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.

 

Evidence for and against the Bible

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You are so right is not funny, is so much inconsistencies is not funny but taking in consideration that the bible has so many sources that could not get together to put their stories together.

Genesis 14:19 tells of th eslime pits, but them before that it tells how lovely the region was supoused to be.
Yes, I am still assessing gen. 4:14-16, and 21-23 against 24-26.

I think the biblical proof-readers were on strike that day. Looks like Moses was not such a good guy after all, why he even resembles Thutmoses II or III.




posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

marg can you explain then with the Atheist reasoning just how the name Jeshua is encoded in Isaiah 53 at the exact spot and even the encoded part tells of what He will do? He died for our sins as was predicted long before the Virgin birth.


Sorry ed I believe in a creator and I have very good relationship with it, and I am very satisfy with my personal experiences with it.

I am just fascinated by the hold the bible believes has on the regular people.

Now about the Virgin birth and the Christ, and by the way remember that the bible was tampered after the Hebrews writings once the "Saviour and Christ was supposedly born"

Anyway have you been out of the bible and looked into history and see how many saviours and messiahs crucified and from virgin birth has been credited to others?

According to history or tradition has been at least twenty of them all sons of Gods that descended from haven and took the form of men, clothed themselves with human flesh and showed evidence of Divine origin.

Funny Christian believers forget to research about their Saviour competition.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Yeah yeah and the Greeks were among them just as Daniel's dream said they would be............


So you believe in a Creator? So how does it talk to you? Are you hearing those voices? How do you KNOW your Creator then?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
You know how ed he has always been there for me since my childhood has protected me in dangerous times and has given me advise in my trouble times, has guided me during my sick times and has given me guidance when any of my family members and love ones had trouble and sometimes even before they are in trouble and sometimes it even gives me advise to help my closes friends and once in a while even strangers with a kind word or a smile.

You will never understand how it is because you are one of those that look all their life in the wrong places to feel close to God, but forget that the only places is in your hart that is where he is in your hart not in the bible or with the preacher in the big church down the street.

Look inside your hart and your soul and you will find it, he is just waiting for your call.

See in my case he always has been closed enough.


[edit on 20-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by edsinger

marg can you explain then with the Atheist reasoning just how the name Jeshua is encoded in Isaiah 53 at the exact spot and even the encoded part tells of what He will do? He died for our sins as was predicted long before the Virgin birth.


Sorry ed I believe in a creator and I have very good relationship with it, and I am very satisfy with my personal experiences with it.

I am just fascinated by the hold the bible believes has on the regular people.

Now about the Virgin birth and the Christ, and by the way remember that the bible was tampered after the Hebrews writings once the "Saviour and Christ was supposedly born"

Anyway have you been out of the bible and looked into history and see how many saviours and messiahs crucified and from virgin birth has been credited to others?

According to history or tradition has been at least twenty of them all sons of Gods that descended from haven and took the form of men, clothed themselves with human flesh and showed evidence of Divine origin.

Funny Christian believers forget to research about their Saviour

competition.


Sorry, You are wrong about one of the (Sons of God ), All but Jesus: He is the only one that arose from death to set on the right hand side of God on his throng !!!!!!!!!!!!!
All the rest have turn into Dust in there holes in the Earth !!!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043Look inside your hart and your soul and you will find it, he is just waiting for your call.


No in my case it is called the Holy Spirit not me, for I accepted His free gift and by Grace and Faith in my Lord Jesus Christ go I.........



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
God always was, is, and always will be....................


But in a previous post you claimed this was impossible that NOTHING was eternal that everything MUST have a beginning.

Even Science states (unlike what you claimed) that the Universe had a beginning. It sprang from a singularity.

How is this ANY less believable then a "God" that just happens to look just like me and has ALWAYS been there (which you claim is impossible) waved his hand about 6000 years ago and created a 15+ billion year old Universe?

What is your evidence that the Biblical version is true and the science version is false?

With out Jesus says so

Like I said before Ed I believe in "God"

I just don't think I am smart enough to figure it out and don't think a bunch of goat herders were either.

