sorry about all the typos in that message, but I wanted to get it sent. Implicit in the rundown, but I think needing to be pointed out, is that this 'blood sacrifice' needed to be a human sacrifice, a barbarism from an even earlier period in Jewish tribal history.

Even more outrageous to me is that people have killed each other in the centuries following arguing over whether or not the wafer & wine are symbols of the body and blood or are the actual body and blood. And if they are the actual body and blood as the Roman Catholic church teaches then that means that every time a mass is said anywhere in the world Jesus suffers again the sacrifice of his life for our sins. My questions have always been how much does he suffer during the consecration of the host? 3 hours compressed into the 3 bell rings? the scourging through the spear in the side? just the last breath? and why would this be necessary?

Joe Offer above mentioned the 'Way' of Christianity. I would argue that there is no 'Way' of Christianity. A 'Way, a 'tao' is a philosophy of life. Christianity is a religion. A religion is a set of rules instituted by an all powerful dictator that must be obeyed. That's what all religions are. If you buy into them, you get the handbook of rules and regs and try to behave accordingly, with a final binding judgement at the end, and punishment & reward meted out impartially. I don't see the need for or the inherent truth of these systems.

The further theological questions are just as troubling. In the Christian system now that Jesus has ascended into heaven he is to come again as the judge. But he is not going to judge us on how well or badly we followed HIS teaching, but as a surrogate for his father he is going to judge us on the old testament commandments, did we honor our father and mother, covet our neighbors ass (or his wife's ass!) etc. That's what this whole crucifixion thing was for? That's why he suffers with each consecrated host, to intercede with his father for us who have strayed from the rulebook? does an all powerful god really need to go through these charades? I could go on but there are so many inconsistencies and absurdities that it seems unnecessary to go any further.

Let me say in general terms, it seems to me in studying religions that gods and goddesses have always been metaphors embodying natural forces that are beyond the control or understanding of humans. They are ultimately irrelevant to our lives, but perhaps reassuring to the more easily frightened among us. There is little difference in the teachings of modern science; we are asked to believe in muons, psions, quarks, etc. which can't actually be seen or experienced, but leave traces of their existence in relation to other particles. We see that some disturbance has occurred and we assume that some even smaller particle has been here and moved on. It may or may not be so, in a way that's a bit more believable than that there is a god whose eye is on the sparrow but who lets children suffer and die, but ultimately these scientific beliefs, and even if they are fact, are just as irrelevant and useless as the gods in regards to how we live our lives and interact with other people we come in contact with. The animal human heart wants what it wants. We can defer satisfaction of these desires for later. Does that make the fulfillment of these desires sweeter, more satisfying because gratification was delayed? Not necessarily. Or we can use our will power to suppress desire to severe restriction, live a life of complete self-denial. But why? For the ultimate satisfaction of these desires in a mythical Elysium? good luck to you.

And real social questions arise out of these beliefs. Why are our jails full of people whose only crime is self medication, except that the religious among us belief that drugs are proscribed on the list of rules that must be obeyed? Says who? Plants that grow are not to be used for medicines? only pharmaceutical companies are to be trusted to handle these substances ethically? these and many more questions are left unasked and unanswered, and actual peoples lives are sacrificed because they may not agree with someone's religious beliefs in these matters. That coouldn't in a secular democracy, one might say, but it's our reality just the same. Our lives are not much different from that of Iranians under the Mullahs, maybe just a matter of degrees. (and I rarely take anything but aspirin now and again, BTW, I'm not an advocate for drug taking, but it is a personal choice, not a moral one)

There is only one reason that we don't still live in the Eden of our myths, and that is because we choose not to accept the responsibility to do so, we will not share our resources with our neighbors, we allow people no more capable or infallible than ourselves the powers to lead us in directions contrary to our own self interests and happiness. I don't make the claim, as some have inferred from my earlier posting, and my statements here may imply to some, that the individual is supreme. On the contrary, the individual only exists within a society of other individuals who all contribute to his or her support in various ways. The philosophies, the ways, of the Tao, the Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, etc. all allow for a full and happy life enriched by each individual to the extent that they work to know themselves and develop their capacity for compassion and love, and with no rules to follow that if broken can't be mended by more mindfullness and self discovery. The reward for knowing oneself and living with others in caring ways is a happy, fulfilled life, where one is cared for as well by others in turn. That does not mean life isn't hard, even cruel sometimes, but we can work with one another to make it more pleasant, (like creating and maintaining Mudcat for example!), more just, more equitable. Does man's unalienable right to life mean only the right to the merest existence, sucking air in some hovel with nothing to eat, no clean water to drink, an accident of birth determining their circumstances and only gods to be petitioned for help? I don't think so, and each of us, in their own way, does what he or she can to make life more bearable for someone they know. That's all that's necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to extend our sphere of caring just a bit more. That's all I have to say on the matter (at least for now, I'm not shy about expressing my opinions! but I keep an open mind and look forward to more discussion)

Work for peace, and my wishes for peace and health and love to you all, but not prayers. This could be better expressed, I know, and I offer my apologies for rambling on.