I've pretty much given up on this forum, but I can't sleep (as usual) and I'm bored. I refuse to drink tonight away, so here it is.

This is in brief bite-sized outlines. If you truly want to know what I'm getting out, let me know in a peaceful manner.

Religion is a personal philosophy (duh) that a great deal of people have confused with thier outter worlds. We(the west) live in an extrovert society, as a result, a vast majority fail miserably at grasping symbolism. I'm continuously astonished how many folks stand firmly with the belief that people really lived to be 900+ years old in the begining. This isn't the only astonishment, merely an example. Christian's aren't the only ones guilty, I'm sure in the time of the Greeks man of them really thought Gods lived on top of Mt. Olympus.

What people fail to see is that all religions are telling the same point. They're just using different stories to describe this point. THEY'RE STORIES TO HELP UNDERSTAND.

Christianity: Main focus is the trinity, the father, the son, the holy spirit. The son represents man, or all conscious beings on Earth. The holy spirit is the overall consciousness that is threaded into existence. The father is what man can become if he truly loves the all and can rid himself of ego. One could view the crucifiction as a metaphor for ego death. A transcendence, if you will. Jesus could have been the western Buddha if christianity didn't attach so much baggage and dogma to him.

Judaism, same thing sans Jesus. YHVH, or the unpronouncable name of God, has the definition of undefinition. It is the Nothing to Sartre's Being. The ever present void that has laced intelligent design into consciousness. God is found within as an enlightenment. The Jewish word for "heaven" translates into Awakened.

Buddhism has a very similar story to Christianity in it has "the one", who goes off by himself and suffers the demons within. Sid just decides to sit under a tree instead of in the dessert. Sid Hartha then wonders with disciples with his message of inner peace and love. Coming to the world as a physician to a patient. Enlightenment is attained and heaven found within.

Hinu views human conciousness in "individuals" comparable to islands in the ocean. They seem seperate and in themselves, under the surface we are all connected and one thing. If you truly wake up when you die you find you were God all along.

Basically what I believe right up there.

Good seeing you again traffic lights.

Well, you just have it all figured out don't you.

I like you, Traffic.

Cheers,

Lost

Lets be friends.

Yeah, interesting post. There's a lot of study done in common phenomena in unrelated religions.

One such example is called "the fire theft", which refers to many, many religions including a story about man somehow stealing fire from the god(s).

The most common example is Prometheus, but there is a similar story in other mediterranean religions as well as south american religions.

I sort of think that your theory only works if you oversimplify each of the religions you mention to their very simplest explanation, and even then, you've taken some liberties in what is the simple message of each faith is. I won't deny some parrellels between Buddah and Jesus though.

theBishop

I agree

This reminds me of a passage from Aleister Crowley's Liber IV:

'Let us consider this poem:

Hickory, dickory, dock!

The mouse ran up the clock;

The clock struck one,

And the mouse ran down,

Hickory, dickory, dock!

Here we are on higher ground at once. The clock symbolizes the spinal column, or, if you prefer it, Time, chosen as one of the conditions of normal consciousness. The mouse is the Ego; "Mus," a mouse, being only Sum, "I am," spelt Qabalistically backwards.

This Ego or Prana or Kundalini force being driven up the spine, the clock strikes one, that is, the duality of consciousness is abolished. And the force again subsides to its original level.

"Hickory, dickory, dock!" is perhaps the mantra which was used by the adept who constructed this rime, thereby hoping to fix it in the minds of men; so that they might attain to Samadhi by the same method. Others attribute to it a more profound signifance-which it is impossible to go into at this moment...'

What you're missing is atheism and agnosticism (is that a word?). These two are very different from the actual religions because they have no beliefs. Because of this, believers and non-believers are not the same story with a different accent, but just a completely different story altogether. Even if you want to argue that atheists believe that there is no god, that's still very different from any real religion.

Though athiest may not believe in "God", and cringe upon discussion of "God" they fail to realise that they do indeed believe in the same thing. That is, denial of the bearded guy with a cane in the clouds is not the same as not believing in "God". This is just one of those many cases where language hurts us rather then helps us, because saying "God" is used for majority understandability purposes. Just like "World". Very often when sometimes talks about the world, they aren't really refering to Earth, the third planet from the sun in the milky way galaxy. They refer to all that is touched, seen, overall experienced in people's day-to-day lives.

