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.

 

If God created everything, why does religion contradicts so many things??

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64



His greatest deception is convincing us satan does not exist.


So you would agree that this earth is hell and under the control of satan?

Where was Eden by the way. In a parallel universe? It says in the bible it was bordered by the Tigris and Euphrates. Or are you gonna come up with circular arguments using "bible innerancy"




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kusinjo
a reply to: windword

...And after that we can prove that Jesus Christ was sent to us from Him as well.


How about proving that Jesus actually lived? Cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived. We can go from there.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020




Worship in spirit and in truth is not the same kind of worship of religious and it is not called worship


Who needs worship. Certainly not the interferers of this genetic experiment called humanity



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




God does not 'create' evil; it just allows for its manifestation (its up to the human to self determine the consequences of utilizing this negative form of energy;



If youre referring to the god of the old testament, sure "it" did. In its omniscience Jehovah took a nap or went off to attend to other "worldly matters" in the same Eden it created for Adam. Somehow its creation "the serpent" was beyond Jehovahs omniscience and then things went sour. I like how Jehovah bitches about adam to his fellow creators that "now we better chuck them out of Eden in case they try the Tree of Everlasting life".

I try to wrap my head around this. I thought Adam already was perfect. Why have a tree of Life within reach? Was this Tree needed for earthlings and or the Elohim to extend their lifespan or to mitigate the effects of the gravity of Earth upon these spacefaring Elohim So many questions so few answers

Why would Jehovah have to run by the Elohim his next course of action? This is why I believe the Gnostics were considered heretics and ruthlessly hunted down. They rightfully stated that this earth is controlled by the "demiurge"



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: vethumanbeing




God does not 'create' evil; it just allows for its manifestation (its up to the human to self determine the consequences of utilizing this negative form of energy;



If youre referring to the god of the old testament, sure "it" did. In its omniscience Jehovah took a nap or went off to attend to other "worldly matters" in the same Eden it created for Adam. Somehow its creation "the serpent" was beyond Jehovahs omniscience and then things went sour. I like how Jehovah bitches about adam to his fellow creators that "now we better chuck them out of Eden in case they try the Tree of Everlasting life".

I try to wrap my head around this. I thought Adam already was perfect. Why have a tree of Life within reach? Was this Tree needed for earthlings and or the Elohim to extend their lifespan or to mitigate the effects of the gravity of Earth upon these spacefaring Elohim So many questions so few answers

Why would Jehovah have to run by the Elohim his next course of action? This is why I believe the Gnostics were considered heretics and ruthlessly hunted down. They rightfully stated that this earth is controlled by the "demiurge"


It might be that the Gnostics were the only ones who had actually read the book. The rest pretended they'd read it and didn't see the whopping contradictions.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing




God does not 'create' evil; it allows for its manifestation (its up to the human to figure this one out).


Well jehovah cant be the omnipresent benevolent being that Christians believe he is if it allows for its manifestation. . Unless you look at creation the qabbalah especially in reference to the Qlippoth



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




Now to the point of why religion is so messed up, humans were made to be stupid by various gods for various reasons which usually fit into those gods agendas.


And some gods are just as stupid and childlike war mongering brats. Jehovah comes to mind



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven




Cancer to exist. There is NO love for humanity in any being that would allow Cancer to exist.


Why cancer? Its just growth run rampant killing the host. A bit like we're given free will/choice yet we still in the "name of love" bash our neighbours to conform to our way
of thinking.
Why ageing? "There is NO love for humanity in any being that would allow ageing to exist"

Why allow scientists to exist - "there is no love for humanity in any being that would allow scientists to come up with DU weapons fired upon innocent children or combatants"



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo


There are some good people but there are also bad people. When you give people power over other people it doesn't matter what you believe,





The KJV of the bible gives us reasons and answers to that question. I believe the words of the KJV of the bible and have yet to find contradictions.


en.wikipedia.org...


James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[6] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.



So you gave power to King James to do your translating for you according to an established ecclesiology?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Why do you resort to name calling, Tang?! I haven't called you any names. I don't thump bibles. I don't know if I should be insulted by that. I don't know why you are trying to insult me, anyhow. I thought people were meant to come here and speak their mind about their views and beliefs. (1 sec checking something) Yes, ok. This is a religion thread. Oh and what threat? I never threatened you. I have never threatened anyway. I offered you a challenge to test the testable. I don't see how that is construed as being a threat.

Okay so you have heard the proof before, why do you still ask for it than? And why are you not refuting or debunking it.

Although, Jesus existence cannot be proven via scientific means. Here is a list of quotes to give you a consensus (scientific term, look it up) of what scholars (that is folks who have done their homework) have to say about it. And I'm starting to get bored with doing your research. I hope you are not writing a paper or something about how to get people to look stuff up for you. Because you haven't given me anything in the affirmative or negative that says this is worth my while. I guess I will have to consider it one of my good deeds for the day.


Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory [‘that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure’] is historically untenable.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Burridge and Could (2004): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

Allison (“Explaining,” 2005): “No responsible scholar can find any truth in it.”

Maier (2005): “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

R. J. Miller in Scott, ed. (Finding, 2008): “We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few hyper-historical skeptics who refuse to be convinced).”

Vermes (2008): “Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still vociferously maintained in small circles of rationalist ‘dogmatists,’ far exceed those deriving from its acceptance.”

C. A. Evans in Evans and Wright (2009): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Please Tangerine. I would like more of an engagement from you than just insults and questions. I am starting to think that maybe you are just a mean person who likes to screw with people for your own enjoyment. If that is true, than bon apetite. My friend.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I was not alive back then, friend!



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo




What is DNA if not computer code written by God? It is another accident? And why can we only read just a tiny fraction of it? "


I would use the word "lessor creator god" as in the gods who dumped us here and left us to our devices. If you were to attempt to try to explain DNA let alone a computer or binary to your fellow bible believers in the 16th Century I am sure they would have you burned alive.

Take this with a grain of salt but the gods of the Old Testament are not humanities friend



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




You clearly don't understand how this works. The one making the positive claim


So tired of this.
Was Rene Descartes a scientist? Yes was a mathematician and philosopher

"Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence."

So one of the founders of the scientific method actually used circular reasoning; much like Christians who use only the Bible for Epistemology

Why the silence?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo




God created Humans and tells us how he did it with DNA.



No! You are resting on faith in science that they 1) they understand everything about DNA sequences and replication
and that 2) with spontaneous creation from DNA.

In fact your very Genesis stories are quite specific that the Earth/Universe started with God and the spoken word (sound)
In fact light and sound are integral to DNA and many OT stories. The walls of Jericho being destroyed by sound frequencies come to mind.

I disagree with "tells us how he did it with DNA", in other words cherry pick science and the bible to suit the current level of your understanding. But I guess you havent told us you believe in a young earth/6000 year history either.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




that means that if something turns out to be wrong, you know we arent ashamed of admitting it and making the necessary corrections


Then how you do explain how "scientists" and Pharma still subscribe to wishy/washy terms like herd immunity when it comes for pushing the vaccination agenda. Pharma and their paid schills (oops researchers) even pushed for the USA govt to provide a taxpayer funded adverse reaction compensation fund, and enacted legislation to protect them from lawsuits. Science at its finest. If you say science has no political motivation then I'm afraid you live in Alices' Wonderland.

Science doesnt exist in some utopian lab where ethical white haired elders pronounce the mysteries of life. They are not much different than priests/shamans who for their own fiunacial reasons keep knowledge manageable and people in the dark

I see 1000s of scientists for and against man made global warming/climate change.

The silence of science when it comes to Fukushima is deafening. Is there no money to be made in science screaming about Fukushimas deadly legacy?

Science stands accused

Flame away



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: rigel4




In short .. Money is not the root of all evil..
Religion is.. look around .. look back in history..
and you will see that all religion has brought is misery and death
on a grand scale.

The sooner the human race evolves past this mumbo jumbo the better
off we will be.


You fail to see how politicians kings/queens/monarchs are married to the hip with religion; to keep up the illusion of the "divine right of kings" and people in serfdom.

Democracy/republics/communism/blah blah all have their clergy close.
edit on 2-2-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo




I'm sure they would be able to find a way to prove that their WAS and IS a sentient consciousness that created that singularity from before the beginning. And after that we can prove that Jesus Christ was sent to us from Him as well.


So say in an ideal world scientist prove the existence of god and that we are all children/gods of the Supreme Creator. Why do you insist that Christ as defined by your bible would be any part of the science.

Thats an article of your faith and rather repugnant to other belief/god systems. You Christians cant help yourselves. Claiming the only way to god is through your myopic world view. It would really scare you to discover how you are under the new Romes control when it comes to Roman state sponsored theology. Codified into Law with the edge of the physical Sword and metaphorical hell



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



Science is eager to examine any testable evidence you might produce


Hey scientist. Have Psychiatrists found the chemical imbalance that leads to mental illness yet? Is psychiatry a science or philosophy of the mind?

It doesnt stop them or the state from interfering with peoples free will or delusions does it? Science at its FINEST
edit on 2-2-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Kusinjo




Hypothesis: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall never perish but have everlasting life.
Test: Believe in Him
Expected Result:Everlasting life
Test: Do not believe in Him
Expected result: Perish


I did in the past. Then I reread the bible and found out that I do have everlasting life, without man made ideas such as hell or cannibalism/eucharist or mind control/clergy. Gods wonderful, unfortunately not your jealous jehovah/Baal



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Gnostics were the only ones who had actually read the book. The rest pretended they'd read it and didn't see the whopping contradictions.


What book..there was no formalized canon of scripture until into the 13th century AD. Gnostics didnt need books per se for gnosis



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join