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.

 

You are not better because you lack religion!

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ToeJamX

Humans are most responsible for death.

Religion itself is not corrupt. People within are.




posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Those are actions, learned from other people. Not from a book, nor religion.

Most catholics I know are not participating in the Holy crusades... Which people can't seem to shut up about, acting like it's a current thing to blame religion on. That was corrupt popes, bishops, etc. Corrupt men, that found a way to appeal to others.

People will find a way to manipulate others without religion. They can, and do. It's the human element that causes bad, not the religion element, in my opinion.

I do admit people will more easily act terribly in the name of their religion, due to just how deeply they believe in their cause over others, but I don't hear about Christian bombers.

Speaking against gays and abortions are very minor compared to actually killing someone. People get so offended over the smallest things, it goes both ways.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


Those are actions, learned from other people. Not from a book, nor religion.

Which actions? Proselytizing? Jesus and Paul are two of the most famous street preachers in history. It does indeed come from a book, and religion. Mark 16...
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned..."


Most catholics I know are not participating in the Holy crusades... Which people can't seem to shut up about, acting like it's a current thing to blame religion on. That was corrupt popes, bishops, etc. Corrupt men, that found a way to appeal to others.

Are you responding to my post, or someone elses? I did not mention the Catholics, or the crusades. But since you bring it up. Catholic missionaries have been responsible for untold destruction and death, apart from the crusades.


People will find a way to manipulate others without religion. They can, and do. It's the human element that causes bad, not the religion element, in my opinion.

Agreed. But the non-religious are not claiming the "authority of god" or the moral high ground as excuses for our behavior. Nor do we claim to be arbiters of such.


I do admit people will more easily act terribly in the name of their religion, due to just how deeply they believe in their cause over others, but I don't hear about Christian bombers.

Hitler and George Bush were both Christian Bombers. They just had the power to order others to do it.


Speaking against gays and abortions are very minor compared to actually killing someone.

Right now they may seem minor to you, but in the past those two groups suffered much persecution and hatred, and even murderous atrocities committed against them. The gays are still suffering such. They are legally discriminated against in Western society, and murdered in the middle east.


People get so offended over the smallest things, it goes both ways.

Agreed.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

not condemned by other humans, but rather, by him or herself. in other words, you are the master of your own destiny. if you don't wish to be remembered, to add your collective life story to the library of your god self, it won't be. you, that's y o u. not paul. not jesus. not the pope. y. o. u.

i think we had this discussion once a few years ago. in order for one passage to make sense, it has to jive with the others. if it doesn't, there can only be a few reasons as to why not:

1. somebody tampered with the original text to make it say things it didn't orginally
2. somebody mistranslated the original text due to generational misunderstanding, otherwise known as cultural drift
3. interpreting the entire meaning of a concept based only one selected or selection of passages out of many, has lead to misunderstanding. the text has to be in general agreement (one thing interprets the other. i'll give an example later)
4. cognitive dissonance has entered the interpretative process, either in the form of the translators or the form of later critics.

if "ye are all gods", then "ye are all gods". if you don't believe that "ye are all gods' then you are willfully removing your own name from the library of your god self. not jesus' god self. your god self. cause "ye are all gods."

it's not the fault of the text if people tend to ignore other passages. these need to be cross referenced or you end up with cognitive dissonance. in other words, even the critic of the text risks cognitive dissonance by isolating passages to apply to the whole. where this seems to begin and end though, as regards the new testament, is the new testament itself. the old testament only occasionally applies.
edit on 11-10-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: undo


not condemned by other humans, but rather, by him or herself. in other words, you are the master of your own destiny. if you don't wish to be remembered, to add your collective life story to the library of your god self, it won't be. you, that's y o u. not paul. not jesus. not the pope. y. o. u.

