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, why are you afraid of adapting other philosophies too?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 



Originally posted by 2XOHsurf
Afraid of?


Yep, it's what's in the thread title.



I thank God I was delivered out of those artificial phony "philosophies"


Artificial? Phony? I mean, those sorts of philosophies exist, but are you judging the whole field of philosophy as artificial and phony?



and later came to know and realize the only true living God.


Thor? Poseidon? Minerva? Amaterasu? Akhenaten?



How could I ever go back to the smelly empty vanity that they offer your ego. What shall I fear? Ha ha ha ha.


Look! It's arrogant attacks and dismissive laughter!




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SlyingFaucers
 


You wrote:

["The reason I jumped on your OP is because I think that most of the closed mindedness about religion comes from attacks at peoples intelect and beleifs. This prevents an open dialog that could be beneficial to all parties involved."]

Very clever or very naive.

You REALLY believe that? That criticism of religion are attacks on intellectual- or belief-ground.

I can assure you, that the main reason for critique of extremist christianity comes from the observable fact, that invasive, evangelizing christians are genocidal, self-approving elitists with fascist claims, who want to create a christian world-monopoly.

Now please do the christian: "We are persecuted..." thingy, if you feel it's appropriate.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 


Phony, artificial philosophies? Can you name these, and explain why they are fake? I assume that you say that they are fake because they are not the Bible, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What fake philosophy did you believe before? What took you away from it?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




Very clever or very naive.


I dont think either. If you put barbed wire on the fence, you wouldn't expect many people to try and jump it.



You REALLY believe that? That criticism of religion are attacks on intellectual- or belief-ground.


I think there are a lot of people stuck in the mud, but i also think there are a lot of people who just dont know enough. Just like with political views the problem is that things become so polarized from the start because of attacks or perceived attacks on intelligence or beleifs that from that point forward no points are actually heard on either side.



I can assure you, that the main reason for critique of extremist christianity comes from the observable fact, that invasive, evangelizing christians are genocidal, self-approving elitists with fascist claims, who want to create a christian world-monopoly.


I dont think I ever stood up for extremist Christianity. If you can point to a quote I would appreciate it.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SlyingFaucers
 


You wrote:

["I think there are a lot of people stuck in the mud, but i also think there are a lot of people who just dont know enough. Just like with political views the problem is that things become so polarized from the start because of attacks or perceived attacks on intelligence or beleifs that from that point forward no points are actually heard on either side"]

I agree. And on that level it's unusual that the confrontations get so much out of hand, that it turns into more than bar-room brawls or football-supporter clashes. The real problem is in connection with extremists (from all ideologies).

Quote: ["I dont think I ever stood up for extremist Christianity. If you can point to a quote I would appreciate it."]

I do not believe, that you are an extremist christian.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2XOHsurf
I thank God I was delivered out of those artificial phony "philosophies" and later came to know and realize the only true living God. How could I ever go back to the smelly empty vanity that they offer your ego. What shall I fear? Ha ha ha ha.


You're talking about philosophies like the ones I mentioned in the OP, like Taoism and Buddhism? What about Buddhism do you think is appealing to the ego, when they're talking about backing away from it? And what problem do you have with Taoism's philosophy, like in the Tao te Ching my signature links to?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is for Christians who shy away from philosophies like Taoism or some forms of Buddhism that lack a "God" and are purely philosophical in nature. Do you think there's something inherently wrong about them, do you have a thing against foreign cultures (maybe apathy?), or do you just assume you don't need to study them because you already know so much?




If you ask a question like that to Christians than the same must be asked of Muslims and Jews,to be fair.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is for Christians who shy away from philosophies like Taoism or some forms of Buddhism that lack a "God" and are purely philosophical in nature. Do you think there's something inherently wrong about them, do you have a thing against foreign cultures (maybe apathy?), or do you just assume you don't need to study them because you already know so much?


And here's a follow-up question: Since fields of engineering (like civil engineering, electronics, etc.) aren't in the Bible, does that make them automatically false? If not, then that must mean it's possible for people to discover valuable or at least useful knowledge that isn't in the Bible, and that would have some big implications in itself.



Definitely great questions to bring up! I consider myself a Christian and feel that many of these emotions are passed negatively to each religion. I feel I am a Christian as in whenever I break myself down to the spiritual level I can feel the one existence that truly connects us. In this sense, I don't believe other religions are doing it wrong, but each person comes to their own terms/realization with the deep consciousness that binds us all.

