Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist in Oslo

[Lunitik]

I doubt Jesus was Essene. He broke bread, he served fish, he made wine, he beat the hell out of idiots. he enjoyed being taken care of by people...he challenged the established law. He argued with the establishment and won. He knew the government was due it's due, and God was due his...

These are not the actions of an Essene....

Why are bread and fish un-ascetic, in your view? Certainly, wine is one of the simplest flavored drinks you can get in this lifestyle for it is just grape juice essentially.

Beating Saducceses and Pharasees is not a surprising act for an Essene, they were quite at odds - exactly because the Essenes pushed for more understanding and furtherance of spirituality. You became an Essene because you didn't support the Jewish establishment - they were too material. Jesus never touches money, and it is not appropriate for an ascetic to do so - although to have a rich disciple is helpful.

As for taking care of people, it was mutual, he also washed the feet of his disciples for instance.

There is nothing which is contradictory between Jesus and the Essenes. In fact, it answers more questions then it posits, for instance why didn't Jesus marry? Well it is an Essene belief...

 

[Lunitik]

In a modern, liberal and secular society "crowd-think" may seem ridiculous, but I wonder what would have happened without "crowd-think," if people cared more about themselves than the rest of their group. I think their chances of survival would drop.

Don't forget that the New Testament Canon is just a "book." It is completely up to you how you want to read it. We have been contemplating the purpose of this book and its ideas for 2,000 years. We all have different views. The problem is that some people "require" you to see things a particular way.

Supposedly "good ideas" must be promoted and "bad ideas" must be demonised. I don't completely disagree with this philosophy. You seem to do plenty of that yourself. Who wouldn't promote the good and demonise the bad? What disgusts me is when bad ideas are promoted as "good" and good ideas demonised.

It's all very subjective, which is why some people take drastic measures and try to achieve it by force. This is how "socially destructive" and controlling cults develop. The founder or leader thinks their ideas are so good and so important that they will actually try to force the issue and dominate over their followers.

Most of the time, people do not resort to such drastic measures. They do however, promote or demonise ideas depending on which ones they think should prevail in the end. You do it, I do it and plenty of others do it. Jesus certainly did it, so it seems to mandate that we should do it too.

The question is what would happen if we didn't do this. The human race would probably descend into total chaos and anarchy. That is what I think would happen.

Religious people promote ideas they find in a book. The difference between ideas that religious and non-religious people promote is therefore the book. Religions revolve around books and traditions. Religious people think these books are special or contain special ideas.

Different people reading the same book will develop different views on it.

However, because of the belief that a book contains special ideas, some religious people feel that a lack of consensus weakens the "specialness" of the book. I for one do not agree with this concept, but many Christians feel this way.

Most of what you regard as "Christianity" is this consensus I dislike. It isn't because ultimately I disagree with the idea of a consensus, but rather that I disagree with the current and contemporary established, dominant or mainstream views of Christians. Consensus is good when the consensus is right, but when it is wrong, the consensus is the problem. The NT does not prescribe or dictate Christianity. Christianity is not something to be dictated.

The consensus is external. Every human experiences a book differently so every reader will develop different views. There is no normative Christianity except that which is established and I disagree with the present establishment(s) whether it is the Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant churches.

We currently have what I regard as a heretical consensus and this consensus must be steered back to the correct consensus. Christianity needs reform and the two main questions regarding reform that I have in mind is (1) how to achieve reform and (2) what reforms?

I have my own views on this, as you do.

It is just a book, and there are many others on the topic of spirituality, so why pick this one? My whole point here is that it is absurd to deny that these are legitimate fruits of your faith merely because you don't want to admit it. Christ himself calls you to sound the alarm bells when the fruits begin to sour. It is comfortable to ignore, it is scary to venture out without your savior and find a deeper truth - one where the fruits have not soured. Ultimately, you realize you are your own savior, but this seems like hard work. Who wants to actually work to achieve something when they have been convinced it is unnecessary? Christianity is simple, it just says "what do you have to lose? the weight is light, it is not a burden", any extra baggage that is not useful is still wasted energy, however.

Jesus' whole system of proofs is the Torah, but what if this is false? What if Christ has aligned himself as closely as possible and others have moved him closer, and yet even the foundation is flawed? It is easy to say you align with such a description, any certainly no one today can go back and check, simple fact of the matter is outside Christian circles there is little proof Christ even existed, let alone that Moses or Noah did, and good luck trying to find record of Adam outside the Bible/Torah. The Catholic Church even admits the Bible is not historically or literally true in all cases, yet common Christians will die and kill to uphold it.

 

[Saltmeister]

Since Christ was an Essene, it is more likely that his truth actually refers to Kaballistic teachings.

I would be cautious about classifying Jesus as Essene because I am not all too comfortable about all of us becoming Essenes. Many of Jesus' teachings can also be found in Pharisaic tradition or rabbinic Judaism. So was Jesus a Pharisee then?

The Essenes did not survive the destruction of the Second Temple or the Jewish-Roman war. The Pharisees however, did survive. Both their community and their tradition have survived for 2,000 years. That is what Judaism is today. It's basically Pharisaism.

Jesus was quite critical of the Pharisees but that doesn't mean all Pharisaism is "bad" or "wrong." From what I have read, I think the negative aspects of Pharisaism were just one side of Pharisaism.

If the Essenes were good at enlightenment, then the Pharisees were good at survival. The teachings of the Pharisees were designed for survival. There is no substantial Essene community today. If the greatest achievement of the Essenes was spiritual (enlightenment) then the greatest achievement of the Pharisees was physical (survival).

Jesus might be talking about the same thing the East has perfected. No, enlightenment is an Eastern teaching, our precious savior has already done everything, we just have to believe and follow the Sheppard as his sheep.

What about Pharisaic tradition? Many of Jesus' teachings can be found in Pharisaic tradition, so was it enlightenment or Pharisaism?

if all are one body, there cannot be two. Another is where he says some will see the Kingdom of God before they taste death...

As a consequence, you will fundamentally understand that truth can only be one.

The question is how this oneness will be achieved. Considering that there is no substantial community of Essenes around today, it would be easier for us all to align ourselves with Pharisaic tradition (Judaism) than for us all to become Essenes. Essenism or enlightenment may be a grand goal, but history shows that it wasn't very good at surviving.

 

[Saltmeister]

It is just a book, and there are many others on the topic of spirituality, so why pick this one?

Firstly, it's not all about spirituality, but life and survival as well.

One book was chosen because people needed a consensus on what book to follow.

it is scary to venture out without your savior and find a deeper truth - one where the fruits have not soured.

but even if we do venture out to find a "deeper truth" we won't all end up agreeing.

This may not be so important today because we are living after the industrial revolution, but consensus is important for survival. People need to work together towards a common goal and they can't do that without a consensus.

