immortal

My position doesn't need vindication, and it isn't your posts I dislike. It is you. I hate you to your very core. Let's have that straight.

"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good"

- Lao Tzu

You can hate me all you want just because I speak the truth but I don't have anything personal against anyone and I just criticize for the flawed position that people hold on to and I am not going to stop it just because you threaten to hate me.

I don't think more conceited words have ever been said. You're alright, but "the world" needs fixing? When you're dead and gone the world will probably stop spinning, eh? Whatever. I can't deal with this nonsense. The best of luck to you,

Yes, any matured educated man who doesn't realize that a God resides in him is at best deluded and broken.

"This isn't science, this is esotericism and I don't like to use science to prove this."

How else could you prove it?

Incidentally, I didn't ask you to use science: I just asked you to explain how you "knew" it was true.

How Effective Is Sun Salutation in Improving Muscle Strength, General Body Endurance and Body Composition?

"These individual asanas have their own physical benefits ^[3] e.g. Step 0 and 10 in Fig. 1 induces a state of introversion; Step 1 stretches thoracic, abdominal and intestinal muscles and lifts prana upwards in the body. Step 2 and 9 massages the abdominal organs, tones the spinal nerves and moves prana in lower body parts. Step 4 and 5 tone abdomen, muscles of thighs and legs. Step 6 exercises the spine and strengthens muscles of arms and legs."

Do you realize that the bold part of the sentence which says step 1 lifts prana(the elan vital) upwards in the body and step 2 and 9 moves prana to the lower body parts is in contradictory with what science says and teaches? According to science there is no such thing as elan vital or the life air.

Not only the methodology has an efficacy the explanations of the authors as to how the efficacy works are also true which means the scientific community need to abandon their objectivity and accept that this world is a mere shadow of a far more real world which exists in the intelligible realm or else in the noumenon. I don't need any equipment to prove it.

This distinction between the empirical world and the real physical world as it really exists out there is albeit necessary.

Re "Also, you have talked a few times about "revealed truth".[/size]

What truths have been revealed?

 

Truths as to how the universe is working and who is in control of it.

 

There were revealed truths."

Why do you believe that these are "true".

Do you have any actual evidence beyond "it says it in an old book" or " a long tradition of people say it"

Both of those are an appeal to authority.

Do you realise that an appeal to authority is not a valid reason for me to believe it?

I am citing both empirical results as well as scholarly traditional sources showing that this is a genuine religion and also to show that this is not an appeal to authority.

"That's why we don't just rely on Holy books alone."

"The oral traditions are as much important as the holy scriptures."

But those are just made-up stories too.

So you are basing things on essentially a lot of old stories.

If it was all made up then why people of different cultures and religions at different timelines have come up with same theories about the origin of the cosmos? I think there were all able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access.

Also this "Though the ancient Aryans used to perform rituals in a holistic way for the good of the whole world" is begging the question.

It's assuming that some good is done.

There is no reason to believe that: no evidence and no established causal path.

The intent is to do good for all of mankind and the rituals indeed work.

Brahmins must feel repentant if they fail to perform the rites they are duty-bound to perform. They must devote the years of their retirement to the pursuit of their dharma instead of feeling sorry for not going out to work. There are rare cases ---perhaps one in a lakh---of people who have learned the Vedas during their retirement and lived the rest of their life according to the tenets of the sastras.

 

The rites of our religion go back to a time when no other faith was prevalent. We must make every effort to ensure that they do not cease to be performed. They are not meant for our sake alone [as individuals] but for the welfare of all mankind.

 

A day in the life a Brahmin

http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/the-17-crore-prayer-in-karnataka-for-rain-248142

"It could perhaps be a mere coincidence, but there is some good news for the farmers after these prayers - the Meteorological Department has predicted more rains in the driest parts of north and south Karnataka in the coming week."

"It is advisable to practice it to test the efficacy of this method under the guidance of a master and the verses after the asterisk (*) should be silently uttered in the mind when performing each step."

Why?

What evidence is that that such an action achieves anything beyond a psychosomatic reaction in the person concerned (and the same sort of well documented exercise induced euphoria that a lot of joggers etc get)

Its because I have never heard that just by jogging you can self-induce high amplitude gamma synchrony, increase memory and cure traumatic brain injury but these methodologies do that and controlled studies show that one gets different results when the methodology is performed without uttering the verses and when it is performed along with the silent utterances of the verses in the mind. I am convinced there is a hidden science or mechanism behind it and its the correct way to study and understand consciousness and the human mind.

Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice.

Effect of yogic education system and modern education system on memory.

The Benefits of Sun Salutations on Traumatic Brain Injury: A case study.

You don't, or won't, understand that there is no more factual basis to your faith than there is to a belief in the tooth fairy.

 

It is not sufficient to say that it is a poor analogy, you need to explain why it fails.

I think God has more evidence and a higher probability of existence than extra-terrestrial life so don't go so far as to equating him with a tooth fairy which is a false analogy. By this time the scientific community should have been seriously in search for a hypercosmic god because all evidence in science is in favour of such a god. Bernard won the templeton prize for the concept of a hypercosmic god and not for the concept of a tooth fairy and it is the concept of veiled reality and the great eastern philosophical systems which are being discussed in journals of science and religion and hence God meets with reality more than your tooth fairy which is the invention of a fictional writer.

Therefore what you have got is a false analogy, God has more supported evidence than your tooth fairy.

Don't show me pictures of a man doing old exercises. Show me that they achieve something:

Show me the evidence.

You should better know that our ancients used those same old exercises to obtain all their knowledge and philosophical insights. They didn't do anything magical apart from that.

What in the World Are Gnostics?

