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.

 

What does our subconscious mind think of religion?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
We all feel some pull towards faith and spirituality. In many peoples minds both faith and spirituality are the same as religion, however I feel this is not always the case due to the different states of minds and peoples perspectives.

We all also feel some presence that is telling us that religions as reported by certain souls in humanity is just impossible, but for the most part we fail to put our finger on what it is that we simply can not accept about this concept of "God".

So, I propose we bury in our subconsciousses what it is we truly feel about the paradoxes of monotheism. I propose we actually may be collectively suppressing the paradoxes out of our fear of questioning God.

So, what proof does our subconscious minds offer us that tells us that such things are not logically possible?

Here is one of the strongest arguements against how orginized religion based on monothiesm is percieved by humanity:

Athiests are souls who do not acknowledge any superior entity or consciousness is worthy of their reverence and worship.

Athiests worship no higher entity.

Most people will accept that this is one of the definitions of "Athiest". Some people will say that this is not an acceptable definition of "Athiest", even after being handed a dictionary, or even before consulting a dictionary.

So, let's look at one monothiestic religion that is the one presented in the introduction to this thread: Christianity.

Christians goal is to convert those of all faiths and athiests to their religious belief system.

Christians try to convert athiests into Christians.

Christian ideology teaches that Christ was God manifested in the flesh.

The very term Christian means to strive to be like Christ.

Summary:

Christians convert athiests into Christians, and Christians strive to be like Christ who is God manifested in man, and God acknowledges no deity above God, which by one of the definitions of "Athiest", God fits the definition of Athiest.

Athiest turned into monothiestic follower who is trying to be like one who is an athiest.

I think one of religions greatest conspiracies is us and how we refuse to listen to our own mind out of fear.





posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   


My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests.
~George Santayana



from 'Of Unity' by Francis Bacon:
And certainly it is little better, when atheists, and profane persons, do hear of so many discordant, and contrary opinions in religion; it doth avert them from the church, and maketh them, to sit down in the chair of the scorners. It is but a light thing, to be vouched in so serious a matter, but yet it expresseth well the deformity.
...
A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both?
...
Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning.


I've borrowed words to express my take on what you've said.


It's odd, isn't it--that I would do such a thing?




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Christians convert athiests into Christians, and Christians strive to be like Christ who is God manifested in man, and God acknowledges no deity above God, which by one of the definitions of "Athiest", God fits the definition of Athiest.


Your logic is in error. God does not say only there is no diety above God, it says there is no other besides ME. He is telling man there is no other god, only the one God. There are angels who are masquerading as gods but that is it, besides the silly things we carve or caste or shape and make into gods.

Christians don't convert anything into anything. We just show people the way via His Word. The Holy Ghost (Jesus) convicts them in their hearts to ackknowledge their sin and calls all to repent thru that Work. When they do, they need to have that sin washed away. They do this thru baptism in Jesus name. As an outward sign he accepts them he gives his Spirit (Holy Ghost) to inhabit the new temple of God (Jesus). The outward manifestation is tongues, always has been always will be.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Your logic is in error. God does not say only there is no diety above God, it says there is no other besides ME.


I understand the first commandment says: "I am and you shall worship no God before me." I concede there are variations accepted by many, but i can understand how this could be interpretted as God stating there is no God above God, therefore God acknowledges nothing worth reverencing or worshipping that existed prior to God. God states that God was there when there was nothing else, and God will be there in the end as well, with nothing enthroned higher than God's self.



Christians don't convert anything into anything. We just show people the way via His Word. The Holy Ghost (Jesus) convicts them in their hearts to ackknowledge their sin and calls all to repent thru that Work.


I know and have experienced what you are saying. However, in order to reach people with the truth, you must address what prevents them from obtaining their own truth. And, if you can argue their side better than they can argue their side, then you must also be able to debate for the opposite side just as effectively. Almost everything has an equal opposite, this includes accepted theologies and philisophical ideologies as well.

I'm not at war with the believers.

I'm not at war with the non-believers.

I'm at war with the border between the two.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a Christian cannot convert anybody. That's God's job. If a "Christian" thinks s/he can, guess who s/he is attempting to compete with?

