[Morganite]

I would just like to mention that Christmas is derived from paganism so is Easter and Sunday is self explanatory from the pagan sun worship. There are many other so called Christian celebrations can be attributed to the Romans and paganism.

That is why it is important for us to do as Jesus said: Seek and you shall find and Knock and it will be opened to you.

The Church is not responsible for our souls, we are.

I presume that you did not write the above with a straight face?

Christmas is NOT derived from paganism, alhtough pagan cermeonies were held at that tiom eof year and still are. But Christ-mass celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ and paganism had nothing to do with it.

Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and while it is held at the same time as pagan rites were and still are, the resurrection of Christ has nothing to do with paganism.

The Greek name for the English Sunday is Kiriagi, which, being translated means, "The Day of the Lord - meaning the Day of Jesus Christ." and from the Latin Dominicus, and has nothing to do with paganism or the sun until you translate it into English, where it is derived from Anglo Saxon sunnandæg. But you cannot lay an Anglo Saxon word at the feet of Aramaic speaking apostles who wrote in Greek and make a case for them calling a day after a star when in truth they cadled it after Kurios - Lord - without being laughed all the way out of court and kicked all the way into the circus to sport with the clowns!

What you so insouciantly describe as Roman and pagan origins of Christian festivals is a travesty of misunderstanding.

The Church was instituted so that the like-minded could attend regularly and receive instruction, inspiration, and emendment to behaviour by the Lord's chosen ministers.

Have you forgotten that "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved"?

There are three things, nay four, that you should never guess:

1. A lady's age.
2. Whether a frail structure across a ravine will take your weight.
3. What you pension will be worth in twenty years, and,
4. Anything to do with Christianity and the Bible unless you are sure of your facts.

If you had sought, you would have discovered that for yourself.




M:)RGANITE

Dr Jizzle

I have only just stumbled across your questions to me concerning my previous posts:


And how does one determine what of the Bible is erroneous and what is not? Listen to the Church? The very people who have stained the pages of the Bible?

If you are going to ask me a serious question, why not have the decency to wait for my answer before erecting a straw man and them cynically knocking it down. The answer you gave to your question is not from my mouth, from which I would be obliged if you would remove your fingers!

You perspective from a Christian and biblical point of view is a travesty of Christian teaching that owes more to paganism than to Christian belief and teachings. While you are free to disagree with Christian and biblical teaching on any point, you must not mangle what is taught and believed into something that is not taught, was never taught, and has never been believed by Christians who base their beliefs on the Bible.

I wrote that to someone who wrote:

Should we not accept Christ as our Saviour then we remain entrapped in the ever ending vicious circle of re-incarnation through the signs of the Zodiac, or as Paul said !

You remain slaves of the ruling spirits of the universe as we have been for century after century.

This is quite untrue and is a belief that is taught and believed by many... and is completely based on the Bible. What you call travesty is nothing but a different interpretation of your version.

Perhaps I can prevail on you to furnish biblical references to the reincarnation, cycling through the Zodiacal realms, and where Paul said anything like it? I dare say that I am as familiar with the Bible in many versions as most biblical scholars, and there is nothing like these teachings within its pages, not even in the worst translations.

A travesty is a gross mischaracterization, an exaggerated or grotesque imitation that bears little or no resemblance to what it purports to represent, and as such it is not a matter of interpretation. If you have a box with a duck in it, it is hardly a different interpretation to insist that it is an elephant. It is an error, and a pretty stupid one at that.

How is this belief NOT based on the Bible?

It is not based on the Bible because it is not IN the Bible, not HINTED at in the Bible, and cannot be drawn out of the Bible except by a perverted reading that beggars common sense and intelligent understanding.



M:)RGANITE

[Morganite]

Your last paragraph is really wild! How did you confuse reincarnation with resurrection? Who supposedly wrote the gospel of Judas? He certainly did not. He committed suicide about the same time Jesus was crucified. Baby birds swallow anything dropped into their mouths. Let's be a little smarter than birds.

The Gospel of Judas Iscariot is of the genre pseudeppigrapha, written later by someone who attached the name of Juidas to it to make it more acceptable to the church. It is apparently quite old but not old enough to be original.

Charles W. Hedrick writes in the Bible Review ("The 34 Gospels: Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians"):

In sum, in addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period. I am confident more of them will be found. For example, I have seen photos of several pages from a Coptic text entitled "The Gospel of Judas" that recently surfaced on the antiquities market.

