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.

 

Demons Created All Non-Christian Mythology!

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Level X
 


The truths of the spirit are like pieces of a picture puzzel. Many mystics of the past tried to piece togeather the pieces they could get. From those small bits they proclaimed their own truths. The clearist picture is the one
seen in the Bible.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
the evolution of a lie, a lie can be past around so much that it actually becomes truth.

no demon invented non-Christian mythology that would go against god, i hear he is all mighty. saying a demon invented it would be putting a limit on him, making god not so powerfull. I like believe that god invented evil so that good can exist. just like you wouldn't know what truth is without a lie.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Being a neo-pagan I find that belief kinda insulting.....................
Yea I know this is a one liner but hey. Thats all I needed to say.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Wow! It seems I've missed a lot of good stuff. I'll do my best to keep up and respond to the people who addressed me.


Originally posted by dariousg
First off, the statement at the end regarding 'those sane ones' is going to ruffle quite a few 'Christian' feathers.

Yes, I know. But that's just my opinion, and actually, what this thread is about deep down is the very basic courtesy of allowing a variety of opinion. My criticism is aimed at those factions of Christianity who are so stubborn in their view of existence that they would completely degrade all pre-Christian traditions...

...and to be honest, that in itself ruffles my feathers. My spiritual beliefs are born of pre-Christian traditions so to hear rubbish about the myths and entities I put faith in being the product of demons is highly offensive - more so than I was in my original post.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForestSanctuary
It's not that other religions exist to confuse potential believers in Jesus, it's the other way around: Christianity exists because of earlier religions. Many things in the christian religon were taken/stolen/adapted from others.

Yes! Very well put. This echoes my personal belief on the matter. I wish Christians, Jews and Muslims would just accept the fact that there was an ancient spirituality in existence many, many thousands of years before theirs came to be. It's as simple as that. Trying to deny this on the basis that it's all a conspiracy of demons (with absolutely no proof I might add) is paranoia and delusion to the extreme.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by N_15L_S01
Though to take scriptures, which are basically testimonials on face value --after multiple translations in multiple language-- is purely ignorant.

I agree. And the faults of religion stem from misinterpretation of the scriptures. However, like I argued earlier (rather unsuccessfully), sometimes the scriptures themselves are not open to interpretation at all and are quite plain in their meaning. On these occassions, we can assume one of two things - that the scriptures came from man based on his interpretation of God's teaching, or that they actually came from God himself. If they are based on interpretation then we can only assume that they are open to multiple interpretations thus leaving us still unsure of God's exact nature. If they are from God himself, and they genuinely represent God's very nature, then those of us in disagreement with what those scriptures say are justified in our defiance of God.

In short, my point is simply that if God created the universe and man created religion, then our scripture and religious texts actually don't give as any kind of meaningful portrayal of what God actually is. We can only claim to know the true nature of God if He himself specifically created religion (but which of the monotheistic religions did he create?) and wrote the Bible with his own hand, but that's not what was said earlier. I was responding specifically to the notion that 'God created the universe and man created religion'.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
God thinks its arrogance and pride to set any other religion above him, The bible says it clearly there is only one true living God. All others are dead Gods either made up by man or doctrines of demons...

...Its not belittling to speak the truth, it is belittling to call someone else insane when it is not the truth. if you think this is belittling note that the bible says that every knee shall bow to Jesus and every tongue will confess to God, so that means one day you will bow and confess.

And what if the Bible is incorrect? It is my belief that the Bible is false (or rather, should be read symbolically) and therefore I will not ever bow and confess. I have no sins to confess or repent of.

All of your above points are based on the assumption that the Bible is the only truth. Well I've got news for you mate, it isn't! Not as far as I and millions of other intelligent people are whole-heartedly concerned.

What's more belittling? Calling a few people insane on an internet forum, or believing that the gods, myths and traditions of millions of souls - dead and alive - are actually falsehoods and the works of demons?

YOU are the real insulter here!



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Being a neo-pagan I find that belief kinda insulting.....................
Yea I know this is a one liner but hey. Thats all I needed to say.