To answer your first question, my subconscious mind didn't know whether or not there was a God, but sided with "what you see is what you get" and was upset that if that was untrue and there was anything beyond the human realm, that it failed to prove itself to me.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Christians don't convert anything into anything. We just show people the way via His Word.

I'm sorry, but that is how I would define conversion. If, due in some part to your actions, say, introducing him/her to the faith, a person converts to a new faith, than you had a hand in his/her conversion.

Back to the original question, I am very split on this issue. It is something that draws a line right through my mind. On one side I am very spiritual, and have to believe that there is something more. I follow the wiccan path, which satisfies me more than any monotheistic religion.

On the other side I hate myself for believing. This is the scientific side, the side that looks at religion in, not disgust, but maybe amusement, thinking myself a bit of a ninny for believing what I do. But then again, Science hasn't disproved it yet, and until it does, I can reconcile the two in my mind, even if it is with difficulty.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackandWhite
Science hasn't disproved it yet, and until it does, I can reconcile the two in my mind, even if it is with difficulty.


Let me take a shot at reconciling this for you, if you'll accept it . . .

The two in our minds.

Humanity collectively thinks with more than 1 mind, but only conscious of the 2.

On one shoulder you have the devil which addresses:

1) What can this do for me? How does this benefit me and the things I care for? How will this add to my control over my existance? The devil represents hate.

On the other shoulder you have the angel which addresses:

2) How can this be detrimental to me? How can this hurt me, or the things I care for? How will this take from me my control over my existance? What will be the negative consequences of my actions? The angel represents fear.

So, your options seem to be only 2. There seem to be only 2 options you are listening to and judging objectively with them all you experience. You think you can either listen to the devil's selfishness, or the angel's fear.

Brush them both off your shoulders, and listen to the brain inbetween the two who both oppose loving the TRUTH!!!!!

Peace,


[edit on 29-12-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
So, I propose we bury in our subconsciousses what it is we truly feel about the paradoxes of monotheism. I propose we actually may be collectively suppressing the paradoxes out of our fear of questioning God.


The term "god" is objectified by the west as if god were some super being external to ourselves. As best we can tell, for most of human history, "god" was the god experience itself, and not presumed to be something external. "god" was communion with life - something western religion has neatly tucked away into a dusty closet and replaced with patently rediculous myths taught as if they were real.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Athiests are souls who do not acknowledge any superior entity or consciousness is worthy of their reverence and worship.
...
Christians goal is to convert those of all faiths and athiests to their religious belief system.


Ugh - yet more "Atheist vs. Christian" claptrap?! Surely you realize these are not the only two alternatives your subconscious will ponder.

You have no choice as to whether you will listen to your subconscious or not - you will. The only choice you have is how long you will try to lie to yourself about the conclusions your subconscious has drawn, and the psychological damage you are willing to incur as a result of such an internal fight.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackandWhite
I'm sorry, but that is how I would define conversion. If, due in some part to your actions, say, introducing him/her to the faith, a person converts to a new faith, than you had a hand in his/her conversion.


The person isn't converting someone else. Which is important, the messenger or the message?


Originally posted by BlackandWhite
Back to the original question, I am very split on this issue. It is something that draws a line right through my mind. On one side I am very spiritual, and have to believe that there is something more. I follow the wiccan path, which satisfies me more than any monotheistic religion.


If you're looking for a religion that satisfies you then you're right, Christianity would not be it.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by BlackandWhite
I'm sorry, but that is how I would define conversion. If, due in some part to your actions, say, introducing him/her to the faith, a person converts to a new faith, than you had a hand in his/her conversion.


The person isn't converting someone else. Which is important, the messenger or the message?


Well, the message. But if the messenger has folded, spindled, and/or mutilated it--well, it's a problem. :shk:



Originally posted by BlackandWhite
Back to the original question, I am very split on this issue. It is something that draws a line right through my mind. On one side I am very spiritual, and have to believe that there is something more. I follow the wiccan path, which satisfies me more than any monotheistic religion.


If you're looking for a religion that satisfies you then you're right, Christianity would not be it.


