Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know? I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request. I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church. Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white. This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see Gods killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats. This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position. During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit. I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis. This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead. The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step. I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God. I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help. I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further. My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being. Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it. This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself. Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why? Regards DL
Could I go back to the "I was a skeptic til I was 39" thing? Did you, at any point in your youth, have religious education or (and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense) religious indoctrination? IOW, did your parents take you to Church or anything in your childhood?
Okay let me respond to this. When did Constantine 'buy' this so called 'Catholic Church', since what is now known as the 'Catholic Church' refers to the schesmatics of Rome of the tenth century and not to the universal Church. Also Constantine established Christianity as the state religion in order to stop the persecution of Christians which was ongoing until then, and even afterwards under pagan emperors. As for Gnosticism, it was established as a heresy by all the Bishops of the Church at the Ecumenical Council called by the Emperor Constantine. And as for this so called 'cosmic' consciousness, if it's not an enlightenment given to you by the Holy Spirit for accepting Christ as your redeemer, then it's coming from an opposing force. In Christianity we call him satan. As for my opinion, I think you 'think' too much and are trying to reach God through your own will and mind, when He can only be achieved through God's Grace. But then again, I'm a Christian and you're not.
I was raised R C but none of it ever took in terms of belief. We did not speak of God in the home and only did the Sunday thing. By my age of reason, I was a part of a broken and dysfunctional home and ended up in a R C run orphanage and actually owe the R C many thanks even though if they had not been there some other organization would have been. It was not pleasant but as a kid, you go with whatever is at hand. I only ran away from it twice. Now that I can reason as an adult, I fight all the Abrahamic cults because of their poor morals and the damage I see them doing to society. Regards DL
Yes and that is why you have an inferior Jesus to mine. You rely on grace and God and neither have ever been shown to exist. I do not agree with your view of Constantine and he definitely bought the early church for his own aggrandisement. Proof, if you choose to believe it, which I doubt because you refuse to believe what Jesus said in the O P, is shown in his forcing the Trinity concept down the churches throat threw force a rigging the vote. Originally Posted by animefan48 Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies. Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity) But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.) http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian! The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs! "It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180 "In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980 The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306. "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299. "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). "Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941). Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . . (Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com) Constantine’s Victory Arch says it all. http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/ We could argue these details forever and get nowhere. Let's talk morals and the salvific human sacrifice of Jesus that you plan to profit from. At least with that we might get somewhere. Regards DL - - - Updated - - - Which part and what does it have to do with the O P? Regards DL
Then, is it possible you were NOT what might be called a "life-long skeptic"...but merely a "delayed believer"? IOW, that raised to believe in God, Jesus, etc.....you have simply returned to that belief. Understand, I don't mean this as a personal insult...but we see too many stories of people claiming they were "life-long atheist"...and upon investigation, we learn that their atheism existed only in a period AFTER their teen years, when (due to rebellion or disillusion or even as you say 'reason') they became atheist or agnostic... but then returned to theism and Belief at a later point in life (often due to an existential crises) and thus were not "life-long atheists"....but merely a "Prodigal Son" returning to what he was taught as a child? Do you see my point?
incidentally, I am that rarest of creatures - born into an atheist family and raised without taint of superstition. so, if I suddenly have an epiphany, it might have a little weight. then again, you have all have permission to shoot me if I do
Not my point...mine was simply on the overly-used claim to "life-long skeptic" or "life-long atheist" and the "miraculous conversion late in life"...is simply reverting back to the beliefs taught in childhood and nothing more special than the "back-slider who returns to the Church". BTW, you used the term "apotheosis" for your return to spirituality?...I don't think that's what you meant.
Yes it is but in the sense that I found Jacob's ladder and have begun my climb. I am a God WIP. Work in progress. Apotheosis is more a revelation that there is not grater force than man and that we have an internal spiritual side that seeks more to life than our political side that only looks after physical needs or wants. To become either fully human or fully God takes time. Regards DL
My estimate is closer to 20 or 40 years. I cannot see us staying dumbed down that long but you may be right. We will see. Regards DL
