Sherlock Holmes 2009

I first fell under the spell of Sherlock Holmes before I was ten years old. I can date that fairly accurately as I remember reading "The Hound of the Baskervilles" that I took out of my public elementary school library(I switched to Catholic School in grade four, so that's why I can date it). At least I think it was that book; I can't be sure now. When I was 20, I received a book containing all the Sherlock Holmes short stories for Christmas and immediately began reading them and thorougly enjoyed them. I now have the complete works of Holmes in one volume.

When I heard that Madonna's soon-to-be-ex-husband Guy Ritchie was doing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. I knew I would be seeing it.

I confess that I am a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. He was the best thing about Tropic Thunder and I think if it hadn't been for Heath Ledger dying, Downey would have won the Oscar this last year for Best Supporting Actor. He was absolutely brilliant.

Downey wasn't the stiff, loner, Sherlock Holmes. No, he was more physical. Downey's Holmes can box and shoot a gun. There are a few sequences when you are allowed into his thought processes as he quickly analyses and assesses his situation. He was a convincing Brit, and carried it off well. He doesn't take himself too seriously. I am not a fan of Jude Law; I would have preferred to see Ewan McGregor in the role of Dr. Watson, but Law handled himself well as Holmes patient, loyal friend.

True to the spirit of the stories, Holmes and Watson are roommates, with Watson engaged to be married to his beloved Mary. We see that Watson takes notes and keeps records of their adventures, which, of course, are the basis for the stories. (If you remember, Watson was the narrator of the stories). You may also remember that Holmes was a frequent user of cocaine. There is only the faintest of hints of that in this tale.

Excellent re-creation of Victorian-era London; art direction and costumes were well done. Along for the ride is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, who was immortalized as "the woman" from the story "A Scandal in Bohemia". From what I remember, she was the "love" and passion of Holmes' life - and only woman who ever bested him. I was thrilled to see that they had they had brought that character into this story. McAdams plays the role with perfect zest and spunkiness - and looks great in the luscious period costumes she's given. I did, however, find her makeup a tad distracting, as I thought it was a little overdone for the period.

A thorougly enjoyable adventure which leaves the door open for a sequal. In fact, it's almost necessary.

Merry What?

Born December 25th to a virgin mother;
Son of God;
A travelling preacher who had 12 disciples;
Performed miracles;
Known as the "good shepherd", "the way the truth the light", "redeemer", "saviour"
Died at Easter

Sound familiar? Well it should. However, I'm not talking about who you might be thinking I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Jesus; I'm talking about Mithras.

The cult of Mithras pre-existed Christianity for at least 600 years. The similiarites between Jesus and Mithras were so similar and the early Church fathers were so fearful that their sheep would discover this that they claimed that the devil went back in time and created the story. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your life??

Oh, and Mithras isn't the only demi-god that was born at Christmas and killed at Easter. There was Attis, Adonis and several more. Like the Mithras story, all those demi-god stories pre-dated Christ by several hundred years.

So, this begs the question. Which one is historically true? Which ones are myth? To me, it's obvious that NONE of them happened and they are all myth. Here's why:

One: We know that Caesar Augustus NEVER ordered such a census as Luke says he did. As I've said before, we have excellent records of that period of Roman history and no census was ever recorded. It would also have been logistically impossible.

Two: Look carefully at the geneologies in both Matthew and Luke. They contradict themselves. I've heard the contradictions explained away by being told that one lineage was Mary's and the other was Joseph's. Not true. Luke clearly states that it's Joseph's family tree and not Mary's.

Three: There was no massacre of the innocents by Herod as Matthew describes. There is absolutely no historical proof of this. Herod was a tyrant and despised by the Jews, but this is one crime he didn't commit.

Four: Quirinius and Herod were not contemporary. Herod was dead by the time Quirinius was governor of Syria, which Luke claims he was in his attempt to date Jesus' birth.

We all know that Christianity stole (or borrowed) things from the cultures it imposed itself upon. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about outright plagarism. There were no copyright laws back then, so no one had an issue with it. However, Christianity is the one religion that claims this stuff actually, historically happened. They claimed Jesus was unique. Obviously not true when so many parallels existed between Jesus and the other demi-gods. It doesn't bother me that Christianity stole the date of Jesus' birth. After all, Queen Elizabeth was born in April and the official celebration of her birthday is the Trooping of the Colour ceremony in June. However, if you strip away all the myth that pre-existed centuries before what are you left with? Um, not much. In fact, nothing at all.

