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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by bogomil

Personally I'll try to work my own way back towards the epistemological complexities of why a 'god' seems to get his possible messages badly across. To make it easy for myself, I could reintroduce the argument, that it's because he possibly doesn't exist in the form commonly known as a 'god' and isn't a he/she/it, actually isn't anything at all, as we understand anything.




Why dont you just start a thread on the topic instead of continually trying to manipulate other peoples arguments into a platform for it?

It would come across as more intellectually honest than the method you are using now.


I can hardly deny a head-on attitude in my responses or comments. (Or maybe you are referring to my feeble efforts of humour?).

This doesn't necessarily invalidate my position or arguments, so I suggest that you could relate to the 'real' points in my posts, instead of meeting me with a sullen indignation, because I oppose you through a legitimate criticism.

Yesterday I stated my intent to return to topic, and you can join me in that direction. If you have a further need of character or methodology evaluations of me, at least try avoid to make it into one-issue posts with no topic relevance at all.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
 


Hi M I

Generally:

Personally I appreciate your 'moderate' presentation of your own stance. "The God of the bible" (instead of THE God); "those in a covenant relationship...." (instead of 'every home should have one'); "the God I believe in" (instead of 'the God everybody ought to believe in'). Plus a fair use and presentation of statistics (instead of making cosmetic changes or propagandistic 'points').

Reading your post I do not feel, that you've thrown a ton of ideological bricks my way.

Specifically:

I hope, I can match your non-invasive attitude, when I answer you this way.

Concerning 'a' or 'the' holy spirit, something very similar can be found outside christianity (reference: The Subud movement, with a practise called Latihan). This Subud practise, its manifestation and results, are actually so similar to the christian 'holy spirit' that it's reasonable to speculate, if the christian 'holy spirit' phenomenon isn't ONE version of a general (call it) 'force', available with- or without any specific religious affiliation or any religious affiliation at all.

The christian approach to prophecy, origin and validity, is based on pro-christian systematic methodology (sorry about the 'flowery' language, but that's what it's called), which has a strong tendency to self-fulfilling. This christian systematic methodology is sometimes postulated to be a version of the standard systematic methodology used in science or logic. This is far from being true. A point which doesn't automatically invalidate the christian position on this, but it's important to include precise methodological procedure, when presenting 'answers' (M I, this wasn't an accusation directed at you).

The growing secularization in Japan is parallel to what's happening in most of the former Sovjet area and Europe. Speculations and conclusions on/from this are maybe besides topic here, so I'll restrict it to: Maybe mankind prefer mundane, functional 'explanations' (when such are available and utilitarian useful) instead of relying on trans-mundane speculations, which increasingly are demonstrated to have little relevance to immediate survival needs and drives.


edit on 20-3-2011 by bogomil because: typos



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 
Hi bogomil!

Thanks for appreciating my non-invasive attitude. I realize all of us are potentially on different paths, some being more scientific and some being more spiritual.

My point is that nuclear reactors are man-made, therefore any problems that occur from them are mans problem and it's not "God" sending any type of message. However, the "God" I refer to does use "bad times" to his advantage. If one thinks about it, it's a brilliant strategy because we are all bound over to bad times at some point in our lives. When I use the term "bad times" I'm referring to the things that break us, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well.

I apologize, but I had to go and look up this Subdud movement, in an attempt to understand exactly what it is they do. Are you a practitioner of it? Though I am a practitioner of what you would call "christianity" I am definately one of the more peculiar ones. In fact, the "God" I know, if he were standing here, he would tell you I'm very nosey and settle for nothing less than understanding how the entire process works.

The whole Jesus is Messiah thing works very well for me because through experience I am now able to see the stories for the mysteries that they really are. I can give you great examples if you are curious but people usually don't ever want to venture into this field because.... of lack of experience. People who can't talk about the mysteries understandably just debate interpretations. Personally, I go back and forth about what I'm willing to discuss and what I'm not, so I've best determined, that if I'm asked the right questions it would be very wrong to lie. But it's rare to find anyone who wants to take an eager look at the mysteries and recognize the methodological procedures behind them. With all that being said, repentance is still the key to receiving the Holy Spirit of my God and receiving the gift of prophecy.

I do realize that you weren't making an accusation towards my method of presenting answers, but only pointing out the neccesity to inlcude a precise methodological procedure. I'm not so sure that is what this thread was meant to do but I can go there if you need me to! Or if you ever decide to do a thread on it, just send me an invite and I will gladly show up.

Thanks for your time and thanks for replying to my response.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
 


Hi M I,

for me it's always a pleasure to be able to communicate from a mutually agreed platform (I've almost made that into a personal 'mantra' here on ATS); your latest post didn't disappoint me in that direction.

