Isnt God not just a metaphor?

wylo

Sorry Im not sure if this topic is a common one, I would imagine it is, I searched for the word metaphor in the forum and nothing that talks about this directly came up.

1. Do you believe a state called "enlightenment" is possible?

2. Is it not likely what happened Jesus is what happened Buddha or other similar leaders? That they went through an experience that allowed them to be more "tuned in" with the universe, and in Christian terms, this universe was named God.
And unfortunately over 2000 years, God turned into some "powerful being" that has control over the universe, and stopped being the universe itself?

Im thinking Jesus wasnt talking crap, Im thinking he was engaging in direct experience with the universe (where the sense of self is quelled), and all these phrases

- "son of God" (part of the universe),
- "Gods Children", (part of the universe)
- "God is everwhere/everything" (the universe is everything) "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (love the universe),
- "Love one another" (jesus may have been beaming with love when in this state of mind, probably simply physical feelings as a result of "enlightenment")

Im not talking about anything mystical here, im talking about a person who fine tuned their own brain , like many can do, reached a certain mindstate where thought/feeling of self is exposed as illusory, and where direct experience with the world around you becomes the prominent state.

The difference was he was probably a pretty decent public speaker, was probably very deep in this state and so from there things took off.

Im sure this stuff has been said alot here, if there's a thread id be interested. I haven't read God Delusion either so maybe thats covered, but that's just my thoughts anyway.

And with that , I wonder does "praying to God" actually mean, meditate through concentration of sensory experience (experiencing the world around more closely), and that will bring you "closer to God"

mikhail

No.

wylo

mikhail wrote: »

No.

???
aaaanddd?

Newaglish

Most of these "prophets" that were floating around at the time weren't exactly talking about a warm, fuzzy feeling called "enlightenment". They heard voices from God, spoke with talking bushes on fire, walked on water, separated the seas with magic, witnessesed bread and fish falling from the sky, turned water into wine, poked their fingers through the hand-holes of someone who rose from the dead, sailed boats with two of every animal across a world completely submerged in water, and so on.

These are all supposedly factual things that people saw and experienced. If the people from whom these stories originated are presenting them as facts rather than metaphors, you can't supplant your theory of metaphors into what they said purely on the basis that it sounds less like complete horsesh!t.

Like every other cult in history, it was simply mass hysteria propagated by someone who was both charismatic and either insane or power hungry.

Lucy8080

well wylo, they found the "god particle" today. actually they should call it the ego particle.

because they have established its affects but cant actually find the particle itself. my guess is they will never find it.

it slows down what should be moving at the speed of light.

it gives rise to a material universe.

anything outside its gravitational pull goes unhindered.

it is...yet it is not.

its a metaphorical particle.....but hey...a and a wont let ya deal in metaphors.

seamus

Well you see, you've stated a list of presumptions and possibilities in your post.

So in reality it's another theory, just like the God theory, which is fundamentally unverifiable.

You've just replaced "God" with "enlightenment", but there's nothing to suggest that the latter is any more likely to exist than the former.

Although you assertion is correct and these people may not have addressed any particular God, they still ultimately addressed an etheral "other" with power and dominion over humans, an "other" which is demonstrably falsifiable.

Without any offence meant to you, my mother has on occasion engaged in this same revisionism where you're repulsed by the Christian churches, but you have difficulty letting go of beliefs about higher powers which were beaten into you from a young age. And Jesus, or whatever rough collection of stories that were created into a man, generally spoke quite a bit of sense about being a decent human being, so you don't want to throw that away for nothing.

So you construct a series of ideas which allow you to continue to revere Jesus and his message, but without subscribing to the Christian churches and without having to abandon your belief in a higher power.

As I say, I'm not trying to offend you, but what you're suggesting makes the assumption that Jesus, Buddha, etc were anything more than human beings with ideas.

Why can't the bible just be a book, and these people just normal people with charisma and a vocal opinion?

wylo

Newaglish wrote: »

Most of these "prophets" that were floating around at the time weren't exactly talking about a warm, fuzzy feeling called "enlightenment". They heard voices from God, spoke with talking bushes on fire, walked on water, separated the seas with magic, witnessesed bread and fish falling from the sky, turned water into wine, poked their fingers through the hand-holes of someone who rose from the dead, sailed boats with two of every animal across a world completely submerged in water, and so on.

