The right of a moron to think otherwise

[Janic]

Just a few theological details:
About this (or almost)

Did you know that Pilate, to whom the criminal Jesus was presented,
replied "what is the truth?"

a) christ jesus is not a criminal
Luke 23-14: " you brought me and man as an arousing people to revolt ... and behold I questioned him before you and I did not find him guilty of any of the things of which you accused him and Herodotus either, and they said: -This is innocent man»

And at these words Jesus did not answer.

In reality, Jesus is indicted for scribes and priests, not by Pilate representing Roman authority and who is not a party to this conflict: " Pilate asked him and said, Are you the king of the Jews? and Jesus answered: - You say it for the third time What harm has he done? I find nothing in him that deserves death! »
Fake news is therefore as old as humanity!
The chief priests laid several accusations against him, Pilate questioned him again: - do you answer nothing? See how many things they accuse you of and Jesus made no answer. Mark 15-2 and jeans 18-29.
On the truth "jean 18-37:"

PIlate tells him (…) I came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Anyone who is of the truth listens to my voice. Pilate said to him, "What is truth?

»
We are here in a situation of separation of Church and State (Rome) and Pilate does not have to get involved in internal discussions in the church of the Israelites.

You will tell me that he had said it a thousand times (that he was The Truth, Alice's hole and many other things) but, nevertheless, he did not answer.

In reality, saying " in truth "At that time is like saying today" I assure you that "However, concerning him himself, he is parsimonious in his use and apart from saying," I am the way, the truth and the life Which is addressed to believers in the only god and not to "pagans" that is to say non-Israelites, for whom this formulation has no meaning.

Is it because he was speaking before a Great Scholar?

Pilate was not a scholar in "biblical" texts, unlike Christ Jesus who was a doctor of the law. on the other hand, he knew the customs of the time like all ambassadors and politicians.

Because we wrote it was bullshit?
Surely a bit of both my general.

The bullshit is mostly in the comments on a text that few really know (no more than the Pilate of the time!)

Do you know that, in our dear bible, Adam and Eve were blind?

not in the bible!
On the contrary, God brought the animals before the man so that he would give them a name, difficult for a blind man and likewise place them in a garden to cultivate it, just as difficult for the blind.
On the other hand, the text speaks of deciller "the serpent tells them "the day you eat it (from the fruit of knowledge) you will be like god knowing good and evil »Genesis 3-4

it is indeed because of the "forbidden fruit" that their eyes open and that they perceive the other world. Before they saw life simply, in black and white, as a hunter and a hunted ...

Ouarfff! Amazing how the imagination can be overflowing!

So again a reflection: the apple was really bad or excellent?

It's not an apple either! No pomegranate or whatever.

[eclectron]

eh eh, i don't have dear inspiration Orpheus, or too much inspiration ...
not easy to make concise ... I re-retry.

accessible truth?

By truth I do not mean "to know everything about everything", which would surely be explosive for a small brain but only the truth about what I am at the moment, on the creation at the moment, and on the subject of. the moment.
In the hollow it would give, nothing personal interferes with the truth, since she has always been there, she can speak.
Only I, myself, with my cumulative knowledge in the psychological sphere (personal experiences / knowledge that make me who I am), screen there.
I laugh because intelligent things come in blast, then escape to the point of no longer knowing what it was, I can not capture them, finally I think that answers the question.
Truth does not contain itself, is not accessible to cumulative knowledge, but it is there.
where then

also that we already knew her somewhere

useful truth?

I would say yes to no longer live in illusion.
The world is sick of our illusions, starting with the main one, that of ourselves, this idea of ​​self-importance:
Monitor more of everything because it's better, or more of less because it's better too.
The truth is theoretically the end of suffering and corollary, the end of pleasure too (but not of joy) and this is where Monsieurplus does not agree, to die to everything he knows, to during his lifetime. hence my problem of capturing the lightning above.

beneficial truth?

Dangerous, even fatal for Monsieurplus ...
beneficial to humanity in us? It seems logical that once freed from personal greed at all levels, life on Earth could be very different, less confrontational, more peaceful and not necessarily boring as quibbled Monsieurplus who clings to the branches.
There is the perceived and real risk that our whole life will shatter, once the compromises, the hypocrisies seen by a look of truth.
Monsieurplus is afraid of losing, afraid of dying, I believe that it is the only real brake on the truth which is nevertheless there and patiently awaits us, a little help from time to time seems like nothing.

