Why are you in (that) religion?

[bigstickbonzo]

nothing wrong with hot, sloppy, steamy sex..

when properly motivated.

[IGG]

Nothing wrong with reading about philosophy and world religions. It helps us to better understand where others are coming from. I realized after reading and studying for years that there are some "Universal" truths that thread their way through all world religions and faiths. I also realized that I needed to look inward for salvation and that while I was studying philosphy and faith, I was becoming stagnant. I wasn't putting any of my beliefs into action. Also, I had to be careful that I was not taking someone else's beliefs and making them my own. We should use others ideas to better understand our own personal truths, weigh them against what we think and feel. I found myself agreeing with a portion of what I read, but I could not fully agree 100 % with everything I read, who can ? I found I was wasting my time, the answers were all around me, but most importantly....IN me. So I learn something new everyday and try to do some good along the way....If you walk, you're gonna get there. I'm just a pilgrim.

Post of the thread really, but that passage sums it up for me.... you can't possibly make a decision of spiritual nature without first understanding where the parameters lie.

Then you come to the realization that there are no parameters....only enlightenment.

[Bilbo the Rover]

Post of the thread really, but that passage sums it up for me.... you can't possibly make a decision of spiritual nature without first understanding where the parameters lie.

Then you come to the realization that there are no parameters....only enlightenment.

Thank you my Arizona brother !

[ninelives]

Nothing wrong with reading about philosophy and world religions. It helps us to better understand where others are coming from. I realized after reading and studying for years that there are some "Universal" truths that thread their way through all world religions and faiths. I also realized that I needed to look inward for salvation and that while I was studying philosphy and faith, I was becoming stagnant. I wasn't putting any of my beliefs into action. Also, I had to be careful that I was not taking someone else's beliefs and making them my own. We should use others ideas to better understand our own personal truths, weigh them against what we think and feel. I found myself agreeing with a portion of what I read, but I could not fully agree 100 % with everything I read, who can ? I found I was wasting my time, the answers were all around me, but most importantly....IN me. So I learn something new everyday and try to do some good along the way....If you walk, you're gonna get there. I'm just a pilgrim.

So well stated as always dear Bilbo. I found when I was in college and I took a course on various Eastern religions, I discovered while I couldn't relate to them as a whole, certain aspects of them I did. I sort of came to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't one set of beliefs you have to follow or define yourself by, if that makes any sense.

[Bilbo the Rover]

So well stated as always dear Bilbo. I found when I was in college and I took a course on various Eastern religions, I discovered while I couldn't relate to them as a whole, certain aspects of them I did. I sort of came to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't one set of beliefs you have to follow or define yourself by, if that makes any sense.

Thanks 9, very true... I never wanted to be one of those cats that takes a little from this path and a little from this other, puts them in a pot and applies them to their life ONLY if they are safe and easy, with as little work required as possible. I didn't start understanding what I was after until I was honest with myself, and that, is not easy. I'm the first person to admit that I am flawed, that I'm a bastard at times, that my temper or lust get's the best of me...but what I have now is the strength to pick myself up after I've slipped, and keep on truckin'. Some folks feel that once you've become 'enlightened' or 'saved' it's all over, you're done....wrong (for me) that's when the real work begins, that's when the fight gets bloody.

[ninelives]

Thanks 9, very true... I never wanted to be one of those cats that takes a little from this path and a little from this other, puts them in a pot and applies them to their life ONLY if they are safe and easy, with as little work required as possible. I didn't start understanding what I was after until I was honest with myself, and that, is not easy. I'm the first person to admit that I am flawed, that I'm a bastard at times, that my temper or lust get's the best of me...but what I have now is the strength to pick myself up after I've slipped, and keep on truckin'. Some folks feel that once you've become 'enlightened' or 'saved' it's all over, you're done....wrong (for me) that's when the real work begins, that's when the fight gets bloody.

Sadly a lot of people do that with religion - take what they choose and apply it in essence, to absolve themselves or excuse their actions. I think the first step in making any changes to one's life is admitting your "mistakes", flaws, poor choices etc. For me, when I am truly honest with myself, I find I can say "okay, so this isn't right and what can I do now to fix it." And that has nothin' to do with enlightenment or feeling saved etc.

[Dzldoc]

"Never judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes"

( That way he's a long way off and bare foot )

[Hermit]

I certainly understand what you're getting at with not really seeing through someone's personality. Also, won't everyone come to a different conclusion on their idea of what a true self is? How can you actually get at your true self? Wouldn't this assume that our self is always the same? I guess that would depend on your ideas of other people.

Or maybe I've been reading too much philosophy?

Afiac, reading philosophy is all well and good.

You've asked some wonderful questions, Jarlaxle!

I'll do my best to provide a mostly-coherent response.

"How can you actually get at your true self?"

To discover True Self one merely need look for the individual self. Where is the individual self located and what are its fundamental attributes? Is it the body itself? Is it located inside the body? If so, where in the body is it? If its not the body and its not in the body, then where is it? If this self-inquiry is undertaken in earnest it will inevitably led to the conclusion that the individual self has no inherent nature (ie, it doesn't actually exist unto itself). In the dawning of that realization, True Self.. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Itself.. is glimpsed.

"won't everyone come to a different conclusion on their idea of what a true self is?"

"Wouldn't this assume that our self is always the same?"

"I guess that would depend on your ideas of other people".

When one glimpses the realization that the individual self doesn't inherently exist, one also realizes that True Self.. Existence-Consciousness Itself.. is not subject to differences in individual "ideas", "assumptions", and "conclusions", all of which are merely aspects of the illusory individual self.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in True Self.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in Existence-Consciousness Itself.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in Emptiness-Awareness Itself.

