Religion is slavery, and god is obsolete.

Theres usually 2 points to religion.

1. Religion is used by those who are too ignorant to understand science.

and

2. Religion is used to sway masses into being passive. Although its unknown if religion was created for this reason or if someone highjacked it.

I am glad that Christianity is not a religion. In religion man seeks God. The message of the Bible if God finding man. In religion man sacrifices to appease God. Christ sacrificed himself for man - only by accepting this sacrifice will you be acceptable on the day you meet your creator. You will stand accountable before God whether you believe or not.

The evidence that Jesus authenticated his message by rising from the dead is overwhelming. For seekers who really want to know I suggest the book The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Theres usually 2 points to religion.

1. Religion is used by those who are too ignorant to understand science.

and

2. Religion is used to sway masses into being passive. Although its unknown if religion was created for this reason or if someone highjacked it.

Thats a great analysis how did you manage that conclusion. I'm intruiged. And you guys are far to passive when you say 'religion' why don't you be true to yourself(which you probably won't. life is great when you deny yourself right ?) because you do know all religions aren't the same right ? (do you ? You've probably read them all and have a deep understanding of them right ? ) i look forward to your response i'm sure it will be as wonderful as your first........

*sigh* First and foremost, I am not a mason. I say this because there seems to be attacks on anybody who even considers the fact that masons aren't behind the bull# the world is going through. now to the point.
for all of the religious fanatics who seem to call anybody outside of their religion "Devil Worshipers", "atheists", or "slaves", I would like to review the term RELIGION.
Religion is so often misunderstood by those who stand outside of it, which also explains many of the sentiments of so-called "anti-masons".
Religion by its very nature enslaves people to concepts that must remain unchanged. The unchanging aspect chains people to a belief that is only a small part of the big picture.
Before I continue, I must confess that I belong to no religion, but have been raised up around many.
A belief in God is determined by many as necessary because it gives people hope. The writings and teachings that come along with a belief in God are often good for humans but symbolism escapes people, mainly because they have been raised to take the restrictive meanings applied to them by those who consider themselves experts, when really they are preaching the same ignorance of symbols they claim to understand.
I am not saying religion is bad. I am saying that religion is used to manipulate the tools of the world who choose not to think for themselves, which the modern world is full of.
The only way you can see through the obscurities presented nowadays is to use your mind and all of its facilities to dispel misinformation.
For example, I believe (from thorough research on and offline) that the Lucifer referred to in the Bible is not actually evil. Satan is just a symbol for man's introduction to the Truth. Does this make me a "devil worshiper"? =P

reply to post by Bigwhammy

The evidence that Jesus authenticated his message by rising from the dead is overwhelming.

Please feel free to provide this overwhelming evidence, were you there or do you know anyone that was there ?

In relation to the "godlike" Lee Strobles' Case For Christ (which I have taken the trouble to read) may I ask your opinion upon Earl Doherty's debunking of Stroble. Here -

jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...

For example, Mr. Strobel’s comparison of the Gospel evangelists with a witness in a murder case testifying to what he saw is patently invalid. We cannot question, let alone cross-examine, those who wrote the Gospels.

We have nothing going back to an original text, and so we cannot tell what changes have been made to the original, allegedly eyewitness accounts. In fact, our courts disallow such second or third hand reporting of words and actions as ‘hearsay.’ We don’t know who the evangelists were, where they wrote, nor when they wrote.

We know that they belonged to a religious movement, that they believed in and anticipated the occurrence of supernatural happenings and an imminent apocalyptic transformation of the world, that they were in competition with rival religions and beliefs they regarded as heretical.

We also know, as I shall demonstrate, that they made wholesale changes to their source material in creating their own accounts. All these factors mitigate against the likelihood of such evidence being truthful, scientific or reliable.

Originally posted by piedsniper
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

The evidence that Jesus authenticated his message by rising from the dead is overwhelming.

Please feel free to provide this overwhelming evidence, were you there or do you know anyone that was there ?

In relation to the "godlike" Lee Strobles' Case For Christ (which I have taken the trouble to read) may I ask your opinion upon Earl Doherty's debunking of Stroble. Here -

jesuspuzzle.humanists.net...