Venturing out without your saviour may benefit you, but not the other 2 billion Christians if you can't agree with them on what path you are following. Even if the concept is wrong the important thing is that most Christians are "together."

Ultimately, you realize you are your own savior, but this seems like hard work. Who wants to actually work to achieve something when they have been convinced it is unnecessary? Christianity is simple, it just says "what do you have to lose? the weight is light, it is not a burden", any extra baggage that is not useful is still wasted energy, however.

What if the planet was threatened by nuclear war and the only way to save ourselves was to channel some kind of spiritual energy? If everyone did their own thing, millions and perhaps billions of people would die and be left behind with the radioactive waste. If some of these people were united, they would be able to protect one another from the radiation.

Liberation from our physical bodies is the only purpose I can think of for enlightenment. I actually think it is easier to "go it alone" and harder to work together when you disagree. You can save yourself but what about saving everyone else? It is great to be your own saviour but it can also be pretty selfish.

What if Jesus only cared about saving himself? What then?

Even if it was true that "we can all save ourselves," I don't think the whole world is ready for that. That's why Jesus has to do for now. That's why this "heresy" has to continue.

Just like the rabbis keeping knowledge of Kabbalah secret from the general population, this "truth" (if indeed it is the truth) needs to be concealed until the right time.

Judaism 101: Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism

Have you ever wondered what Paul meant by "the fullness of the Gentiles?" (Romans 11:25) This may be it.

 

[Lunitik]

I would be cautious about classifying Jesus as Essene because I am not all too comfortable about all of us becoming Essenes. Many of Jesus' teachings can also be found in Pharisaic tradition or rabbinic Judaism. So was Jesus a Pharisee then?

Jesus' whole lifestyle was that of an Essene, it is ok though, Constantine has ensured nothing like meaningful can be propagated to humanity at large. Also, there is no such thing as Rabbinic Judaism, the modern form of Judaism is actually still the Pharisees I believe - if you trace it back.

Jesus has spoken against Sadducee's and Pharisees, how can he be either? For me, the core of Judaism is in the Kabbalah branches - of which I classify Essenes of the past, and Hasidics as subgroups. Most Essenes probably crossed to early Christianity since they were expecting a Messiah and Jesus would have fit well for them. I imagine these eventually merged into Sufism as Christianity moved about from mysticism but perhaps their ancestors merely went along for the ride.

Jesus was quite critical of the Pharisees but that doesn't mean all Pharisaism is "bad" or "wrong." From what I have read, I think the negative aspects of Pharisaism were just one side of Pharisaism.

As practiced in his day, and since he has brought in no body that can be called a respected Pharisee, I think it is safe to agree that Jesus had little in common with them other than using the same book. Christianity very much has the flavor of Kabbalah teachings within it whereas Judaism was quite about materialism. Whether there is a direct correlation is debatable, for we cannot know where Jesus got his ideas - of the theories I have heard, this is the most sane and least offensive I think. It could have merely been that Jesus navigated to this group because it was closest to what he would teach, but I do not believe people are born enlightened or with prior knowledge - they must awaken to this when it is time.

If the Essenes were good at enlightenment, then the Pharisees were good at survival. The teachings of the Pharisees were designed for survival. There is no substantial Essene community today. If the greatest achievement of the Essenes was spiritual (enlightenment) then the greatest achievement of the Pharisees was physical (survival).

Jesus' message is about enlightenment only, every parable and every saying credited to him refers to the ultimate or the ramifications thereof. What of Jesus' teachings is about material survival?

What about Pharisaic tradition? Many of Jesus' teachings can be found in Pharisaic tradition, so was it enlightenment or Pharisaism?

Enlightenment, certainly, it is far more mystic than material. All of Jesus' teachings that can correlate to Pharisaic teachings are because they share the same book. This is the whole nature of the Temple incident, we never see Jesus dealing with money. I do not believe anyone in the Torah has been enlightened, if you read through it none reference such things, these are all new concepts to Jews and yet to the mystic they are light reading material. The simpletons Jesus has attracted cannot take more, and future generations have been harmed by this. Jesus has taught enlightenment but no one that has had power in his Church has understood, a few perhaps.

The question is how this oneness will be achieved. Considering that there is no substantial community of Essenes around today, it would be easier for us all to align ourselves with Pharisaic tradition (Judaism) than for us all to become Essenes. Essenism or enlightenment may be a grand goal, but history shows that it wasn't very good at surviving.

You would call it grace, you must make the effort, be complete towards the gate, but it cannot open if it is not time. Do not pay attention when the mind begins to sense it is not involved in the contemplation anymore, it is not an experience of the mind you are looking for. Continue consciously blanking the mind, removing the cruft, the perceptions you have allowed to be programmed into your being. For me, I was left with God at the end, subject and object, I was still present because there was still a desire despite blanking all else. This is the most difficult, but the Bible tells you the solution, and I have hinted at it: it says God is love, can you also be love? If you can be love and God is love, are you not the same? All is God, so it is not blasphemous to say you are part of that, but see for yourself. I have shown you the grounds briefly to permit it in the Bible direct, but a Church father has said it even clearer, he has said: God has become man so that man can become God. You can read this however you like, you can reject my understanding, all I say is that this is further proof that I am not telling you to betray Jesus - you are free to formulate your own opinions on whether my words are insane or worth checking out. Your mind will say this is preposterous, it makes no sense - you and God are the same? but God is perfection! - what does your soul say? Has your essence been hearing you read truth or crap? You will know clearly if it appreciates the words, I am not good at articulating it so perhaps it has not seen.

 

[Lunitik]

Firstly, it's not all about spirituality, but life and survival as well.

Live completely so that you can die completely, but the death is not of the body in this context, there will still be a vessel for you to continue here. Survival is not even worth the effort, if you are just surviving, you aren't living. If there is a lifeguard on duty, you are fine to be barely surviving, you can be saved. This is not authentic seeking though, authentic seeking requires totality - surviving is the middle between death and life, it is neither, a non-committal. Do not just survive, do not keep one foot in the grave, be grateful no matter and watch existence reward you for your love - but do not do this for the reward, this is a disgusting intent, merely watch the happening.

One book was chosen because people needed a consensus on what book to follow.

Why? And why this one?

I have not followed any book, I have allowed curiosity and intuition carry me from tradition to tradition seeking each ones truth. I am not trying to walk the path of someone else - it has already been walked, why be a carbon copy? Be something original, not a copy. There is no danger in the tried and true, but it is so dull as well.

but even if we do venture out to find a "deeper truth" we won't all end up agreeing.

