Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Thoughts from a former Christian

page: 16
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The earliest Christians certainly weren't Gnostics. That form of Christianity was born in the 2nd century with Marcion.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

You believe that the argument, or the line of questioning, should just end there. All philosophical discussion comes to an end when we say "God did it!" No further explanation is needed. All arguments from this point on are to be thrown out the window!


No it does not. By declaring God did it, does not end the discussion. It's a presupposition. If there are good reasons to believe that God did it, then it's not some kind of cut off for the philosophical discussion. Take the cosmological argument, teleological argument and the ontological argument, even the moral argument as good reasons to believe in God. They're good arguments. It doesn't end the discussion, but reframes the point of reference to render the world around us. In fact, modern science was born out of the notion that we as rational beings created in God's image can seek to understand the creation.


I fail to understand nothing. I just disagree with your definition. These attribute that you ascribe to God, are only true in the minds of those who believe.


well then there's really no point of discussion. If we can freely redefine words, we will never get anywhere but arguing over semantics.


Yes it does. When it comes to God, Christians always rely on the "Don't question God" route. Why shouldn't God need an explanation? How doesn't something that doesn't exist, exist always? Why should I simply accept that?


We can't even wrap out minds around infinity and eternal. They are conceptual. There are infinite points between these two dots . . and we can grasp that conceptually, but we can't count these points to infinity as empirical proof. And "don't question God rout"? What does that have anything to do with our discussion? Your making this about Christians and not about the actual topic at hand. God's existence. You don't simply have to accept anything. In fact, I encourage you to investigate the truth claims of theism because again, there are good reasons to believe in a monotheistic God.


It's lazy and unethical to just stop all examination, abort curiosity and proposed explanations, tests and measures, placing the answer to all that's unknown on something that doesn't exist.


Once again, I never said it stops all examination...YOU said that. And notice how your presuppositions are at work here...you said.."...placing the answer to all that's unknown on something that doesn't exist" That's a presupposition. You're clearly not even open to the possibility of God's existence. Not to mention you bring ethics into it. Don't even get me started on where you are drawing your objective moral values and duties to even determine what is ethical and what isn't.


Christians ask scientists "How did matter come to be?" "How and when did the universe begin?" "Did life just evolve from inert matter?" "How can matter come from nothing?" as if those arguments lead to proof of a God that doesn't have a beginning or end, and doesn't "exist" in existence, and, that created the universe from nothing.

This line of thought just postpones the conundrum and transfers the questions to another realm, a realm outside of the universe of existence to another, non-existent, realm of fantasy and magic; to a realm of a supernatural being who stands outside of creation, willing it into existence from nothing with his magic wand.


Well for one, those are legit questions. And because they are unanswered, it's a good place to make you materialist types think about what you're claiming. Now there is also a difference between understanding the mechanism of our universe and the cause of it. You can tell me all the chemical properties of a cake. But no amount of understanding the chemical and even atomic properties of a cake will tell you that it was baked for my friend's birthday party.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun


I fail to understand nothing. I just disagree with your definition. These attribute that you ascribe to God, are only true in the minds of those who believe.


well then there's really no point of discussion. If we can freely redefine words, we will never get anywhere but arguing over semantics.


What makes you think that your definition of God is the correct one, or even the only one? That's really the crux of the problem isn't it? an agreement on the definition of God.

God is a concept, not a fact.



Yes it does. When it comes to God, Christians always rely on the "Don't question God" route. Why shouldn't God need an explanation? How doesn't something that doesn't exist, exist always? Why should I simply accept that?



We can't even wrap out minds around infinity and eternal. They are conceptual. There are infinite points between these two dots . . and we can grasp that conceptually, but we can't count these points to infinity as empirical proof.


We don't need to understand infinity. All we need to understand is present time. Present time is the only medium we have to examine our existence. The concept of God being infinite or finite doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there is a supreme God being.



And "don't question God rout"? What does that have anything to do with our discussion? Your making this about Christians and not about the actual topic at hand. God's existence.


This thread is entitled "Thoughts From a Former Christian." We are talking about the Christian God's existence. You are the one insisting that your idea of God, the Christian God is the creator of the universe. And that the creator offers all the answers to our questions of existence.



It's lazy and unethical to just stop all examination, abort curiosity and proposed explanations, tests and measures, placing the answer to all that's unknown on something that doesn't exist.


Once again, I never said it stops all examination...YOU said that. And notice how your presuppositions are at work here...you said.."...placing the answer to all that's unknown on something that doesn't exist" That's a presupposition. You're clearly not even open to the possibility of God's existence. Not to mention you bring ethics into it. Don't even get me started on where you are drawing your objective moral values and duties to even determine what is ethical and what isn't.


What ethics did I bring into the discussion? Do you mean the ethics of the God of the Old Testament?

We have already agreed that the universe, by definition, is a totality of all that is. You assert that God doesn't reside within the universe, but outside of its existence. God never began or ends. Therefore, God doesn't "exist."

