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 Conspiracy of the 'other' Gospel

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Queen Annie, I was wondering just a moment ago...

What is your particular take on other faiths and other religions? Can they attain spiritual enlightenment the same as the Christians, or are they biblically odd-men-out?

Your personal feelings as well as any supportive or refutive arguments would greatly help me in understanding a bit more about the Christian view, I am certain.


I'm not sure I can help in the way of painting 'the Christian view'--unless, of course, you mean in the purest sense of that word as 'disciple or follower of
Christ'....

As far as the christian view, as is generally applied to the religion of christianity, I have a far different perspective.

But I'll answer the question from my own personal POV as fitting the first description above, in a biblical context:


John 14:23
Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. Then my Father will love him, and we will go to him and make our home within him.


This is available to anyone. Anyone at all who keeps the 'word' that Jesus spoke of as coming from the Father; it can be either very simply defined or expounded upon: the principle is love and the method is truth. Both of these are best in a sincere and pure manner, love primarily toward all (including self) and truth toward one's self. The rest follows, and God comes with:


Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


The Kingdom of heaven is the Kingdom of God--but does not reside in the sky.

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...
...the kingdom of God is within you.

The more elaborate version is found in Matthew chapters 5 through 7: The Sermon on the Mount. No more perfect exposition on the ideal of human character could ever be composed, IMHO. It says it all, with simplicity and perfect equality; and is equally suitable for application by any soul on Earth.

I believe there is One Creator of all of us...we are all made in the Creator's image:


John 1:3-4
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


There is no inherent favoritism in the words of Christ--there is no preference toward one religion or another in the bible--these are long-standing misrepresentations now accepted as 'truth.' 'Righteousness' rules out all deferential treatment based on any humanly defined qualification.

But, the message is simple enough and clearly stated, if truly sought: None of us are any of any higher value than another, in the eyes of the Father--especially based upon our own devised labels, rules, and disciplined traditions. Those things only get in the way, between Him and ourselves--and He doesn't put them there, we do. The way is clear if we resist cluttering it up on our own.

I know religions of all varieties have their purpose--but I can't see it being, in any case whatsoever, as the means all the way to the end (unity with God). It is a stepping stone, a first step, the starting line. But it is not the finish line--it can't be. No religion is made by God--religions are made by man for man's purpose. As long as one remains attached to the idea that God must be realized and experienced through a group institution of some sort, enlightenment will remain elusive. This has nothing to do with any judgments toward a certain religion, just religion in general. All religions are equally correct, while at the same time they are all equally in error.


John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Religion is not 'worship', it is ritual and showmanship (even if only for the audience of 'self'). To worship is 'to adore and to hold in the highest regard.' That's something we can all do--all it takes is an open heart/mind--and is not dependent upon specific nomenclature. And away from all the distraction of religious mumbo-jumbo and the division of human-manufactured-pseudo-god-like-imagery, there is really no good reason not to adore and hold in the highest regard an entity which is a pure Spirit described as love, life, truth, and perfection.

Thanks for asking about my thoughts!




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   


I'm not sure I can help in the way of painting 'the Christian view'--unless, of course, you mean in the purest sense of that word as 'disciple or follower of
Christ'....


I meant the Latter, naturally. If I had meant the former, there would have been quotations around Christian.



As far as the christian view, as is generally applied to the religion of christianity, I have a far different perspective.


As has been quite illuminatingly provided in previous posts.



Both of these are best in a sincere and pure manner, love primarily toward all (including self) and truth toward one's self. The rest follows, and God comes with:


So, in a sense, all one needs is love and truth, two of the more elusive things to grasp and hold onto for many people?



The more elaborate version is found in Matthew chapters 5 through 7: The Sermon on the Mount.


Such discussion about the Kingdom of God being within us and around us is also found in Gnostic teachings, as well as the idea of the spiritual world co-existing.



No more perfect exposition on the ideal of human character could ever be composed, IMHO. It says it all, with simplicity and perfect equality; and is equally suitable for application by any soul on Earth.


Oh, Quite agreed. Any and all are quite capable of this. Some faiths make it a bit harder, such as Luciferianism, to put love beyond ones self... so perhaps if it is a requirement of our Creator, they are putting themselves behind?



I believe there is One Creator of all of us...we are all made in the Creator's image:


I'd be interested in your feelings about that particular description. I have always been to understand that since the Creator is All, All is made in its image, rather than the Creator being anthropomorphized such as in much art throughout the millenia.



