Christianity

[Apech]

Why is Christianity such a strange religion?  

 

When you are confronted by it there are several things you are expected to accept:

 

- there is a supreme being who created the universe

- this being impregnated a virgin 

- the child grew up to perform miracles and so on

- he was crucified, died and then rose from the dead

 

Now, other religions have people who perform miracles (siddhis) and so on.  And some have creator Gods also.  But if you approach these religions and ask about siddhis and so on - the usual response will be 'forget about it, its not important'.

 

But with Christianity it is central that not only these things happened but you believe that they did.  You have to accept.  

 

These factual assertions provoke questioning.  Because they are given as facts then they require proof.  Can a virgin get pregnant without having sex with a man?  Can a man perform miracles?  Can someone rise from the dead?  It flies in the face of our normal experience.  Hence the opposing position - atheism which refutes all these things, mostly on the basis that they are outside the experience of all of us.  We have never witnessed any of these things.  So why would we believe them?

 

You don't get anything called Abuddhism, or Adaoism ... why?  Because although there are many people who are not Buddhist or Daoist the upfront claims made by Buddhism and Daoism do not provoke refutation.  Whether or not there was a historical Buddha is actually unimportant to the dharma - as with Lao Tzu ... they do not hinge on stated historical facts in the way Christianity does.

 

?

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Can a virgin get pregnant without having sex with a man?

 

Parthenogenesis, aka asexual reproduction, aka immaculate conception, does occur in nature, although seldom in vertebrate species.    In humans (as well as other primates), it also happens on occasion, but in every single case results in a tumor rather than a god.  Theoretically it might be possible to accomplish via genetic manipulations, except the resulting organism could only be female and the exact replica of the mother at that.  If some geneticists from some "kingdom not of this earth" were to induce it in virgin Mary, the child would have been a little virgin Mary all over again.  Although if all the genetic material from a man's spermatozoon were to be implanted artificially into Mary's egg, perhaps that would also count as immaculate conception, since artificial insemination happens outside the sinful act.  In which case the baby had a 50% chance of being male.  I have long suspected some extraneous genetic shenanigans with our species -- not because of Christian stories, chiefly for other reasons, but some of those stories do start making some sense if you allow for this possibility -- and only in this case.

 

 

  

[Gerard]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Why is Christianity such a strange religion?  

WHY ARE ALL RELIGIONS SO STRANGE?

 

Who needs them anyway.
 

Edit: About Christianity and the ultimate God which seems is like some sort of "dude" sitting somewhere on top of us watching everything. This creates a lot of fear.

 

A person who doesn't believe in Christ will go to Hell. Yes indeed! 
 

A very flawed belief system, for sure. 

 

 

Edited May 16 by Gerard

[Miffymog]

I use it as a simple way to access spiritual energy. Seek god first, then carry on with whatever I'm doing.

[Taoist Texts]

8 hours ago, Apech said:

We have never witnessed any of these things.  So why would we believe them?

Because all humans are born with "a soul". A soul is a part of our mind that innately knows these things. This innate  knowledge is  called "a religious belief". Humans connected to their souls are called "believers". Humans disconnected from their souls are called "atheists". Humans trying to reconnect to their souls are called 'thedaobums.com forumers".

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Parthenogenesis, aka asexual reproduction, aka immaculate conception, does occur in nature, although seldom in vertebrate species.    In humans (as well as other primates), it also happens on occasion, but in every single case results in a tumor rather than a god.  Theoretically it might be possible to accomplish via genetic manipulations, except the resulting organism could only be female and the exact replica of the mother at that.  If some geneticists from some "kingdom not of this earth" were to induce it in virgin Mary, the child would have been a little virgin Mary all over again.  Although if all the genetic material from a man's spermatozoon were to be implanted artificially into Mary's egg, perhaps that would also count as immaculate conception, since artificial insemination happens outside the sinful act.  In which case the baby had a 50% chance of being male.  I have long suspected some extraneous genetic shenanigans with our species -- not because of Christian stories, chiefly for other reasons, but some of those stories do start making some sense if you allow for this possibility -- and only in this case.