My opinion of the Bible is that the overall message of the Bible, like that of most religions, Love thy Neighbor, do unto others, ect; means MUCH more the the myths of a bunch of Goat herders and people that have twisted the Bible to fit there agenda.

Even here most (not all) skip over the love thy neighbor part and go straight to the Gays, Muslims, (fill in the blank), will burn in hell part.

I think Jesus was a great man that was not only ahead of his time THEN but still is, its just sad that most cant, IMO read the message for the REST of the Bible.

That message to ME, is love God, love others, and love yourself.

If we all did this we would be in Heaven now.

now back to the debate



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by edsinger
God always was, is, and always will be....................


But in a previous post you claimed this was impossible that NOTHING was eternal that everything MUST have a beginning.

Even Science states (unlike what you claimed) that the Universe had a beginning. It sprang from a singularity.

How is this ANY less believable then a "God" that just happens to look just like me and has ALWAYS been there (which you claim is impossible) waved his hand about 6000 years ago and created a 15+ billion year old Universe?



(1) His Creation did have a beginning - He did not.

(2) True - and Genesis says, " He said let there be Light and there was light"

(3) Again you attempt to limit the Creator to our physical laws and such, He even says a day is as a 1000 years to him, maybe its eons etc etc, He is not held by time as are we.....



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by marg6043Look inside your hart and your soul and you will find it, he is just waiting for your call.


No in my case it is called the Holy Spirit not me, for I accepted His free gift and by Grace and Faith in my Lord Jesus Christ go I.........




Poor ed just so confused has traded the real creator of all for the man made christ of the church, how sad, not wonder you can not find him and never will until you shed the human believe in a man and acept that you don't need a middle man to get close to you creator.

Good luck, you know what is so wonderful onces you fee yourself and met our creator one on one.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Dr. Douglas C. Wallace and his colleagues at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta constructed a world female genetic tree based on mitochondrial DNA. Dr. Wallace found that almost all American Indians have mtDNA that belong to lineages he named A, B, C and D. Europeans belong to lineages H through K and T through X. The split between the two main branches in the European tree suggests that modern humans reached Europe 39,000 to 51,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace calculates, a time that corresponds with the archaeological date of at least 35,000 years ago.



DNA itself supports a timeline other than what is given in the Bible. It simply cannot be a Literal work, nor was it intended to be. Over time, people have hijacked the intentions and Purposes God Laid out for their own profit and Power.

The Bible in its present form ( whichever version anyone wants to choose; KJV, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, whatever) is not the same form that existed 500 years ago, let alone 1800. It has evolved through Politics, compromises, and brute force. God does not exist in the bible. It is a Book, a Map of sorts to place you on the path to find God. Placing Faith in a book is contrary to Everything Christ taught, and God represents.

The reason this has occured over time is simple. Marg hit it on the head; You dont need an middleman to have a relationship with God. THAT is the message Christ attempted to convey to Humanity. People hijacked that message and Humanity is paying the price for not questioning the underlying foundation of the church;
By placing faith in a Book, you need someone to interpret that book for you. The result is the hierarchy of the Major organized churches, the greed and madness that has blinded them to God.

There is a reason Christ never wrote a single letter on any physical artifact, nor built a church, or even a bookshelf. Humanity has an unusual penchant to make articles objects of worship. So, Jesus Wrote in the sand, and even then erases it after the lesson. The shroud of Turin is a good example, or has anyone been to Israel and gone into the churches reputed to be built over the place of christs birth? it is divided in almost square meters, each major religion has a shrine built over their little piece of land. Its almost sickening to see. THank God the ark of the covenant has been lost or hidden, There would be a Religion based on the ark today.


Boil down the message of Christ; feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the infirmed. Christ never asked someone what they believed in, he fed them, cured them, housed and clothed them.
That is the message that has been corrupted over time.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by edsinger
God always was, is, and always will be....................


But in a previous post you claimed this was impossible that NOTHING was eternal that everything MUST have a beginning.

Even Science states (unlike what you claimed) that the Universe had a beginning. It sprang from a singularity.

How is this ANY less believable then a "God" that just happens to look just like me and has ALWAYS been there (which you claim is impossible) waved his hand about 6000 years ago and created a 15+ billion year old Universe?