I don't think religion satisfies God, either--religion is of men and for men:


But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
~John 4:23-24


worship: adore, revere
spirit: a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, the rational soul, vital principle, mental disposition, life, mind
truth: not concealed
religion: ceremonial observance: ritual, superstition

Spam is absolutely correct:


The term "god" is objectified by the west as if god were some super being external to ourselves. As best we can tell, for most of human history, "god" was the god experience itself, and not presumed to be something external. "god" was communion with life - something western religion has neatly tucked away into a dusty closet and replaced with patently rediculous myths taught as if they were real.


There is a saying in the east, that the west is too 'materialistic.' They do not mean that we love our SUV's and cell phones too much--what they are saying is that we feel we must personify and materialize God in order to connect with all that is God. Probably they also refer to our tendency to narrow our holy literature down to one and only one book that is misused simultaneously as a history textbook and a Sears & Roebuck Wish Book.

But the westerners condemn the eastern philosophies as 'heathen'--maybe because they look within for God and also to nature--or maybe because they refuse to hoarde God and so say 'Diety' instead of something else--maybe it's because they don't fight over Diety and who Diety loves the best--OR maybe it's because they seem to have found the 'peace that passeth understanding.'



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
From the Gospel of John:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
______________________________________

I think this sums it up. Religion will never save you. When it comes to Christianity, only the Christ can save you. This is according to the Bible. The subconsious always tries to confim God. In just living your life, your heart is always searching for something more. Does it not?

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Well, the message. But if the messenger has folded, spindled, and/or mutilated it--well, it's a problem. :shk:


Agreed.


Originally posted by queenannie38
I don't think religion satisfies God, either--religion is of men and for men:


I'm going by the word religion as defined by the dictionary, not corporate corruption, as a lot of people here like to define it. If you'd like to write to Merriam Webster and have them say otherwise, I'll start changing my words.

www.m-w.com...


But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
~John 4:23-24


Nothing to argue about here, it's true.


Originally posted by queenannie38
There is a saying in the east, that the west is too 'materialistic.' They do not mean that we love our SUV's and cell phones too much--what they are saying is that we feel we must personify and materialize God in order to connect with all that is God. Probably they also refer to our tendency to narrow our holy literature down to one and only one book that is misused simultaneously as a history textbook and a Sears & Roebuck Wish Book.


I'm not sure what you're referring to in the personification, nor know why you'll quote the Bible and then say it's not comprehensive as it is established to be.


Originally posted by queenannie38
But the westerners condemn the eastern philosophies as 'heathen'--maybe because they look within for God and also to nature--or maybe because they refuse to hoarde God and so say 'Diety' instead of something else--maybe it's because they don't fight over Diety and who Diety loves the best--OR maybe it's because they seem to have found the 'peace that passeth understanding.'


God's first commandment is? It's reiterated throughout the Book what it is and why.


[edit on 30-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

From the Gospel of John:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
______________________________________

I think this sums it up. Religion will never save you. When it comes to Christianity, only the Christ can save you. This is according to the Bible.


But that's often served in an incomplete way and so it is totally misunderstood by those being served. I'm not sure what you meant in saying


When it comes to Christianity


Christianity, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the way, the truth, or the life! Just by waving the banner of 'Christ and Him crucified' doesn't amount to the same thing as the 'gospel of reconciliation.' Salvation is accomplished--now is the time to declare such and therefore encourage 'reconciliation.'


Jesus said unto her,
I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Believest thou this?
~John 11:25-26


Jesus said:

I AM
the way
the truth
the resurrection
the life


The path He forged for us to follow, through dying in His mortal being and then appearing as alive to the disciples: that is the 'way.' The only way to be with God (who is pure Spirit) is through a resurrected spirit--not a resurrected physical body (which is not a valid idea) or an idea of some certain religious doctrine being mandatory. The 'truth' is that we have been restored the very thing that Adam lost in the garden: spiritual awareness--which is necessary to be truly alive.

Jesus restored this for us--it is already restored--the fact remains that we are largely ignorant of what is possible through this misunderstood concept of 'salvation.' It was restored for every single one of us--it does not depend on Christianity but rather on the name of Christ. And that name represents a truth, not a person. The cross is the same representation: the place where man and God intersect and re-unite.

Lazarus was not 'resurrected'--he was 'restored' to his material existence ('life') when Jesus called him forth from the grave ('death'). But the call to us is to be restored to spiritual existence. From death to life.