There is no inherent favoritism in the words of Christ--there is no preference toward one religion or another in the bible--these are long-standing misrepresentations now accepted as 'truth.' 'Righteousness' rules out all deferential treatment based on any humanly defined qualification.


As was famously noted by I forget who, many people of other faiths generally fall into the category of, "I like this Christ Fellow, it's his followers I have issues with."



But, the message is simple enough and clearly stated, if truly sought: None of us are any of any higher value than another, in the eyes of the Father--especially based upon our own devised labels, rules, and disciplined traditions. Those things only get in the way, between Him and ourselves--and He doesn't put them there, we do. The way is clear if we resist cluttering it up on our own.


So do you feel that more than there being a Satan, Lucifer, Demons, or Spirits leading us to dark ends, it is ourselves that create all the barriers and difficulties in our communion with the Creator Being?

[Quote]
I know religions of all varieties have their purpose--but I can't see it being, in any case whatsoever, as the means all the way to the end (unity with God). It is a stepping stone, a first step, the starting line. But it is not the finish line--it can't be. No religion is made by God--religions are made by man for man's purpose. As long as one remains attached to the idea that God must be realized and experienced through a group institution of some sort, enlightenment will remain elusive.
[/Quote]

You use the good book in many instances of your explanations, do you feel that there are too many people who rely upon it as the one and only way to achieve communion, as you state above that Man's Religions generally muck things up, if I understood you correctly?



This has nothing to do with any judgments toward a certain religion, just religion in general. All religions are equally correct, while at the same time they are all equally in error.


So do you believe that every religion has a kernel of truth? What of religions that believe in other entities and spirits of benevolence, and worship them? Are they damning themselves for such worship, or need they only realize that all such beings are under the pervue of our Creator?



Religion is not 'worship', it is ritual and showmanship (even if only for the audience of 'self'). To worship is 'to adore and to hold in the highest regard.' That's something we can all do--all it takes is an open heart/mind--and is not dependent upon specific nomenclature.


I trust you realize the inherant difficulties presented by the material world in adulating the Creator Being. Many turn from belief due to suffering, the perceived idea of punishment, and the acts of other people's sins making them wonder how a just god allows such a thing...

I tend to hold the view that the material, and all that occurrs within it, is merely meant to distract us from spiritual growth... and that sin is not so much a relevant subject to our Creator as much as a way we've invented to punish ourselves and remain in the material.

What do you think of that?



And away from all the distraction of religious mumbo-jumbo and the division of human-manufactured-pseudo-god-like-imagery, there is really no good reason not to adore and hold in the highest regard an entity which is a pure Spirit described as love, life, truth, and perfection.


Fair enough, I'd like to see someone, ANYONE argue that a spirit of love, truth, and perfection should not be adulated and adored. Either that or why such a person shouldn't be.



Thanks for asking about my thoughts!


I like the coherance and conviction of your beliefs, you seem very in tune with your own path of enlightenment, and wise that you should not read words for literal meaning, but seek deeper understanding of things with the words unsaid or the ones between.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
O.K. the Christian message ultimately is that God created man to be a part of His Holy Family. Despite the countless times throughout history that we've chosen or been deceived into rejecting Him as our loving Father, He still wants ALL to have the fair chance to FREELY CHOOSE to rejoin His Family for ETERNITY.


I see, so God Created man so that he might love God. Hmmm... I don't see how a perfect being would have to create something to love it, nor do I see why a creator being would make a universe with requiring love from its makings. Doesn't seem very free willish if those who don't believe get punished by the Creator, seems more lika cruel practical joke... like a child pulling the legs off of insects, or the wings off of butterflies.



There are two resurrections, the first at Christs return and the second after a millenium of His rule when those of the second resurrection will see how things should be run for perfect, just, loving peace. No one misses out because they didn't know any better. Those of the first resurrection will help, "teach the way of The Lord" for a 1000 years, when many others will come to learn.


Aaah, Revelations... one of my favorite very late gospels written 600 years after Christ.

There was actually another Apocalypse Gospel, though I forget off the top of my head which one wrote it.



This Biblical detail, so often overlooked, explains the justice behind, "the first will last and the last will be first" and a number of other often confusing and seemingly contradictory statements. Those of the first resurrection still have a duty to make it easier for the second to experience, know and choose to receive eternal life.


Hmm... you are saying that christians are duty bound to force everyone to believe in Christ's love? I thought that communion with god was between the self and God, and that one could not force a horse to drink.

I could be incorrect, but this sounds like...

BANG BANG BANG, went the book.



We all still have a great deal to learn, myself most definitely included but The Bible is the only source I've found that reasonably explains why so many "good people" (who arn't currently, or at the first death, of the 'One True Faith') won't 'miss out' and why ALL people should be treated with selfless love.


