Born of the Virgin on December 25th

[BoyntonStu]

BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th. He was announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs. He taught in temple at age 12. Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of his god present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.


Does this sound a little familiar?

stU

[scottinalaska]

BS,

I don't believe Buddah ever called himself God. Certainly much has been attributed to him through the years to make him appear as God, but the Nirvana theology is that salvation comes through self works, where Jesus said salvation came through His work, because our work just wasn't good enough.

Of course that road to salvation doesn't seem hard enough for many to accept, so we pursue other "means" to salvation, namely "helping" God out with our good deeds thinking they will then get us "closer" to heaven.

It flies in the face of human nature, yes. We all aspire to be self made people, but in the end, it is the Creator who completes the creation. Of course that initself is working on a presupposition that I realize we don't share. Ah, presuppositions. I feel mine are reasoned ones, thus I keep them until shown compelling evidence otherwise. Buddah apparently doing parallel things does not compell me to disregard the claims or reality of Jesus.

scottinalaska

[BoyntonStu]

[quote=scottinalaska]BS,

I don't believe Buddah ever called himself God.

Did Jesus? (Chapter and verse please.)

stU

Stu asked:
I don't believe Buddah ever called himself God.

Did Jesus? (Chapter and verse please.)

There appears to be a slight contradiction between the gospels of Matthew and Mark -

In this verse, Jesus appears not to answer directly:

Mt.26:63-64
"I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said."

However...

Mk.14:62
"Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am."

BTW... I had no idea that the life stories of Jesus and Buddah were so similar. Fascinating. In the book, Iron John, by Robert Bly, the author points out the similarities between the details of Jesus' life and death and the Greek legend of Adonis - page 213:

Adonis: Greek version of semitic Adonai, "The Lord", a castrated and sacrificed savior-god whose love-death united him with Aphrodite or Asherah or Mari. (bold emphasis mine - I see we have reference to Mari again, Stu)

Scholars believe that in later Greek times a priestess or priest dressed in a boar mask and carrying the harvesters scythe gave the ritual wound to the boys belly or genitals and he bled to death. It appears also that the young man received a golden apple before the ritual so that he could be admitted to the paradise in the west

Notice that in the crucifixion story Jesus was pierced in the side also.

Quite some time ago I was doing some Internet research on the origins of ritual blood sacrifice and I found a reference to the worship of the babylonian god "Baal". It seems that "Baal" chastised his followers for attempting to use bread and wine in their religious rituals and insisted upon the use of the blood and the flesh of their sacrificial victims instead.

This whole "theme" of ritual cannibalism and blood sacrifice runs through many cultures that both pre-date Judiasm and Christianity, and run concurrently with it.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar...sacrifice.html

Sacrifice


The offering of a gift to a deity or a being in petition, thanksgiving, or appeasement. These offerings usually consist of food, drink, the first fruits of harvest and the blood sacrifices of animals and fowl. The highest sacrifice of human life is currently more rare. There are no blood sacrifices offered in neo-Pagan and neo-Pagan Witchcraft practices.

The rituals of blood sacrifices are ancient. They embody the custom of propitiating the gods. Animals, fowls and humans have been sacrificed in various religious rituals to secure bountiful harvests, blessings and protection from the deities. It has long been believed that the blood consumed in ritual sacrifice will give to the drinker the soul and attributes of the deceased, be it human or animal. (see Omophagia)

The "Kosher killing" of draining the blood from the sacrificial animal was not a Jewish idea. It was common among the Oriental worshippers to offer the blood to the Great Earth Mother and retain the meat for themselves. However, the Jews like the Hindus taught that the animal’s soul was in the blood. (Leviticus 17:11)

The Celts and Druids drank the blood of their sacrificed human victims, whose throats were cut over cauldrons, or burned their bodies alive in wickerwork gages. The Aztecs cut the hearts out of the human sacrifices with flint knives; the priest held the still-beating heart aloft, then placed it in a ceremonial receptacle. Then the body was frequently dismembered and eaten as an act of ritual cannibalism. The Khonds of southern India speared their victims on stakes and cut off pieces of their backs to fertilize the earth.

