• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Men and Women Have the Same Sexual Needs?

Zephyr

Moved on
Burchfam said:
It says that Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna were the same person. Not reincarnations or anything, literally the same person. As for Mohammed, he came along after the bulk of our writings were set down, but as far as I can tell his teachings are no better - indeed in some cases considerably worse - than the typical patriarchal system that was in place at the time. As for Jesus/Buddha/Krishna (watever you want to call him), his teachings have been mostly lost, and replaced with lies.
Wouldn't that screw up the timeline, like, majorly? I don't see any problem with calling all their teachings lies, but I think history here would disagree with you.:shrug:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
As for Jesus/Buddha/Krishna (watever you want to call him), his teachings have been mostly lost, and replaced with lies.
I was mainly asking about thier own spiritual enlightenment.
 

Cub Reporter

New Member
This is interesting!

I didn't think that this would be an open subject on this site, but I like it! Shows an openness that I really like!
 

Burchfam

Member
Zephyr said:
Wouldn't that screw up the timeline, like, majorly? I don't see any problem with calling all their teachings lies, but I think history here would disagree with you.:shrug:

The Oera Linda Book tells us that the figure known to history as Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus was born in Kashmir in 594 BC. His length of life is not given, but we are told that after spending 12 years travelling around and teaching, he died. After his death his enemies, the established priests, claimed to be his followers and distorted his teachings for their own ends. The story that he lived in Palestine in the first century is just another of their lies.

The Oera Linda Book preserves just a tiny fragment of Jesus's teachings; no other source can be considered reliable. This fragment is as follows:

7. Overcome with sorrow at the false shame of his parents, he wandered about. While travelling he fell in with a navigator from Fryasland who was serving as a slave, and who taught him our manners and customs. He bought the freedom of the slave, and they remained friends till death. Wherever he went he taught the people not to tolerate rich men or priests, and that they must guard themselves against false shame, which everywhere did harm to love and charity.
8. He said, “Irtha bestows her treasures on those who scratch her skin; so all are obliged to dig, and plough, and sow if they wish to reap, but no one is obliged to do anything for another unless it be out of goodwill.”
9. He taught that men should not seek in her bowels for gold, or silver, or precious stones, which occasion envy and destroy love.
10. He said, “To embellish your wives and daughters, the river offers her pure stream. No man is able to make everybody equally rich and happy, but it is the duty of all men to make each other as equally rich and as happy as possible. Men should not despise any knowledge; but justice is the greatest knowledge that time can teach, because she wards off offences and promotes love.”

What Jesus is here describing is a system for a co-operative and harmonious society. He says nothing about spirituality, and his only mention of priests is to denigrate them. He is speaking to men. Not only does he mention "men" quite a few times, but just to prove that this was not intended to apply to both men and women, he also mentiones "your wives and daughters". Furthermore, Jesus received these teachings from a Frisian.
 

Zephyr

Moved on
Burchfam said:
The Oera Linda Book preserves just a tiny fragment of Jesus's teachings; no other source can be considered reliable.
Why should it be considered realiable, when it clearly goes against history?

I think I'll stick with what history shows and not some 19th century psuedohistorical text. I don't necesarily believe in Jesus in any way, but I find it much easier to take what he said in the bible (minus all the supernatural crap) than to believe he was born around 600bc and was both Krishna and Buddha and that all of a sudden in the 1800s somebody revealed the "true" teachings that were learned from a European, and that everything beforehand was a lie.
 
Top