The Catholic Church: Deceptions and Control

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


["Who knows the way for absolute certain?']

I am absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt before I knew any scriptures that an invisible audible voice said He was Jesus one night sitting beside me and that He died for my sins and if I believed that I would never perish, why would I say such a thing, especially a "chief of sinners" like me? I have looked into this every which way but loose and when I came across these I thought HOLY GOOD GOSH ALMIGHTY I better tell some people it ain't no joke (kinda like I used to say before that)-

John5.25-
I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Acts9-
suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus


["My friend I tell you we all walk the way. Some take a round about course through the wilderness, but to the Father we all go.'"]

there is no doubt we all go and time is merciful longsuffering until we all become one body in the faith is the way I read it, matter fact if I had'nt heard at exactly that precise moment I would'nt be here today

like that signature!-

Matthew-
"He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

1Corinthians-
If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

edit on 5-10-2010 by Rustami because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


It's all good my friend. The love of Jesus is in my heart as well. One day, maybe I'll tell you my story. But, until then, just know that I have seen the light.

Others will always know that you too have seen the light.

When you can look a stranger in the eye and KNOW his is your family.
When you can look in the mirror and see the spirit of God.
When you can love your enemy like your own child.
When you love a Man instead of judge a Man.
When you accept that all is right in the world.
When you Trust God and his voice within you over all else.

Then my Brother, then you will know Love. I think you know what I mean, right?

Thank you for sharing your perspective with me my friend. And, thank you doubly for not judging me for having a slightly different slant.

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 5-10-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I did not say some of the books of the New Testament were compiled by Rome. I said the Bible was compiled by Rome.


Which is absolutely, demonstrably, untrue. The fact that you labour on in this delusion, prompted by nonsensical "conspiracy theorists", who dismiss facts as being "obviously fabricated by the powers that be" makes most of what you say (regardless of how much I might agree with it) of little worth. As the saying goes, lie about one thing, lose credibility about all.


Now how can you claim to love someone, then tell them "Oh by the way, you have to believe in my God first, and accept his sacrifice, and come to his church."

Hypocrite.


Nice.

You will note that I never said you had no right to your beliefs. Your beliefs are your own, and are between you and God, not me. I couldn't care less if you accept Christ's salvation or not.

However, when you make misstatements about Christianity, as you have done in this thread, it is my responsibility to correct them. Even if you disregard them, as you will, consider it your blessing -- if Christianity is correct, and my efforts to dissuade others from your heresy, you'll have less to face up to at judgement, lol.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Which is absolutely, demonstrably, untrue.


But, you already said you had no truth to share? If you have no truth, how can you know an untruth?



Originally posted by adjensenYou will note that I never said you had no right to your beliefs. Your beliefs are your own, and are between you and God, not me. I couldn't care less if you accept Christ's salvation or not.


No my friend, you do not come right out with your judgements. You sneak them in with statements like "if you believe this your delusional, or if you believe that, your a liar"

You try to set people up for your condemnation.


Originally posted by adjensenHowever, when you make misstatements about Christianity, as you have done in this thread, it is my responsibility to correct them.


I never said I was speaking as a Christian. I said very clearly several times, I am not a Christian. Therefore, I
am not speaking about Christianity. I am speaking of my own view based on what I have learned. You cannot say I am in error unless you know exactly what I have seen to learn from, even then your accusation would be tenuous because you have no idea how I interpret what I have seen.

Now you could have been Brotherly and simply said, I have a different perspective, and presented your version of the truth, but you chose to judge, condemn, and dismiss others simply because they hold a different view than you. That my friend, is not very Christ like behavior.


Originally posted by adjensen Even if you disregard them, as you will, consider it your blessing


I do consider it a blessing my friend. Do you know why?


Because I had the opportunity to learn your perspective. Even though yours does not match mine, there is still beauty in it because it is you. You are a creation of God and have just as much right to interpret this creation as I do. Even if you totally disagree with me, I know I do not know the whole truth of anything, and need your perspective to get a clearer picture. So, thank you for sharing my friend. You are a beautiful creation of God, with a beautiful perspective, and I love you.

Judge not, Love all, be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by adjensen
Which is absolutely, demonstrably, untrue.


But, you already said you had no truth to share? If you have no truth, how can you know an untruth?


Heheh. That's pretty good. The level of what you don't know is incredible, and yet you feel that you're able to use your lack of knowledge and invented history as a basis for debate. Touche.

