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.

 

Religion

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Interesting topic I must say. People have fought wars and died in the name of the Lord and if you read the old testament he even helped fight a few battles. I'm no bible scholar and the one thing about religion is there really is no wrong or right in my opinion when it comes to that, to each his own. I grew up in going to a Methodist church myself and my Pastor preached alot on the Apostle Paul. I think the best thing to do when confronted with a question like that is to consult someone you respect in the church and see if they have a good answer for you, or do some research yourself...sorry not to be able to help you with your question...




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
And exactly how do you explain that your mini-sermon isn't anything but fantasies taken from a book of fantasies?


It's just a book of fantasies for nonblievers, but for those who have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ it's God's word. I realize the next comment may be 'how can it be from God if man wrote it'. God has spoken through man our whole existance. Why do I believe it's God's word? Faith.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Hi IAM,

sad to say my cantankerousity has a momentarily period of intensified outbreaks. Probably due to being restricted to an indoor life because of half-arctic climatological conditions. Sorry, rephrasing: It's darned cold here.

My initial grumpiness this time is based on your (IMO) correct statement, that the word 'god' only is a semantic concept. But then you go on to ascribe absolute qualities to 'god'..absolute qualities you know about from..where? A book, personal experiences...which in either case still are subjective (hope we don't have to go through the whole epistemological circuit again), and as such are semantics for anybody outside your mind.

But to go to your answer to me:

Quote: [" I believe in the post that was pulled from we were discussng consciousness. Therefore, what I said WAS a matter of semantics. I do not see the conflict you are alluding to. Are you stating that someone's consciousness doe NOT yearn to express itself, to love and be loved?"]

You probably remember, that I'm open for trans-mundane existence, but not for any specifications of deities 'out there'. On the mundane level I can see no convincing signs of active participation from any deity at all (specified or not) and religion (containing trans-mundane deities) I consider at best guesses, at worst fakes.

I don't have an absolute position on whether there's a 'ghost in the machine' or a 'machine in the ghost', though I lean towards the last answer. Maybe best known in the buddhist version of 'it's all in the mind' as an extensive description of all existence.

So ofcourse I can accept the concept of 'consciousness' without any problems, even 'consciousness' as something pervading all cosmic existence. But by my grumpiness, that's not the same as suddenly identifying it with YOUR various absolutes or degrees of absolutes.

As to a yearning to express itself, 'love' isn't the only bidder. The materialists could be right, the expression is physical. Or the 'true' expression could be the intellect. Or (my favourite) something mostly unknown beyond these possibilities, e.g. 'the totality greater than the sum' of body, emotions and intellect. (That's an asian model).

So don't push your choice into being an absolute, as I don't do with mine.

Absolutes are the closest mankind has to real evil.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pintobean
 


You wrote:

["It's just a book of fantasies for nonblievers, but for those who have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ it's God's word."]

Maybe my answer will surprise you. I have no problems whatsoever with this. You (and other religionists) make personal choices, which is as it should be for everybody at a personal level.

Quote: ["I realize the next comment may be 'how can it be from God if man wrote it'."]

If you had postulated absolutes also categorically including non-believers, I would have put you through a wringer. Not now.

Quote: ["God has spoken through man our whole existance."]

If we can agree on "God has spoken through SOME men according to their own experience".

Quote: ["Why do I believe it's God's word? Faith."]


Dude, in my year of annoying evangelist christians on ATS, you're the first to give this answer straight. I can't argue with faith (outside an academic debate); and why should I, as long as you can live in peace with your god, and I and other people can live in peace with our preferred private life-style (social considerations are unavoidable).

PS I love the Johnny Depp mad hatter.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 




I am sorry my friend, but I have said nothing wise here in this thread. The wisdom came from within the Brother who I was conversing with. He spoke the truth that we are all equally worthy from his own heart and his own mind. He is the wiseman in this thread.


After some time to think, here's one last thing I would like to discuss with you IAMIAM. You were trying to tell me that my thoughts and desires aren't really generated by my own being, my own consciousness, but in fact are generated by the consciousness of God, which is inside us all, correct?

