Who Invented God?
Posted: Monday, October 05, 2009
by e
Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation
When we look back through antiquity it all gets a little fuzzy, but there seems to be a consensus about who invented God. As a matter of fact, middle eastern religions such as Judaism and Christianity can trace their roots directly back to this man. Even his pictures - pale face, brown beard, looking up toward heaven, very closely resembles pictures of Christ these days.
Therefore, even though belief and blind faith, in light of all the information that is out there, can be thought of by some as a capitulation to ignorance, belief and faith can be a benefit to humanity. The only caveat being that no violence is hidden in its tenants, because like any other human institution, religion can be used to justify good or evil.
To live in a fantasy of beliefs, and there are so many and diverse beliefs on our planet, is to be delightfully ignorant, yet this is probably the safest and easiest route for most human beings. For the few that refuse to believe blindly, they can look forward to a life of deep, frustrating inquiry, perhaps never finding answers that they pursue through the intellectual process. So, while the believer is happy and content, the skeptic is always troubled and unsure. So why not be happy - dumb out!
The problem with dumbing out (if that's not our inclination) is that as we have advanced, we have learned that the world is not flat, and that the earth is not the center of the universe, which are both rather counter intuitive and didn't make the Church fathers of the day very happy!
But this opened the door to a freeing and an expansion of our consciousness, and subsequently to some great scientific discoveries. Then we knew for certain that some things are true and some just fairy tales, and unfortunately it is the cold truth that advances human understanding, not fantasy. There seems to be a natural, compelling human tendency toward truth.
Toward this tendency for truth and transparency, modern men and women still recognize the function and importance of religion - that it is a vehicle for moral guidance as well as providing a warm social and psychological function.
At the same time, they are also opening to the fact that other religions are just as viable as theirs, and this is quite an advancement for human beings because religious differences can separate good people, and have in the past - all the way to religious wars which reflected the old, ignorant, unenlightened consciousness.
Seldom do we hear these days that white people are inherently superior to other people, except from the extreme fringes. Likewise, claiming that one's particular religion is "true" and all others false is becoming quite passé. As a matter of fact, people who claim things such as this are looked at as being a little wonky! You seldom hear that kind of stupidity uttered in a modern world. Contemporary, religious people are happy and satisfied within there own comfort zones, and that is what matters most.
Therefore, if we look too closely at our religious roots, it would be quite troubling. For a Christian as an example, to look into the historical facts of the origin of the Bible and the origin of Christ would be disquieting. Likewise, it would be troubling for a Jew, or any religion, to search out their historical roots factually without the glorifications that come from within a closed, self generating system of beliefs without disclaimers and counterpoints! Non-Christians or non-Jews, however, could investigate easily without bias or emotion while, for example, Christians and Jews who are attached and have bet the farm on their beliefs might consider the light of day, or disclosure, to be more threatening than midnight, or the darkness of blind belief.
For example; non-Christians view Christianity quite differently than a "believer" who may have been indoctrinated since birth. A non-Christian, after reading many of the open minded articles that are now all over the internet and backed by compelling historical facts, may more easily conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was doing something during the lost years, and perhaps wandered to the East and picked up some Eastern ways.
The Buddhist religion was well established for over 500 years before Christ was born. Buddhist monks were arriving in Jerusalem over the trade routes by the time of Jesus, and through the power of their advanced meditation, could heal, walk on water plus many other powers, etc. Jesus was able to master some of these as well, but this was all strange to the common Rabiis of his time.
Jesus' mentor on earth was an Essene; John the Baptist, who lived in the desert with a group of followers, again in the footsteps of Buddhist monks. Then Jesus co-incidentally formed a group of followers as well, again in the footsteps of the Buddhist Sangha of monks and the Essenes, which was again very radical for a Jewish rabbi to do!
Another example of a non-Christian looking open-mindedly at Christianity might be that when observing the Bible and looking into its history, a non-Christian might more easily make some conclusions that a Christian would find unacceptable and upsetting, i.e., it's being hinted at, and someday may be resolved, that the original church fathers, over 60 years after Jesus of Nazareth's death, were looking for someone to be their savior, the Son of God, so that they could say that they have fulfilled a biblical prophecy (and hopefully create a new religion)!
In attempting to start this new religion, they ran across one of Jesus' disciple's writings . . . and what may have happened is a made-up deification of a hapless rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, where the original Church fathers borrowed heavily from pagan religions for many of their ideas, even stealing the main story lines of the Buddha's birth story (and again the Buddha was born 550 years before Christ) and created in their own minds the Christian religion.
Furthermore, from a non-Christian, unbiased approach, the bible itself, from which the church fathers were trying to fulfill a prophecy (i.e. a prophet and savior), could be considered historically a mish-mash of legends and myths carried forward by word of mouth by scores of different people from thousands of years ago.
The non-Christian keeps in mind that even a few minutes after a car accident, eye witnesses all have different stories, and to believe that a myth or legend could go down through history unchanged, not only after a few minutes, or hours, or years, or decades, or hundreds of years, but thousands of years, is not viable in a non-Christians mind. Add to this all the heavy editing of the bible in different ages with different agendas, and the bible could have become the most incongruent hoax every played on humanity - again, according to a non-Christian. This is possibly why quoting Biblical passages to a non-Christian goes in one ear and out the other!
Yet no one who is Christian can accept these things, because Christians, understandably, are attached to their religion. It has become their entire reason for living.
But if the non-Christian view of Christianity proves true in the future, this could possibly explain why many Christians don't seem to follow their faith regarding how they should live - in poverty and giving everything away to others. Could it be that Jesus' teachings were made up by human minds? And that Jesus never existed as the Church fathers depicted him to exist? And if he did in fact exist as a Jewish rabii, was he merely a creation of the church father's imagination, and not, in any case, as the religion has made him appear to be? This is how a non-Christian might look at the religion from non-biased standpoint.
So what is really true? No one can really say, and it really doesn't matter as long as you are satisfied with your beliefs and your life is going well. But time will tell, and the truth about religions, all religions, as well as with everything else, will eventually prevail in this blossoming information age.
Oh, I almost forgot . . . Zoroaster, from Iran/Pakistan, is considered the man who invented God!
