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.

 

Foul Play at the Heart of Religion

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
What boils my blood is that what should be a personal spiritual belief and experience has become an "in-your-face", shoved down our throats load of nonsense.

What if that 'in-your-face load of nonsense' was in reality the most important thing in the world?

Try looking at things differently...

You might just find that the most important things in life aren't things.


Claire Kuchever: What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?

Doug Carlin: I'd try.

“We just don’t want to come to the end of our lives and realize that we were playing a game." ~ Francis Chan

How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? ~ Penn Jillette




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Religion might have been the precursor of early literature, art, and even to a degree, education, where coming of age and serving your local tribe was the diploma. The passing of tales of Gods and monsters being the explanation for all things in the world being the way they are, almost to the point that it were a reflection of perceptions and pov.

Then it got political....Really political. and a lot people died. Wether it were the poor misunderstanding the will of the Gods to fix their problems, or the rich says the Gods favor them...till it stopped raining.
edit on 29-8-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
The same forces control religion, science, and politics to the demise of mankind:

"The devil lead him [Jesus] up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, 'I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.' (Luke 4:5-8)

This passage in the bible shows how the devil is in control of the world, which includes governments, science, and religion.

There is only one true religion, so it is understandable that intellectual people would look at most religion and see it as false. Look at what they have done! Religion doesn't make any sense, except the one that is not controlled by the devil.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Bs morals evolved as did we. We needed them to live together.
Also really? Sure the god of the bible has great morals....ha.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

No no no no.
There is a true god but your club is all from man not god.
If I wrote a holy book I would also put things like that in so dolts can quote it as if it is proof.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid




I would be VERY surprised if all of the counterfeits were not forgeries created to discredit the real.


Exactly! There is but one true faith and for many millennium men have changed the truth so that it best suits them for their agenda.....control, power, fame, fortune... etc... So how can it be so easy to start up a new belief? There is a powerful "invisible force" behind these false religions whose intentions are to misled us from the truth.

John 14:6-7 = (6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (7) "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




I'm pretty sure we come into this world with morals. Look at small children and babies, you don't see them snapping each other's necks and ganging up on each other. We instinctively want to be treated well, and know to treat others how we want to be.


Small children and babies are innocent souls. They have not yet been taught what this world teaches. Their knowledge is very limited to its immediate surroundings. No one is born instinctively with morals, it is taught, it is an education which can be seen around the world. A good example.........A child has no reason to not believe when told (explained), "sweetie you can't that without paying for it" - that child does not understand stealing.... it sees all those wonderful things in the store as free until told otherwise.

Today a child's baby sitter is the TV. Turn on the children channel or slap in a DVD and put your child in front of it as it absorbs false teachings and beliefs as they try to understand.
edit on 29-8-2015 by DeathSlayer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TheChrome

No no no no.
There is a true god but your club is all from man not god.
If I wrote a holy book I would also put things like that in so dolts can quote it as if it is proof.


It is in the bible:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of them all"

(Ephesians 4:5,6)

Yes, there is only one faith
edit on 29-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer


They have not yet been taught what this world teaches. Their knowledge is very limited to its immediate surroundings. No one is born instinctively with morals, it is taught, it is an education which can be seen around the world


In fact, in experiments with babies shown that they ARE born with "morals". A newborn who hears other newborns cry will begin to cry also - an empathetic behavior.

The Moral Lives of Babies

What are the first signs of morality in babies?

The earliest signs are the glimmerings of empathy and compassion—pain at the pain of others, which you can see pretty soon after birth. Once they’re capable of coordinated movement, babies will often try to soothe others who are suffering, by patting and stroking.



even 3-month-olds respond differently to a character who helps another than to a character who hinders another person. This finding hints that moral judgment might have very early developmental origins.

What is the strongest proof that morality has a genetic component, that two people may have differing moral views because of their genes?

There have been the usual sorts of behavioral genetics studies—adopted children, twins separated at birth, that sort of thing—that find evidence for heritability in capacities such as empathy, which is plainly related to morality.