 

The words Gnostic and Gnosticism are not exactly standard features in the vocabulary of contemporary people. In fact, more people are familiar with the antonym of Gnostic, which is agnostic, literally meaning a non-knower or ignoramus, but figuratively describing a person with no faith in religion who still resents being called an atheist. Yet Gnostics were around long before agnostics and for the most part appear to have been a far more exciting category of persons than the latter group. In contradistinction to non-knowers, they considered themselves knowers—gnostikoi in Greek—denoting those who have Gnosis or knowledge. Gnostics were people who lived, for the most part, during the first three or four centuries of the so-called Christian era. Most of them probably would not have called themselves by the name Gnostic but would have considered themselves Christians, or more rarely Jews, or as belonging to the traditions of the ancient cults of Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. They were not sectarians or the members of a specific new religion, as their detractors claimed, but rather people who shared with each other a certain attitude toward life. This attitude may be said to consist of the conviction that direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings, and, moreover, that the attainment of such knowledge must always constitute the supreme achievement of human life. This knowledge, or Gnosis, they did not envision as a rational knowledge of a scientific kind, or even as philosophical knowledge of truth, but rather a knowing that arises in the heart in an intuitive and mysterious manner and therefore is called in at least one Gnostic writing (the Gospel of Truth) the Gnosis kardias, the knowledge of the heart. This is obviously a religious concept that is at the same time highly psychological, for the meaning and purpose of life thus appears to be neither faith, with its emphasis on blind belief and equally blind repression, nor works with their extraverted do-goodism, but rather an interior insight and transformation, in short, a depth-psychological process.

 

If we come to envision the Gnostics as early depth psychologists, then it immediately becomes apparent why the Gnostic teaching and practice was radically different from the teaching and practice of Jewish and Christian orthodoxy. The knowledge of the heart, for which the Gnostics strove, could not be acquired by striking a bargain with Yahweh, by concluding a treaty or covenant which guaranteed physical and spiritual well being to man in exchange for the slave-like carrying out of a set of rules. Neither could Gnosis be won by merely fervently believing that the sacrificial act of one divine man in history could lift the burden of guilt and frustration from one's shoulders and assure perpetual beatitude beyond the confines of mortal existence The Gnostics did not deny the usefulness of the Torah or the magnificence of the figure of the Christos, the anointed of the most high God. They regarded the Law as necessary for a certain type of personality which requires rules for what today might be called the formation and strengthening of the psychological ego. Neither did they negate the greatness of the mission of the mysterious personage whom in his disguise men knew as the Rabbi Jehoshuah of Nazareth. The Law and the Savior, the two most highly revered concepts of Jew and Christian, became to the Gnostic but means to an end greater than themselves. These became inducements and devices which might, in some fashion, be conducive to personal knowing which, once attained, requires neither law nor faith. To them, as to Carl Jung many centuries later, theology and ethics were but stepping stones on the road to self-knowledge.

 

Some seventeen or eighteen centuries separate us from the Gnostics. During these centuries Gnosticism became a faith not only forgotten (as one of its interpreters, G. R. S. Mead, called it) but also a faith and a truth repressed. It seems that almost no group has been so relentlessly and consistently feared and hated for nearly two millennia as were the unhappy Gnostics. Textbooks of theology still refer to them as the first and most pernicious of all heretics, and the age of ecumenism seems to have extended none of the benefits of Christian love to them. Long before Hitler, the Emperor Constantine and his cruel bishops began the practice of religious genocide against the Gnostics, their first holocausts to be followed by many more through history. The last major persecution concluded with the burning of over 200 latter-day Gnostics in 1244 in the castle of Montsegur in France, an event which Laurence Durell described as the Thermopylae of the Gnostic soul. Still some prominent representatives of the victims of the latest holocaust have not regarded the most persecuted religious minority in history as a companion in misfortune, as the attacks of Martin Buber on Jung and on Gnosticism indicate. Jews and Christians, Catholics, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox (and, in the case of the Manichaean Gnosis, even Zoroastrians, Moslems and Buddhists) have hated and persecuted the Gnostics with a persistent determination.

 

Why? Was it only because their antinomianism or disregard for moral law scandalized the rabbis, or because their doubts concerning the physical incarnation of Jesus and their reinterpretation of the resurrection angered the priests? Was it because they rejected marriage and procreation, as some of their detractors claim? Were they abhorred because of licentiousness and orgies, as others allege? Or might it be that perhaps the Gnostics truly had some knowledge, and that this knowledge re them supremely dangerous to establishments both secular ecclesiastical?

 

It is not easy to give a reply to this question, but an attempt must be made, nevertheless. We might essay such an answer by saying that the Gnostics differed from the majority of humankind, not only in details of belief and of ethical precept, but in their most essential and fundamental view of existence and its purpose. Their divergence was a radical one in the sense of the word, for it went back to the root (Latin: Radix) of humankind's assumptions and attitudes regarding life. Irrespective of their religious and philosophical beliefs, most people nourish certain unconscious assumptions pertaining human condition which do not spring from the formative, focused agencies of consciousness but which radiate from a deep, unconscious substratum of the mind. This mind is ruled by biology rather than by psychology; it is automatic rather than subject to conscious choices and insights. The most important among these assumptions, which may be said to sum up all others, is the belief that the world is good and that our involvement in it is somehow desirable and ultimately beneficial. This assumption leads to a host of others, all of which are more or less characterized by submissiveness toward external conditions and toward the laws which seem to govern them. In spite countless illogical and malevolent events of our lives, the incredible sequences, by-ways, repetitious insanities of human history, both collective and individual, we will believe it to be incumbent upon us to go along with the world, for it is, after all, God's world, and thus it must have meaning and goodness concealed within its operations, no matter how difficult to discern. Thus we must go on fulfilling our role within the system we can, being obedient children, diligent husbands, dutiful wives, well-behaved butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers, hoping against hope that a revelation of meaning will somehow emerge from this meaningless life of conformity.

 

Not so, said the Gnostics. Money, power, governments, the raising of families, paying of taxes, the endless chain of entrapment in circumstances and obligations—none of these were ever rejected as totally and unequivocally in human history as they were by the Gnostics. The Gnostics never hoped that any political or economic revolution could, or even should, do away with all the iniquitous elements within the system wherein the human soul is entrapped. Their rejection was not of one government or form of ownership in favor of another; rather it concerned the entire prevailing systematization of life and experience. Thus the Gnostics were, in fact, knowers of a secret so deadly and terrible that the rulers of this world—i.e., the powers, secular and religious, who always profited from the established systems of society—could not afford to have this secret known and, even less, to have it publicly proclaimed in their domain. Indeed the Gnostics knew something, and it was this: that human life does not fulfill its promise within the structures and establishments of society, for all of these are at best but shadowy projections of another and more fundamental reality. No one comes to his true selfhood by being what society wants him to be nor by doing what it wants him to do. Family, society, church, trade and profession, political and patriotic allegiances, as well as moral and ethical rules and commandments are, in reality, not in the least conducive to the true spiritual welfare of the human soul. On the contrary, they are more often than not the very shackles which keep us from our true spiritual destiny.

