“

It is kind of strange and a little bit sad how this piece came to be. I had seen the preview of the new and upcome Christmas release of Aliens vs. Predators: Requiem movie. I had sent out an email to an all men small group that I belong to, basically saying "check out this preview, wow I can't wait to see it!" I added at the end (very much tongue in cheek) that I thought we should collectively watch this movie and discuss, as a topic, it's Christian and/or biblical message. (And for clarity's sake, if you've missed it, the final sentence was a joke).

Knowing the guys, I really didn't expect any replies as excited as I felt we should all actually be. (And again, if you haven't picked up on this yet, I'm a big Aliens fan). Some people simply aren't into it, and that's fine.

However, one responded (privately and not through a “reply all” return) that he didn't feed it was a good idea and didn't see any edification value to it....

...[insert crickets chirping here]...

“Ahhh...You're joking... right?” I said "It wasn't intended to have edification value but simply some fun."

Nope. Dead serious.
And it was this comment that got me thinking – and not because I had some ulterior agenda to defend the Aliens-franchise that I am such a big fan of, but in defense of our collective cultural mythologies.

Most people tend to think that mythologies only exist in the past, from distant ancient - and usually extinct - civilizations. Mythologies exist in every culture. They are how a society communicates. Literature, movies, music, nearly all forms or art & entertainment reflect the current culture's – society's – understandings, philosophy, loves, concerns, and fears.

To embrace the insular, or isolationism, is to disconnect from these numerous and various richnesses of art & entertainment; it is to disconnect with society.

There are elements of profound truths in fictitious television programing like Star Trek: The Next Generation's the Borg and big screen movies like Terminator, Terminator 2, Terminator 3, and the Matrix movies. Even in Sci-fi literature like Fred Saberhagen's Berserkers we see incredibly deep-rooted fears and concerns about our rampant technological race and our blatant dependency on it manifest themselves in their forms of mythology. The Borg and Terminator are the realization of this technological dependency brought to life in detailed nightmarish quality. Not to mention as a side note our fear of some sort of apocalyptic end of the world.

We see this brutally and disturbingly presented in H.R. Giger's artwork – even as offensive as it can sometimes be. We see the blending of organic creature with machine and we see his art come to life in the Alien-mythology.



Vampires in literature came to the front primarily during the Victorian era. The concern, fear, and realization was twofold with the vampire-mythology. One was the nightmare cognation that we – as human beings – are feeding on one another. The upper elite class surviving and stifling and killing the lower peasant class. The other nightmare realization was that (as an upper class elite) we are nothing more than a monster in a dressed-up disguise of a human being.

Brian Lumley's Necroscope-series (13 volumes) and the whole Wamphyri-mythology poses the haunting question of how far we can sink into depravity before any hope of salvation is lost.

My favourite author, H.P. Lovecraft, writes of forgotten eon-old Elder Gods in blasphemous worship and the insanity of the Spaces where aliens reside. Lovecraft's Cthulhu-mythos voiced the apprehensions and fears in the '20's and '30's of foreign immigration. Although manifested in the fear of discovering their inbred alien heritage, it had the potential of setting the stage for a paranoia run amok to what would become the Nazi's belief in the Aryan purity of the One Human Species, and the genocide of all other subhumans. Thank God it failed.

Even Pornography holds cultural truths. (And if porn itself was a cultural mythology, I would suggest we watch them too.) On a side note, I believe the majority of Christians subscribe to the philosophy of the hedonistic porn addiction. See the article, XXX: Porn for the Soul.

To choose to be blind to these fears and concerns or to entertain them as only intellectual fancies is to arrogantly ignore the plights that surround us.

Movies likes Blade Runner, characters like Data from Star Trek:TNG and the cloned Ellen Ripley in Alien Resurrection all scream the question of what does it mean to be human? What does it truly mean to possess a soul? And more importantly (and disturbingly), maybe some of us don't have one.



