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.

 

Jesus paid for It

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




No not at all. Because christians believe in jesus. Which is rediculous.



How exactly is believing there was a man named Jesus and that he died and rose again three days later make you untrustworthy?




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver




No not at all. Because christians believe in jesus. Which is rediculous.



How exactly is believing there was a man named Jesus and that he died and rose again three days later make you untrustworthy?
Because you can say that with a straight face.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I would say my view has more historical data supporting it than yours.
edit on 15-6-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Isurrender73
A modern day parable, eh? The church needs new writers. That was terrible.

And Jesus was late to the party. There were already saviors who had come and died for the sins of mankind centuries before Jesus was born.



The church doesn't agree with my parable. My parable was directed at the church, perhaps you missed the point.
edit on 15-6-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Isurrender73
A modern day parable, eh? The church needs new writers. That was terrible.

And Jesus was late to the party. There were already saviors who had come and died for the sins of mankind centuries before Jesus was born.



The church doesn't agree with my parable. My parable was directed at the church, perhaps you missed the point.

Indeed. My apologies. Sometimes sarcasm gets lost in translation. Especially when there are some who would write something like this, and mean it. I will endeavor to give due diligence before commenting next time.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver

I would say my view has more historical data supporting it than yours.
The fact that people believe it does not prove that it is actually the case. Sorry. Your historical data is unreliable, untestable, and unbelievable.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Well I'm glad you have no idea what history is. History doesn't rely on repeatable experiments. I never once said that it was the truth because people believed it to be true. I said it has more historical data supporting it than your own view. You call it unbelievable which makes the argument hour putting forth an argument from incredulity. You don't even know what data I'm referring to and yet you have already dismissed it. It shows your extreme bias. Your scared to actually discuss the topic because you know your end will come up short



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm not sure that our conversation will ever go a bit easier regardless of how much I explain my position, as long as you require a god to be included.

I understand your position very well, It's that nothing is possible without a god.

If you feel that such a simple concept as "personal responsibility" loses it's meaning without the inclusion of a god, then you're really not understanding the words.

Quite simply Personal means individual (no god), and Responsibility means the state of accountability (no god)... If you're suggesting that an 'individual state of accountability" requires a god to be accountable to, then you are adding a third idea to a very simple idea... which is quite simply I am accountable to myself and those around me.

So... my question to you is; How does a god have anything at all to do with the idea of personal responsibility?

You're tagging on a god to the two words which negates the whole concept of "personal".

Based on your premise of personal responsibility being impossible without a god, you are absolutely implying the lack of free will of the person. You're shifting the accountability of "self" to a deity, which would actually be "divine responsibility", which is a completely different concept.

In terms of placing intrinsic value on "life", there is no need to include the concept of an external creator, unless we are back to your very simple minded idea that "nothing is possible without a god". It is like the personal responsibility idea, where you keep wanting to include a whole other concept of god into a simple concept that need no gods applied for it to make sense. Intrinsic means natural... and we generally understand natural processes very well, and are learning more every day. So far there is nothing that has been shown to be supernatural about life, and yes, life is as natural as a "rock floating through space".

I am also a programmer, I taught programming at university and employ 10 programmers in my business, so I understand programming pretty well. The universe is a system... just as what you stated "it is what it is". There may or may not be a god at the outset of it all (such as a programmer writing a program), however, a programmer doesn't monitor every bit of code as a program is running, just as if there is a god, it doesn't interact with the universe as it goes through its processes.

You will never understand my position if you can't even fathom life without a god. I understand how a god "may" exist at the start of it all, but you seem unwilling to make an effort to imagine how a god may not exist. Ergo the lack of understanding is clearly on your end.



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Ok lets calm down a second. Now lets recap the conversations then revisit this post and hopefully you will see how much you have assumed to know about my thoughts.

I responded to :

"The lesson is it's time to remove religious doctrine from society and replace it with concepts of personal responsibility."

with

"Yea, and maybe this just a misunderstanding based on your definition of religion, but how exactly do you get personal responsibility without a transcendent consciousness? "

Now all I did was ask a simple question about how you got personal responsibility IE an individuals state of accountability, without a transcendent consciousness? I didn't say anything about my God or Hindu Gods or anything just a simple question about your worldview. To which your reply tries to change to topic to my views on the subject. I was trying to understand your position to see if it was internally coherent. Now lets revisit this comment:




I understand your position very well, It's that nothing is possible without a god.