If we understand oneness, how can we not agree? It will not even arise that there must be conversation on the matter - each knows, what can be shared with words? It is only those which do not know that dispute - I answer questions and respond, I do not dispute. It does not matter your path, they are like a spiders web, they are all approaching the center from different angles, but always they meet at the center. I tell you that it is sometimes good to run around the circumference - when it is possible, when you have found a truth which goes beyond specifics - look and see if other traditions speak of this too. If they do, no matter name or language, you can know it is truth. It must be truth, how can entirely separate groups, groups that hate each other, draw this same conclusion? Otherwise you might have picked the wrong web and there is a spider waiting to eat you. If you have picked this web for something non-essential, you will pay a price in clinging to something of no benefit. You will be eaten before you have find the center because what is important to you is not helpful.

This may not be so important today because we are living after the industrial revolution, but consensus is important for survival. People need to work together towards a common goal and they can't do that without a consensus.

Always talk of survival, half-living is already death.

Venturing out without your saviour may benefit you, but not the other 2 billion Christians if you can't agree with them on what path you are following. Even if the concept is wrong the important thing is that most Christians are "together."

What is the need for you to agree before you have discovered truth? You will always disagree before truth is found because you don't know what you're talking about. If any truth is said, it is entirely by accident if it is not from a position of knowing. You have mixed up priorities, you need fulfillment but you are finding it only in doses. What I say can bring you joy when you are completely alone, you will only be around others out of compassion. Now, you are addicted to acceptance, you are willing to be wrong provided you are accepted. This is exactly what group-think is, this is its whole mission.

What if the planet was threatened by nuclear war and the only way to save ourselves was to channel some kind of spiritual energy? If everyone did their own thing, millions and perhaps billions of people would die and be left behind with the radioactive waste. If some of these people were united, they would be able to protect one another from the radiation.

How many are needed to channel, do you think? If one of todays nuclear bombs were detonated, there is no question of being saved, this planet would cease to be so where can you go?

Liberation from our physical bodies is the only purpose I can think of for enlightenment. I actually think it is easier to "go it alone" and harder to work together when you disagree. You can save yourself but what about saving everyone else? It is great to be your own saviour but it can also be pretty selfish.

Incorrect, liberation is the freedom from lies, it is the culmination of a quest to know your true self, the true nature of reality. Liberation is achieved through full enlightenment, leaving the body is merely a side effect along the way - Jesus' miracles are another that some encounter.

What if Jesus only cared about saving himself? What then?

He is saved, he succeeded.

Jesus stood on the shoulders of others just as I am imploring you to do, when you stand on just one pair of shoulders it is difficult - you might fall. Already, when just two are consulted that have known truth, it is easier. If you gather enough, you can organize steps and easily walk up without problem, you have removed all difficulty. At the very least, we know of John the Baptist as Jesus' teacher, but there were Essenes and Buddhists prevalent in Judea at the time.

Why are you so miserly? Is there anything else in life which you only seek the a single perspective on? Friendship seems important to you in the Church, you have glorified its unity - despite it being the least unified faith on earth: 40,000 denominations - so surely you have many you turn to for assistance? Do you only ask those that you know will agree with what you want to pick?

Even if it was true that "we can all save ourselves," I don't think the whole world is ready for that. That's why Jesus has to do for now. That's why this "heresy" has to continue.

It is funny, we are not ready to save ourselves, but depression and suicides are skyrocketing, what a strange world.

 

[seattlegal]

I see here convoluted rationale.

He was not found to be a religous Christian!

He is a Demon first-class.

Such demons cause Chaos.

Chaos is the hallmark of demonic actions.

Any attempt to surmise he was motivated by Christian Ethos is simply an attempt at mis-information ---for ulterior movtives that I do not know of.

Chaos or disorder? (as in mental disorder in this case)

 

[greymare]

There are those in EVERY society and culture that attempt to justify thier own murderous tendencies by claiming to be ............ (insert word here, eg, religious, political, but always RIGHT!).
It was horrific, this man is insane! May God forgive him.....

Is it just me, or does he resemble one of the bad guys from the Die Hard movies?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Chaos or disorder? (as in mental disorder in this case)

Chaos is how it is defined in the Vedas.

Asuras cause chaos due to their pursuit of their personal engrandisements.

BTW, Police & government i=are incharge of Keeping or mantaining
"Law and Order"

"Order" as in the proper functioning of a state of civic affairs.

 

[Sam Albion]

What I don't understand is this...

Okay. He's far-right, and hates Muslims, etc... then why kill a load of white 14-18 year olds at a Labour youth camp? I'm not saying he should've killed Muslims instead -- but, if you're gonna pick up a gun and shoot your "enemies", then at least choose them more wisely.

Some of the kids heard the shots and thought it was balloons. Bursting. Or maybe firecrackers. The idea a madman was walking about killing people didn't enter their heads. Until they saw him.

He took drugs. Uppers. To keep him awake while on his killing spree. He set his machine gun trigger to single fire. (Most machine guns have three settings- single fire, rapid shot, continuous burst). He didn't want to mow a group of people down quickly. He wanted them to suffer, and he wanted to hunt them as individuals. That's the only reason for single shot.

One by one, he popped them off. Kids, screaming, "please don't kill me". And he still shot them. And laughed.

He is sick in the head. And there's no cure for this... evil weirdness.

He wrote a 15,000 page dossier on his political ambitions/persuasions. I write novels. The average novel has around 300 pages. That's the equivalent of 50 novels. The average novel takes 18 months to create, write, refine. This 15,000 page dossier he wrote took him six years, supposedly.

He was a mason. he was a christian. Whatever he was.... he is mad. Mad as a box of frogs. And he took pleasure in killing those young people, those white, earnest young people, people who he didn't know and who had never harmed him.

He wanted to be a big shot and have his day in the sun and become some kind of anti-hero for other twisted freaks.

Apparently, the norwegians are not prosecuting him as a terrorist -- he's being charged with "crimes against humanity" instead.

Fair play to the Norwegians, I think.

 

[bob x]

What I don't understand is this...

Okay. He's far-right, and hates Muslims, etc... then why kill a load of white 14-18 year olds at a Labour youth camp? I'm not saying he should've killed Muslims instead -- but, if you're gonna pick up a gun and shoot your "enemies", then at least choose them more wisely.

Even more than he hates Muslims, he hates "traitors to the race" who allow Muslims into the country; and by killing the young of the Labour Party, he was hoping to eliminate those who would grow up to be "traitors" and thereby lessen the number of "traitors" in the future-- thus strategically working toward a time when Muslims are no longer allowed into Norway.

 

[Saltmeister]

Also, there is no such thing as Rabbinic Judaism, the modern form of Judaism is actually still the Pharisees I believe - if you trace it back.

Pharisaic, rabbinic and talmudic Judaism are the same thing. They are just different names given to the same tradition at different times.

Jesus has spoken against Sadducee's and Pharisees, how can he be either?

