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.

 

Christians, Jews and Muslims - A Simple Question

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" Perhaps after the violent and underhanded 'missionaries' have "blown themselves up" as you say, then the peace loving Christians can point to their scriptures and show the world that these 'missionaries' were doing it wrong. I think the debate between Theists and Atheists will come to a more civil stalemate once we all stop generalizing the group as a whole by using the worst examples. Theists are not represented as a whole by evil crusaders who couldn't read their own religious texts that would have shown them their wicked ways were faulty. Atheists are not represented as a whole by god-hating tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Robbespierre.

Also, the Atheist belief that their 'hard science' is proof that everything happened by accident can be refuted by Theists who can say that the Atheists see the machinations of God, but do not percieve the hand behind them. Perpetual stalemate; everyone needs to save their bile for the governments that pit us against one another

edit on 22-12-2010 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Re Kallisti

You wrote:

"I think the debate between Theists and Atheists will come to a more civil stalemate once we all stop generalizing the group as a whole by using the worst examples."

Personally my target in this debate is very clearly defined. Missionaries from all ideologies, who believe they are in possession of the one and only truth, which privileges them to invade other peoples' lives uninvited

Quote: "Theists are not represented as a whole by evil crusaders who couldn't read their own religious texts that would have shown them their wicked ways were faulty."

So why don't christianity clean up its own mess, instead of leaving the job to people like me, who mostly don't give a fig about your inter-christian, inter-abramic quibblings and wars.

Quote: "Also, the Atheist belief that their 'hard science' is proof that everything happened by accident can be refuted by Theists who can say that the Atheists see the machinations of God, but do not percieve the hand behind them."

Pleeease. Not 'intelligent design' AGAIN. That is ofcourse unless you in reality like to keep your posts on clichée level; but then you must be prepared to be answered with clichées or something on that kind..

'Intelligent design' is one of the worst blunders christians have made recently, and those christians able to look outside the holy bubble are aware of it and try to avoid it. But sure, we can rechew it later, if you want to.

Quote: "Perpetual stalemate; everyone needs to save their bile for the governments that pit us against one another"

Save your self-pity for somebody taking it seriously. The government I propose take ALL ideologies (no matter how crazy) under its wings, as long as said ideologies keep secular laws.

Is that a habit you have, constructing sermons alone in your mind? Because I have the very strong impression, that you're not talking to me, but to an invisible audience. You practically never relate meaningful to any of my opinons or posts, but ramble on about why you unjustly aren't allowed to 'share' Jesus with people who consider your 'sharing' an invasion of their lives.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Quote: "Also, the Atheist belief that their 'hard science' is proof that everything happened by accident can be refuted by Theists who can say that the Atheists see the machinations of God, but do not percieve the hand behind them."

Pleeease. Not 'intelligent design' AGAIN. That is ofcourse unless you in reality like to keep your posts on clichée level; but then you must be prepared to be answered with clichées or something on that kind..


Can't agree more. It's these inferences to God that really frustrate me, it's cliched and intellectually bankrupt. Evolution alone has proved "intelligent design" is not apparent, nature has no forsight, planets, gallaxies collide without purpose, species die, Stars die out.

We are ALL agnostic in regards to the source of reality, the "why" behind the universe, and thus we should all be Atheist, for how can ancient man proclaim to know "God" when he barely knew of the place in his own solar system.....let alone the cause or nature of the universe.

Any Theist claiming to know should be treated with suspicion until proved otherwise. Besides, they are all Atheist in regards to every other religion but their own.

edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
So it is natural for mankind to write books to tell itself to not do the things that it is natural for it to do? And then continually remind itself it is doomed to destruction for failing to not do the things it is natural for it to do? And doing it in someone else's voice on top of that? Wouldn't you think mankind would rather find ways to justify itself for doing the things it is natural for it to do instead of condemning itself? Wouldn't that be the natural way of doing things? Oh that is right it actually is, only, they use the very same book that they use to tell others they are wrong for doing what comes naturally to them as if it justifies them even though they themselves don't adhere to its teachings.

"I love Christ, but I despise Christians because they do not live as Christ lived" Ghandi

Isn't that the nature of things?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Riley Family
 



So it is natural for mankind to write books to tell itself to not do the things that it is natural for it to do


It's what makes us human, we write poetry, we write novels, express our political ideaology, but your doctrine goes one step further and proclaims it knows the wishes of the creator of the universe. It's metaphysical claims are extraordinary and un-evident.

Can't you see, MAN wrote the bible, all of the morals and ethics were derived from man, not God.

Before Moses saw the burning bush and professed the 10 commandments, man still knew that it was wrong to kill, steal and rape. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality and ethics.


