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.

 

A question about Death

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


In your opinion.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
I have a bad feeling about how this thread will end... but know this is a serious question. IF it wasn't i would have put it in the joke section..


We all have one debt to pay that is unquestionable... Death.

Its an absolute... every last one of us will die one day.

Those that don't believe in God... will see the truth of the matter that day... Your body will die, but you will be conscious...

You will say, "am i not dead?"


And you will be shocked... amazed even...

My question is to those of you that cause harm in this world... Im not accusing anyone of anything, You know who you are...

Those that cause harm to others through actions and words... Yes words can cause great harm

When you meet God on the day of your death...

What will be your excuse?

I don't believe in you perhaps?


Just give me the Karma sheet so I can see what really happened from all points of view and what it is that needs fixing.

Here is some of my answers:
Yes i swated that fly away without thinking but that unintentional.
Ohh come on why do you make those burgers taste so good if I am not allowed to eat them.
You gotta be kidding me was I supposed to help that person that was very egocentered and only caused mayhem when I was near.

So I have to be reborn? Can I be a kitten this life? Your kidding me. Do I really have to go back as a human again with birthamnesia? This sucks bigtime. Can I at least be a bit phsycic so I can wake up from the dream/conditioning?

Namaste



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

edit on 20-5-2012 by apushforenlightment because: Bah.Double post. Let the dreamers dream their insane dream, Seekers seek, and the true Children play with their hidden friends.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 

Sigh. Again the word "Lucifer", I reckon a history lesson is in order. Lucifer appears only one time in the OT, in Isaiah 14:12.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
(Revelation 22:16 (KJV)

In Latin Lucifer means “Light Bringer” and is the name of the Morning Star.

In the Hebrew language, the word Lucifer is derived from the Hebrew word הילל (Hêlēl). In fact, the term Lucifer didn’t even exist in the Biblical ages! Put thought to it; Lucifer is a Latin word. (Lux = light/fire Ferre = to bear/to bring). The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, so the word Lucifer could not have been in their language.
source

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."
(2 Peter 1:19)

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the Bright and Morning Star." (Revelation 22:16)

The term ‘Morning Star’ is used throughout the New Testament and is in reference to Jesus the Christ. Keep this in mind.

The Hebrew translation had the word helel in the place of Lucifer, or rather St. Jerome replaced the word helel with Lucifer. What does helel mean? It means ‘shining one’. ‘How art fallen from Heaven, O Shining One son of the dawn.’ ‘…until the day dawns and the Shining One rises in your hearts.’ And what then of the Greek translation? Helel in Greek translates into Eosphorus/Phosphorus. And in this translation the word means ‘light bearer’

Jesus Christ IS the TRUE lucifer (morning star, light bringer)

So, JesuitGarlic, my friend, that being known, when you said, "Luciferian Teachings" were you referring to the Bible? Because I am fairly certain that a being wholly invented by Jerome at the behest of the Roman Church is not in fact a teacher of any kind whatsoever, nor could he teach anything, for he doesn't exist, unless of course, Lucifer and Jesus are one and the same.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon

You seem to be basing ethics on some doctrine of immortality of conscious self.


Those that don't believe in God... will see the truth of the matter that day... Your body will die, but you will be conscious...

Is this belief of yours based on anything other than some teaching you've heard? There does exist the possibility of some one believing in God, yet not believing in the immortality of conscious self.

Those that cause harm to others through actions and words... Yes words can cause great harm

When you meet God on the day of your death...

What will be your excuse?

I am very much more likely to meet God while alive.

I'm not inclined to make excuses. Neither am I inclined to base morality upon a possibly mistaken notion of conscious survival of death. "Whether I continue or cease, I will do for those who do." You know, try to improve the lot of others.

And today is the day to realize short comings and aspire to do better.

edit on 20-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Dying is easy it's living that is the hard part, unless you win the lottery of course



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   


Those that don't believe in God... will see the truth of the matter that day... Your body will die, but you will be conscious...


I'm just curious as to how you've acquired such knowledge?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


What can i say...