Just because you mention a group and criticise them doesn't mean you're not one of them. I often speak of Christians in third person. Does that mean I'm not Christian? I'm pretty sure Jews, Catholics and Muslims do that too and what if you're a journalist or book author and have to write in third person?

The point isn't to say Jesus had to be a Pharisee, but that we can't assume he was an Essene or Pharisee just because of what he said. I don't think it's helpful because Jesus' followers were definitely not Essenes or Pharisees. I think he clearly had no intention of making them Essenes or Pharisees. Jesus' followers were neither and that's why they became a distinct group called the Nazarenes.

Was Jesus a follower of Hillel just because his teachings were similar to Hillel's?
Was Jesus an Essene just because he had something in common with Essenes?
Was Philo Judaeus the inventor of Christianity just because some of his ideas ended up in the Gospel of John or in Paul's epistles?

Consider that the NT never mentioned Hillel, the Essenes or Philo Judaeus. There is nothing instructing us to accept or reject that Jesus was an Essene, follower of Hillel or a creation of Philo but if we were to choose one of them we would have to exclude the others.

A search of Google turned up a lot of people who disagree with the idea of Jesus being an Essene.

Kurt Eggenstein: Was Jesus an Essene, or Leader of a Rising against the Romans?
Ship of Fools: Was Jesus an Essene?
What Does the Bible Say About..Jesus Being Essene?

I did suspect at some point that Jesus might have been an Essene, but I became cautious when bobx mentioned some important differences that disqualified him from being an Essene.

For me, the core of Judaism is in the Kabbalah branches - of which I classify Essenes of the past, and Hasidics as subgroups.

The core of Judaism is not Kabbalah but the Torah. According to that link I provided earlier, kabbalah wasn't taught until people had a good knowledge of the Torah. It was considered too dangerous for the general population. I think there's a good reason for that. It's because spirituality and mysticism are inherently dangerous. The rabbis were right for making it a secret. I have found you to be quite anti-materialistic in your views and I think you're missing an important point.

You reject Judaism as materialistic. I think there was a good reason it is/was materialistic and it isn't because the Pharisees and rabbis were stupid but because they knew mysticism was dangerous. They made Judaism largely materialistic to protect their people from the dangers of mysticism. I am not absolutely against mysticism. I just think too many people misuse and abuse it. Mysticism is not a toy for your enjoyment or entertainment. It is a tool. I think people should explore the non-mystical world as much as they can before they get into the mystical. Mysticism isn't evil but I think that mysticism either isn't for everyone or most people just aren't ready for it.

As practiced in his day, and since he has brought in no body that can be called a respected Pharisee, I think it is safe to agree that Jesus had little in common with them other than using the same book.

Who he brought in is actually less important than what he had in common with a very important Pharisee named Hillel. Hillel is a big part of Judaism and many of Jesus' teachings were similar to those of Hillel. Some say Jesus was probably a follower of Hillel.

Jesus the Jew
Jesus and the Pharisees

The biblesearchers.com site has a good article on Jesus' Pharisaic background. It's a four-part series:

The Great Synagogue of Altona, built in 1684, where Rabbi Jacob Emden was born
Rabbi Jacob Emden meets Rabbi Yahshua
Khirbet Qumran, the Essene Community along the Wadi Succacah near the Dead Sea
http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/beithillel/beitshammai.shtml

Christianity very much has the flavor of Kabbalah teachings within it whereas Judaism was quite about materialism.

I think the real reason why Christianity has generally not been "mystical" is the same reason why Judaism is mostly materialistic -- because mysticism can be dangerous if you don't completely appreciate the material world.

Jesus' message is about enlightenment only, every parable and every saying credited to him refers to the ultimate or the ramifications thereof. What of Jesus' teachings is about material survival?

Would you be willing to change your mind if you started looking into what Jesus had in common with the Pharisees? What if you learnt that Jesus wasn't trying to be mystical? Hebrew culture wasn't very mystical and many of the things Jesus said had a Hebrew meaning. One of the links below is to an article about the Oral Torah and it says Jesus probably followed the Oral Torah.

Hebrew Roots Feature
Hebrew New Testament
The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew Messianic613′s Weblog

I spoke of survival because if you do give up materialism, you have to demonstrate its viability. You have to show the value of the new life you now live. Jesus often spoke of the kingdom of heaven and one theory is that the miracles were heaven breaking in.

There is a risk that in chasing after heaven you might starve yourself to death by turning your back on the material world. To demonstrate the value and viability of your new life, you have to show that it is survivable. You do the bare minimum required for survival in this world while at the same time having a "foot in the door" of the kingdom of heaven.

Many of the early Nazarenes sold their land and gave it to the church. They gave up private ownership of property and collectivised it. It was like a kind of socialism. The ancient Israelites spent forty years wandering in the wilderness. They did not have farms but lived on quail and mana from heaven. It wasn't materialism or mysticism, but something in between. The Nazarene Way was a middle ground.

This is the whole nature of the Temple incident, we never see Jesus dealing with money.

What about when Jesus said that unless your justice were to exceed that of the Pharisees you wouldn't enter heaven? He was talking about charity (Tzedakah).

What about Matthew 20:1-16? It sounds a bit like socialism or communitarianism. Everyone is paid the same regardless of how long they worked. I think one way of seeing it is that it's like social security. Everyone should have their minimum needs satisfied.

I do not believe anyone in the Torah has been enlightened, if you read through it none reference such things, these are all new concepts to Jews and yet to the mystic they are light reading material.

Why does it even have to be about enlightenment? What is enlightenment anyway? I asked if it was education or intellectualism and it seems that what you really mean is mysticism. But why does everyone have to be a mystic?

Jesus didn't intend for his followers to be Essenes or Pharisees. They were not mystical, educated or intellectual. The Nazarene Way did not discriminate between the great and small, rich and poor, smart or simple, strong or weak. It did not require anyone to be educated, intellectual or mystical. You speak of oneness, but it seems that the insistence that everyone become a mystic would be a barrier to oneness.

 

[Saltmeister]

Survival is not even worth the effort, if you are just surviving, you aren't living.

It depends on what you mean by "living."

Why? And why this one?

Every sacred book was chosen because people believed it had something important to tell us. I grew up with this book and have not finished contemplating its meaning or purpose. Not all questions have been answered. That is why I have not moved on.

I have not followed any book, I have allowed curiosity and intuition carry me from tradition to tradition seeking each ones truth.

I don't seek what people call "truth" at all. By "truth" I am talking about people's mystical path to some goal and I don't see life that way. Jesus did speak of "truth" but it was a political one. The Pharisees sat in Moses' seat and people adhered to that authority. Unfortunately, the dominant faction of Pharisees at the time taught something incompatible with what Jesus believed. This wasn't about a mystical path. This was politics.

That "truth" died with that generation. Judaism and Christianity moved on from that. Today's generation has its own problems. Because I focus on the sociological, I don't think in terms of "truth."

