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.

 

Plagiarism In The Bible

page: 9
28
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


So being non-religious is a disability?

Possibly, but that isn't what the paper says.


Because that's what deafness is. Are religious people "better equipped" than non-religious people? Because that's what your analogy implies.

No, that is what you are trying to make it imply by stretching the comparison to include irrelevant aspects of it. Is this a sample of your usual tactics in discussion? If so, I'm not surprised that other posters seem to be so impatient with you.


The only reason we're religious is because we are raised that way.

You said that already. I've just shown you otherwise, and supported my position with a quote from the literature. Why are you flogging a dead horse? Is this another example of your discussion tactics? They're not winning any hearts and minds at this end of our mutual internet link, let me tell you that.


If a baby is not exposed to religion then it will not grow up religious the majority of the time, the opposite goes for babies who are exposed to it.

You speak with great certainty. What, then, do you make of the study referenced in this article?

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims

Even before that study came out, there was great debate on the subject of whether or not religion is innate. You can read arguments for both positions here on the old Richard Dawkins Foundation web site.


Did we also evolve to enjoy TV or video games as well?

Good question. What do you reckon?


edit on 14/11/14 by Astyanax because: of TV and video games.




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You speak with certainty as well, even though these studies are conjecture based on religion being a part of our culture for thousands of years already.

We shaped religion not evolution. Did we evolve to believe in a higher power? Possibly, but evolving to be religious? Not so much. Religion is a lie, why would natural selection make us believe in lies? What about tribes in the Amazon who have no concept of religion? Why haven't they evolved to believe in it yet? Probably because they haven't been introduced to it. Religion was created by man to take advantage of our propensity to believe in a higher power. Believing in a higher power does not equal religion.

To say that we evolved to enjoy TV is kind of ridiculous. Wouldn't it be more apt to say that we developed technology which we then "evolved" to entertain us and not the other way around? Is technology a product of evolution or is it a product of man who evolved the intellectual abilities to create that technology?

ETA: I see you edited your post. You originally said that we evolved to enjoy TV, with a "resounding yes".
edit on 11/14/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Abednego





Genesis 3:15 is a very important prophetic scripture it is the first that lasts the longest of any bible verse.
Actually when finished it will have spanned over 7000 years. Let's break it down.

I=God
You=Satan
Woman=Heavenly forces aligned with God (symbolic)
Your Offspring = Demons and Humans that side with Satan
Hers=Earthly forces aligned with God
He=Jesus Christ
Crushed Head= Permanent Death
Your=Satan
You=Satan
His=Jesus
Strike heel=Temporary death of Jesus

Jesus suffered the heel strike in 33 AD.
It will be over 1000 years before Satan is executed(Crushed Head), he will be in a type of spiritual dimensional jail for most of that time too.


Nice breakdown. But...
If Satan is in a spiritual dimensional jail (like you said), how can he have offsprings? And according to bible the fallen angels came later and they act by their own terms, not by deception.

Demons were the sons of the fallen angels according the book of Enoch.
Enoch 15:8
Now the giants, who have been born of the spirit and the
flesh, shall be called upon the earth evil spirits, and on the earth
shall be their habitation.

I'm contradicting myself (spirit cannot impregnate a woman) or maybe not (what they call spirit maybe some kind of highly evolutionized being).

Anyway following your line of though, Satan cannot have offspring since he is in this kind of jail like you said. That raises more questions than answers.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Lost as to how ppl keep asking for sources on similarities. I own the scriptures but included the link to an easy to read source in the op.

Buddha was sheltered until the age of 16 when he was married to his cousin. But, during his tenures in his private palace he was taught all manners of knowledge save for,religion (Wonder why) and death. But up until his early teen years, he was sheltered. He even begins his "mission" at the age of 29 where Jesus is said to have as well around 30.

Buddha was born around 563 BC, and was written about 200 yrs after death. He is also credited with predicting Christ's (Yeshua) but that could've been added or altered just like the current bible has. Lost as to why you all keep asking for sources...they're the same sources you all are claiming to have read?

If you'd like to read more check out the sacred texts...I own several from Atheism to Zoroastrian. For those that don't, here's a quick synopsis of Buddha - Link

I find it interesting how everyone is only focusing on 1 individual that predates christ when there are DOZENS.

Zoroaster FOR EXAMPLE is no doubt a model that Christ's story was influenced by.