And I too! I have an enormous interest and admiration for the pre-Christian faiths and cultures. They are the basis for science, art, music, speech and culture. It is absolutely insluting to degrade our ancestors in such a way, but I suppose that's what we should expect from a world of monotheism.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by thestatue
 

I'm afraid I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who makes statements such as the following:


Originally posted by thestatue
...and i have interacted with God i have also dealt with a demon who called himself odin he enslaved the people of norway and was dealt with very quickly......and i am quite sure who ever anyone else calls a god will be dealt with as well by one of my brothers or sisters as for me i seek after azazel(zeus,jupiter) mammon(mercury,some pagan-indian god) vasago(the "psychic" demon) echidna& nephthyst(both personal vendettas) and typhon(who is my fallen counterpart)



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
Yes, I know. But that's just my opinion, and actually, what this thread is about deep down is the very basic courtesy of allowing a variety of opinion.


I get the impression it goes deeper than that, though. It's not a matter of allowing a variety of opinion. How could we prevent it? If you look at western society, there are no laws restricting what you can believe in religion wise. In the US there's simply no laws restricting what you can believe in at all. Many middle eastern countries have these laws, but those promote Islam, not Christianity, so they don't fit with the initial premise of the thread which addresses Christians.

I don't think you mean allowing, but instead accepting. What is interesting about that, though, is that by having an insistence of acceptance, you're embracing a post-modernistic philosophy. Ironically, by having that insistence, or request/demand for that basic courtesy, you are demanding that a post-modernistic philosophy be followed by all. It's one of those ironic things about this acceptant tolerance -- the philosophy insists it is the correct way, but condescends to allow people to believe something else, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, or neo-paganism so long as they accept the post-modernistic stance that all the others are just as valid.

It's kind of like saying, you can practice your religion, so long as you keep mine at the core of yours.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


Excellent post. Which is why I like to add to the tolerance idea: "...and dont require others to agree with it".



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 

Actually, I see it more as a case of who can be intolerant first. Debating tolerance is a bit of an abstract argument because by telling someone that they must be tolerant, you are being intolerant of their right to be intolerant.

How this applies to this thread? I presented a case where a particular Christian attitude to pre-Christian traditions demonstrates absolute intolerance of the existence of such traditions. I never once stated that they shouldn't have the right to believe so, but merely shone a light on it and gave my personal opinion on the matter.

I'm quite confused. Am I being accused of preventing opinion here? And no, I have never, and would never, try to force upon people the notion that my religion is at the core of theirs. In fact, my entire point is that it's ridiculous to use your religion to degrade or undermine another's.

This was, and is, a topic for discussion. Please don't make out like I have an agenda, or am attempting to steer its course.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I get the impression it goes deeper than that, though. It's not a matter of allowing a variety of opinion. How could we prevent it? If you look at western society, there are no laws restricting what you can believe in religion wise. In the US there's simply no laws restricting what you can believe in at all. Many middle eastern countries have these laws, but those promote Islam, not Christianity, so they don't fit with the initial premise of the thread which addresses Christians.


There may not be laws on the books, but that doesn't change the facts of how America works. Our government is effectively Christian-only, with one or two Jews allowed as well. Try being a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist and running for public office. Unless it's a local election and you can count on a large number of voters of your religion turning out (such as in, say, Dearborn MI, or Salt Lake City) you haven't got a chance.

The United States still has laws and court decisions regarding gender and sexuality that are based on Christian thought. Even if you are not a Christian, you can be restrained by Bible-based law in this nation.

How about smaller scale. How easy do you think it is to keep custody of your kids during a divorce if you express nonchristian beliefs? Especially if your ex is a Christian.

There might be very few laws restricting religious faith. But the overall culture is very much a Christian-only clubhouse. I suppose Christians have a hard time seeing it, in the same way white males have difficulty understanding just what hteir race and gender grants them.


I don't think you mean allowing, but instead accepting. What is interesting about that, though, is that by having an insistence of acceptance, you're embracing a post-modernistic philosophy. Ironically, by having that insistence, or request/demand for that basic courtesy, you are demanding that a post-modernistic philosophy be followed by all. It's one of those ironic things about this acceptant tolerance -- the philosophy insists it is the correct way, but condescends to allow people to believe something else, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, or neo-paganism so long as they accept the post-modernistic stance that all the others are just as valid.