"Knowledge" therefore kills freedom of choice.

Yes, only the right action, without choice, remains.
It only annoys Monsieurplus to no longer be able to choose according to his inclinations.
For the animal, kingdom where Monsieurplus should confine itself, ca d to the survival of the body, the right action is to let it operate, it is its job but not more.
only an uncertain mind chosen from his cumulative knowledge, in recipes from the past stored in memory.
The truth is always current, it is much more apt to support the right action in the life which is itself actual.

All this is undoubtedly not waterproof, between truth and Monsieurplus.
To talk about my case, this quest for truth is both guided by Monsieurplus who is looking for permanent happiness (bad reason, because an additional brake but also a motor ...), both by something else.
One obstacle is that as long as everything is going pretty well for Monsieurplus, he is satisfied with the little pleasures of life, putting the revolution off until tomorrow.
Germinating seeds have been planted in me, thanks to Krishnamurti.
Life plants others, it is no longer possible now to live by satisfying only the little pleasures of life.
Could I really have one day? I don't think death has been around in my family since childhood, or even before, it's a heavy weight, we are necessarily looking for a way out, from above, because the life energy is strong and well there.
I live this whole experience over the days, with small evolutionary touches, whatever happens.

Monsieurplus will no doubt say that we can do more effective?
I do not know.
Is this not to reinforce Monsieur more proud of a result, greedy for a result?

PS: I am currently reading "Krishnamurti his life his work" by a relative, pupul Jayakar (secondhand, the new is overpriced!)
it's interesting because we know about the genesis, the undersides, outside the very smooth teaching of the facade. It's more human, though.

[eclectron]

It's not an apple either! No pomegranate or whatever.

I am not a big fan of spirituality of the past always subject to caution, interpretation and unnecessary baffles and above all it is impossible to provide conclusive evidence given the seniority.
However, you tickle my curiosity about the "forbidden fruit", what do you think it is?

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
It's not an apple either! No pomegranate or whatever.
I am not a big fan of spirituality of the past always subject to caution, interpretation and unnecessary baffles and above all it is impossible to provide conclusive evidence given the seniority.

absolutely! But, if ^ proofs "there are they are not found under a microscope, nor an astronomical telescope, ie IN the matter itself

However, you tickle my curiosity about the "forbidden fruit", what do you think it is?

no idea, I was not present at the time.
As this work is essentially a reason for meditation on the meaning of things, rather than on their composition, it does not matter what it could have been composed since the only fact (for the text) to report two aspects, like knowledge ( which is already a kind of intellectual feat,) but also, from this knowledge, to believe that you can rise to this absolute knowledge and even immortality, like a kind of frog wanting to make yourself as big as an ox and died ... [*]. and our world is full of frogs with the same ambition. Isn't our world constantly asking ourselves the same question of good and evil, and fighting against its inevitable deadline?

[*] THE FROG WHO WANTS TO BE
AS BIG AS THE BEEF

A Frog lives an Ox
Which seemed to him of good size.
She who was not fat in everything like an egg,
Envious stretches, and swells, and works
To match the animal in size,
............... Saying: Look carefully, my sister;
Is it enough ? tell me ; am I not there yet?
Nenni. So here I am? Not at all. There I am?
You do not approach it. The puny Pécore
Swelled so well that she burst.
The world is full of people who are not wiser:
Every bourgeois wants to build like the great lords,
Every little prince has ambassadors,
Every marquis wants to have pages.

[eclectron]

and our world is full of frogs with the same ambition. Isn't our world constantly asking ourselves the same question of good and evil, and fighting against its inevitable deadline?

There is a frog in each of us, what I call Monsieurplus, or the ego.

the fact that the truth or the absolute, or the immortality, as you want, are not accessible to the cumulative knowledge of Monsieurplus, does not mean that there is absence of truth, of the absolute or of immortality , to paraphrase the signature of I no longer know who?

