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.

 

Why some people believe in God and in the bible and others do not.

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer




Most people on this planet believe in the supernatural (all beliefs combined) and yet the small elect, like you, refuse to believe. I have met people like you and there is ALWAYS something psychological that happened to cause you to think this way. Either your hate is towards someone who forced feed you religion or you hate God for some reason or you work for Satan...... which is it?


Way to appeal to popularity...Those whom lack a belief in a deity or the supernatural are psychologically damaged?
Can you cite me something outside of an anecdote for this please.




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: DeathSlayer




Most people on this planet believe in the supernatural (all beliefs combined) and yet the small elect, like you, refuse to believe. I have met people like you and there is ALWAYS something psychological that happened to cause you to think this way. Either your hate is towards someone who forced feed you religion or you hate God for some reason or you work for Satan...... which is it?


Way to appeal to popularity...Those whom lack a belief in a deity or the supernatural are psychologically damaged?
Can you cite me something outside of an anecdote for this please.


Is popularity important to you? Many today refuse to believe in God because it is cool, others because they want to fit in with todays crowd.

You sound like you are cool. Are you cool?




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Laz will not spend much time on this particular babblefield. However, I agree with the OP. God said in His Word:

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)

Just as I have written on this site before that some have the ability to see what they are looking at, and some don't, some of us are Jacob and some of us are Esau. Further, God has not given the Esau's of this world to know why they are so - they will suffer loss, yet they will be saved, but as through fire. The fire will burn away their wood, hay, stubble, and dross, leaving whatever will survive fire. Thus, there is no Hell, just the cleansing, purifying fire of God, aka the Lake of Fire.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I know how to be a decent human, but I don't need belief in God to do that. I donate to charity, I do charity work when I can, I've spent a lot of time helping my Grandmother, I would put my life in danger in order to save a person. I understand the message of the bible is to be a good person but I do not "feel" anything from it because to me it is common sense to be good to others and I spread this message of being good to others but I do not ever feel a need to bring a God I feel does not exist into that message. I knew all this even before I had read the bible from start to finish though.

You ask if I had spread the Gospel ? My answer is no, why would I ? I believe in the message of "goodwill" but I do not believe in the bible as a whole, so while I will spread the message of goodwill I will not ever promote the bible.

You ask if I have prayed ? Yes, I have, numerous times, not to any God as written in books by men, but to any God who will listen as while not being religious I do entertain the notion there may be a God, I have prayed to make the world a nicer place but it seems thus far my prayers have gone unheard.

Every time I read the bible no matter the version I always find contradictions or passages which can have multiple meanings to them and to me this does not seem like the word from a being who transcends time and is all knowing, it seems more like words from men.

Now I've answered your questions, would you kindly answer all the questions I listed for you instead of trying to ignore them



Which version should I be reading ?

Are all the other versions false ?

Why are there so many different versions that each have subtle nuances to the meaning God wished to convey to us all ?

And finally, Why is such an important book written in such a way that is heavily open for interpretation ? Surely the word of God should have one meaning that everyone gets and is not open to interpretation ?


a reply to: wisvol

The point is there's more logical evidence to support the theory of evolution than there is evidence to support a fantasy book written by men.

And there's an irony in your statement, most Atheists know more about the bible and what's actually written in it than most Christians because most Christians haven't bothered reading the bible completely and only go off the choice passages the pastors read at church.

But you're clearly a troll, we're done.

And just as an FYI, I'm agnostic, I cannot prove there is no God so I have to entertain the idea that there maybe is a God, but I know there is no God as portrayed in books written by men
edit on 16/2/16 by Discotech because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech




Also it would help if you educated yourself, we did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys and ourselves evolved from a common ancestor which diverged into 2 lineages, 1 evolves into monkeys and apes the other evolved into hominids which in turn evolved in homo sapiens we know today



This is what a monkey is: www.merriam-webster.com...

So the common ancestor by definition is a pair of monkeys.
The moment where a male and female monkey pro-create into the divergent lineages you speak of, they are absolutely monkeys. I'd quote from the book of Darwin but I gave it away.

