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.

 

He called God a false god. Why?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Gemwolf is asking for respect for his religion,the christian one as I suppose.
Better keep silent about christianity or start to read about the history of
your religion,responsible for the death of millions of innocent people.
Is this something for you?
The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.116, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
www.pitt.edu...

Baloria




posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Gemwolf,

You provided us with a surprisingly interesting and well thought out rebuttal.




Originally posted by Gemwolf
Wow, a compliment from you. You see, this is what I mean. You show just a little bit of respect, and my whole view of you changes. I've now gone from completely disliking you, to thinking that you're actually not such a bad guy.
Thanks.


Well, you actually made some good points.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
However, in staying on track with the original issue, the question is not if there was or is a God, but instead whether or not Jesus is a god or God and you providing evidence to support that notion




Originally posted by Gemwolf
Aha. Are we getting closer to the issue?



Originally posted by Gemwolf
It seems like you have a Jewish view on this?


That's hilarious.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
You don't think that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or if He existed, you don't think He was the Son of God? And even one step further, you don't believe that the only way to heaven is through Him?
Well, to that I might not have such a clear answer. Again, it's a case of Faith and making up your own mind.

Take any random person from history. King Arthur. Julius Caesar. Noah. Anyone. How do we prove that they actually existed? It's impossible! All we have are "records" of events, "historical places", etc. etc. How do we prove that Jesus was in fact the Son of God? The Messiah. We don't. The High Priests crucified Jesus for saying that He was the Messiah. And so fulfilled many prophesies. The events surrounding His life, and what happened thereafter is (in my opinion) enough proof that He is in fact the only way "in". As with everything else (as I said above) you are given certain "facts" and what you do with it, is your own business. If you decide it is facts, then you'll probably be a Christian. If you don't believe it to be facts, then we get a "Paul_Richard" ...


I don't have any problem believing that the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Issa and Jus/Yus Asaf, existed. That is an argument that others use. My issue is not his status in existing or being a prophet, but in being a god, God or an Ascended Master.

In order for anyone to be a god, God or an Ascended Master, there would have to be some significant evidence of his/her present-day...

...COMPASSION IN ACTION.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I don't question that there was an Original Creator of ALL THAT IS. Only that a prophet from a traditional religion is aligned with same.

IMHO, The First Coming of The Original Creator has yet to occur.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Aah. I see. You do have an opinion. Your statement is not based on any fact. Yes. Certain circumstances and events lead you to believe this is true. As the opposite with me is true.


Again, we are not here debating whether or not a God started Creation, only if Jesus was divine.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Near death experience research indicates that no one ever truly gets away with anything. The checks and balances of reality exist in the discarnate dimensions. Those who serve others and strive to live by The Golden Rule are rewarded when they leave their bodies - by their ability to ascend into The Light Of The God Force. The higher the plane, the more energy available, the greater the expansion of consciousness, and the more spiritual the environment.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
I'm not sure where this fits in, but I see no problem with it.


It fits because it means that believing in a god icon is not enough. You also have to strive to be a good person. Character is what leads to salvation, not lip service to a purported deity



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I respect others views on God and religion as long as they don't proclaim their "god" to be "The Only Way" and that their "god" is omnipotent.





Originally posted by Gemwolf
Well, doesn't having a view include proclaiming something? You don't really respect their religion and view on God, if you don't respect their view that Jesus is the only way, do you?

Questioning it, is I'm sure by all means valid, but attacking it?


Addressing the sexual abuse of the Christian clergy towards thousands of innocent children around the world is not an attack. It is stating the obvious.

Take note that someone in this thread promoted her Son of God icon but did so without proclaiming omnipotence or that it was the only way to God.

I had no problem with that.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Omnipotent: Having unlimited authority or power. God is said to be omnipotent, controlling all forces and phenomena of nature. Man often behaves as though he is omnipotent; however, he is self-deceived.

I don't understand? You believe in an Original Creator, and you believe that he (and he alone) would come again.... Isn't the "Original Creator" omnipotent? Or is he one of many "gods" with powers?
Jesus is just as much omnipotent as God (the Creator), because Jesus is included in the Holy Trinity... And on this point, I suppose you have strong opinion about the Holy Spirit as well?


An interesting side debate...

Okay...I"ll bite...

First off, The Original Creator was not omnipotent and I don't espouse that He/She was.

A common misperception among those in the flesh is that The Original Creator and The Light Of The God Force (that near death experiencers often report being "at the end of the tunnel") are one and the same.

They are not.

The Light is like gravity or electromagnetism. It is an energy that resides and stems from the discarnate dimensions and it operates off of a completely different set of principles than the physical spectrum.

The Original Creator evolved in The Light to a very high degree but no being or soul is infinite, as all spiritual evolution is a matter of degree.

This conclusion is not based on faith, but logic. Many scientists have determined (through mathematical calculation and radio astronomy) that the Universe is not endless, just extremely large. It therefore stands to reason that the being that initiated The Big Bang was also not infinite, just very highly evolved




[edit on 3-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
There is no such thing as a false God. The Deity stands alone as the creator of the universe and has no form to be imagined by us.

There are multitudes of humans throughout the ages which have been awarded the status of Godliness in the attempt to put a human form onto this Deity, (ie. the Greek Pantheon, Isis and Osiris, Lug, Thor, Jesus...and the list goes on) but they are all humans and not God.


Agreed. But the Christians in here don't like you stating that. To them, Jesus is God and also omnipotent.


Originally posted by masqua
When a form is conjured, whether it is a human, ram, bull, fish or a golden calf, it is an attempt to bring the image of God into something which is part of the natural world.

When a form becomes Godlike in the minds of people, there is a tendency to create a mythos about that form via statues, writings, art, etc. The establishment of such writings then become the basis for religions.


True.


Originally posted by masqua
Religions, then, are the result of a 'formed God' coupled with the establisment of a cult based on the ideology explicit within its' accompanying literature.

Thereby, all 'forms' are false...because we cannot 'know' God, we can only sense Deity in our own hearts and minds. We cannot know how God is perceived by another any more than we could fathom what a Zebra senses as it scans the horizons of the Serengeti.


Well, outside of possibly overrating a Zebra's perception, I agree with you.


Originally posted by masqua

In this immense universe, we are like babies which have just opened our eyes. We are still dependent on our Mother (Earth) and cannot leave her (yet). In our infantile understandings of Deity, we have projected our earthly images to this God, and I'm sure that God (the Creator) is far more interesting than whatever we earthlings have come up with yet.


Most need a deity icon in order to lead moral lives.


Originally posted by masqua
Maybe we can only ever come to a personal knowledge of God, like a friendship between our soul and our physical being. All other means are vain, arrogant and doomed to failure eventually.

Besides, why agonize about who's God is greater, false, nicest, meanest, etc. when we will ALL find out after we die? Best to come to a personal understanding with your Creator by acting out our lives in the manner which feels right to our conscience.


Hey, I'm just debating over one prophet who some believe is God, not comparing them. That would be another thread topic.

I agree that we should live in a manner which feels right to our conscience.



[edit on 3-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
I don't think you can have a problem with any of those myths if you do not adhere to them, perhaps he was angry at the people who do horrible stuff in their dieties' names? Just a thought. Most of the time, a religion is considered good/bad by what its followers actually do, rather than what its scriptures say they should do. Two major factors that kinda peev me are the Inquisition and WWII (the church backed Hitler). I am interested in hearing the other guy's arguments though.


with the help of the Knights of Malta nazi gold was smuggled by Pinochet (Argentinian president) via the Vatican Bank. Also Christianity is a religion created for the purpose of a tool of power and control through propaganda. A lot of the characters (Jesus, Mary etc) came from the Pagan religion at least (and there may have been other religions which they were taken from)


The think I find a dead giveaway in the Christian bible is when God says I am your one and only God, you shall worship, believe and have no other Gods before you. That part just doesn't make sense to me as being a statement of freedom by the grand creator.
[edit on 3-10-2005 by sugeshotcha]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by sugeshotcha]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
I don't think you can have a problem with any of those myths if you do not adhere to them, perhaps he was angry at the people who do horrible stuff in their dieties' names?


I was.


Originally posted by sugeshotcha
with the help of the Knights of Malta nazi gold was smuggled by Pinochet (Argentinian president) via the Vatican Bank. Also Christianity is a religion created for the purpose of a tool of power and control through propaganda. A lot of the characters (Jesus, Mary etc) came from the Pagan religion at least (and there may have been other religions which they were taken from).


The religion of Mithraism comes to mind.


Originally posted by sugeshotcha
The think I find a dead giveaway in the Christian bible is when God says I am your one and only God, you shall worship, believe and have no other Gods before you. That part just doesn't make sense to me as being a statement of freedom by the grand creator.


I wholeheartedly agree with that appraisal.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Imagine making a thing, a person, maybe a cartoon character. With supercomputer technology make a replica of yourself(a human character). The cartoon guy goes around and cannot see you but your watching through TV. One day you apply artificial intelligence and Freewill(TM) . You give him/her a conscience and knowledge of good and bad. Your best friend turns on you and starts influencing your character to do bad. So you make rules(commands) that he/she must follow or suffer consequences. You can pause-rewind-fastforward because you are the controller. You can make his/her path easy or hard..
Many years later when theres thousands of these guys and girls going around they start to do things on their own and start forgetting about you----their creator! And your friend who turned on you has most of them doing bad things and your f#$@ing pissed. They start going on internet forums and saying you dont exist!!!---oh my.... its time to delete these fools!
So i gather all my friends(angels) and declare war on the traitor and his followers (the characters who break commandments and dont believe)

But my son feels bad for them and decides to enter the computer through the matrix and die on a cross and then for everyone who believes in him from then on he suffers for them here in the flesh(spirit).

Now though i have no more reason to stall so i am going to end the computer generated world and save the ones who still follow my old old commands which number very few..... so i have all those gigabytes to create some cool A$$ stuff and have those people reside there forever. And the ones who didnt believe are going to the permanent trashcan(hell) forever.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
You see in various religions when believers say, for example, they have witnessed the power of God.

