Religion

[lazyhanger]

What religion are you belonging to? I myself don't believe in a God as he/she is described in Christianity, Islam or any other religion. I have my own God, who exists only for me. I don't want to offend anyone here, but in my opinion the (major) religions as they exist, are made to control/brainwash people. Events like the crusades and the "Jihad" (hope I spelled it right) speak for this, people try to convince other people with force to join their religion, and I think at this point a religion is nothing Godlike anymore, but rather a way of some leaders to rule over the believers and/or non-believers.
Please vote in the poll!

 

[Alex78]

i gave it up! Religion only tears people apart!

 

[higherone]

Pretty devout Catholic here, other than with sexual things I try to follow what the church teaches.

 

[REDZULU2003]

Nice poll. Moved into art of attraction and allowance, that is where spirituality, religion, occult, new age etc resides now.

 

[Turnover]

I don't practice a religion per-se, I respect them all. Technically I would be condemned by most of them. I practice meditation and believe in a higher power. I know god is with me because even when I can't see what I want what I need is usually right in front of me. The thing is god is really really quiet and things "not of god" tend to seem very loud. Currently I have a lot of anger with god and it is to be expected I think it is a lesson god is having me learn. I don't belive god is of man or woman it is something like an energetic life force where we all exist.

 

[wanagrow]

I was born christian. And I still respect that. But I also feel that religions like hinduism and buddhism are more advanced.

 

[MrFreak]

I was brought up as a christian... but I believe people can take the good out of each religion and appy them to their lives... religion to me can b a distraction from really feelin the fullness of God that's why I think jesus fought so much against the religions of the day because people would b to focused on religion than human kindness

 

[REDZULU2003]

Nice to see different members chime in on this and in a respectful manner

 

[Crazy Doc]

I was born christian. And I still respect that. But I also feel that religions like hinduism and buddhism are more advanced.

I would agree on the doctrine issue. I am the Buddhist vote above. Buddhism explains how life interacts with its environment as well as elucidating that they are in fact, one, on the most fundamental level. Western beliefs miss this respect of the environment and the result is very clear. Western theism also teaches that the deity controls one's destiny-which I would say leads to some sense (at least on the subconscious level) that one is really helpless and at the mercy of a destiny decided elsewhere. Buddhism teaches that one controls their own destiny, which gives them responsibility for all that happens in their life. I would also point out that theism and Buddhism are in fact, mutually exclusive-for the concept of creation as well as an external being or outer being or higher power, etc. controlling destiny runs completely contrary to the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism. Buddhism is indeed an "Atheist Faith" and much more of a philosophy than a religion (religion by definition usually requires at least one god). And the largest single group of Atheists on this planet, after babies, is Buddhists.
Hindus actually range from Atheist, to Monotheist, to Polytheist, the last being the most well known. I know less about Hinduism, but in a very broad sense, Buddhism is considered one of the 6 branches of Hinduism. They are very different however, yet tend to share some fundamentals such as reincarnation and karma.

However-what one claims to believe is quite irrelevant.... the four Christians up there might be more Buddhist than I, even though I may know more about it, profess faith in it, and claim to practice it. All that matters is one's deeds. And within that, it is the nature of the deed that counts.

 

[Priapus90]

I'm a Christian... that said I do not always follow the strict leadings of our church!! I think the church should not control peoples lives!! The greatest commandment is to love God and love each other!! We do that and I think we'd see a lot less problems in the world!! I agree with lazyhanger in that in some instances that the churches and religions will brainwash people!! I don't force anyone to believe what I believe, but I will stand up for it!! Its who I am and who I'll always be!

 

[Crazy Doc]

I'm a Christian... that said I do not always follow the strict leadings of our church!! I think the church should not control peoples lives!! The greatest commandment is to love God and love each other!! We do that and I think we'd see a lot less problems in the world!! I agree with lazyhanger in that in some instances that the churches and religions will brainwash people!! I don't force anyone to believe what I believe, but I will stand up for it!! Its who I am and who I'll always be!

