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.

 

A Question For People of All Faiths.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rexpop
 


I noticed in your first paragraph, five times, you made the statement, “ I Don’t Believe ,” and once, you made the statement, “ I Don’t See.” Everything after that, which you stated in the following paragraphs, are coming out of that foundation of unbelief and incapability of seeing.

As for converting anyone, no, that is not my intention. No individual can change another individual’s heart condition (unbelief). I can’t make you believe nor can I open your eyes so you can see. Only God can give an individual faith to believe. Men look on the outside, but God weighs the heart and everything that comes out of it, whether good or, bad.

You made the statement, “I've said on another thread (and please feel free to disagree with me, because I am all too fallible) that I think one of the key characteristics of faith is the struggle, the dialectic with the Creator. Without that, how can our relationship with Him grow, how can we come to know him and unite with him more closely? “ I made a thread concerning this thought and you can read it here:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

As for ATS/BTS forums and seeking what truth is and all the varied and diverse topics that arise regarding what truth may be, yes, that is what this sight is bout, collective conversations regarding everything, and mine, is added to it, just as your is added to it, so that one can come along, read and find that truth which their heart agrees with. If that individual reads that Jesus is the only way and their heart leaps out and agrees with that, then they are convinced of that truth and are happy they fell upon it. If one comes along and says, ‘That is just bunk!” Then, their heart disagrees and they move along until they find what satisfies their heart. That is the way it is and, that is the way it will always be. Not everyone will arrive at the same truth, because not everyone’s heart is motivated in the same direction where truth is concerned.




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


conspiracy wise i see nowhere in the scriptures where the reward of the saved is to get to go to G-D's heaven.

3 heavens are to be found in the book-----------

1.earths atmosphere(zechariah 2:6/jeremiah 4:23)---winds and birds in it.

2.outer space with its stars (isaiah 13:10)

3.the region of G-D's throne(2 corinthians 12:2)in the north of outer space(isaiah 14:13)

it was/is the desire of the god of this world(2 corinthians 4:4) to steal the throne of G-D in the 3rd heaven (isaiah 14:12-14)



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


from what i get out of reading the scriptures--conspiracy wise-- revelation 20:14 is literal-----------at that point in time there will be no animals or humans left alive to die(revelation 21:4)we will become like the angels that never die(luke 20:35-38)if we try to live a righteous life=try to obey G-Ds laws of conduct(exodus 20)etc.=loving G-D above all and neighbors as self.

the second death means that all that have ever lived a human life die at its end at least 1 time. all that have ever lived are going to be resurrected to life again to live a second life(revelation 20:5)either as a spiritual being or as a human being but some of the latter will get to die a 2nd time if they so choose.
the 1st resurrection is to eternal life.
the second resurrection is to physical life with the option being given by G-D: to change and live forever or to die forever(revelation 20:14-15) when the earth is engulfed in a fireball that evaporates the oceans(revelation 21:1) apparently a little more than 1000 years from now.

when the pain and suffering of this life we now live has been ended G-D has a new plan in mind for us to participate in (revelation 21:5)----i can only assume to start with it will involve recreating/repairing the damage done to the planets wrecked by satans war against G-D



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 


We Baha'i's believe in what is called progressive revelation in that God has at various times sent messengers with two specfic teachings, the first are the universal teachings that are fundamentally the same in all religions, merely expounded upon and enlarged as it were for the understanding of the age.

In this all religions are essentially the same, merely different expressions of the same truth.

The second are teachings addressed to specific time and place that the messenger comes... for example the social teachings of Muhammad can not be understood outside the context of the tribal society of 7th century Arabia.

This and the fact that we humans elaborate upon with our own ideas and confuse these two teachings are the sources of difference and hostility between religions.

We believe that all religions are one as God is one... that the 19th century Persian founder of the Baha'i' faith, Baha'u'llah, has brought teachings to help humanity at this stage of his development to come to unity, the elimination of prejudice and racism, to unify mankind and to help bring about a world without political divisions based on co-operation and interdependence.

Baha'i's believe that hell is a metaphor for distance or seperation from God, an entity essentially unknowable and beyond discription, and heaven is nearness to God.

Baha'is BTW are taught that while Baha'ullah is the most recent teacher, he is by no means the last, that another will arise in about 1,000 years.


[edit on 18-3-2008 by grover]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
I noticed in your first paragraph, five times, you made the statement, “ I Don’t Believe ,” and once, you made the statement, “ I Don’t See.” Everything after that, which you stated in the following paragraphs, are coming out of that foundation of unbelief and incapability of seeing.


