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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
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.


Hahaha, hey i never said i was perfect... this wasn't directed at you. Tolerance is one thing, but unfortunatly i have little tolerance for ignorant or rude people, its just unnecessary. I've noticed you get a little snippity at times to so... hey Pot...quit callin me black eh

Let me toot my whistle




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
The point of Jesus is to tell us to love ourselves first, then we can love our neighbor. Love thy neighbor as one loves thyself. We need to forgive our own sins first. Unconditional love is the message, starting with oneself. If we can not forgive ourselves we will never be able to forgive others.
Jesus and Buddha had the same surname, Christ was not really the surname of Jesus. Jesus Christ (consciousness) and Buddha consciousness. They were both spreading the message of consciousness. Research consciousness.
Just because the authorities stole the message and turned it into a method for control, does not mean that god (consciousness) is not real.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Jesus was pointing, Buddha was pointing and all prophets were and are pointing. The point was to point one to the presence, that you are. You are the presence and without you there would be nothing, without you there would be no existence. You are existence itself.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by bogomil
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.


Hahaha, hey i never said i was perfect... this wasn't directed at you. Tolerance is one thing, but unfortunatly i have little tolerance for ignorant or rude people, its just unnecessary. I've noticed you get a little snippity at times to so... hey Pot...quit callin me black eh

Let me toot my whistle


I'll take the easy part of your posts first.


What do you mean "a little snippity". I don't get a little snippity, I get outright unpleasant, sometimes insinuating and concerning my character, 'tolerance' is a city on Mars.

A small, but relevant digression:

This city 'Tolerance' is actually is a joint project between NASA and 'United Puritans', because after more or less being kicked out of Europe, the puritans later discovered, that USA didn't adapt to puritan standards either, so now the martians are next in line.

And as the first step in all invasive maneuvers is to give your targets the impression, that you're are the good guys, names such as charity, hope, tolerance, brotherhood (more seldom sisterhood) and love are freely used.

But fortunately I'm not encumbered with an ideological system telling me to be 'loving' or tolerant, so I can stand proud and free and annoying, while the Jesus-lobbyists are forcing a: "We love everybody" out through their gnashing teeth and frothing holily around the mouth.

So Akragon, my good man, don't try to tone down my shortcomings; I've spent a lifetime cultivating them.

And as the best (immediate)-afterlife explanation is, that your mind arrange the afterlife-details, I'm quite sure, that I'll end up in a place peopled with witty sufis, mad zen-monks, the makers of 'South Park', old matured whiskey and ofcourse curvy, scantily dressed, women (though it must be emphasized, that these women have full egalitarian rights), where everyone will make snide comments on gods, creation and each other.

E.g. Jesus saying to Buddha: "C'mon, Dude, don't be such an old dried-up ascetic. Have a little wine, bread and fish; we both have a second coming to perform, but let's enjoy death in the meantime. If you'll just pass me that water jug, I can make a decent red Chateau Lafitte -89".

So I really don't have to worry about my character.

Whereas and on the other hand, I'm not really that keen on ending up in a christian afterlife (be it from faith or good behaviour).

Apart from the absurdity of sitting at the right hand of Jesus, which even in the most restrictive of models with only 144.000 candidates, still would mean that those at the end of the line would be sitting 50 miles away from him (I calculated it, details on request), my singing voice would spoil even a choir of 144.000 halleluja-singers.

And looking down to a hell, where masochists (disguising themselves as sinners) eternally are being tormented by overworked demons, doesn't appeal to me either. It's not as if I have anything against masochism in principle, I just don't like to look at it. And as with my singing voice, there are logical shortcomings in the set-up. E.g. how can those dying teeth-less gnash their teeth, unless teeth are provided ofcourse (as I theoretically could be supplied with a singing voice also), but that would be kind of cheating, as it implies 'majic', which then could have been used from the very start instead of all the 'misery and being saved from misery' thingy.

I hope, I have covered the 'Point of Jesus' from my perspective; .... though I must admit to an unorthodox approach in this post.
edit on 2-4-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The point of Jesus is to tell us to love ourselves first, then we can love our neighbor. Love thy neighbor as one loves thyself. We need to forgive our own sins first. Unconditional love is the message, starting with oneself. If we can not forgive ourselves we will never be able to forgive others.
Jesus and Buddha had the same surname, Christ was not really the surname of Jesus. Jesus Christ (consciousness) and Buddha consciousness. They were both spreading the message of consciousness. Research consciousness.
Just because the authorities stole the message and turned it into a method for control, does not mean that god (consciousness) is not real.


While your efforts of profiling things in a sensible way are praiseworthy, I'm afraid that my compulsory need of looking for weak links takes over as usual.

What about those, who basically are flagellants (wishing to be scourged). Do their neighbours also hope for or agree to being treated this way.

And what about sociopaths, who are MASTERS of loving themselves. Should they be included as reference-points.

