Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Love vs Tyranny

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
In the throes of various discussions I have witnessed, it is consistently stated that when men are plied with oppression and the safety asserted therein, it is called "love". You are loved, and are therefore subject to every manner of totalitarianism. You are loved, and are therefore subject to standards usually associated with tyrants. You are loved, and so you must obey every wish, desire, command, and agenda of the biggest and baddest deity on the playground. Why? Because you are loved, and you must take it for granted that love requires such things.

I have seen love before. I have seen women continuously flutter back to a man who has abused them, and I have see men continuously fall for women who have used them. And yet they will never ever condemn the object of their love, because love will never ever judge them for being who they are. They understand where those cruel behaviors come from, even though they are not omniscient. They can withstand such treatment, even though they are not omnipotent. So how can a god who created imperfection not withstand the presence of it? Why does a god who invented evil condemn the existence of it? Why does a god judge its creations for the design he himself devised?

Who is more guilty? The puppet or the mastermind? Conceivably, such a being cannot be trusted because it would be so easy to force an essentially peaceful person to commit an atrocity, then replace their memories with all the images and thoughts of someone who would have willingly done that deed. That's just one example of how such a being might be dangerous.

Let's take it a step further. I think we have established that "God" and Jesus experienced human emotions. Joy, wrath, jealousy, grief...is it too farfetched to think that "God" might reach down and control events to suit his own agenda? Is it too farfetched to think that at any given time, "God" might violate the gift of free will with impunity? How are we to say otherwise?

That is why no one entity should have all the power. It is too easy for that entity, especially one known to be prey to human emotions, to decide that the salvation of mankind falls to it and it alone, and to decide that the many must sacrifice their rights for the preservation of everything that entity deems to be good and holy. Especially when it becomes obsessed with the idea of protection. How far to go? What lines to draw? What boundaries to cross? What codes to make or break? Protection is a very fickle duty, and only much more so when absolute power is involved.

If you doubt my words, watch I Robot starring Will Smith. That is a perfect example of how a system intended to protect can easily become a system intent upon oppression. Where does love end and tyranny begin? Can you answer me that? Can you explain a clearly defined line between love and tyranny? One that we can all agree with?


1love
noun \ˈləv\
Definition of LOVE

a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests
b : an assurance of affection
2
: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion
3
a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration



tyr·an·ny
noun \ˈtir-ə-nē\
plural tyr·an·nies
Definition of TYRANNY
1
: oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government
2
a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state


So according to these definitions, we have an emotion of attachment, devotion, and/or admiration vs an oppressive power or a government in which absolute power belongs to a single individual.

So tell me, ATS: can love and tyranny be mutually inclusive? If not, where do you draw the line?




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





So tell me, ATS: can love and tyranny be mutually inclusive? If not, where do you draw the line?


The short answer is "No."

Religions are based on intolerance and are "created" with the intent to control and benefit the few who are above it all, and where fear is the predominant emotion, disguised as love. Religions feed off of our fear of death, fear of abandonment and fear of the unknown.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
In the throes of various discussions I have witnessed, it is consistently stated that when men are plied with oppression and the safety asserted therein, it is called "love". You are loved, and are therefore subject to every manner of totalitarianism. You are loved, and are therefore subject to standards usually associated with tyrants. You are loved, and so you must obey every wish, desire, command, and agenda of the biggest and baddest deity on the playground. Why? Because you are loved, and you must take it for granted that love requires such things.


You are loved; that is all. Everything else is the tyranny of men.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So tell me, ATS: can love and tyranny be mutually inclusive? If not, where do you draw the line?

The love defined in the op is conditional love, in the sense that some one is loving another one. In other words, there is a presumed separation between two entities. Real love transcends all such separation and awakens heart intelligence and great discrimination; real love is not naive or exploitable.

The love you are describing, having read this and several of your other posts, is based on the presumption of God as Great Other (Super-Entity) and the separate individual presumably in love with and by such a God. The individual is presuming separation from the world, and separation from such a God - and so yes, this presumption can lead to the possible exploitation of the individual because the rules of that love can be dictated by whoever is representing "The Great Other".

But no such Great Other exists. This is a presumption based on our own individual illusion that we are separate from the world, all others, and God. Reality is indivisible, not actually parsed into various components based on how our mind tends to operate.

And such exploitation by tyrants exists everywhere - like the big corporations who have convinced billions that fast-food is wonderful, all the while people are dying from even a very short life-time of such wonders!

So yes, tyranny can exist if we presume such a logic of separation because such separation suffers from a lack of inherent heart-discrimination; but if we are free of this logic, even in any given moment, then such tyranny and exploitation is not possible.