Well, thanks for the flowery invectives, anyway. They are much appreciated.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


As a child I went through the whole indoctrination of the Catholic faith. Even as a child I found the whole premise to be silly. Yes, it is true. Not because I was a "rebellious" child but because of some of the claims taught during catechism. I always questioned the nuns and the teachers. But my parents asked me to temper my thoughts. In order to make it through this "passage in life". Even though for me, it just didn't make sense.
So as life went on and attended church, I then began realizing that the rhetoric that the current priest/pastor was decrying through the microphone just did not make sense. I realized that this individual at his bully-pulpit was trying to temper our lives. As usual in Catholic masses, the same routine was performed in order to get the people to become familiar to this ritual. But to me it was boring and trite. No meaning whatsoever.
Yes, there are some positives to what some of the priests would say. Don't hurt one another, be kind to one another. There a sense of community, but is based on control and deception. This modern religious doctrine (Vatican II) is what we currently see in our churches. I usually visit cancer treatment centers, and I have frequently encountered family members of the patient performing rituals that are not "Catholic". Everything from Native American chants, New Age people placing crystals, and people creating a whole scene out of "Lost".
The Vatican disseminates what needs to be "educated" to the masses. But to me it seems that more and more people are becoming dissatisfied to this religious doctrine. Especially after the whole sex abuse scandal. This is where I need the help of ATS members to help me understand why so many pedophiles decided to join a religious group in order to molest children? Something just doesn't agree with common sense here.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos40
This is where I need the help of ATS members to help me understand why so many pedophiles decided to join a
religious group in order to molest children? Something just doesn't agree with common sense here.


Two questions (and I have thoughtfully given you the answers, lol)

1) Does the Catholic Church promote pedophilia in its teachings?

(Answer is no.)

2) Do pedophiliacs exist outside of the Catholic church?

(Answer is yes.)

Our little two question quiz had shown us that the Catholic church is not to blame for pedophiles, nor is it likely that, in the complete absence of the Catholic church, pedophiliacs would be similarly extinct.

Now, setting that little bit of atheistic propaganda aside, allow me to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the way that the Catholic church (and other denominations) has dealt with this crisis. I find it absolutely reprehensible that the church feels any sort of need to "protect" those who violate children. There is NO possible reason for this behaviour, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

As to your question (and apologies for going off on a rant there,) my reply would be that there are those whose deviancies cause them to exhibit pedophiliac behaviour, and some small percent doesn't like that, and looks to find avenues to escape the desires, and this leads them to the celibate lifestyle of the Catholic Priest, believing that an avoidance of their drive exists in that lifestyle.

This is, of course, an invalid assumption, in most (if not all) cases.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


It is a fact that a far above average concentration of pedophiles have been found to exist within Catholic church. It has also been proven that the Vatican understood that there was a problem, but did not respond appropriately. That is disgusting. There is no greater purity, nothing more valuable and worthy of protection, than a child. I have no words to describe my anger towards this subject. This is one of the reasons I didn't bring it up in my original post.

You say that perhaps those who recognized they had a potential for sexual deviance sought out celibacy as a form of deterent. I think that is crazy talk. No offense. If they were really concerned then they should have sought out help with their specific problem. This is something that you would think the church may notice during the screening process, or psychological screen. If they did seek out help, and were allowed by the church to continue to mentor children, then that is even worse. Most of all, if they had recognized this potential and sought out a leadership position in their church then its safe to say they had malevolent intentions.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Its nice to see that someone else thinks along the same lines as I do. To seek their own relationship with God, and to acknowledge the divine spark within us all. I know that I have a long way to go, but I'm comfortable being a work in progress. I also have found that following Jesus' teachings is what feels right to me. I do think that there was an agenda behind the creation of the Bible. The Romans were indeed a heavy influence on the Bible, where there is smoke there is fire.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by adjensen
 


It is a fact that a far above average concentration of pedophiles have been found to exist within Catholic church.

This Newsweek article states that, "priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else."
www.newsweek.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by IamCorrect
 


Perhaps I didn't convey my point in the correct manner. Abuse of children from a mentor or from adults in leadership roles (outside of friends and family) is the comparison I was trying to make.

Regardless, the fact that they 'seem' to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else' as you said is really, really disturbing.

This is another reason why I will continue to seek out my own path, and interpret Jesus' teachings on my own.