 

This feature of Gnosticism was regarded as heretical in olden days, and even today is often called "world denying" and "anti-life," but it is, of course, merely good psychology as well as good spiritual theology because it is good sense. The politician and the social philosopher may look upon the world as a problem to be solved, but the Gnostic, with his psychological discernment, recognizes it as a predicament from which we need to extricate ourselves by insight. For Gnostics, like psychologists, do not aim at the transformation of the world but at the transformation of the mind, with its natural consequence—a changed attitude toward the world. Most religions also tend to affirm a familiar attitude of internalism in theory, but, as the result of their presence within the establishments of society, they always deny it in practice. Religions usually begin as movements of radical liberation along spiritual lines but inevitably end up as pillars of the very societies which are the jailers of our souls.

 

If we wish to obtain Gnosis, the knowledge of the heart that renders human beings free, we must disentangle ourselves from the false cosmos created by our conditioned minds. The Greek word kosmos, as well as the Hebrew word olam, while frequently mistranslated as world, really denote more the concept of systems. When the Gnostics said that the system around them was evil and that one had to get away from it in order to know truth and discover meaning, they acted, not only as the forerunners of innumerable alienated drop-outs from St. Francis to the beatniks and hippies, but they also stated a psychological fact since rediscovered by modern depth psychology. Jung restated an old Gnostic insight when he said that the extraverted human ego must first become thoroughly aware of its own alienation from the greater Self before it can begin to return to a state of closer union with the unconscious. Until we become thoroughly aware of the inadequacy of our extraverted state and of its insufficiency in regard to our deeper spiritual needs, we shall not achieve even a measure of individuation, through which a wider and more mature personality emerges. The alienated ego is the precursor and an inevitable precondition of the individuated ego. Like Jung, the Gnostics did not necessarily reject the actual earth itself, which they recognized as a screen upon which the Demiurge of the mind projects his deceptive system. To the extent that we find a condemnation of the world in Gnostic writings, the term used is inevitably kosmos, or this aeon, and never the word ge (earth), which they regarded as neutral if not as outright good.

 

It was on this knowledge, the knowledge one has in one's heart concerning the spiritual barrenness and utter insufficiency of the establishments and established values of the outer world, that the Gnostics relied in order to construct both an image of universal being and a system of coherent inferences to be drawn from that image. (As one might expect, they accomplished this less in terms of philosophy and theology than in myth, ritual, and cultivation of the mythopoetic and imaginative qualities of their souls.) Like so many sensitive and thoughtful persons before and after their time, they felt themselves to be strangers in a strange country, a forlorn seed of the distant worlds of boundless light. Some, like the alienated youth of the 1960's withdrew into communes and hermitages, marginal communities on the edge of civilization. Others, more numerous perhaps, remained in the midst of the great metropolitan culture of the large cities like Alexandria and Rome, outwardly fulfilling their roles in society while inwardly serving a different master—in the world but not of the world. Most of them possessed learning, culture and wealth, yet they were aware of the undeniable fact that all such attainments and treasures pale before the Gnosis of the heart, the knowledge of the things that are. Little wonder that the wizard of Küstnacht who, since his early childhood, sought and found his own Gnosis, felt close to these strange and lonely people, these pilgrims of eternity, homeward bound among the stars.

 

http://gnosis.org/gnostic-jung/The-Gnostic-Jung.html

I have been ridiculed, mocked, banned and called delusional here and in other forums every time I bring up this issue and other orthodox religions have demonized us and treated like devil worshippers even though there is no concept of devil in our religion. I guess I'm counting my days here.

What's ironic is that in this part of the world this religion is the orthodoxy but the rest of the world sees us as heretics, I wonder who is delusional, therefore the suppression of this religion seems to be a cultural one rather than having any basis on theology. Don't tell me how I need to interpret my own religion - Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. Its silly and pointless to suppress this minority religion in this 21st century world where comparative studies on different religions are easily available and truth and evidence are openly accessible. There is no excuse for such ignorance especially by people who consider themselves to be scientific minded.

It is this religion which gives true equality to humanity by asserting that the world is Non-dual and by saying that everything and everyone is made of the same essence and it is not secularism which promises us to give equality because the truth doesn't exist in it.

Prove it.

Show us that you can really access a real noumenon.

Prove that it isn't just imagined stuff.

This isn't science, this is esotericism and I don't like to use science to prove this.

An ancient method to test this worldview

The Aryans extensively relied on the yoga school of philosophical thought in order to access the numinous world. It can be argued that this practical knowledge is an inherent part of their tradition along with other schools of thought and not separate from it.

It’s the foundational basis for all forms of their knowledge, even though Patanjali is well known as the founder of the yoga school of philosophy different forms of yoga existed prior to him and all such knowledge including the yoga school of Patanjali can be traced back to Hiranyagarbha himself who was the god of the Aryans, whom the founders of Rig Veda worshiped him as the first-born.

As said earlier there are two ways to look at the Veda where one can study the individual lustrous rays of the Hiranyagarbha as separate gods of his pantheon i.e. Agni, Soma, Prana etc. or else one can study the whole pantheon of Hiranyabarbha as himself in his Samasthi swaroopa (total or whole form).

It was Vishwamithra who discovered a way to worship this mass of lustre of Savithru or Hiranyagarbha but that method is not addressed here as no one outside the tradition should perform it without first going through a series of rituals in the traditional way. However there are other ways to study his rays as a whole and one such method is given below which is called as Sun Salutations.

The scholar Devudu who hails from this tradition revealed us the secrets of the Isopanishad which were passed in a traditional way through his works. According to tradition Savithru, the supreme god of the Vedas, himself had said to Yajnavalkya, the author of the Isopanishad that, “Those who read the Isopanishad as well as the Yajnavalkya Upanishad which deals with the life story of Yajnavalkya and clearly understand the deep meaning behind it, I will reveal myself to them without fail.”

