465 replies to this topic

[Habitat]

In a sense, you do have to believe to be "saved". But I don't mean in the sense that Paranoid Android understands it, of accepting church teachings about Christ, or as so many Christians regard as of utmost importance, believe the  resurrection story to be factual and literal. I have have met more than one such person who freely acknowledges that their faith hinges on it, and were it shown to be false, they would no longer be interested ! The true believer in my view accepts that there is a saving redemption within us, directly accessible to us without any external mediation, and in fact dependent on there being withdrawl from the sensible world, and our recollections of it. On the face of it, that appears to be an utterly barren prospect, but the seeming sheer unlikelihood of it holding anything of worth, let alone the Supreme Good, might just speak more to it being the truth, than the salesmanship of organized religion.

[Shabd Mystic]

J. K., on 18 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

No game here, Shabd - I'm just always curious about others' beliefs.

I am so glad to hear that JK. I mean that sincerely. I'm sorry if i came across 'harsh" with my comments but I tend to get a bit defensive sometimes with this subject because I get a lot of "superiority" thrown at me in many forms by people who automatically figure that anyone who disagrees with their beliefs about this subject means they have no knowledge of the subject (or at least have less than they have).

I might no longer be a "Christian" but that is no reflection whatsoever upon my love of Jesus or belief in who He truly "was." In fact my love for Him and my bond with Him (or "attachment") is greater than almost any Christian I have ever met. It is so strong and "otherworldly" that it defies my limited capacity to define it, let alone describe it. I am very much a "Christ-ian." I am in NO way a "Christian." That's because the two things are diametrically opposed (though only the rarest Christian will ever be able to recognize that because once they do, they would be very unlikely to continue calling themselves a "Christian" unless it was important "socially" to do so - or for business, etc.).

I have read extensively on all this. Vastly more than most anyone other than a Biblical scholar (or something similar). Other than daily meditation, minor house duties (cook, shower, etc.) and occasional (American) football games to watch, that is what I do all day long, every day, for 80%-90% of my day. That is no exaggeration. Outside of a couple brief trips to the store each month I never leave the house any more. This is my ENTIRE life. It is an absolute passion. I have no other interests and I no longer have any desires of any kind to keep me busy in their pursuit. (Though I do spend time occasionally reading the news or writing to a friend or relative, etc.)

Does that mean I "know" any more than anyone else? Heck no. Maybe I do and maybe I don't know diddly squat. Everyone will come to their own conclusion regarding that and I honestly don't care what they believe. I'm just sharing these facts right now so that maybe a few of the people who always seem to want to dismiss me as some sort of clueless "non-believer" might actually decide to respect me as someone who has a well-researched opinion, even if they decide it's completely insane, lol.

I'd give a body-part to ever find someone who actually wants to "share" what they've found and bounce ideas off me, etc. But nobody is interested in that. That's why I at least appreciate your perspective as it's not the typical "let's see how little he knows or understands" point of view. It's not "let's expose this fool" it's more of "let's at least listen to this fool," lol. (Only kidding about the last part of that sentence, but it was too hard to resist.)

A forum like this tends to attract mostly people who want to show how much they "know." A perfect example is one member who seemed to share a lot of my beliefs who wrote to me privately. I was actually thrilled because there seemed to be someone with the same interests as me that I could "talk to." He sent me things to read, told me stories and shared his beliefs, and even sent me music. I then shared my views and sent him a book about the Path I follow. That was more than two weeks ago and I never heard another word, lol.

It just proved what I had already believed and that's that everybody wants to be the "teacher" while nobody ever wants to be a student. Everybody already "knows." There is nothing they can possibly learn. Every time I ever come here to post anything, and every time i foolishly comment about religion to a friend or relative, i always kick myself and then tell myself to shut the heck up and stop doing that. I KNOW I'm wasting my time writing all I write because I'm not the least bit interested in "being right" or winning any arguments (that used to matter, unfortunately). I'm just so caught up in this that I want to share it and I just wish everyone could find it and experience it.