I disagree with this concept of God. I reject the concept of a God that doesn't exist within our universe. If God exists outside of our universe, there is nothing that says that there aren't infinite gods that live outside our universe, who are all participating in its constant creation and change.

In my pantheistic world view, God can be defined as everything that exists within existence. The physical universe is the manifestation of God's universal body. The spiritual aspects of existence is the mind of God. My eyes are God's eyes and my emotions are God's emotions. We are all an aspect of God, that is being experienced in present time. Even the earth, the moon, the sun and the stars may be aware and experiencing God in present time.

If there is one universe, and nothing else outside of it's existence, then there can be one God, the ultimate body of everything, the whole of existence. If the universe can end, so can God. If the universe can die, so can God. If the universe can be infinite then so can God. The universe is God and God is the universe.

This God doesn't write books, hurl earthquakes and hurricanes, famine and disease around when he's unhappy. This God doesn't put on a human puppet suit and come to earth to be crucified by an angry mob in order for forgive us of imperfections. This God doesn't cast aspects of it's awareness into eternal suffering because of a perceived disobedience.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That form of Christianity was born in the 2nd century with Marcion.


Uhh......
"completely false" ?

Backatcha.....the following extracted from fairly credible and open-faithed site called religious tolerance

GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN

HISTORY; ANCIENT SOURCES OF INFORMATION


History:

Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity.

There does not seem to have been much formal organization among the Gnostics during the early centuries of the Christian movement. As mainline Christianity grew in strength and organization, Gnostic sects came under increasing pressure, oppression and persecution. They almost disappeared by the 6th century. The only group to have survived continuously from the 1st century CE into modern times is the Mandaean sect of Iraq and Iran. This group has about 15,000 members (one source says 1,500), and can trace their history continuously back to the original Gnostic movement.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


There's alot of debate about the early Christians and evidence is lending to a far more diverse Christianity than some would like to believe. Some believe Gnosticism may pre-date Christianity. There is particular interests in it's connections to Judaism.

One thing is certain, the term 'Gnosticism' is controversial.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I find it interesting how people throw around the word 'heretic', especially Protestants, who were themselves viewed as heretics and were persecuted and punished as such.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Amazing watching people posting here going in circles.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I know Gnosticism is older than Christianity, that's why I was specific saying 'that form of Christianity'.. meaning Christian version of Gnosticism. I'm not the expert on the movement like Adjensen is, but from what I know Gnosticism is incompatible with Judaism which Christianity is the completion of, and especially contradictory with the nature of Christ who was a flesh and blood person.

We should invite Adjensen here to clarify the history.

edit on 30-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AprenticeofLight
 


Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible. Search any online Encyclopedia entry for the Council of Nicaea. It was called primarily to address the Arian heresy. And the other "gospels" you mentioned were long rejected before Constantine, they were Gnostic texts and were condemned by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, some 200 years before Nicaea.
edit on 30-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Protestants can't talk about the early Church, the first fifteen centuries because Protestantism didn't
exist. So they fall back to mentioning one fella, over and over, Constantine. Thinking people don't notice
their brief condensed...tee hee account of Christian history.

Protestant started professing Sola Scriptura but their new authority, the Bible Alone came from the God given authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Damasus decided the Canon in 382 A.D.

Nice though...you do speak of "Irenaeus in the 2nd century." Shall I post his quotes and devotion to the
most Holy Eucharist? Will you believe then? I wish and pray....



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AprenticeofLight
 


Lol. Where did you hear that? The Nicaean Council had nothing to do with the books of the Bible. Search any online Encyclopedia entry for the Council of Nicaea. It was called primarily to address the Arian heresy. And the other "gospels" you mentioned were long rejected before Constantine, they were Gnostic texts and were condemned by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, some 200 years before Nicaea.
edit on 30-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



Where are the sirens? Alert dear friends. "Irenaeus in the 2nd century" professed belief in Jesus' presence
in the Eucharist. Protestants came alone in the 16th century and said no, rejecting the faith so no ministerial
priesthood now, what else could they say? If you could begin to believe, you'll understand much better what
is ahead spiritually.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:

If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:

Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.'' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:

If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Nevermind.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Arles Morningside because: Because I won't be able to attend to this conversation as I must be away for a while, so I ought to shut my trap now.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 




What does that have to do with the Council of Nicaea?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by cantyousee
 


I hope you reconsider and come to God. Like him, that is my wish.

I'm quite cool with "God". I know what "God" ISN'T, from the source.


But in the event that you don't, remember that in the world to come there could have been a place for you.

Just because God is all merciful and patient doesn't mean he is gonna allow the controversy to last forever. Even as I write this the world as you know it is coming to an end. Satan is about to unleash his last spurt of evil. Like the death throws of a wild animal. Then the real Christ will come and my words will be vindicated. I implore you to look at the evidense and reconsider your position.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any of that. There is only the violent and self-centered species of mankind that has raped and pillaged this, our home planet, ruthlessly, and destroyed other people.


