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 Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 98
16
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I apologize for upsetting you, that wasn't my intention. I also wasn't talking about knowing Christ; that follows a revelation where you find God exists. Those tribes you mentioned may not pray to Jesus, but God has revealed Himself in creation, and they typically (I've not heard of one who doesn't) recognize a greater power, a creator, through nature. After you have found God, then your quest for the "true" religion can begin, and if you apply the same well thought out questions to all religions as you have done here and on other threads, you will find Christianity is the true faith.

You may think you don't need God, but God may not feel the same way




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
JJ,

That reasoning is flawed. Some culture's put that power in nature itself. Other's put that power in not one, but many god's. Not all culture's place power in a single diety, and they haven't until the birth of monotheism. All through out recorded history it's always been mentioning's of more then one god. The concept of a one true and only god is a recent belief system in our species history. These culture's of today and ancient alike never view(ed) the christian/monotheistic god in the way you seem to be implying. The concept's they hold are entirely different from any monotheistic view. We can even see evidence of monotheism borrowing older mythologies and belief's from the culture's surounding them. But to say or imply that these culture's are worshipping the same god is ridiculous at best. There are many, many, many culture's with creation myth's vastly different from the monotheism view. Yet, out of all these culture's, all these differing belief system's, every single one claim's to be true. Obviously this can't be so, and seeing as how monotheism is historicly brand spanking new, it leave's one to highly suspect it's validity in it's claim's.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Not necessarily.

Romans 1:20 states:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


And Psalm 19:1-3 states:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.


God has revealed Himself in His creation. Some have seen this wonder, but have worshipped the creation instead of the creator. Others have seen the wonder and attributed a different creator or governor over each element. Abraham did not, and neither did Job. Noah knew there was one creator as well. None of them had scripture to tell them this, it was revealed to them through the heavens, the skies, day and night; indeed, through creation.

The Egyptians were close in their understanding, being the first known pagans whose creation story involved Amon speaking the universe into creation. Others, such as the Greeks, put themselves and their pride into understanding God, developing what we call today Hellenism. Native Americans worshipped the actual creation, largely.

God has revealed Himself, but some need more to believe. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Thomas doubted Christ had come back though the other disciples said otherwise. Christ didn't condemn him for that, but provided the proof Thomas said he needed. Seek and you shall find it, ask and it will be given.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Christianity and monotheism as a whole is new when compared to human history and it's many varied belief's. 6,000 year's ago, there is no mention of a monotheistic god. 10,000 years ago, still no mention of a monotheistic god. Monotheism and what IT alone believe's is roughly 4,000 years old, at the most. Some of it's myth's are taken from older mythologies. Many of it's stories sound very similar to much older stories. If genesis were a true account of god's creation, we wouldn't see these thing's in our history. We wouldn't see tribal shaminism moving up to polytheism and that evolving into monotheism. But this is exactly what we see looking at our history as a species. We done't see monotheism becoming polythiesm and polytheism becoming shamanism. Over the course of our discoveries, the basis for religion's have changed in accordance's with new knowledge discovered by each culture. We can even see how the dragon mythology starts as a succesfull emprorer, only later to have become immortalized as a dragon symbol and later have miraculous event's added to it's birth and life. Thing's that never happened in reality, but have become so ingrained in the mythology itself over thousands of years. If you were raised in another culture, you'd be practicing the belief's of that culture. If you never heard of christ, you wouldn't have any concept of that particular god or creation myth. One could even go so far as to assume that each of these other varied older belief's could think the same way of christianity. You guy's see the power of their god, but interpret it as your god. None has proof that their god is real, they just have faith and faith alone. Faith itself isn't reality nor truth. Christianity say's god's work is revealed in the heaven's above. But is it really? Or is it more likely that those of faith are seeking to hard to see what they want to see due to that faith. There's no evidence that the biblical noah even existed, but there's plenty of evidence suggesting that the story of noah come's from the ancient sumerian who predate juadism and christianity. I can't remember the epic, but there's another epic with the same story or very similar to the epic of gilgamesh, which could be the original story this myth come's from. Even the birthday for christ come's from pagan source's. The jewish people didn't even believe christ was the true messiah. The only people who follow and believe in christ are the christian's. And christianity is less then 2,000 years old. I'd hardly consider such a new born religion as the one true religion, considering where a few of it's myth's come from.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Produkt: So your answer is no, you don't know what the Symbol means.