You haven't been looking NEAR hard enough, in that case. There are mountains of text not contained in the bible which were considered to be valuable parts of the Christian faith prior to Cannonization (Which is when they sit down and decide which ones are part of the "Holy Book" and which ones get canned).



Religions in this world are like education centres, though all can teach valuable things some teach more to a higher standard yet God will give all a chance to enrole in the greatest university ever, which isn't yet on this earth.


So now you are preaching the superiority of the Christian Fath, which has a long standing tradition of alienating and insulting those of other faiths.

As for it being not of this earth, I think you aren't reading the same bible I am... for the realm of god is within and about us.



Choise isn't free or just if it isn't FULLY informed.


Uhhh... Free Will, which I assume is what you're referring to... is the ability to decide, ignorant or not, what you wish to proceed with. I'd say choice is free regardless of the personal state of a person. I'd also say its just, because you are making it for yourself, informed or not.



This first round of learning under satan's rule is just setting us up for the next under Christ's rule.


Yay, Satan... another favorite addition to the bible and christian faith as a whole. I wish *I* had a religion so I could steal names and appearances from other faiths and call them my own. End Sarcasm.



As to suffering, like life saving, major surgery (which we proudly boast MAN does out of love for MORTAL life) the damage and pain done is, mostly, forgotten when we wake, and what isn't is seen as worth the price of being ALIVE. We are currently going under SPIRITUAL surgery to save us from eternal death into ETERNAL LIFE and unlike our mortal surgeons there will be NO memoury or scar of pain, suffering or damage.


hmm. I don't know about the rest, since it doesn't seem to connect to the first half... but I can agree with the first half. Suffering is transitory, and meaningless as it is of the fleshly material world.

However, if Sin were to exist, we again enter into the idea that God is cruel and purposely malicious... for if Sin exists, then that means everything that happens in the material world has relevance above and beyond our souls and self.



I hope you can except that I know I'm just a mere mortal trying to explain my understanding of spirtual things with worldly words and have no desire to 'convert' anyone but simply appreciate the oppotunity to discuss a subject dear to me with others shareing their related thoughts on this board.


Would that I could believe that. Perhaps I merely encountered a few of your posts which seemed to indicate otherwise... I will continue to observe and see if my initial gauging was incorrect.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Aaah, Revelations... one of my favorite very late gospels written 600 years after Christ.


The generally accepted range is 90-95 CE, near the end of Domitian's reign, with the earliest complete copy dating from the 4th century (from the Codex Sinaiticus).

The Apocalypse of John



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
thanks... though as far as I understood, it was orally passed down and not written till the 4th century, as you noted.

My allocation is incorrect, but my point was that it is hard to verify the veracity of the connection between the older books and the Apocalypse of John.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well I know I had children to love, raise and leave more to than I had. Sorry if your experience of fathers was someone to fear and serve solely for that purpose. I can see why you're at odds with my understanding if that's a base of your reasoning

Sorry, I picked the 'wrong' one of the all too many names for, the father of the lie, because it's most commonly understood. I do mix it up from post to post but there's always someone who likes to pick on 'origins' and avoid the fact that he goes by so many names so as not to be pinned down.

As to the rest of your arguments, if you can't find and understand, the discription in The Bible, of the first millenium reign of Christ being a time of learning for the world, I don't then have a base from which to clarify them, other than to say I don't see it as a "my religion's better than yours" thing, but do understand why the meek, humble, 'fools' in Christ, get such a good rap. The point is, those 'called' in the first rounds, are called to a duty to those called later, and aren't any better but I can see how in a culture where first is best, this is hard for many to get their heads around.

It's funny how often I get accussed of 'Bible Bashing' (BANG BANG BANG!?!?) concidering how rarely I quote it compared to so many other posters, and never with chapter and verse. I drink and offer to share the 'essence' of God, which I find most pure poured from The Bible after drinking from too many other bitter wells, yet, frankly, I don't expect others to accept the offer and I'm not offended when they don't.

I say, God is Perfect Love, and get dragged over the coals for not saying it with all the specific definitions and caveats others want, then get accussed of not respecting others definitions. It all just sounds like arguing for arguements sake, time and time again, no matter how gently I try to share a view.

If you'ld like to share some other, complete, source that explains "the meaning of life" and proves you can't learn it from The Bible with God's Spirit, I'd like to hear.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Ahh, Thecrystalsword, just re-read a few of your posts, including the one I responded to, and I now 'feel' you weren't argueing for arguments sake.