This Article has been viewed 1,456 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (7 total)We are,within, a small spark of the one Divine God,as each living being has a living pearl of light. God,as the Bible touts Him ,is given anthropomorphic feelings,motives and directives ,a book of fairytales that truly demeans, slanders and maligns His greatness by making him cheap,in mans image. I n that God awful book ,God is always portrayed as mean,vindictive,jealous,vengeful and full of wrath,especially if we dont follow his(man-made-up) rules and edicts. Primitive man,with his fear of death,sensed and feared the unseen as well, and invented this books version of God . Today,sadly,so called modern day Christians, and ever so devout Jews ,become livid bible thumping evangalists because they blindly accept this book as one true source of divine inspiration.Nobody really knows about who and what God is and what God demands of all of us.These fundamentalist yahoos, deny evolution .They insist,against all scientific proof,that the time line of Earth is just several thousand years and go on to declare that man walked with dinosaurs.When i hear them pontificate and read their answers about what God wants and what we must do to align ourselves with Him, by quoting from this Book, they seem to only fire up their own egos,in false self-righteousness;E.G.most"right-to lifers" welcome the death penalty) Listening to them and reading their essays,I begin to doubt evolution,myself. The Old testament is a tree and Christianity a mere branch. God creates star systems and sentient creatures;He does NOT write books.Not content to quote the Old testament alone these holier than thou christians stitch it to and quote the New Testament,which is not a Bible, but a slim addendum ,five differing versions, written 80 years after Jesus walked the Earth. What ever happened to the answer:"I dont know." about God and death and goodness and "rules" of heaven? Man made religions and the God that man invented , fuel these people to give all sorts of answers,that makes them feel feel important when proslytizing answers that no one truly knowsHi Paul, Yes, it all borders on insanity at times!
Wow. You presented a lot of objections to Christianity in this article. It is definitely an impassioned presentation. You have certainly given this some thought. However, as a follower of Jesus myself, I'd say you don't yet have a good handle on the Christian perspective. Obviously, it would take volumes to respond to each point, and I could certainly do just that, but I'll spare you. I do find your perspective on this fascinating.If you'd like to know more about whether or not God was created, from the Christian perspective, a good straightforward read on this is Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For A Creator".Actually, since you mentioned the history of religions, let me give you my perspective, and I won't quote a single scripture passage. Most people believe that Bible translations are done in a linear fashion, that translations come from other translations. Actually, that isn't true. The process of creating a Bible translation starts with the original writings. Exact copies were made in the early Church and there were many of them in circulation. We know exactly what was written, word for word in the original. Each translation is written based on the original words with objectives ranging from exact word for word translations to translation of the intended thought that would otherwise be difficult to understand in a word for word translation. Each translation provides a new perspective, but preserves the underlying truth that never changes.You are right about history being a bit difficult to nail down. However, historians get as close to the original sources as possible, and then they weigh the evidence to lead them to the historical truth. This makes the New Testament the most reliable historical document for Biblical times in existence, since the authors of the Gospel were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus. Then there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is reliable through the manuscript evidence through classical literature that inadvertently testifies to the facts in the New Testament. There is an incredible volume of archaeological evidence witnessing to the accuracy of Biblical documents. There is also Biblical records of predictions of events that could not have been known or predicted by chance or common sense that underscore evidence of prophetic truth of the Messianic prophecies. (see "The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas, and "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg)So, in defense of my faith, it isn't a blind faith. It is supported by overwhelming evidence, not only in my own life, but in historical documentation. The Bible has never been proven in error, not once. Every attempt by historians or scientists to discredit the Bible is eventually exposed as based in unproven and unreliable evidence. I don't know of any other faith that can make that claim.Sorry for such a long comment. This is just a fascinating topic for me!I've tried to give Lee Strobel the benefit of the doubt. His Case for Christ is horribly flawed, and it seems to be a kind of artificial bromide for himself to bring him closer to his wife, when he was a chronic skeptic and she a blind-faith believer, kind of the way a man tells his overweight, aging wife she is still beautiful. It's his reality, but not necessarily true for the rest of us (his wife is pretty good looking, though). Strobel's sources are bigoted with a pre-disposed perspective, and much of the evidence he claims "prove" the existence of Jesus is not very trustworthy. I was mightily disappointed in Strobel's apologetics, a former journalist for the Chicago Sun. His case appeals to believers who are looking for whatever tidbits they can latch onto that give even a glimmer of substance to Christianity, but the cold hard fact is there is only hearsay that Jesus existed, and no evidence at all that he was any more divine than you or I.-GIt is interesting that this comment is anonymous. These generalized claims are unfounded and without merit. Instead of making sweeping claims, there needs to be intelligent and civil dialog, respecting individuals as people of value and positions taken on specific claims based on sound logic. This comment fails at that. Therefore, I can't take it seriously.My anonymity has nothing to do with the problem of Strobel's bad journalism. Strobel's "Case for Christ" is well-known as hokey. Just look at who he relied on as "authorities," Christian theologians, one and all. Not an objective historian among them. He has made the case on the most suspicious evidence. One piece, for example, his quotation from Josephus is known to be a medieval forgery. Strobel sort of slipped it in there, knowing believers would bite.
There is nothing uncivil in this dialogue, by the way, I am sorry you are unable to entertain criticism of your bad examples of what constitutes history. You would be delighted if I agreed with you, but that can't be in good conscience. I have been over this Strobel thing many times in other places, it is nothing new.There is not overwhelming evidence that the Bible is a reliable reflection of history. The authors of the four canonical Gospels were certainly not eyewitnesses to the life and times of Jesus, they were reporting secondhand accounts, and probably much worse. First of all, the very earliest gospel was still a generation after the purported date of Jesus' death. Secondly, that means details of his birth, of his mother and father, would be very unreliable. Thirdly, there is no credible evidence that John, named for the apostle, was even written by the actual Apostle named John. Luke never knew Jesus. Mark was a consort of Paul, who himself never met Jesus. That leaves Matthew, the tax collector. Modern scholars question that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Mathew, and its date is placed later than Mark, between 70 C.E. and 80 C.E.
