It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jay do you realize how silly it is to claim that a lack of PREFERRED evidence
is by no means a way to support a claim of no evidence therefore non existence?
I say the universe is a Creation. I have pre existing information ( Clearly not
from myth as Atheism only wishes were true. Another silly unintelligent
atheist lie) from very old writings that in themselves lay many wonders.
Not to mention the miracle of us even having them. So with that and
having said Creation? You can't deny that imply's an intelligent supreme
being that we have a word for God.
All that said if you ever took that much seriously you'd understand that
even other religions like Buddhism have their God Buddha claiming he
himself is not divinity. And I'm not 100% on this last part but believe he
pointed to Christ was Divine. And I know Confucius did. All that to say
if you ever do open your mind instead of arguing unscientifically from
a closed mind? Then you can figure the rest out for yourself. As I did
at ten years old.
I'm just your average guy on the street child of the seventies truck driver.
I've been corrected many a time and being a full grown man I've admitted
to being wrong often. But I've been around long enough and have seen
nothing on this planet or any other to convince me to change what I believe.
Not even close.
originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Akragon
Thus you were born into your belief systems... just as i was... and most christians or other religions
I don't even have a religion now. What the hell I wasn't born into anything.
And you want to argue about that now? I bet you can tell me where I
was born then also? So have at it? Tell me all about me?
Chances are at 10 years old you didn't suddenly decide to pick up a bible and start reading... longest most boring book in the world IF you start from Genesis and work your way though the chapters... especially IF you're 10 lol
You do not have a religon, but you obviously swear by the bible and Jesus. Are you confused?
the flood, the garden of eden… Not sure if you believe in the trinity or not but IF you happen to, theres another one...
originally posted by: cooperton
...Although if God did take physical form, the human vessel would be the archetypal vessel for a Creator Being to manifest as.
What is the origin of the myth?
“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 16, pages 326 and 327.
What does the Bible say?
“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”—Italics ours; Luke 1:31-35, The New Jerusalem Bible.
That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.
So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.
Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27, 28
Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not of God himself. The Trinity myth gave birth to the worship of Mary as the Mother of God
originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: carsforkids
...The bible told us that God made everything in 6 days. We know that to be BS.
Today the evolution theory is claimed to be an indispensable foundation of science. A key reason for the relationship is identified by physicist Fred Hoyle: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth.” What kind of excesses have made religion so distasteful to science?
Religion Gives Creation a Bad Name
In a supposed attempt to uphold the Bible, the “creationists”—mostly allied with fundamentalist Protestants—have insisted that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This extreme view has invited the ridicule of geologists, astronomers, and physicists, for it contradicts their findings.
But what does the Bible really say? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) The time involved is not specified. The “first day” of creation is not even mentioned until Genesis 1:3-5. “The heavens and the earth” already existed when this first “day” began. Therefore, could the heavens and the earth be billions of years old, as scientists claim? They may very well be. The Bible simply does not specify the time covered.
Another excess of religion is the way some interpret the six ‘days’ of creation. Some fundamentalists insist that these days are literal, restricting earthly creation to a period of 144 hours. This provokes skepticism in scientists, for they feel that this claim conflicts with clear scientific observations.
However, it is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible—not the Bible itself—that is at odds with science. The Bible does not say that each creative “day” was 24 hours long; indeed, it includes all these ‘days’ in the much longer “day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven,” showing that not all Biblical ‘days’ contained just 24 hours. (Genesis 2:4) Some could have been many thousands of years in length.*
Thus, the idea of creation has been given a bad name by creationists and fundamentalists. Their teachings on the age of the universe and the length of the creative ‘days’ are in harmony neither with reasonable science nor with the Bible. However, there are also other excesses that have made religion distasteful to scientists.
Abuse of Power
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: whereislogic
the trinity comes from the second century by the way...
it was made part of the system after Nicea….
Corrupts the Truth While Defending It
Tertullian began his essay entitled Against Praxeas saying: “In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it.” The man named Praxeas of this essay is not clearly identified, but Tertullian took issue with his teachings concerning God and Christ. He viewed Praxeas as a pawn of Satan covertly trying to corrupt Christianity.
A crucial issue among professed Christians at that time was the relationship between God and Christ. Some among them, particularly those of Greek background, found it difficult to reconcile belief in one God with the role of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. Praxeas attempted to solve their dilemma by teaching that Jesus was just a different mode of the Father and there was no difference between the Father and the Son. This theory, known as modalism, alleges that God revealed himself “as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.”
Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5, he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”
Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.
Beware of Worldly Philosophy
How was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”? The answer lies in yet another paradox about the man—his view of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths. “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition,” he stated. Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas.—Colossians 2:8.
One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: “[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.” Hence, Tertullian’s formula—three persons in one divine substance—played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom.
Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it. Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. Let us therefore take to heart the Scriptural warning against “paying attention to misleading in spired utterances and teachings of demons.”—1 Timothy 4:1.
Well, if you just say "trinity" like that without further specification as to how the concept of a trinity was used in Christendom, it's technically much older than the second century if one includes the pagan trinities.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
If you do not obey, then that loving God, who loves you, will condemn to hell for not brlieving him.
Does that sound like a sociopath to you?
originally posted by: carsforkids
Oh good you're back. I thought for a brief moment you might be finished
misrepresenting Creation and lying about everything.
And yes in direct correlation to depravity, immorality, perversion and
crimes such as school shootings, hit and run murder, assault and
suicide! Atheism is on the rise.
This is happening and is also predicted in the Bible many times. For instance
in revelation it is described as " The great falling away". I'm sure you'll
base some retort with some nonsense arguing the interpretation of Bible
prophecy and while you're free to do so. I won't be engaging you in an
argument in regards to a difference of opinion on Bible prophecy.
So yes you're right Atheism is on the rise and we can see all the
wonderful things going on around that Godlessness. Even today as
we speak, in the political arena.
What denial? Are you even comprehending the conversation? How does God
grant all men free will and then condone slavery? To suggest even a simple
minded human like yourself would be so illogical oh wait...........
Again, Barcs seems to be to busy attacking the least educated (such
as myself) of the theists in this thread. That and backslapping
with other atheists for moral support. He's have'n a hard enough time
arguing with me!