Advertisement
Now, Jesus was convinced to take on the sins of other people, and he provided effect for this. There are many reasons why.
But by the knowledge provided us by way of the Qabalah today, a version of which was most likely available during his period or before (Sepher Yetzirah), we can see that in effect this means both working with, submitting to, and accepting the supposed 'energies' of the Qliphoth.
This does not function in the same manner today. In fact, this is merely the closest one may come in comprehending what Jesus did.
But all the same, because of the limited viewpoint of the time, something like this occurred.
As an aside, I might say in reference to sin something like 'crime doesn't pay', and I'll explain why:
What he started was stamped out. It was a manner of belief that was accomplishing something, but apparently it could not last long.
Now, do modern day Christians take on other's sins?
No, definitively, they do not. In large part that I have seen, this tradition has become accusatory, based on an idea that Jesus is still taking on sin, that indeed these Christians of late are as sinless as they suppose Jesus was, but in truth, they rely on others' sins and humiliating these people (as best they can) in order to take power and rule some portion of earth's societies.
Think about it.
So in effect, these Christians are asking those people outside their fold to do what they cannot, what they will not, and this occurs for various complex reasons.
But again, this cannot continue. It in truth was backsliding from the first, asking for not spiritual results, but bodily (healing, physical immortality.) Step out of the way of those you consider non-religious, modern day Christians, and let them save this world for you.
You apparently are not willing to do shit.
But by the knowledge provided us by way of the Qabalah today, a version of which was most likely available during his period or before (Sepher Yetzirah), we can see that in effect this means both working with, submitting to, and accepting the supposed 'energies' of the Qliphoth.
This does not function in the same manner today. In fact, this is merely the closest one may come in comprehending what Jesus did.
But all the same, because of the limited viewpoint of the time, something like this occurred.
As an aside, I might say in reference to sin something like 'crime doesn't pay', and I'll explain why:
What he started was stamped out. It was a manner of belief that was accomplishing something, but apparently it could not last long.
Now, do modern day Christians take on other's sins?
No, definitively, they do not. In large part that I have seen, this tradition has become accusatory, based on an idea that Jesus is still taking on sin, that indeed these Christians of late are as sinless as they suppose Jesus was, but in truth, they rely on others' sins and humiliating these people (as best they can) in order to take power and rule some portion of earth's societies.
Think about it.
So in effect, these Christians are asking those people outside their fold to do what they cannot, what they will not, and this occurs for various complex reasons.
But again, this cannot continue. It in truth was backsliding from the first, asking for not spiritual results, but bodily (healing, physical immortality.) Step out of the way of those you consider non-religious, modern day Christians, and let them save this world for you.
You apparently are not willing to do shit.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 4:28 PMIn choosing to make a man God (Form side, lesser in stance than the seat of the Godhead, which typifies both spiritual force and the issuance of mercy) this has reduced the very capacity of God to reach out and forgive these people.
Nearly no one believes in a truly immaterial, entirely spiritual in basis Godhead any longer.
This has extraordinarily severe consequences, nowhaddimean?
Reductionistic, absurd, boxing ourselves in, ripping each other apart, not able to come together and point ourselves in the direction of freedom. Some might say "Robbing Peter to pay Paul." You've simply got to look past the physical in your ultimate search for God. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 4:35 PMLet me make this perfectly clear:
The yawning gulf between the Qabalistic schematic representation of the highest of God's point of origination and those special natures of the topmost sephiroth in what is called the World of Atziluth, and the realm of being embodied at the schism that happened between Chokmah at Assiah and Binah there (but also, in some sense I am not fully sure of, which may have happened at intermediate levels between the very heights and what I just mentioned) have to some degree been collapsed to the degree that a great deal of confusion has occurred in even discriminating these various levels.
It's simply beyond me. Just have faith, and quit asking so much.
If you want to ask for something, be sure to include something that benefits others, and also ( I'm pretty darned sure of this), do not solely imagine God as a human being. You simply must recognize how that shuts everything down. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 4:35 PMI'm going to go mine some Amsu posts to show you what I mean... -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 4:49 PMIt's not even the various types of sins Christians are concerned about, but the results they want.
Watch.. The ... World... Die. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 5:00 PMI'm not going to sit here and parse who's doing what.
Don't be a vehicle for those who want to rule, while bearing a title of spiritual authority.
The Higher You Are, The Harder The Fall.
-
-
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 4:46 PMANDREW POSTED :Nearly no one believes in a truly immaterial, entirely spiritual in basis Godhead any longer
RESPONSE: I do and so do some other people. Paul Tillich certainly did . The Eastern Orthodox theologians do .
