Fairytale religions

[Explorer]

Vanakkam Explorer: I have been reading your posts in all threads. I am no expert by any means, but this is what I have read or know in regards to several of your questions.

Firstly, I know of no Hindu sage or Guru who recommends hallucinogenics as a means at all. They are seen as temporal gateways to inner worlds only, and hold no purpose. Beyond that, many are seen as dangerous, just as kundalini rising when one is not ready is seen as dangerous to the nervous system. The only religious system that I am aware of that condones this is some native American tribes and their use of peyote.

There are a lot of amazonian tribes that use DMT containing Ayahuasca. DMT is the most potent one we know of, and also the one I've seen the great Sun with. I plan to go there some time when circumstances permit (Peru, most likely) and study under some guidance. I think that this sort of strong interest towards any field in a person, rarely occurs without good reason. Right now I don't know what that reason is, for me, but until I find something that makes more sense or provides clearer results, this is one of the paths I have to follow.

The universe is vast and at it's core is a sun known as the central sun. It is said to be the chief life-giver of the entire universe, and many millions of times larger than ours.

All this is beyond linear time and linear space. But the problem arises as to what value this knowledge is. What value is it to know this stuff? Does it help in the individual soul's evolution? What is the purpose?

Might be ignorant of me, but at the moment I tend to identify what people call God, with that central Lifegiver sun. Can you share more about where you found this info ?

About the purpose, you might have seen in other posts that I consider it rather unknowable. We can only see a few meters ahead, like the headlights of a car, we cannot see the end road, or at least I for one do not claim to see it. As for how we can evolve and grow as souls, that's what I'm here to learn about

For instance what I've seen felt like that central sun, but it could just as well have been just one of my chakras, seen for the first time with the inner eye. So indeed some meditation and/or yoga practice is needed, in order to make clearer sense of these things.

All this other knowledge is there, and can be reached via the great akashic library where the history books of the universe are written down. Great interplanetary masters can access this library and have.

The only connection to Hinduism I know of that explains this stuff is the book 'Lemurian Scrolls' 'written' by Subramuniyaswami. This book might be of interest.

Many thanks for the book title, I will look into it, as the Akashic knowledge has always been a topic of interest to me

Of course, this is all just my opinion and others will vary. I think most of us here would suggest you stop the use of hallucinogenics though.

Aum Namasivaya

I can only speak from personal experience here, and right now I feel that a balance can be found between these plants and meditation techniques. Currently I am lacking in the second part, in the sense that I don't have a daily meditation practice in place, but also I don't have a regular plants' practice, and my feeling is that I should.

I'm hoping that spending some time here with people that do meditate regularly and have regular rituals, my approach will also gradually shift more towards that. We will see. Many thanks for your reply, very useful

[Explorer]

Ah, it's the belief in Jesus that balances everything out. As I mentioned in the "Christianity - Another Viewpoint" thread, Christians believe that they are condemned to die for their sins, but Jesus took their place when He died for them on the Cross. Therefore:

1 life of sin + belief in Jesus = endless bliss

So does this make sense to you ? In other religions, karma applies equally to all souls, human or not, of one religion or another. Whether savage tribes in the jungle or members of any civilization, the rules apply the same way. They are universal.

Isn't there a strong disconnect, in saying that if you know and have faith in Jesus, the rules applied to your soul will be different ? CAN a tribesman in the jungle, 8000 BC, have ever known Jesus? Or inuits in arctic regions ?

Seems to me the whole system of the Bible makes some sense if you only consider the limited area and time that Jews lived in, but as soon as you expand it to what reality really is (the whole universe and all time) then it rapidly loses coherence.

Yes, in Old Testament times, God was much more violent. He struck down the sons of Aaron for getting drunk and desecrating the Sanctuary. However, after the advent of Jesus, God was much more merciful - the New Testament does not describe God as striking people down or the like.

