Sorry, but if this does not fit here, it fits nowhere:

 

20 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

having problems getting pic uploaded-

Get back to us, you got my imagination going.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the
birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will
precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you
come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you
who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in
poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
 

^ this is my Jesus tho. Could read it a thouasand times and never get tired of it.

Ty for introducing me to something New, tho:

 

Avalokiteśvara was translated into Guanyin or Guanshiyin 觀世音 in Chinese, which means “the one who hears (the world’s) sounds” – in the sense of hearing the world’s prayers – and has become the most important bodhisattva in Chinese and East Asian Buddhism. These two names were later borrowed into Japanese as Kannon and Kanzeon, respectively.
 

It is good wording, I belive. Not suggesting that I have any thing to say on it after reading a paragraph fron wiki, however.

Just now, Apech said:

I can’t find the reference but some suggest that meek in this context refers to someone who has the power to react but refuses to use it.  Like perhaps self restrained or something like that.

It should, that is where virtue comes in, IMO. 

11 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

I'm interested to know if people pray to guanyin in a similar way to Mary, it seems like I'm off track with that analogy though... 

alright, let me just share my take on this. I stress that it is my own, I am not talking on behalf of anyone. But I see prayer as not to different from meditating on a concept. Giving thanks, maybe, and maybe you direct that towards God, or nature or the universe or what have you, but I really do not think it matters. Nor do I think the words used matters. Do I have to tell the gods anything, and do they speak Norwegian or english?

Also, we have the much more… fiery view from Nietzche. He uses some terms you might want to avoid useing on a first date, but we are all grown ups, no?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

I think meek has a specific meaning which you might like to look up.

This one:

 

Meek in the Greek literature of the period most often meant gentle or soft. Nolland writes that a more accurate interpretation for this verse is powerless.[5] Clarke notes how important and revolutionary this elevation of meekness was in the Mediterranean societies of the time that placed enormous stock in honor and status.[6]Strong's entry for the Greek word praus lists it as "mild, gentle".[7]
 

?

 

I must say, it is a very curious concept in a way. Let me share a passage from the foreword of Epictetus work, written by Viggo Johansen on the stoic influence on christianity. Think you might enjoy it:

 

 

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

well there are several variations and here is one example:  Quote: "Panentheism views God as both immanent and transcendent. This means that while the entire universe is a part of God, God also exists beyond the universe. As such, this God can be a personal God, a conscious being that manifested the universe with whom one can have a personal relationship 2018"

I like that very much.

 

Meditations, second book, paragraph III:

III. What comes from the gods is permeated by their providence. The work of fate is not nature foreign, nor is it different from the web that is woven by fortune. Everything flows from there. The necessary comes from it, and what benefits the entire universe that you are a part of. What all-nature gives, and what serves to sustain it, is also good for every part of nature. The world is sustained by change, changes in the things that the elements form, as much as the elements themselves. Let that be enough for you if you accept these teachings. Free yourself from your thirst for books, so that you do not die with rebellion in your heart, but sincerely content and with a heart grateful to the gods.

47 minutes ago, doc benway said:

Not sure if any of that makes sense but it's fun to chat about "it" once in a while.

Let me offer a radically different perception of «it,» for a moment, if only as a thought experiment. How about fully embracing this very personal and limited experience can be very fulfilling? That instead of trying to escape it, you say yes from the bottom of your heart, even your perception might or might not be in accordance to the underlying… what term would you prefer here? I think you would prefer no term, but can we call it reality?

27 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

The same token goes with Tao.
Tao was created by Laozi, then Tao was said to be before god or deity. Tao is on top the universe to monitor how things are created properly. If not, so let it be by following the course of nature. That is what the Laozi's philosophy of Wu Wei(無為) was all about.

Let me repeat something I just read ans commented on in another thread: the chinese translation of the greek term Logos (the Word in english). They translate it as Dao. This was helpfull info for me aswell, since it gave me a lense to understand dao better with. So lets see:

 

 

 

 

 

The chinese apperantly use the term dao to translate logos (the Word) in the New testament… the more you learn!

