Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

So is buddhism. No religion has a more valid claim to being "real."

It is a common mistake that many people think:

"Oh, I have my beliefs, and you have yours, right?"

..implying that no religion is more valid than any other.

But that is not true.

Those who say that are looking at the other one through the lens of their belief system. But Buddhism, especially Zen, is without belief. Belief is not the focal point here; it is direct spiritual experience. Beliefs are brushed aside, actually. In addition, Buddhism and Taoism are non-salvific: their goal is not Salvation, as they are in Christianity and Judaism; it is Awakening and then Enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

What is and isn't magic his a highly debated topic within anthropology, classics, religious studies, and other fields. I seriously doubt you are familiar enough with the debate to render a worthwhile judgment.

I provided a working definition, obtained directly from dictionary.com, and one which I did not personally create. I am applying that working definition to the statement by Jesus, specifically:

"Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin"

Now here are the working definitions for the above statement:

mag·ic

1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2. 1. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
   2. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. A mysterious quality of enchantment.

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural.
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

If you cannot put the two together, I cannot help you. I am sure that others here can easily see the relationship.

Other examples of magic, as I am using the term, as found within the Christian religion include:

> The Resurrection
> The parting of the Red Sea
> The raising of Lazarus and other dead persons
> The transformation of water into wine
> The transformation of staffs into snakes
> The Virgin Birth
> Jesus walks on water
> God breathes life into Adam and brings him to life
> Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes
> and last, but not least....

 

[godnotgod]

Where does you knowledge of tribal or pagan religion come from? Intuition? I know you have already said you don't allow reason to get in your way.

Reason is based upon thought. The direct apprehension of reality is without thought. It is direct seeing into the very heart of reality, so that the observer and the observed become as one. There is no self and other; no observer and observed. No idea, belief, concept, or any thought whatsoever is involved.

What connects tribal/pagan practices with Christianity and Judaism, in large part, is that they all are based upon Belief, and belief is the product of thought. Therefore, belief is a model of what one supposes reality might be. It is not reality itself. Where one holds a belief about reality, one's view of reality is distorted. Reason does the same thing.

The great Christian mystic, Nicholas of Cusa, tells us:

"I have learnt that the place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictories*, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open. Thus 'tis beyond the coincidence of contradictories that Thou mayest be seen, and nowhere this side thereof."

The ability to see what is pagan/tribal, and what is not, comes from living as completely as one can in the Present Moment, without thought, where there is no history, no memory of things pastj, no thought, no belief, no concept, and no duality.

Higher Man is all about seeing. It is not about knowledge.

Knowledge is all about accumulation of facts and data, based upon thought, which is held in memory, and therefore is always a product of the past.

Understanding is all about subtraction, subtraction, and then more subtraction, until one is left with Nothing, and it is Nothing that is of the utmost importance to Higher Man.

*dualities

 

[Oberon]

Firstly, this passage establishes Jesus as the sacrificial host, The Lamb of God, whose "blood shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin."

Yes, Jesus sacrificed himself and his blood was shed. What you continue to fail to understand is that the blood itself did nothing. As the nicene creed and so many other texts state, it was the willing sacrifice itself of Jesus which had the power. The talking of "blood" does not actually refer to the power of the blood, but the power of the sacrifice. Hence, the line is not "blood shall be shed, that blood which will cause the remission of sin." The connection is not causal. The blood is a side effect of the sacrifice, and the blood refers to the metaphor of sacrifice, but when Jesus' blood was actually spilt, no one was there collecting in it or bathing in it or drinking it.

Jesus theoretically could have said no, but then again, he could not have.

He could have, according to the christian faith. You can disagree if you want, but then your point is who christian belief is based on paganism, and according to christian belief, Jesus had the choice.

> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, 1 say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink bis blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life..."-John vi. 5 35 6.

Which is pretty much John's way of saying "whoever believes in Jesus and come to him will go to heaven."

> Leviticus xvii. 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

This is part of ancient Judaism. For christians, a lot of the OT has a different meaning

> "Ye were redeemed from your vain conversation with the precious blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1. 18, 19).

This is totally wrong. The quote is
ειδότες ὅτι ου φθαρτοις, αργυρίω ἢ χρυσίω, ελυτρώθητε εκ της ματαίας υμων αναστροφης πατροπαραδότου
αλλα τιμίω αἵματι ως αμνου αμώμου και ασπίλου Χριστου/You know that not by corruptible things, with silver or gold, have you been liberated from the futility of the conduct handed down from your ancestors, but with precious blood of Christ as like a lamn without blemish or mark.

