So if he picked a different pathway to happiness than you did, he's obviously delusional.  Hope you take more care with your paid-for diagnoses than you did with Zappa.

.

Perhaps he saw Christianity (via Paul, which is damned near all the Christianity that's left these days) as inherently dangerous in and of itself.  Because it leads to people excusing a whole lot of oppression as the work of a few "control freaks."  The inherent value of Christianity is its usability as a mirror.  The inherent danger is that folks mistake what they see in the mirror for the true nature of others.

The whole Universe is a large joke.
Everything in the Universe are just subdivisions of this joke.
So why take anything too serious.
-- Frank Zappa

Sounds like a pretty healthy grasp of the situation to me.

Paul, unlike Zappa, found a commercial opportunity in Christianity and perverted it to his needs.  Zappa made his own.

.

Christianity has long ago ceased to be what Christ intended--a way to bind together the have-nots against the Establishment.   A hundred years ago Upton Sinclair in "The Profits of Religion" showed how all religions (though, in this country, primarily various flavors of Christianity) now support the status quo instead comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

"Scientology, how about that? You hold on to the tin cans and then this guy asks you a bunch of questions, and if you pay enough money you get to join the master race. How's that for a religion?"
-- Frank Zappa 

Thanks for the links! I just thought this was a little something we could all agree on! Can not deny Zappa's musical genius.

I applaud him for his playful, experimental approach to music.  I applaud him for his value of free speech.  I also made it clear that I was not offering a formal diagnosis, simply a first impression.  He did not appear to be a happy camper, but sometimes the best music comes from a place of pain.  I simply think his characterization of Christianity and God was off the mark. 

I've never been drawn closer to God through religious arguments or through rules and regulations associated with religion.  I have been drawn closer to God through music.  Rock n roll is one avenue that makes the spiritual world accessible, but some of those old hymns hold the same power.  Some of the words are even more powerful than the greatest rock n roll performances. 

Again, his subjective experience differs from your subjective experience.  All subjective experiences are equally valid--objectively.

No, these are not allRED's comments (though I always enjoy those).  They come from the Apostle Paul.  And they are simply profound. 

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 
2. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 
3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing  (NKJV)

____________________________

This is what it means to be a Christian, something Zappa did not understand, but the Apostle Paul had a deep understanding of it. 

Information doesn't kill you. -Frank Zappa

Some "Christians" say it will. I've been told many times by Christian rookies that "your education won't get you into heaven," to which I would reply, "Neither will your ignorance." My quick wit was the work of the devil, I was told, but after awhile they shut the [bleep] up because even though they'd seen God, taked to him, and got his autograph, they still lacked the skills to best me in a debate about anything.

Paul, like Zappa, once hated Christians and regarded Christianity as the enemy. 

Paul had a Grand Mal Seizure on the road to Damascus. The Book of Acts - written, allegedly, by Luke - tells us that he had this conversion from meanie to saint. That's one writer's opinion; it's not verifiable by any means.

I do like Paul's letter to Philemon; it's my favorite book of the Bible. Paul, like Don Corleone, makes Philemon an offer that he'd be wise not to refuse.

Paul admitted he had a "thorn in the flesh," but he also was brilliant and insightful on matters of faith. 

His "thorn in the flesh" was more than likely his seizures. According to Paul, no amount of prayer had relieved him of this, so he took the philosophical attitude that God liked him that way. My personal opinion is that God couldn't have done anything about Paul's malady, since he doesn't exist in the first place.

When it came to matters of a heavenly nature, he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

As opposed to this syncophant: "Thanks for shining a bright light in the darkness with these scriptures." ?

robbwillis.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, even at the risk of being considered even more of a sycophant.  I'm glad that your mother didn't abort you.  The statement you are quoting me on is not an example of sycophantic behavior, but rather, it represents an attempt to see the good in something so many simply seem to want to dismiss as rubbish. 

john, sometimes God doesn't take away our thorns in the flesh because there is a valuable lesson to be learned that would not be learned without such a thorn.  Moreover, his strength is made known to the world through our weaknesses. 

To your credit, Christians who don't value education or free intellectual inquiry are missing out.  On the other hand, Jesus said to come to him as a little child.  It takes a humbling of the heart, not necessarily the best intellectual argument to open a person up to the things of God. 

So, BLT, what scholars don't "agree with" is the assertion that Christ was something other than a merely human philosopher.  In other words, the entirety of what Christianity has boiled itself down to.

.

Whereas, the stuff just about everyone *DOES* agree with is overlooked entirely.

God not only loves a cheerful giver, He honors a sincere singer.  (Chuck Swindoll)

A few people came to mind when I read this this morning, Dr. B.  You were high among them.

I greatly appreciate your kindness, and your support, dgrealish. 