Now, those that say they are athiests, don't believe in God, etc. are usually from the scientific stand point. To say that they don't believe in God is not to say that they don't believe in existence. They are usually the more logical (usually) and don't view existence as an intelligent design. But still existence exists. For scientific purposes "God" is the tendency for all things to seek to fulfill their law of being. Grass doing everything within it's existence to be grass, my thoughts working hard with ever moment it's got to be my thoughts.

I'm tempted to use cliches such as "God is everything" but these have been said so often that they have no effect anymore, essentially no meaning. A saying that is just a saying and has no impact as the person already knows what it is you are going to say, and they don't care. For an athiest, however, they may not call it "God" but they believe that they are alive, and therefore exist. Through this existence they realize that they are thinking things, and therefore think. Without a "God" to inherit meaning from they then must create meaning to their life themselves. This meaning becoming life and what one can do with it. Realising that they can only make themselves happy, only give themselves a purpose.

This is "God". Just not in as many words.

I know you'll probably attempt to disagree with me because I'm using the word "God", and this word has certain affect on people. Do not misunderstand me with a predetermined definition of "God", for this will do you no good.

View existence as consciousness, one giant consciousness that has a flowing mechanism to it. The various spins of orbits and evolutions, the chemical make up of everything and it's various chemical reactions to eachother. Comprised of everything that is, it is everything. You are one component of this, and "this" is "God".

Still athiest, still the same story.

God could be defined as "the consciousness of existence"

i think that was the smartest thing i've read all day

You just ran through the main religions and spouted a bunch of obvious bullshit giving the fake sense of analysis. Fuck off.

quote:Originally posted by Ravendust:

You just ran through the main religions and spouted a bunch of obvious bullshit giving the fake sense of analysis. Fuck off.

Wake up.

traffic, you're describing the perennial philosophy - the enlightened truth at the heart of seemingly disparate perspectives. these are some examples of how it's has summed up different religions/philosophies:

the phoenix rises from the ashes.

the first is last, and the last is first.

the resurrection is our salvation.

all is nothing.

energy is infinite, and always changing forms.

the male and the female merged.

as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.

objectivity redeems subjectivity.

form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.

yin and yang.

existence is a paradox - there are an infinite number of ways to try to understand it, none of them are correct. recognize this, stop asking dumb questions, and BOOM - ultimate enlightenment. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 10-04-2004).]

The Significance of the Serpent

I've looked deeper into this "understanding" of mine, and have found more and more correlations between seemingly unrelated religions. The most frequent so far being that of creation, and that of the symbolism with the serpent. Most creation stories I've found have a great deal to do with the creation of duality. Indeed, strikingly similar in respect to nothingness, light, splitting into the duality, and the role of the symbolic nature of the snake. I shall summarize as succinctly as I can for readiblity purposes.

Genesis starts with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Followed shortly by the "Let there be light" statement. The Hindu Upanishads says "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected inj form of a person (God). Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then it's first word was, "This am I"

Genesis goes further on to say "And God saw everything that he had made and behold, it was very good." Again from the Upanishads: "Then he realized, I indeed, I am this creation, for I have poured it forth from myself. In that way he became this creation. Verily, he who knows this becomes in this creation a creator.

Genesis goes into the eating of the forbidden fruit, in which blame is based to Eve and then to the snake. While the Bassari people of west Africa legend reads "One day Snake said, 'We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry?' Antelope said, 'But we don't know anything about this fruit.' Then Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate it. Unumbotte(God) came down from the sky and asked, 'Who ate the fruit' They answered, 'We did.' Unumbotte asked, 'Who told you that you could eat that fruit?' They replied, 'Snake did'"

The snake pops up in many faiths, the world over. It's meaning can be intrepretted a number of ways (as indeed all things can) but the most frequent of which is that of all things earthly. Earthly desire, fear, being but earth bound. In the eastern faiths the snake represents before transcendence for it is stuck on the ground, The eagle is heavenly for it flies and soars wherever it pleases. The deconstruction of the two leaves the dragon. The incarnation of earth but lo! it flies with the heavens.

