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.

 

Love vs Tyranny

page: 23
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Uhhh, you gave the impression that I should not post anything contrary to your op when you said "Your ideas are irrelevant to the point I am making." You keep wanting to categorize what several of us have been posting as new age concepts, and even when I mentioned various quotes attributed to Jesus, you said you didn't care what the quotes said. (You can also see the last few posts on the "God loves me" thread in case you don't recall this.)


Yes, I read the quotes. They give the impression that Jesus was a mild-mannered version of the Lord Marshal from Chronicles of Riddick. They do not in any way imply a...I believe you called it "Divine Indivisible Eternal Light of God". That is purely your interpretation. You have lent a New Age light to a traditional concept that I am questioning, which entirely eliminates the context creating my need for such a question.

This is the last time I will explain this. I have a blue car. I am upset because I like blue, but red cars are becoming mandatory. You attempt to resolve it by saying, "But the red cars aren't really cars, they're this other kind of motorized vehicle!"

That doesn't solve the problem, that's just confusing the issue. And so, you are confusing my issue by bringing up something that opposes the context by which the question was raised. Either you will stick to the context regarding the whole "God is love" ideal, or we have nothing else to discuss.


You keep insisting that I am putting forth some new age perspective in order for you to discount what myself and others have been posting here. I have been supporting these arguments with scriptural quotes, and then you discount those and say, well, popular belief is assuming the God as Other presumption - and yes, this is true, but this is NOT to say this is what Jesus was actually teaching.


Ah, yes...this, right here:


John 17:20-26
New International Version (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”


I don't see any reference to a "great other" in those scriptures. As far as I can tell, you are still attempting to validate Christian doctrine with non-Christian ideals.


Hahahaha! Given you already disregarded my quoting from the Bible, this makes it a bit more difficult! A koan, indeed! Good one, zen master AI!


Refer to my above response to your quoted scripture.


So now you are eliminating from this discussion much of what Jesus actually spoke about. Okay, now I see why you don't like the quotes I put forth my argument with. Basically, it is sounding more and more that you are only interested in the God of the Old Testament.


Refer above.


Again, this sounds like only the God of the Old Testament, not what Jesus was putting forward.


That was the god Jesus put forward. In your quoted scriptures, he speaks of his father. His father has been made clear in the Bible. There is no other. Your interpretation is a joke.


LOL! After all this discussion, this is your summary?!


You are defending Jesus with heretical ideas. What's not to get?




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by bb23108
 

Ah, yes...this, right here:


John 17:20-26
New International Version (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”


I don't see any reference to a "great other" in those scriptures. As far as I can tell, you are still attempting to validate Christian doctrine with non-Christian ideals.
You are exactly right - there is no reference to a separate God elsewhere, in that quote - and that is exactly why I chose it. Jesus is speaking of not being separate from God. Again, there is no presumption of God as Other in this quote, nor in the others I quoted - e.g., relative to Jesus' two great commandments.

After seeing your post here of what you think I mean by God as the Great Other, I now understand that you just don't get what I am saying. God as Other, separate and elsewhere, is not what Jesus is teaching. He is teaching and making accessible the God of Non-separation, indivisible, inclusive of all. The Old Testament spoke much more in terms of a separate God (Other), one to be feared, etc. and your op's presumption holds up with this Old Testament version of God - but not with what Jesus is attributed with teaching.
edit on 7-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



You are exactly right - there is no reference to a separate God elsewhere, in that quote - and that is exactly why I chose it. Jesus is speaking of not being separate from God. Again, there is no presumption of God as Other in this quote, nor in the others I quoted - e.g., Jesus' two great commandments.


So you're saying that "God" is not separate from us?

What does this have to do with my premise?


After seeing your post here of what I mean by God as the Great Other, I now understand that you just don't get what I am saying. God as Other, separate and elsewhere, is not what Jesus is teaching. He is teaching and making accessible the God of Non-separation, indivisible, inclusive of all. The Old Testament spoke much more in terms of a separate God (Other), one to be feared, etc. and your op's presumption holds up with this version of God.