^

Those are three ways of saying that 'the relative appears in the absolute'.

A loose analogy: the individual self is the movie; True Self is the movie screen. We identify with ourselves being the movie (titled "My Life") so much so that we completely fail to recognize that we are actually That on which the movie is appearing. We mistakenly identify ourselves with the relative reality (individual self; "me") and thus fail to recognize our True Nature is that of the absolute reality (True Self; Existence Itself;.. some might call it "God").

Our True Nature is that of Emptiness-Awareness/Existence Itself in which all things (including individual selves) appear and disappear. While appearances constantly come and go in Emptiness-Awareness, Emptiness-Awareness simply Is.. Always. We are That. And all this can be realized through first simply trying find the individual self.

Here comes the paradox.. by way of another analogy: The individual self is a drop of ocean water; True Self is the Ocean. The individual self is "not other than" True Self; it merely appears that way. The appearance of there being a difference between self and True Self is an illusion. Once that drop of ocean water drips back into Ocean, they are indistinguishable. Both "drop" and "Ocean" have the same fundamental attribute: Emptiness. The individual self has no inherent nature.. ie, it is Emptiness.. and True Self has no inherent nature.. ie, it is Emptiness. The only "difference" is with regard to ignorance vs awareness. True Self is always fully aware (it must be, its Awareness Itself). Individual self loses awareness of its True Self nature and thus is said to be unaware.. ignorant. When the individual self "remembers" or "realizes" it's True Self nature that realization is what is often referred to "enlightenment".. or "awakening from ignorance".

When we identify ourselves as being the movie "My Life", we get caught up in the storyline and we suffer. When we identify with being the screen upon which the movie is playing, there is no need to suffer. From the perspective of the screen, the movie is merely a display, and when the movie "My Life" is over, another movie will play. The screen is indifferent to what is being displayed on it. The movie screen does not suffer as a result of the storyline of the movie being displayed on it.

When we identify ourself as being the drop of ocean water, we think we are different than Ocean; we feel isolated from our source, and we suffer. We long to be reunited with Ocean (God), failing to recognize that all the while we are no different than Ocean; we are already That. When we realize our True Ocean Nature, we can enjoy having been temporarily splashed away from the Ocean, knowing that we are now, and always have been, Ocean. Upon having this realization one might well exclaim.. "I" is Ocean, hear me roar!

anyway..

[FuzzyMerkin]

I perceive this whole conversation to be hilarious.

Yup, but it's also a waste of time. Come to that - since there's no self, I'm not even here...

Hermit, I said what I wanted to say - and you'll twaddle on forever if people let you. We'll see what your words are worth in your future posts on other threads.

Omar Sharif, my lil gabber.

[Hermit]

Yup, but it's also a waste of time. Come to that - since there's no self, I'm not even here...

Hermit, I said what I wanted to say - and you'll twaddle on forever if people let you. We'll see what your words are worth in your future posts on other threads.

Omar Sharif, my lil gabber.

^^ says one drop of ocean water to the other drop of ocean water.

--

Since what I have to say is "of no interest to [you] what-so-ever"..

I guess there's no sense in me pointing out how your projections

will affect your perceptions of the relative "worth" of my words, eh?

Although you have "no interest what-so-ever" in what I have to say, you're

gonna monitor my posts, eh? How paradoxical this 'lack of interest' of yours.

Namaste, Fuzz.

[FuzzyMerkin]

^^ says one drop of ocean water to the other drop of ocean water.

--

Since what I have to say is "of no interest to [you] what-so-ever"..

I guess there's no sense in me pointing out how your projections

will affect your perceptions of the relative "worth" of my words, eh?

Although you have "no interest what-so-ever" in what I have to say, you're

gonna monitor my posts, eh? How paradoxical this 'lack of interest' of yours.

Namaste, Fuzz.

I have no interest in your pseudo-Buddhist jabbering but it'll be interesting to see how you go on about "generating love and compassion" in the future.

[Hermit]

I have no interest in your pseudo-Buddhist jabbering but it'll be interesting to see how you go on about "generating love and compassion" in the future.

Rather than concerning yourself with what might or might not happen in the future,

why not simply pay attention to.. be aware of.. what's happening right here and now?

Rather than worry about how I might or might not act in the future, why not

be aware of.. be open to.. and appreciate.. how I'm being right here and now?

Anyway..

By all means please do feel free to continue calling me

on my behavior and teasing me to your heart's content!

As you know, I appreciate a good jab. "pseudo-Buddhist jabbering".

Cheers!

[Jarlaxle 56]

Afiac, reading philosophy is all well and good.

You've asked some wonderful questions, Jarlaxle!

I'll do my best to provide a mostly-coherent response.

"How can you actually get at your true self?"

To discover True Self one merely need look for the individual self. Where is the individual self located and what are its fundamental attributes? Is it the body itself? Is it located inside the body? If so, where in the body is it? If its not the body and its not in the body, then where is it? If this self-inquiry is undertaken in earnest it will inevitably led to the conclusion that the individual self has no inherent nature (ie, it doesn't actually exist unto itself). In the dawning of that realization, True Self.. Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Itself.. is glimpsed.

I agree for sure. our brain is just made up of electric signals none of our other body parts contain this. You could say nothing we experience is our own, because of all the millions of outside influences, nothing is really done of our own free will.

When one glimpses the realization that the individual self doesn't inherently exist, one also realizes that True Self.. Existence-Consciousness Itself.. is not subject to differences in individual "ideas", "assumptions", and "conclusions", all of which are merely aspects of the illusory individual self.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in True Self.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in Existence-Consciousness Itself.

The individual self is an appearance that displays in Emptiness-Awareness Itself.

^

Those are three ways of saying that 'the relative appears in the absolute'.

