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.

 

Abduction research -- The name "Jesus" -- If you have been abducted...

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I hope you don't mind my jumping in and make comments about your comments. It's not necessarily unusual for disguised proselytizing to take place in UFO forums although there's nothing to link religion and UFOs.

I'm an atheist and I don't have hostility toward so-called christians because I understand what makes a person such but christianity will always be poorly represented since it has nothing going for it and all it accomplishes is point out that its practitioners are mentally conditioned to believe in myths.

I agree with you, of course, that truth will always out. But don't push this biblical end times bs for it shows weakness of mind.

Christians have no philosophical issues since religion is based totally on myth. BTW, there is no such thing as christian as christ is strictly a title, not a name. The movement should be called Jesusians.




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by one4all
"Our emotions are incredibly powerful if we direct and focus them,they are actually PHYSICAL WEAPONS EXACTLY LIKE A DOLPHINS OR A WHALES SONIC BOOM THAT IS USED TO STUN ITS PREY."

I doubt the logic behind this statement. Humans cannot project emotions to the point where they can be recorded and measured as can the sounds emitted by dolphins and whales.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by DragonriderGal
[I have a great website for you, in return. WWW.jesusneverexisted.com.


This is an excellent website that debunks everything about Christianity. Thanks for posting it.

You're welcome. Yes, I think it is one of the best sites I have found for that, to date.




As long as recommendations are being made, let's not forget www.infidels.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MAJIC 12
 


You said: "yet from the first week,people were killed for proclaiming Jesus'rose from the dead." There is no historical evidence to support your comment. Everything that is known about the mythical Jesus was written many years or, way after, his alleged existence. Stand on a firm foundation of fact.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


wow that site is a mess. it deliberately makes assumptions about subjects based on what one group out of hundreds believes. it assumes because nazara means truth that never actually was the name of a town. ya know, these types of papers are like the ones written not so long ago claiming gilgamesh never existed and yet they've found his city in the last 2 years. and since gilgamesh isn't in the bible, he's afforded some place in history. i think this insistence in eradicating jesus is a bit obsessive and strange.


There is no insistence in eradicating jesus. The historical evidence doesn't support his reality. Only fear and mental conditioning keep him alive.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


you assume too much. i also have faith in the ancient texts of the other ancient cultures. in other words, i don't buy the mainstream theme that all ancient texts and figures are mythological. and that includes jesus. i can make a case that you don't exist too if i'm highly selective. i may be a christian but at least i don't assume i know exactly what happened to other people thousands of years ago.


Yout words give away that you are in a mental trap. I don't accept that you can make a case that the poster doesn't exist because all you can do is erase him from YOUR memory and the poster or his family/friends can prove his existence. This is something that is impossible with the mythical Jesus. No historical evidence, no reality. We depend on history to keep us on the straight and narrow.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
there were sons of enki before in the ancient literature.
heck for that matter, there were sons of enlil before in the ancient literature.
there were sons of gods in greece, rome, iran, iraq, egypt, china, and so on. why is it that jesus being called son of god negates only HIS existence? how is it that sun ends up being son? some of the arguments are so flimsy it almost looks like they're trying to achieve the opposite effect.


History lesson: All that recorded history shows is that only humans have existed on earth. Nothing about gods in the meaning of supernatural beings. All gods were known to be created by strong-minded humans to control weaker-minded humans. Where are all of the ancient gods? It's just us, man.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


who is the orchestra leader? clearly most catholics worship mary. so who is keeping the world gripped in fear of jesus? i can guarantee you that when i became a christian, i did so because the secular life was revealed to me as a hollow march to the nothing. i knew that by living it, personally. solomon put it best when he said "vanity of vanities. all is vanity."

it really became obvious when i was mulling over what would happen if science were to provide immortality to a few choice atheists. life would be a never ending stream of survival of the fittest scenarios, interspersed with moments of pleasure, and punctuated by the onset of boredom after having done everything there is to do and having seen everything there is to see, some things, several times. eventually they would ask to have themselves shut off permanently because the monotony of it all would be more than they could bear.... like one too many tv reruns.

it was then i realized that the difference is love. and i don't mean sexual congress, i mean just pure simple love. without it, eternity would be boring.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


oh lots of artifacts, paintings, textual references and even more modern experiences by abduction survivors. of course, when i say the "gods" i don't necessarily mean it in the sense of supernatural the way you think of the word. i mean it in more of a sense of hypernatural, like extremely advanced civlizations

michio explains it


i see such things as potentially good and potentially bad. i don't necessarily believe that all such encounters and experiences are 3rd dimensional or that we may even be able to explain it. all i know is the universe is precisely tuned, resonating, both incredibly and beautifully ordered held in a chaotic balance. something very wonderful did that, and i prefer to think it is sentient, if'n ya don't mind.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


who is the orchestra leader? clearly most catholics worship mary. so who is keeping the world gripped in fear of jesus?


Do you really have to ask? Just look around and in the bible. Fail to worship Jesus, go to hell and suffer an eternity. What could be more simple than the Gospel of Christ?