This is not my position, but it is my position that somethings in this world could not logically be without a transcendent consciousness of some kind. Now you completely assumed this statement about me. Why not ask me first to make sure you are accurately representing my position? When you don't everything you say merely becomes a strawman.




If you feel that such a simple concept as "personal responsibility" loses it's meaning without the inclusion of a god, then you're really not understanding the words.


I am not actually. I assumed that you meant a personal state of accountability, and that is exactly what prompted my question.




Quite simply Personal means individual (no god), and Responsibility means the state of accountability (no god)... If you're suggesting that an 'individual state of accountability" requires a god to be accountable to, then you are adding a third idea to a very simple idea... which is quite simply I am accountable to myself and those around me.


Ok so this brings me back to my question. How do you have any objective state of accountability without some form of transcendent consciousness whose essence is the standard of Good? You made a truth claim. "We are accountable to ourselves and those around us." What makes that true? I am not saying I disagree. I am asking how you can coherently hold bags of flesh fizzing with chemicals , IE humans, accountable for anything? If I view the world as an atheist, then I see no way of rationally deducing moral obligations. So that is why I asked you a question. No reason to be hostile, and no reason to assume you know everything about me...




In terms of placing intrinsic value on "life", there is no need to include the concept of an external creator, unless we are back to your very simple minded idea that "nothing is possible without a god". It


Again not my view, but it is impossible to coherently place intrinsic value on life without a external creator. If its not explain how to do such a thing to me coherently..




So far there is nothing that has been shown to be supernatural about life, and yes, life is as natural as a "rock floating through space".


And that rock has intrinsic value huh? That rock has a personal responsibility not to crash into our rock the earth?




a programmer doesn't monitor every bit of code as a program is running, just as if there is a god, it doesn't interact with the universe as it goes through its processes.


I agree which is why you see things like the water cycle and the carbon cycle and the breathing cycle and the list goes on but a programmer does know each codes purpose and how it functions, and a programmer can change their code when they feel like it which would in turn result in a different output.




I understand how a god "may" exist at the start of it all, but you seem unwilling to make an effort to imagine how a god may not exist


I most definitely can think of what the world could be like without a God...which is why I asked my question..because when I view the world thru a lens that doesn't include any form of supernatural consciousness many things remain the same but others become impossible two of those things being intrinsic value upon life and moral obligations.
edit on 16-6-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What is, please define, "transcendent consciousness". What exactly is transcended?



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I suppose I should have defined that. A transcendent consciousness would be an entity with self-awareness that exist apart from, or outside of, what we call the material universe.

P.S.

As you can see many things aside from the Christian God could fulfill this definition, and they definition might be sloppy as I didn't spend as much time as I normally would rolling over the gaps, but I am sure you will point them out if they are there.
edit on 16-6-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Typo and PS



posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




A transcendent consciousness would be an entity with self-awareness that exist apart from, or outside of, what we call the material universe.


What kinds of things/beings can exist outside of the material universe? Does your consciousness exist out side the material universe? Are thoughts and ideas things that exist outside the material universe, in your opinion? Does a person's soul exist outside the material universe?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




What kinds of things/beings can exist outside of the material universe?


Based on the topic at hand, anything that is self aware and is the essence of the platonic form The Good.




Are thoughts and ideas things that exist outside the material universe, in your opinion?


It depends on which lens your asking me to view from. So from my personal perspective, thoughts and ideas exist outside the material universe. From an atheistic perspective, I would have to say that thoughts and ideas are merely the output of our biology. No free will only the illusion of as we are all just dancing to our DNA. This is the only way I know of to remain coherent from an atheistic perspective based on my knowledge of Science.




Does a person's soul exist outside the material universe?


Again depends on where I am looking from:

Christian perspective: People have souls that are integrated in to biological hardware for lack of a better analogy. The soul is like the driver, and yes transcends the material world. Plenty of documented cases where people have no brain function but still have conscious experiences. Pam Reynolds Case is one that comes to mind. There is also a guy who works over in the East and has done thousands of studies on consciousness. Can't remember his name but i can find his speech on YouTube where he goes over the outcomes of his data if you like.

You could also say that I am attempting to appeal to you with a reductio ad absurdum. Its a form of argument in which you try to show something is true by simply showing that when it is denied you are left with an absurd or fallacious result. The argument fails the moment a situation is produced that is not absurd and denies the statement. So my statement was that without a transcendent consciousness who is the essence of the platonic form The Good you cannot have any state of objective accountability.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




You could also say that I am attempting to appeal to you with a reductio ad absurdum. Its a form of argument in which you try to show something is true by simply showing that when it is denied you are left with an absurd or fallacious result.


