Thread: Jesus--Christianity?, Buddha--Buddhism?

"Why should I give an ooh and ahh at Juroura's version of what she read? You can look at any book for applicable things to the world. So she reads it and decides that what he says isn't what he means and interchanges words so that she can find a new meaning, it is far more prudent to look at the actual world your in for answers to life by your own observations."

I'm a mystic at heart. we don't rely on any written book or text to base our reality on. I'm just as fine without the bible! However, the reason why lately I have been turning to the bible is because I believe at heart it was meant to set up a spiritual faith. Not a religious faith. And that followers have been lied to. Since the bible is important to followers, I feel they should get the best understanding of it.

"Furthermore she contends that Jesus actually said it the way that the bible described. After the elapsed time between his life and death and the writings the odds of any of the words that this "Jesus" character said being exact are highly improbable. It is far more likely the people writing these passages wanted to keep it as vague as possible so people could interpret them in whatever way already suits their vision of the world. I highly doubt that she looked at the bible and THEN suddenly came to her version of what life is. The far more probably end was that she already had these views and then saw the bible and decided to morph whatever words she saw to align with her thoughts. She was capable of doing this because the text was made so that people could do such things."

Why do we have four gospels? Because four people are telling it. I'm not ignorant about that. According to those passages though - Jesus speaks vaguely. Or what he refers to as parables. All great masters in the past speak in parables for reason. Not so that you can draw what ever interpretation you want from them. But rather these teachers, Jesus and Buddha alike, believe that truth comes from within. They don't want you to rely on any outer doctrine or text. And rather, such doctrines and texts are meant to help with an inner revelation.

This is in contrast to fundamentalism, that says only the book or text has the truth.

PS. I didn't find a 'new' meaning when I first read the gospels. Actually what happened was when I was in middle school and was forced to read it, I got angry. Because it seemed to me that everything Jesus was teaching, was in contradiction to the Catholic faith. All I did was follow what I felt Jesus was teaching. To what ever end it would take me. First of which was leaving the catholic faith.

I can't prove to you that my views are right, of course. But I think, when interpreting the bible - it's only right that we take away the religious interpretation of it. And put it away on a shelf. And when we interpret the bible, lets view it as any other piece of literature.

Dissect it and analyze it like you would when your teacher asks you to do the same with any story. I feel, if we approach the bible in this way - you will at least come to the conclusion - that many view points held up in christianity isn't supported in the bible. Or at least, not supported by their savior.

What you have instead is, a very powerful church shoving their view of the bible onto everyone. Including atheists. So that even atheists think, this is how the bible must be understood. And any other understanding of it is wrong. So that someone like me, has no right to suggest that the bible can mean something different.

But look, that's why we need to put such dogma on the shelf for now. Just imagine were in the future and no one has ever heard of Christianity. And we find this bible and it looks like an interesting piece of human history, at least, as literature is concerned. So great efforts are being made to understand this piece of literature.

You don't think they would draw in from other recourses to understand the bible? You think when they read Jesus saying "The way, the truth and the life" that they will just completely ignore the Tao, which amazingly seems to be described by the same words? Don't you think they would draw a connection? Don't you think they would question if Jesus was influenced by eastern mystics, in that very big gap where he is non-existent in the bible? Now you see, religious dogma can't even propose this question!! BLASPHEMY!

Don't you think they would begin to see other connections? Do you really think they would approach the bible, without looking at other sources? That's not how we study literature, as a closed box. We look at everything.

There are probably thousands of people who are seeing the eastern connection in Jesus' teachings. Not just me.

But why aren't more christians seeing it?

Because a lot of christians have grown up with the fear of knowing and understanding other religions. That if they do, they are going to be fooled by the devil and led astray to hell-fire. I know catholics who are ignorant about buddhism and don't want to hear anything about it, because they believe its something satanic. How can you expect then, from mainstream christianity, to recognize eastern philosophies in the bible? When they don't even know what eastern philosophies are?

PS. My understanding of the bible isn't as NEW as you think. Actually, it PREDATES catholicism. P R E D A T E S. early christianity is so different from mainstream christianity today. one of the greatest lies produced by the catholic church, is convincing their followers that catholicism is the oldest and truest form of christianity. history is tells us otherwise, and even suggests - that catholicism isn't based on Jesus' teachings.

but Paul's. what others today have called paulism.

the negative relationship the church has with females can even be traced to the teachings of Paul. they are not traced to the teachings of Jesus. once paulism found its way into christianity, the understanding of Jesus message radically changed. with evidence, that texts in Jesus gospel were altered. to make important female figures, including mary magadalen, disappear. Evidence suggesting mary magadalen was never a whore. evidence suggesting that paulism transformed her into a whore to keep females degraded.