For the most part it is a representation of the start of duality. Seperating things into "Good" and "Evil", when these things don't truly exist outside of the context of the society and enculturations that are merely human and insufficient. Describing nothing, attempting to infinity into a box, into a word "God" not realizing that this in turn makes it hardly infinite. In this case the snake usually represents fear. From whence did this form originate?

There is a religion whose name escapes me at the moment but it describes the creation of the universe as the original existence, the diety, said "I am" and then became afraid. Why did it become afraid? It was the only thing in existence, and then it became lonely. Desire was created within and it split itself into two, male and female, thus creation began. Spawning the confusing path unifying the duality back into being once more.

I believe the hindu's creation story that described it in the metaphor of a triangle with a single point of energy near it's center. With the same lonely aspect spawning off an infinite amount of two triangles joined in the symbol of a diamond in every direction. Once again, a story lost within the duality.

Psychological studies have been performed to find that the first emotion a fetus feels inside the womb is fear. Then goes through process similar to the various dieties in the various relgion. "Light" being found at the end of the womb and in this creation of confusing duality, desire, loneliness, death.

The snake further represents a rebirth of concsiousness within life with the shedding of it's skin. Rituals throughout religions represent this as well be it baptising, confirmation, bahmitzvoh, adolescent circumcision, various "rights of passage", and some could even argue "death" as this rebirth into a new consciousness.

I may expand further on this later but I must depart for class.

I find quite a bit of logic illogical.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

What you're missing is atheism and agnosticism (is that a word?). These two are very different from the actual religions because they have no beliefs. Because of this, believers and non-believers are not the same story with a different accent, but just a completely different story altogether. Even if you want to argue that atheists believe that there is no god, that's still very different from any real religion.



Umm,, You're a moron. To be an atheist is to believe in nothing. To be Agnostic is to believe in something but Not to follow a religion. There's a BIG difference in those two.



[This message has been edited by HèLLzShèLLz (edited 10-17-2004).]

Its very refreshing to hear from you Traffic...

Energy is never lost, only transformed into different forms of energy...

The energy you expel, typing in this very forum, may once have being used to hauls the stones atop the pyramids of Egypt... And before it, the energy, was used by the sun, to heat the earth and grow the first plants... The sun gaining this energy from the creation of the solar system and prior to that use, the same energy was used in the creation of the universe...

As with every carbon, water, nitrogen and oxygen atom in you right now, never dieing but recycling for billions of years...

We are the energy of creation as are the elements that comprise us... Religion is man's way of humbling such a feat, so as to understand...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-17-2004).]

I'm coming to the conclusion that most atheists are simply empiricists. They just deny a God because they can't see, touch, smell, hear or taste God.

Which is a really gay basis to go on, since you can't smell, taste, see, hear, or touch Honesty, Loyalty, or History, yet they do indeed exist - merely as metaphysical concepts without empirical, measurable standards by which to identify them.

Umm,, You're a moron. To be an atheist is to believe in nothing. To be Agnostic is to believe in something but Not to follow a religion. There's a BIG difference in those two.

Not true at all. An Agnostic admits to not knowing whether or not there is a supernatural being, and therefore takes no stance upon it. There are, therefore, no actions to accompany this, since there is a lack of affirmation in a specific conviction.

Atheism is a firm refutation of consideration of invisible forces. It has a devout conviction, which, according to Hume's postulate stating that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, requires an equal amount of faith. It is, therefore, a fundamentally religious standpoint.

It's nice to hear some people are getting it, and I'm not some lone nut.

This was posted in another thread but it's burried under a bunch of back and forth bickering, I entered the thread late. Besides, it fits in here as well. For a nice readable thread with comparisons and correlations. I'll post more as I further look into this.

Knowing their thoughts Jesus said "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?"

Buddha wanted his followers to cast out thoughts of desire as well. (After all who could deny that at the heart of ever sin is desire?)