Here again, the blood itself has no power, it is the sacrifce that had the power, the act which Jesus entered into voluntarily, and in which his blood was spilt.

> " Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood." Rev 5:9
...
Pretty good list for something that has no magical power to do anything.

And the same problem holds for all of them. You fail to realize the importance of metaphorical sacrificial speech. The talk of Jesus' blood is simply a reference to his sacrifice. In REAL blood sacrifices, the BLOOD ITSELF is collected, or bathed in, or placed on the object intended to get its power, or in some other way ACTUALLY and PHYSICALLY used.

When Jesus' blood was spilt in his torture and death, nobody did anything with it. Christians believe this death and suffering caused the end of sin, and so they speak about the shedding of blood as a symbol of Christ's death. But the blood itself did nothing.

And, again, you have yet to show a single example from pagan or "tribal" religion in which a willing sacrifice sheds his blood for the absolution of sin. In fact, you haven't even shown A SINGLE example of sacrifice of ANY kind in paganism for the forgiveness of sin.

Excuse me? Is that all you have?

Not at all. Plenty more could be marshalled. The point is that the words for soul, spirit, and life are also the same words for breath in Greek and Latin. The pagans, from the tribal and bloody days before Homer to the end of classical civlization, associated "breath" with the life force. But this was what you call a "tribal/pagan" belief, not a "higher man" belief. Homer's epics are not about a bloody and violent warring tribal culture, not one of higher man, and yet the idea of breath being the life-force is all over it.

So much for your "bhuddism is superior because of breath being the life force" bunk.

 

[Oberon]

It is a common mistake that many people think:

"Oh, I have my beliefs, and you have yours, right?"

..implying that no religion is more valid than any other.

I'm not a relativist. If the christians are right, everyone else is wrong. Same for the muslims, jews, hindus, and so forth.

I just don't believe you or any others are right.

I provided a working definition, obtained directly from dictionary.com, and one which I did not personally create.

And your working definition is fatally flawed, because of the long debate on what the disctinction between magic and religion is, and if there is one, and so forth.

Other examples of magic, as I am using the term, as found within the Christian religion include:

This is exactly when I am talking about. Scholars like Morton Smith and J. D. Crossan have maintained that the distinction between religion and magic is a false one. Plenty of others have disagreed. The miracles of Jesus, for these, are seen as the power of god, which is not magic, as are the miracles performed in the name of god.

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all. Plenty more could be marshalled. The point is that the words for soul, spirit, and life are also the same words for breath in Greek and Latin. The pagans, from the tribal and bloody days before Homer to the end of classical civlization, associated "breath" with the life force. But this was what you call a "tribal/pagan" belief, not a "higher man" belief. Homer's epics are not about a bloody and violent warring tribal culture, not one of higher man, and yet the idea of breath being the life-force is all over it.

To what degree was the belief that the breath was the life force in Greek culture developed? I understood the Greek word to be pneuma, BTW.

So much for your "bhuddism is superior because of breath being the life force" bunk.

No so fast, sucka!

That is not what I said.

Christianity achieves remission for sin and salvation via of a human sacrifice, whether the blood has power or not; death must occur as payment to appease an angry god. The ideas behind this scenario are tribal/pagan in nature, because they are based on ignorance, whose motives are fear and/or superstition.

Higher man sees and understands (via of inner light) that no such sacrifice is required to achieve not only "salvation", but enlightenment as well. Buddhism has always told us that suffering is an option. It is not a necessity. Where there is light there is no fear or superstition. Herein lies the crucial difference between acting on one's belief, and acting upon what one sees.

Not only a better way of doing things, but the rewards are greater and more immediate as well. I never claimed it was superior, but if you like to think of it that way, that is OK too. Just realize that it is your own ego at work here.

The belief that the breath is the life force, and using the breath as a vehicle to achieve higher states of consciousness are two completely different things.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, Jesus sacrificed himself and his blood was shed. What you continue to fail to understand is that the blood itself did nothing. As the nicene creed and so many other texts state, it was the willing sacrifice itself of Jesus which had the power. The talking of "blood" does not actually refer to the power of the blood, but the power of the sacrifice. Hence, the line is not "blood shall be shed, that blood which will cause the remission of sin." The connection is not causal. The blood is a side effect of the sacrifice, and the blood refers to the metaphor of sacrifice, but when Jesus' blood was actually spilt, no one was there collecting in it or bathing in it or drinking it.