Therefore the following verse of the Isopanishad is uttered before performing the method for those who only want to live the righteous path, as this was the sole purpose of their doctrine, different people perform this method for different reasons,

Hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye

(Isopanishad, Verse 15)

It means that the truth is hidden inside a golden egg from which the first-born Hiranygarbha originated and his light rays are preventing us from seeing the ultimate truth clearly therefore we should plead him to decrease the intensity of his impeding light rays so that we can clearly see him and attain the path of righteousness by understanding the truth behind it.

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

Though the ancient Aryans used to perform rituals in a holistic way for the good of the whole world irrespective of the nation, creed, race or the culture they belonged to, the rituals were also performed in a multitudinous way to fulfill personal desires. However they highly recommend us to perform in a holistic way which was the sole doctrine of the Aryans that the light of God exists in everyone irrespective of their race or their background. It is advisable to practice it to test the efficacy of this method under the guidance of a master and the verses after the asterisk (*) should be silently uttered in the mind when performing each step.

Conclusion

According to these esoteric religions it is very unlikely that God had used the Big Bang or the DNA to create the universe or the Humans in it and these religions enforce upon us to abandon such form of thinking at least when one is arguing based on these esoteric religions. It should be emphasized that there can be only one reality in the external physical world and if the objects of modern science like quarks, protons, electrons exist independent of the mind i.e. if scientific realism turns out to be true then the metaphysical world of the esotericists will be falsified. As one of the necessary postulates required for the existence of the metaphysical worlds of the above mentioned esoteric religions is that scientific realism must be false and such a test will guide us whether to abandon this form of esoteric thinking and move an alternative way forward or to move in the direction of our ancients.

Also, you have talked a few times about "revealed truth".

What truths have been revealed?

Truths as to how the universe is working and who is in control of it.

There were revealed truths.

This summarizes very satisfactorily the role that Julian has chosen for the Sun Gud , a deity to whom his devotion was very real. There is heartfelt testimony to this at the beginning of the hymn (130C):

 

" For I am a follower of King Helios. And of this fact I possess within me, known to myself alone, proofs more certain than I can give. But this at least I am permitted to say without sacrilege, that from my childhood an extraordinary longing for the rays of the god penetrated deep into my soul; and from my earliest years my mind was so completely swayed by the light that illumines the heavens that not only did I desire to gaze intently at the sun, but whenever I walked abroad at night, when the sky was clear and cloudless, I abandoned all else without exception and gave myself up to the beauties of the heavens; nor did I understand what anyone might say to me, nor heed what I was doing myself"

 

But this visible disc also, third[21] in rank, is clearly, for the objects of sense-perception the cause of preservation, and this visible Helios[22] is the cause for the visible gods[23] of just as many blessings as we said mighty Helios bestows on the intellectual gods. And of this there are clear proofs for one who studies the unseen world in the light of things seen.[24] For in the first place, is not light itself a sort of incorporeal and divine form of the transparent in a state of activity? And as for the transparent itself, whatever it is, since it is the underlying basis, so to speak, of all the elements, and is a form peculiarly belonging to them, it is not like the corporeal or compounded, nor does it admit qualities peculiar to corporeal substance.[25] You will not therefore say that heat is a property of the transparent,[26] or its opposite cold, nor will you assign to it hardness or softness or any other of the various, attributes connected with touch or taste or smell; [134] but a nature of this sort is obvious to sight alone, since it is brought into activity by light. And light is a form of this substance, so to speak, which is the substratum of and coextensive with the heavenly bodies. And of light, itself incorporeal, the culmination and flower, so to speak, is the sun's rays. Now the doctrine of the Phoenicians, who were wise and learned in sacred lore, declared that the rays of light everywhere diffused are the undefiled incarnation of pure mind. And in harmony with this is our theory, seeing that light itself is incorporeal, if one should regard its fountainhead, not as corporeal, but as the undefiled activity of mind[27] pouring light into its own abode: and this is assigned to the middle of the whole firmament, whence it sheds its rays and fills the heavenly spheres with vigour of every kind and illumines all things with light divine and undefiled. Now the activities proceeding from it and exercised among the gods have been, in some measure at least, described by me a little earlier[28] and will shortly be further spoken of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referring to the Phoenicians, Julian cites their teaching that "the rays of light everywhere diffused are the undefiled incarnation [imbodiment] of pure mind." Modern scientists are within an ace of confirming some of these more recondite facts for themselves.

How can you be sure that they are the "truth", rather than religious propaganda?

The various holy books may say some things which are true, but they also say many things which are false so it's impossible to tell whether something is true or not, just based on whether it turns up in one of those books. They simply are not reliable.

As far as I can tell, there are no revealed truths.

That's why we don't just rely on Holy books alone.

Also, would anyone like to explain why I should have any more respect for someone's belief in God than I would do if they professed a belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus?

I am not pleading for any respect, I don't need it, all I'm saying that what you have got here is a false analogy.

You did watched and you did not saw? My God, man! If you weren't drunk when you typed that grammatical nightmare, you certainly should have been.

I'm sorry, I don't know higher English but I do my best to convey my thoughts.

Whatever. It's fine. "God TV" broke you. It wasn't your parents. I'm beyond arguing the point.

Ridiculing me or mocking me like that just because you don't like my posts will not vindicate the validity of your position, its the world that needs a fixing not me, especially the atheists and the catholic church.

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called orthodox Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics."

- Thomas Paine.

Thomas Paine said many things but I don't like to post it here.

I don't believe you. Nobody chooses the kind of damage you are displaying for themselves. Sentient choices don't end a person up where you are. Unless you are seriously mental, but you don't seem to be... no... I don't believe you. Your parents were Christian. I'm sure of it.

I have interests in both religion and science. I did watched the National Geographic program just out of curiosity back in 2006 on the Gospel of Judas and had heard names like Marvin Meyer and Elaine Pagels but at that time I wasn't aware of many things and I did not saw the big picture. I used to watch God TV and listen to good Christian conferences and these influences are enough to end me up where I am, my parents doesn't necessarily have to be Christians for that. My parents are not Christians and I don't come from a Christian background.

I have my own reasons as to why I hold this radical position and its my studies and reading which has brought me here and nothing else.