The Virtues

At the Center of Love, Truth, and Courage is Spirituality. Balance of spirituality is required to be balanced. Science is lack of spirituality in many cases. Science is imbalanced.

The outer circle, encompassing all of the design, is Humility. It is accepting ones own fallability and recognizing that one can always be wrong. Scientists such as yourself do not accept this, as you do not believe in a spiritual existence and I am fairly certain you do not feel in even one small part of yourself that you are wrong about that belief.

I do not care if you go to church, or if you believe in a god. However, if you lack any spiritual self, or acknowledging that spirituality is essential to both personal growth as well as humanities growth, then you also lack Humility... and people who lack humility are most offensive to others.

The belief in Science that Spirituality needs eradication because it is flawed thinking is Arrogance, it is lack of humility. It is lack of true understanding of what Spirituality is for Humanity.

Spirituality is art, it is expression of the self, it is what drives us and inspires us when all else fails. It is the pulling force when nothing else seems to work, pulling forward by the belief in ones self and ones own inner strength.

I am only contradicting myself if I do not believe everything I have stated here and now. The Imbalance *IS* science, because it seeks to disrupt the entire system. If Science is to continue, it must integrate itself into the virtues, otherwise all mankind it doomed to failure for Pride Goeth before the Fall.

JJ: I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Shauny: And yours as well.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
No .. I'm sorry, I never did play Ultima IV before.





Science is lack of spirituality in many cases. Science is imbalanced.


From your discription, science isn't imbalanced. Science doesn't claim absolute truth, where as those of faith in a higher power do claim an absolute truth, that of the higher power, in so much as being the very imbalance your talking about. Science admit's it doesn't have all the answer's and may never have all the answer's. Science even admit's that the answer's it has now could very well be wrong, hence the reason theories get reworked so much. Those of spiritual faith do not admit they are wrong. They refuse to admit they're wrong. They can not accept that there could very well be no spiritual diety out there at all. By your very own definition, those of faith are the imbalance, not the science.


By your own percieved duty of bringing science to see the so called spiritual side of nature, which you also seem to not be able to accept just may not exist, thus making you also imbalanced, your in fact tipping the scale of balance toward's the spiritual. Most of the people on this planet follow some form of religous spiritual belief, there are less people who don't. I beg to ask you again, where is the balance resting and where are you tipping it to maintain this balance?


It's very sad indeed... You don't see how contradictive you are.

As for me not having any 'spiritual' aspect's of myself, if you mean those very value's of humanity you listed off and the rest on that site... I do have those value's. I do admit that I could be wrong, I've done so numerous time's here on ATS. I've also admitted to the fact that science could have thing's wrong too. So, I guess I do have humility.
Are you willing to accept that you could be wrong about the spiritual side of the universe? That there could be no god? So far, everything your doing and saying say's, no. Every once in awhile I still opengly and sincerely ask for some sort of sign from whatever higher power may exist out there. I've still yet to see one. Do I hold faith that one could exist? No. I don't hold faith that the tooth fairy exist's either.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I am not being contradictive, your definition of balance means "All things have equal value".

My definition requires spirituality as part of the balance. Lack of any sort of spirituality is imbalance.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Spirituality in what regards? Belief in a higher power or upholding certain values and morals? People without the belief in a higher power still uphold values and morals ... believe it or not. A book or faith in a higher power is not a requirement for these trait's. So, in that light, yes, thing's are balanced the way they are. Then again, if you mean the belief in a higher power, then no, thing's aren't balanced in that regard, it's evidently tipped in FAVOR of that belief system.

So, which are you refering too?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
TheCrystalSword, while I agree with some of the sentiment, I disagree with gnosticism at its core. I suspect that was obvious with my dismissal of Hellenistic thought being in tune with God's character, but I'll explain, in small part, why.

The principle behind gnosticism, as far as I understand it, is to discover "secret" knowledge, to achieve enlightenment. The posts I've read of yours seem to herald this as the primary goal of humanity, why we were created. I would have to disagree on a Biblical stance. Everything in the Bible points to glorifying God. Yes, there is a lot about wisdom, but a different kind of wisdom. Not a wisdom of gaining knowledge that no others, or few, have, but instead a wisdom of God's character, and wisdom concerning sharing that knowledge of God's character. In Christianity there is no secret knowledge, but instead knowledge that must be shared.

