World Peace is near (St. Malachi Prophecy)

[Vmarco]

Nah, they just hide it. Like Thomas Brodie recently came out as someone who believes that Jesus is a fiction.

 

I don't think any credible scholar would say Jesus did not exist,...although all stories of his divinity have been shown to be fiction. Like most fiction, it arises for a reason.

 

For example, the fanciful story of Mason Weems, invented after the death of George Washington, about George Washington and the cherry tree. Weems fabricated this story to broaden the character of America’s first president and to make him seem more appealing.

 

The Jesus Christ myth was interwoven from many sources, including the Egypto-Greek Sarapis, whose devotees, according to Hadrian, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. Sarapians had temples in most of the major cities of the time, including Alexandria, Rome, and even Bithynia, where Pliny the Younger was governor at the beginning of the second century CE. Under Trajan (who was married to Pompeia Piso), Hadrian was governor of Syria. As every Bible hobbyist should know, as per Matthew 4:24, Jesus’ fame was said to reach throughout all of Syria, yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus’ followers as Christians until well into the second century. Why was that?

 

Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ.

 

Neither Paul nor his followers could grasp gnosis, that is, to gnow themselves through the heart of essence. Like many today, frozen in their conceptual experiences, Paul needed a more physical, hope-driven, fear-based path. The ignorant respond to hope and fear. Thus, from the expectations infused through the Pauline church, the concept of a personified Christ grew and entered the groupthink of the anti-Gnostic Paulines and those, like the Roman aristocrats, who wished to exploit it.

 

Before 95 CE, when history suggests that Apollonius died and rose from the dead, there is no mention of a personified Christ or the four gospels. There is no known contemporary scriptural record of the life and times of Jesus/Yeshua. For neo-Christians, so fond of quoting Bible babble, what wasn’t said in the first century that which is curiously missing, is as interesting as the fabrications and contradictions of what was said then. For example, in the writings of Clement Romanus, the Pauline bishop of Rome circa 95 CE, there is not even a tinge of gospel references. Yet Luke 1:1–2 specifically implies that many eyewitness followers had already been writing. Adding to the intrigue, Clement, whom Tertullian and Jerome suggest was the direct successor of Peter, was also said to be a Flavian, that is, a relative of the men who were then the emperors of the Rome.

 

Sciolistic Christians vaunt that the historian Josephus, in two remarks that have been taken out of context, verifies that Jesus/Yeshua existed. Today, however, even conservative scholars agree that those quotations from chapters 18 and 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews, were later Christian interpolations. Such conclusions are consistent with Origen, an ante-Nicene father, who in the third century CE indicated that such a declaration from Josephus of a Jesus Christ did not exist in his copy of the Jewish Antiquities. Furthermore, no one else before the fourth century CE ever mentioned such an important reference from this often-cited source. Another claim by neo-Christians as to Jesus Christ’s historicity comes fromTacitus’ Annals 15.44, the comment of how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians after Rome’s fire of 64 CE was actually about Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus or Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the second-century Gospel of Matthew called false Christians. Neo-Christians appropriated the name Christianity, as they lifted terms from most of the cultures that they absorbed.

 

In his letter to the Consul Servianus, Hadrian (71–138 CE), who was the governor of Syria under Trajan, called the Sarapian leaders "bishops of Christ." Up until the beginning of the Second Century, the Egypto-Greek Sarapians, including those in Syria, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. As you will read, there was no reason for Rome to kill the followers of Paul and the Gospels which arose from Mark.

 

Considering a set of all knowledge for that period, not a single Jewish, Roman, or Greek historian, scribe, or writer mentions before 95 CE the Jesus Christ depicted in the gospels. There are no artifacts, no works of carpentry, and no physical evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed. For such a famous person, professed to have been known far and wide, it is notable that there is not a single word of him from Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Gaius Petronius, the Syrian Mara, Philo Judaeus, Pausanias (who traveled throughout Syria), Theon of Smyrna, Thallus of Samaria, Silius (Consul of Asia Minor), or the Syrian-born Lucianus.