A loose analogy: the individual self is the movie; True Self is the movie screen. We identify with ourselves being the movie (titled "My Life") so much so that we completely fail to recognize that we are actually That on which the movie is appearing. We mistakenly identify ourselves with the relative reality (individual self; "me") and thus fail to recognize our True Nature is that of the absolute reality (True Self; Existence Itself;.. some might call it "God").

I understand what you're saying, it makes my brain hurt a little bit when I try and visualize the concept though. This reminds me of one of theories of Carl Jung about the "collective unconscious". How this applies to what you're saying is that our natural instincts have to come from somwhere, ie: the movie screen in your analogy. And we are all inherently born with these.

Our True Nature is that of Emptiness-Awareness/Existence Itself in which all things (including individual selves) appear and disappear. While appearances constantly come and go in Emptiness-Awareness, Emptiness-Awareness simply Is.. Always. We are That. And all this can be realized through first simply trying find the individual self.

Here comes the paradox.. by way of another analogy: The individual self is a drop of ocean water; True Self is the Ocean. The individual self is "not other than" True Self; it merely appears that way. The appearance of there being a difference between self and True Self is an illusion. Once that drop of ocean water drips back into Ocean, they are indistinguishable. Both "drop" and "Ocean" have the same fundamental attribute: Emptiness. The individual self has no inherent nature.. ie, it is Emptiness.. and True Self has no inherent nature.. ie, it is Emptiness. The only "difference" is with regard to ignorance vs awareness. True Self is always fully aware (it must be, its Awareness Itself). Individual self loses awareness of its True Self nature and thus is said to be unaware.. ignorant. When the individual self "remembers" or "realizes" it's True Self nature that realization is what is often referred to "enlightenment".. or "awakening from ignorance".

So what you're really saying here is that the two are either connected or not connected but made of the same substance, correct? I disagree with the idea that both are empty however, as I mentioned I've been reading about the theories of psychologist Carl Jung. How can we be born with innate instincts like the want for companionship? Which is not a physical need. I understand the fact that it's no different from the individual self, and the fact that realizing this we can see our true self only a "movie screen" if you will, or we are a part of the ocean but detached. But you have to admit that there are some other properties all individual selves have, instead of complete emptiness.

from wikipedia:

"In his earlier writings, Jung called this aspect of the psyche the collective unconscious. He later changed the term to objective psyche. The objective psyche may be considered objective for two reasons: it is common to everyone; and it has a better sense of the self's ideal than the ego or conscious self does. It thus directs the self, via archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose. In this way, it moves the psyche toward individuation, or self-actualization."

When we identify ourselves as being the movie "My Life", we get caught up in the storyline and we suffer. When we identify with being the screen upon which the movie is playing, there is no need to suffer. From the perspective of the screen, the movie is merely a display, and when the movie "My Life" is over, another movie will play. The screen is indifferent to what is being displayed on it. The movie screen does not suffer as a result of the storyline of the movie being displayed on it.

When we identify ourself as being the drop of ocean water, we think we are different than Ocean; we feel isolated from our source, and we suffer. We long to be reunited with Ocean (God), failing to recognize that all the while we are no different than Ocean; we are already That. When we realize our True Ocean Nature, we can enjoy having been temporarily splashed away from the Ocean, knowing that we are now, and always have been, Ocean. Upon having this realization one might well exclaim.. "I" is Ocean, hear me roar!

I agree for sure, a lot of people get caught up in worrying about the past or the future. Worrying about pointless things that don't really matter. Personally I'm a much happier person after realizing this.

We barely remember what came before this precious moment,

Choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside...

This body holding me, reminding me that I am not alone in

This body makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion.- Tool, Parabol

[FuzzyMerkin]

Rather than concerning yourself with what might or might not happen in the future,

why not simply pay attention to.. be aware of.. what's happening right here and now?

Rather than worry about how I might or might not act in the future, why not

be aware of.. be open to.. and appreciate.. how I'm being right here and now?

Ah, come on - that'd be to easy now surely? Of course you're acting nicely in this thread. It'd take a major idiot to claim that they generate love and compassion and then jump at my throat right away.

We both know that you had to show a lot of restraint here which of course is a great exercise for a blossoming Buddhist wannabe - and you owe it all to me. No need to thank me, budd, love to be of service.

Anyway..

By all means please do feel free to continue calling me

on my behavior and teasing me to your heart's content!

As you know, I appreciate a good jab. "pseudo-Buddhist jabbering".

Cheers!

Will do.

Namastezdorovie!

[Hermit]

Ah, come on - that'd be to easy now surely? Of course you're acting nicely in this thread. It'd take a major idiot to claim that they generate love and compassion and then jump at my throat right away.

We both know that you had to show a lot of restraint here which of course is a great exercise for a blossoming Buddhist wannabe - and you owe it all to me. No need to thank me, budd, love to be of service.

I'm "acting" nicely? Are you suggesting that I haven't been sincere and genuine?

Striving to maintain equanimity in the face of whatever circumstances life presents is great practice for every blossoming Buddhist.. wannabe or otherwise.. and as such there's little in life that's not an opportunity to practice. Heck, something as simple as a dvd loading too slowly provides an opportunity to practice.. patience. And yes, we blossoming Buddhists DO feel gratitude for those circumstances that offer us opportunities to practice. In that regard we're pretty much grateful for everything! LOL! Uhh,.. in our better moments, anyway. *wink* Oh, and btw.. fwiw.. (an ironic chuckle at least, perhaps?).. the Buddhist name given me by my beloved guru *Mingyur Rinpoche* translates as "Glorious Blossoming Dharma". I guess Rinpoche 'forgot' to add the "wannabe" on the end, eh?

