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.

 

The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


I prefer arguing about the eastern religions myself. The Abrahamic ones are somewhat boring.

There's a lot of taoism that makes sense (being natural, things operate according to natural law, etc.). But the thing that bothers me—and is a common trend throughout most religions—is that the Tao itself, the subject the entire doctrine is built upon, is something that cannot be named and is ultimately beyond our common sense understanding. They, despite this realization, continue to name it the Tao, and continue to write whole doctrines and religions around this ineffable concept, as if it wasn't so ineffable at all.

Another part that bothers me is the idea of self-castration, which is common among ascetic types of religions:


End sagacity; abandon knowledge
The people benefit a hundred times

End benevolence; abandon righteousness
The people return to piety and charity

End cunning; discard profit
Bandits and thieves no longer exist

These three things are superficial and insufficient
Thus this teaching has its place:
Show plainness; hold simplicity
Reduce selfishness; decrease desires


This teaches, above all, to deny oneself, not control oneself; to castrate oneself, and not sublimate oneself. "We are not strong enough to control it—might as well cut it off". As if we should cut out our eyes to avoid getting cataracts.

Much of the Tao Te Ching and its ideas are contradictory:


The Tao, eternally nameless
Its simplicity, although imperceptible
Cannot be treated by the world as subservient

If the sovereign can hold on to it
All will follow by themselves
Heaven and Earth, together in harmony
Will rain sweet dew
People will not need to force it; it will adjust by itself


In other words: "The Tao is imperceptible, but let me talk about it as if it was perceptible."


The Tao is constant in non-action
Yet there is nothing it does not do


I can understand if Laozi (considered a deity in Taoist religions—go figure) was attempting to show the contradictory nature of language and thought, but utilizing paradoxical speech to teach "virtue" is a strange technique to say the least.




posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


The guy in the red suit with a pitchfork...quite Middle-Ages.

I think you aren't grasping the deeper meaning here with marshmallows, onions, pizza, Rocky Road, rock stars and Harley Davidson.

Why do you come to ATS and why do others come to ATS?

The concept of redeeming, is that even if it has flaws, we choose to overlook its flaws and love it anyway.

Why are you still with your girlfriend, despite her "flaws" over religion? Don't you like her in spite of her flaws? Then you have indeed redeemed her.

Think of the story of Hosea and his wife Gomer. There was no moral reason for him to keep loving her even though she was a prostitute, got captured while prostituting, sold as a slave, there was no reason for him to go buy her back, but he did, because he loved her. In that, he redeemed her.

That's the Christian concept of redeeming.

As Taoism is a philosophy of attempting to balance and harmonize everything, bringing positive and negative together, then one must redeem something in order to achieve balance and harmony, correct?

So one loves the rock star despite his drug abuse. One loves Harley Davidsons despite the cost.

Redeeming something IS the action of love.

In order for God to bring man back into harmony with Him, He had to redeem man. That is an act of love. Isn't that a goal of Taoism, harmony?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Sounds as reasonable as anything else ...

The thing is ... both Buddha and Jesus (allegedly) said 'let the sins of the world fall on me'.
They both were willing to 'work off' others sin debut or karma debt or whatever.
(assuming those quotes attributed to them are true).

But like I said .. I'm not sold on Karma ... sometimes I think it could be there and other
times I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


Dude, excellent points. When I'm part of a discussion that involves an atheist and a Christian, they are both confused when I side with the Christian in regards to whether or not divinity exists. Being a pagan, atheists just assume I'll side with them because I'm supposed to hate Christians, apparently.

Atheists seem to largely consider the Abrahamic faiths as religion and everything else as being "on their side". That is totally not true.

