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.

 

Why would a divine creator make a city with only one road to the center?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
why is anyone under the impression that there is only one path to god? it seems like a bit of arrogance to think that your way is the divinly ordained way to get to your version of the positive afterlife.

from what i understand of the judeochristian god, it is a very powerful, wise, and all knowing being. someone so wise would realize that there is always one way to every goal, oh wait, that being would have created the universe in which this is true. so if there is more than one way to get achieve everything else, why is there only one path to god?




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Why would a divine creator make a city with only one road to the center?


That's the beauty of it. Once you get to the end of the path you have chosen, you see all other roads leading from the center.

Spin a globe.

Throw a dart.

Start walking in any straight line, eventually you get back to the where the dart landed.

However, start walking due north, south, east or west and you will only have to circle the Earth but once.

Since the globe is not a perfect sphere, eventually you get back to where you started, and then you take the accumilated experiences of the journey, and apply the lessons learned to evaluate yourself, and then an awakening occurs.

all we can really do is help eachother on our paths, when our paths are close enough to eachother that we can recognize where our brothers/sisters/and gender unspecific family members may be.

Nice post, and a great way of putting it.

Thanks for the sharing


But, why is there only one path to God?

Because fear and all percieved negativity brought into the city, and you won't even recognize the city.

How can the first original truth FEAR the first original truth?

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Why would a nation make laws against murder? Isn't morality relative? Why would a nation be so inconsiderate to psychopaths?

Most importantly, why would a nation be so intollerant of people as to say that if you broke their laws you would be punished? Why do they say ignorance of the law is no protection from the law? Why do nations enforce laws that some people disagree with? How dare they?

Why should God have to cater to us? Shouldn't we be the ones catering to God?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and when in physics did they state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless you don't want the reaction to be opposite, in which case it will have a different reaction/path of trajectory.

[edit on 1/2/06/02 by junglejake]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Why would a nation make laws against murder? Isn't morality relative? Why would a nation be so inconsiderate to psychopaths?

Most importantly, why would a nation be so intollerant of people as to say that if you broke their laws you would be punished? Why do they say ignorance of the law is no protection from the law? Why do nations enforce laws that some people disagree with? How dare they?

Why should God have to cater to us? Shouldn't we be the ones catering to God?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and when in physics did they state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless you don't want the reaction to be opposite, in which case it will have a different reaction/path of trajectory.

[edit on 1/2/06/02 by junglejake]


so instead of citing any evidence to refute my claim, you just babble off a bunch on unrelated stuff about laws. this is spirituality, not physics. why would there be so many paths to what seems to be the same end, if only one was correct? why would these different paths involve almost the same morality? why would they only diverge in slight dogmatic and doctrinal ways?

why would such a divine being, force us to follow a tightrope that goes over a chasm of fire and brimstone isn't even clearly labeled, when there are 5 lane bridges leading right to the divine?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
You're talking about the creator of the universe, the dude who invented physics, where there is one and only one possible reaction...Except on the quantum scale, in which there are two...Still in line with Christianity (you can choose to reject or accept, but there is only one way).

As to citing evidence, I did, you just didn't see it. My point was that governments operate in this manner, and generally we accept it. It makes sense. I come to your country, I have to follow your laws. Well, in this world, we are in God's land, and we have to follow His laws. If we don't want to, tough. If we think they're unfair, tough. Nations don't cater to someones decision that they're wrong, why do you expect God to?

As to the multiple paths having about the same morality, people have been trying to understand God for a long time. However, our pride gets in our way. God is apparent in the very air we breath, but we try to interject our pride into our understanding. We try to make God fit us, instead of us fitting God. As a result, religions are formed that don't represent the true God, but instead a God blended with human pride. So ask yourself, the religion you practice, atheism, did it make you, or did you make it? If you made it, and it conforms to who you are exactly, are you sure it's not yourself you're worshipping?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You're talking about the creator of the universe, the dude who invented physics, where there is one and only one possible reaction...Except on the quantum scale, in which there are two...Still in line with Christianity (you can choose to reject or accept, but there is only one way).

As to citing evidence, I did, you just didn't see it. My point was that governments operate in this manner, and generally we accept it. It makes sense. I come to your country, I have to follow your laws. Well, in this world, we are in God's land, and we have to follow His laws. If we don't want to, tough. If we think they're unfair, tough. Nations don't cater to someones decision that they're wrong, why do you expect God to?

