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.

 

Do soldiers end up in hell?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Everyone is born with sin so It dosn't make a diferance, as long as you admit it, stop, and then beg for forgiveness.
[edit on 10-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]


Everyone is born with sin? solve the problem, stop creating humans of life... no more sin. whahaaaa

".....as long as you admit it, stop, and then beg for forgiveness." sounds like the human race was created for the sole purpose of worshipping and begging forgiveness from God.

I don't want my children to be born with sin and to beg for forgiveness their whole lives, what kind of a world is that?... so stop breeding..yay




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
So,
First, I volunteer to go to a camp where they teach me the best way to kill. They teach me to jab a man's eyes out, then tear off his testicles. Then they show me how to snipe a man from 50-100 yards. Then they show me how to configure a missile to launch from a very remote location to another location even further away.

Then I go to war, and do exactly what I'm trained to do.

Self defense? Even in an offensive war?


It pays my bills at least.
Although we never learned anything about tearing people's testicles off, that's usually the kinda actions the "bad guys" do.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Yeah, that whole born with original sin thing is such an obvious attempt to keep people subserviant to the Church. It's rediculous how easy some people fall for it.

The same way people fall for the "If you don't kill arabs they'll take our freedom" thing
I give that over to weak mindedness and lack of critical thinking.

People never bother to question whether the people telling them this info have anything to gain from it.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panzeroth
Although we never learned anything about tearing people's testicles off, that's usually the kinda actions the "bad guys" do.


I have a Marine hand to hand combat training video that shows how to do just that. Complete with the lines of trainees, beefy dude in the front yelling "good to go" and people running around training in the background.

Are you a US Marine? Are there any marines out there who can attest to this?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
oh wow what a question. well, firstly, what is hell? can we grasp what it is or might be? What is wrong or right? Can we look at one persons actions and know what is in their heart?

No we cannot. I cannot answer this question because as a Christian, I do not judge. Seems to me, this answer relies upon some kind of judgement. All I know is that I sleep soundly in my bed at night because my Brother and my deceased boyfriend fought tooth and nail to ensure and uphold all that is good in society. We tend to become this asshole audience that throws judgement during or after the event.

The huge amount of post traumatic stress out there, seems majority of those who have served their country are already living breathing hell. OMG I can imagine the uproar if you were to go into an RSL club and ask this. Those young men & women fought and died to serve their people and country. I dont think selfishness comes into it.

So disrespectful.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
I cannot answer this question because as a Christian, I do not judge. Seems to me, this answer relies upon some kind of judgement. All I know is that I sleep soundly in my bed at night because my Brother and my deceased boyfriend fought tooth and nail to ensure and uphold all that is good in society.


Sounds to me like a bit of a contradiction. As a Christian you can't judge others, yet you've already judged the "enemy" as being aginst all that is good. Is it the soldier who decides what is good in society? Is it the soldiers commander? The Commander in Chief? Do any of these people have a direct with God?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   


So you haven't really answered my question..all you've told me is that I should be grateful for the armed forces for protecting me..

exactly. However as you seem to have missed the point I will clarify for you.

This is for All the fallen Military personell in what ever action. The Principal actor in the story can be of any branch of the Military. They all "stand Guard at the Gates" awaiting the final recall. I choose a Marine because it was a Marine when I first heard it and
My Father is a retired "lifer' combat Marine.

There was , in a land far from his home, a Marine LCpl. posted in a small village. He had lived with the people for some time and became close with them, helping and sharing with and in their daily lives.

A day came, as it always does. The Village was attacked. This Marine gave his life
defending his friends, the people of the village. When at last he died he took with him 13 of the attackers. He was laid to rest by his friends and ultimately appeared
before St. Peter at the pearly gates. Upon being questioned by St. Peter as to who he was, He simply replied,
" One Marine Reporting Sir, I've Done my Time in HELL".


For those here that have never been in combat, never had a buddy killed right next to you, never smelled the smell of blood,guts,excrement, and death, never heard
the cries of your mates as they die so you can live. I have but one hope and that is that you never have to experience it.