If Jesus was so important, why don't we know more about him? The only records we have of him are in the Bible and a reference in Josephus. Yet, we now know that the reference in Josephus was a forgery. It was added by a monk a very long time later.

I'm not saying Jesus never existed. I don't know; I suspect he did, but I'm not sure. To me, however, it's obvious that he's not what we were told in the Bible.

So, where did all this mythmaking come from? I have read enough to be convinced that it was Paul - for many reasons. Paul was from Tarsus, which was a seat of the Mithras cult. Eating bread and drinking wine in a ritual meal was also part of the Mithras cult/Greek Mystery Religions. We know that I Corinthians (an authentic Pauline letter) was written before the gospel stories, so guess who made that up? You guessed it: Paul. Also, remember, since drinking blood or eating food with blood in it was forbidden to Jews, Jesus NEVER would have said, "This is my blood." I quote Hyam Maccoby (who, obviously, is Jewish):

“This is not to say, of course, that Jesus did not distribute bread and wine to his disciples at the Last Supper. This was quite normal at a Jewish meal... The leading person at the table would make a blessing (blessing is the original meaning of the word Eucharist) and then break the loaf of bread and pass a piece to everyone at the table. Then at the end of the meal, grace would be said over a cup of wine, which would be handed around at the end of grace... This procedure, which is still practiced today at Jewish tables had no mystical significance; the only meaning of it is to thank God for the meal He has provided. The addition of mystery religion trappings (i.e. the bread as the body of the god and the wine as his blood) was the work of Paul, by which he turned an ordinary Jewish meal into a pagan sacrament. Since the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26) the idea regarding the wine as blood would be found disgusting by Jews.” The Mythmaker pgs 115-116

Sometimes I wonder why I even post this stuff. After all, those that know this stuff don't need me "preaching to the choir" and those that want to believe in Santa Claus still will. I get tired of people telling me I've been deceived by "logical sounding lies" when they haven't read anything about church history and the origins of christianity. But if I can convince one person to look at the house of cards christianity is built on and rationally examine their beliefs by looking at the cold, hard facts, it will be worth it. This is shocking; heck, I know. It's as shocking to the modern day christian as Gallileo's heliocentric model of the universe was to those who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, Gallileo was the one that was right. Experts say that mainstream christianity has only one or two more generations left. I hope so. When one wakes up from this myth, one feels as silly as if they were 21 years old and still believed in Santa Claus.

Merry Mithras, Happy Holy Days (whatever you chose to celebrate) but please try and keep the myth in Christmyth.

It's a Sad Day

It's a sad day in the stitching world. If you aren't a cross-stitcher, the name Teresa Wentzler probably won't mean anything to you, but for us stitchers, she was a well-known designer.

I first discovered her work in 1993. My first chart was her Rapunzel. So far, I've completed only one of her designs, a freebie, Jeanne Love's Angel. I don't have all her charts, but I have most that I want; there's just one or two more that I would like. Going through my "stash", it's her designs that I have the most of. In many ways, she is my favourite designer.

She specialized in mythological and fantasy pieces and almost singlehandedly brought cross-stitch out the dark ages of aida cloth and tea towels, and made it something special, and created wonderful art. Peaceable Kingdom, Egyptian Sampler Mermaid, and her Four Seasons Faeries rank high as some of my favourites of her designs. She was known as the "Queen of the Blended Needle" due to the profiliery of blended colours in her designs. Not only was she a very talented designer, she also had the reputation of being one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet.

Economic times being what they are, it's not longer feasible for her to keep her business running. It's a real shame. It's always sad to hear of a designer or a Local Needlework Shop/Online Needlework Shop ("LNS/ONS") going out of business. It's a loss to the stitching community.

Good luck, Teresa, and thank you. You will be missed.

The Slippery Slope to Legalism

I've heard it suggested that if we followed the Ten Commandments, those are "standard moral laws". I find that interesting. You see, Christians are supposed to be "under grace" and not "under law". So, if one is trying to follow those and use the Ten Commandments as a guidepost because they are "good moral laws", then one is not following grace, but law. That's my definition of a legalist, someone who follows rules to the letter of law instead of the spirit of the law.

I submit that most Christians violate those Commandments every week. I'm referring to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". How is that? That's because most churches meet on Sunday and not the Sabbath (Saturday). Early Christians began meeting on Sundays and not Saturdays in order to distinguish themselves from Jews who met on Saturdays.

As James said, if you are guilty of violating one commandment, you are guilty of violating them all. (James 2:10). In other words, one is guilty of murder, committing adultery, bearing false witness, taking God's name in vain, etc. all because church meets on Sunday and not the Sabbath.

