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.

 

The Genesis Paradox

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Taking it how you want is called free will...

So how did you take it? Sounds like youre waiting to see if I cross some line youve drawn when I was suggstion hey if you want to erase that line take a look over there...

You starting defining knowledge... and as Socrates taught among others before and after... even myself earlier in the thread ahem explained theres no such thing except a held belief not everyone shares... so knowledge is esentially empty doesnt exist.

Just because it seems to change something speaking knowledge or label label label? It doesnt change anything except maybe others grasping after that which doesnt inherently exist and when it does change by some reaction a new label label label or entropy...

This "knowledge" is just perpetuated for a quazi reality we sorta share beyond this matter or form already present when we got here... in a form not really different containing all the same things found in it in various amounts...

All those thinking this nothing was something started naming it... even though thats not what it is or ever will be just a representation of cause and effect that occurs whether consciousness of it exists or not.

Aware of it but not conscious of it in thought... it simply is what it is. The I am what I am is the separation from it... why chase ego when one already has it? Drop that and the subject is of no matter.


I'm sorry but is there a point to this? Maybe I am stupid because that seems like an angry rant but I don't recall giving anyone a reason to get angry.

If I can't express my thoughts without making you amped, I literally have no advice for such a unique complex.




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
But my contention is that the apple was already eaten by adepts who were more advanced than Adam.

Who?


Mt contention is that the prohibition was NOT a universal one.

It could be likened to the analogy of prohibiting toddlers from playing in the street but when their teenagers that is no longer applicable

But Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans, and failing that they were the only ones inside the Garden of Eden. So who are these others to have eaten it and set precedent?


The harm don’t to Adam had to have something to do with his immaturity( present state of development) since it would produce such a cataclysmic affect in our deep fall into historical evil.

God or the guidance, Angels, or whoever who were prohibiting this tree form Adam had to have known about the Tree or they wouldn't be able to warn him of the affect of him eating thereof.

Perhaps they did, but there is no explanation is to the reason for the warning not to eat the fruit. Just don't eat it. As we all know, that is the one way to peek any human's curiosity. Tell him he can't do it.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Youre projecting emotions on truth but yet not truth. Words cant speak any truth just agreed on concepts like hey we all agree this is a tree right? Um not when its a metaphor... oh ok yes right its a tree except when its a metaphor ok... nope nope it can be a allegory... ok tree, metaphor allegory check so now... wait wait wait... what is it now? That means a tree can be anything.

Indeed it does... so what is a tree? Nothing except what you try to make it out to be instead of what it is.

Well what is it then? It just is.

Thats all of everything... words cant speak it thats why when we stop thinking we reach a state of awe, extasy, rapture, or whatever one wants to slap a label on some even call that god... the nothing experienced that all this just is comes from... yet we label that in a fancy little box and book too.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Youre projecting emotions on truth but yet not truth.

No, no I am not.



Words cant speak any truth


They can if you use them honestly and correctly.



just agreed on concepts like hey we all agree this is a tree right? Um not when its a metaphor... oh ok yes right its a tree except when its a metaphor ok... nope nope it can be a allegory... ok tree, metaphor allegory check so now... wait wait wait... what is it now? That means a tree can be anything.

Indeed it does... so what is a tree? Nothing except what you try to make it out to be instead of what it is.

Well what is it then? It just is.

Thats all of everything... words cant speak it thats why when we stop thinking we reach a state of awe, extasy, rapture, or whatever one wants to slap a label on some even call that god... the nothing experienced that all this just is comes from... yet we label that in a fancy little box and book too.



Gibberish.
edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   


2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

www.biblegateway.com...


but, God said nothing about touching the tree, did he??





And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


so, I don't think that eve was remembering from the time the two were one. I think God had told Adam not to eat of the tree, and he was trusted to relay that information to eve when she came into being...
and he added to it..

but my question would be this...
was God hoping that they would eat the fruit? I think he was. I mean he had already created the angels who outside of a few had accepted blind obedience with not free will and the ones who rejected it well, rejecting it to an extreme. I think he wasn't man to be something more, a creature closer to himself, who didn't just blindly obey every one of his commands, but also understand why something was a good idea and other things weren't. maybe even a creature that could see the flaws of his own creator even... after all we see a drastic change in our perception of God between the Old and New testament, could it be that maybe by God's experience as human in the form of Jesus, it gave God a more humane view of his creation, a more profound understanding of himself?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You believe that we were androgens before coming here, or just Adam and Eve?

Your name is Shalim in Ugaritic/Canaanite.
edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The greatest common paradox of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Genesis is that a person that believes themselves to be a reasonable person would think it is a literal historical event because that would make that person very unreasonable.

