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 Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 84
16
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
suzy ryan:

"The Bible describing what science was still argueing about but nature and history proved."


LCKob:

Could you elaborate on this point?




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Through history, there have been times where science has directly contradicted the Bible and proven it to be false. Invariably, it has been the science, not the Bible, that was wrong, and with the development of more precise measurements, greater technology, or further understanding of a field that, at first, appeared totally unrelated cause the original, contradictory theory to be reevaluated and come in line with that which is mentioned in the Bible.

It's important to note that the Bible is not a science book, but it does make some lofty claims of how the world works that only recently have been confirmed. From the earth floating on nothing to the entire world knowing the Two Witnesses were killed at the same time, things once thought to be impossible and ridiculous/wrong now seem perfectly ordinary. With the advent of international news and television, of course a major event would be seen across the world at the same time. Just 100 years ago, though, that was nuts!

Another example would be pathways in the sea. Who ever heard of a roadway or path in water? If you built one, it would be filled with water right away, right? Psalm 8:8 said otherwise, and it was belief in this that the guy who discovered oceanic currents (his name escapes me currently) based the beginnings of his research on.

There have been many, many things in the Bible that science over the years has said are impossible. Yet, many, many of those impossibilities turn out to be exactly what's happening. The Bible doesn't explain the how, that's science's job, but the Bible does bring things to light.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Funkydung:

"your absolutly right. what we read today is pretty far off thanks to king james and others. if you want to see a better picture of what people of biblical times were seeing in the skies and talking to about "heaven" go to www.bibleufo.com.... its more realistic than the religious backwash people are getting today. thanks to king james we have that word "heaven."


"...if you want to see a better picture of what people of biblical times were seeing in the skies and talking to about "heaven" go to www.bibleufo.com.... its more realistic than the religious backwash people are getting today. thanks to king james we have that word "heaven."


LCKob:

Okay, I scanned the sight you promoted and found some rather remarkable claims ...

Question 1: If you promote the idea that the bible has changed so much and so significantly, then could that not be said about the source you presently believe in?


Question 2: What exactly do you consider youself? I ask this because of the following assertion of that site, and I quote below:


www.bibleufo.com...




It can be easily found in scripture that the major deception, in the "greatest deception", is the ethos of the pulpit effectively concealing the greatest destiny mankind could ever imagine. This long concealed destiny is the "gospel", the incredibly "good news" Jesus, and the Apostles after him, proclaimed to mankind, and the ultimate truth every word in the Bible points toward.
The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force. This, we believe, is the ultimate and true destiny of humanity. What better "good message" could Jesus bring to humanity?




Now, I am not an expert in biblical studies, but is the goal of becoming God an accepted Christian tenet?

... I was thinking that the opposite was more the case ...

"The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force."



... or is this your take on the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy"?

LCKob



[edit on 23-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
junglejake:

Through history, there have been times where science has directly contradicted the Bible and proven it to be false. Invariably, it has been the science, not the Bible, that was wrong, and with the development of more precise measurements, greater technology, or further understanding of a field that, at first, appeared totally unrelated cause the original, contradictory theory to be reevaluated and come in line with that which is mentioned in the Bible.


It's important to note that the Bible is not a science book, but it does make some lofty claims of how the world works that only recently have been confirmed. From the earth floating on nothing to the entire world knowing the Two Witnesses were killed at the same time, things once thought to be impossible and ridiculous/wrong now seem perfectly ordinary. With the advent of international news and television, of course a major event would be seen across the world at the same time. Just 100 years ago, though, that was nuts!

LCKob: Well "floating on nothing" is vague in a non scientific way so that descriptor is IMO debatable ... not sure what you mean by " Two Witnesses were killed at the same time ...???"

junglejake:

Another example would be pathways in the sea. Who ever heard of a roadway or path in water? If you built one, it would be filled with water right away, right? Psalm 8:8 said otherwise, and it was belief in this that the guy who discovered oceanic currents (his name escapes me currently) based the beginnings of his research on.

LCKob:

Sailors ...

It could be argued that experienced mariners knew of the phenomena of currents from quite early on ... all that was needed was basic real world observational skills ... water temperature, direction and velocity can be easily "felt" and observed in many ways ... including jumping into the water and noting a cold (or warm) swift moving "pathway" in the water ... so, I submit that such notation would serve as a basic observable as noted ... and if there was any confusion or lack of identification ... it had to do with the the descriptors. Don't get me wrong, I do not intend to belittle such citations, but there is IMO a distinct difference in describing water current and the disputation of a heliocentric solar system.

... but I suppose alot has to do with semantics and interpretation ... which unfortunately is or can be quite subjective.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Those were just some examples of things in the Bible that, in the past, science has scoffed at until science learned more. Again, the Bible is not a science book, it doesn't go into great detail of the cellular structure of a blade of grass, it doesn't explain telecommunications, it doesn't explain gravitational forces. It does talk about the effects of these phenomenons, though.

