Translate

Monday, February 2, 2026

PodcastEpisode3Text

 

Salvation Through Faith or Enlightenment

The central figure in all variations of Christianity is the great teacher Jesus Christ who purportedly traveled around teaching through sermons that promoted doing good deeds and loving each other. He never personally wrote any of these things down, but the things that he said were later recorded by others who had seen him. These second-hand accounts were the only written record of his teachings and even evidence of his existence.

The first organized religion to congeal around this example of Jesus after his death by crucifixion evolved out of a variety of forms of Gnosticism. Gnosticism at that time was a thread of spiritual thought running through various iterations in the Mediterranean region espousing a knowledge of the Divine via direct experience. The Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a supreme being, and that a portion of this supreme being was trapped within the human body which could only be liberated by the accumulation of gnosis (aka knowledge).

Gnosticism was a collection of ancient religious ideas and systems that emphasized personal experimentation and practice to acquire knowledge without any reliance on religious dogma. In gnosticism, gnosis is an esoteric mystical knowledge of transcendence that is acquired by way of internal, intuitive means and that salvation is the result of this knowledge of the divine. It was prominent around the Mediterranean basin around 200 CE existing in conjunction with early Christian movements and ideas emerging from the middle stage developments of the Greek philosophy of Plato.

Gnostic writings contain some sayings attributed to Jesus that exhibit similarities with modern Christian canonical sayings. Other of these sayings attributed to Jesus are strikingly different. For example, canonical sayings talk about the coming of an end-time while the Gnostic sayings describe a kingdom of heaven that is already here, not a future event. The Gnostic tradition was a theology of mysticism wherein the kingdom of heaven exists in the here and now. Some believe the Gnostic sayings were recorded nearer to the time of Jesus’s death and are thus closer to the source of the teachings of Jesus.

Modern day Christianity is a good example of the backsliding that occurred in the centuries after the death of Jesus away from his aggressive focus on knowledge acquisition. Instead of an openness to questions, modern Christianity chose to replace this personal knowledge acquisition through questions to a rigid, structured dogma created and maintained by church administrators.

During the course of early Christian development, a seismic transition in approach occurred when the early church blatantly attempted to exploit this emotional dependency around the subject of a higher spiritual deity. They used this emotional dependency that was ubiquitous across all of humanity to garner and control the power and financial support of their followers.

This stark transition is clearly apparent in the early history of Christianity's evolution to become a religion during which Jesus’ promotion of love and peace was replaced by a harsh campaign of fear, intimidation, and even acts of war. In this early transition of the Christian church, the written records from the time of Jesus were carefully screened to erase much of Jesus’ original message declaring it heresy that should never be considered, but they could not erase this truth forever.

Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the Gnostics and modern Christians is their perceived path to salvation. The Gnostics believed salvation could only be attained by diligently seeking knowledge while the modern Christians believe salvation is a reward for dutifully keeping the faith in spite of adversity. Modern Christian scriptures attribute the words ‘seek and ye shall find’ to Jesus. These words seem to more support the Gnostic belief that requires an active process of seeking rather than the passive process of simply believing the things we are told.

A very specific change in spiritual approach occurred during a second attempt to organize a religion based on Jesus when the Roman empire adopted a Christian religion of its own. Constantine was the first Roman emperor to convert to the Christianity he had created. He declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire and called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE which was the first of many efforts where the modern Christian beliefs were officially defined hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Some contend that Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was inspired more by political expediency than spiritual revelation. This proclivity for political expediency still exists in modern Christianity.

The religious tenets selected at the First Council of Nicaea by the newly emerging church became the beliefs that the faithful would be forced to believe. In these newly emerging Christian beliefs, the individual focus on peace, love, and knowledge was shifted in a direction more conducive to the accumulation of power, control, and wealth by the church and its administrators. Groups, such as the Gnostics, responsible for the competing lines of thought were aggressively persecuted to near extinction.

The Cathars were a form of Gnostic belief in 1200 - 1400 CE France that were limited in size because they were not proselytizers. The Cathars were wiped out by French royalty and Catholic Church armies during the Albigensian Crusade. The ruthless brutality of this crusade was captured in the words spoken by a crusade commander when asked by his soldiers how to identify Catholics from Cathars in a town known to be home to both. He replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" ("Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own").

