Jesus

Okay, so themickey has me on ignore but does respond to my posts with a story about a pastor fucking his wife. He probably made this up. I don't believe it for a minute. People will make things up to fit their narrative.

And even if it did happen, it was probably his fault that his wife strayed. Or his wife's fault. Why in the hell would you blame all of this on the pastor and what the hell does that have to do with Jesus or God.
 
murray t turtle said:
%%
LOL awake >woke.:D:D Good play on words.
Jesus Christ may very well like FOX, SRN, CBN news. CNN tends to be propaganda- commie news network.
WSJ has some good charts, mostly accurate charts ; but IBD tends to be much more accurate.
CNBC has charts that look like they were drawn by a kid, no offence to the boy or girl that drew them.:D:D
More...

Disagree because to be saved, one must devote one's entire mind, heart and soul to what is real. This would explain why there is no angry reaction to all the disrespect going on in Jesus name. He is beyond caring. Devoting one's whole mind means directing one's entire attention span to what is real. To Christians, that is the "Lord", the maker of this world. To Jesus, that would be his "Father", and/or the Father's Kingdom, which is also the Son's Kingdom. One cannot divide one's attention between two very different kingdoms and expect not to "fall", so-to-speak. While Jesus may have fallen, like the rest of us, he has stood up. That would mean he is not devoting attention to never ending political gnashing of the teeth goings on.
 
Good1 said:
Disagree because to be saved, one must devote one's entire mind, heart and soul to what is real...
More...

To be saved from what? I am not in need of rescue. Everyone seems to think they are aboard a sinking ship. They are not. It is the church that makes you believe this, when you already have a life vest under your arms, and that is your own mind. You can think for yourself, and realize that there is nothing to be saved from, because you are going to die, and there is nothing you can do about it.

There is no afterlife, or heaven, or anything like that. As such, there is no JESUS. Stop whining and accept the fact that when you die that is it, there is nothing more. Just like how there was nothing before.
 
Overnight said:
To be saved from what? I am not in need of rescue. Everyone seems to think they are aboard a sinking ship. They are not. It is the church that makes you believe this, when you already have a life vest under your arms, and that is your own mind. You can think for yourself, and realize that there is nothing to be saved from, because you are going to die, and there is nothing you can do about it.

There is no afterlife, or heaven, or anything like that. As such, there is no JESUS. Stop whining and accept the fact that when you die that is it, there is nothing more. Just like how there was nothing before.
More...

Well, the idea that there is nothing to be saved from is very very advanced. But i don't think you mean it the way i would mean it.

The big disagreement is you think there is nothin that went before, nothing over-arching, nothing with the power to imagine our particular universi, and nothing to resume it's life experience after it's mental attention (mind) re-focuses on what it was before imagination intervened with it's fantasies, it's so-called pleasures, as well it's so-called pains and fears.

My disagreement with so-called christians is what is it that needs saving. A christian would like to save his own soul, so-to-speak. By that i mean his so-called "life" as a person, as a unique individual that ranks within some heirarchy. For that reason, they turn first to the god of heirarchy, that is, the "God of this world", which they call "the Lord". This they call their "soul", but i call it "ego".

I, on the other hand, say that Christ is the one that is in need of salvation. Christ has no ego, which is an alter-identity, which manifests as multiple alter-identities, namely, all of humankind. Millions, billions of egos, pretty much all of whom are unique individuals.

Salvation, then, is the saving of Christ from these egos which grow within Christ's mind like cancer grows within the brain of a human being. These egos represent attention which is diverted from Christ, to all things imaginary. All things imaginary include this "world", this "universe", all parallel universi (no matter how many), including all seas, bees, trees, knees, and "me"s (individual identity packages: each thing, each ego).

The solution, then, is to redirect attention away from all things imaginary, and "wake up" to reality, so-to-speak. If Christ and Reality are the same thing, then, as each ego "dies", so-to-speak, then one wakes up as "Christ", so-to-speak.