The issues you are gentle with, compared to those you chose to retell in your own, opposite, meanings or tangle in sarcasm, kind of tells me it's you thumping, or rather, hypnotically flicking, your own (black?) bible message at people.

I'm NOT saying I got the CORRECT impression, you could be filled with love and light, but that's not how you 'read' to one who's had more than their fill of 'that' kind of 'voice' from 'those' kinds of people.

Sorry to have bothered you with views not of your liking in a 'voice' that offends your ears.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
So, in a sense, all one needs is love and truth, two of the more elusive things to grasp and hold onto for many people?


Not ‘in a sense,’ but just plainly and simply… Perhaps that’s what makes it so slippery to most folks—this world is not plain or simple—and that’s how it conceals the only two things it cannot destroy.


Such discussion about the Kingdom of God being within us and around us is also found in Gnostic teachings, as well as the idea of the spiritual world co-existing.

You know, really that idea can be found in many religions, although it seems to be something that mankind ‘used to know’ more clearly—modern day religions rely more and more on just self, which is not the same as God within self. It can never be, for if it were, the search for God would never have thrived in all its flavors and sizes throughout history.

Gnosis is enlightenment is nirvana is the holy spirit is kundalini is ….


Oh, Quite agreed. Any and all are quite capable of this. Some faiths make it a bit harder, such as Luciferianism, to put love beyond ones self... so perhaps if it is a requirement of our Creator, they are putting themselves behind?

Perhaps, in a way. But I feel they are probably just following their path. Whatever lessons their paths lead them to, by way of Luciferianism or whatever, those were in their lesson-plan to begin with. There are many things to learn—we are all unique students with unique ways to learn, and so the lesson plans are equally unique and special. None are right, except to the one who they are given to, and all are wrong if shared by another.

The ‘way’ is narrow because it’s single track. The destination is infinite because it is God—no matter what name a person applies to the Creation Force/Energy/Source, any light inside a man which brings him to truth, love, and unity with all things—that is the same. A name cannot change God’s essence. Neither can denying the essence is there. I don’t argue with others whether God exists—it’s not for me to prove. I can show what I know, and that’s all. Paul said: ‘We can do nothing against the truth, only for the truth.’


I'd be interested in your feelings about that particular description. I have always been to understand that since the Creator is All, All is made in its image, rather than the Creator being anthropomorphized such as in much art throughout the millenia.

The image is a reflection, a reflection not of a body or any type of material composition; we reflect One Mind, the thoughts and ideas all come from the one place. Everything that drives us--although somewhat shadowed by our limited perspective as material entities in the present, into emotional reactions that drive us to err against one another and ourselves—the roots of human emotion is the pure love of our Creator. We form families and attachments because God is a ‘family man.’ Everything in our world is modeled after the way things really are, yet the reality is still beyond our understanding. That’s why the idea of hell also doesn’t fit—why would God give us families to love, and friendships to forge, if the outcome would be permanent, irrevocable heartbreak?

God did create us for His pleasure—but not so that we could love Him—that is a given, in the long run. He made us for each other—to love each other. And also to give His love to us—and that’s the love we share amongst ourselves even if we don’t believe He’s true. IMHO, love proves there’s something more and that this world is ultimately an illusion.


As was famously noted by I forget who, many people of other faiths generally fall into the category of, "I like this Christ Fellow, it's his followers I have issues with."


‘Jesus, please save me from your followers. Amen.’


So do you feel that more than there being a Satan, Lucifer, Demons, or Spirits leading us to dark ends, it is ourselves that create all the barriers and difficulties in our communion with the Creator Being?

There is an element of darkness, no doubt. If there is light there must be darkness. There must ultimately be balance, or else creation would collapse or maybe never have come to be. It’s elemental.
And there indeed are other spirits besides the Spirit of the Father.
But ‘Lucifer’ is our fleshly circumstance, ‘sin’ is a focus on material priorities and the Serpent’s deception is the trickery of the skin that covers us, hiding the light that is God within us.


Ezekiel 28:14
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.


And that adversary, the pull and opposition of material reality, is necessary for contrast, comparison, and learning. We don’t create the barriers, but we do worship them—we make them our gods and that is our part in it. That is idolatry.


You use the good book in many instances of your explanations, do you feel that there are too many people who rely upon it as the one and only way to achieve communion, as you state above that Man's Religions generally muck things up, if I understood you correctly?

