The bible is the bait and hook the "devil" uses to get you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not trying to be obtuse. There are branches of Christianity that DO teach it.

I am not aware of any branches of Christianity that teach reincarnation (bearing in mind that "Christianity" is the term applied to religions that profess the Christian creeds -- simply believing that Christ existed or taught something one is in favour of does not make them a Christian,) because the Nicene Creed proclaims the physical resurrection of the body, which is incompatible with reincarnation.

And, I don't appreciate the adjective 'vapid' in regards to the gnostic writings.

The term vapid means "unchallenging", and my use of it was in regards to arguments that the OP, Marcion and the Christian Gnostics made about the God of the Israelites being Satan, evil or the Demi-urge. Those claims are vapid, because all one has to do is point out the obvious flaw (which I have done time and time again,) that Jesus was a Jew, and every time he's talking about his Father, he's talking about the God of the Israelites.

a reply to: adjensen

bearing in mind that "Christianity" is the term applied to religions that profess the Christian creeds -- simply believing that Christ existed or taught something one is in favour of does not make them a Christian,) because the Nicene Creed proclaims the physical resurrection of the body, which is incompatible with reincarnation.

The Nicene Creed is not an article in all of the "Christian" faiths. It was devised by the bishops at Nicea to establish a 'common footing'. That does NOT make it 'true'.

It just means that if you enter a certain denomination which embraces it you 'have to' swear/pray (in front of and in unison with everyone else present) that you believe it.

I was raised in a Nicene-Creed church. I know what it is. I had it memorized, and by age 10 I knew it didn't really believe it. I also know that there are other teachings that refute it which are "Christian."

But - if you want to bet everything on taking the Nicene Creed as set-in-stone truth, well, okay.
I don't.
I think it was invented to make everyone recite/memorize it and thenceforward not be allowed to question it (since they had stated it in church, and one was baptized in the church - which I was - it was not allowed).

I call bull. Indoctrination. "Memorize this, and BELIEVE IT, and do not question it, because. Well, because....we KNOW, and you DON'T!"

C'mon. Really?

I think it's fine and great that you submit to the authority and publications of the Church, but I don't. I can't. I probably never will.
That's because I am 'damaged goods' at their hands. I was 'psychologically' molested, and still bear the scars from it.
But I know not everyone 'heard' the same message I did. All I can attest to is what I experienced, and what I've learned talking to others and reading everything I can get my hands on.

Maybe I should make a thread about it - I'm not sure the "Christians" on this forum get what I'm talking about, or why I talk about it.

Some have never even heard the Nicene Creed!

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I may be allowed to use the Bible to show why
the Bible isn't corruptable.

John 1:1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…

But the Church, alas it is with men.

But the bible was written by men. Something saying that it is true, doesn't inherently make it true. Sorry, but using the bible as proof that the bible is true is called circular reasoning and is a MAJOR logical fallacy.

a reply to: adjensen

I am not aware of any branches of Christianity that teach reincarnation (bearing in mind that "Christianity" is the term applied to religions that profess the Christian creeds -- simply believing that Christ existed or taught something one is in favour of does not make them a Christian,) because the Nicene Creed proclaims the physical resurrection of the body, which is incompatible with reincarnation.

The Nicene Creed wasn't "invented" until over 300 years after his life. I suppose your going to tell me that people before that time couldn't be called Christians.

Those claims are vapid, because all one has to do is point out the obvious flaw (which I have done time and time again,) that Jesus was a Jew, and every time he's talking about his Father, he's talking about the God of the Israelites.

You have never been successful in proving that point. On the contrary, Jesus was a Jew and Jews believed in reincarnation. The Essene believed in and taught reincarnation. We know the Pharisees believed in reincarnation and we know that the apostles believed in it. It just follows that Jesus also taught reincarnation, especially since, when confronted with the question, numerous times, he never denounces it.

NSA & GCHQ please note in your records that I flagged this post.

good post!

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Speculating here but the ideas I'm inspired to put down are usually founded on something but anyway if the holy bible wasn't only the core message with no additives (even if they be true) then it wouldn't be holy, it would be an expanded bible. The fact that the holy bible (or at the very least some of the books inside the holy bible) always sticks only to the core facts of the phenomenon and even leaves out abstract and physical details which are crucial for a person to complete their understanding of the basic truth of the mystery of the bible in its' entirety is basically a hint that there is something more to the story and the root core of the story being the only presented part of the bible is what makes it a holy bible.

I dunno man, there is a lot of useless stuff in the bible, like pretty much all of Numbers. Then there is Leviticus, which is just straight up horrifying to read and try to live your life by.

