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: 86
16
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
There are a few examples of the Bible contradicting bad science, only to have science recant and conform to the Bible.


conform to the bible...hardly. the bible is an outdated scientific paper. just because some person said about the stars and grains of sand...he could have just been a person with an imagination, but he had no evidence to back up his claims of so many stars. maybe that might mean you believe he had inside knowledge from god who told him there were that many stars. but i see nowhere where it mentions about specific under water currents or thermaldynamics. it's your 'interpretion' of what it 'might' be saying, that leads you to these conclusions.




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So LCKob, am I to understand that your counter to that entire post is that it's feasible that sailors could have known there were currents in the water? So what? Let's say people knew 4,000 years ago that there were ocean currents that never changed. First, does that mean the entire world, including Asia Minor (expected home of Job), was told of this, or was it a sailor thing (Job was a farmer)? Second, how does that discredit the Bible?


well you get currents in rivers, and underwater currents...there would be no reason to believe an even bigger and stronger source of water (ocean) wouldn't have currents also.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
ShaunyBaby, did you read anything that I wrote? You certainly seemed eager to read it last night...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
i did read...but i don't see what you see. just because job said something about the morning star singing?...we're supposed to take that literally, as the sun makes a shrieking sound...that's hardly singing. and why mention this at all about a sun or star shrieking...what aid does this provide. maybe it provides you with the knowledge you need to have faith in christianity.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Junglejake:

In Acts 17:26, Marks quotes Paul as saying,
External Source

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.


In the King James version, instead of "one man", it says "one blood". This is interesting, because 2,000 years ago, people didn't realize humans all had one form of blood, nor one ancestor (be that Adam or Cro Magnon). Johan Blumenbach, commonly given credit as the father of anthropology, developed a theory of 5 human races that was widely accepted. The 5 races were the Caucasian (white) race, the Mongolian (yellow) race, the Malayan (brown) race, the Negro (black) race, and the American (red) race. To these 5 races he ascribed distinctive physiological aspects, including different types of blood. We're not talking A vs. B vs. AB vs. O, but rather cat blood vs. dog blood. That belief was maintained until 1909, when Karl Landsteiner discovered uniform plasma in the blood, leading to his discovery of non-racial blood types, confirming all humans have the same blood. Even taking the NIV version of from one man instead of one blood, this still indicates a common ancestor. We are one species, not 5 as was believed less than 100 years ago. Science had proven the Bible wrong...For a little while.

LCKob:

Okay, I see your context on what you mean by "bad science" ... in which I reply that there is a mistinterpreation of what Scientfic Methodology represents ... it is not the be all and end all of knowledge ... it is though, a process or method by which natural phenomena is assessed for underlying mechanistic principles and or basic functional understanding.

Thus, I say that as a fundemental or core element, the nature of science built upon the process of continual assessment of new information as it relates to the latest working predictor models .... so to establish the basic profile of SM.. we have:

1. Stepped methodology that assesses information for valid inclusion into a larger cognitive schema ... i.e. the quest for information ... not the promotion of stablished information beyond the present ratified working theoretical models.

2. Age of SM? Well it depends on what definition one uses ... but I presently favor a round figure of 500 years ... Now the age of Christianity? ... would that be aproximately 2000-2500 years?.

3. Basic premise or tenet of SM vs Biblical writings ....

a. SM by basic premise changes and grows to incorporate new ideas or to address discrepancies/inconsistancies in observable phenomena.

b. Biblical writings (given the nature of your assertion Junglejake) it would seem that you favor the model of an "accurate or predictive" stance for the bible...


So, what does this all mean? Well to put it simply, I would contend that it is patently unfair to compare the stance of science at a known period of earlier discovery. ... which is compounded by the fact that modern SM has been around for a fraction of the time that the Bible has ... so what I contend is this

It would be more fair (actually not totally fair due to the intrinsic age differences ... but more fair nontheless to compare the the latest findings per present day SM with any such discrepancies ...

The use of "bad science" which I contend was science with less data is like saying let us compare and contrast the Dead Sea Scrolls to the New Testament to see if there is any "difference".

Note: If memory serves, the King James version is the product of 17th. century translation ... and with all such translations, open to syntactical and semantic subjectivity.

"From one man he made every nation of man ..."