Only thing I'd say about that is... well, the 2 commandments are fine and great and so forth... but what about all the other stuff in there that the church bases those policies on? My point is, you can get your 2 commandments from say Aesop's Fables without the vague or even bad stuff. Example, you ever read the Book of Timothy? This is one written by Paul, and Paul was quite the woman hater. Timothy is a pretty scary book. But it IS in that library we call "the bible", which means from the doctrine of any Christian sect that uses this bible as their doctrine, it is "the inspired word of God". That is just one example, but there are hundreds, maybe even thousands that cause problems. So the question I pose is that of doctrine-this one seems very flawed to me, both in its historical accounts, its logical accounts, and certainly in its moral guidance. People will try to blame man for the evil that has occurred in the past with this book used as the justification, such as "Manifest Destiny"-yet if that were true-all religions would murder, war, etc. in a similar ratio to their numbers (ie similar number of murders per capita)-this is a requirement to use a "the evil is in the men, not the doctrine" argument-yet it's completely not true. Because it is not true, we have to go back and look at doctrinal differences and then we actually see strong statistical correlations between murders, wars, etc. and what those doctrines say and do not say.

So I don't disagree with what you said, loving your god, and treating the least of men the same as you would he.... is a good thing. But since the doctrine has much more than that in it, I suBathmateit the doctrine based on what it says and what it has been used to do-is not only flawed, but not worth the minority of good things it also says-that can also be found elsewhere without the murder and mayhem. Just some food for thought. Doctrine is crucial to a religion or philosophy. If men can be good without it-that is, like you describe; "take the good and leave the bad" then.... what is the point of the doctrine? It's pretty easy to figure out that it's generally wrong to kill or steal, etc... we don't really need anybody to tell us this. But those things that it says that are NOT common sense, and then call them "the word of God"... well that's another matter, and clearly a very dangerous thing.

 

[DLD]

I respect all religions, they are all the same with different names. I have studied most and find beauty in them all.

 

[REDZULU2003]

 

[Crazy Doc]

I respect all religions, they are all the same with different names. I have studied most and find beauty in them all.

They may have the same goals, like "happiness" or "social harmony"... even there on the latter I'd have to retract that, so let's stick with "happiness"-they disagree greatly on the definition of this and the path to get there and where "there" is. Fundamentally some religions are complete opposites. Like I said, for example it would be impossible to be both a Buddhist AND a Christian unless you sacrificed so much of one or the other that it was no longer there. So I disagree that they are the same. I see little difference among say Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... but ... they are all Abrahamic Religions-they are really from the same cloth, not just the same tree (the tree here would be "theism") so that is no shock. But take Buddhism and Hinduism, they share a few things-but ultimately are vastly different, in function, in practice, and in theory. Confucianism is really nothing like any of them... I could go on and on but frankly, the deeper into one you go, the more you find that it is indeed mutually exclusive with many others.

I would have trouble finding similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. They both might say "don't hurt other people"... but they completely disagree on why, on how "hurt" is defined, on how absolute this rule would be, and on whom is actually harmed... suddenly that similarity seems kind of fragile and shallow eh? Just my 2 cents.

Also find me a Christian (Catholic or Protestant variety) that would even ALLOW you to call "LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) " a sect of Christianity. And frankly you would again be unable to be say a "catholic mormon"... LDS doctrine contradicts so much of Catholic doctrine-in fundamental ways that they are really nothing alike when you examine them both closely. These are both sects of Christianity yet differ greatly on the most important questions within the respective sects. These comparisons are much more obvious-the more you know about the 2 faiths being compared. History also reveals the effects of different religions-and this too is vastly different across the spectrum. There is quite a bit of evidence that suggests that
A/ All religions are NOT equal (regardless of how you define 'equal') and...
B/ All religions are far from "the same".