I am not trying to walk the path of someone else - it has already been walked, why be a carbon copy? Be something original, not a copy. There is no danger in the tried and true, but it is so dull as well.

I walk my own path. The non-mystical world is bigger than some think. You are already a mystic, a good reason for me not to become a mystic. There are however, so many people in the world today that it would be inevitable for the same path to have been walked hundreds of times!!!

If we understand oneness, how can we not agree?

Telling everyone that they all belong to the human race just hasn't worked. For example, you want everyone to become a mystic.

Christianity contains the basis for oneness, just not the one you seek. In the first century the Gospel in theory broke down the walls of separation between Jews and Gentiles. That was the point of the Apostolic Decree. The Gentile Christians were not required to fully convert to Judaism. The Apostolic Decree matches three of the Seven Noahide Laws in Judaism (against idolatry, sexual immorality, eating of live animals). The other four are implicit (against murder, theft, blasphemy and adhering to courts of law).

It's like the Abrahamic version of secularism and multiculturalism. It means that it is possible for Christians, Muslims and Jews to be integrated into a single social system and thought system. What stands in the way of this happening is mainstream Christian and Islamic ideology. The spread of Islam and Christianity could be thought of as the harvest Jesus described in Matthew 13. It is part of the process of the "baptism of the nations."

Christian Olive Tree theology provides the basis by which Muslims and Christians will be reintegrated into a Jewish social system and thought system. The Nazarenes were the branches that broke away from mainstream Judaism (the roots) and started to mingle with the wild olive tree (Gentiles). In Romans 11:18 and 20 Paul says to the Gentiles, "do not be arrogant .... you do not support the root, but the root supports you." In the last 2,000 years Christians did become arrogant. They thought they had replaced Judaism (replacement theology) by becoming the roots when they hadn't.

So what about those who aren't Christians or Muslims? I think the "truth" is, Christianity isn't just about Christians. Christianity is about all Gentiles. Christianity spent many of the first centuries after Jesus integrating and assimilating pagan religions. Those who say that paganism is a part of Christianity are right. That's because it's Christianity's mission to assimilate all paganisms. Islam takes the tough monotheistic stance against paganism. Christianity is a softer and gentler approach.

The problem with today's Christians is spiritual jealousy and spiritual racism. They think Christianity was just for Christians. This is just like some of the first-century Jews who believed the Gentiles had no place in the world to come.

They have forgotten that Christianity is an integrationist and assimilationist tradition. It was never supposed to be monolithic. Judaism is supposed to be monolithic because Judaism is the religion that really matters. Christianity can afford to be diluted and corrupted so that more people can become Abrahamic and monotheists. Judaism cannot. Christianity can afford to cease to be the "Christianity" we know. It's the leap of faith we all need to take. This is how Bahai, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, New Age and Christianity will become one.

When Christianity spread throughout the world, it wiped out the pre-existing paganism, absorbing them like a sponge. Christianity is part of a 2,000 year-old agenda to wipe out paganism and replace it with monotheism.

There are now 2 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. At the end of the process of integration and assimilation, Christianity will surrender its sovereignty to Judaism. We will come under the authority of the rabbis and must follow rabbinical rulings. That's my theory.

What is the need for you to agree before you have discovered truth?

It's because the truth doesn't matter. Humanity is what matters. Love your neighbour as you would love yourself. There is no truth to that. It isn't true. That is a commandment, not a truth. There are truths, but there is no such thing as "the" truth. The need for peace and co-existence outweighs the need for truth. That may be a very materialistic way of seeing things, but I am just so disillusioned with spirituality.

How many are needed to channel, do you think? If one of todays nuclear bombs were detonated, there is no question of being saved, this planet would cease to be so where can you go?

The planet would still exist. It would just be heavily polluted. That's why we need to bring heaven down to this world. It will be a protective shield against the radiation. They say Jesus' miracles were an "invasion" that heaven was breaking in, terraforming the world. The more people there are, the stronger the shield. That's why conversion to Islam or Christianity is a numbers game. We need as many people as we can get to protect us against the coming apocalypse. If there is a time and place for mysticism, maybe it is then, but not now.

 

[Lunitik]

Just because you mention a group and criticise them doesn't mean you're not one of them. I often speak of Christians in third person. Does that mean I'm not Christian? I'm pretty sure Jews, Catholics and Muslims do that too and what if you're a journalist or book author and have to write in third person?

Jesus was a Jew, Essenes are Jews, but I would bet you are aren't of the groups you are speaking against? There are 40,000 branches of Christianity, so it very unlikely indeed.

The point isn't to say Jesus had to be a Pharisee, but that we can't assume he was an Essene or Pharisee just because of what he said. I don't think it's helpful because Jesus' followers were definitely not Essenes or Pharisees. I think he clearly had no intention of making them Essenes or Pharisees. Jesus' followers were neither and that's why they became a distinct group called the Nazarenes.

I cannot say I know for sure he was an Essene, I simply say that every question we can have of the man is answered by saying he was. Today, many people swear that Jesus and Mary were married and many say they even had a child - for instance. Saying he is Essene makes it clear this is not possible. There is also the whole nature of his existence, why didn't he settle and have a home?

Was Jesus a follower of Hillel just because his teachings were similar to Hillel's?
Was Jesus an Essene just because he had something in common with Essenes?
Was Philo Judaeus the inventor of Christianity just because some of his ideas ended up in the Gospel of John or in Paul's epistles?

I know little about the Talmud's since I am not particularly interested in Judaism. I have looked into the Essenes because they were a mystic group, there is no other reason.

As for the inventor of Christianity, I would say it is Constantine since he has ordered the simplification of that which was unconstrained at this time. Even the Gospel of Paul is not there, yet he is supposedly the rock for which the Church is to be built.

Consider that the NT never mentioned Hillel, the Essenes or Philo Judaeus. There is nothing instructing us to accept or reject that Jesus was an Essene, follower of Hillel or a creation of Philo but if we were to choose one of them we would have to exclude the others.

Then where has Jesus gained his ideas? Do not say they are direct from God, for it cannot be proven. None of his actual teachings are found in the Torah - not one. He said he came to confirm its laws, but he is entirely separate from its teaching.

The core of Judaism is not Kabbalah but the Torah. According to that link I provided earlier, kabbalah wasn't taught until people had a good knowledge of the Torah. It was considered too dangerous for the general population. I think there's a good reason for that. It's because spirituality and mysticism are inherently dangerous. The rabbis were right for making it a secret. I have found you to be quite anti-materialistic in your views and I think you're missing an important point.

I disagree, although mainstream Judaism doesn't concentrate on either Hasidism or Kaballah today. For me, this means they are missing their most substantial teachings. Why are the priests engaging in it if it is so dangerous?

