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.

 

The Point of Jesus

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


Now is night in my time-zone, so continuation tomorrow.



haha, good deal...

Til then





posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
God isn't real. never was. never will be. and noone can prove there is a god. or ever will be able to prove it.
The basis of religion (namely christianity) is to pray to "god" and he will either answer your prayers or not answer your prayers..... which is a completely retarded concept. of course if you pray for something there are two possible outcomes. just like if i said i want to win the lottery tomorrow. god has no part in that at all. the facts are i will either win the lottery or not. the idea that there is a higher power controlling these outcomes is moronic. people say if something they pray for comes true then god made it happen. fact is, they just random ass got what they wanted. they could have just as easily not gotten what they prayed for and then they would have said god "didnt say yes". so in the mind of a religious person... you either get what you want or wait for god to make up his mind. which is a retards perspective of yes and no fed to them by a priest or whatever leads the religion in question.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by iheartprplkoolaid
 


I hate to say it my friend but you have no idea what you're talking about




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


i feel the problem may be your lack of the ability to read. because if you understand basic english which i broke my last post down into. it is very clear the point is "god doesnt answer prayers, prayers are the churches' mask for chance and taking claim to the outcome of everyday occurances."



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by iheartprplkoolaid
reply to post by Akragon
 


i feel the problem may be your lack of the ability to read. because if you understand basic english which i broke my last post down into. it is very clear the point is "god doesnt answer prayers, prayers are the churches' mask for chance and taking claim to the outcome of everyday occurances."


*sigh* this must be the late night crowd....

ease off the insults bro, believe whatever you want to believe i could care less. But why bring down others beliefs, does it make you feel important?

Besides that who said anything about churches?

Don't try to explain something you don't understand my friend... you waste your time on this audience




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


you must be thick if you havent gotten my point by now. sorry but pls stop posting on my thread if you dont agree then disagree but dont pretend to be retarded when someone very very very clearly makes an opposing statement to what you say.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iheartprplkoolaid
reply to post by Akragon
 


you must be thick if you havent gotten my point by now. sorry but pls stop posting on my thread if you dont agree then disagree but dont pretend to be retarded when someone very very very clearly makes an opposing statement to what you say.


Perhaps you'd like to explain what you're talking about instead of insulting people like a little child?

If i disagree with you i have every right to post my opinion.... So how about we leave the school yard bullsh!t behind and try to be adults on these forums.

If this topic was just to make fun of religious people by telling them Jesus wasn't what they might believe...as you clearly are trying to do here


noone yet. this post needs to explode with some "jesus freaks"


Then i believe this thread should be closed anyways in which case i would be notifying a moderator of your intentions. But if you think you'll just openly critique others beliefs without a vicious response....well you have another thing comming chump.



God isn't real. never was. never will be. and noone can prove there is a god. or ever will be able to prove it.


I've went through every single comment you've left on this thread, and again like i said before...you haven't got a clue... I've left you my answers....if you don't except them tough Sh!t...

So next time you want to get into a war of words, please come armed with a little more then your pathetic insults... If you want to learn about subjects like this... theres plenty around this forum to read... i can help you if you so desire to find God... But i won't put up with pathetic insults from an immature little child trying to prove something.

Oh and just so you know.....since you asked me not to post anymore in your thread so rudely....i'll be happy to critique every statement you have from here on in...

gl



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 




Oh and just so you know.....since you asked me not to post anymore in your thread so rudely....i'll be happy to critique every statement you have from here on in...


LOL!! Do it, do it, do it.





posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
 




Oh and just so you know.....since you asked me not to post anymore in your thread so rudely....i'll be happy to critique every statement you have from here on in...


LOL!! Do it, do it, do it.




Oh i will...ignorance is bliss to the blind.

But ingnorance and rudeness... Needs a good slap across the back of the head...




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I will start from the lowliest (some would claim the highest) point: Even amongst manual ditch-diggers there are 'interpretations' of the finer points in the noble art of ditch-digging (being the owner of an ecological farm with a formerly restricted economy, I have actually done my share of ditch-digging. I'm talking from an 'experiental' position).

Mankind is a somewhat greedy, quarrelsome and imbalanced species (usually we aren't even integrated in our own individual being), so if there is anything to disagree on, it's a popular pastime to do so. That we furthermore don't have any real absolutes to refer to, doesn't make it better; because we would love to have absolutes, but not having any, we invent them, and continue to disagree on the endlessly diverse answers, methodologies and models in this area.

So going from the mundane world of ditch-digging to the world of existential 'explanations', we pass through such as anomalies (aberrations from co-sensus 'reality'), alleged contacts with mundane non-human species, alleged contact with alleged trans-mundane non-human species (angels, demons, saints and others entities said to be 'outside' mundane existence) which manifest in the mundane world, to the point where we as human individuals allegedly can transcend the threshold between the mundane and the allegedly trans-mundane and have a firsthand direct experience of this alleged transmundane.