I know that's lunacy, lol. In fact the Path I follow stresses that we should never do what I've been doing here. The time is coming when i will finally stop. It's close to that now. It would be very easy to do if I had "a life" beyond this (not that I would ever want one though). Anything remotely similar to what type of "life" nearly anyone else has (or what I did have) and I'd be distracted by many other things. But this is my "everything" and it means so much to me that I can't help but have a powerful urge to share it with "the world," even though I know without a doubt that will never fly in any way whatsoever. I just love talking about it and can't help feeling like a man who has discovered "the fountain of youth" but who suddenly becomes invisible the moment he tries to tell anybody else about it.

I need to just clamp it and move on, lol, but that's still likely to take a little while longer - though i keep coming close to finally doing so (which will be a relief to many, lol).

Thanks again.



.

[Paranoid Android]

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Since they are only "minor variations," then there is no need for the "2,000" ... "many" ... different types of churches. Just put them all under one name. Maybe Baptist or Pentecostal or whatever.

Hey, I have a great idea. just go back to the "original" church and everyone be called "Catholic."

Since they are only  only "minor variations," all the different church leaders can get into a big room (VERY big) and work out those  only "minor variations."

I'd have no problem worth that, as long as the core teachings are consistent minor differences (eg, Calvinism vs Arminianism) don't really matter. Moreover I would argue that these differences should actually be encouraged so that Christians can actively think about what it is they believe rather than just blindly accepting whatever a preacher says on the pulpit.

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

And, as to my comment about the "2,000 varieties of Christianity there are out there" that you reworded to say I said "thousands of churches" (which could mean 999,000 churches but is a term rarely used for "2" thousand churches), the use of "2,000" was an exaggeration to make my point. I'd hoped anyone who read it would understand that. But since you didn't, I'll get more specific.

Here's the "Christian Churches" I was able to find (there are surely hundreds more, at least):






I hope that was better than saying "2,000" churches. After all, I don't want anyone to take my number and falsely believe that means there are "a lot" of different Christian churches.  

Different churches and denominations, some different theological ideas. But I would argue that there is only one Christian church. Earthly organisations do not denote Christianity. Followers of Christ denote Christianity!

[Paranoid Android]

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Hindu theology?  

Where did you come up with that? That I posted an article that used the term "yogi?"

I didn't say Hindu theology. I said Hindu ideology. Whether intentional or not your concept of Jesus is reflected in Hindu ideology (theology is something different).

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

I know what the creators of the Bible meant. Though that's a totally different thing, does that count?

They were Jesus' words, so you tell me. What did Jesus mean and what did the creators of the Bible mean?

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

I know what Christianity teaches. Better than most Christians I know. You are confusing my saying I am not familiar with all the differences throughout the "countless' (is that better than "2,000?) Christian sects with me saying I'm not familiar with what Christianity teaches.

So you know it well and yet generalise Christianity as all a person needs to do is "believe". If that is what you think perhaps you do not know it as well as you think you know it?

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

I know it VERY well. How 'bout you?

Better than most. And in saying that, I know of nothing contradictory between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. I would like to see some examples. I read your later post where you quote a website (without acknowledging the source),  but I'd like to hear your own ideas, citing specific examples where necessary.  

Shabd Mystic, on 18 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

LOL. If a billion light years away is your idea of "close," than I'd say you are right on the money. But since we've already seen an example of your ability to "estimate" I think I'll just say "no."  

My apologies, I was basing my comment on your statement that you neither knew nor cared what Christianity taught. You've clarified your meaning so I recant the question, and replaced it with a request to give examples where you see Jesus and Paul in opposition

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 19 February 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[Shabd Mystic]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

But I would argue that there is only one Christian church.

But there are 700+ different Christian churches who might argue with that. (I get your point but feel like messin' around, lol.)

[Shabd Mystic]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

Better than most. And in saying that, I know of nothing contradictory between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. I would like to see some examples. I read your later post where you quote a website (without acknowledging the source),  but I'd like to hear your own ideas, citing specific examples where necessary.  

