Thoughts on Christianity (no pushing)

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I read somewhere that JRR Tolkien converted CS Lewis

aka the greatest imagination in our modern culture inspired someone to be a Christian

Hmm I don't hear much from Hollywood except from Mel Gibson on this subject

[thunder24]

have you read the appocalypse of peter?

Posted by Calamus (here)
the thing is that there are so many so called Christians in this world they need to have a bridge to come to a true understanding of the nature of reality in the nature of their very souls that they believe are saved by only declaring one thing when they are not living the life ... living the life needs to be a 24/7 thing. no submarine Christians or believers allowed into heaven ... this goes for any path in my opinion

me either, but was pointed this way...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...r-mrjames.html

And my Lord answered me and said to me: 'Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.' Peter weeps many hours, and is at last consoled by an answer which, though exceedingly diffuse and vague does seem to promise ultimate pardon for all: 'My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away,' . . . 'It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men.' The doctrine that sinners will be saved at last by the prayers of the righteous is, rather obscurely, enunciated in the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles (a paraphrase, in this part, of the Apocalypse), and in the (Coptic) Apocalypse of Elias

so whats the true reality?

peace

[xidaijena]

Quite agree with you, dear Calamus. And here I like to share more about Christianity and Buddhism:

"Buddhists believe in reincarnation, the possibility for human beings to live several lives. In Buddhist circles, we do not use the word incarnation very much: we use the word rebirth. After you die, you can be reborn and can have another life. In Christianity, your life is unique, your only chance for salvation. If you spoil it, then you will never get salvation. You have only one life.

Buddhism teaches that there is non-self, anatta. Christianity clearly teaches that a Christian is a personalist. Not only are you a person, self, but God is a person, and He has a self. The Buddhist teaching of emptiness and no substance sounds like the teaching of no being. Christianity speaks of being, of existence. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the philosophy of being, la philisophie de l'etre, the confirmation that the world is.

There is compassion and loving-kindness in Buddhism, which many Christians believe to be different from the charity and love in Christianity. Charity has two aspects: your love directed to God, and your love directed to humankind. You have to learn how to love your enemy. Our Christian friends have a tendency to remind us that the motivation of love is different for Christians and Buddhists. There are theologians who say that Buddhists practice compassion just because they want liberation; that Buddhists don't really care about the suffering of people and other living beings; that they are only motivated by the desire to be liberated. In Christianity, your love is grounded in God. You love God, and because God said that you must love your neighbor, so you love your neighbor. Your love of your neighbor springs from the ground of your love of God.

Many people, especially in Christian circles, say that there are things in common between Christianity and Buddhism. But many find that the philosophical foundations of Christianity and Buddhism are quite different. Buddhism teaches rebirth, many lives. Christianity teaches that only this one life is available to you. Buddhism teaches that there is no self, but in Christianity there is a real self. Buddhism teaches emptiness, no substance, while Christianity confirms the fact of existence.

If the philosophical ground is so different, the practice of compassion and loving kindness in Buddhism and of charity and love in Christianity is different. All that seems to be a very superficial way of seeing. If we have time and if we practice our own tradition well enough and deeply enough, we will see that these issues are not real.

First of all, there are many forms of Buddhism, many ways of understanding Buddhism. If you have one hundred people practicing Buddhism, you may have one hundred forms of Buddhism. The same is true in Christianity. If there are one hundred thousand people practicing Christianity, there may be one hundred thousand ways of understanding Christianity.


In Plum Village, where many people from different religious backgrounds come to practice, it is not difficult to see that sometimes a Buddhist recognizes a Christian as being more Buddhist than another Buddhist. I see a Buddhist, but the way he understands Buddhism is quite different from the way I do. However, when I look at a Christian, I see that the way he understands Christianity and practices love and charity is closer to the way I practice them than this man who is called a Buddhist. The same thing is true in Christianity. From time to time, you feel that you are very far away from your Christian brother. You feel that the brother who practices in the Buddhist tradition is much closer to you as a Christian. So Buddhism is not Buddhism and Christianity is not Christianity. There are many forms of Buddhism and many ways of understanding Buddhism. There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Therefore, let us forget the idea that Christianity must be like this, and that Buddhism can only be like that.

We don't want to say that Buddhism is a kind of Christianity and Christianity is a kind of Buddhism. A mango can not be an orange. I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange. They are two different things. Vive la difference. But when you look deeply into the mango and into the orange, you see that although they are different they are both fruits. If you analyze the mango and the orange deeply enough, you will see small elements are in both, like the sunshine, the clouds, the sugar, and the acid. If you spend time looking deeply enough, you will discover that the only difference between them lies in the degree, in the emphasis. At first you see the difference between the orange and the mango. But if you look a little deeper, you discover many things in common. In the orange you find acid and sugar which is in the mango too. Even two oranges taste different; one can be very sour and one can be very sweet.