 

 

  

 

I believe that technically the 'immaculate conception' is the conception of Mary by her parents who made love without lustful sinning in a perfect copulation.  Because Mary was born of a pure conception it was this that made her a fitting vessel for the holy spirit.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

 

... but I guess it may also apply to the conception of Jesus by Mary (I am no theologian (thank God)).

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

Because all humans are born with "a soul". A soul is a part of our mind that innately knows these things. This innate  knowledge is  called "a religious belief". Humans connected to their souls are called "believers". Humans disconnected from their souls are called "atheists". Humans trying to reconnect to their souls are called 'thedaobums.com forumers".

 

Yes Mr. Texts you are right ... but ... you may have missed my point.  Other religions don't put this kind of miraculous stuff up front and in yer face the way Christianity does.  In doing so it requires of an enquirer an act of faith rather than a gradual growth of confidence which another system will allow.  And actually there are probably a great many cultural Christians who are not connected to their souls also.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Miffymog said:

I use it as a simple way to access spiritual energy. Seek god first, then carry on with whatever I'm doing.

 

 

Seek yea first the kingdom of heaven and all else will be added unto you.

[Apech]

8 hours ago, Gerard said:

WHY ARE ALL RELIGIONS SO STRANGE?

 

Who needs them anyway.
 

Edit: About Christianity and the ultimate God which seems is like some sort of "dude" sitting somewhere on top of us watching everything. This creates a lot of fear.

 

A person who doesn't believe in Christ will go to Hell. Yes indeed! 
 

A very flawed belief system, for sure. 

 

 

 

I don't think any Christian thinks about God in that way (beyond Sunday school that is) - as they say to many atheists 'the God you don't believe in doesn't exist'.

 

Just as an aside ... although I realise that Christianity originated in the Middle East and from the Jewish religion ... I find there is something quite Northern European about it.  I am sure that nature of divinity and jesus was somehow morphed sometime after the fall of the Roman Empire to appeal to the Germanic tribes especially the Franks.  For instance:

 

'Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name'

 

God is the Father and where is he? In Heaven - which in many languages just means sky.  So God is the Sky Father and his name is Hallowed ... a word which echoes for me something like Valhalla ... i.e. his name is in an exalted place.  Yes, yes I know this is spurious etymology - don't @ me!  God the Father is Deu Pater = Jupiter = Zeus ... it's all Indo-European imagery.

 

'Thy kingdom come, thy will be done'

 

Fealty to the Lord ... a feudal state of the soul.  

 

'On earth as it is in heaven'

 

The uniting of heaven and earth. (via a great tree on which the god is hung?)

 

Edited May 16 by Apech

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

you may have missed my point.  Other religions don't put this kind of miraculous stuff up front and in yer face the way Christianity does.  In doing so it requires of an enquirer an act of faith rather than a gradual growth of confidence which another system will allow.  And actually there are probably a great many cultural Christians who are not connected to their souls also.

no no, i totally got your point. i just  disagree with it, what a surprise huh

Quote

Other religions don't put this kind of miraculous stuff up front and in yer face

you are absolutely correct  in a sense that the modern euhemerized western simulacra of those religions are exactly like that.

12 hours ago, Apech said:

Whether or not there was a historical Buddha is actually unimportant to the dharma - as with Lao Tzu ... they do not hinge on stated historical facts in the way Christianity does.

i see what you did there. you substituted religion with "dharma".  i am not sure what dharma is.

but for a religious believer in buddhism=daoism the historicity and miracles are all-important. (i know because i am one of them).   For us, what is the point of a religion without a savior (who by definition is a miracle-maker)?  None, thats why there is no such religion.

Edited May 16 by Taoist Texts

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

no no, i totally got your point. i just totally disagree with each and every claim of it above;)

sorry man but this POV ...uhm lets just say, has a room for improvement. on the other hand you are absolutely correct : the euhemerized western simulacra of those religions are exactly like that.

i see what you did here. you change the subject. you substitute religion with "dharma". (red-herr-stra-man). so sly! hehe, but...Tell a religious believer in buddhism=daoism that the historicity and miracles are unimportant - he will do 'roll-eye shake-head'. i know he would, because i am him. and i just did;)

it gladdened me to think you are a religious person - I had assumed you were a hard bitten textual critic - perhaps it was your name.

