I think there is a rift between Christ and the Catholic church.

I think the biggest link in this is that the bible as we know it was put together and edited by the Romans, and I am always smacked by an underlying tinge to use the conversion to Christianity as a method for control. I have theorized that the churches mideval state of high control in the dark ages could possibly have been the fallout of this Roman edit/organization.

I have gotten these ideas mostly from ideas surfacing after the finding of the dead sea scrolls, where they have found such things as a gospel of mary magdelene and such.

With this are such ideas as the practices of early gnostic christians whos basic tenent was that moral behavior wasn't the issue but only the understanding and acceptance of God's infinite mercy. As such they committed the most dispicable acts they could to give the man a chance to comtemplate his extention of the hand of infinite mercy and forgiveness. The more tame view of course is the folk with whom Christ mingled and embraced. The taxman, the probable whore, the unclean, the diseased, in short the sinners. Perhaps more rightly the whole of mankind.

Further ideas include that the new testament is a code and that there was a split in the church involved. The easy key is that St Peter is not IN heaven but stands outside the pearly gates. The idea is that he wasn't actually, ahem, smart enough to grasps Christs teachings, but had ultimate faith in the son of god. Not for his understanding but for his faith is he given the ring and starts the line of popes. The other side is that outside of the Catholic church, if you can crack the new testament code, you can glimpse Christs actual Church of heaven, recieve a direct gnostic experience, etc, what Peter was not able to do.

Other radical ideas that go with this are stories that revolve around the grail legend. What we now form as a translation of "san greal" or "the cup" may actually have been "sang real" or "the blood of a king" and the secret that the Templars wound up guarding was that Mary Magdelen walked out of Israel and into what is now France carrying the "blood of the king" and the heir to the line of king David in her womb. This, I'm afraid was no immaculate conception.

Christ did not die on the cross. When on the cross he was not flanked by criminals but zealots, allied with his cause. He was given vinagar with poison, collapsed on the cross, was taken down and revived. Later when he was seen on the road by the disciples it was really him, and he lived a rather long life in hiding but still teaching.

Such are a few of the stories I know.

I do not disbelieve. The stories and so on, the ideas of divinity, the idea of divinity, are a part of this existance. If not for the individuals witness of the world there would be no divine. It must be transcendant.

As far as morality goes, well, I don't know that the Pope is right. I'm not sure why consenting homosexual activity is wrong. I'm more into intent. Yet evil may be the most subtle of things. Subtle and slippery. In the end I have decided that I fear not an afterlife of hell nor am I enticed by a vision of heavan. I am however wracked daily by a conscious that is central to my being.

I hope, that the mercy and forgiveness is indeed, infinite. That this is a paradox, well, the world may be seated as one.

Will

(Reply) (Thread)