Good on you for pointing out that double-standard there. I am a bit insulted when atheists assume I am also an atheist... I'm freakin' religious! Just because I'm not a Christian doesn't mean I'm an atheist, dammit!
edit on 10-11-2013 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Define "divinity". Also, regardless of my personal position, I would be more surprised to learn that you support their version of divinity, given that it effectively labels you as an abomination.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Define "divinity". Also, regardless of my personal position, I would be more surprised to learn that you support their version of divinity, given that it effectively labels you as an abomination.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


As a Christian, I don't know what Cuervo really does believe, as we talked before on another thread about things. Cuervo is not an abomination in my eyes.

And I think it is possible to talk about things from the Bible in a purely philosophical manner. I am objective about the Bible also as I can be about Taoism. Cuervo never indicated being a worshiper of a being they define and describe as evil.

I'm not ready to throw rocks at Cuervo and neither would I want to burn Cuervo at the stake, but since I am able to do other things not readily acceptable to some Christians, I think it was you who said that I would be an abomination also. But Cuervo hasn't sacrificed a pig in the temple. Well, maybe they might have BBQed a pig, but not in the temple.

Abomination is usually regarded as something done so disrespectfully that it is a mockery of what is sacred. I suppose it would be an abomination to Cuervo if I decided to go chop down all the trees, just because it would make Cuervo angry and disrespect the trees in nature, part of which I think Cuervo holds as sacred.

Cuervo isn't sacrificing a pig and I'm not throwing trash Cuervo's pond. But we can BBQ a pig and eat on a wooden table, and enjoy the beautiful sunshine together. That sounds reasonable, unless Cuervo is a vegetarian, then I suppose ears of corn would suffice.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Define "divinity". Also, regardless of my personal position, I would be more surprised to learn that you support their version of divinity, given that it effectively labels you as an abomination.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I support any version of divinity that spiritually feeds a person and helps them attain peace and love in their hearts. For some, Christianity serves as a great balancing mechanism for morality that is needed and for others, it serves as a tool to justify racism or bigotry. The same can be said for many faiths.

I know witches that are in it just so they can piss off Christians or see "nekkid wimmernz" and those are the same types of people who take up Islam so they can hate women or Christianity so they can hate gays. Religion is either something you serve or something that you abuse.

All religion should be the same in the eyes of an atheist but they are not and I think that's what the OP was getting at. Like I said, an atheist is often likely to give me a wink as they bash on the Christian which has always baffled me since that atheist shouldn't believe in my gods, either. All-in-all, I have more in common spiritually with another religious person (even if they want me dead) than I do an atheist even though I would have more in common ethically with an atheist than many in the Abrahamic traditions.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



As a Christian, I don't know what Cuervo really does believe, as we talked before on another thread about things. Cuervo is not an abomination in my eyes.


Yeah, well, no one ever accused Christianity of being consistent, did they? Just another reason I don't take it seriously.


And I think it is possible to talk about things from the Bible in a purely philosophical manner. I am objective about the Bible also as I can be about Taoism. Cuervo never indicated being a worshiper of a being they define and describe as evil.


Cuervo is a self-identified witch. What does the bible say about that?


I'm not ready to throw rocks at Cuervo and neither would I want to burn Cuervo at the stake, but since I am able to do other things not readily acceptable to some Christians, I think it was you who said that I would be an abomination also. But Cuervo hasn't sacrificed a pig in the temple. Well, maybe they might have BBQed a pig, but not in the temple.


I was making a point, not demanding a crusade.


Abomination is usually regarded as something done so disrespectfully that it is a mockery of what is sacred. I suppose it would be an abomination to Cuervo if I decided to go chop down all the trees, just because it would make Cuervo angry and disrespect the trees in nature, part of which I think Cuervo holds as sacred.


I'm not arguing semantics with you. Besides, I wasn't talking to you. By which I mean, Cuervo is in a better position to be discussing his or her beliefs than you are. You don't need to speak in he or her stead.


edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Hah, well put. And no, no pork for this guy.

The ability to objectively discuss one another's religions without resorting to "your religion is a fairy tale" is what makes just about anybody okay in my book (don't worry, I'm talking about my Cool Book, not my grimiore, hah!)

