Why are Christians so easily offended?..

[rick]

My title is vague at best, and of course it's not a blanket statement...I'm having a hard time expressing in a paragraph without making a huge run on post!. I have to think of a good example

[ExomatrixTV]

There are, in my view, different kinds of "being offended".

01. insecurity issues (having low self-esteem)
02. feeling victimized
03. feeling mocked
04. not taken seriously
05. being falsely accused (which has nasty consequences)
06. being misrepresented (which may have nasty consequences)
07. being (falsely) judged (which does have nasty consequences)
08. feeling (mentally/psychologically) used/abused on a certain level
09. feeling discriminated upon / excluded / casted out
10. assuming you are victim of bullying (or something that is similar).

... and everybody can have some of the 10 happening at the same time, maybe 2 or 3 or even more!

How you deal with it (constructively) depends on your character/personality, upbringing, education, (self) awareness, self-knowledge, understanding the lack of empathy of others, seeing the weakness of others, knowing why people do what they do and where it is coming from, not falling in the "victim mentality" role but challenging mob behavior / group think. Know what (rhetorical) questions you can ask without "the need to prove yourself" as that only gives them psychological power over you.

As long as you are truthful towards yourself, and being kind to others ... and do not wish harm done to others .... it is 100% okay to question things even challenge any form of injustice you might encounter ... but be aware some perceptions/assumptions you have could be wrong, and you might be easily triggered due to past traumas clouding what you see in the other ... Introspection is not always easy if you never (or rarely) practiced being assertive.

Some people follow their own created "rule" that if you feel a certain way it is always "superior" than what ACTUALLY happened! ... And have no interest to "self correct" nor using new insights to outgrow the eternal victim mode.

Victim mentality only breeds more victim reality.

Just having certain feelings is for some enough to be (near permanent) "upset", angry, justifying all kinds of overreactions never to be held accountable for how you behaved and acted upon ... BECAUSE THAT FEELING IS EVEN WORSE >>> being proven wrong, maybe realizing having done unforgivable deeds etc.

Why does it seem that we live in a society where more and more people have a mental and/or psychological crisis & anxiety issues?

Maybe because they have not learned how to assess reality in a more uplifting/empowering way! Only assuming "the worse" / "the bad" and make it a habit of being in that state of mind 24/7. No wonder, things can spiral out of control everywhere.

We live in a world where legit-concerns are called: "conspiracy theories" or "harmful misinformation" ... and unchallenged irrational fear promoted by mainstream media & unelected globalists on a massive scale are called: "the new normal".



cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳
June 28th, 2024

--o-O-o--

related:

• When Crisis Managers become Perception Managers, inducing Mass Hypnosis
• The Psychology of Totalitarianism

[shaberon]

Posted by Hym (here)
I ask who the hell raised the ones that need a religion to live moral lives? Talk about a backward civilization. If that is the case, then they are surely lost.

On this point I will go so far as to say what is called from the east, Dharma, is very nearly the opposite of religion.

That is because it provides moral value first and foremost, and more or less leaves all the "worldly answers" at the discretion of the population. It doesn't take, for instance, 641 Mosaic Laws and stamp it out as a mold. Instead it gives some pretty specific instructions to Kings.

There are opposite ends of a spectrum:


Kings..................................................................................People

Many responsibilities, little to no property or freedom <---> Few responsibilities, wide choices and freedoms



There are some different intents at play. For instance it has been said that western education especially for boys is grounded in competition, that the better you are at working the system, then you get a slice of the pie, and someone else loses.

We would simply replace that by "cooperation".

Speaking as a Buddhist I would say I absolutely believe in Hell, and, this is what we are dealing with.


In terms of the OP, I don't think we're likely to find many *direct* responses here. But I will say that here in America many of these known types call themselves Bible Believers, as if that was a capitalized name. The strong ones are of course like the Iron Tower on Mount Doom, but, overall, it is known there are people who will completely freak out if something doesn't suit them.

All of the Catholics I have personally known have told me they don't agree with everything that comes out from the "center". This, of course, makes them heretics, which Rome has an early and long history of murdering, and so I am not at all sure how that works.

I am not sure if "offended" is the right word concerning dogma--maybe anger--but I do see posts that react to pagan art and so forth as "disgusting".


And this is easy to trace. This is 100% to troll the gullible public:






The Taxil Hoax page is largely correct, except it doesn't give the full confession.


It has no link such as:


Diana Vaughan actually did exist. She had visited Taxil in her role as a sales representative for Remington typewriters.


First thing in the evening, a splendid typewriter offered by Miss Diana Vaughan was raffled. Its lucky winner was M. Ali Kental, Editor of the Ikdam, at Constantinople...


Something happened, of which the joke by Taxil is irrelevant.


Now, let me tell you, I am under strict orders not to have an atom of personality around my neighbor.

And I don't like Pilgrims.


However, I *do* have a handy translator, that tells me around 300 B. C. E. that Dharma was equivalent in the west to Eusebia:


Ευσεβεια Ευσεβια Eusebeia, Eusebia Pietas Piety, Loyalty, Duty


EUSEBEIA was the personified spirit (daimona) of piety, loyalty, duty and filial respect. She was the wife of Nomos (Law) and her opposite number was Dyssebeia (Impiety). Her Roman name was Pietas (Piety).



And the thing is, it seems to me to be considerably watered-down when it shows up in the New Testament.

From the view of India, Aramaic Thomas went to Kerala on the trail of the Cochin Jews. They after the Nabatheans. Hence the Arab belief that the Garden of Eden is in Sri Lanka. As of today the Mar Thoma Nasrani number about six million.

Indian court literature of the 600s from several states away mentions them in a list of all kinds of spiritual devotees.

This praxis is of course Eastern Orthodoxy, and not whatever my neighbor is doing.


My obstacle in joining it would be the articles of Faith, Pistis, because there is an argument that this perhaps should have the meaning of confident or convinced by persuasion or observation. And this has perhaps been shifted towards faith without evidence or belief in something not clearly demonstrated.

There is an entire book struggling with the "evolving meaning" of Pistis and Fides.


In Pythagoreanism, there are three paths, Love, Truth, and the Goodness of Pistis is none other than Theurgy guided by Hekate and Helios.


If it may seem complicated to others, Pythagoras makes sense to me, in the view that Faith is a form of Confidence for something that has been validated. In simple terms it has just been called White Magic.

I don't have the ability to put an unsupported Faith in the Resurrection.

Saying it over and over won't work, that will only worsen the case.

That disqualifies me from Christianity but not Islam. There are probably other reasons for that. However in general they do not think there was such a Resurrection either.

If someone doesn't like it, is offended, etc., all I can say is I and/or we are not hurting or even disturbing anybody.