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 9:19 PMI wanna know who Jesus was having his 'Passion' with, Christians.
Himself?
I am piling up so much damn TNT, you have *no idea*! -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 9:25 PMYou want to have God separate all the different sects of Christians into different piles, based on whether they believe in some sort of Father anymore, or an Anti-Christ, or various other divergent aspects, and put them all on other worlds and wait for them to mature, you just say so.
But in all truth that is the worst possible idea for all involved. Wait a minute...
Maybe not for the physicalized Father. You can learn a lot when there is no woman bugging the shit outta you.
Am I full of shit? I hope so.
I haven't given up yet, I don't want to see some dumb horseplay from people too attached to what it is they profess.
Growth, please.
I'm going to start a Rapture thread, and do quite a bit of research.
"Anit-Christ"....divide, divide, divide, divide! -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 9:47 PMSo, the fairy-tale aspects to what was said about Jesus in the Bible, his birth and so on...
Some of it is a kind of heritage. Some simplicity because of the lack of education of the people of the time,
some parts possibly taken from other nearby cultures, and especially I want to inspect this idea of the virgin birth.
Why the necessity of a virgin birth? I really think we all need to understand this.
Now, as I have said, I have no doubt he performed miracles. This included and was strengthen by the belief of the people he was ministering to. I can go into some great detail, and I intend to, for years to come. But as is ever important, the people being tended to's belief was highly important. And how was this achieved? One sentence. It was Israel. Go back and reread your Bibles, and look for the point where (in one of the Four Gospels) he is said to have experienced difficulty performing miracles in his hometown.
Given all the mishmash about all this today available through all the various outlets, you might do very well to think for yourself.
What is this hate of females? Why the virgin birth? There are all sorts of scales of magnitude to this.
This is history so far. Keep this world, don't go changing it. Just realize that most people want a rational future.
It's not like religion will ever die. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 9:50 PMI'm not saying the virgin birth was impossible, not necessarily, but why do you need it?
Putting this here for future reference.
Why has not Jesus floated down with all the angels? (I here make an aside to tell you please don't insist on drawing angels down, whatever they may be up to.) What will happen if he does?
I remember a passage in Revelations where the angels go scouting in every last cave, angry as hell...
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 11:01 PMBOB POSTED :What is this hate of females? Why the virgin birth? There are all sorts of scales of magnitude to this.
RESPONSE: Jesus didn't hate females. According to at least 3 of gospels accounts, he first appeared to Mary Magadelene (or in Hebrew 'Miriam' as she would have been called ) , and the other women with myrrh , after the ressurrection . Regardless as to whether one believes the events in question-- despite some minor discrepancies happened (and yours truly does believe), the portrayal in the text does actually elevate women concerning them being the ones who (according to the text ) Jesus told to tell the disciples that had arose from the dead .
That is why church father: John Chrysotom, apparently called her , 'the apostle to the apostles ' .
The Sefer Yetzirah , and the other cabalistic writings , are indeed fascinating , and should be studied , incidentally .
It is , indeed , good to have an interest in Cabala . -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 11:11 PMI never said Jesus hated females. Did Jesus write the NT?
I'm gonna put the training wheels back on your teeny tiny bicycle. Maybe just a small trike.
"When Daath exists, Kether does not."
I'm gonna make 365 rulers. Maybe 144,000.
I'm not going to respond to you unless you loosen up.
Try to leave the response stuff out of every other posts for me, please.
I got a gun to my head. No, not that one... heh heh heh, Foundation. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 11:16 PMI'm just fucking around. I don't believe in any of this. "Annihilation is just all right with me, annihilation is just aww-right..."
Now, I still believe in God. I'm gonna hunt down the other names. I love discontinuities.
I'm talking out my ass. It's all that is left.
If this sort of reality never allows for any other form, or such things like the Qabalah do not incorporate other nearby forms that could be inherently peacefully co-existent with each other (think dolphins and whales to us, but land born and tool using), I'll scrap myself to the whole thing for the rest of all possible eternities. No point sticking around.
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 11:17 PMThe Sephiroth are Ten Only, not Nine, and Not Eleven.
Daath is a personal experience. More people should help reflect it upwards. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 11:32 PMThe Gnostic Gospels are very well worth reading. Don't pass them by. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Fri, July 24, 2009 - 11:53 AMThe gospel attributed to Thomas has some good verses .
-
-
-
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 4:52 PMANDREW POSTED :What is this hate of females? Why the virgin birth? There are all sorts of scales of magnitude to this.
