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.

 

My Theory of the Rapture, Reality and May 21st, 2011

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Well said...

Im noticing a wise person behind "Adamsmurmur"


Good stuff bro





posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



As long as one adhered to the golden rule, "stoning" atheists is stoning oneself.


Tell me, how would you reason sado-masochists into this objective "golden rule" concept of morality?

To adhere to the dogma of God (religion) is to declare yourself sub-par without it. You can talk of betterment, but when did believing unprovable ideas count as moral and ethical development?

You can also talk about a belief in God free from religious dogma, and you can pretend you can extract moral values from such an unprovable belief, but that position wins no merit in debate.

Concepts such as hellfire, original sin, and vicarious redemption (crucifiction) can easily polarize morality in terms of "good" and "evil" - The bible dictating which is which, and of course, we know the bible to be morally and ethically adbhorrent and disgusting so that doesn't leave us with much room to work with.

With such extraordinary promises and threats being made, any believer would form severe prejudice onto un-believers yet we are to respect them and consider them "moral" simply because they adhere to dogma?

One thing for sure;

"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
edit on 20/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



As long as one adhered to the golden rule, "stoning" atheists is stoning oneself.


Tell me, how would you reason sado-masochists into this objective "golden rule" concept of morality?

To adhere to the dogma of God (religion) is to declare yourself sub-par without it. You can talk of betterment, but when did believing unprovable ideas count as moral and ethical development?

Concepts such as hellfire, original sin, and vicarious redemption (crucifiction) can easily polarize morality in terms of "good" and "evil" - The bible dictating which is which, and of course, we know the bible to be morally and ethically adbhorrent and disgusting so that doesn't leave us with much room to work with.

With such extraordinary promises and threats being made, any believer would form severe prejudice onto un-believers yet we are to respect them and consider them "moral" simply because they adhere to dogma?

One thing for sure;

"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
edit on 20/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
This is my "dogma," as said by the Buddha:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it,
no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.

The golden rule doesn't have to be a good thing, it's just "do to others what you want done to yourself." If someone wishes to inflict pain on someone, expect that pain to reflect back at you, but it does not have to be in the same form you dealt. Grief, sorrow, hate, these can all be very painful and yet they don't inflict a wound on the flesh. As for S&M, that's just who the person is for whatever reason. They can do these things and it wouldn't damage their spirit if they were detached from it, the problem is most (probably all) are quite attached to it. It's pretty immoral, but at least it's contained and consentual. Living in the flesh like this can stunt your spiritual growth, that's the main thing. If you care not for such things, then so be it. Only YOU can change YOU, by your will. I or anyone else can simply present a path, it's ultimately up to the person to walk it.

Sexual indecency is easily magnified, like the Romans who engaged in orgies, kept harems of young boys, and castrating a man to make him appear more feminine. That's why it's best to stay moral as much as you can so that you don't end up falling into the downward spiral which will strangle your spirit. You know the idea of the gateway drug? Same thing. One act can lead to another, then another, and it keeps getting "harder" and worse, and suddenly you're considering bestiality.


Hell is a temporary realm which can "burn" you, but this burning is a way of cleansing oneself. It doesn't actually destroy you, it simply strips you clean of your "sin." Sin can be anything you do that's not in goodness or love, any acts that can harm others or yourself, any emotion that can keep you chained (like jealousy and hate), etc. It's not forever but it can seem like forever.

As for crucifixion, this was the display of how a person can free himself from this world. It doesn't mean to commit suicide if that's what you're thinking, or to be asked to be murdered. No no. What the "devil" is is our selfishness, jealousy, hate,... anything opposite of love, goodness, compassion, humility, and so on. What Jesus did was show us that the body is nothing more than container, and to be free from that prison (this world) one must "crucify" the SELF, the ego. That's it. When you toss aside your ego and embrace the divine law of love, you're then on the path to end the cycle of your reincarnation.

Sounds far out there, eh? I read a little bit of the gnostic text that were kept out of the Bible, am learning to listen through meditation to find answers from within, and explored some of the higher realms through people's NDEs. There is still much to do though, personally.