What makes you think anything you've said would make me wanna "jump at [your] throat"? *cough*projection!*cough* Contrary to what you think you "know", this exchange has actually required fairly little "restraint" on my part. Nothing you've said has "pushed my buttons" particularly and you certainly haven't managed to piss me off or rile me up. As I've been saying all along, I'm thoroughly enjoying our exchange.. regardless of whether or not you've been taking me seriously,.. regardless of whether nor not you've been interested what-so-ever in what I've been sharing.. and regardless of all your judgments. I love talking about spiritual stuff (I enjoy it a whole heckuva lot more than I enjoy political debate even,.. if that tells ya anything. ). The manner in which you've been receiving (and/or rejecting, as it may be) what I've been sharing has not detracted from my enjoyment one bit.

As far as you're concerned there may be no need for me to thank you, but nonetheless I do thank you. I thank you (again) for the thought-provoking exchange, and I thank you for the opportunity to share. Afaic, sharing is, in itself, an opportunity for growth; its also an opportunity for insight development; an opportunity for deeper self-reflection; and an opportunity to develop increased self awareness; all of which has taken place for me over the course of this discussion. If you wanna feel like I "owe it all" to you, by all means you go right on ahead and feel that way! You may well be being facetious about that, but even so I sincerely hope it makes you happy to feel that you've benefitted me,.. because you have. And if you've benefitted in any small way from our exchange, I'm happy for that. If you feel this exchange hasn't benefitted you in any way, afaic that's ok too. I don't feel any responsibility for whether or not you found benefit from this exchange, just as I don't feel any responsibility for what your experience of this exchange has been, or what you've gotten from it or not gotten from it; that's entirely your business. My spiritual responsibility was to show up and be present, and I think I've done pretty well in that regard.

Namastezdorovie!

Slainte!

[edited for typos]

[Hermit]

I agree for sure. our brain is just made up of electric signals none of our other body parts contain this. You could say nothing we experience is our own, because of all the millions of outside influences, nothing is really done of our own free will.

"our brain is just made up of electric signals none of our other body parts contain this":

Yeah,.. even the brain with all its elaborate neural functioning is not the "self". No one is likely to point to my brain and say "that's Hermit"; more likely they'd say "that's Hermit's brain". So it seems that so far we haven't yet found any one location in the body where the self is located.

"nothing we experience is our own"

..begs the questions: who or what is it then that is "experiencing" what is being

experienced, and who/what is it that's "aware" that something's being experienced?

"because of all the millions of outside influences, nothing is really done of our free will".

Is that akin to suggesting that because everything is interdependent

and/or inter-related, nothing can be said to exist in and of itself?

[if so,.. I'm picking up what you're layin' down! ]

I understand what you're saying, it makes my brain hurt a little bit when I try and visualize the concept though. This reminds me of one of theories of Carl Jung about the "collective unconscious". How this applies to what you're saying is that our natural instincts have to come from somewhere, ie: the movie screen in your analogy. And we are all inherently born with these.

Reading Carl Jung prompted me, for the first time in my life, to think about things in a truly new way; his concept of the "collective unconscious" blew me away. It might even be fair to say, in retrospect, that it was Carl Jung who first influenced me to embark on what I've since come to regard as my spiritual path.

However, with respect to your comment [in bold above], I wanna be clear that I'm not talking about instincts (behaviors) or anything else that one "is born with". In order to be born "with" something, "one" itself has to exist. What is "it" which is born with certain instincts? That which is referred to as the "self",.. if not the body (which is what is born),.. what is it?

"Ego" is the fundamental sense of self identification: "I" or "I am". That "self" identity differentiates "self" from "not self" or "other", and thus basic subject-object duality is perceived. But is there any actual substance or basis to this "I"-thought? Where does it come from? Where does it reside? Who or what is it that is having the "I"-thought, and who or what is it that is aware of the "I"-thought?

We tend to assume that we are the thinkers of "our" thoughts. And yet if this was true we would be able to think, and not think, whatever we want whenever we want; and that is simply not the case. Thoughts simply happen. So, if we aren't in fact the thinkers of "our" own thoughts,.. including the fundamental "I"-thought.. the basis of "self"-identification.. does the "self" actually exist other than as a spontaneously arising thought? What is the inherent 'substance' of a thought?

See if trying to wrap your brain around that doesn't make it hurt a bit!

So what you're really saying here is that the two are either connected or not connected but made of the same substance, correct?

I'm sggesting there is not-two and that with the emergence

of the "I"-thought it merely "appears" that there are two.

There is, according to Buddhism, only Emptiness-Awareness.

In Hinduism its referred to as Existence-Consciousness.

[Actually in Buddhism its Emptiness-Awarness-Love,

and in Hinduism its Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.]

Emptiness-Awareness has no inherent substance. Whatever appearances arise in (or 'display in') "Emptiness" are 'composed of' (in a manner of speaking) "Emptiness" and as such also have no inherent substance. Any apparent difference between 'Emptiness' and 'that which appears in Emptiness' is an illusion.

I disagree with the idea that both are empty however, as I mentioned I've been reading about the theories of psychologist Carl Jung. How can we be born with innate instincts like the want for companionship? Which is not a physical need. I understand the fact that it's no different from the individual self, and the fact that realizing this we can see our true self only a "movie screen" if you will, or we are a part of the ocean but detached. But you have to admit that there are some other properties all individual selves have, instead of complete emptiness.

from wikipedia:

"In his earlier writings, Jung called this aspect of the psyche the collective unconscious. He later changed the term to objective psyche. The objective psyche may be considered objective for two reasons: it is common to everyone; and it has a better sense of the self's ideal than the ego or conscious self does. It thus directs the self, via archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose. In this way, it moves the psyche toward individuation, or self-actualization."

