Another day, another topic: What do you expect out of life?

[RadicalEd0]

shit.. a religious topic under the guise of a dumb subject? /me catches up and comments/criticizes

[fyrtenheimer]

wow, this topic is totally FABOO

[RadicalEd0]

banana, that thing was great

anyways...

but Jesus was cool for his ideals.

Of course Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. Given that Jesus was one of the following:

1)a liar
2)a lunatic
3)actually the Son of God

Because of this I find it hard to separate his ideals from a belief in God without taking away their power. However, you are welcome to try.

ever consider 4) his teachings were misunderstood by all but a select few, got written down and copied over and over, translated with incredible bias and inaccuracy, and beat into society's head ever since 300 ad? Also remember that all of the gospels were dated as being written 40 - 90 years after jesus lived by second and third generation witnesses to the actual apostles. Take into consideration all thats been done with the bible over the centuries and the misinterpretation amplifies exponentially.

also, see below addressing the son of god part...

Whether or not he was the son of God is open for debate

And I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

And I you. Blavatsky begs to differ

It is a most suggestive fact that there is not a word in the so-called sacred Scriptures to show that Jesus was actually regarded as a God by his disciples. Neither before nor after his death did they pay him divine honors. Their relation to him was only that of disciples and "master"; by which name they addressed him, as the followers of Pythagoras and Plato addressed their respective masters before them. Whatever words may have been put into the mouths of Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, and others, there is not a single act of adoration recorded on their part, nor did Jesus himself ever declare his identity with his Father. He accused the Pharisees of stoning their prophets, not of deicide. He termed himself the son of God, but took care to assert repeatedly that they were all the children of God, who was the Heavenly Father of all. In preaching this, he but repeated a doctrine taught ages earlier by Hermes, Plato, and other philosophers. Strange contradiction! Jesus, whom we are asked to worship as the one living God, is found, immediately after his Resurrection, saying to Mary Magdalene: "I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God!" (John xx. 17.)

Does this look like identifying himself with his Father? "My Father and your Father, my God and your God," implies, on his part, a desire to be considered on a perfect equality with his brethren -- nothing more.

...

James, the "Brother of the Lord," is silent about the resurrection. He terms Jesus nowhere "Son of God," nor even Christ-God. Once only, speaking of Jesus, he calls him the "Lord of Glory," but so do the Nazarenes when writing about their prophet Iohanan bar Zacharia, or John, son of Zacharias (St. John Baptist). Their favorite expressions about their prophet are the same as those used by James when speaking of Jesus. A man "of the seed of a man," "Messenger of Life," of light, "my Lord Apostle," "King sprung of Light," and so on. "Have not the faith of our Lord JESUS Christ, the Lord of Glory," etc., says James in his epistle (ii. 1), presumably addressing Christ as GOD. "Peace to thee, my Lord, JOHN Abo Sabo, Lord of Glory!" says the Codex Nazaraeus (ii., 19), known to address but a prophet. "Ye have condemned and killed the Just," says James (v. 6). "Iohanan (John) is the Just one, he comes in the way of justice," says Matthew (xxi. 32, Syriac text).

James does not even call Jesus Messiah, in the sense given to the title by the Christians, but alludes to the kabalistic "King Messiah," who is Lord of Sabaoth* (v. 4), and repeats several times that the "Lord" will come, but identifies the latter nowhere with Jesus. "Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord . . . be patient, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (v. 7, 8). And he adds: "Take, my brethren, the prophet (Jesus) who has spoken in the name of the Lord for an example of suffering, affliction, and of patience." Though in the present version the word "prophet" stands in the plural, yet this is a deliberate falsification of the original, the purpose of which is too evident. James, immediately after having cited the "prophets" as an example, adds: "Behold . . . ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord" -- thus combining the examples of these two admirable characters, and placing them on a perfect equality. But we have more to adduce in support of our argument. Did not Jesus himself glorify the prophet of the Jordan? "What went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. . . . Verily, I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist."

I could go on, but searching this info out is a headache :|

and God's existence or non-existence is unknowable in my opinion, for one reason - to know the existence of God is to lose our right to free will, and God, as a loving, non-jealous, non-tyrannical being, would not want that

I fail to see the logic in that. Lucifer is perhaps more certain in the existance of God than any of us and yet he exercised his free will to turn against God. The real philosophical problem comes in when you try to reconcile God's sovereignty with our free will.