Originally posted by undo
it really became obvious when i was mulling over what would happen if science were to provide immortality to a few choice atheists.


I'm an atheist, but I also believe our spirit and soul are eternal. We just don't need Jesus or a god. WE created this, together, to experience physicality and more than we could learn and grow as spirits.


Originally posted by undo
it was then i realized that the difference is love. and i don't mean sexual congress, i mean just pure simple love. without it, eternity would be boring.




Well, at least we've found some common ground upon which we can agree.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


well hell is said to be the grave in one spot, and a waiting room of sorts, in another spot, divided into 2 parts - the comfortable waiting area and the not so comfortable waiting area. what it means, i gots no idea, because personally, i think it's related to the bottomless pit, which is the abyss, which is, i think, a stargate (called the abzu in sumerian texts and the portal of the lords of eternity in the egyptian texts). it's an interdimensional portal to other places, one which must be on a planet so far from other life forms, that it's called outer darkness. a pet theory of mine. could be completely wrong, though.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


who is the orchestra leader? clearly most catholics worship mary. so who is keeping the world gripped in fear of jesus?


Do you really have to ask? Just look around and in the bible. Fail to worship Jesus, go to hell and suffer an eternity. What could be more simple than the Gospel of Christ?


Originally posted by undo
it really became obvious when i was mulling over what would happen if science were to provide immortality to a few choice atheists.


I'm an atheist, but I also believe our spirit and soul are eternal. We just don't need Jesus or a god. WE created this, together, to experience physicality and more than we could learn and grow as spirits.


Originally posted by undo
it was then i realized that the difference is love. and i don't mean sexual congress, i mean just pure simple love. without it, eternity would be boring.




Well, at least we've found some common ground upon which we can agree.


Your "Gospel of Christ" is based strictly on fear! No merit to it.

A true atheist would never accept the concept of spirit/soul, those are religious terms. WE did not create this, strong-minded individuals created it to control weak-minded individuals and they did one hell of a good job!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


actually, i'm not weak-minded. you are quoting a doctrine that has its foundation in stereotypes. and although they are generally useful, they are not accurate and would fall short in empirical tests.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by undo]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed


A true atheist would never accept the concept of spirit/soul, those are religious terms. WE did not create this, strong-minded individuals created it to control weak-minded individuals and they did one hell of a good job!


Semantics is the last things I'm interested in. So by your definition of atheist I don't qualify as a "true" atheist. So ...big deal...whatever...the point of this thread is to seek stories of those who have experienced alien abductions and whether they have used the name Jesus in an attempt to stop the abduction. If you don't believe the abductee's stories, so be it. I and others (including Christians) are able to be a bit more discerning and know that most of the people relating these stories aren't lying. A blanket rejection of the accounts of these individuals is the least scientific approach anyone could make. And you pride yourself on facts and science? Seems to me a "truly" scientific approach would seek answers to mysterious events, not reject the fact of those events on a wholesale basis. To claim "they're all lying or misinterpreting natural phenomenon" is simply dishonest.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed


A true atheist would never accept the concept of spirit/soul, those are religious terms. WE did not create this, strong-minded individuals created it to control weak-minded individuals and they did one hell of a good job!


Semantics is the last things I'm interested in. So by your definition of atheist I don't qualify as a "true" atheist. So ...big deal...whatever...the point of this thread is to seek stories of those who have experienced alien abductions and whether they have used the name Jesus in an attempt to stop the abduction. If you don't believe the abductee's stories, so be it. I and others (including Christians) are able to be a bit more discerning and know that most of the people relating these stories aren't lying. A blanket rejection of the accounts of these individuals is the least scientific approach anyone could make. And you pride yourself on facts and science? Seems to me a "truly" scientific approach would seek answers to mysterious events, not reject the fact of those events on a wholesale basis. To claim "they're all lying or misinterpreting natural phenomenon" is simply dishonest.


But I've done exactly as you requested: I am seeking answers and the only way to get them is to have the claimant present evidence. Please don't put quote marks on a comment you created to make it look like it was said by someone else, in this case, me. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that evidence solves the problem? There is no way that saying Jesus is going to have any effect on humans, plants, or aliens. Jesus is a mythical figure. You can say, Amun-Ra, you can say Saggitarius, or you can just blow a Bronx cheer. They will all have the same effect: zero!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Visiting ESB

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed


A true atheist would never accept the concept of spirit/soul, those are religious terms. WE did not create this, strong-minded individuals created it to control weak-minded individuals and they did one hell of a good job!


Semantics is the last things I'm interested in. So by your definition of atheist I don't qualify as a "true" atheist. So ...big deal...whatever...the point of this thread is to seek stories of those who have experienced alien abductions and whether they have used the name Jesus in an attempt to stop the abduction. If you don't believe the abductee's stories, so be it. I and others (including Christians) are able to be a bit more discerning and know that most of the people relating these stories aren't lying. A blanket rejection of the accounts of these individuals is the least scientific approach anyone could make. And you pride yourself on facts and science? Seems to me a "truly" scientific approach would seek answers to mysterious events, not reject the fact of those events on a wholesale basis. To claim "they're all lying or misinterpreting natural phenomenon" is simply dishonest.


