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.

 

Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

"No. Unless you consider the students as the taxpayers. But the students are forced to study a particular religion as a fact and consider it equal to science. "

Children are being raised by parents who vote for the people in office, who's agenda is inclusive of things like this.

How one should raise a child in this country is up to the parents and today parents, are allowed to teach there children at home. There are guidelines that clearly are generalizations and subject to the parents interpretation.

To be honest I have no real doubt that these rules will not stand. Especially given Science cannot be taught that way
in college with the expectation that students will actually be able to preform there duties.

I agree that children should be taught with an open mind to all possibilities but in reality and at present is that really realistic?





edit on 16-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: symphonyofblase

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Ghost147

Why don't people just go back to the roots of animism and shamanism? Seems like it would be a lot more "pure" and not diluted/polluted with agendas?

I can listen to a cover band play a Beatles song, but there's nothing like the original thing. To me, that's what these modern (within the last 2,000 years) religions are...tribute and cover bands of much older practices. These newer faiths have a lot of baggage attached to themselves....

Can one be a religious hipster? If so, shamanism FTW all day. All that new fangled stuff is just man messing around and adding a bunch of useless showy and flashy layers...which serve to enslave and diminish the individual...

Anytime you want to gain control over a population, just reinvent the religion and claim you know all the secrets, you know what happens when you die. That's how you get a little following going, as people are terribly afraid of death. If you keep people afraid, especially over something like death and the afterlife (which can't be proved) -- you can get people to kill and die for you.

Humans, we're programmed to follow people who sound like they know what they're doing.



Because, if you bother to read the bible, it predates animism and shamanism.
Not that I care.


The Bible doesn't predate animism and shamanism. It supposedly tells of events before animism and shamanism, but was not written down or shared until much, much later.

Mankind engaged in animism and shamanism long, LONG before anyone developed the written language. These early spiritual practices had their own creation myths and ways of explaining the natural world. When mankind developed writing, THEN the Bible was claimed to be inspired by God and put onto paper.

The thing is, 99% of the population couldn't read -- so people kind of just had to take the priestly caste at their word. Animism and shamanism don't require anyone to know how to read other people's words. The available knowledge is around for everyone to see, every day. It's a much more raw, pure, and honest way of practicing spirituality, much more connected to the Earth.

Newer isn't always better.
edit on 16-1-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
a reply to: Ghost147

Why do you single out the Christian bible? They're all a bunch of fairy tales.


I don't in general single out Christianity and it's scriptures. However, the topic's OP was of a particular observation within the christian bible specifically, where many stories and characters are directly related to older religions; which is why the topic is on the Christian Bible.


originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Ghost147
Why don't people just go back to the roots of animism and shamanism? Seems like it would be a lot more "pure" and not diluted/polluted with agendas?


I agree. I find animism-based religions far more appealing and humble.


originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Because, if you bother to read the bible, it predates animism and shamanism.


Sorry, but this is entirely false. We have a historical record of the various religions of Human History and which each one came from and evolved/morphed into.

Animism is the very first concept within the oldest religions.

Here's a graph showing the evolution of religions (citation is within the graph)


Click here for the full sized image



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Children are being raised by parents who vote for the people in office, who's agenda is inclusive of things like this.


Once again, it makes no difference who voted for it, the question was "when was the last time a Christian-based-law was introduced" and I provided the information to answer that question.

Why are you even arguing this?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
How one should raise a child in this country is up to the parents and today parents, are allowed to teach there children at home. There are guidelines that clearly are generalizations and subject to the parents interpretation.


Yup! I totally agree with this 100%

Now, Do you not see the difference between [in your words] 'teaching at home' and 'forcing public schools to teach their religion as factual'?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I agree that children should be taught with an open mind to all possibilities


I also agree with that



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

A point being is that is, that in many countries on Earth. The issue of what religious practice one should follow was punishable by death in the Majority 100 years ago and today the same applies to many countries.

Children are indoctrinated and despite you concerns, there is really no evidence to suggest that what we today are able to conceive as possible. In reality relates beyond the 3 or 5% percent of reality that we currently comprehend.



I mean it is to say that we have developed in some miniscule amount in comparison to the above.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
A point being is that is, that in many countries on Earth. The issue of what religious practice one should follow was punishable by death in the Majority 100 years ago and today the same applies to many countries.