Is our society voicing a concern or fear with it's cultural mythology of the Aliens-franchise? I think it is, and strongly.



With all 7 movies, all 10 books (that I read, there are more), and numerous graphic novels, there is a common enemy within each and every one of them. The Wyland-Yutani Corporation. Not the Aliens. Not the Predators. A corporation.


It's okay, alright, acceptable and has edificational value to watch the documentary series The Corporation, in which the central theme is the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders) to label the Corporation as a psychopath. However, when this truth and concern is played out in science-fiction or horror genre, like Aliens, it becomes unacceptable, without edificational value, and "unnecessary and mindless gratuitous violence" (I've been told by another).

Strange. It's acceptable to label a Corporation as a psychopath, but when we play it out to it's logical conclusions, it becomes unacceptable. However, when a Christian friend of mine felt compelled to read a fire-and-brimstone preacher's sermon describing in minute, shocking, and disturbing detail, the very nature of the brutal tortures of hell, it was justified, apparently, out of a "necessary" to better motivate us to evangelize.

Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here?

When we look at this tiny slice of our society's cultural mythology that I provided as an example, we see that our non-religious - our secular society is painfully aware of our collectively fallen, or "condemned" state. It is manifested in our art & entertainment. We are aware of it, concerned about it, worried about it, and even frightened of it.

We do not need Christians preaching the heresy of Bad-News-First-Evangelism (as the French philosopher Jacques Ellul puts it). We do not need to be convinced or convicted of our sins or condemnation. The Spirit of God moves and lives within the secular world; they just don't see it and too often Christians just won't recognize, acknowledge, or allow it. The invisible Spirit of God has already convinced them of their "condemnation" through their cultural mythology. God is at work.

Evangelical Christians who subscribe to the One-Two-Punch method of evangelizing (first the Bad News and only then the Good News) really have an agenda all their own. It isn't good enough that society acknowledges it's own "condemnation" through it's own cultural mythology. No sir! It must recognize it's fallen state through the Christian Subculture's Mythology. Christianity is not reaching out to people in a context they can understand or relate to. Christianity has stopped speaking the language of the people. Call it the new-Latin if you please.

So I ask you, are watching these movies, viewing these artworks, listening to this music, reading these books have an edification factor? I don't know. In a postmodern world, I think understanding it's numerous cultural mythologies is quite valuable.

Is it really any wonder why church attendance and membership is dropping? Is it really surprising to find the Institutional Church slowly dying? Is it really shocking to discover that the Christian Subculture is so rejected and viewed with such contempt and disgust?

Our society is simply ripe for the 'Good News'. The problem is the subculture of Christianity is too blind and self-obsessed to deliver it.

The proof is in the pudding. The Religion of Christianity has failed. I find its obsessive desire of becoming insular very sad.

But maybe I'm wrong. I've been told this whole "rant", this entire "diatribe" has been for no other use or purpose than to fulfill my love of a movie. I guess I'm the hedonist.

Repairing the Torn Veil

Part I: The Bad News First

“… only one conclusion is possible… religion that human beings must get right in order to have a correct relationship with god – is a subject that shouldn’t be given Christian houseroom… There were no works of any kind we had to get right to achieve the relationship; we had only to trust him and be pleasantly surprised at the light burden he had substituted for the iron yoke of religion” Fr. Robert Capon

“Therefore, when Jesus would say to people “your sins are forgiven” (see Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:6-50), he was not just being a source of encouragement to hurting people. He was completely bypassing the religious system of his day and helping people connect with God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, directly… So offering forgiveness to sinners directly was, in a way, both a creative and destructive gesture. Creative for the human spirit; destructive for the religious system. At the same moment he was building people up, Jesus was also tearing religion down.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 135.