And as I asked you on the other thread but have not heard back from you, if you can see the errors in this presumption about God, and the various (and potential) horrors of such errors/tyranny, then what about the presumption of separate self? Isn't that possibly the same error leading to innumerable mini-tyrants? Isn't the presumption that God is Other actually based in the same error that we are separate from all others? There are many myths we inherit and presume as real, absolute truths even - such as the world, and everyone in it, are separate from oneself. What about this core myth that has created all this presumed separation between self, other, and God in the midst of Reality Itself as Divine Indivisible Conscious Light?
edit on 1-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I think Stockholm Syndrome is a great way to describe the psychology of religious followers/fanatics. They begin to love the thing that oppresses them because they begin to rely on it for survival.

God is a tyrant who killed people on a whim, yet he's the only way to salvation, so people love him out of fear of him. There is no love in fear, religious people can't seem to grasp that concept.

S&F
edit on 1-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


I did answer you, a day or two ago.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


It is impossible for there to be unconditional love if there is a sense of separation especially if one has put the supposed 'other' above. This situation will always cause a victim mentality which is the cause of the conflict.
The inferior is always going to challenge the superior.
If one is divided there will be a battle.
When the two become one the kingdom shall be revealed.
edit on 1-3-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I did answer you, a day or two ago.

But I just asked that question I posted above, late last night on the "God Loves Me" thread so I don't know how you could have answered it a few days ago. Anyway...


Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is impossible for there to be unconditional love if there is a sense of separation ...
Exactly. And until the sense of separation is understood as a moment to moment activity that IS the ego-I, and thereby transcended, there will always be conflict, betrayal, unlove, exploitation, etc., etc. Those are the very fuel for feeling justifiably separate and devoid of real love.


Originally posted by Itisnowagain
This situation will always cause a victim mentality which is the cause of the conflict.
Actually, the separation is the root of the conflict, but the assumption of being the victim does reinforce the illusion of separation.


Originally posted by Itisnowagain
When the two become one the kingdom shall be revealed.
Reality is already indivisible, so it is more a matter of recognizing that such separation is a false presumption that fortunately does not change Reality Itself! That false presumption only apparently changes and causes suffering amongst us participants in that model of separative existence.

Good post Itisnowagain.
edit on 1-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Okay, explain how this isn't begging the question first please.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Okay, explain how this isn't begging the question first please.


What do you mean?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




But I just asked that question I posted above, late last night on the "God Loves Me" thread so I don't know how you could have answered it a few days ago. Anyway...


I gave you your answer in that link. If you choose not to accept it, that's not my problem.


Exactly. And until the sense of separation is understood as a moment to moment activity that IS the ego-I, and thereby transcended, there will always be conflict, betrayal, unlove, exploitation, etc., etc. Those are the very fuel for feeling justifiably separate and devoid of real love.


Ego is the sense that "I am capable". It is the ability to stand up and tell yourself that you can do and be everything you want to. Ego is confidence, certainty. The only conflict is when you are told that, according to a mysteriously absent higher being, you are nothing and no one unless you profess that you are powerless and that you fully and willingly consign every speck of your will and freedom to that of this higher being. The conflict arises when your independence clashes with the tyranny of that higher power. That is my point here.

Does love let you go? Does love let you have the freedom to choose what makes you happy? Or does love hold you in chains until you submit?


Reality is already indivisible, so it is more a matter of recognizing that such separation is a false presumption that fortunately does not change Reality Itself! That false presumption only apparently changes and causes suffering amongst us participants in that model of separative existence.


Exactly. Recognize that our separation from divinity is a self-imposed illusion generated to give us peace of mind from our imperfections. We are haunted by our ignorance, our fallibility, and so we externalize that divinity so that we are never reminded that divinity is imperfectly complete. Why? Because in our mind, that isn't perfection. And that's what it all depends on, right? How we define divinity and perfection for ourselves.

That makes all the difference.
edit on 1-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Okay, explain how this isn't begging the question first please.


What do you mean?


It means asserting the premise is true in your argument without proving it to be true.


The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it". [5] One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end.


Wiki


The reason why I bring it up is because many people don't think God is a tyrant but is a loving, sovereign, and holy God/Father. So to those people the premise cannot be addressed as written.







edit on 1-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




It means asserting the premise is true in your argument without proving it to be true.


Tell us what you believe the answer to be, and then prove it to us. I've made my case, now I want everyone else to make theirs.
edit on 1-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




It means asserting the premise is true in your argument without proving it to be true.


Tell us what you believe the answer to be, and then prove it to us.


What do you mean? It's not my premise to prove.

See above, you posted while I was editing my last statement.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





The reason why I bring it up is because many people don't think God is a tyrant but is a loving, sovereign, and holy God/Father. So to those people the premise cannot be addressed as written.


If you cannot think outside of your tiny little box, this thread is obviously not for you. In fact, this entire website is obviously not for you. I have posted the definitions for love and tyranny. Quite frankly, I can see how one might be more suitable than the other.

However, I am willing to listen to other arguments and opinions. Hence, if you wish to state your opinion and defend it, I'll be here to read and then refute if I am able. Or concur if I feel I agree.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


People don't get a free pass to make bad arguments in the name of "thinking outside the box", that's not how logic works my friend. I just simply asked how the OP is not begging the question? Many people don't believe God to be a tyrant, many people believe Him to be sovereign as Creator of the universe. You have not proved Him to be a tyrant, just asserted it as fact in the premise.

