Perennis

In an earlier piece, I argued that Matthew 5:22, which (in the King James) says we should not be angry WITHOUT CAUSE – is actually better in the modern translations, which say that we shouldn't be angry AT ALL.

Ok, so what’s actually wrong with anger? What if you’re only angry over evil things in the world that a good person SHOULD be angry about? Let’s analyze that a bit.

The root of anger is a very primitive fighting response. It is the body’s way of preparing to defend ourselves against immediate threats to our body. It causes a surge of hormones in the body, such as epinephrine, cortisol, adrenaline and noradrenaline. These are responses to threats or danger. Depending on the threat, our disposition, our other hormonal levels, etc – this hormonal/emotional response may motivate us to fight, or to flee. We may experience fear, or anger. They are simply the two sides of the same coin – the physiological response to a threat. Their purpose is to help us to run fast… or to hit hard. In natural conditions, they are also momentary. They make brief, enormous demands on the body structures and systems for the sake of survival. The body recovers from these demands when the fight or flight is over, in the relaxation response.

These physiological responses are probably still useful, but in an increasingly limited set of circumstances. Most of us may be in a “fight for your life” situation once or twice in a lifetime. Those who are in such situations often, such as soldiers or police, learn to control their anger. While rage may help get an ordinary person survive an extreme physical conflict – in the long run it interferes with a trained, calculated response to aggression, such as a soldier or police generally needs to employ.

Unfortunately, we have a problem – the ego. Our egoic mind constructs an elaborate mental image of ourselves. And it will trigger the body’s emotional fear/anger/stress mechanisms if it perceives any threat to our elaborate self-concept. This self concept includes our imagined status, our self-appointed roles, our country, our religion, etc. This is how thousands of Muslims can find themselves in a screaming, raging hormonal stew – fully prepared by their biology to immediately defend themselves against a rogue mastodon … over an old Pope quoting some obscure Byzantine emperor from a podium.

And since the ego spends more time in the imaginary past and present than in the here and now, the egoic threats don’t even have to be actually present. We can simmer over past wrongs that are no longer a threat. We can fume over possible events in the future that may not even happen. And 99 percent of these simmerings and fumings will be about things that are no direct threat to our actual physical person at all.

Because our ego is so large and complex, and because the combination of all imagined past and imagined future pseudo-threats is so numerous – many of us spend most of our lives in a state of – if not actual anger – at least borderline fear and stress. As a result, the enormous stress demands we make on the body – which are supposed to be momentary, become chronic. And chronically high levels of fear, anger and stress hormones are catastrophic to our health. They can cause high blood pressure, impair thyroid function, and disrupt our blood sugar levels (leading to obesity or possibly diabetes). They cause impaired mental function, decreased bone density, impaired immune system. They contribute to cancer, heart disease, stroke… sound familiar? The spigot of hormones, intended to save you from immediate physical danger will, if left running, KILL you.

So is there an appropriate time for anger? Yes. When you or someone you are responsible for is in mortal peril. And that’s about it. So if you really want to believe that Jesus says only someone who is angry with his brother WITHOUT CAUSE is in danger of judgement – fine, but realize that the only proper CAUSE for anger is that your brother is running toward you with a weapon threatening to kill you. If you insist on living in perpetual anger – realize that you are in danger of judgment. If nothing else, it will be the judgment of your body, which will collapse under the strain of trying to support the need to defend your own ego.

Related posts

• Sermon on Worry (0)
• More questions on Home Temple… (1)
• Evil and the Hierarchy of Being (0)
• Angry Without Cause? (0)
• Why Be a Mystic? (0)

I recently ran across a “King James Only” sort who complained that one example of the evil of modern translations was the removal of the words “without cause” from Matthew 5:22. In doing so (this individual thought) these translators were trying to deprive us of our right to be righteously angry.

[img_assist|nid=125|title=Anger Management|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=83]Purely as an illustration for others, and not because I think this person will actually pay attention to a word I say, let me comment on Matt:5:22, which reads in part (in the King James)

Mt 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment”

Before getting into the texts, let’s notice how very UN-helpful this bit of advice is. Was there ever a violent, angry, abusive person who didn’t think they had a very good CAUSE for being angry? Many of them even manage to get their victims to enable their anger by brainwashing them into believing that they somehow had it coming – that they DESERVED the abuse. Speaking as a formally trained theologian let me simply remark… this is cow dung.