The two witnesses reference comes out of Ecclesiastes where it talks about the two witnesses in Israel being struck down on command of the anti-Christ. It was an end times prophesy that all the world would know when they were struck down and would rejoice.

There's more, though. The hydrothermal cycle was mentioned in Job, as was the wind patterns in the atmosphere.

Finally, unless the ancients built subs or underwater sails, they could know the course of the winds over the ocean, but not the tides which often go in different directions. They also had no idea about the freshwater rivers running through the ocean unless they got out of their ancient sub and tasted the water.

On a case by case basis, you can find alternate explanations for everything in the Bible that science first explained as wrong, then said was accurate. Folks could have figured it out and transcribed it 3,000 years ago, understanding thermodynamics or whatever. Yet, it's still in there. Science has been wrong in saying the Bible is inaccurate every time, and science and history will show that it is correct in whatever science's latest claim of fallibility is.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
On a case by case basis, you can find alternate explanations for everything in the Bible that science first explained as wrong, then said was accurate. Folks could have figured it out and transcribed it 3,000 years ago, understanding thermodynamics or whatever. Yet, it's still in there. Science has been wrong in saying the Bible is inaccurate every time, and science and history will show that it is correct in whatever science's latest claim of fallibility is.


where are these so called explanations for 'everything' in the bible, that science apparently got wrong and then corrected themselves on. would be nice to get some quotes here, rather than blurting out any old thing to stifle science.

here you're having a go at science, saying it's never been on par with the bible and has always been behind the bible...yet everything that's in the world today, every simple to complex piece of technology you have science to thank...not the bible. there's not anything that we can thank the bible for...sure it might give the odd person salvation, but as a world it's done nothing but spark murders, wars, crusades and so on.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Wow...Well, that's not at all what I'm saying. I was saying that science, at times, has established theories directly in conflict with events or comments in the Bible pertaining to natural phenomenon of some sort. Invariably, science proves those theories to be false, and it comes back in line with the Bible.

I don't see how that means that, if it's not mentioned in the Bible, a car can't exist, and I absolutely don't see how science disproving its own theories through science is stifling science. I could get you a list of examples of this happening hopefully by tomorrow, if you’d like and would care. However, the only point I was making is that the Bible has been shown, time and time again, to be accurate in its portrayal of the world around us.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
junglejake:

On a case by case basis, you can find alternate explanations for everything in the Bible that science first explained as wrong, then said was accurate. Folks could have figured it out and transcribed it 3,000 years ago, understanding thermodynamics or whatever. Yet, it's still in there. Science has been wrong in saying the Bible is inaccurate every time, and science and history will show that it is correct in whatever science's latest claim of fallibility is.


LCKob:

Well in principle, I dislike the notion of global assertsions in the form of "everything" .. that aside, I would have to agree with Shaunybaby in the promotion of sources and qoutes in order to assess such claims for context and validity ... which after all is Scientific Method.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
saw junglejake was on...and was expecting some of this biblical evidence to suggest it found things out way ahead of science, so science had to correct itself... hmmmmm guess he's got to look a little harder to back up his so called 'facts'.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saw junglejake was on...and was expecting some of this biblical evidence to suggest it found things out way ahead of science, so science had to correct itself... hmmmmm guess he's got to look a little harder to back up his so called 'facts'.


Junglejake did mention that it would take a day or so in his post, and in addition also mentioned a heavy school load to contend with ... therefore it is not unreasonable that it might take some time ... after all we all have to juggle between needs and wants.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saw junglejake was on...and was expecting some of this biblical evidence to suggest it found things out way ahead of science, so science had to correct itself... hmmmmm guess he's got to look a little harder to back up his so called 'facts'.


You're right, I do. I don't know names, dates and specifics for everything and, as LC mentioned, I have a 4 hour class tonight that may delay my response by a day.

However, let not your heart be troubled; I have the resources to gather the information rather quickly. Just gotta skim through 3 different books to find the scientific concepts. I'll source the books, too, though they may be rather difficult to check -- one's a science textbook from 1932 and another is a book called "An Outline To Science" written in 1923 that I had referenced extensively about a year ago on here.

However, I now have to continue preparing my case against Oedipus for class; after all, he is responsible for killing the king, robbing the throne, banging his momma and being surrounded with brother-sons and sister-daughters


By the way, I probably appear to be on constantly during the day because I refresh myATS to check my U2Us throughout the day at work. When I have time, I get to respond



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Junglejake did mention that it would take a day or so in his post, and in addition also mentioned a heavy school load to contend with ... therefore it is not unreasonable that it might take some time ... after all we all have to juggle between needs and wants.


well, i just think if you say something, it's better to back it up there and then. i'm not too worried about the outcome, as there's people that insist the bible tells us of aliens, ufo's etc... so as for different claims about the bible, they are many and not so far between, and hold no relevance whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Thanks for your explaination of what I raised, Junglejake.