As you can see, Christ has always been "alive" and well, before, during and after imagination interrupts reality. And, while interrupted, nothing that was ever imagined was ever "something", so-to-speak. It was always nothing. Only in this sense can you say that there is nothing to be saved from, and nothing to save. Technically, Christ does not need saving. However, Christ's attention needs to be redirected away from imaginary circumstances in order to experience eternal unchanging peace, bliss and nirvana, Christ's normal state of being. This is to say that every imaginary state of being is prone to danger, and levels of so-called happiness that don't compare to Christ's normal levels of happiness.

You say that there is no Christ, no Reality to go back to, to wake up as. You say there is nothing that preceded our so-called "begining" and nothing post-cedes our so-called ending, either the ending of each individual ego, or, the ending of our universe/universi.

This is really the crux of the issue. You are declaring Christ to be "dead", or worse, to have never ever have been alive to begin with! While you make these declarations, you will perpetuate the experience of a "dead Christ", so-to-speak. That is, you will perpetuate all of the various alternatives that alter egos can possibly experience, while they believe that Christ is dead, or never lived to begin with (non-existent=same as dead). You seem to be satisfied with the circumstances of a dead Christ, which i call imaginary. To the extent they are imaginary, then yes, only in that sense does Jesus not exist. However, in the realm of the non-existent, the appearance of Jesus has been as valid (or invalid) as yours and mine.

So, I'm not trying to "save" my individuality as a limited mind ranked within a hierarchy of powers, like so-called christians do. Thus, i could not have gotten this information from them, as you declare.
 
No body knows the answers, except christians, they know everything, they have all the answers, they are always right according to them. That's because they are led by 'God'.
When they fuck up, that's the devils fault.

Anyhow Christianity is the perfect sales office, creating a product no one needs and selling it to the masses at a premium.
Much like door to door salemen selling shit to housewives who know no better and who are charmed by a silver tongued foot in the door con artist with freshly pressed white shirt and with a polished spiel.

Jesus may have been a living person, much like Musk who is about to blow up due to opening his mouth too often because ego got the better of him.
But anyhow, Jesus seemed to have a reasonable message while alive.

About 50 odd years or more after he was killed, the cultist brigade decided to twist Jewish mythology into Jesus being the risen messiah, which he wasn't.
But who cares, cultist want more cultists to join them, so spinning a bs story is par for the course.
In the year 2022, there are still suckers who are captive to the church myths.
Very fine salesmen indeed, gotta give credit to how effective the con is.
There are Putin cultists and Trump cultists and Hitler cultists and Jesus cultists.
Only difference, Jesus preached peace and charity and good morals but the fact is, people still follow someone blindly and faithfully, like a dog following his master.
Even when master is an idiot or cruel, the dog will still follow.
Such are some humans, they're followers.
 
Last edited:
Good1 said:
Disagree because to be saved, one must devote one's entire mind, heart and soul to what is real. This would explain why there is no angry reaction to all the disrespect going .......... Devoting one's whole mind means directing one's entire attention span to what is real. To Christians, that is the "Lord", the maker of this world. To Jesus, that would be his "Father", and/or the
More...
%%
MOSTLY right.
WITH all due respect, but you put a fatal flaw in there.
While its true i,or many Christians dont really get very angry with Pelose or all the dumb dems, or enemies of Israel.
But the LORD puts limits on wickedness every day.
The longer the loan, the more severe, the interest, so to speak. God read the book the Red Sea Rules\ too bad for the king of Egypt did not.
If you did not read that book, or Moses ,make sure to see the movie ''The 10 commandments'':caution::caution:
That's part of the good news , Good1.you don't have to follow a dead man walking like the king of Egypt+ his hellish host...................................................................
 
I am... said:
Ah, "beware the leaven of the Pharisees".