RESPONSE: His birth from the virgin Theotokos was NOT a manifestation of hate for females. It was so that the incarnation of the Divine Logos would *not* be sullied by the vulgar carnality of sex . She was a chosen vessel vouchsafed from all pollution of sex . -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 5:11 PMGo buy and read the book, you lazy motherfucker. You need everything handed to you, including the head of John the Baptist. I insist you start using your own mind. No scalp massages. If you are unwilling, you have no right to judge.
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 5:39 PMJason
<<<ANDREW POSTED :Nearly no one believes in a truly immaterial, entirely spiritual in basis Godhead any longer
RESPONSE: I do and so do some other people. Paul Tillich certainly did . The Eastern Orthodox theologians do . >>>
Well I guess you missed the part where the motherfucker said "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY" huh?Ha!Ha! Pathetic phagocytic sexual deviant.
<<<RESPONSE: His birth from the virgin Theotokos was NOT a manifestation of hate for females. It was so that the incarnation of the Divine Logos would *not* be sullied by the vulgar carnality of sex . She was a chosen vessel vouchsafed from all pollution of sex . >>>
It's always about sex with you. But it has to be OTHER PEOPLES sex because you are a sexual deviant with a vehement aversion to it.Ha!Ha! You lousy sack of shit. Daddy really did a number on your little butthole didnt he...Or was it mommy taking Juniors cock with her valium and vodka? Either way, they sure fucked you over! -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 6:01 PMFar too anomalous for it to be that simple. He's a well-drawn character. What i don;t get is all this riffraff assmunching barkalongdingdon should actually be putting out the light on his votive candle of faith. That he wants to comandeer us to believe as he does simply (as I've always said) highlights the weakness of his own faith and belief, as it does of every christian that goes door to door trying to build others' beliefs to be a carbon copy of theirs. No, dust off those sandals, Jason. I KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO. IF YOU ARE LET IN THE DOOR TO MY HOUSE, YOU WILL LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. GOT IT, MOFO? -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 8:03 PMNow this is cruel and uncalled for, coming from the most cynical, uncaring person you will ever meet:
farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/3...31f.jpg
Quantum. Outside of my sphere of influence, recognition, concern. Taking away others' impulse? Is the sin performs, about to be performed, or as you just saying it to drive me crazy? I don't give a shit, it's all quantum, and it seems endlessly futile to me. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 8:09 PM
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 8:10 PMAbba and Ima sitting in a tree, NO K-I-S-S-I-N-G! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 8:18 PMIs this the substructure of our reality, people sitting up at higher levels, spirits who don't get any? That's retarded. But I guess that's what you needed to believe. What did Jesus become when he died, the FSM? I don't really care.. You want in on their sexual buisness too, if they existed, do exist (somewhere)? What does Kether is the malkuth of the unmanifest mean? I know what it means for me. And on this side of me you have ... nothing. Honestly, people are so wrapped up in form, you might as well think all the devotional imagery keeps these people hoving over you all in stasis, "back to back". What's that from? Face to face, or back to back? Anyway, the 'astral image' is not really them, whoever, even Hindu gods. This place has the most limitation, remember? -
-
Re: What Is: Basal Fuggin' Ganglia?
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 9:27 PM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sat, July 25, 2009 - 8:35 AMI don't have any use for any of it.
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sat, July 25, 2009 - 10:00 AMNeither do I really. This is just a continuing dissection, actually a vivisection.
Watch me saw a woman in half, are those a midget's ankles and feet?
Stagecraft. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sat, July 25, 2009 - 11:23 AMNobody respond to their own posts as much as B-b. BGeezus. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sat, July 25, 2009 - 11:30 AMI'm just writing a story. You want to amend it, go right ahead.
Don't sling shit at me. And don't be nitpicky like a woman.
Why do you people just keep going on inventing you own rules as to what others can do here?
What point is there in that? Why can't I type what I want? What does it matter how many posts I make?
I just don't feel like putting it in one long post. Are you saying I can't write anything here?
Don't try to rule over me, don't try to tell me what to do, don't click on anything I write anymore.
Or just get a sense of humor already.
-
-
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 1:09 PMi got a different interpretation of it
what Jesus seemed to say was his "good news" that you will be forgiven or given mercy in proportion to the amount of mercy or forgiveness you are prepared to give to others. The way to salvation for mankind was not a blood sacrifice on a cross, that was Paul's total misunderstanding, but rather going to the cross and enduring the greatest possible injustice and responding to it with a plea for God to forgive those doing it to him was almost a way of saying "see, I'm willing to be forgiving in the face of enduring this, whoever you are personally pissed off at or have a grudge with you must forgive in this way... and then you shall be forgiven. Pick up your cross and follow me."