I don’t think there are too many who really do rely on it as a way to achieve communion—while they may be thoroughly convinced that’s what they are doing (yet who’s the easiest person any of can deceive?)—the bible is most often used as a justification for one’s beliefs and judgments about others. These judgments are comparisons which are tools for bolstering self-esteem and a sense of being ‘worthy’ in the eyes of the mirror, of others, and of God. We don’t have to be worthy—we just have to be.
The reason religion mucks things up is because it places too many rules and standards where there shouldn’t be any, and it compels people to make what should be a private and individual lifetime quest into a dogma reinforced by needless praxis and ritual. More tools for the ego—these things do not serve love and truth—serving truth is serving God, not serving communion to each other.
I personally did not try to achieve realization of God through reading the bible—I didn’t get re-interested in the bible until after the pivot point of my life occurred, which was an unexpected miracle of transformation that still makes my head swim to think about. I had always sought God, but not directly (although He was in my mind, no doubt, as the ultimate authority in all things)—I just wanted to ‘know the truth.’ About the world, about myself, about Jesus, about life. And so I read anything and everything I have ever been able to get my hands on—both practical and spiritual: sacred, ancient, secular, and modern. There came a point when it suddenly became to converge in my mind—all the myriad information I had gathered suddenly became apparent in its connection and truth. Around that same time, something happened in my personal life that also was a catalyst of unexpected power. And then it happened….


So do you believe that every religion has a kernel of truth?

Everything has a kernel of truth—not just religions, but every piece of art anyone’s ever created, every book written, every philosophy formed, and so on. Truth is everywhere, entwined with delusion.


What of religions that believe in other entities and spirits of benevolence, and worship them? Are they damning themselves for such worship, or need they only realize that all such beings are under the pervue of our Creator?

I think that perhaps its just not time yet, for them to get to the root of things. But they will—living is digging and digging eventually gets to the root. As for what they need realize, that’s probably an individual thing—those things I don’t judge or analyze too much. My job is not about assessment, but acceptance. Accepting a person is not the same as adopting their beliefs. Nor is it forcing mine upon them. It is just non-judging brotherly love that is willing to help when the need arises—whatever it may be.


I trust you realize the inherant difficulties presented by the material world in adulating the Creator Being. Many turn from belief due to suffering, the perceived idea of punishment, and the acts of other people's sins making them wonder how a just god allows such a thing...

So even those who say they do not believe in God, for those reasons given, are actually still giving a nod to ‘the image of the beast’—because they are basing their decision against seeking or trusting upon what they think God should be, and what He should do. We create a measuring rod according to our own wants, needs, and fears—and then put our idea of God against it. When it doesn’t fit, or even if it does—that becomes what we perceive as ‘God.’ And that is nothing more than the reflection of our own thoughts and ideas—the essential truth in the contrast between ‘man created in God’s image’ and ‘the image of the beast worshipped by all the inhabitants of the Earth.’


I tend to hold the view that the material, and all that occurrs within it, is merely meant to distract us from spiritual growth... and that sin is not so much a relevant subject to our Creator as much as a way we've invented to punish ourselves and remain in the material.

What do you think of that?

Basically, I agree. That is the ‘adversary.’ And the idea of ‘forgiveness’ is far more a lesson to us, both in application to ourselves (guilt is a nasty eroding emotion) and to others (grudges also eat away at our insides), that it is something that we must beg from God. Once we get rid of all the negative emotional reactions and cancers within us, things become clear and God appears as He is, not as our wounded emotional vision once perceived.


Fair enough, I'd like to see someone, ANYONE argue that a spirit of love, truth, and perfection should not be adulated and adored. Either that or why such a person shouldn't be.


The argument you won’t hear, because it is subconscious—is the one that says ‘no one should be adulated and adored if I am not.’
Of course, the counterpoint is simple: ‘Love yourself, friend. We’re just waiting for you!’



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Well I know I had children to love, raise and leave more to than I had. Sorry if your experience of fathers was someone to fear and serve solely for that purpose. I can see why you're at odds with my understanding if that's a base of your reasoning


Now, I hope you aren't saying something about my father, who is a rather caring man himself. My analytical point of view isn't taken from personal and emotional experiences as much as shrewd logical analysis.



Sorry, I picked the 'wrong' one of the all too many names for, the father of the lie, because it's most commonly understood.


Wrong? All of them are wrong. The Duality of Heaven and Hell was fabricated to keep the people in line. There is no satan or devil tempting you, you do a fine enough job by yourself. Your free will is your own best friend and worst enemy, no reason to ever assume that the Creator would create a being whose soul purpose is to corrupt you and lead you away from the Creator. Even less sense to have one remain since creation's inception, unless God is as cruel and petulant as a sociopathic six year old.