These are all supposedly factual things that people saw and experienced. If the people from whom these stories originated are presenting them as facts rather than metaphors, you can't supplant your theory of metaphors into what they said purely on the basis that it sounds less like complete horsesh!t.

Like every other cult in history, it was simply mass hysteria propagated by someone who was both charismatic and either insane or power hungry.

Im theorizing that someone like Jesus DIDNT talk about that stuff, its just his followers and pretty much the masses in general weren't able to handle what the hell he was talking about, but still loved listening to him, and so the tales of BS began very quickly.
Of course , neither of us know, Im just theorizing this to make sense of the madness of the belief of a higher being that so many humans seem to have got caught in.
But I also dont think atheists are free from beliefs either. We just like to pretend to ourselves we are because we don't believe in God.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well wylo, they found the "god particle" today. actually they should call it the ego particle.

because they have established its affects but cant actually find the particle itself. my guess is they will never find it.

it slows down what should be moving at the speed of light.

it gives rise to a material universe.

anything outside its gravitational pull goes unhindered.

it is...yet it is not.

its a metaphorical particle.....but hey...a and a wont let ya deal in metaphors.

You realise the use of the word "God" in "God particle" is just for metaphorical effect right? It's actually called the Higgs Boson.

Yuo also realise they didn't find it right?

wylo

seamus wrote: »

You've just replaced "God" with "enlightenment", but there's nothing to suggest that the latter is any more likely to exist than the former.

Ill be honest, I shouldnt have used that word, what if we got rid of that word and changed it into "a brain/neurol condition where the human challenges its own thoughts/beliefs/assumptions of the world and becomes more in key with their surroundings as opposed to the believing their thoughts". Then it stops being something hocus pocusy and magical and mystical sounding and it becomes something very possible and something that does happen quite regularly to alot of people.
The only difference is Jesus was probably a really good public speaker and was most likely a very convincing bloke.

Although you assertion is correct and these people may not have addressed any particular God, they still ultimately addressed an etheral "other" with power and dominion over humans, an "other" which is demonstrably falsifiable.

As I said in my other reply, I believe the followers did, even the direct followers.
All im saying is, that Jesus may simply have taken on a direct investigation into his mind, realized the absurdity and fictional nature of his own thoughts, got more "clued in" with his surroundings (not mystical by any means) and tried to pass this on. And it resulted in "God".

Without any offence meant to you, my mother has on occasion engaged in this same revisionism where you're repulsed by the Christian churches, but you have difficulty letting go of beliefs about higher powers which were beaten into you from a young age. And Jesus, or whatever rough collection of stories that were created into a man, generally spoke quite a bit of sense about being a decent human being, so you don't want to throw that away for nothing.

No offense taken whatsoever, but no I dont believe in higher powers, if there is any phenomenon going on I beleive it can be explained by science, if not now ,in the future.

So you construct a series of ideas which allow you to continue to revere Jesus and his message, but without subscribing to the Christian churches and without having to abandon your belief in a higher power.

I see what you're saying, but tbh, I couldnt even tell if you if Jesus existed. This isnt my attempt at trying to push the ideas of christianity (good stuff and what not) on people. Its just a theory as to why this nonsense of God actually happened.

As I say, I'm not trying to offend you, but what you're suggesting makes the assumption that Jesus, Buddha, etc were anything more than human beings with ideas.

Nope, just humans, they didnt attain anything mystical , I can understand that my use of the word enlightenment probably opened me up to an ass kicking. I believe whatever they "attained" is something that many philosophers, and even neuroscientists talk about. The illusion of thought being exposed, an internal change of mind.
I believe the only difference is , they were really really charismatic people.

Why can't the bible just be a book, and these people just normal people with charisma and a vocal opinion?

My theory is that the bible is a book of nonsense that was created as a result of the belief that there was a "God" that was anything more than the Universe itself.