"I love Christ, but I despise Christians because they do not live as Christ lived" Ghandi


Christ is written to have said and preached some great moral philosophy but that does not mean he is the Son of "GOD" or that the metaphysical claims of the bible are true.

Besides, Jesus preached some immoral ideas:-


"For you will always have the poor with you . . ."
(Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11, and John 12:8)

Jesus's declaration [that the poor will always be among us] has been used repeatedly by the Christian religion to justify the horrendous wealth inequity that exists among humans. Jesus apparently actually said these words, which is rather inexplicable coming from someone also famous for saying "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31) and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12).


Source

Similarly, just because old testament document condones slavery and genocide doesn't make it right.
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I guess Moses penned those commandments so everybody could remember then.

well more like chiseled into a certain and meaningful material...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Because if he didn't people would forget that Rape, Murder and Unconcented Adultery were un-desirable actions to inflict on members of your society?

It's as if, for a 100,000 years humanity were unaware of these things, finally "GOD" decides to introduce a savior.

We would not have survived as a species if Rape, Murder and Unconcented adultery were allowed.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


what is important to remember is that it is written in 'Stone' might this signify Law or the beginnings of it...
Of course there was Law before hand but it's proper establishment is to be considered here.

those stories are for introduction into a certain philosophy, and it happens to span multiple languages ect, one could say it is Global and this might be because alot of cultures through out time just never had a way of efficiently conveying this to their populace.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


While i understand your point completely, and i have no qualms with written laws in a stable civilisation. What i deteste is the metaphysical claims that go with these biblical rules or "LAWS". They profess them as objective morals.

And are LAWS not subject to change? How can you expect to oppose these laws when their bearers believe that these words of the absolute word of "GOD".

It's clear that it is the word of man, if we still lived by the absolute word of "GOD" then slavery, genocide would still be advocated, for is the Old Testament not the true word of "GOD"

Thank "god" for democratic secular society so we can oppose "his" rules. Of course, we can all agree that killing, theiving and unconsented adultery are not admirable or healthy traits or actions for a stable society without the need to invoke the supernatural.

Peace.
edit on 23/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Facts is facts and you would probably attest to the fact the poor continue to exist amongst us. So he wasn't wrong about the statement he made. There is nothing in the statement that condones how you say the Christians use it for their own greed. As you have stated yourself there are scriptures that do not condone greed. Just because someone uses a statement to supposedly justify their actions it doesn't make the messenger guilty for knowing they would act that way. It is a little odd that you get "immoral" out of the statement, though, how you say it is used by Christians you are correct in your judgment. So you have made it apparent that Christians are not followers of the Christ they claim to but rather their own greed as the scriptures stated they would.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by The Riley Family
 


Sorry, what facts are facts? The unevident existence of God? Or the lack of logic and free thinking used by those who worship Holy Doctrine?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Our post was not that difficult to comprehend but does it go to show that Atheists seem to be more about Atheism and their doctrine and Christians about Christianity and their doctrine. Neither are willing to look at things for what they are but rather they like to look at things in a fashion that fashions after their doctrine. It is not about the doctrine of truth and facts but of some truth and some facts used to support a personal theology. Both theologies are anti-scriptural. In fact if you read scriptures, and it is understood that many Atheists seem to know the scriptures better than many Christians do, than you would understand that Atheists are not alone in their dislike or hatred for the scriptural God. Those scriptures point out that in their history few actually did like him enough to believe him or follow after him.

Do the scriptures creation portrayal clearly depict their was not a big bang? Do the scriptures clearly state that the days of creation were 24 hours or 1000 years? Do the scriptures deny the age of the solar system or the existence of dinosaurs as is scientifically known? Do the scriptures deny evolution? Christian doctrine does of course deny many of the things that are evident but that doesn't go to say the scriptures absolutely don't support what is evident.

There are a number of Atheists that have taken offense to being called religious. Why? Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, NATURE, and purpose of the universe, a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects, something one believes in and follows devotedly.

It doesn't seem that far off so why take offense? Is it just a little too close to guilt by association or what? Our family does not believe in the Christian Jesus nor any Jesus for that matter. Nor do we believe in Yeshua, Joshua, Iesous, or anything the like. Atheists still associate us with Christians and their doctrines and though they are incorrect, we don't take offense. As for Christians, though, they don't associate with us at all.

So Atheists who; claim to believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, NATURAL selection, and so on; treat the phenomenon of religion as some kind of mutant anomaly instead of a NATURAL course that has served and continues to serve an intricate part of NATURE yes it appears to be totally NATURAL, has survived, and continues to evolve. Whether or not any particular religion is based on total fact it still exists and regardless of Atheistic assumptions of its existence it is what it is. That in and of itself is weighty as to the NATURE of how things are.