One could say that we don't have to worry about keeping the Sabbath because we are now under grace, but then that's a slippery slope, isn't it? What other commandments do we decide not to keep based on that? I eat bacon and shellfish; always have, and I see no reason why I would give them up based on some ancient rule. Both are forbidden under Jewish law (though not the Ten Commandments), so all my life I violated the law and was, by association, guilty of murder, etc. That seems overly harsh, doesn't it? And what choice did I have? None. I didn't decide when Church met; I was a child taken there by my parents. So, therefore, there were sealing my doom by taking me to a church that didn't line up with what the Bible said. Does that seem just? The church that I was raised in - and all that I've ever attended - therefore, were all not following the law. What about the grand total of 613 laws the Jews had? I can imagine some people saying that it doesn't matter to a christian if they eat such things as bacon or shellfish. But again, the slippery slope. If you throw out that, then you can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian, and claiming to strive to have your life "line up with God's word", or claim that your church follows the word of God because you are picking and choosing which rules to follow. Hey, I have no problem with not keeping the Sabbath or eating bacon, but then I'm not claiming to be a Bible-believing, Christian. All I'm saying is that if you are claiming to be such, you'd better think about what you are saying in order to be consistent in your arguments. Either one changes all church worship services to Saturday, or one admits that one doesn't have to follow the Ten Commandments.

If things like eating pork and/or keeping the Sabbath can be dismissed because one is now under grace, then one has to seriously think about the other laws that one doesn't follow anymore because we are no longer under the law but under grace. If one considers that the Ten Commandments are good moral laws, and that the biblical punishments for breaking those laws are just, then we need to be executing people for taking the Lord's name in vain, stoning those that work on the Sabbath, etc. Surely one must see how ludicrus this is because the Law does not just constitute the Ten Commandments.

Doing good deeds wasn't forbidden on the Sabbath. The Pharisees understood that. Jesus understood that. The Pharisees were somewhat pragmatists. They understood that sometimes you have to answer to a higher law. They, like me, had natural law tendencies. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. In fact, I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was himself, a Pharisee. Please see Hyam Maccoby's "Jesus the Pharisee" and "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". Jesus words' in Mark 3 where he is quoted as saying that "the sabbath was made for man" was actually a Pharisaic motto according to Maccoby (but he doesn't cite his source for saying that). It was not original to Jesus. So, there was no way he was arguing against the Pharisees as the writer of Mark suggests. He was actually quoting Pharisaic doctrine and beliefs. The Pharisees were more traditional Jews and "of the people" and the Sadducees were nothing but Hellenized Roman quislings. The two groups hated each other and did not get along. I first heard of that in Bible College, and that seems to be confirmed by all the readings I've done. In the verses immediately following the story in Mark 3, it says that the Pharisees "began plotting against him [Jesus] with the partisans of Herod to see ow they could make away with him." This was impossible; there was no way the Pharisees would have done that, as the Pharisees were against the Roman occupation and the Herodians were for it. The word should not be Pharisees, it should be Sadducees. (The Mythmaker page 34). I can't recommend that book enough; it's fabulous and sheds a whole new light on Jesus and Paul. It's sad Maccoby is not better known that he is.

That also goes for the story in Mark 2, where Jesus and his disciples eat grain from a field in violation of the Sabbath rules. I quote: "One may violate all laws in order to save life, except idolatry, incest or murder." (Palestinian Talmud, Seviitt, 4:2 (35:a); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). When Jesus was questioned about the grain eating incident by the Pharisees, in Pharisaic tradition, Jesus recites the story of David eating the shew bread (which was forbidden) while David was fleeing from King Saul. It was a case of severe life or death, and so, therefore justified. All the Pharisees were doing when questioning Jesus was checking out the facts; they weren't accusing him.

My point is, one cannot get bogged down in rules and dogma. If one does, one will go crazy (almost literally) trying to keep every single piece of the law. Believe me; I've tried. In fact, it's impossible. Some of those rules were meant only for the times anyways due to the unsanitary conditions. They didn't have toilets or disinfectant soap and they had no idea of bacteria and infections and how germs and contagion could be spread.