The Buddhist concept of emptiness can be somewhat tricky to grasp. It doesn't

mean "nothingness", rather it means "lacking any inherent form or characteristics".

For example, a "tree" is said to be emptiness because there is no singular entity that is a "tree". What we call "tree" is actually a conglomeration of objects (leaves, bark, fluids, etc); and each of those objects is itself a conglomeration of smaller objects; and each of those objects is a conglomeration of yet smaller objects.. so on and so. There are no single objects anywhere.. human beings included.. that have an inherent existence unto themselves, and therefore, it follows,.. everything is interdependent.

Emptiness is not nothingness because although there are no objects (forms) that have any inherent existence unto themselves, objects (forms) do appear. Their essence is 'emptiness', and yet they do appear as forms. It is the greatest, most-amazing of all paradoxes!

The Buddha taught: "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form. Sensation, thought, impulse, and consciousness are also like this." (actually it was the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara who said the words, and then Buddha praised him for their accuracy.. for their "supreme wisdom" [prajnaparamita]; the teaching is known as "The Heart Sutra")

How's your brain hurt doing?

I agree for sure, a lot of people get caught up in worrying about the past or the future. Worrying about pointless things that don't really matter. Personally I'm a much happier person after realizing this.

We barely remember what came before this precious moment,

Choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside...

This body holding me, reminding me that I am not alone in

This body makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion.- Tool, Parabol

Maynard.

“Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis

on which the world revolves - slowly, evenly, without

rushing toward the future. Live the actual moment.

Only this moment is life.”

~ Thich Nhat Hanh

[The Rover]

The Catholic Church / The Vatican Issue Seven new deadly sins

9:44a.m. 11 March 2008

Gluttony and Pride are out of vogue as Pollution and Being Rich step in as some of the new 'mortal sins' as updated by the Vatican. See full list below.

Times have changed and so have sins and sinners, according to the Pope's second-in-charge, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, who this weekened spoke on modern evils, Reuters reports.

Genetic manipulation, drugs that 'weaken the mind and cloud intelligence,' and the imbalance between the rich and the poor have made the cut to be new sins punishable by an eternity of damnation in hellfire.

It also seems that Dolly the sheep's creators are due for a shock in the afterlife, as Girotti, the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that bioethics were an important area of danger for the 'modern soul.'

"There are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

The interview entitled 'New Forms of Social Sin,' also listed ecological offences as a issue of substance.

The Vatican plans to lead by example with some Holy See buildings set to use solar energy, including photovoltaic cells on the roof of the auditorium for pilgrims' audiences with the pontiff.

But will these new sins make people feel the need to confess their carbon-monoxide spewing 4x4 any more than they would confess casting a lusty eye over the neighbour's wife?

Not likely, as Girotti also bemoaned the fact that fewer and fewer Catholics go to confession in our day.

A study by Milan's Catholic University had shown that up to 60 percent of Catholics in Italy did not attend confession - where a priest can absolve them of their sins in God's name - with 20 percent feeling uncomfortable discussing their sins with another person.

Just as life was back in the 6th Century when Pope Gregory the Great declared the original seven sins, they were a lot simpler. However, their punishment was still no fun at all:

1. Pride - Broken on the wheel

2. Envy - Put in freezing water

3. Gluttony -Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes

4. Lust - Smothered in fire and brimstone

5. Anger - Dismembered alive

6. Greed - Put in cauldrons of boiling oil

7. Sloth - Thrown in snake pits

The new sins are a lot less black and white:

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

No specific punishments have been put forward as yet, although one would assume that modern sins deserve suitably modern punishments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would have been nice to see Pedophilia specifically mentioned . . . .

[KashmirDevi]

"One guy doing weird stuff is called a nut. A large group of people doing weird stuff is called a church."

– Bengt Washburn (Comedian)

[ledsabbath]

rasied in a quite religion free household.

been atheist from the point I could understand what it was.

a thick wein of atheism grew from my fathers side of the family after a

crazy Pentecostalist bitch got a hold on my great grandfather.

Oh, don't get me started on that one! Pentecostal, one of the sickest churches on the planet. Myself, I originally fitted into #1. My family were Catholic, and I attended Catholic school. I actually don't really have anything negative to express about that aspect.

Then my family converted to that moronic, lunatic fringe, Pentecostal. Let me tell you, what a bunch of wacked out liar, money grubbers and the like they are. And the idiocy that goes in their "churches", for want of a better word. People falling on the falling, screaming, yelling, crying out etc on the floor. The total cult insanity of "drunk in the spirit", "holy laughter" etc. This is the type of thing I'm talking about:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xCeVZ6e2T0E&...feature=related

Every man and his dog in the Pentecostal church claims some great supernatural gift from God. This person is a prophet and can predict the future, this one can command the wind and the waves, this one can raise the dead, this one can heal the sick and clear out the hospitals, etc etc etc.

Oh, I forgot. That childish babbling "tongues". The same gibberish syllables repeated over and over again.

"shamankalaburshimshamankawhataloadofcrapthisalldoyounotagree"

And I have never seen any denomination push for money, money and more money than this fraudalent one. Only the "church" of Scientology would surpass Pentecostals for demanding money. And money is the key to all the blessings of God and the universe. As long as you give and give, you will live in perfect health and happiness. Money is that magical key that opens the floodgates of God's blessings.

So I too have now backslidden. Honestly, the Pentecostal church is doing a damn fine job of turning people against Christianity. They have the highest turnover rate of any denomination, a staggeringly short average of just 3 years is what most people stay there for. And when they leave, they leave broken, disappointed, used and abused. Like myself. I could post one story after another after another about the Pentecostal/Charimsmatic church.

