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.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph
What makes you so sure the writings in the new testament are the cause of such societal strife?
Because every single matter which could make a difference in the course of this world has a religious nut throwing his/her two bent pennies into the pool. And where does their authority come from?
Yep, the Bible.
I have stated that the outline of Jesus' childhood was fictitious, copied typologically and intentionally from the life of Moses.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph
The history doesn't matter to me, Seraph. I couldn't care less about history. We've proven, again and again and again, that we don't become better. We don't WANT to become better. We just want to be better at being bad. We want impunity, not morality. And by 'we', I mean the human race...or those who control it, at least. Not "Satan", not "Lucifer"...I mean the human beings who control the purse strings, who have their hands in every political, financial, corporate and religious club in the world. The humans who believe it's their right to stand at the top and look down on the rest, giving orders and controlling fates without considering what the people below them want. What the people below them need.
I don't care about history. I care about what we do with it. I care about what we take from it. And right now, all I see is blood and greed. If it isn't blood from the vein, it's blood from the soul. And the greed saps all of our spiritual intellect, until all we care about is those things we can touch with our flesh.
We've forgotten what's inside. We've forgotten what's inside, and we use history to bolster that amnesia. And yes, like it or not, our leaders use religion to bolster that amnesia as well.
That's what I see. That's what I know. And that's what sickens me. What we've lost, and how hard we fight to keep ourselves from finding it again.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Mormonism and Christianity are two different religions. So I would say no, they are not the same. However Catholicism and Lutheranism are two different denominations of the same religion, so fundamentally yes, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics are all fundamentally the same. Minor differences in doctrine do not make it a different religion, just a different way of practicing it.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
believe he was absolutely a prophet sent by God. The Holy Trinity has never resonated or made much sense to me. I suppose my beliefs about Christ fall more along the lines of Islam than Christianity.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Of course I've done wrong in my life. I am by no means a perfect person. But I don't believe that "sin" has done this to me.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
I don't think God wants or expects us to never make mistakes, but I do believe he wants us to accept the consequences of our actions.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Should we not be an example of goodness for others not for Religions sake, but just for decency and goodness sake? I want to be a good example for my family, my nephews and sisters, my friends who are angry at the world. Not because I want them to go to church, but because I want to see them happier and do better in life. Why can't that be enough? I think everyone needs to find their own spiritual beliefs themselves, but that takes alot of work and self-reflection and looking at the cold hard reality of your own human nature. Its much easier to go to a church and have others define your spirituality for you.
Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Last Easter I went the Lutheran church that I grew up at, mainly to make my Mom happy, but also to let everyone up there know that I was OK because I was very sick last year. I was the first time I had set foot in a church in over 10 years. Of course I was met with alot of, "Glad to see you're still alive and the cancer is gone!" But I was also greeted with alot of, "I haven't seen you around here in a while." They might as well have said, "I'm better than you because I go to church every Sunday."
Originally posted by ALightBreeze
During the time that Josephus was writing War of the Jews and Jewish Antiquities, the Flavian family was clearly involved with Christianity. This is proof that Josephus, both a historian and a theologian, and a great writer of faery tales, would have been familiar with the religion and its symbols.
In fact, the total overlap of individuals and events in the New Testament and the works of Josephus indicates that he must have known a great deal about Christianity.
You see, it helps when your adopted Father (Vespasian) and step-brothers create religions you can lampoon at will.
Heck, that's better than a vacation!
Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Virgin birth.
Yes, you heard me, virgin birth.
I can see it now.
Jesus: Mom, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Mary: Ask your Dad.
Jesus: "Dad, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Joseph: Tell me about it.
There is a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the eunuch Bagoas is the beginning of parallel sequences of events in the New Testament and War of the Jews. The authors switch a eunuch for a virgin to create a parallel "miraculous birth."
The story of Bagoas reveals the mindset of the Flavian authors of the New Testament in that it shows the contempt they had for those who believed in fables about virgin births. Wouldn't they be fun at parties these days?
What is interesting about the parallel above is that both stories plainly use the same historical context, an incident in which Herod seeks to kill an infant who threatens his power. Thus, as a spoof of the New Testament, the passage in Josephus is completely transparent because it uses the same "historical" context as the New Testament.
Another interesting point is that this lampoon would indicate that the authors of the New Testament were indeed trying to create the impression that Mary was a "virgin," that is, someone incapable of giving birth, a matter of some contention among scholars. Wonder why. rofl
Seriously, you can't make this sh$ up. Oh, wait a minute, the Flavian authors did exactly that!
Mormons consider themselves Christians, just like other Protestants.
See, I never had much issue with this, even though many Christians also seem to. Christ is the Word of God, and The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.
People can be good people and still not be saved, this is even talked about in the Bible itself. Just because someone is not religious does not make them a bad person by default, and no Christian should believe that way.