I highly doubt Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." If someone was to say to you, "If you love me, you will obey me," what kind of person is that? That certainly does not show love, which Jesus supposedly came to do. That's something that an abusive, tyrannical wife-beating husband would say to his wife. Anyone that would obey under such circumstances is anything but free; they are under bondage and are obeying out of fear, not love. Either Jesus was nothing but a demanding control freak, or he did not say those words. I find the latter the most likely scenario. Here's why: Jesus supposedly said those words at the Last Supper. If so, why were they not recorded in the other three gospels? In no other gospel does he say anything like that. John was the oldest of the gospels, written possibly as late as 135 C.E., and it's authenticy was hotly disputed because of the gnostic teachings that pervade it. To quote Maccoby, "In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews." (Jesus the Pharisee p. 136) Note the word I highlighted, Hellenistic, not Judaic.

One doesn't find grace by meditating on rules and law, but by looking beyond them to what the goal should be. I've never discovered anyone who followed a rulebook to the "last jot and tittle" that was gracious; in fact, quite the opposite. Jesus was willing to break some rules because of a higher goal, and I agree with him.

Some People Just Don't Get it

I just have to laugh at some people and shake my head. I really feel sorry for those christians who don't understand grace. They can talk all they want about it, but they are simply "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." I feel sorry for them, as they are missing out on so much. Anyone that would point to a list of mission groups and try to discuss grace on the level of "the doctrines of grace" just doesn't get it - especially if they name their blog after a lawgiver. It's so ironic. I really feel sorry for such people, as they are living under law and not grace. The sad thing is, they don't realize it I pity them. Yet I can't be too harsh, for I once was the same way.

Ryan O'Neil said, "Love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'" in the movie "Love Story". When I first heard that line, I really didn't get it. I think I understand it better now, as in many ways, you can substitute the word grace for love in that sentence. You don't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" and keep beating yourself over the head. God knows your heart. You don't have to keeping coming to him cowering and saying "I'm sorry". They even make fun of that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (Be warned: some people may not share the same sense of humour). You don't have to continually keep track of your errors. After all, sin just means that you've missed the mark. It's not a moral word. It means you've missed the goal, the target mark. That's what the word meant. It means you didn't score 100% on your test, or win the gold medal.

Do you really like people that continually pick at you and demand perfection, or you you prefer to be with people that accept you just as you are, warts and all? I know I certainly prefer the latter. Isn't that the way God is supposed to be? Then why do some people think that you have to keep confessing, or examining your heart and conscience before God? Doesn't grace mean that you are now a son of god and that you have the spirit of God inside of you guiding you? If so, how could you go wrong?

Grace means you don't refer to some church's doctrines on the subject. It's something that happens on a personal level, and it can mean different things to different people. It's an experience and not one that can be found by reading doctrine. The legitimate letters of Paul talk about "radical" grace. The disputed letters contradict the legitimate Paul. Grace means that "If it pleases you to please the Lord, you can please yourself." No one has the right to judge you.

Martin Luther may have talked grace, but since he was a well-known anti-semite, he was definitely missing out on the whole point of grace. Yet, he was definitely on to something. However, no one that could say the things he did about the Jews really didn't understood grace. That being said, anti-semitism was rife in the culture, and he was a product of his times.

I remember a class in Bible College where the teacher was talking about groups of people in the church. There were those who could be hurt by your actions, by your "eating meat offered to idols". Those people you should be sensitive to. To put it in modern terms, be considerate and sensitive to people: don't go indulging in a bottle of wine in front of someone that has a problem with alcoholism. However, there are other peopl in the church, who run around and think they have the right to tell other people what to do: "Don't do that. You'll offend somebody!" These people weren't offended themselves; they were just control freaks justifying their actions by telling the person that they "might" offend someone. Such people one didn't need to be worried about upsetting.

Since I don't like control freaks, I have no problem ignoring such people.

It's just sad, and is a big part of the reason I no longer attend church, as I've said before.

Amazing Grace

Why is it that one so often finds more grace outside the church than inside? That's something I've wondered about for a very long time. Let me start this off by saying that I am not writing this from a victim's standpoint, whining and bitching that I've been hurt by people in the church and that's why I no longer attend. No. If I did, I would be extremely hypocritical, as I know that I, too, can be extremely ungracious; I still wrestle with it at times. To those I've hurt, I am deeply sorry. This may sound a tad hypocritical coming on the heels of my last post, but it needs to be said.