Well, semantics and artistic license aside that could explain the motivation (especially in the context of Adam and Eve) ...

I would have been more compelled if the qoute stated ...

"... and from the Nubian Eve he made every nation of man ..."

There seems to be evidence to support the "eve" theory on genetic dispersal from africa.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So LCKob, am I to understand that your counter to that entire post is that it's feasible that sailors could have known there were currents in the water? So what? Let's say people knew 4,000 years ago that there were ocean currents that never changed. First, does that mean the entire world, including Asia Minor (expected home of Job), was told of this, or was it a sailor thing (Job was a farmer)? Second, how does that discredit the Bible?



Haha .. what I am saying is that the descriptor "pathways to the sea" can be explained as simple observation be it by Job or the writer of that segment of the bible. I said nothing about discrediting the bible ... where did you get that?
You seem to place special significance on this type of descriptor ... and my contention is that it can be explained by ordinary means with no special significance beyond observational notation.

In fact, as I review the list, these phrases, that you site can be taken in a number of ways ... as to subjective interpretation ... science deals with very precise terms, definitions and arguments ... where "subjectivity" is the bane to be avoided.

Case in point with the possibility of interpretive substitution ala the King James example "blood example"... the first question asked by a scientist is what are the exact terms and definitions? Without establishing this first, it would be far from precise and not really value added in terms of making a point.

LCKob

[edit on 24-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
When he was banished for fratricide, Cain is said to have gone to live with the others. If Adam and Eve were the only people then what is the bible saying?
I totally agree that there is but one race, the human race.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
On King James, I agree, it is an older translation. The Greek word seems to lean more towards man, not blood, as well. When referencing a lexicon, I checked the Greek word for blood and couldn't find it or a variation of it in the original Greek. However, I'm not a linguist; in the 17th century blood used in that context could refer to people just as in the 17th century, bitch only meant female dog. Even as early as the 1960s, studies were made in the belief that blacks were not the same species as whites. Turns out they were wrong, we are one people.

If I understand your "fair" standpoint, though, you're asking me to prove current science wrong. I brought up examples from the past where science said the Bible was wrong, yet it turned out that science was wrong.

If you're looking for predictive science, I propose that astrophysicists will never discover the extra mass that would allow the universe to stabilize or contract on its self. Like an old garment, it will continue to decay until it is uniform across.

Also, the reason I drew extra attention to the currents of the sea is because that was one of the points that came to mind yesterday but I couldn't back with more information.

shaunybaby, I pointed out the original meaning of the Hebrew word. Since Job was originally in Hebrew, I would think it would stand to reason that we should go by that definition rather than the English translation's definition...Unless, of course, you believe English has a one word accurate translation for every foreign language, current or ancient, ever spoken or written. However, if you think that, you're wrong.

Thanks, though, for proving my point from the first paragraph:

...I have no intention of providing an exhaustive list because I've done that song and dance before on other issues. The reward for the work is either the person posing the question(s) ignoring the response completely and moving onto another attempt to say, "gotcha", or else all of the post being dismissed except for one or two points that could be debatable where, suddenly, the entire argument hinges on those one or two points, irregardless of the validity of all the other points.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
When he was banished for fratricide, Cain is said to have gone to live with the others. If Adam and Eve were the only people then what is the bible saying?
I totally agree that there is but one race, the human race.


The Bible states that Adam was created in God's image. It states that he was formed from the dust, but God breathed life into him. Cain's trip to the land of Nod is one of the primary reasons I don't dismiss evolutionary theory nor the geological age theory. The way I read it, God gave Adam a soul, while the rest of humanity at the time was as the animals.

However, it doesn't say he went to live with "the others", it says he was banished to the land of Nod (See Genesis 4). He was, however, worried that "someone" would find him. Who was that "someone"? Maybe one of his brothers or sisters, maybe one of the human looking animals forming tribes throughout the Middle East.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
shame he didn't tell you to not worry about silly little things like make-believe anti-christian conspiracies.


Who said I'm worried?


(Man oh man do I wanna go to China and do that...)

