What was the Motive of Christianity?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

Can we have more options that the simpleminded, unrealistic two you offered us?

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

thats called stacking. limiting the available avenues of investigation to one impossibility and one improbability. by this logic, the earth would still be flat.

Also known as the "false dilemma". A common logical fallacy.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

Can we have more options that the simpleminded, unrealistic two you offered us?

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

thats called stacking. limiting the available avenues of investigation to one impossibility and one improbability. by this logic, the earth would still be flat.

Also known as the "false dilemma". A common logical fallacy.

Why is it so difficult for one to know God (by yourself as it is within you) without a messenger? You are well beyond that construct of having to be led by another into the understanding of the Absolute Unbounded Oneness that allowed for your creation. Why do you have to be led and why do you trust the dogma/belief system that places you in contradiction to your creator?

a reply to: cooperton

A good point, but do you think a game of whisper down the lane could have resulted in a false claim that he rose from the dead?

Easily. All that was necessary was for someone to take Jesus's message of spiritual rebirth literally.

Checkout the life of Socrates; he had a very similar philosophy to the one Jesus presented us with

Please don't patronize me; I know my Plato and my Xenophon. Socrates's philosophy was nothing at all like Jesus's.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

Can we have more options that the simpleminded, unrealistic two you offered us?

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

thats called stacking. limiting the available avenues of investigation to one impossibility and one improbability. by this logic, the earth would still be flat.

Also known as the "false dilemma". A common logical fallacy.

Why is it so difficult for one to know God (by yourself as it is within you) without a messenger?

I don't know, but there could be the little problem of his (non) existence which some find a stumbling block lol. Though I wish more religious people would try it instead of the usual nonsense. If there is "something" such as some creative force underlying existence that we haven't found yet (in a scientific sense), I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that people could have personal experience with such a thing. There is a lot to being a sentient, conscious and self aware being that we don't understand as yet. Which in itself, in no way indicates a god of any sort. It only indicates we have a lot left to understand.

If a god (of some sort, for want of a better word) exists and he has requirements, surely he have a way of explaining it directly, without the need of brainwashing cults, ignorant goat herders and charlatans to give out his instructions?

You are well beyond that construct of having to be led by another into the understanding of the Absolute Unbounded Oneness that allowed for your creation.

Perhaps. Yet I have no knowledge of a creator, I realise just how ignorant I am in this regard. A realisation that many religious claimants are yet to have, it seems. Though I have had direct personal experience of the type you mention and this is why I am not genuinely an atheist (except where organised religion is concerned). Though I also take the views of neuroscientists who study such things seriously and realise that delusion is almost second nature to human beings. So I am open to possibilities, but don't claim to know.

Why do you have to be led and why do you trust the dogma/belief system that places you in contradiction to your creator?

Which dogma/belief system are you talking about?

The post you responded to was simply pointing out a very common fallacy, not directed at yourself.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

Can we have more options that the simpleminded, unrealistic two you offered us?

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

thats called stacking. limiting the available avenues of investigation to one impossibility and one improbability. by this logic, the earth would still be flat.

Also known as the "false dilemma". A common logical fallacy.

VHB: Why is it so difficult for one to know God (by yourself as it is within you) without a messenger?

cognito: I don't know, but there could be the little problem of his (non) existence which some find a stumbling block lol.

I would call it a BRICK WALL, not a toe stubbing.

cogito: Though I wish more religious people would try it instead of the usual nonsense. If there is "something" such as some creative force underlying existence that we haven't found yet (in a scientific sense), I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that people could have personal experience with such a thing. There is a lot to being a sentient, conscious and self aware being that we don't understand as yet. Which in itself, in no way indicates a god of any sort. It only indicates we have a lot left to understand.

That is never going to happen because the dogma/belief system is FAITH BASED and in that crazy realm is up for grabs (humans to be influenced) and are valuable; (a commodity to be traded) their donated wealth or their souls. You are an individualized sentient being that has FREE WILL (Lucifer gave this gift to you; the human) [metaphorically speaking].

Cogito: If a god (of some sort, for want of a better word) exists and he has requirements, surely he have a way of explaining it directly, without the need of brainwashing cults, ignorant goat herders and charlatans to give out his instructions?

Apparently too easy a route; the more difficult is what is imagined or achieved regarding the human vs creator being. We are not ignorant goat herders anymore; we have become a nation of Pawn Brokers.

