Christian Bigotry

a reply to: undo

Well, I do believe in the cyclic nature of history repeating itself, especially for those who don't know it. But I don't believe that any of the New Testament is prophecy, although it's presented that way. I believe it's a recap of the events of the era and of the Jewish culture, religion and way of the life.

the statue of daniel, outlines all the empires till the end of the age. this threw off many eschatologists, because they felt the toes on the statue, representing the final empire, would have to be exceedingly long and therefore out of proportion, time-wise, to the rest of the statue. as a result, they assumed the timeline had to culminate in 70ad. this is easily solved by realizing the empires that are described in revelation, are the same empire represented by the toes of the statue, just reappearing under other names. it's the roman empire set on repeat. so you have 5 empires on daniels statue, with 6, 7 and 8 mentioned in revelation, being the same final empire, repeating, incognito (pretending it isn't the pagan roman empire, but it actually is)

5th empire pagan roman
6th empire holy roman
7th empire ottoman? under the guidance of rome
8th empire final empire under the guidance of rome.

when i say guidance, i mean the empire is controlled by pagan rome, it's just hidden

when i mention it's pagan, that's only to differentiate it from the holy roman, which was a huge public persona change, but behind the scenes, same bat time, same bat channel. so they outlawed the practice of paganism by anyone but themselves, similar to the various mystery schools, who hide important information from the "profane"

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Matthew 24:29-31 makes it plain that Jesus was not talking about any 1st century event, which is why modern Christians believe it to be about the end of days.

Mt Vesuvius! HELLO!

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

23 1 Thus day was turned into night and light into darkness. Some thought that the Giants were rising again in revolt (for at this time also many of their forms could be discerned in the smoke and, moreover, a sound as of trumpets was heard), while others believed that the whole universe was being resolved into chaos or fire. 2 Therefore they fled, some from the houses into the streets, others from outside into the houses, now from the sea to the land and now from the land to the sea; for in their excitement they regarded any place where they were not as safer than where they were. 3 While this was going on, an inconceivable quantity of ashes was blown out, which covered both sea and land and filled all the air. It wrought much injury of various kinds, as chance befell, to men and farms and cattle, and in particular it destroyed all fish and birds.
penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html

Where was the "sign of the Son of Man" appearing in heaven?

Where are the stars that fell?

Did all the tribes of the Earth mourn?

Did the Son of Man come on the clouds?

Nope.

Therefore, not talking about Vesuvius.

a reply to: chr0naut

i'm wondering if the verse would better be said "son of adam" ? or would new testament lingo always say adam if it was referencing adam? in old testament, that's not always the case. in fact, sometimes when it says man in english, the hebrew/chaldean/aramic says adam and sometimes it says ish.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: chr0naut

i'm wondering if the verse would better be said "son of adam" ? or would new testament lingo always say adam if it was referencing adam? in old testament, that's not always the case. in fact, sometimes when it says man in english, the hebrew/chaldean/aramic says adam and sometimes it says ish.

The text is in Greek, not Hebrew and the word used for son of 'man' is 'anthropos', not 'adam'.

a reply to: chr0naut

yes i know but isn't it odd that it was either man, adam or ish till the new testament, where it was always anthropos?

a reply to: chr0naut

Where was the "sign of the Son of Man" appearing in heaven?

Where are the stars that fell?

Did all the tribes of the Earth mourn?

Yes! All that happened during and after the eruption of Mt Vesuvius! Read the accounts. People said they saw chariots and soldiers of the "Gods" ascending from Heaven! They heard the trumpets. The land was pelted with fiery rocks and brimstone! "All the tribes" of the world mourned and wept bitterly.

........on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

SOURCE

SOURCE

Hi there all, OP here...

Just dropping by to see whats up and catch up on the reading...

And couldn'telp but notice that many of you have missed the point.

So I'm going to say it one last time, bluntly, and then I shall remove myself from the debate and just pretend ATS doesn't handle these kinds of topics. Give me the trolls on the UFO forums any day.

History has often been said to be written by the winners. Largely this is tue. The reocrd of history has often been the tool of socio-political forces. Herodotus, the father of history, is himself a difficult source, as he put the moral and ethical lessons of history above accuracy.

The idea that history should instead be a factual record of events, free of cultural or political agenda, is a fairly modern one. Many governments and religions of the world, America and Egypt being the two that most readily come to mind, continue to alter proved and sourced events in order to promote an agenda. History then becomes propaganda.

Several days ago I saw a post that reminded me that this kind of problem starts at a perssonal level. it offended me to see someone attempt to support their faith by corrupting historical research and associated documents in order to promote their personal agenda. This agenda happened to be Christian in flavor. I went through a bunch or trouble and hardhship to be educated as a historian, and am not without some faith and spiritual experience myself. I was offended. Moreover, I was offended because I noticed a trend, in college, academia, and even in politics that uses history to attempt to prove the existence of Jesus as a method of proving other religions invalid.