 

However, the word scribe(s) is mentioned at least sixty-six times in the New Testament. Thus, repeatedly, what was not mentioned says much regarding the history of the invention of present-day Christianity. For instance, why was the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, known as the ornament of Galilee, just four miles down the hill from the archeological site of Nazareth, not alluded to in the Gospels, although they all mention Nazareth? Could it be that the authors of the gospels were unaware that the city existed because Rome leveled it during the Jewish Revolt of 66–71 CE, some forty years after the Talmud’s Jesus was hanged for sedition? It is unlikely that Nazarites lived in Galilee, but were instead Jerusalemites.

 

V

[Apech]

 

I guess.

 

One could say that knowing God (Absolute reality) is the only true happiness.

 

Very similar to eastern thought really, Buddhism etc.

 

 

 

 

Er what!? Buddhism promotes wisdom and also learning ... The Taoist sage is wise and so on ... I don't get that ... this Biblical idea that you should just stop thinking for yourself and believe is rubbish.

[RongzomFan]

Anyway, I'm all ears, but Carrier has some weak presentations

 

According to even mainstream scholarship, the gospels are mostly fictitious They are gospels (propaganda), not histories.

 

Carrier merely comes to a different conclusion using mainstream facts.

[ॐDominicusॐ]

Er what!? Buddhism promotes wisdom and also learning ... The Taoist sage is wise and so on ... I don't get that ... this Biblical idea that you should just stop thinking for yourself and believe is rubbish.

Aspects of Christianity also discuss "denying yourself" (as in deny the Ego) and that the "Kingdom of God is within you" with various parables that have to do with digging deep within to find the Pearl of Truth. To go within, implies knowing thyself and wisdom of self.

 

The belief aspect is merely the beginning stages along the Christian path and considered Exoteric, while later on with direct experience, come the realizations and insights of the esoteric aspects.

 

 

 

I don't think any credible scholar would say Jesus did not exist,...although all stories of his divinity have been shown to be fiction. Like most fiction, it arises for a reason.

There are various stories of various Saints performing Divine Miraculous abilities and the like, with various witnesses at hand. I wouldn't be so quick to drop miracles. Buddha performed a few to prove he had realized the Supreme Ultimate.

 

While I would never place myself in any of those categories, I've personally seen through walls when my Third Eye was completely and fully open .....whereas before I was a hardened materialist skeptical Atheist(you can imagine how quickly that dead horse passed away).

 

With all the findings of our reality not being as solid as we think, several scientists offering new theories of non-local consciousness, the effect that observation has on solidifying reality, and a new experiment in the works that is supposed to prove the reality is an illusion ....I'm afraid it's no longer so cut and dry.

 

There are no artifacts, no works of carpentry, and no physical evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed.

Absence of evidence, isn't necessarily evidence of absence. There are plenty of historical figures for whom we have no artifacts or physical evidence of their existence ....but that's not evidence that they didn't exist.

 

Jesus’ fame was said to reach throughout all of Syria, yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus’ followers as Christians until well into the second century. Why was that?

The spreading of new thought/philosophy takes time, especially when the old guard is hardened.

 

I'm of the school that Jesus was a Gnostic, and that just like in VMarco's reply above, the rest of the Disciples were in fact dumbed down to the Gnostic realities, which caused all sorts of anomalies in the NT.

 

I think Gospel of Thomas is important. It is clearly the earliest of all the NT writings and in it is said to be the Secret Teachings of Jesus to his Disciples.

 

In Thomas there are very Koan-like, Nondual-like sayings. "Know thyself and you will know God." or "When two things are One, then you will Know God." I think Thomas is the link to Gnostic/Mystical Jesus.

 

When Jesus taught, he had to wrap his teachings in the language of the day, in Jewish OT frame of mind/thought. It was necessary to dumb it all down.

 

Also interestingly is, that just like Buddha said to test his Philosophies to see if they are true ...to see experientially yourself, the same "test for yourself" invitation is upheld in the Esoteric Mystical branch of the Eastern Orthodox Monastical branch of Christianity.

 

Either way, all this Jesus stuff ain't going nowhere.