As to the multiple paths having about the same morality, people have been trying to understand God for a long time. However, our pride gets in our way. God is apparent in the very air we breath, but we try to interject our pride into our understanding. We try to make God fit us, instead of us fitting God. As a result, religions are formed that don't represent the true God, but instead a God blended with human pride. So ask yourself, the religion you practice, atheism, did it make you, or did you make it? If you made it, and it conforms to who you are exactly, are you sure it's not yourself you're worshipping?


as i've told you many times before, im not an atheist, i'm a buddhist. secondly, is jesus not the ultimate example of god blended with human pride? the only way to salvation is through this mangod/godman/whatever he was exactly, and not through the same religion that this man followed. the only problem jesus had with judaic tradition was the adherence to kosher laws and strict interpretation of the rules. jesus never once utters anything about starting a new religion, but humans decided to anyway. the word of jesus was similar to martin luther. jesus wanted to reform judaism, luther wanted to reform catholicism. when the followers of both noticed they couldn't, they started anew.

bottom line, anyone claiming that the only way to god is jesus, hasn't looked into the bounty of spiritual beliefs in the world to see just how similar they are.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Who had it rougher?

Jesus or Buddah?

Jesus was born a deity, hard for Mary and Joseph to discipline. Jesus was born devoid of inpurity.

Buddah had to find enlightenment, yet their words parrallel eachother.

Which was more important, the messenger or the message?

Jesus is God manifested in man.

God is the word.

Hence, Jesus was the message manifested in man.

Buddah had to find his way there, where as Jesus was there prior to birth.

Fundamental differences? Pehaps. Their messages? Not so dissimiliar, i think.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
...Where did Jesus have a problem with keeping Kosher? As to the strict interpretation, He didn't have a problem with that, either. He had a problem with it being skewed into a classist interpretation. Hence the money lenders in the temple. Where did you tell me you were a Buddhist before today? If you are, why is it you hate Christians so much? (A fine dodge of my points, by the way. Y'all, yet again, changed the subject
Ask me where you've done that in the past, and I will give you many, many links
)

ET, that's my point. Many have come close to understanding what God wants from us. Buddha's teachings are definitely closer than any other I've looked into. Yet, you still have to follow them flawlessly to get in sync with God. Christ provided a different, better alternative. Follow the rules, but if you screw up, there is forgiveness through Him.

How many times have you known what was the right thing to do, what you should do, but you didn't do it? It's the human condition, our fallen nature. Buddha taught us to do what is right, yet still, knowing that, we do not always do this. Because of that, we are not in sync with God, and He is perfect. As such, He can't abide imperfection to hang with Him. Christ offers us that perfection, Buddha did not.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
...Where did Jesus have a problem with keeping Kosher? As to the strict interpretation, He didn't have a problem with that, either. He had a problem with it being skewed into a classist interpretation. Hence the money lenders in the temple. Where did you tell me you were a Buddhist before today? If you are, why is it you hate Christians so much? (A fine dodge of my points, by the way. Y'all, yet again, changed the subject
Ask me where you've done that in the past, and I will give you many, many links
)

ET, that's my point. Many have come close to understanding what God wants from us. Buddha's teachings are definitely closer than any other I've looked into. Yet, you still have to follow them flawlessly to get in sync with God. Christ provided a different, better alternative. Follow the rules, but if you screw up, there is forgiveness through Him.

How many times have you known what was the right thing to do, what you should do, but you didn't do it? It's the human condition, our fallen nature. Buddha taught us to do what is right, yet still, knowing that, we do not always do this. Because of that, we are not in sync with God, and He is perfect. As such, He can't abide imperfection to hang with Him. Christ offers us that perfection, Buddha did not.


buddha offers you a way to deny thy self. and i'm not sure exactly where, along our many varied conversations, i've mentioned it, but i'm sure i have. it might take me a day or 2 to find it, but its there.

as to jesus keeping kosher/ following strict interpretation.
i don't have much time, so this won't go with specific citation, but i'll probably edit it in.

1: Jesus is called out for performing a miracle on the sabbath, thus working.
2: Jesus and the apostles get scolded for picking a couple of wild grains to munch on during the sabbath.
3: Jesus is asked by a rabbi why he and his followers don't follow kosher, and he replies with something akin to, why would god care what we eat?

i have more, but i'll have to root around through old theology notes, and then translate my own handwriting.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
3: Jesus is asked by a rabbi why he and his followers don't follow kosher, and he replies with something akin to, why would god care what we eat?


I, too, have to get to bed, but I do want to address this one. Jesus was never called out for not eating Kosher, He was called out for drinking wine, to which He replied essensiall they condemn John the Baptist for fasting, yet condemn Jesus for not. Luke 7:33-34



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Good points junglejake. Food for thought, and I must admit i know far more about Jesus than i do about Buddah, but thier messages do appear to parrallel eachother, in the context of how they observed and percieved thier respective environments and cultures. I had knowledge of Christ and was raised a Christian, however I dove into myself with the faith i would not be alone, alot like Buddah had, and when I found the answers i sought and the truth of my experiences buried deep within, everything i had learned from Jesus's teachings took on a new and profound meaning. So, i sort of took two paths at the same time, holding many things to be true and finding how they could all fit together, neatly, perfectly, sublime. I'm tired too, and unfortunately i think that is the best way i can convey my personal experiences at this late hour.