But I think the strongest evidence that morality has a genetic component has little to do with human differences, and everything to do with human universals. Every normal person has a sense of right and wrong, some appreciation of justice and fairness, some gut feelings that are triggered by kindness and cruelty. I like how Thomas Jefferson put it—the moral sense is “as much a part of man as his leg or arm.”


Need more? I can help you find it - consider me a research assistant if you like.
Research is our friend. You are mistaken about babies.
edit on 8/30/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DeathSlayer


They have not yet been taught what this world teaches. Their knowledge is very limited to its immediate surroundings. No one is born instinctively with morals, it is taught, it is an education which can be seen around the world


In fact, in experiments with babies shown that they ARE born with "morals". A newborn who hears other newborns cry will begin to cry also - an empathetic behavior.

The Moral Lives of Babies

What are the first signs of morality in babies?

The earliest signs are the glimmerings of empathy and compassion—pain at the pain of others, which you can see pretty soon after birth. Once they’re capable of coordinated movement, babies will often try to soothe others who are suffering, by patting and stroking.



even 3-month-olds respond differently to a character who helps another than to a character who hinders another person. This finding hints that moral judgment might have very early developmental origins.

What is the strongest proof that morality has a genetic component, that two people may have differing moral views because of their genes?

There have been the usual sorts of behavioral genetics studies—adopted children, twins separated at birth, that sort of thing—that find evidence for heritability in capacities such as empathy, which is plainly related to morality.

But I think the strongest evidence that morality has a genetic component has little to do with human differences, and everything to do with human universals. Every normal person has a sense of right and wrong, some appreciation of justice and fairness, some gut feelings that are triggered by kindness and cruelty. I like how Thomas Jefferson put it—the moral sense is “as much a part of man as his leg or arm.”


Need more? I can help you find it - consider me a research assistant if you like.
Research is our friend. You are mistaken about babies.


I agree with you on this topic, even though I disagree with you on others. Take for example war, according to the bible it is a learned process. This process will be reversed in the near future. "Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

You see people, train for war. War is taught. Humans according to the bible are born with a moral compass to distinguish right from wrong. Many people avoid that moral compass, both the religious and non-religious.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie


Televangelists rub me the wrong way as well, they skewer the message so far that the original message is lost and it becomes the book of Kenneth Copeland or whoever. Kenneth Copeland especially-he was creepy.

But then isn't that what our country propagates? Free speech? Free enterprise?
You seem to infer that only what you want should be allowed. The TV has other channels and the religious people have paid the required price to air their programs. I am not a televangelists or even a denominational addict so it really does not bother me.

I have never been forced to watch or attend any religious event in my 87 years of life. At least not to my knowledge. If all of this helps people to live and die better than what is the problem? If a guy wants to give his money to another guy to hear him speak then so be it. Do not politicians do the same? They charge millions to spew their nonsense with hardly a word of contention. Myself? I would not walk across the street to listen to their garbage any more than listen to Copeland or his like minded people but by the same token I would also defend them their rights to do as they do. These guys get filthy rich off the backs of the people but it makes people happy to make them rich. Roll with the punches and ignore the snakes.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TheChrome

No no no no.
There is a true god but your club is all from man not god.
If I wrote a holy book I would also put things like that in so dolts can quote it as if it is proof.


It is in the bible:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of them all"

(Ephesians 4:5,6)

Yes, there is only one faith


And look at who's saying. This is exactly what I am talking about. Why is it always the ones showing the most sociopathic tendencies who end up dictating what is morally right and wrong, and who's good and what's not? This is the man who used to kill Christians for a living, who keeps stalking early Christian communities forcing them to endorse a way of life and a religion that will have them evicted from every synagogue and pose a threat to Rome herself. Paul didn't really stop killing, he just levelled up from casual stoning to pogrom-saturated mutiny on behalf of Rome— to perform a complete take-over the whole Church and demand your libido and your right to have a wifie and a family on your own— as payment for access to their screened and censored books and the only real form of education around. And these are to dictate moral and truth? They still teach Plato's astronomy for heaven's sake.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TheChrome

No no no no.
There is a true god but your club is all from man not god.
If I wrote a holy book I would also put things like that in so dolts can quote it as if it is proof.


