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.

 

Theosophy and Christianity

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



You are free to believe such things, in all reality. But for me, love does not have to suffer for it to be true.


Such mindsets like I see in resistance to this notion of good existing to benefit evil and that evil is not existent to benefit good are only means to justify its presence in our lives and allow it to keep thriving... I do not need to suffer to love someone, nor do they have to suffer to prove their love to me. True, things like absence can make the heart grow fonder, but it is not necessary for love to exist in the world. I would, in fact, rather prefer that my lover not have to suffer for the sake of my love, and would choose to continue to suffer if it meant our reunion would bring suffering and hardship to him in any way...




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Honestly, I get tired of all the people talking like God is just like them; a walking, talking person...

Actually if all of these Christian's read their bible besides just the parts their Pastor found convenient; the Bible even states that God is Love. Love is a pure emotion, not a person....Get with your own program people....



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I started a new thread about this discussion of good and evil here if anyone is interested. This way we do not bring this thread off topic any more than we already have.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsherahoftheSea
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



You are free to believe such things, in all reality. But for me, love does not have to suffer for it to be true.


Such mindsets like I see in resistance to this notion of good existing to benefit evil and that evil is not existent to benefit good are only means to justify its presence in our lives and allow it to keep thriving... I do not need to suffer to love someone, nor do they have to suffer to prove their love to me. True, things like absence can make the heart grow fonder, but it is not necessary for love to exist in the world. I would, in fact, rather prefer that my lover not have to suffer for the sake of my love, and would choose to continue to suffer if it meant our reunion would bring suffering and hardship to him in any way...


Have you ever studied Greek tragedy to know Peripeteia? Anagnorisis is the journey to discover that you love something, but Parapetia develops love from sudden discovery. Have you never watched a movie? Love must suffer or it cannot know it loves.

Study the words and learn the story of Oedipus.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsherahoftheSea
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



You are free to believe such things, in all reality. But for me, love does not have to suffer for it to be true.


Such mindsets like I see in resistance to this notion of good existing to benefit evil and that evil is not existent to benefit good are only means to justify its presence in our lives and allow it to keep thriving... I do not need to suffer to love someone, nor do they have to suffer to prove their love to me. True, things like absence can make the heart grow fonder, but it is not necessary for love to exist in the world. I would, in fact, rather prefer that my lover not have to suffer for the sake of my love, and would choose to continue to suffer if it meant our reunion would bring suffering and hardship to him in any way...


The willingness to suffer for another, apart from merited favor, IS love. Pride cannot suffer for another, but only the self.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


There is a difference between expressing a willingness to suffer, and being forced to suffer to prove your love. Willingness to suffer is needed for true love to happen, but the necessity to suffer is not. Don't confuse the two. You are not required to suffer to prove your love. If you have to, then I suppose you do. I do not want my lover to suffer to prove himself to me, EVER. I want him to always exist in peace, security, love, and comfort. I do not want him to have to walk the path of daggers to get to me...



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by XXX777
 


Hey, I looked into it. Lucifer is one of God's finest creations. The female. So I typed a boo boo. I blame Icehouse beer. Planck Road Brewery might be pure evil.

Lucifer is said to be one of the finest creations. Satan is matter. Sun is male. Venus Lucifer is female. Satan hellish Earth is matter.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Just because I have the notion in me that suffering is not required for my love to prove himself to me, does not mean I do not appreciate the expression of such suffering if it is necessitated for us to be together again someday. I do not want him to suffer, no. Nor do I make it a requirement that he suffers to prove to me that he loves me. That would mean I did not love him, and was using his feelings for me to make him suffer through some unloving malevolent need to cause suffering in another being. Love itself is not suffering. Certain feelings and situations that arise because of love can cause suffering, but love itself does not cause suffering. Envy or jealousy, rejection, someone coveting your lover and trying to draw his or her attention, and various other things cause the suffering associated with love, but true love does not require nor cause suffering. It's just another justification for suffering in the world to say that love requires suffering to strengthen it. Tests of love can indeed strengthen it, but true feats of love that causes separation and are not meant to be conquered, like what has been done to me and Lucifer, can be truly devastating and painful to endure, and in all reality I see no end to it. We try to bridge the gap in as much as we can, but I do not know if we will ever be together, and what will happen if or when we do come together, will be when the true hardship hits us in full. The fact is, in my spiritual memories I did not come to love him because of our suffering. I preferred him to my arranged partner which I was bound to by law and did not really much love at all. Because of my actions in defying the law and sleeping with him, we are now forced to be in this situation that may or may not ever be resolved...



