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.

 

Deity only answers Muslim, Christian, or Jewish Prayers?

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Please do not confuse the so-called Christian church with Christ.

Christ, if He existed, which I think He did, is not about the church called after His name.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Re: Catwhoknows

By your turning the attention to the question of 'the true Christ', I hope you don't imply, that this is the sole basis for further considerations on this thread. Islam and jewish religion are part of it also.

But as a momentarily digression, it can be interesting.

For me, the question of Christ being a historical person or a concept is in this present limited context unimportant. What's important is how all the 34.000 different types of 'christians' justify THEIR special interpretation of 'christianity' as being the true one.

Evidence normally used:

1/ The bible and associated scriptures. Heavily edited, and yes!!, censored. I sit with an example of this next to me, an 'authorized' bible, differing from other 'authorized' bibles. Which one to rely on? And who made the 'authorization'?

2/ Revelations, visions etc. Starting with Paulus, 'christian' revelations have been 13 a dozen for 2000 years.

I'm not prematurely rejecting your implied claim of knowing the 'truth', alternatively knowing what the 'truth' ISN'T. I'm just curious about whether you have information of high evidence value, or if you just presented version 34.001 of 'christianity'.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I suppose that would help, but if you ask me there was never an intention of having true discussion when the thread was made. I am aware of some of the beliefs concerning prayer among different Christians, but I do not know to which denomination those variations are generally attributed to. Not being a Muslim or Jew also prevents me from having any significant grasp on how they approach God through prayer.

Me, personally, I just talk to God. I may be telling Him how awesome the view from the top of the Chimney Mountains is and give Him praise for how amazing His work is, I may be thanking Him for my lovely wife or the roof over my head, or I may be asking Him to comfort a family member suffering from some sort of illness. I pray to God and nobody else and through nobody. Scripture says to pray in the name of Christ, but Jesus himself said that our prayers went straight to the Father and that Jesus did not have to relay the message for us, as a priest for the Jews would have.

Edit: Yea, I think I'm done here. Might keep an eye on it and post if requested, but I don't see this going anywhere. See y'all around.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Mykahel]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This is my last post as I find there's no wisdom to pursue further discussion in this thread.

To OP, I'll conclude my answer as follow:

1. God answer pray to anyone who has faith and that include Pagan too.
2. You have the right and freedom to choose whatever fairy tales you believe as with others. If you wish to share with others, do so with respect or there will be no civilized discussion.

Before I leave, please take note of this

As of 2008 record, 173,402,000 or 76% US population are Christian as oppose to 34,169,00 or 15% No religion. Atheist and Agnostics contribute a MERE 1.6%.

Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008

This stats is based on US Christians and none religion population ONLY. Ask yourself why you are among the 1.6% US population. As for why your pray may not be answered, this are my simple metaphor:

1. "God, I'm lazy to walk. Please move me to location A. If you don't I'll be atheist"
2. "God, I'm lazy to work for living. Please support me or I'll be atheist."
3. "God, I'm lazy to solve my mathematics problem. Please give me answer or I'll be atheist."
4. "God, I can't see you. Please show yourself or I'll be atheist"
5. "God, I'm catching cold, I hate medical treatment. Heal me or I'll be atheist."
6. "God, I don't want to be criminal but this person annoy me. Kill him or I'll be atheist."

Still having problem with my metaphor? Ok, here are my hints:

1. God is not your slave. Who do you think you are?
2. You can't manipulate God to do your bidding.
3. God gives you body and mind. What do you think your leg, eyes, hand, body, tools and brain for?
4. You get periodically "Eurika!" burst in your head, yet you think you're deluded, what can you create or archive out of nothingness?

I could rant forever with this but I'm not about to bother myself anymore. You have the right to take it or leave it. I'm sorry If I'm being harsh.

Thanks.


[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
[edit on 1-9-2010 by superluminal11]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 





Originally posted by AllIsOne
I presume you are a "liberal" Christian who believes in Jesus?


Well, a Christian is defined as a person who believes in and follows Jesus; Christianity on the other hand, is defined as a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

I personally don’t see myself as a “Christian” although by definition, that’s what I am. To clarify, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God but I have rejected many parts of Christianity.