That one pair of common ancestors isn't a process, we're talking specific monkeys, should be given credit with making mankind if all species come not only from the same source, but that this source is soup and therefore non sentient.

Soup is not less ridiculous to me than God as an explanation for life.

edit on 22907v2016Tuesday by wisvol because: smoother without saying "wrong". Also, specific monkey.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer




Is popularity important to you? Many today refuse to believe in God because it is cool, others because they want to fit in with todays crowd. You sound like you are cool. Are you cool?


Apparently it is to you, why else would you make that a core component of the argument I quoted.

People reject religion for a variety of reasons. Yes some do it for superficial reasons but I suppose it has more to do with the fact that religious institutions are losing political power, more so in the west due to the separation of church and state.

I would argue that people are oppressed by religion due to social pressure rather than social pressure to abandon religion, abandoning religion comes down to a personal choice. However that is subject to many variables like cultural influences,political systems and how much societal merit religion has in a society.

If you choose to believe in a deity that's fine,to delude yourself however that your some how special because of this belief is more of sign that you're psychologically damaged than those who lack said belief.

Edit; If you open another thread similar to this sometime in the future I recommend that you make it about discussing the scientific reasons as to why people have faith in a deity(s) and why those lack it. This seemed like a poor attempt at theological circle jerk.

edit on 16-2-2016 by NateTheAnimator because: Edit



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech




Which version should I be reading ?

Are all the other versions false ?

Why are there so many different versions that each have subtle nuances to the meaning God wished to convey to us all ?

And finally, Why is such an important book written in such a way that is heavily open for interpretation ? Surely the word of God should have one meaning that everyone gets and is not open to interpretation ?


I will give you my opinion of the questions you have asked:

There are many versions of the bible, Whatever version you can best understand is the best bible to read. Some enjoy the KJV, Catholic bible, Lutheran bible, while others enjoy the NIV. I prefer the NIV.

There are many versions of the bible due to sects and various religious beliefs so they can twist their beliefs into the their bible....like the mormons, Scientology or the JW. Steer clear from any bibles translated and being used by known sects.

There are false versions of the bible ..... meaning some false entires such as the World Translation by the Jehovah Witnesses. I would steer clear from anyone who has become involved with the occult and also translated the bible.

Take any book and it is easy to twist the meaning out of each sentence. In my line of work I specialize in twisting peoples sworn statements and court transcripts. There is always two sides of any statement the problem is you MUST read the entire paragraph or chapter in the bible to understand what the writer is attempting to teach the reader.

Read the quote from Why People Find the Bible Difficult by A.W. TOZER:

Pay attention to the sentences I have underlined. They are for you.


That many persons find the Bible hard to understand will not be denied by those acquainted with the facts. Testimony to the difficulties encountered in Bible reading is too full and too widespread to be dismissed lightly. In human experience there is usually a complex of causes rather than but one cause for everything, and so it is with the difficulty we run into with the Bible. To the question, Why is the Bible hard to understand? no snap answer can be given; the pert answer is sure to be the wrong one. The problem is multiple instead of singular, and for this reason the effort to find a single solution to it will be disappointing.

In spite of this I venture to give a short answer to the question, and while it is not the whole answer it is a major one and probably contains within itself most of the answers to what must be an involved and highly complex question. I believe that we find the Bible difficult because we try to read it as we would read any other book, and it is not the same as any other book.

The Bible is not addressed to just anybody. Its message is directed to a chosen few. Whether these few are chosen by God in a sovereign act of election or are chosen because they meet certain qualifying conditions I leave to each one to decide as he may, knowing full well that his decision will be determined by his basic beliefs about such matters as predestination, free will, the eternal decrees and other related doctrines. But whatever may have taken place in eternity, it is obvious what happens in time: Some believe and some do not; some are morally receptive and some are not; some have spiritual capacity and some have not. It is to those who do and are and have that the Bible is addressed. Those who do not and are not and have not will read it in vain.