According to you, then, the remission of sin could have been accomplished by the willing sacrifice of Jesus to die, plus his suffering, coupled with his death itself. No blood need have been shed at all, since the blood has no power of redemption anyway. Theoretically, he could have been bloodlessly clubbed a couple of times and that would have sufficed. Let us accept that idea for the moment.

What significance does the blood then have? Is this just for ornament or sport, or is there some deeper significance?

Clearly, we have Jesus offering his flesh and blood to eat and drink via of transubstantiation at the Last Supper; that ritual is duplicated at each Mass during Holy Communion and during the Mass by the priest himself, as he drinks of the wine from the chalice.

We clearly have, from scripture:

> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life..."-John vi. 5 35 6.

> Leviticus xvii. 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Notice that the scripture not only points to the blood as being the source of life of the flesh, but also to the fact that it is "given upon the altar to make atonement for your soul."

Here it is the blood that is pointed to directly which is the agent responsible for the effects of both eternal life and atonement. This is not metaphorical talk, as you suggested. That is something only YOU are suggesting. All other references I have come across are to the blood as containing divine efficacy to cleanse sin and impart eternal life.

Other references to the blood of Jesus refer to it as being "precious"; that means that it has some quality over and above the blood of ordinary mortals.

On top of that, we have the common Christian proudly professing his desire to be "washed in the blood of Jesus" over and over again.

So, while you are correct in the literal sense when you point out that the shedding of blood is just a side effect of the actual sacrifice, which it is, of course, but in the larger view, we must assign to that blood the powers of redemption and eternal life, as stated in the scriptures, and as understood by the common Christian.

re: actual blood sacrifice: I never suggested that Christianity was parallel to actual blood sacrifice. It does not have to be. I said that the ideas of its doctrines contained within them the same ideas found in pagan/tribal practices. I also never said one would find all of the themes together, intact and neatly transferrable to Christianity, ready for use.

 

[godnotgod]

Also: We have John the Baptist, on encountering Jesus, proclaiming:

"Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world"

We have the Jewish Passover, in which a lamb is slain upon an altar and whose blood is smeared upon the doors of those with firstborn sons to protect them from the Angel of Death.

It is the blood here which clearly has the power to ward off harm.

This alone is a tribal belief based on fear and superstition, and it is Jewish.

What is important to try to understand here is the idea that a vengeful god will only accept the best sacrificial host, being both without blemish and the firstborn. Jesus is the "only begotten son" of God, and is without blemish, and so is referred to as The Lamb of God, the lamb of the Passover being a firstborn spring lamb. Now add to this the practice among the Jews to send a goat into the wilderness as a scapegoat to carry man's sins along with it and to perish and die, and we get a more complete picture.

"The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, in Judaism during the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rite is described in Leviticus 16.
Since this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, is sent away to perish [1], the word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat


The idea of purity of the host is also duplicated in many other sacrificial rites. Even grain, when it was offered up, was the best of the crop. This idea applied to oxen, bulls, etc. Of course, the purest host would be that of God himself, in the flesh.

 

[godnotgod]

In Christian theology, the story of the scapegoat in Leviticus is interpreted as a symbolic prefiguration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who takes the sins of humanity on his own head, having been driven into the 'wilderness' outside the city by order of the high priests. Also see John 1:29 and Hebrews Chps. 9-10

The following may be a link between Judaism and pagan religions, specifically pantheism, which was practiced in the ancient city of Ebla. although I could not find more information on this subject:

Origins

A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC.[2] They were connected with ritual purifications on the occasion of the king's wedding. In them, a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of 'Alini'; "we" in the report of the ritual involves the whole community. Such 'elimination rites', in which an animal, without confession of sins, is the vehicle of evils (not sins) that are chased from the community are widely attested in the Ancient Near East.[3]
Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, Jesus sacrificed himself and his blood was shed. What you continue to fail to understand is that the blood itself did nothing. As the nicene creed and so many other texts state, it was the willing sacrifice itself of Jesus which had the power. The talking of "blood" does not actually refer to the power of the blood, but the power of the sacrifice. Hence, the line is not "blood shall be shed, that blood which will cause the remission of sin." The connection is not causal. The blood is a side effect of the sacrifice, and the blood refers to the metaphor of sacrifice, but when Jesus' blood was actually spilt, no one was there collecting in it or bathing in it or drinking it.

According to you, then, the remission of sin could have been accomplished by the willing sacrifice of Jesus to die coupled with his death itself. No blood need have been shed at all, since the blood has no power of redemption anyway. Theoretically, he could have been whipped, spat upon, then bloodlessly clubbed a couple of times until he died, and that would have sufficed. Let us accept that idea for the moment.