You find me materialistic? In what way? I have written against dualism, so how can you say I have picked an extreme? This is very puzzling...

You reject Judaism as materialistic. I think there was a good reason it is/was materialistic and it isn't because the Pharisees and rabbis were stupid but because they knew mysticism was dangerous. They made Judaism largely materialistic to protect their people from the dangers of mysticism. I am not absolutely against mysticism. I just think too many people misuse and abuse it. Mysticism is not a toy for your enjoyment or entertainment. It is a tool. I think people should explore the non-mystical world as much as they can before they get into the mystical. Mysticism isn't evil but I think that mysticism either isn't for everyone or most people just aren't ready for it.

I reject all organized religion, I do not pick and choose which to reject and which to support.

What exactly are the dangers of mysticism in your mind? Dualistic mysticism is a strange beast, but such practitioners have missed the whole point.

I think the real reason why Christianity has generally not been "mystical" is the same reason why Judaism is mostly materialistic -- because mysticism can be dangerous if you don't completely appreciate the material world.

The Bible is very mystical, you just lack eyes to see. In fact, John is more focused on the spiritual life than I can ever express. He tells you that you must approach the book spiritually. Jesus also says that material thing (money) are for Caesar, and spiritual things are his. I would never say you should divide the two, this very notion creates a duality in you.

Would you be willing to change your mind if you started looking into what Jesus had in common with the Pharisees? What if you learnt that Jesus wasn't trying to be mystical? Hebrew culture wasn't very mystical and many of the things Jesus said had a Hebrew meaning. One of the links below is to an article about the Oral Torah and it says Jesus probably followed the Oral Torah.

I am not talking from mind, so how you effect mind is not useful.

I spoke of survival because if you do give up materialism, you have to demonstrate its viability. You have to show the value of the new life you now live. Jesus often spoke of the kingdom of heaven and one theory is that the miracles were heaven breaking in.

I have said nothing at all against material, I speak of an integrated life. If your focus is material, you are missing half of yourself, and the opposite is true as well. Only if you permit both the inner and outer to be equally nourished can you live a full life.

Why does it even have to be about enlightenment? What is enlightenment anyway? I asked if it was education or intellectualism and it seems that what you really mean is mysticism. But why does everyone have to be a mystic?

Mysticism is merely a way to point towards truth, it is a mystery because it cannot be described, only pointed at. Everyone should pursue the highest experience possible during life, and this is enlightenment.

Jesus didn't intend for his followers to be Essenes or Pharisees. They were not mystical, educated or intellectual. The Nazarene Way did not discriminate between the great and small, rich and poor, smart or simple, strong or weak. It did not require anyone to be educated, intellectual or mystical. You speak of oneness, but it seems that the insistence that everyone become a mystic would be a barrier to oneness.

What did Jesus intend? Certainly he did not intend them to be Christian, he never even heard this word.

 

[Lunitik]

It depends on what you mean by "living."

Do you think that merely breathing is living? For instance, are those that are brain dead alive in your opinion? If so, then we have very different views on the matter.

Every sacred book was chosen because people believed it had something important to tell us. I grew up with this book and have not finished contemplating its meaning or purpose. Not all questions have been answered. That is why I have not moved on.

Simply not the case, faiths are popular based on the longevity and forcefulness of the people propagating it. Christianity is the largest because first there was the Roman Empire, then the Holy Roman Empire, then the various Empires of those formerly under their rule. Never in Europe since the Roman Empire has a King been above the Pope, so of course all that conquered the world propagated Christianity by force. Islam is next, Ummaya and Abissad Empires, and then the Ottoman Empire tell the story here. In India, Hinduism has fought many wars among its own tribes. Indeed it has fought against Buddhism much as Islam and Christianity fought. This is how religion is propagated, who would become religious if they'd never heard of it and it was explained to a thinking mind? The beliefs are absurd... that is why there are growing numbers of atheists, they realize this. Luckily, even science is creating its mysticism - contemplate on quantum mechanics or the simple fact your body consists purely of atoms, something will probably happen if you go deep enough into the ramifications.

I don't seek what people call "truth" at all. By "truth" I am talking about people's mystical path to some goal and I don't see life that way. Jesus did speak of "truth" but it was a political one. The Pharisees sat in Moses' seat and people adhered to that authority. Unfortunately, the dominant faction of Pharisees at the time taught something incompatible with what Jesus believed. This wasn't about a mystical path. This was politics.

That "truth" died with that generation. Judaism and Christianity moved on from that. Today's generation has its own problems. Because I focus on the sociological, I don't think in terms of "truth."

Then you will not find it, cannot find it.

I walk my own path. The non-mystical world is bigger than some think. You are already a mystic, a good reason for me not to become a mystic. There are however, so many people in the world today that it would be inevitable for the same path to have been walked hundreds of times!!!

You walk a path of denial, of negativity. I am not a mystic at all, I am someone that has experienced truth. Mysticism has assisted, but if I get into anything that resembles my experience automatically you write it off as just a crazy mystic!

It sort of begs the question why we are still talking, but alas we continue.

Telling everyone that they all belong to the human race just hasn't worked. For example, you want everyone to become a mystic.

I am not even saying it is limited to being human, but I disagree this hasn't worked before. Racism is substantially dropping throughout the world, so how can you say this isn't working? Not 50 years ago, it was impossible for a white and black person to eat at the same diner, you overlook the progress we have made already!

When I say oneness, though, I refer to everything, the entirety of the Universe. In fact, this very word contains the root "one", so it is hinted at right within our language. Again, if you don't like mystic views, merely research quantum mechanics, it will bring the same conclusions - it cannot do otherwise.

Christianity contains the basis for oneness, just not the one you seek. In the first century the Gospel in theory broke down the walls of separation between Jews and Gentiles. That was the point of the Apostolic Decree. The Gentile Christians were not required to fully convert to Judaism. The Apostolic Decree matches three of the Seven Noahide Laws in Judaism (against idolatry, sexual immorality, eating of live animals). The other four are implicit (against murder, theft, blasphemy and adhering to courts of law).

There is only one to be sought.

They have forgotten that Christianity is an integrationist and assimilationist tradition. It was never supposed to be monolithic. Judaism is supposed to be monolithic because Judaism is the religion that really matters. Christianity can afford to be diluted and corrupted so that more people can become Abrahamic and monotheists. Judaism cannot. Christianity can afford to cease to be the "Christianity" we know. It's the leap of faith we all need to take. This is how Bahai, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, New Age and Christianity will become one.

The best text I have seen for how the faiths can become one is Maitreya Ishwara's "Unity", there is no other way at all. This is the problem though, today, as Maitreya explains, the religions are about assimilating. This is why they can't get along, each has potential clients for the other and they are greedy. This is the situation with your sacred beliefs, very few actually see anything related to integrationalist, Jesus has in fact stated that he has not come to bring peace! You are the one which is not understanding his words, not I.

