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.

 

Religion IS Malware

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282


Every person perception of “life” is different because of their experiences and how they perceive and act upon them.None are exempt from this process of the BS religion.

Try thinking of religion as a subroutine which accesses the database of experiences. Not the whole self image but the elements of significance, become arranged in patterns.



None can extract their religion from themselves.

But it can be modified through rearrangement of the elements of experience within the database.

In my opinion, this can take place through social religion in interaction with other people. It is not insanity when consensual reality is consistent with consentual reality.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: WarminIndy

The OPs arguments are the same overly simplistic scapegoating antheistic tripe many use.
As for the OP's descent, ohhh noes, das juden! [/sarc]


I know that the OP has to be careful where he says he is from Jewish parents on these threads. I also know what it means to be Jewish. I have no disrespect for the OP, I hope you can understand that.

The point I was making is that the OP still has a community of people who still accept the OP regardless of how the OP currently believes. But these threads are notoriously anti-Semitic, and if you have been so accustomed to hearing the anti-Semitic posts and comments that you assume I was being, maybe it is ingrained into people's minds.

The OP also knows my position, I can say that I am part Jewish because I have recent ancestry. My mother's cousins that were still in Bavaria were Jewish, they died at Dachau. My father's mother descends from Sephardi Jews. Why would I be anti-Semitic?

The OP currently believes the way the OP wishes to believe, but the OP knows that he is still considered Jewish and I see nothing wrong with that. Why assume then I was making an issue out of that? The only thing I was saying is that even though the OP is currently in his own thought system about religion, the OP cannot be removed from identity.

I have no problem with the OP being Jewish, albeit secular.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I just came online this morning to read this argument. I think that this chapter is appropriate enough

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; 3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; 4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. 17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.


Even though they were with Jesus three years, walking with Him, talking with Him, believing in Him, they were still not all clean. If then, your Lord and Master washed YOU, then YOU ought to do it to others. Jesus has given us an example. The servant is not greater than his Lord, neither is he that is sent greater then he that sent him.

Jesus is our Lord and Master, but the truth is not all of us are clean. But the point is, as you and I have the same Lord, we have a responsibility for being servants, because we are not greater than He who sent us. Humility, it's tough for the human ego sometimes. Jesus said "the poor you will have with you always". Jesus said that if you feed others, you feed Him, if you clothe the naked, you clothe Him and if you visit those in prison.

When Mary of Bethany anointed His feet, He said "for what this woman has done, her name is to be remembered when the Gospel is preached". The Social Gospel gets only one thing wrong, it doesn't ask you to see that poor person as Jesus.

And we are not all clean.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Klassified

No. First they must have faith in Christ's alone, in His payment for our sins. Then they must consistently confess their sins to God (1John 1:9) to maintain the walk in the Spirit/Fellowship with God. These confessions should be private, between the individual and God, so in one way or another, either the modern church system doesnt teach it, or teaches it improperly.

I would say very few so called Christians are actually Christians, and of those real believers, even fewer walk in the Spirit.


I tried to stay away from this topic, but this post just deserves little response...

First of all, don't really care about YOUR sin, but please, do not worry about my sins. I really don't give a (insert bad word here) for what you think is YOUR sin, but sure, neither I remember nor I feel responsible for SINS your little organization is trying to make EVERYONE responsible for.

Now, little about Christ. To this day, only 2 thousands of years later we don't have any proof of his existence, even he is MOST important person for your religion?! Doesn't this strike you as odd? We have good records for some less important people that date 2 thousands years earlier, but not for him?! Why would he do anything if I sinned and what sin are you talking about? Did I ask someone to perform sin for me??

So please, you can believe all you want, but do not call me or rest of world sinners... Remember, it's your belief, made of thin air, something you don't have any proof for...
edit on 12-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Social Gospel gets only one thing wrong, it doesn't ask you to see that poor person as Jesus.

But the Social Gospel isn't a single monolithic message. There are variations. Even a non-Christian may join in a Christian run program.

