Christianity

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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 👀

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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.

Edited October 3 by NaturaNaturans

[Thrice Daily]

I’m not so sure. I’d have to be more of a solid historian to say for sure.

 

2 compelling parts of the argument for the resurrection though, 

1/. there are apparently around 500 accounts of people in the surrounding areas seeing Jesus after he got crossed out.

2/. The Turin shroud, the odd photograph like picture on the very outer layer of it. An artist couldn’t have created it.

 

the shroud there is lots of new evidence coming out about it and more precise analysis and dating taking place with it… 

 

The God incarnate thing, that’s up to you to decide. 
 

it’s one thing believing in God, and it’s another thing having the placement of an image/object will fully put between you and God . 
 

it’s up to you. For me it’s a story that I would personally lift up the highest to the light, so for me the light shines through that story. The light of creations source shines through Christ in my mind. Christ is like the lense that I choose to view God through.

 

The Holy Spirit though is an experience, I’d say that’s very personal. But In my experience the three,, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit tend to arise as a full package in my experience/knowing almost simultaneously in prayer.

 

So my argument is that they are one and the same, that’s imho, and that is more a formula for the heart that allows consciousness to experience the three as one and not separate. 
 

it’s easier on the concentration that way, to be single pointed. 
 

That’s what I personally think the point of the Trinity is…

 

Arguing if he was God or not seems a bit haphazard to me these days. Like trying to drive a car around without air in the tyres.. I just wouldn’t do it, unless I really had to .
 

I guess you could do this with other things if you like and look at god/light , the source of creation through other lenses too.

 

The Jesus story though did catch on didn’t it. I mean really catch on… and that was his plan…

 

I’ve got mad respect for what he was prepared to do, and feel my humanity when I think about it. If you wanna be humble quickly , I think it’s the ultimate story to ponder , so sad in a way…

 

Ive also got insane levels of respect for the earliest Christian’s that preserved the message and values we take for granted today in the west BY PAIN OF DEATH. Mad love for those characters . God knows how the message manages to survive the first 3 or 400 years.

 

Totally radical and subversive movement that was way out there for most places at that time… 

 

I tell you what peed me off for a long time though, this line that Jesus apparently said, that “you can only know god if you know me” words to that effect.

 

I used to think about all the people before Christ or people living in other lands , what about them. It put me off.

 

Now I realise it’s Correct, and actually most people are extremely Christian without even knowing it. Born before or in other places… In their heart of hearts, it’s all beyond Christ and his story any way really.

 

Christ just highlighted points that are inside all of us. If only we listen and be part of the greater good 👍 

 

Well that’s my rant over, hope I didn’t offend anyone. Just my opinions. 
 

 

Edited October 3 by Thrice Daily

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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?

[Thrice Daily]

1 minute ago, NaturaNaturans said:

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

Yeah, I’m planning to write a book about it next actually when I’ve finished my first one.

 

i’m planning to really get into that Gospal. Thankyou for pointing at it too ❤️ 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, manitou said:

I love you, Mr. or Ms. Stirling.  And you too, Forest of Emptiness.  And Thrice Daily. (although I think that's a bit much.  Mine is only onceth daily)

 

Mr., thank you. Right back at you! It is always a pleasure to see your posts... a little endorphin hit with every missive.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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

[Apech]

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

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.

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

[Thrice Daily]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

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

Yeah, it's less about weak and more about strong and ready but gentle isn't it, in the more accurate translation

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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:

 

Spoiler

Here is the English translation of the two pages:

---

**Page 12:**

"In his introduction to Marcus Aurelius' classic *Meditations* (1964, Penguin Classics), the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth discusses the influence Stoicism has had on Christianity. He wrote that the author of the Gospel of John declared Christ to be identical with the *logos*, 'which for a long time had been one of the most important concepts within Stoicism, originally chosen with the purpose of explaining how divinity existed in relation to the universe.' Staniforth also wrote that the doctrine of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—finds its source in the various Stoic concepts of divine unity. The fact that these three are one, he further claims, appears paradoxical to modern people, but..."

**Page 13:**

"...entirely ordinary for someone familiar with Stoic thought.