My advice?

If you're considering Christianity, stay the Hell away from anything Pentecostal/Charismatic, eg, Hillsong. You either will end up being used or be a user yourself. And for the record, the particular Pentecostal church I went to was COC, (Christian Outreach Centre or as I like to call it, "Center of Corruption"). Avoid anything like CCC, (Christian City Church), CLC, (Christian Life Center) and all those obviously Pentecostal churches. Names like Riverview Church, Victory Church, Paradise down under, (where Guy Sebastian goes to) etc. You see one, you see them all.

They should be called "Enslavement Church", "Screw you and Fuck you up Brothers", "Assholes United", "Show me the Money Church" etc. You get the idea.

Now, here are my top 10 hatreds of the Christian system, in no particular order:

1.....Christian division. So called brothers and sisters in Christ that are all divided by denominations. And furthermore ,many of those denominations claim they are the one true Christian denomination and that all others are going to Hell. Gosh, they can't even get along with each other, yet they want to save us!!!

2.....Ask a Christian "what happens to those people who die without Christ who never had a chance to hear about Jesus?" And they'll inevitably answer, "they go to Hell". One of my friends who was religious said this, and basically, he said that "if God raises up people on this earth who have no chance of ever going to Heaven, he is right and just to do so and we cannot question that, as he is God". He said it to me very angrily too. I was so utterly disgusted at this that it was the final straw that broke this Christian camel's back.

3.....Oh, this one's even worse. I was reading on a Christian forum site once in the Baptist section about "what happens to babies when they die?" Get prepared to be sickened. I suggest you have a vomit container nearby. Some posters said, "well, those babies born to Christian parents go to Heaven, and those babies born to unbelieving parents burn in Hell". How fucking charming, eh?

4.....So called "fundamentalism" which is the biggest load of horse shit. All those Christians that claim they follow and believe the Bible "literally" but in fact, "interpret" many, many passages. And they interpret it out of the obvious literal context. If people really followed the Bible literally, women would never be pastors, they couldn't even speak in church, you would be flogging your children until they bleed like in the book of Proverbs, etc. Jesus also, quite plainly, says that if anyone comes up and asks you for something, to give it to them, no questions asked and with no obligation for repayment. So this is how you can test a supposedly "fundamentalist" Christian. Go up to him/her and say, "hmmm....nice car you have. Can I have it please?" If you follow the Bible literally, you have to give it to them. Plain and simple. But of course, bullshit artist "fundamentalist" Christians "interpret" those plain teachings.

5.....Weird ass beliefs, teachings, practices. I mean just plain and stupid weird shit. Mormons and their "magic underwear", Jehovahs's Witnesses and no birthday or anniversary celebrations, the Amish living like people centuries ago, Pentecostals and their "drunk in the spirit" and "holy laughter" crap, Plymouth Brethren with churches that have no windows, they can only buy certain types of cars in certain colors and with no stereos, Catholics that believe that their little wafer at communion literally turns into Jesus, (ugh!!! What is wrong with you guys?) and on and on I could go.

6......Money grubbing. A specialty and fine artform particulary of the cults, such as Pentecostals. And the more you give, the more you will get from God. In fact, one lying shithead of a pastor once said this in a sermon and then he said, "this is why I give. I don't give for the sake of God, I give to get back". That says it all. And the exorbitant wages of pastors of successful Pentecostal churches. Not only do these mongrels get their high wage, but on top of that, every expense is paid for by the church, in other words, those suckers that go every week. Imagine you guys getting your wage, and then your rent/mortgage, insurances, clothes, car, food etc are paid as well by your employer. In other words, your entire wage would be free spending money. Welcome to the Pentecostal world, brothers and sisters. Praise the Lord!!!

7.....I especially hate these next ones. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your pastor so that he and his shithead family don't have to work. In fact, I've heard pastors state, (and that bitch Joyce Meyer), "I'm a pastor. I shouldn't have to work". Well, this little black duck ain't gonna support you vultures anymore. I work at my own job, I pay my way through everything. If you want a family, home etc, go and do likewise, you leeches!!! It ain't my job to support someone else. And btw, when I was in a church before, I did things in the church free of charge, out of my own time and money. Why can't pastors do the same thing? Even the apostle Paul who was a full time evangelist went out and earned his own wage, as an example to other leaders. Isn't it funny how you never heard that part of the Bible quoted in sermons?

8.....The "no true Scotmans" fallacy. I particularly hate this one. Never heard of it? It's real simple, listen up. Remember all those televangelsist scandals? Remember all those sexaul abuse scandals with the Catholic church? Remember the Salem "witch" trials in which hundreds of innocent people got slaughtered? Remember the holocaust of the Inquisitions, in which up to a million people historians say were executed? What about religious wars and killings? Well guess what, I've got good news for you all!!!

They weren't Christians!!!! So whenever a Christian does wrong, some other Christian dismisses it as " but they weren't real Christians". How fucking convenient, eh?

9.......And for all those people that left the church after witnessing much hypocisy, well guess what? "Well, they were never real Christians to begin with". So all you backsliders around here who have been brainwashed,indoctrinated, abused etc, it's your fault you've left the faith. If you were a "real Christian" you would never leave.

10.....Oh, and when a Christian commits an obvious act of hypocrisy like that bastard Ted Haggard preaching anti drugs and homosexuality whilst he was into both privately,you know what the average Christian says? "Well, we all make mistakes". Enough said.

Oh, and so many of these people live with outdated social stereotypes. I once head a tape of Brian Houston, from Hillsong, speak to a group of men in a conference. He said that "real men" are adventurous, they want to climb a mountain, they want to "rescue damsels in distress". No shit, I'm not making that up. I nearly pissed myself laughing about rescuing damsels in distress.