It is in the bible:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of them all"

(Ephesians 4:5,6)

Yes, there is only one faith


And look at who's saying. This is exactly what I am talking about. Why is it always the ones showing the most sociopathic tendencies who end up dictating what is morally right and wrong, and who's good and what's not? This is the man who used to kill Christians for a living, who keeps stalking early Christian communities forcing them to endorse a way of life and a religion that will have them evicted from every synagogue and pose a threat to Rome herself. Paul didn't really stop killing, he just levelled up from casual stoning to pogrom-saturated mutiny on behalf of Rome— to perform a complete take-over the whole Church and demand your libido and your right to have a wifie and a family on your own— as payment for access to their screened and censored books and the only real form of education around. And these are to dictate moral and truth? They still teach Plato's astronomy for heaven's sake.


It's not men who dictate what is right or wrong, it is God. When men start getting involved, and inflicting their opinions, that is when things get messed up. I think you would agree, the majority of religion promotes things such as war etc. That is pretty far from what God promotes. I know you will draw reference to wars in the bible, without understanding of the underlying causes or reasons.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Paul didn't really stop killing...

Neither have those behind the anti-Paul movement...

The same organization that was behind the crucifixion is still alive and well today.

Throughout history anyone who has exposed the TPTB AKA money changers AKA Illuminati have been attacked and killed.

Whistle blowers have been silenced since the beginning of history.

EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

I think NOT...

This whole issue revolves around the fact that Paul used to be one of "them".

He used to be a part of the "elite" and he turned against them and exposed them for what they are.

That one single FACT points directly to who is behind the anti-Paul movement...

They have lied to us about everything else so far, don't be gullible.


"Please be aware of the anti-Paul movement, it was set up by the foe (today's Edomites) to fordo (destroy) the Israel Insight.

This movement twists what Paul says in order to make him look like a huckster but who are the hucksters in this world? The Jewish Encyclopedia and other jewish writings makes makes it clear that one of the greatest of the foes for Judaism is Paul. The jews spew hatred upon Paul.

“Needless to say, observant Jews objected to Paul, ... whom they saw as the worst kind of heretic. Indeed, because of Jewish complaints against him, Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities, held for a time under house arrest, and finally executed in or around 67 CE (the year of the start of the Great Revolt against Rome in Israel.)” ~ Rabbi Ken Spiro

• To be Anti-Paul is to tear the living heart out of the New Testament.

• To be Anti Paul opens up a Pandora’s Box among people as to what is inspired in the Bible and what is not. The Canon is a sacred Ark, man’s unsanctified hands are not to touch it. Will this foolishness never end? QUESTIONING GOD’S WORD DENOTES UNBELIEF!

• To be Anti-Paul lays that person open to the full force of Rationalism, Modernism, and “doubt” far worse than any NEO-ORTHODOXY ever dreamed of!

• To be Anti-Paul is an outright denial of the Providence of God in settling and arranging the Canon of Scripture as we know it. Of this Scripture the God of Israel is most jealous! The whole question is: MAN’S MOUTH versus GOD’S WORD!

The Anti-Paul Movement is Jewish

Your problem is not with Paul.

Your problem is with the Lord Jesus Christ himself...

He is the one that all of us must answer to one day, not Paul.


Anyone who assumes errors in Scripture contradicts Christ to His face. He said of the whole Scripture and every single word of it “And Scripture cannot be broken.” Those who wish to restrict the inspiration of the Holy Scripture contradict the Apostle of Christ who testifies “All Scripture is inspired of God.”

Scripture Cannot be Broken




edit on 31-8-2015 by Murgatroid because: Added link...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

edit on 31-8-2015 by Seede because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Paul didn't really stop killing...

Neither have those behind the anti-Paul movement...


Which would be exactly who? You know, the disciples only followed Paul around because they had to. He was a Roman and they would have to do whatever he pleased. That was the catch involved in getting a foot into the public arenas, where Paul could let anyone he pleased to speak.