Veteranhumanbeing:You are well beyond that construct of having to be led by another into the understanding of the Absolute Unbounded Oneness that allowed for your creation.

Cogito: Perhaps. Yet I have no knowledge of a creator, I realise just how ignorant I am in this regard. A realisation that many religious claimants are yet to have, it seems. Though I have had direct personal experience of the type you mention and this is why I am not genuinely an atheist (except where organised religion is concerned). Though I also take the views of neuroscientists who study such things seriously and realise that delusion is almost second nature to human beings. So I am open to possibilities, but don't claim to know.

You have no principled knowledge of a creator; meaning YOU HAVE NOT IMAGINED IT INTO BEING YET. Its up to you to create it; individualized to suit yourself. You are in control here. You are an *attempted atheist* because you don't realize you create your own creator (where is your imagination). When you leave this earth to REAL place (ETERNITY) you will have created that afterlife; PLAN IT WELL beforehand (you are in charge).

VHB: Why do you have to be led and why do you trust the dogma/belief system that places you in contradiction to your creator? (YOURSELF IMAGIINED)

Cogito: Which dogma/belief system are you talking about?
The post you responded to was simply pointing out a very common fallacy, not directed at yourself.

All of them; as all are flawed (telling a half story) not revealing the whole truth regarding mans relationship to its perceived creator.

The problem with oversimplification is that your not doing yourself or any one else any favours.
You set up a straw dog and then knock it down, you don't learn anything and neither does anyone else.
Are you starting to see the dimensions of your problem yet?
Just asking ; )

a reply to: cooperton

if one were to examine the info and citations on my siggy thread, one might come to the conclusion that christianity, which is always parking itself on other peoples' holy things in order to hide them over generations, was invented to hide the truth, make money, and take power.

a reply to: cooperton

Christianity was created when the ideals of Christ were put into word in his lifetime. the "religion" (Catholicism) you refer to is the man-made response to his works (Christianity), and fail to reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. People used the belief system (Catholicism) to control folks, but Christanity itself is pure. The OP asked, 'what is the motive of Christianity', not Catholicism, nor any organized religion based off of Christianity.

According to tradition, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was created when Jesus put his hands on the heads of his disciples and charged them to go about and preach the Gospel. The Apostles (as they were known thereafter) performed the same ritual whenever they passed the charge on; and to this day, in the Catholic Church, the tradition continues, each new priest receiving his commission by the 'laying on of hands' from a bishop who himself was made a priest in the same way — a line of succession that ultimately goes back to Jesus himself. This is known as the Apostolic Succession.

The Catholic and Apostolic Church has, over time, broken up into three major 'communions', each of which has doctrinal differences with the other. They are, in historical order, the Eastern Orthodox Communion (which accounts for the majority of Christians in the Middle East and the Slavic countries, including Russia), the Roman Catholic Church (by far the largest) and some Protestant breakaways from the latter, principally the Anglican (Episcopalian) and Lutheran communions. All recognize the Apostolic Succession, and an Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism (for example) does not have to be re-ordained in the Roman Church; his earlier ordination is still considered valid.

During the Reformation, some Protestant reformers, led by Calvin and Zwingli, refused to recognize the Apostolic Succession and the special status of priests and bishops. This was as much a political as a doctrinal move; by rejecting the special authority of priests, they rejected the doctrinal authority of the Roman Church. In England, some Anglicans rejected the Succession (for reasons very similar to those of the European reformers) while others embraced it. The split was largely along class lines, with the upper classes and the establishment on the 'priestly' side and the artisan classes and emerging middle class on the other. The division continues to this day, and most Protestants in the USA implicitly reject (even if they haven't heard of it) the Apostolic Succession. This is in the tradition of their European ancestors.

Now rejecting priestly authority in favour of a direct relationship with God is all very well, but in practice all faith demands a source of authority (otherwise there's nothing to have faith in). In place of ecclesiastical authority, this branch of the Protestant movement enshrined the Bible as its source of authority. This emphasis on Scriptural authority is, therefore, a relatively recent development in the history of the Church. The Church Fathers certainly quoted Scriptural authority in their own preaching and writing, but few practising Christians even read the Bible; most, do not forget, simply could not read, and even if they did, they certainly couldn't afford books, which were expensive handcrafted items that took months to produce.