Is it the power of God they have witnessed or is it the Spirit representatives of the religion they have infact been in the pressence of?.

This is a common thread that runs through all religions.





[edit on 3-10-2005 by ThePunisher]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GemWorld
On the other hand, suppose you choose not to believe in God or lead a good, moral life and you are wrong! You will have all eternity to regret turning your back on God. And in addition, your life here will (in all probability) be much less happy. It is lose-lose.


"Fear is divorced from any concrete and true immediate danger. This kind of psychological fear is always of something that might happen, not of something that is happening NOW."

When one resorts to creating fear upon another, and therefore inhibiting their free will, with the intention to change their beliefs, not much will be accomplished. This in turn probably will create a time gap, where the person you are intimidating is constantly thinking about the future, and not in the HERE in now.

What use is eternal punishment? What will those who are being punished learn? When will this knowledge come into use? Is it just to prove a point to those who are still on earth? If you don't follow my edited doctrine you will end up like them... Please do think about it...

You cannot hope to conquer violence through violence, darkness through darkness, or hipocrisy with lies. Rather let us be peaceful, shine light on darkness, and know.

[edit on 3/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

I don't have any problem believing that the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Issa and Jus/Yus Asaf, existed. That is an argument that others use. My issue is not his status in existing or being a prophet, but in being a god, God or an Ascended Master.

In order for anyone to be a god, God or an Ascended Master, there would have to be some significant evidence of his/her present-day...

...COMPASSION IN ACTION.


Well, for one, Jesus is not God. He is the Son of God.
This is getting complicated, and even so to explain or defend, as I did not study theology nor do I claim endless knowledge of Christianity. I might understand it, but I may not be able to explain it as well. But I'll give it a shot.

First let's look at the definition of "god":
The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
To me it feels like this definition is more or less a Christian definition. That's not what I'm looking for but it serves to point out that Jesus is not God looking at this definition.

See, merely defining God or trying to define a god already starts a million debates and is still debated. Some even call blasphemy when others try to define God.

We can go deep into this and take a look at the Etymology of the word god, but we'll only end up with "pour a libation"... So we're moving on.

I found this definition - not of god, but of deity, which could help us some.
A deity or a god, is a postulated preternatural being, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form. Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God”, and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe. Some of these "gods" have no power at all-they are simply worshipped.
Now, this is a very interesting definition. Jesus definitely falls in this category. So. Jesus was in fact a god or a deity... But what proof do I have of it? That Jesus was (and still is!) a God, and not "just another prophet"?

- I'd just like to point out to the last part of the definition. You don't even need powers to be a god! All you need is someone who worships you, and you're a god! -

We already touched the subject. The people (high Priests) who crucified Jesus saw Jesus' works, heard His words and experienced His wrath. This scared them. What if He was the Messiah? What if He was God's Son? He was most definitely a prophet. But He spoke of breaking down the Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days. No. They were the leaders of the Church and could not allow things like this to happen. Blasphemy. So they wanted to prove that Jesus was NOT the Son of God. So they killed Him. Now, this is where the plot thickens. This was God's plan all along! Because 3 days later He got up from the grave. But what proof do I have of this? Didn't His followers just make up the story to support the idea that He was the Son of God?

You cannot deny that something happened in Palestine that has had a remarkable impact on the world... Now, if it can be shown that the tomb of Jesus was found empty, that he did physically and bodily appear to many people after his death, and that the origin of the Christian faith is inexplicable apart from a real resurrection, then, if there is no plausible natural explanation that fits the data, one can rationally conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.

The writings about the Resurrection are too early for legend to prevail over the truth. The Gospel accounts of the appearances are too early to be legendary. The legend theory rests very heavily on the premise that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. But even the liberal critic John A. T. Robinson challenges this late dating as largely the result of scholarly laziness, unexamined presuppositions and almost wilful blindness on the part of the critics. In fact, a growing number of scholars would argue for dating the book that we call Acts, or the books that we call Acts, Luke, Mark and Matthew before AD 70. And one of the reasons is that Acts makes no mention of known historical events that took place between AD 60 and 70, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Christians by Nero, the death of James and the death of Paul. The best explanation for these significant events going unmentioned by the writer is that they hadn't yet occurred when the Book of Acts was completed. Hence, Acts was written before AD 62-64, and the Gospel of Luke, being Part I of Luke's writings, was even earlier, possibly AD 57-62, and most scholars believe Mark was one of Luke's research sources, and so it would be earlier still, somewhere between 45-56 AD. This pushes the accounts of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus to within 15-32 years after the events, or roughly one generation.

Secondly, First Corinthians, Paul's writings about the Resurrection, are too early to be legendary, having been written around 53-55 AD, only 20-25 years after the events. But the important point is that all of these accounts are based on earlier written and oral sources that are dated much closer to the events. These sources contain sayings, statements, hymns that are highly Semitic, highly Jewish, and translate very nicely from Greek, in which they are written, back into Aramaic, the language that Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke. This points to an early Jerusalem origin, within the first few years, and even weeks, after Christ's death. There simply was not enough time for the basic set of facts to be replaced by myth or legend.

First, the written account describing the burial is widely recognized as being historically credible. The inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea as the one who buried Jesus in his own tomb is one of the many reasons that most scholars accept the accuracy of the burial story. It is highly unlikely that fictitious stories about a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling class, could have been pulled off. The absence of competing burial stories further enhances the credibility of the biblical account of the burial. If the Gospel tradition is legendary, one would expect to find conflicting burial stories, especially Jewish literature. But there are none.

Moreover, the burial and empty tomb story are a continuous narrative. They are linked together grammatically and linguistically. If the burial account is reliable, then the empty tomb account is also likely reliable.

Now, if this burial account is accurate, then the grave site of Joseph's garden tomb would have been well known. And if that gravesite was well known, no one would have believed that Jesus had risen, not the disciples, nor the thousands of others who did believe, unless that tomb really was empty. And you can be sure that if the body had still been in the tomb, the Jewish authorities would have exhumed it and exposed the whole charade. But in fact, even though they had every reason to want to refute Christianity, they never could produce the body of Jesus, in or outside of the tomb.

Second, the earliest anti-Christian propaganda confirms the tomb was empty. The Jewish religious leaders claimed that the disciples stole the body. The fact that they never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away, is persuasive evidence that the tomb was in fact empty. Historically, this is evidence of the highest quality because it comes from the opponents of Christianity.

Third, the fact that Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine in the first century indicates that it was empty. The custom was to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such sites in Palestine at that time, and the absence of such a shrine for Jesus suggests that the bones weren't there.

Fourth, the testimony of the Apostle Paul implies the tomb was empty. Writing in around 55 AD, Paul quotes an old Christian saying that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day. Now the idea that a person could be raised from the dead while the body remained in the grave still would have been nonsense to Paul's Jewish mind. The Jewish concept of resurrection was extremely physical. Paul is clearly assuming and implying an empty tomb here. As W. L. Craig pointed out, were this not so, then Pauline theology would have taken an entirely different route, trying to explain how resurrection could be possible even though the body is still there in the grave. Moreover, this saying concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, from which Paul is quoting, is much to early to be legendary. Paul would have learned it in his first two years as a convert, or at least no later than AD 36 when he visited Peter and James in Jerusalem. Thus this formula is no later than 5 or 6 years after the Resurrection -- not enough time for legend to dominate.

Now the empty tomb by itself did not produce a belief in a resurrected Jesus. For most of the followers, it was Jesus physically appearing to them that led them to the conclusion that Jesus had risen.

Now most scholars agree that even though there is interdependence between much of the Gospel accounts, the appearance accounts are independent of one another. So, evidence from five independent historical sources indicate that on 12 separate occasions various individuals and groups in various locations and circumstances saw Jesus alive after his death.

The four Gospels tell us about the appearances to Mary Magdalena, to the women returning from the tomb, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to Peter, to the disciples with Thomas absent, to the disciples with Thomas present a week later, to the seven disciples at the Lake of Tiberius in Galilee, to the 11 and probably others on a mountain in Galilee, to the disciples at the ascension.

Paul, besides repeating the appearances to Peter, the twelve, and to all the apostles (probably a larger group), also mentions appearances to James, Saul (that is, himself), and to over 500 people at one time. Now, Paul's accounts of the appearances are likely not legendary because of his (having) listed in this (the) appearance to more than 500 people. You see, Paul is using the accepted method of his day to prove an historical event: the appeal to witnesses. He specifically states that most of these people are still alive, thereby inviting cross-examination of his witnesses. He would not likely have done this unless they were real people, and that they would back up his claims as well.

Secondly, the fact that women and not male disciples are listed as the first witnesses of the appearances and the empty tomb adds powerful credibility to these incidents. You see, women were of such low status in first-century Jewish society that their testimony in court was considered worthless. So it would have been purposeless, even counterproductive, to record the women as being these first witnesses if it were not the way that it actually happened.

Third, the Gospels are not written in a legendary style of writing. The style of the Gospels lacks the legendary embellishments that are clearly part of the later writings. C. S. Lewis, one of the great literary experts on ancient myths, commenting on the Gospels, writes, "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths, all my life. I know that not one of them," the Gospels, that is, "is not like this."

Fourth, where external verification is possible, the New Testament has demonstrated its reliability time and time again, thus supporting its overall credibility. Craig Blomberg, New Testament scholar, says, that as investigation proceeds, the evidence becomes sufficient for one to declare that what can be checked is accurate, so that it is entirely proper to believe that what cannot be checked is probably accurate as well. Other conclusions, widespread though they are, seem not to stem from even-handed historical analysis, he says, but from religious or philosophical prejudice.

Thus, it's hard to deny on historical grounds, that numerous people had experiences that they interpreted as appearances of the risen Jesus. Thus, the evidence is that Jesus made multiple appearances after his death.