It should be very obvious the writer either had no idea what they were writing or it is a metaphor if a something they crudely understood OR they had no true knowledge of at all and wrote it like a poet writing something profound without knowing what it means.It is a ludicrous assumption that it was a historical event enacted by the first two humans yet many people have a discourse as if it was.I do not for one nano second think it is a true historical event therefore I think at best it is a metaphor and a very simple one and does not involve theology at all.

The premise of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the amalgamation of all of a persons experiences and actions that form their belief through faith of their Belief System(BS) religion.That tree is grown branch by branch leaf by leaf through experience .Eating the fruit of the tree is judging the events of the experience through the falsity of dualism(good and evil).In other words everything a human does is perceived through their mind(heavens) and that does not mean that perception is a true perception.That concept is reflected in the fact that human perception is skewered with anomalies.

For instance the fact is the human only perceives what is called color and nothing is the color it is perceived as it is only reflecting that frequency of light waves back to the eye and perceived by the brain as a color that has been given a label…red …yet the red apple is not truly colored red at all it is every color(a shade of gray) but red.This phenomena is not necessarily a detriment for human perception but a benefit. It helps us perceive many things that would be impossible with the true reality of the color of matter.

The color phenomena is only one of a multitude of false perceptions the human mind perceives in the course of their life.In effect the vast majority of everything a person subjectively perceives(believes) through observation(faith) is false to the true reality that can be known.It was only by observing these phenomena through objective observation the “judgement” is abated and even with those observations, the majority of them do not have a definitive universal why.

That is the ample evidence that a persons Belief System(BS) religion is just that.It is a subjective perception of observation that judges.I think the author of Genesis unwittingly outlined a foundational truth while attempting to do something else(write a religious dictum..creation of man).The tree is the experiences that is observed through the mind(the heavens..a channel) the fruit of the tree is the judgement of perception which is the knowledge of good and evil.Through that channel(diabolo…devil..demon) death is perceived because it is the seed of the fruit that produces more fruit etc etc etc….In other words mans great benefit of false perception is also it’s greatest detriment (not knowing the truth).

What the story of the story of Genesis and cannot possibly be is the religious perception.There were not 2 people that are the progenitors of all of mankind.That is the perception channeled through the heavens of a multitude of people because of their BS religious beliefs.That construct is the anthesis of the objective observation of how life is (to use an EVIL word by many) evolved.All objective observation in life is a process not an event.Only the unreasonable believe matter pops into existence as a fully formed being without a history.

The bottom line ….it is impossible to truly know 100% of how the mechanisms of ANYTHING works.It is the height of hubris to believe you can.If that is true to physical matter of physics we can perceive(and it is) how vain is this “knowledge” that a multitude claim of a being called God and their “commands”.

The bottom line is if their is a creator God they would not and could not effectively communicate to humans through their BS religion channel because it is in effect the reason they cannot because belief through faith is false perception of true reality.







edit on 20-6-2016 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Youre projecting emotions on truth but yet not truth.

No, no I am not.



Words cant speak any truth


They can if you use them honestly and correctly.



just agreed on concepts like hey we all agree this is a tree right? Um not when its a metaphor... oh ok yes right its a tree except when its a metaphor ok... nope nope it can be a allegory... ok tree, metaphor allegory check so now... wait wait wait... what is it now? That means a tree can be anything.

Indeed it does... so what is a tree? Nothing except what you try to make it out to be instead of what it is.

Well what is it then? It just is.

Thats all of everything... words cant speak it thats why when we stop thinking we reach a state of awe, extasy, rapture, or whatever one wants to slap a label on some even call that god... the nothing experienced that all this just is comes from... yet we label that in a fancy little box and book too.



Gibberish.


Yes, theres a point that point is a choice though... even though people dont think so as people give others a reason for being in a desire to control canceling out freedom especially of the equality sort. Its better to try to control oneself before attempting to control others or else emotionas get the better of people then they act mindless.

I'm not calling you stupid, but you defining knowledge is your definition of it... or label of it your own brand. I was simply stating no one has to buy your definition of it because it doesnt exist its just a label.

Seems like and angry rant etc. here on out is the projection... it is an assumption based on the inner mirror of context thinking something that doesnt exist based on your concept of experiencing it or basically reacting to empty words if they have any meaning or knowledge that should illicit some emotion... since they do so in oneself? Do not assume they have the same effect in another. Doing so is called projection. Projecting ones being or emotion onto others not oneself...

