It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus Never Existed. End of story.

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's why i said pretty good, i do have some problems with his preaching of thought crime, the whole "it's a sin to even think of sin" message. that isn't fun.


Don't the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni also reflect the need to have "Right Mindfulness" in order to self-realize?




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
right mindedness is essentially denying ignorance


it basically means to not let your emotions or ignorance gain to much control over your thoughts.

it never outlines what you can or can't specifically think about.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
right mindedness is essentially denying ignorance


it basically means to not let your emotions or ignorance gain to much control over your thoughts.

it never outlines what you can or can't specifically think about.



Or it might be just that after when one has letten his emotions overcome him, and making them go through him, that he has gone up in all, and overcome them. As thus remaining very stable. And knowing what happens. What kind of emotion is felt, and how to restable it again. As the emotional body has influence on the physical, when the emotional body is stabalized, the physical will react as well too, much more grounded, into that which you are. Very centered.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Since discussing Right Mindfulness in detail would cause this treat to sidetrack (I'm sorry if It's already done that), I'll simply post a quote by Buddha Shakyamuni about the matter:

"What is right mindfulness? Here a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating feelings as feelings, ardent ... He abides contemplating Consciousness as consciousness, ardent ... He abides contemplating mental objects as mental objects, ardent, fully aware and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. This is called right mindfulness." - The Buddha Shakyamuni, Sathipatthana Sutra

And since we're discussing Christianity:

More than all that you guard, guard your Mind, for it is the source of life. - Proverbs 4:23

Related Links:
Right Mindfulness

Now back to whether Jesus ever existed....

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

[edit on 15/1/2006 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
i think this discussion we're having is great, but maybe it's better for another thread...

last time i checked this thread was called "Jesus Never Existed. End of story."



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
hey eudaimonia, you are just the person i want to talk to. I am kind of in between religions right now and was looking for some guidance. I have always had catholisism crammed down my throat since the day i could comprehend words. But, recently i have been doing some doubts about my faith. from the sound of your post i am going to guess your atheist so i was wondering if you could tell me some of the things that mainly made you turn atheist. I would like to know a lot of the facts before i make my decision on exaclty what i beleive because right now i really dont know. I am inclined to beleive in jesus only because as a christian i fear hell. Which causes me to doubt more because it makes my religion seem more malicious, forcing its beleivers to stay beleivers by instilling fear in them. Anyway, i was hoping maybe you could shed some light on the issue.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by daedalas
I have always had catholisism crammed down my throat since the day i could comprehend words.


...former Catholic here as well.


Originally posted by daedalas
from the sound of your post i am going to guess your atheist so i was wondering if you could tell me some of the things that mainly made you turn atheist.


I know this was directed at eudora, but I'm jumping in anyway - ignore me if you like. What did it for me was the realization that not only is "god", as some external objective reality, not an answer to any questions, but it is not a necessary conclusion either. "God" is both unnecessary and an invalid conclusion.


Originally posted by daedalas
I am inclined to beleive in jesus only because as a christian i fear hell. Which causes me to doubt more because it makes my religion seem more malicious, forcing its beleivers to stay beleivers by instilling fear in them.


Richard Dawkins calls this a meme - a mental virus. The purpose of religions that have such built in traps are to spread themselves. They adapt to new threats in the same way real viruses do - those that have a mechanism to survive the threat become predominant. Catholicism uses the lure of eternal life (nevermind that there's no way to verify they're telling you the truth), combined with the threat of eternal torture (no proof again). It provides additional enticements such as making the believer feel special - after all, he's saved but not everyone else is.

It instills a sense of divine justice that all the random bad crap that happens here will someday be made right. It provides a father figure who is always loving. There are other dissincentives to leave as well, such as social pressure, rediculous stories you've been taught about how atheists are unscrupulous, eat babies and engage in every manner of debauchery (well, maybe that last part...).

Christianity is particularly insidious because it also manages to instill a sense of dependency on the very organization that spreads it - the church itself. Oh, Jesus fulfilled the law, yet sermons on tithing come up on a regular basis, and the 10 commandments are venerated as any other idol might be. Love your neighbor unless he's gay (or a minority in the recent past). Slavery is wrong unless of course it's right not long ago in the past. Women are equal except when they're not. The hypocrisy is mind numbing and there's no way to separate it out because it's institutionalized in the Bible itself.

Don't you suppose that if there is a creator of some kind, it's mature enough not to care what it's creation believes about its existence? Don't you suppose it's not some insecure tyrant requiring constant worship?