Jesus said "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

Buddha comes to the world as a physician to the sick. A parable of the Buddhist nature compares existence, reality, "the world", as a house on fire. Buddha has left the fire but all his children stay in the house on fire out of fear. The father says, "come outside children, I have presents and toys out here for you."(heaven)

Jesus went into the desert to have his personal battle with "satan", all the evil lustful thoughts and desires, and he fasted and prayed.

Buddha went to sit under the tree, battling his lustful thoughts and desires, and he fasted and prayed(meditated).

Buddha was a prince who saw suffering and renounced the treasures of the kingdom to do so, while meditating and seeking many "devils" tempted him "You would do better to return to the castle, for the whole world will soon belong to you."

Jesus said "If anyone wants to be the first, he must be the very last, and servant of all"

That is VERY Buddhist, I don't think I have to explain why.

One of the final teachings of Jesus reads "I have come into this world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness"

One of the final teachings of Buddha was "Make of yourself a light.....Make my teachings your light."

I can't remember the specific Jesus quote but I imagine you can see how Jesus could say something like this, though it is from Buddha.

"The teachings which I have given you, I gained by following the path myself. You should follow these teachings and conform to their spirit on every occasion. If you neglect them, it means that you have never really met me. It means that you are far from me, even if you are actually with me; but if you accept and practice my teachings, then you are very near to me, even though you are far away."

Buddha and Jesus are very close to saying the same thing, they just use different words. "Heaven"/"Nirvana", "The Father"/Buddha-consciousness", etc.

There's plenty more as well, just something to chew on.

great discussion, with great points.

I like traffic lights especially when they're green.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I'm coming to the conclusion that most atheists are simply empiricists. They just deny a God because they can't see, touch, smell, hear or taste God.

I can't see, touch, hear or taste the "Big Bang" theory. But I do believe in it... What am I?

Both your theory of Creationism and my theory of the Big Bang have problems with them...

Only I believe my theory has problems that will be updated... You however, believe there is no need to update your theory; it is the word of the Lord...

Scientists point out the flaws in their notes that are attached to my theory. Christians aren’t allowed the same freedom, taught word for word; never question…

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

I can't see, touch, hear or taste the "Big Bang" theory. But I do believe in it... What am I?



Misguided.

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Both your theory of Creationism and my theory of the Big Bang have problems with them...

Only I believe my theory has problems that will be updated... You however, believe there is no need to update your theory; it is the word of the Lord...

Scientists point out the flaws in their notes that are attached to my theory. Christians aren’t allowed the same freedom, taught word for word; never question…

We ARE allowed to question the word of God, in order to better understand it.

We are NOT, however, allowed to question God, in the manner of "testing".

Example: "God, can you make a rock bigger than you can lift ?"

Of course He could, but that would be illogical, and therefor He wouldn't.

It's also petty, disrespectful, and completely aside from God's intended point.

It is not that God is afraid to be tested, because He would rise to the occasion every time if He so wished to, it is that He requires faith, instead.

Any Christian who can't admit to their own faults is in danger of falling (not from salvation, but from their walk in Christ).

Everyday I must face my iniquities and admit to them, to whomever might be listening. It's humility, which should be a BIG factor in any Christian's life.

So, to say that scientists acknowledge their mistakes and Christians don't is just plain ignorance.

If you read the Bible, cover to cover, with a Hebrew to English translator, you would have no doubt that it is the inerrant word of God, and thus would not consider it in need of revision.

The purpose of this thread is not to get into the christianity's bullshit/the christian god is the true god debate. This is not the place for that. There are plenty of other threads out there that are filled with it. This thread is about a unifying of the religions, not to seperate them, not to say one is better, not to say that one is bullshit. When you bicker in this way, you make it clear that you have lost the point.

Instead of coming in with an agenda, try coming into this debate like you disagree with yourself. You might find we're all not so different even when we disagree on the existence of God.

quote:Christianity: Main focus is the trinity, the father, the son, the holy spirit. The son represents man, or all conscious beings on Earth. The holy spirit is the overall consciousness that is threaded into existence. The father is what man can become if he truly loves the all and can rid himself of ego. One could view the crucifiction as a metaphor for ego death. A transcendence, if you will. Jesus could have been the western Buddha if christianity didn't attach so much baggage and dogma to him.

Your idea of Christianity needs slight revision.