Originally posted by AllIsOne
You consider other faiths' prayers to be answered by the one god. Right? But how about this:

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





Getting back to my analogy from my first post. If you do something in the name of democracy, you are doing something that democracy stands for. If you go around shouting “democracy”, “democracy”, “democracy”, that doesn’t mean you are doing anything in the name of democracy. By telling people that they need to vote and which policies you believe in etc, you would then be doing and saying what democracy stands for and represents… only in that way, will you be doing it in the name of democracy.

What’s my point…well, Jesus in verse John 14:6 is actually defining the things which he and God represent and it is by those things which one can find and draw closer to God/Father.

For those who don’t know the name of Jesus, and apart from what I have said above, I still believe that God can reach them because Gods spirit can do anything. Having said all that, I personally believe that the best way people can get to know God/Father, is by reading Jesus words in the bible, becoming born again and receiving the Holy Spirit.




Originally posted by AllIsOne
So, Muslim prayers are answered, i.e. the baby gets healed, but she (as a Muslim) is condemned to an afterlife in hell, because she's got the wrong belief system?


I don’t believe in hell being a place of eternal punishment and neither do a few other Christian denominations. I personally see the bible as more about people finding and coming too know God, than it is about condemnation. Hell is really a metaphor for the “Lake of fire” mentioned in revelations and IMO it is a place of destruction of both body and soul.

In revelations it states that the unrighteous and the righteous are to be resurrected i.e. their souls will be put into their new bodies. The question that naturally arises here, is why would God resurrect the bodies of the unrighteous souls, if he is then going to destroy them in the lake of fire? Why not just destroy the unrighteous souls right away in the lake of fire? IMO I believe the reason for this is because God is going to give the unrighteous a second chance to come to God.

I also think that if we are not spiritually connected to God then we cannot survive (spiritually speaking) because God is the source of all things. For me it is more about God helping us, than it is about condemning us, you see God does not want to see us perish but he knows he will have no choice, if we are not a part of him spiritually.


- JC



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Joecroft wrote:

"I also think that if we are not spiritually connected to God then we cannot survive (spiritually speaking) because God is the source of all things. For me it is more about God helping us, than it is about condemning us, you see God does not want to see us perish but he knows he will have no choice, if we are not a part of him spiritually."

(I take it, that you by 'spiritual survival' mean a continuing non-corporeal existence after physical death).

IF the bible is true, and IF 'god' is the source of everything, he's the guy, who made all the rules from the beginning.

So what do you mean by: "...he will have no choice...". He should be able to do, what he wants.

1/ Either we have free will, but if we use it as we please, then we perish. Not much of a free will after all, if we have to go by the rules or else.....

2/ If we don't have free will, then 'god' is ultimately responsible for everything, also for those perishing.

It's 'original sin' all over again. The whole point is not about being in contact with 'god', being 'righteous' or loving 'god'; it's about obedience, grovelling and submission to an insane entitity with uncontrollable fits of rage, paranoia and megalomania.

This what you want or need to believe personally; fine with me. But don't even suggest, that these fairytales apply to me.

I already have my own fairytales, which I try to keep somewhat rational and which I don't push as universal 'truth'.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




Originally posted by bogomil
(I take it, that you by 'spiritual survival' mean a continuing non-corporeal existence after physical death).


Yes, that’s what I meant…



Originally posted by bogomil
IF the bible is true, and IF 'god' is the source of everything, he's the guy, who made all the rules from the beginning.



Well, that’s one way of looking at it I suppose, but it isn’t so much about rules, it’s more about an inner realization, that we belong to the source of all things i.e. God.




Originally posted by bogomil
So what do you mean by: "...he will have no choice...". He should be able to do, what he wants.


By “have no choice” I mean God has done (and is doing) everything he can do to help us without interfering with our free will, so the ball is really in our court.

God is looking for those who are honestly trying to seek after him but like I said in my previous post, I believe all will be given a second chance to come to God on the final day.



Originally posted by bogomil
1/ Either we have free will, but if we use it as we please, then we perish. Not much of a free will after all, if we have to go by the rules or else.....