The problem with that view has multiple issues:
1. Your view of the bible is unique among Christians. As you know, I was one for nearly 30 years. I never met one like you. And I met some real doozies.
2. Your view of the bible leans heavily on philosophy and "metaphysics", as well as spirituality. Christianity as a whole, is much more literal in its interpretation. Which brings me to my next point...
3. The bible is open to interpretation, and therefore, should never be taken literally. The last few thousand years should be proof enough of that.
4. There are other verses which make it clear as to what Jesus meant by "condemned".


1. somebody tampered with the original text to make it say things it didn't orginally
2. somebody mistranslated the original text due to generational misunderstanding, otherwise known as cultural drift 3. interpreting the entire meaning of a concept based only one selected or selection of passages out of many, has lead to misunderstanding. the text has to be in general agreement (one thing interprets the other. i'll give an example later)
4. cognitive dissonance has entered the interpretative process, either in the form of the translators or the form of later critics.

All of these are real possibilities, and yet another reason the bible should never be taken at face value. You have spent decades studying original texts and languages of not only the bible, but Sumerian and others. You know how complex and convoluted comparative studies become. You have also found that most Christians don't want to hear what you have learned, because it goes against what they've been taught, and what they think the bible says.


if "ye are all gods", then "ye are all gods". if you don't believe that "ye are all gods' then you are willfully removing your own name from the library of your god self. not jesus' god self. your god self. cause "ye are all gods."

This is one of those verses layman and scholar alike don't like to talk about. When I studied it, the general consensus among scholars was that Jesus was making reference to the Judges of the OT, that God had given the ultimate authority to. He gave them an office that made them "like gods", and referred to them as such. However, some Christians interpret Jesus use of that verse as saying "You belong to god", not you are literally deities. Here again. Open to interpretation.


it's not the fault of the text if people tend to ignore other passages. these need to be cross referenced or you end up with cognitive dissonance. in other words, even the critic of the text risks cognitive dissonance by isolating passages to apply to the whole. where this seems to begin and end though, as regards the new testament, is the new testament itself. the old testament only occasionally applies.

This is true, but even at face value, and taken as a whole, one can't help but come away with some disturbing conclusions regarding the Hebrew god, and his offspring. Also, don't forget that your intellect reads the bible in light of decades of research. The average person reads it in light of their present understanding, and what they are told to believe. If Jesus says in the text, they can play with snakes if they are real Christians. They take it literally, even though that verse doesn't exist in many of the manuscripts. Let us also not forget that several new testament verses are considered questionable and several books are considered pseudepigrapha. Adding fuel to the fire.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

well originally the adam race, were copies of elohim, so yeah.
they weren't humans, they were elohim.

edit on 11-10-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'm quite happy with my 'religion for intelligence' trade. Makes me feel quite superior...



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Actions such as speaking out in hatred against others. This is not in the Bible so far as I know. The atrocities of Christians cannot be backed by their books. It's just their personal choices, they, at their core, are Jerks. This occurs in any population.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
It seems to be a trend on ats these days, people believing they are better, smarter, more enlightened because they don't conform to any religion, or perhaps lack belief in general. This does NOT make you better, it makes you different. Just as being a part of a religion and having certain beliefs doesn't make a person better.

People much more renowned in the world than all of us here have been a part of an organized religion.

People much more renowned in the world than all of us here have either lacked connection to an organized religion, or lacked belief in general.

The world is much more complex than one part of a person's life.

Calling someone a sheeple, a follower, acting like another lacks intelligence, in mind or in spirit because they conform to the same ideas as a massive religion does is extreme ignorance, bigotry, and just plain short sighted.

/end rant

Cheers Ats, have a good weekend.

( for the record, I am more spiritual, less religious. I am not defending myself in this post)


I fully agree with you. Atheism or the not believing in a God has unfortunately become "trendy", too many people turning Atheism into a cliche.

It's never been about not believing in God, sure that makes you an Atheist but the point runs much deeper than that, it's about observation, about study, and accepting the conclusions that we derive from such study and observation.