I also have a very strong suggestion. " If you havent been there, KEEP YOUR F***** MOUTH."




Simple fact is that it's no person's right to choose whether someone lives or dies. If you believe in God, then you must believe that he put everyone on this earth for a purpose,


I would have to disagree. There are 3 things on this earth that serve no useful purpose.
1. the T***** on a nun
2. the B**** on a priest
3. PISSANTS.




Is that stated in the bible,

the "bible " is just another collection of myths and faery tales just like the stories of the Brothers Grimm and the Grail Romances although the latter are probably more historically accurate.




a soldier by the very definition of the word is one who has been through hell.

You have voted Esoteric Teacher for the Way Above Top Secret award.

nuf said




Are you a US Marine? Are there any marines out there who can attest to this?


My Father is a Retired Marine, he retired in 1958. I spent 3 years in MjROTC in high school and grew up on a marine base and Around Retired and Active duty Marines.

The method of which you speak is not limited to The Corps. It is also taught in the USAF and several forms of martial arts. It is a useful method for breaking a choke hold, as is ripping the nostrels of your opponent.

A useful thing to remember is


There aint no such thing as a fair fight. There is only a winner and a loser. If you in the right it dont make a damn how you win . just make sure you in the right.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
For the most part I agree with you Stalking Wolf. If one fights for Dharma, or honor, then they have done what is right. If it means killing to save the life of others, than they should be honored as heroes.

The problem is when the Bible comes into play, and yo have a bunch of people who read one thing as the word of God, then pick and choose what's right. Then rely on society to tell them if they are right, rather than the God they worship.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yeah, that whole born with original sin thing is such an obvious attempt to keep people subserviant to the Church.

Or was it a statement on man being fundamentally, a sinner? That there's something wrong with the physical world and that man needs to make an effort to be virtuous?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
If it were simply a matter of the physical world being flawed, and working toward virtue, then there would be no need for the baptismal or for the hourly repentance.

And, though the physical world is a dismal place, the birth of a soul is the birth of a clean slate. Turning the clean slate into a filthy sinning entity is a means of control. This is especially true with the concept of Papal infalacy compared to the flawed birth of man in the eyes of God, the church.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by twisted_fate
After all, they kill people people for a living, sometimes on a daily basic, does that mean they're going to hell for following the orders of someone else? or does God simply forgive them?




The Bible is clear that a person goes to hell because they have not received Christ as Savior.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I do know that christans were feed to lions crucified and blamed for the fire at Rome. That does not justify any killings for religious purposes. I thank the main religious wars are either waged by christans Ex. the Crusades or Muslims with the non stop Sunni, Shia violence that has went on for hundreds of years.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
If it were simply a matter of the physical world being flawed, and working toward virtue, then there would be no need for the baptismal or for the hourly repentance.

As a magical ritual the performance of which alone 'washes' away sin, I agree, it wouldn't make sense. BUT, as a symbolic ritual the reaffirms a persons dedication to a sense of what is right beyond the material world, I think it does work (work within the theoretical sytstem, I am not saying that I personally beleive that it phsyically works or not).


And, though the physical world is a dismal place, the birth of a soul is the birth of a clean slate. Turning the clean slate into a filthy sinning entity is a means of control.

But humans are mostly filthy sinning entities. Just look around the world. Even if its presented as a non-alignment with Dharma, most people are out of alignment with Dharma, a person has to work for it, they don't have it automatically. This is similar to the concept of original sin, you aren't 'born' sinless, you must work for it, you aren't born with a natural effortless ability to act in accordance with dharma, you don't even know what dharma is in the begining, you have to, ultimately, work for it.


This is especially true with the concept of Papal infalacy compared to the flawed birth of man in the eyes of God, the church.