2/ If we don't have free will, then 'god' is ultimately responsible for everything, also for those perishing.



That’s just the thing, God has not made us like robots and forced us to do what he wants but he has instead given us the gift of free will.

You said “Either we have free will, but if we use it as we please, then we perish.” But God wants us to use our free will to do good, be righteous and do things through love, not by being forced to do so, but by choosing to do so ourselves.




Originally posted by bogomil
It's 'original sin' all over again. The whole point is not about being in contact with 'god', being 'righteous' or loving 'god'; it's about obedience, grovelling and submission to an insane entitity with uncontrollable fits of rage, paranoia and megalomania.


Well you see, we can come into contact with God, by receiving the Holy Spirit. Which strangely enough, helps to lead us into all truth and righteousness.

As for, “uncontrollable fits of rage, paranoia and megalomania” I can to some degree, agree with you, in that people have used God as a form power and control many times throughout history, and still do today. Most of the bad and evil things attributed to God in the Old Testament are, IMO based on man trying to control man or because of mans lack of understanding of God.




Originally posted by bogomil
This what you want or need to believe personally; fine with me. But don't even suggest, that these fairytales apply to me.



I don’t NEED to believe it. I believe it because I have had a spiritual encounter with Jesus and have received the Holy Spirit described of by Jesus in the bible. I believe in Jesus, not the whole of the bible.




Originally posted by bogomil
I already have my own fairytales, which I try to keep somewhat rational and which I don't push as universal 'truth'.


I wasn’t trying to push my beliefs or force them onto anyone, but I was asked a question by AllIsOne, regarding my first post and I felt he/she deserved an honest answer.


- JC



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EasternShadow
 


My friend ask yourself why you are NOT among the 1.6% population! There exists so much more to the term "Atheist" than No God.

Have you ever asked yourself "How did these people come to the conclusion that there is no God where the other 98.4% of us came to a different conclusion?".

My beliefs are so much more than a simple Lack of belief in God. There is a route to that conclusion that encompasses the word "Atheist" more than the destination.

I will share with you that path. My most prized piece of knowledge I could or will ever be able to share with another intelligence.

There is no more reliable source for information in this world than the Scientific Method. All you have to be willing to do is to want to learn the truth. Let nothing hold you back in your quest. Let unbiased observational repeatable evidence be your only guide.

Unbiased - free from all prejudice and favoritism. Fair. Impartial.

The greatest tenant of the Scientific Method. The most important ritual of any Scientific Experiment. The only path to truth my friend.

You have to make the ultimate sacrifice. You have to forfeit your own beliefs and let the data replace your desires and your wants. If you ever find yourself able to perform this feat the secrets to the Universe will open up before you.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Re: Joecroft

Thanks for your answer.

It's undeniable, that I'm often harsh and aggressive in my criticism of 'christians' and 'christianity', but not always. Another contributor to this thread, Mykahel, has my respect, and while he and I disagree deeply on some points of how things 'really' are, we haven't started yelling at each other yet.

It's a question of content and wrappings of the 'packages of ideology/beliefsystems'. The content, the different beliefsystems, may be completely incompatable, but for anyone not a fanatic, the wrapping, the presentation, can be modified so communication is possible.

As you've demonstrated a will for diplomacy, I'll try to explain further.
In Europe, where I live, we've had an additional and substantial group of prophets: Socialists/communists of various denominations. I don't know, if you have any sympathy for e.g. hardcore stalinism or maoism (I don't), but as a parallel to 'christian' pushiness, they serve as a good example, which even christians can use for mirror-effect on presentation (especially as 'christianity' and communism often are in opposition on content=beliefsystem).

For fundamentalists, there is only ONE 'truth' (OK; ...in my opinion mankind is dumb and seeks 'ultimate truths' like a junkie seeks substances) and the presentation is equally inflexible. Communist PR: "Religion is opium for the people", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "education of the masses" etc. While containing some 'truth', these statements are halfbaked, still open for debate.

I can (almost) live with the circular, selfproving argumentation of halfway-axiomatic postulates, but when presented with an arrogant condescenting attitude of selfjustification, it's completely unacceptable. The fundamentalist has already entrenched him/herself in an impermeable bubble of 'ultimate truth', and opposition has in advance been classified as 'imbecile', 'uninformed', 'propaganda' etc.