The primary problem with enlightenment being humanity's purpose is that it directly contradicts much of the Bible, where we are called to give glory to God, and not to ourselves. Our purpose is to glorify Him, not to enlighten ourselves.

That's the short version. If you'd like, we could go far, far deeper, but not tonight



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Spirituality in what regards? Belief in a higher power or upholding certain values and morals? People without the belief in a higher power still uphold values and morals ... believe it or not. A book or faith in a higher power is not a requirement for these trait's. So, in that light, yes, thing's are balanced the way they are. Then again, if you mean the belief in a higher power, then no, thing's aren't balanced in that regard, it's evidently tipped in FAVOR of that belief system.

So, which are you refering too?


Neither. Spirituality is it's OWN moral, not living a moral life with the other principles. It is it's OWN principle. It also is not attached to "GOD". It is Spirituality.


Originally posted by JungleJake
TheCrystalSword, while I agree with some of the sentiment, I disagree with gnosticism at its core. I suspect that was obvious with my dismissal of Hellenistic thought being in tune with God's character, but I'll explain, in small part, why.


Well, you are welcome to your beliefs. Far be it from me to say which is true or not. Not everyone walks the same path to the top of the mountain.



The principle behind gnosticism, as far as I understand it, is to discover "secret" knowledge, to achieve enlightenment. The posts I've read of yours seem to herald this as the primary goal of humanity, why we were created. I would have to disagree on a Biblical stance.


There are several different manners in which I post... the two I would like to note now is that I occassionally post what I understand to be the Gnostic Faith which is the closest denomination to what I feel is right for me. The other is my actual, personal beliefs. I agree with the Gnostics in many fashions, but my own beliefs do not adhere to the Demiurgos parts of Gnostic Faith... I merely mention them as fascinating pieces of Gnostic Tradition. One could say I attribute Pleroma to being the "TRUE GOD" of the creation, though it is hard to lower the entity I identify as the Maker to a level understandable to humans.



Everything in the Bible points to glorifying God. Yes, there is a lot about wisdom, but a different kind of wisdom. Not a wisdom of gaining knowledge that no others, or few, have, but instead a wisdom of God's character, and wisdom concerning sharing that knowledge of God's character. In Christianity there is no secret knowledge, but instead knowledge that must be shared.


Mmmn. I am not aware of any secret knowledge... I think this "SECRET" knowledge is how to be more than mere animals while also retaining the Essence of what makes humanity human.

You also say "IN CHRISTIANITY"... do recall, Gnosticism is Christian, it is just as much Christian as you are. There is merely a difference of opinion on other matters, Christ was never in question with either myself or Gnosticism.



The primary problem with enlightenment being humanity's purpose is that it directly contradicts much of the Bible, where we are called to give glory to God, and not to ourselves. Our purpose is to glorify Him, not to enlighten ourselves.


Yes, it may directly contradict the bible. Particularly the Old Testament. I don't believe in the book, JJ. I won't believe in it, either.

Another question for you, JJ... is if you believe I am helpful or harmful. Do you think my heart is in the right place? Am I a bad person?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   


Neither. Spirituality is it's OWN moral, not living a moral life with the other principles. It is it's OWN principle. It also is not attached to "GOD". It is Spirituality.


You just listed off values and moral's you claim is spirituality, the very same values and moral's many people of non-faith uphold. So how is it that those of non-faith are not spiritual by the definition you gave? And the description you give sounds as if it's more akin to not being of faith, rather then those value's and morals. Your saying science lack's those value's and moral's, which is a total BS lie. The only thing science is lacking is the faith in a god.

So if your talking spirituality of values and morals you defined as spirituality, then no, nothing is imbalanced. And thus, your so called duty is bunk.

If your talking spirituality of supernatural, then it's vastly tipped in favor of faith. Thus making the system imbalanced, but not through science. And thus, your so called duty is tipping the scale even more keeping thing's imbalanced.

Could you clarify what your trying to get at, because your starting to sound like your not so sure yourself now.