Lucy8080

hallo mr. stuffins.

indeed, i pointed out it was metaphorical...and i pointed out they didnt find it, regardless of the name they call it.

i wonder how you missed that...and robin too.

seamus

wylo wrote: »

Im theorizing that someone like Jesus DIDNT talk about that stuff, its just his followers and pretty much the masses in general weren't able to handle what the hell he was talking about, but still loved listening to him, and so the tales of BS began very quickly.

I see what you're saying now, so you can probably disregard a big chunk of my last post.

In short, I don't think so. Even outside of the major Christian denominations, the idea of God features so centrally to the whole thing that I don't think it could have been something which morphed out of Jesus's teachings. In that case, I would expect to see God as something of a side-figure in the whole thing rather than the core of it.

Although the bible has been hacked and shortened and lengthened and retranslated so many times over the centuries that anything is possible.

More interesting is whether the major figures who caused a revolution in religion were less religious than they actually let on. My thinking on it is that if I were teleported back 2000 years, the last thing that I would do is walk around proclaiming that the Torah is wrong and making wild declarations about the nature of the universe. That's the fast-track to crucifiction. I would probably adapt my explanations to the sensitivities of the locals and incorporate many of their traditions and beliefs.

So if Jesus had contemplated on the traditional childish and violent God and decided that he probably doesn't exist, he could have reasoned (as any of us would) that preaching about a more relaxed, less intervening God is the lesser of two evils and more likely to be accepted by the locals than, "There's no such thing as Jehovah, just enjoy yourselves and live your lives".

Lucy8080

metaphors are now allowed wylo. mr stuffins has opened the door.

go ahead wylo,...and let no one here hinder wylo on the basis of metaphor.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

laters.

MrStuffins

Lucy8080 wrote: »

metaphors are now allowed wylo. mr stuffins has opened the door.

Gregor Samsa

Lucy8080 wrote: »

its a metaphorical particle.....but hey...a and a wont let ya deal in metaphors.

The Higgs Boson isn't metaphorical, it's theoretical. The Standard Model postulates that it should exist, they haven't found it yet, so they're looking for it.

If they find it, then it'll be a real particle just like protons and electrons and all the rest of them. And the Standard Model will continue.

If they don't find it, then it doesn't exist, and the Standard Model will have to be replaced with a description of the universe that doesn't rely on such a particle to explain mass.

I read a Christian article today that tried to compare Science's "faith" in the Higgs Boson with Christianity's faith in God. Of course, it missed the point entirely by a country AU.

If the experiments find the Higgs Boson, then they can prove it exists by measurement and observation, and that confirms the current best explanation of how the universe works, and they'll move forward.

If they don't, they'll admit that the current best explanation of how the universe works is flawed, and work on a viable alternative that doesn't rely on a particle fitting the characteristics of the Higgs Boson. Basically, the concept will be dropped (just as other failed theories such as Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory and many others were dropped when demonstrated to be inaccurate by observation and experiment).

This is simple empiricism. So there's nothing based on faith involved in this. The only metaphor is the nick-name "God particle", which is a media creation, not a scientific epithet.

Can you imagine Christianity (or any other religion) conducting an objective experiment to confirm or deny one of the central, but unproven, cornerstones of their "model"? And being willing to admit they're wrong and build a new theory based on a negative result? :rolleyes:

18AD

Of interest: On The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. About the psychological states that encompass the religious experience.

There is a lot of research being conducted these days on what a religious or mystical experience actually involves. It is thought to be a brain state, as you say. I'm sure google will yield results.

There's a series by the BBC called Sea of Faith that I haven't been able to get. I think it's about how God as a metaphor is what the whole story is about, regardless of whether God exists. But I could be wrong.

Gregor Samsa

wylo wrote: »

Im not talking about anything mystical here, im talking about a person who fine tuned their own brain , like many can do, reached a certain mindstate where thought/feeling of self is exposed as illusory, and where direct experience with the world around you becomes the prominent state.

What exactly does this mean? I find it hard to interpret it in any way other than mystical.

How exactly does one "fine tune their brain"? Can you also fine tune your liver? Or your toes? I get the impression that you don't just mean to "exercise" your brain - but rather to uncover some kind of hidden ability (6th sense, for want of a better word) that can somehow tell you more about the universe through intuition than one currently can through observation. This sounds pretty mystical to me.