I adore AfterInfinity for a lot of his posts because he brings out a lot of dirty laundry and hypocrisy about the Christian church that I think are worthy of discussion but I think him and many with his perspective are perplexed by people like me who simply do not hold any jaded attitudes about other faiths. I think that's because most modern western pagans are people who are bitter from being raised in a strict Christian house hold. I wasn't and don't have any grudges towards any sort of path, in general. Religion is absolutely fascinating to me and I love discussing it, even the Christian ones.

AfterInfinity, I speak about you in the 3rd person here not out of rudeness but because I'm hoping it helps you see my perspective better.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 




I support any version of divinity that spiritually feeds a person and helps them attain peace and love in their hearts. For some, Christianity serves as a great balancing mechanism for morality that is needed and for others, it serves as a tool to justify racism or bigotry. The same can be said for many faiths.


That's a very long and vague definition for "divine", which is what I asked. Could you shorten it for simplicity's sake? Not that I disagree...


I know witches that are in it just so they can piss off Christians or see "nekkid wimmernz" and those are the same types of people who take up Islam so they can hate women or Christianity so they can hate gays. Religion is either something you serve or something that you abuse.


Why does it always have to be "serve or be served"?


All religion should be the same in the eyes of an atheist but they are not and I think that's what the OP was getting at. Like I said, an atheist is often likely to give me a wink as they bash on the Christian which has always baffled me since that atheist shouldn't believe in my gods, either. All-in-all, I have more in common spiritually with another religious person (even if they want me dead) than I do an atheist even though I would have more in common ethically with an atheist than many in the Abrahamic traditions.


I always have a point to make when I criticize anything. I'm a practical person. Additionally, your statement implies that your ethics and spirituality aren't mutually inclusive, which is decidedly...un-Christian.

To be clear: I am exploring you, not criticizing you.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I know Cuervo is.

And the reason I popped in was because you said "their version". I just wanted to know which of "our version" you were speaking of. That is all.

Defining deity for some people is like the Riddle of the Sphinx..define leg. A cane is not a leg, but the Sphinx said it counted.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



And the reason I popped in was because you said "their version". I just wanted to know which of "our version" you were speaking of. That is all.


In the Bible, witches and all forms of witchcraft and paganism are condemned without question, along with practitioners of such. How you cherry pick your principles doesn't concern me. The Bible is the exact, absolute, and unsullied Word of God and that's what it says. That's what Christians believe, right? That it is flawless and complete. Which means its contents are unquestionable and immovable. Including the verses condemning paganism and witchcraft.


edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



I adore AfterInfinity for a lot of his posts because he brings out a lot of dirty laundry and hypocrisy about the Christian church that I think are worthy of discussion but I think him and many with his perspective are perplexed by people like me who simply do not hold any jaded attitudes about other faiths.


I'll set the record straight on that one, if you don't mind. Oh, and thank you! The regard is mutual. Anyway, I am not perplexed by your lack of "jaded attitudes" regarding other faiths. I'm perplexed by your apparently belief that those faiths and your own are compatible to the degree that you imply. Perhaps I'm just reading you wrong, but that's what I'm here to find out.


AfterInfinity, I speak about you in the 3rd person here not out of rudeness but because I'm hoping it helps you see my perspective better.


Not a problem. Please, carry on.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
That's a very long and vague definition for "divine", which is what I asked. Could you shorten it for simplicity's sake? Not that I disagree...


Wow, you're right; I'm sorry about that. To me, "divine" is the "as above" portion of "as above, so below".



AfterInfinity
Why does it always have to be "serve or be served"?


Like any instrument, it can play and be played. People and ideals are instruments, able to serve one another.



AfterInfinity
I always have a point to make when I criticize anything. I'm a practical person.


I know this. I dig reading what you throw down.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



And the reason I popped in was because you said "their version". I just wanted to know which of "our version" you were speaking of. That is all.