It's kind of like saying, you can practice your religion, so long as you keep mine at the core of yours.


This is the sort of logic that brings us such gems as "the phrase 'happy holidays' oppresses Christians!" or "Barging into your funeral to scream that god hates fags is my right under the first amendment, as a profession of my faith!" Being courteous to people of other religions infringes on your right to freedom of religion.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
I'm quite confused. Am I being accused of preventing opinion here?


Not at all, and that was my point. What power have you to prevent opinion? All you can say is, "I disagree". If I am so insecure as to think that your disagreeing with me means I cannot continue to share my opinion, that's my problem, not yours.

I don't think the Incan religion was accurate in its understanding of God (or, in their case, gods). I don't recognize it as a valid option to worship God. Because I don't think it is a valid way to worship God according to what I believe God says, I, therefore, cannot believe that that came from God. Does that non-recognition of its validity as a form of worship mean I'm oppressing the religion? No, it means I don't think it's legitimate. You're free to disagree or even practice it. I'll continue to maintain that I think it's wrong, regardless. Were I to say otherwise, I would no longer be a Bible-believing Christian because my opinion would trump the Word of God in my mind.

So I guess if it's not acceptance of old world religions you're looking for, could you explain more? I'm not understanding where you're coming from...


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There may not be laws on the books, but that doesn't change the facts of how America works. Our government is effectively Christian-only, with one or two Jews allowed as well.


What you're talking about is an effect of us being in a republic. The masses find that they trust politicians who claim to be Christian more than those who do not. To say that the masses need to change and adopt what you believe to be the wise way to proceed in government is to say that we need to adopt an oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship and abandon the republic. There is no law on the books, but the masses do have their own opinions. If a politician starts speaking of how great Adolf Hitler was, he's completely entitled to that opinion, but so, too, are all of the Americans who decide that he no longer represents them and should not hold office another term. What's wrong with that?


This is the sort of logic that brings us such gems as "the phrase 'happy holidays' oppresses Christians!" or "Barging into your funeral to scream that god hates fags is my right under the first amendment, as a profession of my faith!" Being courteous to people of other religions infringes on your right to freedom of religion.


No, as I said, I find it ironic. As to happy holidays, if someone gets fired for saying, Merry Christmas, yeah, I think that's a problem, but it's a problem with that business that does so, not with America. The law states I can say Merry Christmas, but a business can legally stipulate that if I say Merry Christmas on business hours I lose my job. Their prerogative, but it is mine to protest that policy to bring it to the attention of the public.

As to barging into a funeral to scream God hates fags... Where, pray tell, has that ever happened?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Thank you junglejake. Whilst we might not see eye to eye on this point, your declaration of viewpoint is quite courteous. I was worried that I'd managed to accidentally pick a fight



Originally posted by junglejake
So I guess if it's not acceptance of old world religions you're looking for, could you explain more? I'm not understanding where you're coming from...

To be honest, I don't have an overall point. Simply, I'm just stunned that instead of Christians just saying something along the lines of "before Christ, the world didn't understand God properly and that's why they followed polytheistic ways", some would develop and enthuse over an explanation far more difficult to argue and far more outrageous - i.e. that ancient traditions were the work of pre-emptive demons.

I suppose I always assumed that the Christian viewpoint was this:
that we've come to understand God more over the past 2000 years, that our bond has grown stronger, and that's why we used to follow false religions - because although we were still striving in the correct direction, we weren't blessed enough to properly comprehend.

And that, a more diplomatic, level-headed perception is something I could quite easily be comfortable with.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
What you're talking about is an effect of us being in a republic. The masses find that they trust politicians who claim to be Christian more than those who do not. To say that the masses need to change and adopt what you believe to be the wise way to proceed in government is to say that we need to adopt an oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship and abandon the republic. There is no law on the books, but the masses do have their own opinions. If a politician starts speaking of how great Adolf Hitler was, he's completely entitled to that opinion, but so, too, are all of the Americans who decide that he no longer represents them and should not hold office another term. What's wrong with that?