Ah. That answers my second question above. My response is: this is no presumption, but a summary of the teachings of Christians all across our nation! Regardless of those quotes, that is not what Christians are teaching, and that is not what they are learning. Ask them about it, and they will tell you that "God" is greater, that they are separate. You cannot be a servant and be one with that which you are serving.
edit on 7-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So you're saying that "God" is not separate from us?
It doesn't matter what I am saying - this is what various quotes attributed to Jesus are saying.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What does this have to do with my premise?
You are assuming the separate God as the basis for your premise.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Ah. That answers my second question above. My response is: this is no presumption, but a summary of the teachings of Christians all across our nation! Regardless of those quotes, that is not what Christians are teaching, and that is not what they are learning. Ask them about it, and they will tell you that "God" is greater, that they are separate.

I have always agreed with you on this point - but what I am saying (with my posts that include the quotes) this is NOT what Jesus was actually teaching when a fuller examination of his teachings are made.

The separate God idea is perpetuated by religions for a variety of reasons - which some of us have also discussed. See windword's responses to my posts for example.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You cannot be a servant and be one with that which you are serving.

In your words, AI, prove this! (Because I beg to differ.)

Gotta go. See ya later.
edit on 7-3-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword
 


Why is worship necessary at all? Why is veneration not enough? Respect, even? Why do we have to worship anything?


What if mankind invented God to suite its own needs of subjugation, moral duplicity; to explain its own faults to fingerpoint and blame the supposed 'higher being' for the abandonment? Why not turn the tables on oneself; what if it WAS ALL PLANNED IN ADVANCE. I have wondered; of the two most well known humans:
William Shakespeare and Jesus of Nazareth. What are their commonalities. One wrote the most brilliant volume of English literature discribing its condition on this earth dealing with its fellow countrymen "Anonymously" . The other wrote NOTHING and has had/made a different yet just as profound effect upon its fellow humans; not a single word attributed to. The 'causal effect' of BOTH is identical. The irony is hiliarious.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




I have always agreed with you on this point - but what I am saying (with my posts that include the quotes) this is NOT what Jesus was actually teaching when a fuller examination of his teachings are made.

The separate God idea is perpetuated by religions for a variety of reasons - which some of us have also discussed. See windword's responses to my posts for example.


That's an entirely different subject, and bringing it up is not conducive to the flow of this discussion. I'm not saying I disagree - I am saying that this thread is not concerned with that particular quarrel.


In your words, AI, prove this! (Because I beg to differ.)


Because you cannot be both master and slave. To maintain such a relationship with yourself is to lose control of yourself. You will be unable to balance yourself with the rest of the world. Of course, considering that your perspective is the easiest one to take, it's understandable to see that you have difficulty considering how a self-contained slave-and-master relationship would affect your interaction with the world. Call it conceit, call it arrogance, call it egomania, but it's not beneficial in a reality where your life is just as affected by the lives of others as it is affected by itself - and vice versa.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
That's an entirely different subject, and bringing it up is not conducive to the flow of this discussion. I'm not saying I disagree - I am saying that this thread is not concerned with that particular quarrel.
Okay, so what you are saying is that you don't care if Jesus' teachings have been misunderstood, it is what mainstream Christianity has become, that you are criticizing regardless. Right?

If so, isn't your solution throwing the baby out with the bath water? Why only make your points about what Christianity has become - basically an extension of the same religious presumptions of the Old Testament that God is separate, elsewhere, and to be feared or at least used as some kind of security blanket that can be bought through certain beliefs, presumptions, prayers, acts, rites, etc.

Why not also point out that its founder had hoped to replace this error in man (original sin) by demonstrating through his own communion with the Divine, that an all-inclusive, indivisible God was always and already the case, and that this communion is true for all beings' too. There is no need for Christians to give up any real practice of their love of God, Jesus, and neighbor in order to further deepen their understanding of and unity with Reality and Love. If they truly practiced Jesus' two great commandments, everything would change in their world.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because you cannot be both master and slave.