I'm familiar with your "absurdum" attempts at logic through reduction. Unfortunately, you take some quantum leaps through your assumptions. like "God is good" for example.



Christian perspective: People have souls that are integrated in to biological hardware for lack of a better analogy. The soul is like the driver, and yes transcends the material world.


It feels as through you're implying that the soul is like a software program, integrated into "biological hardware" like a driver program for a piece of hardware, like a computer printer/scanner or some input/output device. That would suggest that the soul is NOT a transcendental entity but a bridge of instructional data that exists between a creative mind and its material invention, or creation, in order to produce a result.

I'm an atheist, in that I don't believe in a supreme creator being, that exists outside of creation, that is separate from its creation, that is separate from me. I do believe that we have a lot to learn about the qualities of the universe we live in and beside.

I would describe the soul as a driver, that operates and gets in and out of vehicles, vehicles that are used to "go somewhere". The soul, an eternal entity, enters the vehicle of the body at birth and coexists within the body until death doth part the two. The relationship between the body and the soul is like that of the "Christ" analogy. The "holy spirit" enters, consummates, marries the bride, the material body. The body is the temple, the church, the seat of Judah, the bride of Christ..........

The soul is the conscious transcendental being that willingly makes the sacrifice to descend from blissful perfection/source into the mundane material world of flesh and blood, destined to suffer and die and to experience death, just like "Christ". We are all "Christ".



edit on 17-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If saying "transcendent consciousness" isn't implying divinity then what exactly are you implying?

I didn't ask you first about your broader position because we have a long post history of responses together, and from our previous discussions that's exactly what I understand your position to be.

You state quite clearly in your last post that without a supernatural consciousness both intrinsic value and moral obligation are impossible, and it was implied in your original response to me in this thread.

By implying that intrinsic value can't exist without transcendent consciousness, you are implying that "nothing is possible without a god" (or an external "moral authority"... your new distracting angle from the last post). Which is why I stated it.

As an example of my previous paragraph, that rock does have intrinsic value... it may not be consciously recognised, but it is a part of the natural universe, so has a place (or value) in the context of a larger system (the universe) intrinsically (or naturally).

In your last couple of posts, you seem to be saying a transcendent consciousness could be any number of "things"... this seems like you are dissembling. I get that it could be many things besides the christian god, which is why I never said christian god... but regardless of what I think, what do you think a transcendent consciousness is?

What do you believe?

I'm curious because apparently you can't have personal responsibility without this nebulous transcendent consciousness... from your post history, it seems like you believe in a christian god. No?

I am calm, but you seem unable to understand that there really is nothing to explain from my end. How is a "personal state of responsibility" anything other than a "personal state of responsibility"? There is nothing there that even vaguely implies the need for an external force. Regardless of whether there is a higher power or not, personal responsibility will always relate to the individual in a closed system.

Do you believe that "We are accountable to ourselves and those around us." or not? If you do, then why does it matter whether good is a divinely inspired concept or the mere random interactions of chemicals that have led to an arbitrary concept based on social interactions? In the here and now, it benefits me and those I care about to have a developed sense of moral obligations based on history and learning and social development. Nothing to do with a transcendent being no matter how many times you say it's impossible to have morals without divinity.

I disagree with the idea of immutable good yet I am still moral... explain that?

Your default position is that there is a god (from my experiences with you), and if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because you would understand my original premise. You're the one who seems unable to separate transcendent consciousness from the individual. In your head they are intrinsically linked (which is the result of indoctrination), which Is why I made my original point to begin with in this thread. By your very question originally you are trying to redefine the concept of personal responsibility to in some way be dependent on a third party... which is totally wrong.

You speak of a "standard of "good"" as defined by some unprovable being outside our universe, who doesn't reveal itself other than through the words of ancient man. If I was a transcendent being with the ability to define "good" for the universe, I wouldn't rely on easily misinterpreted written language and translations to instill my message.

A programmer can't change their code while the program is running... until "god" stops the universe, we're on our own.

By the way, my world view is one of personal responsibility, where my moral obligations have been defined (and are constantly readjusted) based on circumstance and decision. I understand that since I have free will (regardless of whether a "god" gave it to me, or if it is as mundane as a rock floating through space), that all choices in my life are mine to make, both good and bad, and as a result I will have to accept the consequences (both good and bad). I choose to try to have a net positive effect on the world around me, and with my accumulated knowledge and experience strive to do what I perceive as good and through observation modify my behavior appropriately when the responses I receive from people are undesirable.