Interestingly, many of the newer versions of the Bible, the ones to which some of the idolitors of the King James so angrily object – word it as follows:

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court” (NASB)

“But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial.” (CEV)

“But now I tell you: whoever is angry with his brother will be brought to trial” (TEV)

“But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” (RSV)

“But, I, say unto you, that, every one who is angry with his brother, shall be, liable, to judgment” (Rotherham)

“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment” (NIV)

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be in danger of being judged” (BBE)

 “But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment” (Holman)

“But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” (ASV)

 “But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Douay)

None of these, you will notice, uses that phrase “without cause”. Some of these, by the way, are hardly new. The Douay is almost as old as the King James. The RSV has my personal endorsement as being generally the most precisely translated version. There are a few slightly newer version which follow the KJV text on this one, such as Youngs, Darby, and versions of the KJV such as the NKJV.

Why do so many modern versions omit this phrase? Is it because they are satanically perverting the Word of God. Please…. It’s because a lot of the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament don’t’ have this phrase. The phrase wasn’t taken out by satanic conspirators. It was added in by scribes who just couldn’t imagine not having an excuse to get angry. This particular issue is not a new one at all. Scholars have been aware of the alternate reading for centuries. For example:

 "The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa.[without cause]" (Augustine of Hippo – Retractions i.19.4)

“Some codices add without cause. However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether.” (Jerome on Matthew)

 Erasmus, the very scholar who PRODUCED the compiled Greek edition that the King James scholars used for their translation, noted that we must continually improve our scholarship by using the best manuscripts:

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

Yes, isn’t it ironic that Erasmus and the scholars who produced the King James were accused of doing the very same kind of tampering with scripture that current idolators of the King James accuse modern translators of doing.

There are, of course, hundreds of manuscripts of the New Testament. Many of the later manuscripts are grouped into regional “families” of texts, which tend to agree with one and other. In this case, the text family known as “Byzantine” as well as two famous codexes Bezae and Washingtonienus, include the phrase “without cause”. The two codexes are 4th to 5th century, and most of the Byzantine texts are much later.

By contrast, omitting the phrase is supported by the texts of codex Sinaitucus and Vaticanus (of the Alexandrian family), dated to the 4th century. This is supported by the remarkably early papayrus fragment P67, which dates to 200 CE and contains Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.

In this case, removing “without cause” seems justified because the earliest manuscripts (in one case dramatically early) support removing it. It was very likely NOT in the original manuscript, and by retaining it, we would only perpetuate a scribal error or insertion. However, nearly every manuscript that omits the words has a footnote indicating that some manuscripts include “without cause”.

Jesus didn’t say it folks. Are you going to adjust your thinking to conform with what Jesus said, or adjust what Jesus said to conform with how you’d prefer to behave?

Related posts

• The Salvation of Non-Christians (0)
• The Life and Times of Satan (1)
• The Beatitudes and the Kingdom (0)
• Sermon on Worry (0)
• More questions on Home Temple… (1)

In the process of looking up a few universalist writings, I ran into a very interesting bit of writing from a liberal Quaker. First, a recap of a few universalist ideas:

The basic argument for universalism is quite simple and powerful – Human beings are finite. Because they are finite, they are only capable of finite good and finite evil. To suffer in hell eternally would be an INFINITE punishment. Since God is just, he could never insist on or even allow an infinite punishment for a finite evil. To do so would be infinitely unjust.

Traditional Christianity responds by making the concept of hell a bit more sophisticated. God is not throwing us into hell or keeping us there. We reject God, and that rejection IS hell. God cannot interfere with our freedom, and so we are free to continue to reject God and remain in hell forever.

Now I quote from the Quakers:

“I had rejected the image of a wrathful, powerful God anxious to punish the wicked in the fires of hell, but I was left with a benevolent but feeble God who had no choice but to destroy the ones he loved. Hell was another Holocaust, where once again millions would be thrown into the furnaces while God stood by powerless and defeated. When confronted with the inconsistency of an all-powerful God incapable of accomplishing his desire, I drew a careful distinction between what God wanted to do and what God was able to do. God was not free.”

“I defended our freedom to reject God–but denied God’s freedom to reject our rejection. Acknowledged that God can have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and compassion on whom he will have compassion, but I quickly defined the persons and situations in which God could be merciful and compassionate. My God was shackled, powerless to act.”

