|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2022 9:47:40 GMT -5
Certain elements of the narrative make quite a bit of sense in the context of all that's happened since, same with Jesus. Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
You can't understand the Christian view of Jesus without the context of Judaism, the history, the Old Testament/Tanakh. Of course Jews and Christians see the OT/Tanakh very differently. I lean more towards the Jewish understanding, having been raised in the Protestant/Baptist view, fundamentalist Christianity has completely missed the boat, completely. Jesus was about transformation, here, now. It's a misunderstanding to say Jesus did it for us. A better way to put it is Jesus showed us the how. All we have, the public knowledge, are the crumbs.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2022 11:33:40 GMT -5
I was referring to the historical figures of buddha and jesus, you know, the dudes? If we say they were both historical or at least legendary figures, or even merely mythical, and if they were real people they died long ago and are not coming back to save the believers, or at least there is no reason, let alone a compelling reason to believe that either of them are, then I'm down with it. Whether the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection happened are an independent question for that of whether there was a dude named Jesus who got jacked for causin' a ruckus on Pilate & Herod's watches, and that's what I was referring to. I know quite a bit less about the Buddha's story but it's a similar pattern. In each case, there's this culture that is apparently continuous since the death of the guy and based in part on his life story. I know that in JC's case there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I could share a vid if you're interested.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 11, 2022 16:43:07 GMT -5
Most people believe that there is one objective physical-reality, that resulted from one objective physical-reality, that is the basis of one objective future physical-reality. I think that this might be the main obstacle in the quest to understand the nature-of-reality.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 11, 2022 16:51:21 GMT -5
This is one informative commentary on Mary's virginity:
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 19:09:48 GMT -5
If we say they were both historical or at least legendary figures, or even merely mythical, and if they were real people they died long ago and are not coming back to save the believers, or at least there is no reason, let alone a compelling reason to believe that either of them are, then I'm down with it. Whether the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection happened are an independent question for that of whether there was a dude named Jesus who got jacked for causin' a ruckus on Pilate & Herod's watches, and that's what I was referring to. I know quite a bit less about the Buddha's story but it's a similar pattern. In each case, there's this culture that is apparently continuous since the death of the guy and based in part on his life story. I know that in JC's case there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I could share a vid if you're interested. I know I don't sound like it, but I'm not all-that narrow minded. I'm just in a spiritual forum where 'anything is possible' and nothing is inevitable. I'm more like, 'It is this way, your fate is nigh, and your avoidance is problematic'.
I think it's most likely there were real people behind the legends, but things get embellished, and even though Joe was right there, people believe Jesus was virgin born. I, like all reasoned people, think it was Joseph's baby because that's how it works. Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong.
I'm not a believer, and where I do believe things, I don't care if I turn out to be wrong, but those who say it becomes true if I believe it hard enough probably have an aversion to fate. But, still, better to have a positive outlook and not rely on your own bulldust, outlandish stories and false hope for a smidge of pretentious happiness.
As an analogy, if you do the training, you will lift the weight, and progressive success will have positive affects on the 'i can' confidence which is transferable to other areas of life. Other people like positivity. They want to be with it and will offer up opportunities. Offer something valuable to others and try to create the win-win situations. Of course you need to visualise your goals to keep a clear direction, but probably won't work unless you write it out and break it down to achievable steps, because you have to put fragments together to complete the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 11, 2022 20:52:56 GMT -5
Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong. That's an amusing thought. My mind jumps immediately to a quote like "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That could be read perfectly in either a self-inquiry interpretation or a more standard devotional interpretation. As Jesus (may have) also said: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15) It seems likely that the Jesus of the New Testament spoke in ways deliberately open to multiple layers of interpretation, where the more esoteric understandings were only comprehended by the few.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 11, 2022 21:43:31 GMT -5
Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong. That's an amusing thought. My mind jumps immediately to a quote like "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That could be read perfectly in either a self-inquiry interpretation or a more standard devotional interpretation. As Jesus (may have) also said: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15) It seems likely that the Jesus of the New Testament spoke in ways deliberately open to multiple layers of interpretation, where the more esoteric understandings were only comprehended by the few. Everything we perceive is interpretable on multiple levels, and people are distributed on a curve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 22:26:30 GMT -5
Whether the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection happened are an independent question for that of whether there was a dude named Jesus who got jacked for causin' a ruckus on Pilate & Herod's watches, and that's what I was referring to. I know quite a bit less about the Buddha's story but it's a similar pattern. In each case, there's this culture that is apparently continuous since the death of the guy and based in part on his life story. I know that in JC's case there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I could share a vid if you're interested. I know I don't sound like it, but I'm not all-that narrow minded. I'm just in a spiritual forum where 'anything is possible' and nothing is inevitable. I'm more like, 'It is this way, your fate is nigh, and your avoidance is problematic'.