It's because the truth doesn't matter. Humanity is what matters. Love your neighbour as you would love yourself. There is no truth to that. It isn't true. That is a commandment, not a truth. There are truths, but there is no such thing as "the" truth. The need for peace and co-existence outweighs the need for truth. That may be a very materialistic way of seeing things, but I am just so disillusioned with spirituality.

Truth doesn't matter? Love your neighbor as you love yourself, because you are the same. This is the truth, but you have never asked why this commandment exists. You segregate so you create a situation where truth cannot arise, then you say it simply doesn't exist. This is hilarious to me, sorry.

It is as if I took out all the green jelly beans from a packet, then told you green jelly beans don't exist while you're eating them. You are talking to someone who has experienced truth, and yet your argument is that the experience cannot happen.

The planet would still exist. It would just be heavily polluted. That's why we need to bring heaven down to this world. It will be a protective shield against the radiation. They say Jesus' miracles were an "invasion" that heaven was breaking in, terraforming the world. The more people there are, the stronger the shield. That's why conversion to Islam or Christianity is a numbers game. We need as many people as we can get to protect us against the coming apocalypse. If there is a time and place for mysticism, maybe it is then, but not now.

How much longer will the planet exist though? Not long if we cannot come together, in the past it wasn't important, there were no insurmountable possibilities in the ramifications. Today, we have nuclear weapons that can turn this planet into the rings of Mars, yet still we cannot come together on even the basic truths, let alone the profound.

 

[Saltmeister]

I disagree, although mainstream Judaism doesn't concentrate on either Hasidism or Kaballah today. For me, this means they are missing their most substantial teachings.

Who are you to decide what the most substantial teachings are of Judaism?

You find me materialistic? In what way? I have written against dualism, so how can you say I have picked an extreme? This is very puzzling...

I said anti-materialistic. I said that because you rejected some religions for being materialistic.

What did Jesus intend? Certainly he did not intend them to be Christian, he never even heard this word.

He intended them to be Nazarenes.

There is only one to be sought.

The question is how. According to you, it is "truth" that brings us together.

Truth doesn't matter? Love your neighbor as you love yourself, because you are the same. This is the truth, but you have never asked why this commandment exists. You segregate so you create a situation where truth cannot arise, then you say it simply doesn't exist. This is hilarious to me, sorry.

The commandment doesn't exist because of truth. The commandment is about valuing the life of another. You don't need the idea of truth to understand that. The idea of truth is what segregates.

If you can learn to value another person, you don't need the idea of truth. "Value" eliminates the need for "truth." Ockham's Razor. Truth is a redundant concept. You don't learn to love another by deciding it is "truth," you learn to love because you discover that it is valuable. If someone teaches you to love, it is because they consider it "valuable." They pass their wisdom or experience on to you.

To say it is truth is to say you can prove it. If you can prove it, you don't have to experience it. You can't prove it. That's why you have to experience it.

It is as if I took out all the green jelly beans from a packet, then told you green jelly beans don't exist while you're eating them. You are talking to someone who has experienced truth, and yet your argument is that the experience cannot happen.

"Truth" is just a word and it isn't the only word used to describe something people regard as good or as a goal. There is love, kindness, generosity, charity, hospitality, joy, etc.

What exactly do you mean by "experiencing truth" anyway? Why do you have to call it "truth?" Why not something else?

It's quite possible that someone may think of the idea that making love with a beautiful girl and enjoying it is "experiencing truth." But truth is something you can prove and if you can't prove it, it can't be true. If may be true or false that a person enjoyed making love with the beautiful girl, but the "truth" doesn't come without a statement that can be true or false.

So what is the statement that can be true or false that you experienced?

You walk a path of denial, of negativity. I am not a mystic at all, I am someone that has experienced truth. Mysticism has assisted, but if I get into anything that resembles my experience automatically you write it off as just a crazy mystic!

It sort of begs the question why we are still talking, but alas we continue.

When I have been posting in different threads, I won't immediately catch what you have posted. When you decide that some religions are worthless, the question is what makes you better than everyone else? That is the reason for all this going back-and-forth.......

It's great to claim that one has "truth," but what's the point if you can't share it, or if someone else has to experience it for themselves. We can't all experience what you had.

In the end the experience is your's. Consider it a gift from God. The rest of us have to do it the hard way. Because you can't give it to us, you can't tell the rest of us what to do.

 

[Saltmeister]

I am not even saying it is limited to being human, but I disagree this hasn't worked before. Racism is substantially dropping throughout the world, so how can you say this isn't working? Not 50 years ago, it was impossible for a white and black person to eat at the same diner, you overlook the progress we have made already!

You're using a secular example. The Abrahamic version may catch up soon.

This is the situation with your sacred beliefs, very few actually see anything related to integrationalist, Jesus has in fact stated that he has not come to bring peace! You are the one which is not understanding his words, not I.

If you think I have not understood this, then you simply do not understand me. The integrationism is part of Christianity. Christians have simply forgotten about it. I didn't say this would be a peaceful process.

Jesus' miracles are said to have been a sign that heaven was "breaking in." It was like an invasion from heaven.

If Abrahamics (Jews, Christians and Muslims) ever become politically united, the rest of the world will see them as a common enemy. I see it as a theoretical possibility. If it is not the three seeing it in their tradition or theology, then it is a common external threat. At the moment you see them competing and fighting, but it may not remain that way forever. Not all Jews, Christians and Muslims may become part of an integrationist movement. Some may resist integration. I just see it as something achievable.

When that happens, Abrahamics will no longer be converting or fighting each other. It will be monotheists against everyone else. That is the most terrifying scenario I can imagine. Religion won't matter anymore. It will be all about God. A lot of people are going to hate that. There isn't going to be peace. This may be what starts the apocalypse.

 

[bananabrain]

Jesus' whole system of proofs is the Torah, but what if this is false? What if Christ has aligned himself as closely as possible and others have moved him closer, and yet even the foundation is flawed?

from my perspective, it is far more likely that the "proofs" relating to jesus have been retrofitted to make it look like they relate to the Torah prophecies. that is certainly a possibility that one should consider.

The Essenes did not survive the destruction of the Second Temple or the Jewish-Roman war. The Pharisees however, did survive. Both their community and their tradition have survived for 2,000 years. That is what Judaism is today. It's basically Pharisaism.

the word "pharisee" relates to the hebrew word "MePhaRShIM" - the "interpreters". only in christianity does this this carry a negative connotation.

If the greatest achievement of the Essenes was spiritual (enlightenment) then the greatest achievement of the Pharisees was physical (survival).

let's not get sucked into false dichotomies, shall we? i think you're on a somewhat slippery slope if you are intending to argue that normative rabbinic judaism (as you term "pharisaism") has resulted in little in the way of spiritual achievement; the evidence is against you.