Also, your article refers to the last Catholic sexual abuse scandal as having occured in 2002. Wasn't there one reported on recently about a priest in Kamloops, British Columbia? I'm sure there was and it was by far the worse one that I have heard.

edit on 6-10-2010 by lambs to lions because: addition
edit on 6-10-2010 by lambs to lions because: addition



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Maybe you should read the Gospels just once......for kicks.


Oooh. An insult! The dialogue deepens! lol. Sorry, Michael, but I'm quite familiar with the Gospels.


In his reply to the Sadducees in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that "the children of the resurrection are sons of God."

He uses the term in the plural, not the singular.


So what? We're children of God. Nothing mystical or insightful about that.

Christ WAS God. He was the son, but he IS God. That is the Doctrine of the Trinity.


Secondly, in the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by Jesus, Jesus specifically denies that there can be any mediator at all between man and God...


What on Earth leads you to believe that the Thanksgiving Hymns were written by Jesus? Your thread about it on here presents speculation and interpretation as fact and has no support other than yourself, while the common supposition that the Teacher of Righteousness is the author is far more likely.

That said, I agree that there is no mediator between man and God, because Christian theology states that no man can come to the Father, save through the Son, and both, as noted above, are God.
edit on 5-10-2010 by adjensen because: tag repair


1) What you are familiar with is the lies of the Christian theologians; for example, the "Trinity".

2) Only those are "children of God" who receive the Revelation of the Memory of Creation. And, if you had received that Revelation--which you have not--you would know that the consciousness of man at the Moment of Creation is not either the "beast of the sea" consciousness of the "self" or the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the 'thinker'. Those dimensions of consciousness comprise the 'fallen' consciousness which is opposed to the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27).

3) The consciousness of the "self" was not Created by God. The consciousness of the "self" created itself by the 'movement' of self-reflection, which is symbolized by the "dragon" in the Revelation of John--the "primeval serpent known as the devil and Satan". In other words, the consciousness of the "self" 'self-reflected' itself into existence (this is referred to in the Eastern esoteric tradition as the "phenomenal" consciousness, maya and illusion.) Similarly, the consciousness of the 'thinker', which is another aspect of the "phenomenal consciousness" and illusion, 'thinks' itself into existence rather than being Created by God. (See Meditaions On First Philosophy by Descartes.)

4) Not going to summarize my argument here about the Thanksgiving Hymns. This is covered in two chapters of my book Jesus and the "Resurrection"--the Secret Teaching (Including Meditations On a Science of Consciousness").

5) Your very method of argumentation demonstrates that you have no Knowledge whatsoever of these subjects. All you can do is parrot what someone else has written or said.

Michael



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions

Regardless, the fact that they 'seem' to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else' as you said is really, really disturbing.


No, it's not, because your statement contains an error of logic that you apparently aren't able to recognize. What gave you the idea that there would be less persons with hidden predatory motives signing up to be priests than for other jobs? Or less persons with abnormal desires they were trying to suppress? And what do these people have to do with the vast majority of good priests who sign up with good motives and without abnormal desires and who would never abuse a child?

The real issue is with the treatment of such priests when there was reasonable belief that they had committed such offenses. Some bishops and cardinals moved these priests around or failed to suspend them after learning of allegation of abuse.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
It is a fact that a far above average concentration of pedophiles have been found to exist within Catholic church.


Source, please? While "far above average" is somewhat subjective, I have heard otherwise, so would appreciate factual correction. One of the earliest and most famous that I can recall was a minister in my own faith, Jeff Smith, though the accusations that he faced were outside of the church, when he was known as "The Frugal Gourmet."


It has also been proven that the Vatican understood that there was a problem, but did not respond appropriately. That is disgusting. There is no greater purity, nothing more valuable and worthy of protection, than a child. I have no words to describe my anger towards this subject. This is one of the reasons I didn't bring it up in my original post.


As I said, I'm right there with you, absolute disgust at the individuals and outrage at the church for not dealing with it in a proper manner. My speculation (and pure speculation) is that the vile nature of the practice allowed it to remain secret to the point that its extent was not known, not even by the church, until recently. We live, thankfully, in an age of disclosure, so these sorts of things are no longer allowed to linger.

That said, as I pointed out, pedophilia is not a doctrine of the Church, and pedophiles exist outside of the priesthood, so berating, destroying or banning the church won't fix the problem, and ignores the vast amount of good that the church does, both on a personal and societal level.