What is your evidence that the Biblical version is true and the science version is false?

With out Jesus says so

Like I said before Ed I believe in "God"

I just don't think I am smart enough to figure it out and don't think a bunch of goat herders were either.

My opinion of the Bible is that the overall message of the Bible, like that of most religions, Love thy Neighbor, do unto others, ect; means MUCH more the the myths of a bunch of Goat herders and people that have twisted the Bible to fit there agenda.


I really don't think you're listening to what he's saying. He's given you exactly what you've asked for from a basic philosophical standpoint and I don't see how he could elaborate on it anymore. God did not have a beginning because the concept of 'beginning' implies a time aspect. God existed before time and space because he created said dimensions and the universe (at the time of the big bang) - he transcends time and space. If God had existed before time and space (before the big bang), there would be no physical constraint to limit his existence to the physical and necessitate a beginning. He is eternal, for lack of a better word. In all actuality, there is really no adequate vocabulary to describe God - God is infinite, and our finite language and finite minds can never even dream to wrap themselves around the concept of infinity. You can't fit infinity into the finite.


In regards to the bible being more message than fact, that may be true. Who knows. Bear in mind, however, that the bible was written for a different time and a different culture. If it had been written today for our modern culture, no one back then would have been able to understand any of it, even when translated, thus defeating its purpose. Likewise, what seems farfetched and mostly metaphorical may just be the bible's way of getting through to a less advanced culture, who wouldn't have been able to understand scientific truths that may be hidden beneath the proverbs.

Case in point, Genesis. Chronologically, apparently it's solid. Now imagine a jewish person a few thousand years back trying to wrap their heads around a modern, scientific Genesis complete with the speed of light and the big bang and the processes of geological formations and whatever else would go with it. You'd need an MIT education just to understand it, and reading it would take forever because the book itself would be ginormous. And before you say Genesis is B.S. because of the unrealistic 7 day thing, someone earlier mentioned a day to god possibly having an arbitrary value, which makes sense. Similarily, but more importantly, however, is that the word 'Day' did not have a 24 hour value in the original language that the bible was written in. And since Genesis is chronologically solid, the 7 day creation account holds stead.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash
I really don't think you're listening to what he's saying. He's given you exactly what you've asked for from a basic philosophical standpoint and I don't see how he could elaborate on it anymore. God did not have a beginning because the concept of 'beginning' implies a time aspect.


His own statements claim this very thing is impossible.



God existed before time and space because he created said dimensions and the universe (at the time of the big bang) - he transcends time and space.


Just what do you have to back this statement up? If it is only "the Bible says so" you have lost the debate already. What evidence do you have that an all powerful man shaped being existed before the Universe was created? What evidence do you have that he created it?



If God had existed before time and space (before the big bang), there would be no physical constraint to limit his existence to the physical and necessitate a beginning.



Why?

BTW there are two schools of thought that I know of on this, one says there was NOTHING before the Big Bang, not even space or time, the other says there has been a series of big bangs going back forever.

I cant really wrap my mind around either Idea.



In all actuality, there is really no adequate vocabulary to describe God - God is infinite, and our finite language and finite minds can never even dream to wrap themselves around the concept of infinity. You can't fit infinity into the finite.


We seem to agree on this point. But remember the topic is evidence for or against the Bible, not God itself. I believe in God I just have a little more problem with the Bibles every word being true.



In regards to the bible being more message than fact, that may be true. Who knows.


Ed


that is the point of this thread is for both sides to present their best case for and against that very fact.



Likewise, what seems farfetched and mostly metaphorical may just be the bible's way of getting through to a less advanced culture, who wouldn't have been able to understand scientific truths that may be hidden beneath the proverbs.


And what proofs are these?



Case in point, Genesis. Chronologically, apparently it's solid.


Really?

here is evidence that says it is NOT solid, can you refute these?


1) The Genesis I creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.


www.evilbible.com...