For instance the bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin, this implies that Jesus was a human being like us and that the virgin got pregnant and had to go through a regular child-birth to a regular organic infant child like every other mother on Earth did, the only difference between Jesus and his birth and everyone else was the fact that his mom was a virgin. But if you were initiated to the truth you might find out that Jesus in fact is not a normal human being and the fact that people were out for Jesus yet no one could do him in before he had SPOKEN that it would happen is another tip that he isn't a human being, his luck was extraordinary, he did whatever he did and it just so happened that no one could obstruct him, not even thousands fervently trying. This is another tip, no one is that lucky. He had a huge lasting cumulative impact on Rome and the world, this is another tip.

I had to break up your wall of text since you made so many points in it that need a proper response. First the bible can say all sorts of things, it doesn't inherently make any of it true. Like the only way that we know that Jesus was born of a virgin is from an account written after Jesus was already dead and gone. Why don't the earlier gospels (you know the ones who would have this information more fresh in their minds) mention this?

The only reason Jesus had an impact on Rome is because of Constantine. Up until then, Christianity was just another crazy religious sect in the Roman Empire. To have such a great effect on Rome, why is there barely a mention of Jesus (if at all) in any texts outside the bible?

Jesus said exactly what was needed and went exactly where he was needed when he was needed in order to establish his perfect legacy, this is a big world and he was in the perfect spot, both by luck and by action. Born in a different place or an hour later than he was and his legacy would have been distorted, Christianity wouldn't exist as the incontestable religious establishment in the west. This religion wouldn't exist, this is another tip.

The same could be said about Buddha. Also, the reason Christianity is so popular is because the Roman Empire (again under Constantine) spread it by the sword. This practice continued through the Middle Ages. It has nothing to do with where and when Jesus was born.

All this implies that he wasn't human like us, he wasn't self aware like us and he didn't have free will like us. He was automatic, he just did it, exactly what needed to be done, naturally. He was the effect of all the wrong and right everyone did on Earth made correct, everything everyone did made Jesus do what he did. It's as if all of humanities karma made a path that Jesus walked right through. He didn't have to learn it or be taught when he was being educated by the Essene mystery school, that's why he was teaching people at such a young age, he was inherently master of Essene wisdom without being taught, this is another tip.

Again the same can be said about Buddha, but Buddha never claimed to be more than a man.

Jesus was God's way of correcting the world gracefully, he's not a regular human, he couldn't have children, he couldn't be affected, he could only affect. Once he had been used (served) to correct humanity in every active way that was needed he was used to complete his correction by becoming passive and consumed by the effects of his own active deeds until his ascension, completing his perfect legacy and made his cause-effect a closed loop.

He couldn't have children? According to who or what? Jesus was probably married dude and if he didn't have a child yet, it's only cause he hadn't gotten around to it yet.

And I think this is why there is discrepancy between Christian sects and Islam, much of their dispute is a matter of semantics and incomplete detail presentation because the esoteric truth of the religion in its' entirety could be very laborious to explain and with multiple presentations comes squabbles over semantics when really it's just a simple misunderstanding of the terms and the terms relative to other terms that the people used for their presentation.

Nah, Islam and Christianity are the same fruit, different skin.

If everyone was perfect and faithful to God Jesus would have never been sacrificed, as a matter of fact there would be no Jesus, he never would have been born, only ascended Christ would exist.

I think I've cracked the code and I didn't even have to be initiated! I'm such a genius.

I rule. Consider your arguments conquered in advance atheists.

You just sound like any other typical preacher... Your arguments are based on a book that I've already called into question's legitimacy. Then you went on a LONG rant about how great said book is, but you never adequately established why this book was even true.

a reply to: On7a7higher7plane

It's funny how much sense that makes to someone with understanding.

I'm sure most of us have known the type of person charmed, as you
speak of Jesus. I've known a few people whom, on a lesser scale,
could fall in dog crap and come out smell'n like a rose. But you touched
on much more than that, with clarity and ease.

Then you bounce this off my forehead.

Yup I got ideas, now if only I was well Englished.

lol

I just always Cap the word Bible.
It was mostly an enabler for lack of a better term.

You prolly majored.

a reply to: buddha

GCHQ please note

What's GCHQ?
God Central HeadQuarters?

Got Cookies HQ?

or
Go Chill HQ, maybe?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I may be allowed to use the Bible to show why
the Bible isn't corruptable.

John 1:1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…

But the Church, alas it is with men.

But the bible was written by men. Something saying that it is true, doesn't inherently make it true. Sorry, but using the bible as proof that the bible is true is called circular reasoning and is a MAJOR logical fallacy.