The sacrifice of the first born child was prominent. It was practiced by various cultures, especially during troubled times. One example is that the nobility of Carthage during the Punic Wars sacrificed hundreds of children to the god Baal by throwing them in to pits of fire.

The Hebrews offered blood sacrifices. The Biblical book of Leviticus, in the Old Testament, is full of instructions for sacrificing animals and fowl. In Genesis, Cain offered the first fruits of his harvest, which was not pleasing to the Lord, while Abel offers one of his flock, which pleased the Lord. Also, in Genesis, Abraham is tested by God by being instructed to sacrifice his son Issac, but at the last minute a lamb is permitted to be substituted. (Genesis 22:1-14)

The Hebrews commemorate the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt by the sacrifice and eating of the Paschal Lamb at Passover. In Christianity Christ is thought to represent the Paschal Lamb, and therefore, it is believed that his death on the cross obliterated all need for blood sacrifices. Through Christ’s death the redemption of humankind was obtained. This is why the Eucharist and communion services observed in Christian churches represent the unbloody sacrifice of Christ’s death on the cross. Christians believe when partaking in these services they share in the redemption and merits of Christ, an unbloody form of ritual cannibalism.

In justice it must be noted that most, if not all, Christians communicants are not aware that they are participating in ritual cannibalism and most would adamantly deny it with just reason. The Eucharist and communion services are a crucial part of their belief. They believe the night before he was crucified Christ changed bread and wine into his own body and blood which the apostles ate and drank. In Catholicism, with the belief in transubstantiation, the people believe the priest, the celebrant of the Mass, performs the same act as Christ performed at every Mass. This is a belief which many Catholics are taught almost from birth. When Protestants conduct their communion services they believe that they are commemorating Christ’s act by consuming the bread and grape juice.

The Christians need not be chastised for their beliefs or for their lack of knowledge of what is actually occurring in their practice, but as Isaac Bonewits writes in Real Magic (Source: 44), "When the hunter runs down and kills a lion, he may eat the lion’s liver thinking that this will give him strength; or a warrior may eat the brains of his slain enemy in order to assimilate his opponent’s courage or cleverness. A communicant in a church eats a piece of bread which is believed to be the body of Christ so as to gain some of Christ’s attributes. All these are examples of ‘ritual cannibalism,’ and are essentially the same. The lion has strength and a lion’s liver. If I have the lion’ s liver, then I will also have the lion’s strength. The same mechanism of association is operating in each example." (see Law of Association)

There are plenty of descriptions of divine sacrifices reencounted in the mythologies. For example, Osiris, Dionysis and Attis are dismembered in sacrifice for rebirth.

During the Medieval and Renaissance witch-hunts there were all sorts of accusations declared against witches of sacrificing cocks and unbaptized babies to the devil. These accusations were also prevalent during the times of the Black Mass. (see The Mass of Saint-Secaire) All of history rings with such accusations: the Syrians accused the Jews of human sacrifice and cannibalism; the Romans accused the Christians; and, the Christians in return accused the Gnostics, Cathars, Waldenses and Albigenses.

Blood sacrifice has been used in ceremonial magic. Magicians have believed that it releases an instant burst of power which they used for the performance of magical spells and conjuration. The old grimoires command the killing of animals and using their skins to make parchments on which to draw needed magical symbols. Animals which were offered to God and demons had to be young, healthy and virgin in order that the maximum amount of energy would be released. Theoretically, the killing, letting of blood and the fear of death throes of the victim, added to the frenzy of the magician.

An example of this was stated by Aleister Crowley in Magick in Theory and Practice (1929), "The ethics of the thing appear to have concerned no one; nor, to tell the truth, need they do so." Crowley routinely sacrificed animals in his rituals that took place in a magic circle or triangle, which prevented the released power from escaping. He tortured the animal first in order to obtain an elemental slave, as "indefensible, utterly black magic of the worst kind," and then proceeding he stated he had no objection to such black magic when it was "properly understood."