 

Just like the Muslims. They are increasing in HUGE numbers. They also have a Philosophy and teaching in the Mosques in Europe, for married couples to procreate a dozen or more kids, get them all highly educated, and inserted into positions of power within the countries they live, i.e. Government, Lawyers, C.E.O's, Bankers. Islam is spreading through Europe like a wildfire.

 

It's funny that Nostradamus has a prediction that all of Western Europe will be Muslim, as did Edgar Cayce.

 

Nucking Futs is what I think about all that. Fundy Dogma at its finest.

Edited February 12, 2013 by ॐDominicusॐ

[Marblehead]

Okay. Who wants to be crucified next?

[ॐDominicusॐ]

According to even mainstream scholarship, the gospels are mostly fictitious

not the majority

 

They are gospels (propaganda), not histories.

Everything is propaganda that causes the human mind to create Bias Bubbles.

 

Who says they are not histories, when History is written by the winners of wars? All relative.

 

There are sooo many instances where all the scholars thought certain portions of the Bible (that discussed geographical tidbits, such as certain locations, cities, kings, etc,) were fictitious, only to be later discovered in archeological digs.

 

There is a recent dig that purportedly uncovered the remains of John the Baptist.

 

 

Regardless, alot of stuff can be debated for days and what not. But I'd like to leave off with 2 things.

 

1. Physical death, the Ultimate Equalizer. We'll find out then what is true and what is not.

2. Christianity has a very old and applicable systematic process of advancement towards Enlightenment, (or as they call it, Union with God). Much of it has many similarities to all of the world's major branches and paths towards Enlightenment

 

Alot of the hatred towards it is misplace either due to Dogmatic Fundamentalism, Christian based egotism which causes followers to do all sorts of stupid acts in the name of Christianity/God/Christ, Catholicism (and all the sick, evil, corrupt, stupidity done in its name) and many other factors

[RongzomFan]

not the majority

 

Actually yes the majority.

[ॐDominicusॐ]

Actually yes the majority.

In that case, we can apply the same views to all the ancient writings from the Vedas, Mahabharata, Koran, Sutras, Secret Of The Golden Flower, etc etc etc etc .... never ending stereotypical cycles with no end in sight.

 

That "Majority" which we are referencing here, being scholarly academia, has a built in Bias based on hard lined Atheistic Skepticism, almost to a fault. Sure, there is such a thing as healthy Skepticism, but when it creates a bias bubble, then you've already lost.

 

That Majority, thinks in with a certain hive mind mentality, which effects the whole to such a degree, that there are cases of corporate funding and grants being pulled, on the basis of the individuals' involved belief systems. That same majority, would look at the forums on Taobums, and say that everything we discuss here is woo, fluff, fantasies & delusions.

[Aetherous]

Ok I've read it now and it seems to mean the same to me. Can you explain an alternative interpretation?

 

You read all of Ecclesiastes and think that it means we should "stay stupid"?

 

There are many layers to it...one is that the book is an attempt to talk about the meaning/s of life. Solomon comes up with a few conclusions, which can be enriching to one's life. There are lots of nuggets of truth throughout the book. Don't know exactly what to say about it...not really qualified...

[Vmarco]

I'm of the school that Jesus was a Gnostic, and that just like in VMarco's reply above, the rest of the Disciples were in fact dumbed down to the Gnostic realities, which caused all sorts of anomalies in the NT.

 

I think Gospel of Thomas is important. It is clearly the earliest of all the NT writings and in it is said to be the Secret Teachings of Jesus to his Disciples.

 

In Thomas there are very Koan-like, Nondual-like sayings. "Know thyself and you will know God." or "When two things are One, then you will Know God." I think Thomas is the link to Gnostic/Mystical Jesus.

 

Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos.

 

The word Christos, referring to an "awakened one," crept into Greek subculture during the fifth century BCE, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history.

 

The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ.

 

Jesus the Nazarite (not of Nazareth or Galilee) is probably the same Jesus whose sayings were collected by Didymos Judas Thomas in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. This Gnostic or cardio-centric gospel of "secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke" appears to have been compiled in response to Paul’s new cerebro-centric religion. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Paul predate the canonical gospels by at least a generation.