What remained of the Cathars after this Catholic Church crusade were absorbed into some of the early Protestant sects who themselves went on to have a contentious relationship with the Catholic Church. Religious involvement in what should be political affairs of state has a very corrupting influence on that religion, and a religion’s proclivity to proselytize new followers and heavy reliance on dogma are symptoms of this corruption.

The objective of politicized religion is to acquire an effective marketing strategy for the acquisition and management of followers to the benefit of the religious organization. This politicized religion is a low overhead, high-profit margin business that enjoys the benefit of tax shelter. The result has been the creation of a church administration that in spite of the original intention of Jesus, has gone on to be a great oppressor who has been the root source of innumerable wars. It is the root source of the scourge of racism and misogyny as it promoted the oppression of the rights of marginal social groups.

The life blood of any religious institution is its aggregation of followers. These followers equate to the power, wealth, and most importantly relevancy of an organized religion. Religions in pursuit of these followers typically deploy a marketing strategy to reach the uncommitted followers, but since Western religion traditionally reserves study and interpretation of the scripture to their ordained clergy, attracting followers with a really strong spiritual seeking message isn’t very effective. The message needs to be that just right combination of easy to do and personally compelling that only makes sense when viewed from a marketing perspective.

Take the Christianity salvation belief for example. How did the teacher who said “And unto him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and he that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also.” become the terrible tyrant who will condemn you to a lake of fire for all eternity for the seemingly insignificant slight of not formally declaring him as your personal savior?

It really never says that outright in the Bible. It all begins with the seemingly benign quote “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” This harsher salvation principle is developed by inference from this saying in combination with other things in the Bible outside the context of this one, but this salvation principle is what many if not all Christians believe. By what logic did it become the cornerstone of the Christian belief?

“No one reaches the Father but through me” has been embellished into ‘believe in me or suffer horribly for all eternity in the afterlife’. This embellished message has no real spiritual value, but it does have great marketing potential because it is very easy (i.e. all you do is believe and support the belief support institution) and what could be more compelling than the gut wrenching threat of burning for all eternity in the lake of fire. In short, it is very effective in getting followers and keeping them in the fold.

Curiously, this contrived salvation belief affords to church administrators the opportunity to assume the authority mantle of a deity who is conspicuously not directly available. In some extreme cases, there are documented examples where someone self appointed themselves to be this emissary and assumed this level of control of those who believed the deception. It has become a haven for con-men and charlatans who use it to take extreme advantage of their followers who come for the love and comfort of Jesus but get callously manipulated instead.

The most obvious weakness in this salvation belief is that it seems inconceivable that a loving god would do such a terrible, cruel thing. Condemning anyone to a terrible torture for all the remainder of eternity is certainly terrible, but it is unthinkable that the warning of these dire consequences is so cryptically stated in the Bible that it has to be interpreted from numerous disjointed verses. The least a loving god could do is spell it out in one place that does not require interpretation and move it up to the front of the Bible in bold print.

It is not uncommon to hear Christians justify their faith by saying ‘what if they are right?’ This statement is a clear indication of the effectiveness of this salvation message as a marketing strategy. The message is clearly more the contrivance of mortal men who want to get and control followers and not the intent of the Divine. This salvation message seems incredibly inconsistent with other Bible quotes that have been carefully overlooked in the collection of quotes used to support the justification for this salvation story such as:

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

The fairness of this salvation principle has frequently been called into question even by those who claim to follow Jesus. One such objection was the declaration of the Universal Reconciliation which is a doctrine that declares all these lost souls will eventually be reconciled by god’s divine love. In this controversial doctrine, those who created it generously allow some truth to the ‘believe in me or suffer horribly for all eternity in the afterlife’ notion. They have to believe because it is church dogma that cannot be questioned, but they soften its unbelievable savagery by expecting that compassion directed Divine intervention will eventually forgive all these lost souls and welcome them into heaven.

It is foolish to be that generous. The notion is ridiculous and was intentionally contrived by mortal men with the specific intent to garner and control followers through fear and intimidation to take advantage of the lazy spirits who passively accept a belief rather than think it through for themselves.

After the fear has sold this salvation concept, followers are locked into the concept by being told to passively believe without question. They are instructed to not even consider any other possibility because evil forces will use all manner of deception to dissuade them to ensure they go to the eternal lake of fire. These arguments appeal directly to the common human tendencies of fear and spiritual laziness.