A priori dismissal of miracles is illegitimate. One cannot rule out the Resurrection because of prior assumptions that miracles are impossible. If in trying to determine whether a miracle has taken place one rules out any documents containing miracles, one has merely argued in a circle. He has not done a fair investigation. He has merely assumed the conclusion he wants to prove. It amounts to this: "I do not accept the Resurrection miracle because I do not accept any miracle." Not much of an argument. You see, as long as it is even possible that God exists, miracles are possible. What one should do then, is try to honestly answer the question: "What does the evidence suggest is the most plausible explanation for the data?"

The alleged contradictions in the Resurrection accounts can be harmonized, and they show a lack of collusion among the writers. Many people reject a resurrection of Jesus because they think the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are hopelessly contradictory. But the differences in the accounts establish their independence, which means we have multiple attestations to the Resurrection, and it also shows that there was no collusion among the writers. The differences show that the information [of] the different Gospels is from different sources. This is a more reasonable hypothesis than the view that the writers borrowed from each other and were so stupid that they botched all the points they borrowed. And the more sources a historian have that say essentially the same thing, the greater the probability of their veracity.

As many scholars have pointed out, the confusion between the different accounts in the Gospels do not appear to have been contrived. "The conflict of testimony is more a mark of the sincerity of those from whom the testimony is derived than a mark against their veracity," says James D. G. Dunn, well-known New Testament scholar.

Differences in details do not necessarily discredit the entire account. No historian suggests that just because there are differences in the eyewitness accounts of Kennedy's shooting, that therefore JFK wasn't assassinated. The differences in the Resurrection accounts are minor, and are to be expected since each account is based on different witnesses' reports, written by a different author with slightly different themes or emphases, and to different audiences. Witnesses don't usually report the details of an event exactly the same. In fact, it's when they do that lawyers get suspicious. What is really remarkable is that they are so similar. The Gospels are not intended to be exhaustive accounts of Jesus' life. They are summaries. Only to presuppose that they are exhaustive can you get contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

LOL... Wow... Are you keeping up?
Now I can go on and on about this, but I'm boring you. It's still not going to change your mind. You came to this debate with the answer in your heart, and no matter what evidence and arguments I deliver, you won't budge, right?


So, I'll move on to the next point. Where is Jesus today? "Compassion in action"... Firstly, which rule says that a god has to be actively involved with his worshippers? Some traditions hold that the creator is also the sustainer (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism - don't confuse a deity with the deism believe). Some mystical traditions (Taoism) ascribe limits to God's powers, arguing that God's supreme nature leaves no room for spontaneity.

That said. Jesus' role is not so much as to influence people's lives. We must not forget the Holy Spirit. Many Christians keep their focus on Jesus - with good reason, because according to the religion He is the only way to get Eternal life. But they forget that it's the Holy Spirit that was left "on earth" to guide us.

Jesus or the Holy Spirit (depending on how you want to look at it - this is also debatable) is very much active amongst us. Now I can throw the typical Christian argument your way. He's all around us. He made the sun rise; He helped (protected) you from your home to your work, etc. etc. But you would say, that it just happens and that there's no Devine Intervention to make it happen. Fair enough. You take natural things for granted. It's mere science and molecules, atoms, etc. just co-exist naturally in such a way that it's not a miracle.

Why does God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit allow wars, allow hunger, allow kids to be raped/molested - especially by Christian leaders? As others in this thread argued - Christians killed "millions" (sic) in God's name.
They keep forgetting free will. People are left to do what they please. The human is a selfish being. And not to forget the infamous Satan...

It's easier for leaders to manipulate the greater public if they have a good enough reason. A purpose.
"Let's go kill a couple of thousand people! "
"Why Mr Leader?"
(Uhm, we can't tell them that we want some gold, and that we don't like the Greeks...) "Err... Because God wants us to. They're not believers. It's God's will..."
"Yay! Let's go kill them!"

A more recent example:
"Let's go kill them Iraqis!"
"Why Mr President?"
(Uhm, we can't tell them that we're after the oil... And we can't use the religion excuse anymore. That hasn't worked for years!) "Err.. Because they're terrorists, and they want to kill all Americans!"
"Yay! Let's go kill them!"

See. Manipulation for personal gain.

But why exactly does God allow bad things to happen?
Many good people suffer greatly in this life. The most famous was Job, in the Bible. No ordinary person ever suffered as much as he did, and yet God loved him specially, because he was such a good man. This was told to us in the Bible as a lesson for us, that suffering is to be expected for everyone.

The question is, why? Why can't we live like angels, and be happy all our lives?

Indeed, that is exactly how we started out!

Although we once lived in Paradise where there was no suffering, we rebelled against God and were expelled. Now, thanks to Christ, we have a second chance for eternal happiness.

From the beginning, God knew that He wanted to share, with true children, the happiness of existence that He enjoyed. He knew that we must have free will, because free will is the essence of His nature. He did not want pets or toys; he wanted children, made in His own likeness and image. This would be difficult, and complicated.

He knew that He wanted us in Paradise with Him, and that is where He started us out. But He also knew that we would soon (being very much like Him) think that we were His equal, and rebel against Him. He knew that once we had to leave Paradise that He did not want to simply destroy us. We would be given another opportunity in this new world, a world of pain and sorrow, the consequences of our pride and wrong choices.

God has a plan to give us all an eternity of happiness in Paradise. He became true man Himself, and suffered and died so that He could, even in His infinite Justice, forgive the unforgivable sin of rebelling against God.

Therefore God does not consider the suffering that we have to go through as evil. Indeed, it was only through His own suffering and death that He is able to bring His plan forward and redeem us all. If the pain were avoidable, God Himself, as Christ, would certainly not have elected to be tortured to death here. He certainly would not have allowed His dear mother to endure the agony of watching her son be crucified. So the one thing that is certain is that pain and sorrow is an unavoidable part of His plan.

If we did not have free will as His true children, we would not have had to be removed from Paradise. There would be no suffering or sorrow, not even for God Himself as Christ. But He did want true children, it was necessary to give us free will like Himself, and so the pain and sorrow that our free will inevitably bring to us by our wrong choices is also necessary. Such are the consequences of creating true children of God. Where there are free will choices, there will inevitably be wrong choices, and there will have to be consequences. It is by retaining faith in God and His commands, through all of our pain and suffering, that our soul matures and finds God's love.

Using suffering as an excuse to turn away from God, to once again set ourselves up as a higher authority that does not have to obey Him, is evil. We have another opportunity to follow God's commands, the ones He told us in person as Jesus Christ. This time around, we are expected to maintain complete confidence that God knows better how to run the universe than we do.

Do not think that we are kept out of Paradise just because two of our ancestors rebelled. We all rebel, every day. None of us is willing to accept God's authority. We all think that we know how to lead our own lives better than He does.

As an example, how many people think that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that they have to love and forgive our enemies, the terrorists? No one that we know. We all remain rebels.

Paul_Richard, do you have children? Don't you find that you must give them commands to obey. They are not to throw plates of food at the walls in restaurants, they must turn off the TV and go to bed at a certain time, they must go to school even when they don't want to, and so on. When they disobey, you must discipline them, right? It would not be in their own best interest to allow them to disobey. You must punish them even though you love them, for their own good. We know, as parents, lots more than they do.

God is our Father. He also knows a lot more than we do. The commands he gave us are not arbitrary and harsh; they are in our own best interest, whether or not we think so. If we follow them, we will best enjoy this earth, this world, and at the same time best prepare ourselves for the next.

We disobey His direct command not to think of ourselves as His equal; that is, not to lead our lives according to our own rules, rather than His rules. This disobedience simply must have consequences. Justice demands it.

But our pride makes us think that we do not deserve any suffering in this life. We cannot see how it is for our own ultimate good, and are unwilling to take God's word for it. We inherit all of the ego and pride and stubbornness that we could expect from the Supreme Being of the universe, but we don't get any of his power! He does not have to submit to any authority at all, but we do. This makes things tough. We do not want to submit to any authority, but we have to submit to His, just as our children have to submit to our authority.

You are thinking like a little child who screams that they hate their mommy for punishing her. God is trying to prepare us for an eternally long life, just as your mom was trying to prepare you for your adult life.

Did I cover it all? Please keep in mind that many of this is my view on things - as I said, I am no preacher (although looking at this... LOL!) and it's up to my debating and explanation skills to convince you (and so many others) that I am right and you are wrong. Not an easy task - as many atheists are highly intelligent, thus the believe that Christians are stupid sheep just believing anything that's told to them - and somehow I feel like I don't do this difficult topic justice - whilst trying my best not to sound like a "bible thumper". Well, I'm up to page 8 in MS Word, so I'll cover the rest of your reply in a next post. Hope it was worth the reading effort...



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Again, we are not here debating whether or not a God started Creation, only if Jesus was divine.

Covered above.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
It fits because it means that believing in a god icon is not enough. You also have to strive to be a good person. Character is what leads to salvation, not lip service to a purported deity


Indeed.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Addressing the sexual abuse of the Christian clergy towards thousands of innocent children around the world is not an attack. It is stating the obvious.

No. It's hanging Christianity for the mistakes of a couple of people. Just because a priest molest a kid doesn't make "Christianity" wrong. When a plumber molests a kid, you don't point fingers at all plumbers, do you? When a grandmother molests a kid, you don't say that having a grandmother is wrong, do you? And if you want to pull out the "Why didn't God do something about it?" argument. It was covered above. (And He did do something, didn't He? They got caught/exposed, right?)


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Omnipotent: Having unlimited authority or power. God is said to be omnipotent, controlling all forces and phenomena of nature. Man often behaves as though he is omnipotent; however, he is self-deceived.

I don't understand? You believe in an Original Creator, and you believe that he (and he alone) would come again.... Isn't the "Original Creator" omnipotent? Or is he one of many "gods" with powers?
Jesus is just as much omnipotent as God (the Creator), because Jesus is included in the Holy Trinity... And on this point, I suppose you have strong opinion about the Holy Spirit as well?