So God, creator of all the galaxies, spaces seen and unseen of infinite complexity, has 'changed his mind' and way of acting on a planet, based on what the Jews did, and how they reacted. For a moment there, this reminded me of the ignorant way in which medieval humans believed themselves the center of all the universe, but no, I guess it must make sense:

God DOES change the way he interacts with all the galaxies in existance, based on how the Jews on planet Earth behaved. Apparently he tried the direct hands-on approach first, showing up personally, and and then when that didn't get the job done, he sent a human incarnation of himself, and switched to the 100% indirect, unseen approach. By the looks of it, he must be wingin' it and just trying stuff out as he goes, like the rest of us

[ScottMalaysia]

So does this make sense to you ? In other religions, karma applies equally to all souls, human or not, of one religion or another. Whether savage tribes in the jungle or members of any civilization, the rules apply the same way. They are universal.

I'm not saying that I believe this, I'm just saying that this is what Christians believe. If you asked a Christian this, they'd most likely say "God can do anything"

Isn't there a strong disconnect, in saying that if you know and have faith in Jesus, the rules applied to your soul will be different ? CAN a tribesman in the jungle, 8000 BC, have ever known Jesus? Or inuits in arctic regions ?

This question has been debated back and forth by Christians. Catholics believe in the "Limbo of the Fathers" where those people living before Jesus who died "in the friendship of God" waited until Jesus came and made it possible for them to enter heaven.

Regarding those who have never heard of Jesus, the Catholic Church teaches that if one dies "invincibly ignorant" of Jesus and the Catholic faith (i.e. they've never once heard about Jesus or the Catholic Church), then they may be saved, but it's ultimately up to God. Those who have heard about the Church but decided not to enter it will go to hell. Some dissident Catholics called Feenyists deny this and believe that all who are not in the Catholic Church, whether they've heard of it or not, will go to hell. Protestants take varying viewpoints on this issue, with some believing that God will have mercy on those who have never heard of Jesus, and others, such as Calvinists, believe that anyone who isn't a Christian and accepted Jesus will be condemned to everlasting torment.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but this is what Christians believe.

Seems to me the whole system of the Bible makes some sense if you only consider the limited area and time that Jews lived in, but as soon as you expand it to what reality really is (the whole universe and all time) then it rapidly loses coherence.

I believe that the Old Testament was revealed specifically to the Jews of that time, and the New Testament to the Christians. They have led many to do good works, and many to renounce the world to better serve God (monks and nuns). But it's not applicable to all times or situations, just like a primary school maths book wouldn't be any use to a college student.

So God, creator of all the galaxies, spaces seen and unseen of infinite complexity, has 'changed his mind' and way of acting on a planet, based on what the Jews did, and how they reacted. For a moment there, this reminded me of the ignorant way in which medieval humans believed themselves the center of all the universe, but no, I guess it must make sense:

Christians have answered this question. I'll provide you with a couple of links, rather than copy and paste the text here.

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html
http://respondingtoskeptics.wordpres...testament-god/

Scholar and renowned religious reformer Bhaktivinoda Thakur (1838-1914) said the following about Christianity:

“Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being, the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this.”

[Ashvati]

I always hated the idea of original sin myself. Removing the shame of something your ancestors did is one thing, but original sin is just rediculous. Although I hear it used to refer to both the eating of the fruit and the fact that we're born through sex. Either way, original sin is a rediculous concept.

[sanjaya]

So does this make sense to you ? In other religions, karma applies equally to all souls, human or not, of one religion or another. Whether savage tribes in the jungle or members of any civilization, the rules apply the same way. They are universal.

Isn't there a strong disconnect, in saying that if you know and have faith in Jesus, the rules applied to your soul will be different ? CAN a tribesman in the jungle, 8000 BC, have ever known Jesus? Or inuits in arctic regions ?

Seems to me the whole system of the Bible makes some sense if you only consider the limited area and time that Jews lived in, but as soon as you expand it to what reality really is (the whole universe and all time) then it rapidly loses coherence.