The subconsious always tries to confim God. In just living your life, your heart is always searching for something more. Does it not?


I think that is true. Many maybe don't realize what it is they search for, but we all search until we find what we need.

The subconscious (id), perhaps, realizes it is revived, but it cannot override the ego; which does not recognize that life is not bound by material reality and condemned by the death of the flesh. That is why we have a 'superego'--subconscious being below the ego and superego being above all.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm going by the word religion as defined by the dictionary, not corporate corruption, as a lot of people here like to define it. If you'd like to write to Merriam Webster and have them say otherwise, I'll start changing my words.

www.m-w.com...

I was using my Strong's concordance as a reference for the word religion found in the following verses:
Acts 17:22, 25:19, and 26:5; Colossians 2:23; James 1:26-27.

While I do actually have a severe fetish for all dictionaries, I prefer not to use our currently accepted definitions for modern vocabulary to define the biblical message. Language changes over time, and 2000 years is a long time.


I'm not sure what you're referring to in the personification, nor know why you'll quote the Bible and then say it's not comprehensive as it is established to be.


Well, it depends upon how one feels that comprehensiveness is established. For me, it is being established through literal experience and then is found supported in scripture.

Many find the words then seek out the experience. But that is misleading--and it goes along with the idea that the bible has 'been established as truth.' Establishment is personal, not publicly sanctioned.

We are to seek first true 'righteousness' then what follows establishes the truth.


God's first commandment is? It's reiterated throughout the Book what it is and why.


And how is 'seeking within one's self' for God a violation of the first commandment?

Especially when Christ, Himself, said:


And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come,
he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
And he said unto the disciples,
The days will come,
when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man,
and ye shall not see it.
And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there:
go not after them, nor follow them.
~Luke 17:20-23


If someone finds God by searching quietly within self--yet has a different name for God--and then begins to demonstrate a love for others that is pure and unselfish in all that they do--and gives up attachment to material comforts and transient worldly wealth in favor of serving others with true humble generosity--what God did they find?!?



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
I was using my Strong's concordance


Can you elaborate please?


Originally posted by queenannie38
as a reference for the word religion found in the following verses:
Acts 17:22,


Hehe, gotta love Paul. You should see how he "boasts"




25:19, and 26:5;


The priests and elders talk about Paul and his religion, which involves the living Christ...which according to Christ is what is approved of.



Colossians 2:23;


Sorry, don't see the word "religion" here at all nor the definition thereof.



James 1:26-27.


James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts is as pure and faultless is this..."

It looks to me that God does favor a religion does He not?


Originally posted by queenannie38
While I do actually have a severe fetish for all dictionaries, I prefer not to use our currently accepted definitions for modern vocabulary to define the biblical message. Language changes over time, and 2000 years is a long time.


Sure, we can look at roots to be sure.


Originally posted by queenannie38
Well, it depends upon how one feels that comprehensiveness is established. For me, it is being established through literal experience and then is found supported in scripture.

Many find the words then seek out the experience. But that is misleading--and it goes along with the idea that the bible has 'been established as truth.' Establishment is personal, not publicly sanctioned.


The Word can be verified by experience if that's what you're saying, and yes it is an established truth. It can also be trusted, and thereby tested. Give it a go sometime if you haven't already.


Originally posted by queenannie38
We are to seek first true 'righteousness' then what follows establishes the truth.


Or you could do it the other way. To-may-to, to-mah-to. There are some who find the truth in the Word and apply it to find righteousness. It requires more faith, but can be done.


Originally posted by queenannie38
And how is 'seeking within one's self' for God a violation of the first commandment?


Didn't say it was. I do know seeking or accepting nature as god is in violation of the first commandment. Perhaps I misunderstood.


Originally posted by queenannie38
Especially when Christ, Himself, said:


And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come,
he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
And he said unto the disciples,
The days will come,
when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man,
and ye shall not see it.
And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there:
go not after them, nor follow them.
~Luke 17:20-23


If someone finds God by searching quietly within self--yet has a different name for God--and then begins to demonstrate a love for others that is pure and unselfish in all that they do--and gives up attachment to material comforts and transient worldly wealth in favor of serving others with true humble generosity--what God did they find?!?


