Understanding and defining religion afresh

[duendy]

Duendy,

I don't know about that..... this is the first time I'm hearing that Jesus Christ never existed. It could be true. But as per what I've read, he seems to be a saint belonging to an ancient cult --- which is not unlikely, who was worshipped for 300 years by Gnostics before being usurped as their prophet by the Christians.

the probably nearest possible clue is J.M/Allegro's clues, in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, where he speaks of Gnostic 'Teacher of Righteousness' who very preceeded the offical so-called character of J.Christ by a considerable time span and was crucified. thus is probability, Christian myth partly derives from this event

BUT the ESSENTIAL point is this. MYTHOLOGY is not meant in its essnce to be historical. History is dead news, as is knowledge. you KNOWit it's known. the real meaning of mythological insight is to encourage the understanding of the nowness of livin reality. THE best means for doing this is the central sacrament from which all mythology has sprung--even thoug many of its adherents have long forgotten through the mists of time with its bloody violence brutality and prohibition. And this is the PSYCHEDELIC SACRAMENT.
For it is with the eatning/drinking etc of the bona fide sacrament where all words from the pages cease to have any relevance and one is ACTUALLY faced with-inside and out- LIVING REALITY

HOW many people are confused about the insistance of A man dying on A cross lillenia ago has anything to do with their
lifetimes, including suffering. may people suffer FA more that te character Jesus did. yet somehow there is this sentimental
looking at Jesus' suffering as though that is the worst it can get.
It just doesn't make sense.

But it DOES if one reaized that it was all really referring to an actual SPIRITUAL resurrection tat could he had then AND now. that ypou now can gather psychedelic and.....maybe have a spiritual rebirth.

This mans now we may have to investigate what 'spiritual rebith' means from a mystical Christian perspective and a Earth-based pagan perspective...?

 

[Buddha1]

well, jesus according to what you know about him personally from reading scriptures.
dont go to a church to learn about jesus. the "wwjd" fad of the late nineties comes to mind.

but in case that isnt satisfactory...the second thing you said.
:m:

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

 

[jayleew]

IMO, spirituality is the assimilation of religion into your life. To me one who is spiritual is concerned with things of the spirit more than the world. One who sees everything in terms of the spirit world is spiritual. It is the recognition that there is more to life than the material plane of existence.

 

[jayleew]

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

A fallacy of all the religions. All religions are man made. However, IMO God exists. So, anyone who is spiritual or religious only because of the religion, is also false.

 

[Buddha1]

the probably nearest possible clue is J.M/Allegro's clues, in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, where he speaks of Gnostic 'Teacher of Righteousness' who very preceeded the offical so-called character of J.Christ by a considerable time span and was crucified. thus is probability, Christian myth partly derives from this event

BUT the ESSENTIAL point is this. MYTHOLOGY is not meant in its essnce to be historical. History is dead news, as is knowledge. you KNOWit it's known. the real meaning of mythological insight is to encourage the understanding of the nowness of livin reality. THE best means for doing this is the central sacrament from which all mythology has sprung--even thoug many of its adherents have long forgotten through the mists of time with its bloody violence brutality and prohibition. And this is the PSYCHEDELIC SACRAMENT.
For it is with the eatning/drinking etc of the bona fide sacrament where all words from the pages cease to have any relevance and one is ACTUALLY faced with-inside and out- LIVING REALITY

HOW many people are confused about the insistance of A man dying on A cross lillenia ago has anything to do with their
lifetimes, including suffering. may people suffer FA more that te character Jesus did. yet somehow there is this sentimental
looking at Jesus' suffering as though that is the worst it can get.
It just doesn't make sense.

But it DOES if one reaized that it was all really referring to an actual SPIRITUAL resurrection tat could he had then AND now. that ypou now can gather psychedelic and.....maybe have a spiritual rebirth.

This mans now we may have to investigate what 'spiritual rebith' means from a mystical Christian perspective and a Earth-based pagan perspective...?

Very insightful and informative!