You bring up a good point. Theologians sometimes refer to this jokingly as the "pigmy in Africa" scenario. Christians have always had difficulty with the idea of people dying in ignorance of Christ going to hell (as any reasonable person should), and sometimes come up with funny ways to deny it. Catholics have constructed this doctrine of "invincible ignorance," which Scott already described. I've known some evangelicals to believe that if you die without hearing about Jesus, you can be saved. But these evangelicals have a hard time defending their view logically. Perhaps the most logical, self-consistent Christians I know of are the Reformed Protestants (i.e. Calvinists). They believe that all people are natural-born sinners destined for hell, and that it is a wonder anyone is saved at all. So all people who haven't heard about Jesus are in hell. This, I think, is just another reason to reject the absurdity that is called Christianity. Again we run into the same problem: an average person who sins at least once in his life is judged by God as equally guilty as someone who commits mass murder. Christianity, I think, encourages immorality by equalizing all sin.

So God, creator of all the galaxies, spaces seen and unseen of infinite complexity, has 'changed his mind' and way of acting on a planet, based on what the Jews did, and how they reacted. For a moment there, this reminded me of the ignorant way in which medieval humans believed themselves the center of all the universe, but no, I guess it must make sense:

God DOES change the way he interacts with all the galaxies in existance, based on how the Jews on planet Earth behaved. Apparently he tried the direct hands-on approach first, showing up personally, and and then when that didn't get the job done, he sent a human incarnation of himself, and switched to the 100% indirect, unseen approach. By the looks of it, he must be wingin' it and just trying stuff out as he goes, like the rest of us

Evangelical Christians, and probably Catholics, would respond by saying that God has remained consistent, and that Old Testament prophecies about Jesus prove that God has always had a plan to send Jesus to atone for the sin of the world. Thus, say the Christians, God did not send Jesus as a "plan B," but always meant to send him. I believe this theology breaks down because the Biblical prophecies don't stand up to scrutiny. If you Google some Jewish websites, you can read about how the New Testament mistranslates the Hebrew of the Tanakh (Old Testament), and how Christians have misinterpreted the Jewish Tanakh to support their own theology. While I think that Jesus himself is a great man and avatar of God, his followers have twisted the Jewish religion and misportrayed their religious texts. Don't take my word for it, just do some reading into Hebrew messianic prophecy and you'll see what I mean.

I always hated the idea of original sin myself. Removing the shame of something your ancestors did is one thing, but original sin is just rediculous. Although I hear it used to refer to both the eating of the fruit and the fact that we're born through sex. Either way, original sin is a rediculous concept.

Agreed. Original sin explains quite well why people behave sinfully. But it does nothing to explain human altruism. Christianity would have us regard humanity as some sort of vile scum. It emphasizes our evils without addressing the inherent good that many people display.

[ScottMalaysia]

Perhaps the most logical, self-consistent Christians I know of are the Reformed Protestants (i.e. Calvinists). They believe that all people are natural-born sinners destined for hell, and that it is a wonder anyone is saved at all.

Calvinists believe that God pre-destines some people to go to heaven and pre-destines others to go to hell. Many Christians disagree with this viewpoint, but they accept that God knows who will be saved and who won't. Knowing it and willing it aren't the same thing.

If you Google some Jewish websites, you can read about how the New Testament mistranslates the Hebrew of the Tanakh (Old Testament), and how Christians have misinterpreted the Jewish Tanakh to support their own theology. While I think that Jesus himself is a great man and avatar of God, his followers have twisted the Jewish religion and misportrayed their religious texts. Don't take my word for it, just do some reading into Hebrew messianic prophecy and you'll see what I mean.

The main mistranslation is in Isaiah 7:14. " Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

The actual Hebrew word used in the passage was עלמה (almah), which meant 'young woman'. While the vast majority of young women at that time would have been virgins, the Hebrew langauge actually contains a separate word for "virgin" בְּתוּלָה (betulah). When the Greeks translated this passage into their own language, they rendered 'almah' as Παρθένος (parthenos) which means 'virgin'. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible were in Greek and Latin, and we see that the Latin has erroneously translated the Greek: "virgo concipiet et pariet filium".

Christians state that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of what the Messiah would do in the Old Testament. However, this isn't true. The Old Testament states that the Messiah will:

• Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)
• Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)
• Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)
• Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).

Jesus did none of these things. Also, the Old Testament said nothing about the Messiah being conceived by the Holy Ghost or being divine.

The Christians have a big list of Messianic Prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled in the New Testament. And the Jews have loads of information refuting these "prophecies".