It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Paganism of Christianity

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by centurion1211
And a saint that can perform miracles for harvests, weather, etc. is different from a god or goddess doing the same thing exactly how


Wait, didn't the Romans also makes gods and goddesses out of their dead rulers? And that's different form how someone becomes a saint exactly how


It was all happening abut the same time, too


Its not a harvest or weather thing. Man some of you guys know nothing. Theyre saints not gods. Saints are not our rulers. A good example of a miracle is stigmata. For those who dont know what stigmata is: it is when a person recieves the wounds of Jesus. Wholes in their legs, wrists, and stab wound to their side. Its a miracle because these things cannot be explained by science and never become infectiouse. Some constantly bleed,other stop and then start again. Now if any1 out there is thinking that these people just cut theirselves then your wrong because there have been people in a coma that did not have stigmata befor they lapsed into it.


And you say that a stigmata come from God? Tell me exactly why God of love wants to or needs to torture his followers by making them suffer in the same way as Christ. That is sick. Is this the sick God that you serve? I think there is only one person that really liked to see Christ suffer on the cross.. and it wasnt God.

I think the evidence is quite conclusive that it aint God working in that church.




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
How's about everyone read the book of Hebrews. It describes who Jesus is, why he is who he says he his and his position in relation to the angels, and humans. God is one in substance and essence, but has shown himself to us in three personhoods. Which have all the same attributes and nature.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
If you Look in the Bible GOD himself called all who believed in him saints not just those who show forth miracles. In the book of Revelation it says that the anti-christ will show forth miracles and lying wonders, are they gonna make him a saint too.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I'm liking your style...


Originally posted by Hailthekingoflights
If you Look in the Bible GOD himself called all who believed in him saints not just those who show forth miracles.


I testify that I am a saint. I am not God. If I were to perform a miracle it would be up to God to work through me to make the occurrence, not my will. The source of my power is God. Without him I am nothing...literally, I mean it.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I testify that I am a saint.

What miracles have your performed.. [need testimonies other than your own] and when were you given your sainthood?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
What miracles have your performed.. [need testimonies other than your own] and when were you given your sainthood?


I brought a practioner of the dark arts to see the err of her ways before the fires of Hell consumed her, reversed her direction and brough her before God. She too is now a saint by her own will. If you think this is easy or not a miracle, try doing it sometime. Again, it was not by my power this was done. It took a lot of effort, prayer and intervention. She is not on ATS (despite me trying to get her interest into it) so she could not testify. I doubt her testimony would constitute as the 'proof' your looking for anyway. If it were that easy for you to believe and turn your spirit over to God, I'd have her pop on just for this thread.

My definition of saint is Biblical per stated above. Those who believe in Him. I accept his Son as saviour and teacher. I repent my sins and discard sinful ways. I'm not sinless but have the capability of seeing it, asking for forgiveness and changing. If you like to use the word 'born-again' that's acceptable but not to be confused with 'holy roller'. I don't push nor condemn people.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I brought a practioner of the dark arts to see the err of her ways before the fires of Hell consumed her,

The 'dark arts' usually refers to everything other than the religion doing the calling so I'm unsure what that means and can't make a judgement on it.

She too is now a saint by her own will. If you think this is easy or not a miracle, try doing it sometime.

But you [and she] need to perform three before you qualify as being a saint. I guess it could make you a healer or a 'messenger' of sorts though.. have you ever considered becoming a priest? It's not just to offically qualify either.. it's to spiritualy qualify. Calling yourself a saint after one miracle would excuse you from doing anymore.. plus I'm pretty sure you have to be dead as well.. though I think mother teresa was close to being ordained while she was still alive.
I'm not negating what you've done for this woman.. I've had some very extraordinary experiences as well but 'saint' just seems a little premeture to me. No offence intended.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Wait, didn't the Romans also makes gods and goddesses out of their dead rulers? And that's different from how someone becomes a saint exactly how

Its different because catholics and other groups with saints don't worship these saints as gods or anything else like that.


My point is that it is very clear that the early catholic church borrowed much from the other religions of the day.

The early church, the one that borrowed all this stuff, was not, however, the catholic church. The pope was not its head, and the Great Schism hadn't occured. It was a different sort of church.


croat
a miracle because these things cannot be explained by science and never become infectiouse.

The ones that have been able to be examined have ended up being self inflicted and some are thought to be psychosomatic. They aren't 'inexplicable'.


shmick
I think the evidence is quite conclusive that it aint God working in that church.