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Because all humans are born with "a soul". A soul is a part of our mind that innately knows these things. This innate  knowledge is  called "a religious belief". Humans connected to their souls are called "believers". Humans disconnected from their souls are called "atheists". Humans trying to reconnect to their souls are called 'thedaobums.com forumers".

 

I seem to recall that many versions of the Christian doctrine were based on the assumption that "heathen" and "barbarians" don't have a soul, and that they get a chance to acquire one if they accept Jesus as their savior.  Some went farther -- I'm not someone who has all the references on hand for all occasions (to my chagrin), but I read a medieval treatise titled "Is Woman Human?" with my own eyes, and it proved with multiple biblical quotes that she isn't, and therefore, while "all humans" have a soul, this only implies all male humans.

  

Also, if these things are innate knowledge, why study them in a Sunday school?  I was born in a country where for 70 years atheism was the state policy, so I first had a chance to read the Bible (smuggled from the US) when I was 20 or so, and most of it was news to me.  Perhaps because I'm a woman and didn't have the innate knowledge due to gender-specific lack of a soul?  

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

a religious person - I had assumed you were a hard bitten textual critic

i am both, no conflict there;)

2 hours ago, Apech said:

that Christianity originated in the Middle East and from the Jewish religion ... I find there is something quite Northern European about it.

i subscribe to a theory that Christianity is European in origin since all its tenets (as opposed to the verbiage) are European-pagan ones, nothing from Torah. the Jews just provided the technical documentation and a dealership support for that product, so to speak.

15 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

I seem to recall that many versions of the Christian doctrine

of course, but a doctrine is not a reality, there are many schizo doctrines

17 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Also, if these things are innate knowledge, why study them in a Sunday school?

oh those congregations are essentially for joyfully getting in touch with the inner knowledge (same as religious liturgies), the actual verbiage they recite is unimportant

19 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Perhaps because I'm a woman and didn't have the innate knowledge due to gender-specific lack of a soul?  

nah, gender is just a social construct hehe;)

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

oh those congregations are essentially for joyfully getting in touch with the inner knowledge (same as religious liturgies), the actual verbiage they recite is unimportant

 

I didn't know that.  So if I were to show up and recite La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasool Allah, no one would bat an eye?  Even though it means there's no god but Allah (and Muhammad is his prophet)? 

 

There's currently 2 billion people on Earth who believe that and only that.  What happened to their innate knowledge about the other guy?        

[Taomeow]

I'm not a fan of "Dune," I found the book rather tastelessly pompous and essentially boring, the movie version even more so (I only watched the first of the new ones), but there was this one concept therein, a pearl in a box of pearl barley, regarding Bene Gesserit.  A powerful ancient order busying itself with political, genetic and religious engineering of planets toward their own agenda.  The fact that in the book it was a "sisterhood" instead of the "brotherhood" it's always been in real life is a fly in the ointment, but other than that, this concept, of something akin to Bene Gesserit as the actual shaping force behind our planet's predicament, makes more sense to me than all religions combined.       

 

[old3bob]

 

all the more or less standard and also countless other interpretations, commentaries, comparisons, thousands of years of history , heavily co-opted and dubious forms, etc. for Christianity  (some of which i would not touch with a ten foot pole)  can drive a person nuts in trying figure things out by only using those...so what is soul supposed to do?  Same as with most religions use some of its principals that spiritually point to reasonable and heartfelt truths or are wise to you which can be studied and personally verified by various means, thus we can't go by just second hand means or what a well meaning or ill meaning fanatic in sheep's clothing might say.

 

I count myself fortunate in that Master Jesus revealed himself to me as the great GOLDEN being that he is!

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

What happened to their innate knowledge about the other guy?        

there is no other guy, it is the same guy, and IT is not even a guy. poor mortals are killing each other over the verbiage.