What makes you think that having a mindset where one considers the the self to be exposed as illusory is in any way reaching a point that accurately depicts reality?

And finally, how can you experience the world around you other than by direct experience? Surely that's already the prominent state? I touch my desk, I see my cup, I taste my tea. Or are you talking about some kind of mystical experience that's supposed to tell you something about the universe?

If so, then no, I see no reason to suppose that such a state exists or is needed. I don't believe in enlightenment - if it means that somehow you can suddenly become "in tune" with the universe, and know things about it intuitively.

To get back to your wider point, I think many modern people regard God as metaphorical - but crucially, I don't think there's any evidence that Jesus, the writers of the Bible (old and new testaments), the writers of the Koran, the Talmud, or any of the other religious texts regarded God as a metaphor. Certainly millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims both now and throughout history don't regard God as a metaphor. I think the people that do are trying to cling on to the vestiges of religious belief, while recognizing that the underlying "facts" don't make any sense. But why bother with a metaphor when it's not needed?

I had a friend who claimed to be a Satanist. When pressed on it, of course, he didn't believe in Satan as an actual being. He used Satan as a metaphor for humanity's quest for knowledge, and as a rejection of theism. Really, he was a Humanist that liked the shock value and iconography of Satanism. But the metaphor was not needed, and just got in the way of what he really believed. I assume he's grown out of it now.

Dades

wylo wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but tbh, I couldnt even tell if you if Jesus existed. This isnt my attempt at trying to push the ideas of christianity (good stuff and what not) on people. Its just a theory as to why this nonsense of God actually happened.

I'm guessing most people here are fine with the idea that someone called Jesus may have existed, and had his teachings totally hijacked both during and after his death by long-suffering Jews waiting for a messiah.

As to what he was actually talking about (had he existed as an individual), it is lost in the fog of time and almost pointless to speculate on for that reason.

wylo

phutyle wrote: »

What exactly does this mean? I find it hard to interpret it in any way other than mystical.

How exactly does one "fine tune their brain"? Can you also fine tune your liver? Or your toes? I get the impression that you don't just mean to "exercise" your brain - but rather to uncover some kind of hidden ability (6th sense, for want of a better word) that can somehow tell you more about the universe through intuition than one currently can through observation. This sounds pretty mystical to me.


What makes you think that having a mindset where one considers the the self to be exposed as illusory is in any way reaching a point that accurately depicts reality?

And finally, how can you experience the world around you other than by direct experience? Surely that's already the prominent state? I touch my desk, I see my cup, I taste my tea. Or are you talking about some kind of mystical experience that's supposed to tell you something about the universe?

If so, then no, I see no reason to suppose that such a state exists or is needed. I don't believe in enlightenment - if it means that somehow you can suddenly become "in tune" with the universe, and know things about it intuitively.

It can be completely non mystical if you take out terms like "6th sense" , "telling you something about the universe", (ok I know I said "in tune with the universe" but what I meant was the person is directly engaging with reality and not living in a world of ideas and beliefs)
It could be seen as simply an exercise that causes an internal change, which could only be physical if it is to be seen as something that's true, I know that neuroscience offers theories.

One neurotheologist for example (Todd Murphy) theorizes that the change is an overloading of right to left inhibitory synapses in the brain , which results in things like ideas that are given to people through language hold little strength. Or the stopping of interpretation of certain situations (I am better than this person bla bla bla), allowing a more direct experience with whats actually going on.
Again, nothing mystical, just an occurrence in the brain.
A good example would be what you said there "my cup", yes there's a cup ,, and theres a human, the ownership of that cup is conceptual, you gave money somewhere to buy it, so yea sure you own it, but that concept is nothing more than the idea that you own it, because of our social conditioning, and a good one too. If I buy a cup I want to keep it. But its just an example.

To get back to your wider point, I think many modern people regard God as metaphorical - but crucially, I don't think there's any evidence that Jesus, the writers of the Bible (old and new testaments), the writers of the Koran, the Talmud, or any of the other religious texts regarded God as a metaphor. Certainly millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims both now and throughout history don't regard God as a metaphor. I think the people that do are trying to cling on to the vestiges of religious belief, while recognizing that the underlying "facts" don't make any sense. But why bother with a metaphor when it's not needed?