What significance does the blood then have? Is this just for ornament or sport, or is there some deeper significance?

Clearly, we have Jesus offering his flesh and blood to eat and drink via of transubstantiation at the Last Supper; that ritual is duplicated at each Mass during Holy Communion and during the Mass by the priest himself, as he drinks of the wine from the chalice.

We clearly have, from scripture:

> "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life..."-John vi. 5 35 6.

> Leviticus xvii. 11. "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Notice that the scripture not only points to the blood as being the source of life of the flesh, but also to the fact that it is "given upon the altar to make atonement for your soul."

Here it is the blood that is pointed to directly which is the agent responsible for the effects of both eternal life and atonement. This is not metaphorical talk, as you suggested. That is something only YOU are suggesting. All other references I have come across are to the blood as containing divine efficacy to cleanse sin and impart eternal life.

Other references to the blood of Jesus refer to it as being "precious"; that means that it has some quality over and above the blood of ordinary mortals.

On top of that, we have the common Christian proudly professing his desire to be "washed in the blood of Jesus" over and over again.

So, while you are correct in the literal sense when you point out that the shedding of blood is just a side effect of the actual sacrifice, which it is, of course, but in the larger view, we must assign to that blood the powers of redemption and eternal life, as stated in the scriptures, and as understood by the common Christian.

From the Christian viewpoint, we have extensive discussion about the power of the blood of Jesus here from a Christian writer:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/5f00.0572/5f00.0572.c.htm

As for his suffering, it was necessary for the Romans to inflict suffering upon him, along with his humiliation, as payment for crimes against the state, as well as for punishment for his blasphemy against the Law of Moses. By making a public spectacle of his suffering and death via of the humiliating practice of crucifixion, it was a lesson to the rest not to attempt to cause more trouble. In other words:

"If any of you are thinking the same thing Jesus was, forget it. See what will happen to you if you dare"

Jesus's excruciatingly painful execution was a message to the rest.

...and lastly, by crucifying a King, and humiliating him publicly, they thought to strip him of any power (or threat) he might have by demonstrating that he was mortal and powerless to save himself.

"You who would destroy the temple and build it up in three days, save yourself,
if you are the son of God, and comedown off the cross."

41 "Likewise also the chief priests mocked him, along with the scribes and elders,
and said: 42 He saved others; he cannot save himself."

48 "And one of them, running straightway, took a sponge and filled it with vinegar
and placed it around a reed and had him drink."

"He is king of Israel; let him descend now from the cross, and we will have faith
in him. 43 He has faith in God; let him rescue
him now, if he wishes for him; for he said: I am the son of God."

Matt 27: 33-44

 

[godnotgod]

 

[godnotgod]

"Drink, for this is my blood, which is shed unto many for the remission of sin"

 

[Oberon]

[
To what degree was the belief that the breath was the life force in Greek culture developed?

It was an essential belief developed throughout greek literature. The idea tha breath=life force may be clearly seen in homer and later, and discussed/developedin the works of greek philosophers and others. Yet this idea is clearly what you would call a "tribal" one.

I understood the Greek word to be pneuma, BTW.

No. The greek pneuma is not a word in homeric greek. It does become a word in later greek, and it can mean breath and spirit, but more commonly wind. The word comes from the verb meaning to blow and so is more about the act of air moving (breath or wind) than breath itself. In Homer (again, the most "tribal" and violent stage in greek civilization), both the thumos and psyche are are the breath and life force. And this idea is clearly a developed one. In later greek, it is mainly just the psyche, not the thumos, and sometimes the pneuma.

No so fast, sucka!

That is not what I said.

You spoke of this idea being one of "higher man" in comparison with what you claim to be the "tribal" (and christian) idea of blood being the life force. Yet we can clearly see the idea of breath being the life force as a developed idea in the violent, tribal, and pagan culture which is represented in Homer.

Christianity achieves remission for sin and salvation via of a human sacrifice, whether the blood has power or not; death must occur as payment to appease an angry god.

YHWH is often depicted as an angry god in older Jewish writings. However, the god Jesus speaks about is one of mercy and love, and this idea is found throughout christianity. Christians interpreted Jesus' crucifixion as being a necessary sacrifice for humanities errors, but not to appease and "angry" god.

The ideas behind this scenario are tribal/pagan in nature, because they are based on ignorance, whose motives are fear and/or superstition.

Gotta love this elitist attitude. "Tribal" ideas are all about fear and superstition. The higher man of buddhism is all about... what? Intuition? You already said "reason" isn't a part of it.