Currently animal sacrifices still occur in various tribal groups and the religious practices of Voodoo and Santeria. Such practices have been protested by animal rights groups, but the Santerians claimed the United States Constitution protects their right to worship as they deem proper. They defended animal sacrifice by demonstrating its ancient roots.

From reports by ex-members of some Satanic groups animal and human sacrifice still occur within these groups. The human victims include kidnapped runaways, children and derelicts. Frequently torture and sexual abuse is applied first. Both are believed to release energy for magical purposes. In various rites the victims’s blood is drunk, and parts of the body are consumed. A.G.H.

I cannot believe that the omniscient Mind which designed and created this universe ever wanted or instructed people to do any such thing. "Scapegoating" is a psychological mechanism that allows someone to substitute another victim for him/her self. How convenient.

Also, the German term "schattenfreude" refers to the mood altering experience of a sort of ecstasy at the witness of someone else's misfortune, suffering and/or death because WE are not that victim. This would explain the state of religious ecstasy that takes place at such rituals and at the celebrations of Jesus' suffering and death. No doubt Mel Gibson experienced a great deal of this effect while making "The Passion".

It is HIGH time for mankind to grow out of this SICK, PERVERSE and HORRIFYING religious practice and to recognize it as such!!!

[scottinalaska]

Heidi,

Allow me to respond to just a couple of your quotes. Much of what you read is true, but if a few words are changed, as they are, OR broadly interpreted, you run into error. No one denies that killing something in the ritualistic sense described in the Old Testament really knocks at one's senses. It seems crazy and unnecessary. But God(a presumption unto itself, I know), stated that without the shedding of blood, there is not forgiveness. Without forgiveness, eternally knowing your creator(another presumption)will be impossible. Thus, instead of slaying people at every turn, He offered an alternative, as gross as it sounds.

Now, Quote: Jews like the Hindus taught that the animal’s soul was in the blood. (Leviticus 17:11)
Come now, let's all go to the source and read Lev.17:11 without blindly giving credence to the statement because it is notated for us- "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
The ONLY soul being spoken of is the HUMAN soul. Animals do not have souls(another presumption, sorry cat lovers; but sometimes I think my cat is special too, but still without soul...but she can sing!)
That said, we can observe the author you quoted as being rather presumptive and frankly, interpreting the Judeo belief with the filter of beliefs from the Druids, Celts, Hindus, and others. We both know that isn't fair, nor is it accurate if you LOOK at the text- a sorely lacking element in our present day matrix.
As for Communion and cannibilism and the bread and the wine? I have heard that Catholics do indeed believe it is magically, through the priest, transformed.
But in Jesus' words: "Do this is as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." Remembrance. It is not the event, it is the symbol. That is what memory is - not the actual event(the sacrifice), but the symbol of it. Sure Jesus said, "this is my body, this is my blood. But considering the OT prohibitions on drinking blood and cannibilism, I seriously doubt that the disciples figured, "Oh, Jesus was SO consistent in his teaching on the Torah these past few years, but tonight, he's really saying, 'Dump that teaching, let's guzzle and chow down!' Maybe we'll get some bacon too!"
Your extensive quoting is interesting, but I must take exception to blanket embracement of the research.
Just some thoughts.
Scottinalaska
Oh, thanks for doing the rather simple research on Jesus claiming Godhead for Stu.

Thank you for your contribution Scott. You wrote:

No one denies that killing something in the ritualistic sense described in the Old Testament really knocks at one's senses. It seems crazy and unnecessary. But God(a presumption unto itself, I know), stated that without the shedding of blood, there is not forgiveness. Without forgiveness, eternally knowing your creator(another presumption)will be impossible. Thus, instead of slaying people at every turn, He offered an alternative, as gross as it sounds.