Critically viewed, the New Testament is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, its miracles and fulfilled prophecies were made up after the fact, using fragments of Old Testament prophecy to fill in the blanks to create a legend out of a man. It is literally made up around the life time of a man who probably lived, but is not a literal representation of the man.
-GNow that you have made these claims. Would you care to back them up with credible evidence? You have made quite a few bold claims here.Now that you have made these claims. Would you care to back them up with credible evidence? You have made quite a few bold claims here.Credible evidence for the dating of the gospels abounds.The claim that the gospel writers were "eye witnesses" is obviously untrue. That needs no verification than the content of the gospels themselves. Neither Mark nor Luke were mentioned in the narrative.Here is a recurring pattern: The proselytizer makes specious "bold" claims, then says, "prove me wrong!" Listen, I can't prove the negative of a falsehood. For all we know, Santa Claus does exist somewhere. Maybe he moved away from the North Pole, and is living in South America. It can't be proved that Jesus never made a miracle, simply because there is no real evidence that definitively proves there ever was such a person. It is up to the believer of these tales to prove the tales are ture, if he wishes. Saying that something miraculous happened If a person 1,900 years ago wrote that a man named Jesus brought a dead man back to life 60 years before he was alive, that cannot be disproven, if only because there is no legacy of the dead person, before he died, or after he was purportedly brought back to life."A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70"(Peter, Kirby (2001-2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark; Achtemeier, Paul J. (1991-). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary. 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 545. ISBN 0385193629; Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0385469934.; Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. pp. 8. ISBN 0965504727; Funk, Robert W.; Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0025419498.; Eisenman, Robert H. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. pp. 56. ISBN 014025773X.)"The authorship of the Fourth Gospel (John) was rarely questioned seriously until the end of the eighteenth century. Since then there have been modern scholars who posit that the author was not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry." (Brown, Raymond Edward; Paul J Achtemeier (1978). Mary in the New Testament. New York: Paulist Press. pp. 198. ISBN 0809121689.)"There is no certain historical evidence as to the date of its composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says it was already in existence early in the 2nd Century." (Livingstone, E. A. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006.ISBN 019861442X / 978-0198614425, p313)"When was the Gospel of Luke written? The gospel of Luke was written between 59 to 62 CE. Physical evidence, secular writings, and logic are used. When you finish reading this page, you will begin to understand why Christians logically accept these dates." (harvardhouse)You are a good debater, anonymous,Thank you for your comments and your homework! Email me if you want to (From my website at the bottom of the article). I would be interested in your view of Buddhism re: debunking.
Metta...........eLet’s stick to the issues without analyzing and attempting to discredit using general statements like, “The proselytizer makes specious "bold" claims, then says, "prove me wrong!", okay? You are making motivational assumptions that simply are not true, and you wouldn’t know about as a fact anyway.You claim that the writers of the New Testament Gospels are obviously not eyewitnesses. Okay, lets look at that issue. Proof is different than evidence. I’ll agree that you can’t “prove” either of our claims here beyond a shadow of doubt. All we can do is look at the available evidence and weigh it. So let go of the idea that everything has to be “proven”. You have to look at the veracity of the evidence. The closer it is dated to the actual event it records, then the more accurate and reliable it is considered by every historian.
I don’t think it is “obvious they could not be eyewitnesses”. In fact, based on the dating of the Gospels as early as A.D. 50 only about 17 years after Christ’s crucifixion, they are the closest any historian can get to primary documents for history of the time. There is little doubt that the authors would still be alive so soon after Jesus died. First, there are claims in the New Testament by the authors themselves in Luke 1:1-3; 2Peter1;16; 1John 1:3; Acts 2:22; John 19:35; Luke 3:1; and Acts 26:24-26. So why should we believe them, you probably ask? One reason is because, these passage were written during the lifetimes of the authors involved in the accounts taking place as shown by the evidence. Of course there are some who claim that the Gospel of Mark was written at a later date, there are always skeptics. There are “liberal” scholars arguing for your later date. However, John A.T. Robertson, no conservative himself, has come to the conclusion in his book “Redating the New Testament” that the entire New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Also, William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists is convinced the same before A.D. 80. Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, it is strong evidence that the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers who wrote the New Testament fall between A.D. 25 and A.D. 80.
There is also external evidence of the New Testament’s authenticity and accuracy. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) uses Scripture as a reliable and authentic source. Non-Christian confirmations include Tacitus, a first-century Roman, considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, verifies Christianity existed and that Christ was crucified in Tacitus, A, 15.44. Suetonius, a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian confirms the report in Acts 18:2 that Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome in A.D. 49. Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee, makes many statements in his works “Jewish Wars” and “Antiquities of the Jews” that verify events discussed in the New Testament as happening during the time the New Testament was written. Others are writings of Thallus in A.D. 52, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, the Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, a Syrian mara Bar-Serapion. The list is long.
The New Testament manuscripts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity. All total there were 24,970+ manuscript copies in various languages during the time. No other historical document of the time has had its content so accurately preserved.
Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived, was a skeptic of earlier dating. To prove his conviction, he did a topographical study of Asia Minor and was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. He completely reversed his convictions about the later dating of the New Testament writings when he realized how his study verified the earlier dating of the New Testament.
I have more, but this comment is getting too long. If you examine the evidence with an unbiased attitude, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of earlier dating due to the credibility of the documentation.