For example, Mr. Strobel’s comparison of the Gospel evangelists with a witness in a murder case testifying to what he saw is patently invalid. We cannot question, let alone cross-examine, those who wrote the Gospels.

We have nothing going back to an original text, and so we cannot tell what changes have been made to the original, allegedly eyewitness accounts. In fact, our courts disallow such second or third hand reporting of words and actions as ‘hearsay.’ We don’t know who the evangelists were, where they wrote, nor when they wrote.

We know that they belonged to a religious movement, that they believed in and anticipated the occurrence of supernatural happenings and an imminent apocalyptic transformation of the world, that they were in competition with rival religions and beliefs they regarded as heretical.

We also know, as I shall demonstrate, that they made wholesale changes to their source material in creating their own accounts. All these factors mitigate against the likelihood of such evidence being truthful, scientific or reliable.

Thankfully the court of law doesn't have any say whether or not the Bible is authentic or not. It has not tried to find all the archeological evidence pointing towards its accuracy; it's not meant to be a science book genius. Your case is null and void. Case dismissed!

Even if you managed to find e=m*c2 in the Bible (hypothetically speaking) to prove it's point that early humans discovered this before Einstein, not everyone would believe it and chalk it up to man editing and changing this book to keep it current.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by novastrike81

It has not tried to find all the archeological evidence pointing towards its accuracy

No real need to find archeological evidence for accuracy when one simply look to the sky and observe that the earth orbits the sun and it also happens to be spherical not flat and just a tad older than 6000 years.

Need I say more ?

at one time I too used to say religion is just something for the weakminded to believe in (Christian specific) then one night after putting down the Colt and picking up a small green Gideons NT (that a chick had given me a few days earlier) and as soon as I began to open the cover I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting to my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched" or knowing any scripts) I stood to my feet and said yes Lord

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

Christ has indeed been raised from the dead-1Cor15.20

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.-2Cor5.14

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."-Eph5.14

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.-1Tim1.15

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.-Rom10.4

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his Name, he gave the right to become children of God-John1.12

before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand-Rom9.11

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.-Gal3.21

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.-2Cor3.17

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike.-Rom14.5

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions UNTIL the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.-Gal3.19

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit.

reply to post by seeashrink



Well, we can certainly tolerate each other and niether do I judge you.
Where did God come from? And if you establish that, then where did that come from, and on it goes. To know that God IS, is the essence of faith. Without faith that God "is" and as He called Himself "the great I AM" then there is no room for discussion. I can not prove to you that He exist no more that you can prove to me that He doesn't. God is not about, not can He be understood with logic. He is outside of logic and if God could be understood then He would be a lesser being. The creation understanding the creator? If you create breakfast this morning will your eggs and bacon understand you? Of course not, that is just foolishness. Again, it's sad that you can look at all that you can see and not attribute it to a creator.
Seeashrink

I struggle to tolerate any religion, but hey that’s my cross to bear.

The whole who created god is a bit of a trick question. You say "once we establish that, then where did that come from" I don’t believe in one creator, let alone another creator creating that one and so one, and if you do believe in a creator, you must then believe something created it or it created itself. Otherwise you get into the realm of god was always there now if that’s the case our planet is only a few million years old, If God has always been around what’s he been doing?? He created the world in 7 days didn’t he?? This is where most religious people will say ahhhhhh don’t think about that have FAITH and as you say god is outside of logic. LOL sorry GOD to me is nature and even nature is logical, even chaos is logical in a certain way.

When talking about GOD and creation your FAITH requires me to believe in something that is so strange, it’s like a number sequence, 2. 4. 6. And the next should be 8 right, that’s the logical explanation; you on the other hand say the next number in the sequence is like 491. Your eggs and bacon example........ummmmm what are you talking about, if that’s the best way you can get me to understand god, well you FAILED.

Isn't it interesting how those who believe in nothing spend so much of their time chastising those who believe in something? You'd think those who have nothing to look forward to after death would spend more time in hedonistic pursuits.

An atheist is so tortured in his soul; he feels a need to devote much of his time to changing the minds of those whom he claims are too stupid to understand what he is saying. And they are so proud of their structured thinking....


.........................................................

reply to post by piedsniper


The argument is that Jesus resurrection was real historical event. There are 5 lines of evidence which are unanimously accepted by nearly all scholars that study the matter. Because the data employed is so strongly supported by evidence, we systematically build a case that it is not easily dismissed.

