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.

 

Real Christianity = not being a Christian

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
In the Bible (Mt 18:3) Paraphrased Jesus is saying for people to "Be like Children"

When a baby is born, that child is not any labels, neither Christian, Jew, not an Atheist, not agnostic ....no positions at all, a blank slate ....just merely aware.

As the child grows older, a mind forms from programming and labeling everything as "my name", tree, house, car, girl, boy, constantly updating divisions and labeling of everything.

What Jesus was saying, was to deprogram yourself and all labeling and go back to the original awareness you were as a kid. That means to also get rid of all labels such as "Christian, believer, male, female"

So ultimately, to be a Christian means more so to go to an original state of pre-programmed awareness, which means you also let go of a the label of being a "Christian" or being anything for that matter.


The Book of Matthew
Chapter 18 Verse 3
"3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

This scripture deals with loving everyone as yourself, and almighty GOD with all your heart. There is no prejudice, no malice, no murder, no lies, no deceits, no fornication.

Now to continue the lesson.... No where does CHRIST say to DEPROGRAM yourselves. You are placing words in the Saviors mouth, not something I would do for more obvious reasons.

Jesus (Not a Hebrew Name or word as there is NO J in the Hebrew Alphabet)

Your OPINION is that everyone should not call themselves CHRISTIAN who believe in CHRIST and GOD.
That is utter non-sense. It is what separates the BELIEVERS from the NON-BELIEVERS (Who are known as PAGANS). Then, there are the MUSLIMS who follow ISLAM. The HEBREWS who follow JUDAHISM, the BUDDISTS who follow BUDDAH and so on, then there are the ATHIESTS who believe in NOTHING.




edit on 10/1/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
The old Hebrew texts say the deity ordered to be called YHWH.

A certain King was having money and power problems and got everyone to start praying to a new deity. 402 years ago he created a new word in the English language "God".......and that's how that King got his people to pray to the old Semitic deity "Gad"....the deity of Good Fortune. Worked for the King.

99% of the "Christians" today all pray to the deity "Gad".

If there IS a YHWH...he ain't gonna be happy. Jesus wasn't the son of Gad. He was the son of YHWH.


YHWH is a short cut for the real name spelling YAHWEH (it is not so sacred that you can't spell it or say it).
His Son, is Yahshua (CHRIST) not JESUS !



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Labrynth2012
 


Actually, when asked what his/her/its nature was, "God" simply said, "I am the I am."

Do whatever you want with it. That's all anyone does anyway. I already figured it out, but some people arrive at the conclusion best on their own time, you know? You have to coax them into it because it's so outside the box.


Here's my hint, my gift to all of you who have not yet found the answer: Cogito ergo sum. It ties right into the above quote from the Testament. Do your research, and it will all make sense - but don't be afraid of where your journey might take you. Sometimes, the brightest light is found in the darkest corner.

Let the games begin.

edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Labrynth2012
 


Actually, when asked what his/her/its nature was, "God" simply said, "I am the I am."


Actually, in the passage, God is not asked what his nature is, but what his name is.


Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’

“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:13-15 NIV)


That's where the name of God comes from, the one that Jews won't say or write, and "The Lord" is the substitute that can be written and said. What's the significance of "I AM" as a name? It's simply a statement of perpetual existence.

John Wesley's commentary on that passage might be helpful:


And God said - Two names God would now be known by. A name that speaks what he is in himself, I am that I am - This explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self - existent; he has his being of himself, and has no dependence upon any other. And being self - existent he cannot but be self - sufficient, and therefore all - sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and bliss. 2dly, That he is eternal and unchangeable, always the same, yesterday to - day, and for ever: he will be what he will be, and what he is. 3dly. That he is faithful and true to all his promises, unchangeable in his word as well as in his nature, and not a man that he should lie. Let Israel know this, I am hath sent me unto you. A name that speaks what he is to his people. Lest that name I am should puzzle them, he is farther directed to make use of another name of God, more familiar. (Source)



Here's my hint, my gift to all of you who have not yet found the answer: Cogito ergo sum.