From a to z in this special perspective on existence, mankind does, as it usually does: It interpretates every single step of the procedure from "how do we choose and validate a method" to "why MY answers and experiences are the 'true' ones" once the chosen method has been applied.

Here I would like to insert: I'm not on principle rejecting 'gut'-feelings, paranormal experiences or transcendence (or ALL methodologies or models), I'm rejecting their interpretations into 'absolute answers'.

I believe, I finally have arrived to some kind of essense of this. I can with some justification present the situation with two options.

One is the conditional approach, where the 'spiritual traveller' starts from or with a more or less pre-arranged position, which includes 'model', method and expectations. In the conditional approach the major part of 'spiritual travellers' come back with what they set out to find. A simple feed-back mechanism, which is clearly observable in a comparative analysis. (Details for a possible later post).

The other option is the non-conditional approach, which for good reasons aren't that common, and where 'what you bring back' is as non-denominational/religiously non-specific as mankind can get it. An alleged 'objective' version of spirituality, which probably wouldn't interfere with or annoy even the most gnostic-atheist, as it's basically 'neutral'.



So as this post won't be considered completely off-topic, I will try to relate it to topic.

Those using a conditional approach to spiritual travelling, often bring their conditional elements with them into society. There being many different conditional spiritual approaches, amongst which some (especially the versions associated to abrahamic basics) can be rather invasive, and this p*sses off non-believers. The invasive conditional spiritual travellers fight amongst each other, they fight competing systems, the fight society and at best they put up their absolutes AS abstract, but exclusive absolutes (which even for the most mild-mannered abstract academic can function as a red flag).

And while 'competence' and experience (as you suggest) are reasonable pre-requisites for any activity, it's too sophisticated and too specialist to patronize a secularist from such an elevated position. Most secularists and gnostic-atheists simply don't give a darn, if the conditional spiritualist brings back original sin or not, or brings back a Jesus which is an answer or not to original sin. That your coming back with a 'bhakti' answer (the compassion aspect) isn't so harsh or invasive as fire-and-brimstone, is probably also irrelevant to secularists and gnostic-atheists. They ('we' actually, as I'm a secularist myself in this context) already have utilitarian ethics, being a functional part of secular, egalitarian, liberal democracy, and however nice a divine compassion model is, there's no need for it. Considering that a considerable part of bible-relying individuals pay lip-service to 'christian love', but actually spread messages of the worst kind of intolerance, the acceptance of divine compassion isn't that great. You never nknow, what hidden price-tag there is in such a bargain.

Summary: No matter how well-meaning or idealistic they may be, the last thing mankind needs are 'specialist'-interpretated absolutes. We manage better without.

However much I would like to go into details about the 'god', you bring back with you, I'm afraid it's so far off-topic, that we'll have to do it on another, more relevant thread.


edit on 1-4-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Oh i will...ignorance is bliss to the blind.

But ingnorance and rudeness... Needs a good slap across the back of the head... "]

See what I mean?

So much for compassion or whatever you choose to call it.

I have personally been exposed to character defamation and similar on ATS, much worse than what you have met here, and even with my grumpy mindset and my often polarized attitudes, I've never suggested anything like you do above or felt the need of calling in moderators for censorship of opposition.

Tolerance and similar is easy to preach, but it has to stand its test in reality.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I love your posts my friend, clearly you are very intelligent which i always admire...

One thing i must tell you about myself. I don't deal in absolutes...(except one which i will get into in a moment)

Anyone who deals with definitive or absolute answers are fooling themselves because there are no absolutes. Especially when we're talking about a figure that has no real proof of even existing. People preach what they don't understand when it comes to religion. They believe that because they were "saved" they should show everyone else what they believe and condem those who don't believe what they do....this is fault beyond fault. Its what Jesus called "the blind leading the blind"...

Now as for the one absolute i do deal with and accept fully is Love... If you love everyone for who they are regardless of what they believe you can do no wrong..... All of the 10 commandments have to do with love without exception. IF everyone on this planet loved each other as they love themselves there would be no more famine, no poor, no slavery, no murder, no thievery, no adultry, no killing innocent animals... it would all be done away with forever.

This my friend is absolute and i would be happy to prove it if you don't agree... This is the mind of christ and thus the mind of God who is in all of us.

So please my friend...quesiton my absolute and see if you can find a flaw.......there is only one truth, one absolute and that is love.




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["love your posts my friend, clearly you are very intelligent which i always admire..."]