So as it's currently written how can a person address it?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



People don't get a free pass to make bad arguments in the name of "thinking outside the box", that's not how logic works my friend. I just simply asked how the OP is not begging the question?


I provided a question and a potential argument. If you are unable to formulate your own argument, using any materials you choose, that is your personal problem.


Many people don't believe God to be a tyrant, many people believe Him to be sovereign as Creator of the universe. You have not proved Him to be a tyrant, just asserted it as fact in the premise.


Then prove to me that it is not a fact.



So as it's currently written how can a person address it?


By discussing the content of the question with the intent to refute, instead of complaining about it.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Then prove to me that it is not a fact.


You haven't proved it true. You're trying to shift the burden of proof, it's not my premise it's your's.

And if you want me to address the OP as written then all I can state is that it's not my belief that God is a tyrant, but instead a sovereign and holy God.


By discussing the content of the question with the intent to refute, instead of complaining about it.


I haven't complained about anything, I asked a question which was how is the premise not begging the question?

edit on 1-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You haven't proved it true. You're trying to shift the burden of proof, it's not my premise it's your's.


I'm not saying it's true. I'm not saying anything at all, except that it's an interesting topic I'd like to discuss. Of course I have an opinion in the matter, but I'd like to get input so I can at least have an informed outlook. If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss it with everyone here, including yourself.

I'm assuming you have an opinion as well, which is why I'm asking you to explain to me why you hold that opinion. I posed a question, and I would appreciate an answer.



And if you want me to address the OP as written then all I can state is that it's not my belief that God is a tyrant, but instead a sovereign and holy God.


It's not my problem if you don't have an imagination.



I haven't complained about anything, I asked a question which was how is the premise not begging the question?


Surely your mind has the flexibility to surmount such a puny obstacle?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I gave you your answer in that link. If you choose not to accept it, that's not my problem.
Well, since I don't know how you could have given it because I just posted it last night, please humor me and post your answer here.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The only conflict is when you are told that, according to a mysteriously absent higher being, you are nothing and no one unless you profess that you are powerless and that you fully and willingly consign every speck of your will and freedom to that of this higher being. The conflict arises when your independence clashes with the tyranny of that higher power. That is my point here.
You either do not read my posts or do not understand the point I am making. Connecting with Reality via heart-based intelligence, grants great discrimination, freedom, and strength. In this, you are connected with REALITY, not some mental process of separating from everything due to fear and which dies anyway. The ego-I is based in fear - so much so, that it continually animates this moment to moment mood of separation to give it a sense of separate existence. It is afraid of annihilation, but it doesn't even actually exist except as this activity of separation. So it is false - but you don't want to observe this, and few people do. That sense of egoity is basically just the result of attention focusing on objects as "other" - it is only a sense, not an actual entity.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Ego is the sense that "I am capable". It is the ability to stand up and tell yourself that you can do and be everything you want to. Ego is confidence, certainty.

Almost everyone assumes ego is some kind of actual thing and then they start talking like you just did - that ego is okay, is the ground for confidence, certainty, etc. There is no certainly in that presumption because the ego is just an activity of separation. Only one's heart based reality intelligence is certain because it is not divorced from fundamental sustenance, which is Reality Itself, Conscious Light/Love. This is recognizable by anyone because it is already the case.

The whole egoic structure is a myth that we all tend to animate and reinforce in one another, generation after generation. It is this presumption that is causing all the conflict in the world, not the heart-based connection with the Reality that is prior to all arising.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Does love let you go? Does love let you have the freedom to choose what makes you happy? Or does love hold you in chains until you submit?
Real love is freedom, the highest discrimination, intelligence, morality, and connectedness with all arising. There are no chains involved - only the free choice to either contract into some egoic subjective knot within the body-mind, or to recognize that we all arise in indivisible light and energy. Even grade school children learn that all of this is light - how come the implications of this don't seem to sink in?


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Exactly. Recognize that our separation from divinity is a self-imposed illusion generated to give us peace of mind from our imperfections. We are haunted by our ignorance, our fallibility, and so we externalize that divinity so that we are never reminded that divinity is imperfectly complete. Why? Because in our mind, that isn't perfection. And that's what it all depends on, right? How we define divinity and perfection for ourselves.
That makes all the difference.

Yes, we tend to externalize Divinity for many reasons that we have already discussed; but it is all because we are coming from the egoic model, which allows the individual to be exploited - regardless of whether they believe in God or not. Tyrants abound because egos rule the world, not just because people believe in God as a Great Other or Super-Entity.

It is only when we directly connect with the Reality, That which is simply and already the case, do we find our real strength, no longer subject to the endless delusions being continuously created by the simple act of separation from the world, others, and Reality Itself.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join