As for your quote, it has some truth to it. Decency is derived from religion or those that were spiritually awakened, but it's up to us to build on that and actually take it to heart -- in that sense, it does indeed precede it. The terrible acts of some religions are from misguided and wayward people who flock together in darkness. They are "hypocrites" in that they do not follow their own creeds and teachers. Don't pin all the blame on a religion solely, it's not the whole issue of human indecency. The lessons are there but not many are fully accepting them, and that's the problem. A religion teaches one to love another one, and when they fall out of line, they are instantly prosecuted by people such as yourself for falling out of line. Is your duty to point out people's foibles or is it to help them? Pointing the finger gets us nowhere unless we learn to turn that pointing finger into an open hand, ready to help the fallen stand on their feet, regardless of what they believe or believe not. Nonetheless, having a "prosecutor" such as yourself is a good thing and is needed in a growing world like this, because you act as a mirror for us who have done wrong. In that sense, keep it up, but don't be afraid to lend a helping hand or receive a helping hand.

I respect your beliefs, but none of us should ever be afraid to expand on our beliefs. There's room to grow for the heart that's willing to learn and the ears that are willing to hear.
edit on 20/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



As for your quote, it has some truth to it. Decency is derived from religion or those that were spiritually awakened, but it's up to us to build on that and actually take it to heart.


So those who are not "spiritually awakened" are not decent? I've met many people who arn't interested in religion and consider the "spirit" to be part of the human condition, the essense that separates us from animals as consciouss beings. So that's quite an insult to many, and an undeserved one at that.


I respect your beliefs, but none of us should ever be afraid to expand on our beliefs. There's room to grow for the heart that's willing to learn and the ears that are willing to hear.


My skeptical disbelief comes from open-mindedness; I don't claim you could never prove "GOD", only that currently i do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

"Agnostic Atheism"

I keep an open-mind for any empirical evidence or logical reasoning that would warrant just a theory for "GOD", a belief would have to come from empirical conviction though.

So far, in terms of civilisation God has proved to be what man does not understand, i don't state that God can never be proved, just that there is no reason to warrant such a theory other than blind faith, guess-work, and not very imaginative gueswork at that.

Such unprovable hypotheseses as "hellfire, "GOD", fortune telling, astrology and talking to the dead" are breeding grounds for charalatans, huxsters, and frauds providing they dabble in some verbal conjuring, cold reading and prey on the gullible, and fearful.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



So those who are not "spiritually awakened" are not decent? I've met many people who arn't interested in religion and consider the "spirit" to be part of the human condition, the essense that separates us from animals as consciouss beings. So that's quite an insult to many, and an undeserved one at that.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant from thousands upon thousands of years ago when people were starting to come together, build communities and etc. Some people learned way back then what separates the man from the beast, a distinction had to be made. It's been passed down from generation to generation and is becoming natural to us as we grow and mature (evolve). I simply associate the "soul" with our evolving consciousness, because that's what can keep the body in check (mind over matter). So by today, we (well some) instinctively just know that killing someone is wrong, for example, or that we shouldn't steal from another person. Try looking at the ancient civilizations that were riddled with hedonism and you'll see they pretty much did these things freely until laws had to be passed. Religion was made not just to touch on "spiritual law" but "physical law" like you'll see in some Jewish text or Islamic ones. There's no need to follow those physical laws anymore in countries like the US or Canada or Germany, etc., as we have state laws now and what not which are more calmed and less restricting for all of us to suit all our diversity. We are a growing species and things change over time, but empathy was not native to the flesh as you can tell by the animal kingdom, it had to be learned. A lion feels no remorse for you when it kills and consumes you, for example, it's just normal everyday life for him.



My skeptical disbelief comes from open-mindedness; I don't claim you could never prove "GOD", only that currently i do not have sufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

"Agnostic Atheism"

I keep an open-mind for any empirical evidence or logical reasoning that would warrant just a theory for "GOD", a belief would have to come from empirical conviction though.