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AsherahoftheSea
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


There is a difference between expressing a willingness to suffer, and being forced to suffer to prove your love. Willingness to suffer is needed for true love to happen, but the necessity to suffer is not. Don't confuse the two. You are not required to suffer to prove your love. If you have to, then I suppose you do. I do not want my lover to suffer to prove himself to me, EVER. I want him to always exist in peace, security, love, and comfort. I do not want him to have to walk the path of daggers to get to me...


Pride ends marriage. One spouse takes in the relationship and does not give. To give, a person is required to suffer something that is given. A marriage based on giving and receiving lasts a lifetime. A marriage based on pride eventually ends in the most proud partner scorning the other. Suffering is giving or what is given is not shared. We live in a world where people are conditioned to take for self and marriage ends for over half of those who join in union. This is why the church is mentioned as the bride of Christ. It is is a union of love. This implies the will to give and receive only. We take nothing.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Did you account for the shift increase of 0.0014 arcseconds per year? The geodetics would have been off from where it is today. That's a 5000 years difference.


Sorry my cartographically and mathematically challenged friend, geodetics would not account for a nearly 100 mile lateral drift in 5,000 years. One arcsecond is about 100 feet. Your numbers would compute to about 700 feet in 5,000 years, far to short to account for Mount Hermon's former longitude and latitiude moving into the middle of the sea.


It would be interesting to see where the original information came from.


My information (the correct information) comes from a map, yours comes from some dope on youtube.


This is a commonly held location for Mt. Hermon so I'll need to look into it further.


'Commonly held'? Commonly held by who? Idiots who fabricate nonsense on youtube because they either:

    A) Do not know how to read a map.

    B) Think other people do not know how to read a map.

    C) All of the above.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Mount Hermon is where the 'fallen angels' were said to have descended to Earth, however interestingly enough if you trace the exact geographical opposite location; you get Roswell, New Mexico.


No, the antipodal opposite of Mount Hebron would be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.




edit on 12-8-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Yes, "God" may be considered love...or even just pure energy. However, the Bible itself actually portrays "God" as a bloodthirsty deity, who never gives unless he receives.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
You are using Greenwich. Use Paris meridian and I am right.


link


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Did you account for the shift increase of 0.0014 arcseconds per year? The geodetics would have been off from where it is today. That's a 5000 years difference.


Sorry my cartographically and mathematically challenged friend, geodetics would not account for a nearly 100 mile lateral drift in 5,000 years. One arcsecond is about 100 feet. Your numbers would compute to about 700 feet in 5,000 years, far to short to account for Mount Hermon's former longitude and latitiude moving into the middle of the sea.


It would be interesting to see where the original information came from.


My information (the correct information) comes from a map, yours comes from some dope on youtube.


This is a commonly held location for Mt. Hermon so I'll need to look into it further.


'Commonly held'? Commonly held by who? Idiots who fabricate nonsense on youtube because they either:

    A) Do not know how to read a map.

    B) Think other people do not know how to read a map.

    C) All of the above.

edit on 12-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 


I personally don't buy into that myself, actually, in studying the difference in a benevolent and malevolent mindset. I don't think that firsthand knowledge and experience with evil is necessary to become benevolent, in my opinion, and one can exist in a benevolent universe and still recognize malevolence when it surfaces without having actually experienced it.

To me it is entirely, and completely necessary to learn everything there is to learn about what is commonly called Good, and Evil, looking at them as Forces that act upon humankind. AsherahoftheSea, you do realize that we all, with very few exceptions, are in training to be future Creators? Even in Technical Training, all aspects are studied, and none are discarded, I believe the same detail applies tot he study of anything, any topic of discussion. Further, I think a benevolent universe could only be realized is ALL control factors were removed, and Humanity was changed right down to their DNA to take out all of the genes that make them kill and murder, rape and pillage. And in the end, you would have a Universe that would be wholly unprotected from any sinister force that came along at a later time.