And now a fair number of you are doing that very same thing here, completely missing the point.

History is not a tool to prove anyone right or anyone wrong. In actual historical research, you gather evidence, analyze the evidence for authenticity and content-in-context, and draw conclusions. You do NOT make assumptions based on data you don't have, and you do NOT inject modern concepts into the data. Everything you study has to be considered within the context of the time, with their values, their culture, and their use of language. if you don't properly understand these concepts, you will fail in your study, and you will be a bad historian.

This is a huge problem, and few care about making an attempt at truth or facts, they care about being right. I don't care about being right, I care about being accurate.

I'm calling out bigotry, because Christians who use history in this way have an aggressive agenda against those who choose other faiths. They want to prove the reality of Christ because they think it will give them leverage against other faiths. To me this smacks of a lack of confidence in the religion, and a prideful dishonesty that is no compliment to Christians. I think Christians can and should do better.

If you don't do this stuff, then I'm not talking to you.

So that's the OP's last word - thanks to everyone who was awesome, there were certainly a few of you.

To those who actually want to learn how to do real research, and not just read books like 'Serpent Grail Kings of the Bloodline of Jesus', then do go to college for it. If you get into the right field, you can make a bunch of money and get some real travel under your feet.

The rest of you guys can just keep debating if Jesus is buried in China, or if Joseph of Arimithea brought the Grail to Britain, or if Noah's Ark has been frozen intact for thousands of years in the Turkish mountains. It's a load of fantasy, have fun.

a reply to: Boadicea

Seriously?

I'm not making blanket generalizations.

I am saying, bluntly, that Christians that use history as a means to prove already held beliefs at the expense of other religions are behaving inappropriately.

Yet for some reason, and this has happened a bunch in this thread, everyone keeps thinking I'm talking about all Christians...

I could easily start a seperate thread about this behavior committed by politicians, or buddhists, or whatever - it's a big problem. I chose Christianity because here at ATS, I see a bunch of talk on this topic.

a reply to: Herolotus

Personally, I think it is fine to consider and even discover if Jesus existed or not. What one does with that knowledge is another matter - but the discovering his existence or not, is not the problem.

Jesus' demonstration as a spiritual master and his esoteric teachings indicate that he did exist. I have posted repeatedly what some of those esoteric teachings are, but for this thread, the specific details of those teachings are not the point.

However, in general terms, if one considers what Jesus taught relative to the God-Light, Spirit transmission, the spiritual laws of love, unity, divine communion, being born again, etc., one should be able to understand that no ordinary Joe or set of Joes came up with all of this esoterica on their own.

Back then people could not just go read the latest teachings from the East on non-dualism, communion with God, etc. - like we can today. Jesus' Teachings absolutely parallel certain of the great traditions of the East, particularly the guru-disciple traditions.

His working with disciples, transmitting his Blessing, drawing them into the Light above the world (the "Kingdom of God"), and demonstrating to them the descent of the spirit as well - was not something any of the disciple(s) just came up with. Their accounts of Jesus' Blessing in their lives in terms of being born again of the Light, could not be faked, especially given their parallels to what is understood about the esoteric aspects of the body-mind, etc.

There is also no way some ordinary group of people back then came up with the demands inherent in the two great commandments. Those two commandments are a total demand, both esoteric and exoteric, for living a life in communion with God.

The esoteric aspects of Jesus' Teachings and his real daily life demands were basically replaced by Paul's "easy believer's faith-based approach for a guaranteed future salvation" and this resulted in the rapid growth of Paul's exoteric "official" church. This basically snuffed out much of what Jesus actually taught his followers to practice.

That Jesus was a spiritual master who actually existed can be assumed from his demonstration with his disciples, their calling him Master, his teachings that are still "hidden" in the Bible, the two great commandments, and the testimonies of the disciples of his esoteric work with them, being born again in the Light, etc.

a reply to: bb23108

Everything you just claimed is based on the belief that the Bible and its stories are true. That's a lot of trust and blind faith.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bb23108

Everything you just claimed is based on the belief that the Bible and its stories are true. That's a lot of trust and blind faith.

It seems that you missed my main point - that no ordinary person or group of people came up with Jesus' teachings on their own. This is the teaching of an extraordinary spiritual master.

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: Boadicea

Seriously?

I'm not making blanket generalizations.

I am saying, bluntly, that Christians that use history as a means to prove already held beliefs at the expense of other religions are behaving inappropriately.

Yet for some reason, and this has happened a bunch in this thread, everyone keeps thinking I'm talking about all Christians...

I could easily start a seperate thread about this behavior committed by politicians, or buddhists, or whatever - it's a big problem. I chose Christianity because here at ATS, I see a bunch of talk on this topic.

