It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dariousg
Do you honestly think that the creator of all, the one that created each and every one of us out of LOVE would seriously have done so for us to WORSHIP it?
Originally posted by OldThinkerIn my mind, when I started the thread I was thinking "control" as a bad thing....but you are right that "control" can be applied technically to any rule...speeding limits.......or even, the divinity of Jesus!! You are right!
Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by observer28
I won't even presume to try to reply on OT's behalf but from my perspective it is clear that most people hold their beliefs, be it in a religion or anything else, very close. To hear different people share their core beliefs and to understand why they feel that way is they way to a more tolerant society. I'd say that is reason enough.
The trouble is, from a non-religious person's perspective, it is easy to be suspicious of people asking you what you believe in if they are religious as they have a tendency to then try to make you believe in their religion. Or impose it's interpretation on your beliefs.
Give how those beliefs are so personal, this can be quite insulting. Wouldn't you agree?
Another way of looking at it is, why do you ask why OT asks?
[edit: removing any refences to gender assumptions!]
[edit on 6-2-2009 by CloudySkye]
1)Do you think faith/religion is here to control the masses
4)Did you once believe?
5)Did you change?
6)Why are you an atheist?
7)Why are you an agnostic?
8)Why you are a christian?
9)What ‘SHOULD‘ God look like/act like/be like?
Originally posted by OldThinker
Thank you for the lengthy response...
Is believing in anything really dangerous? Aren't you using hyberpole?
Reply: "Belief is the result of mental conditioning. So it's what you are conditioned to believe that could be dangerous. If it's not your reasoning, it's someone elses with an obvious agenda to use you to carry out his/her wishes."
Why would you say older people don't believe at all? Isn't that a generalization man?
Reply: "It is a generalization because age is immaterial, it's what you are conditioned to believe that matters. And blanket statements carry no weight. With some older persons experience may eventually replace some of the irrational beliefs when the conditioned see that the beliefs do not pan out. Some older people do not see any existence of gods or jesus (as an example) so even if they are still strong religious individuals, they have not seen anything to convince them that while alive anything out of the ordinary is going to happen. The go to bed and they get up and the world doesn't change, for good, it's the same and sometimes worse."
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by CloudySkye
I'm not christian because I cannot accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God. I respect the teachings in the New Testament as well as those of the Torah and Qo'ran the Vedas and the Teachings of the Buddhas. All the religious Texts have aspects that make sense because they teach you to be a respectful, sociable, open-minded person if taken in the right light.
Nice reply...let's focus on the above....was JC of God, a prophet, or what?
Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
Evidence for Jesus – His Last Days and Crucifixion
The evidence for Jesus in the events leading to his crucifixion starts across the Kidron Valley from Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives. There, we can walk through ancient olive trees to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus prayed before his capture. Then, we can look back across the Kidron Valley to the Golden Gate where Christ entered Jerusalem for his trial, scourging and death.
Elsewhere, we find more evidence for Jesus and the leaders presiding over his trial and crucifixion, including an inscription that mentions the Roman procurator of the time, Pontius Pilate, and the actual bones of the Jewish High Priest of the time, Caiaphas, preserved in an ornate ossuary (bone box). The evidence continues throughout Jerusalem where we can stand in the judgment place of Pontius Pilate called Gabbatha, and then walk the Via Dolorosa where Christ carried his own cross to Calvary. The huge Church of the Holy Sepulchre is considered by most scholars to be a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ. Incredibly, a 2,000-year-old heel bone pierced by an iron nail was recently discovered in a Jerusalem graveyard that sheds more light on the practice of crucifixion by the first century Romans.
What about Jesus?
This brings us to Jesus. What evidence is there from ancient history to point us to the reality of a historical Jesus? In addition to the numerous references to Jesus in ancient religious literature (references that range from the New Testament to the Gnostic writings to even the Quran), there are references to Jesus by the following:
Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, who wrote of "Christus" being "put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"
Josephus, a Jewish historian,who made two references to Jesus in his famous Antiquities
There are also references to Jesus or to early followers of Jesus in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.
A note on Josephus: While one of the two references to Jesus was likely tampered with, historians agree there was at least a core reference to Jesus prior to its being edited. Thus, Josephus’ references constitute, at the very least, evidence of the reality of Jesus as a historical figure. In the words of one Princeton Seminary scholar: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus."
The search for the “Historical Jesus” is a rather recent undertaking of so-called scholars and realists, who look to dissect the Biblical record and paint a real picture of the man, Jesus. For about the last 100 years, including most recently, the Jesus Seminar, intellectual debate has made its way into the mainstream media based on the supposed goal of “separating historical fact from mythology.” The problem is that the entire “Historical Jesus” movement is a product of the 20th Century philosophy of naturalism, in that all debate begins with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. In a nutshell, the movement holds that it's impossible for the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence or Biblical manuscripts – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism.
Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
If anyone thinks their religion is controlling them, then that is not the religion for them.
If you feel a need for one, then search to find what is comfortable for you.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by dariousg
I'm sure that the people here on ATS will be surprised to find out that they are not free.
Unfortunately, your subsequent statements contradicts your own claim that people are NOT free. You admit that people can choose NOT to accept the religion that you claim their parents "force" on them. No one can FORCE ANOTHER to think in a certain way, unless the people being "forced" are very weak minded. Furthermore, your assumption that children only have two choices is flawed. There are plenty of other options, including "going along" with the parents, but believing what the child wishes. Parents cannot read minds. In addition, your scenario is not universal. I know many parents that let their children decide on their own.
In addition, I would appreciate it if you would not resort to personal attacks. Telling people that they have "blinders" on is very presumptuous, and calling them "very religious", when you know nothing about them, is wrong.
I would suggest that you stick to debating positions, and refrain from ad hominem attacks.