Not sure, are they John 3:16? The Bible makes it clear that it matters not what you do but what you believe in your heart that gives a person eternal life. Cross-reference John 6:47 & Ephesians 2:8-9


[edit on 30-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
From Acts 4:

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the . of the corner.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
____________________________

Christ rose physically from the dead in order to defeat death. We are not restored but renewed. We are a new creation. The old Adamic creation will pass away. Christ is the second Adam and God demands acceptance in His name to be redeemed from the curse of the law which is death. God cannot be found under any other name but in Christ alone according to the Bible. I know this irks a lot of people trying to find God but Jesus is the only way. To be a Christian means to follow in the footsteps of Christs as best we know how to do according to the word of God.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Summary:

Christians convert athiests into Christians, and Christians strive to be like Christ who is God manifested in man, and God acknowledges no deity above God, which by one of the definitions of "Athiest", God fits the definition of Athiest.

Athiest turned into monothiestic follower who is trying to be like one who is an athiest.

I think one of religions greatest conspiracies is us and how we refuse to listen to our own mind out of fear.



I decided to make this reply my first post on ATS, after many months of reading posts for hours upon end. I really feel that I could not disagree with you more regarding your notion that God is an Atheist.

According to M-W.COM...

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


You can't simply state that God is an Atheist because he doesn't believe in any other deities... He *IS* the deity. You really can't tack on an adjective that describes human beliefs of supreme beings to the supreme being itself. You are attempting to personify something that isn't a person. Would you consider any human being Omniscient or Omnipotent? Thus, you can not consider any deity Atheistic.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by PoliticsAndWine]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by queenannie38
I was using my Strong's concordance


Can you elaborate please?

Huh?

You know--Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. A font of valuble definitions of Hebrew and Koine Greek as used in scripture.



Originally posted by queenannie38
as a reference for the word religion found in the following verses:
Acts 17:22,


Hehe, gotta love Paul. You should see how he "boasts"

Certainly, but when one gets to the point of truly understanding what he's saying--one realizes the nature of his 'boasting.'




25:19, and 26:5;


The priests and elders talk about Paul and his religion, which involves the living Christ...which according to Christ is what is approved of.


In 25:19, the 'religion' is their own, not Paul's. And the word used is one that means 'superstition:'


G1175--δεισιδαιμονία--deisidaimonia:
religion: - superstition.


In 26:5 they are referring to the Judaic religion, Paul's former religion:


G2356--θρησκεία--thrēskeia
ceremonial observance: - religion, worshipping.


Neither one of these types of 'religions', by definition or context, is referring to

the living Christ...which according to Christ is what is approved of.





Colossians 2:23;


Sorry, don't see the word "religion" here at all nor the definition thereof.



~Colossians 2:23 These things have the appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, humility, and harsh treatment of the body, but they have no value against self-indulgence. (ISV)

~Colossians 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)


The 'religion' there is:


G1479--ἐθελοθρησκεία--ethelothrēskeia
From G2309 and G2356; voluntary (arbitrary and unwarranted) piety, that is, sanctimony: - will worship.





James 1:26-27.


James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts is as pure and faultless is this..."

It looks to me that God does favor a religion does He not?


Certainly. One that is 'pure and faultless.' One that is, as Paul says: 'not in word, but in power.'

The key word is 'seem' in verse 26 of the KJV, rendered 'think' in the ISV:


G1380--δοκέω--dokeō
A prolonged form of a primary verb δόκω dokō (used only as an alternate in certain tenses; compare the base of G1166); of the same meaning; to think; by implication to seem (truthfully or uncertainly): - be accounted, (of own) please (-ure), be of reputation, seem (good), suppose, think, trow.


James is saying that if we think (in either true ignorance or in a self-deceptive fashion) that we are 'religious' but yet we cannot keep from offending others with the words given life by our tongues (those evil 'little members') then we need to do a self-check. And he then gives some guidelines for the self-appraisal. And these have nothing to do with observances, ritual, or any sort of pious display for the benefit of self or others. They are all about a purity of heart (singularity of intent: which is love) and the literal demonstration of that purity (by serving others in true charity--giving all that can be given). This concept has nothing to do with preaching, teaching, or anything else of a vocal nature. It is about doing. Taking action to both relieve suffering of others, which acts indirectly to effectively spread the gospel message, instead of using words to distort it or to cause it to render little effect regarding the trustworthiness of God and His promises now fulfilled.