Nature is god and god is nature.

Science and religion are incompatible, you have got two choices, either take the creation myths as it says seriously and be a strong theist or reject religion and be a strong atheist any compromise pantheistic position mixing God and science isn't feasible.

Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' - 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

 

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by itslegitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

 

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

 

- Dawkins

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."^[9] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

 

Dawkins also argues that a religion free of divine intervention would be far different from any existent ones, and certainly different from the Abrahamic religions

The future has already happened? The dictionary disagrees with you.

 

Besides, I thought you said you were raised catholic... now you're talking calvinist predestination nonsense.

 

Hum... There's something about you I don't get, Mr. Immortal.

 

[edit... my apologies. I was thinking of Ewmon who said he was raised catholic. So, can I assume, Mr. Immortal, that you were raised in the protestant church?]

I don't have a Christian background, I belong to the religion of Julian the Apostate and I worship Helios and we make no connections with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. I have an ancient religion to follow which pre-dates Christianity.

Hymn to King Helios, dedicated to Sallust.

Against the Galilaeans.

But I have a big problem with this man St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles.

I was taught that Hiranyagarbha, the Sun-god is the first born of all creatures.

One of us is free because one of us is not here to do God's work. I hold no hope that you will unchain yourself from the imaginary concepts you espouse, but at least we both recognize that those concepts strip away your freedom and make you a slave. Yes, you are right, you are a slave.

You're mistaken if you think you're in control of your life and if you think you can shape your own future, the future has already happened.

EDIT...

 

as an aside... ketamine isn't a psychostimulant. Caffine is a psychostimulant. Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic which is why I mentioned it. It separates a person's consciousness from their senses which is what you've been talking about. "psychostimulant" I wonder if you had any idea what that meant before you typed it.

You still don't know what I'm talking of and my answer is the same whether it is ketamine or Caffine I need neither of them to access the noumenon,

Immortal,

 

Part of what you argue, I argue. Part of what iNow argues, I argue. But you put too much faith in that which you do not know, and iNow is right, to call you on this misapplication of faith in your own imagination. And in this Iggy is exactly right to suggest you could test your theory, by placing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, where you, for real, would not be bothered by your senses. The Vedic masters that suggest they need no food or water, and they could live forever if anybody would ask them to, suffer from the same "too much faith" as you apparently do. I think Moontanman, or someone once suggested you could take the shotgun test. I don't know for sure what he was referring to, but my guess is that basically we are saying to you, that if you think you can pass through walls, because they are illusions, and you are not bound, in reality to your body and senses, that you could settle the whole issue, for yourself with just one simple test. Take a run at a concrete wall, imagining yourself passing through, and tell us the results of the test. I am certain that no amount of concentration on your part will allow you to pass through the wall. This should settle the argument, and you will for certain be brought back to your "senses". (after you wake up from being knocked out).

 

If reuniting with Brahman, is ineviditable, I don't think we can either avoid it, or rush it. I would rather think that whatever the situation is now, is the one we have to live with.

 

While I think we have every right to associate with reality, and every evidence points to the fact that we are already doing that, it is crucial to the scientist, that we do so honestly, and don't make stuff up, that is not true. Regilion makes stuff up, that isn't true, and then expects they can teach these false things to the scientist. When you, Immortal, do this, and suggest that the ancient Vedic masters had a better handle on reality, than we do now, you lose most of us, including me, as to what the heck you might be talking about. And all of us, believe in the wall, much more than in your imaginary ability to pass through it. You should take a run at it. And settle this thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

The Vedic Aryans are masters of nature and not its slaves, I have repeatedly said that mysticism isn't entirely subjective, it has empirical consequences which can be empirically studied. Before I wasn't so active in the religion forum and I will just shut up and go away if some of the members here stopped equating God with FSM and if some of the scientists at other places over the internet stop asserting that God is dead, no one really laughs or pity them more for their ignorance than we do.

I honestly state that atheists have not investigated religion with a honest mind and their position is fundamentally flawed. I am not going to just go away without challenging their preconceived notions and if you had honestly investigated both modern science and religion and had understood what both of the disciplines are saying, it just doesn't allow an atheistic view of our existence.

Yes, there is a numinous and this world isn't real.

Long term mediators Self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice.

Human body is being kept alive not because of reduction in entropy instead the human body is kept alive because of Prana.

Fasting Fakir flummoxes physicians

A Vedic Aryan who plays with fire.

There is nothing special about the east even the west knew about this, the neo-platonist Iamblichus knew about it, the emperor Julian knew about it, its just we have preserved the practical knowledge too that's all. The scientific community might be blind about these things however I am not.

As for as your request that I need to walk through the walls or do other crazy things honestly I don't have any practical knowledge and I wasn't educated based on the eastern philosophical system and more over I am not interested in making myself invisible or teleport from one place to the other, I am after something which is worth knowing, The Holy Father himself, which is far more important.

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

You could choose to live there.

You make that other world of senselessness sound wonderful. I don't know why you keep chatting us up in this world.

Its because we are not free, we are here to do God's work.

I suggest you take a bunch of ketamine, lock yourself in a sensory deprivation tank, and spend the next couple years there. If that world is real and not just 'real to you' then I can't think of anything that could go wrong.

Thanks for your advice but I don't need it, I have a far better way to access the noumenon without requiring any psycho-stimulants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you quoted this "As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world"." even though it's clearly not true.

As I said, as infants, we all learned about the empirical world before we had any truth revealed to us.

I think you need to know the context in which it was being said.

Currently there seems to be a bug issue with youtube embed.

Claiming 5000 years old and providing a text without mentioning that it is closer to 1600 years old is a little disingenuous. Those lines are from the Lalita from Brahmanda Puranda - best evidence of which is about 3-400 AD and which even if you believe the folk tales is maximum age from 8-900BC. Being at least 2000 years out of date does tend to look bad on a science forum.

As I have made the same point elsewhere in the other thread I very well know that the quote is from the Lalita Sahasranama. The puranas were written at a later period to make the common man understand what was there in the Vedas, it doesn't change the fact that the same concept exists in the Rig veda which is much older and hence this idea of Antharmukh and Bahirmukh is at least 5000 years old.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70431-could-god-be-dimensionless-point-of-consciousness-and/page-7#entry715043

The way you mangle your Kant - frankly I think you have a lot to learn from western traditions as well.