I honestly didn't read the rest of what you wrote, not because it might not have been worth the read, but because I have no interest in playing Internet ego games, which is what this has turned into. It has nothing to do with exploring "other" ideas and is solely about defending "what I believe." I said my piece and you said yours and there's no reason to say any more about it. You believe you're right and I believe I'm right, and nothing will change that.

That said, i did catch the part about "Paul" and read the above paragraph and figured I'd use it to make my greater point.

I appreciate what you said, but as I stated earlier, I'm not here to debate or argue or try to convince anyone of anything. I honestly couldn't care less what anyone thinks about "Paul vs. Jesus" and I have absolutely nothing to gain in trying to "prove" any of that to you or to anyone else. I put out the info just because i believe it "might" stir somebody to do a little further research. I know that is so unlikely it's practically ludicrous, but so far my heart's still beating out my head in such inner battles, so i still post.

If you are so determined to "prove" all that is false I suggest you counter the statements I provided by numerous "nobodys" such as Kierkegaard, who is about as devoted a Christian who ever lived. That way you can show everyone how much more you understand Christianity than numerous famous brilliant men and that will offer a bit more credibility to your beliefs than arguing with "some guy."

Winning or losing a word battle with an anonymous Internet poster over whether or not Paul was the original "anti-Christ" won't change the facts one way or another. All it will mean is you got the best of some guy on a message board or that you got bested by that guy. And of course the determination of the "winner" will be decided by each participant's own mind.  

I really have no interest in Internet word wars. If you want to believe Paul was a "plus" in spreading the teachings of Jesus, why would I even care to try to change that? I don't get anything out of that in any way, shape or form. If you are truly interested in whether Paul was actually the worst thing that ever happened to Christ's teachings, there are myriad sources which explain in great depth why that is, and by minds vastly superior to my own.

Just do a little research if you have any interest. Of course that isn't the same as playing "prove I'm right" on the Internet, so it might hold no interest at all.


.

[Paranoid Android]

If you aren't interested in providing examples to back your position then why make such a derogatory statement about Christians following Paul and not Jesus in the first place?

Believe it or not, my question was an honest one, I wasn't intending to argue that I was right and your were wrong. Quoting a website with famous people supporting your view doesn't actually help me see what you believe, anymore than me quoting a Christian website will help you understand me better. You may not believe me but the question was aimed so that I can understand your view better.

If it helps, I promise not to make any rebuttal post against your research, even if I disagree with it. At most I'll say "thanks, I disagree but I understand you better now".

~ PA

[Habitat]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

If you aren't interested in providing examples to back your position then why make such a derogatory statement about Christians following Paul and not Jesus in the first place?

Believe it or not, my question was an honest one, I wasn't intending to argue that I was right and your were wrong. Quoting a website with famous people supporting your view doesn't actually help me see what you believe, anymore than me quoting a Christian website will help you understand me better. You may not believe me but the question was aimed so that I can understand your view better.

If it helps, I promise not to make any rebuttal post against your research, even if I disagree with it. At most I'll say "thanks, I disagree but I understand you better now".

~ PA

This is pretty silly, google 'paul contradicts jesus' and you get enough material to keep you busy for some centuries, and SM did quote a number of reputable sources to support his assertion. So, to get back to the OP's question, was Jesus a Yogi, what do you say, PA ? I say to the extent they are both mystics, the answer is "yes", but I don't think you believe he was a mystic, do you ?

[Shabd Mystic]

Habitat, on 19 February 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

This is pretty silly, google 'paul contradicts jesus' and you get enough material to keep you busy for some centuries, and SM did quote a number of reputable sources to support his assertion.

LOL. You nailed it.



.

[Paranoid Android]

Habitat:

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him  as an individual better. I want his  individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

2- I think  Jesus would for some of the points be considered a mystic. However there are several points described in the  original post that  Jesus would disagree with. And since the article stated that a "true yogi" adheres to this then I have to conclude that Jesus is not a true yogi as defined by the article.