lol, no, God is not Descartes (and vice-versa)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Gnostics came along after the Church had been around a while. If people are going to assert that gnostic beliefs are the original Christian beliefs, then they carry the burden of proof. Good luck with that.
Ummm.......Christ sent all of his disciples to establish churches.....plural.....not for only one, Peter the first pope to quell the others and brand them heretics. Your modern version of Christianity, is filtered through the hands of not just Peter, but through all of the popes.....remember the Borgias? Your modern Bible is also filtered and altered and edited and translated, through the hands of political men from Nicea to King James to today. What you have in that book is not the meat of Christs teachings, but the scraps that politics and corruption through power and greed left for you...Perhaps it would be the wiser course, to open your mind and heart allow the spirit to guide you and not your not so humble ego. There is alot of wisdom and power to be found in the pages of "The Nag Hammadi Library" and other non-sanctioned Biblia such as "The Other Bible" and "The lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of eden" . You really should check out the Philokalia, also read "On Spiritual Prayer" (by Miguel De Molinos). Ask yourself this question as well. Why does Jude, in the epistle of Jude verse 14 reference Enoch, The only other individual biblically besides Isaiah to be bodily brought into the presence of GOD, yet WHERE in your Bible are the 366 books that GOD commanded Enoch to pen. If Enoch were that worthy in the eyes of the Lord, then why weren't any of those books included in your Bible...........The short answer is that men put the Bible together, not at the behest of GOD but at the behest of men...to serve men. "Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you"........"Split a piece of wood and I am there, Lift a stone and you will find me"..........."The kingdom of heaven is within and without"........."Unless you become as one of these you will not enter the kingdom of heaven".......

YouSir



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir
Ummm.......Christ sent all of his disciples to establish churches.....plural.....not for only one, Peter the first pope to quell the others and brand them heretics.

Peter wasn't a Pope.


Your modern version of Christianity, is filtered through the hands of not just Peter, but through all of the popes.....remember the Borgias? Your modern Bible is also filtered and altered and edited and translated, through the hands of political men from Nicea to King James to today.

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the content of the Bible, and there are earlier texts than the King James Bible that allow comparison, which shows minor differences.


There is alot of wisdom and power to be found in the pages of "The Nag Hammadi Library"

What Nag Hammadi contains is the thinking of a Second Century sect of Christianity, which was demonstrably created a hundred years after the fact, its founder and main theologian being a formerly orthodox Christian who went off to form his own religion after he was voted down as Bishop of Rome (aka: Pope.)

While the texts of the Gnostic Christians are interesting, there is scant wisdom and absolutely no "power" in them. Given that anyone who might have actually had the "gnosis" that Valentinus imparted in the middle of the Second Century (you do know what it was, right?) has been dead for well over a thousand years, it's a bit of a pointless religion, wouldn't you think?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 
Ummm.......There are a number of quotes like that, the one that you reference is "unless you become as one of these you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". Christ was scolding those that wanted to kick the children out of the adult meeting, yet he reminded them that the children were closer to the Spirit than were the men, he also reminded them that spiritual pursuet required that one become "child-like" not childish.
In essence your correct, an infant is not filled with the world, it lives closer to the "void state", it is wonder and curiousity, but mostly pure spirit.-Spirit, loves a void, your "tabula rasa", thats why void meditation is the most powerful form of meditation.-The I, the ego or better, ego's have not been established, it has not been filled with the million and one aspects of life as human. Remember, you cant fill an already full thing, as we yearn for adulthood and stuff our heads with education and 9:00 to 5:00ism, we displace the wonderment and that childlike ability to just belly laugh for no outwardly apparent reason.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 



Christ was scolding those that wanted to kick the children out of the adult meeting, yet he reminded them that the children were closer to the Spirit than were the men, he also reminded them that spiritual pursuet required that one become "child-like" not childish.


Oh! Oh! Tell me the difference, please! Do define the line drawn between these two concepts...I'm rather interested to see how "universal" it is.

And no, I don't really have a definition; I want to see how yours looks.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 



That still doesn't explain why you believe in other dimensions and not heaven... that logic is flawed.... And for a perfect omniscient being that sees all side of the equation therefore determines "nothing" (meaning no judgement) must not use any part of perfection to perfect others, therefore enlightenment does not exist. (the bettering of self)


Because I think the criteria for heaven, and its gatekeeper, as real places and beings, are utter tripe. Clear enough for you?
edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
There is no such thing as a Christian anymore. Every person I know who claims to be one values the almighty dollar over everything else. They are the most judgmental and hypocritical people I have ever met. They only pay attention to passages in the Bible that they agree with, the ones they don't they rationalize with "Oh What he really meant....."

Actually, this applies to every "religious" person I've met, but I know more "Christians"



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Peter wasn't a Pope.

Ever read Matthew 16:18? Yes, Peter was considered the first pope.


The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the content of the Bible, and there are earlier texts than the King James Bible that allow comparison, which shows minor differences.

The council of Nicaea had everything to do with seperating what were considered divinely inspired writings from other "lesser" books of "questionable origen"......so yes it had EVERYTHING to do with what was included in "the Bible"

I find it interesting that you had absolutely no comment on my questions about Enoch, his 366 books being some of those "lesser books" not include by the Nicaean council. Also the first Nicaean council was held in AD 325 a good century AFTER you state that The Nag Hammadi Library was put together....