The Church Fathers regarded Stoicism as a pagan philosophy. Nevertheless, early Christian writers adopted many of Stoicism's central philosophical concepts, such as the *logos* (which we have already discussed), as well as other highly central theological concepts such as 'virtue,' 'spirit,' and 'conscience.' However, the similarities run deeper than just terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity claim that humans have an inherent possibility for inner freedom, independent of the outer world, a belief in humanity's kinship with Nature or God, a fundamental assumption that human nature is flawed, even though there is a way out, and that it is futile to seek refuge in everything that is external and perishable. Both recommend asceticism, especially spiritual exercises, to avoid being governed by the lower emotions—such as lust, envy, greed, and hate—so that the higher potential of the human being can be awakened and developed. But above all, Stoicism and Christianity converge in the idea of equality: We all have equal worth by virtue of being human. In antiquity, this was a very radical idea. The Stoics considered all people equal, regardless of race, gender, rank, or status, on the basis that everyone shares in nature in the same way. What is essential in human nature is that it is a spiritual being, and within the spirit, there is no hierarchy. At this point, Stoicism broke with the common ancient view that made a fundamental distinction between citizens and barbarians, between slave and master. That this appears as an equally important..."

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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?

 

Spoiler

that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" We know who it was who reaped the heritage of this Jewish transvaluation. In the context of the monstrous and inordinately fateful initiative which the Jews have exhibited in connection with

[Pg 31]

this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I remember the passage which came to my pen on another occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, Aph. 195)—that it was, in fact, with the Jews that the revolt of the slaves begins in the sphere of morals; that revolt which has behind it a history of two millennia, and which at the present day has only moved out of our sight, because it—has achieved victory.

On the genealogy of morals, The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Genealogy of Morals, by Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

[Apech]

16 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

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:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Here is the English translation of the two pages:

---

**Page 12:**

"In his introduction to Marcus Aurelius' classic *Meditations* (1964, Penguin Classics), the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth discusses the influence Stoicism has had on Christianity. He wrote that the author of the Gospel of John declared Christ to be identical with the *logos*, 'which for a long time had been one of the most important concepts within Stoicism, originally chosen with the purpose of explaining how divinity existed in relation to the universe.' Staniforth also wrote that the doctrine of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—finds its source in the various Stoic concepts of divine unity. The fact that these three are one, he further claims, appears paradoxical to modern people, but..."

**Page 13:**

"...entirely ordinary for someone familiar with Stoic thought.

The Church Fathers regarded Stoicism as a pagan philosophy. Nevertheless, early Christian writers adopted many of Stoicism's central philosophical concepts, such as the *logos* (which we have already discussed), as well as other highly central theological concepts such as 'virtue,' 'spirit,' and 'conscience.' However, the similarities run deeper than just terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity claim that humans have an inherent possibility for inner freedom, independent of the outer world, a belief in humanity's kinship with Nature or God, a fundamental assumption that human nature is flawed, even though there is a way out, and that it is futile to seek refuge in everything that is external and perishable. Both recommend asceticism, especially spiritual exercises, to avoid being governed by the lower emotions—such as lust, envy, greed, and hate—so that the higher potential of the human being can be awakened and developed. But above all, Stoicism and Christianity converge in the idea of equality: We all have equal worth by virtue of being human. In antiquity, this was a very radical idea. The Stoics considered all people equal, regardless of race, gender, rank, or status, on the basis that everyone shares in nature in the same way. What is essential in human nature is that it is a spiritual being, and within the spirit, there is no hierarchy. At this point, Stoicism broke with the common ancient view that made a fundamental distinction between citizens and barbarians, between slave and master. That this appears as an equally important..."

 

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.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

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. 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

(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.

[Thrice Daily]

29 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

(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.

Love that 💘

[Nintendao]

On the subject of meek or powerless inheriting earth, there’s an example in the Old Testament, somewhere in 2nd Kings. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, everyone especially those in prestigious positions were imprisoned and exiled to Babylon. The people who were doing physical work like tending the vineyards were left to carry on production as ever.

 

Taking it a step further in Isaiah ch. 65, the prophet describes a time when God “will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind,” and people “will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat.” Just getting along doing whatever, without the need for dominance over one another. Perhaps resembling the return to simplicity described in the final chapters of Daodejing.
 

[manitou]

On 10/3/2024 at 3:57 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

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

 

 

There is only one void, on this level at least.  The concept of Dao is an intelligence which controls but doesn't care, lol.  We are as ceremonial straw dogs to 'the Dao'.  To me, that means it doesn't really matter to It who lives and who dies, where or when.  Bringing it to the Old Testament, wasn'st there some sort of prohibition on saying the word 'God', or Ra, or Jehovah, or whatever they used?  I understand that now.  It's just like the Dao.  The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao.  Probably the same state of awe with the origin of the concept of Jehovah.  I don't think that it was a punishable offense for 'saying the name', but I'll bet the ancient Christians understood that there was just no one word for such magnificence. 