Yea maybe you're right , I guess its all only speculation. Just to note, I wasnt claiming that modern christians know its a metaphor, I just think that its possible the metaphor for the universe turned into some sort of mystical higher being.

I had a friend who claimed to be a Satanist. When pressed on it, of course, he didn't believe in Satan as an actual being. He used Satan as a metaphor for humanity's quest for knowledge, and as a rejection of theism. Really, he was a Humanist that liked the shock value and iconography of Satanism. But the metaphor was not needed, and just got in the way of what he really believed. I assume he's grown out of it now.

Yea that just confuses things, if someone told me they were a satanist Id be thinking they believed in some sort of Satan.

I guess as Seamus said, if the early followers did know that "God" was simply in reference to the universe, then the important parts of religion would be the "good stuff", (love your neighbour and what not), Whereas I guess it seems like "God" was the central part of all these religions.

Again, all just speculation , none of us have a clue what went on in Jesus' head.

wylo

18AD wrote: »

Of interest: On The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. About the psychological states that encompass the religious experience.

There is a lot of research being conducted these days on what a religious or mystical experience actually involves. It is thought to be a brain state, as you say. I'm sure google will yield results.

There's a series by the BBC called Sea of Faith that I haven't been able to get. I think it's about how God as a metaphor is what the whole story is about, regardless of whether God exists. But I could be wrong.

Thanks, that book is kind of thing Im getting at, im gonna check it out!

strobe

The idea that what Jesus was trying to get at might have been misrepresented/misinterpreted by others is one that's come up before. On occasion a Christian on here has brought up C.S Lewis' proposition that Jesus was either 'Liar, Lord or Lunatic' and as I recall the other obvious possibility people have put forward is that he might be, as someone on here put it, 'probably the most misquoted man in history'.

I'd agree it's possible, just as any of Lewis' 3 options are possible. But like Dades says, not much chance of determining the truth at this late stage (although I wouldn't necessarily say it's pointless to speculate).

Who knows, he might have just been looking to build up a nice big core group of dedicated followers by feeding them a simple but unfalsifiable idea which he promised would relieve them of things like Social Anxiety/Awkwardness, Depression (be it mild or stronger depression), Pointless Nerves, Judging others, etc, in order to cash in, in terms of money and adulation. But ended messing up and losing the support of many of his followers. Who then went on propagating his ideas even after they found out he was full of crap.

wylo

Touche

bnt

I could recommend some Karen Armstrong to the OP - a former nun who took to theological sophistry, and defined her god entirely out of existence. From this piece in the WSJ:

Darwin made it clear once again that—as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out—we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the "God beyond God." The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.

But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth ("Existence is suffering"), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.

Yeah, I'm sure your auntie or granny who goes to Church or Temple every weekend is a firm believer in that "indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment". :rolleyes:

wylo

strobe wrote: »

The idea that what Jesus was trying to get at might have been misrepresented/misinterpreted by others is one that's come up before. On occasion a Christian on here has brought up C.S Lewis' proposition that Jesus was either 'Liar, Lord or Lunatic' and as I recall the other obvious possibility people have put forward is that he might be, as someone on here put it, 'probably the most misquoted man in history'.

Id be interested to know in what context he was considered to be misquoted by the person that said that.

I'd agree it's possible, just as any of Lewis' 3 options are possible. But like Dades says, not much chance of determining the truth at this late stage (although I wouldn't necessarily say it's pointless to speculate).

I guess the more I think of it , whats clearly happening right now is not working, what I mean is, even science cant disprove God so basically there is very little way an atheist or the movement of atheism will get through to believers, so maybe taking it from a different angle might get both sides more open minded.

Who knows, he might have just been looking to build up a nice big core group of dedicated followers by feeding them a simple but unfalsifiable idea which he promised would relieve them of things like Social Anxiety/Awkwardness, Depression (be it mild or stronger depression), Pointless Nerves, Judging others, etc, in order to cash in, in terms of money and adulation. But ended messing up and losing the support of many of his followers. Who then went on propagating his ideas even after they found out he was full of crap.