 

[The Devil Inside]

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

indeed. but lies always have a nugget of truth to them, if they are to be believable. just because some crusty old catholics are the source of our current knowledge of jesus doesnt invalidate everything that they allowed early christians to see of his life.

the canonical texts are all proven to be written before the true organized church was formed. *shrug*

but like i said....ask yourself before you believe what some guy has written.

summary: be a decent person with aspirations regarding your soul, and you will be just fine.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

*************
M*W: I believe this, too. It's a theory, but it's quite possible that the Roman Emperors wrote the NT (or had it written) as a way to control the masses when they could no longer pay their armies.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i have also considered this, mw.
i discarded the theory when i discovered that the advent of organized christianity actually split rome into 2 empires (theologically and politically). being as roman politics were especially clandestine and thought out, i decided that it probably wasnt the case.
*shrugs again*

 

[Buddha1]

indeed. but lies always have a nugget of truth to them, if they are to be believable.

???

A lie is a lie!

just because some crusty old catholics are the source of our current knowledge of jesus doesnt invalidate everything that they allowed early christians to see of his life.

the canonical texts are all proven to be written before the true organized church was formed. *shrug*

The Christ that the Gnostics knew for 300 years was quite different than the Christ that the Church built up.

btw, what are cannonical texts and when were they written.

but like i said....ask yourself before you believe what some guy has written.

summary: be a decent person with aspirations regarding your soul, and you will be just fine.

The best thing to do is to abandon religion and dogmas and get the freedom to find the true path to spirituality. What Duendy has been saying recently makes a lot of sense.

 

[Buddha1]

Duendy, I'm greatly interested in what you've been saying about spirit and matter. I think they may hold an answer to most of the problems that humans face today.

 

[The Devil Inside]

canonical texts are those books that have been approved by the catholic church, and are widely accepted today as the new testament.

be careful about saying what "the best thing" is, my friend.

and always remember: just because someone means to decieve you, that doesnt mean that what they are saying is untrue.
keep on truckin!

 

[Buddha1]

and always remember: just because someone means to decieve you, that doesnt mean that what they are saying is untrue.

???

But it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth either.

I'm not saying that whatever they say may be a lie. But then if certain things seem improabable or untrue, especially about what the saint has supposedly taught --- then you would be wise to question.

In any case there are documented cases of the Church manipulating information about Christ and his teachings. Like Paul (or someone else!) has been reported to have said that --- men are not supposed to know everything about Jesus!

 

[The Devil Inside]

yep. and thats why i said to read scriptures instead of using church teachings. ALL scriptures, not just the vanilla flavored ones in a king james bible.

 

[duendy]

One of the best 'books' (she asn't published it, it is her Thesis, and she kindly printed it out and sent it to me from the States) , ande you cah readit online is titled The Power of Choice, by Druscilla French....In it she revels tew rules of patriarchal mythology and literature down the ages ad how its narrative structure etc is structured so as to MAINTAIN a status quo.

In patriarchal myth for example we have te 'hero' motif who challenges and subdues and has power over a 'Dragon/Serpent' ---obviously representing, basically, Nature, and 'Her' powers.
In tese tales the king/father passes on his glory to his hero/son....Throughout the dying andliving of tis arrangement the hierarchical situation is maintained

So to question 'religion' you got to begin looking more closey at them tales and at society your in

 

[duendy]

I mentioned a bit back how it'd be interesting to investigate the difference between a mystical understanding of 'spiritul rebirth' and a pagan Earth-centred understanding of 'spiritual rebirth'?

'Mysticism' can be defined as a presumption that A higher spiritual order exists over and above the 'mere physical'-----so you can either 'return to it' as in AWAY from Nature, or recognize 'Oneness' in it--ala Eastern Vedanta'. Doing so, this philosophical position then tends to put-down a 'Many'---ie., the 'messiness' of real life and individual unique views and interpretations of reality. They instead 'demand' one merges with the 'Onness' otherwise one isn't 'religious/authentic'

For the Christian mystics their dream was escaping to their 'Father' in 'Heaven' and at a certain 'end of time' Nature was to bcome 'spiritualized'. Ie., rescued from its 'fallen state'

So, 'spiritual rebirth' in that mindset would mean some form of escape from Nature. Buddhists terms it the 'escape from the Wheel of Birth and Death'

I see all that mindwset as being 'patriarchal'--and coming from a common root-idea that fears Nature. we could even include male-dominated shamanism.