Ah, but, in my understanding, it your capacity to see that is obscured - you are unable to see the fact that the NT is lies, you don't believe that Jesus was just a man. If only, if only, you could see that my religion is the only truth blah blah blah

Don't you see how easily such an argument is turned around? You sit there and say that my belief is based on an inability to 'see' the truth that is so self-evident in your texts. But I can say exactly the same to you. There is no way to 'prove' it one way or the other, it is purely a question of faith. And there's nothing wrong in that, please let me be clear. But to claim that, without doubt, yours is the only truth is to be intellectually dishonest - every argument you make in support of your faith and against other's can be used verbatim in favour of a different faith and against yours.

And, please don't tell me that my beliefs are based on unbelief and inability to see the truth. It's insulting and an untenable argument to make.

PS - to the post about the various hells: Judaism doesn't actually have a single vision of life-after-death. For some Jews (a minority to be sure) there is eternal hell for a few very evil people, for others there's a temporary hell where those who are evil 'pay back' there sin debt so that they are then able to enter heave, for a large minority of Jews today there is re-incarnation until all souls are perfected, for others there is non-existence for sinners, and many more minority beliefs besides. One of the great things (to my mind) about Judaism is that whilst there is orthopraxy, there isn't much in the way of dogma when it comes to belief about the nature of the soul, or heaven and hell, and our Oral Law records many, many different opinions and theories, all of which are considered authoritative.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OptionToChoose
 


The book is written in a ton of metaphorical prophetic symbolism, based on earlier prophetic writings, so it’s not to be taken as literal. As to its linier writing, that has also been disputed and there are arguments which show that sections of it may be cyclic and that it jumps around in history. There are definite areas of it that deal with the end times, then it will go backwards and talk about something dealing with Rome, which has already happened.

Ok, please, give me something to look at besides a rebuttal . . .



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rexpop
And, please don't tell me that my beliefs are based on unbelief and inability to see the truth. It's insulting and an untenable argument to make.


You mentioned insulting . Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death, as well as all the other martyrs over the centuries and even today who are killed because of those who have felt insulted, insulted to the point of anger arising within the heart, just because what they heard pricked them deep in heart and kicked against their unbelief.

Like I have said, I never intended to insult anyone and, concerning all you have said in rebuttal to me, I have not felt insulted.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
Just another example of falsities and contradictions in the Bible.

"God is forgiving and loves all his children... buuut when we say 'forgiving' we actually mean merciless, and when we say 'all' we actually mean just those of God's children who have submitted themselves." ...

If there is such an Existence as God, would your personal guess be that He a) did or b) did not create hurricanes (such as Katrina)?

The same God is responsible for far more than blue skies and butterflies. The book of Isaiah has the Creator presenting the statement that He is the God who creates peace and calamity
.

Somebody forgot to cut that part out centuries ago, if it's not true.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
IF a god exists, and created all we have, it would have simply made the physics of the universe, and let its magic unfold.

Theres no reason for an omnipotent god to stand over every little thing and micromanage, when he can just let life blossom through making the rules of nature.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
IF a god exists, and created all we have, it would have simply made the physics of the universe, and let its magic unfold.

Theres no reason for an omnipotent god to stand over every little thing and micromanage, when he can just let life blossom through making the rules of nature.

And yet I find no particular reason for It not to. I am a canvas artist, and when I finally finish a piece to my initial satisfaction, even then I'll study it, mentally partake of it's messages and meanings, and even sometimes edit a "finished" piece if something just seems not right. Now, I dare assume that your statement likely follows your own personal line of thinking, which is great, yet neither that nor my own way of thinking can be the end-all to understanding the level(s) a Supreme Creator might involve Itself in it's own creation. Ancient Hermetics teach that the All (God) created, then immersed Itself into the creation as ultimate Authority. Is this true? Who has that answer? . .

There may be a lot to consider beyond just how we might handle things.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death

Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.


Like I have said, I never intended to insult anyone and, concerning all you have said in rebuttal to me, I have not felt insulted.


That's because I've remained inclusive, without telling you you're wrong to believe what you believe (until just now). You see, keep telling people they're blind and stupid and wrong, and it tends to annoy people. Not because it's kicking against my "unbelief" (I have plenty of belief, thanks) but because it's rude and close-minded. You're meant to be providing a reason why we should accept your faith as the true one, and you've failed to produce an argument or piece of evidence yet that hasn't been immediately refuted.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death
Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.