Well, if it's something you can't prove, who are you to say a dead man didn't know what the hell he was talking about when it comes to matters of a heavenly nature?

I am a person with a right to an opinion.  My opinion is that his emotionally-charged, divisive words about Christianity were reckless, and not a fair representation of Christianity, as a whole.  He painted Christianity with one broad stroke.  In reality, there are many different types of people who call themselves Christians.  Some are humble, others are arrogant hypocrites.  You can't judge them all based on a limited experience you may have had with some. 

Random, I pretty much agree with everything in your most recent comment. 

Some are humble, others are arrogant hypocrites.

Truer words were never spoken. Why then would you kiss-up to the arrogant hypocrite, multiple times now, that has spammed this blog two or three times a day since last April? It's enough to gag a maggot. 

Why then would you kiss-up to the arrogant hypocrite, multiple times now, that has spammed this blog two or three times a day since last April? It's enough to gag a maggot. 

I have offered supportive words of encouragement.  I've respected him and have refrained from hating on him.  If you want to call it "kissing-up," go ahead.  You've been the one to judge him as an "arrogant hypocrite."  I find no evidence of this charge that you've directed against him.   

BLT, I think Zappa's view of Christianity is much closer to reality than yours.  More's the pity. 

.

But--being honest here--I think your view of Christianity presented here is your public one.  In private, I think you still long for a stamp of  government approval on Creationism, and public enforcement of the modern Christian view on marriage, which has nothing to do with Christ's message:  include the excluded, don't sweat the small stuff, and do right in spite of it.

I find no evidence of this charge that you've directed against him.

Guess you haven't been here for the last seven months. If you had been you would have noticed how he deletes the comments of anyone that disagrees with him, thinks his **** don't smell and calls other haters while proudly displaying his haterd for homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses. Look up "arrogant" and "hypocrite" in the dictionary and you should see these pictures:

As the song goes, "They will know we are Christians by our love."

And vice-versa.

He has called homosexuality a disease and the Jehovah's Witnesses an "unhealthy sect". 

He's entitled to his opinions about the origins of homosexuality and his understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses.  It doesn't necessarily mean he hates either group. 

He has compared those that disagree with to Nazis and the KKK. He routinely flat-out calls those that disagree with him "Christ haters". Does he have to say "I hate _______" for you to see him as an arrogant hypocrite?

I haven't seen such statements, so I'm not prepared to comment on them at this time.   I will say that it is tempting to use extreme terms to marginalize the other side, but we all must resist such characterizations. 

As the song goes, "They will know we are Christians by our love."

And vice-versa.

Good.  Then let's all work together to spread more love and to refrain from debate marked by hate. 

BLT, just this morning he compared those who disagree with him with Christian terrorists.  Need a pointer?

http://people.bakersfield.c...

A link would be helpful to such a poor navigator as myself. 

I see no reason why the Californian should tolerate hate mongering from anti Christians any more than it should allow post from the KKK or the Al Qiadia.

Is this the quote?  If so, he is not exactly those who disagree with him terrorists.  He has experienced some of what goes on here as "hate mongering from anti Christians."  He doesn't want the Californian to tolerate any forms of hate, no matter who subtle or how severe.  That's how I interpret the statements. 

Besides, it's not directed towards anyone in particular.  It's not a personal attack.  I do recall coming across somebody launching a personal attack on him yesterday, with the use of innuendoes. 

So it depend on what the definition of the word "is" is, BLT?  He claims--without proof--that there is "hate mongering from anti Christians."  He equates it with Islamic (al Qaeda) and  Christian (KKK) terrorist organizations.   What is he accusing us of doing, leaving a burning question mark in his lawn?

.

Yet he wants to be free to post his amateur diagnoses of schizophrenia based on his bathroom scrying?

Well, he's invited me to pray that God will keep him humble.  It takes some level of humility to ask for such a thing.  Have you asked him nicely to tone down the rhetoric?   

Have any of you who disagree with his religious views used extreme language in your characterization of his views? 

God's got better things to do, I would think.   He counts on us to do the little things, while he takes care of fundamental forces and such.

.

To answer your question, no.   

If anyone wanted to use extreme language, it would've been child's play to point out that both homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses, two groups at whom the nameless blogger directs his hateful verse, were sent to the concentration camps in Hitler's Germany.

I haven't come across any of that. What you call "hate" may simply be just him having an opinion and being very passionate about it.

~~~~~~~~~

I'll keep praying for all hate to abate in this blog community.

What hate? So, you came across some? 

I'd direct the prayer towards the Middle East, myself, but I have no illusions about the Divine having *THAT* level of effectiveness.

.

But we can use these blogs as a test case.  If the spam stops suddenly, we'll chalk it up to your prayers.