So sorry, the (christian) 'golden rule' is as filled with holes as a Swiss cheese, having conditions and price-tags in it.

As to 'sins', this is a doctrinal point mainly found in abrahamic religions, and has little relevance to other religious systems.....

...so when you later include Buddha in the same category as Jesus (I here refer to the character from NT), your speculations are, I'm afraid, somewhat loose.

Concerning "researching consciousness" the after-the-party-is-over hangers-on on this thread, such as Akragon, Mysticnoon and my-own-not-so-humble self have already done a lot of consciousness reasearching, as far as I know. Please be aware of the risk implied in carrying this kind of well-meaning advice into the area of being patronizing.

(Only I, Bogomil the self-appointed Great, have the right to patronize).

Agreeing with you, that excessive 'authority' (of any kind) definitely is in the category of the REAL bad guys, but from there jumping to the conclusions

a/ that 'god' = consciousness

and

b/ 'god' thus must exist

is a very big jump, which I personally will classify as a speculative postulate. And when it's used by those having made sufficiently 'consciousness research' it ought to be recognized as a propaganda 'argument'. Even used inverted as you did.
edit on 2-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Do you know what bogomil?, if only i could understand what you are talking about we might possibly be able to have a discussion. However, you use such intelligent words, i think you must be a politician, that i am just confused and really i can't be bothered. I think you do this to intimidate. I try my hardest to communicate on a level that i hope others will be able to understand.
You come here to argue.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Jesus was pointing, Buddha was pointing and all prophets were and are pointing. The point was to point one to the presence, that you are. You are the presence and without you there would be nothing, without you there would be no existence. You are existence itself.


Seemingly I have more energy today, than what's good for me (or anyone else), so I'll just plod on with being irritating.

That Jesus, Buddha and all prophets were/are 'pointing' is a sad, but undeniable fact. It's probably in human nature to point or to be pointed for.

But as somebody said: "When I point at the moon, don't look at my finger...look at the moon"

Thusly I will proceed by pointing on pointing, and then even more thusly hopefully having confused everybody to the point, where I can sneak my own propaganda in through the back-door:

You see, for a majority of mankind Jesus, Buddha and all prophets pointed in different directions from different positions.

It can be claimed, that the 'enlightened' individual may see, that they all pointed the same way from the same position, but as there are very few really 'enlightened' people amongst mankind (apart from me ofcourse) and that 'enlightened' from e.g. some christian positions is taken to be 'endarkened'...

....pointing is a risky business.

That I, and most probably the rest of the universe exist, is not something I really need to have 'pointed out' for me; solipcism is at best an untenable position.

So even poor old DesCartes, who 'pointed' out that: "I think, ergo I must exist"

has later been mocked by the contemporary version: "I drink, ergo I must exist".

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to be a pointing philosopher in a world filled with sarcastic comments. 'The point of...', pointing this point out and then finding a good pointing-out-per-se analytical systematic methodology is enough to have most people climbing on the walls.

But I don't mean to discourage anybody.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Can you see that it is you that comes here with sarcasm? And put downs, judgements, though you say you are the enlightened one.
Jesus and Buddha, and all seers of truth only point to the one. If you think they are pointing in different directions then you have not discovered the truth yet, although you claim you have... You feel the need to tell others that they are wrong, yet you do not know what is right yourself.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Do you know what bogomil?, if only i could understand what you are talking about we might possibly be able to have a discussion. However, you use such intelligent words, i think you must be a politician, that i am just confused and really i can't be bothered. I think you do this to intimidate. I try my hardest to communicate on a level that i hope others will be able to understand.
You come here to argue.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.


Be it far from me to deny my use of an excessive lingo; but isn't that how religionists usually talk?

I mean, take 'sin' as an example. Where did THAT come from?

Whether it's just daily-usage sin or 'original sin', I can't see it anywhere except in a confused book propagandizing for a specific world-view, and where both the book and its world-view is 'defended' or 'explained' by an endless elaborate circular argumentation, based on confusing opposition with semantics, even scholastic.

I'm afraid, that 'sin' is something you or some guys just made up, and that by repeating the idea constantly and by confusing everybody to brain-death, it has (allegedly) become housebroken to drop the word as an 'absolute' in any context, where it's supposed to 'prove' something.

I'm just upholding this noble tradition of babbling, though my version is more glib than holy.

Sorry about the 'intelligent words'. That's self-protection against religious word-mongers, who challenge opposition down to the last comma and down to the last validation of the last dictionary.

I'm not really trying to intimidate, but in any case I can't see intimidating as worse than preaching.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



You wrote:

["You feel the need to tell others that they are wrong, yet you do not know what is right yourself."]

While missing something in my posts (which I believe some others can see), you at least got that one right:

I DO NOT know, what is 'right' (in the sense of knowing ultimate, absolute 'truth or 'reality'). But I never claimed to.