No, there is no evidence one way or another that any god is working or not working in any church. You beleive that god wouldn't give people stigmata, and that stigmata are the work of the devil and therefore any religion that works with stigmata is a devil deceived religion. But even in your own system god is allowing people to receive stigmata, he created the devil, he gave it the ability to make stigmata, and he doesn't interfere when it inflicts people with it, and, more importantly, he doesn't come down and say 'i didn't do this'. The fact that stigmata are unpleasant hardly means that they can't have come from god.


riley
But you [and she] need to perform three before you qualify as being a saint

Before the catholic church would consider them a catholic saint, and even then they'd investigate the occurances and try to see if they can reasonably be explained by science or fraud or whatever.

The early christian community, so far as I understand it, had this concept of saints, but no official organ deciding what was saintly and what was not. I think that 'saint4god' is recalling this tradition when he/she says that this woman struggled against black magic and thus became a 'saint'.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
The 'dark arts' usually refers to everything other than the religion doing the calling so I'm unsure what that means and can't make a judgement on it.


Sorry for not being specific. Usually it's because I don't want to rock the boat too much here. She was a spell caster, conjuror-type. Not directly Satanic, but well versed on the practices. Best description I can use here without getting into trouble is someone who practices sorcery. I'm not here to start a fight really, just trying to relay the situation.


She too is now a saint by her own will. If you think this is easy or not a miracle, try doing it sometime.


Originally posted by riley
But you [and she] need to perform three before you qualify as being a saint.


By what standard? I'm sorry but I don't see that in the Bible.


Originally posted by riley
I guess it could make you a healer or a 'messenger' of sorts though..


That's a good description, thank you.


Originally posted by riley
have you ever considered becoming a priest?


I'd considered ministry briefly but no, I know it's not where I am needed to be at this time. It's weird. Spent years upon years asking what I need to be doing. Then I find out and I'm like 'Huh? You're kidding right?' It's funny because it aligns with a lot of my interests.


Originally posted by riley
It's not just to offically qualify either.. it's to spiritualy qualify. Calling yourself a saint after one miracle would excuse you from doing anymore.. plus I'm pretty sure you have to be dead as well.. though I think mother teresa was close to being ordained while she was still alive.
I'm not negating what you've done for this woman.. I've had some very extraordinary experiences as well but 'saint' just seems a little premeture to me. No offence intended.


None taken. Again, I don't know who set this 'sainthood' standard that's foreign to me. I refer the Bible for any answers I'm not given directly. I'm here to challenge myself in addition to helping others. If I say something that's wrong, I'd appreciate being told so. One of the advantages of being here. Since nothing is personal per say, people are able to be more candid.

Am I going to be a part of more miracles? God only knows



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
She was a spell caster, conjuror-type. Not directly Satanic, but well versed on the practices. Best description I can use here without getting into trouble is someone who practices sorcery. I'm not here to start a fight really, just trying to relay the situation.

I'm certain I've had 'christians' praying against me.. I think it's just a matter of someone tapping into a more universal power and using it for their own desires. The mind and soul are very powerful things.. if someone was praying to 'god'.. to do harm against someone else they would actually be praying to something negative not positive.. and therefore not christ.. even if they evoked his name. I consider this part of the 'dark arts' even if it's not part of a religion that is traditionally considered 'evil'.. so I can't judge anything else. If someone uses 'sorcery' to do good.. I don't see anything wrong with it.. it is what lies in the hearts of people.. if someone has a dark heart they can go to church all they want but if their motives are not good.. the outcome will never be good either. Khama thing.


By what standard? I'm sorry but I don't see that in the Bible.

I guess the vatican probably bases the 'rules' on some sort of doctrine.. perhaps they are trying to ensure legitamacy.

I'd considered ministry briefly but no, I know it's not where I am needed to be at this time. It's weird. Spent years upon years asking what I need to be doing. Then I find out and I'm like 'Huh? You're kidding right?' It's funny because it aligns with a lot of my interests.

Glad you found where you belong.
I considered becoming a buddhist monk for a while there though it didn't completely correspond to my beliefs.. there seemed to be a couple of oppresive aspects to it.. but it still crosses my mind from time to time.

Am I going to be a part of more miracles? God only knows
Time will tell.
[just let us know though!]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   


The 'devil' is no a god tho. Its just a thing


Hi,
I was under the impression that the devil was an angel who was
cast out of Heaven, according to the christian bible anyway.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by madhatter



The 'devil' is no a god tho. Its just a thing


Hi,
I was under the impression that the devil was an angel who was
cast out of Heaven, according to the christian bible anyway.