Whew! Now I remember why I'm a Buddhist! It's okay Jim, it took me 18 years to get over my childhood indoctrination into Catholicism. Some things the Buddha reportedly said that attracted me right away that I don't think are said in many other religions: "Don't believe anything I say unless you can prove it true for yourself." "There is no soul." "Life is suffering." "Only use the Buddhist religion as a raft until you become free, then, as you would abandon a raft after crossing the river instead of carrying it on your back, you can abandon Buddhism." Beautifully correct, all four. Liberating. And the greatest thing is that the Buddha was just an ordinary man who became perfected through his own efforts, showing us that we can do the same.Raymond, I hope by "indoctrination" you aren't referring to a factless and biased point of view. it probably took you 18 years because Christianity is based on pretty solid ground compared to every other religion, though Catholicism does have its issues. I'm not Catholic. What I tried to show here is that I am not blindly following a faith. It is well researched and considered. A careful look at historical facts, the timeless reliability of Biblical principles, and the experience of the power of that faith in my own life is a pretty strong testimony to the fact that my faith is well founded, and can withstand a challenge.One thing that puzzles me about Buddism is the law of karma. Have you seen the TV show "My Name Is Earl"? It seems we would feel the burden of trying to make amends for all our bad actions, kind of like Earl does. That can be a heavy weight seeing as everyone makes a lot of mistakes in life. One thing it seems to ignore is that it is impossible to negate the impact of evil actions by doing good. We will always be paying for bad actions from a previous life. Then, in this life we must spend a lot of energy limiting our misdeeds and resign ourselves to the negative consequences when we do fail. It is an endless cycle. In Christianity, the law of karma can be counteracted by grace. If karma were our final judge, we'd be in for some bad lives, in an endless cycle. However, with grace, we are letting Jesus take on the burden since He paid for our wrong doing and by accepting the gift of grace, we are saved from endless lives of paying for mistakes.This seems to be the explanation for why bad things happen to people in Buddism, placing the blame on the victim for doing bad things in a previous life, so they deserved what they got. What role does the victimization of a woman when she is raped? Who should be held responsible the rapist or the raped? What role does karma play in the plight of the poor? The oppressed?I'm not trying to debate you, just posing the questions. You don't have to answer them, just consider them.Hi Jim, what I mean regarding indoctrination is when a child has no avenue to alternative views and believes what their parents tell them, maybe that they should go bomb someone! It‘s impossible for a very young child to question their authority figures, and they pretty much believe what they are told. If what they are told is false, which is usually the case, then the psychological damage is severe when they find out there is no Santa Claus!
Regarding Kamma and rebirth, these are difficult concepts, and without a good background in meditation that opens the mind to transcendent insight, difficult to grasp. Kamma explains why some babies are born into pain and others pleasure. It means that we reap what we sow, so to speak. It is based on what Christians might call a pre existing soul. What you do, and especially your delusions, exacerbate your next moment, and next lifetime, where grace seems to be based on how God is feeling that day when the baby is born! J Anyway, we can do much about our kamma before we are reborn, but I‘m not sure how baby can do much about grace! Anyway, I will try to make it as simple as I can for you to follow. Since I assume that you have never meditated or tried silent prayer (no thoughts, even about your relationship to Jesus!) many of these concepts will seem strange to you, but forge ahead anyway! Understanding your own mind is the beginning of really understanding life at a gut level. Meditation cuts through to the truth regardless of past indoctrinations, (Because you will believe what your culture teaches you. When I was a monk in Thailand, villagers would tell me all the time of the visions that they had of the Buddha, but not one ever had a vision of Christ! Interesting.) And that’s what makes meditation very special and trustworthy. It‘s a constancy within the 4,000 religions on this planet. It‘s here and now. Anyway, let me know what questions the following brings up. This is only kind of kamma 101, but it will be a good introduction for you. Actually many of Buddhist and Christian teachings come pretty close, but Buddhism is much clearer and without so much reliance on belief. (Kamma is the Pali pronunciation of Karma, which is Sanskrit. The original language of the Buddha is Pali. Three months after the Buddha died, 500 of his enlightened monks met in a cave and memorized all of his teachings and chanted them in Pali. The same chants are what you will hear in any Theravada Buddhist country, i.e. Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc, unchanged for over 2500 years.
Jesus was onto something when he said that we should turn the other cheek; the statement is profound. Although it seems foolish to be a doormat when faced with evil, Jesus claimed otherwise, and the reason He did so is because He understood Karma. Karma is simply a boomeranging of our own hatred. But when karma hits us in the form of pain or bad luck, what do we do? We fight back, and this is where we go terribly wrong.
We create karma by causing pain to others. It can be harsh karma if we cause severe pain and harm to our adversary from a position of revenge and glee, or mild karma if we defend ourselves with no malice intended. Either way, the karma we make will come back on us, if not in this lifetime, in subsequent lifetimes. The important thing is not when or how this old karma will hit us, but how we react to it.
If we accept the karma without hitting back — if we simply accept what happens as bad karma, then the karma is paid and we are a little freer. But it’s a different story for the one delivering the karma, because the person harming us is creating karma for themselves, and that will have to be answered to at some later date. So by not reacting, we become freer. Our adversary, by harming us, becomes indebted. Jesus knew this, and this is why He suggested we turn the other cheek. When bad luck hits, it’s actually good luck, and when we revengefully get back at our adversaries, it’s actually bad luck.
When old karma hits, good or bad, and perhaps from other lifetimes, it can do so powerfully and in unusual ways. Sometimes it seems delightful when it hits, but soon becomes disastrous. Other times, it begins as a great misfortune, yet guides one toward an undeniable destiny. Karma is the part of us that continues after death and the fundamental underlying consciousness containing all of our past conditioning. Karma manifests in the subconscious as daydreams or urges, prompting us to act in positive or negative ways depending on the type of desires that register in our minds.
It could be described as the fantasies that arise and which we are compelled to play out; our goals and ambitions. One person’s karma will create fantasies of helping people, another, fantasies of harming people; it all depends on his or her past conditioning. Since karma is the results of our actions, and our actions result from our underlying karma, a cycle develops, unless it’s disrupted. Disrupting it, however, involves the de-conditioning of lifetimes of habits, and this takes courage. Meditation can help us here, because meditation decreases this subconscious karma by actually changing our patterns of action.
Some say that we come from an egg and a sperm, but according to Buddhist teachers, considering karma and rebirth, human beings result from ignorance and craving. Who could comprehend such a thing? The Buddha also rejected the Hindu doctrine of a soul, or Atman. He couldn’t see it. He considered the soul to be merely an extension of the ego invented by the Aryan Hindu priests after they gutted the real understandings of the Indus Valley Civilization and invented a religion that would keep the priests in power (We understand and you don’t, so pay us if you want to get to Brahma heaven).
This ego or "I" thought, the Buddha contended, was the root of our confusion, or delusions, and therefore our underlying discontent, like Lamont Cranston, the radio legend and alter-ego of "The Shadow" — that could ‘cloud men’s minds so no one could see him," who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men.