The belief in Science that Spirituality needs eradication because it is flawed thinking is Arrogance


This right here sound's as if your talking about spirituality as in the belief in the supernatural and not the morals and values you just listed off. Science isn't eradictating morals and value's. Science isn't even eradicating the supernatural. Everytime science tries to experiment with the supernatural, all those who claim 'powers' are found as frauds or claim they can't perform the act's they said they could under controled enviroments. For example, no way they could commit fraud. The only arrogance is comming from those of faith in the supernatural.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire.
A private citizen in the US is / was funding the creation of a new town near Naples, Fla. that would be governed by Christian principles such as Birth control would not be sold and X rated movies would not be shown on the town's cable tv.
This was the news yesterday. Now the ACLU has stepped up to the plate and threatened lawsuits against everyone under the sun if they went ahead with the project. Now, store owners will only be asked not to sell birth control and cable companies will only be asked not to show x-rated movies.
The idela of this privately funded project and the residents would have been people who wnated to live in this type of community. In the US, we allow Muslims, Mormons, etc, to create their own communities that dictate how things will be done in their communities. This cannot be said to be true for a Christian community. If a such a communiuty is proposed... the ACLU steps up and starts crying discrminiation.
How can you say that there is NOT an Anti-Chritian movement in the US?
abcnews.go.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire.
A private citizen in the US is / was funding the creation of a new town near Naples, Fla. that would be governed by Christian principles such as Birth control would not be sold and X rated movies would not be shown on the town's cable tv.
This was the news yesterday. Now the ACLU has stepped up to the plate and threatened lawsuits against everyone under the sun if they went ahead with the project. Now, store owners will only be asked not to sell birth control and cable companies will only be asked not to show x-rated movies.
The idela of this privately funded project and the residents would have been people who wnated to live in this type of community. In the US, we allow Muslims, Mormons, etc, to create their own communities that dictate how things will be done in their communities. This cannot be said to be true for a Christian community. If a such a communiuty is proposed... the ACLU steps up and starts crying discrminiation.
How can you say that there is NOT an Anti-Chritian movement in the US?
abcnews.go.com...


that's because christians try and set these little projects up where regular people live. personally i'd like the freedom for my girlfriend or wife to choose whether she wants to use birth control, or for the drunk old guy to buy an x-rated movie. i don't think anyone wants to be told you're not allowed birth control pills etc. now if they made these rules somewhere away from regular non-christians, then i'd have no problem. the problem is that they try and implement these in to normal society, which will not cut it.

this has nothing to do with being anti-christian.

and anyways...ever heard of THE BIBLE BELT! take your ignorance outside please. the bible belt alone shows that there are parts of america where you cannot walk around without bumping in to some biblic cheerleader.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
shaunybaby,
Your last post could have been used by the author of this thread as a prime example of what is being discussed here.
Instead of actually addressing what I posted. you denouced it and then accused me of being ignorant. You should be more careful in labeling others.
You state that the issue was the Christians setup these projects where "regular people" live. Where in the news article that I submitted did you find this information? Did you use another source? Please feel free to provide it so as to support your rant. I would like to see it.

You bring up the "Bible Belt" do you live in this area? I am fairly certain that you don't because if you did indeed live in the Belt, you would find that your assumption that Christian ideals dictate how people live would be quickly put to rest since Christian ideals do not dictate anything. I have lived in the "Bible Belt" for many years now in various parts of it and yet, I have not seen it.

You bring in to the discussion your opinion on what you girlfriend can do. That is not a problem whatsoever. I support what you and she believe in, but your example does not address my post. If you will again read what I wrote, you will note that I stated


The idela of this privately funded project and the residents would have been people who wnated to live in this type of community.
notice something???? Here let me point it out to you. Privately funded.... and residents would be people who wanted to live in suc a community. So my question to you.... How does your example address my post? How does the ideals of such a community impinge on your or your girlfreinds rights? I do not see the corelation.
You also failed to address the point that I brought up that such communities are allowed for such groups as Muslims, Mormons etc. The ACLU would be one of the first to come out and support such groups and anything that impeded these groups from founding their communities, The ACLU will be crying discrimination etc.Yet, when a Christian group attempts to do the same thing.... the ACLU immediately is against the Christian group and threatens lawsuits to prevent the Christian group of setting up thier own community. How is this not Anti-Christian? How is it not a double standard?
As for your


take your ignorance outside please. the bible belt alone shows that there are parts of america where you cannot walk around without bumping in to some biblic cheerleader.


the only ignorance that has been presented by either of us has been done on your part to support your hatred / predjudice of things Christian.
One suggestion dear sir, I would advise how you post in the future as such statements as you made above, could put you in hot water with the powers that be here on ATS.
Hope that you have a good day