If you feel compelled to shack up in a rebound relationship with some new imaginary friend, you might at least consider mysticism. It satisfies the god urge without turning god into some external farcical madman living on the other side of Alice's mirror. Or, you might try moving out on your own for a while.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
why Jesus...why god...why we always discriminate christians..
remember mostly teaching in the bible change the way of thinking of many people, some of them from ruined life then they turn to god. they change when they read and deeply understand. almost most of them do good things after that. One must deeply understand what really what does it say...

i feel sad and lonely when someone is just destroying a strong and ifluencial religion like Christianism. I guess someday..all of us.. will gonna understand what really life is. someday we gonna kill our selfish pride. and learn to accept and understand what really the truth is... and the truth is
we should learn not because through our senses. but we should learn by what our hearts say.
And also to people who oppose god, this is a fact if you want..why Philippines is still surviving even the fact we are struggling because of poverty, corruption, etc. , Simply because we are one despite the fact it happens. With God and our family we are united with full treasures of hope, faith and happiness.... THat's it......(whew)



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Thanks a lot spamandham, you told me everything i wanted to here. I was hoping i would someone like you and not just get a lecure from another christian about how im doing the wrong thing.

I think i will be an atheist. I was heading down that road anyway. For a while here i was only an agnostic, I really doubted my religion but wanted to keep the question of his existence open(the whole fear of hell thing).

But after reading your post i feel that i can move on without too much worry. I just needed something (or someone) to tell me it was ok to let go of all the years of teaching and church and all that.
I do appreciate religion on the level that it makes some people good people that wouldn,t normally. But, I just dont undderstand how all other religions could be wrong and christianity was right just because it was the one i was born into.

If I was born into a muslim religion, would I then be doomed to hell because i was born under the "wrong" religion. These and other inconsistencies in my religion have caused me to doubt it.

Thanks againg spamandham, for opening my eyes.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
daedalas, and all other current agnostics, atheism isn't actual denial of the possiblity of god. it's merely the faith that there is no god.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I know what atheism is, I was saying that I WAS agnostic and kept the question of god open. But, that I have NOW decided to become atheist. just to clear that up.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
daedalas, and all other current agnostics, atheism isn't actual denial of the possiblity of god. it's merely the faith that there is no god.


Trivial definitions of gods (idols for example) may be real, but not what most people think of when they say "god" and don't really have a place in the discussion of atheism.

Vague definitions of god are rationally rejected as inspecific (i.e. meaningless).

Nontrivial nonvague definitions of god tend to be inconsistent, making them impossible. No faith is required to reject that which is inconsistent.

For the few remaining definitions of god, they are (almost?) universally untestable. That which is untestable is reasonabley rejected as well, as the premise itself is founded only on special pleading. No faith is required to reject a case built on special pleading.

So, unless you are talking about a nontrivial nonvague consistent and testable definition of god, no faith is required to reject it. Are you aware of any such definitions? I'm not.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
daedalas, and all other current agnostics, atheism isn't actual denial of the possiblity of god. it's merely the faith that there is no god.


(Logic chopping snipped)

So, unless you are talking about a nontrivial nonvague consistent and testable definition of god, no faith is required to reject it. Are you aware of any such definitions? I'm not.


All of this tends to boil down to the basic principle of many atheists; that their own position should be above discussion, and adopted as a default if they can pick holes in that of others.

In reality all these atheists tend to live their lives by adopting and conforming to some subset of the period values and ideas of the time in which they live. This is of course quite irrational, which is why they would rather not discuss it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
All of this tends to boil down to the basic principle of many atheists; that their own position should be above discussion, and adopted as a default if they can pick holes in that of others.

It seems that what you said could apply to most people religious or not. No one likes to think that they're beliefs are wrong. So it doesn't just apply to atheists.


In reality all these atheists tend to live their lives by adopting and conforming to some subset of the period values and ideas of the time in which they live. This is of course quite irrational, which is why they would rather not discuss it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Same again its not just athiests who live this way. Are you saying Christianity and the like dont evolve with the times? Whats irrational is believing in the unbelievable and abandoning logic for unconditional faith in a deity.


G



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
spam, you got me on a technicality.
it's not the denial of the possiblity of god, it's looking at the facts and saying that there is no evidence of god.

damn you...
::fist shake::



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by roger_pearse
All of this tends to boil down to the basic principle of many atheists; that their own position should be above discussion, and adopted as a default if they can pick holes in that of others.

It seems that what you said could apply to most people religious or not. No one likes to think that they're beliefs are wrong. So it doesn't just apply to atheists.


I wonder. Most Christians are more than willing to argue for the truth of what they believe in, which is what makes the use of the above by atheists possible.





In reality all these atheists tend to live their lives by adopting and conforming to some subset of the period values and ideas of the time in which they live. This is of course quite irrational, which is why they would rather not discuss it.

Same again its not just athiests who live this way.


This seems to make no sense. People who live by a pre-defined system of beliefs which has existed for centuries -- whatever that may be -- are not living by ad-hoc conformity to purely period values. But every atheist I have encountered *does* adopt period values.