The Buddha was not an atheist, nor a nihilist, and definitely not prone to mysticism. But his enlightenment did reveal the entire history of his past lives, and although this indicates a continuity through time, it was not experienced by the same person, for each past personality had different physical and mental constituents. The thread or connection between these numerous past lives was his karmic tendencies, which not only weaved through each of his lives, but also were the reasons that a physical existence came into being.
We are composed of a body and mind, with the maintenance of this body depending upon the mind and its ability to become conscious. The type of consciousness that comes up depends on our past karma, which in a way colors the pure mind and distorts Reality. The physical brain has the capacity to reason, which provides food and shelter for the body, but also causes a craving for pleasurable experiences, and a disdain for unpleasant ones. In this way, the karma of the mind remembers, and creates an "I" thought or ego, which personifies and strengthens our will to acquire or reject. Keep in mind, however, that this "I" thought is merely a construction of the mind, and does not have a reality in and of itself. The body, the mind, and karma all occur within existence and are therefore unreal. Reality, which some call God, Pure Mind, etc., does not exist in time and is unchanging, while existence changes constantly. If existence didn’t change, it couldn’t be experienced, because experience is based on change. Reality creates consciousness continuously, every moment, and in every element and atom.
The "I" thought, however, sees itself as the Reality, forgetting that it is a mere construction of existence, and when this forgetting takes place, the mind becomes ignorant of Reality. This ignorance then becomes the basis of our angst, because obsessively clinging to our "I" thought is the basis of our discontent. At the time of death, this ignorance won’t allow us to let go of the illusion, and the clinging becomes so compulsive and powerful that the illusion actually survives death.
When we physically die, the life force leaves the body. The life-continuum consciousness is aware that death is imminent and begins opening the chakras in order to allow the consciousness to leave the body. The dying person, at this time, may panic for a moment because they are aware that death is imminent. Shortly after this, his or her eyes will become glazed and breathing will become shallow, and the physical features will begin to appear lifeless with the blood vacating the extremities. Inside, however, the spiritual experience is alive and well.
As the spiritual consciousness moves upwards through the energy centers, Reality might be touched for a moment and the dying individual may no longer experience pain, and their breathing might stop. This could be when the person becomes spiritually sensitive and might actually "wake up" and seem normal for a few minutes, perhaps as long as an hour. This is where they sometimes make predictions regarding their loved ones or relate visions that they have just had regarding the next world, all a result of touching Reality without the encumbrances of a tainted consciousness.
At the moment of actual death when no resuscitation is possible, several different consciousnesses arise, each fractions of a second in duration. These are what propel us into the next lifetime. These consciousnesses are part of mind and exist in what could be called the spiritual world. Once a determination is made that the body has irreversibly died, a death consciousness arises, followed by a consciousness that retains the record of all previous lives, including the one just passed. A rebirth linking consciousness then shuffles us into the next lifetime, followed by the life-continuum consciousness that remains with us during the entire next lifetime until the time of death again.
All of these consciousnesses retain the psychic memory of our past actions, which, in turn, determine our characteristics — whether we’re loving or hateful; greedy or giving; insightful or deluded. Just as the same person who wakes up in the morning is the one that retired, the same characteristics will be the underlying motivation of the new body, arising from the life-continuum consciousness as karma, and shaping our desires and subsequent thoughts and actions. This endless transference of traits and volitions is a continuous cycle that only extreme measures can interrupt. If it is not interrupted, then rebirth will occur in physical as well as immaterial and non-material realms in both this universe and others.
This cycle results when our "I" thought, or our ignorance, creates within us a powerful desire for itself to continue at the moment before death. The lifetime belief in a "self" or "I" thought, and clinging to it at the time of death, spiritually creates the requirement of a new body — to satisfy and house this powerful urge, regardless that the entire thing is based on a false premise — one of ignorance.
Ridding ourselves of this false premise can end this cycle of births and deaths, but the idea of "I am" is a difficult concept from which to walk away. We can understand the problem intellectually and psychologically, but the one who is attempting to drop the notion is the very entity that must be dropped. Therefore, the problem can never be solved intellectually. Only intuitive insight and intuitive breakthroughs can spiritually solve it.
This ignorance of the "I" thought’s unreality causes our rebirth, and rebirth causes death, simply because what is born must subsequently die, even in the heaven realms. It is the Buddha’s contention that birth is the cause of suffering, not only the pain and worry connected to illness and the ever-present awareness of impeding old age and death, but the trials and tribulations of earning a living, and securing ourselves against the many dangers of existence.
Karma can be imagined as a psychic record of all our desires that impels us toward the activities and actions that we are inclined to perform. Karma colors each consciousness that is created moment-by-moment by mind, and we act accordingly. We establish habit patterns of greed or giving, hatred or compassion, ignorance or wisdom based on these activities. These habit patterns are what strengthens the karma, which continues and transfers lifetime after lifetime similar to the Hindu Atman or the Christian soul. Karma is unique compared to an Atman and a soul, however, because karma is not personal. Karma is only tendencies — causes and effects — developed over countless existences, similar to habits that we form in daily life. We are reborn to the same habits but not the same body or identity.
In order to change our habits, we must be presented with compelling reasons to change them, and we must know how to change them. The Buddha once said that if someone isn’t aware that they are ill, how could you convince them to take medicine. If, however, someone whom they trust points out the subtle symptoms of their illness that had previously gone unnoticed by the ill person, then that person might be persuaded to take medicine.
The Buddha’s Four Noble Truths gave us the reason to change our habits — our habits cause anxiety. Our wanting things, and then our subsequent difficulties in acquiring, and then holding on to them, creates angst, not only in our present existence, but beyond as well. The Truths then go on to claim that a way exists to change these habits and escape the anxiety, which is an approach to life that does not involve religious beliefs, but rather self-inquiry.
According to the Buddha, within existence and experience, we are simply products of cause and effect without an underlying soul or "self" that stands behind our activities. Only a thought thinks, only an eye sees, and only an organ functions. One thing leads to another, desire to greed, insight to wisdom, and compassion to love, and conversely, lack of desire leads to non-greed, lack of insight to ignorance, and lack of compassion to hatred.