For example, a true yogi (according to the article)  acknowledges the divinity in all living things. Jesus only acknowledged divinity in humans. Therefore he cannot be a true yogi.  However he does fir some of the other criteria, and so could be described as a mystic.

Does that make sense?

Edited by Paranoid Android, 19 February 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Shabd Mystic, on 19 February 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

LOL. You nailed it.

Sorry when I started to reply to habitat you hadn't responded yet. Read point 1 in my post above

Point 2 answers your thread question, so read that too

Edited by Paranoid Android, 19 February 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Shabd Mystic]

Since I just got through answering my best friend's email after he went on about how wonderful Paul's "message" was, I figured I'd post it here to add to the "fun."

Here it is:

Quote

It's amazing how Paul was basically "working for Satan" by his persecution of Christians before "GOD" so miraculously changed him.

It's funny that God can't be bothered to change guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, etc., etc., but He goes to all the trouble of converting a tax collector.

That mean ole guy who was working for Satan is suddenly working for Jesus. That's great. Think of all the tax money a few people saved. Why bother doing that with serial killers, mass murderers, child rapists, etc.? None of that would save a few tax dollars for the Christians.

I wonder why God rarely seems interested in"stealing" guys away from "the other side." Is it because Satan's grip is too strong to bother? If so, how come it got loosened in Paul's case? Just because it made a compelling story that would help boost Christianity? Why then didn't he just "convert" Paul and tell the "remarkable" story of the conversion, and what a "great" man Paul became, in the Bible?

Since Satan had Paul so tightly in his grasp that Paul had been harassing Christians you'd think Satan would desperately want to hang on to him. He'd surely hate to lose him! He'd especially hate to lose such a great anti-Christian weapon and then have Paul take over Christianity, completely distort Christ's message, get the Christian religion formed based on the wrong doctrine (so that all the followers would be convinced they were going to be "saved" instead of hearing Christ's true teachings of how to save yourself from Satan), just like it happened.

Satan would hate that!!!

Oh wait ...

Never mind ...

.

[Shabd Mystic]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him  as an individual better. I want his  individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

My answer is "the Internet answer" since the countless reasons I say what I said have been reported for centuries and are all now available via the Internet.

Is an "individual answer" the same as me saying yet again what so many others have already said? Can I just cut & paste their words so I can save a ton of typing?

Is that the same as you repeating the same thing as so many other Paul apologists have said? Is that what makes your saying the same old things an "individual answer?"

And how will my providing an "individual answer" not instead just serve your need to "argue?"

If you want me to cut & paste let me know and I will tell you how you can save me all that trouble by using Google to do it yourself.

Does that clarify?

Does that help you to "understand me as an individual better?"

Perhaps you would like a copy of my resume as well? Medical records? DNA samples?


.

[Habitat]

Paranoid Android, on 19 February 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Habitat:

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him  as an individual better. I want his  individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

2- I think  Jesus would for some of the points be considered a mystic. However there are several points described in the  original post that  Jesus would disagree with. And since the article stated that a "true yogi" adheres to this then I have to conclude that Jesus is not a true yogi as defined by the article.

For example, a true yogi (according to the article)  acknowledges the divinity in all living things. Jesus only acknowledged divinity in humans. Therefore he cannot be a true yogi.  However he does fir some of the other criteria, and so could be described as a mystic.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for the clarification !

[Paranoid Android]

Shabd,

You see, this is where I disagree. Your individual answer will help me understand you by showing me you have done the research rather than just parroting what you read on the net.  For example, let's say someone asks me a theological question about Christianity. I then quote a Christian website and leave no personal additions. Does this show I have thought about the topic and seriously pondered and processed the data to inform my opinion? Or does it show that I can google and have no opinion of my own (or worse, that my opinion is based on poor research)?

Call me old fashioned, but when I ask someone their opinion I like to see internalised opinion, not just data.

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 19 February 2012 - 06:04 AM.