It took widespread literacy and the invention of the printing-press to make reliance on Scriptural authority an option for all but monkish scholastics and a handful of rich, highly educated Christian laymen.

The proposition that there is some form of 'inner' Christianity that has survived unchanged for two thousand years is dubious to say the least. Certainly there is no evidence for such a thing — on the contrary, all the evidence points to a religion that has continued to change and evolve with the times, as all great human institutions do.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I would call it a BRICK WALL, not a toe stubbing.

No doubt you understand exactly what you are saying. That makes one of us.

Apparently too easy a route; the more difficult is what is imagined or achieved regarding the human vs creator being. We are not ignorant goat herders anymore; we have become a nation of Pawn Brokers.

Lots of people still herd goats. We are all ignorant to greater or lesser extent. Even worse, lots of young people are being indoctrinated into the beliefs of ancient, ignorant goat herders.

That also doesn't answer the question.

You have no principled knowledge of a creator; meaning YOU HAVE NOT IMAGINED IT INTO BEING YET.

We might be finding agreement here after all lol.

You are an individualized sentient being that has FREE WILL (Lucifer gave this gift to you; the human) [metaphorically speaking].

That would make for an interesting discussion, but probably require a thread of it's own. I doubt your claims of free will. A religious god precludes such a possibility. Even without such a thing, it's unlikely in the ultimate sense.

You are in control here. You are an *attempted atheist* because you don't realize you create your own creator (where is your imagination). When you leave this earth to REAL place (ETERNITY) you will have created that afterlife; PLAN IT WELL beforehand (you are in charge).

So if we create our creator...who was around before us...and hence before we created our creator...to create us..? You don't think this sounds a tad silly?

If we can get past some of these perceived flaws and start creating our creator (???), can she look like Salma Hayek?

All of them; as all are flawed (telling a half story) not revealing the whole truth regarding mans relationship to its perceived creator.

How did you acquire such wisdom? Why are your words different to the ancient goat herders and thousands before or since?

originally posted by: Rex282

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)


"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

Thank you for proving my point and providing self incriminating evidence of your great ignorance.Neither of them are what Yahoshua said and neither of them say the "bible" is the word of the living creator God.

Great ignorance? No need for that hostility, just trying to have a discussion here. Jesus affirms that quote I gave, I probably should have included the following verse in my quote:

" “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Mthw 16:15-17)

Thus Jesus confirmed that he was indeed the Son of the Living God. So sure, Jesus did not directly say "I am the Son of the Living God", but he affirmed that statement was true when one of his apostles said it.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

vhb:I would call it a BRICK WALL, not a toe stubbing.

cogito: No doubt you understand exactly what you are saying. That makes one of us.

That would be the perceived (non-existence of God) FINALLY proclaiming itself to the human in a way that is deliberate *I AM HERE/HERE I AM*.

vhb: Apparently too easy a route; the more difficult is what is imagined or achieved regarding the human vs creator being. We are not ignorant goat herders anymore; we have become a nation of Pawn Brokers.

Cogito: Lots of people still herd goats. We are all ignorant to greater or lesser extent. Even worse, lots of young people are being indoctrinated into the beliefs of ancient, ignorant goat herders.

That also doesn't answer the question.

The reason for Christianity to have occurred. I suppose timing is everything. Pagan Romans occupying a Jewish state (also pagan) some Greeks scattered about; confused Egyptians also pagan. It was time for a monotheist God to proclaim itself through a son born to Jews. I don't buy it, but I cannot ignore the circumstances of the times.

vhb: You have no principled knowledge of a creator; meaning YOU HAVE NOT IMAGINED IT INTO BEING YET.

Cogito: We might be finding agreement here after all lol.

Sure; its subjective, my thought is that the human creates the AUO (it exists) but the human has to bring that consciousness into physical being. Some call it(Hindus specifically) the beginning (Christ consciousness) will manifest God.

vhb: You are an individualized sentient being that has FREE WILL (Lucifer gave this gift to you; the human) [metaphorically speaking].

Cogito: That would make for an interesting discussion, but probably require a thread of it's own. I doubt your claims of free will. A religious god precludes such a possibility. Even without such a thing, it's unlikely in the ultimate sense.