[Bruce G Charlton]

@Shaberon - You say: "On this point I will go so far as to say what is called from the east, Dharma, is very nearly the opposite of religion. That is because it provides moral value first and foremost, and more or less leaves all the "worldly answers" at the discretion of the population. It doesn't take, for instance, 641 Mosaic Laws and stamp it out as a mold. Instead it gives some pretty specific instructions to Kings."

From what I have gathered by reading and my friend William Wildblood (meetingthemasters.blogspot.com) who has extensive personal knowledge of Hinduism and India, including seven years residence; I believe your analysis is misleading - because comparing two unlike things.

In other words, I regard the differences you describe are more due to time, place and "the people" - than to "religion" or the lack of it.

When Westerners began to encounter and become attracted to Hinduism - i.e. in the later 19th century, post the advent of Theosophy, which introduced Hinduism to most Westerners including Ghandi - the Westerners created a detached philosophical abstraction of Hinduism. (An analogous thing happened with Buddhism.) The abstraction is that Hinduism was almost the whole life of Indians in India. It included a vast complexity and range of traditional and prescribed social practices - for instance the caste system and its ramifications. It included abstract philosophy of scholars, the asceticism of Yoga, the multiple god devotions of ordinary people; ethics and superstition, war and peace... Life itself.

When Westerners try to abstract "Hinduism" from this seamless tapestry of life, they find something that can seem very "free" and non-prescriptive compared with Judaism, Christianity and Islam - yet the reality is surely that Indians' lives were as-much prescribed by tradition, ritual, social practice etc, and as un-free (as we moderns would understand it) as were the lives of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

My belief is that this was because all Men of the pre-modern times (except a few rare people) were much less individual and much more communal in their consciousness than men of modern times; it was then normal for people to regard themselves as primarily members of a community, a group. Even now, this varies between nations and regions of the world.

Europeans now are the most individualistic, least communally conscious, people in history - and this affects whatever religion or spirituality they adopt (or try to adopt). That is our nature and our path. An immersive life of less conscious communalism and high spontaneous spirituality (as existed in pre-modern times, and to a greater extent elsewhere than Europe and the Anglosphere) has much appeal! - but it is not our path.


Note added: Sorry that I did not express myself more clearly here in the later paragraphs. But let it stand.

[Hym]

Some truths there Bruce.

It is not the outter appearance of this path that is of note, although it does prompt many to reveal their truths when they see the differences, whether they are then being open hearted or extremely ignorant. It is at times a funny thing because I am social by nature, even as living like this has been living in a specific isolation, which is not a choice, relatively speaking.

There is a shrinking community of american sikhs living nearby who I have had no connection with for 18 years, as of June 16 this year, a completely unnecessary situation based entirely on having no need to suffer their criminality and extreme lack of moral grounding. For those who have left and found another path, realizing how diabolical that community was, I would say congrats, tho adopting another "religion" as an antidote to evil is a reaction and not a real choice.

I've always viewed satanism and black magic as gateway drugs into religious extremism and visa versa. We get it. Screw yourself up and call out...See who answers. That does not mean that its a path to spiritual freedom and choice. It just means that you forgot that without your own soul there is no spirit. Hey, if you have something to sell...there is usually a buyer out there willing to save you.

For those american sikhs who would be offended at my lived experiences I would tell them that there are evangelicals of many other religions they could easily fit into, though you may have to live with me laughing at as what I see as dogs locked in rear to rear embrace.

I do see their condition as being the prime example of the worst a westerner can do to themselves, which takes an extreme amount of energy to waste, because the path has in its stated rules very specific guidelines banning theft and abuse of others.

I never really made any note of those precepts this path is supposed to adhere to because they are the path my soul has lived in and with. I am connected with the songs of the soul that are the core of this path, which is why I sing the songs from other truly connected traditions and paths that others see as inherently separate, when they are to us who sing, the same.

The community, that specific pseudo-dharma, followed a very cruel and deceptive yogi who dressed the dress but lived deeply mired in darkness, something that could not have happened where he was born. Why would anyone be surprised when they found out he was a gifted groomer and rapist who said that rape is entirely the fault of the woman who is raped.

That guy consciously worked hard at earning the karmas he acquired in this life and certainly in the next. I only learned he left his miserable body when my sikh brother called me up and simply said, "Don't step on roaches."

I do heartedly thank the producers and writers of Emma Stone's series "The Curse", shot in a nearby town, for telling the truth about the real curse that man and his teachings were to those who did not question it all. Though this example is living and dead truth to the ignorance we see in anyone not finding their way in this life, it by no means is the living vibrance of those who have found such immeasurable worth and continuing sustenance in whatever path finds them.

I say "finds them" because that finding is the unwritten experience of how these songs of the soul find us, apparently beyond the limited abilities we think we have, science only beginning to understand the connection. At once, in my awareness of that ability, I found myself teaching Jains the deeper interpretation and projection of color positions on the body that followed each line in their base prayer The NaamoKaar Maantruh. While noticing their surprise when they asked me how I remembered it all, I remembered what a teacher of theirs, Acharya Sushil Kumar, said. He said not to worry about remembering such long and detailed prayers because "They will remember You". True.

I do see that at the core of these discussions there is a cleansing of those things that are what Steiner would call the destructive entrails of Ahriman, thus satan incarnated some many thousands of years ago, that influenced those manipulations of the human psyche thru the dogma of religious orthodoxy. This present washing is the deepest and most impactful pivot of humanity, another most notable turning, that is an undeniable release by the collective consciousness of those many manipulations imposed by religions, governments and corporations alike.

The worst of that is the pseudo-christian condoning and promotion of the presently exposed genocide of people from another path, the slaughter of muslims. We get to call those fake-arse christian F'ks out by the known definition of who they are purporting to be. It is in their deliberate and conscious denial of the truth of the figure that Yesuah/Jesus represents we have the agency to call them out. Besides the guilt that some carry that prompts their being offended, it is only in the protection of their own denial of clear truths that they find enough offense to expose their arrogance and lack of humanity. When did Christians so sneakily remove the precept that says "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord", and secretly insert "except when it is politically and economically advantageous for our faith and the faith of our friends, when greed and covetousness overtakes us, O Dear Forgiving Lord." I don't know any Christians like that.

And they condemn communists and marxist socialists for doing the same thing that they do? It is a fact that many live more 'Christian lives', Muslims and others alike, than those spawn of Ahriman do, with their magical crosses. By the way, like George Carlin said "The last thing that someone who was supposed to have died on a cross would want to see everywhere is a F'n cross." Looking at how so many on this path of the living heart have lived and allowed the crimes against humanity to happen, no wonder that spirit in the sky is nowhere to be seen.