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
An interesting side debate...

Okay...I’ll bite...

First off, The Original Creator was not omnipotent and I don't espouse that He/She was.

Err... Then what was "the Original Creator" in your view? Aliens? What sort of being would be "powerful" enough to create life, the universe, etc. without being omnipotent? Or do you mean to say that there are many "Higher Beings" that are all gods, thus there cannot be a single omnipotent one?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
A common misperception among those in the flesh is that The Original Creator and The Light Of The God Force (that near death experiencers often report being "at the end of the tunnel") are one and the same.

They are not.

Someone you bring up "near death experiences" time and again into the debate. I'm sure you have good reason, and hope you point it out to me.
Do you base your whole idea about religion and "Higher Beings" on the near death experiences? Isn't this the weakest support or evidence of a god? A near death experience can be easily explained away by science. I'm not for or against what people see in near death experiences, I'm just questioning as to why you mention it?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The Light is like gravity or electromagnetism. It is an energy that resides and stems from the discarnate dimensions and it operates off of a completely different set of principles than the physical spectrum.

The Original Creator evolved in The Light to a very high degree but no being or soul is infinite, as all spiritual evolution is a matter of degree.

And now, it's my turn to ask where is your proof/reason for this statement and believing it? What exactly is it you believe in Paul_Richard? Is this a specific religion or your own idea about God/a god?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
This conclusion is not based on faith, but logic. Many scientists have determined (through mathematical calculation and radio astronomy) that the Universe is not endless, just extremely large. It therefore stands to reason that the being that initiated The Big Bang was also not infinite, just very highly evolved


What would the "top" of the evolution pyramid look like? The being that sits at the very top? Or is it an endless pyramid, with a top that doesn't exist? Does this mean, that given enough time, humans could also evolve enough to create their own universes, and be gods for those universes?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Gemwolf,

I know you are trying very hard to support your case and I give you an "A" for effort.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
So. Jesus was in fact a god or a deity... But what proof do I have of it? That Jesus was (and still is!) a God, and not "just another prophet"?

- I'd just like to point out to the last part of the definition. You don't even need powers to be a god! All you need is someone who worships you, and you're a god! -


Baal, Zeus, Hera, Mithra, and a host of others throughout history, also fit within your archaic definitions of the term, "god."


Originally posted by Gemwolf
We already touched the subject. The people (high Priests) who crucified Jesus...


Stop right there.

There is evidence that Issa/Jesus never died on the cross in the first place.

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (German Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (Islamic Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross & Died In India At 80 After Proclaiming To Be The Galilean Messiah

As far as Jesus being the Son of God is concerned: we are all Sons and Daughters of God. That which made Jesus/Issa stand out from the other prophets of his day were his unique Gifts of the Spirit that came from a large Group Entity, not from The Original Creator -- who had nothing to do with the formation of any traditional religion.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Why does God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit allow wars, allow hunger, allow kids to be raped/molested - especially by Christian leaders? As others in this thread argued - Christians killed "millions" (sic) in God's name.
They keep forgetting free will. People are left to do what they please. The human is a selfish being. And not to forget the infamous Satan...


Suppose you were a father of a large family or tribe. In that family there were a number of your children who were sexually molested and in some cases, raped, by other members of your tribe. Would you strive to stop that from happening?

Not trying to overestimate you here...but I think you would.

Would you be interefering with their free will?

Sure.

Would you be right in doing so.

Absolutely.

If you would act out of compassion and responsibility to safeguard your children, then why do you let your "god" get away with being a pedophile enabler in Christian churches?

Morality is absolute...even for dieties. There is no moral wiggle room for Jesus/Issa in not stopping pedophile abuse to thousands of innocent children in Christian churches.

Then you respond with...

"Oh, but other people in other religions do these atrocities too!"

If their purported dieties don't stop that abuse from happening in those temples and churches, they they are not true gods either.

The only gods are gods of compassion. There are no others. If the compassion and moral responsibility is lacking, then it points to a false god.

It is as simple as that.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
But why exactly does God allow bad things to happen?
Many good people suffer greatly in this life. The most famous was Job, in the Bible. No ordinary person ever suffered as much as he did, and yet God loved him specially, because he was such a good man. This was told to us in the Bible as a lesson for us, that suffering is to be expected for everyone.


That's just it.

The "god" of the Old Testiment was not The Original Creator. It was a large Group Entity of basically spiritual people or "angels" (at best) that combined their energies in order to manifest minor miracles.

The miracles found in Christianity are really no better than those found in the other traditional religions, like Hinduism for example. There is a swami in India that decades ago was referred to as "The Christ of India" because he could duplicate every miracles attributed to Jesus/Issa. I am referring to Sai Baba.

But he has abused his Gifts by being a sexual predator of young men and boys at his ashram for decades, among other atrocities committed. Consequently, the Group Entities he channeled have retrogressed from The Light and his Gifts of the Spirit have noticeably lessened with age.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
The question is, why? Why can't we live like angels, and be happy all our lives?

Indeed, that is exactly how we started out!

Although we once lived in Paradise where there was no suffering, we rebelled against God and were expelled. Now, thanks to Christ, we have a second chance for eternal happiness.


You really need to expect more of your diety.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
From the beginning, God knew that He wanted to share, with true children, the happiness of existence that He enjoyed. He knew that we must have free will, because free will is the essence of His nature. He did not want pets or toys; he wanted children, made in His own likeness and image. This would be difficult, and complicated.

He knew that He wanted us in Paradise with Him, and that is where He started us out. But He also knew that we would soon (being very much like Him) think that we were His equal, and rebel against Him. He knew that once we had to leave Paradise that He did not want to simply destroy us. We would be given another opportunity in this new world, a world of pain and sorrow, the consequences of our pride and wrong choices.

God has a plan to give us all an eternity of happiness in Paradise. He became true man Himself, and suffered and died so that He could, even in His infinite Justice, forgive the unforgivable sin of rebelling against God.

Therefore God does not consider the suffering that we have to go through as evil. Indeed, it was only through His own suffering and death that He is able to bring His plan forward and redeem us all. If the pain were avoidable, God Himself, as Christ, would certainly not have elected to be tortured to death here. He certainly would not have allowed His dear mother to endure the agony of watching her son be crucified. So the one thing that is certain is that pain and sorrow is an unavoidable part of His plan.

If we did not have free will as His true children, we would not have had to be removed from Paradise. There would be no suffering or sorrow, not even for God Himself as Christ. But He did want true children, it was necessary to give us free will like Himself, and so the pain and sorrow that our free will inevitably bring to us by our wrong choices is also necessary. Such are the consequences of creating true children of God. Where there are free will choices, there will inevitably be wrong choices, and there will have to be consequences. It is by retaining faith in God and His commands, through all of our pain and suffering, that our soul matures and finds God's love.

Using suffering as an excuse to turn away from God, to once again set ourselves up as a higher authority that does not have to obey Him, is evil. We have another opportunity to follow God's commands, the ones He told us in person as Jesus Christ. This time around, we are expected to maintain complete confidence that God knows better how to run the universe than we do.

Do not think that we are kept out of Paradise just because two of our ancestors rebelled. We all rebel, every day. None of us is willing to accept God's authority. We all think that we know how to lead our own lives better than He does.


You are espousing the false hierarchy that has been orchestrated by many Group Entities throughout the centuries. The "god" of the Old Testament and the "god" of the New Testament were Group Entities, not The Original Creator.

Which is why the spiritual and metaphysical foundation in the Bible is fragmented and incomplete. The source of the information did not come from what you would term, God, but from discarnate collectives in the Mid and Lower Realms of Spirit.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
As an example, how many people think that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that they have to love and forgive our enemies, the terrorists? No one that we know. We all remain rebels.


Sometimes it is good to be a rebel. It all depends on why.

As far as sex outside of marriage is concerned: the only time you should have sex at all is with love and with the focus of responsibility. If you have sex with love, in the eyes of The Light Of The God Force, you are already married, no matter what the governmental rules and the laws dictate.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Paul_Richard, do you have children? Don't you find that you must give them commands to obey. They are not to throw plates of food at the walls in restaurants, they must turn off the TV and go to bed at a certain time, they must go to school even when they don't want to, and so on. When they disobey, you must discipline them, right? It would not be in their own best interest to allow them to disobey. You must punish them even though you love them, for their own good. We know, as parents, lots more than they do.


One can accurate state that I have had many children. I agree that there should be rules for them in order to guide them properly.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
God is our Father. He also knows a lot more than we do. The commands he gave us are not arbitrary and harsh; they are in our own best interest, whether or not we think so. If we follow them, we will best enjoy this earth, this world, and at the same time best prepare ourselves for the next.

We disobey His direct command not to think of ourselves as His equal; that is, not to lead our lives according to our own rules, rather than His rules. This disobedience simply must have consequences. Justice demands it.

But our pride makes us think that we do not deserve any suffering in this life. We cannot see how it is for our own ultimate good, and are unwilling to take God's word for it. We inherit all of the ego and pride and stubbornness that we could expect from the Supreme Being of the universe, but we don't get any of his power! He does not have to submit to any authority at all, but we do. This makes things tough. We do not want to submit to any authority, but we have to submit to His, just as our children have to submit to our authority.

You are thinking like a little child who screams that they hate their mommy for punishing her. God is trying to prepare us for an eternally long life, just as your mom was trying to prepare you for your adult life.


Many of the ideas in the Bible, as I alluded to earlier, are distorted. Yes, a spiritual life leads to eternal life, but not exactly the way that it is explained in traditional scripture.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Did I cover it all? Please keep in mind that many of this is my view on things - as I said, I am no preacher (although looking at this... LOL!) and it's up to my debating and explanation skills to convince you (and so many others) that I am right and you are wrong. Not an easy task - as many atheists are highly intelligent, thus the believe that Christians are stupid sheep just believing anything that's told to them - and somehow I feel like I don't do this difficult topic justice - whilst trying my best not to sound like a "bible thumper". Well, I'm up to page 8 in MS Word, so I'll cover the rest of your reply in a next post. Hope it was worth the reading effort...