[edit on 3-3-2006 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
TheCrystalSword, the actual origins of Gnostic thought come from around Plato's time, well before Christ. Most people short of philosophers and historians don't realize this because of the popularity of the Apocryphal gospels, or the Gnostic bible, today. Many assume the Gnostic movement began about 250 years after Christ when the Gnostic scriptures started to show up (some believe they were around earlier). This attempted hijacking of Christianity did gain more popularity in the Roman world because of the spread of true Christianity. Gnosticism's origins were not Christian, they were Hellenistic, though they even predate Helenism proper, beginning around Plato’s time. I would not consider Gnosticism to be Christian. There is one true gospel and one true Christ, and neither is spoken of in the Gnostic writings.

Now, the tough question, are you helpful or harmful? Considering the fact that I do believe the Bible to be true, and have seen no legitimate reason to think otherwise, I will turn to scripture. In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he condemns the church, saying,


Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them.

Galatians 4:17

In this case, Paul was talking to the Galatians’ church, those that had accepted Christ and his Salvation, but turned their teaching from God's grace to the legalism the Pharisees had taught. This was a case of teaching a false gospel, and Paul found it to be very harmful.

Another example would be Paul's second Epistle to Timothy and the church at Ephesus, and was a warning of false teachers. These two verses, I feel, apply very closely to Gnostic teachings:


They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.

2 Timothy 3:6-7

I believe your intentions are good; you are trying to spread knowledge of that which you believe to be true. However, I also believe your teachings to be harmful to Christ's message and those who are seeking or have newly found Christ but don't yet have the foundation to know Him yet. I pray that Christ open your eyes to know Him as He really is, because you are a fantastic teacher with cogent thoughts and an ability to articulate those thoughts very well.

Ken, I didn't see any mention of the ACLU filing any legal grievance against Marinelli in that article. So far as I was able to gather from the article, the biggest complication they might run into is the 65 foot cross at the center of town, but that appears to be on private property, too. Florida's Attorney General reviewed the plan and didn't see anything wrong with it.

So you don't get the wrong idea, Shawny, I'll go over the town planner's plans. A Catholic university has opened in this area, and Marinelli is planning the community that will develop around the university, as they always do. One thing that will be illegal within the township is pornography and adult bookstores. Many towns already have these laws, and they've not been successfully challenged. The township will ask that pharmacies and general stores/gas stations not carry condoms or birth control, but legally they will be able to. Anyone can move into the town, but the university, a Catholic university, will be largely Catholic.

I don't see any grounds, based on the information presented in the article, by which the ACLU could challenge anything in this township. Unless, of course, they were to say that because a cross is viewable on public property, it cannot exist (cases similar to these where people have tried to get churches to take down any cross they have displayed (note: ACLU has not done this) have gone to court, but to date no church I've heard of has had to remove the cross).



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
You state that the issue was the Christians setup these projects where "regular people" live. Where in the news article that I submitted did you find this information? Did you use another source? Please feel free to provide it so as to support your rant. I would like to see it.


i didn't use your news article nor did i use any other source. this is coming from personal experience.



You also failed to address the point that I brought up that such communities are allowed for such groups as Muslims, Mormons etc. The ACLU would be one of the first to come out and support such groups and anything that impeded these groups from founding their communities, The ACLU will be crying discrimination etc.Yet, when a Christian group attempts to do the same thing.... the ACLU immediately is against the Christian group and threatens lawsuits to prevent the Christian group of setting up thier own community. How is this not Anti-Christian? How is it not a double standard?


so you want to be more like mormons and muslims? i'm not sure what you want exactly. why do you feel christians should have their own communities? and if they do have these, should non-christians be kicked out of this christians community. what i was pointing out is that these muslim communities, especially in london, already have high numbers of muslims. hence, if they make that a muslim community, with some extra muslim laws...perhaps pork won't be on the menu for miles around for example, then that's o.k. they're not really changing anything, as there were already many muslims there. whereas the christian groups would be quite happy to set up their community where the percentage to non-christian ration is 50/50. find a place where there are all christians, i'd be happy for you to make your own rules.

should the question here be 'why aren't christians allowed their own special communities', or perhaps 'why should we let muslims and mormons have their own communities'. there's really not enough space to let every religion, sect and denomination have their own community. if you don't want to eat pork, don't eat it, just don't make it illegal to sell it near a muslim. if you don't like the concept of birth controll pills, then don't purchase them, just don't make them illegal to buy. that's the problem.



the only ignorance that has been presented by either of us has been done on your part to support your hatred / predjudice of things Christian.


i celebrate christmas.

any hatred is only directed at people like you because you come up with rubbish like anti-christianity, just because someone won't let you have your own community. i honestly believe that no one should have their own communities. what ever happened to living side by side? now i can't live next to a muslim or black person, because they should all have their own communities. yeah, nice try hitler!