If the millenias long indoctrination of humanity and its symbolism doesn't strike you as it does some of us, just look at how they point to the sky, and look up to the sky when they refer to an obeisance to their interpretation of an omniscient, creator god, somehow nowhere to be found at the level of the heart? Did that originate with those guys in the sky and their shiny flying machines making slaves out of their minds, until those worships morphed into much more controllable dogmas, somehow always pushing the need for there always to be an enemy in order to "be right with God"? I get it. Ya'll were a **** and could not make amends on your own unless some ever-forgiving entity did it for you.

"They, surely, are known by their deeds", including their silence in the face of evil their soul captured, twisted sisters of zion perpetrate on others, and their greedy obeisance to their paymasters on high, the keepers of the golden calves.....who are preparing their own blood red sacrifice for the destruction ceremony on the temple mound. And they call all of the rest of humanity Pagans?


That is quite a stark example of why this subject both You and Shaberon have accurately understood as being commonly misinterpreted by those who don't live it or who attempt to live it under the guidance of a corrupted soul, half a planets distance away from its origins.

Living it and having been raised in the judeo-christian monosphere, until I left at age 10, I understand the disparity in perceptions from the inside out and the outside in, noting that my singular lived experience is by no means everyones experience. It can't be. What fun would there be in that...

I do see that Shaberon understands the depths of the philosophical differences much more than most, as he knows that with my perspective I was seeing the word "religion" as a pejorative, noting my disdain for the hypocrisy within those religions. This does not mean that there is not an equal amount of the worst of the applications of religious dogmas within those paths called "eastern".

Though Rick has stated that labeling this thread within too
broad of a spectrum muddled the subjective and experiential view of others in response to overly offended Christians, our communal responses have, like some threads on PA, opened up a broader avenue to discussion. Like many threads in the tapestry of this beautiful forum it offers readers and participants the time within to share perspectives not normally viewed from the outside in.

I see westerners wearing their baseball caps with a sun blocking brim on one side and laugh. When it is turned backwards I see the cap protecting their necks like the cloth head coverings of those living in the east when they pull out the last fold of their turbans to cover their necks from the sun. I have done the same while roofing and while building on film locations. Its not as ridiculous as the modern, judaic bobby pinned doily, but in our sight, quite impractical and silly. I have joked with my jewish friends about this and their responses have been funny admissions that I imagine many in their culture share with each other. It's like the stripper who complains only to her sisters about wasting her time wearing glue-on nipple tabs when she could just as well wear nothing.

This is the religious skull cap from the national past time of baseball that reveals a dumb looking pseudo-irreverence within the collective mosh pit of their cruel and dark overlords accepted expressions. Suggest they wear a real head covering and see their minds go where they have a built-in block, warning them to dare not think for themselves, let alone bucking the societal saddle strapped to their backs, and the creature training them to be ridden, instead of living a life in real world spiritual freedom, which by definition has no specific dress or color or creed. All of our souls inherently know this truth.

Not that wearing a much more healthy head covering, that increases the bio-electromagnetic field, makes them more likely to live a life free from hypocrisy. Westerners attempting to adapt their outer coverings to an inner commitment of living that heartfelt truth is nye near impossible if they didn't have the strength of their own lived moral compass to begin with. That's a hard slog for most westerners either way, except for those of us who comfortably fit into and thru the opening of that proverbial needle, camel-ott or not being the mythos our psyches have these temporal attachments to, when dealing with the lovingly difficult challenges this life gifts us.

I was standing with an enlightened sikh brother of mine years ago at Raam Daas Pur (not Puri), outside of a group of like dressed folks when he asked me my impression of what I saw, seeing the group being taught a measly, pseudo hodgepodge of ky-jelly'd yoga nearby. I don't know if it was his very mischievous, but honest, projection of his real sight to me, but my answer was, "They have wrapped up their neurosis' in their turbans." "Consolidated Neurosis", I called it. He smiled and laughed in approval. He always saw everything in their true, energetic colors, but I doubt he shared with many others those things he saw and shared with me. What a gift his presence was, and his memory is.

If they truly thought about it and if they dared to live free from that imprisonment they already know that their bodies, and by the nature of the inseperable spirit, would be able to run faster, to live more receptively to the abilities that they were born with.

When we horse around we momentarily live free from the confines of dogmatism. We should ride those horses more often...enjoy the journey... Those dogs will become companions and stop nipping at our heels.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
From what I have gathered by reading and my friend William Wildblood (meetingthemasters.blogspot.com) who has extensive personal knowledge of Hinduism and India, including seven years residence; I believe your analysis is misleading - because comparing two unlike things.

I'm not talking about Hinduism.

I'm definitely not talking about the western "abstraction of"--which is really "contribution to"--modern India.

My analysis is from the Pillar of Ashoka which has translated three classical languages.

Something has changed about the eastern contemplation of Dharma as well as the western understanding of Eusebia. I am simply providing their meaning in context, not through the modern re-lensing.

It's not physically possible for anyone to have considered this until the past few years.

Because of what the Pillar says, the two things are basically identical. More broadly, Pythagoreanism is quite close to the Indian system. Moreover, the Greek language is strongly based in Sanskrit. There isn't any question of their strong association in the classical period. The question would be where do differences come from. This has answers.

The Greek community in India was massive, it catapulted the religion of Jerusalem all the way to the southern tip. There isn't any difference in time/place/people. If there are differences in ideas, we will find them in the language. For example, within the past ten years or so, the Assyrian Church and the Church of the East held some conferences where part of what they did was review a minor doctrinal schism that they had been thinking made them exclusive or different religions or churches. It was decided the point was so minor that it didn't matter enough to discuss it any more.

That means the whole unit is in communion with Orthodoxy.

That means the Keralites are basically the same as the Russians. The differences are liturgical and ritualistic, not doctrinal.

Because I know that Orthodoxy *does* have a socio-political view that I find compatible with what Dharma is *supposed* to mean, I accept them as good neighbors, provided they are trying their hardest at what they say they are doing.

I *don't* know anything else like that which could be specifically named.

I *can't* even ask my neighbor, because it is considered too risky.

[Denise/Dizi]

Really? The "Offended" conversation? I suppose its time it be tackled... Because to me, it is ridiculous... and a misuse of the word itself.

Has no one ever learned that you can only be "offended" if you are not confident in yourself and your beliefs?

If you believe that those "Offending you" in some way "hurt you", without ever having laid a hand upon you or your belongings? Then really, you have a lot left to learn in life. You need a thicker skin, and you need to learn some self accountability, and this doesn't just cover "Christians"..

It is something that is happening in all cultures on this planet, and in great masses... If someone's beliefs in some way, do not pair with your own, that is okay, That's their burden to carry, not yours.