I think you did a wonderful job with what you know.

See:

An Alternative Mystical View On God



[edit on 4-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Addressing the sexual abuse of the Christian clergy towards thousands of innocent children around the world is not an attack. It is stating the obvious.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
No. It's hanging Christianity for the mistakes of a couple of people.


A couple of people?

Try hundreds, if not thousands of pedophiles in the Christian churches.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Just because a priest molest a kid doesn't make "Christianity" wrong.


It points to the "deity" not being a true god.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Omnipotent: Having unlimited authority or power. God is said to be omnipotent, controlling all forces and phenomena of nature. Man often behaves as though he is omnipotent; however, he is self-deceived.

I don't understand? You believe in an Original Creator, and you believe that he (and he alone) would come again.... Isn't the "Original Creator" omnipotent? Or is he one of many "gods" with powers?
Jesus is just as much omnipotent as God (the Creator), because Jesus is included in the Holy Trinity... And on this point, I suppose you have strong opinion about the Holy Spirit as well?



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
An interesting side debate...

Okay...I’ll bite...

First off, The Original Creator was not omnipotent and I don't espouse that He/She was.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Err... Then what was "the Original Creator" in your view? Aliens? What sort of being would be "powerful" enough to create life, the universe, etc. without being omnipotent? Or do you mean to say that there are many "Higher Beings" that are all gods, thus there cannot be a single omnipotent one?


You don't have to be omnipotent to create something, just God Realized and Ascended in The Light. Large Group Entities create and teleport small objects around frequently.

Picture highly evolved souls as spheres of light colored energy. Some spheres are larger than others. The ability to create a planet requires much less development and much less energy than it does to create a galaxy. Material creation and the evolution behind it is all a matter of degree.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
A common misperception among those in the flesh is that The Original Creator and The Light Of The God Force (that near death experiencers often report being "at the end of the tunnel") are one and the same.

They are not.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Someone you bring up "near death experiences" time and again into the debate. I'm sure you have good reason, and hope you point it out to me.
Do you base your whole idea about religion and "Higher Beings" on the near death experiences?


I strive to bring references to light that you can understand within your frame of reference.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Isn't this the weakest support or evidence of a god? A near death experience can be easily explained away by science. I'm not for or against what people see in near death experiences, I'm just questioning as to why you mention it?


You may want to consult with the many Christians who have had NDE's before pursuing this line of reasoning.

Trust me...it would be to your advantage.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The Light is like gravity or electromagnetism. It is an energy that resides and stems from the discarnate dimensions and it operates off of a completely different set of principles than the physical spectrum.

The Original Creator evolved in The Light to a very high degree but no being or soul is infinite, as all spiritual evolution is a matter of degree.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
And now, it's my turn to ask where is your proof/reason for this statement and believing it? What exactly is it you believe in Paul_Richard? Is this a specific religion or your own idea about God/a god?


Once again, see:

An Alternative Mystical View On God


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
This conclusion is not based on faith, but logic. Many scientists have determined (through mathematical calculation and radio astronomy) that the Universe is not endless, just extremely large. It therefore stands to reason that the being that initiated The Big Bang was also not infinite, just very highly evolved




Originally posted by Gemwolf
What would the "top" of the evolution pyramid look like? The being that sits at the very top? Or is it an endless pyramid, with a top that doesn't exist? Does this mean, that given enough time, humans could also evolve enough to create their own universes, and be gods for those universes?


Mormons, Solists, and others all share the metaphysical understanding that all spiritual souls have the potential to evolve into becoming Co-Creators in the Light and individually be able to create their own idyllic planet.

There is no being that sits at the top of the so-called pyramid. But there is The Light Of The God Force, which is nonliving and infinite. We can never be infinite in our development, but we can grow eternally in spiritual excellence.



[edit on 4-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Gemwolf,

I know you are trying very hard to support your case and I give you an "A" for effort.

Thank you once again. You make me work hard to get some respect from you - if that is what it is...



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Baal, Zeus, Hera, Mithra, and a host of others throughout history, also fit within your archaic definitions of the term, "god."

That was the point. You questioned if Jesus was/is a god. The point was that Jesus is a god per definition.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Stop right there.

There is evidence that Issa/Jesus never died on the cross in the first place.

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (German Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (Islamic Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross & Died In India At 80 After Proclaiming To Be The Galilean Messiah



Aha. Again. These are theories based on certain events and curcimstances. What are we now to believe. There's enough proof that Jesus was in fact crucified, buried, resurected and departed to heaven. But now there's "proof" that Jesus went to India and lived there with His mother? I'm not convinced by the latter. There is just enough evidence pointing to the events as it is recorded in the Bible. Would Jesus flee to India in fear of His life? Would he leave His followers and "the chosen nation" behind? Would the High Priests have allowed Jesus to escape and work "alongside" the disciples to pretend that Jesus died, but not admit that He wasn't resurected? Would the events that followed have happened if Jesus did not return to heaven? Including the killing of certain evangilists? Including the Holy Ghost as "gift"? Why would the disciples continue to preach the story of Jesus - if they knew that He was actually alive - in such a way that it caused them misery and death? So many questions, and I find it hard to believe that the history happened otherwise as described in the Bible.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
As far as Jesus being the Son of God is concerned: we are all Sons and Daughters of God. That which made Jesus/Issa stand out from the other prophets of his day were his unique Gifts of the Spirit that came from a large Group Entity, not from The Original Creator -- who had nothing to do with the formation of any traditional religion.

Yes, this is a technical statement. We are all children of God. But Jesus was the true Son of God. Again you make the statement that Jesus' "gifts" were given to Him by another Entity. What do you base this theory on?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Suppose you were a father of a large family or tribe. In that family there were a number of your children who were sexually molested and in some cases, raped, by other members of your tribe. Would you strive to stop that from happening?

Not trying to overestimate you here...but I think you would.

Would you be interefering with their free will?

Sure.

Would you be right in doing so.

Absolutely.

If you would act out of compassion and responsibility to safeguard your children, then why do you let your "god" get away with being a pedophile enabler in Christian churches?

Morality is absolute...even for dieties. There is no moral wiggle room for Jesus/Issa in not stopping pedophile abuse to thousands of innocent children in Christian churches.

Then you respond with...

"Oh, but other people in other religions do these atrocities too!"

If their purported dieties don't stop that abuse from happening in those temples and churches, they they are not true gods either.

The only gods are gods of compassion. There are no others. If the compassion and moral responsibility is lacking, then it points to a false god.

It is as simple as that.

Interesting. The movie "Minority Report" gave us a very interesting look at this. Free will and intervention. When are you guilty of a wrong-doing? Once you think it? If you actually decide - "I'm going to do this..."? Or only when you actually did it? But then intervention would be too late. You want to stop something bad from happening before it happens, right? But how do you know it's going to happen? It's complex. It looks to me like we have a catch 22? You can't stop someone from doing something, because they didn't make that choice yet. Free will.

And how do we know God didn't intervene in many other cases? No child was molested, because God stopped it from happening... Do we know that God stopped it from happening? No, we don't. Tree falling in the forest question, right? You point out that there is no interaction from God (the Christian God)... But how do we know that? What would this planet be like if God let it be?

And as we agreed - you keep pointing to the molestation in Christian churches, when we both know that it happens everywhere. Many gods want human sacrafice (Satanism?)... What kind of god allows that? Not only do they allow it, they want it from the worshippers. Then there's the well-known Muslims who blow themselves up for their god. What should we think of their god? We know better. We know that not all Muslims are American haters willing to kill themselves to go to heaven for "71 virgins"... Thinking that all Muslims are bad people would make you ignorant! Same goes for Christians that do bad things. These people you point your finger at are sexualy deprived perverts. There were a carrot held in front of their noses. They made the choice. Bad choice. What does God do about them? Nothing? A member asked earlier in the thread why we need to have a "hell". There's the answer. Do you want a peadophile who shamelessly abused kids in hte church, walking next to you in heaven? No? So what do you do with them? You send them to hell. You think there's going to be a judgement day just for kicks? Humans are impatient. God is not. You want a bolt of lightning to strike the priest just before he molests a kid? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. I don't make the rules.

But it seems like you are making the rules...
"The only gods are gods of compassion. There are no others. If the compassion and moral responsibility is lacking, then it points to a false god. "
Ok. Is your god or gods, one (or many) of compassion? Where is he/they in all this tragedy, pain and sorrow we see all around us? Aren't you contradicting yourself? Wouldn't this mean that there is no god at all?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The "god" of the Old Testiment was not The Original Creator. It was a large Group Entity of basically spiritual people or "angels" (at best) that combined their energies in order to manifest minor miracles.

The miracles found in Christianity are really no better than those found in the other traditional religions, like Hinduism for example. There is a swami in India that decades ago was referred to as "The Christ of India" because he could duplicate every miracles attributed to Jesus/Issa. I am referring to Sai Baba.

But he has abused his Gifts by being a sexual predator of young men and boys at his ashram for decades, among other atrocities committed. Consequently, the Group Entities he channeled have retrogressed from The Light and his Gifts of the Spirit have noticeably lessened with age.

Is that it? The Group Entities did nothing about Sai Baba for decades? And when they "punished" him, they merely "lessened" his gifts? Is that what you want God to do to the people who molested kids in Christian Churches? Is that what you expect a god to do - being moral and showing compassion?


Originally posted by Gemwolf
The question is, why? Why can't we live like angels, and be happy all our lives?

Indeed, that is exactly how we started out!

Although we once lived in Paradise where there was no suffering, we rebelled against God and were expelled. Now, thanks to Christ, we have a second chance for eternal happiness.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You really need to expect more of your diety.