Originally posted by queenannie38
While I do actually have a severe fetish for all dictionaries, I prefer not to use our currently accepted definitions for modern vocabulary to define the biblical message. Language changes over time, and 2000 years is a long time.


Sure, we can look at roots to be sure.

What good is the tree if you don't realize the life is supported by the roots?

The bible was not written in English, and I know you know this. Neither was the English language exactly the same 50 years ago as it is today. When my mom was young 'gay' meant happy and when my dad was in the service 'fag' meant cigarette!

In the case of religion and what it meant according to the bible, actually nothing has changed--the word still means what it did then. However that is the crucial understanding that is missed--what it meant then, how it was used by those who wrote it down to convey their meaning, and how that relates to the current situation between man and God.

Religion was not recommended in the bible--by those who left us their understandings of truth they were given by God--including Christ.


The Word can be verified by experience if that's what you're saying, and yes it is an established truth. It can also be trusted, and thereby tested. Give it a go sometime if you haven't already.


Hello? !? You're not hearing me over the din of your own thoughts. If what is read is misunderstood and misrepresented, then surely the experiences might be subject to same. And I know that they are, because without any knowledge of either the mistaken ideas or the actual ideas, I had the experiences. And then it became increasingly clear how they were described in the bible--and they are not what I see in those that claim the same. And I know my experiences were true and were from God, because they were subsequently revealed in scripture--and I rarely see evidence of those scriptures being recognized for what they are, and I see a lot of other ones made into something they are not.
Also, I did the few things actually required: I trusted in God, was baptized in the name of the three as testimony of believing Christ to be the risen Son of the Living God and to clear my conscience so I could 'turn away from the world toward God' (read: repent). I was 8 years old so I didn't get into a whole lot of stuff I didn't understand or truly even care about. I did what I read I was supposed to do.
And then I followed those acts with a simple goal of loving other people. I didn't judge. I just shared of myself and did anything I could in order to be able to understand others--because once you understand a person and why they might do things that might seemed aimed to hurt you, you realize that they are human like yourself and the obstacles that prevent us from truly loving other people are dissolved. You quit taking things personal and you no longer are offended by others. I always shared (of actual 'stuff') what I had with anyone in need or even anyone who just asked. And I never ever once actually acted on revenge (although in my mind I did--but although technically the same thing--it served as therapy and prevention until I learned the nature of revenge and why it is a no-no--and no longer needed the help of the mental 'sin' of revenge).

And in the end--I got so much and it was quite a surprise, I can't describe how astounded I was--and all along I thought I already had all I needed--which was obedience and trust. I was happy already but not complete. However I didn't have a sense of incompleteness, either.



Originally posted by queenannie38
We are to seek first true 'righteousness' then what follows establishes the truth.


Or you could do it the other way. To-may-to, to-mah-to. There are some who find the truth in the Word and apply it to find righteousness. It requires more faith, but can be done.


Then why did Christ say these words:


~Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


If one does not experience God's righteousness first, how can they truthfully apply it themselves? It cannot be done. The faith required is given by God, through Christ--and it is not 'belief in Christ' but rather the fulfillment of the law as Christ did, all on His own without our help. The 'faith' was the responsibility of the trust given by God that rested upon His shoulders. We are to believe that He fulfilled these things--that His faith is sufficient in our weakness--our weakness is what makes us unable to contribute anything to our own cause.




Didn't say it was. I do know seeking or accepting nature as god is in violation of the first commandment. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I think you must have--since when did I say 'seeking or accepting nature as god?' I said 'seeking within one's self.'
Although looking to nature and realizing God is the force behind all natural function is a totally different thing that worshipping the function instead of the force. To see God in nature and to worship God is not to worship nature.
The philosophies that I was referring to also specifically point to nature as delusion the same as ego is delusion. They say essentially the same thing as we read about in Elijah's experience with the 'still small voice' and in Christ's warning to the disciples, which I cited.


Not sure, are they John 3:16?


How do you mean? Are they the 'world?' Or do they 'believe' in the truth, the way, and the life?