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
What is your view on the theory that the Sumerian stories that describe the 'Adamae' as being the first of a new hybrid who were a cross between the 'Gods' and men? Then Adam would be the first. And I read that the word 'Adamae' meant earthling. The Sumerians also wrote of a paradise they called Edenu, and they are said to be the source of the Jewish people having a 7 day week.
In a related topic, what about the Genesis account before the creation of Adam and Eve that appears to tell of the creation of a previous, possibly asexual people? If it is referring to the same thing written later, Adam and Eve, why is it twice mentioned?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
junglejake:

"On King James, I agree, it is an older translation. The Greek word seems to lean more towards man, not blood, as well. When referencing a lexicon, I checked the Greek word for blood and couldn't find it or a variation of it in the original Greek. However, I'm not a linguist; in the 17th century blood used in that context could refer to people just as in the 17th century, bitch only meant female dog. Even as early as the 1960s, studies were made in the belief that blacks were not the same species as whites. Turns out they were wrong, we are one people."

LCkob:

No problem, just one of the basic guidelines of SM ... establish or use established definitions for accurate context and or promotion of greater intuitive communication practices.

junglejake:

"If I understand your "fair" standpoint, though, you're asking me to prove current science wrong. I brought up examples from the past where science said the Bible was wrong, yet it turned out that science was wrong.


LCKob:

Actually no, I am not asking to prove "science" wrong ... merely to use the context of the latest findings and or present stance of Scientific Methodology which is after all a cumulative and dynamic discipline as stated by practice, method and definition.

junglejake:

If you're looking for predictive science, I propose that astrophysicists will never discover the extra mass that would allow the universe to stabilize or contract on its self. Like an old garment, it will continue to decay until it is uniform across.

LCKob:

Not quite what I had in mind, but a valid point of contention, if memory serves, the request for elaboration was from the quote by suzy ryan:


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


junglejake:

Also, the reason I drew extra attention to the currents of the sea is because that was one of the points that came to mind yesterday but I couldn't back with more information.

LCkob:

Okay, sounds reasonable ... I was not sure as to what appeared to be "increased emphasis".



[edit on 24-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Regarding the currency of racist policy, as was mentioned above.
1960 was also the year Canada officially recognized First Nations people as being 'persons'.
Before that they couldn't vote, though they were welcome to join the army and die for our country long before that.
Song of Solomon has a verse praising a black woman as beautiful. Though the KJAV version is not as nice as the Good News one, which replaces 'black yet beautiful' with 'black and beautiful'. a small, yet welcome change.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
What is your view on the theory that the Sumerian stories that describe the 'Adamae' as being the first of a new hybrid who were a cross between the 'Gods' and men? Then Adam would be the first. And I read that the word 'Adamae' meant earthling. The Sumerians also wrote of a paradise they called Edenu, and they are said to be the source of the Jewish people having a 7 day week.


While I'm not familiar with that particular example, I hold to the same belief as I do the Egyptians' story of Ptah and other similarities between some older, some younger religions have with Jewish and Christian beliefs. Many of the same mythological beliefs appear in ancient religions across the world, though often there was no contact between the civilizations.

The book of Job touches on this:
Job 12:7-10

"But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;

8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you.

9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?

10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.


Job explains that the evidence for God is in His very creation. Prophets redirect our sight when we stop looking outward and start looking at ourselves instead, but the evidence is there. There are a few things to note in this, too. Job was around before Abraham. This is significant because it was to Abraham that the Lord said He would create a chosen nation, and later through Moses that He gave the Law, but God declared Job his righteous servant. Job figured it out without the Law, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would later do. I would also say that the fact that there are so many close ties in ancient religions throughout the world, so many similarities, that the populations were seeing elements of God's picture, but not the whole thing.


In a related topic, what about the Genesis account before the creation of Adam and Eve that appears to tell of the creation of a previous, possibly asexual people? If it is referring to the same thing written later, Adam and Eve, why is it twice mentioned?


Not sure what you're talking about. Do you have a scriptural reference point? If I were to suggest something based on what you say here, it would be that He created Angels before He created man, and Angels do not have gender as we do. However, that is based on what you have said here, not on the actual scripture, so that could be grossly inaccurate. Lemme know!