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

So if I were to show up and recite La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasool Allah, no one would bat an eye?  Even though it means there's no god but Allah (and Muhammad is his prophet)? 

does not matter if they would, does not matter what it means. they are mere mortals unaware of the  complete reality (quanzhen), but still hearkening to the distant warble of their souls. lets not mistake what they say with what prompts them to say it.

38 minutes ago, old3bob said:

we can't go by just second hand means or what a well meaning or ill meaning fanatic in sheep's clothing might say.

very well said there Bob!

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

A powerful ancient order busying itself with political, genetic and religious engineering of planets toward their own agenda. 

excellent. now the next step is ask yourself: who engineered the engineers?

[Taomeow]

8 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

excellent. now the next step is ask yourself: who engineered the engineers?

 

I'm a taoist.  The Great Mother, of course.  And what did she engineer those scoundrels for one might ask?  She sort of didn't, she merely allowed for their appearance because she engineered Yi, irregular stochastic variations and changes.  Which physicists have a vague idea about being one of the fundamental blocks of creation having something to do with probability theory and the uncertainty principle.  20% uncertainty is engineered into everything. 

 

Why did she not make it all good and regular and precise and predictable?  Because it's a live thing, not a machine.  An eternal ever-predictable machine would have been the most boring arrangement one could imagine.  Live things can't be fully predictable, one has to allow for irregularity, variety, surprise, perhaps even miracles...  probabilistic events, processes and entities.  So in order for it all to be alive, the Great Mother was bound to allow for some really bad apples among her countless children.  Some call them demiurges.  I suspect they might be the engineers responsible for our very own project...  ahem...  world.  Just our stochastic luck I guess.    

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

I'm not a fan of "Dune," I found the book rather tastelessly pompous and essentially boring, the movie version even more so (I only watched the first of the new ones), but there was this one concept therein, a pearl in a box of pearl barley, regarding Bene Gesserit.  A powerful ancient order busying itself with political, genetic and religious engineering of planets toward their own agenda.  The fact that in the book it was a "sisterhood" instead of the "brotherhood" it's always been in real life is a fly in the ointment, but other than that, this concept, of something akin to Bene Gesserit as the actual shaping force behind our planet's predicament, makes more sense to me than all religions combined.       

 

 

The second film is one long yawn.

[Apech]

I was brought up in a country which had an established state religion (the Church of England based on the moral compass of Henry VIII) and as my parents were both atheists the only place I received any religious instruction was at school.  The only mandatory event at school in those days was the daily school assembly where the whole school gathered in the hall while the headmaster read out Bible stories such as the one where a woman touches the hem of His garment and is healed, or when they lower a man on a mattress through the roof to be healed. 'Pick up your bed and walk'.  I used to sit (aged 7 -11) in rapt attention and usually with a lump in my throat and close to tears.  Being somewhat tunnel vision autistic I never realised the general scorn amongst my schoolmates.  My best friend was Jewish and thus excused, so I never got to discuss it with him.  But for me the very thought of the transcendent was deeply moving.  I think I loved Jesus in those days.  But it was an unexpressed love.  My father of course just scowled at anything even vaguely religious.    

[Taoist Texts]

54 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

So in order for it all to be alive, the Great Mother was bound to allow for some really bad apples among her countless children.  Some call them demiurges.  I suspect they might be the engineers responsible for our very own project...  ahem...  world

Gnosticism;)

[silent thunder]

It is a strange presentation of the cosmos to me, christianity.  When refined to its most basic tenets, it is utterly unacceptible on its own merits and claims.

 

At its core, it demands belief and faith without any hint of exemplification in life.

 

Atop that is the demand to act out this belief through the ritualized, symbolic re-enactment of cannabalistic consumption of flesh and drinking of blood, which is such a whopper to me and always was, from the moment of its introduction to me in Sunday school as a little one.  I remember blurting out... "you mean we drink blood like Vampires!?!?!?|"

 

Compounded upon that is the seeming fact that the consumption rite/eucharist is the same old testament ritualized process of sacrifice of life, for atonement, no matter that it is symbolic and the spirit of christ.  Symbolic action is the language of sub-consciousness to participation in that act socially is no less impacting to the psyche and sub-conscious than if it were actualized. 