Alternatively, is the Earth-religious pagan understanding of spiritual rebirth, which i'll explore next post.....

 

[duendy]

The Earth-based pagan understanding of reality has been ferociously suppressed out of almost all memory by the dominator mindset which divides Nature from 'spirit'

How many Westerners-for example-know much about their ancient ancestors?

Even in ancient Greece the Classical Dionysians are not acknowledged, EVEN by some scholars, who believe Dionysos began with the Orphics, whereas see:

From Orphism to Gnosticism http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/ukraine/231/dionysian/orphism.html

about how it was the Orphics who reformed the much more CELEBRATORY beliefs and practices and worldviews of the originary Dionysians, the last vetige in West of Goddess Earth Religion

So how would an Earth-centred worldview understand spiritual rebirth?

well in this understanding there is no conflict between spirit and Nature and/or matter/energy. For spirit is IMMANENT in Nature.
Nature is alive with spirit, and there is potential to experience at deeper and deeper levels of experience, such as with ecstatic expression...

So in this context, spiritual rebirth is an ONGOING refreshing revitalization of this insight

By that i mean that there would be communal ad/or individual sacred rituals whereby a psychedelic sacrament would be imbibed so as to facilitate an ecstatic communion with Nature and one's BEING in Nature/AS Nature
And that the Inegration from such powerful experience ongoingly revitalizes one's sense of being in the world.
This is NOT about escape, but about opening TO~~~

 

[The Devil Inside]

How many Westerners-for example-know much about their ancient ancestors?

i can trace my family history from the late 400's in iran to present day america/italy.

*shrug*

 

[Sarkus]

“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
Please define what you mean by "bona-fide" scriptures. ”

Authentic.

Please clarify by what you mean as "authentic" scriptures. Merely using another word with the same meaning does not add any clarification or additional insight.
Who determines the "authenticity" of these scriptures? The followers?
If so, isn't this a rather convenient self-fulfilling cycle: "they are bona-fide because we determine them to be such, and as they are bona-fide we should follow them." etc?

“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
Can you give examples of any non-bona-fide scriptures? ”

Already have done.

Where? Please can you repost them to save me trawling through the various posts / threads. I can not find where you have given examples.

“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
You can be religious without being spiritual - and you can be spiritual without being religious. ”

How so?

Religious without being Spiritual: People who go to church, pray, believe in an all-powerful creator, and actually believe in many of the tennets of their faith, and follow the guidance of their religious beliefs where treatment of fellow man is concerned, but do not hold with the idea of a separate spirit.

Spiritual without being Religious: People who believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, that there is no "objective truth", but do not believe in any of the existing religions, do not believe in theology or in any of the scriptures, or in any organised religion at all. They believe that the answers lie within.

Obviously there can be, and generally is, considerable overlap between the spiritual and the religious, and many religions undoubtedly preach some spiritual element. But you can have one without the other.

“Originally Posted by Sarkus
"Religion" is far more encompassing than just limiting it to those major religions that you deem to have "bona-fide scriptures". ”

Explain.

Relgion is any belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine that drives one's moral codes, practices and values, usually accompanied with institutions and rituals associated with such belief.
The fact that many choose a religion that has been around for a few thousands of years or so does not mean that they are the only religions there are, which is what your post implied.

“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
"Religion is nothing more than a response to the deficiency in the human condition to deal with the existential facts of life - primarily DEATH." ”

That is atheist rhetoric, religious, but not religion in the real sense. If you're going to spout this, at least give some facts or definate information.

Lighten up and take the comment I posted in the vain in which it was posted... notice the smiley at the end of it?

 

[duendy]

i can trace my family history from the late 400's in iran to present day america/italy.

*shrug*

I am speaking about ones Indigenous ancestors. shit, the don even teach the youts here in UK about the relatively recent Enclosures carried ou by the aristocracy. This was when in Feudal times people were at least allowed land to subsist on. Then the 'gentry' enclose all this land and herd thepeople intothe grimmest places in the growing towns and cities and replaced them with SHEEP!

 

[The Devil Inside]

are you talking about the 1800's and such?
or earlier than that?