If a suitable context arises at one point, I will be more than willing to explain my systematic methodology in detail for you, but in the meantime I can just direct attention to e.g. R.A.Wilson as a fellow traveller on the same path.





edit on 2-4-2011 by bogomil because: missed word



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


So you speak in this manner (excessive lingo) because you see yourself as a religionist. I do not know what a religionist is even my spell check does not recognize this word.
Holding a judgement about anything, anyone or ourselves is a misjudgement. Thinking that anything could be any different than it is, is a delusion. This is what i consider sin. Missing the point.
If you like Robert Anton Wilson, you might like Robert Lanza.

edit on 2-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: Inserted reference.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["So you speak in this manner (excessive lingo) because you see yourself as a religionist."]

Nope, I don't see myself as a religionist, I just use their general communication-form in a glib way.

Quote: ["I do not know what a religionist is even my spell check does not recognize this word."]

A person adhering to religion (it's common jargon).

Quote: ["Thinking that anything could be any different than it is, is a delusion."]

Strangely enough that's my point also, but where you already have the answers, I'm still looking for good methods to find more, ...more extensive ... and more reliable answers.

It's the old witticism about religion and science/logic:

The scientist: Here are the facts, what are the conclusion(s)?

The religionist: Here is the conclusion. Where are the 'facts' to 'prove' it?

Quote: ["The original sin is believing that sin is possible."]

One interpretation amongst many. Please notice, that I talked about daily-usage 'sin' as well as about 'original sin'. How you fill it out, give it meaning, requires an explanation of the difference between the two and still a validation of 'sin' as such.

Quote: ["Intimidation is judgement. Preaching is poetry."]

It can similarly simplistic be said, that preaching is invasion and that being glib or sarcastic is a protection against such an invasion, as preachers usually perform their stunt in monologue-form and seldom listen to anything outside their holy bubble. My way gives a certain amount of response.




edit on 2-4-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


As you can see, I've been busy. But I won't forget a serious answer to your last post on page three. I'm just enjoying the present repartee-level too much.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


How can speaking on this site be called a invasion, you plug in!!!! You came to this thread to what?????
You said you were enlightened.
You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally.
edit on 2-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: Love.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["How can speaking on this site be called a invasion, you plug in!!!! You came to this thread to what?????"]

Overenthusiastic religionists preach (and invade). Their equally over-enthusiastic opponents so to speak counter-preach. I have a merry time in the middle, equally p*ssing off both extreme ends of a polarized situation.

This does not mean, I'm sitting at the fence, immensely enjoying my own 'smartness'. I actually DO have a well-defined and clear ('third') position, a position which seems to be outside your grasp (no offense meant, as it could be my language creating a barrier, just as well as it could be ignorance on your part).

Quote: ["You said you were enlightened."]

General- and self-irony, which I had hoped to be obvious, as I openly declare NOT to know everything.

Quote: ["You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally."]

At least read all the posts on this page, instead of relating only to the small quibbling world you and I share at the moment. That's a small courtesy, I would expect of everyone taking part of a public debate.



edit on 2-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling, punctuation



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


As you can see, I've been busy. But I won't forget a serious answer to your last post on page three. I'm just enjoying the present repartee-level too much.



Hahaha, so i see...no worries bro...take your time im in no hurry...but




So Akragon, my good man, don't try to tone down my shortcomings; I've spent a lifetime cultivating them.


I would never try to change who you are my friend, i care not if you are "snippity" or any of the other names you refer to yourself as "proud" to be. I was mearly stateing that i also have my flaws like everyone else. Besides i like your attitude haha... I find you to be an asset to the world being able to see the stupidity of others...

Oh and by the way, in not christian or any other affiliation just so you know...theres no religion or church behind my words, its just me.
edit on 2-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Oh and by the way, in not christian or any other affiliation just so you know...theres no religion or church behind my words, its just me."]


I know, but what about 'manuals'?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


A quote from your current opposition my friend...


You are teaching me how to love. Unconditionally


I believe hes saying even though he disagrees with your arguements he's still trying to show you love...

I could be wrong though




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Oh and by the way, in not christian or any other affiliation just so you know...theres no religion or church behind my words, its just me."]


I know, but what about 'manuals'?


I have no manuals, no guides....you'll notice in 80% of my posts i do not quote any scripture unless its thrown at me... I can quote scripture with the best of them my friend but i do not need to do so to prove what i speak.

i have no need of these books i've studied any more though i do enjoy reading them still...




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


So either you wrote the ten commandments yourself, or they are part of the 20% scripture-quoting.

"I can quote scripture with the best of them my friend but i do not need to do so to prove what i speak."

Happy to hear that, as I detest arguments mainly resting on 'authority'. As to 'proof' we'll get around to it eventually, when I'm finished with my middle-position counter-preaching left and right elsewhere.







 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join