What more would you like me to expect? What is better than eternal life in a place so wonderful we could not possibly start to imagine it?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You are espousing the false hierarchy that has been orchestrated by many Group Entities throughout the centuries. The "god" of the Old Testament and the "god" of the New Testament were Group Entities, not The Original Creator.

Which is why the spiritual and metaphysical foundation in the Bible is fragmented and incomplete. The source of the information did not come from what you would term, God, but from discarnate collectives in the Mid and Lower Realms of Spirit.

Forgive me. I am "new" to your "way of believing" and I'm trying my best to see your point of view. But you make all these statements about spirits on different levels. What is it based on? It seems that you have a very spiritual view on God/god(s). Is there more to this believe than teachings from people? More to it than "logic" as everyone's logic works differently? It sounds very philisophical... Please explain your "proof" in plain words. (Keep in mind that I'm trying to understand your religion in a couple of minutes, while it takes years to "master" a religion - if it can in fact be acheived>)



Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Sometimes it is good to be a rebel. It all depends on why.

As far as sex outside of marriage is concerned: the only time you should have sex at all is with love and with the focus of responsibility. If you have sex with love, in the eyes of The Light Of The God Force, you are already married, no matter what the governmental rules and the laws dictate.

From what I gather you believe people should celebate, is that right? Why is sex such a bad thing? Yes, I agree love should be the main reason for it... But why make it bad and dirty? Animals have sex all the time with other animals they've never met in their lives. Because we are "civilized" sex is now bad and a sin? Does it stop us from being truely spiritual? Yes, sex and lust is the downfall of many, many people - like those discussed above, but should all people - married or not be kept from sex because it's "bad? And when is love strong enough to justify sex - inside or outside of marriage? Will a simple crush do? Or does it have to be "true" love in the sense of "I'm willing to die for you"? How does a person in a certain situation decide what is lust and what is love?
(I know I'm wodnering from the topic - but for a change I get to question your views on the relgion, etc. topic! )


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
One can accurate state that I have had many children. I agree that there should be rules for them in order to guide them properly.

Hmm.. Technical. Explain?
Still on the point of children... How do you punish them? Every person has his/her own way of punishing, right? Do you hit kids before they do something wrong? Or do you only punish a kid after he did something wrong? You can warn him - "Don't do that" - but it's still up to him to do it or not. And he knows that he will get punished (if caught?) for doing it. No apply this reasoning to Christianity and free will.


Originally posted by Paul_RichardMany of the ideas in the Bible, as I alluded to earlier, are distorted. Yes, a spiritual life leads to eternal life, but not exactly the way that it is explained in traditional scripture.


Then in what way?

The Bible - or any book - are open to personal interpretation. Let's do this:
"The cat is black and plays with a piece of string." What did you read? Am I talking of a real cat or a statue or a toy? What shade of black is it? What kind of cat is it? Now translate this in 200 different languages and versions of it in English.
The result: All the different Christian believes and sub-churches...
Yes, the Bible as we read it may not be pure-bred. That does not take the crux/essence away.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I think you did a wonderful job with what you know.

Thanks again. Now we're getting somewhere, right? I do enjoy this much more than our original manner of "debating". I still haven't forgiven you for calling me a troll!





Originally posted by Paul_Richard
See:

An Alternative Mystical View On God



So I did, and I'm doing my best to see your point of view.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Try hundreds, if not thousands of pedophiles in the Christian churches.

Discussed above. (Again!)


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
It points to the "deity" not being a true god.

LoL! How come does it feel like you're using the "deity" definition against me?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You don't have to be omnipotent to create something, just God Realized and Ascended in The Light. Large Group Entities create and teleport small objects around frequently.

Picture highly evolved souls as spheres of light colored energy. Some spheres are larger than others. The ability to create a planet requires much less development and much less energy than it does to create a galaxy. Material creation and the evolution behind it is all a matter of degree.

This paragraphs creates and endless list of questions... May I ask a couple?
What is "The Light"?
What are "Large Group Entities"? How and why do they teleport small objects? What are these small objects? Why not big objects?
Why are Spirits/Souls spheres? Do they have to have a physical form?
How do you know how much energy and development it takes to create a planet or a galaxy?



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I strive to bring references to light that you can understand within your frame of reference.

Err... Not trying to offend you, but you fail to clear it up for me. It feels like I was thrown in the middle of something here with little background. Like trying to solve a mathematical problem without knowing how to multiply or divide. I have to result to adding and subtracting... But will I eventually get to the answer?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard

You may want to consult with the many Christians who have had NDE's before pursuing this line of reasoning.

Trust me...it would be to your advantage.

Oh, I'm well aware of "NDE's", and I have no need to use them to my advantage. I'm just trying to figure out why you are trying to use them to your advantage? What does it have to do in the fact that Jesus is a true or false god?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The Light is like gravity or electromagnetism. It is an energy that resides and stems from the discarnate dimensions and it operates off of a completely different set of principles than the physical spectrum.

The Original Creator evolved in The Light to a very high degree but no being or soul is infinite, as all spiritual evolution is a matter of degree.

Once again, see:

An Alternative Mystical View On God


So I did. Again, it's difficult to understand all these terms, theories and references in a couple of minutes with no background as to where they're coming from.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Mormons, Solists, and others all share the metaphysical understanding that all spiritual souls have the potential to evolve into becoming Co-Creators in the Light and individually be able to create their own idyllic planet.

There is no being that sits at the top of the so-called pyramid. But there is The Light Of The God Force, which is nonliving and infinite. We can never be infinite in our development, but we can grow eternally in spiritual excellence.


And what makes you so sure that there is no "God" who created the "Creators in the Light"? How do you know that "The Light of The God Force" is not the creation of another super-super-being? How do you know that there is no "top"?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I visited the society of light.com site, and understand your point of view a bit better now. I'll bring it into the discussion once your replied.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Hi Gemwolf,

Whew! Long post.

I think I finally have all the revisions made to it.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Baal, Zeus, Hera, Mithra, and a host of others throughout history, also fit within your archaic definitions of the term, "god."



Originally posted by Gemwolf
That was the point. You questioned if Jesus was/is a god. The point was that Jesus is a god per definition.


Are you implying that you consider the above "gods" to be valid? If Jesus is on a par with Baal or Mithra, then how can he be the ONLY way to God?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Stop right there.

There is evidence that Issa/Jesus never died on the cross in the first place.

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (German Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross And Went To India (Islamic Scholar)

Issa/Jesus Escaped Death On The Cross & Died In India At 80 After Proclaiming To Be The Galilean Messiah




Originally posted by Gemwolf
Aha. Again. These are theories based on certain events and circumstances. What are we now to believe. There's enough proof that Jesus was in fact crucified, buried, resurrected and departed to heaven. But now there's "proof" that Jesus went to India and lived there with His mother?


Not his mother, his wife, Mary Magdalene.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
I'm not convinced by the latter. There is just enough evidence pointing to the events as it is recorded in the Bible. Would Jesus flee to India in fear of His life? Would he leave His followers and "the chosen nation" behind? Would the High Priests have allowed Jesus to escape and work "alongside" the disciples to pretend that Jesus died, but not admit that He wasn't resurrected?


In reading between the lines and also directly from the reference sites listed above, one comes to the conclusion that the followers of Issa/Jesus did not betray him but saved him from the Roman authorities.

But we do not live in a spiritual vacuum. There are Spirits that people can contact under the right conditions that verify that the crucifixion of Jesus was a psychic event and not a physical one. The entity Seth through Jane Roberts in the 1970s said exactly this; that Judas did not betray Jesus but saved him and that the whole story of Jesus has been distorted over time. Jesus had the Gift of Stigmata, as did more recent Christian mystics like Francis of Assisi and Padre Pio, and this gave the illusion that he was on the cross.

According to Seth, who claimed to be the soul of a minor Catholic pope, Mary came to the cross out of compassion for the man who was chosen and drugged to die in Jesus' place.

The reason behind the whole Mary Magdalene being a prostitute story is that it was furthered by early church leaders who felt threatened by her close relationship with Jesus and that she was considered by many at that time to be a spiritual teacher in her own right. There are omitted gospels from the Bible, like the Gospels of Mary and Thomas for example, that paint a much different picture than the traditional orthodox paradigm of Christianity. Check them out.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Would the events that followed have happened if Jesus did not return to heaven?


They did but not because he didn't return to heaven until he was eighty, but because there were millions of people on the Other Side who used their combined energies to make those events happen and to promote Jesus/Issa from being a prophet to being a god or Son of God to many people in the flesh. Yes, it was an orchestrated deception. Group Entities are known to be very deceptive in order to have more sociological influence and to gain more power through membership.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Including the killing of certain evangilists? Including the Holy Ghost as "gift"? Why would the disciples continue to preach the story of Jesus - if they knew that He was actually alive - in such a way that it caused them misery and death?


Some knew that he had left with Mary Magdalene. Some, like Paul of Tarsus, did not.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
So many questions, and I find it hard to believe that the history happened otherwise as described in the Bible.


You have to understand that the Bible has been sliced and diced over the centuries in order to control the population. Passages have been altered and entire chapters have been omitted. Even when all the passages and chapters were there, it still didn't represent a thorough historical account of the period.

Did you know that in the Sixth Century, Emperor Justinian decided to omit all references to the doctrine of reincarnation from the Bible?

He did.

From that point onward for many years, anyone caught teaching the doctrine of rebirth was prosecuted by the government. Because of this, reincarnational thinking in the West was greatly reduced in Christian churches.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
As far as Jesus being the Son of God is concerned: we are all Sons and Daughters of God. That which made Jesus/Issa stand out from the other prophets of his day were his unique Gifts of the Spirit that came from a large Group Entity, not from The Original Creator -- who had nothing to do with the formation of any traditional religion.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes, this is a technical statement. We are all children of God. But Jesus was the true Son of God. Again you make the statement that Jesus' "gifts" were given to Him by another Entity. What do you base this theory on?


Personal experience. I've been a spiritual medium for many years and in more than one lifetime.