I do mix it up from post to post but there's always someone who likes to pick on 'origins' and avoid the fact that he goes by so many names so as not to be pinned down.


Satan is a perfectly good excuse for the spiritual blinding of yourself, after all, it isn't your fault, it was Satan's. Satan has no sway over anyone, not even the worst sinners... everything is done by man to man, and really, Satan isn't necessary at all in the grand scheme of things. So, I don't see why our Creator would invent something that was unneccessary, that would be whimsical.

Aside from the fact that an Omniscient being must consciously create Satan and condone his existence in creation, as well as give him purpose and reason to exist... and ALSO aside from the fact that any omniscient being which did so in creating the being of Satan would also be using creation as his own form of cruel entertainment (And no matter which way you slice it, it IS cruel to create man so that he is tempted), it is easiest to conclude to someone looking for perfect love that no such being as Satan exists... and that we are all likewise responsible for our own souls and our actions.



As to the rest of your arguments, if you can't find and understand, the discription in The Bible, of the first millenium reign of Christ being a time of learning for the world, I don't then have a base from which to clarify them, other than to say I don't see it as a "my religion's better than yours" thing, but do understand why the meek, humble, 'fools' in Christ, get such a good rap. The point is, those 'called' in the first rounds, are called to a duty to those called later, and aren't any better but I can see how in a culture where first is best, this is hard for many to get their heads around.


Your spiritual duty is beyond spreading the word, you have a responsibility to act as Christ would. And, fortunately enough, Christ would have you cooperate with those of other faiths so that they might find spiritual love within themselves... that doesn't mean Goddess Worshippers, Lucifer Worshippers, or any number of tribal cultures are going to lose out because they don't ascribe to your Book or Revelations.

Christ himself said, "Let no Man come to the Father but through Me."

And strangely enough, the bible itself is *NOT* Christ. It isn't the word of Christ, and it isn't the spiritual message from God you would believe it to be. Any true message of faith must come first through the heart, wherever it might spring up from before that.



It's funny how often I get accussed of 'Bible Bashing' (BANG BANG BANG!?!?) concidering how rarely I quote it compared to so many other posters, and never with chapter and verse.


It's harder to argue that someone is a bible basher if they actually know the book, take saint4god or Junglejake for example. They *DO* Quote the bible. I respect them for that. People who claim things about the bible without elaborating on what they mean are generally put into my, "Acts as if they have Wisdom" barrel. Quoting the bible means we can have a dialogue about the text and meanings. Claiming it says something means I am trying to wade through your personal opinions and biases in order to get to the dialogue part.



I drink and offer to share the 'essence' of God, which I find most pure poured from The Bible


Indeed. Which YOU find most pure, emphasis on YOU. The paths to enlightenment are as vast and varied as people. Your path is not the correct path, or the one true path rather.



after drinking from too many other bitter wells, yet, frankly, I don't expect others to accept the offer and I'm not offended when they don't.


You may taste salt, but others taste ambrosia. What you are offering them more than likely isn't what is right for them. There are, of course, those it would be correct for.



I say, God is Perfect Love, and get dragged over the coals for not saying it with all the specific definitions and caveats others want, then get accussed of not respecting others definitions.


You say God is Perfect Love, and you also believe in Sin. That is Believing God's love is imperfect, because it has conditionals, "Repent your sins". Perfect love is more perfect than most love humans would imagine. Perfect love exists without jealousy, without shame, without asking anything of the one being loved. It is something given and never taken, and cannot be erased with a thousand sins unrepented. We are the ones who keep ourselves from the Creator, for IT would never turn its face from us no matter how black our souls... we turn our face from our Creator by our own choice, not by ITS will.



It all just sounds like arguing for arguements sake, time and time again, no matter how gently I try to share a view.


I doubt you have asked yourself hard ethical and spiritual questions like, "What if sin doesn't exist?", or "What if there was never a devil?", or "What if everything in the GOOD BOOK is a lie?"

For "Satan" can quote scripture as well as any prophet. Not that I believe in Satan or the "Deceiver". The Deceiver is the self and material world.



If you'ld like to share some other, complete, source that explains "the meaning of life" and proves you can't learn it from The Bible with God's Spirit, I'd like to hear.


God is not in a book. "You seek my Father's Kingdom, and I tell you it is all around us. Lift a rock, you will find him. Cut a branch, he is there."

God can be found within the self, without books, without texts, without prophets and apostles. True gnosis comes when we unshackle ourselves from the prisons we allow ourselves to be trapped in, US; not a demon, not a serpent, not lucifer, not satan, not any evil malign being.