As one of those 'maybe-not-straight-to-topic' (but still relevant for establishing a general frame) I find that regressing arguments/positions/platforms/methodologies (being different facets of the same procedure) is quite legitimate, if you don't go off into parallel topics only slightly related to the initial topic.

If regression wasn't legitimate, ......threads like 'A support of OT racism, where only nazi ideology can be considered valid as a reference-point', alternatively 'A support of NT 'compassion', where only pacifists, charity-practitioners and experiencees of divine love' can join ....... would be nothing but sermons, and not open debate.

So I feel it acceptable to regress any question involving a/A/the/THE/'god'/god/'God'/God one step and ask: "Is such an entitity/phenomenon/concept 'true'; .....why and how?"

I feel it equally legitimate, if you present a religious 'mystery' approach as a practical methodology regression. After all this is closer to the alleged source of any religious, 'spiritual', awareness claims than second-, third- or umpteenth hand written information is. The only problem with the 'mystery' approach is, that it's a specialist perspective, not giving much meaning or credibility for non-experiencees (I gather, that is what you said also).

For 45+ years I've been intensively interested in many of the subjects and practices associated with the 'big existential questions', and I have mixed theory with 'field research'. When possible, I participate practically in the various methods/systems. So yes, I have practised the Subud method, and I have also tried to achieve a 'holy spirit' experience (in the context of a Pentecostal congregation), but without success.

I must point out, that I'm not a 'spiritual tramp' flitting from system to system, but rather working on a basis of comparative practical and theoretical analysis, with the aim of true syncretism (not just categorizing things together, because they look similar). I would guess, that your own 'noseyness' is quite similar and that you know, that formulating the proper questions is the basis for arriving at valid answers.

After all this circumstantial canvas talk, back to OP topic. I feel, that the example of the problems around nuclear energy is just that..an example of bigger category. And when MY impertinent question of 'God's reality or not have been chewed over, YOUR distinction of man-made/non-man-made is important. After all many subsets of the christianities operate with 'free will', meaning that man-made situations are mankind's responsibility. At least at the mundane level.

(I.e. Personally I don't acknowledge the validity of the religious doctrine of 'original sin', but I acknowledge that some other people acknowledge it, and if we don't try to be mind-police for each other, this is no problem. But that's not for now).

I do idle with the idea of creating a thread on the above lines, but very few ATS participants are interested, so I'm waiting.



edit on 21-3-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Another thing....regarding earthquakes and tsunami's in general - it's not like we live on some dead rock. The earth is basically alive and active and man knows this, so to put a nuclear reactor on a coastal city, in the ring of fire just doesn't seem like the brightest idea. After the 2004 tsuami I recall people insinuating that it happened because it was mostly muslim populations and the thought that some people feel that way makes me want to cringe. They didn't have to deal with the nuclear factor but still a couple hundred thousand people lost their lives because they lived in coastal communities that didn't have a great warning system. At the same time, tens of thousands have lost their lives in Japan, which has a great warning system. They only had ten or fifteen minutes to move entire communities, which isn't realistic.

The answers have to revolve around better planning. There were bomb shelters for wartime and here in the U.S. we have hurricane evacuation routes in the south.

Long story short, there's got to be a better way to save more lives.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Another thing....regarding earthquakes and tsunami's in general - it's not like we live on some dead rock. The earth is basically alive and active and man knows this, so to put a nuclear reactor on a coastal city, in the ring of fire just doesn't seem like the brightest idea. After the 2004 tsuami I recall people insinuating that it happened because it was mostly muslim populations and the thought that some people feel that way makes me want to cringe. They didn't have to deal with the nuclear factor but still a couple hundred thousand people lost their lives because they lived in coastal communities that didn't have a great warning system. At the same time, tens of thousands have lost their lives in Japan, which has a great warning system. They only had ten or fifteen minutes to move entire communities, which isn't realistic.

The answers have to revolve around better planning. There were bomb shelters for wartime and here in the U.S. we have hurricane evacuation routes in the south.

Long story short, there's got to be a better way to save more lives.



I have no arguments with this.

In a broader context of the objective/subjective debate between the mundane and transmundane postions (if that's an acceptable categorization of rational/science/logic versus theism) I find that the mundane approach, starting FROM the basis of observation and processing through the systematic methodology of science/logic to more encompassing 'answers' is better suited to relate to mundane affairs. While transmundane theistic 'absolute' models can have their say on the other side of a meeting-point/zone.

The various theistic positions can either shoot it out between themselves or eventually try to meet mundane methodology at the 'transition' point mundane-transmundane (whatever that point turns out to be, and when and if it ever happens. I'm optimistic concerning such a meeting, but aware it'll take a long time before it happens).



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join