3 hours ago, Thrice Daily said:

Do you feel as though the prayers likely go to the same place?

Want a biblical answer?

 

Teaching About Prayer.

5“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

6But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

7* In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.*

8Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

The Lord’s Prayer.

9* “This is how you are to pray:c

Our Father in heaven,*

hallowed be your name,

10your kingdom come,*

your will be done,

on earth as in heaven.d

11* e Give us today our daily bread;

12and forgive us our debts,*

as we forgive our debtors;f

13and do not subject us to the final test,*

but deliver us from the evil one.g

14* If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.h

15But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
 

 

Look at 8 there. The way I see it, if you pray or meditate on the highest principle, there should be no need for words.

 

Here is another one for you;

 

"O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen."

7 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

Now I realise it’s Correct, and actually most people are extremely Christian without even knowing it. In their heart of hearts, it’s all beyond Christ and his story really.

truly there is no escaping him, for better or for worse. May I reccomend the gospel of Thomas to you?

Quote

Jung had always thought that four was the true mystical number, the symbol of wholeness and completion. Christianity’s Trinity was therefore by definition incomplete. As McLynn says, Jung thought “that the dogma of the Assumption clinched the case for four as the mystical number, since it meant that the Catholic Church had tacitly abandoned the Trinity in favour of a quaternity. Although it was not strictly true that there was no feminine element in the Trinity — since Jung often argued that the Holy Ghost was one manifestation of Sophia⁴ — nevertheless the perfection of God had now been fully achieved by God’s union with Sophia in the guise of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary was thus in effect a fourth member of the godhead, so that the Trinity was now a quaternity”.

In conclusion, here are a couple of random thoughts. Firstly, Jung’s thinking is more in line with Gnosticism than with Christianity. As June Singer says: “In Christianity the feminine power is subdued, as nature and body are subdued. Where woman is recognized, it is in her biological function as Mother and bearer of the Divine Child, or as virgin, as in religious orders. But as a fully independent and sexual woman, she has little status. In Gnosticism, the feminine is redeemed from the depths of matter and returned to co-equal status with the masculine”⁵.

https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-christianity-carl-jung-and-the-divine-feminine-fbb5dca935f4

You can critize the faith for a lot, but one thing I think you can not deny, is the power of the Christ narrative.  Off which being born in a stable, God incarnate and sacrifised and risen again are fundemental. Although if you acctually, literally buy all of this, I would say you are on the same intellectual caliber as those who belive thunder is the result of Thor beating his hammer or that the rainbow is the messenger of the gods, even today.

27 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

Right I’m starting a new topic in this part of the forum thanks for the inspiration 👍 

Im all for it. I often ponder how this one faith went from an obscure cult, to a very diverse sets of belief to the religion. Find me one man that has not heard about Christ today.

 

What I am most curious about, is if some of the greek mysteries got perserved in a masked form 👀

One thing I acctually think is quite strange about christianity, historically speaking, is some of its values.

 

Like the meek shall inheirit the earth..? Everyone being equal in the eyes of God (no superior or inferior, slave or master, barbarian or citizien, jew or gentile). I somehow doubt that was mainstream thought in the early roman empire, but maybe I am wrong.

So, in many languages the word for breath and spirit is the same. Here is a quick wiki search:

The word spirit (ånd) originally meant breath (pust). Spirit in greek is called pneuma, nous, im latin spiritus, mens, animus or anima, hebrew ruach, arabic ruh, english mind or spirit, french esprit and german Geist.

 

So, that is quite an amount of languages where breath/spirit is or originates from the same word. The Norwegian term, as mentioned, is ånd. Incredibly, this is cognate to sanskrit atman: also originally meaning breath. In order not to butched the vedic/hindu tradition, ill let britannica explain the term today:

 

atman, one of the most basic concepts in Hinduism, the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha) from the bonds of existence. 
 

In the norse creation myth, the first humans are pieces of wood that Odin, Villi and Ve breathes life (and various charictaristics, like the will, hence the name Villi). This naturally sounds very familiar to genesis, where God also breathes a divine spark into mankind.