But Scott... how do we know that god really said anything of the kind? It sounds gross because it IS gross. I have no reason to believe that the creator of our universe ever instructed people to do any such thing... no reason, that is, except verses in a religious book which is a collection of writs by numerous religious followers from thousands of years ago... who wrote about religious rituals that were also practiced by other sects, cults and worshippers of various "gods" taking place all around them. Tell me, Scott... why do you believe it? If you had been raised in the Middle East, would you believe the Quran? They think their religious book is the only true word of god, too, BTW.

An objective, rational look at the overall picture tells me that the ancient Hebrews performed blood sacrifices because it was a common religious ritual practiced all around them, and they were performing their version of the same thing... writing in their religious book (the OT) that god told them to do it. Why should we believe them when they wrote that god told them to do such things? Why? Just because they said so?

Last year there was a news story about a woman who stoned her sons to death because, she told investigators, god told her to do it. Do we believe her? I certainly don't... any more than I believe that god told the ancient Hebrews to kill children or animals for atonement either. I don't believe the insane mother's spoken words claiming that god told her to stone her poor little sons to death... and I don't believe the words written in the OT claiming that god told the Hebrews to sacrifice animals or children, either.

Imagine being the father or mother of a child that your religious group decided to sacrifice this year! Imagine allowing them to take away your little boy, put him squirming onto an altar, pierce him, bleed him to death, and pass his blood around the "audience". You bet it's gross. I cannot accept a religious belief that is predicated upon such practices. I'm glad some scholars are exposing it for what it really is... one of a variety of blood sacrifice religions originally practiced in the Middle East.

Non-sequitor: Have you seen "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

There are new discoveries in the realm of quantum physics that indicate an invisible connection between all of us... and the animals, too. There are experiments which indicate that our thoughts create measurable changes in the world around us at an atomic level... seen only via an electron microscope.

I find the Science of Mind teachings far more believable than the Bible because they do not defy either logic or loving sensibilities. We create evil with our behavior and our choices... and we can choose to create love, forgiveness and peace instead.

I choose peace by default... but if someone brings aggression and harm to me or to my husband or my animals, they'll be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge pump action shotgun and/or a 45 automatic!

If some religious sicko believes "god" told them to kill my cat, dog or horse, it will be the last thought they'll have on this side of eternity... and the Creator can deal with them then.8-)

[scottinalaska]

Heidi,

The God of the Bible didn't say sacrifice your kids on an altar. yes, Isaac was "almost" sacrificed as an example, but I find it impossible that God said, "toss your children in the fire to sacrifice for Me." It's not written there. THus, do not lump animals and children in the same indicting sentence.
Just like saying did you hear about the mother who said "God told me to stone my boys...", I could say, did you hear about the scientist that said, "The message in the petri dish told me to mail anthrax to Bush."
Neither statement disqualifies the body of thought behind them. You can still believe in science and you can still(if you desire) believe in the Bible. Making statements as that are very low level arguments, despite the attracting colorfulness of such a story!
True, many authors - about 40, all writing about the same thing. Pretty incredible. I don't believe you'll find a more consistent compilation of writing over so many years on earth. Now that doesn't necessarily justify faith in the folks who said, "God told me to bring these ten commandments from the mountain down you people!" But it does add to the credibility over other books that were written in MUCH shorter timespans that should NOT so blatantly contradict.
Would I believe the Koran? Unfair question. I never thought I would question government, but alas, I do today. Perhaps I would have had upbringing that would cause me to think more critically and I'd toss it. But perhaps I'd long for ANYthing "manly" and the Koran calls men to do "manly" things like kill and triumph. That in and of itself attracts MORE men to that religion that other religions. So maybe I'd embrace it on a psych level and not reason level.
On a nano scale, everything in our world does appear to vibrate similarly. Very cool. I love it. Same creator leaving his fingerprints on creation I guess!
I am glad you keeping your private property private by whatever means necessary. Me too.
scott

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Heidi,

God told me to bring these ten commandments from the mountain down you people!"

Scott,

Which ten Commandments?

For a thousand years the error "Though Shall Not Kill"

has misrepresented "Though Shall Not Murder".

People have died because of this error, yet Christians will not correct the obvious error.