Essenism or enlightenment may be a grand goal, but history shows that it wasn't very good at surviving.

indeed, the only way it does survive in the way i believe you mean is within the host community; the poorest decision of the essenes and the other esoteric / eschatological qumran-style sects as described by, for example, josephus, was to split off from the main community and seclude themselves in groups where their ascetic practices gradually removed any chance that they might become sustainable. later mystical groups remained within the community and thus kept their feet on the ground through marriage and the everyday round of community life.

Just like the rabbis keeping knowledge of Kabbalah secret from the general population, this "truth" (if indeed it is the truth) needs to be concealed until the right time.

ummm.... opinion is divided as to when this happened. some say it refers to the public revealing of the zohar in the C13th, some say it happened with the kabbalistic explosion of the C15th, some say it is more recent. however, all of this refers to events within the jewish community.

Jesus' whole lifestyle was that of an Essene

hmmm. even the essenes married, although they had a typically gnostic attitude to sex. it would have been (and remains) highly odd for an observant jewish male to remain unmarried at the age of thirty. it would seem far more likely to us that he did have a wife that was edited out of the gospels (i.e. mary magdalene, as the popular "debunkers" would have us believe) or, say, died, or simply remained at home with the kids.

For me, the core of Judaism is in the Kabbalah branches - of which I classify Essenes of the past, and Hasidics as subgroups.

hmmm. i'm not sure you understand what the core of judaism is, then. hasidism in the way you understand it dates back only to 1700 and the ba'al shem tob, whereas classical kabbalistic thought is embedded in mainstream rabbinic figures from the tannaim (C1st) through to the golden age of spain (e.g. nahmanides, rashba, abulafia) through to the safed circles of the C15th and the messianic scandals of the C17th. this comment exhibits a certain ignorance of the history of jewish mysticism, so i would suggest you read some gershom scholem at the very least to start.

As practiced in his day, and since he has brought in no body that can be called a respected Pharisee, I think it is safe to agree that Jesus had little in common with them other than using the same book.

on the contrary, it is pretty clear that jesus as reported was abundantly familiar with halakhah (jewish law) even if he went out of his way to make a point by publicly breaking it (as per healing that guy's arm or picking corn on the sabbath, not washing before meals) or by pointing out halakhic contradictions or hypocritical behaviour; as i have pointed out a number of times, his interpretation of the law of met mitzvah (a person who dies unattended outside a city) as followed by the "good samaritan" is correct, compared to the actions of the supposedly more knowledgeable jews in the story. it seems to me that jesus is a very jewish figure in the prophetic tradition, as much in his transgressions against jewish law and in his revolutionary opinions on social justice. both are very much in keeping with the spirit of normative rabbinic judaism, as you would know if you were familiar with the doings of his rabbinic contemporaries as reported in the mishnah.

This is the whole nature of the Temple incident, we never see Jesus dealing with money.

the issue of the management of the Temple cult was a matter of much debate and heartache for the normative rabbinic community as well and rather better documented. if jesus objected to the way in which the financial management of sacrifice-purchase was made, he undoubtedly had good reasons which were shared by much of the rabbinic community, although his tactics would probably not have been approved of.

I do not believe anyone in the Torah has been enlightened, if you read through it none reference such things, these are all new concepts to Jews and yet to the mystic they are light reading material.

hur, hur, hur. i don't think you understand at all *how* we reference such things. why don't you try *asking* jews rather than assuming you understand what you're reading, when you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg?

You reject Judaism as materialistic. I think there was a good reason it is/was materialistic and it isn't because the Pharisees and rabbis were stupid but because they knew mysticism was dangerous. They made Judaism largely materialistic to protect their people from the dangers of mysticism. I am not absolutely against mysticism. I just think too many people misuse and abuse it. Mysticism is not a toy for your enjoyment or entertainment. It is a tool. I think people should explore the non-mystical world as much as they can before they get into the mystical. Mysticism isn't evil but I think that mysticism either isn't for everyone or most people just aren't ready for it.

i quite agree - except that "materialistic" isn't really what i'd call it; we don't discount the material, indeed, we hold that the physical is not to be merely transcended but transformed; the world too can be perfected and this is part of our task.

Judaism is supposed to be monolithic because Judaism is the religion that really matters.

except that judaism isn't monolithic either. judaism also does not proselytise and the reason for this is that you don't have to be jewish to share in the perfecting of the world.

At the end of the process of integration and assimilation, Christianity will surrender its sovereignty to Judaism. We will come under the authority of the rabbis and must follow rabbinical rulings. That's my theory.

blimey. i certainly wouldn't see it like that. if you're talking about zekhariah 8:23, that for us is about learning and leadership, not authority. i certainly wouldn't go to current rabbinic leadership and make them an offer like that!

If Abrahamics (Jews, Christians and Muslims) ever become politically united, the rest of the world will see them as a common enemy. I see it as a theoretical possibility. If it is not the three seeing it in their tradition or theology, then it is a common external threat. At the moment you see them competing and fighting, but it may not remain that way forever. Not all Jews, Christians and Muslims may become part of an integrationist movement. Some may resist integration. I just see it as something achievable.

When that happens, Abrahamics will no longer be converting or fighting each other. It will be monotheists against everyone else. That is the most terrifying scenario I can imagine. Religion won't matter anymore. It will be all about God. A lot of people are going to hate that. There isn't going to be peace. This may be what starts the apocalypse.

i certainly don't see that as a future worth having.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Bananabrain -- I need to pick yours! Great post! I believe both Fundamentalists (of all stripes from Hindu to Muslim) and new-agers need to expand their horizons and come to grips with the fact that they do not know everything.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark

 

[bananabrain]

Bananabrain -- I need to pick yours! Great post! I believe both Fundamentalists (of all stripes from Hindu to Muslim) and new-agers need to expand their horizons and come to grips with the fact that they do not know everything.

you're most kind. however, i would apply this to *everybody* - including quakers (i believe you're a quaker). so, for example (and, without wishing to be unnecessarily confrontational) how do you react to the funding of fundamentalists by the joseph roundtree foundation?

Harry's Place Amnesty Partner, CagePrisoners, Lynches Obama

or the use of friends house in london to host anti-semitic events addressed by holocaust deniers and protocols-mongers?

Harry's Place Friends and Friends

or, indeed to host the virulently unpleasant group hizb-ut-tahrir?

Harry's Place What on earth is going on at Friends House?
Harry's Place Another Friendly Welcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir

i tell you honestly, i simply do not understand why a group that i otherwise have massive respect for (that's the quakers, not the hizbies) are allowing themselves to be used in such a way.

sadly, delusion is not the sole province of fundamentalists.

b'shalom

bananabrain