So would that not mean, my "wisdom came from within"? Wouldn't that mean everything I've said here is the word of God? What I'm getting at is, how can every single person on Earth be correct about what they believe? What I've said here are my thoughts, and regardless of what you would claim, what you have said here are the result of your personal beliefs and values. And when it comes right down to it, if Jesus were real, I'm sure he could find faults in things that you've said, as well as things I have said. No one is perfect, and no one ever will be.

And so following that line of logic, I think it's clear we can each generate our own independent thoughts, whether we are connected to God or not. It's also clear that some one has to be wrong, as not every single religion can be right can it? How can you even be 100% sure Christianity is the correct one? It seems very far from the truth IMO, and I think even you would agree with that since they rely heavily on the old testament. There isn't a single real religion on this planet, just lies sprinkled with a little bit of truth as always. It's not hard to see this saddening reality, and the damage such false religions have caused to society.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


And in any case, it must be both a great consolation and justification to you, that there have been ideologies even more insane than invasive christianity (though they were stopped, while we still have extremist christians around).

No Bogomil. I do not justify anything. All those atrocities, happened. But, as i said on my previous post, it’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence.(Extremists of all kinds are still present.)

In the name of WHAT atheism? You're inventing things now to fit with your predetermined answers.

In the name of persons like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong to name a few. And surely i am not inventing anything. It´s all written in History books. Unless of course you are seeking, to exclude secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name.

I'm quite sure, that these "humans" involved in religious atrocities must have been influenced by a book filled with commands of genocide, stoning, slavery etc.

No Bogomil. It´s all about Ethnic rivalry, (political and economical reasons), not religion.
For example can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? You tell me.

Peace



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


You wrote:

["No Bogomil. I do not justify anything. All those atrocities, happened. But, as i said on my previous post, it’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence.(Extremists of all kinds are still present.)"]

I agree with you, that it's unreasonable to claim, that religion numerically is the biggest slayer. As to extremists of all kinds still existing, I'll make my point more clear: I consider the US christian right as the greatest danger to mankind and our planet at the present. Closely followed by Jihad (there are cells of hard-communism and political nazism/fascism left, but they are in no position to make much problems).

Quote: ["In the name of persons like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong to name a few. And surely i am not inventing anything. It´s all written in History books. Unless of course you are seeking, to exclude secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name."]

Yes, you can say, that it was done in 'the name of Stalin or Mao', but how do you make the transition from that to 'the name of secularism and atheism?' Stalin and Mao were communists. What has that to do with atheism and secularism.

Your categorization is made according to extremist christian procedure: First the predetermined 'answer', then adapting 'facts' to suit this answer. In reality there are christian communists, communistic christians, atheist communists, atheist liberals, atheist conservatives, secular religionists...

I am myself liberal, for democracy, politically slightly right, strongly supporting secular society, non-atheist and I am in basic attitudes a typical representative of at least some 400 million europeans, who hover around a statistical 'middle'. How do you fit this into your pre-arranged 'category'?

Where specifically the small handful of SECULAR countries with a high percentage of atheists, humanists or agnostics on a global scale are the most stable and non-aggressive.

You yourself are doing EXACTLY, what you initially protested against. By ignoring the factual situation and by creating false categories, you've made your own 'mantra' for propagandistic purposes.

I find hypocrisy the most suitable word for your method, and it doesn't give you much credibility.

Quote: ["No Bogomil. It´s all about Ethnic rivalry, (political and economical reasons), not religion."]

You're not suggesting, that religion is an appendix to political/economical interests?

In the WW II the catholic church was sitting on the fence, while priests were blessing soldiers on both sides. Some of the crusades were purely missionary. The catholic church was for a while the political leader of Europe. Calvin said, that 'war/conflict is the natural state of christian soldiers'. South America were practically the property of a catholic order. Recently in Poland the churches were political agitation centers. We still have a constant pressure of christians, who want to re-introduce 'christian values' into secular society, claiming privileges. In my youth and until some 30 years ago christians of all denominations infiltrated social functions as much as they could get away with. There's the observable problem about christian evangelism in third world countries.

The fact is, that the christianities ever have been eager to ally itself with political powers; (when possible even being a political power itself). Political power supplying the muscle, christianity the 'spiritual justification'.