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
So, to make your point, you assumed that there was someone already living there that would have been detrimentaly affected by the building of this community? That is on par with the Christian fundamentalist claiming the universe was created in 6 days. Wait a sec.... they have a book that tells them ( note this word, THEM) that this was so. Yet I have seen you denouce such people nearly claiming that they are idiots for such. Yet you use your assumptions to support your statement. Hmmmm

What do I want? If one group of any belief is allowed one right then all other groups should have the same right. If the ACLU will automatically defend a Muslim because they are denied something, then they should also defend a Christian under the same concept. If the ACLU will support a black man who they see as being wronged, then the ACLU should defend the white man just as strenuously.
Instead, the ACLU will take up the banner and support nearly any cause as long as the cause is not the white man or Christian.
If you do not see the duplicity in this then.... I do not know what would open your eyes.
For your information, before you try the attack again, I am not white, I am Cherokee. Although I try to follwo the teachings of the Bible in how I conduct my life, I am not a member of any organized religion so do not try to label me as being a Christian. I am not.
So, you see dear sir, your accusation that I am ignorant because I am a Christian and a espouse equal representation missed by more than a mile.
Go ahead though, continue calling everyone ignorant who do not see the world as you do.


any hatred is only directed at people like you because you come up with rubbish like anti-christianity, just because someone won't let you have your own community. i honestly believe that no one should have their own communities. what ever happened to living side by side? now i can't live next to a muslim or black person, because they should all have their own communities. yeah, nice try hitler!

I highly suggest that you apologize for this. I did bring to your attention earlier that such remarks are not looked upon in a positive light by the Admins / Mods.


[edit on 3-3-2006 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Produkt: Let me reiterate as you apparently missed some of a post I made...

Spirituality, the belief IN spirituality, is a seperate moral in the Principles I follow. Aside from that, if you do not HAVE Spirituality, you are imbalanced. If you have absolutely no faith, you are imbalanced. The people with faith also tend to be imbalanced in various different ways.

Imbalance does not mean "ALL THINGS UNEQUAL". Imbalance, when viewing the virtues is a question of "IS SOMETHING LACKING?" As well as those SPECIFIC principles being BALANCED. Moderation of the Virtues is important.

JungleJake: It is hard to claim when Gnosticism truly arose, as the actual texts did not occur until post-christ. As such, and since nobody here lived during the time, it is highly speculative to say it's inception occurred out of Hellenism. Do you have some links perhaps to the informatio which led you to this conclusion, as I would be interested in learning of where this POV sprang forth from?

As for Gnosticism being Christian...


Chris·tian Audio pronunciation of "Christian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.


n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who llives according to the teachings of Jesus.



I would argue that Gnosticim applies to all of these definitions as I understand it. Essentially, the behaviors and actions of Christ are of paramount importance to Gnostics, moreso than the bible. To Act as Christ acted is to be Christ-like, it is to be the essence of ones own spiritual self, and it is to transcend Sin.

So... while you may disagree, definitionally, Gnosticism is Christian.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   


If you have absolutely no faith, you are imbalanced. The people with faith also tend to be imbalanced in various different ways.


Faith in WHAT! Faith in god?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
We have different definitions of Christianity


As to the source of the Gnostic info, there are actually two from which I got the information, neither of which are online (legally, anyway). The first is a textbook named Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. 6th ed, vol 1. (ISBN: 049505948X). The second is another textbook called, Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. 7th ed (ISBN: 0618271007). I don't have the textbooks with me here at work, so I can't quote them directly for you. These books, by the way, are BCE/CE books, not BC/AD books


I'm sure the information could be tracked down on the web, too, but I find that information to be far less reliable than a college textbook where there are fact checkers, multiple authors, publishers with their own fact checkers, etc. Any fool with a computer can put info on the web. After all, I just did



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join