Zarathustra was born of a virgin
Zoroaster was baptized in a river
He went into the wilderness to be tempted by the evil one
He restored the sight of a blind man
Names of Zarathustra include: “the Word made Flesh” and “Logos”
Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” of their prophet

This site says it pretty well:


One hears conflicting estimates of Jesus. Christians believe he is incomparable, without a peer, but they are often quite ignorant of the lives of other great spiritual leaders. On the other hand, some people speak of Jesus, Buddha, Socrates and others without acknowledging any differences. Walter Lippmann, for example, remarks, "There is no doubt that in one form or another, Socrates and Buddha, Jesus and St. Paul, Plotinus and Spinoza, taught that the good life is impossible without asceticism…."1 Arnold Toynbee asks: "Now who are the individuals who are the greatest benefactors of the living generation of mankind? I should say: Confucius and Lao-tse; the Buddha; the Prophets of Israel and Judah; Zoroaster, Jesus, and Muhammad; and Socrates."2 One may cite many syncretistic movements in the United States, Japan and elsewhere, such as Baha'i, which attempt to combine the teachings of various religious leaders. "To maintain that each of these leaders is equivalent is not to argue from tolerance but from ignorance. In comparing Jesus with them, we discover a number of unique features in Jesus' life and ministry." The purpose of this essay is to highlight Jesus' life, death and teachings by comparing and contrasting them with Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates and Muhammad. We have chosen these four because many people today, in their search for meaning, are looking to these men and the traditions they have generated. We will divide the investigation into five categories: (1) the sources available for reconstructing the lives of these teachers, (2) their birth and family, (3) their life and teachings, (4) their death and (5) their relation to deity. After the data become clear, we will be able to see where the uniqueness of Jesus lies.


source: Source
edit on 14-11-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)


And for the umpteenth time, it is Plagiarism. Knowingly taking someone else's work and claiming it to be an original is Plagiarism. Every Sunday when they pass around a donation basket just prior to preaching from a book that has borrowed from other religions is stealing. Regardless when it was written, it's still Plagiarism. If I was to start a cult and pulled my info directly from the bible and swapped names, is that not?
edit on 14-11-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I seem to recall you at one time claimed to be a atheist . I noticed earlier on in this thread you said you were agnostic .If true , what made you change your mind ? I have a rather large list of Scientist who subscribe to what the Bible says ,so making a statement that those field of studies prove the Bible false doesn't quite fit . Not saying you cant find differing opinions that may line up closer to our own beliefs because even within the differing fields of study you here of different theory's .It's the same thing in people that study the Bible . This is the link to some PHD's who would be considered pro-biblical if you are interested creation.com... I didn't want to paste them all here . The list does fluctuate as one might expect . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I can't give you any more stars and flags so here's to you and your effort to bring to light things we never knew but might want to know!!!!!!!!!!!


:u p:



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I have never once said on these forums that I'm an atheist. I've always said I'm an agnostic. I used the term agnostic atheist briefly at one point, but I felt that didn't describe my beliefs fully and switched back to just plain old agnostic.

Well here's the thing about the fields. The fields say that the bible is false. So in order for the Bible to be true, the scientific fields have to be false. That may very well be the case, but most evidence says that the fields are correct. So unless there is a GIANT deception that I am unaware of, then I'm going to side with the scientific fields. But if there is a giant deception that I am unaware of and then become aware of it, then I will change my opinion then. But I'd need definitive proof (empirical evidence) saying that was the case. Subjective evidence doesn't count, which is what all the NWO conspiracies and bible literalism conspiracies rely on.
edit on 14-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The majority of your information lacks primary sources, so I'm not convinced the information is accurate.

Here are some very good refutations of just about everything you've written:

thedevineevidence.com...

www.tektonics.org...

christianthinktank.com...

I usually avoid just posting links as my response but you posted a lot of information and there is no reason for me to rehash what has already been successfully 'hashed' by others.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

My problem is not with God, it is with those who put the bible together.

Not God but those who are in power.

Not God, men who are susceptible to lying for their own benefit.

What happened to Rome after they legalized the bible? They became the richest empire in history, the Byzantine empire.