 

My discomfort with the christian cosmology was rather intensely deepened and exemplified in my questions regarding the 'immaculate conception' and impregnating of Mary which was met with severe chagrin and considerable discomfort to my teacher.  The kids all seemingly perked up and were curious in my memory, though this is likely projection now.  But my query was sincere and born of an earnest desire to know the nuts and bolts of the stories I was hearing that I at first inherently took 100% on the merit of 'adults don't lie and adults know'.

 

I did not realize it consciously at the time, but in my process and trying to understand how it actually played out... was bringing to awareness the rather dark notion of the fact that Mary seemed to lack the ability to give consent to the process, due to the deliverance of the Angelic message that she had 'been chosen' by god.  Was Mary allowed to say no?  was the core of my question to my Sunday school teacher.  He was not interested in engaging it and his reaction still resonates to this day as uncommonly and potently uncomfortable for everyone there. 

 

He was the one who eventually drove me to read the bible for myself and seek answers there.  He kept dodging direct questions with the standard 'god works in mysterious ways' or 'it's his will not ours' or 'the answers are in the bible'.  So around age 13 I read the bible for myself.  Cover to cover.  Twice...  and part way through the first reading it was apparent that this world view was and would be an unsuitable platform for my awareness. 

 

Many years later after much study and some little amount of angst.  I realized the inherent problem that lay between those who shared their christian view of the world with me and why it always lay at odds at a fundamental level... was that they took the bible as literal.

 

When I reached the ability to process the book as I expect it was intended... allegorically, metaphorically, indeed in the New Testament as Christ seemingly taught  as parable... much of my former angst and tension released and some aspects of it resonate to this day with merit and relevance. 

[Taomeow]

34 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Gnosticism;)

 

Am I to be offended or flattered?  

[old3bob]

 

for those that don't mind having their mind blown in an additional ways regarding Christianity look into Mr. G,  Mr. O and the 4th way. 

(which is not very that lovey-dovey, new-agey like or of "traditional" norms if you know what I mean?)

 

Btw as Mr. G. describes it and I understood it to mean (blood and flesh) "communion" is a co-opting of certain Shamanistic methods to help or enable astral connection between teacher and students,  which I think would be a mind blower for most "traditional" Christians and for many other religions and peoples.  If I remember correctly this info. can be found  in the book, "In Search of the Miraculous"

 

Edited May 16 by old3bob

[Mark Foote]

 

 

In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity.  He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man.  Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested.  After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven.  Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's "Life of Apollonius".

("Gospel Fictions", Randel Helms, p 9)

 

I don't doubt that the man whose sayings were recorded in "The Gospel of Thomas" was a profound teacher, one of the few in the history of our civilization (if you could call it that).   If I remember correctly, there are no miracles in that gospel, and it was Thomas who stood out among the disciples, not Peter.  The kingdom of heaven was within, the deathless attainable. 

In Thomas, the deathless was attained by penetrating the meaning of the words, while in John, the deathless is available to those who "obey my words" (John 8:51).

If I understand correctly, it was Paul who came up with the notion that we're all helpless sinners who cannot do right without taking Jesus within.  Strangely enough, that's what works, for the Jesus freaks I've known who had a living faith.  

Something I'm writing now:

 

You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around. 

(Kobun Chino Otogawa, S. F. Zen Center lecture, 1980’s)
 

 

Activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness can sometimes get up and walk around, without any thought to do so. 

 

Action like that resembles action that takes place through hypnotic suggestion, but unlike action by hypnotic suggestion, action by virtue of the free location of consciousness can turn out to be timely after the fact....

 

I have found that zazen is more likely to “get up and walk around” when activity by virtue of the free location of consciousness is accompanied by an active extension of compassion, an extension beyond the boundaries of the senses.

 

 

It's that "timely after the fact" part that makes the successful Jesus freaks I've known take Jesus within and surrender their action to him.  The individual without Jesus was a helpless sinner, because the more willful the action was, the less "timely after the fact".

 

As for me:

 

I sit down first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and I look to experience the activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness.
 

Then I pray that I'll return to that experience as my circumstances require, during my daily life.

 

Edited May 16 by Mark Foote