The document of which Hedrick speaks has since surfaced and been published under the auspices of the National Geographic Society.

Tixeront, tranlsated by Raemers, states (A Handbook of Patrology, p. 67): "Besides these Gospels, we know that there once existed a Gospel of Bartholomew, a Gospel of Thaddeus, mentioned in the decree of Pope Gelasius, and a Gospel of Judas Iscariot in use among the Cainites and spoken of by St. Irenaeus (i, 31, 1)."

Here is the Roberts-Donaldson translation of this section from Irenaeus:

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

H.-C. Puech and Beate Blatz write (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 387):

Dating: the Gospel of Judas was of course composed before 180, the date at which it is mentioned for the first time by Irenaeus in adv. Haer. If it is in fact a Cainite work, and if this sect - assuming it was an independent gnostic group - was constituted in part, as has sometimes been asserted, in dependence on the doctrine of Marcion, the apocryphon can scarcely have been composed before the middle of the 2nd century. This would, however, be to build on weak arguments. At most we may be inclined to suspect a date between 130 and 170 or thereabouts.

On the new discovery, Bart Ehrman says,

"The reappearance of the Gospel of Judas will rank among the greatest finds from Christian antiquity and is without doubt the most important archaeological discovery of the past 60 years. What will make this gospel famous—or infamous, perhaps—is that it portrays Judas quite differently from anything we previously knew. Here he is not the evil, corrupt, devil-inspired follower of Jesus who betrayed his master; he is instead Jesus' closest intimate and friend, the one who understood Jesus better than anyone else, who turned Jesus over to the authorities because Jesus wanted him to do so. This gospel has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon. It will open up new vistas for understanding Jesus and the religious movement he founded."

It remains to be firmly established that the recently uncovered "Gospel of Judas" corresponds to the Gospel of Judas mentioned by Irenaeus of Lyons.

[earthpages]

Though I think the most important factor is that many see it as a one shot deal. Though hell realms exist in Buddhist teachings, there is always a chance for salvation in every single moment. Who doesn't want to be sure when eternity is on the line.
Faced with these intimidating prospects, some people just give up. Like a child hiding under the sheets from the monster in the closet, some people feel if they ignore reality long enough, it will simply go away. :)

On the other hand, if hell is eternal, does one really want to find out the hard way? ;) That's pretty much the conclusion I came to after many years of considering diverse perspectives.

This is an interesting question, the whole notion of facing or not facing reality. I think it could at least partially account for why some people become wanderers and homeless. But that's another very complicated issue in itself.

I guess I believe we all have a unique path. Some aren't meant to face the proverbial monster in the closet (i.e. evil) and some are. And yet others do face it but on more of a contemplative, less conspicuous level. In Buddhism you have a similar idea of the holy ones who supposedly regulate the universe through their continuous contemplation.

I suppose the primary notion forwarded by Buddhism that I can't come to terms with is the idea that God is just a construct, something to "get past." To me that's misguided. Although I do appreciate that cultural influences play a role in the image of God.:cool:

I also have a hard time believing in the ultimate negation of core individuality. But I think I've already touched on that.

[WildcatBoy123]

How interesting this topic (is)! I've been told a million times, and just realized the truth this time (in this life). My past lives and pure pleasures only lead to future infinite pleasured lives. I asked God how many pleasures and how many lives of pleasure ("What was our deal, and for how many lifetimes?"), and the answer is "There is no number high enough. You claimed this in a past life long ago, and the deal is made. Not millions or trillions of years, but forever. Just worship and always serve Me, the One." ("Live and tell others about the coming of the Kingdom of God, as many have done in their own ways/methods/efforts.") I don't understand incarnation; I only accept it. So far this life has been a beautiful dream. And, I've been told, each life gets better and better. I only wish I could desire the hardships, or even realize what they are or how they are defined. :) I have had it revealed over and over again : I was born when wisdom began, and I will live until wisdom ends; and though wisdom may end in human men and women, it never ends in the reality. :)

[ordinaryguy]

Pay to call WildcatBoy123 for advice ($60.0/min)

Sixty dollars a minute?! Three Thousand Six Hundred dollars per hour?! Woo-wee WB, you're one expensive guru! Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

[Thomas1970]

On the other hand, if hell is eternal, does one really want to find out the hard way? ;) That's pretty much the conclusion I came to after many years of considering diverse perspectives.

