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.

 

Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Bottom line, it doesn't matter, IF you are a lover of God. The vibe goes out, and you get a response, of love in kind. God, source, universal collective consciousness, love, first cause, creator, spirit fo the universe, it doesn't matter what you call it, those who know it, and are loved by it, ought to know enough not to be arguing about it with atheists. I think for those who have it, that the gnosis itself is sufficient unto itself, and once it's been communicated, there's nothing more to discuss. One thing is certain though, the believers have just as much, if not more deeply held conviction about this, based in experience, as the atheist does, based on the lack of proof and evidence of such an invisible spirit or universal "monistic idealism" (consciousness is primary). The believer KNOWS that there is more going on than meets the eye, or which can be subjected to the limitations of human understanding, or experiment. Interesting however, for the believer, is that there remains, an access channel to this gnosis or knowing, and it may very well be, that our very brains are hard wired FOR it, by design, and that that's an intrinsic part of faith, and belief in God, where God knows and calls his own to himself, and they of course hear his voice. It is the voice of universal love, mutuality, equanimity, and faith in a supreme being and creator, who is both love, and infinite intelligence, fully informed, who lives within a timeless, spaceless realm of infinite possibility.

"So do not fear little ones, nor let your hearts be troubled! For it PLEASED the father (first father of creation) to share his eternal kingdom with all his beloved children!" and oh what a large mansion and heavenly house it is..!!!

Some of us have the courage, the imagination, and the intuition and feeback, to have faith, or to have made that leap of faith, and others simply do not, but there is a place in every human heart which was made, by design, to contain nothing less than the love and living spirit of God Himself, whereby God is our brother.

But no, there's no compromise I guess with the atheists, who want a God they can place in their own hand.

In all truth, I feel sorry for them, because many have dug into their position, from a fundamental bias against the possibility of God having an actual (though unseen) reality, and who approach the whole issue with contempt, prior to investigation, a position "sure to keep a man in everlasting ignorance" (Herbert Spencer).

I am glad I have a mind which is open to the presence of God, and to the spirit, however inadequate to the task that it is, because it's just enough to KNOW, and to bridge or extend beyond faith into Gnosis, a place the atheist will not go, and seemingly cannot, being self constrained from having the experience of such a knowing.

But the truth is that cultivating a strong faith in, and having a personal understanding of, and better yet a personal relationship WITH God - may be THE most important task for the individual in their human lifetime, because it prepares a way, and generates a return path, a "re ligion", a rejoining and reconnection, with God as source, and the One (both innerent and transcendent) who is the most understanding, merciful, compassionate, slow to anger. And when we ourselves find God, we cannot help but become the searchlight for others, so that they will see, and so that they then too will also know, since the fulcrum of the principal at the heart of it all is loving mutuality!


[edit on 12-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


militant?

we're not gonna start a friggin holy war if we don't even believe in atheism, we can't accept a "higher notion" if we don't believe there's no higher notion. rethink what you just thought.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Evidence to a higher power..

Only within yourself do you see you are a distortion of the infinite being/entity/creator.

The first step to enlightenment is to accept the existence of such, without any proof whatsoever other than that of your being.

Science is created by confused people trying to perceive the ingeniously perfected laws of the physical manifestation around them. Science infact gets close to a comprehension before realizing that their has to be some sort intelligent design(er) out of their grasp of understanding.

Look at the way your surroundings are designed, why is the moon of perfect ratio with the sun in comparison to the earth to cause this and that perfect effect, why is water the way it is, why...why....why....Science can only confuse itself so much before realizing their are higher forces at work here.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


What part of literary viewpoint is hard to grasp? Or are you trying to tell me every book and movie you watch automatically makes the characters from them a physical reality of the universe? I look at the bible as a work of fiction, think of what I write about it as nothing more than a book report discussing the fictional characters in it.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You are right about God creating evil. Now mankind has a choice. Good or Evil. It is everyone's choice. By man's decisions are we all judged.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Then what is good and what is evil? Before being handed the gift of knowledge by Satan, an act of evilness according to God, worthy of going so far to punish mankind, we had no inherent knowledge of right and wrong. Without that inherent knowledge, we were naive and only knew right and wrong accordingly to how God dictated it. How just is it to punish someone for not knowing or being created with ignorance from knowing?

Now that we do have an inherent knowledge, we still *have* to listen to God's commands of what is right and wrong. Yet if we follow his morals to the letter we'd have to kill all non-believers as that is right and commanded. We would be able to keep slave's and treat them accordingly to God's command. Stoning our children and in some cases even killing them would be perfectly acceptable to God. The list goes on, yet I despise these thing's held by God as 'right'.