As you point out, the problem isn't with Christianity per se, you are questioning why Christians hold to their belief despite what you would consider non-historical evidence.

However, I should like to point out that many beliefs are indeed held without knowing history. For instance, what many non-Christian critics never question is the source of their "sources". They see a video on youtube and assume that just because the creator of such information is non-Christian "exposers" are really doing nothing more than presenting false information, also to sell books and DVDs.

Where did Zitgeist get their information? What was their source? From many other non-scholars who recycled false information.

There is a truth about history being written by the winner, but there is also a truth about finding truth in the mythologies and folk tales. What a real researcher of history does is compare all sources. Then we find out what really happened. But if one places their trust solely in one camp or another, are still falling for agendas and propaganda.

Let me give you an example, the film Der Ewige Jude, which many Holocaust deniers repeat the same anti-Semitic propaganda from the Nazis. Yes, the same propaganda the Nazis used is the same load of bull crap repeated today.

In Der Ewige Jude the Nazis was showing how "beneficial" it was for Jews to be placed in the Warsaw Ghetto, but they showed the conditions the Jews were living in while juxtaposing images of Germans working in fields in the fresh, natural and clean countryside. What the Nazis did not show was the wall and the armed soldiers prohibiting the Jews from escaping. But ask most of the young people today about Jews, they repeat the same lies as the Nazis did, and when they are presented with factual films and photographs, they think that it is a huge Zionist conspiracy so they try to dismiss it by saying there were no death camps, that the Jews were really in work camps and not a single Jew was gassed or burned.

See, that's the propaganda and the same thing is happening when it comes to Christian history. No one wants to accept Jesus as being real because if Jesus was real, then that means Christianity has a real foundation. No one wants to accept the historical evidence from the secular sources, they say that they need someone contemporary with Jesus, and like we discussed before, they believe all other ancient persons were real without even examining if that person was real. I pointed out Socrates.

I also have to ask if Alexander the Great was real. Who told us he was real? The Greeks who used his name for propaganda. But remember, people didn't think Troy was real either, but there it was just waiting for Heinrich Schliemann to dig it up.

And just where did they hear of Troy? It was in a book. A legend. A myth.

See, people dismiss the Bible as history and yet it has been proven in the archeology. But read about some dude's adventures and a war over a woman, somehow that is more acceptable. See the problem? To accept the Bible means a source of divinity. To accept Jesus would mean everything it says about Jesus.

And it is only western scientists and scholars who are doing this. They act like India never had a history, and yet India has had many cultural and religious expressions for thousands of years more than Europe ever came up out of the Neanderthal knuckle dragging (or so we were told until it was proven wrong).

The Mahabarahta, the Shambalha Warrior Prophecy, Ragnarok, all the same story as Nehemiah and Revelation. Why did you know, in the very letters of Elder Futhark runestones is the story of the flood? Amazing.

But the problem is if one chooses to disregard history in favor of western academic scholarship, then how does one even know they are not being lied to by the same community that produced Piltdown Man?

Acharya S, if people listen to her, she straw manned Christianity and all the religions she pretended to be an expert at, and yet her information was the same old recycled bull. But she's the reason Zeitgeist became Zeitgeist. Right now, there is more evidence in the Mahabarahta about an ancient Harappan culture, and now genetics are proving it. But to hear a western scientist or academian speak about it, the Indians of the subcontinent were too stupid to record their own history and needs a westerner to explain it to them.

So exactly WHO are you listening to tell you that the Bible is not history? And WHY are they telling you that? It is from the very racist scientific and academic community who cares nothing about people and felt no remorse over the creation of the atomic bomb, of which the Bhagavad Gita and Nehemiah describe. The warning they gave was this...just like it was in the days of Noah, mankind will turn on itself so completely that mankind will destroy itself with weapons that was too wondrous for them to even give a name to, but the destruction described, that is what is on our doorstep now.

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: Boadicea

Seriously?

I'm not making blanket generalizations.

Seriously? Let's consider the title of the OP: "Christian Bigotry." Quite a generalization there.

I am saying, bluntly, that Christians that use history as a means to prove already held beliefs at the expense of other religions are behaving inappropriately.

Ahhhh... what a difference a word makes: Christians "that" use history as a means... that is indeed a qualifier which is omitted from the OP, is it not? There are no such differentials in the OP, are there? Rather you branded all Christians with your same accusations.

Yet for some reason, and this has happened a bunch in this thread, everyone keeps thinking I'm talking about all Christians...

For some reason? Because you did. See above.

I could easily start a seperate thread about this behavior committed by politicians, or buddhists, or whatever - it's a big problem. I chose Christianity because here at ATS, I see a bunch of talk on this topic.

Of course you could, and you could make the same blanket generalizations about all politicians... all buddhists... or whatever. It still is what it is.