You say that perhaps those who recognized they had a potential for sexual deviance sought out celibacy as a form of deterent. I think that is crazy talk. No offense. If they were really concerned then they should have sought out help with their specific problem.


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Whether or not you think that this is an irrational approach, it is likely that some truly believed that their perverse drives could be constrained within the vow of celibacy. There is a great movie that addresses this somewhat (though in a different subject, suppression of homosexuality,) called "Mass Appeal," which has Jack Lemmon in it, highly recommended.

In the light of what pedophilia is, and the inherent disgust that almost everyone feels about it, I would suspect that MOST people with it would attempt to self-correct, rather than finding someone to talk to about it. Imagine yourself sitting down at the table and saying "Mom, I'm attracted to little boys. What should I do?"


Most of all, if they had recognized this potential and sought out a leadership position in their church then its safe to say they had malevolent intentions.


I don't disagree that there may be some who sought the priesthood because it gave them access to children, but I suspect that the number would be very, very small. But very malignant individuals, the height of evil, if they exist.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
5) Your very method of argumentation demonstrates that you have no Knowledge whatsoever of these subjects. All you can do is parrot what someone else has written or said.


I'm not going to address the rest of your post (but somehow, I just knew that you had a "book" tucked away there someplace :-) however, I will suggest that insulting your counter in a debate is hardly a point of argument.

The fact that my basis is in congruence with contemporary and traditional Christian theology should come as no surprise, as I am, indeed, a Christian. But to claim that I arrived there without thought, analysis and internal debate is not only incorrect, it is insulting and demeaning.

There is precious little evidence that the Gnostic view of Christianity is valid, and significant contradiction between Hellenistic and Judaic beliefs which make the likelihood of Jesus Christ, a Jew, being the bringer of Gnosis pretty much zero. If our bodies are prisons, who "sentenced" Christ to his? If material is evil, why did God become material? If the God of the Jews is a bumbling demiurge, why would Christ not immediately denounce the Jewish faith as nonsense?

The faith of the Hebrews predated Gnosticism, and is inherently incompatible with it. Pulling the person of Christ away from what the Bible portrays -- a fulfillment of the law in a new Covenant -- requires either vague claims of conspiracy, derailing of God's plan by man, or by selectively reading the Bible to pick out pieces that seem to support something that, put back in context, they do not.

Your vision means as much to me as Joseph Smith's did. That's not an insult, merely a statement that your vision is yours, it is not mine, and, as it is not in keeping with the view of faith that I hold, I find no reason to believe that it has meaning for me.

There is an ultimate truth, and both you and I cannot be correct (though we can, of course, both be wrong.) You are convinced that you are right, I am convinced that I am right, so without a persuasive argument, which you have failed to provide, there is no reason for me to think you correct and me wrong, just as there is no reason for you to believe me right and you wrong.

The fact that you're shilling a book (it's on amazom.com, folks!) makes your participation a bit less opaque, though. Thanks for that clarification.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen

You cannot in any way even understand the argument I am presenting.

Everything you say originates in the 'fallen' consciousness: the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'; that is, the "beast of the sea" and the "beast of the earth".

It makes no difference if you have 'thought' about it for 10 seconds or for 10 YEARS. It is all the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

The consciousness of the 'thinker' originates in the desire for pleasure and the fear of death; so the thoughts of the 'thinker' are intended for pleasure rather than Truth. This is what theology is: nothing more than a series of thoughts about Revelations which are pleasurable to the 'fallen' consciousness.

You find something pleasurable, and that you call the 'Truth'.

And, when someone contradicts you, that is unpleasurable, so you accuse them of lying.

Knowledge or "Gnosis" originates in another dimension of consciousness altogether: the consciousness Created by and in the image of God.

Your statements about the Vision are precisely the same as the arguments used by the Jewish religious 'authorities' against Jesus, by which they 'justified' eliminating him.

Never mind that Moses received the same Vision; never mind that Mohammed received the same Vision; never mind that Ezekiel and Isaiah received the same Vision.

The only reason they are believed is because they are DEAD.

But, let someone still alive claim to have received that Vision, and it is "unsure", or it has no "meaning", or is not in any way "relevant" to anyone else.

But the Vision of Knowledge is precisely that.

It conveys information about even the different dimensions of consciousness.

But it is not at all surprising that the 'fallen' consciousness would deny, contradict and minimize such information as not being of any importance. That is what it is required to do, being in opposition to the consciousness Created by God and the Knowledge received from God.