that's all speculation of course. but you only have to compare the gospel to everything Paul says after to see CONTRADICTIONS. and you only have to look at the history of the catholic church to see enough deception to make anyone sick. who gives the catholic church, who has manipulated in the past, the most valid interpretation of the bible????

wouldn't you expect their interpretation to be purposefully skewed for their own egotistical objectives?? that's why religious dogma needs to be shelved if you want a better understanding

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Juroara did a pretty solid job there of illustrating the commonality between Jesus, Buddha, and the Taoist sages.

thanks! but, I guess not everyone will agree

still its nice to see more people who already see a common ground between them. kudos to the thread maker

Originally Posted by juroara

"Why should I give an ooh and ahh at Juroura's version of what she read? You can look at any book for applicable things to the world. So she reads it and decides that what he says isn't what he means and interchanges words so that she can find a new meaning, it is far more prudent to look at the actual world your in for answers to life by your own observations."

First I want to apologize for my ooh and ahh comment...it was some hostility coming off from me that was stemmed by someone else and shouldn't have been directed at you.

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm a mystic at heart. we don't rely on any written book or text to base our reality on. I'm just as fine without the bible!

Which is extremely commendable.

Originally Posted by juroara

I can't prove to you that my views are right, of course. But I think, when interpreting the bible - it's only right that we take away the religious interpretation of it. And put it away on a shelf. And when we interpret the bible, lets view it as any other piece of literature.

Dissect it and analyze it like you would when your teacher asks you to do the same with any story. I feel, if we approach the bible in this way - you will at least come to the conclusion - that many view points held up in christianity isn't supported in the bible. Or at least, not supported by their savior.

Again very commendable view point.

Originally Posted by juroara

What you have instead is, a very powerful church shoving their view of the bible onto everyone. Including atheists. So that even atheists think, this is how the bible must be understood. And any other understanding of it is wrong. So that someone like me, has no right to suggest that the bible can mean something different.

But look, that's why we need to put such dogma on the shelf for now. Just imagine we're in the future and no one has ever heard of Christianity. And we find this bible and it looks like an interesting piece of human history, at least, as literature is concerned. So great efforts are being made to understand this piece of literature.

You don't think they would draw in from other recourses to understand the bible? You think when they read Jesus saying "The way, the truth and the life" that they will just completely ignore the Tao, which amazingly seems to be described by the same words? Don't you think they would draw a connection? Don't you think they would question if Jesus was influenced by eastern mystics, in that very big gap where he is non-existent in the bible? Now you see, religious dogma can't even propose this question!! BLASPHEMY!

I think I see what you are getting at here. Which I agree with. It is simply the idea that the book itself is offering the only truth (which is what it says in the bible) that bothers me. I see no reason to change the word "me" to the symbol that "me" might possibly represent. I simply think that such glossing over of things is dangerous when it seems that from the very beginning the people who wrote them desired you to look at it as the actual "me" verses the symbol "me" represents.

Originally Posted by juroara

Don't you think they would begin to see other connections? Do you really think they would approach the bible, without looking at other sources? That's not how we study literature, as a closed box. We look at everything.

There are probably thousands of people who are seeing the eastern connection in Jesus' teachings. Not just me.

But why aren't more christians seeing it?

Because a lot of christians have grown up with the fear of knowing and understanding other religions. That if they do, they are going to be fooled by the devil and led astray to hell-fire. I know catholics who are ignorant about buddhism and don't want to hear anything about it, because they believe its something satanic. How can you expect then, from mainstream christianity, to recognize eastern philosophies in the bible? When they don't even know what eastern philosophies are?

PS. My understanding of the bible isn't as NEW as you think. Actually, it PREDATES catholicism. P R E D A T E S. early christianity is so different from mainstream christianity today. one of the greatest lies produced by the catholic church, is convincing their followers that catholicism is the oldest and truest form of christianity. history is tells us otherwise, and even suggests - that catholicism isn't based on Jesus' teachings.

but Paul's. what others today have called paulism.

the negative relationship the church has with females can even be traced to the teachings of Paul. they are not traced to the teachings of Jesus. once paulism found its way into christianity, the understanding of Jesus message radically changed. with evidence, that texts in Jesus gospel were altered. to make important female figures, including mary magadalen, disappear. Evidence suggesting mary magadalen was never a whore. evidence suggesting that paulism transformed her into a whore to keep females degraded.

that's all speculation of course. but you only have to compare the gospel to everything Paul says after to see CONTRADICTIONS. and you only have to look at the history of the catholic church to see enough deception to make anyone sick. who gives the catholic church, who has manipulated in the past, the most valid interpretation of the bible????