 

[Crazy Doc]

Also-to make my point clearer-Buddhism is a great example of how untrue this is. There are thousands, THOUSANDS of sects of Buddhism. Some of those have a few to several dozen sub-sects within them! Among these Buddhist sects, fundamental beliefs differ greatly. Some of these sects would be closer to Christianity than they would be to what I would call "Buddhism". Buddhism is not like Christianity, no matter what sect of Christianity that I can think of, they all share a few things-like they all believe Jesus is God and the Savior ( I think..). Buddhism could not even say that, the closest it might be able to come to give them all some common ground is "All these sects derive either directly or indirectly to one or more teachings of the historical Buddha, Gautama Siddhartha". But if you went into a random Buddhist temple-you'd have NO IDEA what they might worship, a Statue? A Pantheon of Statues? This Buddha? That Buddha? This Buddha and those 4 Bodhisattvas? A Scroll (mandala)??? A Wooden Mandala?? A Scroll with a picture on it?? A scroll with writing on it??? A circular, colorful mandala???? So check that out-if they don't even agree on the most fundamental aspect of ANY religion---the object of worship, consider how much they might disagree on actual doctrine.

Imagine if every christian sect held up only ONE book of the bible, or perhaps just one page and said "This. This is the highest and only valuable teaching" .... yet they were all called Christians. If you don't appreciate that yet, go randomly to a bible of any sort, randomly look at 2 pages-and then imagine if that was all it taught and how vastly different it would be from the other page's teachings.... They really would be nothing alike. If you can fathom this, then multiply it by at least 1,000... you are finally beginning to understand how diverse just ONE of these religions is. And Buddhism may very well be the MOST diverse.

Example: If you claim you've studied Buddhism, you likely mean the Theravada variety. 8 fold path, 4 noble truths, etc?? Yes, well I don't believe in either of those things yet I am a Buddhist. I would say the 8 fold path is an inferior teaching of no merit. I would also say having a statue of a Buddha is "heresy".... But many Buddhists would disagree with me lol.
I would also say this: I've been studying Buddhism for over 20 years, yet I've still only scratched the surface of the depths of the teachings in my one sect. I could not imagine someone claiming to understand all or even 10% of Buddhism in its whole, including all its sects. My library of just my one sect consists of over 200 books... so imagine what it would take to study all Buddhist sects??? I can't even fathom it. So back to the point-it is highly unlikely that "all religions are the same".

 

[REDZULU2003]

I think this is an appropriate time to link my thread that has several e books on religions around the world incl the fascinating Zoroastrianism.

The Babylonians, Assyrian's, Sumerian's and Mesopotamians were the first large civilised kingdoms on earth and the amazing ancient artefacts found are really something. Some say Mesopotamia spawned the very first religions and is where many of today's such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism for sure have been influenced by.

 

[Crazy Doc]

I think this is an appropriate time to link my thread that has several e books on religions around the world incl the fascinating Zoroastrianism.

The Babylonians, Assyrian's, Sumerian's and Mesopotamians were the first large civilised kingdoms on earth and the amazing ancient artefacts found are really something. Some say Mesopotamia spawned the very first religions and is where many of today's such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism for sure have been influenced by.

Of course... we'd know much more about these cultures if the christians hadn't burned down the great Library of Alexandria lol...

 

[Crazy Doc]

Also, yes much of christian theology appears to be stolen from Egyptians and others. For example, the creation through sound. Also-creating the first human out of clay or dust. The word "adam" actually means clay, as a result of the material the god in both cases used to create him. Other things appear to be of pagan origin. For example-there is no christian significance of December 25. Nothing important in Christian history happened on that day. It was however the day of the Winter Solstice, and this solstice was the celebration of the return of the Sun, celebrated with gifts, candles, etc. The dominant pagan religion of the day was "Mithraism". Mithra was the Sun God, and he was born on December 25. This is the true nature of this date, it is the birthday of Mithra, not Jesus of Nazareth.

However, to make Christianity the state religion in the 4th Century C.E., Constantine had to appease these pagans-and make it a smooth transition. So many of their traditions and celebrations were adopted and became part of Christianity. I believe the only non-Pagan Christian holiday is Pentecost. All the others are stolen pagan holidays, including Easter.
And the "borrowed" theology is unlikely to stop there... see Mithra was also attended by 3 wise men following a star bearing gifts at his birth. Mithra was also born of a virgin. Mithra also raised the dead. Mithra also died, and rose 3 days later, and ascended to Heaven..... Since Mithra was first, it is clear that the Jesus story appears to be based on Mithra.