At the same time, the fundamentalist isn't above fabulation, distorting information and INSISTING on circular argumentation being valid. And in context with my criticism of 'christians' and 'christianity', I have seen too many examples of 'christians', who seem to be rather ignorant of the actual content of the bible; who, when confronted with valid arguments against them, resort to the 'point of least resistance', going into endless demagogy on one-point questions like the number of angels dancing on a pin; or who just, out of context, steamroller-like cite bible-verses to tire out opposition.

Well, you are maybe not one of those. But my question is, can one be a 'passive' member of Hitler-jugend, Mao's cultural-revolution squads or McCarthy witch-hunts. My suggestion is, that the (maybe blasphemic) idea that no person or ideology possess 'ultimate truth' is used as a communication basis; ...clearly demonstrated.

I'm not proposing wishy-washy liberalism, cosmetic tolerance or undecessive relativism. An, even heated, debate can continue, but with the possibility, that "I'm maybe not 100% right", so it's worth listening to opposition and to do my homework according to the level I'm participating on.

If this approach is acceptable to you, we may meet again soon for practical application.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Re: Idonotcollectstamps

The situation in Europe (where I live) and US is quite different concerning fundamentalism, especially on the religious front. Here noisy extremists are usually met with amused tolerance, and if they become violent, they are processed according to secular law. As expressed politically the religious aspect is diminishing strongly, e.g. even in Poland (a former catholic stronghold) where the clergy has made itself increasingly impopular by trying to mess with polish co-sensus.

So I don't have the same invasive religious groups infiltrating my life, as a US citizen has (ofcourse the fundamentalists try hard here also, but very few take them seriously).

Consequently I can indulge in the luxury of not being in a black/white situation, and look beyond polarized positions.

It may seem 'tactically' stupid and maybe like backstabbing, when I also raise some objection to a system, which basically supports many of my opinions. But I believe, that classical science suffers from some of the same shortcomings as many religious beliefsystems. It's exclusive.

No system is more valid than the parameters it's build from/on. In fundamentalistic 'christianity' there's the extremely narrow, exclusive and subjective parameter 'faith' (manifesting in its innumerable and 'indisputable' forms). In classical science something similar exists, though far from the religious narrowness. The classical science parameters are empirical and pragmatic (and variously: Deductive reasoning, reductionism etc), and have on this background DEFINED positions, experiences and speculations of e.g. paranormal/supernatural phenomena as non-existing.

Science has produced an impressive and functional 'map', but this 'map' is local and limited. Outside its 'map' classical science has no final authority.

When used inclusively, not exclusively, (non-classical) science and experiences of paranormal/supernatural phenomena could together achieve 'better truths'. In opposition to each other their 'answers' are limited, sometimes worthless, on a greater scale.

Relating to the topic of this thread, and discarding organised, doctrinal religion 'answers', it would be possible to consider 'prayer', 'god'-experience, 'god'-nature etc as legitimate, general phenomena in 'reality'. And a rational, scientific perspective looking for common denominators in these phenomena wouldn't hurt anyone except fundamentalists, who like nothing better than attacking their religious siblings or cousins for their power-grabbing motives of monopoly.

Religious fundamentalism and 'scientism' is continuing a conflict, which is completely outdated now. Realistic options exist for the beginning of a common approach.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Simple-- don't put prayer into a box. Traditional prayer, meditation, reasoning, and all forms of thought are [in some form or another] prayer.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Yes. That's the rules. If you don't like it then stop praying. Deitys are busy enough these days that they don't have time to reply to everyone, just those that joined their club. Learn the rules, and stop asking questions. That's not healthy for anyone.

(no offence intended OP)
Cheers
Shane





[edit on 2/9/10 by shamus78]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Re: Imherejusttoread

You wrote:

"Traditional prayer, meditation, reasoning, and all forms of thought are [in some form or another] prayer."

That's certainly a sweeping statement, which could do with some clarification and evidence, if it's not to be taken as an example of bad semantics or a clichée. As it is on its own, it's a clear expression of hidden 'agenda', and that's to be avoided in an open dialogue....isn't it?