Right here I expect some readers to enter strenuous objections, and for reasons not hard to find. Christianity today is man-centered, not God-centered. God is made to wait patiently, even respectfully, on the whims of men. The image of God currently popular is that of a distracted Father, struggling in heartbroken desperation to get people to accept a Saviour of whom they feel no need and in whom they have very little interest. To persuade these self-sufficient souls to respond to His generous offers God will do almost anything, even using salesmanship methods and talking down to them in the chummiest way imaginable. This view of things is, of course, a kind of religious romanticism which, while it often uses flattering and sometimes embarassing terms in praise of God, manages nevertheless to make man the star of the show.
The notion that the Bible is addressed to everybody has wrought confusion within and without the church. The effort to apply the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount to the unregenerate nations of the world is one example of this. Courts of law and the military powers of the earth are urged to follow the teachings of Christ, an obviously impossible thing for them to do. To quote the words of Christ as guides for policemen, judges and generals is to misunderstand those words completely and to reveal a total lack of understanding of the purposes of divine revelation. The gracious words of Christ are for the sons and daughters of grace, not for the Gentile nations whose chosen symbols are the lion, the eagle, the dragon and the bear.

Not only does God address His words of truth to those who are able to receive them, He actually conceals their meaning from those who are not. The preacher uses stories to make truth clear; our Lord often used them to obscure it. The parables of Christ were the exact opposite of the modern "illustration," which is meant to give light; the parables were "dark sayings" and Christ asserted that He sometimes used them so that His disciples could understand and His enemies could not. (See Matthew 13:10-17.) As the pillar of fire gave light to Israel but was cloud and darkness to the Egyptians, so our Lord's words shine in the hearts of His people but leave the self-confident unbeliever in the obscurity of moral night.
The saving power of the Word is reserved for those for whom it is intended. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him. The impenitent heart will find the Bible but a skeleton of facts without flesh or life or breath. Shakespeare may be enjoyed without penitence; we may understand Plato without believing a word he says; but penitence and humility along with faith and obedience are necessary to a right understanding of the Scriptures.

In natural matters faith follows evidence and is impossible without it, but in the realm of the spirit faith precedes understanding; it does not follow it. The natural man must know in order to believe; the spiritual man must believe in order to know. The faith that saves is not a conclusion drawn from evidence; it is a moral thing, a thing of the spirit, a supernatural infusion of confidence in Jesus Christ, a very gift of God.

The faith that saves reposes in the Person of Christ; it leads at once to a committal of the total being to Christ, an act impossible to the natural man. To believe rightly is as much a miracle as was the coming forth of dead Lazarus at the command of Christ.

The Bible is a supernatural book and can be understood only by supernatural aid.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I'm not blaming God, I think you missed the point of my post. I'm questioning the source of the bible. If it caused mankind to do some horrible things, it could very well have come from a source that purposely wanted to confuse, deceive, control and divide humanity. We talk about some negative verses contained in the Koran, but the Christian bible has some conflicting negative verses of its own! God allowed Satan to rule on the earth, so doesn't deceiving the word of God in the bible a perfect way to covertly control mankind?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
If atheist do not believe in the Bible. How do they justify its existence over the eon's? If they do not believe the Bible exists is it because the Bible contains words that they do not want to hear and believe, because it goes against their life choices. I have problems with atheist trying to prevent Christians and governmental agencies co-existing together in a belief that God created us. Our founding fathers believed in a Christian belief. Atheist just need to accept that fact.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Yeahhhhhh, see your underlined parts really do a disservice to your claims. All I'm really getting is arrogance and elitism from all this "chosen" opinion, funny, those same traits were what caused Lucifer to fall from heaven. Are YOU sure you're actually talking to the real God and not Lucifer ?

And if by not being "chosen" means I burn in hell for eternity then I'll happily take that over sitting at a table with a cruel God who is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined

a reply to: wisvol

I bet you call Apes monkeys too

Aegyptopithecus is what we and monkeys and apes evolved from and it's a primate not a monkey, if you'd read Darwin's theory of evolution you'd know this though, which was written over 100 years ago and that theory itself has evolved thanks to modern science.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
If atheist do not believe in the Bible. How do they justify its existence over the eon's? If they do not believe the Bible exists is it because the Bible contains words that they do not want to hear and believe, because it goes against their life choices. I have problems with atheist trying to prevent Christians and governmental agencies co-existing together in a belief that God created us. Our founding fathers believed in a Christian belief. Atheist just need to accept that fact.



