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 Bible is not the word of god

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberWasp
How come if you talk to god it is called prayer.
If god talks to you, your are locked up?


hm, might be because when talking to God, you speak from your heart, wich 'prays' what is needed in your life. What your heart really wants.

and for the being locked up part, there is no way other than Gods, and this one is freedom, other ways might leave you feeling not locked up, but soon the veil will fall, and you'll realize you were.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienaddicted
Then this might be your opinion, but I won't go with that.


Of course it isn't. But if we are to start randomly attributing to Jesus that which the author of those quotes did not attribute to him, you can claim anything as a quote from Jesus.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
yes, that's true spam. that's a very true statement, I don't have much to apply to that. thx



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Text
Hi guys, this subject is one hell of a minefield and is always going to court controversy.

I strongly believe that the Bible was written and created as a result of the persecution inflicted on the Jewish people by the Roman Empire and their numerous Gods. The presence of a single entity more powerful than all Roman gods combined would certainly have been quite a scoop and would have given the Jewish people great hope in such dark times.

If we had lived in times gone by we would have been asked to believe in many differing forms of deity dependent on the preachings of the day. I'm quite sure that Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Aztec civilisations would have frowned upon anything contradicting their teachings and beliefs.

As the late Dave Allen said 'May your God go with you'

J


Elm

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Hi

This is a massive thread, not managed to read it all but going back to some earlier points;

Drugs, gambling prostitution etc. Many aspects of society have been controlled by religious dogma.

Religious dogma (christian) was created originally by the Roman church

dogma comes from a religous intent, but ultimatly is about political control

This, in my opinion, is where the 'badness' of religion has grown

This control by 'The Church' (organisational, not spiritual) was a response to the radical position of Jesus's teachings.

Jesus was the ultimate anarchist. Roman and hebrew government both feared him.

"only God can judge" "love the world and God will love you" (excuse my paraphrasing)

this is very simple statement. But just think about the implications on government, any government even today. Jesus completly over-ruled their authority, in one sentence he took away their power "Only God can judge".

Therefore, in my opinion, all law, all government, can never be moral.

Of course we can try and create ethical law, and we should. Civilisation can not exist without government.

But for a government or law to ever be truly Christian, it would have to made in tolerance with love.

This of course would be utopian. I do not think we could do it but we can try. A rule of Love would be the Kingdom of Heaven

But it means for me that putting someone in a prison cell, making them a criminal because they gave themselves a chemical is the wrong way to treat someone

wern't s many of Jesus's friends criminals and prostitutes?

Jesus didn't tell them they would be tortured forever by cartoon devils with pitchforks.

He loved them, he washed their feet and he tried to help them.

You may dissaprove of a behaviour, but dont punish them for it, educate, show understanding.

Its harder than the easy way of locking away a problem, harder than sticking our fingers in our ears nyah nyah ni nyah nayh

The message is always more valuble than the words

The bible is a document written down, languages change, words change. The message is divine, we must listen for it

Words are for science, Feeling is for spirit. Two sides, one coin



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Religiosity is systemic willful ignorance. Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, what should you call a religious belief system (like catholicism) that holds that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam & Eve was the "original sin" (the worst possible transgression, so wrongful that it makes all subsequent humans guilty until proven innocent, deserving only of damnation, hellfire, and eternally painful suffering)? Simply put, religion is anti-philosophy, the root of all evil.

Also, if you believe the Bible the Universe is 10000 years old. Although there is an abundance of evidence that states it is in fact billions of years old.

Nutters!

[edit on 11-1-2006 by djinn]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by djinn
Religiosity is systemic willful ignorance. Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, what should you call a religious belief system (like catholicism) that holds that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam & Eve was the "original sin" (the worst possible transgression, so wrongful that it makes all subsequent humans guilty until proven innocent, deserving only of damnation, hellfire, and eternally painful suffering)? Simply put, religion is anti-philosophy, the root of all evil.

Nutters!


well put ..but not all religions are like that.......the vedas were very into wisdom and learing about yourself and god. infact vedic means wisdom..



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by djinn
Religiosity is systemic willful ignorance. Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, what should you call a religious belief system (like catholicism) that holds that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam & Eve was the "original sin" (the worst possible transgression, so wrongful that it makes all subsequent humans guilty until proven innocent, deserving only of damnation, hellfire, and eternally painful suffering)? Simply put, religion is anti-philosophy, the root of all evil.

Also, if you believe the Bible the Universe is 10000 years old. Although there is an abundance of evidence that states it is in fact billions of years old.

Nutters!

[edit on 11-1-2006 by djinn]


still, they ate the apple, and then they new right from wrong didn't they?

then they 'new' they were naked, didn't they.?

Wouldn't it be that since they ate from the apple, they had egos?

ON THE SPOT?


AA



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Apart from the conspiracy path to prove that the Bible is not the word of God there are a number of other aspects that can lead to this conclusion.