So far, in terms of civilisation God has proved to be what man does not understand, i don't state that God can never be proved, just that there is no reason to warrant such a theory other than blind faith, guess-work, and not very imaginative gueswork at that.
Gnosis (as a blanket term to refer to knowledge of the divine, for there are many terms, such as enlightenment) teaches that wisdom is found within -- the "Godhead." So on the contrary, a "gnostic" or enlightened person is one who proved to understand what "God" is within himself. The evidence as we perceive it on the outside is unconditional love, and no suffering (detachment from this world, the ability to rest freely), among other things. Just really good and great people who seem to defy our logic with their "goodness" and humility.
They're acting by the "will of God" with their endless compassion, but you don't have to call it that if you don't want to. We can call it the will of the super-conscious for example.
Quite possibly our next evolutionary step as a whole is to be more widely attuned to that "super-consciousness."



Such unprovable hypotheseses as "hellfire, "GOD", fortune telling, astrology and talking to the dead" are breeding grounds for charalatans, huxsters, and frauds providing they dabble in some verbal conjuring, cold reading and prey on the gullible, and fearful.
Charlatans exist everywhere regardless of what's mystical and what's not. It's easier to fool someone with those things, granted, but it's not limited to just those things at all. We get screwed all the time by our politicians, banks, businessmen, and so on.

edit on 20/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



Charlatans exist everywhere regardless of what's mystical and what's not. It's easier to fool someone with those things, granted, but it's not limited to just those things at all. We get screwed all the time by our politicians, banks, businessmen, and so on.


And again, unprovable concepts are the perfect breeding ground for such charalatans. Putting unwarranted faith in a "theory" or even a politician is somehing that is retarding progression of civilisation, and is basically a declaration of "wanting" to know before having evidence.

Harold Camping is a charatan and a pseudo-mathematician/academic. Also, he's an expert in the bible.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 

Also, he's an expert in the bible.

If he were an expert, he wouldn't be making any predictions.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I think Harold Camping knows there will be no rapture today....he told his lies ....as a business move.....to line his bank accounts with 10 million dollars. He is a false prophet......in my opinion.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


But "experts" throughout time have, Popes and Preists throughout religious history. They were the "experts" of their faith, they lied to the people, claiming storms were being sent as punishment in their ignorance of our heating and cooling planet, Perhaps their not "stupid" but they certainly were conjuring theories without evidence.

And they still do;

A priest in the U.K claimed floods were sent to Yorkshire as punishment for the influx of homosexual activity.

Again, i could think of a few areas where it would have done more good. And this is the logic path of some "dedicated" religious people.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


I think most religious people don't truly believe what they're being told to believe.

I could be wrong about that, (it may only be a few), but there are certainly those out there who use religion as a tool for their own selfish agenda.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



But "experts" throughout time have, Popes and Preists throughout religious history. They were the "experts" of their faith, they lied to the people, claiming storms were being sent as punishment in their ignorance of our heating and cooling planet, Perhaps their not "stupid" but they certainly were conjuring theories without evidence


Quite the contrary actually, i believe the people that are leading most religious "factions" are brilliant. They managed to con millions into believing in their "inturpretation" of the bible.

Perhaps you should look at who the so called "experts" of the bible are these days.

The Vatican is nothing more then a bank...

And as for Mr.Camping... Hes just an old dude hopeing that his last few years will be religiously "productive"...

Who wants to be remembered as a fraud?




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by caladonea
 


I think most religious people don't truly believe what they're being told to believe.

I could be wrong about that, (it may only be a few), but there are certainly those out there who use religion as a tool for their own selfish agenda.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Actually i think that is the major problem these days. Many get the bible preached to them without reading it themselves.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


But "experts" throughout time have, Popes and Preists throughout religious history. They were the "experts" of their faith, they lied to the people, claiming storms were being sent as punishment in their ignorance of our heating and cooling planet, Perhaps their not "stupid" but they certainly were conjuring theories without evidence.

And they still do;

A priest in the U.K claimed floods were sent to Yorkshire as punishment for the influx of homosexual activity.