Which is exactly what I've been trying to suggest all along with this thread. This is why in the wrong hands (most hands) the bible is extremely dangerous.

a reply to: lupodigubbio

This is why in the wrong hands (most hands) the bible is extremely dangerous.

Wooooo! What the hell kind of statement is this? In the wrong hands,
"The Old man and the Sea" is dangerous . Melodrama much.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: lupodigubbio

This is why in the wrong hands (most hands) the bible is extremely dangerous.

Wooooo! What the hell kind of statement is this? In the wrong hands,
"The Old man and the Sea" is dangerous . Melodrama much.

He is correct though... Any book of a religious nature is dangerous in the wrong hands...

Have you heard the saying.... "IF you're using the bible to hurt people.... You're using it wrong"?

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


The term vapid means "unchallenging", and my use of it was in regards to arguments that the OP, Marcion and the Christian Gnostics made about the God of the Israelites being Satan, evil or the Demi-urge. Those claims are vapid, because all one has to do is point out the obvious flaw (which I have done time and time again,) that Jesus was a Jew, and every time he's talking about his Father, he's talking about the God of the Israelites.

Vapid because you don't agree with my views yet when I asked you twice which branch of Christianity you cling to and you've skillfully avoided the question. You have to take into consideration the notion that maybe the evil lesser God from the new testament was not Jesus' dad. Or better yet, a less "marcionic" answer....the O.T God didn't do any of the things attributed to him since he does not interfere with humans and sends "angels" to communicate with humans.

It really comes down to this. Did God really do all those nasty things (which would make him a demiurge) or Is God himself a victim of his own followers, through the written word, deforming his true nature into a lowly human one and Jesus has to step in to clean his innocent father's foul reputation?

Either scenarios make sense to me. Both suggest the bible is full of truths and lies.

a reply to: randyvs

What the hell kind of statement is this?

It's true, though, randy.

The Bible in lay-persons' hands is dangerous. It creates extremist, ridiculous attitudes. Fred Phelps. Ken Ham. Pat Robertson.

I used to think it was good that everyone could read it for themselves and choose their own interpretation. But, now, in my experience, it is too easily misconstrued, misinterpreted, and packaged for the 'masses'.

They will bite any 'bait and hook' dangled in front of them, and don't necessarily have the capacity to see philosophy and metaphorical literature for what it is.
Scary.

Not everyone is cut out for critical thinking, and no matter how much you try to explain it, they still won't see the deeper, more mystical and easily missed truths.
I'm sure you get that, though.

a reply to: Akragon


I didn't deny AK so whats you're point?
Just wasting space?
You could've said my statement was right just as well?
Why all the prejudice for Randy AK?
Where's the love?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: lupodigubbio

This is why in the wrong hands (most hands) the bible is extremely dangerous.

Wooooo! What the hell kind of statement is this? In the wrong hands,
"The Old man and the Sea" is dangerous . Melodrama much.

Right, except we don't corner, bully, marginalize, cause wars, separate, murder and boss people around with a copy of the "Old man and the sea". We have the Bible to do that.

Too much possiblity in the Universe to call the bible, fake, mytho and in other words garbage. Crafted by the devil? that would be the book of the codex gigas, en.wikipedia.org... .

Let's believe in the universe and possible potential other worlds of parrellel universes and different dimension, 4 dimension, 5th and so on. Let physics claim the possiblity of another universe like evil Shatner on star trek, yet the bible must be fake. Let's also believe in aliens and possibly aliens from another dimension, a unphysical world.


Do you believe in ghost? that pretty much answers how open minded you are


Is the Bible real and truth? Yes and no. The books are

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm sure you get that, though.

I have no problem with that but Shhh, don't tell AK
I'm just mess'n with him. he he

There is a primary issue with many ATS members that believe majority of Christains on ATS believe in one thing, but beliefs and experience shape us like snow flakes, just as those who don't believe. I honestly dont think the traditional catholic or christian could handle ABOVE TOP SECRET in one day! In other words, many of those Christains have augmented beliefs such as Reincarnation and different perceptions such as Gnostic values, which would make christianity what it was suppose to be, spiritual

a reply to: randyvs

I have no problem with that but Shhh, don't tell AK

*whispers* shhh

yeah, I knew that.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Akragon


I didn't deny AK so whats you're point?
Just wasting space?
You could've said my statement was right just as well?
Why all the prejudice for Randy AK?
Where's the love?

Geez man, whats with the hostility?

I don't recall "the old man and the sea" being in any religious document or story... do you?