So far the feedback I receive from those around me, in my perception, suggests that I am generally an understanding, empathetic, good and caring person (though I can be a bit harsh on those that use crutches such as religion as an excuse or justification of their internal inadequacies).



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




Unfortunately, you take some quantum leaps through your assumptions. like "God is good" for example.


I never used the word God nor have I mentioned Christianity at all. So it seems you are the one making assumptions.




I would describe the soul as a driver, that operates and gets in an out of vehicles, vehicles that are used to "go somewhere". The soul, an eternal entity, enters the vehicles of the body at birth and coexists within the body until death doth part the two.


Thats not a bad analogy either, but the reason I used a computer driver is because we believe much of the same thing about the soul, just like a human driver operates a car, a software driver operates the hardware of a computer. Now the reason I think we chose the different analogies is because of were we differ on what happens during our bodily creation. I believe the soul is created in harmony with the Body much like software drivers are created to work in harmony with the hardware. Now something you analogy encompasses that mine does not is the soul's ability to "leave the car", which is one of the things mine does not encompass though I believe it to be the case.




The relationship between the body and the soul is like that of the "Christ" analogy. The "holy spirit" enters, consummates, marries the bride, the material body. The body is the temple, the church, the seat of Judah, the bride of Christ..........


Not being rude, but you need a little bit of work on your Christ analogy. The Body to a Christian is not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ. In reality the Church is simply the body of believers who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus died and rose again for the sins of the world. The Body is a temple as it houses the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with conjoining the material body and the soul, but has everything to do with connecting the soul back to its source. Maybe I misunderstood you, but these don't seem to be about the Christ I know.




The soul is the conscious transcendental being that willingly makes the sacrifice to descend from blissful perfection/source into the mundane material world of flesh and blood, destined to suffer and die and to experience death, just like "Christ". We are all "Christ"


This is incoherent with atheism, you could get by with this as an agnostic, but not an atheist. To claim a soul exist an atheist would first have to explain how such a thing could come into being without an external source.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




I never used the word God nor have I mentioned Christianity at all. So it seems you are the one making assumptions.



Don't be coy. We all know you're a Christian working off the lead of William Lane Craig.



Not being rude, but you need a little bit of work on your Christ analogy.


Just as "Christ" enter the world through a "virgin, so the soul enters, not through semen or sexual intercourse, but because of a willing sacrifice for love.



This is incoherent with atheism, you could get by with this as an agnostic, but not an atheist. To claim a soul exist an atheist would first have to explain how such a thing could come into being without an external source.


Nonsense. Belief in consciousness that exists beyond the physical body, that is an emanation of some natural expression of the universe is not dependent on belief in god(s). The soul is not a indicator of a "god(s), any more than electricity, sound or the existence of any physical body is evidence of a god(s).

What is, is, without the need to cite that it is because "god" is or is not.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Jesus paid for the sins you commit out of ignorance. Once you accept the Holy Spirit as your guide there is no place for willful sin in your life.


So the best deal would be to live a life full of sin, and just before you die accept the Holy spirit and ask for forgiveness!
there are saints accepted by the church who did exactly that

Imo this isn't moral at all, Just like the concept of sin isn't moral

I you are good just because being bad has consequences (sins) then you are not really a good person.

On the other hand when you are good without expecting a reward, (or a punishment of being bad) then you are truly a good person.

Nonetheless it was a nice story, but what I got from it, was the irony of sin

thanks for sharing...


This an old quote and may be relevant to your argument. Many who chose to serve God in the eleventh hour die at 10:30.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: GUITARPLAYER
I agree with you, but it was not really my argument

I was just pointing out the irony of this, and how beside it's immorality, church approves it.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Don't be coy. We all know you're a Christian working off the lead of William Lane Craig.



William Lane Craig? He uses this argument for a particular God, and I don't think that works. It does however work for a transcendent consciousness that is the essence of good




Just as "Christ" enter the world through a "virgin, so the soul enters, not through semen or sexual intercourse, but because of a willing sacrifice for love.


What? I am sorry just not seeing any relation between the way Christ came into the world and the way we come into the world.




Nonsense. Belief in consciousness that exists beyond the physical body, that is an emanation of some natural expression of the universe is not dependent on belief in god(s)


Again you can claim this all day, and you can even believe it, but its incoherent with the idea that the natural world is all there is. From an atheistic perspective applying a soul to a group of chemical reactions is completely incoherent. What natural expression could possibly account for an abstract entity?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join