The energy of Jesus is the energy of angel and subangel collectives. The Dominant Aura Color of angels is yellow or violet. That is why he has often been referred to as the King of the Angels. It is also why most of the illustrations of Jesus over the centuries depict him being surrounded by a yellow halo or aura.

Even at the recent funeral of Pope John Paul, if you looked behind his casket, on the wall there was a large painting called the "ascending Jesus" which had him being surrounded by the same yellow energy that is representative of the Mid Realms of Spirit.

In the discarnate realms, as with the physical spectrum: the closest to the color white is not yellow or violet, but sky blue.

I've had situations in this life whereby I would receive a telepathic declaration from an angel collective from the Mid Realms, with the characteristic yellow Dominant Aura Color. They would say, "JESUS IS LORD."

I would respond with, "If that be the case, then why does he allow thousands of innocent children to be sexually molested and in some cases, raped, by pedophile priests, ministers and nuns who preach in his name?"

That always shuts them up immediately, as they can never come up with a decent excuse as to Jesus' lack of moral responsibility and lack of compassion for those he rules in his own churches.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Suppose you were a father of a large family or tribe. In that family there were a number of your children who were sexually molested and in some cases, raped, by other members of your tribe. Would you strive to stop that from happening?

Not trying to overestimate you here...but I think you would.

Would you be interfering with their free will?

Sure.

Would you be right in doing so.

Absolutely.

If you would act out of compassion and responsibility to safeguard your children, then why do you let your "god" get away with being a pedophile enabler in Christian churches?

Morality is absolute...even for deities. There is no moral wiggle room for Jesus/Issa in not stopping pedophile abuse to thousands of innocent children in Christian churches.

Then you respond with...

"Oh, but other people in other religions do these atrocities too!"

If their purported deities don't stop that abuse from happening in those temples and churches, they they are not true gods either.

The only gods are gods of compassion. There are no others. If the compassion and moral responsibility is lacking, then it points to a false god.

It is as simple as that.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Interesting. The movie "Minority Report" gave us a very interesting look at this. Free will and intervention. When are you guilty of a wrong-doing? Once you think it? If you actually decide - "I'm going to do this..."? Or only when you actually did it? But then intervention would be too late. You want to stop something bad from happening before it happens, right? But how do you know it's going to happen? It's complex. It looks to me like we have a catch 22? You can't stop someone from doing something, because they didn't make that choice yet. Free will.


Once they make the choice and are in the process of doing it, then you can interfere in the defense of one or more innocents.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
And how do we know God didn't intervene in many other cases? No child was molested, because God stopped it from happening... Do we know that God stopped it from happening? No, we don't. Tree falling in the forest question, right? You point out that there is no interaction from God (the Christian God)... But how do we know that? What would this planet be like if God let it be?


Look…all Jesus has to do is appear before every Christian church leader on the planet and tell them to oust his list of pedophiles in the churches.

Easier yet...he could appear before the Pope and order all pedophiles to be excommunicated.

That would be a good start.

So why hasn't he done so?

If you say because he is letting the pedophiles practice their free will, then what makes Jesus any better than Zeus, Baal, Mithra, Hermes, and a host of other gods throughout history?

There are Pagans and Hindus and New Agers out there that have as much of a Gift of Healing as any Christian faith healer.

So what makes Jesus better?

Again...I want some evidence of his divinity in the HERE AND NOW and I see that you don't have any to offer.

But don’t feel too back about it. No one else has any either, as I have debated this issue many times.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
And as we agreed - you keep pointing to the molestation in Christian churches, when we both know that it happens everywhere. Many gods want human sacrifice (Satanism?)... What kind of god allows that?


The only "gods" that allow that are false ones!


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Not only do they allow it, they want it from the worshippers. Then there's the well-known Muslims who blow themselves up for their god. What should we think of their god?


That it is false.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
We know better. We know that not all Muslims are American haters willing to kill themselves to go to heaven for "71 virgins"... Thinking that all Muslims are bad people would make you ignorant! Same goes for Christians that do bad things. These people you point your finger at are sexually deprived perverts. There were a carrot held in front of their noses. They made the choice. Bad choice. What does God do about them?


Near death experience research, among other things, confirms that no one ever truly gets away with anything. They will all be punished in the Spirit by their inability to ascend to a spiritual place and by them facing their own destruction.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Nothing? A member asked earlier in the thread why we need to have a "hell". There's the answer. Do you want a pedophile who shamelessly abused kids in the church, walking next to you in heaven? No? So what do you do with them? You send them to hell. You think there's going to be a judgment day just for kicks? Humans are impatient. God is not. You want a bolt of lightning to strike the priest just before he molests a kid? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. I don't make the rules.


I don't make the rules either.

But I can say from my many years of dealing with discarnate demonic attack and in counseling others about same, that those who do evil are terribly punished for it on the Other Side. No being sits in judgment over them. They are punished by their inability to ascend into The Light. Without The Light, there can not be eternal life.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
But it seems like you are making the rules...


Only because I have a lot of experience in this area of life.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
"The only gods are gods of compassion. There are no others. If the compassion and moral responsibility is lacking, then it points to a false god. "
OK. Is your god or gods, one (or many) of compassion? Where is he/they in all this tragedy, pain and sorrow we see all around us? Aren't you contradicting yourself? Wouldn't this mean that there is no god at all?


Ah...now we are getting somewhere.

There WAS a god but He/She has yet to come. But there is always The Light regardless. A God Realized Aristocracy is in its formative stages and there are no Ascended Masters at present; that will change in the not-too-distant future.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The "god" of the Old Testament was not The Original Creator. It was a large Group Entity of basically spiritual people or "angels" (at best) that combined their energies in order to manifest minor miracles.

The miracles found in Christianity are really no better than those found in the other traditional religions, like Hinduism for example. There is a swami in India that decades ago was referred to as "The Christ of India" because he could duplicate every miracles attributed to Jesus/Issa. I am referring to Sai Baba.

But he has abused his Gifts by being a sexual predator of young men and boys at his ashram for decades, among other atrocities committed. Consequently, the Group Entities he channeled have retrogressed from The Light and his Gifts of the Spirit have noticeably lessened with age.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Is that it? The Group Entities did nothing about Sai Baba for decades?


The Group Entities were part of the problem. They did not stop him, they helped him further his pedophile activities, as they were also on an evil path.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
And when they "punished" him, they merely "lessened" his gifts?


They destroyed themselves through retrogression away from The Light. By not being around to supply him with telekinetic and healing energies, his Gifts thereby lessened.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Is that what you want God to do to the people who molested kids in Christian Churches?


The Universal Law which governs The Light Of The God Force is unalterable. No one can supersede or overrule Universal Law -- not even The Original Creator.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Is that what you expect a god to do - being moral and showing compassion?


Absolutely - because a soul's evolution is measured by the ability to love genuinely and deeply; or to put it another way, by the ability to be compassionate.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
The question is, why? Why can't we live like angels, and be happy all our lives?

Indeed, that is exactly how we started out!

Although we once lived in Paradise where there was no suffering, we rebelled against God and were expelled. Now, thanks to Christ, we have a second chance for eternal happiness.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You really need to expect more of your deity.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
What more would you like me to expect?


A deity that is compassionate and moral towards its followers.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
What is better than eternal life in a place so wonderful we could not possibly start to imagine it?


That is open to interpretation.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You are espousing the false hierarchy that has been orchestrated by many Group Entities throughout the centuries. The "god" of the Old Testament and the "god" of the New Testament were Group Entities, not The Original Creator.

Which is why the spiritual and metaphysical foundation in the Bible is fragmented and incomplete. The source of the information did not come from what you would term, God, but from discarnate collectives in the Mid and Lower Realms of Spirit.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Forgive me. I am "new" to your "way of believing" and I'm trying my best to see your point of view.


You are forgiven.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
But you make all these statements about spirits on different levels. What is it based on?


Many years of experience, research, and spiritual communication.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
It seems that you have a very spiritual view on God/god(s). Is there more to this believe than teachings from people? More to it than "logic" as everyone's logic works differently? It sounds very philisophical... Please explain your "proof" in plain words. (Keep in mind that I'm trying to understand your religion in a couple of minutes, while it takes years to "master" a religion - if it can in fact be achieved>)


Explaining it logically is an important approach because it provides structure in comprehension.

Proof can and is achieved simply through experience. If you strive to live by The Golden Rule, serve others, and Radiate Love and Compassion daily (which we explain in detail), then you will know beyond a shadow of doubt that your ability to Ascend into The Light after bodily death is much greater through our approach than through any traditional method.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Sometimes it is good to be a rebel. It all depends on why.

As far as sex outside of marriage is concerned: the only time you should have sex at all is with love and with the focus of responsibility. If you have sex with love, in the eyes of The Light Of The God Force, you are already married, no matter what the governmental rules and the laws dictate.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
From what I gather you believe people should be celibate, is that right?


Celibacy is good at the beginning of starting a spiritual path because it teaches a certain degree of discipline. But the goal is to be able to have sexual relations only with purified love, not sexual abstinence.

You see, most people cannot even love one person genuinely and deeply without succumbing to lust and manipulation, much less more than one.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Why is sex such a bad thing?


Sex in itself is not bad, but only if the focus is one of love and responsibility. To have recreational, lusty sex is to embrace the sexual relations of animals, which is spiritually counterproductive.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes, I agree love should be the main reason for it... But why make it bad and dirty? Animals have sex all the time with other animals they've never met in their lives. Because we are "civilized" sex is now bad and a sin?


If we want to truly spiritually progress in order to eventually evolve into becoming Co-Creators, we have to greatly purify our sexual energies.

Purity and Humility are the cornerstones of spiritual stability.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Does it stop us from being truly spiritual?


Yes, lust and manipulation causes retrogression.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes, sex and lust is the downfall of many, many people - like those discussed above, but should all people - married or not be kept from sex because it's "bad?


Only lusty relations.


