«

[Borodin]

a lot of catholic trappings could well have been borrowed from the far east. prayer beads and the apearence of monks (and there celibate states) being just a couple.

Except that prayer beads don't show up until around the 8th or 9th century ACE, and monks were established over the last thousand years BCE in Palestine/Israel/whatever. (They were called prophets in the OT.) I really don't see Buddhism having any effect on Jesus. Buddha taught that gods were simply caught in the illusion of desire, hate and fear like the rest of us, and that the true state of reality was one of freedom from all that. Jesus was a Jew and a firm believer in his god, with some very interesting notions that do point east, but more towards certain religious practices emerging in the region of modern Iran/Iraq. There is no Buddhist equivalent to the magic rite of transubstantiation, for example--how could there be, since Buddha denied the reality of gods?--but it is powerful magic that transcends its Christian use. There are definite pagan ties, there, in my opinion.

[omg]

not just your opinion. here is the evidence of christianitys rip offs from paganism
mithras
of course some of the christians here will ignore this as it is archeoligy ie: science.

and heres a lovely site and it actually ansers a lot of questions about the christian concept of heaven by using more scripture quotes than the average catholic
jesus buddha krishna are one
take this for example

An ego-centered Christian says “Jesus is the only way” and an ego-centered Muslim says, “Islam is the only way.” The translation of both statements is, “My way or the highway.” The ego is the opposite of love. The ego is me... me... me... and love is you... you... you... The ego is motivated by, “What’s in it for me?” Love asks, “How may I serve you?” The ego is Satan in us. Love is God in us. The ego is the sense of separation from God and others. Love is a feeling of unity with God and others. The ego is “I” and “mine.” Love does not seek to possess but only to give. Where there is ego there can be no love and where there is selfless love, there can be no ego. Think of any negative emotion - jealousy, hatred, greed, anger - all of them are the fruit of the ego whose roots are “I” and “mine.” Therefore, love is the most potent destroyer of the ego. Jesus says loving our neighbor and loving God are the keys to salvation. Innocence is the fertile soil in which love takes root. That brings us to these questions: “Do I love God with all my heart and mind? Do I love my neighbor as my own self?” - as Jesus commanded? If the answer is no, then we are not going to heaven.

yeeha, so by saying to others that if you dont follow christ you going to hell you are DENYING yourself entrance to heaven christians. you always manage to advoid the core of what your bloody religion is meant to be about.

i really reccomend you christians read the above 2 sites. although i am certain you will find ways of denying what they say and continuing your hate filled lifes.

[a1s]

you know, my first thought after reading that was : "that smells with hippies! lot's of them.", but then I realised jesus (the fact that I don't think he's a son of god, doesn't mean I don't think he existed...) jesus was a hippie. by defenition. he talked about love (and believed in it!) and had no respect for money (the 30 silvers episode) or decent job. maybe people are taking this thing way to narrowly...

[Quintopotere]

Well, i think that great religions are so similar except for some principles like that there sholud be a God/Gods/superior entity/energy/something greater than humans (even science) and taht we have to be good (where "good" could mean different things...)

christ stole all his best ideas from buddah.

Uuhm i'm not so sure that we think the same about what are those "best ideas" except loving!
And, of course, good principles are not patented...

today i'm a bit out of order... so i'm not able to express me very well...


@ omg: i'm just wondering if you read my posts :blink: ... i don't want flame, i'm just curious :angel:

@ as1: Hippies said something good: Peace and love k:

[omg]

i read your posts quin. why would i flame you for them? unfortunatly my life experiances of christians have given me a very negetive perception of that religion and all of its offshoots. unfortunatly quin you are a minority among christians not a majority.

i have read evry major religios text and i tend to veer towards the fat laughting one as his followers seem to actually follow his word a lot more.

as for this hippie thing... i hate hippys!! no really i actually hate them. i was bought up around a lot of hippies and they are only talking about peace and love when they are well stocked on drugs. they complain about people making roads then they drive around in huge buses with no catalytic converter! :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: ahem.
if jesus was a hippie he was the only good hippy. and maybe the hippys in the 1960's who got beaten up by goverment troops for protesting vietnam were cool but most modern hippies, bleagh dont make me sick!!
*(severly hopes none of the hippys i know read this site or theres gonna be hell for me)*

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by Borodin@Jul 21 2005, 01:56 AM
They were called prophets in the OT.