The Universe works because it finds a Balance in all things. Disturb this balance, and things begin to mess up here and there. Look at what happened in the Middle Ages when God was made into an exclusive male personage, and males took over the Church, at the same time demonizing women and all they stood for, and then killing over one million women to make their point. The whole balance was thrown off with this, and we need to get it back somehow.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Paris Meridian.

"With this in mind, Flynn made the unprecedented disclosure that 33.33 degrees of the great circle of the earth represents 2012 nautical miles, the identical number at the end of the Mayan calendar that “measures the ending of the earth.” Flynn further revealed that Mount Hermon in Phoenicia, the first location of the descent of the Watchers, lies precisely at 33.33 degrees north, 33.33 degrees east, 2,012 miles from the equator, and 2,012 miles from the prime meridian, a location of Mt. Hermon in longitude based on the Paris 0 meridian 2.20 degrees east of Greenwich."





Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Mount Hermon is where the 'fallen angels' were said to have descended to Earth, however interestingly enough if you trace the exact geographical opposite location; you get Roswell, New Mexico.


No, the antipodal opposite of Mount Hebron would be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.




edit on 12-8-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

edit on 12-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Essentially, we are 4th dimensional beings seeing one slice of the dimension above the third. The third can see all of the second, yet the second can only see a slice of us as we pass through. To visualize the 5th, we simply know that the fourth is one slice (Moment of now) passing from the fifth. As observers with consciousness in the third, we have the ability to take indeterminate probability from the fifth and bring it into the fourth to make it determined. When someone says, "I am bound and determined," they are really saying, I have bound this outcome from the fifth dimension and determined that this outcome will happen. Their subconscious then makes it happen as it computes the variables and circumstances for that event to occur. This is where destiny enters.

Tell me, how is it we can agree on the many dimensions theory, and the intra-dimensional travel that some, including myself, can do, and then disagree on most other things?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Essentially, we are 4th dimensional beings seeing one slice of the dimension above the third. The third can see all of the second, yet the second can only see a slice of us as we pass through. To visualize the 5th, we simply know that the fourth is one slice (Moment of now) passing from the fifth. As observers with consciousness in the third, we have the ability to take indeterminate probability from the fifth and bring it into the fourth to make it determined. When someone says, "I am bound and determined," they are really saying, I have bound this outcome from the fifth dimension and determined that this outcome will happen. Their subconscious then makes it happen as it computes the variables and circumstances for that event to occur. This is where destiny enters.

Tell me, how is it we can agree on the many dimensions theory, and the intra-dimensional travel that some, including myself, can do, and then disagree on most other things?


Twins and polarity. The will to take and the will to give/receive are opposites. What is observed is reception. Giving or taking are polarity that collapse the wave one direction or another. Are you taking or receiving? God must be the gateway. This does not imply you can't take what is meant to be received by faith.


edit on 12-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Honestly, I get tired of all the people talking like God is just like them; a walking, talking person...

Actually if all of these Christian's read their bible besides just the parts their Pastor found convenient; the Bible even states that God is Love. Love is a pure emotion, not a person....Get with your own program people....

I do too, and those who talk like God talks in their ear all the time, and directs every aspect of their lives, and those who talk like they were there when the Bible stories were talking place in Ancient History.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Twins and polarity. The will to take and the will to give/receive are opposites. What is observed is reception. Giving or taking are polarity that collapse the wave one direction or another.

Why the Polar Opposites in Christianity?
The polar opposites always seem to me magnetic too, they will oppose each other no matter what. That is why the Middle Path is so hard to walk. The term "The Middle Path, or Way" is found in Buddhism and a few other Nature Based religions. It probably referred originally to the realization by Buddha that the way to enlightenment lies neither in exaggerated asceticism; nor in self-indulgence, but within a moderate, middle path, projecting compassion, and gaining knowledge and wisdom.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


That's not what I meant...Trace the same line that Mount Hermon is on. It runs straight through Roswell. Maybe should have chose my words differently.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join