I sent you a pm about this, I give up, you win:D

Des Carter

A lot of long complicated stuff here that Im too tired to try and understand but in my opinion if a "God" does exist it would be so foreign to the human experience that we would never be able to even begin to comprehend it or know what God even is.

As for Jesus we know he really existed, had lots of followers and lived a good life and taught people fairly good moral values. After that it is really hard to know. The Gospels were written a while after he died so the information may be innacurate (human error or forgetfullness) it could have been biased (probably was) or his message missinterpreted.

Also parts of the gospels may have gone missing with important details getting lost aswell. And finally they were heavilly edited by the church when it was first put together with many bits left out, changed or added in.

So I really think its very hard to answer that question.

strobe

wylo wrote: »

Id be interested to know in what context he was considered to be misquoted by the person that said that.

I managed to track the post down for you. It was Krudler that said it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71793840

The most misquoted man in history probably. Simple guy who preach[ed] getting on with each other, fine , I can buy that, he was basically a biblical John Lennon. The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale. The Life Of Brian got the biblical hysteria and hero worship angle brilliantly. Religion is basically the worlds biggest game of chinese whispers, blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

In fact that whole thread might be of interest, seems to be in the general area you are talking about here. Who do you think Jesus was? (400 posts long and probably weaves on and off topic as threads in this forum have a tendency to do. But should be worth taking a look).

I sent you a pm about this, I give up, you win:D

Lol, sorry about that part man, couldn't help myself.

dead one

"Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

MrStuffins

dead one wrote: »

"Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

When you're alone and you need a friend
Someone to make you forget your problems
Just come along baby, take my hand
I'll be your lover tonight.











Boom Boom Boom Boom, i want you in my room..........

dead one

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'll be your lover tonight.
Boom Boom Boom Boom, i want you in my room

death wish

MrStuffins

dead one wrote: »

death wish

dead one

MrStuffins wrote: »

Isnt God just a metaphor?

mathepac

dead one wrote: »

Isnt God just a metaphor?

or as the thread title says with the double negative "Isn't God not just a metaphor?", metaphorically speaking.

Dades

Hey everybody!

Welcome back on-topic.

(No more poetry dead one...)

18AD

Just read this and thought it was relevant and interesting.
http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/13920464826/the-return-of-the-gods

Zombrex

wylo wrote: »

1. Do you believe a state called "enlightenment" is possible?

Depends on how you define it. People certainly can believe they are in a state of enlightenment. These people tend to be rather annoying, believing themselves in possession of previously unobtained knowledge but when you press them this knowledge is expressed in vague nonsense and useless buzz words and phrases, such as the classic "We are all energy flowing around" to which I tend to reply "Can you define what you mean by 'energy'"

wylo wrote: »

2. Is it not likely what happened Jesus is what happened Buddha or other similar leaders? That they went through an experience that allowed them to be more "tuned in" with the universe, and in Christian terms, this universe was named God.

No, for various different reasons. For a start Jesus made specific claims (or is reported to have made them) that related to the Jewish religion, which supposes the existence of specific supernatural beings and supernatural events.

These do not parallel with anything Buddha mentioned.

The most likely explanation is that Jesus was a cult leader who traded off the promises he made to his followers in order to be worshipped and kept, financially. He wouldn't have been the first nor the last person to try this.

wylo wrote: »

And unfortunately over 2000 years, God turned into some "powerful being" that has control over the universe, and stopped being the universe itself?

Again Jesus' messages built upon the Jewish religion that didn't suppose God was the universe itself as you are supposing it (of course Jews and Christians believe that the universe is made of God but they believe God to be a being with thoughts, emotions and intelligences, not some abstract idea of all reality as you are suggesting)

wylo wrote: »

Im thinking Jesus wasnt talking crap, Im thinking he was engaging in direct experience with the universe (where the sense of self is quelled), and all these phrases

- "son of God" (part of the universe),
- "Gods Children", (part of the universe)
- "God is everwhere/everything" (the universe is everything) "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (love the universe),
- "Love one another" (jesus may have been beaming with love when in this state of mind, probably simply physical feelings as a result of "enlightenment")

That interpretation would ignore the Jewish religion Jesus claimed to represent, along with a number of specific things Jesus claimed.

wylo wrote: »

Im not talking about anything mystical here, im talking about a person who fine tuned their own brain , like many can do, reached a certain mindstate where thought/feeling of self is exposed as illusory, and where direct experience with the world around you becomes the prominent state.