An observable and scientific fact is that it is not accessible to the frog.
you have to accept questioning, questioning the frog to hope to hatch something other than frog mode.
This is an attitude of scientific researcher, accepting to explore the unknown and therefore leaving the known aside for a moment.
Listening to people who claim or are supposed to have gone beyond frog mode cannot possibly do any harm.
Finally everything depends on the aspirations of the frog and its opening, therefore its weight.
Who wants to go far, light travel. , let's not talk about beef!

[Janic]

eclectron hello
the important thing in this parable of the frog is that despite all its efforts to be more, or even to be better, it ends up bursting and that no science and even less scientists can avoid. We can also compare this to a tire that is inflated each time a little more and which, inevitably, will eventually burst under increasing pressure. The illusion is to believe that as long as it has not erupted, it is that this choice made is the right one as the guy said who threw himself out of the window of a tower and who said to the passage of each floor: 'so far, so good!"

[Orpheus]

a) christ jesus is not a criminal
Luke 23-14: " you brought me and man as an arousing people to revolt ... and behold I questioned him before you and I did not find him guilty of any of the things of which you accused him and Herodotus either, and they said: -This is innocent man "

Yes and no. It is certain that if we take the texts that have had ample time to be corrected / filtered Jesus is a holy man. So I'm not basing myself on very convenient catch-ups, but simply having fun reviewing things from another angle.
Historically Jesus is perfectly unknown, moreover not according to the needs in Nazareth ... or Bethlehem: if we can assume that there must have been someone like him, he is absent from the history of the year zero (more or less ... 10 years, 40 years?). far from the biblical history of the crowd that listens to it, of the many miracles, signals of the sky and the earth ... As for the small SECTE which inherits from it it is so appreciated by the people that one considered that she practiced cannibalism and other joys, things perfectly imaginable by the simple fact that their practice in secret, which was not tolerated (the practice of religion was then considered necessary for any good citizen but imperatively in public, probably for avoid plots against the Roman Empire). The bad behavior and bad reputation of Christians will allow a certain Nero to easily lay the charges of the great fire of Rome.
In short, the beginnings of Christianity are not at all glorious!


(Jesus says)

"Whoever is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him: "What is the truth?"

Fake news?
not so sure, just quote!

For the rest I pass. You're a bit stuck in my opinion.
Here I am expanding a text. You can see fake, naivety, idiocy and so on ... or look for things "behind".
It would indeed suffice for you a little research to find the parallel between Satan and a certain "god" who saves man from destruction by warning him (and to find this story of the beloved then fallen Satan strange). There are ten thousand sources which indicate the same thing: monotheism is NOT an originality of Judaism-Christianity-Islam, it probably stems from the intolerance of a certain Akhenaton who privileged the Aten ("sun" which like by chance ends up in the light of the one god). The Christian legends (the "flood", the "judgment", the "trinity" ...) are only colored borrowings from previous civilizations.
To take them at their word to make a pretty necklace is to simply risk making chains.

About 30 years ago, after having gone from classical Protestant to "Pentecostal" then "Evangelical" then "Adventist", I understood that there was a problem: either we hide behind the others and we say to ourselves that , obviously, looking at the conviction of others, we must be on the right path
, or you realize that honesty consists first of opening your eyes and acting according to your conscience.

Amen

[Janic]

janic wrote: a) christ jesus is not a criminal
Luke 23-14: "you brought me and man as exciting the people to revolt ... and behold I questioned him before you and I did not find him guilty of any of the things of which you accused him and Herodotus neither, and he said to them: -His man is innocent ”

I will answer a little later, there I must go to training

[Orpheus]

janic wrote: a) christ jesus is not a criminal
Luke 23-14: "you brought me and man as exciting the people to revolt ... and behold I questioned him before you and I did not find him guilty of any of the things of which you accused him and Herodotus neither, and he said to them: -His man is innocent ”

I will answer a little later, there I must go to training

Janic, maybe deafness problem?

[Janic]

so:

janic wrote: a) christ jesus is not a criminal
Luke 23-14: "you brought me and man as exciting the people to revolt ... and behold I questioned him before you and I did not find him guilty of any of the things of which you accused him and Herodotus neither, and he said to them: -His man is innocent ”

Yes and no. It is certain that if we take the texts that have had ample time to be corrected / filtered Jesus is a holy man. So I'm not basing myself on very convenient catch-ups, but simply having fun reviewing things from another angle.

