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.

 

The Root of the Problem with Some Religions is...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The root of the problem with some religions (in my opinion) is that people believe in an invisible form/power which can't be proven or disproved. At this point some of you might say "DUHH! Of Course!", but hear me out. This is pretty simple.

When you believe in a power that people can't see, hear, or feel (which I think may be true for most but not necessarily for all), it creates the perfect environment for con artists. Anyone can come out and claim he/she has heard the voice of God, and God commands that everyone do jumping jacks every other day at 4:05AM, otherwise there's hell to pay.
Some people will follow these rules just to avoid punishment from this all-powerful and invisible being. They feel they have no control over their lives and they begin to believe that if only they do as this messenger commands, they will be spared from harm. It can't hurt, can it?

When people react negatively to religion, I think many of them don't necessarily react in a hostile way toward the idea of a higher power, it's more due to the fact that they don't trust other people's claims to being a special messenger from God.

Anyone can say they've spoken to God, and it is difficult for us to determine if that person truly believes it, if that person was truly contacted by a higher power, or if that person simply wishes to have the attention or power over the believers. It becomes even harder to believe when these "messengers" begin to form rules to live by, and persecute those who do not wish to follow those rules. It is hard for me to believe (for instance) that if I eat meat on Friday I am committing a sin.

In this day and age we have a lot of religious history to look through and we see that some respected religious leaders were responsible for the unspeakable torture, pain and death of millions of people over hundreds of years. People were persecuted for being of a different faith, for eating certain types of food on certain days, for looking different, etc. etc. We also now see many priests being arrested for child molestation, and these are the same priests some of us were taught to trust and listen to for advice.

If I remember correctly, the Pope is supposed to be able to speak with God and God speaks to him (You may correct me if I'm wrong) I am surprised that for hundreds of years (or as long as the position of a Pope has been around) God has always chosen a man to be his messenger.

Non-believers (in my opinion) do not get as frustrated at the idea of a God as much as they get frustrated with people who follow other people, who claim to be God's messengers, giving those messengers the power to accept or refuse people from their societies. It makes the non-believer wonder what makes these priests so special from other human beings that gives them the power to rule over all others, and decide their fate. They claim it is God's will, yet we have no proof of it.

Maybe one way to solve this problem is to start believing that either God is just as likely to speak to everyone, or no one. Should life's rules be formed by those who claim to have God speaking to them, or based on logic/what's best for society as a whole? It only makes sense that people should not steal, cheat, kill, overeat and so forth. Must these rules really come from a higher power in order for us to obey them?

There's more I could say, but I'll leave it at that for now.





[edit on 10-1-2010 by 2manyquestions]




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think most people ideas about god is formed based on their
hate for history and misunderstandings of what relgions really teach.

Religion and logic are the same thing.

Logic is made by seeing what is not true,
and keeping what is true as a result.
this is called repenting.

Logic does confirm an absolute,
and it makes god true.

But on a different way then the misinterpretation of scriptures
that described logic before it was fully understandable.

Before the abstract there is the literal.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 

Although there may be many similarities between a room of pre-school children and a the members of a parlimentary session...
...the difference is one of age, knowledge, experience and maturity.

If a child poops on the floor of a kindergarten it is unpleasant but not unusual...
...a politician 'pooping' on the floor of parliment is quite another thing.
Most publically visible religion is a kindergarten.

I almost never read a serious criticism of anything at the Theological heart of most religions.

Critics focus on anomalies and abberations...
...avoiding mature teeth, claws and strength and like cowards attack the kittens.

What I am saying is this...your observations are nieve and misplaced...
...if you really want to have an opinion go up against their scholars and theologians...
...because your kind of criticism is just pathetic.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
there is but 1 true road to god--many false roads to weed out---the meek will inherit the earth----go into greek and see meek means the ones who educate -find answers-study ---so go study and find the right answers--be meek



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

I think most people ideas about god is formed based on their
hate for history and misunderstandings of what relgions really teach.

Religion and logic are the same thing.

Logic is made by seeing what is not true,
and keeping what is true as a result.
this is called repenting.

Logic does confirm an absolute,
and it makes god true.

But on a different way then the misinterpretation of scriptures
that described logic before it was fully understandable.

Before the abstract there is the literal.


I've yet to hear one logical argument for God.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 



What I am saying is this...your observations are nieve and misplaced...
...if you really want to have an opinion go up against their scholars and theologians...
...because your kind of criticism is just pathetic.


What interests me is your poor attempt at analogy. It's of no value to the topic at hand and completely avoids the issue. Essentially, what you just said was "I have no personal way to actually refute anything in the post."



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by pasttheclouds

I think most people ideas about god is formed based on their
hate for history and misunderstandings of what relgions really teach.

Religion and logic are the same thing.

Logic is made by seeing what is not true,
and keeping what is true as a result.
this is called repenting.

Logic does confirm an absolute,
and it makes god true.

But on a different way then the misinterpretation of scriptures
that described logic before it was fully understandable.

Before the abstract there is the literal.


I've yet to hear one logical argument for God.

Your eye is a perfect sense for seeing the glory of a sunset...
...but totally inadaquate for feeling the texture of a concrete path.

God is not available to logic but He can be known by the spirit through faith.