The broader picture of this cause and effect involves lifetimes. The Buddha laid out twelve interconnected causes and effects, which perpetuate endless rebirths: When we desire something, the effect of that emotion causes craving for the desired object. This craving creates a "self" or "I" thought to arise, which is the one who will act toward acquiring the desired object. The effect of the arising of this "I" thought is the action that is taken, or karma, and the ultimate effect of karma is rebirth.
Our karma, during rebirth-linking consciousness, produces volitional formations that take on physical form — the body and mind. The body and mind then develop the six senses of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, tactile sensations, and the brain. These senses, in turn, experience contact with the world. Contact with the world creates feelings toward the contacts — pleasurable, not pleasurable or neutral, which compel the body and mind to either desire, reject or take no action toward the contact. If the contact is pleasurable, a desire to repeat the experience results and a craving for the object is the consequence. This craving then leads to the idea of an "I" thought chasing after the desired object, and we are full circle.
Breaking this twelve-step cycle at any point will end it; this is the goal, and in one way or another is the goal of all religious practices, but it is most difficult to accomplish. It requires action at a spiritual level that is enormously mysterious to most people. Attempting to break the cycle at the intellectual level; for example, reasoning and thinking about it, is fruitless. Logically attempting to work it out will only guarantee that it will continue at a subtle level, just under the radar of the brain. The "I" thought is a clever chameleon that can disguise itself in many spiritual-appearing ways, while the twelve-step cycle merrily rolls along.
Only meditation or deep self-inquiry can penetrate into this cycle. Meditation can touch our life-continuum consciousness while the body is still alive, and if one can remain in the life-continuum consciousness (a part of mind), by not allowing thoughts, emotions, or sense contacts to disturb it, then the rebirth- linking consciousness can be modified. This either changes the circumstances of rebirth when born into a physical body, or entirely eliminates the requirement of rebirth.
Meditation therefore, either concentration or insight practice, is the key to altering not only one’s present lifetime, but subsequent lifetimes as well. One can also cut the twelve-step chain by stopping at an initial contact with the senses before a feeling arises regarding the contact. This is accomplished with insight meditation, where the mind is not allowed to go beyond contacting an object. It negates the subsequent feeling about the object that would normally develop and the craving or aversion that would then result. Therefore, karma never arises because an action is not required.
Until we cut this twelve-linked chain at some point, we will continue to cycle around cause and effect. All things are temporary that move through this cycle of existence and experiencing, including our "I" thought. There is only the actions themselves, which are all interconnected with one thought following another. New thought arises out of the store of karma in our life-continuum consciousness, and unless we can either ignore the desires that these thoughts create, or eliminate the thoughts completely while in meditation to break the cycle, we will continue with our same habits. Despite the rare insight that occurs spontaneously from our deeper consciousness, we become trapped in a world of cause and effect no different from a child that cannot find its way out of a house of horrors at the carnival.
When we, however, finally transcend this "I" thought, or our false idea of "self"’ the mind becomes empty — pure and uncolored. Once this void is experienced, there can no longer be a clinging to the "I" thought, and this effectively breaks the chain. Then, when the chain is broken, the Buddha proclaims that Nibbana, which is the ultimate eternal joy, replaces the false idea of "self," and one is liberated.Interesting. I don't know much about the theology of Buddhism, but you certainly gave me a glimpse. It is not quite right to make the assumption that Christians don't "meditate". The Christian form of meditation is prayer. We are instructed by the Bible to pray without ceasing. That means we remain conscious of our relationship with God throughout the day and night. However, we take the time daily to have a "quiet time" or "devotional" where we pray in silence and have intimate time with God. This is when He speaks to us and instructs us. The proper way to do this is to have a conversation with God by reading Scripture and then praying. God talks to us through the Bible, and we talk to Him in prayer.
How do I know Jesus is God, versus following Buddhism? In one of Jesus’ many debates with religious leaders, Jesus made a statement that put his life in jeopardy. This one statement by Jesus would send his opponents into a rage of anger and they would seek to stone him to death. He simply utters the divine name of God given to Moses. It was in the book of Moses that we read about Moses having a crisis of confidence. He wants to know the name of God so that he can have credibility as God's chosen leader. God responds to Moses saying, "This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14). It communicated that God is the eternal, timeless Creator of everything. This name is so sacred to Jews that they seldom utter it. Jesus not only speaks this name, but uses it to refer to himself! This could be reason to put him to death according to the law. (Leviticus 24:16) Jesus eluded them and was not stoned and this scene was repeated multiple times. This is a claim unique to Jesus. If Jesus is who he claims to be, then all others are trying to ultimately find him. Buddha acknowledged that he was merely a man seeking enlightenment.
Jesus also claims the power to be able to forgive sin. He demonstrated it on many occasions during his ministry. Buddha was powerless to negate the effects of bad karma for him or others.
Jesus performed miracles and had the power to delegate that power to his followers. The fact that he performed miracles is not disputed by his adversaries. Rather, they argued that he did so through satanic power.
Jesus had and has the ability to guarantee salvation from sin and its consequences. Buddhists are resigned to an endless cycle of rebirth in which their future lives are determined by good and bad karma. This is because achieving perfection is impossible as a human being. When Jesus was on the cross, he forgave a criminal on the cross next to him and assured him of salvation. Under Buddhism, that criminal's bad karma would ensure another negative birth.
Buddhists regard Jesus as an enlightened teacher. Muslims acknowledge Jesus as one of Islam's greatest prophets. Many religions acknowledge Jesus as a great teacher.