I am actually very much disappointed with the amount of ignorance that exists in this world.

I still find a large gap between the way academic people interpret these scriptures and the way local scholars from India interpret the same scriptures and I find that these local scholars were way ahead of their times. The west still need to learn a lot.

According to the WIKI article about it, "The noumenon pron.: /ˈnuːmɨnɒn/ is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses."

I completely agree with that definition. Yes noumenon is the world which is known without using the sense organs.

The world of science pops up when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of religion pops up when we perceive the world without using the sense organs.

And, yet, as long ago as Descartes' time, we knew that we only know about things via our senses.

So, you are talking about the set of things which we don't know to exist.

That's made up stuff.

Descartes? Kant?

We knew from the time of around 3000 B.C. that there are two ways of knowing the world. In Sanskrit we have precise words for that which the English language doesn't have, its known as Antharmukh and Bahirmukh.

It is this simple wisdom which allows me to do both religion and science even though they are in conflict with each other. The reconciliation is that the world of science appears when we perceive the world via sense organs and the world of numinous appears when we perceive the world without the sense organs.

The west need to learn a lot from the ancients rather than rejecting their knowledge.

Is it impossible to know the noumenon? I don't think so.

I had it figured out very early in my life that science cannot fully describe reality and that there is something wrong with the positivism of science.

Which as Kant (who coined the term) points out, is necessarily beyond evidence. Any belief about the noumena other than that (and things derivable from that) is by definition irrational since it is impossible for any belief about the noumena to meet the threshold for sufficient evidence. Per your distinction, this means religion as a whole is an irrational enterprise.

Religion is metaphysical and yes Kant argued that synthetic a priori judgements were not possible in the metaphysical domain and hence he criticized the rationalist metaphysicians for making assertions on metaphysical topics like God and morality.

But I think synthetic a posteriori judgements are possible in the metaphysical domain, our ancients did not obtained metaphysical truths either by logical thinking or by speculation or sense observation, they obtained it directly via psychological observation or via direct experience and hence this is synthetic a posteriori in metaphysics.

It is now several thousands of years since men ceased to study Veda and Upanishad for the sake of Veda or Upanishad. Ever since the human mind in India, more & more intellectualised, always increasingly addicted to the secondary process of knowledge by logic & intellectual ratiocination, increasingly drawn away from the true & primary processes of knowledge by experience and direct perception, began to dislocate&dismember the many sided harmony of ancient Vedic truth & parcel it out into schools of thought & systems of metaphysics, its preoccupation has been rather with the later opinions of Sutras & Bhashyas than with the early truth of Scripture. Veda & Vedanta ceased to be guides to knowledge & became merely mines & quarries from which convenient texts might be extracted, regardless of context, to serve as weapons in the polemic disputes of metaphysicians.

 

I have said that the increasing intellectualisation of the Indian mind has been responsible for this great national loss. Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason. But a time came when men felt an imperative need to give an account to themselves & to others of this supreme&immemorial Vedic truth in the terms of logic, in the language of intellectual ratiocination.

 

- Aurobindo

The noumenon is knowable.

Except that there's nothing you can know about it. You can't even know that it exists. ALL you can rationally have beliefs about is the phenomena.

Agnostics are wrong, humans can know god.

Thanks for stating the obvious that science is accountable to reality and religion just makes stuff up.

Not really, phenomena is the world as it appears to the human mind and noumena is the real world as it actually exists independent of us so the world which religion deals with is far more real than than the world of empirical sciences.

Religion + Science = Pseudo-science

Yes, if you mix religion with science what you get at best is pseudo-science. Science deals with the phenomena and religion deals with the noumena, their epistemology, ontology and methodology are completely different and do not mix well.

Religion is under no obligation to go by the rules of science, an omniscient God is free to set up this universe in his own ways. As Eugene Scott said "You start with the revealed truth and that governs your reflection upon the empirical world". This is religion. Creation myths are more real than ordinary reality, modern people don't understand what our ancients stood for and they mix religion with science either to make their beliefs look rational or to gain credibility for their claims by using scientific terms.

Religion is independent and it defines reality for us and writes down the implications for science, not the other way around where religious scriptures are twisted so that it is made in accordance with what modern science says. I also think that observers came first and then Big Bang happened. Religion trumps logic, reason and just about everything.

Religious people are disinterested in such questions like the first cause of Big Bang, origin of life, whether universe expands forever or collapses back into a Big Crunch, what they are more interested is in the manifested world of God. Most people don't know that there is a manifested world of God out there, God is a person and he is anthropomorphic and this is incompatible with science.


Take Kabbalah for example:

Concealed and Revealed God

The nature of the Divine prompted kabbalists to envision two aspects to God:

 

(a) God in essence, absolutely transcendent, unknowable, limitless Divine simplicity, and

 

(b) God in manifestation, the revealed persona of God through which He creates and sustains and relates to mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first as Ein/Ayn Sof ( "the infinite/endless", literally "that which has no limits").Of the impersonal Ein Sof nothing can be grasped.

 

The second aspect of Divine emanations, however, are accessible to human perception, dynamically interacting throughout spiritual and physical existence, reveal the Divine immanently, and are bound up in the life of man. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another, emanations revealing the concealed mystery from within the Godhead. According to Kabbalistic cosmology, the Ten Sefirot correspond to ten levels of creation. These levels of creation must not be understood as ten different "gods" but as ten different ways of revealing God, one per level. It is not God who changes but the ability to perceive God that changes.

The topic is about sin(Christianity) and the important thing to remember is that Valentinian theology was seriously followed by Valentinian Christians in Egypt thousands of years of ago. That's what is important for me not what majority of the people in today's world believe in and decide what should be socially accepted and what not to.

Valentinian concept of sin

"In conclusion, Valentinians are closer to the mainstream of Christianity than is often assumed to be the case. The evidence supports the conclusion by Desjardins (1990, page 116) that the Valentinians were "Christians who took sacraments quite seriously, who took to heart Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, and were deeply concerned about not committing sins". It might further be added that there is certainly some truth to their own claims that their theology was derived from Saint Paul."

