Deism. A not-new but very intelligent approach to GOD.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Not coincidence at all. He was a very good businessman. He could see that Christianity was becoming widely supported, so he substituted pagan traditions so as to preserve them. Perhaps that's why Christianity lasted so long, because perhaps he confided in his closest friends and they kept the beast alive to carry the cure, through all these years.

Not only did they substitute pagan traditions like Easter and Christmas but they also put sun worship themes into the story of Jesus. Jesus never walked on water or turned water into wine, those are natural things that can be attributed to the sun which is what pagans worship(ed).

How can you come to the conclusion that Catholics killed off paganism when a pagan is the one who legalized Catholicism? That doesn't make any sense.

No, pagan traditions existed even in Sumerian times, long before Jesus was ever born.

I know this but just because paganism existed before Christianity doesn't mean they couldn't have picked up a pen and paper and edited pagan themes (sun worship) into the story. I think you're confusing "theme" with "tradition" here. I don't mean holidays and certain dates, I mean ideologies.

Some of them, not all of them. There's a good many that used such stories as an allegory. Again, Jesus came after these stories, so perhaps you should do a little more research.

You're misunderstanding my meaning again. I never said Jesus lived before paganism came around, I'm saying that the pagans are the ones who captured and killed Jesus then went on to change his message.

And then Christianity took over. Why, I don't know. I don't. But paganism came before Christianity, and the Catholics shredded it for material to build their own religion.

Christianity took over because paganism was on the decline and Constantine wanted to keep political power over the people so he legalized Christianity.

I know paganism came before Christianity, what you fail to realize is that pagans are the ones who started the church. How could the Catholics have slaughtered paganism when pagans are the ones who established Catholicism? Do you see the contradiction there?

Ever heard of the Christian persecutions? Pagans are the ones who were slaughtering Christians, not the other way around. This was during and after the life of Jesus. Maybe you are the one who needs to do a little more research and not me.

What evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that supports Catholics killing off paganism? One piece of evidence that Peter was Satan is located in Matthew 16:22. Peter wasn't reinstated until AFTER Jesus supposedly resurrected. I do not believe in the resurrection so I do not believe Peter was ever reinstated.

Also, the man behind the capture of Jesus was named Caiaphas which means "rock" in Aramic. Guess who else was called "rock". Peter, a.k.a. Cephas. Both Cephas and Caiaphas mean rock in Aramic. The man who betrayed Jesus was named Judas, Judas' father's name was Simon, which is also Peter's name before Jesus started calling him Cephas.

In my opinion Cephas, Caiaphas, and Judas are all the same person. The Romans split this one person into many persons (including Paul) in order to cover up Peter's betrayal of Jesus and Rome's infiltration of the story. Also, if you take a look at Da Vinci's "The Last Supper", you'll notice that Peter is holding a knife behind his back while leaning toward John and Jesus. I think this points toward Peter being the one who betrayed Jesus.



ETA: Notice in the painting how there is a disembodied hand that comes from behind Peter and how it looks as though Peter is cut in half by Judas. I think this may point to my theory of Peter, Paul, and Judas all being the same person. The disembodied hand coming from Peter could represent Paul and the hand being at John's neck could mean Paul held him hostage (they both traveled together after Jesus' death).

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Did not know it was Peter also but then I only read the pieces of the bible that are sent thru synchronicity normally. Read some Paul and saw a man trying to show a nice front with an ego mind behind who did not preach nonduality. And frankly if a person do not preach nonduality (or a version of nonduality) at the core then I kinda loose all respect for the knowledge the person thinks he/she has. I get that you temporarily can have dualistic thought since I myself play around with duality sometimes. But then I am not a person that want to start up an religion and dogma am I . If you are gonna preach and teach then you better be exceptionally humble and egoless for the lesson to not be about the egos views.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I know paganism came before Christianity, what you fail to realize is that pagans are the ones who started the church. How could the Catholics have slaughtered paganism when pagans are the ones who established Catholicism? Do you see the contradiction there?

Pagans don't believe in churches. They may have temples and rituals, but they find a tree, a rock, or a river just as satisfying. They don't just pray to stone effigies portraying their imagining of a god. They speak to the divinity itself, in the form of the nature that surrounds them.

Why would pagans invent Catholicism?

mid-14c., "of the doctrines of the ancient Church," literally "universally accepted

pagan (n.)
late 14c., from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant"

Huh. So illiterate commoners were the founders of a universally accepted religion based on sacred texts? Sounds logical. That's why they were PAGANS. They were rustic villagers who couldn't read and were therefore uneducated in the matters of Judaic religion. It was the higher up folk that were gathered like sheep. The ones who could afford education and the taxes of the church.

You're misunderstanding my meaning again. I never said Jesus lived before paganism came around, I'm saying that the pagans are the ones who captured and killed Jesus then went on to change his message.

You mean Jews are secretly pagans?

What evidence do you have that supports Catholics killing off paganism? One piece of evidence that Peter was Satan is located in Matthew 16:22. Peter wasn't reinstated until AFTER Jesus supposedly resurrected. I do not believe in the resurrection so I do not believe Peter was ever reinstated.