Not generally being the loving kind myself, I can best reprociate your compliment by saying that I enjoy YOUR posts. As to intelligence, that's just a talent some people have. I kind of didn't make it myself from the start, it was just there, so for good or bad such talents aren't anything to boast of, but only to use and enjoy. Personally I envy those who can play violin (though hard pressed for a choice, I would stick with intellect).

I also never think about that I'm rich and handsome.

And now to the serious business.

Quote: [" One thing i must tell you about myself. I don't deal in absolutes...(except one which i will get into in a moment)"]

As I obviously don't do either, except for this one: "Thou shall not deal with absolutes at all".

This paradox will be part of your overdue training as a zen-buddhist.

But I do believe, that we're getting prematurely distanced from your direct spiritual experience, which I guess to be encompassed in this quote:

["... This is the mind of christ and thus the mind of God who is in all of us."]

But here we're already ahead of the validity of your direct experience-'mechanism' and its relationship to a conditional/non-conditional start-position. Which implies question one.

It's not as if I want cross-examine you on your specific method for direct spiritual experience, but a hint on its form would help. E.g. do you have an inner 'feeling', a voice speaking to you in your head, perform 'automatic writing', practise some variation of pentacostal 'holy spirit' thing and talk in tongues (with- ot without an interpretator). Do you see or in other ways experience beings or entities, and are these then specific. Do you trascend?

Do you have any direct experience of Jesus, 'god' or similar and how do you then know, that it was him/them? That was question two.

The reason I'm asking, is because I want to know the extent of your actual direct experience, and how much you possible later derive or conclude from these experiences. It's amazing, what people can get out of seeing a funny-looking cloud.

If you met any individuals, entities or similar, did they then TELL you about the love aspect, or did they kind of emanate love. That was question three.

I must admit to a certain suspicion by your inclusion of the ten commandments into your otherwise relatively straightforward 'love' experience/message. Did/do you get any specific instructions on the ten commandments? Question four.

I'm afraid, I'm stuck here, until I have this further information. And please add the version of the ten commandments you refer to. There seem to be some disgreement on the subject between various pundits.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iheartprplkoolaid
 


I hope you don't feel, that the thread is getting out of hand. I'm actually trying to establish the validity of claim(s) on Jesus' alleged existence on contemporary terms.

Admittedly in a rather circumstantial way, but at least this method is more relevant than debating the content of a 1500+ year old book.


edit on 1-4-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Here I would like to insert: I'm not on principle rejecting 'gut'-feelings, paranormal experiences or transcendence (or ALL methodologies or models), I'm rejecting their interpretations into 'absolute answers'.


This also defines my own perspective on the matter of absolutes, and especially as it relates to Jesus and the Christian view of God.

bogomil, may I suggest that would be an appropriate statement to place in your signature, as it would make clear the intent of your posts?


edit on 1-4-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Now as for the one absolute i do deal with and accept fully is Love...


Love also gets my vote for being the most likely Absolute, but as dearly as I love Love, (having dedicated my entire life to it), I still hold short of pronouncing it an absolute. It is not because Love is anything less than perfect, but because my understanding is less than perfect. And until my own understanding reaches perfection, I will not posit even Love as an absolute, and I suspect that were I ever to attain that state of perfection, I would still not shout it from the rooftops.
edit on 1-4-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Hi my friend (not being very friendly by character I only use this expression, when I mean it)

Thanks for your suggestion corcerning a signature. It would probably save me a lot of un-necessary confrontations.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by Akragon
 



Now as for the one absolute i do deal with and accept fully is Love...


Love also gets my vote for being the most likely Absolute, but as dearly as I love Love, (having dedicated my entire life to it), I still hold short of pronouncing it an absolute. It is not because Love is anything less than perfect, but because my understanding is less than perfect. And until my own understanding reaches perfection, I will not posit even Love as an absolute, and I suspect that were I ever to attain that state of perfection, I would still not shout it from the rooftops.
edit on 1-4-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)


This thread is hanging on a thin thread concerning topic.

But I'll make it short. Are you familar with Gurdjieff's 'Fourth way'? There's a REALLY elegant answer in it to bhakti, jnani and karma paths used separately alternative to a superior integrated totality of all three.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



This thread is hanging on a thin thread concerning topic.


Considering some believe that the "point of Jesus" was to teach and bring the message of love, I think we may be safe within its limit, though admittedly skirting on the edge.

As to Gurdjieff's 'Fourth way', I have heard of it, but have not read it. It will now go onto my list of things I must read before I die.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["love your posts my friend, clearly you are very intelligent which i always admire..."]

Not generally being the loving kind myself, I can best reprociate your compliment by saying that I enjoy YOUR posts. As to intelligence, that's just a talent some people have. I kind of didn't make it myself from the start, it was just there, so for good or bad such talents aren't anything to boast of, but only to use and enjoy. Personally I envy those who can play violin (though hard pressed for a choice, I would stick with intellect).