 

I wonder if this is an innate human… «archetype,» or if it may be the legacy of the indo european wind deity:

 

H₂weh₁-yú is believed to be a god who controls the wind. He came from Proto Indo European Mythology and many cultures have gods that came from him.^[1] His name comes from the Proto-Indo-European word for "blow".^[2][1] In some traditions, he is shown as two gods who control different types of wind. Other cultures have similar gods, with names like Vayu-Vātaand Vāyu.^[1] The god is also linked to the idea of giving and taking breath, which connects him to life and death.^[3] Many Indo-European languages have words for wind that come from the same root as H₂weh₁-yú including the English wind.^[1]

 

 

 

Most people here, are, I assume, native english speakers. It is curious that the word wind, to wander and wonder are so similar, no?

On 16.5.2024 at 1:14 AM, Apech said:

Why is Christianity such a strange religion?  

 

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

 

- there is a supreme being who created the universe

- this being impregnated a virgin 

- the child grew up to perform miracles and so on

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

?

I get the sentiment, but two quick counter points:

1. I belive you are making a little bit of a strawman here. I think the amount of people that interpet the virgin birth symbolically, as a literary tool, far out weighs the amount of people who think Yahwe put his penis inside virgin Mary.

2. We are talking a very «canonized» christianity, which, as we all know, has been strongly regulated and abused trough the centuries. I think we would see a big difference if it was allowed to grow organically, as I think most religions once did. Christianity even, in its very beginnings.

1 minute ago, Master Logray said:

 

"towards the same truth" - how many truths are there?  

One, by definition.

12 hours ago, silent thunder said:

You asked "Does all spiritual traditions point towards the same truth?"

Then you answered with an assumption of same message.

Then you posited, based on this assumption.

 

I guess my response at this point is... words are words.

Reality is reality.

 

Be well.  Live and thrive!

 

 

 

You know, ironically, what you say is «true.»

 

But curious, how do you propose we avoid human conceptions, when that is all we know? In my language the word for truth is not truth, but «sannhet.» Still, you can be confident that we are talking about the exact same thing.

 

And yes, I made an assumption in my introductionary post. That was meant as nothing but my interpertation, and maybe I should have avoided it all together.

 

Allow me to continue on topics I know nothing about. One paragraph from britannica on mystisism:

 

Quote

 

The complexity of the historical record is multiplied exponentially when one includes other religious traditions in the survey. Both Buddhism and Kabbala, the esotericJewish mysticism originating in the 12th century, emphasize nothingness rather than oneness, and the notion of oneness itself has many varieties in both Christianity and Hinduism. These facts are inconsistent with the postulation of a single unity or oneness that mystics everywhere experience or perceive.

Cant say I grasp «nothingness» tbh. Unity, however, I do.

Meditations, second book, paragraph III:

III. What comes from the gods is permeated by their providence. The work of fate is not nature foreign, nor is it different from the web that is woven by fortune. Everything flows from there. The necessary comes from it, and what benefits the entire universe that you are a part of. What all-nature gives, and what serves to sustain it, is also good for every part of nature. The world is sustained by change, changes in the things that the elements form, as much as the elements themselves. Let that be enough for you if you accept these teachings. Free yourself from your thirst for books, so that you do not die with rebellion in your heart, but sincerely content and with a heart grateful to the gods.
 

 

His mentality is truly unmatched, in my opinion.

10 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Maps describe terrain, but are not terrain. 

Thoughts and conceptual thinking, are aproximations that attempt to describe, but are not reality.

How close do they get?  How can one be certain when discerning the accuracy requires more thought and interpretation?

 

The picture, name, or concept of a salad is not functional nutrition.

Symbols are not reality.  What we speak of when we speak of self even... 'I' and 'you' are symbolic expressions.

 

neither 'i' nor 'you' are thoughts, emotions, nor body.

So one I said oneness in my opening post.. that is kind of what you are talking about, no?

31 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Truth is a human word.  A mental conception. 

 

Words and thinking are more akin to a map of a place than the reality the map represents.

 

What is... is what is.

Thinking is a subjective, interpretive process and truth is but one concept.

Alright, but does the maps describe the same terrain but with different symbolism?