What I cannot prove I will not present as a fact, I will however state the reason for my thinking but I will not blatantly slander someone for believing what I do not.

Being an Atheist does not make one more intelligent, not in the slightest. Who is an Atheist to define intelligence in such a way anyways? Quite detestable if you ask me.

I am not a religious man, yet I treat religion as I do any other conundrum that comes my way, with complete reverence and the assumption that I may very well be wrong until I can prove that I'm not.

Religion is quite intriguing anyways, should you take the time to study it and think about it.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Interstellardove

Welcome to Ats, or if you've been here before, welcome back.

I don't think it's up to anyone to define intelligence, and certainly not anyone's position to posit superiority, or clearer thinking.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
Your view of the bible leans heavily on philosophy and "metaphysics", as well as spirituality. Christianity as a whole, is much more literal in its interpretation.


Um.
Christian tradition going back to its earliest days relied heavily on philosophy. Catholic thought is still very much grounded on early Christian philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine. Metaphysics and philosophy is not alien to Christianity, although it is (sadly) rare among laypersons. The idea that Christianity as a whole is "more literal than philosophical" both assumes that there is opposition between the two positions (not necessarily true) and ignores the decades of rich Christian philosophical thought from Paul to Lewis.

Incidentally, I think the Bible was probably meant to be studied carefully for years. (It was written by/about some pretty freaking smart people.) That's a feature, not a glitch.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Well to put the holy shoe on the other foot...

There have been some incredibly mind boggling acts committed bysome men of faith. Look at the inquisitions and the worldwide claims of child abuse. Don't believe? burn! Can't marry? Rape a child!

Sure these acts don't reflect on the entire religious community, but surely doesn't the abuse of power employed by some suggest that these criminals thought they were above the victims, like they were better than them?



edit on 12-10-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Christian tradition going back to its earliest days relied heavily on philosophy.

Likely it did, and was meant to be taken as such. But unfortunately, we aren't living in those times.


Catholic thought is still very much grounded on early Christian philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine.

You mean this Aquinas?
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. —Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century
The misogynist.


Metaphysics and philosophy is not alien to Christianity, although it is (sadly) rare among laypersons.

Which was my point in making that statement. The average Christian cannot separate metaphor, analogy, and literalism/legalism.


The idea that Christianity as a whole is "more literal than philosophical" both assumes that there is opposition between the two positions (not necessarily true) and ignores the decades of rich Christian philosophical thought from Paul to Lewis.

All one need do is look at modern Christianity to see that philosophy and metaphysics pertaining to Christianity has been thrown out for a more literal and legalist approach that breeds bigotry and elitism. Historically, the Catholic church has not been immune to such.


Incidentally, I think the Bible was probably meant to be studied carefully for years. (It was written by/about some pretty freaking smart people.) That's a feature, not a glitch.

Indeed. If it is studied from an objective point of view. Agreed also, they were intelligent men. Unfortunately, they didn'thave the best interests of their fellow human beings at heart. Unless of course, one wants to go the route of many mistranslations. But then, that's another thread.

I appreciate the intelligent feedback.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

To be completely honest...

I believe much of what you are referring to is usually in response to the "Holier than Thou" approach the "Thumpers" tend to take.

There are those near and dear to my heart who have religious faith. I respect them. They do not feel the need to proselytize or tell others how they are condemned to an eternity in hell.

So, am I better than those with faith? No. Am I better than those who look to belittle and look down on me for my own beliefs, or lack thereof?

Yes.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Agreed. I certainly believe it goes both ways - if either side desires to belittle others, judge others, or otherwise, I believe them to be in the wrong. And such is often the case with some religious people.

Religious people take the "I'm more likely to go to heaven" route while others seem to take the "I'm a free thinker, more intelligent, higher thinking than you" route.