Now you have changed your original wording from "You cannot be a servant and be one with that which you are serving." to "master and slave". A very big difference here, so you are basing your argument on a different relationship than originally posted.

What I was getting at is that our body-minds are all subservient to the non-separate Reality in which we arise by the very fact that these body-minds are sacrificed sooner or later in death. To try and alleviate this fear, we invent the separate ego-I and assume everyone is "other" to us. Many of us also take solace in an all-powerful Creator God. Your arguments always seem to support this separative proposition - "I" over against all others, master-slave, etc.

But if you are not truly separate from Reality (how could you be?), the more you begin to understand that you are infilled with the light, love, and energy of Reality Itself, and the more you happily conform with Reality Itself - because you are not separate from It.

Such is being the non-separate servant of Reality with the body-mind - based in the real discrimination that we arise in Reality and it becomes more and more obvious that this is the only thing that actually makes sense in life. Everything else dies, even that fake little ego-I that doesn't truly exist as an entity to begin with.

So which disposition actually demonstrates more discrimination - submitting to Reality or holding up one's self-enclosed little ego-I and yelling "but what about me, me, me?" Nobody cares about that in any of us - only the one animating such separation does. No one else can even see this fake "I" we are so in love with - but everyone can feel Reality's Love when it is shining prior to all arising and permeating you through and through.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
What if mankind invented God to suite its own needs of subjugation, moral duplicity; to explain its own faults to fingerpoint and blame the supposed 'higher being' for the abandonment?
The collective ego of mankind certainly likes this position - it not only allows us to blame God, but to feel betrayed and abandoned by such a One too. It further ensures and reinforces the sense of self via apparently justified separation into unlove, betrayal, feelings of abandonment, etc.

Probably the single most asked question of God is - "Why did you let this happen?" So much easier to blame our Great Teddy Bear in the sky than to actually take real responsibility for everything arising in our lives. Of course there are terrible tragedies, but no such separate God is sitting around making them happen. Reality is far more profound than this ego-based conception of a Creator-God.
edit on 8-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Okay, so what you are saying is that you don't care if Jesus' teachings have been misunderstood, it is what mainstream Christianity has become, that you are criticizing regardless. Right?


Yes. Simply recognizing it as misunderstood doesn't excuse it, so I am calling on it. We are both discussing math, but I am focusing on subtraction and you're jumping in with exponents. Let's not confuse the topic here.


If so, isn't your solution throwing the baby out with the bath water? Why only make your points about what Christianity has become - basically an extension of the same religious presumptions of the Old Testament that God is separate, elsewhere, and to be feared or at least used as some kind of security blanket that can be bought through certain beliefs, presumptions, prayers, acts, rites, etc.


Because my contentions lie with what Christianity claims to be. This thread is based on the popular beliefs of Christianity. The fact is that your version is not what America worships, it is not what Muslims worship, it is not what Jews worship. My point that I am making is concerned with what is being worshipped. Your interpretation is beside the point because my target audience doesn't pay heed to it anyway.

I can't make it any clearer.


Now you have changed your original wording from "You cannot be a servant and be one with that which you are serving." to "master and slave". A very big difference here, so you are basing your argument on a different relationship than originally posted.


If you are one with that which is served, you are the master as well. That's the definition of unity - you are one entity. If you are both servant and master, you are master and slave. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that I had to explain that. You should really practice mind-bending puzzles, work on that flexibility there.


What I was getting at is that our body-minds are all subservient to the non-separate Reality in which we arise by the very fact that these body-minds are sacrificed sooner or later in death. To try and alleviate this fear, we invent the separate ego-I and assume everyone is "other" to us. Many of us also take solace in an all-powerful Creator God. Your arguments always seem to support this separative proposition - "I" over against all others, master-slave, etc.


