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.

 

Is God trying to tell us?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012king
 


I agree with IAMIAM.

There is truth in the Bible. But the whole Bible is not equally true. It was written by humans and they make mistakes as well as they manipulate to achieve their own ends. Religion has always been ripe for exploitation by those who will use it to further their own selfish ends.

Like he said, there is spiritual truth in all the traditions, and even in areas not normally thought of as spiritual like science and philosophy. God does not have a "chosen people" in the sense that the Bible claims, that for all time he favors them. Gods "chosen" people are the people who choose to listen to God. We have all at some times aligned ourselves to the will of God. But often when we get comfortable, we begin trying to impose OUR will upon nature, and each other. And do not think that Nature is not also God. They are one and the same. Nothing is not God.

No one is being punished. Japan is geologically unstable. It has been as long as we have records. If God says, "I shake the ground here" you need to think about how you build, where you build, how dense your population gets in that region, etc. Japan is actually pretty good at building with God in mind, and so they suffered less than a culture more arrogant or ignorant would have.

Many things we are doing is out of harmony with Gods will. Our love of money is making us seek infinite economic expansion and growth, and there are consequences for basing all of our actions on acquiring wealth, rather than basing our actions on an intimate conversation with God/Nature that is ongoing.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
dont get me wrong, i like the idea of everybody getting along, but as long as there are so many different religions thats never going to happen. the slightest variations in peoples view of the truth has caused way too many problems throughout history.


You are correct my friend, religion has served it's purpose and no longer is needed. Before we transition away from religion, there must be fulfilment of Prophecy so that all will know that there is a God and that his Law is valid. Religion's had a purpose, to unite men. They brought them together into large bodies. Now it is time to cast the vessels away and drink the truth within. There is ONE God and the Law of this God is to love one another. Nothing else matters. We are all Prophets of the ONE God. If you say you are hungry, that is God telling me to feed you. If you say you are cold, that is God telling me to clothe and shelter you. If you see me in need, that is God telling you to lend a hand.




do you mind if i ask what it is you have seen to make you such a strong believer? to me it is the same as people who have beliefs in ghosts and extra terrestrials etc. i believe that the universe is such a big place the chances of there being no other intelligent life out there at all is zero. however i personally have never seen any solid proof of this. same with ghosts, many people claim to have seen them, and i would like to think they are not just hallucinating but again, i have seen no solid proof myself. now we get to god, in whatever form, and again many people claim to have had visions, or experiences but i have seen no solid proof. in reality i could blame the current events going on all over the world on ghosts but that wouldnt make any sense now would it...... and please dont reply with " god is everything and everywhere" as this is simply not the case.


I cannot tell you what made me a knower (belief is a choice, knowing is), it came by an epiphany.

I am certain there are things you could tell me that you have experienced that there would be no way for me to validate. The only thing I could do is either believe you, or dismiss you. If I believe you, then my world view is broadened. If I reject your testimony, then my world view remains limited to what only I can see.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
can i just ask something... if god is all loving and giving etc. and he wants us to all live happily and safely together why has he not given an instruction booklet of how the earth should work the way he wants it to? in my opinion if somebody says god is punishing people for not behaving/living how he wants would that not make him more of a dictator figure? lets be honest if he is, not only is he a nasty piece of work, he also has a mass of weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. if he existed and wanted peace on earth surely he would ensure this happened. thats why i dont believe in a "god".



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
... and please dont reply with " god is everything and everywhere" as this is simply not the case.


Here is the thing. You have no evidence that it is not the case. It is your belief that it is not. We cannot prove God IS, using science, but we cannot prove God ISNT either. Some claims made in the Bible can be proven or disproven, (A claim of a 6000 year old Earth can be subjected to science) but God itself is something which science must remain silent. No proof, no disproof is possible, maybe someday.

So, what I would recommend, is that you not try to become a believer. Dont try to follow others. But dont be a disbeliever either. Just acknowledge that you do not know, and keep your eyes and mind open. Many of us who seem certain are not believers. We are not basing our belief on stories. We are people who have had direct experience. And because we have experienced directly, we Know.