There is no such thing in Judaism as prophets, only Mozes came close to being something like a prophet.

[omg]

erm, wha? erm, wha? as much as i dread ever contesting anyting at all you ever say stroggy as i know what will usually come of it, what were these guys then..
Amos,Hosea,Isaiah,Joel,Nahum,Zephania,Habakuk,Jere miah,Haggai,Zecheriah,Malachi Deborah,Obadiah,Ezekiel,Jonah,Micheal
they were just people who spoke of the future is it? or preachers who predicted future events is it? and the difference between that and a prophet is?/??

[Borodin]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Jul 21 2005, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Jul 21 2005, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Borodin@Jul 21 2005, 01:56 AM
They were called prophets in the OT.

There is no such thing in Judaism as prophets, only Mozes came close to being something like a prophet. [/b][/quote]
Stroggy, OMG beat me to it. There are many, many OT prophets--the old guys who lived as hermits, then felt the need to return to civilizations that had grown (in their opinions) too effete and corrupt, and start uttering mixtures of advice and curses.

yeeha, so by saying to others that if you dont follow christ you going to hell you are DENYING yourself entrance to heaven christians. you always manage to advoid the core of what your bloody religion is meant to be about.

OMG, I never said that. Have you been reading my posts? I've been a witch for forty-three years, and was physically initiated twenty-eight years ago. I'm a Gardnerian, and have repeatedly led my own covens since then, though currently I'm just a solitary--frankly, leading those folks can be exhausting. Please don't preach to me about what I think or believe if you don't actually read what I write.

As for Buddha, Krishna and Jesus, I already posted that Buddhism denies the superiority of gods or their ultimate worth, so Jesus could hardly be the same thing--in fact, quite the opposite. And Krishna was/is a god, if you follow a certain belief pattern, while Jesus clearly never stated anything expressing a belief in any self-godhood. If I were to tell you that because you and I agree on a few issues this means we're identical, would you agree to that?

[omg]

why do people take what i say so personally when they are clearly general statements??? i know you are a witch. can you read. i said christians... it wasnt aimed at you... do you think evry post on this thread is aimed at you...? im very confused that you took that post so personally. see i said christians. not gardanerians whos post is above mine ... the only part of that post that refered to you was the first part with the mithras reference.
anyways i am beggining to regret posting.

[Borodin]

why do people take what i say so personally when they are clearly general statements??? i know you are a witch. can you read.

I have been known to read, yes, and I quite good at detecting the stink of discourtesy when I find it. I also know that you posted your remarks in a response to me. If they were general, instead of directed at me, you might have tried to indicate that. Unless, of course, it's too much effort.

i said christians... it wasnt aimed at you...

But since you never acknowledged that I wasn't a Christian, how was I to tell that you didn't think I was one? Your remarks in response to mine seem to indicate you did think I was one. You even put in your comments answering mine the phrase, "You Christians." Am I supposed to read your mind and understand you meant, "You're not a Christian, but for everybody who is a Christian and is reading this..."? I can't very well read your mind. Though I am pretty good with tarot cards.

Aside from that, can you understand why I don't see any essential identity between Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus? I've Buddhist friends who would frankly laugh at the idea that they worship anything, because Buddhism isn't a religion, and Buddha isn't a god; whereas Krishna is a god, and Jesus is a prophet. Of course, he subsequently became a sort of half-prophet-half-god, or one-third-of-a-god-but-also-the-entire-thing, and that's one undigestable part of Christian theology I don't think anybody can fully explain.