When I first started dating DH 12 years ago, he told me that he was a "radical gracist" in the Pauline tradition. When he at first explained to me where he was coming from, I really didn't understand it. I was one of those that really liked rules: black and white. I liked defined lines where I knew where I stood and understood my boundaries. If I stepped outside those boundaries, well I knew there would be consequences for my actions - but at least I knew that. I had a very sensitive conscience, and hated breaking rules. I didn't like things that were subjective. The funny thing is, I should have liked math, as there are always right and wrong answers, yet due to my chromosomal deficiency, I hated it. Oh, sure, I talked grace, but somehow I had missed out what it really was. I really didn't understand it. I didn't realize that at the time; I thought I did. But I didn't. I very much had a rod up my you-know-what and was a stick-in-the-mud and could be extremely judgemental. For example, I really didn't understand how certain denominations could justify ordaining gay ministers. I mean, it was right there in black and white in the Bible that they were going to hell. How could they not see it?

Yet, on the other hand, I always felt that it was more important to show people love than rules. I really didn't see how throwing a bunch of rules at someone would encourage them to come to church or convert them to christianity. Showing them that you cared was the only way to make them see that you had something special that they might be interested in knowing more about. Launching a lot of scripture at them would not be the appropriate thing to do.

In schools of legal thought, I would consider myself a natural law person, as opposed to a positivist. Let me take a moment to explain that. Natural law means that there is a higher law or higher principle than man-made rules. For example, if a pregnant woman was speeding to the hospital because she was miscarrying her baby and a policeman pulled her over, the right thing to do by natural law would be to let her off: there was a higher goal, preserving the life of the baby. Now, if the policeman was operating under positive law, he would give her the ticket: she had violated the law, and should therefore receive the ticket, even if there was a reason.

The whole idea of radical grace was a little disconcerting to me. I mean, Paul does say that everything is acceptable, but that made me uncomfortable. Everything??? When I thought of the ramifications, that made me very uncomfortable. Then I met some of DH's friends. They were some of the most gracious people that I've ever met. I haven't always been that gracious towards them, I'm sorry to say. Yet, they had something that I admired.

Slowly but surely, I felt some of my legalism and judgementalism strip away. It wasn't working anyway. The more I tried to be good and failed, the more miserable I was. I wanted freedom. Not because I was planning on running around abusing my freedom, but inwardly, I've always hated rules for the sake of rules. Sure, we need some rules to function by as a society, but there was enough of a rebel in me to say that some rules weren't worth keeping. Just because it's a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. For some rules, there is no basic moral reason behind them. For example, we don't drive on the right-hand-side of the road in North America because it's immoral to drive on the left.

As someone said to me, "If it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself." I began to realize that who was I to judge someone because they were gay? What did it matter to me? Wasn't it between God and their conscience? Why was it any of my business? Why did I think I had the right to judge them? When I realized that, it was a tremendous relief. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I realized that I had been very arrogant in thinking that I could play judge and jury. People are grown ups and can be responsible for their own decisions. Now, I may not necessarily like what a person may do, but it's not my place to judge. Here's an example: I don't like abortion - not by a long shot. Yet, I don't feel I have the right to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. All I hope is that she makes an informed choice.

It reminds me of the novel, "In His Steps" in which a group of church members took a vow that for the next year they would do nothing without first asking themselves the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" How they anwered that question was between them and God. No one else in the group that took the pledge was to question a choice that another member had made. A decision one person made would not be the same decision that another person made. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live like that? Wouldn't it be intensely freeing?

I'm not saying that *everyone* inside the church is ungracious; I'm talking more about the institution in general. I think Jesus was right when he said, "If your neighbour is taking you to court and on the way you meet up with him, settle it there." The reason would be it's better if you the two parties can work it out together; the minute you get an institution involved, you end up handing over some (or all) of your autonomy and nobody gets the result they want and often justice isn't served. The same thing with church; it's an institution. It seems to be the nature of institutions. The minute they are involved (whether government or churches), rules, protocol and procedure come into play and the whole goal of the exercise is lost. The rules are there so that people have guidelines of behaviour; so that people can "expect" others to behave in a certain way. The church, sadly, becomes more about keeping the flock in line than showing grace. How often has a person in a church either unconscionably or consciously done something unexpected? I don't need to elaborate; we've all seen the reaction and fallout when that happens.

A long time ago, I know of an individual who was going through a tough time (Person "A") and the church didn't make it easy on them. Yet there was one person (Person "B") who stepped up to the plate and went and did something very loving and gracious for Person A. I know some people thought that perhaps Person B was condoning what Person A had done. Who cares? I'm sure what Person B did was a real bright moment during what was otherwise a very very painful time for Person A.