As to the race issue, though it was motivated by racism in the case of proving a different ancestry for darker skinned people, I actually support racial profiling in biology. Though it may sound hostile, racist, and downright ignorant by our culture's standards today, there are, genetically, differences between one race and another. If there weren't, we would all look alike. For instance, sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in blacks than it is in any other race. Coincidence? Would researching that be considered racist? Why? Science is the discovery of the unknown, and is supposed to be dedicated to knowledge, not politics. It's like saying we can't study specific diseases or conditions found in downs syndrome patients because the only difference is on a genetic level and that's bigoted to segregate research to that group in particular.

It's also like studying mental differences between men and women. If you even suggest there is something a man can mentally do better than a woman, or a woman can mentally do better than a man (though less so), you're heralded as a sexist. Is the statement true? Who knows, applying the scientific method to discovering if it is is, apparently, sexist and should never happen. Instead, we'll just sit here in our little ignorance bubble and assume everyone is exactly the same.

LCKob, how would you describe Ptolemy counting and documenting all the stars in the sky? He documented, charted and even named many of the stars, but still, his estimate, along with Hipparchus, was around 3,000 total. While the scientific method, in name, was developed around 1600 by Sir Francis Bacon, the practice of experimentation for verification was not unknown.

I would also propose that it is the introduction of politics into science, which is not a new practice, though the prevalence of science to the whole of our culture makes it appear far worse today than it had been in the past, that clouds science's eyes to what's really out there. A culture enforces certain assumptions when entering the scientific arena. Today one of those assumptions is that God does not exist. Not a belief held by many true, cutting edge, making discoveries scientists, but is held by most average "scientists" such as those teaching, and the media likes to play that up as well. In the early 1600s, the assumption was based on Catholic doctrine that the Earth is the center of the universe -- detracting from that caused...Well, I'm sure y'all have heard of Galileo. Against the grain science, while often ostracized in its own time, generally nails the truth. It is telling a scientist what we want discovered through the culture that motivates people to put on blinders to evidence.

As an example, if a scientist is given a grant by someone with a vested interest in a discovery, and that scientist discovers otherwise, there is a strong temptation to drop that discovery and try to make the wanted theory work. Otherwise, the money disappears or, way back when, you go under house arrest for the rest of your life.

Saint: Sweet pad!



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
read the creation account, its there. The very first few pages of the bible is where it is written. It says first he made them, male and female he made them. Further on it tells of his creation of Adam and Eve.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
It was actually the asexual part that I wasn't sure about. I know that there are, in a way, two accounts for creation. In addressing something madmanacrosswater asked on the Absolute (Absloute (hey, I can't spell
)) Power Of Christianity, I talked about this. The example I used was a textbook. Often you introduce a chapter with a summary, then go into greater detail in the content of the chapter. That doesn't mean you're describing two separate, though similar, events, concepts or whatever. Going through Genesis, both accounts sync up perfectly, though the second account gives more detail.

If you want a step by step explanation of this, I think it starts on page 73 of the APOC thread and continues for two or three pages, though those were in reference to a question posed by Charlie Murphey, and was regarding supposed inconsistencies between the two accounts. It's not until much later that madman made the claim that two accounts of creation equate to a contradiction.

...That reminds me, I never did finish going through that website...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Just like two of the ten commandments being described as virtually the same in meaning, this redundancy is what I want explained.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Sorry guys but 911 was an inside job and they need another one so they can continue on schedule with their plans for world domination, they need that patriot act and they need ther conscript SOON.
There's no anti christian conspiracy just poeople using the guise of christianity to conspire against Christ and humanity.

When manhatten falls again and every city behind
The cup of wrath will be filled
The jokers behind it who imprison mankind
Will be screaming loud for revenge
They'll conscript your sons they'll gag your mouth
They'll tie your hands and your feet
They'll ask you again "have you something to say?"
Then if you do it's Guatanamo bay
They’ll build round the world a high prison wall
And trillions by them will be killed
But their days are counted They are but a few
So they’ll destroy all they can to the end
They don’t care for them and they don’t care for you
They care not for children at all
And all who kling to them to save their own lives
Will surely share in their fall.
The true King is the Fool and the King he just is
Accepting all things in true love
This is the infant the child and the one
Bringing heaven to earth from above
The placenta once powerful From memory gone
As we enter the home of our birth
Come now children and gather around
Where everywhere bright eyes and full bellies are found.
Music and laughter ring through the night
Love gives vision where there was no sight.