You can stop waiting now (Sorry, I had to catch the bus to work earlier.)

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/Computer-Generated-Encyclopedia-of-Euclidean-Geometry.shtml

Others are available.

So, lets be clear about this.

Computers can generate new mathematics- previously unknown to man.

 

 

On that score, humans are no longer unique (if they ever were: I'm not getting into an argument about what animals think here)

 

BTW, I read Penrose's book when it was new. It didn't convince me then either.

Citing it doesn't do anything to convince me of the validity of your case.

I missed the link. Could you take it on faith for the minute that I'm not stupid enough to lie about it and answer the point?

That's not the only doubt that I had in my mind, one more doubt which I had was whether you have understood the argument or not and I think you have not understood the argument yet. In case you have not understood it please understand it, the argument is Can machines think? or to put in Turing's words Can machines do what we can do? The answer to that question which has been already proved is a clear no.

Is thinking Computable?

Please understand the argument by reading this paper.

Computer generated proofs exist.

So either the machines have God in them too, or proof doesn't need God.

First we will go for simple tasks before building a machine which discovers new theorems for us.

Consider this simple problem, Armstrong numbers-

[latex]1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3 = 153[/latex]

Given this example I want a machine which generates an algorithm for me as its output all by itself which when given any number the algorithm needs to check whether the number is an Armstrong number or not. I want the machine to discover that algorithm for me all by itself.

Only then one can reasonably say that the machine has some understanding and has some insights or is thinking. We are no where near it.

Even if you give that machine a thorough crash course on the C language and make it learn we still don't know how to make that machine understand the problem in hand in the first place because a human being need to interfere and define the semantics and meaning and provide a representation to the machine and after all this how do you give the power of insight to the machine as to what should be the next step that needs to be taken to discover that intended algorithm or the solution to a problem?

We are no where near it and it has already been proved that human beings can do things which machines will never be able to do, human beings knows answers or truth values to problems for which no algorithm exists, ergo human thinking is non-computable and all part of human thinking cannot be simulated on a computer.

Once you understand the fact that conscious thought cannot be simulated on a computer the next thing is to look for alternate models which account for that phenomena and this is where a God hypothesis is inevitable and a honest person should investigate such a hypothesis and if you actually do theurgy the truth is right out there for anyone to verify it.

There is no theorem that proves him wrong.

You're mistaken, there are sound proofs which show that the measurement problem leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics and it is unavoidable. Either Schroedinger's wavefunction isn't all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

A general argument against the universal validity of the superposition principle - Angelo Bassi and Ghirardi

This is one proof and much more stronger version of that proof has been proved by Bernard.

Adam is a well-known example of a robot scientist inventing new laws and theorems...

 

The Automation of Science 2009: Science 324(5923), 85–89. King, Ross D.; Rowland, Jem; Oliver, Stephen G.; Young, Michael; Aubrey, Wayne; Byrne, Emma; Liakata, Maria; Markham, Magdalena; Pir, Pinar; Soldatova, Larisa N.; Sparkes, Andrew; Whelan, Kenneth E.; Clare, Amanda.

Adam did not invented any laws or theorems, it discovered previously unknown genes which codes for particular enzymes all by itself which is no surprising than a evolutionary algorithm coming up with new design solutions which were previously unknown to human beings.

There are two major problems with Immortal's latests assertions.

 

Here's a link to a book full of them.

Did you by mistake forgot to post the link? I didn't got your link.

This

"There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths."

is an argument from ignorance and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Looking on the bright side, it makes a change from the appeals to authority which I'm sure we were all getting bored of.

I have studied both molecular neurobiology and also the Pagan mystery religions and there is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which account for how mathematicians access absolute truths existing outside of ourselves, of course magical forces might be lurking inside our brains, there is no evidence of it but there is evidence to believe that a Nous(Mind) exists separate from the brain and one can verify it by performing Theurgy.

Also experiments were given to show that the empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us and not appeals to authority. I am actually quite bored of these silly excuses given as a cop out to escape from the facts of nature. Either this forum is outdated and the members have not kept up with recent findings and experiments or it doesn't deserve to be a science forum since no one here goes according to the facts of nature discovered by scientists and religious scholars.

No. As explained in quantum mechanics textbooks experiments are compatible with both realism and locality. Quotations from textbooks can be given if required...

 

 

The chemistry behind mathematicians' brains is the same than that behind the rest of us. They are affected by the same drugs, chemicals... Moreover there is not "absolute mathematical truths" in our modern understanding of maths.

I guess you're talking of this textbook.

Quantum Theory and Reality

However Griffiths is wrong, there are theorems which have been proved to show that the measurement problem is unavoidable and it leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics, either the Schroedinger wavefunction is not all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

You are also wrong about the latter one too(mathematical insight) and both of your misunderstandings has been corrected and tackled in this paper.

Foreward: A Computable Universe, Understanding Computation and Exploring Nature as Computation - Roger Penrose

However Penrose has missed a simple puzzle, if he thinks that absolute mathematical truths exist somewhere outside of ourselves then he is looking for it in the wrong place, he is searching for it in the structure of space-time and in the microtubules of the brain but anyone who has studied the Pagan mystery religions very well knows that Platonists i.e. our ancients argued that there is a Nous(Mind) apart from the brain which access the ideal Platonic forms from the intelligible realm. Its as simple as that. I figured this out years back and all evidence is in favour of a hypercosmic God i.e. my God. I am quite happy that brilliant physicists like Bernard do recognize it. Progress in science doesn't come by evading the problem, progress and advancement comes by thinking and solving it and giving up our strongly held prejudices.

I am pushing forward this as a God hypothesis. A God hypothesis is a reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos and our place in it. This is not a god of the gaps argument, this is a argument which fills a gap in our understanding of the cosmos. This time it is religion which is going to correct science.

There is no proof that Göbekli Tepe was built before agriculture appeared.

There is ample evidence that the people who built the temple Gobekli Tepe were foragers and were not people who had a settlement to do agriculture and all. First came the intent to worship and agriculture(civilization) originated has a consequence of that and hence the origin of organized religion was due to psychological factors and not due to physiological needs as you have stated in your OP which is plainly wrong.