So is that what you want? To illegalize the bible? Suppress people like me...People who serve people like you. What then? Go back to hunting us down? Throw us in the pits with lions? That's what Rome did before they legalized the bible.


nah. lets bring back polytheism. if we cant end theism then at least introduce some equality into it. right now your options are just so limited...lets resurrect the greek/roman pantheon, dig up odin and thor, reinstate quetzlcoatl and ra and shake hands with the many hindu deities of old. Osiris, mithra, everyone is invited. if we are going to believe in fairies lets go full turkey with it. I see no less reason to worship Baphomet than I do Yahweh.
edit on 14-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

The only sources mentioned in the link from your op was this.


The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves, and The Christ Conspiracy, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.


I want citations from ancient documents and the estimated dates put forth by actual scholars. The books listed above amount to theosophical prapaganda.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Jenisiz

The only sources mentioned in the link from your op was this.


The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves, and The Christ Conspiracy, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.


I want citations from ancient documents and the estimated dates put forth by actual scholars. The books listed above amount to theosophical prapaganda.



1. Chrishna of Hindostan.

2. Budha Sakia of India.

3. Salivahana of Bermuda.

4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.

5. Odin of the Scandinavians.

6. Crite of Chaldea.

7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.

8. Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.

9. Indra of Thibet.

10. Bali of Afghanistan.

11. Jao of Nepaul.

12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese.

13. Thammuz of Syria.

14. Atys of Phrygia.

15. Xaniolxis of Thrace.


More than twenty claims of this kind—claims of beings invested with divine honor (deified)—have come forward and presented themselves at the bar of the world with their credentials, to contest the verdict of Christendom, in having proclaimed Jesus Christ, "the only son, and sent of God:" twenty Messiahs, Saviors, and Sons of God, according to history or tradition, have, in past times, descended from heaven, and taken upon themselves the form of men, clothing themselves with human flesh, and furnishing incontestable evidence of a divine origin, by various miracles, marvelous works, and superlative virtues;


www.sacred-texts.com...

go ahead and look them up. google is your servant. propaganda my rump.
edit on 14-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Two points.

1) When we tell stories, to different groups of people, the main point of the story stays the same, but the details change to tailor it to the interest of the people who are listening. If us Muggles go that, why wouldn't a higher power tailor the message a little differently to different groups, as long as the moral of the story is the same?

2 or b) For this post to be true, everything involved in these stories would have to follow linier time.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Why didn't the higher power tell these other groups that he is the same god as that other group's god? Seems like a pretty easy task to complete for the god.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
My whole problem with the bible is it reads like a fairytale. If god used to walk among the people, why doesn't he now? If the prophets of old like moses were real, and able to perform crazy miracles, why didn't god keep that up? A few prophets in every region, for all generation shouldn't be so hard for a god to do.

There used to be crazy cool stuff going on back then, like bushes spontaneously igniting and talking, talking serpents, why not now? Did god lose his mojo and creativity? The only time cool stuff like that happens these days is when you are eating funny mushrooms.

It's like god just faded away if one is to believe the old holy books. Did god die? Did he get old and senile and forget about us? Did the same happen to all the other gods that predated the god in the bible? Or were they all just the products of early man's imagination?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thinline

Why didn't the higher power tell these other groups that he is the same god as that other group's god? Seems like a pretty easy task to complete for the god.


theres a lot of things that seem like they would be a cinch for any competent higher power but for some reason our right to choose is most important exactly when ignoring it would yield the most benefit. not to mention the one sided quality to it...




edit on 14-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Supposedly he did say something along that lines to muhammad, at least he was the same god as the jews, not he was the same god as the pagans though lol.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I just watched this interview with Graham Hancock and found it interesting . He talks a bit about our ancient past and brings up some of the issues being discussed on this thread .He briefly mentions his censorship at TED as well .



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

Well that's cool I guess, but why didn't god turn around and tell the Christians and Jews that he was the same god as the Muslim's god? I bet we would have avoided thousands of years of bloodshed then.
edit on 14-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I don't know if you have seen this vid but the speaker makes some very valid points . I think it was Einstein who said that he could have 1000 reasons why he might be correct but all that was needed for him to be proven wrong was 1 good reason .
a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I kinda doubt it would have helped. All those "religious" wars used religion as a tool to rally the idiots. The wars were at the core, the same as today, self-proclaimed royalty wanting more, and fools willing to go kill and die for them. I think I might be straying a bit far offtopic now lol.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join