[manitou]

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

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've come to understand that meek in the 'meek shall inherit the earth' sense can only be one thing:  humility.  A conquered ego allows us to see things as they really are, as opposed to through our previous conditioning.

[Thrice Daily]

Manitou, I'm not sure. I stay well away from the old testament now, I'm sure those energies can still be accessed but I don't think it's a good idea. 

 

I'm sure there can be powerful experiences had by aligning with them. But I feel it is not God proper, the very source of creation. I think the beings And energies in the old testament were highly tainted and it was all cut off from with Jesus

 

Providing that's where the focus it. It's very clear cut to me...those beings in old testament, were in creation. They could not have created it all surely.

 

I pity those who try to investigate these old energies in their souls and hope they come out the other end alright, I don't think them safe. 

 

Imho, the new testament shouldn't even be bundled with the old one. It flys in the face of it if you ask me, even if it were part of an earlier prophecy, their was a direct decision to cut off from these old ways.. 

 

And I used to think the old testament was boring. YHVH, did me no good... Anyway we live and learn. 

 

I think if you held a mirror up to God he would see the Tao. Forever and ever...

Edited October 5 by Thrice Daily

[Thrice Daily]

On 03/10/2024 at 10:15 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

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.

I think this is good, it like saying don't worry good will eventually overcome evil. Respect, Dignity and Civility will eventually triumph. 

 

I hope so, in this age of internet and transparency it's harder for people to lie and hard it, harder for people to trample over others and get away with it. 

 

there are also many brave independent content creators that are bent on telling the truth in the world in real time even if they face cancellation or worse. 

 

this gives me hope that possibly after all the tyranny of the past perhaps there is a chance for good to triumph for once, or at least for a while. 

 

I guess these things come and go in cycles though. I'm not really into the apocalypse idea, I refuse to let go of my eternal optimism for mankind ❤

[manitou]

12 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

Manitou, I'm not sure. I stay well away from the old testament now, I'm sure those energies can still be accessed but I don't think it's a good idea. 

 

I'm sure there can be powerful experiences had by aligning with them. But I feel it is not God proper, the very source of creation. I think the being a And energies in the old testament were highly tainted and it was all cut off from with Jesus

 

Providing that's where the focus it. It's very clear cut to me...those beings in old testament, were is creation. They could not have created it surely.

 

I pity those who try to investigate these old energies in their souls and hope they come out the other end akrught, I don't think them safe. 

 

Imho, the new testament shouldn't even be bundled with the old one. It flies in the face of it if you ask me, even if it were part of an earlier prophecy, their was a direct decision to cut off from these old ways.. 

 

And I used to think the old testament was boring. YHVH, did me no good... Anyway we live and learn. 

 

I think if you help a mirror up to God he would see the Tao and the Tao would see God. Forever and ever...

 

 

This is the dualistic way of looking at a god figure.  That there is a god separate from yourself that's controlling things to some degree.  Yes, Jesus is a wonderful model, I used to ask myself what he'd do, until I realized the unity of all thoughts and things.  I've come to accept that 'god' is our communal consciousness, and that there is no judgment as to good and bad, only 'is'.

 

Jesus can certainly be used.  So can Buddha, Mohammed, etc.  At the end of all the religious paths are the same thing; the void.  The name that can't be named.  There's only one truth that they all point to.  That the god we've been looking for for so many years is hidden within our own bosoms - that it's not found on any path, per se.....but one must do the infernal internal work.  Conquer ego so that perception isn't distorted by inner foibles that have been there since childhood.  Nobody ever wants to do this. You're not alone.

 

But what develops is a channel of sorts.  It can be accessed upon demand, whenever needed.  It reminds me of the sky door in Game of Thrones - once that door is opened, all sorts of misfortune falls out of it.  But once emptied, it grants full access to some strange sort of knowledge, all situations viewable from above somehow.  The process of inhabiting this new 'body' is not an instantaneous event.  It takes some time to wear it evenly, and it's in your closet on any given day, if you are void of excessive ego (as I see it, all the ego we need is the ego that keeps us out of oncoming traffic). 