Those are not the beliefs I am questioning. I have no interest in examining them at this time. Again, I am discussing subtraction and you are insisting that exponents must be discussed simultaneously. Let us discuss the concept I have called into question - your beliefs are not being tested...yet.

And if the question bears no meaning because it does not reflect your views, then obviously you have no reason to answer. Trust me, I understand your views. But I am busy with other prey for the time being.





edit on 8-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


And you think they'll pay heed to what you have to say? You don't seem to be a person of compromise at all. It's either your way or the highway, right? Sounds a lot like the Christians you made this thread for if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



And you think they'll pay heed to what you have to say? You don't seem to be a person of compromise at all. It's either your way or the highway, right? Sounds a lot like the Christians you made this thread for if you ask me.


I have asked a question:


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


In "God"s behavior, where does love end and tyranny begin? Where is the line drawn? This is the question I have asked. If other members are unable to answer the question due to their beliefs, I don't have a problem. But when they attempt to change the context to reflect their own beliefs, that's when I have a problem. I asked a question, and I outlined the context as it is for a reason. Don't change my question, and I won't disregard your answer.

That's all I'm asking. Why is that so hard? I didn't even have this much trouble with NOTurTypical.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


They are not mutually inclusive, good and bad are two ends on the same spectrum. God is not bad, "he" is good, Satan is bad.

I'm not sure why you think god must be bad, the bible's version of god is not the true god. Do you disagree with that? Or are you completely against the notion of any kind of god?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



They are not mutually inclusive, good and bad are two ends on the same spectrum. God is not bad, "he" is good, Satan is bad.


That can't be true. "God" is purely good, there's no way something as evil as Satan could be created by an awesome guy like "God", right? I mean, how can he create something that contradicts his own nature? That's like water that gives off flame.


I'm not sure why you think god must be bad, the bible's version of god is not the true god. Do you disagree with that? Or are you completely against the notion of any kind of god?


If the Bible's god is not the true god, then you're not a Christian.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


God didn't create Satan, they are both part of the same system. You cannot have one without the other, it's called balance and the universe (God) is based on balance. If there was no bad then we wouldn't be able to appreciate the good.

The Source is both good and bad, God being the good end and Satan being the bad end. God and Satan are nothing more than states of mind, not entities that watch everything you do ready to throw you in a pit forever.

You have a skewed perception of what god is, and for some reason you can't move away from the god of the OT, even though you don't believe in him. Why is that? Are you so against there being some kind of god that you have to make him out to be evil? Are you unable to move past that certain depiction of him?

I never said I was Christian and I'm pretty sure you already knew that, so what's your point?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 
To echo some of what 3NL1GHT3N3D1 is getting at with his third to his last post, I would add that you, AfterInfinity, need to learn how to communicate more effectively. Notice that very few of the people you are actually targeting are even involved in your consideration at this point. Your outbursts of pretentiousness and uncompromising attitudes do not fare well in terms of getting your message across. I have repeatedly agreed with your message in terms of much of its logic relative to what mainstream religions tend to assume, but your approach leaves much to be desired. You are not actually connecting with most people, in my opinion - rather you are targeting them and making yourself (and your message) fail in attracting their attention long enough to really hear you.

You basically are patronizing me, and no doubt others, with some of your responses rather than staying open. Maybe I am not thinking the way you are assuming I am and what you are subsequently basing your responses on. For example:


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If you are one with that which is served, you are the master as well. That's the definition of unity - you are one entity.
You are making the assumption that such beings are only separate entities and thereby basing your entire argument on that. I am not basing my statement about the body-mind being subservient to Reality on that same presumption. Rather than asking about what am I actually talking about, since you obviously did not understand it, you respond as follows:


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that I had to explain that. You should really practice mind-bending puzzles, work on that flexibility there.
You see, this kind of patronizing is very closed-minded, unattractive, and basically will tend to end further communication..


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
But I am busy with other prey for the time being.
Another example of the same attitude and inability to actually communicate - i.e., connect with whomever you are writing to. Your self-righteousness in your communication here should be further inspected - as you will fail to get your communication across if you persist in this polarized approach.