Higher man sees and understands (via of inner light) that no such sacrifice is required to achieve not only "salvation", but enlightenment as well.

I would say that reason is the most important part of what you call "higher man." Unfortunately, according to you, this isn't a part of buddhism. What buddhism, many so-called "tribal" religions, early judaism and earliest christianity, and so on all have in common is a lack of reason. What christianity developed fairly early (through borrowing from pagan philosophy) was the importance of Reason.

The belief that the breath is the life force, and using the breath as a vehicle to achieve higher states of consciousness are two completely different things.

Let's look at what you said:

*Contrast this to the wisdom religions, such as Buddhism, where it is not the blood, but the breath, which carries with it the life force. Nothing needs to be sacrificed or to die in order for the necessary spiritual transformation to take place. Nurturing the breath imparts life in and of itself; it does not take life away based upon superstition and fear.

We find here that according to you Buddhism shares with the tribal, and violent culture represented in Homer the idea that the breath "carries with it the life force." As in tribal and pagan culture, breath is connected with "spiritual transformation." In fact, breathing techniques are used by Shamans in a number of tribes according to anthropological research I have read.

What significance does the blood then have? Is this just for ornament or sport, or is there some deeper significance?

The blood builds on the sacrifice metaphor of judaism. When animals were sacrificed in judaism, their blood was spilt. This imagery of blood spilling is transferred to Jesus' sacrifice, although the blood itself is unimportant.

Notice that the scripture not only points to the blood as being the source of life of the flesh, but also to the fact that it is "given upon the altar to make atonement for your soul."

John is a metaphor, and Leviticus does not refer to Jesus, who wasn't even around. Also, it is a Jewish text, not a pagan one.

This is not metaphorical talk, as you suggested. That is something only YOU are suggesting. All other references I have come across are to the blood as containing divine efficacy to cleanse sin and impart eternal life.

No, you have not posted a single christian texts which says the blood is not a metaphor for sacrifice, as it must be, because when Jesus says eat my body and drink my blood, he is still alive, and he hands them bread and wine rather than opening a vein.

This alone is a tribal belief based on fear and superstition, and it is Jewish.

Judaism isn't paganism. So are you giving up on the "based on paganism" bunk and now turning to "based on "tribal belief" junk? Because I seriously doubt you know anything about the spirituality of various tribal cultures.

 

[godnotgod]

It was an essential belief developed throughout greek literature. The idea tha breath=life force may be clearly seen in homer and later, and discussed/developed in the works of greek philosophers and others. Yet this idea is clearly what you would call a "tribal" one.

No, no, no. Now you are manufacturing crap and attempting to put words in my mouth.

When I ask to what degree the belief that the breath is the life force, I mean to what degree was the actual practice of breath control developed, if any. You seem to be talking about the development of only the idea of it being the life force, so that it never actually gets off the ground as a practice, as it does in Buddhist meditation, for example, and remains only in the realm of a concept. It is that concept that is "developed" in literature and other works, but there is no real practice as regards the breath. Buddhist meditation and breath control is far beyond any idea or belief as to what the breath actually is. Yogic, Buddhist, and Taoist meditation and breath control are highly developed disciplines, wherein the breath is a vehicle for higher consciousness, and practitioners who achieve these higher states also develop non-violence as part of their practice. It goes with the territory. If they do not rid themselves of aggressive tendencies, higher consciousness will not be available to them. The two states of mind are non-complimentary.

You spoke of this idea being one of "higher man" in comparison with what you claim to be the "tribal" (and christian) idea of blood being the life force. Yet we can clearly see the idea of breath being the life force as a developed idea in the violent, tribal, and pagan culture which is represented in Homer.

You are treading on thin ice here, and creating things that do not exist in reality. I can see how a culture can maintain the idea and belief that the breath is the life force, and then turn around and misuse that idea, even to justify violence, just as any belief or idea can be misused. Higher Man is never violent man. That is why he is called Higher Man.

YHWH is often depicted as an angry god in older Jewish writings. However, the god Jesus speaks about is one of mercy and love, and this idea is found throughout christianity. Christians interpreted Jesus' crucifixion as being a necessary sacrifice for humanities errors, but not to appease and "angry" god.

Yes they did. That same angry God kept the Gates of Paradise shut tight until he got his blood sacrifice in the form of the Lamb of God that was Jesus. That was the explicit reason God the Father sent Jesus to Earth in the first place.

Gotta love this elitist attitude. "Tribal" ideas are all about fear and superstition. The higher man of buddhism is all about... what? Intuition? You already said "reason" isn't a part of it.