I think it's most likely there were real people behind the legends, but things get embellished, and even though Joe was right there, people believe Jesus was virgin born. I, like all reasoned people, think it was Joseph's baby because that's how it works. Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong.
I'm not a believer, and where I do believe things, I don't care if I turn out to be wrong, but those who say it becomes true if I believe it hard enough probably have an aversion to fate. But, still, better to have a positive outlook and not rely on your own bulldust, outlandish stories and false hope for a smidge of pretentious happiness.
As an analogy, if you do the training, you will lift the weight, and progressive success will have positive affects on the 'i can' confidence which is transferable to other areas of life. Other people like positivity. They want to be with it and will offer up opportunities. Offer something valuable to others and try to create the win-win situations. Of course you need to visualise your goals to keep a clear direction, but probably won't work unless you write it out and break it down to achievable steps, because you have to put fragments together to complete the whole picture.
Virgin birth is a myth. Paul the very early writer(50AD) did not believe in Virgin birth. Only Luke and Matthew who have written later at 70 AD have believed the virgin birth .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 23:29:42 GMT -5
Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong. That's an amusing thought. My mind jumps immediately to a quote like "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) That could be read perfectly in either a self-inquiry interpretation or a more standard devotional interpretation. As Jesus (may have) also said: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15) It seems likely that the Jesus of the New Testament spoke in ways deliberately open to multiple layers of interpretation, where the more esoteric understandings were only comprehended by the few. Yea it's pretty much wide open, except the died for your sins and saviour thingy that makes you acceptable as a Christian. Then we have an identity issue at the heart of it where the institution and the individuals share a symbolic synergy. The other religions have the same sort of thing, but you have to admit, the Christian God man saviour thing is kinda whacky. The Jews seem to have a reasonable thing going on, but I don't know much about it, and I'm just ever so slightly anti-sematic because of Ben Shapiro.
My opinion is, the people that wrote the NT deliberately made it ambiguous so they could manipulate people into following their nonsense and lead them to slaughter a bunch of Greeks and stuff so they could claim power over all the lands, Good strategy, It worked.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 23:50:12 GMT -5
I know I don't sound like it, but I'm not all-that narrow minded. I'm just in a spiritual forum where 'anything is possible' and nothing is inevitable. I'm more like, 'It is this way, your fate is nigh, and your avoidance is problematic'.
I think it's most likely there were real people behind the legends, but things get embellished, and even though Joe was right there, people believe Jesus was virgin born. I, like all reasoned people, think it was Joseph's baby because that's how it works. Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong.
I'm not a believer, and where I do believe things, I don't care if I turn out to be wrong, but those who say it becomes true if I believe it hard enough probably have an aversion to fate. But, still, better to have a positive outlook and not rely on your own bulldust, outlandish stories and false hope for a smidge of pretentious happiness.
As an analogy, if you do the training, you will lift the weight, and progressive success will have positive affects on the 'i can' confidence which is transferable to other areas of life. Other people like positivity. They want to be with it and will offer up opportunities. Offer something valuable to others and try to create the win-win situations. Of course you need to visualise your goals to keep a clear direction, but probably won't work unless you write it out and break it down to achievable steps, because you have to put fragments together to complete the whole picture.