When it crosses the threshold of acting upon said words in a physical way, or a way in which you can then be trespassed against, raped, beaten, stolen from, then THIS is an offense... And indeed you would have been "Offended against"...

Merely lacking the strength to be able to avoid letting their words affect you in a negative way, is more a lack of self esteem and confidence than anything else... AND COPING SKILLS... Being frustrated, or upset by someone's suggestion, is far different than carrying around someone's words as if it is some mortal wound they inflicted upon you. It is YOU who is responsible for making sure that you know the real truth, and letting go of that which you know not to be true.

So lets figure out why so many these days feel they are "Being offended against".. Could it be that the family unit is being broken apart, piece by piece, and we have after school care programs raising our youth? Could it be that we are shifting our own personal responsibilities of rearing our kids, onto the shoulders of a government that wants that power over the masses, and giving them too much control because we don't care to handle said responsibilities? It's a field ripe for picking... Because the first thing they do, is give the illusion that they are protecting everyone, and their "Feelings" included in that... so people who lack their own accountability to their emotional well being eat that up!

Could it be that parents are having children before they're ready for the responsibility of doing such a thing? Are they too easily offended themselves, that they do not know what inner worth and dignity is? Is their pride that fragile? Did their parents lack the wisdom to give their children coping skills?

People throw out the word "offended", as if it is some claim that you have been wronged merely by words... And if those words are accusatory and wrong, and go on to effect a career, or possibly get someone wrongfully arrested, then perhaps someone has participated in an actual "Offense"...

But mere opinions, or suggestions, well, that is on you to defeat... And a high self esteem, and strong knowing that the other person is wrong, is YOUR responsibility.

This isn't just a Christian issue, but a planet wide issue... and it covers all religions...

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
Really? The "Offended" conversation? I suppose its time it be tackled... Because to me, it is ridiculous... and a misuse of the word itself.

Has no one ever learned that you can only be "offended" if you are not confident in yourself and your beliefs?

If you believe that those "Offending you" in some way "hurt you", without ever having laid a hand upon you or your belongings? Then really, you have a lot left to learn in life. You need a thicker skin, and you need to learn some self accountability, and this doesn't just cover "Christians"..

It is something that is happening in all cultures on this planet, and in great masses... If someone's beliefs in some way, do not pair with your own, that is okay, That's their burden to carry, not yours.

When it crosses the threshold of acting upon said words in a physical way, or a way in which you can then be trespassed against, raped, beaten, stolen from, then THIS is an offense... And indeed you would have been "Offended against"...

Merely lacking the strength to be able to avoid letting their words affect you in a negative way, is more a lack of self esteem and confidence than anything else... AND COPING SKILLS... Being frustrated, or upset by someone's suggestion, is far different than carrying around someone's words as if it is some mortal wound they inflicted upon you. It is YOU who is responsible for making sure that you know the real truth, and letting go of that which you know not to be true.

So lets figure out why so many these days feel they are "Being offended against".. Could it be that the family unit is being broken apart, piece by piece, and we have after school care programs raising our youth? Could it be that we are shifting our own personal responsibilities of rearing our kids, onto the shoulders of a government that wants that power over the masses, and giving them too much control because we don't care to handle said responsibilities? It's a field ripe for picking... Because the first thing they do, is give the illusion that they are protecting everyone, and their "Feelings" included in that... so people who lack their own accountability to their emotional well being eat that up!

Could it be that parents are having children before they're ready for the responsibility of doing such a thing? Are they too easily offended themselves, that they do not know what inner worth and dignity is? Is their pride that fragile? Did their parents lack the wisdom to give their children coping skills?

People throw out the word "offended", as if it is some claim that you have been wronged merely by words... And if those words are accusatory and wrong, and go on to effect a career, or possibly get someone wrongfully arrested, then perhaps someone has participated in an actual "Offense"...

But mere opinions, or suggestions, well, that is on you to defeat... And a high self esteem, and strong knowing that the other person is wrong, is YOUR responsibility.

This isn't just a Christian issue, but a planet wide issue... and it covers all religions...

Coping skills... good observation, Denise.

Remember that old maxim that was routinely taught to children,
"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

I wonder if that is still taught at all? Seems the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme of that concept, seeing what is being instilled now.
It's like children are taught to blame and attempt to mold everything exterior, rather than adapting and strengthening their own internal reserves.
------

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 76

A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.

Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.

The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.

(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)

[shaberon]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
People throw out the word "offended", as if it is some claim that you have been wronged merely by words...

This is what I, personally, am digging into.

Not so much the "offended" part, but, what we might call Words.

For example, we have posts about how Biden is going to follow the Truman Doctrine and conquer the universe with his mind, by using Words.

Same principle. That is as neurotic or out-of-touch as being over-sensitive to what someone says.

We quickly reach the impasse that Christianity, the religion of Jerusalem, is almost exclusively a Greek development, because Greek was the educated language all around the Mediterranean for centuries. In the Nicean Council, there were about five Latin priests, with no Bishop of Rome attending. So it would be based in the Greek context of the time, not something else.

Well, for example, it is strongly composed of "daimons" which is usually translated "demons". Eusebia is a daimon. But then if I translate her to Faith, I would be stuck saying Faith is a demon, and the practice becomes one of possession. The logic is too twisted and I suppose the whole thing has been tossed out as bathwater.

In English then we get a particular difficulty with Words that are too imaginary, in the sense of being make-believe. We then see resulting imbalances such as too easily offended, or too aggressive. This perhaps is further complicated by writing.

Some of that writing now tells us how to talk, and in public I have to allow Emotional Support Dogs. Actually I don't really mind the dogs, but, I'd rather make my own choices in what to say and decide if I care about someone's emotional response later.

I'm told this is sort of a western mark, that is, for example at some of our Buddhist retreats that still go in in Tibet or other countries, they find people that do a thing and then stick around acting like they expect someone to talk to them about what they think or how they feel, and that doesn't happen. They tend to get alienated and lose interest for that reason.



I made that remark with awareness that maybe I would say something controversial or provocative. I'm prone to do that. I simply make choices when to use it. Sometimes we are just obtuse. I'm not sure this was my fault. Brief anecdote incoming.

"Recently"--meaning a few years, somewhere in the rub of post-Covid re-openings, we hired a co-worker's daughter that was probably about sixteen at the time. She had been there about three weeks. We were getting something from a walk-in and the door closed behind us. And then she said "How do we get out?"

I said "We might have to wait for someone to let us out".

I left that in the air for about three seconds of cornball suspense and went out the door.

The girl didn't say anything and appeared to continue normally for a few minutes. After that I didn't see her.

I was told she went in another room and had an emotional breakdown and quit.

I've been having a hard time mustering any sympathy for that.