But I've done exactly as you requested: I am seeking answers and the only way to get them is to have the claimant present evidence. Please don't put quote marks on a comment you created to make it look like it was said by someone else, in this case, me. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that evidence solves the problem? There is no way that saying Jesus is going to have any effect on humans, plants, or aliens. Jesus is a mythical figure. You can say, Amun-Ra, you can say Saggitarius, or you can just blow a Bronx cheer. They will all have the same effect: zero!


Quotation marks can be placed on your comments or around words used by a common group or thought. I'll place quotes around whatever words I please. Neither you or anyone else will censor me. Evidence, ah yes. That elusive thing that even science can't present. Let's take evolution, for example. There is no credible evidence for evolution, but as an atheist I would bet you subscribe to that theory. Faster than light travel. I'd bet you follow lock-step with Einstein's primitive theory that misses the boat in substantial ways, too.

In my line of work (I'm a lawyer), testimonial evidence is acceptable evidence if the witness is credible. That testimony therefore constitutes evidence, admissible in a courtroom. A judge would not, for example, require a witness to produce any further proof corroborating that they saw a bank robber running from the scene of the crime, other than their eyewitness testimony, if that witness is shown to be credible. That's all I need. Credible witnesses. I don't need, for example, a piece of the skin or hair from an alien, or even a photo or video. Besides, when video is produced, people like you yell "CGI" before the video has had a chance to undergo analysis.

As for Jesus, have you even read my posts? I have no belief in jesus whatsoever, so you don't have to preach to me that he never existed. I already know that.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by MAJIC 12
 


You said: "yet from the first week,people were killed for proclaiming Jesus'rose from the dead." There is no historical evidence to support your comment. Everything that is known about the mythical Jesus was written many years or, way after, his alleged existence. Stand on a firm foundation of fact.


And this in a nutshell is the stumbling block of anyone professing to be an xtian, there just is no evidence of the reality of the jesus with the xtian attributes.

I could perhaps argue their case, in that a very real Jesus son of Joseph did exist whose tomb has been found.

I could also perhaps argue that this particular jesus does indeed share some attributes as that of jesus the gospels speak of.
These attributes being his tomb is shared with Joseph 2 marys and the tomb dates to around the period claimed.

But xtianity cannot have this jesus as "Their" jesus because he had a son and in all probability the second mary was his wife, something, only the Gnostic gospels hint at which was considered heresy by orthodoxy.

Xtians want to have its' cake and eat it, all well and good if they stick with "Faith"( believing what they choose without requiring evidence) but the moment they make any claim to the reality of the source of their belief then they must provide evidence.
Not only can they not provide evidence but it's surely not in their interest to do so as evidence requires examination and xtians fear this.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


you're doing it again, moocowman.

christians do not "do this", as if everyone with the name joe was somehow afflicted with a facial tick. it isn't a genetic abnormality. it isn't a proclivity. it isn't even a teaching. it's just the extent of our knowledge on the subject. now if you were to say SOME christians, then you'd be more accurate. but please for the sake of my eyeballs and attached brain, refrain from the blanket statement?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by moocowman
 


you're doing it again, moocowman.

christians do not "do this", as if everyone with the name joe was somehow afflicted with a facial tick. it isn't a genetic abnormality. it isn't a proclivity. it isn't even a teaching. it's just the extent of our knowledge on the subject. now if you were to say SOME christians, then you'd be more accurate. but please for the sake of my eyeballs and attached brain, refrain from the blanket statement?


Ok I'll rephrase -




And this in a nutshell is the stumbling block of anyone professing to be an xtian, there just is no evidence of the reality of the jesus with the xtian attributes.



And this in a nutshell is the stumbling block of people that believe that the jesus charter that appears in the bibles and has/had the attributes of the character in the gospels is/was real.

There is no evidence of the reality of a jesus character with the attributes of that in the gospels.

Some would indeed claim that there is extrabiblical (word ?) evidence of the historical validity of a jesus character in artefacts such as the Gnostic gospels.

However these particular artifacts discuss a character with very obvious, different attributes than that of the charcater that appears in the orthodox canon.

Needless to say it could well be argued that the gnostic Jesus could well be one and the same jesus entombed at Talpiot.
This individual (like many others) could well have made claim to the Davidic bloodline and could well have operated in such a manner as to appear to conform to Judaic scriptural allusions to to a prophesied Messiah, right place right time.






[edit on 20-9-2009 by moocowman]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


thanks for the rephrase.

it could be possible as well, that he is who he says he is in the text. afterall, if you read acts, romans and the epistles of paul, it doesn't take long to realize these are not catholic based concepts. if they wrote it then, they did so for some reason unbeknownst to most people for over 1000 years.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join