Soldiers of Jah (page 19)

notverylikely

I think its a MUCH better explanation for out-of-body and near-death experiences than "the demons are playing tricks on you to get you to believe in an immortal soul".... don't you?

No. I think it's a bunch of bunk. Both of them.

PSacramento

It usually is. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. It IS muddled and blurred, that's why it appears so.

Usually, but not always.

It is not muddled and blurred to me, it is quite simple actually BUT it does require some faith.

People were doing it and preaching love long before that Jesus fella came around.

Perhaps, but not in the way Jesus taught.

There was preaching of love ofr your fellow man or brother, yes, but that didn't extent to all.

There was preaching of equality and justice and compassion for all in Greece for example, but only for the citizens, it was love with conditions.

There was preaching for man to be better so he could be a great hero, a great warrior, a great leader, not preaching that a lowly leper was to be blessed by God and would be as great as a Heracles.

tec

How do I do that? What kind of love?

I answered that above:

I know love can be subjective, but to me love is honest, compassionate, merciful and works to the good of others over self. - Tammy

I am not sure I understand what you mean. - NVL

I meant, no reason to think that someone else never discovered that love is the better way to deal with people and inspire a like response... say, than hate or punishment inspires. Experience would have taught some people this. So I see it as a universal truth - and think that there is no reason that others would not have seen this truth at some point in the past.

Applying it and teaching it aren't necessarily the same things, however.

Tammy

notverylikely

It is not muddled and blurred to me, it is quite simple actually BUT it does require some faith.

And ignoring large parts of the bible and accepting others as true. I agree, it does require faith.

There was preaching of love ofr your fellow man or brother, yes, but that didn't extent to all.

Yes they were. I have written on this extensively.

There was preaching for man to be better so he could be a great hero, a great warrior, a great leader, not preaching that a lowly leper was to be blessed by God and would be as great as a Heracles.

Buddha pre-dates Jesus and was teaching love, peace and humility.

notverylikely

I answered that above:

Sorry, missed it! Thanks!

So I see it as a universal truth - and think that there is no reason that others would not have seen this truth at some point in the past.

It's certainly not universal and others DID discover, practice and teach it prior to Jesus.

I agree it IS the better way, but you don't need Jesus to get there.

PSacramento

And ignoring large parts of the bible and accepting others as true. I agree, it does require faith.

You keep saying ignoring and I am wonder what is being ignored?

Yes they were. I have written on this extensively.

Link please?

Buddha pre-dates Jesus and was teaching love, peace and humility.

Via a process of self denial and denial of love? ( love is after all the cause of suffering).

cheerios

Not the accuracy of the bible. The truth of Christ.

Well, the issue is that because of the false stylus, we really can't KNOW if he is the truth.

exactly. why would i want to put any trust into someone that we dont even know if he existed? okay, so what it says in the book about him is somewhat nice (some of the time), but that doesnt mean suddenly i'm going to consider him a real person worthy of any merit or obedience. and it certainly doesnt mean i'm going to start talking to him.

perhaps i'm just jaded because of my experience with the borg. now i tend not to believe that there is a great and powerful oz.

that's my problem with that. can you help me beyond that?

notverylikely

You keep saying ignoring and I am wonder what is being ignored?

Ignored might not be the right word, perhaps "deciding it's not right because it doesn't fit your idea of Jesus" would be better :)

Link please?

Research Buddha, Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, golden rule on Wikipedia, look through my pasts posts. I rarely post so that should be no big deal :)

Via a process of self denial and denial of love? ( love is after all the cause of suffering).

Kinda like, I dunno, Jesus, who denied himself for the many and who, apparently, never loved a woman?

tec

Cheerios - If someone was going to lie about or invent a man to control the masses, or for whatever reason someone might do it, then why choose (or make up) a man who embraced denying selfish needs in order to give to the poor, to turn the other cheek, to forgive and bless your enemies, to show mercy even on the basis of a broken commandment (such as the Sabbath)... a man who spoke against the religious leaders and oppression at the time? I could go on, but I hope you're getting my point.

What purpose would it serve anyone to come up with someone whose power and kingdom was not from 'this place'.

On top of that - we have many, many documents attesting to Jesus. The only mistake made, I suppose from an evidence perspective, is that someone put them together in a bible and then deemed it inerrant - so it seems that we only have one book, one piece of evidence. But the letters were many, and many more did not even get put into the bible. Also, if it was all a hoax... don't you think someone would have made certain that there weren't any discrepancies, no matter how small, between the stories?

Just a couple thoughts.

Tammy

PSacramento

Ignored might not be the right word, perhaps "deciding it's not right because it doesn't fit your idea of Jesus" would be better :)

It is not my idead of Jesus, it is what Jesus spoke and taught and if it doesn't fir into what the Son of God said, yeah, I question it.

Research Buddha, Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, golden rule on Wikipedia, look through my pasts posts. I rarely post so that should be no big deal :)

I have researched those things, and you have over 2000 posts ! LOL !

Kinda like, I dunno, Jesus, who denied himself for the many and who, apparently, never loved a woman?

Jesus personified love, the man touched the untouchables, healed them, suffered through a crucifixtion because of his love for us, how does that add up to "denial of oneself" ?

Pluse he probably had a thing for Mary ;)

Soldiers of Jah

Share this