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.

 

Why I Cannot Accept Any Religion

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I would like to explain in a bit of detail why I fundamentally cannot accept any religion. Or this is one way of phrasing and thinking about what I am getting at. I'm one who tends to feel that there is truth to be found in all religions. More depends on the mind which approaches religious texts and teachings than the religious texts and teachings themselves. Different religious traditions approach truth in different ways, but I see these more as veils of truth rather than truth itself. But, caught in the veil, people see stark contradiction between spiritual traditions, and miss the truth in their own tradition.

However, there seems to be an attitude which is perhaps inextricably bound to the religious mentality. And that is, your path is THE path. Every other path is in some way mistaken. Every other path leads ultimately to failure. Even with religions which I personally believe express 'the truth' in a quite direct way, like some of the Eastern religions, those who identify with the religion tend to exhibit this tendency. And, to me there is a problem with this. I feel like you could say it stems from looking at spirituality in a material way, rather than a spiritual way. What I mean is that one engaging in sincere spiritual practice, will more and more cultivate spiritual virtue, embody its principles, and perceive it in their lives. What spirituality is aiming for, is developed within the individual. Thus it can be developed in innumerable contexts. It is that development itself which is primary. Not the label which you choose to identify with, which is the most surface-level, or material, aspect of spirituality.

You can identify with a religion, and you feel that your religion is true, thus your identification with it means you are on the right spiritual path. And others who identify with other religions, are following false or lesser ways, and thuse they are on the wrong spiritual path. And yet that other person may be more sincere in his practice, and develop and embody spiritual principles far more than you. So who advanced more, spiritually? Only from a material perspective is your opinion of the ultimate truth of a religious tradition of any primary importance. From the spiritual perspective, it is the inner life and development which matters.

edit on 7-2-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

In saying as much, you also, feel you are on the right path as those that identify with a specific religion.

Indeed, your very thread is "religious" by it's very nature. It professes an insight, articulates that insight for the others to learn from...or not.

Obviously, there's an overlap between your 'spirituality' and Religion. The 'flaws' in each religion is equally matched in our own individual flaws. The difference being we tolerate our own more than other's flaw...including "religions".



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TheJourney

In saying as much, you also, feel you are on the right path as those that identify with a specific religion.

Indeed, your very thread is "religious" by it's very nature. It professes an insight, articulates that insight for the others to learn from...or not.

Obviously, there's an overlap between your 'spirituality' and Religion. The 'flaws' in each religion is equally matched in our own individual flaws. The difference being we tolerate our own more than other's flaw...including "religions".




I understand what you're saying. And then you can say that really all expression is fundamentally flawed, in that the very utterance of anything specific is inherently exclusive, and thus can have this 'religious' connotation we are painting, and lack ultimate objective validity. But, the difference is that I am stating fundamentally that WHATEVER the individual is going through internally, that is of primary importance, regardless of what the individual professes or identifies with. It's an expression of relativity, which is itself relative and yet does differ in some respects from setting up a particular thing which one must profess and strive towards.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

But how do you rationalize the FACT that in the end,
after this life is over, there will be one truth? And I mean
one truth for all of everyone who has ever died and will die.
What could possibly make you believe, knowing we have no
control over our own birth or death. That we could some how
have control over what the truth is beyond death. See you can't
just blow off that fact and say all willy nilly and I paraphrase.

"Oh we all experience our own truth after we die"

Can we all make up our own score at the end of a football game?

If I asked you which horse won the triple crown in 1973?
Which horse would you have to say it was?



As you can see, there is only one solid truthful answer, that will live
forever because it is the truth. And it's up to you to know that truth
if want to answer the question. The responsibility lay with you.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
I disagree. There is a major difference between the OP's stance, and the religions he is speaking about. The OP doesn't claim to know the truth, or the right path for everyone. He is speaking for himself only. His path is right for him. He didn't try to convert everyone to his way of thinking. He simply spoke of his own beliefs.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I believe I understand what your saying.

Even so, if what that individual is 'going through' requires a 're-connecting' with others, then a religion becomes a workable tool/means.

Like all tools, one puts them down when the job is done. Reused at a later time when so required.

Spirits are longer lived than religions. One learns the purpose of a tool, how to use it, and recognizes the limitations of that tool so as to not misuse it.

What is of 'primary importance' has to be decided by the person themselves.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

My faith is in Christ. I believe that Jesus died to pay the debt of my sins and of my sin nature that manufactures my sins. Through faith in the works that He accomplished, I believe that my dead spirit was reborn, and everlasting life has been given to me.