Till later,
Good night guys.

Communication.
Dialogue.

Just sharing our experiences and how we interpretted them.

Peace guys, and Happy New Year.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
jesus never once utters anything about starting a new religion,


Luke 24:46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The veil was removed from the OT, and now the story was complete. Jesus did tell them and us, the way(Himself), that gets us on the right path back to God.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
jesus never once utters anything about starting a new religion,


Luke 24:46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The veil was removed from the OT, and now the story was complete. Jesus did tell them and us, the way(Himself), that gets us on the right path back to God.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by dbrandt]


which of these passages says to start a new religion?
what exactly is "the gospel"?
what translation of the bible are you quoting? if i'm not mistaken it seems like king james.

before i respond, i'd like to get these answers.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

what exactly is "the gospel"?




In the beginning was the word, and the word was GOD


God is the word, perhaps?

What exactly is the gospel?

Go spell, perhaps?

Phoenetics, spelling .. .. .. ?

communion?

communication?

language

phoenetics . . . .

langwej then, not language

langwej ?

lan g wej

hmmm . .. .. .

backwards .. . .. ?

lan g wej

jew g nal

just some rammbling babble, perhaps. Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


which of these passages says to start a new religion?
what exactly is "the gospel"?
what translation of the bible are you quoting? if i'm not mistaken it seems like king james.

before i respond, i'd like to get these answers.


My point was that Jesus did say that there is a specific way to God, the sacrifice system with animals was fulfilled in Him. So His fulfillment of this was the new way to God, clearly understood now.

The Gospel means "Good News" which is indivduals can be restored to a relationship with God through Christ and sins are atoned though Jesus.

It's the King James.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
yeah, i guess the old fancy words are always a dead give away. how about evidence from a version of the bible that hasn't gone through 3 seperate mistranslations, and is more true to the greek manuscripts?


how about you show me where jesus says to start a religion in the greek manuscripts, the most accurate forms of the gospels. they don't have all that stuff that was inserted by scribes, and the few mistranslations they have from spoken aramaic are largely irrelevant (ie, we get the name jesus because the greeks lacked a y sound, so they translated yeshua (the true name of the christian messiah) incorrectly)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, i guess the old fancy words are always a dead give away. how about evidence from a version of the bible that hasn't gone through 3 seperate mistranslations, and is more true to the greek manuscripts?




There's the other excuse. The Bible was mistranslated because I read it somewhere or someone else told me it was.

How about reading how we got our Bible from some sources who areen't biased against it.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
well i learned it from a catholic priest teaching in the seminary, so i'm pretty sure he's not against the bible.

i've also met with various christian theologians that concede that the best source for biblical evidence is the original greek texts, because they remain the least tainted by human error.

so my sources aren't anti christian, they're anti-mistranslation. also, whenever you go from one language to another with such an enourmous text some things will be lost in translation.

heck, i even provided evidence that the name of jesus was originally YESHUA, yet they managed to mistranslate that.

so my challenge stands, provide me with evidence citing the greek texts.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well i learned it from a catholic priest teaching in the seminary, so i'm pretty sure he's not against the bible.

i've also met with various christian theologians that concede that the best source for biblical evidence is the original greek texts, because they remain the least tainted by human error.

so my sources aren't anti christian,


No, it's possible to say you are a christian and not have faith that is true.

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

2 Corinthians 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


Why not make only one way to God?





[edit on 4-1-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well i learned it from a catholic priest teaching in the seminary, so i'm pretty sure he's not against the bible.

i've also met with various christian theologians that concede that the best source for biblical evidence is the original greek texts, because they remain the least tainted by human error.

so my sources aren't anti christian,


No, it's possible to say you are a christian and not have faith that is true.

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

2 Corinthians 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


Why not make only one way to God?





[edit on 4-1-2006 by dbrandt]


so you're saying that going back from a linguistic perspective to find that the bible has been mistranslated several times and also that several passages were inserted between translations is some form of hypocricy?

do you believe that jesus spoke english?
do you believe that the manuscripts of the gospels are in english?
do you believe that linguistics is some form of witchcraft?

i honestly can't follow your train of thought.

and in response to the one path question, why would such a loving being damn people for leading a good life without following specific dogmas and doctrines?

would a being rational enough to create the laws of physics and all the other complicated things in the universe make salvation so irrational?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join