From "Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" by Thich Nhat Hanh, Riverhead Books, an imprint of Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1999. Thich Nhat Hanh, a rare combination of mystic, scholar, and activist, is a Vietnamese monk and one of the most beloved Buddhist teachers alive today. Poet, Zen master and chairman of the Vietnamese Buddhist Peace Delegation during the Vietnam War, he was nominated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the author of many books, and lives in France. "

Read more: http://lifechanyuan.org/bbs/forum.ph...extra=page%3D1

[Johnnycomelately]

I think this comparison of Buddha/Sidhayarta to Christ is faulty. In my understanding, Christ is a brother, like Siddman, but with enormously greater responsibilities. What I heard is that his “It is done/finished” signalled a profound shift in all timelines. An imperative, of the earlier call, “come home”.

Since then, as I understand it, we are all going to end up back in the/our original ‘land’. So-called Heaven, where creation by any and everybody is unencumbered by selfishness.

Word is, that before that, things were going down the tubes so to speak. The intent of the darkness has always been to destroy the whole. So even if Buddhy worked the old system well, the way things were going he would have met the same dissolution as the one we call our original creator.

Kind of wild that a Child, like us, would have that measure of consequence in the progression of the whole. Now I’m thinking of the other kingdoms, as far as I know. Minerals, plants, critters. I guess it’s a cue to our power, in the scheme of things. We all have great responsibility.

Posted by Anchor (here)
May I offer this passage. It is channeled and this, strictly speaking is not the correct place, but it seems to me relevant to your thread - and perfectly complements what Bill says above - once you strip most religions down to the essence, they become excellent resources for seeking.

In a few short words, the entity being channeled does a neat job with Christianity and Buddhism. What is discussed is the essence and not the surrounding layers of dogma and "interpretation".

The query this evening has to do with the one known as Siddhartha, or the Buddha, and what he has to teach about spiritual enlightenment. We find in order to approach this in a way which may be more helpful, we would take some time to speak about the two strains of religious thought that are encapsulated in the teachings of the one known as Jesus the Christ and the one known as the Buddha.

Both entities, Jesus and Siddhartha, offer tremendous resources to those who are seeking the truth. They have different areas of appeal but that which they hold in common is powerful. To them both the seeking of the Creator, service to the Creator, time spent in the company of the Creator are all in all. To both, there is no priority greater than spiritual seeking. Both of them lived lives that indicated this preference, this concern, and this devotion.

There are two different styles of seeking when gazing at these two powerful and poignant beings. To one, knowing that his kingdom was not of this world, he nevertheless entered into the world with all of his heart and soul and nothing in his heart but love for all he saw. As he entered in, so his physical body was destroyed by that which he took upon himself: the suffering of the world. All suffering was taken into the self and accepted. That it destroyed his physical body was not that which was important to the one known as Jesus the Christ, but rather that he do his father’s bidding. “Not my will, but thine,” were his words.

The Buddha saw the same world and knew that he was not of it or part of it. Consequently, his path did not move into the open heart and take all of the suffering of the world into the self. Rather, he allowed the things of the world to fall away as they seemed to want to fall away in his view. Over the period of a lifetime he was able to investigate each path in the world and conclude that that was not his path. The principle of “neti-neti, not this and not that” [1] comes into play here. Thusly, as the Buddha allowed all to fall away except the seeking for the one Creator, the entity no longer was concerned with the suffering of the world except to pray that all suffering might cease. There was not the attempt to take on the suffering of the world; rather, the attempt was to allow the suffering of the one known as the Buddha to fall away and as suffering fell away from the Buddha, so it would fall away from the world.

Rupert Sheldrake with 3 other guys. I am 10:00/1:16:42 in here, and it’s starting to sound interesting. Sorry for the no title+description, could not lift/copy text.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FLCVqGOmOE0

[Anchor]

Posted by Johnnycomelately (here)
Rupert Sheldrake with 3 other guys. I am 10:00/1:16:42 in here, and it’s starting to sound interesting. Sorry for the no title+description, could not lift/copy text.

The video is on Rupert Sheldrake's channel and the title is "Religion Without Belief, with Dr Philip Goff and Paul Kingsnorth"

Thanks for posting this, it was a very interesting listen.