Paul described it like this, "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"...the world did not know God through wisdom..." 1 Corinthians 1:21

Obviously you are a 'natural man'.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 



Your eye is a perfect sense for seeing the glory of a sunset...
...but totally inadaquate for feeling the texture of a concrete path.


Well, technically the eye does have nerve endings that do sense touch input, so really, we can feel the texture of a concrete path with our eyes, it just wouldn't be all too pleasant.



God is not available to logic but He can be known by the spirit through faith.

Paul described it like this, "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"...the world did not know God through wisdom..." 1 Corinthians 1:21


That's all fine and dandy, but moot to the inquiry towards the person the statement was directed towards.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Pick any religion. There are healthy ways of embracing it, and unhealthy ways.

Pick any secular activity. There are healthy ways of doing it, and unhealthy ways.

Seems the issue to me is not the religions themselves...but the people who practice them.

My 4* cents.


*Adjusted for inflation



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I agree to a point with your thread. I have just as much a problem with a religion that burns people at the stake for not believing as does a religion that blows them up for not believing. I am a Christian and it saddens me how many people have such negative ideas and feelings about Christianity based on some man-made distortion of that faith.
The TRUE CHURCH is not organized, and follows the ideas and doctines laid out in Jeus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-6-7. And we don't condemn those that don't believe or that follow other faiths. we are called to be "fishers of men", not hit them over the head and drag them into the christian boat.
As a Christian, I have no more use for Big Stained Glass churches with gyms, big cars, fancy clothes, and full of hypocrisy than anyone else. In fact, it is these kind of organized denominations and faiths that will be part of the Harlot Church from Revelations.
While I don't believe in the gods of other faiths, I am called to love them, respect them, and live among them.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

If I remember correctly, the Pope is supposed to be able to speak with God and God speaks to him (You may correct me if I'm wrong) I am surprised that for hundreds of years (or as long as the position of a Pope has been around) God has always chosen a man to be his messenger.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by 2manyquestions]



Sorry, you are wrong on that one. If the Pope could talk directly to God, he'd be one scared SOB, especially after what the last Pope allowed his pediphile priests to get away with.

What the Pope has is called Papal Infallibility:

Wickipedia


Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

CONDITIONS FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or

an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.


Hope that helps to clear things up for you.








[edit on 10-1-2010 by FortAnthem]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The Pope may not claim that God talks to him, but Pat Robertson does.

A prime example of money-grubbing religious folly, hubris, and self-intoxication...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 

Critics focus on anomalies and abberations...
...avoiding mature teeth, claws and strength and like cowards attack the kittens.

What I am saying is this...your observations are nieve and misplaced...
...if you really want to have an opinion go up against their scholars and theologians...
...because your kind of criticism is just pathetic.



I have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe you misunderstood my post. I'm not criticizing the belief in a/"the" God. "Pathetic"? Really?


I'm saying that since this higher power does not present itself to all of us in a way in which we can't deny that it/he/she exists, it creates the perfect environment for con artists who's interests include wielding power inside societies. I'm saying that -in my opinion- (and yes, I am allowed to have one without having to discuss it with the world's top theologians first) those who criticize religion do so because they understand that people are fallible, and some will pretend to believe or do something in order to fool many into doing their bidding.

Since we have no way of finding out who those people were, and which (if any) of those people were responsible for how that religion looks today, it is difficult for some to follow that particular religion. Since we know that human beings make mistakes and have their biases, and since we have seen/heard of people making those mistakes, it is unlikely that every priest/religious leader recorded the truth. If you can't see where I'm going with this there's no point for me to argue any further with you.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Thanks for that article. I appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 


That is something I can respect.
That's what it's all about, giving people a choice. One must be allowed to believe what he/she wants to believe as long as it doesn't begin to harm someone else.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Pick any religion. There are healthy ways of embracing it, and unhealthy ways.

Pick any secular activity. There are healthy ways of doing it, and unhealthy ways.

Seems the issue to me is not the religions themselves...but the people who practice them.

My 4* cents.


*Adjusted for inflation


That is basically what I was trying to say with my first post.
I recognize that something that can't be proven or disproved can give too much power to the wrong person.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The Pontificus Maximus, Rome's High Priest, aka the Pope is also legally established by treaty between various and sundry sovereign powers the Vicar of Christ.

He is G-d's leagal representative on Earth. He does not speak with G-d he is legally empowered to speak for G-d.

In other words if you wanted to sue G-d you would have to serve the Pope and the Pope could legally speak on G-d's behalf in court as G-d's sole legal representative and agent on earth.

I think he chose wisely, he could have decided to be Tiger Woods legal representative and agent!

Ouch that one hurt!



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That was both informative and funny. Thanks



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


You are welcome my friend.

I hear Tiger is looking for a new agent!



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That was both informative and funny. Thanks


So you better understand just what it means to be the Vicar of Christ legally here on earth the Vicar of Christ is G-d.

Now of course, Muslims, Jews, and many Christians who are not Roman Catholic to not recognize that but...

When you swear something like ...so help me G-d, or say in G-d we Trust, or read something like By the Grace of G-d I am the Queen of England, all those references are in fact legally because of the treaties and laws agreements of allegiance to the Pope or acknowledgement of Power being given and granted by the Pope.

In this fashion most people and things are contractually obligated both orally and written to the Pope even though they might not be Catholic or even religious.

Most people are completely unaware of it, but from a strictly legal standpoint this is the reality.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join