 

Christianity isn't a thing one can understand through sound-bites,...a quote here or a quote there,...but as the whole of all information, whose only rational conclusion is that Christianity is 95% fabrication.

 

All the evidence, when considered as a whole, point to Christianity as a refashioning of Gnostic mythology into a religion that advocated slavery, dependency, ignorance, and submissive obedience. This new religion was never a threat to Rome, but rather, it was one through which its adherents, servants of Rome’s ruling class, were morally obligated to suffer meekly what Caesar wished or, as Titus 2:9 says, to please their masters in all things. Christianity is a pro-Roman religion. Did not Paul say that Roman magistrates were only a threat to evildoers or that the man who rebels against his master is opposing God’s will? What Roman would want to persecute the philosophy that said that tax collectors are God’s ministers (Romans 13:6)? It was the Jewish zealots and Gnostic Christians who threatened Rome, not the anti-Gnostic Paulines and neo-Christians.

[Apech]

You read all of Ecclesiastes and think that it means we should "stay stupid"?

 

There are many layers to it...one is that the book is an attempt to talk about the meaning/s of life. Solomon comes up with a few conclusions, which can be enriching to one's life. There are lots of nuggets of truth throughout the book. Don't know exactly what to say about it...not really qualified...

 

I read the first chapter and in a different translation it says:

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁶ I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” ¹⁷ Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

¹⁸ For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;

the more knowledge, the more grief.

 

more knowledge = more grief .... therefore presumably less knowledge less grief ...so don't get knowledge ... so stay stupid ... tell me another way to read this ... seriously I would like to know ...

[Vmarco]

Aspects of Christianity also discuss "denying yourself" (as in deny the Ego) and that the "Kingdom of God is within you" with various parables that have to do with digging deep within to find the Pearl of Truth. To go within, implies knowing thyself and wisdom of self.

 

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

 

'Gnothi Seauton', as inscribed over the portico of the Temple at Delphi, means Gnow Thyself, not Know Thyself. In other words, those who say they know, most likely do not Gnow.

 

Knowledge is a barrier to Heart-Mind,...Knowledge is all in the head.

 

When 5th Century BCE Greeks spoke of Higher Mind, they used the word Thymos, and pointed to what is called the Heart chakra at the chest,....as for Lower Mind, it was called Psyche, and arose from the grey-goo in the head.

 

If you reduce knowledge to its lowest common denominator, knowledge is always in the past. It arises from the skandhas, and can only be part of the skandhas. Gnowledge on the other hand, arises from the present,...although it is not itself the present.

 

know\no, v. knew, known, know-ing, knows; OE gecnawan, be able to; akin to L. gnovi. 1. to perceive directly through the senses; comprehend through the intellect (the 6th sense); psyche. 2. to have fixed in the intellect or memory, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have a practical understanding of, as through sensory experience; know how to cook. 4. to comprehend noologically; through thought/intellect.

 

gnow\no, v. gnew, gnown, gnow-ing, gnows; from Gk gnosis, understanding through Heart-Mind. 1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness (beyond the 6 senses); comprehend through the heart of essence or thymos. 2. to experience, without media-tion, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love. 4. to comprehend ontosophically; through prajna/gnosis.

[Apech]

gnow garden, garden gnome.

 

am I on the right track?

[Aetherous]

more knowledge = more grief .... therefore presumably less knowledge less grief ...so don't get knowledge ... so stay stupid ... tell me another way to read this ... seriously I would like to know ...

 

When people say "ignorance is bliss" are they actually advocating pure ignorance? Or simply stating a truth, and coming from a perspective of experience in the opposite?

 

The one part of the book which is similar to what you're saying, is where the author says not to be "overwise". But that's coming from a perspective of wisdom. He never says anything like "don't get knowledge, stay stupid". It's really the opposite...people staying stupid are the ones not considering the words in the book. He suggests that a different mindset and lifestyle are the best we can do for feeling happy...for instance, enjoying our labor and our food in the moment. This also comes from a perspective of wisdom...

[Marblehead]

gnow garden, garden gnome.

 

am I on the right track?

Yeah, but mine are garden fairies.