It is not. Reason via of the thinking mind, cannot yield the enlightened state. Reason and all forms of thought must be abandoned entirely. However, in Buddhist thought, we do have the Eightfold Path, one of which is Right Thinking. But that is not enlightenment itself. Neither is intuition. Both are used to steer one toward the path itself, but are not the final goal. First comes Right Thinking and the rest of the Eightfold Path along with the Four Noble Truths, but then it is the intuitive mind that leads one toward the enlightened state. In the enlightened state, there is no superior or inferior. Reality is one.

You cannot think your way into Enlightenment.

I would say that reason is the most important part of what you call "higher man." Unfortunately, according to you, this isn't a part of buddhism. What buddhism, many so-called "tribal" religions, early judaism and earliest christianity, and so on all have in common is a lack of reason. What christianity developed fairly early (through borrowing from pagan philosophy) was the importance of Reason.

Reason is the product of intellectual thought. Enlightenment is the result of learning to see, without thought.

We find here that according to you Buddhism shares with the tribal, and violent culture represented in Homer the idea that the breath "carries with it the life force."

That is just a load of pure crap. It shares nothing of the sort, except in your mind, where you have conveniently driven a square peg into a round hole so that the truth perfectly fits your teeth.

The blood builds on the sacrifice metaphor of judaism. When animals were sacrificed in judaism, their blood was spilt. This imagery of blood spilling is transferred to Jesus' sacrifice, although the blood itself is unimportant.

Is that why Jesus asked his disciples to drink of it?

No, you have not posted a single christian texts which says the blood is not a metaphor for sacrifice, as it must be, because when Jesus says eat my body and drink my blood, he is still alive, and he hands them bread and wine rather than opening a vein.

Wine is clearly a metaphor for blood, but not for any sacrifice. Jesus himself called wine his blood.

Bottom line is that whether blood has power or not, a human sacrifice is being made that requires its death as payment for sin. That is the thinking of tribal man. Higher Man would forgive, unconditionally, and that is what Yeshua did from the cross. Again, what we have here is a layering of political, tribal, and higher spiritual thought coming from Yeshua.

Judaism isn't paganism.

That is why they slaughtered a spring lamb and smeared its blood on the doors of those with firstborn sons to ward off the Angel of Death during Passover. Here we have both tribal fear and superstition alive and well. Of course, smearing the blood on those doors had no power whatsoever. They were just trying to recycle and decorate at the same time. It was the actual sacrifice of the lamb that kept that Angel of Death away, now, did'nt it?

Puh-leaze!

 

[Oberon]

No, no, no. Now you are manufacturing crap and attempting to put words in my mouth.

When I ask to what degree the belief that the breath is the life force, I mean to what degree was the actual practice of breath control developed, if any.

In ancient greece? There is not a lot of evidence for this practice being widespread. However, it is very widespread among tribes with a shamanistic practices. Anthropological research shows us that breath control is a technique practiced in numerous native tribes from the americas, eurasia, and africa (possibly australia too, but I haven't read enough on native tribes in australia to know).

So yes, breath control for spiritual experiences is a common "tribal" practice.

Higher Man is never violent man. That is why he is called Higher Man.

According to you anyway. But I don't hear the term "higher man" a lot. Most would call it elitist, not to mention sexist.

Yes they did. That same angry God kept the Gates of Paradise shut tight until he got his blood sacrifice in the form of the Lamb of God that was Jesus. That was the explicit reason God the Father sent Jesus to Earth in the first place.

Wrong. Jesus came to show God to humanity. His death was a part of his mission, but only a part. And according to christianity, his death was necessary not because of an angry god but a sinful people.

It is not. Reason via of the thinking mind, cannot yield the enlightened state.

It is interesting to me that you are talking about christianity being tribal, while actual tribes use a number of techniques to attain ecstatic states common in eastern spiritualities like buddhism (breath control, meditation, etc).

You cannot think your way into Enlightenment.

That is just a load of pure crap. It shares nothing of the sort, except in your mind, where you have conveniently driven a square peg into a round hole so that the truth perfectly fits your teeth.

Well, we see the idea of breath being the life force in both homeric culture, which is very violent, and in buddhism. We see meditation and breath control (as well as the breath= life force idea) in tribal spiritualities, including among violent tribes. Using your methodology, buddhism is based on "tribal" ideas.

Is that why Jesus asked his disciples to drink of it?

Absolutely. Because in the last supper, when Jesus tells his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body, he hands them bread and wine. He doesn't pop open a vein and carve out his flesh.