Mithra too is not the first or only god in history to do most of these things. Krishna dates back 1000 years before Jesus and also did most of these things (virgin birth, raising the dead, dying, being reborn, etc.). There are almost 40 gods before Jesus that did all the fancy things Jesus did. From that perspective, Jesus looks more like the flavor of the month (or millenium in this case) than the "one true god" to me. Man has invented over 10,000 gods throughout history-we should be suspect of all of them, ESPenis EnlargementCIALLY those that were created (or at least redefined) by politicians like Constantine.

 

[wanagrow]

Krishna dates back 1000 years before Jesus and also did most of these things (virgin birth, raising the dead, dying, being reborn, etc.).

Krishna is not born of virgin. His parents are Vasudeva and Devaki. He ultimately died when a arrow hit his legs. And his date of birth is also not on 25th december.

 

[Crazy Doc]

Krishna is not born of virgin. His parents are Vasudeva and Devaki. He ultimately died when a arrow hit his legs. And his date of birth is also not on 25th december.

Well... some sources say he was indeed born of a virgin (see below) and I never stated he was born on Dec 25, I said Mithra was born on Dec 25 and krishna from birth to death did many of the things jesus did, including immaculate conception (virgin birth):

"His advent was heralded by a pious old man (Asita), who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleled in the Bible by that of Simeon (Luke 2: 25).
Krishna was born in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated.
Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, bore Krishna to the god Vishnu (second god of the Trimurthi (also called the Hindu Trinity).
"The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Boslooper, Thomas, The Virgin Birth, SCM Press, 1962, Pp 148 & 149; cited in: The Virgin Birth of Christ.

 

[Crazy Doc]

Krishna is not born of virgin. His parents are Vasudeva and Devaki. He ultimately died when a arrow hit his legs. And his date of birth is also not on 25th december.

I just checked Wikipedia, and it states same, "It was believed that Krishna was born not from a sexual connection between Devaki and Vasudeva, but was transferred to Devaki's womb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaki

 

[wanagrow]

Well... some sources say he was indeed born of a virgin (see below) and I never stated he was born on Dec 25, I said Mithra was born on Dec 25 and krishna from birth to death did many of the things jesus did, including immaculate conception (virgin birth):

"His advent was heralded by a pious old man (Asita), who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleled in the Bible by that of Simeon (Luke 2: 25).
Krishna was born in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated.
Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, bore Krishna to the god Vishnu (second god of the Trimurthi (also called the Hindu Trinity).
"The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Boslooper, Thomas, The Virgin Birth, SCM Press, 1962, Pp 148 & 149; cited in: The Virgin Birth of Christ.

I dont know where you have quoted from but i have read mahabharata . That i believe is the most original book. Vishnu enters devaki womb after the couple had conceived. i.e. The vishnu as a soul enters the infant. Devaki just has a vision of vishnu entering her womb.

I would strongly suggest you original references rather than second hand misleading information. And yah, krishna never had a resurrection after his death.

 

[wanagrow]

I just checked Wikipedia, and it states same, "It was believed that Krishna was born not from a sexual connection between Devaki and Vasudeva, but was transferred to Devaki's womb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaki

Read Mahabharata, not wikipedia, where anyone is free to write anything he wishes. Ty

 

[wanagrow]

I checked it again. Here is what the story goes.

Kansa is a king in ancient india. Devaki is his sister.She is married to vasudeva. And there is a prophecy that the eighth child of vasudeva and devaki will kill kansa. kansa kills first seven childs. The eighth one, krishna, however miraculously escapes and later kills kansa.

There is no reference to devaki being a virgin while giving birth to eight kids. She has a normal married life.

How is this connected to birth of jesus? Is there any similarity at all?

 

[Crazy Doc]

I dont know where you have quoted from...

I don't follow that-I gave my references, so yes, yes you DO know where I have quoted from.