Where do we as humans draw the line of how we *should* conduct ourselves? Obviously following God's command to the letter is morally wrong. I believe the true lesson from the bible that should have been learned was how Satan saw God for what he was and how he helped mankind to see, hence the reason why his name Lucifer means light bearer as he has shown us the light of God's true nature.

If we look upon Earthly parallels to God's actions, let us pick Saddam. We say it is wrong for Saddam to rule his land and his people how he see's fit. We say it's wrong for him to kill all those who oppose him. We say it's wrong for him to destroy anyone who attempted to dethrone him from his seat of power. We call him a tyrant when he demands his people should worship the very ground he walks upon or face death.

Yet, God demands and commits those same, what we consider evil acts. How is one justifying dislike of one tyrant and love for another? God initially created mankind with inherent ignorance, so that we may never question his tyrannical evilness. So that we worship and follow without question. Satan gave us the ability to see the tyranny in what we call a loving God.

So my question is this.

Is everything God says we can do morally just?
-OR-
Are we allowed to cherry pick his word and choose only what *we* think is morally just?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


That is exactly what I thought when reading Genesis. I was like "who is really the bad guy here?"



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Now that we do have an inherent knowledge, we still *have* to listen to God's commands of what is right and wrong. Yet if we follow his morals to the letter we'd have to kill all non-believers as that is right and commanded. We would be able to keep slave's and treat them accordingly to God's command. Stoning our children and in some cases even killing them would be perfectly acceptable to God. The list goes on, yet I despise these thing's held by God as 'right'.

I have never heard of this notion that God says to kill the non believer.
Not in the bible anyway.
I'm positive Jesus said, Go out and teach this Good News to peoples of
all nations.
Not, go out and teach the gospel to all the world and if the don't believe
you kill them.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

[EDIT TO ADD]

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

God also states that his word stands forever, without change. Jesus saw fit to change God's word, so what the man Jesus has to say about God is clearly invalidated because God says his word stands forever. He asks for the death of non-believers more than once in the bible. He even went so far as to place mankind in near extinction in Genesis for lack of faith in him.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.

Seeing as how Jesus isn't the true messiah, he has no bearing nor right with changing God's word. The messiah was not supposed to die in which many other claimed messiahs are also not accepted despite fulfilling some of the prophecies as well, yet dies before completion just like Jesus.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You seem to gravitate to the good book just to disprove it. That makes no case for a reason to be atheistic.
First of all the bible is written by mortals.
What god says is actually what man says. And remember if you really want to put it in context.-----
Learn to think like a person 2 to 3,000 years ago. Use the scientific knowledge of that day and age and imagine what you could concoct to teach your children where they come from.
You would be hard press to do that without embellishing it with all kinds of known human behavior.
That's all the Old Testament is-- A history book. And just a Jewish history book at that.
Christians through the crucifixion of Christ for their own reasons hijacked and embellished those ideas.
Most likely in an attempt to counter the smite and smote teachings of the old Testament.
And remember with the 2,100 year old scientific mentality. All distinct groups of humans subscribe to similar ideologies.
It is a un-deniable human condition. Hence yin / yan--- good / evil and an attempt to put these things in perspective.
I will be more than willing to venture my ideas about Jesus if you truly want to hear them.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



You seem to gravitate to the good book just to disprove it. That makes no case for a reason to be atheistic.


Not at all, I don't need the bible to not believe in any supernatural entity. What I can do with the bible is discuss what is said in it from a literary viewpoint, just like discussing any other work of fiction. It shouldn't be that hard of a concept to grasp.


First of all the bible is written by mortals.


Say who, you? The monotheistic faith deems the bible as a holy scripture divinely inspired and written by God through mortal men. Who are you to change the definition of what the bible is and how it was written?

Our concept of a monotheistic God is born from the Hebrew bible who possibly got the idea from the Egyptians first. So either that concept is accurate in it's description and depth or it is not. If it is not and people are allowed to make up their own version of a monotheistic God, then that just invalidates the reality of a monotheistic God even further. Whichever concept of a deity you presume to be true, would in fact be less truer than the first concept as defined in the bible. Think about it, if the first conception of monotheism is right and his word holds forever, your screwed.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
A better question would be,

is there a compromise possible between ignorance and growth...