Has anyone proven it is unnatural for mankind to believe in a God or Gods. So if someone makes a statement that the poor will always be with us than if he is right he is right and that doesn't make him immoral just because some group thinks it justifies their greed. However (sarcastically) if it doesn't fit our popular religion we will fashion it to do so, sounds a lot like popular religion to us.

So it is in most Christians nature to ignore scientific evidence that finds fault with their doctrine and it is in most Atheist mindset to not look at the scriptures from an unbiased point of view rather than looking at it through a Christians interpretation. So what is NATURAL for an Atheist and what is NATURAL for a Christian only supports what we believe to be true.Why? Because Atheists say the burden of proof is on the Christians to prove God exists, Christians claim it is the Atheists burden of proof to prove he doesn't exist and while they both are fighting we haven't been afraid to question both and that is why we are neither one. So the NATURE of things is actually a guide we don't mind using. So even if God didn't exist it is obviously an inevitable NATURAL phenomenon, if he does exist it is an inevitable superNATURAL phenomenon.

Either way how can a belief in God not be considered to be a NATURAL thing especially considering its prevalence thoughout history?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Without reference to the doctrine of your religion; how would you go about proving your SPECIFIC God to someone, using only nature itself from what raw materials and knowledge we currently have an understanding of?

The key word is "SPECIFIC"

I will be willing to grant you that nature itself could be considered evidence(Deism argument); but not evidence that this God expresses that the words and morals of the QuRan, the Bible or Torah are in fact the truth. As how could you possibly deduce moral absolutism from nature itself? [Theism argument is that you can]
edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Everything is one thing only. Everything is spirit, or consciousness, where consciousness (as information) is primary, not matter. This is the only possible way to resolve all the quantum paradoxes. It's called Monistic Idealism, as opposed to Materialist Monism. There are some Youtube videos from Amit Goswami, physicist, to provide additional clarification, while pointing to the moral imperatives arising from that kind of oneness reality, which, according to the Hundu's and Buddhists, is testable, and verifyable, through a variety of levels of conscious experience ie: no separate self, unconditioned ground of being, etc.

In this way, the Parable of the Good Sameritan, within the context of the highest expression of the law and the prophets, is illuminated, and demonstrated in terms of it's practical application, from the perspective of the fallen man, easily translated to the sorrows and needs of another who is in need, or downtrodden by the evils of the world (theives), wherein even the lowliest among us (from the perspective of those Jesus was addressing, the Samaritan is "unclean), can lend a hand, moved by compassion, out of love, whereby loving neighbor as self, is just as great a thing (since we are all one sharing one ground of being, one spirit of life) as loving God above all (transcendant, absolute Godhead).

Which distills down still further to the Golden Rule, of love neighbor as self. However from where is all this surplus love to arise, if not a love capable of carrying and transcending the very deepest of sorrows, sins, and injustices..?

Therefore, to love as Jesus Christ loved (loves) us, is the highest form of an expression of the eternal Godhead made manifest in human experience, through the love of "bhakti" or devotional, selfless service, whereby love may be defined as the will to give of one's self for the sake of another's well bring and spiritual growth, and where "spiritual growth" would only be that which makes the human being ever more conscious of his own or her own, true nature, as an expression, and a creation of the Godhead, and in this sense, by raising up what is low to increasingly higher heights - is indestinguishable from psychological growth and well being.

Thus, we have a type of Civilized arrow of progress, where the rubber really meets the road and goes somewhere far and wide, and it's the Christian who is or who ought to be always (already always) willing to go first, and to bracket his/her own faith based system in favour of the love of Christ realized, in the most appropriate and applicable way, from the perspective of the recipient of that love, who is any man, whether Jew, Muslim, or Atheist (i even gave it a cap).

"In so far as you did it unto the least of my brothers (any man in need - see Good Samaritan Parable again), you did it unto me."

Once this is fully understood, within the larger family framework, and reality (oneness of universal consciousness in a Monistic Idealist framework), then we're ready to roll and make desciples of all nations, but only by the greatness of our love and self sacrifice, and, provided we do the WILL of God, which is to love as we are loved, then God is Himself glorified, revealed and made known and realized, within the appropriate context, all the way down the line, in a radical transformative forgiveness, love and Civilized conscious awareness (growth).

Thus, based on my best knowledge and reasoning, and felt experience (through testing), the responsibility falls to the Christian to form the bridge to all, formed and informed by the love of Jesus Christ realized in the world, in the very spirit of the original love, from he who was, who is, and who is to come - as we move together collectively, under the royal arch of Christ Himself into everlasting freedom, mutuality, happiness, joy and love, even laughter, on the other side of all this misery and suffering, even to the simplicity on the far side of complexity = peace.

