It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Rebellion as a Necessary Means Towards Independence; or, Why Eve Had to Eat.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: pthena

Hi pthena, thanks for your input!

I never understood what I saw as "self hate" before my conversion-- the notion of us as flawed beings, original sin.
Now that I have become Christian and embraced this concept in regards to myself, well for one, I can somewhat forgive my previous harmful actions which still plague me, I can understand humility truly by thinking that I am good only when I align myself with the powers of good but I am bad by personal choice. I do take responsibility for my bad actions and don't want to slough them off on amyone else. I also want to limit myself from any future actions that might lead me away from the source of love and focus as often as possible on the Word, which has only led me to good.

(There was a Simpson's episode very similar to what you are describing, btw

From my own experience, I do not believe that our creater has wandered off, or that anything that has happened was an accident. I feel His presence daily and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, have had prayers answered in inexplicably clear ways. So my new beliefs work in a very positive way for me, in my life.

Glad to see you on my thread.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 12:37 PM
a reply to: zosimov

You have discovered a great truth IMO.

There is no progress in the safe isolation of peace.

Imbalance and loss are part of the process towards balance with all and the true peace in the unkown.

The last bit about surrender after freedom is spot on.

If not its like running a race and not moving since you are already at the finish line from the starting point.....

edit on 9 10 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: zosimov
Glad to be on your thread.

(There was a Simpson's episode very similar to what you are describing, btw

So, does that mean you've been inoculated against the pathos I put into the punch line of the story? I was crying by the time I got to writing it.

Thought provoking thread. Thank you

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:18 PM
a reply to: tadaman

Thank you for your response. I completely agree that times of peace allow for us to rest, enjoy, and process all that comes with the tumult that life brings but is absolutely unsustainable if we wish to continue in our growth. Great insight, much appreciated.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:19 PM
a reply to: pthena

pthena, I should have known better than to skim over any of your posts! Please forgive my haste. You're absolutely correct that I missed the most important part.

Need time to process all you put into it. Thank you for directing my attention properly.

edit on 10-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 03:33 PM
a reply to: zosimov

Your opening post states that this thread is primarily about freedom of will, and your concerns regarding that since the thread about Einstein. Since that thread I have also been concerned. Recently, while doing a bit of reading on line, I came across a webpage purporting to tell an old traditional Native American Creation Myth. My reaction to reading it was, "What the hell? That's straight Gnosticism!" The story had no author, date, or source mentioned. So pretty much to be taken as straight propaganda.

The popular thing for people to say is: "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual." So anyone and everyone can connect to some amorphous, amoral, a-theist whatever.

Being a contrarian, my response is "I'm not spiritual, but I am religious", meaning that I am bound to physical reality, bound to physical morals, bound to this World and the people in it, and the birds and trees, and grass and the air and all the rest.

But what is this modern spirituality but a neo-Manichaeism, purporting to be a synthesis of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus, merged with Jewish/Christian Gnosticism as taught by Elcesaites. The neo-Manichaeism teaches:
1) The physical is delusion
2) The Light from the realm of light is real
3) The gnosis of light awakening reveals the dark/physical delusion
4) Not only is death a delusion but so is life
5) The light people go to the realm of light
6) Leaving the benighted/physical people, who through observation thought that someone died, in further darkness since some light has departed.
7) The perfectly enlightened has no need for will or morality or ambition or defense of loved ones, who are, after all, illusions.

I probably have some of the details a bit wrong but overall I think that's a fair generalization. I'm not sure who is behind this nonsense but it seems to me that some powerful people completely grounded in the physical reality sure can benefit if those who could have resisted them are sitting around blissfully contemplating the "light" while the World is plundered of resources and made less sustainable by pollution.

But then again, the American Christian popular notion of "the rapture" is also a reflection of the same thing, ie. the blessed believers go to heaven leaving the dark sinners in more darkness. And since this rapture thing is to be any day now, well care about real people being exploited, pillaged, choked in waste in an increasing greenhouse gas induced hell is not relevant. Sustainability must only apply until the rapture, like next week.

That's my rant for the day, my apologies to those who consider their opinions to be grossly misrepresented.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 05:30 PM
a reply to: pthena

Hi, just got back in from my garden, and digging in the earth, I really felt the importance of your last post.

There is something so holy to be found in our mother earth, and in each of us, and all creation.

I'm quite impressed by your ability to look beyond the surface and find the truth behind these pseudo-philosophies that are peddled as profundities these days! I would not have given these ideas a second glance-- they don't resonate with me, but neither did they stand out as detrimental in any way.

Always appreciate your thoughts. Rant on anytime you please.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: zosimov

these pseudo-philosophies that are peddled as profundities these days!...but neither did they stand out as detrimental in any way.

It is possible that I'm becoming an old curmudgeon, like Colonel Cotton Hill on King of the Hill, still living in his own world of giving the Bay of Pigs a retry. The danger is, that since 75% of my social contact is through ATS that that somehow translates to views I read here are society wide beliefs. They may not actually be.

Anyway, the view I was raised with is that the creator said "This is good" about the World. And even though I don't think in Creationist type ways, I still think, "This is good". Sure it's a fight for survival at times, but that's part of the life and not something that just started around 6,000 years ago with some exile from paradise. My best guess at when the idea that the Earth was flawed/broken/fallen/evil was floated about is about 600 B.C. both in Greece and in India.
edit on 10-9-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: zosimov

This notion (to which I agree) has allowed me to come to the conclusion that The Fall, as unpleasant as it might be for those of us still in its midst, was an imperative part of human development, and an important first step in the pursuit of perfection.

So here I'll submit the idea that rebellion is the only true way to achieve independence, and to establish one's self apart from the laws that govern us.

When I am able to step outside my duties as a parent, I can see my son's occasional refusal to follow "orders" as his attempt at establishing his self, apart from the mandatory and tyrannical parental law

Before my son was born I had access to a Developmental Psychology textbook. Back in those days, Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development were still the standard.

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional morality
At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.

E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

As stated in the article there are some objections to the model. Recent studies indicate that children develop morally much sooner, like stage 2 as early as 3 years old for some. You should definitely read the criticism at the bottom of the article.

To get back to the Einstein quote: The god(dess) of ethics would not bypass the natural means for people acquiring morals and ethics.

The current top person at the moment in the field seems to be Melanie Killen. She wrote the book on the subject, co-editor anyway. Handbook of Moral Development-2nd-Edition. Pretty expensive book at $99 paperback.

A cheap way to get books sometimes is to find a college that uses it as a textbook or required reading, then wait till between terms, then stroll into the bookstore like you belong there and buy a used one. Usually, just before a semester starts they have sales.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in