Is there really a difference between religions ?
you noticed they grew like steps in a stair...
judging the previous ones..
you notice what atheism does ?
maybe they are all still steps in towards the
endpoint, where they are one.

is there really a difference between logic ( = truth)
and god ? if so, religion does not love yet truth,
and science does not love yet truth. (which is the
highest command in both)

is truth not one then ? and is truth as absolute
a slave of a higher truth ? when does it become
the absolute truth ? and is it free there ?
if it is free why does it need a paradox ?

so is the problem a difference in beliefsystems (religions, philosophies)
or the problem of not understanding the reasons for growth ?

atheism is also dogmatic.
BUT
skeptical thinking and logic is growth, including the
past beliefs but turning them into truth.
in other words, skeptical thinking is doubt, and seeing past to build future,
and is repenting, the thing the prophets asked
the people to do, and it is loving truth, which is the commandment.

So is compromis possible ? yes, but not yet,
because when there is finally a compromise, there will be no difference
to make a compromis...at that place all is one and good,
including our past. that place is symbolised by heaven, is god,
and his arc, logic, which includes the testimony of one.





[edit on 13-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Good question but i'm not sure if it's possible there could be compromise (with an Atheist i mean)... i've seen things which can only be described as otherworldy or spiritual beings but i'm not religious... after my experiences i'm Spiritual so believe there is something out there but whether it is a God or Gods is questionable.

Atheists do not believe in anything which is said to have been created by a God so i doubt you could compromise.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

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


If they realised that their beliefs stops at anothers front yard so to speak they wouldn't have to view agreeing to disagree as a invalidation of their beliefs.


Very wise words Shad. Unless TPTB shut down the Internet in an attempt to squash this type of thinking. The net is the only voice of freedom for the majority of the world. Getting to know your neighbor and what makes him tick can only be a good thing.
I also find that when you agree to disagree it can start new beginnings.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


I have made the study of origins, a life long hobby. When you do that you can leave no stone unturned.
I have found two major problems in understanding why there is conflict and conflicting ideas. EGO needs not be explained. We all get that.
TRUTH is really a stinker and has to be broken down into what it is. Or what it is preserved to be.
I say Truth is temporary. It is consistently proven to be previously un-True.
I personally do not believe in forecasting Truth.
I have seldom seen guessing or predicting the future, equal Truth.
So what is left. THE PERCEIVED TRUTH OF THE MOMENT.
If you want to peer into the future and hope for you and your descendants to be a part of it you are required to have FAITH.
IMO



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Of course there is...once atheists acknowledge that Atheism is as much a belief system predicated on faith as religion is.

After all the belief system is that there is no god and they have faith in that.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 




Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?


Between no evidence and no evidence?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I think you are still seperating feeling and logic..
desires can be used for bad and good,
when used for good, it will make you evolve truths..
in other words: it makes believes possible to be believed,
which makes a paradox possible.

We make it cloudy because we are afraid of god,
or truth... we think we can not reach it,
when we can reach it, because we are part of it.
At least we can go halfway.

All religions say god is truth,
well truth is something that includes everything,
and everything can be placed under 'belief'...
before you can see, you pick your way by building
on the previous stone you laid, and that is faith,
ignorance is taking a rest.

Logic does not have to be precise wording,
it has to close the circle.

Paradox has a reason, but it makes
truth's choice full of being everything and personal,
it becomes god.

Instead of excluding, so it can't be ONE,
it includes the lies and the choice
not to include them, so as to exclude them,
and be divided not as the old word sin,
but as the better word choice.
It allows lies to be believed,
without allowing them to be true,
but still be included in truth.

Truth is one, God is love.
How do you explain a paradox in books,
when people still don't know the difference between
abstract and literal thinking, and you still need to
build a paradox as full ?

That's why religions did not understand the truths
of their own books yet. They forgot that god = truth = logic,
and that repenting is reflection and forgiveness
is understanding. Old and New, but still the same.

Relgions first has to admit contradictions
before they can see two sides of one coin.
But atheism has the same problem.

Truth is One and Free, and there it is God.
We are the other side of the coin,
and our task (cross) is to evolve
our divisions into one, the other side,
where all is and was always one.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Could a compromise be possible? This New York Times Op Ed guy seems to think so:

"Believers could scale back their conception of God's role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of 'higher purpose' are compatible with scientific materialism. And the two might learn to get along."

More at source:
www.nytimes.com...

Obviously, the New York Time Op Ed guy hasn't read this or isn't "smart" enough to understand it.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


WOOOO doggie!!
I feel like I just read numbers and proverbs together in two minutes.
I need to soak in what you just typed awhile before comment.




top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join