[Marblehead]

... Atheistic Skepticism, ...

I am an Atheistic Skeptic. One can find many statements of mine where I speak against the institution of religion. But I think one would be hard pressed to find any statement of mine where I speak agains religion.

 

Yes, all religions and even most philosophies have their myths. Simply an attempt by the devout to make the religion or philosophy to appear more powerful than it really is.

 

"Miracles", as the word is generally used, never happen. Yes, events occur that we do not know the cause of. These are not miracles, they are events within the normal operation of nature and that is all.

[Green Tiger]

Christianity isn't a thing one can understand through sound-bites,...a quote here or a quote there,...but as the whole of all information, whose only rational conclusion is that Christianity is 95% fabrication.

 

Wow! This discussion got REALLY interesting since I've last looked. I haven't been able to read it all thoroughly yet, but I would really like to know how you came to the 95% fabrication factoid. I agree that is is naive to think that 100% of the collected writings about Jesus and the things he said were actually accurate and said by him, but 95% fabricated? Com'n.

 

I also think that a study of Jesus's teachings can be conducted via sound bytes. I would be interested to go through sound bytes to compare and examine. By their fruits shall you know them. You can surely recognize Wisdom and Truth when you see/hear it, right?

 

Whoever said/wrote things like "And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." (Luke 6:34-35) That person had some wisdom. Enlightened? Jury's still out.

 

Whoever said/wrote things like: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21). That person may have been close to enlightenment (which is a loaded word, I know, but you get the idea).

 

There are some pretty profound teachings attributed to Jesus, especially for the time and place. Do you think each author just made it up him/her self? Doesn't it seem likely that they originated with some unique (possibly enlightened) individual, or small group of individuals whose teachings were just poorly recorded?

 

I think calling it 95% fabrication is pretty exaggerated. I have no idea what the actual percent of fabrication might be, but I suspect it is much lower.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Green Tiger

[Vmarco]

When people say "ignorance is bliss" are they actually advocating pure ignorance? Or simply stating a truth, and coming from a perspective of experience in the opposite?

 

 

 

Commenting on people who cling tightly to personal, individual truth, Nietzsche said, "What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’

[Apech]

When people say "ignorance is bliss" are they actually advocating pure ignorance? Or simply stating a truth, and coming from a perspective of experience in the opposite?

 

The one part of the book which is similar to what you're saying, is where the author says not to be "overwise". But that's coming from a perspective of wisdom. He never says anything like "don't get knowledge, stay stupid". It's really the opposite...people staying stupid are the ones not considering the words in the book. He suggests that a different mindset and lifestyle are the best we can do for feeling happy...for instance, enjoying our labor and our food in the moment. This also comes from a perspective of wisdom...

 

 

Thank you for explaining. I don't get that at all from the text but its interesting that you and others read it that way.

[Marblehead]

turtle shell said:

When people say "ignorance is bliss" are they actually advocating pure ignorance? Or simply stating a truth, and coming from a perspective of experience in the opposite?

 

Commenting on people who cling tightly to personal, individual truth, Nietzsche said, "What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’

Yep. And I will admit that I have felt that way on occasion. But I will suggest that it is more at "I already have my truth, you go ahead and hold to yours."

[Vmarco]

Wow! This discussion got REALLY interesting since I've last looked. I haven't been able to read it all thoroughly yet, but I would really like to know how you came to the 95% fabrication factoid. I agree that is is naive to think that 100% of the collected writings about Jesus and the things he said were actually accurate and said by him, but 95% fabricated? Com'n.

 

I think calling it 95% fabrication is pretty exaggerated. I have no idea what the actual percent of fabrication might be, but I suspect it is much lower.

 

No exaggeration,...if you're in the US, go take a course in Christianity at a State University. For example, as previously mentioned,...In the 1980s, a biennial gathering of Biblical scholars concluded that only the word father could be traced to Matthew’s so-called Sermon on the Mount. The greater part of the sermon consisted of words placed in Jesus’ mouth by others long after he was dead. During that same period in the 1980s, over a hundred Bible scholars at another seminar agreed that Jesus never promised to return and that he never had any intention of starting a religion. Commenting on these scholars’ conclusions, the Jesuit Rev. Edward Beutner said, "These are not maverick scholars; they take a very careful approach to how sayings were transmitted and evolved in the Bible texts."