Papal infallibility, I think, tends to get a bad rep. One the one hand (that'd be the bloody hand that orders the crusades and the burning of heretics), papal infallibility has done some bad stuff and I suppose deserves a bad rep.
But really though, papal infallibility doesn't mean that the pope is allways right on all things.
The basic problem with religion is, 'who is the true teacher' and who determines what to do beyond what is in any scripture or previous tradition and how? The idea of Apostolic Succession is that Jesus was perfected, and he selected the proper agent to act as the organ of revelation of divine will to the church structure itself. THat position is passed along to the line of popes because Jesus picked peter, which was, by definition, 'correct', and then peter picked his successors, and then the whole system was built up from that. So there's that original perfected decision being pushed along the whole line.
Working along side of all of that is the sense that God, in the end, didn't go through the crucifixtion/passion (or whatever the significant act in any particular religion, if you want to think of other religions in the same way) for people to forget about it or mess up their understanding. So he created a system which people could recognize as an authority on theological matters. That authority (and what else can the instrument of an omnipotent creator god be other than, by definition, by the act of being that instrument, an authority) seeks the will of god through prayer/meditation/reflection, and then relates that to the beleiving public. Its only on those matters that the pope is accepted as infallible, and indeed, it is a rational (well, as rational as religious matters can be) position.


dbrandt
The Bible is clear that a person goes to hell because they have not received Christ as Savior.

The bible talks about bodies being physically ressurected from the grave when the second comming occurs, and then everyone being judged. THe ones with their names in teh book of life physically ascend into the sky, and the ones that aren't in the book, presumably those who haven't accepted christ, are put into the 'lake of fire'. That does not mean that they are sent to hell, with the devil, demons, and permanent eternal torture.If anything, it sounds like complete obliteration of that soul. Think about it. Even if we change it from physical bodies to a matter of sending immaterial souls one way or another, it still makes more sense as annihilation. Souls are created and put into the body via ensoulment, ie, they don't pre-exist, they exist when the person is conceived/born/after the third trimester/whatever. Some are permanently saved, up in heaven, and others are simply blotted out, back into the nothingness that they were before hand.

Realistically, it'd be disgusting for god to permanently and eternally punish people that don't accept christ, by phsyically torturing them, and utterly pointless no? I mean, what motivation for accepting christ is really needed, other than the desire to be in accord with the supreme god, no? What does permanent physical punishement really add? If a person beleives in god, they want to follow his will, because they recognize that he is god, not because they recognize he is god, don't care, but are wary of physical punishment, no?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Nygdan,
I see your point, but I believe the concept itself is flawed (of course I do, otherwise I'd believe in it). Since it's Original Sin we're talking about, I'll keep that example. I believe the flaw lies in the inheritance of sin. It's understandable that one would aquire sin through one's life. The world is a dirty rotten place, that is agreed. However, making one sinful from birth, can not serve any purpose other than to make one reliant on a third party to wash away your sins. And, even if yo live a life completely free of sin (unlikely, but possible) you would still be required to report to a third party to absolve you of a sin that you have not commited, thus making the faithful completely subservient.

Karm, and Dharma work a little differently. Everyone is born with a clean slate (Jivatman). Though there may be difficulties in this life based on Karmic reprocussions of a past life, one can still live without sin in this life. When one passes on, and the Jivatman is reunited with the Paramatman, and the soul is whole. At this point the soul can go back and remember all of the sins enacted in every life. But also, the individual soul isn't held responsible, and punished for actions taken in this life in the eternal way that it is in J-C beliefs. It's rather used as a learning experience, and is always balanced.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Nygdan,
You are exactly right. The soul that sins, it shall die. It is against God's nature to forever torture someone for errors, even if the errors were intentional. God knew we were sinners and sent The Anointed to save us from sin so we could have our relationship with God restored. Eternal torment doesn't make any sense on so many levels. How can someone (or something) burn up FOREVER? You'd think it would eventually get consumed and be gone with nothing left to burn up. Why would eternal punishment be required for, say, smoking in the boys room? Doesn't the punishment (even of fallen mortal man) fit the crime?
When the Savior returns to start His kingdom on earth, no man will say "know the Lord for all will know the Lord". We will be given 1000 years (total, maybe not to each individually) for correction and instruction and if, after the alloted time for our instruction and correction, we WILLFULLY choose to disobey God, knowing full well the consequences then the consequences will be death of our soul. Oblivion. We won't know anything or be aware of anything; we won't BE.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I believe the concept itself is flawed (of course I do, otherwise I'd believe in it).