I feel sorry for those poor adventurous mountain climbing women. Even moreso for one that happens to assist a man. She must be a lesbian witch harlot, (no offense intended to you, Freekisses).

And then I heard more of the mighty wisdom of Brian Houston. He chastised those, and I quote, "namby pamby fathers that have to spend time with their families on Sunday afternoon". You could have fitted a lion's head in my mouth, how wide it was open. And what does the great and Godly Brian Houston think a Godly "real man" should do, instead of spending time with his family on Sunday afternoon?

"Be a real man of God. Go to church twice on Sunday instead". Yeah, screw you Houston.

[ledsabbath]

Ha ha. I was looking for this thread and having trouble finding it. I thought it had been deleted, like the last thread on God. Too many heated arguments, flaming, controversial points of view etc. But alas, it's still here.

*nudge nudge, wink wink.......* That's a hint.

[ledsabbath]

Oh yeah, one last thing I forgot that I hate. Threats. You know what I mean. If you don't believe like someone else, "well it's your choice", they say. "Have a nice day".

"And remember. You'll burn in Hell forever". Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

[The Rover]

Was Jesus in the grave for three days and three nights?

This article will debunk:

1) A "Good Friday" Crucifixtion

2) A Sunday Morning Sunrise Resurrection

"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).

Since Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Jews demanded a sign of Him to prove His claim. Jesus could give them no better proof that He was the Christ than the literal fulfillment of the well-known sign of Jonah, Luke 11:30. If this sign were not literally fulfilled, it would prove unto them that He was not the Messiah. This was the only sign Jesus ever gave them to prove His Messiahship. Hence the great need for Him to do exactly what He promised them to do.

Mark 8:31 tells us:

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Did Christ mean what He said? Did He really expect to be buried in the earth for three days and three nights? Jesus did not say, "After two nights and one day I will rise again." He said, "After three days I will rise again." He meant three days and three nights--a full 72 hours!

The Jews remembered this sign when He was crucified.

"Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first" Matthew 27:62-64.

They did all they could to prevent His resurrection. They got the watch, made the sepulchre sure, and sealed the stone. "After three days I will rise again" was necessary to fulfill the Jonah sign.

Modern interpreters of the Bible make Jesus Christ a liar. They say Jesus was crucified on Good Friday, buried about sundown the same day, and arose on the next Sunday about daybreak in contradiction to the Scriptures! Any schoolboy knows that this is only two nights and one day. If He were crucified on Good Friday and arose on Sunday morning as they say, then He did not literally fulfill the sign of Jonah. If He did not fulfill this sign as He promised the Jews, then He was an impostor and not the Messiah! In other words, Jesus Christ lied to the Jews about His burial and resurrection.

If the Good Friday theory is correct as some teach, then the Bible contains "highly figurative language" which requires a human interpreter to tell people what the verses really mean. By this same liberal method of interpreting the Scriptures you can destroy every basic doctrine in the Bible.

I do not care very much for what scholars say! But I am greatly concerned about not accusing my Lord of lying! Jesus Christ plainly said He would be in the grave "three days and three nights". He emphatically declared He would rise again "after three days". I believe He fulfilled the sign of Jonah and vindicated His Messiahship. In Matthew 28:6, we read this testimony of the angel at the tomb:

"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said."

He said He would be in the grave "three days and three nights" and "after three days" He would rise again. Jesus did fulfill the Jonah sign. But He was not crucified on Good Friday, nor did He rise on Sunday morning!

The Part-of-a-Day Theory Wrong

Men, in order to get the Bible out of an embarrassing situation, allege that the Jews counted a part of a day as the whole day. Such passages as Genesis 42:17, 18; I Samuel 30:12, 13; Esther 4:15-17; I Kings 20:29; and I Chronicles 10:5 are cited to prove this theory. However, none of these passages prove "three days and three nights" means two nights and one day. Only one of them even contains the expression "three days and three nights" I Samuel 30:12. But there is absolutely no reason to give "three days and three nights" in I Samuel 30:12 any meaning except their literal meaning. Divine inspiration declares the young man "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights." What authority has any man to contradict these plain words by affirming the time was not so long? The expression, "three days, night and day", in Esther 4:15, is not the same wording as "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12:40. There is no mention of any nights at all in the other passages; therefore, they give no evidence as to the meaning of "three days and three nights." There is no reason to take any of the passages cited in any sense except their literal sense, unless one has a theory to prove. The "three days and three nights" in Jonah 1:17 are to be taken in their literal sense.

Granting that some of the Jews did count a part of the day for a whole day, can it be proven that this is what Jesus meant? Can it be proven that the Jews counted a part of a day as a whole day and a whole night? Where is the proof in the inspired Word?

Yet, proponents of the Good Friday tradition want us to believe that a part of a day meant a whole day and a whole night. Men who believe the Bible to be literally true dare not accept such reasoning.

The Meaning of Day in the Bible

The word "day" in the Bible in its primary sense means the interval between dawn and darkness.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night . . . " Genesis 1:5. (Compare Genesis 1:14-18; 8:22.)

This is the first occurrence of the word "day" in the Bible, and the Lord God himself gives its meaning. Jesus believed there were 12 hours in a day. He asked in John 11:9:

" . . . Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world."

Jesus made a day and night consist of 24 hours. Can there be any higher authorities than the Lord God and Jesus Christ? Do not such authorities settle the matter for all true believers?

In the Bible a day is the interval of time comprising the period between two successive risings of the sun (Genesis 7:24; Job 3:16). The Hebrews reckoned it from evening to evening Exodus 12:18,

" . . . from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" Leviticus 23:32.