Be open to the possibility of knowing for yourself. The truth cannot enter a closed mind, whether it is closed by mistaken belief in God, or a mistaken disbelief in God. Admit you do not know, ask to see the truth, and leave it there.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


WOW.
Very nice.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
can i just ask something... if god is all loving and giving etc. and he wants us to all live happily and safely together why has he not given an instruction booklet of how the earth should work the way he wants it to? in my opinion if somebody says god is punishing people for not behaving/living how he wants would that not make him more of a dictator figure? lets be honest if he is, not only is he a nasty piece of work, he also has a mass of weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. if he existed and wanted peace on earth surely he would ensure this happened. thats why i dont believe in a "god".


Consider that our judgment of Gods actions are not accurate. When we say "God is all loving" or "punishing" we are imposing OUR idea of what we like or dislike onto Gods actions. We fear death, and so we feel death must be punishment.

Most of the spiritual traditions try to tell you, that judgment is a mistake. Humans cannot do it. We are in error when we do. Buddhism discusses this in terms of dualism, and not seeking what we desire and trying to escape what we are averse to. The Abrahamic traditions deal with this with the story of Original Sin, in Christianity, Jesus comes along and elaborates further on not judging.

Peace on Earth is found by not struggling against "what is." "Love" does not mean "really really like" it means unconditionally accept.

Unconditional acceptance of What Is gives you bliss or heaven on Earth. However that means unconditional acceptance of what you have been judging negative as well as that which you have been judging positively. It doesnt mean do nothing to change things. It means when you are acting to change things do so with peace and unconditional acceptance in your heart.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I have a very open mind, wether it be evolution, gods creation or some other intelligent life placing us here. we all got here somehow, but until it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt how we got here, i do not believe in anything in particular. what people believe in is up to them, and when it comes to me, i choose to keep an open mind on the possibilities of everything, its just the whole god thing is a bit too far fetched for me. like i said, there are many flaws in the original story that are simply not possible, and this is what many people have based their belief on. the whole adam and eve thing is the one that stands out the most. if that were true we would all be so inbred we would have died out a matter of years after we were created. and that doesnt explain how the dinosaurs were around many years before mankind. did your god wipe them out to place us here? its a bit like flushing all your goldfish down the toilet so you have space for a new pet lizard isnt it?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Any question you could ever have. Any advice you could be looking for. Here is truth. If you can handle it?



I'm just going to point to the first error in your reasoning. It's in the title itself. That being that once you have accepted that there is a God? You can't limit him to trying anything. Any question you have?

Angryone




If God exists,I think that we can rest assured that he is no damned liberal.


This made me smile.
edit on 18-3-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
sorry is that a pic of the bible? i dont recognise it. if this is an instruction manual of sorts, why has it not been around for as long as the eart has existed, and why was it not made availible to everybody from day one? this thread could go on forever backwards and forwards between believers and non-believers and that wouldnt get us anywhere really. all i can say is i dont believe that a god of any sort would feel the need to use the power of nature to teach humans a lesson, when he supposedly has the power to do anything he wants. surely prevention is better than cure, so why not just put a stop to the problems before they even start. for example if nuclear power is such a bad thing in his eyes, why would he let us create it? surely he could see what problems this could cause, even with its benefits.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012king
 


Dont fixate on the story. You are right, the Bible is not the literal word for word truth. Dont let people with a mistaken fanatical belief make you close your mind to the possibility that SOME of the Bible contains truth.

Not everyone who calls themselves religious knows God. Jesus discussed this, that many would think they knew him and would be surprised to find at the end they did not. So do not base your acceptance or rejection of ANY spiritual message on what other people tell you about that message. They could be wrong.

Take it in, and run it past the spirit of truth within you. If there are parts of the Bible you just KNOW are false, you may well be right. There are parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with God. But dont shut yourself off from the parts that are good, Jesus has some things to say any human being could benefit from. Regardless what they believe.

edit on 18-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
dont get me wrong, im sure there is some truth in there, there is with nearly every story, its just the whole creation part of it that doesnt make sense. not with all of the scientific discoveries that have pretty much disproven a lot of it. im sure jesus was a real person, and a very good story teller/magician maybe. that doesnt make him any more of a normal human being than the rest of us. maybe he just had a good way of making people think he was something special when if fact he was just another person like you and me. i hear a lot of people saying that you have to see to believe, but they wont actually say what they have seen as they know they will be ridiculed for it by any non believers. in the same way people who say they have been abducted by UFOs are ridiculed by people who dont believe. if the truth is so important to everybody, why not just share it so everybody can get a perspective of what they have seen?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by 2012king
 


Dont fixate on the story. You are right, the Bible is not the literal word for word truth. Dont let people with a mistaken fanatical belief make you close your mind to the possibility that SOME of the Bible contains truth.