Bruxy Cavey quotes William C. Plancher as saying,
“’If you couldn’t buy the right kind of animal, then how could you sacrifice? If you couldn’t sacrifice, why have a Temple? By his actions, Jesus seems to be challenging the very basis of religion’”

Herbert Haag, in his book “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, shares this same opinion:

“Jesus’ threats of the imminent destruction of the Temple should not be overlooked… When Jesus announces that he will rebuild the destroyed Temple in three days, this can only mean the absolute end of the Jerusalem Temple and of any earthly temple at all, and indeed not just of the Temple as a building but of it as it functioned in the way Jesus had experienced it… [D]riving the traders out of the Temple [and] the expulsion of those selling animals and the action against the money-changers… can only have been directed against the Temple practice of sacrifice…If Jesus drives out those buying and selling animals and overturns the tables of the money-changers – all of which was necessary for the conduct of sacrifices – then he makes the whole traditional ritual of sacrifice impossible, he proclaims it to be over and done with… One should indeed bear in mind “that the Temple ritual was genuinely for Israel a heavenly gift through which God wished to save his people from the consequences of their sins and trespasses… When Jesus started driving the traders and buyers out of the Temple and when he overturned the tables of the money-changers and of the pigeon-sellers, then he was offending against the only thing that could secure the continued existence of the people of God’.” Herbert Haag, “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, pg. 52-53.

Its interesting that the book’s title questions a two-class system – or more specifically, a priesthood-class; Clergy and laity. It made me question, what exactly did Jesus ‘banish’ at the temple?

“…he was upset with the institution’s financial practices, charging too much money for their services and the like. But the meaning runs deeper than that. A den of robbers is not a place where thieves go to rob people, but where they go to hide out after they have done the robbing. The religious system of Israel (like any religious system today) was repeatedly used as a spiritual hideout for people with a guilty conscience. Rather than change how they lived, the people of Israel simply added a little religion to their lives to keep everything balanced. Like the godfather going to Mass on Sunday morning or going to confessional before returning to his life of crime, religious systems make it all too easy for self-centered people to find comfort in familiar rituals without experiencing a change of heart or committing to a life of love.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 136-137.

I cannot help but think of Roman Catholicism because of the references to the Mass and the Sacrament of Confession. It has also made me think that the Temple System that Jesus was so set against is very similar to Sacramental Theology. And Sacramental Theology requires a priesthood-class.

It would seem to be that those denominations that subscribe to Sacramental Theology also adhere to the need of those who administer the sacraments. This would specifically be the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Orthodox Churches. They would seem to be attempted to repair the veil Jesus torn upon his death. The symbolism is very important because it would be an attempt to undo what Christ had done.

However, before we begin taking the splinter out of our brothers’ eye, maybe we should also check to see if we’ve a log in ours.

Protestantism has done away with the priesthood-class. There are no Protestant priests. Ministers and Pastors, yes, but Ministers and Pastors are not Priests. The difference may be technical or even semantic to some people, but they are not the same thing.

“Some Christians not only call the building they meet in their “church” but they also call a special room where they hold Sunday services the “sanctuary”, a word that means the sacred place where God dwells. And, to confuse our minds just a little bit more, at the front of the sanctuary is often a big table called the “altar”, a word that refers to the place of animal sacrifice in Old Testament ritual.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 139.

However, Protestantism – for the most part – maintains the tithing system. Tithing is directly linked to a priesthood-class. Although I don’t personally agree with Sacramental Theology, and by implication those that would administer sacraments (a clergy or priest-class), I have to admit, at least the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox aren’t playing both sides of the fence. How can the modern Protestant church seriously justify tithing?

“It is biblical”
No, actually, it isn’t. It was biblical for the support of a priest-class, which Jesus did away with.

“It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution”
(This sounds dangerously close to attempting to repair the torn veil). This reasoning becomes justification for the price of admission. Therefore church would become a show, a stage, entertainment, a spectator sport. I can understand this logic to a certain point. If I were to frequent, let’s say Good Life Fitness, I should expect to pay its fees or membership fee at least. I am, in essence, a member of a club. Now this is fine and fair, however, this is not tithing and under no circumstance should be called such. Also there is the issue of the exclusivity of being a club member. This would seem to fly in the face of some of Christ’s core teachings.