Some consider accepting Jesus as their savior sufficient to earn this salvation, but others take this further and insist that salvation requires a belief in a complete, literal interpretation of all the Bible. Some actually take it further to include their own personal interpretations of the Bible. In some extreme cases (e.g. Jim Jones and David Koresh), these interpretations included sexual and financial manipulation by the leaders of the congregation.

This tendency to passive believe things that we are told has no place in our process of self-discovery. It is not productive and leads only to stagnation and entrapment by illusions. It is also contrary to another of Jesus’ sayings:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”

This quote implies that believing alone is not the key to our salvation and that action is required to obtain that salvation. We have to seek what we want to find and that means asking questions and adjusting beliefs as needed to accommodate new levels of understanding.

Why did this Christ-based religion assembled hundreds of years after Jesus' death by the Roman Emperor Constantine feel so compelled to include this very misleading and harsh salvation doctrine? There is no clear indication where it originated because Jesus never specifically called it out. Instead, it was interpreted into the canon from various disjointed scripture verses by some of Constantine's contemporary biblical scholar hand-waving that he shielded from critical review by declaring it to be heresy to even question it.

Without any input from Jesus, it became the cornerstone for all later Christian interpretations of Jesus's intention. It was the reason these new religions justified their aggressive attempts to convert everyone to their own religious faith creating the proselytizing juggernaut that in the Roman military tradition set out to colonized the world. In that colonization many indigenous cultures were needlessly destroyed and vast numbers of persons were marginalized to being subservient and brutalized because they were deemed of lesser importance before this Christian colonization onslaught.

Additionally, the fear and intimidation promulgated by this very prescriptive salvation doctrine became an opportunity that a vast array of false prophets simply could not resist. Perhaps unlike Jesus’ emphasis on ‘doing unto others as you would have others do unto you’, this colonization was the Roman Emperor Constantine's unenlightened military-focused intention all along in inserting and protecting this salvation doctrine.

 


 Podcast Episode 3

PodcastEpisode2Text

 

The Path of Self-Discovery

Every human conscious experience of life whether we acknowledge it or not is on a personal path of self-discovery. Everyone’s life experience is a curious dichotomy of 1) knowing that we exist as a consciously aware experience of ‘I am’ and 2) experiencing the existence of a greater reality around us through our inherent process of ‘I perceive’. Our self-discovery experience of these two reality perspectives combine to become the foundation of our emerging understanding of our life situation.

In search of that understanding, each of these two first principles generate a particular line of inquiry that when combined becomes our personal path of self-discovery. Our experience of ‘I perceive’ is the very objective line of questioning that enables us to discover what is going on around us with physical success as our goal. Our experience of ‘I am’ generates the much more subjective line of internal questions about who we are and what we want that are generally not so clearly defined.

Everyone pursues these two first principles of their existence with varying degrees of rigor based on the life perspective they have chosen to pursue. The most common choice to make is to pursue the glaringly obvious perception experience of the physical reality that surrounds us. We start our consideration with the physical things that we perceive around us first because they are the things that facilitate our ability to survive, but in the course of that survival, we are exposed to many other less essential things that are more superficially very alluring to us.

Both these survival critical and simply alluring physical objects can be very distracting, but even for those hard focused on their physical reality, some measure of attention is required to formulate the willful conscious intention that directs the execution of these external pursuits. Formulating this conscious intention falls into the more mysterious, subjective realm of the ‘I am’ consideration.

Elusive though these internal things may be to know, they are necessary in our quest to be happy and content with the lives we make for ourselves. These two things together become the foundation against which the success of the rest of our conscious experience is measured. The whole of our human conscious experience unfolds around these two foundational revelations into the two distinct lines of questioning that we all are forced to consider becoming the basis of all the questions about our life.

The sense of existence expressed by the phrase ‘I am’ emanates from the conscious mind which automatically extends this sense of identity boundary to include this seamlessly attached physical body. The experience of ‘I am’ creates a space of self identity that establishes a clear line of demarcation between itself and the everything else that exists in this physical reality.

We know that we exist, but we do not have unambiguous internal clarity about who we really are or why we are here. These are things that we develop on-the-fly during the course of our interaction with things in the physical world around us. Initially, we define ourselves in terms of the things that we physically do to shape our physical reality into something that is comfortable and to our liking, but we harbor deeper longings that are not accounted for in this physical context.