Certainly cause for speculation, no doubt -- but one doesn't need look any further than this life too see the infinite potential of ignorance, both in length and breadth. Ultimately, my own conclusion is, as we are made in His image and he is contained within us all, thus God must also be devoid of ego, and thus the very ugly potential for vengeful instinct that so soils the greater part of humanity these days. Believe in a loving God or not; there is little love in discrimination or abandonment. If I'm so very wrong, I believe God will ultimately forgive me. Though ultimately as well, only I can end my ignorance of the nature of existence, as purported by ancient Buddhist teachings and backed by many solid findings of modern quantum physics; and thus possibly my endless round in samsara, the realms of limited joys and lives.

This is an interesting question, the whole notion of facing or not facing reality. I think it could at least partially account for why some people become wanderers and homeless. But that's another very complicated issue in itself.

Not all who wander are lost. And as for the those who are "habitationally challenged" :) , no doubt some choose to live that way, though having had a great deal of interaction with them, both personal friends and strangers, I can tell you that the vast majority suffer from serious mental illness (of which they were given little choice), the rest are generally under the grip of some sort of an addiction. I myself have spent a share of time sleeping on friends' sofas, with all my worldly possessions in a small cardboard box. I think few people choose to live that way, but in some ways it can be a uniquely liberating experience -- little to defend, and often little else to want. It certainly does teach you what is truly important in life.

I guess I believe we all have a unique path. Some aren't meant to face the proverbial monster in the closet (i.e. evil) and some are. And yet others do face it but on more of a contemplative, less conspicuous level. In Buddhism you have a similar idea of the holy ones who supposedly regulate the universe through their continuous contemplation.

The only monster for me is ignorance. Aside from what Buddhism has ultimately taught me, I largely began to myself abandon the notion of evil when I began to concertedly study Western psychology and the physiological mechanisms of the brain and it's complex development, earlier on in college. I myself largely choose to see the world in terms of ignorance and enlightenment. Evil by its very nature seemingly denotes something not wholly of us as often complicated and fallable human beings, or at the very least beyond our capacity for full understanding. And that is why we mostly fear it. As long as we believe in evil, we will always feel somewhat powerless over our varyingly uncertain destinies. I believe we are always given something of a choice, no matter how thinly disguised, of whether we wish to understand more greatly or not. To label something as evil is to me a blatant cop-out; an outmoded and somewhat childish way of coping, and in the end, it serves neither us nor society at large.

I suppose the primary notion forwarded by Buddhism that I can't come to terms with is the idea that God is just a construct, something to "get past." To me that's misguided. Although I do appreciate that cultural influences play a role in the image of God.:cool:

This could hardly be said to be a primary notion of Buddhism. To even call it a notion is to me a great stretch. Though there have been multiple modern works incorporating and praising the teachings of Jesus, God is scarcely mentioned in near but all modern Buddhist works I have read, never mind those of antiquity. Though I know that some might wish to look upon this as a snub of sorts, and a chance to denigrate the Buddhist faith, consider the practical fact that Buddha and a multitude of other highly enlightened beings are also scarcely mentioned in nearly all modern Christian works, never mind the Bible. Consider also the obvious fact that Buddhism, or at least the teachings of Buddha, predate Christianity by many centuries. If you believe the former is because Buddhism is somehow "evil" or lacking in merit, that is your own personal choice. I simply believe they are two independent and greatly varying systems, though both espousing many of the same great and timeless values.
Buddhists do not deny the existence of God, they simply deny the existence of all that is without change. I agree that God is far more than a simple construct, but if one can not see God in a homeless man, never mind a common housefly, I would to seriously question as well one's deeper grasp of Christianity. If God is not the homeless man, pray tell where might he find him, for surely given his unfortunate circumstance in this life, he might not greatly mind a more personal word or two with Him. Churches are not the only temples of God.

I also have a hard time believing in the ultimate negation of core individuality. But I think I've already touched on that.

I don't reckon I have a whole lot to say here either. :)

[Thomas1970]

Retrotia agrees: Very,very good. Buddhism practices include emptying out the mind & self-whereas in Christianity we are filled-up with the Holy Spirit & connect with the Lord. I love the latter!