Perhaps because we're all walking wounded and it's those that are disturbed by the legalism they've come across in the church that it's those of us who are outside can understand grace more than those inside. (Notice I said *can* not *do*). I'm not perfect - far from it. As I said, I still wrestle with legalism and ungrace. I still lose my temper (as evidenced by my last post). I'm a pilgrim on this road searching for truth - just as you are. Where your path may go, may not be the same as me. And I'm all right with that. I don't expect you to agree with me 100%. Wouldn't it be ironic if I got hate mail for this post? I think it would just go to prove exactly what I've been saying...

Coming out of the Closet - The Fallout

This is specifically addressed to the person who responded to my blog post and decided to set up a blog themselves to show me the evil of my ways. You can see what they did here. I find it interesting that the person would call his blog "Beginning at Moses". Considering Moses was the lawgiver, you can see where the person is coming from: legalism and definitely NOT grace.

Dear sir,

Unless one has spent the time reading all the books on church history, origins of christianity, religious studies, and watched the hundreds of hours worth of documentaries that we have, then one really can't comment by saying "no contradiction" in one or more blog posts. Once you have read our list of books – and maybe come to a different conclusion, then we can possibly communicate. Then, perhaps, only then can we talk. I know where you are coming from. I’ve been where you are and changed. Yet, you do not know where I am coming from. Until you have walked in my shoes we cannot have a rational discussion about this. I cannot go back to where I was. If you see no contradictions, that's fine. I, for one, do.

The comment “bravo” was meant in the original context of the word, “brave” as my husband was proud of me for having the guts to actually speak my mind. I knew the potential consequences and I did it anyway. Because I’ve read dozens and dozens of books on these subjects, it’s hard for me to articulate in an abbreviated space what these authors have said in volumes.

It's well known in academic circles that Paul never wrote II Timothy. It’s generally agreed that Paul’s genuine works are: Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Galatians and Philippians. Most Bible Colleges, supposedly, teach that (but the pastors NEVER tell their congregation that). Please see The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg. The rest were written “in his name” but not by Paul himself. Today we would call that plagiarism, but no one had issues about it back in the first century. In legal terms, he would have no subject matter jurisdiction to do a raid on the people of Damascus. It was out of his jurisdiction and he had no authority there. I know there are contradictory statements in Acts about Paul’s conversion experience and what Paul says happened in his letters, but I can’t find what book that was in. I think it was The First Paul I mentioned above. Paul was from Tarsus, a seat of the Mithas cult. (Tarsus/Taurus both meaning “the bull.”) I’ve read convincing arguments that what Paul was doing was basically rewriting the Greek mystery religions for Jews and that he was no Pharisee. No Jew would EVER have drunk blood – it was forbidden in the book of Leviticus. Jesus NEVER would have said, “This is my blood...” as Paul claims - even if it was meant as a symbol. I was stunned when I read that. I should have known that all along. It seemed so obvious to me when I saw it before me, but why hadn’t I seen it before? Even you can’t refute that drinking blood was forbidden to the Hebrews.

I'm not saying I know it all - heck no. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else. I challenged what I believed - and found it sorely wanting. If you challenge yourself, and it stands, I'm happy for you. For me, the Bible that I thought I knew (and I thought I knew it well) didn't stand up to too much scrutiny. It bothers me that something like Jesus' divinity came down to a vote – by someone like Constantine who had an agenda for political control. Some archaeological digs do support some things about the bible - some don't. It's estimated by the Jesus seminar that up to 84% of what we are told about him in the Bible never happened. And, how do you reconcile the stories of Mithras, Adonis, Attis that all pre-dated Christ by hundreds of years, or are you going to side with the church fathers who said the devil went back in time and planted the story? Surely you must see how ridiculous that claim is. But before judging me, go read them for yourself. James Frazer’s “The Golden Bough” also retells some of those myths. If you are content with believing that only one of those is history and the others are simply myth, that's all right. I, personally, had to be honest with myself and say I couldn't accept that. The stories are too close to be coincidence. Go and do some research on the cult of Mithras. You should be shocked at what you find and how much christianity stole from it.

These men and women who talk about the contradictions I’ve mentioned have spent their lifetimes doing this work. A lot are people like Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Some are like John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Unless you have put in the hours and years of study that these – and other - men have, you can’t just simply dismiss them. To say that, “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools” is pompous and arrogant on your part – when you have not walked in these men’s shoes. You do not know them, nor the journeys they took. How dare you be so self-righteous that you would call them deceived by the devil. You should at least listen to what they have to say. How dare you say they don’t know what they are talking about and that their research does not stand. The fact is you say that because you don't want the research to stand, and not because you know anything about them or their work. Your opinion is formed in sheer and utter ignorance. You’ve never read what they’ve said, nor read the manuscripts they have. Once you have, then you can form an opinion. Until then, you have no right to speak.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are NOT sound, and I quote Mr. Ehrman, “Matthew left out some names in the fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian disaster. In 1:8, he indicates that Joram is the father of Uzziah. But we know from I Chronicles 3:10-12 that Joram was not Uzziah’s father, but his great-grandfather. In other words, Matthew has dropped three generations from his genealogy.”

