It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Insult my Religious beliefs, Go ahead...!

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Logarock

When the cops in France corner these dudes are they going to be conflicted about such things? No they are going to take them out. Where do they get that authority? Why don't they just let the bad guys go and turn the other cheek?



Here's the difference - a difference probably lost on the more combatively-minded...

Those cops are Frenchmen, not Christians. God doesn't have much need for cops or bodyguards for Itself. They didn't fight or kill on behalf of a deity, they fought and killed on behalf of other Frenchmen who were unable to fight and kill on their own behalf.

See the difference there? It's in who they are fighting and killing for. Religion hasn't anything to do with their actions.




Yes I see the difference but the original issue was basically who has the right to kill but God. Poster was saying that they were not God so they couldn't kill.

What you are saying is that killing in the name of some things is justified.




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Well, to be honest Undo, having read your last post, I would suggest to you to take a step back and view the information you convey in your post very very objectively, as it should be ringing alarm bells in your reason and logic. The fallacy of that scripture is more than apparent for any one to see...it is extremely stark.


aye, but i'm very much into comparative religion research, and i find many nuggets by giving the texts a chance to talk to each other. giants in an ancient text -- first thing that comes to mind are titans - comparable greek and roman stories. since i dont think enoch is talking about planets when he refers to giants being born from women, perhaps this reference is to the height of the structures from which they derived/arrived, their abodes or even their elevation in space from the earth's surface. i don't think it's a reference to constellations as i don't think women can give birth to constellations. hehe

so as you were saying earlier and i verified briefly, the ancient histories can explain each other, but no one realizes it because they were ruled to be mythology during the enlightenment and people quit asking the texts to explain themselves. you included, apparently.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

I hear you. I do.

Unfortunately, there comes a time where religiously inspired violence can only be responded to in like manner.

However, I would not think this would necessarily something to respect if coming directly from the pulpit, so to speak.




-NF



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Your God is so dumb, when you stand next to it you hear the ocean.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Logarock

When the cops in France corner these dudes are they going to be conflicted about such things? No they are going to take them out. Where do they get that authority? Why don't they just let the bad guys go and turn the other cheek?



Here's the difference - a difference probably lost on the more combatively-minded...

Those cops are Frenchmen, not Christians. God doesn't have much need for cops or bodyguards for Itself. They didn't fight or kill on behalf of a deity, they fought and killed on behalf of other Frenchmen who were unable to fight and kill on their own behalf.

See the difference there? It's in who they are fighting and killing for. Religion hasn't anything to do with their actions.




Yes I see the difference but the original issue was basically who has the right to kill but God. Poster was saying that they were not God so they couldn't kill.

What you are saying is that killing in the name of some things is justified.


I took the issue raised by that poster to be different - her issue was not "who has the right to kill" but rather "who has the right to kill in the name of a god". It was not an unqualified absolute "right to kill", restricted instead to the behalf of a deity. She never addressed the right to kill on behalf of a human. I can say that with some degree of certainty because until recently that poster WAS Muslim, and I have heard her speak, at length, on several occasions as to the necessity of killing off anti-Islamic movements such as ISIS, root and branch, even when she was a Muslim.

Since her conversion to Christianity, I've not noticed any softening of her stance against the likes of ISIS, but I have noticed a change in focus - the rationale is no longer a threat to a religion or a god, the focus of erasing them in her mind is now the threat they present towards humanity.

I tend towards agreeing with her - and you, for that matter - in that I would kill if necessary to protect a human, who may not be able to protect themselves, but never in defense of a god. If that deity cannot protect itself, it is no god.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
undo:

...the ancient histories can explain each other...


Explain or countenance each other, and to what useful end, and to what enlightenment? By all means, look at the text and discover the mythology of ancient peoples, which might enable a modern-day archeo-historian to provide an opinion on their mindset. No ancient text can offer evidence of the truth of the story it narrates, but it does provide evidence that ancient peoples were imaginative and superstitious.


...I'm very much into comparative religion research...