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
oh my god...this again...ok, here we go. JUST READ GENESIS OF THE GRAIL KINGS BY Laurence Gardner it will explain everything



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by countbrakula23
oh my god...this again...ok, here we go. JUST READ GENESIS OF THE GRAIL KINGS BY Laurence Gardner it will explain everything


Here is a link to the subject

www.karenlyster.com...

I dont see anything that would back this argument over the Christian one?



Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as Atâbba and Kâva - and jointly called the Adâma) were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Nîn-khursag. This took place at a 'creation chamber' which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimtî (Shi-im-tî meaning 'breath - wind - life' ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nîn-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Atâbba and Kâva, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki.



Adam and Eve were cloned by the Egyptians? Where is there ANYTHING to back this up? Other than the Author?




Two more important features then come to light when reading the Bible with this knowledge in mind. Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve - but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not.


Just where does it say this in Genesis?



[edit on 21-2-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Just what do you have to back this statement up? If it is only "the Bible says so" you have lost the debate already. What evidence do you have that an all powerful man shaped being existed before the Universe was created? What evidence do you have that he created it?


I think you're asking too much in the form of proof. Philosophy is meant to proove itself through logic. Nobody can give you a physical handfull of the nothingness that existed before the big bang. But anyways, since I take it you believe in the big bang and thus a finite universe, you agree it has a beginning and came from a singularity. I guess you just have to ask yourself whether you believe the universe and big bang created/triggered itself, in which case it would have to simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time, thus violating the law of mutual exclusion. Another choice is that the big bang was caused by something else before it, similar to me causing the dent in that car after I pushed a shopping cart into it - the cart didn't push itself. In this case, we need an uncaused cause. We give that uncaused cause the name of God. REMEMBER, god doesn't require a cause because this Newtonian causal relationship is only necessary in a universe where time and space exist, and our uncaused cause was before time and space.

The infinite regression of big bangs could also be possible, but to me, for some reason, I find the uncaused cause to be more likely. Call it faith, if you will.


Originally posted by Amuk


Likewise, what seems farfetched and mostly metaphorical may just be the bible's way of getting through to a less advanced culture, who wouldn't have been able to understand scientific truths that may be hidden beneath the proverbs.


And what proofs are these?


Oh, I never intended to give proofs (hence using the word 'may' several times). It's just speculation. After all, I'm no professionally trained historian/bible expert, and I'm sure as hell not going to bring forth a few scetchy internet links to try and back up what I'm saying.



Originally posted by Amuk
here is evidence that says it is NOT solid, can you refute these?


1) The Genesis I creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.


www.evilbible.com...



Haha, you caught me. I have no rebuttals on hand for that. Infact, I was just basing that on a few instances in the past where the accuracy of the 7 day account was hammered home by a few of my colleagues, none of which I can remember right now. None the less, I say again, considering the time and culture it was written for, I believe you can't quite take it at face value and there's quite a bit yet to translate and decipher. The evil bible dude claims in one part that the context is quite clear in that the 'light' is referring to light emitted from the sun. I don't see how the context makes this so obvious. That's just the thing. We can't be sure of the context until we are able to fully translate and decipher everything properly.

EDIT: Ok, well, I stumbled across something of an updated course summary for a Philosophy of Religion course I took a little while back at my university. Whether you consider this to be credible is up to you. This particular piece goes directly against what you said about the order of events conflict involving the creation of earth before light. I'm not saying this is any more conclusive than what you stated, but it brings to light that interpretations of the bible vary from person to person, and the context can never be concrete.



This should give you an idea of the kind of absurdity and contradiction that Tillich and Randall have told us arise when we attempt to interpret scripture literally, taking scripture as a collection of (literally) true propositions.



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.--Genesis 1:1.

‘This [scientific] idea of creation is called the big-bang theory. As many scientists perceive it, the cosmic boom expelled from the center of the universe unorganized matter, which eventually began to form into galaxies. One of the original billions of galaxies contained the stuff of which our planet eventually was made. But these floating ingredients might well have been described by Moses as earth, with a small “e”. Not until later in the Genesis account--after the planet had taken shape--was the “E” capitalized. By this time, Moses was no longer writing about formless “earth” but a specific “Earth.” '




[edit on 21-2-2005 by purecanadiantrash]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

Boil down the message of Christ; feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the infirmed. Christ never asked someone what they believed in, he fed them, cured them, housed and clothed them.
That is the message that has been corrupted over time.