I'm usually as sympathetic as a sponge for water, and it's not connecting.


That is also true that, originally, Offense means exactly that, the kind of thing that could lead to a criminal charge. In The Lord's Prayer, that is the meaning of Trespass. It doesn't just mean walking in your yard, it is any kind of liable offense.

I don't have a problem agreeing with several of those which are fairly obvious, but, when it slips into the realm of Words, no, I'm not buying it.

[Hym]

We have a saying that makes a lot of sense:
'Don't stop the slanderers from lying about me. They pay some of my karma."
I really don't care either way what people say, as I've not had any dispute with any truth they perceive about me. It's their perception.

This quote is a reminder to anyone else that knowing yourself means there is no need to dispute a lie when people know you. If anyone is persuaded to discriminate against me, or exclude me based on a lie, I appreciate that the test they failed was conducted for my benefit. I consider the lie a proof that excludes me from engaging with anyone so easily manipulated.

Here is another aspect of getting to how we deal with our own securities and experiences that strengthen us when dealing with the many offenses WITHIN our own chosen groups, which deals with our own safety, our incomes, our connections with the spiritual sustenance we naturally are drawn to, being in the company of others, and just how we end up living and thriving away from those groups.

In leaving the group of american sikhs here in northern New Mexico and the many difficulties they posed to me and my family, the threats on my life and the thefts they laid on my business, as well as all the other small businesses nationwide that
they cheated and abused, I had one last encounter.

I saw a friend of mine, not involved in any crimes, outside of a video store and had a request to make. Mind you, from the outside I look just like them, very distinct, easy to see the similarity. Yet from the inside, quite different, as my soul, my psyche lives in the songs of the warriors and the saints, even as living them is not bound by those lofty words, at all. These are things common to all.

I told my sikh friend that I couldn't take even being around them anymore. I gave him karma-less permission to make up any stories about me that he wanted to, as long as those stories were not about abusing or cheating any one. He was a bit surprised, but he had this funny smile on his face. I could see his creativity waking up and a smile doing its best not to enjoy the prospects of his invention.

On the other hand, he may have taken my direct permission to be creative as a prompt to intuit why I took what anyone in any spiritual community would consider a harsh turn away from their group, a supposed Saad Sungut or company of the disciplined, the "holy", which that group rarely was. Like all cloistered groups they have a tendency towards arrogance, but it was their involvement in crimes against others and themselves that made even my enduring tolerance find its limits.

There is no forgiving anyone whose teachings they have adopted, and forgotten, that emphasize selfless service by valuing the "dust of from the feet of those who serve others" as a guiding light.

I'm happy with the freedom to sing those songs with others. I didn't need any of that to enjoy the disciplines I found that give agency to my freedoms. And I don't even have to list the mistakes I've made, being too busy having faced and resolved them, living long past any need for any Mea Culpas, or Mea Maxima Culpas, or dwelling in the miasma of corporal self-destructions so common in the lost cultures of this little planet.

I didn't have to use the weapons I had to carry around them for self defense and they didn't have to try and kill me. All of the rest, the lies about me, the thefts from my business, even the threats were part of the journey. Here, the offense to truth was undeniable. The words were laughable. I would not stop them, even tho I didn't come here to have anyone else pay off the intangibles I may or may not have agreed to endure.

Leaving my friend, also a sikh, sitting in his low rider outside of the Movie Gallery video store in Espanola, I said,"I know you guys are a bunch of drama queens, so this should be natural. No karma." That was the last time I saw him and the last time, 18 years ago, when I had anything to do with that group, even as they live but a few miles away. I do say Howdy whenever we see each other in SF or locally.

They are survivors in their own ways, dealing with the final exposure of those things they should have stopped in their own communities, long, long ago. Talk about all that words and looks and social pressure can do to create offense, backed up by real threats to personal and professional harm. Wow. That community had it all.

I've heard the same from friends in other spiritual communities and social swamps that have had to leave the entirety of their relationships behind, where most have done well engaging their new lives. For me, that local community missed the gift of the unending, personal relationship with the Naad, the Pruhshaad alive in the singing and all of the many amazing insights that the Hookum Naamuhs give.

[Denise/Dizi]

I try to leave religion out of any conversation, merely because there are so many in this little world, and while some may seem the same on the face of them, they're all quite different, with differing beliefs and ideologies. And while this thread is about Christians specifically? I am not a christian, or related to any organized religion, and I find that very freeing...

Do I believe there is something bigger than ourselves? Yes... More advanced species? ET? Call it what you will, but I do believe... Without an umbrella that tells me how I should behave. One thing I learned from different religions, is division.... I personally did take away from it, was the ability to be an accountable individual, love thy neighbor... and be the change I wish to see, without imposing my own beliefs onto another...

If others see their God as being some being that wants them to kill their neighbors for any reason, I would suggest that isn't a "Good God"...

Sadly I think this song will really speak to the masses very soon, if we don't get a grip on who we are, and who we should become...

Because there are plenty who want control over all of us... And so long as we stay divided, this could become our future...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=i17mgRK3GX8

[betoobig]

charlie Hebdo head quarters would not agree with what started this thread... MAn... you can not even draw Alah...lol...oh and jews havo no sense of humor at all, they are trying to kill us all, that shows no sense of humor at all even though they won´t attack you straight...lol.... to avoid karma, clever suckers
anyway.... all religious people can be triggered.... bc in its base is a ****ing programm based on thin air
**** all religions and so much love

[shaberon]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
I try to leave religion out of any conversation, merely because there are so many in this little world, and while some may seem the same on the face of them, they're all quite different, with differing beliefs and ideologies. And while this thread is about Christians specifically? I am not a christian, or related to any organized religion, and I find that very freeing...

In most casual acquiantanceships, I leave deep, triggering issues out, and usually only respond if someone else brings it up.

However, this is completely contrary to the spirit of mankind. Do you remember Alexandria? Debate was everything. The normal manner of spreading any of our tenets and beliefs is through open debate.

It was open enough that we can find a Buddha figurine manufactured locally in Alexandria or thereabouts in the 200s.

And then it is exactly there, we find one of the first murders for "what you think", that is, Hypatia mobbed and slain by Peter the Reader and a group of monks at the suggestion of "Saint" Cyril. This trend simply continues and voila, you have the Dark Age.

Note that it is nearly impossible to find ancient conflicts based on the falsity or opposition to a deity.

There is one major exception.

If others see their God as being some being that wants them to kill their neighbors for any reason, I would suggest that isn't a "Good God"...

So, if you take Elijah around 900 B. C. E. who promoted "Yhwh", this was like nothing, until he punished the king for petitioning an ancient Medicine Deity of Ekron...the king put a humble question in a letter, and that was enough to trigger this massive retribution.