But of course, the good news was bad news to most people who read Christ's words, because people don't want to forgive, don't want to let go of their grudges, they just want to dwell on feeling wronged by the injustices they continually inflict on one another in a hellish "pay it forward" but not paying goodness forward... but rather taking out what's been done on them on others if they can't dish it back to the one that did it to them. This just feeds and keeps the cycle going. People delude themselves into believing they don't keep that cycle going, but that is exactly what they do by being selectively gracious, by being unkind to people they feel don't deserve kindness for whatever reasons they think they have a right to treat some of humanity with dignity and others as exceptions.
I don't need to believe in hell, or an afterlife, or even a God to know that hell is a place we carry inside us and that as long as we hold our grudges, as long as we continue to feel victimized and use it as an excuse to keep a cycle of vengeance going outwardly or inwardly stew in feeling powerless and ineffectual to exact our revenge... we remain psychologically in our own hell and make it so for other people around us. Forgiving people need not be an unselfish act, it's not about others deserving forgiveness that we should forgive them, it is to purge ourselves of emotions where we continue to relive the injustices done to us over and over again. For when anything bad was done to us by any other, it was done in each event once, but when we cannot forgive it we make ourselves relive the memory of the experience over and over again pointlessly. If heaven and hell are only metaphorical, it's like being mad at a spouse over something said and choosing to dwell on it while your child takes their first steps, looks up, and smiles at you. That experience could be heaven, but with what is going on inside the bliss of observing it is lost, missed, heaven is all around but the choice is to hold onto the pain and the grudge and live in hell. Thus hell could be thought of as a state of mind, as is heaven, and both occupy the same place.
How many different states of mind can dance on the head of a pin? :)
Anyway, because it isn't easy to let go of these grudges, not easy to forgive, people would rather believe that the key to entering heaven is to hold onto their grudges, and believe that the sacrifice of a God taken flesh covers all of their sins and they can self righteously parade themselves around feeling like victims and imagine everyone that ever hurt or disappointed them unrepentant and bound for a hell they themselves will not enter but be able to stand in pretty gardens and look down to observe their eternal sufferings. How sad? Like anyone actually deserves eternal punishment? As if torture forever was "justice". No, if there is a God and there are such places as afterlives I'm sure that everyone is told they can enter heaven at the gate if they just forgive everyone and leave their grudges at the door, and people are like "what, I gotta forgive uncle Bob who sold me that lemon car!!!! Shit, I'd rather be in hell then, I see uncle Bob there, and there are crowbars lying around everywhere so I can just pick one up and give him that good beating he deserved and never got". And so many angry and self righteous people would choose hell, I'm sure that when people make that choice, the gate of heaven could be in front of them always for eternity, with a force field, that will only admit them if they lighten up, let go of the grudges, and forgive. But as they are about to let go of the grudges, sincerely forgive, it occurs to them always they have one last bit of business to settle, one more TIt for tat, Hell could be a physical paradise with no flames, no shortage of food, it could be a comfortable garden filled with every pleasure identical to heaven on the other side of the gate but if the people in it can't let their gripes go they'll just live forever acting out the dynamic between the couple in "the war of the roses" movie. They each other's torment, maybe like Satre's "no exit".
That is the only way I could see a "loving" God even tolerating the existence of an eternal hell, if such myths bear any truth, if only to give people possessed with a free will an eternal chance to let go of their grudges, forgive everyone, and walk through the gate into heaven.
My interpretation is unpopular, as forgiving is simple but not very easy. Still it's my hedge, that even as a skeptic if I die and to my surprise "meet my maker" I know that if I have been forgiving, if I don't carry that baggage, if I bear no grudges and wish no one that harmed me any ill... then whatever I may have done wrong will not be counted. Some might say "but you didn't ask for Jesus in your heart and say the sinners prayer" or "you didn't believe in the myths literally" or "you doubted" and thus you will go to hell anyway... but if Jesus was the embodiment of being gracious even when faced with hate and cruelty and if I have done the same than I do know him even if I doubted and still think him a myth. For a soldier or a cop knows that there is much in what they do that nobody can understand unless that person becomes a soldier or a cop, same for a carpenter, a baker, anything you truly do not understand except by doing it. And so it is that if you do not know how to be gracious, you cannot understand Jesus, even if you think him a God and throw his name around you'll be ignorant of the life he walked, of the struggle to remain forgiving. You'll also attribute much to him that wasn't true, I think the apostle Paul really messed everyone up with his interpretation on things because I think he couldn't handle forgiving certain people, his attitude was so... bad. So much easier to think it's all about some mystical shit about blood shed and original sin, whatever. -
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 4:33 PMGreat post Shemdrick!
-
-
Re: On The Nature Of Being A Christian:
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 2:15 PMRead this shit, Jason.