Or perhaps your actual (albeit unconscious) motive is to fail at effectively communicating so you can feel further egoic separation and self-righteousness relative to all of us "prey"?

edit on 8-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



God didn't create Satan, they are both part of the same system. You cannot have one without the other, it's called balance and the universe (God) is based on balance. If there was no bad then we wouldn't be able to appreciate the good.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Where in that sentence do you see the word "Satan"? Satan came after "God". If "God" didn't create Satan, then where does Satan come from? is there another creator, another being capable of spawning entities that punish "God"s children, entities that "God" doesn't bother to terminate despite the fact that they are not his creations and therefore have no place in his design?


The Source is both good and bad, God being the good end and Satan being the bad end. God and Satan are nothing more than states of mind, not entities that watch everything you do ready to throw you in a pit forever.


I see what you're saying now. But that isn't Christian doctrine. I'd prefer to give them the chance to defend their beliefs, instead of just asserting my opinion and walking away. That's how you feed your own ignorance.


You have a skewed perception of what god is, and for some reason you can't move away from the god of the OT, even though you don't believe in him. Why is that? Are you so against there being some kind of god that you have to make him out to be evil? Are you unable to move past that certain depiction of him?


I'm not moving away because I'm busy poking holes in it. That is their depiction of "God", so I'm questioning them. Let them defend their god, I want to see their arguments.

And yes, I want to show how crippling the Judaic god is, how tyrannical and oppressive and spiritually fattening. Christianity is McDonalds. Full of grease and fatty acids, but cheap and aesthetically pleasing to our underdeveloped tastes.


edit on 8-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Satan is a system and a methodology and an occult practice a left hand path and a rebellious principal, and if he were a creature, then he can't be all-powerful or almighty but just a loser. Satanism is also a failed philosophy based on raw ego and the will to power, which leads to death, since that's the only aspect that dies with us.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


In my opinion there was no beginning, the universe has always existed, meaning both good and bad have always existed as well. Satan is only the darker side of human nature, God is the brighter side, the good side.

Religion and the gods of religion were created by men who reside on the dark end of the spectrum, those who desire power and wealth over equality and love, so of course their "god" will be hateful and destructive. Their "gods" reflect their own desires and personalities.

Can I ask you a question? If there is a god, what do you consider him/her/it to be? Would you consider god to be loving or hateful?
edit on 8-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



Can I ask you a question? If there is a god, what do you consider him/her/it to be? Would you consider god to be loving or hateful?


If I were to imagine a deity, I would imagine it to be something like a computer program, a very simplistic function whose only goal is to give its essence the opportunity to expand and become something greater. Obviously, chaos serves a function, but just a single command line could stagger the interaction enough to allow order to prevail over chaos by using the unruly energy to its advantage. Call it quantum evolution.

In this way, there is no love or hate. There is chaos, and there is order. But even chaos has an order, a purpose given to it which allows order to more efficiently hold up its end. And order must eventually decline into chaos to allow a new set of parameters to rise. Coordination - the mouse, as an independent variable that reacts to other independent variables, runs. The hawk is a similarly independent variable that also relies on other independent variables, and it must adjust for that reaction. In such a way, chaos and order dance, and all it takes is one simple program and enough energy to feed the cycle and keep it self-sustaining.

That's what I imagine.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The universe is pretty chaotic isn't it? But it also has order. What if the universe is God and we are God experiencing itself? I think that's the most simple answer because we experience the universe and are part of it. The universe gives us the opportunity to expand and become greater don't you think?

I don't completely follow your premise though, sorry. From what I did gather, the universe fits in nicely with your premise, as far as the chaos and order part.

Maybe we (consciousness) are the program that you speak of? Consciousness holds everything together in my opinion and the universe has been self-sustaining for billions and billions of years and even longer.

I don't really get why people believe that God is separate from us because he's not, he's always with us.
edit on 8-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join