1. The Bible was not actually written by God. He didn't sit down and write it out word for word. It has been written by people said to have been inspired by God, whether that be through dreams, visions or signs. Therefore how can one know categorically withoutr a doubt that these dreams, visions or signs were communications with God or some other entity disguised as God? As a result the people claiming that what they have contributed in the Bible has been inspired by God may have been inspired by a Dark Spirit posing as God.

2. I have no doubt some of these dreams, visions and signs were infact communications with God himself, thus the messages he was giving were legitimate. However they still need to be interpreted by the receiver of the messages and thus can vary greatly from the original intent depending on the persons environment, lifestyle, beliefs, era, etc. Alterations would have to be made to the visions to be understood by the person receiving the messages, thus compromising the truth and legitmacy of the content.

3. The time span that the Bible was written in and the number of people that contributed to it also compromises the legitamcy of the messages. At different times, different people, with different beliefs and surroundings interpret things differently.

4. As I'm sure many people have already brought up, if the Bible were truly the word of God, then it would be infallable. There would be no need to interpret and not take any part of the scripture literally. This means that every word in the Bible would be 100% accurate. It would not have to be adapted to modern times as God knows all and spans all time. This is certainly not the case. The world didn't begin 6-8,000 years ago and people (on very rare occasions) have lived longer than 120 years just to touch on a couple.

5. Over the years the Bible has been translated into many different languages thus once again compromising the accuracy of the scripture.

There are many more reasons than those listed above as to why the Bible is not the word of God, and none of these even consider the possibilty that the Bible scriptures were subject to some form of conspiracy.

I believe in God completely, however I do not follow any religions nor do I place any faith in the Bible scriptures. No doubt there is much truth in the Bible, but there is also a lot of myth. When you mix myth with truth, truth is destroyed and all that is left is myth. There are also many good messages in the Bible stories that can aid us in our lives, but they are just that, stories. All fictional stories involve some element of truth, but truthful accounts should involve no elements of fiction. To prove fiction you need only prove the smallest detail untrue, however to prove truth you must prove even the smallest detail true.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by djinn
Religiosity is systemic willful ignorance.


I contend that statements like these are willful ignorance.


Originally posted by djinn
Since philosophy is the love of wisdom,


Philosophy is trying to understand what is right, best and why, which may in fact stem from a love of wisdom. If someone thinks it's a love of a person's own mind, then I'll agree that there have been philosophers who have done that, but that's not its purpose. One can love their own mind all they want, but it won't love them back.


Originally posted by djinn
what should you call a religious belief system (like catholicism) that holds that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam & Eve was the "original sin" (the worst possible transgression, so wrongful that it makes all subsequent humans guilty until proven innocent, deserving only of damnation, hellfire, and eternally painful suffering)?


Oops! Looks like you missed the point, care to read it again?


Originally posted by djinn
Simply put, religion is anti-philosophy, the root of all evil.


No it's not. Proverbs speaks for itself as do many other books, where wisdom is key. If philosophy is as you say, the love of wisdom, then the Bible is one of philosophy's biggest advocates.


Originally posted by djinn
Also, if you believe the Bible the Universe is 10000 years old.


I believe the Bible, but don't believe the universe is 10,000 years old. Erego, your statement is incorrect. Do you know what happens when we assume?


Originally posted by djinn
Although there is an abundance of evidence that states it is in fact billions of years old.


Waiting for science to get it right. We may be close, we may not be. It was my major and find it all very fascinating.


Originally posted by djinn
Nutters!


Butters!



Was there a point to this post or was it to restate what we've already rehashed over and over again on this thread?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Sorry if I repeat someone. If it is the word of God, it was dictated and transcribed by fallible mortals. This explains the various places where there appear to be contradiction, redundancy, sexism, etc. The parts that appear to originate from previous written sources in, for example Sumer, and Egypt could also be from God. And there are some things in there that I just can't see as the word of God, which I attribute to purposeful editting long ago. There are lots of stories in the bible that have been supported in contemporary times by new archeological finds. Such support corroborates that it is not all fairytales. It has historical validity, in many places. It also has incredible, mystical ancient stories, like Eden and the snake, and Noah, etc. which I value as being symbolic of the events, rather than a detailed news report. There is alot of great stuff in there. It is as possible that it is the word of God, as it is possible all the ancient sacred texts worldwide are too. It is possible, good luck proving it.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
There are lots of stories in the bible that have been supported in contemporary times by new archeological finds.


