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.

 

There is NO One-Size-Fits-All religion.

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You're reading books by folks that are indoctrinating you.

WHOA whoa whoa...

Foul!!!

At least he is reading the book that inspired the thread, NuT. I don't see how you are justified coming down so hard on someone regarding what they are reading when you haven't read the same books, nor do you see that person's library.

pthena also chose to read the last book I was pimping, Robert Wright's The Evolution of God. NEITHER it, nor The Vareties of Religious Experience by William James hold any one doctrine up as superior.

BOTH talk about religiosity as a phenomenon of humanity.

In my opinion, if you are not reading the works to which I am referring, you are not able to discuss them critically, let alone decide if they are 'indoctrinating' anyone....(which neither of them does!) nor is it appropriate for you to criticize those who are reading them!!

Please! Everyone doesn't have to agree with you! These two writers are very clearly well-read, almost insanely knowledgable, and provide plenty of footnotes, references, original sources, and superior consideration of them. I am thankful that pthena has chosen to read them, and I WANT to discuss them with people who have READ THEM.!!

I don't appreciate you running them down, especially without having read them.!! Nor the members who have chosen to do so!
ATS is not your domain, this forum is not yours to screen and censor. In my opinion, the quality of this forum goes UP whenever someone is willing to discuss important works of religious studies and not just spew their unsubstantiated beliefs at others in a haughty manner!!

I don't want to sound harsh, but too many people on this forum need to get their noses out of the air, and aimed at some high-quality scholarship and study before just hopping in and bashing.

It doesn't reflect well on them or their mission, my friend.


edit on 14-4-2012 by wildtimes because: it isn't just NuT




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena
 


Anytime you're in doubt as to whether you or Jesus is wrong...
go with yourself as a general rule.

Jesus is not here to consult. And as devoted as you are, you do not know everything he said, nor were you there when he spoke. I don't think Jesus was WRONG about anything....
I think some of his followers have it all screwed up.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Nope. My problem is with people who see trying to "be good" as the path to their justification, and not the natural product of it.
Why is this a "problem" with you?
People are justified by actually doing what their faith tells them.
No one is justified merely by their faith telling them they should do something in particular.
Paul uses Abraham as an example of someone who was accounted righteous. Abraham had his faith tell him he should leave Ur along with his family. That was not what made him righteous. What did was his getting up and going, his acting on that faith.

James 2 and Ephesians 2:8-10
It may be helpful to look at the context:

. . . the sons of disobedience, among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest… . . .

So whoever wrote this is saying that we were all in the same boat, so to speak.

. . . even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ . . .

All of us, because we were energized by the spirit of the world were as good as dead, but God loved us, so decided to do this great work on our behalf.

. . . this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works . . .

God's gift is to change us to people who are not "indulging the desires of the flesh", and so are lifted up with Jesus. This change is not by a practice we engage in where we follow a prescribed regimen of obligatory works, such as what the Pharisees practiced which they believed made them different than the people around them, with themselves being holy, and the people not so engaged in their rituals, sinners.

For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

Through the agency of Faith, which is given to us by Grace, we are prepared by God, ourselves being result of God's work of transformation, and are now properly suited to then go out and do real works to be a blessing to others.
James 2:14b
. . . if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?

Faith, according to Paul, is in the new covenant what the Law was in the old. We have a spiritual law to guide us by the spirit which gives us this Faith to live by. Merely having a prompting by the spirit is not what saves a person; but by following those promptings, our faith, we invite that spirit to dwell within us, and that spirit in us is what, when that time comes, raises us from the dead, and we then go from a hypothetical salvation to one which is actualized.

Or another way, people running around trying to be better than the next guy and looking down their noses at others who don't keep all their rules, most of them aren't even in the Bible.
I doubt anyone likes that sort of thing. The fact that there may be people like that should not cause us to react by creating a salvation theory where the practicing sinner is somehow more holy than people who do good, based on a lack of feeling good about themselves.
edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . how that relates to Christians except by our words crowns will be won or lost, . . .