Well, this has nothing to do with the archaic Judean kings, such as Saul, David, Solomon. There is practically no chance they ever heard of "Yhwh" and therefor could not be "Jews" in any normal sense of the word, because they never heard of Moses either.


Both those trends have starting points and power bases. Both obviously kill debate and offer autocracy.

There are similar cases that happened for different reasons. Buddhists need not be vindictive towards Islam because, although the Mughals decimated Indian Buddhism, this was because they perceived that the monasteries could be used as fortifications. So this was about like Julius Caesar eliminating the Druids. They were expected to be rebellious or resistant, and so both of these groups were eliminated for state or social reasons, not as a Crusade.

Some of our Ambedkarite Buddhists around Mumbai have revived a similar doctrine. Or, that is, they have latched on to a particular phrase where it says after Ashoka's Mauryan Empire collapsed, the "Hindu" king Pusyamitra slaughtered thousands of Buddhists. So they do feel a revenge toward the Brahmin institution, while I would have to say no, this is not the point of the Sutra. There are certainly no known historical examples of anyone rallying to this cause.


Perhaps a lot of the difficulty stems from what people like to call Bloodline, in terms of a Sovereign or Monarch. Now for one thing I have found that Indian Dharma is compatible with "Greek" Orthodoxy on a social level, because neither promotes a particular "form" of government, and both forbid discrimination against "other sects", or non-members, etc., and so while this readily supports a Monarch, he is heavily conditioned and subjected to ongoing review.

You have to re-qualify for the office.

This of course is a massively different program that what we know as the Germanic Divine Right Kings.

It uses a Hierophant, or, that is, the Dharmin or Priest is the intermediary between the ruler and popular will.

The only way that can possibly function is by successful debate.

The only thing that teaches that Monarchy is inherently bad is modern Communism. Of course, this was mainly reacting against Divine Right Monarchs.

I do not think there is a valid spiritual doctrine that grants you the prestige to kill or oppress "offenders".

In fact they say you need to prevent this.

That is why I recommend to anyone, gravitation towards the better parts of surviving spiritual traditions. This is to urbanize or civilize us. From this view, our modern collectives of state-ism are more like lab animals packed around a feeder.

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by shaberon (here)
In most casual acquiantanceships, I leave deep, triggering issues out, and usually only respond if someone else brings it up.

However, this is completely contrary to the spirit of mankind. Do you remember Alexandria? Debate was everything. The normal manner of spreading any of our tenets and beliefs is through open debate.

Honestly Shaberon? First I want to say Thank You for reminding me that healthy debate is a good thing... I have found that religion and politics fall into the same catagory, where I too "leave deep, triggering issues out, and usually only respond if someone else brings it up"

And the next reason is this... There is sooo much history on this planet, and so many religions and belief systems, that one would have to spend a lifetime filtering through the beliefs of all of them, and the history of every real conflict and or action of the past, to have any intelligent conversation comparing them all.. And for that, i am most certainly not qualified... And as is now, the victorious tend to rewrite the history of what truly happened, biased in their own way of what they believed to be true at the time, or what they wanted everyone else to believe.

And on top of that, I question the "God" premise entirely... Yes I said it... God may be nothing more than the "Federation of Light" of our time, only the acronym would then be FOL, rather than GOD.

I wrote an entire post, a lengthly one, explaining all of the similarities... But figured you would know why I would suggest that possibility.

I am not anti religion, and my post covered WHY I drew correlations to such suggestions, and I saved it if someone wishes to read it... But I feel religion isn't at all what we were led to believe...

[HopSan]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)

There is sooo much history on this planet, and so many religions and belief systems, that one would have to spend a lifetime filtering through the beliefs of all of them, and the history of every real conflict and or action of the past, to have any intelligent conversation comparing them all.. And for that, i am most certainly not qualified...

And as is now, the victorious tend to rewrite the history of what truly happened, biased in their own way of what they believed to be true at the time, or what they wanted everyone else to believe.

I am not anti religion, and my post covered WHY I drew correlations to such suggestions, and I saved it if someone wishes to read it... But I feel religion isn't at all what we were led to believe...

Thanks Denise,

Adding to my comment about having distanced from doomsday-Christianity during 80's:

I studied carefully all great religions, and tried to find which [if any] triggered my sense of 'truth' more than any else. Result was: None. All were 'similar' [incomprehensible] to me, and very much incompatible [to each other].

There was no way to choose -- better than dice.
I might as well think for myself.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Since the road here leads to no god, as that is the true expression of this offense some say Christians feel. The non-believers, the pretenders, only pay lip service to their religion - a kind of hedge against the finality of our short lives.

Why should Christians feel offended? By what?


As for the bigger question: is there a god?
I believe we did ourselves a great disservice by declaring there is only 'one true God'. I remember when I was a child thinking how obvious it is that there is only one god.

As I've gotten older, and after much research and many sleepless nights I have come to the realization that there are many gods. Some are big and powerful, others not so much. Each has their territory. Each presides over a unique quality or quantity or substance. It is the combination of their dominions that comprise the 'reality' we find ourselves in. Here there seems to be a group of gods that war for the right to rule over humanity.

The One True God is nothing more than an idea, for that is all we can ascertain of Its qualities. It is so far beyond us that the small gods we worship are but ants in comparison - they cannot know this absolute God any more than we can.

We cannot even understand a small god, although we are closing in on it now.


To one degree or another, all religions are cults. In Catholicism, for example, we must all recite the Nicene Creed - and we must believe every word of it. I never could. There are some things in that document that are pretty hard to reconcile with the truth or even with common sense.


I believe in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And I believe that this spirit can enter anyone with a pure heart. To me, Jesus, whether a historical figure or merely myth, is the penultimate rebel. A hero of the highest standard. The archetype of Jesus is very much needed at this time. I try to do it justice, but I am just a man, with the feeble foibles of a spoiled, entitled brat. For me to earn the right to fight for God I would have to be brought to my knees first, stripped of my wealth and all earthly possessions. Only then could I find the humility necessary to combat and defeat my ingrained apathy. Only then could the fear in me be tempered by the knowledge that I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


On another tangent, I would never think for myself because I have no criteria to base it on, only the fantasy of this so-called 'life'.
I 'feel' for myself because I believe in my feelings and my emotions, but I have no such confidence in my 'knowledge', which comes from other humans equally confused.

[ExomatrixTV]

• In my view, (the concept of a) Prime Creator is way beyond any man-made (and/or alien made/initiated) religions ...

It is much more about methods of mass (psychological) control ... and yes SOME of it may well be helpful, but so much is not ... one example is: People's ability to take full responsibility for their own quality of thinking/reasoning and ACT accordingly ... NOT hiding behind someone else's interpretations or any other so-called (religious) "authorities".