Or are you just parrotting something you don't understand?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
That's certainly a sweeping statement, which could do with some clarification and evidence, if it's not to be taken as an example of bad semantics or a clichée. As it is on its own, it's a clear expression of hidden 'agenda', and that's to be avoided in an open dialogue....isn't it?

Or are you just parrotting something you don't understand?


I do not know why such a statement provokes hostility from you; I have no agenda, nor do I wish to assert one, but I will clarify.

All forms of prayer, meditation or reasoning are forms of dialogue with self (an extension of macro-reality) and thus an act of invoking. The very term 'God', etymologically, stems from Proto-Indo-European language's ghut, which means "that which is invoked", which itself is from a Sanskrit root gheu meaning "to call, invoke" and on and on. If we grant that the term 'God', concerning etymological origins, simply means that which is invoked, there is only one way to invoke things: thought. Inner dialogue.

There really is no difference between how a Christian traditionally prays, a Buddhist meditating, or a philosopher reasoning metaphysical paradoxes. The only difference is the fundamentalism that surrounds their usage. If you wish to learn more, I suggest Evan Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness.

It's a fantastic book that briefs this premise.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Re: Imherejusttoread

Thanks for your answer and the tip about the book.

Better get the hostility sorted out first. Fundamentalists with an agenda containing exclusivity, monopolism, elitism and even violence more often than not start from assumptions, which are difficult to uphold except through a 'faith', which 'proves' itself circularly. To hasten sales some of such believers invent their own twisted form of logic, where their messages can be sneaked in through the backdoor. The innocent or naive sometimes buy it.

Your post could very well have been an example of the above, but according to your later answer it's not meant that way. I apologize for letting you get in the line of fire.

I won't argue with your linguistic presentation, it seems reasonable (I'm not a specialist linguist), but I will argue with the semantics.

On this thread, and practically everywhere else, some e.g. 'christian' missionary types will push the idea, that Allah basically is the same as Jahve, and that muslims thus is a kind of 'christians'. All from some nominal similarities. The same way you suggest, that because of a common linguistic root, prayer, meditation etc are the same.

Language can be an effort to describe our relative 'reality', but it is smaller than 'reality', not encompassing it. In this case general linguistic considerations are of less importance than actual definiton and practise.

I think you got the prayer part correct, but meditation aims both in theory and practise at an absolute termination of inner dialogue, expecting silence and total non-identification*. The final outcome is disputed, depending on ideological background: Christians (who don't leave their religious expectations behind, and thus never really achieve non-identification) experience 'god' (as expected), and in asian religions/systems you either experience a new, 'higher' identity or 'nothing' (this is beyond language).

Personally I have experienced the asian version of a new, higher identity, and the process leading there can't be compared to prayer.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I get the impression, that 'all roads lead to Rome' (i.e. the original center of MY faith) is proposed. I disagree. Some roads lead to other places, and some to nowhere at all. There's a lot of ideological ballast to clean out first, before the real journey can even be started.

*There are probably diverging opinions.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Better get the hostility sorted out first. Fundamentalists with an agenda containing exclusivity, monopolism, elitism and even violence more often than not start from assumptions, which are difficult to uphold except through a 'faith', which 'proves' itself circularly. To hasten sales some of such believers invent their own twisted form of logic, where their messages can be sneaked in through the backdoor. The innocent or naive sometimes buy it.


As a physicist by profession, a philosopher by passion, and a non-fundamental Christian by choice, I'm very well acquainted with the intellectual death that is fundamentalism, in all forms (in Bill Maher's religulous, I found myself chuckling at the Catholic priest calling fundamentalism a disease, when asked).

I, too, have, after much studies, come to the same conclusion that all roads do indeed lead to Rome. On the map to get there, there's a red X, but in front of that red X is a giant, deep, dark, thick jungle terrain we call language. It requires a machete, and that machete is mind.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Re: Imherejusttoread

I believe, that our best hope lies in updated versions of epistemology.

E.g. could teaching 'general semantics' probably help a lot on the practical side.

But then most political systems and religions would come crashing down, so it's unlikely the idea would have support from the powers that be.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join