Virgin birth is a myth. Paul the very early writer(50AD) did not believe in Virgin birth. Only Luke and Matthew who have written later at 70 AD have believed the virgin birth . I don't think anyone really believes it. Matthew and Luke, or whoever wrote those books, lied about it for ulterior purposes because they wanted their God to be better than the Greek Gods so they could kill the rulers, steal the philosophy and pretend it was 'Christian'. The bulldust about Mary is to cover up that she was a bit of a wild one and didn't know whose baby it was, but Joe was a good bloke and said he'd look after the kid no matter what. Then the brat went radical and got himself executed for treason or blasphemy or whatever it was, and the Christians continued torturing and executing dissenters for centuries to come. And... even though the historical trajectory is basically a collection of horrendous atrocity, we still pretend the church serves some special holy purpose. It's not reasonable, but I never expect people to be rational, so good enough. In fact, my niece is a radical Christian believer and I love her to bits because she's our crazy Christian.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2022 2:38:55 GMT -5
Whether the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection happened are an independent question for that of whether there was a dude named Jesus who got jacked for causin' a ruckus on Pilate & Herod's watches, and that's what I was referring to. I know quite a bit less about the Buddha's story but it's a similar pattern. In each case, there's this culture that is apparently continuous since the death of the guy and based in part on his life story. I know that in JC's case there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I could share a vid if you're interested. I know I don't sound like it, but I'm not all-that narrow minded. I'm just in a spiritual forum where 'anything is possible' and nothing is inevitable. I'm more like, 'It is this way, your fate is nigh, and your avoidance is problematic'. I think it's most likely there were real people behind the legends, but things get embellished, and even though Joe was right there, people believe Jesus was virgin born. I, like all reasoned people, think it was Joseph's baby because that's how it works. Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong. I'm not a believer, and where I do believe things, I don't care if I turn out to be wrong, but those who say it becomes true if I believe it hard enough probably have an aversion to fate. But, still, better to have a positive outlook and not rely on your own bulldust, outlandish stories and false hope for a smidge of pretentious happiness.
As an analogy, if you do the training, you will lift the weight, and progressive success will have positive affects on the 'i can' confidence which is transferable to other areas of life. Other people like positivity. They want to be with it and will offer up opportunities. Offer something valuable to others and try to create the win-win situations. Of course you need to visualise your goals to keep a clear direction, but probably won't work unless you write it out and break it down to achievable steps, because you have to put fragments together to complete the whole picture.
Well, to my eye the most probable explanation is that Mary was pregnant when she showed up at Joe's door. Don't you think that would have given 'ole JC a pretty good example of forgiveness? Perhaps it explains why JC was so easy with referring to God as his father, as well. The legend of a virgin birth was originally Persian, is what I've read. But that's my head talkin', you know? That's all that is. Ultimately no different than belief in what I opine is a legend. Just a thought about what reportedly happened. Noone is free of balldust. Well, maybe girls. Well, maybe some girls anyway ...
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 12, 2022 3:59:48 GMT -5
I know I don't sound like it, but I'm not all-that narrow minded. I'm just in a spiritual forum where 'anything is possible' and nothing is inevitable. I'm more like, 'It is this way, your fate is nigh, and your avoidance is problematic'. I think it's most likely there were real people behind the legends, but things get embellished, and even though Joe was right there, people believe Jesus was virgin born. I, like all reasoned people, think it was Joseph's baby because that's how it works. Later on He took on a guru role and was probably sayings things like self-inquiry is the way to God or something, but the people heard, I have to go through you to get to God - and that's where it all went wrong. I'm not a believer, and where I do believe things, I don't care if I turn out to be wrong, but those who say it becomes true if I believe it hard enough probably have an aversion to fate. But, still, better to have a positive outlook and not rely on your own bulldust, outlandish stories and false hope for a smidge of pretentious happiness.
As an analogy, if you do the training, you will lift the weight, and progressive success will have positive affects on the 'i can' confidence which is transferable to other areas of life. Other people like positivity. They want to be with it and will offer up opportunities. Offer something valuable to others and try to create the win-win situations. Of course you need to visualise your goals to keep a clear direction, but probably won't work unless you write it out and break it down to achievable steps, because you have to put fragments together to complete the whole picture.