“This shackled God was not the God of Jesus.”

(From If Grace Be True: Why God Will Save Every Person. Philip Gulley & James Mulholland.)

This idea that God is free to reject our rejection of him also works into their view of the crucifixion. Quoting again:

“Calvary was not the fulfillment of a divine plan. It was not the final installment on a cosmic debt. It was not necessary to satisfy some bloodthirsty deity. The crucifixion was the cost of proclaiming grace. The more insistent Jesus was on God’s grace, the more likely was his eventual death on the cross. His death was a human act rather than a divine sign. People, not God, demanded his crucifixion."

“God did something glorious in Jesus. His resurrection settled once and for all the question of God’s attitude toward his children. God has determined to love and redeem. In the crucifixion we said no to God, but in the resurrection God rejected our rejection. This is the triumph of grace”

I found this point of view quite refreshing.

Found at: http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue-9-gulley-02.htm

Related posts

• Evil and the Hierarchy of Being (0)
• Anti-Intellectualism (0)
• The Middle Word (8)
• The Latest Questions (0)
• The Body of Jesus? (0)

There are many many different lists of archangels and their corresponding associations. Here is a list of archangels used by Doreen Virtue in her angel work, together with their correspondig gemstones:

Jeremiel amethyst

Raphael emerald or malachite

Chamuel greel fluorite

Uriel amber

Metatron watermelon tourmaline

Zadkiel lapis lazuli

Raguel aquamarine

Raziel clear quartz

Jophiel pink rubelite (or other dark pink crystal)

Azrael calcite

Ariel rose quartz

Gabriel citrine (or copper)

Michael sugalite

Sandalphon turquoise

Haniel moonstone

Yes, that seems to add up to 15, which isn't a number I'm familiar with, but when working with angels, expect a lot of variation in the information.

Related posts

• Victory Over Self (0)
• The Life and Times of Satan (1)
• The Latest Home Temple Questions (1)
• States of Consciousness (0)
• More questions on Home Temple… (1)

>1. What are the seven spirits of God?

Actually, there is some disagreement about that. The Home Temple uses the menorah, not because there are any specific spirits that are invoked, but because of its association with temple Judaism. However, there is some indication in scripture that the temple menorah was associated with “the seven spirits of God” Revelation 4:5 "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God." Since the temple menorah had seven lamps, this seems like a reasonable association. As to what the “seen spirits of God” actually ARE, speculation abounds. They may be seven aspects of the Holy Spirit (See Isaiah 11:2) or seven archangels, or seraphim or cherubim. Or they may represent the seven (anciently known) planets. Or all of the above. For example, they could represent angels who also govern planetary bodies who are also associated with specific aspects of God's spirit. If anyone has the definitive answer, I don't know it yet.

>2. Do the three bases of the menorah have the same symbolic meaning as the three candlestands in a Masonic Lodge?

Unfortunately, I was careless with the preceding answer. There are FOUR bases on the stand and FOUR kabbalistic worlds. So the answer would be no. However, for the record, Bishop Kiezer is active in a modified and synthesized form of Masonry called Pansophic Freemasonry which is open to both genders. I know little about it and have not yet participated in it. I only say this only to make it clear that I don't expect he'd be in the least adverse to appealing to Masonic symbolism if the occasion warranted.

>3. How does Jesus Christ fit into the Shema Israel?

He's not specifically mentioned in that particular prayer. “Hear oh Israel – the LORD thy God, the LORD is one” For that matter, he's not mentioned specifically in the Lords Prayer. But he's clearly central to the Liturgy.

>4. In re your description of the resonators of the power of the ritual, is this what is meant by vibrations?

I don't think I actually used that word. I said: “An emphasis is placed on the musical tones and specific sounds intoned, as these are believed to be important resonators of the power of the ritual” What I meant is that specific musical tones and vocal sounds are believed to have various spiritual effects which augment the other spiritual benefits of the Mass. This is a rather complex field in which I am only a neophyte. I hope to improve my knowledge of it.

 >5. Do you ever actually hear a voice or voices at your liturgy, or is everything that takes place interior?