I also never think about that I'm rich and handsome.

And now to the serious business.

Quote: [" One thing i must tell you about myself. I don't deal in absolutes...(except one which i will get into in a moment)"]

As I obviously don't do either, except for this one: "Thou shall not deal with absolutes at all".

This paradox will be part of your overdue training as a zen-buddhist.

But I do believe, that we're getting prematurely distanced from your direct spiritual experience, which I guess to be encompassed in this quote:

["... This is the mind of christ and thus the mind of God who is in all of us."]

But here we're already ahead of the validity of your direct experience-'mechanism' and its relationship to a conditional/non-conditional start-position. Which implies question one.

It's not as if I want cross-examine you on your specific method for direct spiritual experience, but a hint on its form would help. E.g. do you have an inner 'feeling', a voice speaking to you in your head, perform 'automatic writing', practise some variation of pentacostal 'holy spirit' thing and talk in tongues (with- ot without an interpretator). Do you see or in other ways experience beings or entities, and are these then specific. Do you trascend?

Do you have any direct experience of Jesus, 'god' or similar and how do you then know, that it was him/them? That was question two.

The reason I'm asking, is because I want to know the extent of your actual direct experience, and how much you possible later derive or conclude from these experiences. It's amazing, what people can get out of seeing a funny-looking cloud.

If you met any individuals, entities or similar, did they then TELL you about the love aspect, or did they kind of emanate love. That was question three.

I must admit to a certain suspicion by your inclusion of the ten commandments into your otherwise relatively straightforward 'love' experience/message. Did/do you get any specific instructions on the ten commandments? Question four.

I'm afraid, I'm stuck here, until I have this further information. And please add the version of the ten commandments you refer to. There seem to be some disgreement on the subject between various pundits.


Alright lets see if i can explain a little... i had a long night




but a hint on its form would help. E.g. do you have an inner 'feeling', a voice speaking to you in your head, perform 'automatic writing', practise some variation of pentacostal 'holy spirit' thing and talk in tongues (with- ot without an interpretator). Do you see or in other ways experience beings or entities, and are these then specific. Do you trascend?


No, i have none of those talents or...whatever you might call them....i wish haha! Unfortunatly i've never been blessed with seeing "ghosts: or entities...honestly before about 5 years ago, i had no belief in God what so ever....other then my "christian" up bringing. Which actually made be belief even less...


Do you have any direct experience of Jesus, 'god' or similar and how do you then know, that it was him/them? That was question two.

The reason I'm asking, is because I want to know the extent of your actual direct experience, and how much you possible later derive or conclude from these experiences. It's amazing, what people can get out of seeing a funny-looking cloud.


No direct experience with jesus...God yes...but again you have to understand what God is... I would tell you of my experiences but this forum would cheapen the experience. I posted it on a forum that is far less judgemental then here, perhaps i will give you the link if you want Via U2U... Lets call them profound realizations which actually brought be to tears. Realizing...and then knowing without a doubt there is something more then the physical can be very emotional




If you met any individuals, entities or similar, did they then TELL you about the love aspect, or did they kind of emanate love. That was question three.


No i've had no experiences with entities or angels or demons, i have no idea if any of them exist but i assume they do... because others have had experiences with them and who am i to say they didn't... The love aspect came from study of the bible, the gnostics, the koran (but not much of it) and the bhagavad gita... plus hundreds of new age teachings...older ones from people like budda(s)... and many many more older scriptures....along with meditation... it was more of a final conclusion that negated the need to study any longer. Plus i was taught the bible by a man that understands it better then any man i've ever met...i'd argue any man living today but thats a bit much
One day it just clicked, everything i'd been studying came together which gave me an over all understanding... the one thing every teaching has in common....is love. Even The Kaballah in some aspects which i've also touched on.



I must admit to a certain suspicion by your inclusion of the ten commandments into your otherwise relatively straightforward 'love' experience/message. Did/do you get any specific instructions on the ten commandments? Question four.


nope, no instructions... The 10 commandments are all about love...Love for God and love for your neighbour. Aside from the sabbath which still involves love, but the sabbath is complicated in OT terms...this man i mentioned lives and has lived by the 10 commandments for the past 50+ years... I tried it for a month, and i couldn't do it. Believe me when you get right down in to the nitty gritty of the sabbath its not an easy task.

Anyways here we are...

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ( love God)

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (love God)

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (respect God, requires love)

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (love God)

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (love/respect your parents who are also a part of God)

13Thou shalt not kill. (can't kill someone you love)

14Thou shalt not commit adultery. (wouldn't commit adultry on one you love)

15Thou shalt not steal. (love your neighbour who are also a part of God)

16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Again love thy neighbour)

17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. ( and again...love thy neighbour)

If you have any more questions feel free my friend




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join