I know what i know




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


You're going to have to take this argument up with the modern sources for both sides Blavatsky, Albert Pike, David Spangler, Eliphas Levi and Ellen White who use the terms Lucifer and Satan referring to a 'being'

Some of the writers 'inspired' others not....only one representing God....all using the same terminology. This is the terminology used in top Freemasonry doctrine and Theosophy to designate the being who is their god....

I don't subscribe to Vatican endorsed works such as Jerome, rather the Textus Receptus instead.
edit on 21-5-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 

I don't subscribe to Vatican endorsed works such as Jerome, rather the Textus Receptus instead.

Huh? Jerome was an actual person.
"Endorsed"? You mean being made a saint? I'm sure that was done after he was dead and not something he campaigned for.
"Textus Receptus" was a sales gimmick by a printer, to make his book seem authoritative. It was 'received' because at that time, it was the only version of the Greek New Testament in print.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
My excuse will be that I don't have free will. I am simply a biological machine. Any free will I have comes from God, so any evil deed I do also comes from God's will or constraints imposed by the design of the universe. God is the only living thing in the universe (IMHO).



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

. . . or constraints imposed by the design of the universe.

Or the way it turned out, despite how it may have been designed.
A possible god philosophy may have been to allow a universe to form, then to assist the adaptation of the inhabitants.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by cloudyday
 

. . . or constraints imposed by the design of the universe.

Or the way it turned out, despite how it may have been designed.
A possible god philosophy may have been to allow a universe to form, then to assist the adaptation of the inhabitants.


Another idea I had yesterday: Maybe we (the mechanical universe) are God's redemption. In other words maybe God being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. needs the constraints of physical laws, cause and effect, time, etc. to maintain His sanity and morality.
edit on 21-5-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

I would avoid the idea of it being imposed by a higher order.
More like a previous order of things which, once set into place, was (and, is) irreversible.

edit on 21-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



According to the teachings of an authoritative source in the occult, Helena Blavatsky, this is what we find out about the term 'Lucifer'


Is this entity what Christians call Satan? She says that 'the "Old Dragon" or "Satan" ... is that Angel... (Anthropogenesis (volume two),pp. 506-518)


Later she shows that Lucifer is that Light that these initiates are seeking:


'the great magic agent ... astral light ... is that which the Church calls Lucifer.' She acknowledges that the Latin scholastics called this entity Satan. (Anthropogenesis, Helena Blavatsky, p. 511)



Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the 'Holy Ghost' and 'Satan' at one and the same time....As he was responsible for the Fall.... 'And now it stands proven', 'that Satan, or the Red Firey Dragon, the "Lord of Phosphorus" and Lucifer, or "Light Bearer" ' are one and the same reality. (Anthropogenesis, Helena Blavatsky p.513)


summary:
Lucifer is an entity, an angel, was responsible for the Fall, and goes under the names of Satan and Dragon as well exactly as the Christians have been calling him all along.
--------------------------

Who am I to believe autowrench, top occult insider sources which use same terminologies as that taught by Christians for thousands of years or Wiccan teaching which is still on the outsider level to be palatable for the masses which denies the entity of Lucifer/Satan (personification) yet venerates the 'light'/feminine/luciferian aspect or side of this entity/angel under the name Diana without even knowing it.

At least when we read top occult sources they are at least honest with terminologies and pointing out who they follow before they start being lead away by the deceiver who the 'evil' one is between them.

I am going to use the terms Lucifer, Satan, Dragon ect just how I always have because this is agreed correct terminology (from those who channeled this entity for the answers) for who's who in the zoo.
edit on 22-5-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 



You seem to be basing ethics on some doctrine of immortality of conscious self.


No doctrine what so ever actually... Its more based on something i feel deep within my soul/spirit... Not only that but its also based on the fact that consciousness after death is within all relgious scripture... And the fact that many many people have remembered their past lives...


Is this belief of yours based on anything other than some teaching you've heard?


please refer to the above statements


There does exist the possibility of some one believing in God, yet not believing in the immortality of conscious self.


Some things are true regardless of ones beliefs...


I am very much more likely to meet God while alive.


You have... all through out your life... every day of your life... Images of God, perspectives of God...