Commendable. Aren't all religions comparative, being that they are derived from the same psychological impulse? Didn't a religion of some form bloom within the societies of all ancient peoples, and once those ancient peoples mingled with one another, didn't they confabulate their own ideas with that of others as they shared discussions of their own gods? I'm sure you see the point I am driving at here.


...they were ruled to be mythology during the enlightenment and people quit asking the texts to explain themselves. you included, apparently.


Indeed so, but is there anything within their narratives on gods that is not mythological? One could say that it was disingenuous for scholars of the day to be so dismissive of ancient texts, as they can tell us much more about ancient peoples than the mythology which was their religion, but perhaps they were working to a disingenuous agenda...who knows?

Regards



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire



Explain or countenance each other, and to what useful end, and to what enlightenment?


well i have discovered all manner of interesting historical footnotes by following etymology trails thru adjacent cultures. this has revealed to me that many of the texts we currently view as mythological, are not exactly mythological and that predominant figures in said "mythology", were actually real people. some have revealed surprising tidbits, such as the passages in the book of enoch, where he appears to be describing a super massive black hole in the form of a first hand eyewitness account. that shook me up for awhile. i must've read it fifty times.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Are you buying into the our religion vrs. your religion crap? Religion is the excuse for leaders to engage in war. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with power and control. However, many will not drop everything in life to engage in war if they know the true motives of their leaders. Leaders are aware of this fact and often use such tactics guaranteed to elicit hate and rage among the masses. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Now if you want to know the real problem I suggest you look at true agitators and discover their motives. If there is a theological aspect, it may not be as you see it. History illustrates the a long list of evidence of Occult practices used by powerful men to attain their ambitions. But in the fog of manufactured hate people will do as expected. Good men on both sides are often lured into combat yet the instigators hide in the shadows and craftily orchestrate minions and events to desired effect.

The older i get the more I'm convinced the ruling elite shares no interests in any religion other than their own. Personally, i believe their religion is a product neither conflicting parties want to be a part of. Their religion is power and control. Nothing more, nothing less. Only when the average person realizes how he is being used, hostilities will continue as they have in the past.
a reply to: DAVID64



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername


There is no God but Allah. There is no God in islam.


God in the Arabic language is Allah.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777

originally posted by: ausername


There is no God but Allah. There is no God in islam.


God in the Arabic language is Allah.


which comes from al'ilah (the god)
which comes from ilah (god)
which comes from lil
which comes from en.lil

his name became the generic god word for mesopotamia.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
p.s. the "-ah" part is from hayah, who was ea, who was enki. ( from the statement "i am that i am" = hayah asher hayah, and hayah = jehovah)
so al'lah (and jehovah) is a composite god word who's roots originated, linguistically, from the words lil and ea (pronounced (h-ayah)

al'il-ea
al'il-ayah
al'ilah
al'lil-ah

the tower of bab-el was originally, the ziggurat of bab-ilu
so ilu=el and if ilu = el, then el-ohim is related as well, since its using the same root of el.

al'lah is the resulting god word composite, of the mesopotamian gods, enlil and ea. all that's missing is anu, the father god. and he's mentioned at the end of prayers in the form of "Amen"

so that covers it all.


it's true, al'lah is jehovah, linguistically. no doubt about it.

edit on 13-1-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
I'm not religious, or a 'person of faith', and I often feel despair that an educated person could be a person of faith, as I see that as a contradiction. It's just not logical and reasonably indefensible.



Just as this threads original premise was to point out to those who 'Believe' that killing in the name of their God is wrong and unnecessary also, not to be so thinned skinned.

What about....

Those of faith who simply don't care if others understand why one has 'Faith' whether it is viewed as 'Logical or indefensible" or not to others?

I won't sit in judgement of Atheists, Agnostics etc, so why do so many, so it seems, of those who are of those persuasions find it so easy to judge those who believe something other than what they do ?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
oops. one more footnote on that:

to lessen confusion regarding yahweh, realize that EL (LIL) equals both God in the generic sense and Jehovah / YAHweh, as well, in mesopotamia. so how did this happen if EL was originally a LIL word and not a h-ayah word? easy! ask yourself why is elohim called elohim instead of yahweh? compositing.

root words baby, root words.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join