Skip to comments.Atheists Complain of "Spirituality" in Army's Mental Health Program
Posted on 01/01/2011 2:50:50 PM PST by wmfights
click here to read article
After your declaration in #77, surely you are not now condemning anyone for possessing the might sufficient to be right. If you are, then you are suggesting a higher standard for right than mere might.
dont make this about atheists
Lets see . . . what is the title of this thread? Why I think it is, indeed, Atheists Complain of Spirituality in Armys Mental Health Program.
If you try to shove your religion down athiest throats, you might as well be Muslim.
If anything, it strikes me that its Atheists who are trying shove their religion down the Armys throat.
My point is, anyone who declares that atheism is the cause of brutality, and Christianity or theism in general is an automatic improvement on man’s treatment of his fellow man is going against the facts. And as I have said about five times now on this thread, I am against the military making spiritual counseling M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y. I hope not to have to say it yet again.
snip: In regard to universal law, he said: “As above, so below.” That is, no matter how many dimensions or spheres of reality there may turn out to be, there is only One Law that governs them all. For there is finally only One universe, one world system, a single Unity which at the same time lawfully manifests a virtual riot of diversity at all scales.
Spirited: Man has always lived by revelation and Hermes Trismegistus was no exception. In contemporary terms, Trismegistus was an “astral plane traveler.” During one of his “out of body” experiences he encountered a great Red Dragon that later appeared to him as a beautiful spirit of light.
It was the Dragon who revealed to Hermes the “occult secret” (wisdom teaching) of “as above so below,” meaning that only the natural dimension exists and everything is therefore a part of nature (or the cosmos, matter + energy, the Force, etc). This is the doctrine of Monism.
The god of occult philosophy has many guises, but in this case God is an incomplete, inept, impersonal deity who requires man to “complete him,” that is, restore him to his pre-temporal wholeness. Man is therefore a part of the process of salvation. God is saved by man in other words.
This is the specific teaching of Hegel. Marx stripped Hegel’s dialectic of its’ spiritual aspect to make it a secularized version: material dialectics.
A fine example of Monistic reasoning is in the writings of Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), a German mystic. Eckhart writes:
“God’s divinity comes of my humility.” There follows a lengthy, wild, rambling explanation of why this is the case. In conclusion, Eckhart writes: “Therefore, if God is to exercise his divine property by his gifts, he may well need my humility; for apart from humility he can give nothing...That is why it is true that by my humility I give divinity to God.”
Monism is like a coin. One side is evolutionary materialism and the other is evolutionary pantheistic vitalism. At bottom, both deliver the same message: “Ye can be as God.” This means that Hermes “One Law” is the law of god-men spiritually energized by the Dragon.
In reviewing my response I saw that I had neglected to say that Monism always, without exception, erases the Creator-creature distinction, a fundamental teaching of all occult systems, including those disguised behind secular terminology.
The spirit of Monism teaches: Man is a god in the making. Out of One (matter + energy, the Force, Christ Consciousness, etc) has proceeded the diverse many, and back into One (annihilation for materialists for example) are the many traveling.
Ping to #153.
So, for those tendencies you exclude Catholics from the Christian world and lump them with Muslims and Marxists. Go figure.
The appeal to Occam’s Razor (abused & misunderstood in most cases) gives the veneer of intellectualism when in fact it is the avoidance of thinking altogether.
Yes, the liberal/progressive Trinity is:
It goes: Nomine Amor Sui, Libido Dominandi , et Aspernatio Rationis
Translation: In the name of self love, lust for power, and the spruning of reason.
This marks the true beginning of all their actions.
Good job saving the kitten and I don’t mean to imply that atheists are immoral or evil or cannot discern right from wrong.
Having been an atheist, though, it seems to me that I am happier now than I was then. My relationships are better and free from acrimony. I’m gentler and more loving and all that came about after my conversion to Christianity.
I feel that it is my relationship with Jesus Christ that strenghtens my marriage and family. I’m a better husband, father and friend then I ever was before my conversion.
That said I still have the same problems and challenges. Am I simply deluding myself? Is this just a survival strategy imposed by genes or environment? I don’t think so.
When I was baptized I felt utterly free of burdens, pure, fresh and new. Now, your contention is that I’m deluding myslef, but I don’t feel that way.
There are rebels in the military that don't think wearing a helmet should be mandatory either. If it's any consolation, the way things are going you will get your wish. We will have gay atheist mixed-sex minority combat troops that won't follow orders they don't like and will all be killed on the battlefield. What does it matter? America is falling on all fronts. The turning point for America was giving women the right to vote. No modern Democrat could ever get elected without that. Democracy is way overrated.
I so agree 1010RD!
It's a tad frustrating.
Thank you for your kind words....
The unholy trinity....
Thank you so much for your excellent observation!
Certainly I'm not a Hermes groupie! I had enuf of "occult" stuff with Alice Bailey's Arcane School from which I departed in the mid-'80s.
But I do like the ring of "As above, so below."
Thank you so much for illuminating Hermes Trismegistus and Meister Eckhardt!
The funny thing about atheists is they know very well that God exists. How otherwise could they complain about Him/deny Him?
Thank you so very much for writing!
Thank you so very much for your kind words, dear TXnMA!
Thats certainly explicit.
Define your little heart out.
Meaning you dont want to be pinned down. Might have to change some part of your identity in five minutes. Wall, nail, custard pie. You should run for political office.
You didnt understand what I was saying.
Dont put it off on me. You were quite general in your description of whom it is that subscribes to the idea of might equals right. Now you want to walk it back? Are you one of those who rarely admit that might equals right? Or, do you reject the concept? Dont be a Mugwump on the subject . . . get your mug and your wump on the same side of the fence.
I did not "rise to their defense."