[Gomba]

The old testament is a historybook written or manipulated by the cabal. The vengeful god there who ought to be feared, along with the sacrifices makes this obvious in my opinion. The purpose of a sacrifice ( of a living being) is to generate an immense amount of horror and pain energy that then can be consumed by a dark entity that is compatible with those low frequencies. Therefore by definition, an entity that asks for sacrifices can not be a positive entity.
The old testament is all but metaphors, and a person there usually means a race/people/tribe often times of ET origins.

The new testament has been created by the Flavian dinasty of Rome, with the help of the jewish historian Josephus.
https://postflaviana.org/introductio...-christianity/
They most likely took the teachings of a Judean spiritual master (dead sea scrolls?) wheather called Jesus or not, and twisted it to their needs.
Back when the new testaments plot was unfolding, there was a huge struggle between Rome and Judea but they erased this from the bible. As well as they made the teachings promote obiedience among other things.
I believe reincarnation was in the bible for a while but they took it out eventually.

Now there are some obvious signs that display the backwards nature of todays Christianity but we are all so used to them they dont really stick out. Or do they?
Jesus is most often depicted on the cross, tormented. Now imagine if you had a beloved, holy master and he got tragically hanged by bad people. Would you start to depict him everywhere being hanged? And if was killed by guillotine, would you depict him everywhere being executed like that? Would you start using a guillotine as you beloved masters symbol, and wear it in your neck?
Also, the ceremony when they symbolicly eat Jesuses flesh, and drink his blood .... I mean its self explanatory.

[pueblo]

I feel bad for the Gnostics.

[pueblo]

There is a quote at the very start of the book The Immortality Key by Brian Murareskuis;

"If you die before you die, you will not die when you die".

This quote is taken from the Greek Sanctuary of Eleusis and it triggered in me a sudden flash of realisation; in Christianity we are told that we must be 'born again' (be born after we are born) when in fact the complete inverse is true; that we must die before we die.

Almost everything is inverted!

[pueblo]

Posted by pueblo (here)
There is a quote at the very start of the book The Immortality Key by Brian Murareskuis;

"If you die before you die, you will not die when you die".

This quote is taken from the Greek Sanctuary of Eleusis and it triggered in me a sudden flash of realisation; in Christianity we are told that we must be 'born again' (be born after we are born) when in fact the complete inverse is true; that we must die before we die.

Almost everything is inverted!

Reading the Gospel of Philip today I came across this passage...

"Some people mistakenly say that we must die before being resurrected. If they are not resurrected while they are still alive, they will not gain anything by dying.

Hence the saying, “Great is baptism.” Those who receive baptism will live."

- Gospel of Philip

[XelNaga]

Organised religion is the same as convid "vaccine".

If "they" say it is good for you, you can be sure it's bad for you.

No one needs religion. Just be kind, be good, always work for the greater good and always aim to advance yourself. Take some time every day to sit in silence. Spend time in your true home on this planet, the nature. That is all the "religion" one needs.

I often find it ridiculous to discuss religion, for just one reason: we all know how big of an influence it has on people. We all also know that "they" have full control of our society: the media, the healthcare, the education, the entertainment industry, etc. How can someone truly believe that "they" have no control over official, organised religions?

I'm dumbfounded when certain people know that "they" control every aspect or our society, yet they still go to church and pray to yahweh/jesus/allah to save them?

[Ernie Nemeth]

People want to belong. To understand they belong they must know to what they belong.

Questions about origins fester in the human mind if they are not satisfactorily answered.

The answers can be ignored for a while but everyone faces their own mortality at some point. It is there that the questions become far more pertinent.


Like so much in our world there are degrees or levels or thresholds of understanding. In the more superficial levels the question of religion seems rather ludicrous. The obviousness of the ruse is blatant.

On deeper levels however, the answers to those pesky questions overrides their superficiality.

Something happened on this world long ago that changed the narrative of the history of Earth. The obvious obfuscation of the nature of that happening involved gods. These gods interacted with early humanoids and altered their evolution.


The stories these gods told and the recounting of those tales through the ages has obscured the actual history. We can only guess at the details. Religions are the institutionalization of the various versions of that ancient story.


God is as close as the next thought, unhindered.

God does not save what God created. God frees creation to experience the next greatest adventure, and the next.

God does not make mistakes. God does not choose sides. Reality is God's creation.


There are none equal to God.


If it is dwelt on just a little bit it should become obvious that God is not at war. There are none who could challenge God's reality.

God is not at war.
We are.

When there is talk of the battle of good versus evil, it is not God versus the devil that is referred to, it is humanity versus evil.
The good is in humanity.
The evil is in humanity.


The battle of good versus evil is the battle for the hearts and minds of mankind.
Christianity is one of the tools employed, both for offense and defense, in that battle.
It is not the only one.