Thats called self and other blindness in these concepts people call "knowledge" since people are so attached to this emptiness of words? Ive no issue using them to point at the attachment to such concepts wholly unreal that cause them to suffer by allowing empty concepts to have an effect on them due to such attachments that are like thin air and intangible in and of themselves.

The label is not what it is... thats simply an agreement... yourself and I do not agree on what knowledge is it seems.

So what is the difference between Dog, Chien, and Perro? Aside from one being English, French, and Spanish? Nothing because its just a Do... wait thats just the label right? So if we take the canine out of that label and the yet other one I just gave what is that life form? Is it the ears, the nose, the teeth, hair, bones, blood? None of those are anything but labels as well so all these parts or concepts that supposedly make this Dog, Chien, or Perro dont exist either.

There is just a phenominon we have interaction with and have labeled it Dog.

Every single word is like this all knowledge... a phantom, a spectre, a thing we take in and of itself but yet dont really know what that phenominon is... unless its agreed upon as existant by that label we give it... so when such phenominon arises in ear and eyes on contact, we have agreed it is a dog, chein, or parro etc etc ad infinitum.

Thats knowledge... an agreement to give something essentialy empty a label to fit that form we desire or agree for it to be as a control...

So we take these controls or labels weve placed on every single phenominon possible and call it science... concept on top of concept on top of concept... bubble on top of bubble on top of bubble.

pop, pop, pop now what exists and what doesnt? Contact of various phenomina.

If you can see this clearly beyond thought arising? It breaks that very chain of causation or illusion and delusion that is not reality... and when one does so? One actually lives.
edit on 20-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: Quote system issues...

edit on 20-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

Youre projecting emotions on truth but yet not truth.

No, no I am not.



Words cant speak any truth


They can if you use them honestly and correctly.



just agreed on concepts like hey we all agree this is a tree right? Um not when its a metaphor... oh ok yes right its a tree except when its a metaphor ok... nope nope it can be a allegory... ok tree, metaphor allegory check so now... wait wait wait... what is it now? That means a tree can be anything.

Indeed it does... so what is a tree? Nothing except what you try to make it out to be instead of what it is.

Well what is it then? It just is.

Thats all of everything... words cant speak it thats why when we stop thinking we reach a state of awe, extasy, rapture, or whatever one wants to slap a label on some even call that god... the nothing experienced that all this just is comes from... yet we label that in a fancy little box and book too.



Gibberish.


Yes, theres a point that point is a choice though... even though people dont think so as people give others a reason for being in a desire to control canceling out freedom especially of the equality sort. Its better to try to control oneself before attempting to control others or else emotionas get the better of people then they act mindless.

I'm not calling you stupid, but you defining knowledge is your definition of it... or label of it your own brand. I was simply stating no one has to buy your definition of it because it doesnt exist its just a label.

Seems like and angry rant etc. here on out is the projection... it is an assumption based on the inner mirror of context thinking something that doesnt exist based on your concept of experiencing it or basically reacting to empty words if they have any meaning or knowledge that should illicit some emotion... since they do so in oneself? Do not assume they have the same effect in another. Doing so is called projection. Projecting ones being or emotion onto others not oneself...

Thats called self and other blindness in these concepts people call "knowledge" since people are so attached to this emptiness of words? Ive no issue using them to point at the attachment to such concepts wholly unreal that cause them to suffer by allowing empty concepts to have an effect on them due to such attachments that are like thin air and intangible in and of themselves.

The label is not what it is... thats simply an agreement... yourself and I do not agree on what knowledge is it seems.

So what is the difference between Dog, Chien, and Perro? Aside from one being English, French, and Spanish? Nothing because its just a Do... wait thats just the label right? So if we take the canine out of that label and the yet other one I just gave what is that life form? Is it the ears, the nose, the teeth, hair, bones, blood? None of those are anything but labels as well so all these parts or concepts that supposedly make this Dog, Chien, or Perro dont exist either.

There is just a phenominon we have interaction with and have labeled it Dog.

Every single word is like this all knowledge... a phantom, a spectre, a thing we take in and of itself but yet dont really know what that phenominon is... unless its agreed upon as existant by that label we give it... so when such phenominon arises in ear and eyes on contact, we have agreed it is a dog, chein, or parro etc etc ad infinitum.

Thats knowledge... an agreement to give something essentialy empty a label to fit that form we desire or agree for it to be as a control...

So we take these controls or labels weve placed on every single phenominon possible and call it science... concept on top of concept on top of concept... bubble on top of bubble on top of bubble.

pop, pop, pop now what exists and what doesnt? Contact of various phenomina.