In the Bible, witches and all forms of witchcraft and paganism are condemned without question, along with practitioners of such. How you cherry pick your principles doesn't concern me. The Bible is the exact, absolute, and unsullied Word of God and that's what it says.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Technically it does not say it is ineffible. That is a man's tradition. There is no such wording in the Bible as ineffible. What really was said was this "ALL scripture is divinely inspired" then he goes on to quote Enoch, which isn't in the Bible, so if there are other scriptures that are divinely inspired, then we need to take them as well, I would think.

The Qu'ran, on the other hand, does say it is the only real revelation and book of guidance. So I have to pass that one up because I find nothing divinely inspired in it. But do I think the Rig Vedas and Avestas were divinely inspired? Yes.

Paul didn't have the Qu'ran, but he did have the book of Enoch, of which he quotes from. So it is reasonable then to assume the book of Enoch must have been regarded as divinely inspired. The Bible does not even say it is Absolute, that's another man's tradition.

But if you wanted to know which one of those practitioners the Hebrews had a problem with, were the ones who were sacrificing their children to Molech. It is in reference to cults that were dangerous and harmful, but pagan is just a word that means "folk religion" which is what the ancient Hebrews were at the time they organized their religion. But they never said it was absolute, St. Augustine did.

But there are Jewish people today who practice Wicca and other things, a Jew who practices Buddhism is called a JewBu..Richard Gere is one of them, so if they aren't stoning people for it, then perhaps it wasn't absolute for them?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I'm not arguing with you. How other people choose to pervert the Bible is not my concern, nor is it my concern how you choose to change its meaning through interpretation. It's all a game of how much we can ignore the Bible and still call ourselves Christians. Thank goodness I don't have to play. Go ahead, twist the scripture and pretend witchcraft isn't considered a sin.

But it is. It's a grievous sin. People have been killed because of it.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



Wow, you're right; I'm sorry about that. To me, "divine" is the "as above" portion of "as above, so below".


It's quite alright. I have a hard time imagining what this "as above" portion is, considering "above" to me is outer space.


Like any instrument, it can play and be played. People and ideals are instruments, able to serve one another.


Harkens back to the "servant and master" ideal, which is enormously archaic to my thinking.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I'm not arguing with you. How other people choose to pervert the Bible is not my concern, nor is it my concern how you choose to change its meaning through interpretation. It's all a game of how much we can ignore the Bible and still call ourselves Christians. Thank goodness I don't have to play. Go ahead, twist the scripture and pretend witchcraft isn't considered a sin.

But it is. It's a grievous sin. People have been killed because of it.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I think that I did introduce myself as not an Orthodox Christian, that I am a Christian mystic?

Even Christian mystics have been called witches. So where do I stand, a Christian or a non-Christian?

In your eyes, where do I stand?

What am I to you?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



I think that I did introduce myself as not an Orthodox Christian, that I am a Christian mystic?


Christian mystic makes as much sense as a Nazi Democrat.


Even Christian mystics have been called witches. So where do I stand, a Christian or a non-Christian?

In your eyes, where do I stand?

What am I to you?



A non-Christian who tries really, really hard. In my opinion. You did ask.

'Christian mystic' says to me "I don't want to follow Christian doctrine, but I'll meet it halfway so I don't burn in hell."

Cheap. Really cheap. Maybe even a little desperate. But again, you did ask.

The reasoning here is very, very simple. Christianity doesn't allow room for mysticism. In fact, it forbids making room for mysticism because that qualifies as taking God's seat in your own life. The two are incompatible. So either you're a Christian, or you're a mystic. But you can't preach love and harmony while selling guns and grenades to the neighborhood kids. It's a rough analogy, I know, but I hope you get my point.
edit on 10-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Cuervo
 



Like any instrument, it can play and be played. People and ideals are instruments, able to serve one another.


Harkens back to the "servant and master" ideal, which is enormously archaic to my thinking.


Nearly everything about my beliefs are "archaic", hah!

The think about "servant and master" is that I find them to be mutually exclusive concepts. It is possible to have two servants and no masters. That is what I try to achieve; all servants with no masters.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join