 

So, considering the Sermon on the Mount, less than 1% can be seen as factual.

 

Yes,...please read my Christian posts in this thread,,...the information presented was reviewed, and expressed to be 100% accurate, by several theologians and Religious Studies scholars.

 

In the first century of the Common Era (CE), a traveling sage taught among the people in the Middle East. He performed numerous works and miracles. He healed the lame and the paralyzed, raised the dead, and cast away evil spirits. This prophet taught a way of salvation and the laws of the only true god. This prophet was said to have been born of a virgin, and it was said that he had walked on the Sea of Erythra (the Red Sea). He was esteemed by many as the Son of God, although he claimed to be only a son of man. He was arrested for inciting the people, and after his death, it was alleged that he had risen from the dead, walked with his followers, and then ascended to heaven.

 

We all know who this was, right? Of course we do. His name was Apollonius, and his story is found in Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus. However, some who are predisposed to a particular religion and its theo-beliefs may have thought the person referred to in the above narrative was someone else.

 

Religion and its theo-beliefs, for those caught up in that groupthink, are difficult to recognize as something discordant in our lives, let alone as a barrier that obscures the truth of who we are from ourselves and prevents the uncovering of our light. Those of religious faith typically cling unquestioningly and tightly to their beliefs, which are usually reinforced through repetition of selected Bible stories, which they come to believe as if they had actually observed them firsthand. These believers have bought into a view that humanity is inherently inferior, yet through religion, their sinful nature can be redeemed if they follow its continually reinterpreted myths. The reward for supporting their legally protected superstition is a promise of eternal life. However, is that really the truth?

 

If one’s roots or foundations are permeated in falsity, then even common sense suggests that one’s life will be equally as false. For truth is not an invention, and truth is not a consensus reality born from a fixation with self-authenticating holy books devised by our flat-earth ancestors. Truth is not a thing to be discovered, but a reality to be uncovered. There is no liberation until false beliefs are confronted forthrightly and dissolved.

 

V

 

.

[Vmarco]

I will suggest that it is more at "I already have my truth, you go ahead and hold to yours."

 

Exactly,...people think (one of the 6 senses) that their conditions can enter the Unconditional, and that the Unconditional will remain Unconditional,...although the conditions of Other's can't.

 

Descartes, one of the eminent priests of science, said, "I think, therefore I am," which could be written in Latin as Cogito ergo sum; just to confuse New Liturgy Catholics. This so-called first principle in resolving universal doubt is insane. How does the "I think," the little i, the ego, come before the "I Am"? Thinking does not and cannot experience the world directly; thinking is always and necessarily a result of the past. Simply try to think in the now; it is impossible. Thinking is a product of space-time.

 

Our thinking-selves are one of ego’s means of reinforcing the false through an imagined continuity in separation. In the process towards full-spectrum consciousness, however, thinking becomes an ally of the undivided, sapiential mind. We do not cease thinking; we transcend the divided ego and its control of our thinking. The thinking remains in the past, but it is filtered through an undivided consciousness, instead of an imaginary, divided one.

[Marblehead]

Yeah. No disrespect to Descartes, but a while back I came to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to say, "I am (a functioning human), therefore I am able to think.

[Apech]

Yeah. No disrespect to Descartes, but a while back I came to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to say, "I am (a functioning human), therefore I am able to think.

 

 

I think that what descartes was saying was that since I cannot necessarily trust what my senses tell me about the world and myself ... it is the fact that I can think that tells me i really exist. I don't think it was an ontological statement as in 'I am my thoughts' but that the evidence for my own existence is the fact that I am thinking. I will await correction on this point

[Marblehead]

I think that what descartes was saying was that since I cannot necessarily trust what my senses tell me about the world and myself ... it is the fact that I can think that tells me i really exist. I don't think it was an ontological statement as in 'I am my thoughts' but that the evidence for my own existence is the fact that I am thinking. I will await correction on this point

I have no problem with that thought.