Originally posted by Gemwolf

And when is love strong enough to justify sex - inside or outside of marriage? Will a simple crush do? Or does it have to be "true" love in the sense of "I'm willing to die for you"? How does a person in a certain situation decide what is lust and what is love?
(I know I'm wandering from the topic - but for a change I get to question your views on the religion, etc. topic! )


There are degrees of love to be sure. With practice, one learns through experience how much love one has to have in order to have a spiritual relationship with someone, which includes sex.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
One can accurate state that I have had many children. I agree that there should be rules for them in order to guide them properly.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Hmm.. Technical. Explain?


I have been helping people of all ages for a long time.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
Still on the point of children... How do you punish them? Every person has his/her own way of punishing, right? Do you hit kids before they do something wrong? Or do you only punish a kid after he did something wrong?


Only afterwards.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
You can warn him - "Don't do that" - but it's still up to him to do it or not. And he knows that he will get punished (if caught?) for doing it. No apply this reasoning to Christianity and free will.


There has to be some legal forms of punishment or we would be living in a barbaric society. Some say we are anyway.


Originally posted by Paul_RichardMany of the ideas in the Bible, as I alluded to earlier, are distorted. Yes, a spiritual life leads to eternal life, but not exactly the way that it is explained in traditional scripture.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Then in what way?


In the manner I've been explaining in my posts.


Originally posted by Gemwolf

The Bible - or any book - are open to personal interpretation. Let's do this:
"The cat is black and plays with a piece of string." What did you read? Am I talking of a real cat or a statue or a toy? What shade of black is it? What kind of cat is it? Now translate this in 200 different languages and versions of it in English.
The result: All the different Christian believes and sub-churches...
Yes, the Bible as we read it may not be pure-bred. That does not take the crux/essence away.


But it is more than that. Passages and entire chapters have been omitted by emperors and church leaders in order to control the incarnate masses.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I think you did a wonderful job with what you know.



Originally posted by Gemwolf
Thanks again. Now we're getting somewhere, right? I do enjoy this much more than our original manner of "debating". I still haven't forgiven you for calling me a troll!




Yes, it's been a good debate.

I am once again open to agree to disagree.

We could even call it a draw if you like.

Maybe I should have just suggested that you visit TheSocietyOfLight.com in the first place.




[edit on 4-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Yes, it's been a good debate.

I am once again open to agree to disagree.

We could even call it a draw if you like.

Maybe I should have just suggested that you visit TheSocietyOfLight.com in the first place.





Again, I started a long reply, but halfway through it came to the conclusion that we are starting to run in circles. I think we both said what we wanted to say? We knew it was going to be like this. Neither of us are going to budge in our views no matter how good a point the other person made. (And looking at "our history" I think we're both the sort of person who wants the last say... LoL!)

I wil thus "ignore" your last post. (Don't worry, it wasn't in vain! I read everything, and once again you made some good and valid points, and also some not so valid ones...)

This will thus be my closing statement... (Depending on what you reply... LoL...
)

You say that Jesus was/is a false god, reasoning that He allows pedophiles to "run the church" and rape kids. You also further this point of view by saying that the life of Jesus did not happen as Christians believe it to have happened. You say Jesus was a mere prophet with Gifts He received from the Group Entities. (Forgive me if I'm using the wrong terms when referring to what you believe in!) And I say bollocks to all of that. I gave some support as to why I don't agree with your statements, and you didn't feel them convincing enough - standing by your point(s), as I stood by my point(s) that you don't have enough reason to make those statements. (Does that correctly sum the debate up?)

You have through your whole life had some experiences, saw/heard evidence and made some decisions to make you believe what you believe. And you believe all of it beyond reasonable doubt. The same goes for me. I also had some experiences, saw/read and heard evidence and made some choices to believe in my God and religion. Hopefully I gave enough evidence to prove that I'm not another "Christian sheep". I didn't quote any scriptures with good reason.
Hopefully you'll realize that I questioned the Christian believe system throughout my life, and got enough satisfying answers and made my own conclusions to believe it to be The Truth beyond reasonable doubt.

So, let's take a walk down memory lane...


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Bummer that his protection and guidance doesn't extend to the thousands of innocent children around the world who have been sexually assaulted -- and in some cases, raped -- by pedophile Christian priests, ministers, and nuns who preach in his name no less.

Okay...so maybe he is just practicing some kind of divine detachment in this case, if there even is such a thing. But that still makes him a pedophile enabler in his own churches.

Not a god at all in my estimation as well as that of many others.

Compassion dictates evolution, not Group Entity propaganda from the Mid and Lower Realms of Spirit

Now, this was your original statement that got some reaction from my side. This is almost a week ago, and for some reason I feel like this is not the actual statement I reacted on. I'm not "accusing" you of deliberately editing the post, I might just as well be wrong about what I remember.

Point is I asked to for some respect towards the Christian religion.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
If someone is going to proclaim that Jesus is omnipotent and the only path to God then he or she better well provide us with ample evidence supportive of that belief as well as a clear explanation -- not a scriptural or theological dodge -- as to why Jesus is "compassion challenged" among his so-called "Body of Christ."

I find that Christians (and the Group Entities that they channel -- which empower the Jesus icon) avoid addressing this issue like a plague because they cannot come up with a decent rebuttal.

I completely understand if you don't have a good argument to offer to counter the idea that Jesus is a false god and that you wish to not make the attempt. I know that this issue is very frustrating to Christians and I don't find it surprising that you dodge the question.

Hopefully I've proven that I (and other Christians?) am not afraid of addressing the "feared" issue. The only reason I "dodged" the question is because I don't want to go into religious debates. I know they're futile. As we see here I have not convinced you, nor have you convinced me about who's right and who's wrong (and this is the frustrating part).
I offered many, many arguments as to why Jesus is not a false god. You stepped into the ring with the conviction (signed and delivered) ready, without objectively looking at the evidence. I did exactly the same. You delivered some outstanding arguments and well thought out ideas, but nothing you would/could have said could have changed my mind, and vice versa.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Of course it's your last post on this issue!

Who me? Just give up like that? LoL!!! I nearly pressed the "Ignore this User" next to your name. But it was a matter of honor, and I had to "teach" you that you can't walk over Christians and bully them to go sit in the corner. Wonder if achieved at least that...



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You have no cogent counterargument to offer us.

Come again?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You should apologize -- for being a troll.

You will forever be remembered as the guy who had the audacity to call me a troll...
Burn baby, burn!


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I have no respect for false gods and those who promote them without reason or a moral base.

Fair enough. You might not have respect for false gods, which includes Jesus. But you should at least have respect for people who believe in Him and stand by their religion. You know very well that calling Jesus a false god would be an awful thing to do in the eyes of a Christian. Blasphemy? There's no need for you to respect my God. But it's disrespectful towards me and my believes to call Him that. You understand?

Isn't what you did against "The Golden Rule"? You don't want people being disrespectful towards your believes? You don't want them calling it a New Age cult - you'll be offended and you know that they'll be wrong?
And a big focus of your believes is love (and compassion)... Shouldn't you talk to other people "with love" in order to convince them that their god is false? If you hatefully attack their "false god" then they'll hate you and won't think much of your religion? As much as the actions of pedophile priests reflects on Christianity, just as much does your actions reflect on your believes. Not true?

Well... I rest my case, Your Honor...



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
wow, im impressed at how constructive this topic has become, just when i thought it could've gotten dirty. good work guys!



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Isn't what you did against "The Golden Rule"? You don't want people being disrespectful towards your believes? You don't want them calling it a New Age cult - you'll be offended and you know that they'll be wrong?


Actually, Solists have been called a cult before. (Technically though, we are not New Age, as we don't adhere to moral relativism or the false hierarchies of the so-called "ascended masters" that New Ager's espouse.) But there is a huge difference between a benign cult and a malevolent cult. In its early days, Christianity was a benign cult, e.g., Jesus/Issa, Mary Magdalene, James, Peter and Paul didn't sexually abuse children. There are many benign cults in existence today and these provide us with a colorful tapestry of cultures and beliefs.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
And a big focus of your believes is love (and compassion)... Shouldn't you talk to other people "with love" in order to convince them that their god is false? If you hatefully attack their "false god" then they'll hate you and won't think much of your religion? As much as the actions of pedophile priests reflects on Christianity, just as much does your actions reflect on your believes. Not true?


Suppose you were a priest in the Temple of Artemis back in ancient Rome, and you allowed Roman soldiers to use the Temple grounds to gang rape newly acquired slaves from imperial conquests, and then you proclaimed that your god was the only way to salvation. This is morally tantamount to the situation of many among the Christian clergy sexually abusing innocent children around the world and then Christians proclaiming Jesus to be the only way to God.

Both are equally disgusting.

So what you see as disrespect, I and others view as a greatly needed service to The Light.

If you grant mercy to those who are cruel (in the Spirit and in the flesh), then you wind up being cruel to those who deserve mercy.



[edit on 5-10-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
LoL. You can't help it, can you? Neither can I.

I said enough in my previous post, and I feel it a satisfying conclusion.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
So what you see as disrespect, I and others view as a greatly needed service to The Light.

In light of this, I'd just like to ask, what you achieved by saying what you did? Did you convince any Christians who might have read it that their god is in fact a false god? Did you achieve anything?

If you refuse to respect my God, then I may refuse to respect you and/or Solists for that matter. But I will not. I respect your views. In my opinion your views are wrong and illogical - but that does not mean that I am or ever will be disrespectful towards you or your believes.

Again, may I remind you. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And maybe think about judging others. Experience doesn't necessarily give you the right to judge, point fingers, "make rules" or the right be right (If that made any sense! LoL). And maybe you shouldn't judge the whole kingdom because of the mistakes of those who live in the palace.

Will I ever be able to shut up?! LoL!

@Everyone
Oh, yeah, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who posted in the thread (although most of the posts were "against"). Many made very good points, but I did not respond because this was between Paul_Richard and me. Maybe somewhere in the (distant!) future I'll try another religious debate...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join