Perhaps you could also share with us your knowledge of "the bridal chamber", I would be much interested in your thoughts about that very secret Christian rite.

YouSir



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mymymy
 


That's why the most core believe in the Christian faith - "The Bible is the Word of God, and the absolute truth" - doesn't quite ring true with me, because surely something so absolute wouldn't be treated so ambiguously. When there is the absolute truth, there is one version told. One interpretation to be had. This person said this, that person said that, this person did this and the other did that, someone stepped in and said another thing, everyone agreed and went home. Or whatever. No confusion, every question is answered, it all makes sense, and there's no cop-out excuses.

But the Bible doesn't tell it that way. There's too many holes to have complete or even partial faith in it, because that partial faith is unreliable due to the number of questions that go unanswered, which you can get first hand from half the members of this site. If there's questions that go unanswered, there's holes in the understanding. If there's holes in the understanding, the whole story wasn't told. If the whole story wasn't told, it's not the absolute truth. Because even if something is just missing, that's a lie by omission. That's how we were raised, right?

Which completely invalidates the cornerstone of the Christian faith. End of story.
edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by YouSir
 



Christ was scolding those that wanted to kick the children out of the adult meeting, yet he reminded them that the children were closer to the Spirit than were the men, he also reminded them that spiritual pursuet required that one become "child-like" not childish.


Oh! Oh! Tell me the difference, please! Do define the line drawn between these two concepts...I'm rather interested to see how "universal" it is.

And no, I don't really have a definition; I want to see how yours looks.
Ummm.....methinks that you enjoy the part of the jester too much........so please quell your little bonnet bells, I know, I know, those pointy upturned shoes can be quite the pain.......cant they?
Child-like.....innocent, not stuffed chock full of ego..........closer to their spirit nature.
Childish.......The jester, or the fool.....ie., you. Any other questions?

YouSir



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 



Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by YouSir
 



Christ was scolding those that wanted to kick the children out of the adult meeting, yet he reminded them that the children were closer to the Spirit than were the men, he also reminded them that spiritual pursuet required that one become "child-like" not childish.


Oh! Oh! Tell me the difference, please! Do define the line drawn between these two concepts...I'm rather interested to see how "universal" it is.

And no, I don't really have a definition; I want to see how yours looks.
Ummm.....methinks that you enjoy the part of the jester too much........so please quell your little bonnet bells, I know, I know, those pointy upturned shoes can be quite the pain.......cant they?
Child-like.....innocent, not stuffed chock full of ego..........closer to their spirit nature.
Childish.......The jester, or the fool.....ie., you. Any other questions?

YouSir


Thank you for the compliment. Only the fools are wise, after all. And jesters were satirists...something I have a particular appreciation for. Problem?



child·ish/ˈCHīldiSH/
Adjective:

1. Of, like, or appropriate to a child.



Adjective:
(of an adult) Having good qualities associated with a child.


And just so we're not missing anything here:



Adjective:
To be desired or approved of.



All of that came from the Google dictionary. So...to be desired or approved of. And we all know that not everybody wants the same thing in a person, so what's good for one might not be good for another. So really, it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? The point I was trying to make when you rudely chastised me for asking a question.

Can we continue this discussion in a civilized manner, or would you like to continue calling me names?



edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 
Ummm......you were being all "tongue in cheeky" with you questions.....I simply replied in the same vein...be that as it may, my definitions were rather universal.......dont you think?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Gnostics came along after the Church had been around a while. If people are going to assert that gnostic beliefs are the original Christian beliefs, then they carry the burden of proof. Good luck with that.
Ummm.......Christ sent all of his disciples to establish churches.....plural.....not for only one, Peter the first pope to quell the others and brand them heretics. Your modern version of Christianity, is filtered through the hands of not just Peter, but through all of the popes.....remember the Borgias? Your modern Bible is also filtered and altered and edited and translated, through the hands of political men from Nicea to King James to today. What you have in that book is not the meat of Christs teachings, but the scraps that politics and corruption through power and greed left for you...Perhaps it would be the wiser course, to open your mind and heart allow the spirit to guide you and not your not so humble ego. There is alot of wisdom and power to be found in the pages of "The Nag Hammadi Library" and other non-sanctioned Biblia such as "The Other Bible" and "The lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of eden" . You really should check out the Philokalia, also read "On Spiritual Prayer" (by Miguel De Molinos). Ask yourself this question as well. Why does Jude, in the epistle of Jude verse 14 reference Enoch, The only other individual biblically besides Isaiah to be bodily brought into the presence of GOD, yet WHERE in your Bible are the 366 books that GOD commanded Enoch to pen. If Enoch were that worthy in the eyes of the Lord, then why weren't any of those books included in your Bible...........The short answer is that men put the Bible together, not at the behest of GOD but at the behest of men...to serve men. "Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you"........"Split a piece of wood and I am there, Lift a stone and you will find me"..........."The kingdom of heaven is within and without"........."Unless you become as one of these you will not enter the kingdom of heaven".......