This clearly shows you are not Christian, so how can you believe in "Satan"? You cannot pick and choose. That much, I tell you right now. You cannot pick and choose, or you are a false Christian. Either you believe Jesus was the son of "God", that he died for your sins, and that he rose three days later, or you aren't a Christian, which means you have no reason to believe in "Satan".

Sorry about derailing the thread OP, I kinda forget my place when certain subjects come up.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


They don't believe in churches yet they established THE church.

You know what else they found satisfying? Going into foreign cities and slaughtering people then forcing the survivors to join them or die. They did that for a thousand years, all the while pagans. They sure did destroy a lot of nature while worshiping it didn't they?

When did I ever say the commoners established it? I've been saying all along that Constantine did. Did you forget that already?

The Romans are the ones who captured Jesus and sent him to trial, what makes you think they didn't kill him?

I never said I was a Christian, I'm more of a pantheist than anything. Didn't you read my first post in this thread? Or did you forget that too? Satan is most certainly real, he lives within mans ego.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The Jews killed Jesus. Even the Bible says so. Jews have very little to do with paganism.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

John 19:23
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

The bible says the soldiers (Roman) crucified him. You're thinking about when the Jews chose to save Jesus Barabbas over Jesus, that has nothing to do with his capture or crucifixion, those were done by Roman hands.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Do me a favor and read this article from Wikipedia, about a guy named Pilate. Skip to the part about Jesus' death.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I already know that Pilate said he found no fault with him but the fact still remains that Rome conspired to catch him and kill him. They even nailed him to the cross. So tell me, did the Jews kill him or the Roman soldiers? It's right there in the bible for everyone to see.

ETA: Did you even read your link? It says in the very first paragraph that Pilate authorized his crucifixion. What does logic tell you? Did the people who chose to save one man over another kill him or did the ones who captured and authorized his death kill him?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The Roman soldiers were Jewish. Why would pagans want to kill him? This is way off topic anyway.

Deism is a far more intelligent approach to spirituality that Christianity, as it provides far less temptations for mankind to fall to the dark side of righteousness and faith. Not all righteousness and faith is good, and that line has become severely blurred as of late. I'm not sure people even care anymore. They're more and more desperate to convince themselves that they are worthy, and condemnation is a huge part of the game.

No parent condemns their child. It's as simple as that. If you condemn the creation you make, then you condemn a part of yourself. With that said, I'm going to bed. See you later, ATS.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Where did you get that they were Jewish? Any sources? Or are you just making that up?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I know paganism came before Christianity, what you fail to realize is that pagans are the ones who started the church. How could the Catholics have slaughtered paganism when pagans are the ones who established Catholicism? Do you see the contradiction there?

Pagans don't believe in churches. They may have temples and rituals, but they find a tree, a rock, or a river just as satisfying. They don't just pray to stone effigies portraying their imagining of a god. They speak to the divinity itself, in the form of the nature that surrounds them.

Why would pagans invent Catholicism?

mid-14c., "of the doctrines of the ancient Church," literally "universally accepted

pagan (n.)
late 14c., from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant"

Huh. So illiterate commoners were the founders of a universally accepted religion based on sacred texts? Sounds logical.

That's why they were PAGANS. They were rustic villagers who couldn't read and were therefore uneducated in the matters of Judaic religion. It was the higher up folk that were gathered like sheep. The ones who could afford education and the taxes of the church.

You're misunderstanding my meaning again. I never said Jesus lived before paganism came around, I'm saying that the pagans are the ones who captured and killed Jesus then went on to change his message.

You mean Jews are secretly pagans?

What evidence do you have that supports Catholics killing off paganism? One piece of evidence that Peter was Satan is located in Matthew 16:22. Peter wasn't reinstated until AFTER Jesus supposedly resurrected. I do not believe in the resurrection so I do not believe Peter was ever reinstated.

This clearly shows you are not Christian, so how can you believe in "Satan"? You cannot pick and choose. That much, I tell you right now. You cannot pick and choose, or you are a false Christian. Either you believe Jesus was the son of "God", that he died for your sins, and that he rose three days later, or you aren't a Christian, which means you have no reason to believe in "Satan".

edit on 8-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Who say you can't pick and choose? Man created the views of god based on their experiance (or based on what their ego wanted to be true) of the divine. From my point of view the bible is very unefficiant way to get any proof and understanding of god and it is probably because it was meant to be a thing to separate man from god. Some people are so saintlike that they even find god on that road because the duality do not have any effect on them. Labels/masks/religions do not matter at all.

Paul is acorrding to me a fool or an antichrist since his message is in the way for people to reach Christ conciousness. And what are people seeking a duality group that can tell each other that they are going to heaven or a connection with god that proves they are going home (or somewhere else they are needed depending on the current situation on all levels).

reply to post by LittleByLittle

Who say you can't pick and choose? Man created the views of god based on their experiance (or based on what their ego wanted to be true) of the divine. From my point of view the bible is very unefficiant way to get any proof and understanding of god and it is probably because it was meant to be a thing to separate man from god. Some people are so saintlike that they even find god on that road because the duality do not have any effect on them. Labels/masks/religions do not matter at all.