Interesting how you just switch word definitions on-the-fly like that.
Do you ever wonder that your faith in your theory is misplaced, with a system where you have to go through mental gymnastics to retain its core thesis, of "I'm OK, and you aren't"?
Maybe you should consider a question like, Why Is It That I Think I Am Saved, But Don't Feel Like It?
I have to suspect that you don't (consider that question), and instead try to think of a theory of salvation where the requirement of salvation is to still feel like nothing has changed about yourself.
I would suggest considering the possibility that regardless of your own experience, others have had a real transformative experience, and have moved on in their lives, seeing the way forward and stepping on in faith. I don't see the value in this narcissistic type introspection to where you are looking back at your past for evidence that you are "saved".
What do you see as the value in this sort of thing?
edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I think you should have titled this thread: "There is NO One-Size-Fits-All thread topic"


I think the problem was created by the vagueness of the thread's title. Maybe it should have been: "Psychological Perspective on Religious Conversion Experiences blah blah blah ... whatever".



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Christians appear before the JSOC.

And this is based on . . what?
One verse given by its proponents is:
1 Thess. 2:19
For who is our hope or joy or crown to boast of before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not of course you? For you are our glory and joy!

Paul is talking about the church he founded in Thessalonica. That the people there being believers are in a metaphorical way, their (Paul, and his associates') crowns.

edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . . and didn't get birthed until Pentecost after Christ's ascension. Thee was no revelation of it until then.
So the Gospel commission given to the disciples by Jesus never happened?
Paul was not at this event described in the Book of Acts, so this explanation by you makes no sense at all.

He is the Word made flesh.
The Bible does not say Jesus is the Logos. It says that the Sarx Logos came to be among us, which I would take to be basically: the Light of the World (as mentioned in my signature) which is the message taught by Jesus. Jesus could be thought of as the embodiment of the message, in a metaphorical sort of way, but we know the Logos itself is God, as stated in the fist verse of the Gospel of John: "The Word was God".

Musterion in the Greek means something different than they way we use "Mystery" in the English.
It comes from the Greek word for initiate, so where you get mystery religions, which is where you become a member of this religion, then you are given its beliefs.

The mystery (Musterion) of the church wasn't revealed until after Pentecost.
What are you even talking about? You aren't even giving any sort of context.

We cannot be saved unless we confess Him before men . . .
This is something you arrived at by using some sort of inverse logic applied by something Paul wrote concerning circumcision, where he is saying basically your state of being of your foreskin is not the part of your body which determines how you are saved, where it is the heart and the mouth which are, where from what is in your heart determines what you say.
You are taking something completely out of context as far as its meaning then coming to a conclusion by a fabricated inverse logic, then taking that result and applying it to the words of someone else, namely , Jesus, to demonstrate the "validity" of a theory which flies in the face of numerous verses in the Bible that contradicts it.

Our words as well as our deeds and even our motives for doing the right things will be examined with "fire" and what type of work they are will be revealed.
Ditto on this one. You are taking a verse from Paul's defense of his work in establishing the Church of Corinth, in comparison with the work of Apollos in that same place, where his argument is that when all is said and done, history will show whose work has stood up to the test of time. You are taking a verse out of context, using your own patent version of inverse logic to come to a conclusion, then applying it to something someone else said.
edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

But those judgments are in two locations (Earth/heaven) and at minimum 1,000 years apart.

Only in the Book of Revelation, which, for the purpose of the writer to personally condemn Rome, at least in his own mind, has compressed time to where Rome will get its comupings in his own day, has this fuzzy concept of "The Last Day" described in a symbolic sort of way. The thousand years is thrown in as the obligatory Roman way of describing the greatness of the new Caesar, as he takes his throne, where he is so great that his kingdom which he introduces will stand for a thousand years. Not anything to be taken literally, or anything else in the entire book for that matter.
edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I wasn't talking about your book wild.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by pthena
 


Anytime you're in doubt as to whether you or Jesus is wrong...
go with yourself as a general rule.

Jesus is not here to consult. And as devoted as you are, you do not know everything he said, nor were you there when he spoke. I don't think Jesus was WRONG about anything....
I think some of his followers have it all screwed up.


Were they there?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You get no more pearls.

You must gather the ones others do not pick up.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Were they there?