 

[Crazy Doc]

Read Mahabharata, not wikipedia, where anyone is free to write anything he wishes. Ty

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia. I could take any religious book and make a dozen conflicting claims-so your logic here is flawed. "Where you stand depends on where you sit" so from a debate standpoint-the objective sources are given MUCH MORE weight than those from specific perspectives. Now there are 700 Million Hindus in the world-I'm sure a couple of them are on Wikipedia and would dispute something not true-as is always done on Wikipedia. And you obviously know nothing about wikipedia-I dare you to go change that page on Devaki-and see what happens. You'll see they have a million rules and moderators are all over that thing and won't let something not referenced or backed up stay for more than 48 hours. Wikipedia is highly respected.

If I wanted to prove anything about Buddhism-like say that it has gods or does not, or that Shakyamuni was a god or a man or whatever. I can find a Buddhist book to back me up... and I could find another book to contradict myself. So again-only objective sources, LIKE WIKIPenis EnlargementDIA should be given much merit or weight on such debates. The question here is "did they have sex" and what I've found is, NO THEY DID NOT. You have admitted half of this-that the birth was divine if nothing else-that Vishnu magically enters her womb and is born as Krishna.
You haven't even given a reference showing they had sex. I've given you TWO REFERENCES that say that she is a virgin (therefore virgin birth as I claimed and you dispute) and that they did not have sex-that Krishna is "transferred" not "conceived" in her womb.

So far you have not backed up your point, I have backed up mine. Don't dispute a valid source like wikipedia, give us some quotes with references that PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!!

 

[REDZULU2003]

It is highly respected and when I altered the penis enlargement page once to include information on clamping they altered it back within 5 minutes because I didn't place references. You cant simply go to Wikipedia and write shiet out, its very accurate and the most used on-line encyclopaedia nowadays.

 

[wanagrow]

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia. I could take any religious book and make a dozen conflicting claims-so your logic here is flawed. "Where you stand depends on where you sit" so from a debate standpoint-the objective sources are given MUCH MORE weight than those from specific perspectives. Now there are 700 Million Hindus in the world-I'm sure a couple of them are on Wikipedia and would dispute something not true-as is always done on Wikipedia. And you obviously know nothing about wikipedia-I dare you to go change that page on Devaki-and see what happens. You'll see they have a million rules and moderators are all over that thing and won't let something not referenced or backed up stay for more than 48 hours. Wikipedia is highly respected.

If I wanted to prove anything about Buddhism-like say that it has gods or does not, or that Shakyamuni was a god or a man or whatever. I can find a Buddhist book to back me up... and I could find another book to contradict myself. So again-only objective sources, LIKE WIKIPenis EnlargementDIA should be given much merit or weight on such debates. The question here is "did they have sex" and what I've found is, NO THEY DID NOT. You have admitted half of this-that the birth was divine if nothing else-that Vishnu magically enters her womb and is born as Krishna.
You haven't even given a reference showing they had sex. I've given you TWO REFERENCES that say that she is a virgin (therefore virgin birth as I claimed and you dispute) and that they did not have sex-that Krishna is "transferred" not "conceived" in her womb.

So far you have not backed up your point, I have backed up mine. Don't dispute a valid source like wikipedia, give us some quotes with references that PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!!

You first claim you dont know much abut hinduism but you are so dead sure of krishnas virgin birth. That is just so amazing.It would be very sad if your twenty years of buddhism has also come from wikipedia. I hope it has not.
Anyways, here is a online link i can give you.
http://www.longlongtimeago.com/llta_myths_krishna.html

The prophecy stated is "'The marriage of Devaki and Vasudev shall be blessed, for of this union shall be born eight sons,' said the voice. 'But let the demon Kansa beware - Devaki's eighth son will be his end.'"

peace out.

 

[wanagrow]

It is highly respected and when I altered the penis enlargement page once to include information on clamping they altered it back within 5 minutes because I didn't place references. You cant simply go to Wikipedia and write shiet out, its very accurate and the most used on-line encyclopaedia nowadays.

As far as I understand, wikipedia can only be as accurate as the original books. Not more.

 

[wanagrow]

Gotta disagree with you. They say wikipedia is 50x more accurate than any other encyclopedia.