Further you make claims to know the motives of every author, and yet I have never seen such conclusions expressed in any of these threads you referenced. Do you know their hearts and minds better than they know themselves? Do you have some supernatural ability to discern their "true" motives that they themselves are either hiding or oblivious to? Please skool me: Show me one OP in which the claim is made that by proving the historical existence of Jesus that all other religions are rendered false? Just one.

a reply to: Boadicea

Are you saying that Christians haven't been guilty of rewriting history and altering texts to their benefit, to promote their religion? Some Christians who know better, keep repeating these lies, because the ends justify the means.

Show me one OP in which the claim is made that by proving the historical existence of Jesus that all other religions are rendered false? Just one.

That's the whole premise of Christianity! Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and all the other Gods, according to early Christian fathers, were false Gods of Satan.

If Jesus was real, then his message was sincere and he was either a liar or a mad man.....the argument goes. If he was not a mad man, then he was telling the truth, and we WAS The Son of God.....ergo...... and all other religions are wrong......

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

Are you saying that Christians haven't been guilty of rewriting history and altering texts to their benefit, to promote their religion?

I am saying that not all Christians have done so nor would do so, therefore such a blanket generalization is false.

Some Christians who know better, keep repeating these lies, because the ends justify the means.

Exactly. "Some" Christians... and no doubt some non-Christians who wish to discredit all Christians and Christianity itself for political and other self-serving reasons.

Show me one OP in which the claim is made that by proving the historical existence of Jesus that all other religions are rendered false? Just one.

That's the whole premise of Christianity! Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and all the other Gods, according to early Christian fathers, were false Gods of Satan.

Hmmm... yes and no. Yes, there are those who have and will continue to preach this message. But no, it was not universal. There has never been a universal understanding of Jesus and His ministry, even within the faithful. Hence the many many Christian denominations with differing doctrines and beliefs. Even from the beginning, the Gnostics competed with the Coptics who competed with the Eastern Orthodox and on and on and on. Jesus personally compelled no one to believe or do anything.

If Jesus was real, then his message was sincere and he was either a liar or a mad man.....the argument goes. If he was not a mad man, then he was telling the truth, and we WAS The Son of God.....ergo...... and all other religions are wrong......

Yes, so the argument goes. Jesus however only gave one commandment: To love everyone as He loved the world. There is also much evidence to suggest that Jesus spent many years -- the "lost years" -- traveling the world and studying with the Masters of all religions and faiths. Even the birth of Jesus was reportedly celebrated by other faiths. Jesus did not make such claims or distinctions; and not all Christians do either.

a reply to: Boadicea

I absolutely regret the title - it was too provocative and does not properly represent what I intended to say.

However, the title does not, in my opinion, imply all Christians. - Christian Bigotry could very easily read Crocodile Diseases, and certainly 'Crocodile Diseases' does not imply all crocodiles have diseases.

Semantics and rhetoric, and picking apart every word I've typed for every human mistake I could make - that's what this is about now. ugh.

I'm just regretful and bored and defeated.

And dear lord is everyone so ticked off about me using blanket statements. I actually did that initially to avoid attacking any one individual, because I didn't want to make any personal assumptions... But holy wow are you willing to make some personal assumptions about me.

Boadicea - I actually thought you had areally nice post,although I again feel like my point, the only point I wanted to make, keeps getting missed. So I'm quite sorry for being snippy. This was a huge mistake, and I should have worded my arguement better or not at all.

So, let me just ask then, is it okay for Christians to use history to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong? And if a Christian were to do this at the expense of another religion, say a Buddhist, and say that particular belief system is not valid because Christianity is true, that's just all okay then?

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't believe anyone said "All Christians" created pious forgeries or that "All Christians" promote those forgeries to advance their agenda. But, I'm pretty sure that "All Christians" believe that Jesus is "God" and that He's the only way to salvation.

a reply to: Herolotus

Oh, but that's probably the most misunderstood thing about Christianity. We don't need history to prove our claim, because our claim is that we presently know Jesus Christ.

Do Hindus who practice Tantric Yoga need to know the history of Kundalini to experience chakras? Do they need to know the history of Ganeesh, Kali, Shiva, Krishna or any other god to experience what they experience?

That is why we call ours a living faith, because for 2,000 years it has been unbroken in continual generation after generation who know the Living Christ. It has nothing to do with history, because it is ongoing, continuing and never has ceased.

Even though there have been some people in history who have used it to abuse the powers they were given, but not given by Christ but other men. Yet, there has always been people who have believed in Christ, they have never changed the fundamental belief of Christianity. Since the beginning of Christianity, we are saying the same thing they said then, for 2,000 years. It is unbroken, because true faith cannot be broken.

The Jews have celebrated Passover for 4,000 years. Unbroken tradition.

a reply to: bb23108

I don't believe that anything that Jesus supposedly taught was brand new or original.