[edit on 24-1-2006 by fourddream]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Agree 911 smells really bad, too many inconsistencies.
Who was behind it, I have no clue, just that the events that day are filled with odd, and as yet unexplained behaviours. By NORAD, by Andrews Air Force Base, and even by the hijackers themselves.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
junglejake:

"It's also like studying mental differences between men and women. If you even suggest there is something a man can mentally do better than a woman, or a woman can mentally do better than a man (though less so), you're heralded as a sexist. Is the statement true? Who knows, applying the scientific method to discovering if it is is, apparently, sexist and should never happen. Instead, we'll just sit here in our little ignorance bubble and assume everyone is exactly the same.

LCKob:

haha ... that WOULD be a "delicate" issue to say the least ... and the basic SM anwer for this would be ... hmmmm ... lets see ... with the intent to devise a series of experiements to determine any possible correlation with the proposed hypothesis ...

junglejake:

LCKob, how would you describe Ptolemy counting and documenting all the stars in the sky? He documented, charted and even named many of the stars, but still, his estimate, along with Hipparchus, was around 3,000 total. While the scientific method, in name, was developed around 1600 by Sir Francis Bacon, the practice of experimentation for verification was not unknown.

LCKob:

The quest for a rational assesment process is from what researchers can determine an old desire among humans ... the same brain that generates curiosity and wonderment at what it does not understand ... seeks by various means a method to understand.

Thus when you mention Ptolemy and Hipparchus ... you mention individuals who have such a desire and by means of the times used the best guess working models for such a methodology ...
... the figure of 500 years (as posted) is based upon the model assessment of fundemental method commonality in regards to basic tenets used still used today.

junglejake:

I would also propose that it is the introduction of politics into science, which is not a new practice, though the prevalence of science to the whole of our culture makes it appear far worse today than it had been in the past, that clouds science's eyes to what's really out there. A culture enforces certain assumptions when entering the scientific arena. Today one of those assumptions is that God does not exist. Not a belief held by many true, cutting edge, making discoveries scientists, but is held by most average "scientists" such as those teaching, and the media likes to play that up as well. In the early 1600s, the assumption was based on Catholic doctrine that the Earth is the center of the universe -- detracting from that caused...Well, I'm sure y'all have heard of Galileo. Against the grain science, while often ostracized in its own time, generally nails the truth. It is telling a scientist what we want discovered through the culture that motivates people to put on blinders to evidence.

LCkob:

Science, Politics and Religion are all intertwined into the very fabric of our society ... before science, philosophy and religion played a significant role in politics and it can be argued that to this day it still does. The only difference is that there is a mutually moderating system in place that IMO that helps to maintain a global balance. True Science is used to assess the material and measurable ... Religion is based upon faith and the immaterial. It is my opinion that these two forces will constantly be dynamically interacting as in the swing of a pendulum or the concept of Yin and Yang.

Think to the model of a human personality ... what is it primarily composed of?
... one could say a person is the sum total of his intellect (as represented by SM) and his emotions (as represented by religion).

Are they both necessary? I would say for a well rounded person yes.

Do they or should they clash? I say that if taken in the proper perspective these two elements should never meet in the sense of how we humans use intellect and emotion.

When we verbally express "love" to another ... do we use SM? as in "When I see you, I undergo a significant change in metabolic and biochemical state ... as indicated by ..." Likewise, when we encounter a quantitative problem solving scenario do we or should we use an emotional base?

junglejake:

As an example, if a scientist is given a grant by someone with a vested interest in a discovery, and that scientist discovers otherwise, there is a strong temptation to drop that discovery and try to make the wanted theory work. Otherwise, the money disappears or, way back when, you go under house arrest for the rest of your life.

LCkob:

This is true, human nature being what it is, such a temptatin is not impossible, but consider that the very method of SM mandates observational premeditation, experimentation, communal assessment and repetition in technique and or by others. So yes, the possibility is there, but SM by intent and design is made to be as impartial by process as humanly possible.

The ideal that the true scientist strives for is truth by posing a question and testing for outcomes ... what ever they may be ... which is the very model for "Serendipity" ... or the accidental discovery of something while testing for something else ...

LCKob




[edit on 24-1-2006 by LCKob]




top topics



 
16
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join