...I'll assume that you aren't actually equating being a non-Christian with supporting Hitler.

And to be truthful, there's nothing "wrong" with it. It's how the system works. However because the system works that way, those of us who aren't Christian get screwed... And since you want to talk about representative democracy... Where is my representation, as a non-Christian?


As to barging into a funeral to scream God hates fags... Where, pray tell, has that ever happened?


Never heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


I would have to agree with your first paragraph to an extent, though your second has some splaining to do.

Man being a human, part of a larger universe --this we know because we can observe and study, "cosmic dust"-- with all we have learned and know about our planet and all we have discovered on every front; scientific, social, physical, theoretical, our knowledge is still very miniscul in relation to the universe around us. If we had a life span of 220 years then hypothetically we could learn twice as much, usually intelligence and overall knowledge is increased with age (in healthy folks ofcourse). So if man wants to know the true nature of god, then you would have to live for a very long time, because there is and is going to be many things you'll never understand, know or even hear about in our lifetimes. With this being said, if you believe in the multiverse and science, then you would have to believe in god. Because every possibility is in existence, therefore there would have to be an oppossite as well. Newton was a genious when discovering bodies of motion and revealing his 3rd law "for every action there is an equal and oppossite reaction". We know that in science this is not always seen, but the effects prove this law true, in much more then motion. So if this applies to all things as well as a fluid universe, then the true nature of god is to be misunderstood or not understood at all. The reasoning behind this is because if we cannot understand the effects of god, then we cannot understand his action or nature.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
you can not take me serious all you want just think how ridiculous you sound to me or anyone in my family.....but your doing exactly what satan and the demons want being ignorant of the truth regardless of the fact that YOU think im crazy or you put your faith in something else does not make your belief right in any way nor does a islam believing in the islamic faith or a jew believing in the jewish faith all of these belief system are labeled as pagan beliefs there is only one way the truth and it is the truth that will set you free you like everyone else live under a crutch and a prideful way of living it what ever you believe you believe because it came out of a book but in this book there is no actual history the "christian" faith is the only one that has history meaning real people mentioned real tangible people that left their real tangible mark in this word any other belief system or way of life is nothing more than a crutch it helps you get through life with the rules you are more comfortable now im not saying that christianity can't be used as one but christianity is stand alone a very good thing it's rewards are solid and firm and will not fade away with new books released.......books do not change heaven new books do not change God people argue that because there are missing books they cannot follow God why?...if i wrote you what i did this entire week and i had my friend bring it to you but he lost a couple days here or there would you just assume i didnt exist......see when you put it like that it's just silly.....just like all these excuses i here for why people believe in something other than God no not just the God of the bible the only true god God himself....so i mean the choice is yours...and at the end of this i would like to say this again you believing me or thinking im a lunatic means nothing because it doesnt mean that i am lying because you think im crazy i believe the truth should be told no matter what my name is Ziba pronounced zeyebah....i am an angel of God now you can go ahead and not believe me but then you'd be wrong.....deny ignorance



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by N_15L_S01
 

There is absolutely nothing I disagree with in your last post - in fact, I happily echo all of it.

If you'd like me to clarify my personal position, it is as follows:
- I believe in a creative force.
- I believe that this force consist of countless incorporeal entities (gods, spirits, demons) and that each of these has their role to play in bestowing knowledge upon us.
- I believe we do not know the precise nature of this creative force and can not until our souls have undertaken aeons of learning.
- I believe that our ancient ancestors understood the creative force better than we do now, and to be honest, I do believe that the new monotheistic religions have only served to mask the truth.

I suppose that in light of what I've just said, I could be accused by Christians of being just as 'insane' as I initially accused them of being. I'm ok with that. The purpose of this topic was to discuss an interesting concept and certainly wasn't to try and make the world see that 'I'm right and they're wrong'.

@ thestatue:
You can believe what you want - as can I. I see no point in trying to argue each other away from our personal beliefs. May your journey be full of enlightenment.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reason for arguing uh well the biggest is if you go on thinking what you think is right this means when you die you die and you goto a very very horrible place



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join