But did not Christ himself speak of God's Word? If you ignore His Word you ignore Him and He is the only way unto the Father......

I guess it boils down to faith, you either have faith in nature as your God or you believe that God created you and yes, loved you so much, that He provided a path to live in eternity with Him.


Simple? No.......... A Necessity? Yes.....imho



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash
Another choice is that the big bang was caused by something else before it, similar to me causing the dent in that car after I pushed a shopping cart into it - the cart didn't push itself. In this case, we need an uncaused cause. We give that uncaused cause the name of God.
To say this is to throw your hands up in the air and admit to man not having the intellectual ability as yet to explain either the big bang or God theory. You opt for the latter because you tell youself, well God just is, we can't explain it so that is what it has to be, an omnipotent at the end of the rainbow.

But logically that is not what it has to be. The Egyptians, as did the Jews, the Sumerians, the Babylonians and countless others, as with you attempting to rationalize Genesis, honestly believed in multiple Gods. They sacrificed to various gods accordingly and believed that individually each was responsible for everything from snake bites to everlasting life. Why? because their knowledge was far less sophisticated than it is today and even what it was millenia later when they started to move away from the multiple God belief to a singular God belief. That process took thousands of years of advancement in knowledge to make that one small step, and so too will we take thousands to advance to the next level of thinking, wherever it takes us.

Neither the conventional scientific theories, nor the one God theory holds water unless one firmly believes in one or the other. This is because they both are based on something coming into existence from nothing, where man cannot understand nothingness as forming anything. Dead space, much like we think of a black hole, is supposed to be dead! everything that enters it ceases to exist, yet it is still there. Believing in God is either a leap of faith overriding man's innate curiosity and ever expanding knowledge, or an innate sense and inherent feeling that God just is. When people who truly believe in God start recogizing the latter, then they will stop trying to argue that he just is because he is God, and readily admit to just believing that he just is and they don't know how to explain him.

There is no shame in that, because it admits to an inherent nature no one can take away from you as being wrong, like the need for a newborn to suckle, or for a bee to pollenate a flower. The difference between the two concepts is vast, one is a defense tactic to prove your God, the other is that you just cannot explain why you feel God's presence within you.

This is what Marg is trying to say. If God truly exists for you it should not be because of any book, or any guy in robes preaching to you because he feels he has been given the power of interpretation and you have not, it should be because you just feel God in every fibre of your being, and you should be proud to admit that, as I am, and as is Marg or Amelia and some others.

Now with that, maybe the thread can get back to addressing Amuk's post, which was not about God, but about proof of the details within the covers of The Bible.



[edit on 2/21/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash
Another choice is that the big bang was caused by something else before it, similar to me causing the dent in that car after I pushed a shopping cart into it - the cart didn't push itself. In this case, we need an uncaused cause. We give that uncaused cause the name of God.
To say this is to throw your hands up in the air and admit to man not having the intellectual ability as yet to explain either the big bang or God theory. You opt for the latter because you tell youself, well God just is, we can't explain it so that is what it has to be, an omnipotent at the end of the rainbow.

But logically that is not what it has to be. The Egyptians, as did the Jews, the Sumerians, the Babylonians and countless others, as with you attempting to rationalize Genesis, honestly believed in multiple Gods. They sacrificed to various gods accordingly and believed that individually each was responsible for everything from snake bites to everlasting life. Why? because their knowledge was far less sophisticated than it is today and even what it was millenia later when they started to move away from the multiple God belief to a singular God belief. That process took thousands of years of advancement in knowledge to make that one small step, and so too will we take thousands to advance to the next level of thinking, wherever it takes us.

Neither the conventional scientific theories, nor the one God theory holds water unless one firmly believes in one or the other. This is because they both are based on something coming into existence from nothing, where man cannot understand nothingness as forming anything. Dead space, much like we think of a black hole, is supposed to be dead! everything that enters it ceases to exist, yet it is still there. Believing in God is either a leap of faith overriding man's innate curiosity and ever expanding knowledge, or an innate sense and inherent feeling that God just is. When people who truly believe in God start recogizing the latter, then they will stop trying to argue that he just is because he is God, and readily admit to just believing that he just is and they don't know how to explain him.