If you can see this clearly beyond thought arising? It breaks that very chain of causation or illusion and delusion that is not reality... and when one does so? One actually lives.



Dude. Relax. I am saying what I think in the religious conspiracy zone. I am not selling anything or evangelizing my beliefs I am speaking my thoughts and I am not going to attach a disclaimer to every comment just to calm down some guy that is trying to pester me. I will turn it into something more fun before I do that.

Get back to the topic and don't worry about me.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

I was just pointing out that what God told adam wasn't exactly what was told eve. something was added to it. and well if eve had watched and seen birds nesting in the tree, "touching it" it might have been adam's deception before the serpent even came into the garden also played a role?

and, actually, dawnstar would refer to Sharlim's brother:




Shalim (Shalem, Salem, and Salim) is a god in the Canaanite religion pantheon, mentioned in inscriptions found in Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in Syria.[1][2] William F. Albright identified Shalim as the god of dusk, and Shahar as god of the dawn.[3] In the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Shalim is also identified as the deity representing Venus or the "Evening Star," and Shahar, the "Morning Star".[1]


I've been drawn to the name dawnstar since I was a kid, used to have notebooks full of stories around the theme...
while not really sure why I was so drawn to the name or the story. so thanks for the tip!



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Shachar is the day star, like in Isaiah.

So Shalim must be the Evening Star.

I know that El consorted with both of them but you don't hear much after that.
edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: Error



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
a reply to: yuppa

The same should be said for the word "Gentiles" as if the world is divided between Jew and not Jew.

It is from the term goyim which can mean cattle. Or just ethos in Greek meaning nations. It is such a subtle but powerful word, as is Semite.

Ishmael's Mother was Hamitic, Father Semitic. All of Africa was Hamitic (Khem was Egypt) but no connection can be made to Cain, sorry, you will have to find another reason to hate them.

But do you really despise so many people you don't know that your mind is actively looking for ways to connect them to evil? And you will go so far as to connect them with Cain? Even though his entire line was destroyed?

That just sounds awful.


I never said they were evil. Nor do i dispise them. And I stand corrected on Cains line ending with the flood.

Muhammed was of Ishmails line. WHich Hagar was a part of. God Said to Hagar that her offspring would be a thorn in mans side. They are just playing a assigned role. A control group if you will.

So stop assuming i dislike a whole ethnicity just because i dislike one for their actions alone.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Well, in all fairness you are still calling them a thorn. But it is not as bad as calling them sons of the Serpent.

The Bible doesn't dictate the world. They have a perfectly good religion that is very laid back if you want to know the truth. At least in America and whatever countries that allow freedom.

I would be more concerned about the S.O.S.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Did I say dawn star?

Total slip, my bad. I get dawn and dusk confused if I am not paying attention.

Shachar is Dawn, you are right. I didn't realize my error.
edit on 20-6-2016 by KingPhilipsiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: KingPhilipsiX

hey I didn't know of either of them, and still looking into it, so thanks...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
The Genesis Paradox

Ought implies can. That is, the only condition under which any command is the least bit intelligible is if it is possible to do what has been commanded.

Gen. 2:16-17 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’”

Since neither of these expectations can actually be fulfilled, God’s command cannot be obeyed.
Ought implies can. Since this command cannot be obeyed, its expression of obligation is empty, meaningless and unintelligible.
Eve was set up, tricked, not by the serpent, but by God.

BOP


Thanks for your thread. I understand your thought process. But, my feeling is that this command was implied, since man was created by God, God created woman from man and the serpent and the tree of knowledge and the tree of life and everything else.

And then further in Genesis 3:22

22Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”


Couple of things......God exclaims man has become like US.....not the first time that plurality is used, like made in the image of US....strange.

Then to cut to the chase.....what is this God doing?? creating some kind of three dimension game? Why make the tree if you don't want them to eat from it? Or maybe he really did, so the video game could go on. But the real nugget was the tree of knowledge......so what did God do, he picked Adam and Eve up and shifted the way to the east of Eden and put all these thorny bushes and crap in their way so they could never get to the tree of life where they might live forever? HUH? He never said they couldn't eat from the tree of life.....so what if they had done that first? Anyway......I always find it interesting, but at this point of reading, investigating, learning and I continue to do so with an open mind......I feel the Bible is just a nice story book. Do not mean to offend anyone, as I too, once thought it was much more.....but, I wasn't satified with the answers.

So to OP
yup, it was a set up.....the never ending video game, what chapter are we in now??? Peace




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: KingPhilipsiX
a reply to: Seede

Put it in this perspective. Knowledge is power, often kept secret.