The Devil was actually an angel named Lucifer who was supposedly the most beautiful angel God created. Lucifer became jealous of Gods divine powers and wanted to be better then God. He went to other angels and got some to fallow him. God then casted then out of heaven.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by madhatter
I was under the impression that the devil was an angel

That and the rest is Blake's take on it, and I suppose that there is scriptural support for that tradition. I don't see how that changes anything tho. The devil as a fallen angel does not make it a god that christians worship



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Hi,
I was under the impression that the devil was an angel who was
cast out of Heaven, according to the christian bible anyway.

Actually you will not find that in the Bible. That's a story passed down in tradition.

No, the devil is not necessarily a god that Christians worship, but they acknowledge him as a supernatural force or influence. In fact there are those who worship him, although maybe that is just out of spite. Still sounds like a god to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Hi Ikku this is the Bible Verse I was refering to, I also think that there
is another one in Revelation.





Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming…How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Well I suppose that can be interpreted as an angel but is there a specific reference to the angel Lucifer rising against God and then being cast away? You can take that verse to be subjective and just symbolic.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   




shmick
I think the evidence is quite conclusive that it aint God working in that church.

No, there is no evidence one way or another that any god is working or not working in any church. You beleive that god wouldn't give people stigmata, and that stigmata are the work of the devil and therefore any religion that works with stigmata is a devil deceived religion. But even in your own system god is allowing people to receive stigmata, he created the devil, he gave it the ability to make stigmata, and he doesn't interfere when it inflicts people with it, and, more importantly, he doesn't come down and say 'i didn't do this'. The fact that stigmata are unpleasant hardly means that they can't have come from god.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Nygdan]


Your logic is terrible.

Read the Bible, and then define the characteristics of God. Better still, find in the Bible where it mentions stigmatas. It should be somewhere after the death of Christ I would have thought, and it should be well documented amoungst the early Christians


Why does God let it happen? It is the same question I would say as, why does God let bad things happen to good people. Why does God let bad things happen at all?

So why does he? I'm sure you can figure it out right? If not I can tell you.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
Your logic is terrible.

Really? How? All I have stated is that we can't know which religion is the true religion. Please demonstrate the analytic technique that allows you to do this then.


Read the Bible, and then define the characteristics of God. Better still, find in the Bible where it mentions stigmatas.

Why? What does it matter if it does or does not mention them? Their inclusion in teh bible is irrelevant.


It should be somewhere after the death of Christ I would have thought, and it should be well documented amoungst the early Christians

As far as I understand it stigmata didn't occur on anyone until much much later. What difference does it make?


So why does he? I'm sure you can figure it out right? If not I can tell you.

Ok, go ahead and explain the mind of god to me. Should be interesting.

What difference is there between this omnipotent god creating a creature that creates stigmata on people or directly creating it himself? This god is all-powerful, existence occurs because it wills it. Even if one allows 'non-determinism' for humans because of divine fiat, these stigmata you are saying are comming from the devil, a creature that god created and that there isn't any mention of it having free will.

And, how does any of this mean that the Roman Catholic church is a satan lead instituion? Why wouldn't god tell the pope or any of the catholic leadership in the hundreds of years that its been around that stigmata are the work of satan? If the bible is telling them that it isn't, then this god does communicate to his church and can reasonably be expected to communicate with it outside of the bible. Indeed, since the bible is a fallible book copied, written, transcriped and coallated work of very fallible humans, in particular the work of the RCC itself, (or at least its pre-schismatic antecessor), then it demands that god directly comminucate with the church community. So not having stigmatics in the bible is completely meaningless, and certainly not evidence that they are the result of the devil. Any more than, say, the pagan traidtion of communal religious service and a raised stock of wheat at the 'height' of the religious ceremony and communal consumption of it means that the christian ritual of the eucharist is inspired by the devil.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   


Really? How? All I have stated is that we can't know which religion is the true religion. Please demonstrate the analytic technique that allows you to do this then.


Read the thread topic. The argument isnt about if Christianity is the 'true' religion or not. It is about Paganism of Christianity. We were talking about the RCC which claims to be Christian not any other religion. So your argument above is mute.