One could also say there is no free will for the human; as all are puppets of God, and this may be true as God supposedly knows everything. Personally, I think it is a being that is young and autistic; and is grappling with the unknowns that this experimental planet it created is producing. Its out of control.

vhb: You are in control here. You are an *attempted atheist* because you don't realize you create your own creator (where is your imagination). When you leave this earth to REAL place (ETERNITY) you will have created that afterlife; PLAN IT WELL beforehand (you are in charge).

Cogito: So if we create our creator...who was around before us...and hence before we created our creator...to create us..? You don't think this sounds a tad silly?

Yes it tries my patience in this ridiculous notion: JUST REVEAL YOURSELF and simplify the process for the human as we have TRUST ISSUES.

Cogito: If we can get past some of these perceived flaws and start creating our creator (???), can she look like Salma Hayek?

I hope so, and why not?

vhb:
All of them; as all are flawed (telling a half story) not revealing the whole truth regarding mans relationship to its perceived creator.

Cogito: How did you acquire such wisdom? Why are your words different to the ancient goat herders and thousands before or since?

My words are no different than what was expressed then in those time periods. I do not embrace a dogmatic ideology anyone has to follow (this was manmade to gain power and is evil). I have no exact Wisdom per say as it is an ongoing process of debate and argument on behalf of the humans greater welfare and continuance to exist. It is an argument is all; be merciful as we are your creation.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Rex282

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
Thank you for proving my point and providing self incriminating evidence of your great ignorance.Neither of them are what Yahoshua said and neither of them say the "bible" is the word of the living creator God.

Great ignorance? No need for that hostility, just trying to have a discussion here. Jesus affirms that quote I gave, I probably should have included the following verse in my quote:Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Mthw
" “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
16:15-17)
Thus Jesus confirmed that he was indeed the Son of the Living God. So sure, Jesus did not directly say "I am the Son of the Living God", but he affirmed that statement was true when one of his apostles said it.

Its okay Cooperton; Rex282 is a mighty Christian above normal Christians, superior in forgiving and loving powers regarding his brothers and all of that that goes with it. You will never attain Its high standard (personally would not want to) because it borders on megalomania or micromanagement of scripture interpretation; it is meant to be metaphorical, in order to speak across many different global nations (Rex might be Paul reincarnated).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

Can we have more options that the simpleminded, unrealistic two you offered us?

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

thats called stacking. limiting the available avenues of investigation to one impossibility and one improbability. by this logic, the earth would still be flat.

Also known as the "false dilemma". A common logical fallacy.

VHB: Why is it so difficult for one to know God (by yourself as it is within you) without a messenger?

cognito: I don't know, but there could be the little problem of his (non) existence which some find a stumbling block lol.

I would call it a BRICK WALL, not a toe stubbing.

cogito: Though I wish more religious people would try it instead of the usual nonsense. If there is "something" such as some creative force underlying existence that we haven't found yet (in a scientific sense), I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that people could have personal experience with such a thing. There is a lot to being a sentient, conscious and self aware being that we don't understand as yet. Which in itself, in no way indicates a god of any sort. It only indicates we have a lot left to understand.

That is never going to happen because the dogma/belief system is FAITH BASED and in that crazy realm is up for grabs (humans to be influenced) and are valuable; (a commodity to be traded) their donated wealth or their souls. You are an individualized sentient being that has FREE WILL (Lucifer gave this gift to you; the human) [metaphorically speaking].

Cogito: If a god (of some sort, for want of a better word) exists and he has requirements, surely he have a way of explaining it directly, without the need of brainwashing cults, ignorant goat herders and charlatans to give out his instructions?

Apparently too easy a route; the more difficult is what is imagined or achieved regarding the human vs creator being. We are not ignorant goat herders anymore; we have become a nation of Pawn Brokers.

Veteranhumanbeing:You are well beyond that construct of having to be led by another into the understanding of the Absolute Unbounded Oneness that allowed for your creation.

Cogito: Perhaps. Yet I have no knowledge of a creator, I realise just how ignorant I am in this regard. A realisation that many religious claimants are yet to have, it seems. Though I have had direct personal experience of the type you mention and this is why I am not genuinely an atheist (except where organised religion is concerned). Though I also take the views of neuroscientists who study such things seriously and realise that delusion is almost second nature to human beings. So I am open to possibilities, but don't claim to know.

You have no principled knowledge of a creator; meaning YOU HAVE NOT IMAGINED IT INTO BEING YET. Its up to you to create it; individualized to suit yourself. You are in control here. You are an *attempted atheist* because you don't realize you create your own creator (where is your imagination). When you leave this earth to REAL place (ETERNITY) you will have created that afterlife; PLAN IT WELL beforehand (you are in charge).