The main focus is not on the Trinity, it is on God the Father. Understanding the other two facets of Him (son and Holy Spirit) only further enhances the experience.

The son represents SACRIFICE. The ultimate sacrifical lamb, whose blood was shed to cover our multidude of sins.

Man can never become God the Father, or even LIKE God the Father, and that has got to be the oddest thing I have ever heard you say.

There is no sense of achievement towards earning a Deity-ship. (our goal is not to achieve that sort of status)

If man can succeed in loving everyone equally, and obliterates his own ego, he will have succeeded in becoming like Christ. There is a difference...it still cannot be achieved, though.

The crucifixion is a metaphor for the sacrifice that paid for all of our sins. Nothing more. He paid the ultimate price for us...

Jesus can never be anything more than he is...the Son of God.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

The purpose of this thread is not to get into the christianity's bullshit/the christian god is the true god debate. This is not the place for that. There are plenty of other threads out there that are filled with it. This thread is about a unifying of the religions, not to seperate them, not to say one is better, not to say that one is bullshit. When you bicker in this way, you make it clear that you have lost the point.

Instead of coming in with an agenda, try coming into this debate like you disagree with yourself. You might find we're all not so different even when we disagree on the existence of God.

Unification only gives birth to Unitarianism, which is against my beliefs, and the Christian doctrine.

Jesus said there is but one way into heaven, and that was through him, and HIM ONLY.

So, pardon me if I continue to take the position of the diehard Christian, but if I did anything else I could not (in good conscience) call myself one.

I won't post here anymore, since it is clear that there is a very defined agenda in this thread, and my "dogma" doesn't fit in with it.

*exits stage left*

On the contrary, digi, your diehard posts are more then welcome here. The only "agenda" I perceive this thread to have is a peaceful one. I would like to shy away from the God exists, no he doesn't, yes he does, no he doesn't, yes he does back and forth that I've seen so many other discussions deteriate into. These go no where, and the participants gain nothing but contempt for the people who cannot understand them and who they in turn cannot understand either.

It is an interesting notion you've brought forth, however. Christianity (along with the "newer" "bigger" faiths islam/judaism/what have you) have the unique feature in that it claims to have one God, the TRUE God, there can be only ONE. Missionaries go to various places such as the pacific rim with the word of God, to which the locals say "that's your god, mine is Pele" or whoever.

Why is that?

"The Father", in my interpretation, is a metaphor. For The creator, creation itself. "The Big Picture", if you will. This is the heart of the disagreement you and I share. Then the other posts of the trinity vary accordingly. The son becoming Jesus which is represenative of the capacity for human life. Jesus being the height of spiritual enlightenment that we are capable of, but rarely ever do due to our confusion on attatchment to the ego, the illusion of reality given to us by our cultures, etc.

Jesus is the son of God (existence and life itself) as we all are. Jesus gave back to God (life/creation/etc.) the way we all CAN but don't.

This may sound blasphemous to a diehard christian in the literal sense. I merely have an understanding on a more poetic spin of things.

Holy Spirit being what connects the creations(son) from creation itself(father). The love, and blissful spiritual awe that can envelope someone who eliminates the ego and becomes christ like. The one's who had ears to hear and actually listened. The flow of things. This interpretation of mine actually coincides with the Hindu's Shiva who's very dance is existence itself.

Which reminds me of another point in myth. There was a monster who was hungry and came to Shiva for food. Shiva, still dancing, told the monster if it really wanted to eat it best eat it's foot. So the monster did. It went back and forth and on and on like this until the monster only had his face. At this Shiva said you are the greatest example of existence ever witnessed, your face shall me immortalized as a reminder. This isn't word for word but the face is usually set up in meditation circles of Hindu and Buddhism.

This may seem an unusual display of existence, but consider the fact that life lives of life. Death most exist for life to be. When we eat we are eating a dead thing so that we may live, even vegetarians. You have killed the fruit and are no taking in what was once alive so that you may live. ALL Life does this. It is a cycle that even the grass and water live on. When one considers the fact that we are all a part of creation that lives of itself through death it becomes a beatiful message.

There can be only One God, because there is only that that is creation.