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.

 

Jesus Was Not Religious, so why hate Christians because of what religion has done?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by Akragon
 

Looks like a
"Leap of faith"
would have been easier than climbing over the christian religious symbol to get to god.

What is the artist REAL message here?



I think you just stated it actually...


edit on 15-1-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 





Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
I am here to tell all the members on this board that continually hate on Christians because you have a hatred against religion one thing. Christianity is not a RELIGION it's a RELATIONSHIP.... With our one and only savior, Jesus Christ. God's way to reach man, is through Christ.


I agree, in that Christianity is supposed to be about having a personal relationship with God. Unfortunately, many Christian denominations, have set themselves up as an authority, rather than promoting the idea, that a relationship with God through the power of the Holy Spirit, is the main priority.

One only needs to look at Matthew 23, to see that Jesus was clearly against Religion and people following religion blindly.



Matthew 23:8-9
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.


Jesus was explaining to the religious leaders of the time, that there is only one true master, and that there is only one true teacher, which is our Father in Heaven. IMO Jesus is clearly against religion and men trying to set themselves up as an authority over other men.

And…



Matthew 23:15
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”


The difference between a Christian convert, and a religious convert, is that the former should have received the Holy Spirit, which comes directly from the Father God, and then have entered into a relationship with him.

Of course not all Christian church denominations practice in the spirit, which in my view, puts them into the category of a religion. Although having said that, they are still very much blessed by God IMO.

Jesus asks us to first believe by faith and then to become born again. In practice though, each person’s faith is on a different level or their understanding may be in its early stages etc…Therefore, there may be a long period of time, before they enter into a relationship with God.


- JC



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

He clearly was called by, and spoke to the 4 winds, which is a Pagan practice.

You may be thinking of another Jesus, Jesus ben Ananias, who is told of by Josephus.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

I do understand what you are saying, but the law of the land does not lead to enlightenment. You have followed the law of love which has lead to enlightenment. The law of the land has accepted much that is not good for you. If the law of the land was perfect than I don’t believe we would have a need for Christ. But the law of the land leaves most empty, for they cannot understand the law of love at work in them.


The law of the land is the law of love. That is what I've been trying to tell you. You say that god resides in me, I say that god resides in everything, including myself. The difference is, you fail to realize that man holds the power of God. We can directly affect our reality through thought. Negativity breeds negativity, as does positive energy breed positive energy.



The bible teaches one about the law of love, where it comes from, why it is. The worldly view does not teach what the bible teaches. The worldly view would have you believe that sometimes you have to war to keep your freedom. The worldly view leads to immorality, which leads to death of the spirit.


The bible is a color-by-numbers interpretation of the way to paradise, using metaphors and poetry to aid in the learning of spirituality, it is not a biography in any sense, neither is it the sole path to the redemption of the soul.



I do believe that you have followed the law of love, and I think you believe that this is worldly but I promise you that it is God’s spirit in you that leads you to live by the law of love, not this world. You may have found peace, because all things are possible by God, and if you follow love than you are doing the will of the father, but I still hold firm that you did not find this in the world but rather from the Spirit living inside you.


The love/power is present because I have willed it into being through focus and meditation. God "lives in me", as my soul lives in me. The "holy spirit" is my soul, not Gods. This is evident in my free will. It is also evident in the existence of the truly wicked and malicious, like the op.



If the church had not corrupted the message so much you would understand that the bible perfectly explains the law of love that you live by. Either way listen to the Spirit that guides you to live by love, because it is the spirit of truth. But be wary of the spirit that guides you to do things that the bible calls immoral, not out of fear of hell, but out of the belief that your father only wants what is best for you.


I cannot argue that the bible has been twisted and corrupted by the evil of men, but I still hold firm that these ideas do not belong to the bible, and as such, do not belong to Christ, your version of "god", or Christianity all together.

My belief system has been practiced since long before anyone ever wrote of Christ, and it will still be practiced long after the last bible has rotted away.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 





I cannot argue that the bible has been twisted and corrupted by the evil of men, but I still hold firm that these ideas do not belong to the bible, and as such, do not belong to Christ, your version of "god", or Christianity all together.

My belief system has been practiced since long before anyone ever wrote of Christ, and it will still be practiced long after the last bible has rotted away.


If the Bible was changed and corrupted by man it could be easily proven. The whole point is the scriptures have not been changed and are the same today as they were when first written. This is why I believe in them as opposed to other religious texts which can't be validated to the same degree as the bible. The Bible is 100% authentic and pure, the dead sea scrolls validate the old testament and the new testament is validated by more than 24000 manuscripts supporting the gospels.

To say the bible is corrupted without providing evidence is totally dishonest and show's you are not willing to look at evidence.



That video should tell you all you need to know whether the bible was corrupted or not.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


There are two reasons that I disagree with you.