Not everyone who calls themselves religious knows God. Jesus discussed this, that many would think they knew him and would be surprised to find at the end they did not. So do not base your acceptance or rejection of ANY spiritual message on what other people tell you about that message. They could be wrong.

Take it in, and run it past the spirit of truth within you. If there are parts of the Bible you just KNOW are false, you may well be right. There are parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with God. But dont shut yourself off from the parts that are good, Jesus has some things to say any human being could benefit from. Regardless what they believe.

edit on 18-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


Well you know the time of the gentiles is over friend. In short the Christian duty to spread the word as commanded by God is over. I can see what you mean by fanatical in this respect.

Iam your brother as well. Definetly a fanatic.

Randyvious



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
dont get me wrong, im sure there is some truth in there, there is with nearly every story, its just the whole creation part of it that doesnt make sense. not with all of the scientific discoveries that have pretty much disproven a lot of it. im sure jesus was a real person, and a very good story teller/magician maybe. that doesnt make him any more of a normal human being than the rest of us. maybe he just had a good way of making people think he was something special when if fact he was just another person like you and me. i hear a lot of people saying that you have to see to believe, but they wont actually say what they have seen as they know they will be ridiculed for it by any non believers. in the same way people who say they have been abducted by UFOs are ridiculed by people who dont believe. if the truth is so important to everybody, why not just share it so everybody can get a perspective of what they have seen?


Because words cannot describe it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Because words cannot describe it.

if words cannot describe it, how do you describe it to yourself without using words? you must have interpreted it in a certain way to understand it?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Because words cannot describe it.

if words cannot describe it, how do you describe it to yourself without using words? you must have interpreted it in a certain way to understand it?


Entire books have been written trying to make a clear interpretation of it. If they failed, what makes you think I could succeed? I try on this forum, but in reality it comes from within you.

Christ demonstrated it with his life. Don't read the story, be the story.


edit on 18-3-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
. i hear a lot of people saying that you have to see to believe, but they wont actually say what they have seen as they know they will be ridiculed for it by any non believers.


You cant. You cant share that experience perfectly with another person. If that were possible, everyone who could would share it. Unfortunately, because humans are imperfect, and because our language is imperfect, the more you talk about God in specifics, the more you screw it up.

The best you can do, really, is to tell people how to position themself to see for themself.

Have an open mind and heart. Dont believe or disbelieve. Ask to be shown the truth, and then open your eyes and look, patiently.

You dont need another human being to negotiate your relationship with God. You just need to not lock down your mind and heart. Keep it open, ask to be shown, and then watch and listen with that same open heart. It may take time. Not because you are not being answered, but because it takes time to learn to see and hear when you have been trained to obey and believe.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by 2012king
. i hear a lot of people saying that you have to see to believe, but they wont actually say what they have seen as they know they will be ridiculed for it by any non believers.


You cant. You cant share that experience perfectly with another person. If that were possible, everyone who could would share it. Unfortunately, because humans are imperfect, and because our language is imperfect, the more you talk about God in specifics, the more you screw it up.

The best you can do, really, is to tell people how to position themself to see for themself.

Have an open mind and heart. Dont believe or disbelieve. Ask to be shown the truth, and then open your eyes and look, patiently.

You dont need another human being to negotiate your relationship with God. You just need to not lock down your mind and heart. Keep it open, ask to be shown, and then watch and listen with that same open heart. It may take time. Not because you are not being answered, but because it takes time to learn to see and hear when you have been trained to obey and believe.



Yup! What he said!



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryOne
 

That post was written to express my concern over peoples ability to filter information through their own belief systems and come out with proof of those very systems.

The examples given were hyperbolic in nature in that as I clearly stated in the post, I do not believe in a god that sends messages through catastrophe. And that god would certainly no be liberal, or conservative.

I placed my hyperbole in reference to the nuclear issue which is now playing itself out because of the problems in Japan.
There have always been three sides to the argument over nuclear power. One side was the go ahead and build em side which was basically trumpeted by those who sought to profit from them. No matter the danger(what danger) of waste or meltdown. Sure, we don't have the science for disposal of the waste yet but it is right around the corner.(that was 60 years ago). Yet safe disposal is still an issue.