Are we approaching 'who the true christians are' now?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Double posting
edit on 21-2-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
After some time to think, here's one last thing I would like to discuss with you IAMIAM. You were trying to tell me that my thoughts and desires aren't really generated by my own being, my own consciousness, but in fact are generated by the consciousness of God, which is inside us all, correct?


Yep.


Originally posted by WhizPhiz
So would that not mean, my "wisdom came from within"? Wouldn't that mean everything I've said here is the word of God? What I'm getting at is, how can every single person on Earth be correct about what they believe? What I've said here are my thoughts, and regardless of what you would claim, what you have said here are the result of your personal beliefs and values. And when it comes right down to it, if Jesus were real, I'm sure he could find faults in things that you've said, as well as things I have said. No one is perfect, and no one ever will be.


It is the word of God, but it is spoken in the language that YOU understand. We have a common language called "english", but the words do not reveal our inner most intent. They distort it. Most of what we say concerns only ourselves and the words we pick and choose from our consciousness reflect what we have experienced. As we have all experienced everything in our own unique way, we may kinda understand each other, but the full understanding is impossible. When we stop focusing on ourselves and talk about things that are more universally desired than just ourselves, language becomes more clear and intelligible to all. What is understandable by all is what we call "Wisdom".

I hope I didn't make that confusing.


Originally posted by WhizPhiz
And so following that line of logic, I think it's clear we can each generate our own independent thoughts, whether we are connected to God or not. It's also clear that some one has to be wrong, as not every single religion can be right can it? How can you even be 100% sure Christianity is the correct one? It seems very far from the truth IMO, and I think even you would agree with that since they rely heavily on the old testament. There isn't a single real religion on this planet, just lies sprinkled with a little bit of truth as always. It's not hard to see this saddening reality, and the damage such false religions have caused to society.


I am anti-religion my friend. The only thing I claim is that the teachings of Christ are truth. I am not a Christian. I am a follower of Christ. I follow his teachings.

There is no right or wrong. Each can only express what they know based on what they have experienced. You cannot go to an Aboriginee and condemn him to hell because he has never heard of Christ, and wouldn't understand his words if you told him about him. That is nonsense and contrary to what Christ taught. What you should do is love him as a Brother. THAT is a Universal language. The God within him will see the God within you, you will have love (Christ) between you.

Does this make sense to you?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Forgive me for skipping the line by line my friend. I understand your aversion to the word "god" and you have good reason for it.

Divine isn't much better I suppose, but that is what I will use here for lack of a better word. The reason why some people have trouble believing in or seeing the divine is because the observer (you) cannot see itself. The divine is within you looking out.

The only way, the ABSOLUTE only way to truly see the divine is to get past your own judgements and SEE the divine in all others.

Only then will you understand the magnificence of the divine. Then, like me, you will fall in love with this wonderful world.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 




Does this make sense to you?
Yes, thanks for answering all my questions. I enjoyed the discussion and found it quite a good learning experience. I have a feeling this wont be our last discussion. I'll see you around.

Regards,
WhizPhiz



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You wrote:

["Divine isn't much better I suppose, but that is what I will use here for lack of a better word. The reason why some people have trouble believing in or seeing the divine is because the observer (you) cannot see itself. The divine is within you looking out."]

To stay semantically safe, without using a language with strong implications, 'the nameless' or 'the undefinable' does well.

As soon as abstract speculations, subjective experiences or (arrrgh) authoritarian doctrinalism start on anthropomorphic name-giving and/or specific characterization of deity and its manifestations/position, we're in the area of 'faith', where nothing justifies the supremacy of one set of subjective 'absolutes' above those of others.

Quote: ["The only way, the ABSOLUTE only way to truly see the divine is to get past your own judgements and SEE the divine in all others."]

Very elegant. I very much appreciate this kind of humour, which I'm sure was intentional. If you hadn't been so stuck in your bhakti love-absolute, you could have made a good zen-buddhist.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Bogomil. Please read my first post. The point i have made on my first post is : it’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence.

And i have stated my opinion: "In my opinion it´s stupid to go with such arguments." Nevertheless i state some facts. Please notice that i will not go in Great detail.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________



Yes, you can say, that it was done in 'the name of Stalin or Mao', but how do you make the transition from that to 'the name of secularism and atheism?' Stalin and Mao were communists. What has that to do with atheism and secularism.