Like you, I too may always seem 'on' due to not bothering to log off between sessions I grab here and there, but I do have a real life to tend to too.

It's funny though, how often Christians read something in the Bible and recognize the science behind it but don't commit it to memoury as key point on this issue, because it's too obvious to them to appear 'outstanding'.

There is a lovely little discription of how the earth works as a water purifier in waters cycle. I can't remember where it is but am reminded of it when 'greenies' start talking about 'saving water'. They miss the point that water doesn't leave our atmosphere but becomes polluted. Saving water in dams, tanks and bottles etc. keeps it from running through the earths purifying system and the more it's 'recycled' in a fairly closed system, the 'sicker' that supply becomes.

Yes The Bible is neither a science or history book but contains enough of both, to assure those studying it, that those 'unprovable' things (which are the most important lessons in it) are likewise, true.

Many people get angry at not 'seeing' or 'understanding' what others do in The Bible but they forget that there is more to 'language' than an order of defined words. The Holy Spirit that opens ears to The Word is like when people can understand their own language even when it's spoken with a very heavy accent and unusual phrasing, that is subtitled for the majority who can't understand what's being said.

This can be where so many see Christians as pushing their faith down others throats when all they are doing is 'translating' for them what they understand it's still up to the individual to accept or reject.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Funkydung:

"your absolutly right. what we read today is pretty far off thanks to king james and others. if you want to see a better picture of what people of biblical times were seeing in the skies and talking to about "heaven" go to www.bibleufo.com.... its more realistic than the religious backwash people are getting today. thanks to king james we have that word "heaven."


"...if you want to see a better picture of what people of biblical times were seeing in the skies and talking to about "heaven" go to www.bibleufo.com.... its more realistic than the religious backwash people are getting today. thanks to king james we have that word "heaven."


LCKob:

Okay, I scanned the sight you promoted and found some rather remarkable claims ...

Question 1: If you promote the idea that the bible has changed so much and so significantly, then could that not be said about the source you presently believe in?


Question 2: What exactly do you consider youself? I ask this because of the following assertion of that site, and I quote below:


www.bibleufo.com...




It can be easily found in scripture that the major deception, in the "greatest deception", is the ethos of the pulpit effectively concealing the greatest destiny mankind could ever imagine. This long concealed destiny is the "gospel", the incredibly "good news" Jesus, and the Apostles after him, proclaimed to mankind, and the ultimate truth every word in the Bible points toward.
The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force. This, we believe, is the ultimate and true destiny of humanity. What better "good message" could Jesus bring to humanity?




Now, I am not an expert in biblical studies, but is the goal of becoming God an accepted Christian tenet?

... I was thinking that the opposite was more the case ...

"The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force."



... or is this your take on the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy"?

LCKob



[edit on 23-1-2006 by LCKob]


Question 1: If you promote the idea that the bible has changed so much and so significantly, then could that not be said about the source you presently believe in?

what source would that be? the bible or the site i sent. both are good sources. even tho man has changed the bible around doesnt mean that the supernatural message doesnt get thru. the bible was constructed by an author that isnt from this world. thats what jesus kept telling people in the new testament. that he wasnt from this world. thats why the people who followed him was so amazed with him....just think of the stories he told about where he came from....i wish i could have been there to hear it.


Question 2: What exactly do you consider youself? I ask this because of the following assertion of that site, and I quote below:

i consider myself a christian. but not in the sense of the typical modern day christian. i know him. he lets me see things, gives me knowledge. i dont go to church. like ive said many times on here...the mainstream religions, churches on every corner type thing, just isnt what he's about. its sugar coated. kinda like daycares for babies. when you get down to the meat of things its simply amazing. most people dont want to move on from the simple teachings of spiritual things that are in the bible. they just want to stay on one thing...god is love, jesus died for our sins and hes coming back soon...which is great and is the main thing we should know. but there is so much more. i dont even know if people know there is more...maybe they do but are afraid if they know more they wont understand.

like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation." (I Peter 2:2)

Peter reveals the necessities for "growing unto salvation", "desire the milk of the word". Peter uses the word "milk" as a metaphor for FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GODS WORD. New as well as older Christians should desire to learn of God’s word, SO THEY MAY GROW.

the milk or the simple things that are taught are good but there is a time to grow and mature in your understandings. i think most churches just keep giving milk and never let their people mature.

this is 2timothy chapter 3....he knew what he was talking about when he said this......

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth:






Now, I am not an expert in biblical studies, but is the goal of becoming God an accepted Christian tenet?