VHB: Why do you have to be led and why do you trust the dogma/belief system that places you in contradiction to your creator? (YOURSELF IMAGIINED)

Cogito: Which dogma/belief system are you talking about?
The post you responded to was simply pointing out a very common fallacy, not directed at yourself.

All of them; as all are flawed (telling a half story) not revealing the whole truth regarding mans relationship to its perceived creator.

hah...dude, whatever youre on. i want some.

a reply to: TzarChasm
If I knew what it was, I'd bottle it and give it away. I will give you a case of 'Friskies' to train my calico vixen to ride a roller coaster.

originally posted by: cooperton
Many people hold the belief that the bible was meant to control the people. I am not saying it has not been used for this purpose, but the true intention of the Bible could not have been as a mode of control.

Jesus said to drop your nets and do as he did. How would this serve any tyrant's agenda? If everyone followed Christ's word we would all be living in an altruistic egalitarian community. This is the opposite of what a tyrant, or group of tyrants, would want the people to do. Yes, the Word has been twisted for the purposes of control, but that was not the reason this book was written.

So, if Christianity was not purposed as a mode of control, what was the purpose? If we look at the life of Christ and the ensuing acts of his apostles, we learn that money was not the motive. Nor was it for egoic glorification. In my mind, this leaves us with two options as the motive of Christianity:

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.



In my humble opinion, I don't think martyrs would die for option #1

Look at it like this.............the Word is part of God. The Bible is something that you can hold in your hand.............like a container.......like how thumb drives and CD's hold digital data inside. It points to something MUCH greater than it. The Bible is like flesh it is mortal......you can defile it with crayons or markers...you could cut it up or burn it up and destroy it..........but you merely destroyed the container. You did not and cannot destroy what it points to.

I hope this video can answer some of your questions

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: fleshorspirit
The Bible is like flesh it is mortal......you can defile it with crayons or markers...you could cut it up or burn it up and destroy it..........but you merely destroyed the container. You did not and cannot destroy what it points to.

You can also read it and apply common sense... or sacrifice some turtle doves. Or believe our loving creator cursed all of humanity forever, because a woman (made out of a rib bone) was told by a talking snake, to eat a piece of fruit. The only (obvious lol) way out of this was a human sacrifice of a person who might not have existed, coupled with blind belief. That'll save ya, from...what was it again..?

if you sincerely want to know, you have to start at the beginning and you can't isolate your research to the texts of the bible only.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: fleshorspirit
The Bible is like flesh it is mortal......you can defile it with crayons or markers...you could cut it up or burn it up and destroy it..........but you merely destroyed the container. You did not and cannot destroy what it points to.

You can also read it and apply common sense... or sacrifice some turtle doves. Or believe our loving creator cursed all of humanity forever, because a woman (made out of a rib bone) was told by a talking snake, to eat a piece of fruit. The only (obvious lol) way out of this was a human sacrifice of a person who might not have existed, coupled with blind belief. That'll save ya, from...what was it again..?

that was a series of straw men you just burnt in effigy. while i agree that blaming the woman for the entire fiasco is a smoke screen, i do not think it means what you think it means

originally posted by: undo

that was a series of straw men you just burnt in effigy.

If it were spelled out in a way that made my claims inaccurate, I would agree. It doesn't, so I don't. God likes burnt turtle doves. God has cursed the entirety of humanity. It is necessary to hold the human sacrifice of someone who might not have existed in high esteem and couple it with an extremely ignorant and naive blind faith to be saved from said curse. This is the foundation of Christianity.

It might be time to actually read your bible.

originally posted by: undo while i agree that blaming the woman for the entire fiasco is a smoke screen, i do not think it means what you think it means

I gave it very little interpretation. That you subjectively interpret things how you want, means little. I find interpretation fails and amounts to special pleading. It is what it is ie. nonsense.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

as i said in my prior post (the one before the one i addressed to you), you have to start at the beginning and (and this is the clincher) you actually have to study it for yourself without the teachings of anyone else interfering. this is a hard thing to do because we've been lead to believe that if a religious scholar such as a catholic, jewish, muslim or protestant priest, says so, then it must be the only way to read it.

i can prove it to you very simply.