There is no shame in that, because it admits to an inherent nature no one can take away from you as being wrong, like the need for a newborn to suckle, or for a bee to pollenate a flower. The difference between the two concepts is vast, one is a defense tactic to prove your God, the other is that you just cannot explain why you feel God's presence within you.

This is what Marg is trying to say. If God truly exists for you it should not be because of any book, or any guy in robes preaching to you because he feels he has been given the power of interpretation and you have not, it should be because you just feel God in every fibre of your being, and you should be proud to admit that, as I am, and as is Marg or Amelia and some others.

Now with that, maybe the thread can get back to addressing Amuk's post, which was not about God, but about proof of the details within the covers of The Bible.
[edit on 2/21/05 by SomewhereinBetween]


Um, I really don't know what you're trying to tell me here. Maybe because I'm drunk... From what I understand you're denying several centuries of highly accepted and respected fundamental physical laws/theories including those of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, Edwin Hubble's theory of an expanding universe, among others. I really don't know what you're getting at. You say I am among a faction of cultures who believe in multiple gods. Um, come again? Anyways, if you have a better explanation for the cause of the universe, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, you contributed nothing of significance. In response to your 'let's get back to prooving details within the bible', the second half of my post was dedicated solely to giving a reasonable translation to the accounts of a particular point in Genesis. Are you denying god's existence, without any attempt at a proof whatsoever? Good lord, what is going on here! I really don't know.

You claim I base my beliefs on the teachings of some book or some man in a white robe, referencing the bible and a catholic priest. The thing is, I never go to church, and I sure as f uck don't worship the bible. I believe in God because I've taken several university philosophy courses which explain the logical reasoning behind this age old question, a question which I have personally asked myself many times over in the past because I always deep down felt there was something spiritual and more meaningful to the universe than our finite beings could ever possibly imagine. To me, to understand god is to understand yourself. You're trying to make me out to be some cold, soulless biblethumper.

For the sake of intelligent debate, please clarify your rant, because I'm hammered, and this is too much for me.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by purecanadiantrash]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I must be dumb as dirt, as i dont understand why ppl try do disprove the Bible so much ??? noone bothers to disprove the Koran??? noone trey to disprove Buddah ?? but for some reason the Bible is everyones punching bag...

where exactly is the arm in beliving in the Bible ??
noone bothers to disprove Wiccans, or Pagans or Satanists ??? in fact without the Bible Satanist couldnt exist ...but those are the cool guys and noone touches them ...

maybe ppl should worry more about "what if the Bible is TRUE?" ..." and we are really screwed...?"

if ppl want to be;ive that god gave them his only son to die and forgive their sins, what bad about that ???

get real ! live the Bible alone already! good grief!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
I must be dumb as dirt, as i dont understand why ppl try do disprove the Bible so much


I am giving yall a chance to prove it too, aint I?



where exactly is the arm in beliving in the Bible ??


nothing at all, where hjave I stated people should not believe in it?



noone bothers to disprove Wiccans, or Pagans or Satanists ??? in fact without the Bible Satanist couldnt exist ...but those are the cool guys and noone touches them ...


Feel free to start a thread doing just that. The reason I have used the Bible in this one is more to do with a personal spiritual quest of my own and questions to do with the Factualness of the words in the Bible. I personally dont think the fact that the universe isnt 6000 years old really distracts from the message anyhow.




maybe ppl should worry more about "what if the Bible is TRUE?" ..." and we are really screwed...?"


Heres your chance to show us that. Or are us heathens not allowed to question your beliefs at all? Maybe a few stake burnings will take care of those pesky heritics ...Just kidding




if ppl want to be;ive that god gave them his only son to die and forgive their sins, what bad about that ???


Where did I say it was?



get real ! live the Bible alone already! good grief!


If your belief system is so fragile that no one may question it maybe ITS the problem



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join