For purposes of discernment I gave the following descriptors:


  • If someone finds God by searching quietly within self
  • demonstrates a love for others that is pure and unselfish in all that they do
  • gives up attachment to material comforts and transient worldly wealth in
  • favor of serving others with true humble generosity


Do those things not tell you all you need to know, in order to discern? Is it discernment you are seeking, or judgment? If it is discernment, what is the purpose in that for you--since you have already found your path to God and are happy and progressing on it?


The Bible makes it clear that it matters not what you do but what you believe in your heart that gives a person eternal life. Cross-reference John 6:47 & Ephesians 2:8-9


As far as John 6:47--these words spoken by a living man named Jesus but what we are to believe in is all about Christ--as in the Christ who was the resurrection, life, way, truth, etc...

Paul clarifies with:


~2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


To say one must believe in the person of Jesus is not the same thing as the essential trust placed in Christ--and I daresay that He doesn't care what you verbally call Him--He searches the hearts and minds of men and knows they who are calling to Him. Without a doubt. And so it is not for us to make qualifying rules of our own device--based upon linguistics and mental conceptions. Truth is always truth, life is always alive, and love is love no matter what you call it.
Same thing for Christ. His identity does not depend on human nomenclature.

Ephesians 2:8-9 has nothing to do with either what we believe or what we do.


~Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.


It is completely and absolutely speaking about what Christ did, not what we think or believe about what He did.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing queenannie, but two different ways perhaps. If we got into a war of semantics, let me strike my colors and wave a white flag, you've clearly won that. I don't know Hebrew or Greek (yet), but I did a whole lot of nodding reading your post. Does that mean I'm missing the context of the Bible? I think it's validation that I do understand the bible, if a more studied scholar is explaining and I'm nodding in agreement. Yes?

I still don't think you and spamandham were saying the same thing though.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing queenannie, but two different ways perhaps.

I'm not sure. However, if you can grasp the concept of the same thing being said two different ways, then we are getting somewhere, no doubt.


If we got into a war of semantics, let me strike my colors and wave a white flag, you've clearly won that.

Please put that flag down! Because I fly no flag and fight no wars with human beings. Especially when it comes to semantics--that would be outright bullying.


But seriously--semantics is something that must be overcome rather than a weapon applied to something that's already won the battle--and I specifically refer to 'truth.' We don't realize the victory has been accomplished--we are Don Quixotes dashing willy-nilly toward communal windmills that provide the same water to all people.

Semantics have far more to do with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than the tree of life.


Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus
Semantics:
1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning
2 a) SEMIOTICS b) the branch of semiotics dealing with relationships of signs and symbols to the things to which they refer, or with referential meaning
3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of their interpreters; notional meaning
4 loosely, deliberate distortion or twisting of meaning, as in some types of advertising, propaganda, etc.


I try to present my understandings of the bible--which are of the nature of (#2, above), in a way that is as objective as possible through attempting to clarify ideas (#3) by comparing (#1) of 2000 years ago compared to now--and I often also include comparison of (#4).

Your example of 'to-may-to or to-mah-to?' is perhaps more fully applicable in this expanded sense:

Regardless of which one is preferred
--and BTW I prefer 'to-may-to'
--
a tomato is still a tomato: an edible red, green, or yellow, pulpy fruit that is produced by an annual of the nightshade family, and although used as a vegetable, it is botanically a 'berry,' with a mildly acidic flavor.

It also doesn't matter if the name used to identify that certain thing is:
tomate, tomaat, 토마토, томат, ντομάτα, or pomodoro.

It doesn't even matter if we are able recognize 'tomato' in one or more of those words...

The tomato remains unchanged--it is ever a tomato in all its true tomato-ness.
The flavor does not change, either. But the flavor more than likely would cause more difficulty when it comes to semantics, languages, and cultures--because individual perception combined with personal experience is now factored into the attempt to describe something we all are equally familiar with. A picture is indeed worth a 1000 words (or more!) And even with a mental or photographic image, it might be a Roma, Cherry, or Big Boy tomato--who knows?

Yet it is still a tomato.

Do you see what I am saying, with all that--as it relates to God, the world, and the truth of Christ?