Its more likely because they hadn't seen you in a while, and didn't know what to say. Perhaps they didn't exactly recall who you were. Maybe they were unaware of you being sick. They might have also been uncomfortable mentioning your sickness for a variety of reasons, felt it was none of their business, or even felt that mentioning it would have made you upset.
Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Virgin birth.
Yes, you heard me, virgin birth.
I can see it now.
Jesus: Mom, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Mary: Ask your Dad.
Jesus: "Dad, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Joseph: Tell me about it.
There is a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the eunuch Bagoas is the beginning of parallel sequences of events in the New Testament and War of the Jews. The authors switch a eunuch for a virgin to create a parallel "miraculous birth."
The story of Bagoas reveals the mindset of the Flavian authors of the New Testament in that it shows the contempt they had for those who believed in fables about virgin births. Wouldn't they be fun at parties these days?
What is interesting about the parallel above is that both stories plainly use the same historical context, an incident in which Herod seeks to kill an infant who threatens his power. Thus, as a spoof of the New Testament, the passage in Josephus is completely transparent because it uses the same "historical" context as the New Testament.
Another interesting point is that this lampoon would indicate that the authors of the New Testament were indeed trying to create the impression that Mary was a "virgin," that is, someone incapable of giving birth, a matter of some contention among scholars. Wonder why. rofl
Seriously, you can't make this sh$ up. Oh, wait a minute, the Flavian authors did exactly that!
Originally posted by CoIntelPro
Originally posted by ALightBreeze
Virgin birth.
Yes, you heard me, virgin birth.
I can see it now.
Jesus: Mom, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Mary: Ask your Dad.
Jesus: "Dad, I have this insatiable urge to find me a grrl and...
Joseph: Tell me about it.
There is a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the eunuch Bagoas is the beginning of parallel sequences of events in the New Testament and War of the Jews. The authors switch a eunuch for a virgin to create a parallel "miraculous birth."
The story of Bagoas reveals the mindset of the Flavian authors of the New Testament in that it shows the contempt they had for those who believed in fables about virgin births. Wouldn't they be fun at parties these days?
What is interesting about the parallel above is that both stories plainly use the same historical context, an incident in which Herod seeks to kill an infant who threatens his power. Thus, as a spoof of the New Testament, the passage in Josephus is completely transparent because it uses the same "historical" context as the New Testament.
Another interesting point is that this lampoon would indicate that the authors of the New Testament were indeed trying to create the impression that Mary was a "virgin," that is, someone incapable of giving birth, a matter of some contention among scholars. Wonder why. rofl
Seriously, you can't make this sh$ up. Oh, wait a minute, the Flavian authors did exactly that!
ROTFLMAO!
Note to self: Never, ever drink while reading your posts. New keyboards are expwensive.
Not to mention monitors.
The phrase 'God will provide for you', is he providing the basic necessities as in Manna falling form the sky, or does it mean that God will provide through others? I live with a bunch of aging veterans that go throughout the city - to the Salvation Army, a veteran food pantry, the senior citizen center, and some churches - to get what they can't afford to buy. Is this what is meant by don't worry about these things? If so, then I can't argue with it. Was there this much charity back in the days of Jesus?
In another thread it was suggested that I read the New Testament. Admittedly, it's been years since I've done this, but I used to read it often. Like the religious today, I allowed my eyes to glaze over the utterly ridiculous parts. I don't do that anymore.
So, Paul approved women as Deacons, to serve widows food. But they still had to keep their mouths shut.
Originally posted by CoIntelPro
reply to post by jiggerj
In another thread it was suggested that I read the New Testament. Admittedly, it's been years since I've done this, but I used to read it often. Like the religious today, I allowed my eyes to glaze over the utterly ridiculous parts. I don't do that anymore.
God I have heard this schtik a 1000 times. Why is it the last refuge of the hilariously faithful to say "you need to read the bible" when I have read it back to back to back dozens of times?
oh well.
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Originally posted by CoIntelPro
reply to post by jiggerj
In another thread it was suggested that I read the New Testament. Admittedly, it's been years since I've done this, but I used to read it often. Like the religious today, I allowed my eyes to glaze over the utterly ridiculous parts. I don't do that anymore.
God I have heard this schtik a 1000 times. Why is it the last refuge of the hilariously faithful to say "you need to read the bible" when I have read it back to back to back dozens of times?
oh well.
The suggestion was made when the OP referenced Old Testament scripture as justification for the immorality of the bible. I made that suggestion. While I can deal with the fact you find my "faith" hilarious, I also find it interesting how your first post was in this thread. Breeze started a new account during the course of this thread (after posting numerous times), and then posted again. You two wouldn't happen to know each other, would you?
Sad that people have to troll the # out of others spiritual beliefs in this day and age. But whatever. To each their own