Some years ago, I began to take serious interest in the dialogue surrounding the theological state of Christendom and, therefore, began retaining particulars that both made sense and explained a complex matter, and that took me from a degree of separation, where a strict environment was not merely a passing accomplishment and adherence to the specifics was greatly nurtured, to a state of dying moons and other reflective surfaces that peacefully drift through the opennesses in space. The question has surfaced in my mind: are we just skin and bones on a dropping rock?
After some deliberation and review and contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that I have a beef with the group of folks who have taken to calling themselves a part of the "christian" movement concerning their lacking the central elements distinguishing Christianity from most other disciplines and religions, and, therefore, followers. There are numerous points to be discussed for the sake of the Founder and Namesake, but to what extent can the modern intellectual allow his mind to be bent? Faith requires an action, but that is too quickly the retort as we course through the air using each one's own chance to be as an excuse to forget to be is to do as well. Our mind is an important stable, the occupants are those allowances that have come to serve as our general feelers for social topics and the radius thereof; changing the belief (doctrine) because hate is felt is dismissive of the intellectual integrity of the doctrine in question.
I find it increasingly harder to group myself with the spineless, hatred-fueled, bought for weight faces that shake my hand every time I walk into the church. When I ask about the tensions of the faith to get things cleared up most of the personal issues I find, I get a simple wash over about the issue. I have had extensive dialogue with clergy Members and critics of religion, more pointedly, Christianity - the movement, and the area where they agree is outstanding, remarkable, and eerily similar. What form of word magic allows definitions to be a matter of will and situation, than on the logic and grace, and, of course, dignity?
Some folks nearly vilify the disciplines of Elementary Christianity and skulk behind a thin air of pride when it indeed comes time to answer that question: What if you're wrong? My answer generally is that the question is emotionally dismissive and demeaning toward the humanity of Elementary Christianity, and almost, with a sense of self-piety, could be deemed insensitive or intolerant. Clearly, this is the aftermath of the influence of Gnosticism on the New Testament Era (NTE), during which time Paul penned warnings against these particular issues. See, it was decided throughout the early years of the church that the God Paul met as Saul was the final authority. Is this God a different God than the Old Testament Era? No, same God, different situation; perhaps it may help to think about it in the terms of the same God who took Elijah and banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. But, how would the Christian Movement be "another gospel"? The Christian Movement ignores its roots in both the Jesus movement from the mid-1900's, whose numerous changes to basic belief give appeal to an otherwise sometimes dull discipline, and the Emerging Church philosophies, which seek to circumnavigate the perspective of the Creator. How are they connected? The Christian Movement actually reached for success with the name of Christ being brand worthy and the message of Hope being intrinsically enticing while slowly dismantling the authority by which there is even a cause. Please!
The ties between the Christian Movement and Crowlian Satanism are contrasted yellow and black so we don't miss them; acceptance and tolerance are the centerpiece of the sermon given when there is incentive to attend a gathering and there isn't a speck of discernment in the air of the average members day to day life, Crowley dictates "do what thou wilt". The Atheistic philosophies put forth by Communism run rampant throughout the materials and decorations; the emphasis on the betterment of the whole over the enlightenment of the individual; some are willing to be pigeonholed in order to experience the tallies of being the only one a fraction of a fraction short in some way, and, while those who do not need such attentiveness directed toward you are forever around, those who need awareness may ultimately choose to reject a given notion.
Christianity is a hotbed for fakes and sells. It has to be. It is the demand of the cultured to want the thing one does not have. The simplicity within the subculture has a similar aesthetic to theater and opera; it is given to attachment in a Catholic sense as they tend to be decorative, and they do tend to the basic doctrine. These are the folks who ask if it is a sin to drink and immediately chuckle after a paused "no", while I commend the parts of them that are courageous enough to entertain the notion, I warn that the seed of evil is planted behind the pulpit and our neglect is tomorrow's catastrophe, and it could be called a self fulfilling - doomsday scenario, ask yourself, is it honestly a far reach? Granted this takes time to process, but with the intent to stay on this planet does come the responsibility to take into account the reaction of our life to ourselves, isn't that the principle behind commotion generated in concern of global warming and freedom of expression?
These matters do become self fulfilling, in an abstract sense, by the very nature of the dialogue that brings them to be the subject of speculation and education and investigation, which, after scrutiny, may become qualified for further discourse or recognition. Those principles of Christendom, which are many times mischaracterized as finite, or self fulfilling, when they should be construed as contingent, or conditional, are mantle on which Christian organizations are primed for building the solid structures for belief to exist before flourishing; the principles translate into refined actions and behaviours which operate outside of the mechanics of time or society, but, like most abstract programs, the principles of Christendom vary in which ways they may be both applied and measured. Doubt, being a byproduct of fear, always circumvents practicality to focus on a feeling because, for which reason, reality is not perceived in a clear manner.
The question that I think should inevitably be asked is, do you intend on staying on this planet? There is a beckoning among philosophies to rise to the nether parts of the galaxy and explore the grand puzzle of the skies in the hope that answers might be found and possibly applied to some part of our lives. This beckoning is fool's gold in a minefield. We have more pertinent issues that have deadlines, and artists who need fed. We are allowing a context of aggressive backpedaling to part the muddy molecules in the water, proverbially, of course. This is akin to the mental derailing of the education system which was provided the opportunity merely a century ago to reduce the ability of the child thereby depriving the adult a full and decent education and, by proxy, the irrevocable respect prospected in the nativehood of genealogy compound with the momentum of research and selfish dignity rooted in the understanding that the awareness that adult has come to maintain has an unquantifiable value and opportunity for a sense of principle jurisdiction and, to some extent, enforcement. Again, the question to answer is: do you intend on staying on this planet?