Your assumption that everyone is indoctrinated into their faith is what I call the "genetic fallacy". This occurs when someone confuses the origin of an idea with the reasons for believing the idea and faults the idea because of where it came from (i.e. my parents taught it to me) and not because of the adequacy of the grounds for maintaining the belief (i.e. reliability of the Bible, historical evidence, personal experience of God). We need to keep separate a psychological or originating “why” from a rational “why”. Just because your parents taught you that one plus one equals two and not three does not mean that it is not true.In any case, thanks for your explanation.You are quite welcome, I would be glad to expound on any features of Buddhism that you may find interesting. I'm afraid, however, that all of your biblcal references and references to Jesus and what he said and did, to me, are impossible to substantiate, and therefore I cannot believe them. They kind of go in one ear and out the other, kind of like reading a fiction novel. I have been reading all the points and counterpoints with "Anonymous" (I wish I knew who she was as well. or he!) and I side with "Anonymous." I can believe what I experience in meditation, which to me is real and requires no substantiation, but to believe what someone else tells me, well, I'm not cut out that way, either religiously or politically! But as I said previously, be happy with your religion, but please respect others because they are probably as, if not more, relevant than yours. Respect and humility, that's the key to a better world.
Best...........ebut to believe what someone else tells me, well, I'm not cut out that way, either religiously or politicallyThis is one thing we have in common, as well as the value of respect and humility. You have more faith than I do to hold strong beliefs without substantiation. I don't mind being challenged, and don't believe it is disrespectful to explore challenges. It reinforces my faith and helps us all explore our own faiths. If the challenges make you uncomfortable, I apologize. I learn from dialog with people with whom I disagree. Thanks for your dialog, it has been educational.Now lets get back to writing articles! I wish you the best.Same here Jim, Best of luck to you.
Metta (lovingkindness)..............e“Let’s stick to the issues without analyzing and attempting to discredit using general statements like, The proselytizer makes specious "bold" claims, then says, "prove me wrong!", okay? You are making motivational assumptions that simply are not true, and you wouldn’t know about as a fact anyway.”You might be referring to my objection to Lee Strobel’s failed journalism, where I speculate why he produced “The Case for Christ,” without actually proving anything? I offered my suggestion that he did it for conjugal reasons, because he kept bringing his wife into the story. This was more of a love story, how Lee got his wife back by becoming a believer, himself. If you didn’t get that in Case for Christ, then you probably didn’t watch it. Throughout the video presentation, Strobel is showing us the distance between he and his wife. Then, he professes belief, she's happy again, and they live happily eve after. But, that doesn't do me any good, because he didn't prove anything.“You claim that the writers of the New Testament Gospels are obviously not eyewitnesses.”Right. They weren’t. Especially Mark and Luke, who were not present during the events those gospels purport to describe.“Okay, lets look at that issue. Proof is different than evidence. I’ll agree that you can’t “prove” either of our claims here beyond a shadow of doubt. All we can do is look at the available evidence and weigh it.”Yes, available evidence (or, more appropriately, the lack thereof) is exactly how scholars derive Gospel dates that range from as low as 60 AD to 100 AD. Your argument is that the story becomes more accurate as it gets closer to the actual date of Christ. But, these were not biographies, and only loosely historical. The Gospels are not meant to give history, but are meant to support a religious doctrine. That’s a huge difference. These were not the "Life and Times of Jesus," they were mytho-poetic liturgy, from beginning to end, designed with a purpose. Also, there were many more than four gospels. Gospel writing was a phenomenon of the inter-testamental period. Only four, however, chosen probably because they exhibited some commonalities (and many divergences!), were canonized.“ So let go of the idea that everything has to be “proven”. You have to look at the veracity of the evidence. The closer it is dated to the actual event it records, then the more accurate and reliable it is considered by every historian.”That is a false assumption. We have evidence that the Gospels are late constructions, late in the sense that a whole generation had passed before they were written. The authors deprive us of proof that any miracle, whether virgin birth or bringing dead people back to life actually happened. Think about the virgin birth: It’s 2,000 years ago. 30 years after a 30-year old man from another land died, you interview people, and they tell you that the man’s mother was a virgin when she conceived. And, somehow the story you get is that the woman talked to God before having the baby, and God told her he was the baby’s father. Here’s where we draw the line between fact and blind faith.I realize you want very much for people to share your belief, and your reply goes on at length, but your reasoning becomes rather contorted, and cites the very documents whose historic validity is in question, so there is no point.Friend, we must learn there is a chasm between religion, which is not fact, and factual science and history, which should not be subjected to the dictates of religious dogma. The implications were serious to science in the time of Galileo, and they are equally serious in this age, when you have Presidents linking foreign policy with their personal religious beliefs, and are government can selectively endorse fake science (intelligent design), while depriving good science (stem cell research).G,It is unfortunate you can't address the issue with your own historical data. It is very interesting to me how you can believe what you believe so strongly with no defense beyond a strong conviction.Jim,
Lots of Googling in your last post.You cite Josephus, but you obviously have obviously not actually read Josephus. I have two 19th Century copies of the Jewish Wars and Antiquities, and I forced myself to read them two summers ago. An onerous task, I assure you. Josephus does not mention Jesus "in many places," as you claim. Two occurrences of the name Jesus appear in Josephus' work, and one is considered forged by medieval Serbian monks who apparently felt the need to fudge the work, so as to validate their religion. This was unfortunate enough, but even more so that the passage in question is perpetuated in spite of its illegitimacy. Another passage does mention Jesus, whose brother was James. Josephus, by the way, recorded many things as if he were standing there watching, but which it's now known he was not eye witness to.And, though you persist in repeating that the authors to which the gospels are attributed were eye witnesses, neither Luke nor Mark could possibly have been. Both were gentiles. Mark was a consort to Paul, who himself never met the flesh and blood Jesus. Luke came down from Rome to document the stories he had heard about the then late Jesus.As for Tacitus, who cares if he considered the gospels as authentic history? The gospels were contemporaneous with Tacitus, which is to say, late.
as for the copies of the New Testament, again, who cares? The mere act of copying a legend over and over again doesn't validate the legend.The earliest recorded words of Jesus may come from a more unlikely source, the uncanonized gospel known as the Secret Teachings of Jesus to Thomas Didymus, otherwise known as the Apocalypse of Thomas. These 114 sayings resemble Confucian sayings, and are quite possibly actual Jesus sayings.