Chernobyl and TMI are considered aberrations that were not really serious by this first group but I can recall both conservative and liberal caution over the safety of nuclear power. It's was pushed ahead with assurances to both sides that the safety issue was minimal.

The second side of the issue was made up of people who just wanted to plug in their fourth tv. They didn't care where the power came from. Nuclear power, solar power or thousands of Chinese lackeys pedaling away on bicycle powered generators, they didn't care.

The third side of the issue was composed of basically two groups. Those who didn't want them in THEIR back yard and those who didn't believe nuclear power would ever be safe. This second group would not sit down and shut up. As I pointed out in the OP , these people have been protesting, demonstrating and going to jail in support of this belief for decades. They have been ridiculed and slandered for their efforts.

Now with the seriousness of the Japanese reactors, the danger of nuclear power is back on the front page.
All the promises of safety have been shown to be nothing more than that. Promises. Those who want to continue with nuclear power will continue to make promises. Those who have actively fought against nuclear power are right now being vindicated. All of these people have been liberal.

Back to the main thrust of the OP. People who believe god places judgement on humanity in any way believe so through the filter of their own belief systems. Conservatives through theirs. Liberals through theirs, just as you filter through yours and I through mime.

My observations of those who who DO believe god works this way is that they are invariably Christian, fundamental and conservative. My conjecture in the post was that WERE god sending a message , it could just as easily be that those liberals who have been fighting nuclear power all along were right in their actions rather than chastising "evil doers" by punishing innocents.

I really missed the mark with this post. Next to no one grasped my conjecturing. Rather I found that most filtered my hypothetical juxtaposition through their already established systems of belief and on down the roads of preset bias.

Vada con dooie?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You wrote:

["Most of the spiritual traditions try to tell you, that judgment is a mistake. Humans cannot do it. We are in error when we do. Buddhism discusses this in terms of dualism, and not seeking what we desire and trying to escape what we are averse to. The Abrahamic traditions deal with this with the story of Original Sin, in Christianity, Jesus comes along and elaborates further on not judging."]

I have no problems with 'judgement is a mistake', so we just try to get rid of the Hitlers, Stalins, Jihad and christian soldiers in a cool and detached way. I also can see the direct relevance to the asian ways of considering 'dualism' as a central point.

But not really understanding your perspective on 'original sin', I'm at a loss here. Did you imply some new-age method, where things go through an ideological blender and come out homogenized, so 'original sin'-based methodology is similar to buddhistic 'dualism'-based methodology.

Or did you mean the same initial situation viewed from two opposite perspectives. As far as I can see, there exist few (if any) religious doctrines so judgemental as 'original sin', whereas the original buddhist 'dualism' perspective is pretty neutral on the condemnation side.

Quote: ["Unconditional acceptance of What Is gives you bliss or heaven on Earth."]

Such postulates are easy to make from behind a computer. Considerably more difficult or impossible, living in a KZ-camp.

Quote: [" It means when you are acting to change things do so with peace and unconditional acceptance in your heart."]

Unconditional acceptance of WHAT. Not that I want to deny your direction or good intentions, but I question your competence to put forth such absolute answers.

Quote: ["You cant. You cant share that experience perfectly with another person. If that were possible, everyone who could would share it. Unfortunately, because humans are imperfect, and because our language is imperfect, the more you talk about God in specifics, the more you screw it up."]


Couldn't agree more. Nonetheless you go on and recommend

Quote: ["The best you can do, really, is to tell people how to position themself to see for themself."]

A position is eventually as numbing as any doctrine or predigested answer.

Especially if fixed elements like this are introduced..

Quote: ["You dont need another human being to negotiate your relationship with God."]

God? GOD? Where did he come from, in this open-end search, with no pre-arranged parameters.

Maybe from:

["We are people who have had direct experience. And because we have experienced directly, we Know."]

Strangely enough, I also have had 'direct experience' (so we can have a merry little 'holier-than-you' competition or you can ignore it), but my direct experience didn't have any 'god' in it. Actually I believe, that the presence of any kind of 'god' whatsoever would have imploded my 'direct experience'.



edit on 18-3-2011 by bogomil because: semantic context



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil


But not really understanding your perspective on 'original sin', I'm at a loss here. Did you imply some new-age method, where things go through an ideological blender and come out homogenized, so 'original sin'-based methodology is similar to buddhistic 'dualism'-based methodology.