Were who where?
I don't know what you're trying to figure out. You weren't there. The Gnostic Gospel writers (Thomas, etc) were there...they wrote what was OMITTED from the Bible. The others? All hearsay.
As far as I can tell.

Actually....and you're gonna really hate this: A few members have pointed out some quite astute theories (and provide sources for them) stating that Jesus was himself mythical and not real. That does rattle my cage a bit, but....
I have to consider the possibility.

To be honest, the whole concept and its innumerable 'interpretation' are about to make my head explode...but won't stop digging. I won't.

I know many are happy to 'settle' when they find the way that suits them....I have a fairly firmly established set of 'beliefs' based on my exposure so far...which include that he did live.....but....I can't dismiss the fact that he may not have lived at all...I need to look further to be satisfied.
sorry, NuT...
just thought you should be aware, as we continue our dialogue.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I wasn't talking about your book wild.

Okay...so, would you like to clarify or expound?

pthena is quoting and discussing the two books I have suggested, into both of which he has willingly looked.
What book are you talking about?
edit on 14-4-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes


...A few members have pointed out some quite astute theories (and provide sources for them) stating that Jesus was himself mythical and not real. That does rattle my cage a bit, but....
I have to consider the possibility.

To be honest, the whole concept and its innumerable 'interpretation' are about to make my head explode...but won't stop digging. I won't.

I know many are happy to 'settle' when they find the way that suits them....I have a fairly firmly established set of 'beliefs' based on my exposure so far...which include that he did live.....but....I can't dismiss the fact that he may not have lived at all...I need to look further to be satisfied.
sorry, NuT...

Let's look at this again:

In the psychopathic temperament we have the emotionality which is the sine qua non of moral perception; we have the intensity and tendency to emphasis which are the essence of practical moral vigor; and we have the love of metaphysics and mysticism which carry one's interests beyond the surface of the sensible world. What, then, is more natural than that this temperament should introduce one to regions of religious truth, to corners of the universe, which your robust Philistine type of nervous system, forever offering its biceps to be felt, thumping its breast, and thanking Heaven that it hasn't a single morbid fiber in its composition, would be sure to hide forever from its self-satisfied possessors?

If there were such a thing as inspiration from a higher realm, it might well be that the neurotic temperament would furnish the chief condition of the requisite receptivity.

James, William (2009-10-04). Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (Kindle Locations 402-409). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

Still Lecture 1. I am so slow. It's a good thing I read alot when I was younger.

For many people Jesus is a mythological character, in the classic sense: He came, he spoke, he did deeds, he died, he triumphed over death, went away, some day he will return. That's all they want. That's all they desire. He becomes the sock puppet, the play actor, fulfilling the expectations of the hand.

In as brief a manner as possible I will explain my theory. (understand that it is presented as theory, but to me it is absolute fact, from every fiber of my being).

But first, let's look at the standard Christian Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth...
Even non-creedal Christians would agree with that statement, just basing it on scripture. But who do they mean by those titles, who are they talking about? Aren't they talking about Yahweh, the minor Bronze-Age tribal god of Israel, who morphed into the One and Only?

Isn't Yahweh's version of final paradise bliss the absolute submission of all people on Earth to his particular tribe? Aren't all resisters of that order to be killed, enslaved, or forced to bring tribute? (for any body not recognizing this description, all I can say is, you don't know your Old Testament)

It has been proposed by Christian writers (pseudo-Paul) in Ephesians 2 that the dividing wall between Israelite and Gentile, the Law, has been abolished so that now Gentiles can join with the god on the covenant side. But wait? Isn't that still Yahweh, the self proclaimed god of the whole world? Indeed yes. The law wasn't abolished then, because here it is, on my desk!

As long a Christians see themselves as reconciled to Yahweh, they will never appreciate what Jesus did for them, something that I know I couldn't do myself, on account of Yahweh who lives in the Law, has never relented in his desire to destroy me.

What did Jesus do? He did the impossible. He took the spirit of Yahweh fully into himself. In himself the struggle for World domination and moral character were fought out. The moral superiority of Jesus won. He triumphed over the madness of Messiahship. He turned down the job. He reveals a moral God, far superior to Yahweh. As Paul wrote, "a righteousness from God, apart from the Law."