... I was thinking that the opposite was more the case ...

"The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force."



... or is this your take on the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy"?


we cant become "God." we can only become like him.

my take on the "anit-christian conspiracy" is like ive said in many of my posts....its the same conspiracy since the beginning. to corrupt the minds of his creation. to lead them away from the truth. to deceive. its the same as always. its just today there are many more ways for the enemy to do just that. thru technology like television. what a weapon! and thats just the tip of the iceberge. but no weapon will work on those who seek the true knowledge of our creator.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saw junglejake was on...and was expecting some of this biblical evidence to suggest it found things out way ahead of science, so science had to correct itself... hmmmmm guess he's got to look a little harder to back up his so called 'facts'.


the author of this book is soo far ahead of us its not even funny.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Funkydung]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
suzy ryan:

"Yes The Bible is neither a science or history book but contains enough of both, to assure those studying it, that those 'unprovable' things (which are the most important lessons in it) are likewise, true."

LCKob:

Well by definition an unprovable thing is ... something that cannot be verified ... and thus an open question with no definitive answer ... irregardless of the circumstance of the "surrounding" information.

Do the faithful need such assurances? I was under the impression that confirmation was the domain of science?



[edit on 23-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
He avoids all news agents, does no interviews, signs autographs for no one, and shuns the spotlight. Her prefers anonimity, and works behind the scenes, wanting neither to be given credit nor fame. No proof shall be found. He is the one hiding, we are the ones seeking, and we have no chance of winning that game.
PS, Irregardless of the exact same, full and utter, absolutely perfect, totally certain, true fact reconfirming nothing but an empty void, the final conclusion is that he is completely alone, held gripped by the grasp of a timid, frightened, scared fear. Regardless of what I say.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
LCkob:

Now, I am not an expert in biblical studies, but is the goal of becoming God an accepted Christian tenet?

... I was thinking that the opposite was more the case ...

"The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force."

... or is this your take on the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy"?

Funkydung:

"we cant become "God." we can only become like him."


LCKob:

"we cant become "God." we can only become like him."

One could argue that Lucifer had this very thought in mind ... but as you
say, you are not mainstream, that is for sure ... and to each their own. (our established differences on "baby sinners" being a case in point )

So good luck on becoming a god IMO you will need it



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
LCkob:

Now, I am not an expert in biblical studies, but is the goal of becoming God an accepted Christian tenet?

... I was thinking that the opposite was more the case ...

"The highest goal to which a human can aspire is to become an immortal, wise, loving, and all-powerful being with complete dedication to a perfect universal force."

... or is this your take on the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy"?

Funkydung:

"we cant become "God." we can only become like him."


LCKob:

"we cant become "God." we can only become like him."

One could argue that Lucifer had this very thought in mind ... but as you
say, you are not mainstream, that is for sure ... and to each their own. (our established differences on "baby sinners" being a case in point )

So good luck on becoming a god IMO you will need it


yep you too. nice talking to you. and lucifer did have the exact same thought in mind but one thing differs from us, he had jealousy in his heart and since he cant become "god" he tries to destroys everything that "god" creates. the true enemy is destroying the planet's environment, and the wealth, diversity, and social structure of all global civilizations through monetary, and social control in every aspect of life. the ultimate goal is world domination by global corporate financial powers and social monitoring, with the resulting threat of planetary devastation, and eventual destruction. the ultimate eradication of all known life will be stayed only by the intervention of those beings flying in our skies, as evidenced in the writings of the world's ancient cultures. One of those ancient writings is the bible.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
There are plenty of "new" religions, i.e. the last 1500 years or so (*pulls hand out of hat* B'hai...and including religions that keep getting new prophets), that get ignored or tolerated or revered by the same people that group all "christians" together and lambast them as if they all have big hair and preach in superdomes on upper-channel tv. Even mormons claim to be "christians" when push comes to shove and mormonism is a far cry from Opus Dei to be sure.

I jumped in here pretty late and have no full idea of where this thread has been but I've heard a million times from the far left "Don't hate Muslims because of the fundamentalist muslims". Well I don't and never did.

The same is true in "christianity". We don't all vote red or blue or green and (WOW) it can even change with every election. Where is the fundamentism in "christianity" set apart from the rest? Are all democratic states Judiasm-only? Why is the stereotype only a one way street religiously speaking?

Where is the love of the intellectually liberated atheists? Are they ALL bitter? Because they (bitter atheists) are the ones that get a lot media coverage..so I guess they are ALL (atheists) like that...tree-hugging-alternative-lifestyle-living-democratic-until-the-day-they-die-dope-heads. (that's sarcasm by the way.)

Can't we all get along just long enough to get rid of the Benny Hins that are running around stealing money from the brainwashed?

[edit on 23-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



[edit on 23-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join