Do I know what happens when we die? No. And if you were honest, you don’t know either. You believe something. Belief and knowledge are two quite different things. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is all there is, but I don’t know.

I find your accusation that I am a “dead soul” very insulting, especially when you don’t know me. In fact, I find myself in a far happier place spiritually and more healthy emotionally and a more tolerant and gracious person now than when I was a Bible believing christian. I look back on the person I was then with shame. I now consider myself a “gracist” and believe that “if it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself” and I won’t question it. I would just hope that I would receive the same from you. When you spoke of churches “dummying down” I do understand what you are talking about. Now that I see things differently, I want to chew on some meat and not the milk I was fed at church. I now read the academic stuff; the books one reads in upper level theology classes. I find the stuff one finds at the average christian bookstore much too dummied down for my liking and trite. I consider myself fairly well read, and fairly intelligent – though my academic career is nothing compared to a lot of people. Heck, all I have is a one year Bible Certificate, my paralegal certificate and a love of reading and learning.

When I was in Bible College, we had a teacher that said that when he was a pastor, his goal was to work himself out of a job – to get the congregation to the place where he wasn’t needed anymore. I remember thinking how brilliant that was of him. As time goes on, I think more of him for it. To bring a person to the point in their (spiritual) life where they can stand on their own should be the goal. I don’t know what psychology you may or may not have studied, but when a person goes for counseling, they can develop “transference” and it’s up to the counselor/psychologist to make sure that transference – as painful as it may be for the patient – is broken. The movie “Holy Smoke” with Kate Winslet portrays it quite graphically. Kate’s cult deprogrammer, Harvey Keitel, in order to break transference slaps her across the face in order to force her to break from him. Perhaps those that have left the church have broken the transference and have the ability to stand on our own. Perhaps it’s us who “saw through a glass darkly, but now face to face.” My walk is my walk – and yours is yours. Surely after all this time you don’t need someone to tell you how to live your spiritual life. I have a theory that those who are still in the church are still afraid of their father (be it heavenly or earthly) and are too scared to stand on their own and need someone to tell them what to do. Once they grow up and are a little more spiritually mature, they, in theory, should no longer need that. God wants us to be spiritual adults – not simpering, whimpering, cowering children. He gave us brains for a reason: to use them to think. He didn’t make us robots.

As for Genesis, I know of a pastor in the C&MA church who doesn’t think there was a literal tree in a literal garden. I didn’t understand him at the time, but I do now. Are you going to say he’s going to hell for that because you see something different?

As for Judas, I suggest that you try and find a copy of “Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil” by Hyam Maccoby. It’s out of print now, but I was fortunate enough to get a copy a few years ago at a reasonable price. His basic premise is that christians used the character of Judas as an excuse to propagate 2000 years worth of atrocities on the Jews. Actually, it would appear that Andrew Lloyd Webber got it right in his musical “Jesus Christ Superstar” where Jesus tells Judas before the betrayal to (I’m paraphrasing) “wear the black cloak with pride”. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas seems to verify that. If Jesus was solely a spiritual leader, and had nothing to do with politics, why do as many as five of his disciples have ties to political groups (Judas Iscariot being one of them, Simon the Zealot being another). That figure of up to five I remember being told back in my NT class at Northwest Baptist. Are you going to say that he was wrong, too and/or just dismiss it because you don’t agree? Speaking of the disciples, can you even name all twelve? There are contradictions in those lists, too, depending on which gospel you read.

In the words of Steve Martin, “You know what your problem is, it’s that you haven’t seen enough movies – all of life’s riddles are answered in the movies." I would also say that there are a lot of life’s riddles answered in books. You need to do more reading – far more than what you can find in your christian bookstore. You need to read books that were written by Jewish scholars like Hyam Maccoby. After all, Jesus was Jewish and who better would understand Jewish culture than a Jew? You need to read books written by academics – real academics from real universities like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, not some bible-paper-mill. People like Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman, etc. The more you learn, the more you will find you don’t know – and that’s the beginning of wisdom: admitting you don’t know. The word virgin did NOT mean a young woman that had not had sex; it meant maiden, an unmarried young woman. It was mistranslated. If Jeconiah was so evil that God took the throne away from his descendants, then why did God promise David that his throne would be established forever? (II Samuel 7:11-16) Isn’t God contradicting himself, which God supposedly cannot do?

