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.

 

Confessions of an Atheist

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


No offense towards your Christian beliefs

My family is made up of many beliefs

I have two sisters ... one is a Catholic one is a Muslim

My mother is a devout Buddhist and strictly vegan

My girlfriend is a Hindu

Not my intention to convert anyone or to betray their beliefs
I am using the Christian phrases such as "sacrificial lambs" in passing as it is familiar to a Christian
Though I am curious ... isn't is part of JC's teachings that there no longer a need for sacrificial lambs ?

I always see "GOD" as above the creationist superstitious creation of the ancient texts ... the "voice" full of thunder and pillars of fire ... the creator like RA or Allah or YWHW speaking to a Prophet in the wilderness making magic and miracles to make more people followers or believe in "HIM"

to me GOD need not care if we believe or not
I need not have a magic and miracle show

to me "GOD" is a potential of everything to be ONE in NOW




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
He asked us repeatedly to understand him fully when he said "I ask for mercy, not sacrifice."

So no more sacrificial lambs no.

And his parable of the wedding feast describes in another way the idea of a participative co-creation WITH God, whereby the first will be last and the last first and the greatest among us will be the servant of all ie: it is best to willingly take the lowest place at the table and instantly get moved up, to your pleasant surprise and the delight of all the guests present, but, to run up and steal a higher place for yourself, you'll suffer the embarassment of being moved down, since that spot was reserved for someone closer to the Bridgegroom.
For Jesus it "heaven" was clearly a family framework, not just a oneness with the absolute and sitting compassion for all sentient beings everywhere, a philosphy which he appears to have incorporated. He went further and made it highly passionate and action oriented and of the most pratical nature. One get's the sense studying Jesus that he was just the most interesting and charismatic fugure you'd ever come across, a very fun person, and a bit of a rebel himself. I love him.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Thirdeye and omega, stars for you both. While i don't agree with everything you suggest, i am pleased that you are at least giving it serious thought, as opposed to bleating out the same rehashed theory. Keep up the good work.


thank you kindly ... it takes many to create this dance




Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by third_eye
 


Same thing as what I just said really, except in terms of the notion that for everything a price must be paid and was paid in full ie: Jesus as a one time, once and for all time, Bodhisatva, giving it all for the sake of reconciliation, so that we may take our place with him at the round table of God at the feast of the great Wedding and I am his bride as are YOU.

In other words, we cannot engineer our own salvation, nor can we truly erase the past nor effectively stand in judgement of either ourselves or anyone else being wholly subjective observers.

But nevertheless justice must be preserved and served, and it was there, where the highest standard is mercy, and unending Love in unconditional all-inclusiveness.

What is holy, perfect, true and just cannot be blended with what is corrupt, false, and sinful, and it is in this way that the price of sin is death, yet paid for by the sinless suffering servant of all.

Love to be love, must also be uncompromising.

And so no, WE need not be sacrificial lambs, that's been done already.

The idea in it, the TRUTH of Christianity, is that it was SUPPOSED to represent a final LIBERATION even from bondage to sin and evil or the source of all suffering, since we cannot all be a Buddha and get clear in one lifetime or even in a thousand lifetimes. And maybe Jesus was Buddha reincarnated, in this case to take ON the full weight of suffering, or the other end of the spectrum..

[edit on 21-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]


No no no no ....


Love and Hate is on the same end of the spectrum
Like water when it is cold enough it is a solid ,
when it is hot enough it is vapor

the other end of the spectrum is NO LOVE, NO HATE ...

no one can sacrifice for another ... the very notion of sacrifice is turning the karmic wheel ... it not my karma or your karma but OUR karma, we all share in the karma, the wheel turns with all of us and everything

I cannot pay for your sins nor you for mine ... it is not an Sin Exchange Board like the Financial Wall Street Stock Exchange, and no ...
not even JC can pay for my sins , as generous as he is or wants to

I believe the dogma of "believe in me" or "pay homage to me" and I'll absolve you of all your sins was a recent Church Doctrine
The Baptism of old and the Baptism of today are totally different in practice as we understand it though the ritual looks the same.

And no ... I don't believe for a moment that JC is the Buddha reincarnated
A Buddha is free from reincarnation , the breaking of the cycle, the whole purpose of achieving Buddha state in the first place, right ?

The cup overfloweth ...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
He asked us repeatedly to understand him fully when he said "I ask for mercy, not sacrifice."

So no more sacrificial lambs no.