There are other discrepencies too, which we will leave for later.


Question: How can we defend ourselves, have executions, or eat meat if we may not kill?

BoyntonStu

The God of the Bible didn't say sacrifice your kids on an altar.

I agree. I don’t believe there IS a “god of the Bible” except in the imaginations of those religious persons who wrote the Bible.

yes, Isaac was "almost" sacrificed as an example, but I find it impossible that God said, "toss your children in the fire to sacrifice for Me." It's not written there.

I cannot believe that the intelligence behind this universe ever “told” Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The idea is completely ridiculous and unfounded. The very idea that “god” tested Abraham that way is preposterous. But having learned about the sacrifices of young boys which were being practiced throughout the Middle East and Greece at that time in history (and before), it does make sense that the ancient Hebrews might also have practiced this ritual and eventually sought to cease practicing it… therefore, they wrote this story about Abraham as a way out, so that they could sacrifice goats and calves and morning doves instead.

THus, do not lump animals and children in the same indicting sentence.

I will and I do... my choice. I find it no less abhorrent to sacrifice innocent animals for the sake of some religious dogma than to sacrifice children (whether innocent or not).

Just like saying did you hear about the mother who said "God told me to stone my boys...", I could say, did you hear about the scientist that said, "The message in the petri dish told me to mail anthrax to Bush."

Yes… you could say that… and you would be quite right to lump both such idiotic rationales together. They are both founded upon delusion.

Neither statement disqualifies the body of thought behind them.

Disqualifies what body of thought? The body of thought that “god” supposedly “told” religious followers to kill animals or children in some pagan rite of atonement? That body of thought is disqualified by its pure, unsubstantiated, irrational insanity.

You can still believe in science and you can still(if you desire) believe in the Bible. Making statements as that are very low level arguments, despite the attracting colorfulness of such a story!

Well, I respectfully disagree. I make those statements because they are effective at bringing the concept into the real world of today. If we do not believe someone who claims that god told her to kill her children today, why should we believe that god told anyone to do that very same thing thousands of years ago?

True, many authors - about 40, all writing about the same thing. Pretty incredible. I don't believe you'll find a more consistent compilation of writing over so many years on earth.

I disagree that the Bible is consistent. There are numerous inconsistencies that various denominations have been arguing about for centuries:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html

Now that doesn't necessarily justify faith in the folks who said, "God told me to bring these ten commandments from the mountain down you people!" But it does add to the credibility over other books that were written in MUCH shorter timespans that should NOT so blatantly contradict.

See the link, above. The Bible contains many contradictions that other people have already done a pretty good job of cataloguing.

Would I believe the Koran? Unfair question.

Maybe you misunderstood my purpose in asking that question. That is a rhetorical question founded in my assumption that you might have been culturally influenced to accept the Bible because you were raised in America rather than in the Middle East. Had you been raised in, say ... Iraq or Saudi Arabia, you would probably believe the Koran instead. So my point was that your willingness to believe the Bible has a cultural component. As Wisper pointed out, it is a meme.

I never thought I would question government, but alas, I do today. Perhaps if I would have had upbringing that would cause me to think more critically and I'd toss it. But perhaps I'd long for ANYthing "manly" and the Koran calls men to do "manly" things like kill and triumph. That in and of itself attracts MORE men to that religion that other religions. So maybe I'd embrace it on a psych level and not reason level.

Right… there you have it. My rhetorical question was designed to point out that most people do embrace the Bible for emotional and or cultural reasons rather than logical reasons... just like those who embrace the Koran.

On a nano scale, everything in our world does appear to vibrate similarly. Very cool. I love it. Same creator leaving his fingerprints on creation I guess!

I agree. There is some very compelling evidence. Go to:

www.reasons.org

...to see a wonderful website by Dr. Hugh Ross - an astronomer who believes in God. I disagree with him about the Bible being inspired by God, but I do agree with his collection of evidence supporting a supernatural intelligence behind the universe (and maybe not supernatural at all … maybe it is completely “natural” and we simply do not understand it well enough to realize that).