Well, to my eye the most probable explanation is that Mary was pregnant when she showed up at Joe's door. Don't you think that would have given 'ole JC a pretty good example of forgiveness? Perhaps it explains why JC was so easy with referring to God as his father, as well. The legend of a virgin birth was originally Persian, is what I've read. But that's my head talkin', you know? That's all that is. Ultimately no different than belief in what I opine is a legend. Just a thought about what reportedly happened. Noone is free of balldust. Well, maybe girls. Well, maybe some girls anyway ... Truth be told, Joseph was the original composer of Billy Jean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2022 4:45:44 GMT -5
Virgin birth is a myth. Paul the very early writer(50AD) did not believe in Virgin birth. Only Luke and Matthew who have written later at 70 AD have believed the virgin birth . I don't think anyone really believes it. Matthew and Luke, or whoever wrote those books, lied about it for ulterior purposes because they wanted their God to be better than the Greek Gods so they could kill the rulers, steal the philosophy and pretend it was 'Christian'. The bulldust about Mary is to cover up that she was a bit of a wild one and didn't know whose baby it was, but Joe was a good bloke and said he'd look after the kid no matter what. Then the brat went radical and got himself executed for treason or blasphemy or whatever it was, and the Christians continued torturing and executing dissenters for centuries to come. And... even though the historical trajectory is basically a collection of horrendous atrocity, we still pretend the church serves some special holy purpose. It's not reasonable, but I never expect people to be rational, so good enough. In fact, my niece is a radical Christian believer and I love her to bits because she's our crazy Christian. He was born for Joseph, there were no issue there, that's what Paul early writer believed it. He can be the messiah if only if he is the son of David(Line of David), If he is born of virgin, then he is not messiah even according to the law. Messiah was promised for the royal line of David and Solomon. So Paul correctly picks up the OT VERSE and writes his own line here
This virgin birth story was latter embellishment by Luke and Matthew and they tried to add up this concept because those times Greeks Gods were usually born of virgin.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 12, 2022 10:55:27 GMT -5
Spira talks nonsense, but at 2x speed. Well, you have to listen to him at normal speed and it will all make sense. But seriously, where's the problemo? He says that astrology determines your disposition which can be easily proven with aptitude tests. Then he says that astrology is one way of getting to know yourself better, but like any system of thought, it cannot help you knowing your true Self. In that sense, psychology, philosophy and religion (including Buddhism) are equally useful and useless at the same time. Nothing can replace SR. No, I agree, Spira talks nonsense. haha. Actually, I enjoyed listening to it. I think RS does a good job of explaining his view on things and it brought up some questions that have been stewing on the backburner. He's saying it can be useful but he's not saying anything about how it can be easily proven with aptitude tests. That's nonsense. But you're right that it's about as useful/useless as anything else. Regarding your "easily proven" remark...this paper shows how it's basically as good as guessing/chance: Carlson, S. 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425. Might as well read the tea leaves, cuz then you get some tea!
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 12, 2022 10:59:17 GMT -5
Even a cursory search on LOA shows it categorized as a pseudoscience. Reefs compared it to gravity also in his initial reply to me. But the law of gravity is a scientific law. As Reefs noted, only working in the universe which includes mass, unlike LOA which, as we are told, works in all "realms." As Lolly clarifies, the law of gravity is also subject to challenge as new scientific discoveries are made. Nothing in science is certain but laws are held with lots of confidence. So it's unfortunate LOA starts with the L, in my opinion, as it opens itself quickly to charges of trying to be sciencey when actually it is more in the strongly held belief zone. Like the "Four Noble Truths." The 4NT are basically the conclusion of the rest of the philosophy, or the philosophy is an elaboration on 4NT, so it isn't true in itself, but becomes meaningful within context. You hear something abstract like 'there is suffering', but that's not true. The truth is more immediate like 'this is suffering'. In the abstract sense it is a belief, but in the immediate sense it is known.
However, the the way of nature can't be contravened, so there's universal law, and the 2NT, suffering has a cause, is less subjective. It is is still subjective in the sense, "this is how I cause suffering" but also universal in the sense that 'this is how everyone causes suffering', or simply, 'this is how suffering is caused'.
I like the 4NT, fwiw. It's very practical. However, I haven't quite got the hang of it.
|
|