 

Situations will be no problem for you, because you and your core are in alignment, and you will always see the way of truth.  You won't react at all to anything if you don't wish to - because your ego has been tamed, and you live in the fairly constant knowledge that the person you are irritated at is actually you, as we are all one - and that that very irritation is the first clue to discovering where the need for the irritation came from.  Something to do with time, maybe?  The quick flash of dad yelling at us to hurry up?  If there is a childhood flash attached to any situation that's undesirable for us, that little childhood flash is the very thing that must be reversed.  This is done by reenacting the memory, perhaps with a cast member like a 'dad' or 'mom' figure, and acting out the opposite reaction several times.  This is a deep reversal of a dynamic that's been rolling downhill for years and years.

[Thrice Daily]

I do hear what your saying, but I was referring more to the contradictions in terms of the translations. Alhim, Elohim, Yawah, Nephilim, Seraphim and all the confusion of Giants and Fallen Angels in the old texts. 
 

It’s that I don’t think is helpful, I’m sure we have been led to believe many beings are gods in the past, but I personally don’t want to get caught up in those kinds of scenarios. 

 

Sounds like you might be talking about Family Constellations or Gestalt therapy . That’s cool , are you into that?

 

For me it was more Nlp and then 6 healing sounds that did the kind of work you are talking about.

 

also some different forms of dance therapy really helped me in a group setting. I miss those days, they were tremendously healing.

 

I’ve done quite a bit of the surrogate family work, very valuable for you and your stand in family members.

 

 Are you a practicing Christian now? Have you heard of Christian Gratitude Practice Examen?

Edited October 5 by Thrice Daily

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

On 5.10.2024 at 7:53 PM, manitou said:

 

 

There is only one void, on this level at least.  The concept of Dao is an intelligence which controls but doesn't care, lol.  We are as ceremonial straw dogs to 'the Dao'.  To me, that means it doesn't really matter to It who lives and who dies, where or when.  Bringing it to the Old Testament, wasn'st there some sort of prohibition on saying the word 'God', or Ra, or Jehovah, or whatever they used?  I understand that now.  It's just like the Dao.  The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao.  Probably the same state of awe with the origin of the concept of Jehovah.  I don't think that it was a punishable offense for 'saying the name', but I'll bet the ancient Christians understood that there was just no one word for such magnificence. 

Indeed it does. One of the ten commandmeds reads: you shall not take the name of God your lord in vain. The one before that says you shall not make idols, so your interpertation seems valid. And the first one: you shall not have other gods before me. Ironically, the old hebrews seems to have been henothistic, and there are plentifull of examples of other gods being mentioned in the bible. But maybe we are witnessing the transformation and struggles of a people trough religious reforms?

 

No offense daoist, but can the term dao be used in the way westerners often use nature? I have been reading Aurelius, and I find it very intruiging how he talks about the gods, uniervsal reason, nature and fate almost synomously. 

[Thrice Daily]

On 16/05/2024 at 1:14 AM, Apech said:

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 agree, to a degree. 

I've noticed on here in the forum though an importance placed on legitimacy of teachers, the legitimacy of lineages. And whether certain systems yield certain results based on legitimacy of teachers and their students abilities as a result. 

 

The more I work with the Holy Spirit the more I see I'm handing myself over to this lineage that was started by Jesus Christ in his ministry and his wishes. All the the people that hold up his life, death and message to the light also align with him as a teacher and master. 

 

I think the accepting him as God thing is very interesting, as a mechanism for protection against all other spirits in his name it makes sense that people choose to view Jesus as God. It simply means that nothing else can come between Jesus and God , that's what makes this holy spirit idea so powerful I think. 

 

It's a choice thing though right, and it's just my personal take on it. I think holding other things above Jesus for the purpose of worship will mean a person can't really activate the holy spirit to the full degree of casting all else out (because mentally they are putting other people, beings deites high up to and between Jesus and God) does that make sense? I think that's why the truth claims are the way they are. Especially when it comes to effectiveness with exorcisms  etc. 

 

I think you are right though in a not mystical semse. I don't think it's important if Jesus existed at all, his teachings are just pretty simple social and personal advice. 

 

The mystical body of Jesus though that works through all the believers that seems to be another story entirely and it's only something I'm just about getting into. It's highly ritualistic with the church and what not And it seems there is a deep power in it.

 

Takes a leap of faith in the beginning though like they say. Makes sense that it would work that way.