Oh, by the way, there are only two "Evidences" that the "Gnostic" view is the Truth:

One of those "Evidences" is the Vision of the "Son of man".

The other of those "Evidences" is the Revelation of the "resurrection", consisting of the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

Those who have received those Revelations do not need even so much as one book written by a theologian.

Rather, on the basis of those Revelations, they are capable of explaining many of the Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, for example, that the Christian religious 'authorities' have no understanding of whatsoever; as well as differentiating Truth from falsehood in those documents that have been perverted by this or that metaphysical school of thought. (The Gospel of John, for example)

Michael

edit on 6-10-2010 by Michael Cecil because: commentary on the Vision and the Revelation of the "resurrection"



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Oh, by the way, there are only two "Evidences" that the "Gnostic" view is the Truth:

One of those "Evidences" is the Vision of the "Son of man".

The other of those "Evidences" is the Revelation of the "resurrection", consisting of the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

Those who have received those Revelations do not need even so much as one book written by a theologian.


Once again, the claim that God is an elitist, who is only interested in granting grace to the clever.

Michael, you have failed to answer anything I brought up. If you wish to be taken seriously (well, to have a chance of being taken seriously,) kindly tell me how Hellenistic and Judaic schools of thought regarding multi deism and the nature of matter are reconciled, and why Jesus did not denounce the God of the Jewish faith as a bumbling demiurge, but rather laboured on as a faithful Jew and spoke rather well of their God?

I don't need your vision, I don't need your book, I just need to hear a lucid answer to those very simple questions that belie the possibility that Jesus, the Jew, could be the divine bringer of Greek Gnosis.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen

"Thought experiments" are useful not only in physics.

I suggest that they can also be of certain benefit in theology:

"Assume that you are a professional theologian. You have read thousands of books on theology over more than 30 years and have amassed a small fortune writing your own books on theology, which everyone considers to be brilliant. Your followers number in the thousands. You are regularly asked for your opinions in newspapers, religion magazines, and on radio and television news shows whenever the subject of religion comes up. You are always seated at the head table at any social events that you and your loving wife are invited to. (And, with your money, you have even been able to afford breast implants for your wife.) Everyone concludes that you are, perhaps, the greatest theologian in the world.

Then you encounter someone who has received the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

He very rapidly leafs through your books, scarcely able to control his laughter. It is the most ridiculous nonsense that he has ever read in all his life. But you are an idiot. You challenge him to a public debate and, in just a few words, he makes you look like a complete fool. The arguments he uses against your witlessness are something that you have never heard before; nor has any other theologian with whom you are acquainted. What is worse, they are simple enough for even a layman to understand. One does not have to have a Ph.D. in theology to understand that you are wrong; but not merely wrong, obviously wrong; and not only wrong, but evil as well. In fact, he demonstrates that you have completely perverted the original Revelations for the sake of making money.

Even your friends are laughing at you. People are asking for their money back for having bought your stupid books on theology. And your wife is looking at you with a look that seems to say 'Why did I ever get hooked up with this guy? I used to think he was smart. He's nothing but a con man.'

And, what is much worse, the guy that made you look like a fool is much younger than you. Maybe in his early 20s or early 30s. And good looking. Maybe he wants your wife."

NOW you have an idea why religious 'authorities' are always opposed to those who have received Revelations.

It makes no difference whether your name is Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus or Mohammed.

Those who receive Revelations have a Knowledge that is not accessible to those who have studied diligently for even 20, 30 or 40 years. Nor, the Truth be told, are those who have merely 'studied books' even capable of understanding what those Revelations are in the first place.

And, if you feel hatred welling up in you because of anything I have said...

Maybe you will now understand what it was like to be a Pharisee at the time of Jesus.

Michael



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Once again, the claim that God is an elitist, who is only interested in granting grace to the clever


So, is your God a discriminist for only granting salvation to those who bury their head in the sand of religious doctrine? I think you are still looking at things in a very black and white way. You need not be a member of the "elite" to seek the truth on your own. However, the fact of the matter is that the masses are by an large easily manipulated. Religion serves these types of people well for there is no need to think, just do as you are told and it will all be okay. Don't do it and, well, you know what will happen. Scary.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Maybe you will now understand what it was like to be a Pharisee at the time of Jesus.


I don't know who you are my friend, but I like your style.

With Love,

Your Brother





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join