The 12-hour night began at sunset and ended at sunup. It was counted before the 12-hour day.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day" Genesis 1:5.

Hence a new day began at 6 o'clock in the evening and lasted until the same time the next evening--a period of 24 hours--a 12-hour night followed by a 12-hour day!

The Good Friday Hoax

The Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Good Friday! It is said that Jesus was crucified on

"the day before the Sabbath", Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42.

As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday, scholars have assumed Jesus was crucified on Good Friday. This is poor reasoning because the Bible bears abundant testimony that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath which fell on Saturday.

The first day of the Passover week, no matter on what day of the week it came, was always an annual Sabbath.

"And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" Leviticus 23:6, 7.

On the seventh day of this feast, the 21st of Nisan, was another annual Sabbath:

" . . . in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" Leviticus 23:8.

The day of Pentecost was an annual Sabbath Numbers 28:26. This is the reason we read about Sabbaths in the plural number in the Old Testament Leviticus 26:2, 34, 35, 43.

The Bible makes it plain, Jesus was crucified and buried on:

" . . . the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath" Mark 15:42.

John tells us:

"And it was the preparation of the Passover" John 19:14.

It was the preparation day on which the Passover Supper was made ready [editor's note: actually it was the preparation for the Holy Day, the Night to Be Much Remembered], the 14th of Nisan John 13:1, 29; 18:28. It was the preparation to keep the Passover Sabbath--the annual Sabbath which always came on the 15th day of the first ecclesiastical month. John 19:31 adds:

" . . . (for that sabbath day was an high day) . . . ."

Its greatness was due to the fact that it was the annual Sabbath of the Passover Festival.

Two Sabbaths that Week

Matthew makes it plain that two Sabbaths had passed since Jesus was crucified. The KJV has this rendering:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre" Matthew 28:1.

On this verse nearly all translators have allowed tradition to control their translation. It is not "Sabbath" but "Sabbaths" in the Greek text (the genitive case and the plural number). The verse properly translated would read:

"In the end of the sabbaths . . . ."

This allows for an annual Sabbath on Thursday and a regular Sabbath on Saturday.

When Jesus was buried near sundown on the day of the Passover,

"Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary"

watched the burial Matthew 27:58-61. Immediately after the burial, Luke says:

"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on" Luke 3:54.

This Sabbath was an annual Sabbath on Thursday. The day after the annual Sabbath the women bought spices, Mark 16:1. Luke tells us that the women, after preparing the spices on Friday,

" . . . rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" Luke 23:56.

The traditional interpretation makes Mark and Luke contradict each other. In Mark 16:1 we are informed that the Sabbath was past when the spices were purchased. "Had" is inserted without any authority from the Greek text.

"No reason can be given for the variation--bought sweet spices. Not had bought" (An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 11, p. 251).

In Luke 23:56 we are told that the women prepared the spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day. If Jesus lay in the grave on Sabbath only, Mark and Luke contradict each other. But if He lay there two Sabbaths having a work day between them, then Mark and Luke harmonize to perfection.

The Resurrection Late Saturday Evening

When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Mary's came to the tomb:

"in the end of the sabbath" Matthew 28:1.

The Sabbath always ended at sunset:

"From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath" Leviticus 23:32.

Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival Matthew 28:1-8. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ arose before sunset on Saturday. Christ did not rise on Sunday morning, for the two Mary saw Him, heard Him speak, and held His feet just as the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." (Matthew 28:1).

Mark 16:9 tells us Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene early the first day of the week, which was Saturday after sundown. The nearer after sunset this happened, the earlier in the first of the week it was. Mark does not say that she was alone at the time she first saw Jesus, and Matthew tells us that:

"the other Mary was with her" (Matthew 28:1).

The Date of the Crucifixion

Having shown from Matthew 28:1 that Jesus rose from the grave as the Sabbath ended at sunset and the first day of the week began, this would put the crucifixion on Wednesday at sunset just as the preparation day ended and the annual Sabbath commenced. According to the Gospel writers, Jesus died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m. our time) and was buried about sunset that same day, Luke 23:44, 45, 50-54; Mark 15:33-38, 42-47.

If Jesus were buried at sunset on Wednesday and arose at sunset on Saturday, He fulfilled the sign of Jonah. He would have been in the grave Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night--a full "three days". All together a full "three days and three nights." Thus we have a literal fulfillment of the words of Christ in Matthew 12:40. hence there is no need to follow Roman Catholic tradition which makes Jesus Christ a liar. Truly,

". . . He rose again the third day according to the scriptures" I Corinthians 15:4,

not the second day according to Roman Catholic tradition!

The Third Day

Some Scriptures speak of His resurrection

"after three days" (Mark 8:31; 9:31 R. V.; 10:34 R. V.; Matthew 27:63).

Other verses say

"three days" (Matthew 26:60, 61; 27:39, 40; Mark 14:58; 15:29, 30; John 2:19, 20).

Still others speak of

"the third day" (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 18;33; 24:6, 7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; I Corinthians 16:4).

Some make much over "the third day" in Luke 24:21, and they affirm that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and "the third day since" Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week.

So the supposed objection in reality supports the Wednesday crucifixion. But if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made "the third day since" these things were done.

Unless we believe the Bible contains errors, we know that all passages must harmonize. Therefore, "after three days" must mean the same as "the third day" Matthew 16:21.

There is nothing in the Bible to favor the Good Friday crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The biblical record harmonizes with a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday evening resurrection--a full 72 hours. This view allows for a literal interpretation of "three days and three nights." It allows for the word "after three days" to mean just that. It proves that Jesus Christ fulfilled the sign of Jonah and thus proved His Messiahship to the Jews.

Written By: Milburn Cockrell

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/threeday.html