Wine is clearly a metaphor for blood, but not for any sacrifice. Jesus himself called wine his blood.

Wine was a symbol of blood, which is a metaphor for sacrifice.

That is the thinking of tribal man.

So you say. But then, I doubt you have ready any anthropological research into what spirituality in tribes looks like. Where is the idea that a volunatry sacrifice is necessary for the absolution of sin present in tribal thought?

What IS present in many tribal groups is the same thoughts and practices which are in buddhism.

 

[godnotgod]

According to you anyway. But I don't hear the term "higher man" a lot. Most would call it elitist, not to mention sexist.

Higher Man is not a sexist term at all, because the mind of Higher Man is neither male nor female; it is Universal Mind, and it is universal mind which balances both elements. What I mean by the term Higher Man is a mind which recognizes that there are states of consciousness that exist beyond ordinary, conditioned states of consciousness that include reason, logic and thought in general. Societal man is a moral creature, adhering to tribal mores and written law. Higher Man is amoral, who looks to cosmic law as the source.

Wrong. Jesus came to show God to humanity. His death was a part of his mission, but only a part. And according to christianity, his death was necessary not because of an angry god but a sinful people.

Right. A sinful people who angered God into closing the Gates of Paradise, and sending a Flood, locusts, and other calamities upon their heads because of their wickedness. Only an atoning death of his only begotten son had the power to reopen those Gates.

It is interesting to me that you are talking about christianity being tribal, while actual tribes use a number of techniques to attain ecstatic states common in eastern spiritualities like buddhism (breath control, meditation, etc).

'Tribal' meaning following a set of mores and morals. The sage does not. He follows cosmic law. Christianity is a belief system based upon morality. Buddhism & Taoism are amoral.

Well, we see the idea of breath being the life force in both homeric culture, which is very violent, and in buddhism. We see meditation and breath control (as well as the breath= life force idea) in tribal spiritualities, including among violent tribes. Using your methodology, buddhism is based on "tribal" ideas.

Nope. It is based upon cosmic law.

Absolutely. Because in the last supper, when Jesus tells his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body, he hands them bread and wine. He doesn't pop open a vein and carve out his flesh.

No, but why does he ask them to drink the wine/blood and eat the bread/flesh at all?

Wine was a symbol of blood, which is a metaphor for sacrifice.

In some cultures wine may be a symbol of blood, and blood a metaphor for sacrifice, but we are trying to interpret Christian beliefs, and Christian beliefs are largely based upon what is in the Bible. When Jesus offered his flesh and blood as food to his disciples, he was completing an earlier scriptural statement, namely that only by eating/drinking his flesh/blood would anyone gain eternal life. This makes clear that the flesh/blood of Jesus transmited vitality, not sacrifice.

"Christ offers the chalice containing wine to signify his blood to his disciples and directs them to drink it. But there is a parallel between the Eucharist and vampire legends: Both suggest that the consumption of blood is an act of obtaining vitality. Christ told his disciples he'd shed his blood for their forgiveness. By drinking it, they were taking part in his everlasting divinity."
HowStuffWorks "Blood: Symbol of Life"

Jesus was saying that there are two kinds of nourishment: that of bread/wine, which nourishes the body, and that of his flesh and blood, which nourishes the spirit. Ordinary food nourishes the temporal being, giving it vitality; spiritual food, in the form of the body of Jesus, nourishes the spirit, giving it the vitality of eternal, not just temporal, life.

What he is really saying, is that by partaking of the same essence that he is of, one will also gain life beyond temporal existence. That is why he also said:

"Man does not live by [ordinary] bread alone"

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

Eating/drinking the flesh/blood of Jesus: it is all about the vitality of spiritual life.

The only metaphor here is that of bread for flesh and wine for blood, which respectively signify nourishment for temporal and eternal life.

So you say. But then, I doubt you have ready any anthropological research into what spirituality in tribes looks like. Where is the idea that a volunatry sacrifice is necessary for the absolution of sin present in tribal thought?

Just think of tribal man as moral, societal man. Good and evil are always an issue with him, so mores and morals along with written law are his references for proper behavior. Guidance comes from the tribe, or from the outside. Higher Man is guided by Virtue, from the inside. Virtue is unwritten law beyond the duality of good and evil. Higher Man is the living embodiment of the law and essence of the universe itself, in perfect balance one with the other. Morality is based upon belief; virtue is not.

What IS present in many tribal groups is the same thoughts and practices which are in buddhism.

Not sure I understand what you mean. I do know that Buddhism always attempts to work with communites, merging itself into the existing structure. Christianity, on the other hand, always tries to first destroy the existing culture and religion with the express purpose of replacing them with itself, as it did, for example, with the American Indian.