The love itself then is the keystone, and the cement in that archway, not the doctrine or the dogma, but the love brought into being by the word made flesh, who's my pattern, and who informs me while I type here at ATS.

"As I am sent, even so send I you."

That's all I've got for the time being in response to the OP.


edit on 27-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: typo, slight edit



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Re NewAgeMan

You wrote:

"Which distills down still further to the Golden Rule, of love neighbor as self."

And what if you're a masochist (or repentant sinner as the lingo has it)? Then your flagellantism extends to him as 'love'.

We've had too much christian 'love' already, so your salestalk is just another meaningless sermon.

If you really wanted to offer some good advice or support a functional social model, "live and let live" is a safe suggestion (but then you couldn't preach ofcourse).



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Exactly, Coudn't agree more, if we were to apply the "Golden Rule" to someone like Charles Manson i don't think the results would be pleasant.

This is why i don't think objective moral rules can exist.

Humans are innately altruistic, and if they are not innately, they can surely see the benefits that come with showing compassion and helping your fellow species. We don't need "GOD" to be moral.

It's easy to understand that God was created by man, they didn't know they existed in a solar system when creating Holy Doctrine, how can they be trusted with the knowledge of the creator of the universe, and whether this entity even has desires or even whether this "entity" they speak of has any desires at all.

With this in mind, as an atheist, this does not mean i think that there is no obligation to be nice to my fellow humans.

edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

Huh?


Didn't you read what I wrote in it's entirety? What the hell is wrong with some of your people?! I just don't understand. You see and yet are blind, hear, but are deaf. No one can pose a reasonable argument to you, your minds are like steel traps shut tight against any revelation no matter how sensible.

And no I'm not mad because you disagreed with >me



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

Please offer us your reasonable, fundamental principal as an alternative then. Thank you.


Mine is (Cliff Notes version) - in the space of freedom - love, and do as you will, and, love neighbor as self, but not without gratitude for life, to the source of life, as a fount of inspired love and creativity, wherein we are already fully accepted and unconditionally loved, as a starting point or a first/last cause, since we're here enjoying life already, which is good.


P.S. The Charles Mansons of the world deal themselves OUT of the game and by their actions rescind their right to freedom. That's a no brainer, but a very weak argument for wishing to break the golden rule and throw it away as a useful framework of understanding and mutuality.


edit on 27-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I do too live mself by this "Golden rule" you speak of, but religion doesn't have a monopoly over that, the idea of loving thy neighbour and the golden rule were around long before Jesus was said to have preached it.

And like i said, it is relative/subjective - that rule only happens to be as good as the person in question, just stands to show that there can be no "objective" morality to speak of, but we have to act with compassion, emapathy and with understanding.

I try to live a moral life because i believe it can be achieved without objective rules commanded by a supernatural being, i believe ourselves as humans have understandings, social responsibilities. If we didn't we wouldn't have made it by now. They wouldn't have made it before any of the Jesus and the Moses nonsense alledgedly came about. Rape, theiving, and unconcented adultery were not desirable traits amongst any society, even well before all the biblical dgoma came about.

"The Moral Superiority Of Atheism"
edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

Did you note the premise of my argument, was based on oneness of life and spirit (consciousness), or did that get glossed over..?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I do too live mself by this "Golden rule" you speak of, but religion doesn't have a monopoly over that, the idea of loving thy neighbour and the golden rule were around long before Jesus was said to have preached it.

well I would say it was around long before atheism was even a word and long before Atheism has been trying to 'steal' it. so that in itself should say something for the superiority of his particular philosophy.


And like i said, it is relative/subjective - that rule only happens to be as good as the person in question, just stands to show that there can be no "objective" morality to speak of, but we have to act with compassion, emapathy and with understanding.

as I have stated and established in other topics about Atheism in general being thieves and trying to latch themselves onto any thing they may be able to usurp or add to their doctrine (as observed in nature and on the internet) There is nothing to be added upon to this principle, it is already owned by the great philosophical minds from history. Sorry the Atheists are just going to have to write their own book and their own rules tailoring to the self-proclaimed god theory they already represent to society.


I try to live a moral life because i believe it can be achieved without objective rules commanded by a supernatural being, i believe ourselves

I am glad for these values did come from somewhere and firstly I might add... Hitler I am sure felt he was his own God too just as the jet-setter Darwin.


"The Moral Superiority Of Atheism"
edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Atheistic superiority is steeped in the supposed morality of evolutionary theory, extreme prejudice and racism, there is a certain ironic element to the truth in this by the statements made in your posts, and in the links which you choose to peruse.

actions speak louder than words my friend...


edit on 12/27/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join