Five facts are employed. The facts that nearly all scholars concede are that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion, that the disciples truly believed he rose from the dead, the uncharacteristic conversion of the skeptic Paul, and the unlikely conversion of the skeptic James. The fifth is the empty tomb.

These are supported by extra-biblical and even hostile sources. Since no rival theories account for all of the facts without appearing ad hoc, it follows that Jesus bodily resurrection is the most plausible explanation.

This minimal facts approach that I take is very similar to that of Dr Craig,

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
at one time I too used to say religion is just something for the weakminded to believe in (Christian specific) then one night after putting down the Colt and picking up a small green Gideons NT (that a chick had given me a few days earlier) and as soon as I began to open the cover I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting to my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched" or knowing any scripts) I stood to my feet and said yes Lord

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

I appreciate your persona tale and hope you do not take this in any way is knocking it. I have heard your story before, not exactly but very close. It makes me wonder. I have a bookcase full of religious books. I have been given bibles, a Quar'an, the Book of Mormons. Two of the bibles I was given were actually underlined, highlighted, and dog eard to such a degree that each page had at least one thing in particular my dear friend really wanted me to notice.

After all these years, no one ever whispered in my ear. I never felt anything special, heard anything in my head or my heart. Why is God so picky about who he comes to invite in?

Here's what Scripture says ...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:18-20

Translation: All you have to do is look around and the evidence is everywhere.

Let's say you don't buy that premise. Fine. God gives you another way to "test" Him. He says the proof is in bible prophesy. And so far He has a 100% track record. Don't take my word for it. Don't listen to anyone else either. Study it for yourself. But only if you really want the truth. If you are looking for a means do mock religion or just be an ass hat then don't worry about it and go on with your life.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
at one time I too used to say religion is just something for the weakminded to believe in (Christian specific) then one night after putting down the Colt and picking up a small green Gideons NT (that a chick had given me a few days earlier) and as soon as I began to open the cover I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting to my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched" or knowing any scripts) I stood to my feet and said yes Lord

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

I appreciate your persona tale and hope you do not take this in any way is knocking it. I have heard your story before, not exactly but very close. It makes me wonder. I have a bookcase full of religious books. I have been given bibles, a Quar'an, the Book of Mormons. Two of the bibles I was given were actually underlined, highlighted, and dog eard to such a degree that each page had at least one thing in particular my dear friend really wanted me to notice.

After all these years, no one ever whispered in my ear. I never felt anything special, heard anything in my head or my heart. Why is God so picky about who he comes to invite in?

He's not being picky like he is some teenager who wants something to the T or nothing at all. He wants everyone to see Him but most people close their hearts and blind themselves from the truth and accept a half truth. After a while God stops trying and I would stop trying if you kept pushing me away after repeated attempts to get your attention or make you believe. Just because you have every Bible from every religion doesn't make you special. If you are expecting a real whisper then you're wishfully thinking cause it's not a literal whisper. Open your heart and you'll see the truth, but only you can do that.

reply to post by No King but Jesus


I think you need help! sitting there with a gun in hand talking to a dead Jesus, you are a danger to society and I wouldnt want you any where near me or my family.

Please see a doctor, Jesus wont save you but some meds might..

I've always wondered why god wants us to worship him. Makes me feel like a slave, that's why I don't do it.

Originally posted by conspiracydude
I've always wondered why god wants us to worship him. Makes me feel like a slave, that's why I don't do it.

He's not forcing you to do anything; it's called free will. You can, on the other hand, be as Lucifer and do your own thing. You know how that ends plus you won't have to worship God.

Originally posted by piedsniper

For example, Mr. Strobel’s comparison of the Gospel evangelists with a witness in a murder case testifying to what he saw is patently invalid. We cannot question, let alone cross-examine, those who wrote the Gospels.

We have nothing going back to an original text, and so we cannot tell what changes have been made to the original, allegedly eyewitness accounts. In fact, our courts disallow such second or third hand reporting of words and actions as ‘hearsay.’ We don’t know who the evangelists were, where they wrote, nor when they wrote.