Or, this “It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution” argument must be some sort of insurance premium paid. If I don’t buy the insurance policy, I shouldn’t expect to benefit when in trouble or in need. Again, this isn’t tithing. In fact, this is closer to blackmail.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this is actually what Protestant churches are actually doing. What I am saying is that you cannot justify tithing once the priest-class has been abolished.

My point being the “Bad News” is religion itself.


Part II: Now the Good News

“Jesus seems to be saying that God’s presence is best experienced in the sacred space that exists between people when love is offered and received rather than in special buildings or pious places.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 137.

Now, many of you may be familiar with the aversion I have to what I usually call The Evangelical One-Two-Punch; First the Bad News and only then the Good News.

The first ‘punch’ is the Bad News – “you’re a sinner and you’re going to hell!” Then the second ‘punch’, the Good News – there’s hope in Jesus Christ. Just come to church and… etc., etc., etc.,… you get the idea.

However, I’m going to come across as a complete hypocrite and actually use the One-Two-Punch method of first the Bad News and then the Good News. However, I am going to use the definition Fr. Robert Capon uses for the Bad News.

“In spite of the fact that the Good News of Jesus Christ (to give Christianity one of its own titles of preference) has been seen as a religion by outsiders and been sold as one by its adherents, it is not a religion at all. Rather, it is the announcement of the end of religion... far from supplanting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul actually rescued the Good News of Jesus from the danger of being converted into the bad news of religion... That is why the Gospel alone is Good News and all the religions of the world – whether they're about God or some lesser thing – are bad news.”

Religion itself is the Bad News, and it is Religion itself that Jesus saves us from. Not necessarily from our sin.

But the issue that should actually force us into some serious thought, is when we look at the Bad News as religion itself (and Christianity is a religion), then what exactly does the Good News looks like now?

I will again quote from Fr. Robert Capon:

“...our baptisms (to come finally to the root sacrament of the Good News) do not divide the world into the saved (us, inside) and the lost (them, outside). Baptism – and the church it constitutes – is simply the authentic, effective sign of the mystery of the Christ who has already saved all, whether in or out.”

Once successfully freed from Religion, the Good News becomes a celebration! It becomes a mind-opening experience. It forces us not only to admit, but to legitimately see how 'big', how incredibly huge and magnificent God really is. God's love and mercy and grace no only breaks through the man-made boundaries of Religions – it decimates them!

I realize this concept terrifies many Religionists. I like what passinthru from TheOoze had to say about this:

“Once I realized my box was woefully insufficient, I started to discover that God is in so many places I once thought impossible for him to be. I discovered that when a human being helps another human being out of compassion, that regardless of the face of their faith, God is there. That when a father is utterly devoted to his family and treats them with genuine love, tenderness and respect, that regardless of what name he calls God, God is also there. God is in every true act of charity, in every landscape of breathtaking beauty, in every bar of uplifting music, in every drop of life-giving rain, and in every word on behalf of one who is defenseless, in everything of beauty and worth.

“I'm not saying I'm necessarily a Universalist. But I am saying that I don't believe that all of the actions and words of non-Christians are completely devoid of His nature and His truth.”

This topic can be engaged in conversation at TheOoze's Repairing the Torn Veil.





- continued on Misconceptions - 

Built

Beliefs are man-made, or Religions of Requirements. Religions of Requirements tend to create a scale with Blind Obedience on one end (whether obedience is to itself or to God is questionable) and Doubt on the other end. They tend to equate doubt with sin. This "scale" is a false dichotomy. Reason cannot exist within a blind obedience and if reason leads to doubt it is in sin. Reason has no place. It has been worked out of the equation.