If you are going to say that God cursed Jeconiah and took the throne away from him because he was so evil, then do you condone the horrors of slavery that were imposed on Africans by their christian “massers” because Ham was cursed by Noah, and Africans are (supposedly) his descendants? That was the justification that “good Christian white folk” used. Are you saying that the estimated nine million Africans that died on slave ships en route to America somehow got what they deserved because of something that supposedly happened several thousand years before? Are you going to condone witch trials because all women were cursed through Eve? Are you saying the pogroms and the holocaust were justified because the Jews supposedly rejected Jesus? Surely to be consistent, you must.

If someone from the 15th or 16th Century were to time travel to our time and tell us that the earth was flat and it was the centre of the universe, would we believe him? No. Science has proven that’s not true. If he was to tell us that animals are “automatons” and feel no pain, would we believe him? No. (I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Rene Descartes would say something so stupid). Would we believe him if he said that you couldn’t trust a woman’s word in court simply because she was a woman? No. Would we believe him if he said a woman must be a witch because he came down with a head cold after seeing her in the street (or some such nonsense?) No. Then why would we trust anything he would have to say about religion and the authority of the church? That would also go for the London Baptist confession of faith, too.

My hope lies in the fact that, if there is a god, he will not cast anyone out who genuinely seeks truth. I want to know who the historical Jesus was. I want to know, so much that I am willing to go beyond the borders of the playground I was told was safe to play in to find out who he was. Short of going back in time, the best I can do is read about him. No doubt he is disgusted, as I am, at the atrocities that have been – and still are committed in his name. Most recent of which is the Iraq war which President Bush said was to “avert Gog and Magog” and Sarah Palin called, “A Mission from God.” My hope does not rest in a two thousand year old book that that’s unreliable as history and science and contradicts itself. I believe Luther was onto something when he said, “faith alone” but I don’t take everything he says as true as it’s well known he was a raging anti-semite, so that taints some of his sayings which coincides with what I said in the previous paragraph.

How can I explain how it changes lives? Easy. It’s because deep within us, we passionately want to believe that we are important to God. It reaches deep into our psyche, something very primal. We want to believe there is something more to this life than the miseries we see every day. How can I explain how it’s lasted this long? Again, that’s easy. You obviously don’t know anything about church history and how much control they had to ask such a question. Can I explain why supposedly over 5,000 documents agree? Sure. It’s called scotoma: the eyes see what they want to see. If you are determined not to see errors in the scriptures, you won’t. You are wearing rose coloured glasses. I’m not saying the Bible doesn’t have a place in the world, but I do have problems with everything in it being taken as literal fact, when I’m convinced that not everything is. There was no divine author. The stories were written down by men – sometimes many hundreds of years afterwards. And these men had agendas. If and when you realize that some of it is metaphor, you will find yourself in a much happier place spiritually with new eyes to see. You will see so much more than what is in front of you and see the bible as a richer document and you will wonder why you didn’t see it before. As I said in my last post, I am not going to be the one that stands up says which part is which (even though some things are more obvious than others).

You just haven’t seen it yet. You may never. Until you do, we cannot communicate. Please do not speak of this again; I do not wish to communicate with you ever again. There is no point, as we will probably never agree and it’s just not worth the time effort, stress and heartache on my part. Until your eyes are opened, this whole exercise is pointless. It’s not because if you don’t agree with me, you aren’t welcome to talk to me. It’s just I don’t think there is enough common ground to have a rational discussion. I have made a conscious point of weeding out people like you from my life: legalistic christians that really don’t understand grace. What gives you the right to say to me "Turn to Him"? What gives you the right to ask me when last I asked the Lord for guidance? How dare you presume I don't. Who made me answerable to you? Arrogant, ignorant, condescending, paternalistic, chauvinistic, holier-than-thou attitudes and beliefs wrapped in the hypocrisy of “caring” like what you have displayed are what drove me and millions like me from the church. The Inquisitors said the same thing when they were torturing their victims: they were doing it for the good of the person’s soul. Based on your comments, I think in another day and age you would have been one of them – persecuting anyone who disagreed with you. Perhaps no one (especially a woman) has ever dared say these things to you, but since I will not be communicating with you ever again, I have no problem of telling you exactly what I think of you. Your brand of "christianity" needs to die. The sooner the better.

You may never have the eyes to see, but I pray your children do one day.