Let´s start with :

"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
Emphasis added.
However, since i am fair person, it's important to emphasize that Stalin's religious life has contradictions of whether he truly was an atheist or not.
Under Communist Rule

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[19][20] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[21][22]


Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

Stalin Era

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.
The sixth sector of the OGPU, led by Yevgeny Tuchkov, began aggressively arresting and executing bishops, priests, and devout worshippers, such as Metropolitan Veniamin in Petrograd in 1922 for refusing to accede to the demand to hand in church valuables (including sacred relics). In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death. Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the "new martyrs and confessors of Russia".

Do we really want that hatred be repeated?? I do not. So, yes i do find arguments such as "Religion is the Mother of all Evil" quite stupid and dangerous.
Further references : Mass Killings , Great Purge , Mass Graves , Society of The Godless
As I said, i will not go in Great detail. Feel free do further research.

You yourself are doing EXACTLY, what you initially protested against. By ignoring the factual situation and by creating false categories, you've made your own 'mantra' for propagandistic purposes.

No Bogomil. All i said was that we should abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. If we do not, then we are risking that history will repeat it self. See above.

I find hypocrisy the most suitable word for your method, and it doesn't give you much credibility.

How am i hypocrite by presenting some facts? Here is another fact:

The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort to persuade Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and harmful, and that good citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview.[5]

Society of the Godless (Of topic: Do you see any similarity with today´s Anti-religion scientific mindset.(aka. Dawkins and co?))

I am myself liberal, for democracy, politically slightly right, strongly supporting secular society, non-atheist and I am in basic attitudes a typical representative of at least some 400 million europeans, who hover around a statistical 'middle'. How do you fit this into your pre-arranged 'category'?

I respect you as a person, and i respect your beliefs. I am not fitting you to any category Bogomil. You will fit your self into a category when you start acting like an extremist. And yes i am European my self, and i know very well how things in EU are.

Your categorization is made according to extremist christian procedure: First the predetermined 'answer', then adapting 'facts' to suit this answer. In reality there are christian communists, communistic christians, atheist communists, atheist liberals, atheist conservatives, secular religionists...

No Bogomil. In reality as i stated on my post : "Humans", is the real force behind the mass-murders of history, and not God. Extremists of all kind.

Peace
edit on 21-2-2011 by Seed76 because: Minor Corrections



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


One last thing IAMIAM...I would like to hear your opinion on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Very elegant. I very much appreciate this kind of humour, which I'm sure was intentional. If you hadn't been so stuck in your bhakti love-absolute, you could have made a good zen-buddhist.


Zen-Buddhist?? That was so last lifetime my friend!

This life, I am a King!

I am contemplating being an ameba next life though. A little relaxation is due.



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


You wrote:

["Bogomil. Please read my first post. The point i have made on my first post is : it’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence."]

To which I answer(ed):

It's also time to abandon the mindless repeated mantra of categorizing opposition into conveniently vague groups, where the only similarity is, that they share SOME characteristics.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You wrote:

["Zen-Buddhist?? That was so last lifetime my friend!"]

What happened? Did you screw up the possibilities, so your present 'karma' is being relegated to a one-perspective option?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
What happened? Did you screw up the possibilities, so your present 'karma' is being relegated to a one-perspective option?




Well I am kinda being punished for losing my temper at two of my fellow monks.

One day we decided to practice meditation together. We were sitting by the side of a lake and meditating when suddenly, the one of my brothers stood up and said, "I forgot my mat." He stepped miraculously onto the water in front of him and walked across the lake to our hut on the other side.

When he returned, my other brother stood up and said, "I forgot to put my other underwear to dry." He too walked calmly across the water and returned the same way.

I watched them very carefully thinking this must be a test of my own abilities. "Is your learning so superior to mine? I too can match any feat you two can perform," I declared loudly and rushed to the water's edge to walk across it. I promptly fell into the deep water.

Undeterred, I climbed out of the water and tried again, only to sink into the water. Yet again I climbed out and yet again I tried, each time sinking into the water. This went on for some time as my two brothers watched.

After a while, the second brother turned to the first and said, "Do you think we should tell him where the stones are?"

So, I lost my temper a bit. It's all good now though!

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 21-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
At the end of the day you are on the right road, you must hold unto your beliefs till the end, you must persevere.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join