This more superficial understanding of who we are and what we want makes sense in our physical existence, but frequently fails to capture the subtle nuances of what we really want deep down inside us. In order to develop a more comprehensive working sense of these more elusive internal things, we develop a conceptual Who-I-Am model in our personal truth that contains our current best sense of who we are in more specific terms. Over time, this model evolves to reflect changes in our best guess understanding of who we really are, what we want, and why we exist at any particular moment.

The experience of ‘I perceive’ is centered in the physical body with its vast array of various sensory mechanisms to engage and extract information about this other physical reality around us. These sensory mechanisms generate a stream of sensory impressions that seem to indicate the existence of an external collection of the everything else that is surrounding us. Our conscious impressions of this everything else are constructed from our perceptions to create a conceptual All-That-Is model to define the what, when, where, and how of all these various things going on around us.

This All-That-Is model by-product of the physical body’s various sensors is the collection of information about the reality around us that is vitally critical because our body must engage in certain activities to survive in this perceived external environment. The urgency of these survival related questions forces us to formulate and effectively execute some sort of strategy for successful interaction with this greater physical environment to simply survive.

Beyond this survival critical understanding, the All-That-Is also contains information about what is going on around us in the physical world that is additionally very important to the less serious issues of being happy and content with one’s life. This conceptual All-That-Is becomes our guidebook by providing all the conceptual understanding that we use to interface and interact with this external reality on a daily basis. Our success in life hinges on the integrity of the knowledge in our All-That-Is conceptual model of reality.

These two distinct lines of questioning address the only two things that are of any importance to us which is reflected in the greater context of our societies. This Who-I-Am curiosity about ‘who and why we are’ has gravitated in the context of our greater society in the direction of the subjective institutional practice of religion. Our All-That-Is fascination with what is going on around us has gravitated in our societies in the direction of the formal institutional study of science.

Together these two conceptual things of an All-That-Is and a Who-I-Am form the contextual basis of our personal truth explanation of the reality of our existence and shape all our actions in this external environment. These two conceptual models of the All-That-Is and the Who-I-Am with all their flaws and limitations become in our personal truth the carefully crafted cage from which we conduct the affairs of our life.

There is no shortage of persons who would like to help us shape our personal truth understanding of things because there is a great advantage that can be derived from this kind of control. Sadly, most of these obliging persons are motivated by the selfish intention to control our thinking in a direction that is favorable to them. This same selfish intention has become embedded in our society to the point that it is no coincidence that we find ourselves torn between the two belief support systems of religion and science.

Our experience of ‘I perceive’ begets our objective science of being alive that is our personal objective response to the first fundamental question; ‘what is going on around me’. It is the process operating at the center of every human life to systematically observe things looking for reliable trends and performing trial and error testing to verify our understanding about our life situation. We use this process in our every waking moment for the purpose of assembling a body of facts that can be shown to operate in a way that is predictable to conduct the affairs of our lives.

In this most generic sense, this everyday human process of accumulating knowledge about our personal All-That-Is of our self-designated area of concern is a textbook definition of science. It is an informal approximation of the very same information gathering process of the scientific method without all the intensity, rigor, and most importantly peer-review. It works just like the formal science we more traditionally know, but because we use it in our every waking moment, it just doesn’t seem very notable.

Our experience of ‘I am’ begets our more elusive art-of-living correctly is our personal response to the second fundamental question of ‘who-am-I’. It is the process that operates in parallel with the science-of-being at the center of every human life in our attempt to deal with the more subjective matters of being conscious. Our lives are cluttered with an ongoing internal confusion about who we really are and why we are here living this life. The vague and mysterious nature of our own conscious experience is at the center of this confusion.

Our understanding of consciousness stands in stark contrast to the objectively derived facts about the nature of our physical body and the life situation that is unfolding around us. Instead of the very obvious physical world, this conscious experience exists without any tangible substance. It is invisible to all our senses but nonetheless discernible as something that is of a more ethereal nature. It is a subjective realm of thoughts, emotions, and many other various conscious constructs that exist and only make sense in the mental context of the conscious mind.

The human conscious experience is basically a cascading stream of consciousness that reveals a series of questions that we each must answer in every phase of our experience. We like to rely on easy off-the-shelf answers for some of the more difficult questions, but there is a price to be paid by choosing that luxury. With every bit of control that we relinquish to outside sources, we surrender a measure of our own personal freedom.

The human conscious experience is a journey of self-discovery that is both a right to have and a responsibility that we must execute. Our failure to honor this self-discovery mandate compromises our ability to be truly happy and content.

 


goto podcast episode 2