Again, i could think of a few areas where it would have done more good. And this is the logic path of some "dedicated" religious people.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
Truthfully, their expertise lies in greed, fear, or deception. Sometimes they don't know what they are doing (misinterpreting texts or the situation), and sometimes they know exactly what they are doing just to con people for their own gain. And sometimes, they just do it to see how many fools they can create.

Again, this is the way of the world we live in and it doesn't matter in what form it takes. People flock together in numbers thinking they are safer this way, afraid to think for themselves and look within for reason and wisdom. They put all their faith in mankind, and mankind is fully capable of destroying them. Just like putting all your faith in a president hoping he will be your salvation. Most of the US thought Obama would be that salvation, and look at what he's turned out to be. Obama's actions and inaction are far worse than this "Rapture" of the 21st.

Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine sheep and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine.'"

Those of us who question what doesn't agree with us and think for ourselves are cared for more than the rest. In that sense, you yourself are on better footing than those who follow false teachers and false prophets, like the ones duped into this whole 21st business. They will feel like fools, the rest of us will not. Now lets hope they learn from their mistakes.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by caladonea
 


I think most religious people don't truly believe what they're being told to believe.

I could be wrong about that, (it may only be a few), but there are certainly those out there who use religion as a tool for their own selfish agenda.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Actually i think that is the major problem these days. Many get the bible preached to them without reading it themselves.

I agree. What good does hearing words do when we don't observe it in ourselves (make the light within manifest)? Life's a path yes? Expecting to be carried the whole way is selfish.
I know there's a recurring motif in Christianity where it's depicted that Jesus will carry you out of any suffering. While that's true, in a way, it's up to us to make it happen. It's up to us to know it will. It's up to us to know it has already been.


Besides, suffering is a part of our lives here.
edit on 21/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



I agree. What good does hearing words do when we don't observe it in ourselves (make the light within manifest)? Life's a path yes?


I agreee
In a metaphorical sense, life IS a path.


Expecting to be carried the whole way is selfish.


And what do you mean by "carried"?


I know there's a recurring motif in Christianity where it's depicted that Jesus will carry you out of any suffering.

While that's true, in a way, it's up to us to make it happen. It's up to us to know it will. It's up to us to know it has already been.


Again, of course one human sacrifice will not absolve the human species from perceieved "sin" - Nor will the words of one biblical character resolve all of human kind's problems and moral dilemnas.

And why Jesus? Why not Ghandi? Why not Muhammed?

It's interesting to point out that none of these figures are infallable, they all have faults with their moral and ethical teaching. Human kind's future cannot rest on abiding the words of one man.

Why not preach Ghandi? Why not Martin Luther King?

Why did Jesus not actively condemn slavery at a time where slavery was ripe? I guess your response would be: "all of his words cover it".


Besides, suffering is a part of our lives here.


Indeed, and now, less so than the animals as we''ve developed the ability to critically analyse our own existence. Some jump to conclusions, some don't.

Peace.
edit on 21/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine sheep and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine


which version are you reading... that last part "i care for you more then the other 99" is incorrect. That would put the one above the rest which is not what Jesus taught....equality is correct.

11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

14 Even soit is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I have quoted Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, and I have quoted the Buddha, so far that is. I am not against anyone. All my friends in High School were Muslims, my father was apart of that holy marching in Mecca (sorry I don't remember the name) because he was born a Muslim.

I kind of explained what I meant by carried in the preceding sentence. To just "hear" the words is like being carried, it's like thinking you're blind and having someone hold your hand the whole way, but the wool over the eyes is "selfishness" and lacks empathy. Rather than be carried, it's much better to at least help each other carry each other, and it's even better to carry another. If the two equally understand love, they will carry the weight equally.


reply to post by Akragon
 


What I quoted was a translation from the Gospel of Thomas. The other sheep for example won't perish (as you said), they'll just be born again here to learn more, for their (our) own good. Equality remains.
Just like a father who has to send his child up to their room to think about what they've done, so must we be in this world to learn. When we learn, we get a piece of cake and get to eat it too.


It also shows that the idea "hell" is a temporary thing, as none of us perishes.
edit on 21/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join