Are you saying Christianity and the like dont evolve with the times?


Are you saying that believing any old thing provided it is fashionable is OK? If not, I fail to see the logic of this comment.



Whats irrational is believing in the unbelievable and abandoning logic for unconditional faith in a deity.


What is irrational is mouthing 19th century slogans of this kind, which in fact make no logical sense. Why not think for yourself?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

Well, I just came back from this website...very interesting...with one major problem. I only visited two pages and managed to discount both of them in about ten minutes. Go ahead and visit the page concerning Nazareth, then check out what is said of Nazareth at this website:


www.inisrael.com...

As to my argument about proving the existance of ANYBODY born before the year 1 BC, Jesusneverexisted.com offers an almost laughable argument concerning the existance of Ceasar. (Of course I DO believe Ceasar existed, but don't tell them that.) I admit Ceasar was the poorest example in my list. so let's see them prove the existance of...oh...Plato!


[edit on 26-1-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

Well, I just came back from this website...very interesting...with one major problem. I only visited two pages and managed to discount both of them in about ten minutes. Go ahead and visit the page concerning Nazareth, then check out what is said of Nazareth at this website:


www.inisrael.com...


It isn't that easy. We know there is a modern city of Nazareth, and we know there was an ancient settlement there, however, it was not a Jewish settlement.

From a Biblical standpoint, Nazareth was big enough to have a synagogue. It was also well known by everyone in the Bible stories, so the argument that it was unknown flies right in the face of the argument you are using that it was well known but considred insignificant. If it had a synagogue and was well known as depicted in the Bible (no-one ever asks "Jesus of what?"), it would have been included inn the listings of settlements. Further, there are no cliffs near the uncovered settlement from which a crowd could have threatened to throw Jesus.

So, the claim that it was too small to be known doesn't fly, and the Biblical Nazareth does not match the description of the uncovered settlement.

Besides, Josephus has a passage about Jesus, so the idea that he would know who Jesus was but never had heard of Nazareth (assuming it existed) is preposterous. Not only that, but Josephus lived in Japha for some time, which is only 1 mile from the uncovered "Nazareth" settlement. Josephus wrote a listing of 45 cities and villages in Galilee, but omits Nazareth. The only decent explanations I can think of are that either Nazareth did not exist, or it was not a Jewish settlement (and the story about the synagogue there is just a story in this case).

If I recall, jesusneverexisted covers these points and many more. It isn't enough to simply post a link to some site and laugh at jesusneverexisted.

You are not giving due diligence to the topic.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
From a Biblical standpoint, Nazareth was big enough to have a synagogue. It was also well known by everyone in the Bible stories, so the argument that it was unknown flies right in the face of the argument you are using that it was well known but considred insignificant. If it had a synagogue and was well known as depicted in the Bible (no-one ever asks "Jesus of what?"), it would have been included inn the listings of settlements. Further, there are no cliffs near the uncovered settlement from which a crowd could have threatened to throw Jesus.


Inisrael covers the point about the tossing of Jesus off a cliff, thusly:



Luke describes with great drama how Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth. After his sermon in the synagogue aroused their anger, the people took him "and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon" (Luke 4). Some have pointed out that this sentence in Luke is not correct, as Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. But the valley of Nazareth is on a mountain overlooking the Jezreel valley - and the mountain of the precipice overlooks the valley of Nazaret and the valley of Jezreel.


You probably also recall Jesusneverexisted states in letters this bold that Nazareth didn't even exist until the 2nd Century AD. Well, if inisrael is correct, and a settlement existed there as early as 900 BCE, that it wasn't initially a Jewish settlement is beside the point. That Jesus came from there IS the point. One site says it didn't exist. The other does. I'll go with the one that proves it did.

To be honest, I'm not trying to make as diligent an argument as jesusneverexisted obviously has done...just a better argument than adaimonia has done.

Okay, on a lighter note...on the page titled Did Ceasar Exist? did you think any two of those images were of the same guy? Be honest now...:shk:


By the way, that's an interesting quote by Ingersoll. He doesn't believe in ghosts or Gods...yet he believes in souls.





[edit on 27-1-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Another thing, on the page titled Did Ceasar Exist? do you honestly think any two of those images are the same guy?


The first two look like the same guy but with decades in between. I don't know what relevance that has. If the point is that we don't really know how much of Julius Caesar is legend and how much true, I would agree! "History is written by the victors" reasonably suggests that such histories are highly biased and can not simply be taken at face value.


Originally posted by Toelint
By the way, that's an interesting quote by Ingersoll. He doesn't believe in ghosts or Gods...yet he believes in souls.


...was his concept of "soul" the same as yours, or was he referring to something else?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join