And I say that a ancient text like mahabharata is infinite times more accurate than wikipedia.

 

[wanagrow]

PROVE/CLAIM THEY HAD SEX!!!![/B]

The woman who gave birth to krishna , gave birth to seven kids before. It is up to you to prove how all them were born without copulation.

 

[stillwantmore]

I don't suBathmateit to any religion personally. I've never felt the need to identify myself as a "......ian". I believe in a god as a creative force. I also believe we are all connected as energy on a higher plane...there are other dimensions as well as theorized by the likes of Einstein. Man's interpretation of the world around him, what happens (he hopes) when he dies, and a means to CONTROL people who might otherwise behave in unspeakable or unacceptable ways if they knew there were no real consequences for their actions....is what religions are. How a person decides to connect with the world and universe around them is up to them. I don't believe I'll die and go to "heaven" or "hell"...I'll rejoin the universe as a yet to be determined type of energy. I believe my form after I leave my body ...whenever that ends up being...will resemble something like what Hollywood has determined when people "ascend"...becoming an energy which exists on a higher plane. A sentient being of energy. Of course, I would not be visible to human eyes...as we as humans only see on our current third dimension. Will I remember "who" I was when I was human? Who knows. The human brain is made up of tissue and sure, is "powered" by electricity of sorts, but is different from a purely energetic state of consciousness.

A couple examples from the series "Stargate" of one ascending at physical death:

 

[Crazy Doc]

The woman who gave birth to krishna , gave birth to seven kids before. It is up to you to prove how all them were born without copulation.

My point is valid, many people believe and have reason to believe Krishna shares aspects of Jesus' life. This includes a virgin birth and I have backed that up-I'm not obligated to do anything else, including begin to make it personal as you've done! But more importantly, from my perspective-I believe none of it. I don't believe in magical beings like Krishna or Jesus. I don't think some guy named Vishnu crawled into her belly with or without a penis. And I question if Jesus existed as a man, much less as a god. What's the saying? "Those who control the present control the past.." Santayana maybe? I forget who said it-but it rings true. Those who write the books control history. And when the pens are held by politicians like Constantine... be all the more suspicious of the motives and things they write.

I could really care less how Krishna was born, my original point is still quite valid-that the Jesus written about in the bible did NOTHING original, and that he is a "copycat god" at best.

 

[wanagrow]

My point is valid, many people believe and have reason to believe Krishna shares aspects of Jesus' life. This includes a virgin birth and I have backed that up-I'm not obligated to do anything else,

All spiritual beings share common aspects, that doesnt means the are same person. And as i said before , seven kids were born before krishnas birth. If krishna came out of a virgin woman, then that implies all before him were virgin too! No book mentions anything unnatural about the birth of those seven kids. The Mahabharata doesnt even mentions the word virgin.

I have nothing personal against you , i apologise if I offended you. But, If I would ever study a religion ,I would go to original texts, not to wikipedia, or some guy who sells his own interpretatation of things to satisfy his ego or make a living. And this is also what I would advise anyone else to do.

God bless

 

[Crazy Doc]

All spiritual beings share common aspects, that doesnt means the are same person. And as i said before , seven kids were born before krishnas birth. If krishna came out of a virgin woman, then that implies all before him were virgin too! No book mentions anything unnatural about the birth of those seven kids. The Mahabharata doesnt even mentions the word virgin.

I have nothing personal against you , i apologise if I offended you. But, If I would ever study a religion ,I would go to original texts, not to wikipedia, or some guy who sells his own interpretatation of things to satisfy his ego or make a living. And this is also what I would advise anyone else to do.

God bless

are we still talking about this?? If so, Krishna aside-the original point stands: Jesus is a copycat god.

Oh ya, and WHICH god are you blessing me with? *creepy*

 

[wanagrow]

are we still talking about this?? If so, Krishna aside-the original point stands: Jesus is a copycat god.

Oh ya, and WHICH god are you blessing me with? *creepy*

Sorry I went quite busy for past some time.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jesus. But that doesnt means I blindly follow what church says. I have started reading about hinduism mostly out of curisoity. It is the oldest religion which exists. It has a very mysterious feel to it. And of course, it has tantra! the spiritual side of sex. Thats the most interesting thing to me.