I've had troubles in the past thinking about a peaceful Buddhist who never learns about Christians' God, and this in turn dooms him to an eternal damnation which he never really deserved. I feel like some things are taken out of context for sure. I don't have any problem with other religions because everyone has their own way of finding their faith.

There are definitely fanatical groups of each religion which give them a very bad reputation. Extremist catholics, extremist muslims... these groups really don't show what each religion truly believes to the core of their values.

What needs to happen is everyone should slow down, realize that we are all HUMANS and a part of the same thing, and realize what we are doing by creating such negative emotions toward each other.

The problem with this is humans are designed to quarrel with each other... we are designed to harbor ill feelings toward one another without even blinking. I don't feel like this is right. I can only hope each of us can come to the conscious realization that we are all brothers and sisters of not only this world but of our own perception. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, whatever.... we are all feeling a piece of that eternal being that we are all a part of.


As for the Bible, it does not contain all of these negative emotions everyone depicts it to have. The old testament commonly comes up in debates because it was the time when our God was brutal in the decisions with man. Either you believed or you didn't and you were screwed. This all changed with the coming of Jesus... we are taught to forget about ourselves and start considering our brothers and sisters before our own self. This is the most common teaching that we can take from the Bible.... we need to understand that we are all capable of loving one another and existing if we only would recognize that we are all on the same page. The Bible tells us we are born with free will and we can basically do anything we want in life! We are encouraged to be an engineer, a fashion designer, a mom, a roofer... anything. The one thing that any religion wants us to do is realize that there is a greater existence we are a part of, and we need to support one another to embrace it.

So overall, no there is nothing wrong with them. We are taught by diluted words that non believers will go to hell but if we slow down and think about it, there should be a way for everyone seeking guidance to RECEIVE it. And just because professions aren't in the Bible does not mean they are wrong. You are not WORSHIPPING these professions... I'm pretty sure God wants us to develop our minds as much as possible, as long as we follow Him and acknowledge that every day we live is a gift and we should share it with our brothers and sisters.

Peace



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I think the word the OP is looking for is exclusivism. Exclusivism is the belief that one's own faith is the one, true faith and that all others are mistaken, worthless, dangerous, and/or evil. Exclusivism is closely associated with the three Abrahamic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. But there is exluisivism in certain strains of Buddhism (Nichren and early Jodo-shu jump to mind) as well as other forms of Hinduism, extreme Shinto, and some Chinese philosophies. On the whole, the Asian religions "interpenetrate" each other much better than the monotheistic faiths, but there have been religious wars in Asian history, although often not familiar to Western students of history.

What we see in Asian religious history more often than exclusionism is a perhaps kind of "one-upmanship," where new sects or teachers come along and claim to encompass everything previously taught, plus a new wrinke. This is, on the whole, a far less violent process than exclusionist theology.

There is no inherent reason why a non-exclusionary form of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism) can't flourish, and indeed such ideas are not as unfamiliar in Western religious history as one might think. Mystics have more in common with each other across religious bounds (i.e., Sufi mystics, Theravadan Buddhists, and some early desert Christians, for example, seem remarkably similar in many ways...) than they do with fundamentalist co-religionists. This strain of flexible, mystical, open-ended and inclusive religion has a long pedegree in the West, and not only in terms of Gnostics. Look into the medieval "Brotherhood of the Free Spirit," for example, or google "Clound of Unknowing."

Anyway, its a mistake to equate the most "true" form of Christianity with the most radically fundamentalist and exclusivist branches. It is a common human error to equate fanaticism with righteousness or at least sincerity, when true mystics realize the truth is often ineffable and beyond words, crooked and hard to explain. Chrtistians of a more thoughtful, nuanced bent are encouraged to stand up against the shrill fanaticism of fundamentalism that has come to define "Christianity" in the popular mind. Christianity, like every other religion, is up to its practitioniers to define. In recent years the most black-and-white thinkers have taken the theological stage, but history shows Christianity was not always so.


edit on 2/20/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 


You wrote:

["The problem with this is humans are designed to quarrel with each other..."]

Strangely enough I'm not so pessimistic about this. The majority of mankind tends to be relatively peaceful, if they have decent grazing- and mating opportunities. There may be some hierarchy problems inside the herd from time to time, but mankind, with an instinctive herd-mentality, adapts.

The real problem are the sociopaths, a few percent of mankind, who have unreasonable and unrealistic expectations of life. It's like a big existential mental illness, which the herd can be drawn into.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I would like to answer you tomorrow. Your post was very relevant and sensible.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I do not chase after beliefs other than christian ones,because christianity answered all my questions.