I have a knack for seeing through these religious apologetics that merely parrot Wikipedia and other apologist websites. Some day I hope to engage with someone who has actually read the texts he is citing.I assure you I haven't googled to get the information I've posted. I hold a Masters in Religious Studies and I have scores of reference material at my disposal.If you want to discuss this with someone who has more authority on this topic, there is a man you would probably like to meet. His name is Gary R. Habermas, author of "The Historical Jesus". There are many others, but he is a good one for this topic. Why don't you continue this discussion with him?I don't believe you are really looking for the truth, based on my experience in this discussion. You are basing your arguments on less reliable historical data than what you are disputing and trying to prove your point by exception and baseless assumptions. It makes no sense. You have chosen to believe what you believe, that is fine. You appear to have thought it through. I have chosen to believe what I believe, and have demonstrated it is based on a sound foundation based on my experience and study. My original post was to defend against the accusation that the Christian faith is blind. I've done that. I don't need to waste my time."We know exactly what was written, word for word in the original."Not really. The originals do not exist, except in sparse fragments. There are copies of Old Testament books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they differ, one from the other, a little. Now, there are numerous extant modern translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls into English, and they vary, one from the other, substantially. And their interpretations differ, one from the other, wildly.-GG,I was speaking of the New Testament, though we could discuss the Old Testament as well, that is not what I was referring to in your quote of my comment. The originals are not available because we are talking close to two thousand years later. The content was faithfully copied, with no differences even worth noting. That is an incredible testimony to the accuracy of what we know today. Translations are quite a different issue than copies. Varied interpretations don't invalidate or change the message. It is what it is whether you interpret it correctly or not.Why do you insist on being anonymous?Why do you care? Are you going to wreak vengeance on non-believers, write a scathing anti so-and-so article, subject the non-believer to ridicule among your sympathizers? Let it go, Jim, let it go, identity isn't that important to the facts of the subject.-GPosting anonymously means you have no accountability for what you say. It means you have something to hide. In the Internet world, it is easy to hide behind a keyboard and say whatever you want, but since you are hiding something it reflects on your credibility. I don't really care who you are, and I have no need to know who you are, except that you are willing to put your name on what you write. If you aren't I can't take you as seriously.Hey Jim and "Anony", check out my article posted just now, "Light Up Your Life." Maybe there can be some agreement on it - I promise that there are no scriptures quoted, disclaimers or debunking!
Best............e
What's important Jim is that you are happy with your religion and that you accept other religions as being as relevant as yours. That is the true Christian way, loving your neighbors as yourself, I would think.
Thanks for the great comment.......eThanks Raymond. Not that I think of it as my "religion". I see it as more a relationship. I respect your beliefs, even though we may disagree. The true Christian way is to love your neighbor as yourself, on that point you are correct. In fact Jesus said it is the greatest commandment. You don't have to agree or consider every other belief as valid to love those with whom you disagree. I enjoy dialog on these topics, and appreciate hearing the reasons why people believe what they believe. Thanks for your dialog.
God lives outside of time and created the creation and placed the created within it...FAITH. FAITH is what you are looking for. Count it a mystery and the God in you will answer. Faith counts it to be so. Our ways and thinking can never match or approach HimThat is very, very wise. This man gets it.-G
Hello Dr. Clarence Rucker, JR. from MI! (I’m just e)! Thank you so much for your comment. I am happy that you have found your faith. I found mine when I was a Catholic, actually born and raised a Catholic by a very devout mother (It was a MORTAL SIN to even enter a protestant church in those days, as she reminded me many times). Jesus became my psychotic alter ego and I spoke with Him all the time - I was hooked, so to speak. But when I reached the age of reason (17) I woke up one morning and my religion suddenly became a child’s religion - a fairy tale -and I was done; I saw for myself. But I do very much agree with you that life experience and thinking (all external from mind), cannot penetrate into refined consciousness (actually coming face to face with God in Christian terms). The Catholic saints St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila have written marvelous books on how to come face to face with God in this lifetime through silent prayer (meditation) and how this is the only thing that can really change your destiny in the next world. Reading and talking about God just doesn‘t cut it - too much self - ego involved. But alas, meditation is hard work, and painful too as the ego dissolves so that God can enter, so few will even try.
Thank you for the response, your good Buddhist friend..............e (just ...e!)
I was fascinated when 4 independent quantum physicists determined, by first retracing the stars back to the birth of Christ , then they agreed for a star to have been that special, that brilliant ... which has never happened before or since, equals out mathematically to covering the entire state of Texas. two feet deep with silver dollar coins and hiding one gold coin then while blindfolded you reach down and find the gold coin ...first try. Science is another wonderful gift from God
Hi Michael, thanks for commenting. I appreciate that very much. To get an independent perspective on the whole bible, Christ thing, Christians need to key in such things as "Christ's birth date, and Who Wrote the Bible, etc. Sometimes we read only what we want to believe and turn our backs on other information without even considering it. It's a power and loss of power thing. We hang on to our beliefs because it is exactly that - a controlling, power thing. That's why some religions proselytize heavily. Proselytizing never comes from a loving place, but from a place of power thirst. Proselytizing is nothing more than a salesperson who has to fight all the objections to make the sale - and he or she must win - regardless if they they have to lie or not. It's very aggressive and hateful, actually. Buddhism, arguably the most peaceful religion historically, never proselytizes. We put info out, but never twist arms because we have found that until people reach a certain level of spiritual and intellectual capacity, which is beyond simple, blind beliefs that can be anything from Christianity to Islam and based wholly on what is read or what a preacher tells us or what we dream of, they won't understand Buddhism. I can see this clearly every day.
It took the church 300 (That's three hundred - poor Galileo!) years to get over the fact that the earth wasn't the center of the universe! This is "a classic example of why religious entities should not have power to enforce their beliefs." (Christians should Key in: Galileo VS the church.) That was quite a blow to the Church's dogma and entrenched beliefs, lies that people were willing to die for, dogma and beliefs that proved to be false. Christians should keep an open mind if they can. Otherwise they might be irreparably psychologically harmed when the truth comes out, and it slowly but surely is. Meditation is safer - no beliefs, no indoctrinations, just a simple observance of mind until mind disappears and "The christian" gets out of the way, then a Christian may really catch a glimpse of God (in Christian terms) for him or herself, instead of just reading and talking about it.
Thanks again, Best..............e
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.