I currently have english translations of Mahabharata and Bhagwad Gita. Bhagwad gita is a small part of mahabharata and contains the most of krishnas teachings. Which he delivered to arjuna on a battlefield. And from whatever I have read so far. It is just so cool , so detailed about the real nature of things and of course as I said it before, i definitely find it much advanced and deeper than christian teachings.

 

[Crazy Doc]

Sorry I went quite busy for past some time.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jesus. But that doesnt means I blindly follow what church says. I have started reading about hinduism mostly out of curisoity. It is the oldest religion which exists. It has a very mysterious feel to it. And of course, it has tantra! the spiritual side of sex. Thats the most interesting thing to me.

I currently have english translations of Mahabharata and Bhagwad Gita. Bhagwad gita is a small part of mahabharata and contains the most of krishnas teachings. Which he delivered to arjuna on a battlefield. And from whatever I have read so far. It is just so cool , so detailed about the real nature of things and of course as I said it before, i definitely find it much advanced and deeper than christian teachings.

Well, western religion really has NO depth in my opinion. There are no connections, no explanations, just some wild claims. And frankly, it's not even interesting-the stories and so forth, very dry, very lame. I tried to read the book of mormon last year- I could only make it about 40 pages, I got so sick of every paragraph starting with "it then came to pass".... I about lost my mind.

 

[wanagrow]

Well, western religion really has NO depth in my opinion. There are no connections, no explanations, just some wild claims. And frankly, it's not even interesting-the stories and so forth, very dry, very lame. I tried to read the book of mormon last year- I could only make it about 40 pages, I got so sick of every paragraph starting with "it then came to pass".... I about lost my mind.

One thing is that I am completely in favor of reincarnation. I have been through some past life regression sessions and this thing is definitely true.

 

[Crazy Doc]

One thing is that I am completely in favor of reincarnation. I have been through some past life regression sessions and this thing is definitely true.

I haven't done that, but just theoretically speaking: Karma REQUIRES reincarnation. They simply go together and frankly-together they are the ONLY explanation (other than chance) for different starting points, ie why this guy is born king and that one born a peasant and so forth.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Christ finds a home near Japan's Eden: Terry McCarthy visits Shingo, where locals claim they are descended from Jesus, who, they say, is buried there...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sus-who-they-say-is-buried-there-1469335.html

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Israelites Came to Ancient Japan
Many of the traditional ceremonies in Japan and their DNA
indicate that the Lost Tribes of Israel came to ancient Japan


http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm

 

[MAXAMEYES]

To quote Fats Waller:
"One never know, do one?"

 

[Crazy Doc]

Christ finds a home near Japan's Eden: Terry McCarthy visits Shingo, where locals claim they are descended from Jesus, who, they say, is buried there...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sus-who-they-say-is-buried-there-1469335.html

Well .... it's much more believable than the christian version of the story lol.

 

[Alex78]

i would punish anybody who claims possession without evidence!
Even the Church!

 

[wanagrow]

i would punish anybody who claims possession without evidence!
Even the Church!

The thing is that church uses this story in all parts of world to spread christianity. They will go to a remote part of the world, find out a tribe in a jungle, claim that they are lost tribes and convert them to christianity. Here is another link which claims that some tribe from india is the lost tribe.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054640,00.html

 

[wanagrow]

heres another story that claims jesus died in kasHydromaxir. Doesnt matter wether it is true or not, propagating this story will definitly help the church to convert some ppl in india and pakistan.

http://other9.tripod.com/scr/kasHydromaxir.html

 

[Alex78]

The thing is that church uses this story in all parts of world to spread christianity. They will go to a remote part of the world, find out a tribe in a jungle, claim that they are lost tribes and convert them to christianity. Here is another link which claims that some tribe from india is the lost tribe.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054640,00.html

Who believe this, looks like there is a lot of people who just want to!

 

[DLD]

View attachment 23621

 

[wanagrow]

View attachment 23621

omg

 

[Turnover]

omg

Indeed