And his parable of the wedding feast describes in another way the idea of a participative co-creation WITH God, whereby the first will be last and the last first and the greatest among us will be the servant of all ie: it is best to willingly take the lowest place at the table and instantly get moved up, to your pleasant surprise and the delight of all the guests present, but, to run up and steal a higher place for yourself, you'll suffer the embarassment of being moved down, since that spot was reserved for someone closer to the Bridgegroom.
For Jesus it "heaven" was clearly a family framework, not just a oneness with the absolute and sitting compassion for all sentient beings everywhere, a philosphy which he appears to have incorporated. He went further and made it highly passionate and action oriented and of the most pratical nature. One get's the sense studying Jesus that he was just the most interesting and charismatic fugure you'd ever come across, a very fun person, and a bit of a rebel himself. I love him.



Yes .. I have a soft spot in me for JC too



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by third_eye
 


Love and Hate is on the same end of the spectrum
Like water when it is cold enough it is a solid ,
when it is hot enough it is vapor

the other end of the spectrum is NO LOVE, NO HATE ...


That is a question of perspective.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to
 


That is a question of perspective.


Once had a lengthy discourse on this in college ...

which in the end we discovered that no matter the perspective

Love cannot be separated from Hate and Hate from Love

You'll have to hate something enough to love something else
You'll have to love something enough to hate something else

there's also this little problem of "apathetic"





[edit on 22-7-2009 by third_eye]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
No, one can love for the sake of love and goodness must be good for goodness sake only, or it's not really good, since what is bad cannot justify or create good. Contrast is fine, but insisting that everything's a duality, is folly, and dangerous, imho.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


that is the point of it all isn't it ?

the duality of everything ... ?

you can't just insist on "oneness" while not knowing the UN"oneness" of everything else

without the good or what becomes the bad ... ?
but first one must define "good" and "bad" prior to "within" and "without"

the danger is not the duality ... but getting "lost" in the duality
which is the general state of our day to day lives



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Well, what was two must become one again, in integration.

We cannot continue to divide or we'll separate.

We have enough division, duality and separation all the time.

So it's the oneness part which is missing from the equation, somehow having a full blown experience of it, so that we can have that as our touchstone as we go forth as individuals in our day to day lives of this and that, here and there, good and bad, etc. etc. but the duality dissolves in the unity of all being, if only that experience were much much closer and more easily apprehended or experienced and appropriated and integrated.

We need to have a gnosis of it, as a first hand experience.

I'll admit that all I do is talk about it, thinking that if I talk about enough, it will eventually actualize for me.

So yeah, we must go there, and get to oneness, and then return to day to day living while attempting to bring as much light into the frey as possible - to BE the light of the world.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Well, what was two must become one again, in integration.

We cannot continue to divide or we'll separate.

We have enough division, duality and separation all the time.

So it's the oneness part which is missing from the equation, somehow having a full blown experience of it, so that we can have that as our touchstone as we go forth as individuals in our day to day lives of this and that, here and there, good and bad, etc. etc. but the duality dissolves in the unity of all being, if only that experience were much much closer and more easily apprehended or experienced and appropriated and integrated.

We need to have a gnosis of it, as a first hand experience.

I'll admit that all I do is talk about it, thinking that if I talk about enough, it will eventually actualize for me.

So yeah, we must go there, and get to oneness, and then return to day to day living while attempting to bring as much light into the frey as possible - to BE the light of the world.



Aye .... to taste and to touch and to feel and to see and to hear ...

all "to"

we go "to" and "with" it

then we return ...
it doesn't come with us because we do not have the capacity to "withhold" it upon us ... we are not the world ... we are "of" the world

only the "world" that we return to does not follow the "rules" of a naked emperor

We cannot have this world by "creating" or "making" it "real" like a "GOD"
We can only reach it by "returning" to it

~t=0~



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Hello Gigatronix, Thank you for your post. A God is something you know or dont know. No one can "convince you". I can only ask you this, you do have a soul. How did it come to be? Just as you do not DEMAND that someone loves you, neither does the prime creator. I agree that the God in the bible is portrayed as a jelous and vengfull God. Perhaps hes not the prime creator. Whos to know. Thats where free agency and faith come into play.There is no Good with out Evil, no up without down, no positive without negative , get it? So for every believer there is to be a disbeliever. ponder this if you will......Adam had to fall.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
But he didn't have to blame Eve .......





just a joke ~ mebbe not :p



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by third_eye
 


But that is if you put it in a purely 2d representation of a spectrum.
I tend to think of it more 3d. And you truly cannot deny that it sounds greatly dualistic.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join