The truth of Christ is
LOVE:
this is unconditional and includes friends, family, neighbors, and enemies alike
and
UNITY with GOD:

God's love for His creation and the instrument through which we have all been reconciled to God.
Once again, unconditional and inclusive of friends, family, neighbors, and enemies alike.

A covenant is a contract between two parties--and the adherence is mandatory. The New Covenant is between God and Christ (on our behalf). The agreement has been permanently and perfectly met by both parties.

The Old Covenant was for the express purpose of demonstrating why the New Covenant would be after a different fashion--not between man and God directly but through a mediator, who is Christ.

It was a no-fail plan and we don't need to wait for success---what we need to do is acknowledge that success! The acknowledgement will bring about the manifestation, guaranteed.


I don't know Hebrew or Greek (yet), but I did a whole lot of nodding reading your post. Does that mean I'm missing the context of the Bible?

That has nothing to do with it other than you are on the right track. The context of the bible is the meaning of life. Which are, as I said: LOVE and UNITY with GOD.

You are associating religion with the bible--and while I understand that your idea of religion is not necessarily the same as what is meant in the bible--it is still deeply rooted in the idea of names and identification with Christ in name.
And the bottom line is that even christianity is something that both divides and is full of division within itself.

Division prevents Unity.

If you have some idea of the world eventually converting to christianity in order to fulfill the things that are to be--you are going to be sorely disappointed. It will never happen. It is not even applicable and it was never the plan. Its very nature prevents the progress we should all be making. And I'm not pointing fingers just at you, or christianity--and in no way should you think I am denying Christ or what He is. Division is a guaranteed product of religion, but spirituality leads to Unity. What did Paul say?
'Is Christ divided?'
Is christianity divided?
Since the answers do not reconcile--one or both may be incorrect. The choice should be simple, presented that way, that is, if we can get beyond the illusion of the limits we impose upon ourselves--from our propensity to use labels to define and limit rather than describe.


I think it's validation that I do understand the bible, if a more studied scholar is explaining and I'm nodding in agreement. Yes?

Well, I wouldn't call myself a scholar, by any means, nor do I think that agreement with what I say validates your own understanding. That's precisely my point, here. It's not about me and you and God. It's about you and God. And it's about me and God. And when it's all said and done it will be about all of us and God. But we can't get to the group thing until we go through the solitary part first. And the group thing will still not be religion--it will just be the life that we will be living when all things have been restored.


I still don't think you and spamandham were saying the same thing though.

Well, maybe not in the sense you are thinking of. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the things he says--I do. He doesn't just speak to validate his own beliefs (something which I see in both atheists and christians all the time). What he says should cause the reader to think critically, and I feel that is what he mainly intends with his posts. Just like me.

The sad thing is that both of us are probably frequently written off as not having any source of viable truth, by many that we might be potentially addressing, since neither one of us proclaims to be a christian in any sense of the word. If 'atheist' was defined by 'a refusal to believe in christianity' then he and I are equally atheists. And I sometimes get the feeling that if not for christianity, atheism wouldn't be an issue for anyone.


The term "god" is objectified by the west as if god were some super being external to ourselves.


I agree with Spam--this is exactly what I see in religion, too--underneath all the hype and confused semantics.


As best we can tell, for most of human history, "god" was the god experience itself, and not presumed to be something external.

How else can it be? Anything else is 'personification' and is basically an image we form in our minds and then place outside of ourselves. If we seek, we will find. And we'll never even have to open our eyes.


"god" was communion with life

And still is--although that's been discarded as nonsense somewhere along the way. Idolatry has ensued with vigor.


- something western religion has neatly tucked away into a dusty closet and replaced with patently rediculous myths taught as if they were real.

While I feel that what Spam calls 'myth' and what I conceive 'myth' to be are different--beyond that I agree with what he is saying--I don't let the semantics throw me off because I understand his point.

The bible is real and true, but as used by christianity it is turned into fiction by various factors and its value is almost completely obscured and definitely disrespected--by both those who accept the fiction and those that reject it. The problem isn't the bible, itself, but rather the distortion into which our our perceptions of 'real and true' have evolved. The resulting confusion leads to even more distortion by trying to 'prove' en masse what can only be 'proven' individually and privately.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join