I don't deny this, and I also don't see how this is at all relevant.


originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Ghost147
Children are indoctrinated and despite you concerns, there is really no evidence to suggest that what we today are able to conceive as possible. In reality relates beyond the 3 or 5% percent of reality that we currently comprehend.


It has nothing to do with what is or isn't valid. The only issue is that it is a violation of the first amendment, and the only reason it was brought up is to show another member who asked when the last case was that a christian-based-law was put into effect.

Once again, why the hell are you even arguing this?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

100 years ago most only knew how to read and wright. I am not a Constitutional Lawyer and despite the fact that our current President is (and from Harvard) and Senator Ted Cruz (given memory serves from Yale). Consider how different there interpretations are of the Constitution of the United States.

You live in what is essentially a Socialist Government where the system declares how one should be indoctrinated. Things are different here. In that education/indoctrination relates substantially to an extent, as to what parents want to indoctrinate a child. as to what to believe, to greater degree.

The problem with your position is that it could in interpretation, relate to a false conclusion. Though in reality given we only in fact understand about 3 to 5% in respect to reality.

All our conclusions in respect to what reality is, false to the extent of the other 95 to 97%.







edit on 16-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
100 years ago most only knew how to read and wright. I am not a Constitutional Lawyer and despite the fact that our current President is (and from Harvard) and Senator Ted Cruz (given memory serves from Yale). Consider how different there interpretations are of the Constitution of the United States.


Uhhhggg. This has nothing to do with anything! There was a member who asked when the last time a christian-based-law was enacted. I provided the information that answered that question.

Why are you going on and on about the details within that information? It's not like you're attempting to prove it didn't occur, so why are you still going on about it?

It's like I'm having a discussion with a poorly designed web-bot.

I have concluded that you are insane.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem with your position is that it could in interpretation, relate to a false conclusion.


My position is that within the last 5 years a major christian-based-law was enacted. Prove me wrong...
edit on 16/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

This country functions and its apparent given my example of President Barrack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz in a different way. In relation to how the Constitution functions with respect to what is happening in Texas the only real authority is in relation to the United States Supreme Court. So if tomorrow the State of Texas decides that blacks and whites should use separate bathrooms and drink from separate water fountains?

That is actually, technically within a States power. Due to president and as a result the law suits that will occur the Supreme Court of the United States will overturn such a position. It could actually take several years but in time the
President of the United States will actually be authorized to enforce such a law.

By military force if necessary.

This is actually related to what happened in so far as racial integration, related to children in the United States Educationally in the 1950's.

I have concluded you have a bipolar disorder that is clearly borderline if it makes you feel better



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
This country functions and its apparent given my example of President Barrack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz in a different way.


And this proves that a christian-based-law had not been enacted within the last 5 years or so, how?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I have concluded you have a bipolar disorder that is clearly borderline if it makes you feel better


Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Such traits you've shown to possess when you ramble on about a topic for no apparent reason, despite a continued explanation on why the information within that topic had been posted, and then continue to ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the reason it was posted in the first place; not to mention how your ramblings have no actual validity to the topic you're trying to prove wrong.

Bipolar disorder, also known as bipolar affective disorder or manic depression, is a mental disorder characterized by periods of elevated mood and periods of depression. When have I shown to have a periodic elevated mood or state of depression. Your knowledge of Bipolar disorder is evidently nonexistent.

The thing is, I have actually studied both mental disorders, throughout this topic and others I've conversed with you in, it is pretty evident something is 'wrong' with your mental state and capacity.
edit on 16/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Christian based laws in the United States are commonly argued in relation to issues related to abortion, also in respect to religious edifices placed upon government land. In actuality had you been actually paying attention to issues related to Legal Arguments, related to Church and State in the US....well you are clearly wrong that such issues have not been brought up in the last 5 years.

In context there is also relatable the argument made by Donald Trump that Muslims despite the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be modified. To disallow people based upon religious beliefs, be allowed in this country.