YouSir


True, there are 12 tribes of Israelites and WE ARE ALL Israleites.
The Bible speaks in the literal but one cannot forget the spiritual side. Its more important actually.

Because of reincarnation Jesus in fact is able to help write the Bible in a way where the words can be found their true meaning if one seeks. Jesus was Adam, Enoch, Joshua, Joseph, Melchizedek and more. He wrote Job!

This is why he is the King of Words (also Hermes) and makes them come alive. The Sun/Son has came and kicked butt and keeps on coming. He is like the energizer bunny. Full of energy! Magician of Words is what he is and I admire him for it.

We too have incarnated many times but thats neither here nor there. Jesus makes the Word come alive in more ways than one. They are sooo powerful too. All you have to do is see his words in the spirit and "get it" which means to be made aware. This experiences on earth is had only because we choose it.

What we are witnessing today is also found in the Bible ... with Israel (us). The Romans once again along with Solomon (his behavior as he lusted for the golden calf ) taking us down through there via greed and religions played against the other. Solomon sold out for 666! Literally but in the spiritual as well. We are living it.

The Israleites (us) are his people as long as we are not for and in works with the builders of self worth without a cause of love for the fellow man. Using your fellow man for self worth is a no no in this system of spirit according to the Bible.

The Bible is a prophetic book when you really get in it through self teaching.

Im not even a Christian.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by adjensen
Peter wasn't a Pope.

Ever read Matthew 16:18? Yes, Peter was considered the first pope.

He is "considered" as such by the Catholic church, but he neither held that title, nor is there any concrete evidence that he held the title of Bishop of Rome, the office that eventually evolved into the office of the Pope. If Peter was in Rome, it was almost certainly as a prisoner of the Roman government.



The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the content of the Bible, and there are earlier texts than the King James Bible that allow comparison, which shows minor differences.

The council of Nicaea had everything to do with seperating what were considered divinely inspired writings from other "lesser" books of "questionable origen"......so yes it had EVERYTHING to do with what was included in "the Bible"

For people who learn their history from Dan Brown novels, that is a commonly held belief, but there is historical evidence that the majority of what we now consider to be the New Testament was decided over 100 years before that council, and there are records of what was discussed at that council, and it was the Arian controversy (the nature of Christ's divinity) and absolutely nothing to do with Biblical Canon.

It is so well known, in fact, outside of "Da Vinci Code" conspiratorial types, that claiming that Nicaea or Constantine determined the contents of the Bible is an almost sure sign that someone is clueless about Christian history.


I find it interesting that you had absolutely no comment on my questions about Enoch, his 366 books being some of those "lesser books" not include by the Nicaean council. Also the first Nicaean council was held in AD 325 a good century AFTER you state that The Nag Hammadi Library was put together....

Perhaps you could also share with us your knowledge of "the bridal chamber", I would be much interested in your thoughts about that very secret Christian rite.


I have no interest in any of that stuff, apart from the Gnostics, so I have no idea.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Well, who here thinks that the essence of Christianity is giving more than you receive? And if not, then what is the essence of Christianity? I'm talking to the true Christians on this thread.
edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Well, who here thinks that the essence of Christianity is giving more than you receive? And if not, then what is the essence of Christianity? I'm talking to the true Christians on this thread.


Well, I think that might be oversimplifying things, because it's subjective and not everything can be quantified. The essence of Christianity is Christ's two commandments -- love God, and love everyone else as yourself. The first is important because it's the only thing that makes the second possible.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



The essence of Christianity is Christ's two commandments -- love God, and love everyone else as yourself. The first is important because it's the only thing that makes the second possible.


Sorry, but I don't believe that. Looking around at all the atheists, you're saying that none of them are capable of loving his neighbor as he loves himself, out of pure moral integrity?

I say atheists because those are the only sure-fire ones that I know don't put stock in a higher power, and so they have nothing to draw their morals from except conditioning. Regardless: they don't follow the commands of a higher power, and yet many would even treat their enemy respectably, just because fighting and conflict isn't appealing.

How do you explain that, according to what you just posted?
edit on 1-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join