For the record, I have many different kinds of Christian truther friends & Christian colleague researchers who I deeply value & respect! Without them, we would have NO CHANCE fighting The New World Order ... especially the fearless Christians!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

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

[shaberon]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
And on top of that, I question the "God" premise entirely... Yes I said it... God may be nothing more than the "Federation of Light" of our time, only the acronym would then be FOL, rather than GOD.

Yes, I would say this has made it rather difficult.

This English word is adapted from Slavic languages around the 500s.

It's not from the source of any of the traditions under examination.

No one can explain it, or, I have not gotten concrete answers about what it is supposed to mean.

On the other hand, in response to ideas that I can suss out from the translations, our philosophy is very different than the explanations I see.

If we want to say a large amount of this revolves around The Creator, that would probably be accurate.

For one thing, it is said that attempting to trace it through the beginning and end of billions or countless universes, is less than worthless, because it leads to insanity.

The metaphor or image of this happening is fine. But if we look at the Indian and Greek sources, they are discussing the same thing, Theos or Asura, is perpetual motion, which could perhaps be called One Power as an operation of natural law, not an individualized entity such as a Creator.

Both myth cycles refer to multiple creations, that is to say, something happens in what could only be called a "mental world" before the formation of "this world". This is far from clear to me in the current edition of Genesis.

Neither one is really about setting up the Most Powerful God. Rather, it deals with the loop, or cycle, arising from Oneness, into Multiplicity, and dissipating again.

The "other way", at least to us, appears to join its limited philosophy with Fear of Death.


It is right around this point that the conversation generally stops. Anyone from a narrow background will quickly pinpoint me as an outsider, with foreign and possibly damning ideals. It is only under an Alexandria format that various "cults"--which is probably the right expression--can share and compare their tenets.

We are going to say there is a way to shed the Creator and enter the Absolute.

I'm not going to force it on anyone, and in return I would certainly like to not be persecuted or oppressed for intellectual reasons. Not asking much. Just the same humanistic principles we are attempting to share with everyone.

In return, one of the first things we promote is how not to be offended by anyone. In fact, an aspect of the art of debate. We give this to children. Moreover, we teach you how to walk, and breathe, in such a way as that when I look around me, the populace appears broken.


Because there is a finite amount of intellectual history to be gained from any sources, it seems to me that history is not that terribly complicated. Most regions cannot show that they practiced or believed specifically-different doctrines, but, rather, had local names for the same thing in their own languages. One of the most important was Storm God or Bull El. And even from the Gospels, the single time Jesus names any deity, it is El. As far as we know, God isn't invented for five hundred years after him, in another place.

And, it is this El, which the emergent Yhwh attacked and began removing.

From that point going forward, you can see changes to doctrines, different meanings, and so forth, in a way that deity cycles of Egypt or Sumeria only represent changes in the powers of temporal authorities, new rulers with a preferred language or naming scheme. But there are only limited examples of anyone trying to paint One True God over a multi-lingual understanding that was once adequate.

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

I believe in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And I believe that this spirit can enter anyone with a pure heart. To me, Jesus, whether a historical figure or merely myth, is the penultimate rebel. A hero of the highest standard. The archetype of Jesus is very much needed at this time. I try to do it justice, but I am just a man, with the feeble foibles of a spoiled, entitled brat. For me to earn the right to fight for God I would have to be brought to my knees first, stripped of my wealth and all earthly possessions. Only then could I find the humility necessary to combat and defeat my ingrained apathy. Only then could the fear in me be tempered by the knowledge that I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Wow Ernie, this paragraph really stood out to me. I do not wish to reduce everything else you wrote to insignifigance, so I apologize for only replying about this paragraph in particular... But it really stood out to me in regards to what what suggested within it It essentially holds a road map to countering the same things we are always dealing with, up to, and including today...

So to break your post down as I see it, as it may be different? When you mention "spirit" in this case, I immediately began to think about what we call "Spirit", as of today.. We can obtain "Spirit" in many ways. By the gathering in masses of individuals, all with like minds... Such as "school spirit" when we gather for example, for a high school football game. The gathering of the many, to rally for the few to win, actually does create excitement, and stir people to exert their own energies outwardly towards a common goal.. And there is probably a measurable amount of energy that is created within us when we stand in a field of said individuals..

People will tend to get excited, and get verbal, and physical in their ways of perpetuating support for their "Team" for example... In this case I would suggest "School spirit" could be reduced to excitement created by many in the same small area, perpetuating their own hope for a particular result.. Say a "Goal" for example, if the "Game" was football...

And we see this on a larger scale when people pour out in mass to watch professional sports. People literally can feel energy running through them, and I would guess the same thing would happen if you went to a church where everyone was celebrating their beliefs about Jesus... Especially in an animated way. But I believe that the statement you are referring to is "In the spirit of".. Meaning, you would wish to live and behave as if you were in the same frame of mind, and thought as the "spirit of" Jesus. Or the way he felt when he lived a certain way, and behaved in that "righteous" way..

Or do you really believe that a disembodied spirit of an individual whom once walked this world in a body as we do.... now free of the confines of a human body, literally would enter your body and cohabitate it with you?

What I got from Christian churches was that the spirit of Jesus, or God himself is within us already. It is up to us to behave in such a way as to honor that spirit, and behave in such a way that honors and brings to us, an opportunity to refocus our energies on peace and love, and goodwill towards others rather than be slaves to material things... .

Essentially we can "Emulate" this persons behavior, and as such we will have the same piece of mind, the same kindness, etc. When we let go of, all of the things most are enslaved over, what we cherish as material objects, etc, that free's us to live for love and kindness... The spirit of living this way resides in each one of us, should we choose that path. It always boggles my mind how so many people will go to church for a lifetime to learn this... And they wait an entire lifetime for their Jesus to come to them and somehow gift them with his presence...

It's almost as if they are waiting to be saved, rather than doing to work to help others... Which is very selfish of one sees it in such a way. It misses the whole point.

If someone has to be told over and over that they need to behave differently, and never do, but keep going back to be reminded of such? Then something went wrong in their teachings.

I don't think the real Jesus, or whomever the individual was, that lived their lives in such a docile and caring way, free of debt slavery and control, would want everyone to be going to a church and confessing every weekend, and merely handing their cash over to them, they would want them to learn to be a good person, and to leave the church and live that way... Free of the shackles that used to bind them.

Looking at it in that context, Is the gaining of the spirit, really any different than recreating something, in the spirit of celebrating how wonderful that "thing" was? For example, a civil war reanactment. Where individuals live and have mock fights "In the spirit of" the days when these things really happened... In this sense, isn't "The spirit of", really saying something more like recreating the "feeling of"? Or the essence of what that was during it's time? That's what I got from religion when I went to the churches...