[edit on 12/6/2005 by TheCrystalSword]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Ahh, Thecrystalsword, just re-read a few of your posts, including the one I responded to, and I now 'feel' you weren't argueing for arguments sake.

The issues you are gentle with, compared to those you chose to retell in your own, opposite, meanings or tangle in sarcasm, kind of tells me it's you thumping, or rather, hypnotically flicking, your own (black?) bible message at people.

I'm NOT saying I got the CORRECT impression, you could be filled with love and light, but that's not how you 'read' to one who's had more than their fill of 'that' kind of 'voice' from 'those' kinds of people.

Sorry to have bothered you with views not of your liking in a 'voice' that offends your ears.


I am problematic to deal with when people claim knowledge of things, particularly when so much of their knowledge was fabricated by their church FOR them.

Anyone who has found the "ANSWER" obviously never looked hard enough. Now, if you can understand what I mean by that, perhaps we can make some progress.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
the one thing everyone forgets is that no matter how you interpet the bible ...GOD GAVE US FREEWILL...he told adam and eve not to eat the apple but he also did not keep them from eating the apple.....also remember who jesus preached to ...not the rightous who followed the word of god but the others who for whatever reason (..be it of there own hand or not...) where with out god.....thru out the bible people mess up and then are redeemed by god.......remember god made heaven and im shure it is a beautifal country club.....so why would he let just anyone in....there is a price ....and im shure it is not just believing.......i would love to say that he is not above destruction but then again......there is the flood, the destruction of sodom, and the cleasing on the mount .....



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague
the one thing everyone forgets is that no matter how you interpet the bible ...GOD GAVE US FREEWILL


There's no such thing as "free will". I guess it's fitting that un undefined "concept" (god) hands out an inconsistent one (free will).



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Back in the "Middle Ages" or more aptly named "Dark Ages", when the Catholic Church & the rest of the World's religions got together, & they hid the true nature of religion.

They divided the Worlds religions even more so than they were already, & spread them out so no one could figure out what was meant to be together.

They even tell you somewhat in the history books, just read between the lines, & see what is & isn't said.

I took Greek in school, & you wouldn't believe what the Bible really says, it would take weeks to type it all up on here.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
To all those who haven't twigged to TheCrystelSword's, Spamandham's and countless others technique....

Christians, prepare to meet your Maker, you have been tried and convicted by MAN.

Man, who has accussed you of 'legalism', has used MAN'S 'legal system' to convict God and His followers.

First, writing laws to decide what 'evidence' is 'admissible'.

Second, not funding a full investigation.

Third, paying the worlds top legal team to prosicute you.

Fourth, argueing that your supporting evidence be suppressed.

Fifth, refussing to move your case from a hostile court district.

Sixth, jury rigging.

Seventh, also the First, buying the judge who wants to get his hands on that Holy Family's Estate.

And now you also know why 'The Brotherhood' preferes to "catch and kill their own", they aren't stupid enough to trust mans legal system to deliver justice.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
To all those who haven't twigged to TheCrystelSword's, Spamandham's and countless others technique....


You know, I think I've said this ONCE before in my entire time on the internet...

What the HECK are you talking about? Because I'm completely lost.

All I know is you didn't bother responding to anything that was said.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I don't want to fight a case in a 'Kangaroo Court', I don't want to fight, I don't want what I say to be retold with another's meaning, I don't want to give others an excuse to keep representing tainted 'evidence' and supressing sound evidence. There's too much of that tripe in the real world. Believe what you will, convince as many as you're driven to, feel good about yourself, no matter what.
I don't get that you don't get it. English, point form...ahhh, was it the Aussie humour that threw you.... or the reminder that you can't always trust humanists because they think they only have themselves to answer to, being a 'law' unto themselves?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Hey Suzy, you gotta remember, not everyone here in an Australian, & not all the Americans are like Me, so they don't necessarily know the Aussie lingo.

I've been to Oz 3 times, & been talking to Aussies since 2000, so I'm up on the lingo, but not everyone else is, so sometimes, some people may need a translation. =)

Cheers mate. Aussie Aussie Aussie....Oi Oi Oi.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
But I based my 'KangarooCourt" example on the American system 'cos most people in the world understand it due the U.S. T.V. invasions...? O.K. we Aussies have a dry, irreverant humour that leans heavily on sacasticly blut.
Sorry, back to topic... I just don't want to fight about God esspecially when people argue with something I clearly didn't say or mean.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
suzy, with the evidence you have, or lack there of. the speculation,hearsay
the multiple versions etc, etc, .