Are you suggesting that non-Christians should be screened before being allowed to participate?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Okay....what?
Sorry, I spaced out while reading that.
*yawn*

I'm not as ignorant as you'd like to paint me to be, but - nice try. You just posted the same stuff. I was "churched" as a kid, don't forget. A Christian - an Episcopalian. I was baptized as an infant, I have godparents, I attended Sunday School, I was confirmed at age 12 or whatever, and married in a church. So, as far as my family and church was concerned, I am part of the Christian community. You might not like the doctrines or methods of the particular Christian Faith that my mom had us participate in - but that doesn't make me less of a person than you.

oh - and - Catholics ARE CHRISTIANS. Just in case you were planning on attacking the Episcopal church (an offshoot of the Church of England).
I'm very aware of the history of the Abrahamic religions. YOUR opinion doesn't really matter to me, though.


edit on 5/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



YOUR opinion doesn't really matter to me, though.

Who are you responding to? I'm wondering if my feelings should be hurt or not.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Social Gospel gets only one thing wrong, it doesn't ask you to see that poor person as Jesus.

But the Social Gospel isn't a single monolithic message. There are variations. Even a non-Christian may join in a Christian run program.

Are you suggesting that non-Christians should be screened before being allowed to participate?


No, that is not what I mean.

What I mean is this, some Christians forget their fundamental teaching of their responsibility for other Christians and non-believers alike. For some Christians, their doctrine extends to finding sin in others. For some Christians, their doctrine extends to there being no sin at all for them, but in others who don't follow their doctrine.

There are some people who follow a Social Gospel without a Christ. It's like this article from Time Magazine, which some of us know was written, younger people don't know and think this current phenomenon is unique to this generation.

You can read here the words of Elson


Is God dead? The three words represent a summons to reflect on the meaning of existence. No longer is the question the taunting jest of skeptics for whom unbelief is the test of wisdom and for whom Nietzsche is the prophet who gave the right answer a century ago. Even within Christianity, now confidently renewing itself in spirit as well as form, a small band of radical theologians has seriously argued that the churches must accept the fact of God’s death, and get along without him. How does the issue differ from the age-old assertion that God does not and never did exist? Nietzsche’s thesis was that striving, self-centered man had killed God, and that settled that. The current death-of-God group believes that God is indeed absolutely dead, but proposes to carry on and write a theology without theos, without God. Less radical Christian thinkers hold that at the very least God in the image of man, God sitting in heaven, is dead, and—in the central task of religion today—they seek to imagine and define a God who can touch men’s emotions and engage men’s minds.


A theology without theos.

I was reminding the poster that I was replying to, is that when we focus on one thing and forget another, we fail in our calling.

I appreciate art, and for many years art has conveyed the meaning of religion for those who were not able to read the Gospels, so I wanted to ask what people think when they see these?







The first is Creation of Adam by Michaelangelo. As my Art History professor showed us, God is riding on the brain.

The second is The Pieta, if it doesn't evoke emotion, then perhaps the viewer doesn't know what this is about.

The third is called Hugenot Lovers on St. Bartholomew's Day. In that painting, the young Catholic girl is pleading her Hugenot lover to remain true to Catholicism and he rejects it. St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

A theology without theos: a man creates God and then himself. But then is man dead, if man is God?

The tugging of the arm band, pleading. The mother holding her son, as she did when he was a baby. We as Christians should be that gentle, speaking words of wisdom, let it be, let it be.

The Social Gospel for Christians is that we visit the widows and orphans. That we have compassion, mercy and grace on others because "Even as we were sinners, Christ died for us".

Thomas a Kempis in Imitation of Christ

If I knew all things in the world and had not charity, what would it profit me before God Who will judge me by my deeds?


BuzzyWigs gave a reminder of that. She was correct.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
My 2 cents:
The Religion Either makes you,
A Terrorist, A Retard OR A Helpless person(There are so many people with all three).
The rare case: A truly helpful/good person.

The reason I this is because, that what I've seen, from the moment I born into this "world".
People kill in the name of religion, They do all kind of bad to worse things and then confesses(or something else, different for every religion). For those who are good(or say, trying to look good), They are just afraid of their God or society, as what will happen if they do something terrible. So, In that way, religion is good, as it keep psychopaths away from society somewhat.
But its really bad when some religious people wants you to pray to their god. Dammit, I don't believe in god.
He wasn't there in wars, famine, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis...

"If there was a god, he is long dead" Some TV show I don't remember the name.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

lol, no not at all.
It is an exchange between ServantofTheLamb and myself.