I really can't comment on the information in this paragraph. I don't know enough about most of the points covered.

Originally Posted by juroara

wouldn't you expect their interpretation to be purposefully skewed for their own egotistical objectives?? that's why religious dogma needs to be shelved if you want a better understanding

I expect any and all interpretation to be skewed, no offense intended, in light of the fact that the people writing this down never did a critical analysis of their own writing to explain to us what these metaphors were trying to get across, if indeed they were meant as metaphors. Apparently they all assumed every other human being was as philosophically enlightened as they believed themselves to be.

Jesus was not intended to be a god but a role model. He was not putting himself on a pedestal. He taught a universal guide to this version of existence which is apparent to one with a clear mind and has been created in different forms in many different societies. None others have a martyr, but I suppose there was a being in the upper reaches of existence that chose to use him as a hero and a role-model rather than just a teacher to be forgotten.

There is an historical account available of Jesus that was hidden in caves where the Christian Scholars hid all their shit from the Romans. Some documents approved by Rome were mashed together with their Mystery's symbolic truths to make the Bible. It's not a trustworthy account on how to get to Paradise. Luckily Buddha has provided an excellent and mostly undisturbed account so if you like Jesus and want to grow up to be like him you can check out Buddhist texts.

You know, Pythagoras doesn't get the credit he deserves, either. I guess cause he appealed more to science people and Jesus appealed more to artistic people. Yeah, but if Pythagoras, with his record, had the longlasting fame of Jesus I bet many atheists, having a proper role-model to look up to, would be on the way to paradise as well. That's not to say an atheist can't be on the road, or perhaps already there. Paradise in itself is a difficult word to describe what I'm talking about, it can be achieved in life. However the death process allows you to compile all you've learned and ascend yourself. Heaven is a bit different, there are 10 levels of that, with this legitmated "King" figure on the top who didn't use to be aware there was life above himself. I'm not sure if he is right now, either. He is also her, by the way, and I might start using Her to give Her and equal tone. This was based on my reading of Gnostic texts.

So all these planes of heaven have some kind of learning theme according to near death experiences, and it's an existence where people's imaginations are projected onto the world infront of them, in otherwords it's a cooperative creation, so people tend to stick together in like-minded gangs.

This is not paradise, Jesus intended everyone to reach Godhood. There is existence beyond this game we're all playing. Heaven is just another exercise like any other, the only difference is leasson sink in harder here, and the process of going through a lifetime in the material world is more precious than any other.

you guys rock!!

We are all God. God is existance. But i don't like to use that word anymore because it has sadly lost it's meaning.

Originally Posted by stonedape

We are all God. God is existence. But i don't like to use that word anymore because it has sadly lost it's meaning.

But you see the thing is when people talk about God they aren't talking about existence! They are talking about deities (usually). The funny thing is when someone says "God doesn't exist," someone thinks he is saying "my definition of God doesn't exist!". No...we're not saying your definition of God doesn't exist if your definition of god is PURELY that God is "everything."

Let me put it to you this way...If in a dictionary your definition for God would look like this...

God - Everything.

Then I wouldn't say your definition of God is wrong..since it is just another word for everything. However...

God - deity that encompasses everything.

I would say is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Sandform

But you see the thing is when people talk about God they aren't talking about existence! They are talking about deities (usually). The funny thing is when someone says "God doesn't exist," someone thinks he is saying "my definition of God doesn't exist!". No...we're not saying your definition of God doesn't exist if your definition of god is PURELY that God is "everything."

Let me put it to you this way...If in a dictionary your definition for God would look like this...

God - Everything.

Then I wouldn't say your definition of God is wrong..since it is just another word for everything. However...

God - deity that encompasses everything.

I would say is incorrect.

Different ways of explaining the same thing. You need to research what you are arguing about, and when you understand, there will be no argument.

Originally Posted by really

Different ways of explaining the same thing. You need to research what you are arguing about, and when you understand, there will be no argument.

No did you even read what I just said Really?

"Everything"

and

"Talking diety with feelings"

Are two very different things. It is not different ways of explaining the same thing. You can say that X text and X thing aren't talking about Talking dieties with feelings, and whatever that is fine, it isn't a matter of what the BOOK says it is a matter of what PEOPLE say.

Originally Posted by Sandform

No did you even read what I just said Really?

"Everything"

and

"Talking diety with feelings"

Are two very different things. It is not different ways of explaining the same thing. You can say that X text and X thing aren't talking about Talking dieties with feelings, and whatever that is fine, it isn't a matter of what the BOOK says it is a matter of what PEOPLE say.