Buddhism hardly advocates the emptying of one's mind. Surely an impossible task. Only not identifying with and grasping onto all of it's incessant ramblings. An empty mind, like an idle mind, can scarcely be of any substantial benefit to anyone.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit or God's love is only good if you seek to become a vessel and not a receptacle. If not shared with all, you arguably violate both the sanctity and principle of what you would seek to capture and embody.
As for emptying the self... Well, you can't really empty what isn't inherently real. :)

[Retrotia]

Buddhism hardly advocates the emptying of one's mind. Surely an impossible task. Only not identifying with and grasping onto all of it's incessant ramblings. An empty mind, like an idle mind, can scarcely be of any substantial benefit to anyone.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit or God's love is only good if you seek to become a vessel and not a receptacle. If not shared with all, you arguably violate both the sanctity and principle of what you would seek to capture and embody.
As for emptying the self... Well, you can't really empty what isn't inherently real. :)

First, that is funny, a receptacle! Of course "we" are givers & do not live our lives "alone." And to do that the best we can we need direction(& instruction) ourselves from the Holy Spirit. It takes "dying to oneself daily" to be a good & faithful servant in Christ.
You spoke about a homeless man- Well, I may not see "God" in his face, but I can see God's love in it. Matthew 25:35-36, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Also, I never take for granted that that could have been me(or you) Whether we would continue to make those poor choices or not is not the issue.
When I say I dislike the psychology of Buddhism- it's because one is still letting their SOUL take control & not spirit. That is why the devil can frighten you. Fear is an emotion. The soul has 3 parts (Biblical) mind-will- & emotions.
When not operating in(or walking in ) the Spirit of God- which is covered by the blood of Jesus, we are walking in the flesh & the soul is in control.(which is not covered by the blood of J.C.) Now, that devil always comes to steal or destroy. Stirring up fear of: lack, loss, etc. onto your mind,(soul) always negative- lack of confidence, security, etc. But with alignment with the Spirit, one has God's promises to lean & meditate on, for that particular problem.
The Spirit is in control-not our "feelings"-bc you see our emotions can be bad also.
Well, anyway, I thought I'd do some input on that. Of course, I don't believe in reincarnation anyway. The Bible says man is to die once, then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27)
And karma neither- Galatians 6:8-9, For he that soweth to his flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

[earthpages]

Not all who wander are lost. And as for the those who are "habitationally challenged" :) , no doubt some choose to live that way, though having had a great deal of interaction with them, both personal friends and strangers, I can tell you that the vast majority suffer from serious mental illness (of which they were given little choice), the rest are generally under the grip of some sort of an addiction.

This is a fascinating thread, both your replies and Retrotia's. Christian churches are sometimes viewed by non-Christians as places where believers routinely go, simply because they've been conditioned to enjoy the security of such structures. While there may be some truth to this, I think it's also possible that the Holy Spirit touches these people at those locations. It's doubtful, from my view, that the practice of churchgoing would last 2000 years (actually much longer if we include the Jewish temples of the so-called Old Testament) if the attraction only had to do with social bonding and aesthetic enjoyment (stained-glass windows, organ music, etc.). Of course, the Holy Spirit could inform the enjoyment of these things, but I really do believe that it stands apart. In my opinion quite a few people just don't seem to consider this possibility.

Now the other interesting thing is this idea of mental health and illness. You might benefit from reading the French philosopher Michel Foucault. He talks about how discourses of power actually create notions of subjectivity. I'm not sure if I agree with everything he says. It seems there are unhealthy or, perhaps better said, "misguided" minds out there. But sometimes I wonder if we're pointing the finger in the right direction or not. The Beatles' I am the Walrus comes to mind. "Don't you think the joker laughs at you!" :)

[Geoffersonairplane]

My beliefs probably come from watching too many sappy movies…

I believe in reincarnation, but I don't believe that everyone gets reincarnated when they die. I think you are reincarnated so that you have the opportunity to learn. At some point, you reach a level of understanding and can ascend into Heaven.

I believe that if there is truth to reincarnation, then it is a process that we go through, human and animal to grow spiritually and it would be a continuous process until our souls are pure and ready for the path to heaven, the path to God. Who is not to say that insects eventually reach human form where the vessel carrying the spirit is much larger and considered more sophisticated? However, this is also saying that Humans are better than animal and insects, and is this right for us to make this judgment.

As a species we are very destructive, perhaps the process of reincarnations is a way of making us less destructive and more pure.

I don't know what I am banging on about folks so I apologise if my response is a bit vague but this thread is excellent and I love open mindedness, best way to be...

[Beachgrl]

I believe in reincarnation. I think that one of the main purposes in life is to learn all that you can and it seems unreasonable and unlikely that you would learn that much in one life time. I think each time we are born we are meant to learn one particular thing, though that doesn't exclude you from learning other things as you go. Also, once you do learn what you were supposed to in that life you die and take it with you to the next life where you are meant to learn something else. Throughout each lifetime we learn a little more and then I believe we reach a point to where we become enlightened and go up to heaven which is the end of the journey, and our soul stays there forever. I also believe that everything happens for a reason and it's all to help you on your journey and to help you accomplish your goal.