My definition of religion is the polar opposite of the faith that I have just professed. Religion is a trust in your own personal works to attain some form of everlasting security. By that definition of religion, if you see a "universal truth" in the various religious systems of the world, then you have already embraced religion.

The question you should be asking is; how can any worldly religion secure your well being in the afterlife? They cant. To be regenerated, the nature that kills your spirit must first be neutralized by the Blood of Christ. Only by faith can you be born again, then your sin nature will be removed upon physical death.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
People are their Heart. Religion is man made.

That's pretty much how I look at it.

Seriously, a Luciferian can behave more Christlike then some Christians.

(NOTE: yes I know there are different type Luciferians. Don't derail the thread)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

The points you make are valid. They weren't the similarities I was stressing, however.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

The truth is, though, that if one religion IS absolutely right then it follows that the alternates are wrong.

Religious choice is an unclear and confusing thing but is that a valid reason for not attempting at all to determine that absolute truth?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs
The problem is, you're assuming that we CAN know the truth of the afterlife before we die. I'm not so sure that's the case. However, I do agree that if there is an after life, it is probably an absolute, and not a variable experience.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TheJourney

But how do you rationalize the FACT that in the end,
after this life is over, there will be one truth? And I mean
one truth for all of everyone who has ever died and will die.
What could possibly make you believe, knowing we have no
control over our own birth or death. That we could some how
have control over what the truth is beyond death. See you can't
just blow off that fact and say all willy nilly and I paraphrase.

"Oh we all experience our own truth after we die"

Can we all make up our own score at the end of a football game?

If I asked you which horse won the triple crown in 1973?
Which horse would you have to say it was?



As you can see, there is only one solid truthful answer, that will live
forever because it is the truth. And it's up to you to know that truth
if want to answer the question. The responsibility lay with you.


It seems like you are making an absolute claim about the afterlife...which I would ask how you can possibly know...and regardless, note that you, and not I, are making a claim about the afterlife.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

The "fact" there is one truth?

Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion? It escapes me...I'm your humble student on this matter...



edit on 7-2-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney


And then you can say that really all expression is fundamentally flawed, in that the very utterance of anything specific is inherently exclusive, and thus can have this 'religious' connotation we are painting,

Interesting observation Journey. I can see in a way how this action of utterance can bind us to the material. This attempt to express the "non-espressable", can solidify and calcify inner experience into a material state. Then, we cleave to the utterance rather than the inspiration. To me, religions hold to the utterance and accept it as a symbol of the inspiration, while spirituality suggests an attempt to remain free of the more dogmatic utterances and "be" in the inspiration. And that is about all I can express in this utterance.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

That is a good way to put it Klass and you notice I didn't lean toward
any answer. But I feel it is our responsibility to search out that truth.
And that it can be done.
edit on Rpm20715v172015u44 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I didn't even say there is an afterlife. I said there is one
truth for all after we die.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Take what seems right to you and leave everything else. All religions tell the same story, only in different ways and with different characters and settings.

The source of it all is right here right now, what we experience is the foundation of all religion in my opinion. The greatest mystery is life itself, this is what religion tries to explain. What if God is existence itself and everything that comes with it? My God can be proven to exist, religious gods cannot. Where's the proof? You see it right now.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TheJourney

I didn't even say there is an afterlife. I said there is one
truth for all after we die.


Well, I was using 'afterlife' as a synonym for after we die...so just replace 'afterlife' with 'after we die,' and my point still stands.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney




Well, I was using 'afterlife' as a synonym for after we die...so just replace 'afterlife' with 'after we die,' and my point still stands.


I'm sorry but that's pretty convoluted.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I hope you don't mind OP, but you reminded me of this story, and I think it fits with the topic of your thread...

"A young man who had lost his wife in childbirth, and had raised and loved their surviving son with every fiber of his being, was away on business when bandits came and burned down his whole village and took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and panicked. As he frantically ran around looking for any sign of his beloved son, he came upon a badly burned child that he assumed was indeed the body of his son, and began to weep uncontrollably. The next day he organized a cremation ceremony, collected the ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag, which he vowed to always keep with him, next to his heart.

A few months later, his real son escaped from the bandits and found his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked, "Who is it?" The child answered, "It is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted, "Go away" and once again lost himself in his lonesome misery and tears. After some time, the child left. The Father and son never saw each other again."

After this story, the Buddha said, "Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your door, you will not open it."



edit on 2/7/2015 by Klassified because: grammar




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join