Don't forget to look in the mirror as well



I'm not inclined to make excuses. Neither am I inclined to base morality upon a possibly mistaken notion of conscious survival of death. "Whether I continue or cease, I will do for those who do." You know, try to improve the lot of others.

And today is the day to realize short comings and aspire to do better.


Well said...


edit on 22-5-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   


I hate my computer!!

:bnghd:
edit on 22-5-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon

I was actually thinking of starting a thread about how lame my religion is; something like:
A Primitive Religion in a Modern Age
Being primitive, it doesn't answer the usual questions. Experiential data and questions just float around, unattached to any framework of reference. I consciously construct a framework from time to time, for the purpose of theorizing, then allow it to collapse once I'm done with it. Sometimes the framework remains for a week or two before collapsing.

So absent a particular purpose in mind, I have no religion, only floating data and questions. The gods have never bothered to lay any burden on me, such as "YOU MUST ...!" or "YOU MUST PROCLAIM THAT ...!" Although, to be honest, there was that time I thought I was a prophet for the Old Testament character; I said and wrote mean and nasty things, and felt rather yucky about it (how's that for euphemistically describing projectile vomiting?)

I don't know why I'm spilling my guts about this here or now, except that then I can avoid starting a new thread.

based on something i feel deep within my soul/spirit...

And deep in my soul, I feel that it isn't my call to make. Even if there is an individual existence after death, (compare physical life to a dream, with death as waking up), your life choices and actions still determine your character, who you are.

the fact that consciousness after death is within all relgious scripture...

Not all, but a significant majority. So that is a preponderance of authority.

the fact that many many people have remembered their past lives...

I think that it is rude to claim some one else's life as your own. Those people went through things that I never will, empathy is what I feel for them, not ownership. I respect that their lives were their own.


I hate my computer!!

:bnghd:

I'm guessing that was an unintentional double tap on the mouse. My mouse has been doing that to me for a while. When I remember to, I use the button on my mouse pad instead of the mouse.

Okay, back to the OP question: You asked:

When you meet God on the day of your death...

But then you wrote in a later post:

I only know one God my friend... that which is within everything...

So when I die, will the God in everything leave everything in order to manifest to little old me? That almost sounds like metaphysical solipsism.

based on the argument that no reality exists other than one's own mind or mental states, and that the individual mind is the whole of reality and the external world has no independent existence.
en.wikipedia.org...

Although it would be a dualist variant: "I exist and God exists. God currently makes up the illusion of the physical. When I 'physically die', that is merely God dropping the physical illusion. Then it is I and God meeting each other." I hereby name this theory, Dual Metaphysical Solipsism. I prefer Plenary Metaphysical Solipsism myself.

edit on 22-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

. . . that is merely God dropping the physical illusion.

I think physical reality is pretty real, and not an illusion.
Maybe that comes from messing around in boats, where reality presents itself in very blatant ways, as in the saying, "worse things happen at sea".

I don't think any religion provides the sort of answers that would be considered fully satisfactory, as to what happens exactly. Paul in 2 Corinthians tries but in a way that is, as far as I know, not clearly comprehensible.
I read it as something like, 'if God was so good as to provide for us as we are now, He can be relied upon to do at least as well for us when we depart this existence.'
edit on 23-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60

You will notice that I put the entire theory of Dual Metaphysical Solipsism in quotes. That means that I'm merely stating the theory, rather than endorsing it.

I don't think any religion provides the sort of answers that would be considered fully satisfactory

I certainly agree with that. Systematic theologies usually start out by defining the nature and attributes of God, then go from there, trying to fit everything into a predetermined framework. Can't be done if God is indeed incomprehensible. Everything that follows from a distorted and minimalized explanation of God would be also distorted and minimalized.

I read it as something like, 'if God was so good as to provide for us as we are now, He can be relied upon to do at least as well for us when we depart this existence.
That seems like a sound interpretation of Paul's "heavenly dwelling" in 2 Cor. 5:4.

But then he also threw in the wording "For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" 2 Cor 4:18. I just may consider the seen and physical as slightly more permanent than Paul did. It's possible.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join