But if not, we want rid of all who think like of you. There is no place for you in the world to come. Come and receive him today while it is still possible.


Wow.
You want "rid" of all who think "like of me"? I presume you mean "all who think like me." I'm a person who wants war to END, for everyone to SHARE, for greed to be EXTINCT, and for adults who believe in the above quoted "fantasies" to grow up and step up and do your part.

Consider yourself rid of me....notice how I'm not in your "church"? Notice how I'm not condemning you to hell and waiting on some invisible "hero" to show up and fix what ails us? How I'm not blaming an invisible "bad guy" for what PEOPLE DO TO EACH OTHER?

Yeah, I'm bad news.

Bad, bad news. Trouble with a capital T. A monster. A scary, lying con-man whose entire purpose in life is to threaten, warn, and scare others half to death and convince them they'll be tormented for eternity just for being human ----
Oh, wait!!
No....hold on...*thinking* ...OMG...that's a description of YOU!




edit on 30-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
It doesn't do very much good to communicate with you seems. It doesn't sound like you read and absorb my message entirely. Had you, you would have known that I desire you to be with us in the world to come. I have simply told you God's feelings on the matter as outlined in his Holy scripture. It is written."all who believe upon the son shall be saved." It is also written, Those who do not believe upon him is cursed already because they have not believed upon the God's only begotten son.
You say you are a good person because you want to preserve the earth and stop war and killing and such.
Why only go half way? There is no room for anyone who does not believe in God's only begotten son. I am not the judge. God sees the heart. You are revealing your heart to me with your words. God is merciful and long suffering but I am saying that you are walking on dangerous ground in your refusal to acknowledge and love his Son. Narrow is the gate. That means there is only one way to God. And that one narrow way is through his son, Jesus of nazareth. If you are rebellious concerning this point then you are walking on dangerous ground.
If you are a good person then acknowledge God's son as the Christ and join us in waiting for his return.
Stubborness and rebellion and wanting to do things on our own terms is a recipe for condemnation and eternal seperation from God. it is every man's choice. But God dictates the terms. never forget that.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


1 plus 1 equaling 2 works only in a 10 or 11 dimensional Universe.

In a One Dimensional Universe 1 plus 1 equals 1.

You are also assuming that a GOD would be Infinite in nature. This is an assumption.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


Sorry...I misread your post. I agree that a GOD by definition is Finite.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 


It doesn't do very much good to communicate with you seems. It doesn't sound like you read and absorb my message entirely. Had you, you would have known that I desire you to be with us in the world to come. I have simply told you God's feelings on the matter as outlined in his Holy scripture.

You don't know "God's" feelings. You're just a human, like me. I absorbed your message just fine. "Do it my way or hit the highway, you stupid, stubborn THINKER. You're welcome in AS LONG AS YOU SAY MY OPINION IS THE TRUTH."


It is written."all who believe upon the son shall be saved." It is also written, Those who do not believe upon him is cursed already because they have not believed upon the God's only begotten son.

Yawn. It is also "written" that the Bible was "written" by men. NOT GOD. Not even Jesus. Men. And Jesus himself said "you are all gods." Or, did you space out during that part??


You say you are a good person because you want to preserve the earth and stop war and killing and such.
I do.

Why only go half way? There is no room for anyone who does not believe in God's only begotten son. I am not the judge. God sees the heart. You are revealing your heart to me with your words. God is merciful and long suffering but I am saying that you are walking on dangerous ground in your refusal to acknowledge and love his Son.


Uhm...halfway? Halfway is sucking up some ancient fantasy with no proof or evidence of any of it being factual, and just saying, "Oh. Okay, whatever. Thanks. No more thinking for me." I'll just do what other PEOPLE tell me to do. Cuz, they know. And I don't.


Narrow is the gate. That means there is only one way to God. And that one narrow way is through his son, Jesus of nazareth. If you are rebellious concerning this point then you are walking on dangerous ground.

Jesus was a fabulous person by all accounts...he was no more Divine than any of us - he was spiritually awake, and tried to tell people that, but most of them were too thick to get his message.


You say you are not the judge, and then go right ahead and tell me my life and judge me as a lost soul.
:/
You don't see that, though, do you?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


So you're the only "thinker"?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only "thinker"? No! Not by a huge long-shot!!!

But I don't appreciate being told that someone would rather be "rid" of me because I think outside the box of "Jesus Jesus Jesus and Jesus." And also, "Jesus. And ONLY Jesus. Otherwise, burn in hell."

He was NOT the only guy to ever live who delivered that same message....

and every person who has taught it was EQUALLY right and EQUALLY divine.

Why does it have to be JESUS alone, and no one else?!

Even he said so.
edit on 1-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


Sorry to interrupt your train of thought -
to whom are you responding here?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Even Jesus said so? I don't recall that part. I do however recall where He said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me. And others were also divine? How many gods do you suppose there are?





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join