We know that they belonged to a religious movement, that they believed in and anticipated the occurrence of supernatural happenings and an imminent apocalyptic transformation of the world, that they were in competition with rival religions and beliefs they regarded as heretical.

We also know, as I shall demonstrate, that they made wholesale changes to their source material in creating their own accounts. All these factors mitigate against the likelihood of such evidence being truthful, scientific or reliable.

This simply does not account for the accepted historical evidence. There is no doubt that the 12 disciples belonged to a religious movement, but it just isn't coherent to say they stole the body and made up the resurrection. The facts are they really believed that Jesus rose because they risked their lives proclaiming it. This can be evidenced from nine independent sources in three categories. First, Paul’s testimony about the disciples in 1 Corinthians 15:10-11. Second, the oral traditions of the early church like the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The third category is the written tradition, as in the gospels and writings of the apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp. Furthermore, that they sincerely believed it is evidenced by their willingness to suffer and die. This is attested to in seven ancient sources: Acts, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian and Origen.


Plus Paul had a religious interest against believing in Jesus. Paul, a devout Jew and highly trained Pharisee, admits to killing and persecuting Christians. His unlikely conversion is evidenced by his personal testimony in his letters to the churches in Corinth (1 Cor. 15:9-10), Galatia (Gal 1: 12-16), 22, 23), and Philippi (Phi 3:6-7). This is powerfully enhanced by multiple attestations to his suffering and martyrdom for his belief. In addition to his own word and Luke’s record in Acts, his stalwart stand for the message is recorded by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, and in quotations by Dionysius of Corinth and Origen are found in the writing of Eusebius.

In like manner, the brother of Jesus, James, was dubious to his brother messianic claims. The Gospel of Mark makes this plenty clear, “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” ” (Mark 3:21, ESV) His subsequent conversion is evidenced by the creed in 1 Cor.15 which records the appearance to him by Jesus and also by Paul and Luke’s identification of James as the heard of the Jerusalem church. His subsequent martyrdom recorded by Josephus and Eusebius makes for an airtight case. The conversion of skeptics is not easily dismissed.


His claims that we know they made "wholesale changes" is patently false. Simply making unsupported claims is not an argument. We have every reason to believe the NT documents we have today are 99% accurate representatives of the originals. This skeptics arguments simply fail to explain the evidence.





[edit on 5/2/2010 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
reply to post by Blanca Rose

The reason I associate and worship through a local body...ie the church, is that we can concentrate our efforts and do a greater good..like the trip to Honduras, or as a group, repair roofs of homes damaged in a tornado.

If you find a body of like minded believers, you gain a common spiritual support, plus a valuable resource of various abilities and trades. For instance, to build the house in Honduras...we had my wife as a medical resource, we had another as a carpenter, another as an electrician, plus an engineer.

So you went to Honduras.
Like you couldn't find roofs locally that needed repair.
Do you think that there are no Hondurans who could do that?
If they will not help their own, why should you?
Did you go to Haiti too?
Did you adopt a Haitain baby?

I hate the people who think that going to some foreign country or adopting some unfortunate foreign child somehow makes them a big hero.
There are plenty of unfortunates in your own country.
Why don't you put all your efforts into helping them?

Maybe you should just get off the interstate and travel the back roads in your own country. You will find kids with no shoes dressed in hand-me-downs that are rags. If you take your trip in the winter, you will see little girls with no head scarfs or hats, coats that are 3 sizes too small, maybe one pin holding it partly closed, a dress that is also too small and too short, nothing covering her blue from the cold legs, no socks on little feet in shabby shoes.
Why exactly do you go elsewhere to help?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by OhZone]

Originally posted by Niccawhois
Question? If I am a Christian and manage to get to heaven while my children, although good people don't make it because they have a lack of faith, will I be happy in heaven knowing that they are suffering for all of eternity?

WHAT KIND OF GOD WOULD DO THAT?????

First the feelings that you and I have are nothing compared to those of God, we can not begin to understand. His thoughts are not ours.
Now lets look at it from strictly a human perspective.
Lets say that one day your child goes into a grocery store and robs the place. He also shoots and kills several people. Whould you want him to come home to you or would you want him in jail? You may still love him but I am sure you would not want him around your other family members, right?
Now did you make him kill all those people? Did you put him in jail? How can you blame God if someone does not make it into heaven?