[earthpages]

I believe in reincarnation. I think that one of the main purposes in life is to learn all that you can and it seems unreasonable and unlikely that you would learn that much in one life time.

You know, I used to feel this way too. It all sounds so logical, reincarnation. It's a wonderful human theory that seems to fit everything in just the right place. But these days that's one of the reasons I don't believe in it any more. To fit our world into a human theory In my opinion doesn't do justice to its awesome mystery. Not that I advocate throwing reason out the window, I don't. But I do advocate allowing spirituality to inform reason, and not reason to limit spirituality. Reincarnation theory seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse.

Now as for the idea that we can't learn everything in one lifetime, on this I'm in agreement (except perhaps for a very few saints). Buy why can't we continue to learn in the afterlife? This is the whole idea of Purgatory. We're not reincarnated but still evolve in our journey.

Something to think about... :)

[galveston]

The idea of Purgatory is no more supported than that of reincarnation.

[DragonFire]

Hi,

To me reincarnation makes absolute sense to me. Its not possible for us to learn everything we can learn in one life. And how is that we all know things or are wise about certain things that other people are not? Things that we haven't learnt in this life, but just know. I definitely believe in reincarnation. To climb the spiritual ladder it takes time, and one lifetime is not enough.

[earthpages]

The idea of Purgatory is no more supported than that of reincarnation.

Some would disagree with you. Perhaps we could agree that it is an alternative hypothesis that some believers in reincarnation theory seem unwilling to consider.:rolleyes:

[galveston]

The problem with this reincarnation idea is this. We have a lot of books ABOUT religion, but we only have one book that claims to be a message from our Creator to us, but there are so many who refuse to consider that this claim might be true. Without it, we have no compass or map and are left to figure things out on our own. Of course, life is indeed too short to learn everything for ourself, (recent post). You wouldn't think of trying to navgate the globe without charts and method of determining position. Why try to navigate life without proper tools?

[ordinaryguy]

we only have one book that claims to be a message from our Creator to us, but there are so many who refuse to consider that this claim might be true.

If you looked, I think you could find quite a few books that make such a claim. If you did, would you be willing "to consider that this claim might be true"?

Without it, we have no compass or map and are left to figure things out on our own. Of course, life is indeed too short to learn everything for ourself, (recent post). You wouldn't think of trying to navgate the globe without charts and method of determining position. Why try to navigate life without proper tools?

You seem to be saying that all the people who lived and died without the benefit of being able to read the Bible--the vast majority of those who have ever lived--didn't have "the proper tools" to reach their spiritual destiny. Is God that dependent on the printed word?

[NeedKarma]

You wouldn't think of trying to navgate the globe without charts and method of determining position. Why try to navigate life without proper tools?

By 'tools' do you mean the Bible? 'Cause myself and millions of others do just great without it.

[earthpages]

You wouldn't think of trying to navgate the globe without charts and method of determining position. Why try to navigate life without proper tools?

Very interesting analogy. I often apply a similar analogy in trying to develop my own cosmology (map of the universe). By 'universe' I'm not just talking about things outwardly visible but also numinous experiences, which suggest realms that somehow interact with the visible. If you are referring to the Bible (there are other holy books that make similar claims) then we have to remember that any text is subject to interpretation. Hence the need, In my opinion, for dialogue between a scientific mindset and a faith-based one. This is really what I've been hinting at in these posts. A truly scientific person should consider as many hypotheses as deemed relevant. Reincarnation is one. Purgatory is another. Both try to account for - on an intellectual level - the idea that we can't learn everything in one lifetime. It's true that some believers in Purgatory might not consider reincarnation. But at the same time, I think that some believers in reincarnation might not consider Purgatory. I've considered both because I apply a scientific approach to spirituality.

On the issue of navigational 'tools' some would also add things like language which, they say, both makes sense of and shapes our world. But the message of the Bible, In my opinion, is indispensable because of Jesus' ethical teachings and example. Other world scriptures have said similar things. But not quite the same way as Christ. I believe that if we strive to follow Christ's ethical doctrine of peace, love, forgiveness, non-violence and selfless service, then new spiritual experiences could arise that inform our cosmological understanding.

[talaniman]

I think all the great books of religion give us a guideline, but there is probably a lot more to learn and we should.