Read the Bible, and then define the characteristics of God. Better still, find in the Bible where it mentions stigmatas.
Why? What does it matter if it does or does not mention them? Their inclusion in teh bible is irrelevant.


Let's continue this constructive argument. The inclusion in the Bible IS relevant.

Why don't you back up your statement with some content??

As Christians 'which the RCC church claims to be' the Bible is instructional guide on how to live your life. Revelation, at the end of the Bible says clearly not to add or subtract anything from the Book (which the RCC has done both of)

The miracles of Christ were designed to Glorify God and heal people. A stigmata is not healing a person or glorifying God but indeed is a torture.


It should be somewhere after the death of Christ I would have thought, and it should be well documented amoungst the early Christians

As far as I understand it stigmata didn't occur on anyone until much much later.


As far as you know? Can you tell me why they occur at all?

What difference does it make? See above post


So why does he? I'm sure you can figure it out right? If not I can tell you. Ok, go ahead and explain the mind of god to me. Should be interesting.

See Below:



What difference is there between this omnipotent god creating a creature that creates stigmata on people or directly creating it himself? This god is all-powerful, existence occurs because it wills it. Even if one allows 'non-determinism' for humans because of divine fiat, these stigmata you are saying are comming from the devil, a creature that god created and that there isn't any mention of it having free will.



So in English you are saying:
God Created Everything therefore God created Stigmata’s.

The concept of sin = opposite of God. Because God is 100% Good it means there is no room for evil.

For example: 100% pure apple juice means there is no orange juice in it.

So God is perfect, he also created free will, which is evident when Satan decided to turn against God. If there was no free will how would this be possible? (For a more in depth discussion of free will, there are numerous threads on this site about it)

So now we have an equation:
God Good - 100%
Satan Evil - 100%

Is God evil? no, otherwise he wouldn’t be 100% Good. Did he let evil exist? Yes. Why? Because of Free will. Why else? So everyone would know the consequences of evil and hopefully reject it.



And, how does any of this mean that the Roman Catholic church is a satan lead instituion?


There are threads addressing this. Look them up.



Why wouldn't god tell the pope or any of the catholic leadership in the hundreds of years that its been around that stigmata are the work of satan?


He has given people Brains and the bible to figure out the good from the bad. Even some non-Christians perceive it as satanic.



If the bible is telling them that it isn't, then this god does communicate to his church and can reasonably be expected to communicate with it outside of the bible.



Who said that it is his church? I think the argument is that it 'isn’t his church'.



Indeed, since the bible is a fallible book copied, written, transcriped and coallated work of very fallible humans, in particular the work of the RCC itself, (or at least its pre-schismatic antecessor), then it demands that god directly comminucate with the church community.


You obviously do not know much about the history of the Bible. It has been re-written numerous times from original sources without the intervention from the RCC. But yes, the version the RCC uses is corrupt.



So not having stigmatics in the bible is completely meaningless, and certainly not evidence that they are the result of the devil. Any more than, say, the pagan traidtion of communal religious service and a raised stock of wheat at the 'height' of the religious ceremony and communal consumption of it means that the christian ritual of the eucharist is inspired by the devil.


Yes they are all pagan influences. Correct. By Christian definition, a pagan influence would be the result of the devil.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I'm certain I've had 'christians' praying against me.. I think it's just a matter of someone tapping into a more universal power and using it for their own desires.


I would question their 'christianity' if they were praying against you. Christians should be praying for you. They should be helping you achieve, not fall.


Originally posted by riley
.. if someone was praying to 'god'.. to do harm against someone else they would actually be praying to something negative not positive.. and therefore not christ.. even if they evoked his name.


Agreed. I believe this is cursing in the truest sense of the word.


Originally posted by riley
if someone has a dark heart they can go to church all they want but if their motives are not good.. the outcome will never be good either.


Disagreed. If they listen at any point and see there is a problem, then success is possible. Kind of defeatest to say there is no hope.


Originally posted by riley
I guess the vatican probably bases the 'rules' on some sort of doctrine.. perhaps they are trying to ensure legitamacy.


Oh, the vatican. I don't pray to the vatican. I wonder what they're using as their 'rule book'? Doesn't look the same as my Book.


Originally posted by riley
Glad you found where you belong.
I considered becoming a buddhist monk for a while there though it didn't completely correspond to my beliefs.. there seemed to be a couple of oppresive aspects to it.. but it still crosses my mind from time to time.


Oppression is never good. Seek truth and you'll find. If there's anything I can help with I certainly will try.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join