Jesus is not a holy man (in the Catholic sense of the term) but a simple teacher, doctor of Jewish law.

Historically Jesus is perfectly unknown,

Quite like many men who only became famous late. Pasteur, for example, is a small second-rate chemist, not a famous politician, nor a famous surgeon, (not being a doctor), and yet we made him a sort of idol, despite his successive failures and the myth, once installed, has a hard time being deconstructed when superstition and fear have taken hold.
Jesus is therefore a little provincial teacher, nothing more, as he speaks.

besides not as needed in Nazareth ... or Bethlehem: if we can assume that there must have been someone like that, it is absent from the history of year zero (more or less. .. 10 years, 40 years?).

Absolutely ! The year zero (or 1) only had a late origin for the needs of the Catholic cause (grouping together those who call themselves Christians) by the monk Denis in the sixth century AD. In fact his birth (which no longer any historian, even an unbeliever, denies) takes place around -4 of the Christian era that others call the current era which is a more realistic name.

far from the biblical story of the crowd listening to it, the many miracles, signals from heaven and earth ...

The fact that an individual gathers crowds, (as in politics or in sports… (follow my look) is not specific to our time. In the East and therefore the Middle East the phenomenon is customary.
For miracles we made it a sort of trademark of this character who does not recommend it as a sign of his spiritual election, he will also blame some of his listeners for being attracted ONLY by THESE miracles .

As for the little SECTE who inherits it, it is so appreciated by the people that it was considered that she practiced cannibalism and other jokes, things perfectly imaginable by the simple fact that they practiced in secret, which was not tolerated ( the practice of religion was then considered necessary for any good citizen but imperatively in public, probably to avoid plots against the Roman Empire). The bad behavior and bad reputation of Christians will allow a certain Nero to easily lay the charges of the great fire of Rome.

This is bashing speech which has no historical reality (like Alice site!) It is the kind of ogre who eats little children unwise, but we have become adults who are supposed to have grown up and no longer swallow this kind of speech. This is what we now call fake news that we did not invent anything.

In short, the beginnings of Christianity are not at all glorious!

No new system (not specifically in matters of religion) starts in glory, if only because it disturbs the other systems already established. But then again, this is discourse held by people who do not know the texts or the History.

(Jesus says)
"Whoever is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him: "What is the truth?"

Fake news?

Who knows ? We recommend, in our History, Vercingétorix, the vase of Soissons, the virgin of Orleans, Ravaillac, Oswald or Napoleon: fake news?

For the rest I pass. You're a bit stuck in my opinion.

Being stuck means nothing in this case. Citing a work is not a criterion for acceptance or rejection of what is written there: like Marx or Hitler, even Mao ... or the program of any policy for that matter!
Theology, whatever some people say (fake news too) is not exclusive to being reserved for believers, it is a subject of study like any other. As others recommend THE science, gender is ours and not others.

To take them at their word to make a pretty necklace is to simply risk making chains.

We are all, without exception, chained to something: a conviction, a societal choice, for our children and other families, there is no shortage of channels. After each one chooses or undergoes those which suit him best.

About 30 years ago, after having gone from classical Protestant to "Pentecostal" then "Evangelical" then "Adventist", [*] I understood that there was a problem: either we hide behind the others and we says to himself that, inevitably, by looking at the conviction of others we must be on the right path, or we realize that honesty consists first of all in opening our eyes and acting according to our conscience.

Your reaction is therefore more understandable. Cuckold three times in a row and even four times, it leads to a practice that makes people deaf or homosexual.
Your experience is interesting in itself and quite classic of disappointments in the chain ... precisely. Or act according to his conscience (but conscience of what?) It is the lot of each assuming a non-hypocrisy in relation to it.

[*] as an unbeliever I studied closely 2 movements such as the TJ (to demolish the discourse of their Watch Tower) and the Adventists (who advocate the VG, which challenged me as the VG myself) but between speeches and practices, there is room; precisely because taking refuge behind the speech of others is not a good solution.
PS: I feel, unfortunately, that your speech, in the passages above, denotes a 180 ° turn, but does it not go from Charybdis to Scylla and fall back into the same faults?