The same organization that was behind the crucifixion is still alive and well today.


That would be the Roman Empire. It fell in the 5th century AD. The Empire was taken over by Paul's men and turned into a Theocracy based on Paulian principles. Saul Paulus is Satan as subtle and terrifying as they come.


Throughout history anyone who has exposed the TPTB AKA money changers AKA Illuminati have been attacked and killed.

Whistle blowers have been silenced since the beginning of history.

EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

I think NOT...


This is where your concerns tip over into paranoia, see?


This whole issue revolves around the fact that Paul used to be one of "them".


Paul never ceased being «one of them». They just changed strategy when they saw they couln't stop them, they joined them, and reshaped the Church into the successor of the Roman Empire. Figs were the new laurel.


He used to be a part of the "elite" and he turned against them and exposed them for what they are.

That one single FACT points directly to who is behind the anti-Paul movement...

They have lied to us about everything else so far, don't be gullible.


Take your vitamins man. Your pointy hat is showing. The Church is Paul. The Church murdered Jesus and his followers. The Church is the Empire. And you blame the enemies of the Church? The Paulian Church can bloody well piss off if you ask me. They have terrified and abused civilisation for aeons. It's about time that ivory tower is turned over and its leaders sunk with millstones the size of Circus Maximus.
edit on 31-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: zero subject



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I think its time to finally forgive Paul of his misguided (yet very successful in self exploitation) efforts to derail the original message of Jesus. The idea of a *Christ Consciousness* awareness exists despite all best efforts to thwart. Paul was God's minion and acted just as he was created and designed to do.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Paul didn't really stop killing...

Neither have those behind the anti-Paul movement...


Which would be exactly who? You know, the disciples only followed Paul around because they had to. He was a Roman and they would have to do whatever he pleased. That was the catch involved in getting a foot into the public arenas, where Paul could let anyone he pleased to speak.


The same organization that was behind the crucifixion is still alive and well today.


That would be the Roman Empire. It fell in the 5th century AD. The Empire was taken over by Paul's men and turned into a Theocracy based on Paulian principles. Saul Paulus is Satan as subtle and terrifying as they come.


Throughout history anyone who has exposed the TPTB AKA money changers AKA Illuminati have been attacked and killed.

Whistle blowers have been silenced since the beginning of history.

EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

I think NOT...


This is where your concerns tip over into paranoia, see?


This whole issue revolves around the fact that Paul used to be one of "them".


Paul never ceased being «one of them». They just changed strategy when they saw they couln't stop them, they joined them, and reshaped the Church into the successor of the Roman Empire. Figs were the new laurel.


He used to be a part of the "elite" and he turned against them and exposed them for what they are.

That one single FACT points directly to who is behind the anti-Paul movement...

They have lied to us about everything else so far, don't be gullible.


Take your vitamins man. Your pointy hat is showing. The Church is Paul. The Church murdered Jesus and his followers. The Church is the Empire. And you blame the enemies of the Church? The Paulian Church can bloody well piss off if you ask me. They have terrified and abused civilisation for aeons. It's about time that ivory tower is turned over and its leaders sunk with millstones the size of Circus Maximus.


The Christian congregation has never followed a single man. Since it's inception, it has been lead by a group of older appointed men. Paul reported to this group:

"Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them, and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry." (Acts 21:18,19)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Hehe, you just earned yourself a star. But jokes aside. As much as I admire Paul for his efforts, seeing how the believers today cheer to and deify these efforts, well, it makes me uneasy. For oh my, did he succeed!

I guess Rome always prevails. No point fighting it, might as well become it and conquer it, reshape it, tame it, I guess Paul was part of the dealio. But his worship among today's Christians is revolting. Using 2000 years old tribal justice and general hearsay and Paul's opinions to inspire modern day justice and morale. It's disgusting.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Paul didn't really stop killing...

Neither have those behind the anti-Paul movement...