You dont even know the origin of the Lucifer fable. First off the whole idea of a hell and a devil to govern it was completely invented by christianity (and not jesus or one of its profits either :? ) nowhere does judaism or any other religion describe such a tormentuous eternal final resting place, all other references to a hell like condition were not associated with punishment, and were not ever considered eternal, all temporary puragtory-like states.
The only mention of what became hell is in John's revelation, when he speaks metaphorically of a beast and a burning sulfur lake. Even christian authorities assert that revalation is meant to be taken completely metaphorically.
Getting that out of the way, back to the concept of satan and the battle between lucifer and michael.
Ancient hindu and brahmatical beliefs assert the concept that after the creation of the universe (actually the cyclical re-creation, re formation into matter separate from spirit), creative processes begin forming the intricate web of the universe and divulging into materiality and duality. As these forces become more defined and separate, god like beings hatch from this egg of spirit matter, directing the further descent of pure spirit into matter. As one legend goes, 1/3rd of these forces failed to process spirit into matter, wishing not that the physical universe be created (because well, as you all know, the physical universe blows :\ ). Its said that because of this, karmic law doomed the unwilling forces to carry out what could be called 'god's will', the essential aspect of nature to form after the dawn of a new universal day. These forces, then, were doomed to begin life in later rounds in the physical as lower creatures, mineral, plant life, animal, and never to reach human during this period of universal day.
That explanation sucked. Dont take my word for it.

Even in the mind-baffling and science-harassing Genesis, light is created out of darkness "and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (ch. i. v. 2.) -- and not vice versa. "In him (in darkness) was life; and the life was the light of men" (John i. 4). A day may come when the eyes of men will be opened; and then they may comprehend better than they do now, that verse in the Gospel of John that says "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not." They will see then that the word "darkness" does not apply to man's spiritual eyesight, but indeed to "Darkness," the absolute, that comprehendeth not (cannot cognize) transient light, however transcendent to human eyes. Demon est Deus inversus. The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning," or manvantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma. (See Book II.)

And now referencing a stanza in an archaic pre-hindu book

"There were many wars" refers to several struggles of adjustment, spiritual, cosmical, and astronomical, but chiefly to the mystery of the evolution of man as he is now. Powers -- pure Essences -- "that were told to create" is a sentence that relates to a mystery explained, as already said, elsewhere. It is not only one of the most hidden secrets of Nature -- that of generation, over whose solution the Embryologists have vainly put their heads together -- but likewise a divine function that involves that other religious, or rather dogmatic, mystery, the "Fall" of the Angels, as it is called. Satan and his rebellious host would thus prove, when the meaning of the allegory is explained, to have refused to create physical man, only to become the direct Saviours and the Creators of "divine Man." The symbolical teaching is more than mystical and religious, it is purely scientific, as will be seen later on. For, instead of remaining a mere blind, functioning medium, impelled and guided by fathomless LAW, the "rebellious" Angel claimed and enforced his right of independent judgment and will, his right of free-agency and responsibility, since man and angel are alike under Karmic Law.*

"And there was war in Heaven. . . . Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the Dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven. And the Dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world."

The Kabalistic version of the same story is given in the Codex Nazareus, the scripture of the Nazarenes, the real mystic Christians of John the Baptist and the Initiates of Christos. Bahak-Zivo, the "Father of the Genii," is ordered to construct creatures (to create). But, as he is "ignorant of Orcus," he fails to do so, and calls in Fetahil, a still purer spirit, to his aid, who fails still worse. This is a repetition of the failure of the "Fathers," the lords of light who fail one after the other. (Book II, Sloka 17.)

and so on and so forth. I could go on again but I really doubt anyone would be willing to read any further :| if theyve even gone this far. I only did that because I took it you were intelligable enough to take a look and understand some of this stuff.
meh... /goes and does actual homework


and rachel... he started it! >.< I am merely in reply mode

[MegaMouth]

Jesus just wanted a legacy.
Like clinton.

[fyrtenheimer]

and rachel... he started it! >.< I am merely in reply mode

I noticed! Very nice!

I'd also like to complain though to the ppl who are dissing things that others believe. You're just showing how ignorant you are of other things.

[MegaMouth]

Ya, so stop it!
Can I have your children?

[fyrtenheimer]

I'll be giving birth to unicorns!

But they're someone elses.

[RadicalEd0]

I didnt dis anything!

[MegaMouth]

You and Tacooe?

[fyrtenheimer]

I didnt dis anything!

not you goof.

You and Tacooe?

No, she's a practitioner of bestiality. She would kill my babies. She also causes boring nightmares in children and I will not partake in such nonsense.


Damn witch.