Saying it again doesn't make it true. You said you had proof, but your "proof" contradicts itself.

Do you actually have evidence?

Yes, I have lots of proofs and I am not a fool to hold such a radical position without genuine logical reasons or proofs and to take sides with Penrose and Bernard.

Proof of Bell's theorem

Violation of Bell's inequality implies either one of these premises or assumptions of science are wrong.

1. Einsteinian separability - i.e. An event A cannot be the cause of an event B if [latex]( \Delta s) ^2 < 0.[/latex]

2. Realism - i.e. The assumption that an object has an independent pre-defined properties prior to measurement.

3. Induction

Nature indeed violates Bell inequality which means either one of these assumptions must be wrong and experiments were made to allow for non-local influences and tested for realism but even then non-local realistic theories fail to account for observed correlations showing that it is the premise of realism which is wrong. We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality existing independent of us.

A variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem proved by Roger Penrose to show that strong AI is impossible.

"I told you that the mind is like a pillar of light. Hold on to that pillar. When the light gets scattered its power gets dispersed. But if the light is focused and one-pointed then it is all powerful and quite bright. The same principle holds in respect of the mind. By nature it is fickle. When you intend to hold an object in your hand, you use all your fingers to clasp it, don't you? Likewise, if you wish to "hold" your mind, you should have a perfect hold on the sensory organs which are the instruments of the mind. If you wish to achieve or attain anything you should see that your concentrated attention of mind is not led astray by your senses. That concentrated mind should be focused fully on what you wish to achieve. Then, like a top, which spins round a centralized point, your mind remains fully, unswervingly concentrated on the aim or the object. It is like a serpent turning its head round to contact the tail. Your mind which begins with a strong question or doubt finds a suitable answer after a concentrated spin round the point. This I would say, is the first or primary step for your tapas."

 

-Devudu, Sanskrit Scholar

There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths. However we have a mechanism for how mathematicians access the ideal world of numbers in the platonic realm. In the words of Penrose there must be something in the physics of the nature which is non-computable, however Penrose doesn't seem to be aware of the Pagan mystery religions and hence he thinks he can find that answer in the structure of space-time at the fundamental fabric of the cosmos which in my opinion is a wrong approach to find the platonic values, platonic values are beyond space-time where as space-time are just categories of the human mind. Penrose might be wrong in how he is connecting all his ideas together but he is right about his mathematical arguments that there is something in the way humans think which cannot be simulated on a computer.

The only reason I believe in the pagan mystery religions is because of this and not because of other things like quantum mechanics. QM just adds additional reasons and forces us to question the existence of the empirical reality independent of the human mind. These ideas are not meant for publication because the authors of the Upanishads didn't signed their names on their works. This is no one's intellectual property. This knowledge belongs to the people of the world.

according to teaching of cristiany jesus died in cross to save us from sin?

has any body thought he might not liked it much or done it at freewil

Just by having faith on Christ one will not be saved from sins or attain salvation, it is only by knowledge that you can escape from sin not by blindly accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour.

"The one who has knowledge is a free person. But the free person does not sin, for the one who sins is a slave of sin " (Gospel of Philip 77:15-18 cf.. John 8:34).

Sin exists as long as ignorance exists.

As far as your question on whether Jesus did it on his own will there were speculations like that at early Christian times. Gospel of Judas

Gospel of Judas states that Jesus told Judas "You shall be cursed for generations" and then added, "You will come to rule over them" and "You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

This might be a starting place to change some of our perspectives on how organized religion came into existence, much of what is said in the OP is wrong, it was not the physiological factors that gave rise to organized religion but it was the psychological factors which played a prominent role in the origin of organized religion.

New evidence tells an opposite story of the origin of human civilization.

Birth of Religion

Anthropologists have assumed that organized religion began as a way of salving the tensions that inevitably arose when hunter-gatherers settled down, became farmers, and developed large societies. Compared to a nomadic band, the society of a village had longer term, more complex aims—storing grain and maintaining permanent homes. Villages would be more likely to accomplish those aims if their members were committed to the collective enterprise. Though primitive religious practices—burying the dead, creating cave art and figurines—had emerged tens of thousands of years earlier, organized religion arose, in this view, only when a common vision of a celestial order was needed to bind together these big, new, fragile groups of humankind. It could also have helped justify the social hierarchy that emerged in a more complex society: Those who rose to power were seen as having a special connection with the gods. Communities of the faithful, united in a common view of the world and their place in it, were more cohesive than ordinary clumps of quarreling people.

Göbekli Tepe, to Schmidt's way of thinking, suggests a reversal of that scenario: The construction of a massive temple by a group of foragers is evidence that organized religion could have come before the rise of agriculture and other aspects of civilization. It suggests that the human impulse to gather for sacred rituals arose as humans shifted from seeing themselves as part of the natural world to seeking mastery over it. When foragers began settling down in villages, they unavoidably created a divide between the human realm—a fixed huddle of homes with hundreds of inhabitants—and the dangerous land beyond the campfire, populated by lethal beasts.

French archaeologist Jacques Cauvin believed this change in consciousness was a "revolution of symbols," a conceptual shift that allowed humans to imagine gods—supernatural beings resembling humans—that existed in a universe beyond the physical world. Schmidt sees Göbekli Tepe as evidence for Cauvin's theory. "The animals were guardians to the spirit world," he says. "The reliefs on the T-shaped pillars illustrate that other world."

"Twenty years ago everyone believed civilization was driven by ecological forces," Schmidt says. "I think what we are learning is that civilization is a product of the human mind."

Much of today's organized religion can be explained by evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution. If religion is full of violence and if it is indeed such a bad meme then why have these ideas survived in our meme pool, of course memes live forever and humans learn those ideas again and again where as a gene lost is lost forever but even then why has religion persisted to even this day?

Religion has persisted not because it helps in kin selection, not because it hijacks neo-cortical mechanisms, religious people aren't dumb or have not turned off their screening mechanisms when it comes to religion. Religion persists because the numinous has revealed itself to the human psyche throughout the history of humanity and religious experiences affect a person's day to day living in a great way and it is this supernatural force is the main reason why religion has persisted up until this day and it is going to continue to play an important part in shaping our human psyche.