It should not be an issue of either obedience or doubt. This kind of religion of requirements does not allow for a faithful doubt but only a doubtful faith.

"Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned." Nietzsche, "Daybreaks" 89, R.J.
Hollingdale translation.

How disturbing that James 1:8 could, and has been twisted into meaning the presence of reason is synonymous with doubt, and is a sin.
I have to admit, his assessment of certain forms of Christianity is accurate. Some would say Nietzsche only errs by making this a blanket statement. Nietzsche is more accurately describing religiosity: Religions of Requirement. The only valid question becomes, has Christianity become a religion of requirement? What Nietzsche is describing is Belief.
Everyone has Beliefs. It doesn’t matter if they admit it or not; doesn’t matter if they know it or not. Everyone has Beliefs.

You also cannot have Beliefs and be completely tolerant. Beliefs necessitates some degree of Intolerance by definition. Although I don’t like Intolerance, I respect it. To maintain Beliefs balanced with Intolerance is actually a sign of Integrity.

(Unless our Belief is that we are never wrong) a healthy balance of Belief-Intolerance includes a Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance (see 1 Corinthians 13:12). That is the love and desire of the Truth. This is Faith.

A healthy balance of Belief-Intolerance and Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance makes for Open-mindedness. What strange bed fellows, Intolerance and Open-mindedness! But this is the tension between Belief and Faith.

Belief find its origin in man; Belief is man-made.

"Belief provides answers to people's questions while faith never does. People believe so as to find assurance, a solution, an answer to their questions to fashion for themselves a system of beliefs. Faith (biblical faith) is completely different. The purpose of revelation is not to supply us with explanations, but to get us to listen to questions." Jacques Ellul, "The Living Faith: Belief and Doubt in a Perilous World", 1983

Faith finds its genesis in God. Faith originates in God.

When this falls out of balance, close-mindedness ensues, either as an inflexible ridged abandonment of Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance (Faith), or as a patronizing passive pretense of tolerance. They are two sides of the same coin: Close-mindedness. I’d prefer the “inflexible-ridged-abandonment-of-Humbly-acknowledged-ignorance”-type. At least you know where you stand and can choose what to do about it. It’s the ”patronizing-passive-pretense-of-tolerance”-types that bother me.

Both presume to know the truth and love the truth they’ve come to know. But they have lost the desire of the Truth. But what they love is their Belief and not their Faith. Their journey is over. They’ve discovered their goal. The gates of Open-mindedness are closed. They have closed their gates of ijtihad (Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking, as opposed to taqlid, which is imitation, really obedience to tradition.). Their ability to grow is crippled if not outright killed. Their Faith is dead.

Belief is to be seen as belief, not as fact. When we see our beliefs as facts, then we are deluding ourselves. When we see our beliefs as beliefs, then we are not. Seeing things in their true light is the most important thing in Buddhism. Deluding ourselves is the cause of much suffering. So Buddhists try to see beliefs as beliefs. They may still believe in certain things - that is their prerogative - but they do not cling to those beliefs; they do not mind or worry about whether their beliefs are true or not, nor do they try to prove that which they know cannot be proved.

I like this of what Buddhism says.
Belief says, I know the answer.
Faith says I don't.

Belief is comfortable.
Faith is scary.

Belief builds religions.
Faith threatens them.

I think we miss the point of the story of Jesus walking on water (Mat. 14:22-33).

"Tell me to come to you on the water."

Peter walked on water!! Faith is gifted. He began to sink, not because he lacked faith, but because of his dependency on Belief squeezed out his remaining Faith. He thought he needed some sort of belief-system... some sort of religion.

"You of little faith. Why did you doubt?"

Jesus asks. "Why did you choose religious-dependency over me?" Then He immediately saves Peter from drowning - from his religiosity.

This is Belief at the expense of Faith. Beliefs are constructs.

Beliefs are...

...built.