Talking deity with feelings? Where did that come from? This is a common misconception.

They were two different descriptions referring to the same thing, despite the limitation of communication. But what you have now mentioned is completely different, since it is based off a confusion founded upon appearances (of "believers").

Just to be clear you're saying

God - Everything.

God - deity that encompasses everything.

is two different ways of describing the same thing? not unless the thing you're talking about is the pronounciation and spelling of the actual letters G O D. Because if so please look up what a diety is. A diety is almost always considered a being.

Maybe you need to pay attention to "what I'm arguing about." If you would like to say that existence is God. and that is the end of your description. Then feel free. If your definition of God is only "all things that exist" or maybe "the universe" feel free to believe it.

What you fail to see is that there are people out there that believe there is a conscious singular being with the title of God. These are the people that I reject their claims of.

I also don't intend to call existence God for that matter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say your wrong just because you defined existence with another word...even though it isn't supported by the dictionary at the moment...

And I certainly don't intend to hold one persons interpretations of a sacred texts written in vague BS passages higher than any others.
So you say that they have got it wrong eh? Well they say you've got it wrong.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Just to be clear you're saying

Originally Posted by Sandform

God - Everything.

God - deity that encompasses everything.

is two different ways of describing the same thing? not unless the thing you're talking about is the pronounciation and spelling of the actual letters G O D. Because if so please look up what a diety is. A diety is almost always considered a being.

Maybe you need to pay attention to "what I'm arguing about." If you would like to say that existence is God. and that is the end of your description. Then feel free. If your definition of God is only "all things that exist" or maybe "the universe" feel free to believe it.

What you fail to see is that there are people out there that believe there is a conscious singular being with the title of God. These are the people that I reject their claims of.

I also don't intend to call existence God for that matter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say your wrong just because you defined existence with another word...even though it isn't supported by the dictionary at the moment...

And I certainly don't intend to hold one persons interpretations of a sacred texts written in vague BS passages higher than any others.
So you say that they have got it wrong eh? Well they say you've got it wrong.

It all looks confusing when looking at externals.

God, beyonds words, happens to Be One with All that Is, and All Encompassing at the same "time". What is infinite is difficult to explain with finite terms.

This sounds like two very different things to me. How can God be everything and at the same time be a being that exists indepently of everything. Then your kinda saying god is infinity plus 1. God is existance. I am.

How about existence is existence, and the term God need not apply.

Yeah that works for me, but how then will you convince people that there is not a guy who lives in the clouds that controls our lives. I think a lot of people need to beleive in something greater than themselves and turn this to a belief in god. I don't use the word god unless I'm trying to explain the idea of existance to people who beleive in god. That or if I stub my toe, but thats just habit. Also beleiving that the term god means existance makes most religions make more sense. Religions might be pretty fucked up, but theres some good wisdom in the teachings of Jesus.

Consciousness = everything

God = universal consciousness

god = everything

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Consciousness = everything

God = universal consciousness

god = everything

Yes, basically.


It is easy to get lost in words.

When someone says "God is in all things, and one with them", there is no reason to say that those things are separate to God; rather that God is something innately beyond them.

Has anyone here heard of a thesaurus?

Has anyone here heard of a metaphor?

i've heard of paradoxes.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

i've heard of paradoxes.

Are you implying these are paradoxes? Try to explain, please.

Originally Posted by really

Are you implying these are paradoxes? Try to explain, please.

god is in heaven - god is everywhere
=
paradox

I agree. thats like saying that god is infinity plus 1. It's still just infinity. How can something exist outside of existance? If something exists outside of existance I don't see how we would have any connection to it or in what way words would apply.

the wording is wrong, thats why its a paradox

what really should have been said is God IS existence, however, OUR universe is only a tiny little bubble in that existence, thus God exists both within and outside our existence/universe.

because existence IS and there is NOTHING without existence

Originally Posted by juroara

the wording is wrong, thats why its a paradox

what really should have been said is God IS existence, however, OUR universe is only a tiny little bubble in that existence, thus God exists both within and outside our existence/universe.

because existence IS and there is NOTHING without existence

so if existence ends, god ends?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

so if existence ends, god ends?

More like the other way around, If God ends existence ends.

Originally Posted by juroara

the wording is wrong, thats why its a paradox

what really should have been said is God IS existence, however, OUR universe is only a tiny little bubble in that existence, thus God exists both within and outside our existence/universe.

because existence IS and there is NOTHING without existence

I have to agree this acutally makes a lot of sense. I've always looked at it as though God is 'True Reality' and we are more of a lower resolution reality, among the same lines regarding existence.