[quiote] However, making one sinful from birth, can not serve any purpose other than to make one reliant on a third party to wash away your sins.
But how is this any different from a system where its dharma rather than sin? Arjuna wouldn't have realized his basic error if it wasn't for Khrishna, and certainly, just as much as the semitc 'sin' culture has generated a preistly class and a church, so has the 'cosmic law' culture of places like india.


Karm, and Dharma work a little differently. Everyone is born with a clean slate (Jivatman). Though there may be difficulties in this life based on Karmic reprocussions of a past life, one can still live without sin in this life. [/quiote]
But you are still punished for past life offenses, if anything its more unjust, because its saying that the person is technically blameless, and yet still punished for their status. Whereas the other situation at least say, yes, you are stained, beleive and baptise, and you are clean.


whitewave
How can someone (or something) burn up FOREVER? You'd think it would eventually get consumed and be gone with nothing left to burn up

Plus, in the bible, the apocalypse doesn't bring about the end of the world, it brings about judgement, the segregation of the saved from the non-saved, the 'beast' (which can be taken as the devil) is locked up in 'the pit' (not necessarily hell for that matter, since the damned go to the lake of fire, and the beast into the pit), even leviathan is destroy, then god inagurates a millenial reign of jesus as earthly king. THEN, after that reign, god destroys the universe in a final cataclysm, he destroys the world, the pit, the lake of fire, everything, except, of course, the heavenly realm, which is the sole realm.

So even if 'the lake of fire and pit' are metaphors for a hell ruled by the devil filled with tortured souls, god still destroys it, at the end of the universe.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It's true that churches and higher classes have taken advantage of these books. And I think that the caste system that has been formed in India is not what was implied by the Rig Veda. It was just used by those who were corrupt to gain and maintain power.

As for Dharma and Karma, it seems to make sense, and have a more practical purpose that Original Sin. While OS places the sin directly on the soul, and leaves the faithful in a state where they can live a good life, and still go to hell, Karma gives an explaination as to why life sucks, and why you shouldn't take it personally because if you're a good person, good things will happen later. And the key being the lack of an overseeing church in the later.

again, just my beliefs.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   


But really though, papal infallibility doesn't mean that the pope is allways right on all things.

Yet according to the tenets of the RCC and its followers that is exactly what it means.

For Myself I agree with George Bernard Shaw,

"Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
George Bernard Shaw"


another aside, it seems that nothing has been mentioned here in reference to R Jeshua's
speaking not only of the soul but the spirit also, two seperate entities.

comments?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yeah, that whole born with original sin thing is such an obvious attempt to keep people subserviant to the Church. It's rediculous how easy some people fall for it.

The same way people fall for the "If you don't kill arabs they'll take our freedom" thing
I give that over to weak mindedness and lack of critical thinking.

People never bother to question whether the people telling them this info have anything to gain from it.


Exactly what I think. I only said it since that's what I've been told



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Put yourself back in the first century. The first century Christians were from very diverse backgrounds and nationalities. Paul was in fact a Roman citizen. Can you think of any circumstance, economic or political, that would have compelled & justified the Apostle Paul or any Roman Christian for that matter to hunt down and kill, murder, call it whatever you want, but in effect take the life of their fellow Christians, their brothers & sisters, in Jerusalem, Antioch, or any where else?

I can't fathom that these men & women who were willing to face death rather than compromise their beliefs would ever take up arms against their brothers and sisters.

Yet today, almost all religious organizations justify it in one way or another with few exeptions.

So in this modern age we have seen Catholic killing Catholic, Baptist killing Baptist, Methodist killing Methodist....and so on. Their respective religious leaders will urge them on telling them on both sides of the battle line that God is on their side. I can think of no greater hypocrisy than this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join