And about electronics,even if they were around when the bible took place,why would you find them worth putting in the pages of the bible.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I do not chase after beliefs other than christian ones,because christianity answered all my questions.

And about electronics,even if they were around when the bible took place,why would you find them worth putting in the pages of the bible.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Why are you assuming we Christians are "afraid"? Did you consider that perhaps there are other reasons for rejecting other philosophies?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 



I think the word the OP is looking for is exclusivism. Exclusivism is the belief that one's own faith is the one, true faith and that all others are mistaken, worthless, dangerous, and/or evil.


Christ's claims were exclusive though. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Considering the quality of your post I take it, that I can skip a lot of embellishment (if I also skip some necessary steps on the way, please tell me).

Starting from your comment on 'exclusivism' (which I agree with) the problem is the vagueness of positions (e.g. what IS objective systematic methodology; what IS egalitarian, liberal democracy; what IS an epistemological position).

Even amongst specialist individuals, who should know better because of their closeness to such questions, you still find many, who are unaware of these questions. Some 6-7 years ago I read a book on quantum-gravity from an internationally acclaimed scientist. He demonstrated an embarrasing ignorance of the exclusivism of 'scientism', happily running on a reductionist materialist epistemological circle-argument.

If the specialists can't handle this, how can we expect understanding from the 'common person', who operates on an un-formulated epistemological basis of physical pragmatism. At best 'informed' specialist positions are presented to the 'common person' through pre-digested popularizations.

Hence there is farreaching communication problems, which extremists can misuse for propagandistic purposes.

Without resorting to 'education of the masses' in monologue-form my year on ATS has shown me, that clarification of positions gratifyingly is possible.

Sermons/preaching/bible-verse-citing is increasingly acknowledged as monologues, not communication dialogues.

The formal systematic methodologies of science/logic are recognized as such, and hijacked science/logic manifesting as pseudo-science and -logic is diminishing.

The basic principles of liberal democracy are getting known, and elitist-exclusivity claims of privilege (and when denied privilege then claims of 'persecution') are profiled more clearly for what they are: Ideological fascism.

Debate-tactics can be seen as scholastic, rhetoric, oration etc. as opposed to playing with true colours.


edit on 21-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


That was a very interesting post, thanks for taking the time.

One big issue seems to be that we need definitions to get anything done or convey any meaning at all; at the same time, assuming that those definitions are somehow more inherent than they really are (or are perhaps inherent in a different way) is a mistake. People seem to have trouble achieving a balance between rigor and flexibility. In reality of course there is no contradiction at all but the human brain seems to spend a lot of time playing in a very limited arena.

A possible direction forward is suggested by the philosophical ecumenicalism of the Four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism -- the Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug. Each one views things from a slightly different doctrinal perspective, and each uses the same terminology in sometimes-contradictory ways. This is one reason why a systematic understanding of Tibetan Buddhism out of context is so difficult -- translations mix and match from among the texts of the different schools, and the same term gets used with different meanings, leading to conceptual incoherence.

But the schools themselves have come to an elegant way of living with each other. Students in each school spend time studying the doctrines of each of their three rival schools not disparagingly, but on its own terms, as if approaching a foreign language. They take common Buddhist terms like "emptiness" (shunyata) and examine the way a given term is used differently in each of the different schools. The ultimate understanding is that each school's use of a given expression or idea is valid within its own conceptual framework. Thus conflict is avoided, respect for other traditions is engendered, the fundamental elusiveness and unsatisfactory nature of words is affirmed, and at the same time, multiple rigorous, self-contained systems are maintained, giving rise to a rich theological and intellectual ecology.

edit on 2/21/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
[Double post, my apologies.]
edit on 2/21/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I agree, as a christian raised from childhood, I have always "question" considering the whole "what if" aspect of life. Now in my early twenties I have grown to accept anything, although part of me still holds faith to "God" I still consider aspects and beliefs of other religions and also atiests. To have a better understanding a believe people should hold an open mind. I'd say that many christians shy away from "outside box" thinking due to the belief that if you question god he will deny you, basically having a sense of curiosity = hell. Many problems could be solved if all people accepted others for who they are not their beliefs. Alas, this may never happen as long as fear is drilled into peoples brains.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I am a Christian but I also find the teachings of Buddha to be just as fascinating. Both Buddha and Christ taught basically the same thing--to love your enemy and bless those who curse you and so on and so forth. Some christians are just more "religious" than others more rigid I guess you can say.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join