Which would be exactly who? You know, the disciples only followed Paul around because they had to. He was a Roman and they would have to do whatever he pleased. That was the catch involved in getting a foot into the public arenas, where Paul could let anyone he pleased to speak.


The same organization that was behind the crucifixion is still alive and well today.


That would be the Roman Empire. It fell in the 5th century AD. The Empire was taken over by Paul's men and turned into a Theocracy based on Paulian principles. Saul Paulus is Satan as subtle and terrifying as they come.


Throughout history anyone who has exposed the TPTB AKA money changers AKA Illuminati have been attacked and killed.

Whistle blowers have been silenced since the beginning of history.

EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

I think NOT...


This is where your concerns tip over into paranoia, see?


This whole issue revolves around the fact that Paul used to be one of "them".


Paul never ceased being «one of them». They just changed strategy when they saw they couln't stop them, they joined them, and reshaped the Church into the successor of the Roman Empire. Figs were the new laurel.


He used to be a part of the "elite" and he turned against them and exposed them for what they are.

That one single FACT points directly to who is behind the anti-Paul movement...

They have lied to us about everything else so far, don't be gullible.


Take your vitamins man. Your pointy hat is showing. The Church is Paul. The Church murdered Jesus and his followers. The Church is the Empire. And you blame the enemies of the Church? The Paulian Church can bloody well piss off if you ask me. They have terrified and abused civilisation for aeons. It's about time that ivory tower is turned over and its leaders sunk with millstones the size of Circus Maximus.


The Christian congregation has never followed a single man. Since it's inception, it has been lead by a group of older appointed men. Paul reported to this group:

"Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them, and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry." (Acts 21:18,19)


Oh my. The Zaqenim. Terrible bunch. Greek word is Presbýteros or Presbuterion (notice the suffixed -terion, means Beast). Today we call them priests or the Priesthood, you know, the Cardinal Terion of the Catholic Church, «the scarlet beast» humped on by the Church to squeeze out a new pope every odd leapyear. Paul and the others visited the elders of the local synagogue where Paul delivers some sort of report. In this case, the synagogue or possibly even the temple elders in Jerusalem. The Jewish Sanhedrin. The Elders, with whom Jesus fought many times. These Jewish Elders were the ones the Church separated from. Thanks to Paul and his efforts.

The passage you refer to shows one of Paul's greatest achievements, to abolish circumcision thus making sure future Christians were to be effectively separated from Judaism, excluding them from the synagogues and the Temple and the Sanhedrin and even marriage or anything in a Jewish context. Whether it was a bad thing or not to abolish cutting off babies' foreskins— well, I'm actually agreeing with Paul on that one, unless there are medical reasons to lay knives on a baby, it should be left unharmed and complete. But the impact this had on Judaism and early Christendom was immense. The circumcision subject became the main division between Jews and Christians, and the division even split the early Christian communities themselves. That is «divide and conquer» tactics demonstrated and described quite elegantly.

Paul had done a smashing job in excluding the Christians from power within Judaism, and his report is acknowledged by the Jewish tribunal of these Elders, who in turn apparently release Paul of his duties, by performing a weird Jewish cleansing ritual normally performed to mark the end of a Nazarite's vows of self-sacrifice to God and the Priesthood, which in turn agitates the Jews, and it ends with Paul being arrested by the Romans who believe he is an enemy Egyptian agent related to the Assassins. First he plays the Jew card, appealing to the crowd in Hebrew, thus getting their support, since they were all Jews. Then later, when taken away to be arrested, he plays the Roman citizen card, paying him out of prison like the spy he was, even playing it all out in public. Paul was an agent alright, only a Judeo-Roman agent, not an Egypto-Assassinian one. Paul is the very Nemesis of early Christendom. I mean the guy must be some kind of joke. The man was a twisting snake. Or a slimy snail. Or a roaring lion. A loose cannon. Take a pick.

Though, my main objection isn't really directed at Paul, he was just doing his thing. What I rebuke is what the Church turned into, all the Christians today who are condemning, cursing and shaming their neighbours with support in Paul's delirious writings. They treat his petty iron-age opinions as law and use them to condemn and oppress.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join