Morel Guy said:

Burning the dmt bush had effects on moses where he got the first law.  So the story goes.

---

life is good said:

Yes I think so

God is not only okay with it, but makes the mushrooms.

---

LeningradCowboy said:

Jesus was amanita mushroom. Pretty sure he was OK with tripping

---

BrendanFlock said:

If Jesus was a magic mushroom.. then maybe hes not okay with tripping.. and just represents the mushroom as the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil..which is a forbidden fruit in Eden..

But in the end plan of Zion.. I'm sure he knows all humans will bite the forbidden fruit anyways..

---

life is good said:

hello

---

Hello life is good.

BrendanFlock said:

If Jesus was a magic mushroom.. then maybe hes not okay with tripping.. and just represents the mushroom as the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil..which is a forbidden fruit in Eden..

But in the end plan of Zion.. I'm sure he knows all humans will bite the forbidden fruit anyways..

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Here take my body as holy sacrament. Says it pretty straight

The various translations say "in memory of me." There were no "holy sacraments" in Judaism and Iesous did not implement that idea, the Roman Catholic Church did. For the first 150 years, followers of "The Way" remained in the synagogues and did not refer to themselves at Christians. Christ is a Greek reference to one who is 'christed,' which means anointed as with chrism, oil. This was a ritual performed to signify the 'divine right of kingship' as was crowning a king. The kings of ancient Israel, being anointed, were believed to be chosen by G-d and were thus referred to as "sons of G-d," or "sons of the Most High." Later, Hellenistic myth-making entered into John's gospel making Iesous a demigod, and incarnation of G-d (Greek: Zeus, Latin: Deus), or 'G-d clothed in flesh.' This was not the portrayals of Mark's, Matthew's or Luke's [synoptic: same view] gospels. There, Iesous remains 'a man anointed by G-d,' NOT G-d incarnate.

The co-equality of Iesous the Christ with G-d is why the Jews could not accept the developing doctrine. It compromised the absolute transcendence and unity of G-d. Of course both Greek and Roman religious traditions never abandoned their polytheisms, so it was relatively easy to adopt first dualistic and later trinitarian double-speak about 3 persons in One G-dhead, "Una Substantia, Tres Personas." Judaism also never admitted of demigods as Greek and the Roman adoption of Greek myth did. Hebrew myth illustrated different theophanies of G-d: the burning bush, pillars of smoke and fire, the separating of the Red Sea, the visions of Ezekiel, the translation of Enoch, etc, but these were not human embodiments of G-d. In Islam, Isa (Iesous) is considered to be a prophet. Because of the unfortunate insistence on Iesous being a unique specie of Being (THE Incarnation), the Talmud disrespectfully resorted to calling Y'shua ben Miriam a "mamser," a bastard, and also a magician. The latter was developed in a book by Morton Smith entitled Jesus the Magician.

People 'believe' what is most comforting to themselves regardless of the truth of it. 'Belief' is not faith, but neither make something true. Claiming authority to make something true simply by saying so is Orwellian Doublethink, or Trumpster illogic.

---

LeningradCowboy said:

You sir take life way too seriously

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

LeningradCowboy said:

You sir take life way too seriously

---

Serious like a heart attack, but serious does not preclude great joy. If you had any idea how precious your life was this thought would never even occur to you. Regardless. I live with a deep abiding joy that only gets occluded by clouds of emotion at times, but it sustains me, gives contentment, and diminishes fear. As Lao Tsu said, "Without leaving my house I can know the entire universe." I played with my adopted feral cat on the floor earlier, I am sipping a boxed Zinfandel. I'll slip into bed shortly after 4:00 a.m. with my Lady who is currently reading, when Garcia stops playing on the CD. I'll sleep 6-7 hours, maybe til noon. When it comes to clarity of intention and thought, I'm all about business.

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Thanks for the kind, if not undeserved approbation. The Iesous material does describe a particular type within a Middle Eastern wisdom tradition. Iesous may or may not have been a historical person but undoubtedly the midrashic descriptions require demythologization if he is to be believed to have been a 1st century Judean Jewish peasant living under Roman occupation. Theophanies are abundant in the Tenach. In the New Testament Hellenistic mythic categories were also applied to a person who was touted as the Messiah as prophesied throughout the Jewish scriptures. That all of these prophesies pointed to this one man as suggested by the NT, or whether he was a literary creation intended to be that singular divinely inspired person may never be known. Miracles of bilocation, levitation (or walking on water), virgin birth (an unfortunate mistranslation of the Hebrew Tenach into the Greek Septuagint), are common enough themes said to herald the birth of an avatar in the Far East. Iesous in the Middle East is no exception. Very little may be historically accurate, but that does not mean that the teachings attributed to Iesous in the canonical Bible and from extra-canonical sources are not salvific. I think they are.

The exploits of Krishna and Arjuna, Muhammed's flight to Heaven on the back of the Buraq, and other stories are regarded as myth and metaphor by the sophisticated and are not taken literally as so many Jews and Christians regard their myths. Myth is sacred, but myth is not history. Insistence that MY religion really happened but your's did not, is the sign of "spiritual materialism" and downright puerile egocentricity. No, I do not think the 1st century Judean living in a Roman occupied country travelled to India, or Tibet, or wherever in order to attain metaphysical powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. But that does not mean that the biblical Iesous is not the paradigm for my own human development. He is.

---