Well, theres a rather strong historical backing that Jesus existed. There is talk by roman politicians at the time (before Christianity was even a religion, and just a bunch of looneys walking around Judea) about a Jesus figure, even a comedian at the time had some writings joking about him.

The whole "doing miracles/virgin birth/resurrection" thing is up for debate, but historically, theres rather solid evidence for his existence as a human being.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I not quite sure what I believe in to be honest...

But I think Buddism is quite pure...

Not quite sure if i believe in heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, reincarnation, the sprit world, the astral plane... or sub-dimensions or time travel or ....

Not sure if God exists or not...

nor the devil...



[edit on 18-3-2008 by mr-lizard]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexpop

Originally posted by jdposey
Yes, maybe then you will understand what lead to Jesus' death

Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.


Well, that settles that! All you sad followers of the Christ and His teachings can gather your things, it's time to go home. It's over, Jesus was fictitious, and so certainly won't be coming back.

But before the room clears, could you repost your Proof, I seem to have misplaced the first one . . .




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Some very interesting ideas here, but i will try and stick with the original post/question.... First i think you may be interested in the christian universalist take on the whole doctrine of heaven and hell. I actually prefer this perspective compared to traditional hell-fire and brimstone Christianity. Basically it was st. Augustine who came up with the idea of eternal damnation via his "sublime" studies of scripture in the first place, and he was a professing gnostic just a short time before.

Now i do believe there is a kind of snuffing out, if you will, of a certain type of human-being that may be construed as damnation but i prefer the term dissolution. That is to say these certain people(nephilim/kenite/pre-adamic) will cease to exist, as their existence is only substantiated by the present state of mortal being in which mankind is currently incarnate. They are a necessary evil, so to speak, which God allows to exist in order to perfect his creation in the fullness of time(as we know it). They are the necessary darkness by which God contrasts the light of his will in order to create something out of nothing. 'creato' ex nihilo"... These people are only a shadow which is cast by the manifestation of the children of God within this world of illusions, the valley of the SHADOWS of death.

I digress...

As far as those who are in truth Christian, that is an elected state of being which represents the Christians spiritual betrothal to Christ. That betrothal is not the modus operandi by which their salvation or anyone else's salvation is procured but it is the fruit of their acceptance of it. Salvation is won by Christ's innocent sacrifice for all men.

What about those who have never heard of Christ, or those who have but were loyal to their upbringing? They are judged by their fruits.

What must a man do to get into heaven? What did Jesus say about it? "Love God and love thy neighbor as thy self".

Here is a link that deals exclusively with the Christian Universal interpretation of scripture. I haven't fully explored the site so i do not portend that all that is stated therein is agreeable with myself, however it may be a good place to start.

www.christian-universalism.com...

Also lookup Andrew Jukes for a good source on this.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Zoroaster]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Zoroaster]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Ha, don't worry, I do believe in the historical existence of a man around that time who fulfils the basic description of Jesus, I just wanted to show that it's perfectly possible to simply not believe in the scriptures, with no evidence that is satisfactory to everyone to convince otherwise. I also wanted to show how annoying it is when someone smugly states a piece of opinion as though it were fact. No one likes being told directly "You're wrong" when there really is no way to say that for sure, and every time one tries to discuss the issue is shot down with "Yeah, but, you're wrong, so that's all there is to it". I regret that post now, I lost my temper, and realised it was actually quite rude. The point I was trying to make still stands though.

My apologies to all concerned.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Personally I believe I am my Own GoD (Currently awaiting flaming!)... I am Spiritual not Religious although I was raised a Catholic , I believe religions decieve and divide man. Blind obedience to Religion is designed to control and manipulate. essentially it is "do this or you burn in hell" or It's "If you DON'T do this you burn in hell" in your heart of hears does that really feel right to you?... Do you think people of other religions are wrong and are condemned to hell?... I am Not Hindu but I enjoy and relate to some of their teachings and find some truth in them , Buddism is the same way with me , many of the teachings I FEEL to be true. Getting back to the "I am my own GoD" belief... I will refer to the Bible because I will probably recieve the most flack from christians , because from my experience they are the most "closeminded" or firmly set in their beliefs. In the Bible it says "God created man is his own image" If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, says "yes" to some, "no" to others and "maybe but not now" to the rest, I believe you are mistaken. If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, I think you are mistaken. God is the observer, not the creator. God created you in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest; through the power God has given you. God isn't vengeful in my opinion... (I've just re read my post and I have some clarifying to do) When I say I am my own God I don't mean that I created the heaven and earth, but I do create MY reality. I do decide what happens in my life and I believe that GOD "the man upstairs" is an observer... I am guided by my "feelings" and Inner voice , once you learn to find and trust that voice I believe you are on your way. I think that your emotions and things that feel good let you know you are on the right path (Love, compassion, acceptance , forgiveness) things that make you feel bad let you know you are on the wrong path. (Hate, anger, jealosy, envy, greed) In order to expand my consciousness and connection with "God" I meditate, do yoga, and tai chi. When things go well in my life I thank God for the guidence and keeping me on the right path. My advice is in order to Find God you must...

