Easter - What does it mean?

I guess if we abandon much of the bagage of the religious past what can we salvage as the true heart of Easter? The old pagan mythology of rebirth after winter doesn't really work for those of us in the southern hemisphere, we are just going into winter. Perhaps a closer look at the Christian myth of Christ might give us something to draw on.

I cannot see a saviour dying to save us from sins that were caused by the first man and then in three days being reborn, is quite what we are looking for. How much of a sacrifice was it anyway, he knew he was being raised from the dead so not such a big deal. Maybe though what the myth originally meant which was that the Gods are like us or rather we are like them. If they are subject to death and rebirth why not us?

I see in the Christ myth a core of understanding begining. The Gods are not different to us, they are us. One of the reasons I feel that Christianity took off in the ancient workd was it's ability to make each believer equal before God because of Jesus. The church certainly has screwed with this over time, but so many early believers really felt they were the Gods, not some diety far, far away.

So my easter message is that of being born again, to truly wake up from the deathly sleep of ignorance and to move out in the light of understanding and hope. This means facing the good and the bad (as Jesus did) and living in the knowledge that you alone have to deal with it.

The Gods may have forsaken us, but it turns out we didn't need the Gods to begin with.

Tolerance???

I guess it should not come as a shock that Christians want to have the right to discriminate against various groups in society. It still is though. I guess from earlier posts you may have deduced that I think that Christianity is a basically inferior moral system, that has for centuries been holding back moral development in it's adherents. This seems like more proof.

I can understand that for purposes of employment it is okay to allow religions to discrminate against those who are not believers. That seems like the only reasonable area where discrimination would be okay. I certainly would listen to other arguments for membership and positions within a religion. HOWEVER that is not the same as wanting the right to harrass others in public.

This is not really about discrimination it is about harrassment. The Christians named in the article want the right to harrass certain groups in society with whom they do not agree. This is such a blatent fraud and very immoral idea that it has to be objected to on every level. I fail to see how it can be justified.

Maybe if it is allowed then the rest of us need to harrass and ridule these Christians as part of our right to free expression on matters of religion. I can see it now all over the world, Mormons knocking on doors to crys of derision from a group of people that follow them around all day. Meetings of Christian groups with picket lines declaring that they are liars and corrupters of children.

Yep it's certainly a big step forward.

A new Gospel ???

A new gospel. This one from the point of view of Judus. This was real news?? Certainly this gospel has been known about for a long time and it really is interesting, as are many other gospels from the early church. It is hardly earth shattering enough to make the front page of the paper.

The problem I guess is the ignorance of most people as to the early centuries of the Christian church. It certainly was not the way the New Testament writings picture it. A basicly unified church with a few trouble makers. The early church was a widely diverse group of people with all sorts of wierd and wacky beliefs. What happened was that one group was able to gain political control and stamp out all of the competing groups.

Does not sound too different to any other movement in human history. The orthodox believers who had control sought to destroy every other view by burying their writings and the believers if they could. Actually the church has a long record of killing off anyone who does not toe the party line. It seems now that the early church was not as good as it thought about stamping out contrary views.

If anything this backs up what Robert Funk said for many years, which is we have a dire need for religious education. Maybe if people had a better understanding of their religions origins they would be less dogmatic about it.

Heres hoping.