Im not sure what you are asking. I read Genesis, I put nothing through a blender, and what I read it as saying is that it is a sin, (which translates to miss the mark or err) to think we could judge like God. The Serpent had them eat the "fruit" and so now they were "judging" but they were mistaken in their belief that their judgment had anything to do with Gods. Surprise, surprise, the serpent in the story lied to them.

He gave them the curse of THINKING there was a "dualistic" world, when God had created one in which everything was "good." (Read Genesis for yourself.) Notice that God did not dress them for his sake. HE did not judge their nakedness, they did. He clothed them to ease their shame, not because being naked was really "bad" or "shameful."

I wasnt raised Christian, (or any religion) and so when I read the Bible, I had not had several hundreds of years of people telling me what I was supposed to see there. I saw what I saw. I saw God not "punishing" Adam and Eve, but describing for them the natural consequences of their new thought process. "Now you will fear hunger, and farm instead of gather," "now you will know your own death and fear it" "now there will be an increase in brain size and child birth will be more painful."



Originally posted by bogomil
Or did you mean the same initial situation viewed from two opposite perspectives. As far as I can see, there exist few (if any) religious doctrines so judgemental as 'original sin', whereas the original buddhist 'dualism' perspective is pretty neutral on the condemnation side.


Like I said I read it cleanly. I did not have "teaching" in the book, I had not been programmed to read it a specific way. But I had had an "experience" before I read it in which I experienced God. So, that did shape my understanding. To me, it was clear that God called the world out of "pure potentiality" by drawing lines. That portion of Genesis is remarkably like the Hymn of Creation in that way.

Not the best translation but oh well,

www.sacred-texts.com...


1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.





Originally posted by bogomil

Such postulates are easy to make from behind a computer. Considerably more difficult or impossible, living in a KZ-camp.


I dont know what a KZ camp is. But if you are trying to suggest that it is easy for someone to say that when life is fine, but impossible when life is very, very hard, you are incorrect. In fact, how I was taught that lesson was by having me experience a terrifying death. Its actually easier, believe it or not, for many to find unconditional acceptance in the WORST of times.


Originally posted by bogomil
Unconditional acceptance of WHAT. Not that I want to deny your direction or good intentions, but I question your competence to put forth such absolute answers.


Of what is. I dont care if you challenge my competence. At all. Im not in it to convince you. I'll do my best to answer what you are asking, but if this turns into a pissing match I will just bid you adieu. Im not here to convince anyone of anything. I say my piece but I am no messiah wanna be, nor a guru. No one got me to where I was going, and you will end up exactly where you belong. You will have the experience you are built for.


Originally posted by bogomil
A position is eventually as numbing as any doctrine or predigested answer.

Especially if fixed elements like this are introduced..


Not sure your point here. Im not telling anyone to do anything but look for themself. If you think that is the same as trying to tell them what they should see, more power to you. I'll not argue you.


Originally posted by bogomil
God? GOD? Where did he come from, in this open-end search, with no pre-arranged parameters.


Im not talking about a bearded man in the sky, if you are trying to superimpose your God on the word. I use the word broadly. The All that Is, Am, the Divine, The One, whatever you want to call it. I really dont care.



Originally posted by bogomil
Strangely enough, I also have had 'direct experience' (so we can have a merry little 'holier-than-you' competition or you can ignore it), but my direct experience didn't have any 'god' in it.


The only one that seems hostile here is you. I dont give a flying # how many people have experienced God. The more the merrier. Im not trying to be a Messiah, nor a guru. Lord knows ATS has enough of those.

My experience of God, since you seem to have had enough intercourse with Christian terminology that it has you imposing all sorts of crap on me, was "Am." It was everything, everyone, all at once. Absolute conscious intelligence without specific identity. Which is why I dont say "I AM" but only AM. It was pure intelligent being the individual "aspects" were existing in all possible times and states, it was perfect and complete.

And as you should know, anything I say is imperfect, and the more specific I try to get the more imperfect it gets. I am surprised you are being so nitpicky about the term "God" if you are also an experiencer.


Originally posted by bogomil
Actually I believe, that the presence of any kind of 'god' whatsoever would have imploded my 'direct experience'.


Cheers? Im not sure what to say to you. Im not quite sure what your beef is. Please feel free to tell me in very direct terms what you think I am full of crap about, because subtlety is not my strong suit, and I dont have enough patience to try to figure out catty remarks. Just say it straight, or keep it to yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join