No, I haven't. The only time I've quite distinctly heard an actual disembodied voice, that I recall, was during a morning family devotional. We were quite throughly Roman Catholic at the time, and several of us heard a rather resonant “Amen” after the Fatima prayers during the Rosary. It was a bit startling. I've often had inner impressions of various sorts during prayers and liturgies, but except for that occasion nothing on the physical plane.

>6. Is the nacham a ritual of Judaism from the Kabbalah or from the time of Christ?

 I'm afraid I don't know if the gesture itself is ancient or recent. “Nacham”in Hebrew indicates repentance or submission to God. The right arm (representing the ego or lower self) is placed across the chest touching the left shoulder, and covered by the left arm touching the right shoulder while making a slight bow. This indicates the submission of our personal will to that of God. I'm told by several from the Eastern Rite that this is how they receive communion – which is ironic, as it is the gesture adopted by the modern Western Rite to indicate “I'm not receiving communion, just give me a blessing”.

>7. Your understanding of the nature of sacraments is actually much better than the understanding a lot of Catholics hold, though it is the same understanding that is taught in our catechism.

Thank you.

>8. According to Gershom Scholem, I believe Merkabah mysticism was being taught at the time Christ walked the earth. Kabbalah, however, is from the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church condemned the mysticism borrowed from the Kabbalah.

Traditional Jewish practitioners, of course, believe the concepts of the Kabbalah date back to Adam, but it certainly didn't exist in present form till the middle ages. On re-reading, I see how my sentence on this was confusing. Jesus, the early Jewish mystics, and the early Jewish Gnostics had access to a body of mystical teaching which by that time was called Merkabah, and which only later became the seed for the more extensive concepts of Kabbalah. Although the Roman Catholic condemnations don't persuade me, as I find many Kabbalistic concepts very helpful and profound, I'd be interested in reading them.

>9. Are ascended masters what Catholics call saints?

The concept is similar and there is probably some overlap in the groups, but ascended masters are primarily those of various esoteric traditions who are believed to have achieved great spiritual progress and enlightenment, and who guide and help humanity. The concept is, I believe, primarily a Rosicrucian/Theosophical one.

>10. What is the difference between theurgy and magic?

As I understand it, Theurgy is the work of using instruments or vehicles of divine power to achieve divine purposes – particularly union with God. Some esotericists would describe the Mass as an example of Theurgy. Magic tends to indicate that the instruments, vehicles and purposes of the operation may be less than divine in some way. Some would say that Theurgy is always under the umbrella of “Thy will be done”, whereas magic is more of a direct imposition of the human will. However, at some levels it is more difficult to distinguish the two, as the Higher Self is an expression of the divine.

>11. I have downloaded and printed Dr. Keizer's book on Wandering Bishops. In there he refers to C. W. Leadbeater as a saint. I'm sure you know that he had some difficulties with a young boy, or with several young boys, depending upon the source of reference. Yet Dr. Keizer has labeled Leadbeater a saint in the book. While it is true that we have had bad popes, we have not canonized them.

Actually, I only recently became aware of Leadbeater, and about the accusations against him I only know what I could quickly Google. Leadbeater is by no means a “saint” in the sense of having passed through a complex canonical process proving his heroic virtue – having his own feast day – being mentioned in the prayers of the Mass – being invoked for intercessory prayer, etc. No such process exists for the Independent movement. As far as I can tell, Kiezer uses this term informally and generally meaning “mystic” – someone advanced in esoteric knowledge and ability. Leadbeater certainly was this. However, Bishop Keizer only labels Leadbeater a “saint” in one of the photos, and in the text says that he was “…more scientist than saint”. If the worst of the accusations against him are correct (and I have no way of knowing that they are) then he certainly should not be regarded as heroically virtuous. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't canonize the Borgia, but there have certainly been several individuals who have not made it through the process (or partially through the process) without considerable opposition and accusation. I'm sure you can think of a couple names.

>.12. Have many Catholics joined the Home Temple Movement? Have former Catholic priests joined the Home Temple Movement?

I know of some Catholics that have joined. I know of several people who were ordained in other jurisdictions and denominations who have joined, but I'm not directly aware of any Catholic priests. But as I said, this is a small, home-church movement, and I don't know the exact number who consider themselves affiliated.

Related posts

• More questions on Home Temple… (1)
• About The Church of the Holy Archangels (0)
• About the Church of the Holy Archangels (0)
• So What is a Christian (2)
• Elementals and Other Beings (0)