Can you define more clearly what "feelings of self is exposed as illusonry" and "direct experience withe the world around you"

(see vague nonsense comment above)

wylo wrote: »

The difference was he was probably a pretty decent public speaker, was probably very deep in this state and so from there things took off.

Are you basing that off anything specific?

wylo wrote: »

And with that , I wonder does "praying to God" actually mean, meditate through concentration of sensory experience (experiencing the world around more closely), and that will bring you "closer to God"

Praying to God in the Judo-Christian sense means communicating with the all powerful intelligent being that created the universe and then through various prophets and messengers, communicated with humans as described in the Old and New Testaments.

mooliki

wylo wrote: »

2. Is it not likely what happened Jesus is what happened Buddha or other similar leaders? That they went through an experience that allowed them to be more "tuned in" with the universe, and in Christian terms, this universe was named God.
And unfortunately over 2000 years, God turned into some "powerful being" that has control over the universe, and stopped being the universe itself?

As far as I know, the opposite was the case.

The concept of God or gods would have been around a lot longer than the Judeo-Christian god. Gods that would have seemed a very real aspect of life to the people at the time, controlling the elements, communicating directly with religious leaders, requiring sacrifice and payment.

It was with the likes of Buddha, Jeremiah, Jesus, etc, that a more philosophical, practical ideology was added to the more ritualistic elements of religion. As mentioned before, Karen Armstrong is an interesting one for this subject. She talks about the development of these religions in The Great Transformation.

In saying that, I believe certain elements of Christian dogma, such as the Genesis creation story, would have had more of a metaphorical value, but in the last hundred or so years, had a resurgence in the literal sense by Christian fundamentalists as a reaction to 19th century scientific developments. (I Wikipedia'd that last bit just to double check)

wylo

Zombrex wrote: »

Depends on how you define it. People certainly can believe they are in a state of enlightenment. These people tend to be rather annoying, believing themselves in possession of previously unobtained knowledge but when you press them this knowledge is expressed in vague nonsense and useless buzz words and phrases, such as the classic "We are all energy flowing around" to which I tend to reply "Can you define what you mean by 'energy'"



No, for various different reasons. For a start Jesus made specific claims (or is reported to have made them) that related to the Jewish religion, which supposes the existence of specific supernatural beings and supernatural events.

These do not parallel with anything Buddha mentioned.

The most likely explanation is that Jesus was a cult leader who traded off the promises he made to his followers in order to be worshipped and kept, financially. He wouldn't have been the first nor the last person to try this.


Again Jesus' messages built upon the Jewish religion that didn't suppose God was the universe itself as you are supposing it (of course Jews and Christians believe that the universe is made of God but they believe God to be a being with thoughts, emotions and intelligences, not some abstract idea of all reality as you are suggesting)



That interpretation would ignore the Jewish religion Jesus claimed to represent, along with a number of specific things Jesus claimed.



Can you define more clearly what "feelings of self is exposed as illusonry" and "direct experience withe the world around you"

(see vague nonsense comment above)



Are you basing that off anything specific?



Praying to God in the Judo-Christian sense means communicating with the all powerful intelligent being that created the universe and then through various prophets and messengers, communicated with humans as described in the Old and New Testaments.

I didnt realize that his talk was in reference to the Jewish Religion, I suppose I didnt know enough about what he actually spoke of, that kind of turns my speculation on its head so.

Can you define more clearly what "feelings of self is exposed as illusonry" and "direct experience withe the world around you"

(see vague nonsense comment above)

being "in the zone" (highly concentrated and focused on something, and no self thoughts, im sure you've been there from time to time) except it not applying to that one thing your doing, but it applying to the experience of your life all around you (sounds airy fairy) most of the day ,every day, what I mean is, only the current direct experience being the experience that actually matters. And any other thoughts about the future/past/you being seen as nothing but fictional, basicallly REALLY clear thats all.