 

[Mr Cheese]

explaining esoteric concepts to agnostics is like milking sheep

You wont get much, and it may involve lots of hair between your teeth

 

[Oberon]

Higher Man is not a sexist term at all

I would love to see you explain to feminists why the term "higher man" is not sexists, even if you don't believe that in actuality this presents a male/female dichotomy.

Right. A sinful people who angered God into closing the Gates of Paradise

Wrong. The gates were never opened, according to christian belief. There was no "heaven" for people to go to. God's kindgom had never been open to humanity because of their nature. Jesus' sacrifice allowed for an absolution of sin, and his messianic rise to power opened the gates.

'Tribal' meaning following a set of mores and morals. The sage does not. He follows cosmic law.

You mean "he" (more sexism) follows what "he" believes to be cosmic law. Of course, christians, jews, and muslims all follow what they believe to be cosmic law. You disagree, and are aroggant enough to act as if your beliefs are facts.

Christianity is a belief system based upon morality. Buddhism & Taoism are amoral.

Buddhism & taoism are not immoral. Essentially, you are simply arguing that as buddhists follow cosmic law, it isn't a moral system. Only you are 1. misusing the term moral and 2. arrogantly assuming that your beliefs about what constitutes cosmic law are in fact was is cosmic law, and not beliefs at all.

Nope. It is based upon cosmic law.

So is christianity, according to christians. God is cosmic law. Yet you point to similarities you think you see (not having studied either tribal spirituality or christianity) and claim that christianity is based on tribal religions. Using this same methodology, we can see how practices and beliefs in buddhism are present in actual tribal spiritualities, and make the same deduction you: buddhism is a tribal religion.

No, but why does he ask them to drink the wine/blood and eat the bread/flesh at all?

The last meal was (supposedly) a passover seder. Jesus points to his sacrifice by having his disciples drink and eat the wine and bread with the blood and flesh of Jesus' sacrifice in mind.

In some cultures wine may be a symbol of blood, and blood a metaphor for sacrifice, but we are trying to interpret Christian beliefs, and Christian beliefs are largely based upon what is in the Bible.

In the bible, wine is obviously a symbol of blood, because Jesus hands out a cup of wine and calls it blood.

When Jesus offered his flesh and blood as food to his disciples, he was completing an earlier scriptural statement, namely that only by eating/drinking his flesh/blood would anyone gain eternal life.

This is nowhere in earlier scripture. The ancient Jews didn't even believe in eternal life.

This makes clear that the flesh/blood of Jesus transmited vitality, not sacrifice.

Wrong. Because they all died. Eternal life was in heaven, which may be accessed as a result of Christ's death and resurrection.


http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/real-count-dracula2.htm

What he is really saying

I love to hear about what Jesus was saying from those who haven't studied his culture and can't read the texts which record what he said, except in translation.

Just think of tribal man

Why on earth would I think of "tribal man" as anything because someone who has never studied research into tribal systems says so? Basically, your argument boils down to:

1. My way of thinking is the right one.
2. Any religion which isn't that is tribal.

 

[idea]

Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

No.

Paganism is based on Christianity. Here we have the classic question of which came first? Christianity or Paganism? I see evidence that Christianity came first. Adam and Eve were taught about Jesus, and all the doctrines that followed. they taught their children, and so on and so on. Some of these teachings were warped over the years. The similarities come from common roots, from what was originally taught to Adam and Eve.


9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast cfallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my ctransgression my deyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses5:9 - 11)

Adam knew about Jesus, knew about everything, about all the families of the earth, and taught what he knew to his children.

http://rcronk.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/a-personal-search-for-the-meaning-of-the-atonement/



If you want to see how (the atonement) overcomes the demands of justice, watch this. There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.
She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.


If the little mother had not lost her husband and 5 of her boys, if there was no sacrifice, no one would let the 19yo boy off. They let the 19yo off the hook, not for his own sake, but for the little mother's sake. She paid a price, that is why the 19yo was able to live. Justice and mercy are both served through sacrifice.

 

[Oberon]

Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

No.

Paganism is based on Christianity. Here we have the classic question of which came first? Christianity or Paganism? I see evidence that Christianity came first. Adam and Eve were taught about Jesus, and all the doctrines that followed. they taught their children, and so on and so on. Some of these teachings were warped over the years. The similarities come from common roots, from what was originally taught to Adam and Eve.

Just when I thought godnotgod's ideas were as bad as it gets when it comes to evidence...