Some of us choose to not be as conditioned as the rest of humanity.

Question: did the founders write something about freedom of religion?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

You said you were done. Welcome back.




I bet you call Apes monkeys too Aegyptopithecus is what we and monkeys and apes evolved from and it's a primate not a monkey, if you'd read Darwin's theory of evolution you'd know this though, which was written over 100 years ago and that theory itself has evolved thanks to modern science.


I call Apes monkeys because Webster does.

The specific monkey you refer to, Aegyptopithecus, is also a monkey.

You say it's a primate not a monkey, Webster says primates are monkeys.

I just told you I've read Darwin's book, and it uses the same language Webster does.
Theories do evolve. Except one of them. Go figure.

Here are two accounts of what happened that day.

One changes, one doesn't.
Who's right?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Esoterotica




Question: did the founders write something about freedom of religion?


Answer: yes they did.

The primary reason is to attract a certain crowd whose religion was banned elsewhere.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
If atheist do not believe in the Bible. How do they justify its existence over the eon's?


The age of a publication has no bearing on it's factual accuracy. It is an influential book, of course, and those who did not accept it have been systematically massacred in the past, it has been used to justify the existence of powerful and repressive organisations.. That is why it has lasted a couple thousand years so far, (hardly "eons").


If they do not believe the Bible exists is it because the Bible contains words that they do not want to hear and believe, because it goes against their life choices.


This is not even wrong. They believe the bible is not the word of God, not because it is inconvenient or contradicts their choices, but because they find it is the most logical and reasonable conclusion.


I have problems with atheist trying to prevent Christians and governmental agencies co-existing together in a belief that God created us. Our founding fathers believed in a Christian belief. Atheist just need to accept that fact.


The founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and the U.S. was founded as a secular country.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-John Adams

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-James Madison

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
-Abraham Lincoln

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Paine

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-George Washington


The founding fathers could not be clearer: God has no role in government and Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. America was not founded as a Christian nation, full stop.
edit on 16-2-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek




and those who did not accept it have been systematically massacred in the past



Quite the contrary, actually

A common misconception

Both your claim and mine interestingly enough are problems solved by freedom of religion
Although few public schools teach creation, rather pro-creation with a touch of monkey ancestry and meaninglessness of life as science.


edit on 23443v2016Tuesday by wisvol because: re-reading the post i was replying to clarified it for me



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: DeathSlayer




Most people on this planet believe in the supernatural (all beliefs combined) and yet the small elect, like you, refuse to believe. I have met people like you and there is ALWAYS something psychological that happened to cause you to think this way. Either your hate is towards someone who forced feed you religion or you hate God for some reason or you work for Satan...... which is it?


Way to appeal to popularity...Those whom lack a belief in a deity or the supernatural are psychologically damaged?
Can you cite me something outside of an anecdote for this please.


Is popularity important to you? Many today refuse to believe in God because it is cool, others because they want to fit in with todays crowd.

You sound like you are cool. Are you cool?

Once again, people don't believe in god because there is no compelling evidence. People come to believe in the gods that their families or peers believe in. (Hence, they believe because it's the cool thing to do.) to be an outspoken atheist is not "the cool thing". It can leave you ostracized and excluded from the majority of communities in america alone. Which is why most people who go to church are only "going along to get along". They go along with what they are taught because they don't want to let down those people or have to overcome the obstacles of social exclusion.


People's stories and anecdotal poetry does not count as evidence for the existence of anything. You are reminded of this in every thread you make and yet you never face this glaringly unreconcilable fault in your position. When are you going to face this problem in a scientific manner?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Actually Webster states that a primate is


any member of the group of animals that includes human beings, apes, and monkeys


Webster says humans are primates, so does that mean you're going to call humans monkeys too ?

It's like saying Scorpions are Spiders because they're both from the Arachnid family

I'm done now though because it's clear you have you grasp of it all



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

I don't get your point


*shrug*


Please elaborate


You were incorrect in your assertions, further elaboration is unnecessary.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech


Full Definition of monkey

plural monkeys

1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers;

You are the one calling humans monkeys.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join