A: have an open mind

B: Educate yourself

C: Think Freely and Find Truth

Don't just blindly say "well this is what the (insert your religious text here) says so it must be right." Why must it be right? I am surpised by the amount of people that will say with confidance "THis way is the only way" yet these same people have never read any other religious text or even have a fundemental understanding of the belief system of others.

I believe I have taken up enough space here and I'm not even going to begin on my thoughs of the universe, our souls or preceptions of reality. I'll save that for another thread.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
WoW... I'm an official thread killer...lol =)



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OptionToChoose
 


Sure here are a few to start with:

If you had to ask what the most debated aspect of the book of Revelation is, many would probably point to its symbols and their meaning. However, the chronology of the events described in Revelation would have to be a close second if not a surprise upset. And of course, the two are related. The more you understand the one, the more you understand the other.

Perhaps the best way to introduce the chronological model asserted in this study is to first briefly talk about two basic existing theories regarding the chronology in the book of Revelation. Although rendered generically for the purpose of illustration, these two basic alternative models represent opposing sides of the spectrum.

The first basic model is what could be called a "simple" or "singular chronology." This "simple chronology" model very straightforwardly suggests that the events described in the book of Revelation take place in the order in which they appear in the book. Under this model, from start to finish, events written first occur before events written later all the way through to the end of the book.

The strength of this model is its simplicity. The greatest weakness, however, is the fact that the resulting interpretation is one where seemingly unrepeatable events happen multiple times.

The second basic model is what could be called an "a-chronological" model. The term "a-chronological" is intended to denote the central concept of the model in which the elements of the book are viewed without regard for any chronology. It might be said that the underlying premise to this model is that Revelation was not written or intended to outline or denote a chronology in the first place. And consequently any attempts to decipher or construct such a chronology from the details are misguided to begin with. Given how the "simple chronology" so quickly results in ridiculous repetition, it is easy to see how someone could become convinced that it is impossible to reconcile the details of Revelation into a coherent chronology.

The greatest strength of this model is perhaps that it does solve the central problem created by the "simple chronology" approach. It removes the ridiculous repetition. However, there are perhaps two equally significant problems with this model. One has to do with the shear amount of symbol detail and the other has to do with chronology itself.



The exact order of events in Revelation has been a much debated topic in Bible prophecy. Some believe Revelation is sequential, others believe it contains several visions that repeat and recap. This question is critical to our overall eschatology.

The real debate in Revelation, however, concerns the numbered groups of seven. There are seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials. Certainly, the numbered groups are sequential within each group. That is why they are numbered one through seven. But this does not necessarily mean that one group follows another in succession. If this was the case, one would expect to find a single group of twenty-one judgments. Pre-tribulationists, with some exceptions, generally believe each of these groups follow the previous group. This author is convinced that Revelation follows a similar format as Daniel, with each series of seven being a recapping and magnification of a portion of the tribulation covered in the previous sequence. The view presented here is illustrated by the diagram below, where the prophetic portion of Revelation is divided into four sections, each climaxing with the second coming of Christ.

Hope that helps.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


I think that you would be surprised by the fact that many of the original church fathers were actually Universalists:

In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels. Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost. The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed] In later centuries, Universalism has become very much a minority position in the major branches of Christianity, though it has a long history of prominent adherents.


Part of the reason for this might have been the partial acceptance at the time, of the now pseudepigraphical book, the apocalypse of peter.


Clement of Alexandria considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius,Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1) described a work of Clement's that gave "abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the book of Jude and the other general epistles. Also the Epistle of Barnabas and that called the Revelation of Peter." So the work must have existed in the first half of the second century, which is also the commonly accepted date of the canonic Second Epistle of Peter.


"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."


The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment is a seventh-century Latin manuscript, that contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170. The fragment lists all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous original compiler.

The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which some of us will not allow to be read in church, though it isn't certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was gnostic.


I’ll let you figure out why that was significant.

Apocalypse of Peter(content)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join