Even a California jury wouldnt and couldnt rule in your favor.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Sorry, back to topic... I just don't want to fight about God esspecially when people argue with something I clearly didn't say or mean.


And, apparently, you also don't want to have a dialogue concerning religion, which is why I am wondering why you're posting to this topic.

Do you believe in Sin? The Devil? Evil? Heaven as a place? Hell as a place?

After reviewing the actual definition of what a "Humanist" is... I would have to concur, yes, I am in fact a humanist, in the sense that I value what the classical philosophers of the Greek Era had to say about humanity and its condition. I am also a Gnostic, which exacerbates the issue you have with me since Gnostics in and of themselves share a common view on the spiritual path being quite broad and not specifically Christian in and of itself as much as a manner of behavior.

Here, let me clarify by posting the definition of Humanist, so that you know what it is you're calling people (If you did before, kudos, if not, at least now you will).

hu·man·ist Audio pronunciation of "Humanist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nst)
n.

1. A believer in the principles of humanism.
2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
3.
1. A classical scholar.
2. A student of the liberal arts.
4. Humanist A Renaissance scholar devoted to Humanism.



And also...


Humanist

adj 1: of or pertaining to Renaissance humanism; "the humanistic revival of learning" [syn: humanistic] 2: of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion; "the humanist belief in continuous emergent evolution"- Wendell Thomas [syn: humanistic] 3: pertaining to or concerned with the humanities; "humanistic studies"; "a humane education" [syn: humanistic, humane] 4: marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare; "a humane physician"; "released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons"; "respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species" [syn: human-centered, human-centred, humanistic, humanitarian] n 1: a classical scholar or student of the liberal arts 2: an advocate of the principles of humanism


Or, from Merriam-Webster


Main Entry: hu·man·ism
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&-"ni-z&m, 'yü-
Function: noun
1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason


Now then, working from THESE definitions, yes. Most of this is true of me. However, I do not reject the supernatural as much as I reject some of the contrived control mechanisms which were placed by the church to expedite their influence over the masses, particularly during the Dark and Middle Ages.

I believe in a Creator, so I am not an anti-theist, in fact I probably share much in common with the Deist core beliefs of America's Founding Fathers (Some of them, at the least).

My views as a Gnostic also seem to coincide with Humanism, as I think reason is a primary component to the path which Christ showed his followers... who promptly turned around and made it into an establishment and institution.

I am not one to argue against the miracles which Christ Partook in, and I do believe in a literal ressurrection. I believe it was a demonstration of the power to overcome the material form and ascend past all of this meaningless drivel like sin and guilt which man uses to tie himself to the realms of earth.

I also believe in demons, but certainly not the same demons YOU would believe in, miss. Consorting with demons is no more damning than consorting with bad men, UNLESS you actually forsake your soul, which CAN be done, but it is not through some slippery slope of mistakes and deceptions... it is through your own free will that it is given, and it is a difficult thing to do unless you are purposely seeking it.

In another way of looking at it, a dirty soul can always be cleaned... and the cleansing process is what every soul goes through after they die. There is nowhere they are bound and stuck for eternity until the final judgment, though it is a good possibility that many souls will be involved in Ragnarok when it occurrs... but again, that is by their own choice, not out of some filial obligation to our Creator.

Nothing is forced on us, not a single thing. Our punishments we put on our own souls, and our spiritual selves are our judges, juries, and executioners.

There have been reckonings in the past in my belief, stretching beyond recorded history into different ages of Mankind... the Mayans call the age we live in the Fourth Age, which coincides with my own beliefs on the matter. The reckonings are meant to be about preserving Creation and all that entails, not erasing it.

But then I have tangented into my own beliefs. In any case, I am a partial humanist because I value the classical philosophers and their ideas, as well as humanities Will Der Macht. Where I differ is where the definition allows me to accept supernatural beliefs, as it only says "USUALLY" or "MOST" when referencing Humanists and rejecting the supernatural in favor of science.

And as I said before, I respect saint4god and junglejake, even though we disagree on some things. They could very well be right, or wrong, or perhaps we are all right in a local and personal sense. I am not someone who has died and come to live again, so I cannot definitively answer such a question.

I also respect spamandham, for much the same reason. He has debated, and been patient with even the most verbose and irritating of his opponents... even though he doesn't get what I'm talking about sometimes.

I also respect anyone who can actually sit through the mountains of text I type up in responses and actually respond to them in kind. Most people change the subject or make personal attacks or just try to get a rise out of myself and others with their responses... or they ignore them altogether.




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join