Both are things I dislike.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

It certainly does. This thread is ranting about a trend I've seen on ats lately, certainly not a thread to cover all aspects of this topic.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
It seems to be a trend on ats these days, people believing they are better, smarter, more enlightened because they don't conform to any religion, or perhaps lack belief in general. This does NOT make you better, it makes you different. Just as being a part of a religion and having certain beliefs doesn't make a person better.

People much more renowned in the world than all of us here have been a part of an organized religion.

People much more renowned in the world than all of us here have either lacked connection to an organized religion, or lacked belief in general.

The world is much more complex than one part of a person's life.

Calling someone a sheeple, a follower, acting like another lacks intelligence, in mind or in spirit because they conform to the same ideas as a massive religion does is extreme ignorance, bigotry, and just plain short sighted.

/end rant

Cheers Ats, have a good weekend.

( for the record, I am more spiritual, less religious. I am not defending myself in this post)


Religion is the enemy of spirituality imo, have to say anyone who believes religious texts in a literal sense is delusional in some way. Personally believe you can only find god within yourself, certainly not at a church.

Yes im agnostic, if it helps i find atheists just as stuck up and ignorant as theists. How can anyone claim to understand the creation of of universe?
edit on 12/10/15 by Grenade because: spelling



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
originally posted by: Klassified


Likely it did, and was meant to be taken as such. But unfortunately, we aren't living in those times.


Which is distressing. But at least we have air conditioning.



You mean this Aquinas?
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. —Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century
The misogynist.


Yup, that Aquinas. Here's the full quote:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

If you want to argue that Aquinas held a low view of women by today's standards, I don't think anyone's going to argue with you (I won't, I'm not an Aquinas expert) but I don't think you need to edit him to get your point across




Which was my point in making that statement. The average Christian cannot separate metaphor, analogy, and literalism/legalism.


I think the average Christian can, they just tend to pick and choose which is which based on what is convenient to their belief system. Not saying the average Christian is a hypocrite or anything, just that people tend to believe what makes sense to them at the time without necessarily delving into whether what makes sense is true or not.




All one need do is look at modern Christianity to see that philosophy and metaphysics pertaining to Christianity has been thrown out for a more literal and legalist approach that breeds bigotry and elitism.


People breed bigotry and elitism. If people took the verses in the Bible that warn people not to be arrogant literally and legalistically, we wouldn't have that problem. No matter your interpretation of the Bible, it's hard to argue it's speaking metaphorically when it condemns arrogance and pride. But people (definitely not me, of course, I would never do this) conveniently overlook that part.



Historically, the Catholic church has not been immune to such.


Historically, the Catholic Church has screwed up quite often. But their doctrinal approach as grounded in philosophy has remained reasonably constant to the best of my knowledge--though I'm not as familiar with it as I would like to be.



Indeed. If it is studied from an objective point of view.


There is no such thing. One does one's best, of course.



Agreed also, they were intelligent men. Unfortunately, they didn'thave the best interests of their fellow human beings at heart. Unless of course, one wants to go the route of many mistranslations. But then, that's another thread.


That's an interesting notion; most people agree that at least some of the original Biblical writers were altruistic and blame the parts they see as exploitive on certain "bad actors." (Paul, Constantine, the Old Testament writers, etc.) It seems Christians and non-Christians both like to cherry pick.



I appreciate the intelligent feedback.


Thank you. I try.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


If you want to argue that Aquinas held a low view of women by today's standards, I don't think anyone's going to argue with you (I won't, I'm not an Aquinas expert) but I don't think you need to edit him to get your point across

Figures I would grab the one that stops shy of the whole quote. Thanks for posting it. Not intentional, I assure you.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I understand; no worries


The main point, of course, that I was trying to make was that Christian thought has often been highly philosophical, and the point you were trying to make is that a lot of those guys had ideas that were either outright wrong or that look antiquated in these modern fashionably enlightened times.

I think we're both right.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join