It seems you are trying to apply a generic definition of the US Constitution and when it fact it does not actually apply.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I feel your interpretation of issues outside of what you commonly are exposed to are in all probability stereotypes. Your insistences this way are indicative of an obsessive disorder in that you seem to keep insisting, you understand things that you really do not.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Christian based laws in the United States are commonly argued in relation to issues related to abortion, also in respect to religious edifices placed upon government land. In actuality had you been actually paying attention to issues related to Legal Arguments, related to Church and State in the US....well you are clearly wrong that such issues have not been brought up in the last 5 years.


Forcing a specifically christian belief (church) as fact into the public school system (state) is allowing the creation of a christian-based-law.

You can argue semantics all you want, it is what it is. I apologize your insanity gets in the way of you comprehending that.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
In context there is also relatable the argument made by Donald Trump that Muslims despite the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be modified. To disallow people based upon religious beliefs, be allowed in this country.


This relates to nothing. Why are you bringing it up?

I never argued that Christianity was the only thing creating this violation.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
It seems you are trying to apply a generic definition of the US Constitution and when it fact it does not actually apply


Christian belief + Forced into public schools = violation of the separation of church and state


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

I feel your interpretation of issues outside of what you commonly are exposed to are in all probability stereotypes.


No, it's that whatever I type something, you feel the obsessive need to disagree with me for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with me being right or wrong, whatever I say you are compelled to disagree, regardless of the irrationality the opposing position would be.

If you cannot see how forcing a christian belief into the public school system violates the separation of church and state it's not because "I hold 'propable' stereotypes", it's because you're insane.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Your insistences this way are indicative of an obsessive disorder in that you seem to keep insisting, you understand things that you really do not.


What have I insisted on? The case is so clear and obvious, one would have to be insane to reject it's existence. How can I prove any further that when a religion forces it's views into the public school system that it directly violates the separation from church and state? It's very existence is proof that it does.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Insisting that Children relate to reality as anything related to what humans think is possible constitutes indoctrination into a belief system. That in actuality has as much to do with reality as it actually is and related to comprehending about 3 to 5% of it. In general you seem to support the idea that this makes sense when in fact it does not. I disagree with the idea that it makes sense to treat materialism philosophically as having in reality anything to do with reality given what in fact is understood. To me and in context it is absurd to even try to relate, under the circumstances to reality as we generally relate to it today as anything but a reflection in respect to valid though misunderstood potential in absolutely every sense.

Consider in context the obvious failures of conservative science with respect to understanding consciousness. With respect to the applications of Operant Conditioning, Pavlov's Dog as well as Positive Reinforcement in the 1950's uponthe world stage. It failed miserably and showed that conservative conclusions related to Consciousness as observed invalidated the Conservative conclusion to such an extent that today, such a conclusion is laughable to modern Psychiatrist that actually work with real people.

Your suggesting that there exist some majority in fact that thinks materialist interpretations of reality have any basis in reality. When in fact humans behavior clearly exhibits qualia well beyond, the training that works with domesticated animals.

Again you seem obsessed in relation to an indoctrination that does not take such simple and well known facts into consideration.

We can begin by discussing the, "Stanford Prison Experiment".
edit on 17-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
what does any of this have to do with Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed?

that is the topic here, is it not?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
what does any of this have to do with Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed?

that is the topic here, is it not?


That's what I've been saying for the past 10 responses to Kashai. For some reason he insists on arguing a point which makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the topic.


edit on 17/1/16 by Ghost147 because: spelling error



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TzarChasm
what does any of this have to do with Authors of the Bible: The Greatest Plagiarism Ever Believed?

that is the topic here, is it not?


That's what I've been saying for the mast 10 responses to Kashai. For some reason he insists on arguing a point which makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the topic.



lets not derail the thread further. or is the thread basically concluded?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
lets not derail the thread further.


Yes, I agree


originally posted by: TzarChasm
or is the thread basically concluded?


That would depend on if anyone else has anything to say on the OP. To my knowledge I've responded to all previous posts.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

i didnt really expect it to go far anyway. none of this information is "new" and everyone who cares to absorb it has already done so, and those who havent, will only do so of their own volition.

concluded indeed. see you around.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Ghost147,

I'm new and that was really an interesting post.

I've heard stories about Jesus travelling to Egypt, Asia, etc before too.

It's so refreshing to see someone with a really open mind


Oh and by the way, just to let you know that your post is the one that made me register here.
edit on 17-1-2016 by FaceTheReality because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2016 by FaceTheReality because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join