The first is from what I understand, what I admit is limited, Eastern and Pagan religions don’t always in my opinion agree with the law of love. There are several things permitted in these religions that are not permitted in the bible. Personally the bible teaches in perfect complement to the natural laws and the law of love.

The second is the fact that there is estimated to be about 7 billion bibles in print in nearly every known language. To me this can be explained by nothing less than an act of God. I simply believe that God is love and because God is love he has guided the world to the book that best teaches one about God’s love.

It is hard for me to imagine a time where the most published book every year since the invention of the modern printing press would somehow just disappear.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   


So here's some things to consider the before next time you attack a Christian on the basis you hate religion. Alot of Christians actually hate religion too. Don't judge us on how you see hypocrites in the church behave. We are not all like them. Being Christian does not make us zealous religious people that are some how better than others, we have all sinned and fallen short of glory from God.

I'm sure I will get some of the typical responses with a few people feeling the need to shout "fairy tales" or "nicaea council" but before you post just save it, I'm really not interested in replying to that kind of foolishness I will just ignore it and you won't accomplish anything. I believe there are people here with more intelligence than that.


I find it funny when someone comes on here to a forumn to debate their side of a topic, then say they will not reply to valid points of other people because its foolishness and that they lack intelligence. Especially when that topic is of one that should only be debated by those in the middle as the believers should never have to defend themselves because they have belief and do not care what others say. I respect all people that use religion in a positive manner, anything that brings fulfillment to your own life is a good thing. You are the one that is in fact being a hypocrite by saying that others lack intelligence.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


Using "fairy tales" or "nicaea council" arguments against Christianity is the same as using spaghetti monster argumentation. It's immature and offers no legitimate discussion and is only used as a form of hate filled attack against our faith. I am totally open to discuss the topic but not with people who are just here to troll. That was the point I was trying to make. From my observation It would seem trolls do lack intelligence and are extremely arrogant. I am sure many people have experienced this also. I hope it doesn't make me a hypocrite for not wanting to reply to trolls, it is against ATS rules to troll.
edit on 15-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Ok I assumed you ment the people that call the bible a fairy tale, yes giving vague answers with no backing is not helpful and those should remain spectators however the Spagetti Monster is a legitament argument to one debating religion.

an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.

source

My point was that you cannot debate a believer, even with facts/science/evidence. Belief/Faith vs. Facts is a losing argument. I have said before a supposed believer lost the argument for themselves by debating it in the first place. It comes off as if you have doubt and are looking for justification in your beliefs.
edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: grammer

edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


Equating belief in a flying spaghetti monster to belief in an intelligent designer is not genuine argumentation and is in fact the intellectual equivalent to a David Blaine illusion. By drawing the inquisitive agent’s attention away from the real arguments and focusing it instead on the humorous and absurd “straw man” essentially pulling the wool over the eyes of the prospective inquisitor. The FSM is a very good intellectual illusion, the danger a highly effective deception.

I have no wish to discuss strawmans with people who make claims with absolutely no basis.
edit on 15-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


There is a lot more to it than that and I pulled the important segment out for debating purposes. Humor is often used to get valid points across to a wider audience. Avoiding the valid points and focusing on the humorous aspect is only a diversion tactic.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


Though I cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster, logic tells me I have no reason to believe in the FSM, unless someone can provide some evidence to support it. If someone can do that I'd be happy to discuss it with them but if they can't this FSM is simply a straw-man to divert attention away from the real God. I would say people who worship the FSM are committing idolatry.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Umm I was neither trying to prove or disprove the FSM, you were the one that brought it up as invalid I simply was saying although humorous there is some valid points that can be extracted then I made my point.


Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Ok I assumed you ment the people that call the bible a fairy tale, yes giving vague answers with no backing is not helpful and those should remain spectators however the Spagetti Monster is a legitament argument to one debating religion.

an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.

source

My point was that you cannot debate a believer, even with facts/science/evidence. Belief/Faith vs. Facts is a losing argument. I have said before a supposed believer lost the argument for themselves by debating it in the first place. It comes off as if you have doubt and are looking for justification in your beliefs.
edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: grammer

edit on 15-1-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


I am certainly willing to have a debate with people who oppose my view, if i didn't I wouldn't bother to make a topic. I simply am not willing to respond to trolls or straw-man argumentation. I hope you can understand this, when you make topics you will see how frustrating those 2 things can be. However this does not mean I have doubts in my beliefs, I believe in the bible wholeheartedly.
edit on 15-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by windword
 

He clearly was called by, and spoke to the 4 winds, which is a Pagan practice.

You may be thinking of another Jesus, Jesus ben Ananias, who is told of by Josephus.


I'm thinking of the Jesus who is written about in Like 8:24



And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.


And, I'm referring to Jesus' vision quest to the desert, after his baptism.