I have no issues with you at all - I remember you from before your last hiatus....
we're pals.


I'll go back and insert a "reply to" just to clarify.
Sorry about that.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
If you read Altzer(?) and Hamilton, there is much difference between their thinking too.
Some people would say a certain concept of the divine was dead. The 70s changed the landscape in America.

I think I'll have to re-read the conversation.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Did you happen to watch the Star Trek episode that I suggested?

I think that was to you. And I think this was the thread.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The word GOD is a title. So what GOD are you referring to?

Your post to me sounds like you are talking about And referring to Satan. Satan is the only God that I know of who enjoys people killing people.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

No, not yet, I haven't. But that was one of my favorite shows ever, and I'll enjoy watching it.
I'll get back to you with a response regarding it.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I should add further, that your understanding of Galatians chapter four just may be unique. That is not how any of the various camps read it or teach it.

Perhaps you should try conveying that. It blew my mind.


edit on 12-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Considering everything you've said on this page, how is it that you can believe in the doctrine of "faith alone" Knowing full well that God will judge your actions in life?




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Yeah, and what exactly is your point? Did I call you a sinner? Did I ask you to confess your sins? No. Because I don't want to hear about your dirty laundry. What I did say is that real Christians, who believe in Jesus for remission of sin, should be compelled to confess their sins per 1 John 1:9.

So, explain to me again, in what way did my words pertain to a non-believer such as your self???



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



so I wanted to ask what people think when they see these?

I'm assuming that you are looking for an uninformed reaction.

The Michaelangelo doesn't elicit much response from me.

The Pieta seems to be a depiction of a stoic reaction to tragedy. The story would be something like this:

A major battle had been fought. One of the soldiers had been severely wounded. Some one had stripped him of his clothing and gear but left him still dying on the battlefield. A young camp follower found the dying man and somehow managed to pick him up, and he died in her arms. The greatest impact is her flat affect. Obviously, this was not the first man to have died in her arms, and she seems to know is certain that he won't be the last.

Hugenot Lovers on St. Bartholomew's Day is difficult to read because of the girl's seeming lack of emotion. She's binding his arm. With one hand, he's loosing the bond, but with the other he's holding her face. It seems to me that he might just be thinking of cheating on the girl (lover) and maybe she knows it.

Is that what you were looking for? A psychologist might have a field day with my art interpretation.

edit on 12-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Considering everything you've said on this page, how is it that you can believe in the doctrine of "faith alone" Knowing full well that God will judge your actions in life?



I don't think that we have the same idea of faith alone. What is faith to you?

Have I ever posited the faith alone doctrine? We will be judged, I have said it all along since I ever came to ATS. By now, you should know my position.

I'm going to show my faith by my works. Even the unjust judge, he eventually gave justice to the old lady, and the rain falls on the just and unjust alike. I am not the judge of any person's destiny, there is only one Great Judge, to Him I leave judgment.

My job is to keep the commandments that Jesus taught. When He said "go ye therefore into all the world teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.....", how can we then not love our neighbor as ourselves and still be observing?

Faith, oh ye of little faith, is not just simply believing, but doing. Remember, even Peter walked on water, even if it was just a few steps.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy



so I wanted to ask what people think when they see these?

I'm assuming that you are looking for an uninformed reaction.

The Michaelangelo doesn't elicit much response from me.

The Pieta seems to be a depiction of a stoic reaction to tragedy. The story would be something like this:

A major battle had been fought. One of the soldiers had been severely wounded. Some one had stripped him of his clothing and gear but left him still dying on the battlefield. A young camp follower found the dying man and somehow managed to pick him up, and he died in her arms. The greatest impact is her flat affect. Obviously, this was not the first man to have died in her arms, and she seems to know is certain that he won't be the last.

Hugenot Lovers on St. Bartholomew's Day is difficult to read because of the girl's seeming lack of emotion. She's binding his arm. With one hand, he's loosing the bond, but with the other he's holding her face. It seems to me that he might just be thinking of cheating on the girl (lover) and maybe she knows it.

Is that what you were looking for? A psychologist might have a field day with my art interpretation.


You view them and understand according your understanding, so you aren't wrong and there can't be one single interpretation.

They all tell a story, your interpretations are as good as anyone else.




top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join