Whom, then, is this us and this we? You claim you cant speak for other Atheists, then you proceed to speak for other Atheists. There is such a thing as plausible denial. You dont have it. It appears that indeed you do rise to the defense of Atheists. Perhaps you mean that its merely a vehicle for attacking Christians. Now that is plausible.
I don't care who else has said it.
Of course you do. Its just that if you recognize it, you might have to deal with it. Better to be like a goose . . . every time you open your eyes, its a brand new world. When did you come up with this idea of appeal to authority? Three days ago? Another couple of days and it will lapse into history. Then youll have to find something else.
Now its time for you to close your eyes and open them again on a brand new world.
Its been my experience that most discussions of Atheism being the cause of brutality does not center on Atheism as a cause of brutality, but rather is in response to charges of brutality lodged against Christianity, pointing out that, where Atheistic regimes have had the opportunity, no regimes have trumped them for the degree and the extent of their brutality (witness the Soviet Empire, Pol Pot, etc). If you want your case to be plausible, it has to be stated accurately.
With respect to seeking improvement in mans treatment of his fellow man, I ask you who is it that has labored for a thousand years to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. Asian despots? Atheistic socialist tyrannies? If youre gagging on the answer, I will spare you the agony and provide it for you: Christian Western Civilization.
And as I have said about five times now on this thread, I am against the military making spiritual counseling M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y. I hope not to have to say it yet again.
And I dont know how many times youve been told that M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y spiritual counseling does not exist in the military. Rather it is part of a M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y personnel evaluation and is included where relevant. But Im sure youll find it M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y to continue your shibboleth. You have nothing else. You portray yourself a most reasonable moderate, able to see all sides of every issue and to render justice in so evenhanded a manner as to excite the admiration of Christ himself. Yet you accuse Christians (and no one else that I know of) of being superiorist. Christians state their convictions without reservation. If they held any other beliefs than what they do, they would defend those. Tell me, do you do any less yourself? If you do less, how can we be sure that anything you say is genuine?
If I may chime in here, you know the difference between between a happy, thriving culture and a pile of murdered bodies, but your atheism precludes you from being able to give any coherent account of it. Moral obligation or any kind of moral incumbency cannot be derived from a world that is imagined to be the product of impersonal, accidental concatenations of physical forces and causes.
How do you account for (in the world you purport to be the actual world) your taking for granted that certain physical entities with certain physical attributes "ought" to do certain things and not do other things to other physical things? It seems to me that a consistent atheist would be limited to giving descriptive accounts of what has happened in the past, and refrain from any imaginary prescriptive assumptions about why any organism or society of organisms ought to be moral in the future.
For example when you say, as in post 108, that we should obey "higher laws" because some of them will make our society safer, more civil, more comfortable, more conducive to human happiness and survival, I say, compared to what? To what world are you referring - the hypothetical world that is the product of impersonal, accidental physical forces and causes, where mental events are solely caused by physical events, or the world inhabited by the other part of you in which people who do not fulfill their obligations are not just stupid, weak, or unlucky?
I would like someday to hear a coherent atheist account of the notion that a physical event that does not perform what in the atheist world view can only be an imaginary duty is defective in some meaningful way and deserves a negative judgment. The whole idea of defect or dysfunction or something not operating as it ought is relative to purposes or goals. But the atheist world wasn't designed with any purpose or goal in mind - it was just a gigantic accident. So what is the atheist account of an organism functioning "properly" or as it "ought"?
The long and short of it is why shouldn't we say, on your own terms, that this talk of "murderous societies" and "moral sophistication" is just fiction?
Counseling without reference to God is hollow and meaningless, as they discovered in the old Soviet Union. The USSR was a country full of drunks but the government forbade 12-step programs because of the “higher power” stuff; their atheistic drug and alcohol programs were useless.
In theory it is possible to treat an abstract, completely secular idea as a “higher power” for the sake of a 12-step program (I’m reminded of Christopher on the Sopranos wanting to use the traditions of the Mafia as his higher power) but those are equally hollow. No one wants to turn to an abstraction for comfort.
Diamond: “when you say, as in post 108, that we should obey “higher laws” because some of them will make our society safer, more civil, more comfortable, more conducive to human happiness and survival, I say, compared to what?”
Spirited: Essentially, there are two antithetical classes in contemporary America. In his book “America’s Ruling Class...” Angelo Codevilla identifies them as the Country Class and the Ruling Class.
However imperfectly, the Country Class has nevertheless retained its faith in God the Father and believes that all people are subject to His universal moral law. The County Class is thus the repository of America’s founding Biblical-based philosophical worldvie.
Whether it speaks of a God or not, the Ruling Class is at bottom atheist. Believing itself scientific, enlightened and progressive, it elevates Autonomous Will to the position of First Principle, therefore it need not adhere to any rules and moral law it disbelieves in for Autonomous Will invents meaning, pseudo-morality, and rules per desire and need. It transgresses freely upon all that the Country Class holds sacred.
A_perfect_lady posited Higher Law not because it is a sacred benchmark to which all should adhere but rather because the Ruling Class trembles in fear at the thought that the Country Class...which is the majority...will finally become as lawless as the Ruling Class. “Inviolable law for thou but not for me,” is the mantra of the Ruling Class.
How can an atheist say anything about "oughts"? The atheist evidently rules out any idea of telos of ends, purposes, goals operating in nature (inclusive of human nature, individual and social) probably because he rightly suspects that to admit such would "somehow" drag God back into the picture.... And this cannot be allowed!
Diamond, thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post!
Bravo Diamond, Bravo!
How? Why, dear betty, by virtue of the stolen concept. Perhaps with the occasional small assistance of what I call the smuggled concept.
Stolen Concept The fallacy of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. Nathaniel Brandon - January, 1963, from The Objectivist Newsletter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.