"Saul" was taught by Gamaliel, a Pharisee.
He went about hunting down what the Jewish encyclopedia would call "min".
After changing his ways, it is apparent he did not change his stripes.
He changed his name to Paul, the better to appeal to the Gentiles.
And, even though twenty years had passed since the 'ascension',
Paul equated himself with the apostles.

Yet Paul did little more than ingratiate himself with as many apostles as he could physically meet,
later to become a name-dropper.
Paul sought out my brother James in Jerusalem,
who was considered the heir apparent to my legacy.
James "the Just", was considered 'conservative', and was not ready to make a clean break from Judaism quite yet.
As such, the Jerusalem sect still practiced circumcision.
Paul was instrumental in having some influence there regarding the concept of circumcision as it applied to what was then called "the Way".
The decision to see circumcision as needless opened the door
for Paul to take his new theology to the Gentiles.
Paul's theology was essentially old-school Rabbinic Judaism applied like a patch over "the Way".
However, you cannot put new wine in old wineskins,
nor do you put an old patch over a new cloth.
But this is what Paul did.

In court, Paul explains that though he used to persecute "the Way",
he converted when he saw it as the worship of the God of his fathers...the fathers of Israel.
The Pharisees often boasted about this God, who was the God of their fathers.
Yet is was for this reason I told the Pharisees their "father" was the devil.

And like the Pharisees, Paul believed in sacrifice...
ritualistic blood sacrifice...
for the appeasement of a wrathful God relative to transgressions.
Paul, looking at the crucifixion through these red-colored glasses,
saw some similarity,
and connected a mental map between two otherwise irrelevant circumstances.
This founded Paul's theology, upon which he built quite an elaborate edifice.

Like the Pharisees, Paul believed in bodily resurrection.
Paul simply introduces Jewish eschatology into "the Way",
explaining who would be included in this resurrection, and why.

Paul reserves resurrection to a select group,
separated out from a larger group, based upon beliefs and/or behavior patterns.
Only in this new theology, Paul makes room for the "goyim"...the Gentiles.
Other than that, there is no difference between Paul the apostle,
and Saul the student of Gamaliel, the Pharisee.
The term Pharisee means "separated".
In this world view, holiness is achieved through separation from the unholy.
Paul built this view into his own eschatology,
and through zealous proseletizing,
leavened "the Way" with "the leaven of the Pharisees".

The four gospels admitted into the pop canon were composed long after the Paul effect upon the Way.
These gospels admit only what does not overtly contradict Pauline thinking,
which became the pop orthodoxy.
In these gospels, I am made special and unique.
An ironclad distinction is made between man, and the 'man god'.
This was the most common mistake among the apostles.
And this played well into the hands of Paul.

Today, the "Christian world" does not even realize that it is an extension of Rabbinic Judaism,
which itself is simply a compilation of the world's way of thinking.
The Christian world does not eat unleavened bread.
Rather, it's whole theological loaf has been leavened.
This has resulted in -as the movie has pointed out -
a 'blank check' type sympathy with the modern state of Israel,
at the expense of the Arabs in the area.
There are many Pauline Christians secretly rooting for the rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem.
You can turn on Christian radio and hear Israel described as "God's time piece".


The most ironic parallel of all between Paul's christianity and rabbinic Judaism,
is that both are now looking forward to the coming of a Messiah.
And in each case, the function of the Messiah is the same.
Not to be left out from copying the "religions of the book", Islam has it's own version of a Messiah, called "the Mahdi",
who's function is the same as that of Pauline christianity and rabbinic Judaism.


The current president of Iran feels he needs to do something radical,
in order that the Mahdi might return.
This parallels the beliefs of many Pauline christians,
that something must happen in Israel before their own Messian will return.
All three world-stage players believe in the wrath of God.
In this way, the leaven of the Pharisees has brought the world to the brink of nuclear exchange.

Jesus
More...

Saul's self-declaration that he was taught by Jesus "in the third heaven" (made so as to make himself an "apostle") I believe is untrue.

What do you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top