Christianity as we know it does not understand that God is as much greater than Yahweh, as the Earth is greater than a single stone temple. Only the heretics like Marcion and some of the Gnostics understood it. Jesus died for the Jews, so that they could abandon Yahweh and Torah, and so Gentiles could be saved from the eternal seething hatred of Yahweh. 99.9% of Christians don't appreciate Jesus at all.

You may take this as theory, to me it's fact, based on experience. my psychopathic temperament is still not as great as that of Jesus.

edit on 14-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



n the psychopathic temperament we have the emotionality which is the sine qua non of moral perception; we have the intensity and tendency to emphasis which are the essence of practical moral vigor; and we have the love of metaphysics and mysticism which carry one's interests beyond the surface of the sensible world.

Heh.... wait til (well, I don't mean 'wait til' but more....when) you get to Lectures 14 and 15....wow.....
I've underlined practically every other sentence. (That was today's study session).....I haven't finished the lectures yet, but it certainly does bring to mind some very applicable ideas that could apply to this forum.

Yeah, pathological.....it's so fascinating, though!
I look forward to hearing your reactions/responses!!

edit on 14-4-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes


Heh.... wait til (well, I don't mean 'wait til' but more....when) you get to Lectures 14 and 15....wow.....

I'm looking forward to getting there. So I should get off the forum and read, read, read.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

99.9% of Christians don't appreciate Jesus at all.

I agree with all of that except probably some fine detail on the mechanism exactly.
Jesus freed us from this obsessive sort of believe in this demanding and hungry and thirsty, vengeful god concept.
I imagine that old god concept (that Jesus was up against) came from this over-enthusiasm that was a primary characteristic of the exodus from the Babylonian captivity of the Judean elite class who believed they could force the hand of God to reenact the old covenant, originally made with Moses, with them and their self appointed Messiah prince. So they toughened everything up and rewrote the scriptures to be mean and to be a sort of blueprint for how to carry out what they failed to do with the former kings.
Probably the reality of life in Canaanite (pre-Persian Empire) Palestine was a lot of just getting along and going about life in the best way they could under the circumstances, but the reworked history propelled them into a frenzy of cleansing and offensive war that the rulers really believed this time they could pull off. Their hopes were dashed by the coming of Alexander, and them came the hope for the end of the world which we are still suffering under to this day.
edit on 14-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

I'm looking forward to getting there. So I should get off the forum and read, read, read.

I finally got the book onto my Kindle device yesterday when I went to my local Wi-Fi hot spot.
I also started reading another Kindle book last night, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross, by Mark S. Heim.
Also I am still working through Pagels' Revelation Kindle book.
I did get a bit into the W. James book (free Kindle) but find the archaic language a bit of a barrier even though I have read tons of nineteenth century books in the past.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I wasn't talking about your book wild.

Okay...so, would you like to clarify or expound?

pthena is quoting and discussing the two books I have suggested, into both of which he has willingly looked.
What book are you talking about?


Any books teaching there were two Isaiah's. But it's settled already, Jesus isn't the ultimate Truth for him. Jesus said they were the same Isaiah.

I can't make him believe Jesus is the Truth.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



I don't know what you're trying to figure out. You weren't there. The Gnostic Gospel writers (Thomas, etc) were there...they wrote what was OMITTED from the Bible. The others? All hearsay.
As far as I can tell.


Not even close. Those were 3rd and 4th century pseudo-graphical books. The Gnostics gave them names of apostles because their writers didn't have those credentials themselves. There is no copy of them in the first century. And there are 12 quotes mentioning them from the early church fathers, and not one of those quotes is:

"Man, we sure gotta find that gospel of Thomas, it's supposed to be great." All 12 were basically along these lines:

"Hey dudes, there's this gospel of Thomas floating around out there, don't use it, it's cooked up by the Gnostics."

You can't squeeze any of them into the first century. And Carston Thiede's new work with the best scanning electron microscope available shows that the earliest Matthew fragment is either the original or a first copy and it is dated to about 54 AD.

Irenaeus said of the Gnostic Marcion:

"Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures...which they themselves have shortened."

The Gnostics had crazy Christology and Theology and cut anything from the Bible that didn't align up with their mysticisms, Greek and Egyptian.


edit on 14-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join