You can not eat from the tree of knowledge AND the tree of life. This is a way for the Priests to say that knowledge leads to evil and death, but if you refrain you can have eternal life. Everyone says that Jews only believed in a gloomy state of darkness after death (Sheol) regardless of good or evil . I seriously doubt that this was what they believed because a few people were taken bodily to heaven, there was a heaven.

Paul even uses situational ethics by saying" knowledge puffs up" which is honestly one of the stupidest things ever said, so he follows it up immediately with "but love..."

As if knowledge and love can't coexist in a person he is promoting stupidity as a virtue and if you look into what knowledge he is actually referring to it is knowledge of Jesus when he was alive and the Apostles are "puffed up" from having "knowledge of Jesus."

Wives he instructs to learn only from their husbands so they can be kept submissive and uneducated. And to keep silent at gatherings of the church.

I can see why a sociopath like Constantine would want these epistles of Paul. They read like a Nazi manifesto. And Paul was a former Nazi like oppressor of people for the Herodians. How many people did he murder and imprison for being pacifists before deciding to have a "vision" of the crucified, resurrected and ascended Messiah?

Would anyone have forgiven Himmler if he converted to Judaism after a psychotic break? Saul is portrayed as a rabid wolf and even a bully and instigator. Even after his alleged conversion. He is violent and aggressive, has no love for anyone, and is a constant traitor. He claims he was a Pharisee but then turns on Judaism period. Then he turns on James and Peter and starts a religion based off the death of Christ.

Instead of the Life and teachings of the Messiah he makes up his as he goes borrowing language learned from the Nazarenes he bastardized the Movement.

Handed over to Rome the Nazarenes whose righteous leaders were martyred for the most part, while no credible story exists about Paul's death he probably survived to old age in comfort in Rome as a reward for his betraying... everyone .

He is the greatest villain in history, a real Antichrist.

Sorry for the tangent I got carried away.



BRAVO. I loathe Paul. You were dead on in everything you posted....tangent away, dude.

edit on 20-6-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Willtell

Teaching a kid not to cross a street without looking both ways is an example of teaching cause and effect. If you walk before looking, you can get hit by a car. But the act of looking or not looking is neither good nor evil. It is just good advice to live by. The difference here being that there is no visible cause and effect to compare to with the apple. No one had eaten the apple before, so there was no previous information to compare with on what will or won't happen. Another difference is that eating of the apple IS akin to evil as well.


That's such bullcrap. I'm sorry, but "said god" shouldn't have put the dang tree in the garden in the first place. OR, made the serpent who was more crafty than any of the other creatures. Or, how bout this "said god" would rather have sacrificed baby lambs, than a grain offering. Why is blood sacrifice SOOOO important to YHWH??? Huh? How can Anyone think that that requirement is somehow RIGHTEOUS and ETHICAL.
Let's just move past the whole apple/Eve/Adam story. The things this god asked, commanded, etc. are so reprehensible, that I can't believe I actually skimmed those parts in my Bible (25 years as a "Christian) and never actually THOUGHT about how evil they were. I thought, "hey, GOD commanded it...who am I to question?" Not anymore, dude.
Evil is evil....I know what is and isn't. I don't need a dang Bible, or PAUL, or anyone to tell me what's jacked up.
Do you have kids??? Would you take your child to a mountain top and offer him as a burnt offering to this god if he asked you to?? Really? Christians just gloss this over like it's such a sacrificial thing to do...BECAUSE they actually believe god wanted his own son to be a BLOOD SACRIFICE. Of course, this is all tied into the book of Hebrews, which say's there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood...EXCEPT...there are plenty of times in the OT when god forgives people their sins, if they only confess them and turn back to him. Jeez people (I'm talking to Christians here), there are so many inconsistancies, contradictions, and flat out hypocrisies (by the very god you serve) in the bible, it's enough to make your head swim. The mental apologetic gymnastics that Christians do to explain these contradictions, just blows my mind.
But what really is telling, is that the message Jesus actually taught, is so lost from Paul's BS, it's ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



Or, how bout this "said god" would rather have sacrificed baby lambs, than a grain offering. Why is blood sacrifice SOOOO important to YHWH??? Huh? How can Anyone think that that requirement is somehow RIGHTEOUS and ETHICAL.

I don't remember God requiring a blood sacrifice from Able. Re read that and tell me what you find. I think that particular episode was simply an offering but not consummated with killing.



But what really is telling, is that the message Jesus actually taught, is so lost from Paul's BS, it's ridiculous.

What is BS that Paul preached? Would you give a prime example? Just one great big prime example and not a hate rant.




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join