The Hebrew RUACH could mean either ‘sprit’ or ‘wind’ (or ‘god’) and typically it is a windy-airy spirit who ‘leads’ a prophet (cf: the 4th canonical ‘gospel of Yohanon’ = ‘The Wind blows where it wills, so it every one born of the Wind’ or = ‘the Spirit blows where it blows, so too is every son of man born of the Spirit…)

We see the same type of imagery in the Anti Nicene quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews in the 2nd century AD (‘And he said to them, Just now my Mother the Holy Spirit led me by one of my Hairs on my beard to great Mount Tabor….’ an Aramaic Midrash on the Targum of Judges 4:6)

ORIGINAL SHORTER FORM of the TEMPTATION STORY:

Mark 1:12-13 - Immediately the Wind led him out into the wilderness, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

LONGER ‘Quelle’ ADDITIONS of ‘Matthew’ (cf: Luke chapter 4)

Matthew 4:1-11 - Then Iesous was led BY THE WIND into the Desert to be tempted by the devil and to prepare [for it ] he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are [the King of the Judaeans] the Son of the Blessed One, then command these stones to become bread loaves"


www.abovetopsecret.com... (Sigismundis)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


My whole point is that you dont have a debate or a view because in order to have a debate which is an argument between opposing views you have to have a view but you have faith in which you wholeheartedly believe in. In regards to this thread I have no clue why others hate anyone based on belonging to a certain group unless they were directly affected negatively in some way and have since formed a dense wall in their narrowed veiwpoint of anger. I myself have many friends and family of faith and lack of that I get along with all the same.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


I have evidence to support my faith. I would not believe in something if I didn't believe there was sufficient evidence to credit it. Replace faith with the word 'trust' and you have a better picture.

I take it your an atheist, may I ask why?
edit on 15-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

If the Bible was changed and corrupted by man it could be easily proven. The whole point is the scriptures have not been changed and are the same today as they were when first written. This is why I believe in them as opposed to other religious texts which can't be validated to the same degree as the bible. The Bible is 100% authentic and pure, the dead sea scrolls validate the old testament and the new testament is validated by more than 24000 manuscripts supporting the gospels.

To say the bible is corrupted without providing evidence is totally dishonest and show's you are not willing to look at evidence.


The sciptures don't have to change for them to be "corrupted" by men. That's the problem with a book that was created so vague that it is open to interpretation. The problem is, however, that the book was already corrupted. Mistranslations from Greek to English, misinterpretations of the Hebrew Old Testament. By the time your version of the bible was in print, no one knew what in the hell was going on. Speaking of hell, that's a perfect example. The word "hell" doesn't appear at all in the Old Testament, neither does it appear in the original Greek New Testament. Like the word, "Lucifer", it was added into the bible to fulfill the twisted visions of men sick with power, who needed to scare people into slavery when the "promise" wasn't enough, and/or Jesus wasn't necessary. Some people drank the kool-aid, the rest of us didn't. No worries.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I dont claim to be anything but open minded, its just like politics I like to listen to everyone and then form my own opinion which changes constantly as the knowledge Im introduced to changes. I dont like to be labeled this whole world seems to be based off segregation as everywhere you look we are put in groups. I like ethics, to take a step back and look at everything objectively from both sides. Here are some poems I posted on here maybe they can help you get a better sense of my perspective on things Poems



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

There are two reasons that I disagree with you.

The first is from what I understand, what I admit is limited, Eastern and Pagan religions don’t always in my opinion agree with the law of love. There are several things permitted in these religions that are not permitted in the bible. Personally the bible teaches in perfect complement to the natural laws and the law of love.


Pagan is a blanket term, though it should be called a tarp term because it covers a massive amount of peoples. The original meaning of the word was in reference to rural people, which was not religious specific at all. Later the Romans adopted it, and used it to describe anyone who wasn't a member of the Roman military or senate, their version of "civilian." Now it seems to mean anyone who isn't of the Abrahamic Religions.
My point is, covering such a vast area, the word pagan includes everyone else, and not just people like me. It includes atheists, buddhists, wiccans, "new-agers", scientologists, and on and on. It isn't one religion, one group of people, nor one belief system. I cannot say that my beliefs align with all pagans, so...



The second is the fact that there is estimated to be about 7 billion bibles in print in nearly every known language. To me this can be explained by nothing less than an act of God. I simply believe that God is love and because God is love he has guided the world to the book that best teaches one about God’s love.


Of the 7 billion bibles, if God were to be a part of their creation, wouldn't he have them perfectly recreated. Even the english versions of the bible vary. As I was telling RevGen, the mentioning of "hell" isn't present in all bibles, and wasn't present at all in the greek version of the New Testament, neither was it present in the Old Testament. The word Lucifer is another example.



It is hard for me to imagine a time where the most published book every year since the invention of the modern printing press would somehow just disappear.


Things change, ages pass, the world rolls over on itself, and people are reborn from the ashes. My point is, Christianity is a new comer in the world of religion. My belief system has been endemic in the human spirit for eons, and no books are required to pass the knowledge along. The "truth" resonates in all humans, and we are guided by natural waking knowledge, not written works.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join