I suppose going to a church environment, where many also gather "in mass", the same thing would happen, so long as they all desired some particular outcome, or their expression of the desire they share to be a part of something bigger, begins to fill a room of church, and others begin to literally feel that energy. But that wouldn't be the result of Jesus himself, entering the bodies of everyone there, but more a result of electric and chemical responses the body creates as a result of the environment. And those who felt that would possibly confuse that with the spirit of Christ entering them... And want to recreate that over and over, so some would go for that reason..

Most find this to be a positive experience.. To go into a group where there are many individuals, all experiencing a "Good Time", and spend a great deal of time wishing to be in the company of others. But others get that same feeling of "Spirit" when going to concerts, and events... So are we confusing the physical reactions of being in the presence of others whom are all thinking the same thing, for a physical interaction with a disembodied spirit entering them?

We are much more excitable, when in larger groups, and when alone we end to recoil into solitude as a creature.

So is spirit that interaction? The electrical exchanges between beings that we can literally react to, to the point where we feel a difference within us? And given that premise, is "Spirit" nothing more than something from an outside influence that animates us more, such as alcohol?

Now to the real meat of what you said, and how it hit me.. When you suggested this:

I am just a man, with the feeble foibles of a spoiled, entitled brat. For me to earn the right to fight for God I would have to be brought to my knees first, stripped of my wealth and all earthly possessions.

I had to think about this. And again I believe we are facing something that once happened here a long time ago, where a society had gained knowledge and abilities to create things, and what they created was debt slavery, capitalism, and the rule of the few, over the many. And the only way to "free yourself" from such things would be to disengage from that system.. Get rid of your property, or "Things" and live a more natural life... One in which someone cannot tax you, judge you, etc...

Perhaps religion was one way to take an out of control governmental body, and reduce it to a more free will choice of how one wants to live their life. Essentially saying, "I will not be a part of a system that taxes everyone, I will not allow someone else to rule over me"... But in doing so, it would mean you have to give up access to those things that have been created under the structure of a governing body or institution. And perhaps this is why we have division between the churches and states today.. And living in the "Spirit of" Jesus Christ, or following his teaching to let go of material things, an the adoption of a more natural and sincere lifestyle would emerge. One where you could love your neighbor rather than be envious of what they own...

Where we have to compete with the neighbors for the best home, the best vehicle.. We call this "Keeping up with the Jones's" in America...
But really, we do not even accomplish that by going to churches, as most that attend churches still pay taxes as they wish to live their daily lifestyles and not give up said things... and it is only the church itself that has a tax exempt status. So really, those attending churches do not practice what is preached... They do not give up their fancy lifestyles, their expensive clothes, in fact most dress in their "Sunday Best" to even attend church.... They do not live a life of poverty in the eyes of most, and live in a materialistic way, hoping someone will bestow upon them, some sacred gift.. Some supernatural force interacting with them instead.

This phrase came to mind...

Essentially, if you own nothing you have nothing that can be taxed...

In many ways TPTB are preaching a religious belief, when they suggest, "eventually people will own nothing, and they will be happy..."

But it would take a very evolved group of individuals to make this happen together... Unless forced upon them, but that would include the slavery of the masses to gain the power over them first, in order for there to be change at that level... So the course to get there, is fully the opposite of most want...as only then, could the foundation be laid to make sure everyone was taken care of and input their own energies into the whole in a positive way to benefit the whole.

One has to wonder if humans can accomplish this... ESPECIALLY GIVEN WE HAVE SO MAN COMPETING BELIEF SYSTEMS, AND CANNOT EVEN UNITE AS A SPECIES...

I hope my rambling made sense here, i was interrupted a few times...

But here is a far out way of reading the bible.. If you believe in the simulation theory. If it is a simulation, what was the intent behind it's creation? What does the Bible tell us in this situation?

What if life is A virtual game in which you get a player character, you are dropped in, and you get to animate in the game. You can choose any path that you like, but according to religious rules, if you want to be saved and reborn into the game, you must live a good life, be kind to others, and seek out the creator...

Being dunked in a bowl of water, well, that is nice for profits at the church, or for the belief that you will be reborn... But what if you are literally tested, and at the end TOLD if you will be reborn, and the church had nothing to do with it?

At the point which you are tested... Yje judgement being "Are you good enough to return to the game?" Should they save your character and carry you over into the next simulation, or reentry into this one? Were you kind, loving, and compassionate? Or were you brutal and rude?

There is so much we do not know... So I try to not limit the options of a reality that seem limitless, to one thought process... Silly, maybe insane, but I think that is the best way to move through what we call life.

[Ernie Nemeth]

On the spirit of Jesus:

It took me a bit to find a way to answer this from a personal perspective.

Before we are born, we know everything and have no questions. Then we are born to this world. In that moment we become confused by the novelty of our situation. We know nothing of this place, it being alien to our nature. So, we begin the process of becoming human.

We learn to 'act' human. It becomes a play, a game. Everyone has their own slant on being human, so everyone seems different to some extent. This is the idol we make - the individual human, alone, separate, and uncertain.

However, it is an act we mimic from those around us, and those we model also modeled their version of being human off others' behavior. It is all false.

These individuations that we identify with are based on archetypes. These are the templates that precede manifestation. They are like the 'forces of nature' in that they form the plenum of our reality, or the substrate of identity. There are not many archetypes, perhaps between about nine to twenty - depending on what authority one wants to mention.

The archetypes can have names attributed to them based on the most famous of that type. The names are specific but the archetype they resemble is general.

Jesus Christ is one of these, the archetype of priest.


Since we only play a part, and that part is only part of our whole true identity, we can take on any archetype we wish at any time. This is because we are all the archetypes simultaneously in our natural state. We truly are schizophrenic and only pretend to be normal. That's why, when we suddenly change archetypes for a bit, some will accuse you of not being yourself. Because just as they pretend to be themselves, they expect you to be yourself as they have become accustomed to seeing you. They expect you to remain stable and in a steady state. That is part of the play. That's why those that experiment with identity, trying on different archetypes, seem insincere.

That's when you might get comments like, 'he was always such a nice quiet guy', or, 'that is quite out of character for her.'. What they are really saying to you is, 'I wish you were someone else'.

So, to the question of 'spirit'. I am not saying 'in the spirit of'. I am saying 'in the likeness of'. The archetype works for any who take it on - it is natural, just like any of the other archetypes. you get the powers, the special talents, of an archetype by 'being' that archetype. Simple. That's why we are human 'beings'. But what we really are is humans 'becoming'.

We are not human, we pretend to be a thing called, 'human'.
It is all a game and anyone can play any way they wish - there are no restrictions except the ones we impose on ourselves.