If we are not using the Bible as a reference point, then what is the point of discussing Christianity? Let's get back to the topic of deism.

Okay, I don't want this thread to die yet....
I've found another source for Thomas Paine's works, a simple online (no sign-up required) site, here.

We can use the Bible to explore Deism, and in his works, Paine does just that. By comparing and contrasting the veracity and plausibility of the stories, the identities of the authors, the actual evidence (or lack thereof), and the use of reason, he gives a very compelling argument for Deism.

CHAPTER I - THE OLD TESTAMENT
IT has often been said that any thing may be proved from the Bible; but before any thing can be admitted as proved by Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of any thing.

It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled, and have anathematized each other about the supposable meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing, another that it meant directly the contrary, and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other, but something different from both; and this they have called understanding the Bible.

It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests: and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

Now instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men ought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that the first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether there is not?

I'm not hating and bashing here, folks. I realize that at this time of year, feelings will be swollen and sore regarding things "Christian", but if only people would TRY to look outside the box, they might have an opportunity to reshape their grasp on what we have here in this dimension, plane, and moment in time.

One more clip on Paine's take on the OT:

Like all other ancient histories, they appear to be a jumble of fable and of fact, and of probable and of improbable things, but which distance of time and place, and change of circumstances in the world, have rendered obsolete and uninteresting.

The chief use I shall make of those books will be that of comparing them with each other, and with other parts of the Bible, to show the confusion, contradiction, and cruelty in this pretended word of God.

Now, here's a bit on the New Testament:

CHAPTER II - THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.
...
I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove truth, but the disagreement proves falsehood positively.

The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.--The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely.

Do we NOT want to know the truth here?

Do we NOT want to rid ourselves of false "knowledge"?

If NOT, can someone please tell me WHY NOT? And I don't mean "look at all the past atrocities and the riches of the Vatican and the way people hate on other people"....I mean:
If a person wants to "be" a Christian in the sense that Jesus intended, do they not also want to have a firm grasp of the difference between ancient myths and modern scholarship, research, and knowledge?
You can do both!

edit on 10-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

reply to post by wildtimes


Wow. Spectacular contribution. That should get some wheels turning... But my question is, if Thomas Paine so successfully debunked such crucial portions of the Bible, why are there so many Christian scientists?

Of course, there is always this:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise, Harvard geologist

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, we don't see this in Christianity because faith is not a centrivocal part. It is based on observation and reason, the two most important factors in the study of the universe. If you do not use these, then you do not understand the universe and all areas of study therein. And as I've shown above, some faiths leave gaping holes regardless of what scientific approach they use.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Wow. Spectacular contribution. That should get some wheels turning... But my question is, if Thomas Paine so successfully debunked such crucial portions of the Bible, why are there so many Christian scientists?

You mean Christians who are also scientists, right?
Or are you talking about the "Christian Scientists" denomination?

What really makes me scratch my head is that the Founding Fathers of this country (and Paine was an important one) were nearly all Deists. Now, I'm not talking about the first arrivals - the so-called "Pilgrims" - they arrived about 200 years BEFORE the Founding Fathers did their thing 200 years AGO.

I'm not sure why their more reasonable ideas were swept away, honestly.
I'd really like any of our learned contributors to help me understand how that happened - I'm guessing it's due to poor education among the early citizenry. That, and/or the obvious cash-cow that tithing and fear-based preaching represent.

reply to post by wildtimes


Christians who are scientists, yes. But my question could also be applied to the other party you mentioned, as well.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You're asking the wrong person. I'm beginning to glean, bit by bit, that a lot of what shows up here on ATS as "Christianity" is not considered "honest Christianity",
and as I am more exposed to the different styles of the faith, the more confused I am about it.

adjensen is a scientist and a Christian (and a historian as well); so, he would be better equipped to answer your inquiry.

Also, AfterInfinity, I would honestly suggest that you do some reading outside of the internet; I've listed lots of books and authors over the months here that I think would help you to understand some of the more recent "melding", as well as the actual history of the Abrahamic religions....
I don't mean to be disrespectful, at all; you seem to have a genuine interest and frustration with your understanding of what the "Bible-based" faiths are all about.

reply to post by wildtimes


But what is "honest Christianity", exactly? How are you honestly a Christian, when few people seem to know or care what Christianity really is anymore?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

How are you honestly a Christian, when few people seem to know or care what Christianity really is anymore?

Well, I do not call myself "an honest Christian." How others do so is for them to answer.

I'm still camped out in the Searchers' corner; but as for "Nicene Christianity", no, I don't subscribe to it. The miracles are just too fabulous (as in "fable-like"). Then again, if someone shows me an authentic miraculous thing, the first I would do is pick it apart.....
and then, if it proves truly inexplicable, okay, cool!

That said: I believe in the Golden Rule of reciprocity. I'm still confident that it is taught by EVERY major religion, and is the only "rule" we need. It's the one thing almost everyone believes is right.