Considering that the Bible is genuinely ancient, it does make some sense that it would often have legitimate historical value. But what are we to conclude from the instances where archaeology contradicts the Bible, as is the case in multiple instances?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
well, normally that's because those stories were passed down by word of mouth for many generations before they were written. a lot gets lost when you play a game of telephone over time.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The Bible is the word of GOD. The people who wrote the Bibles were followers of God, apostles, disciples all people that God spoke to through Jesus. Yes some things in the Bible may seem wacko, but it all happend once, and the Bible tells us of the past, and the future. So dont you say that it is not the word of God.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Songhateschicken
The Bible is the word of GOD. The people who wrote the Bibles were followers of God, apostles, disciples all people that God spoke to through Jesus. Yes some things in the Bible may seem wacko, but it all happend once, and the Bible tells us of the past, and the future. So dont you say that it is not the word of God.


It is not the word of God.

How do I know? Because if there is a god, he is not the egotistical insecure bipolar nutjob tyrant the Bible depicts him as.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Songhateschicken
The Bible is the word of GOD. The people who wrote the Bibles were followers of God, apostles, disciples all people that God spoke to through Jesus. Yes some things in the Bible may seem wacko, but it all happend once, and the Bible tells us of the past, and the future. So dont you say that it is not the word of God.


the bible doesn't predict the future, it never has, and never will.

why?

you can't tell what's going to happen in the future. even if you could, sharing the info might change everything.

also, it doesn't tell much about the historical past, but it does reveal a lot about those who wrote it.

nothing about the present is in there either.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
it is not the word of god

god is false / false is gods

I don't like false gods and I don't believe that we are less then somebody or something and i will not bow to him / her/ it .

because religion is the one thing what is controlling us and we could have been much further if there was no religion .

we would have defeated cancer / aids ect
we would life longer than 500 years because of new technology / biotech.
we would have been on the moon mars and far beyond.

but everything leading to something which may lead to the leaders of religion losing there might is attack . that is why we had the dark ages.

There is no such thing as gods. only leaders. and the main part of them is corrupt and controlling.

I will not follow jesus and I hope somebody is going to sue him or put him befor the war tribunal because of the grave acts of terror and crimes against humanity.

he is the reason of many deaths , he spread false religion and manipulated many people. just like adolf hitler did in ww2.

I don't like mohammed priest of allah because he was a pedophile and I don't like so claimt gods who kills baby's and other first borns ( bible = source)

The pope has to much control and influence over to many people.
He has his own agenda and is projecting his wil and ideas on us.

muslim leaders are saying that non believers have to die even if they are believing in the wrong god.

but god and allah are one and the same they have there own agende all religions have but it is not in humans interest.

I hope E.T.'s come soon and finally proof that religions are false and are controlling us.

the possibility of life in the cosmos is greater than there being a god.

I would have been struck by lighting and died several times by now if I was to believe the priests ect. but stil a life that is also enough proof of the false claims and terror of religion they are creating fear and using the bible for it to intimidate and spread fear under youngsters.

many priest are sexually mollesting childeren, and they use religion as a way to do it.

percentage of incest is much higher in really hardcore christian families ect

and they are just like jehova withnesses they are allways around bugging you to be come a member of there faith.

The rule by fear and terror and by creating poverty because there numbers grow if people having a bad life.
the worse people have it the more followers religion have.
if there is world peace religion would be gone soon enough but they know it and they are allways creating tensions and that is why christians and muslims are secretly the same but are fighting eachother openly so there is fear and terror and groups of people are very depressed and are going to follow them because the promise joy and peace.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
It really sounds like you are unlikely to join a church any time soon. Well, me either, and much of what you say is true. Still, I do not at all see the huge benefits of there being no religion. living to 500 years? curing aids and cancer, trips to mars, etc. That sounds like a personal speculation, and while there is nothing wrong with that, I would speculate differently. The use of religion as a cover for predatory nations, people, and organizations is well known. You covered much of it. But if they didn't use religion as a cover, what makes you think that they would find another vehicle to pursue their crimes? I think they would. I see religions as a good thing, on balance. Sure the fear and control thing is very apt, but it is not very effective now. Just don't join and they aren't able to do much to you.
What if there were no religions, and all the charity work, the aid work, the volunteer counselling, school, waterworks, and hospital building had never been done? When you look at the list of groups who volunteer to help the needy, religious ones are almost all there are.
Sure, the terrible atrocities done in the churches name are numerous, I know that, but so are the acts of giving. the various world governments over the years have not been choir boys, they are right in there with them.
So, while I won't join an organized religion, I am of the belief that they are not inherently evil. Look at Mother Teresa, name an atheist who has been a better example of self sacrifice in the service of the destitute. If you can, I'd love to know what atheist might be considered as a contender.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
my first argument to support this statement is the fact that none of the books of the bible even claim to be the word of god. they are title 'The gospel according to ????'.

Who is to say that the authors of these books are not corrupt people perpetuating a lie?

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Conspiracy Theorist]


Why would you ask that question?

The folks who wrote those books did so as witnesses to history. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Who is to say that the authors of these books are not corrupt people perpetuating a lie?
[edit on 8-12-2005 by Conspiracy Theorist]


Why would you ask that question?
The folks who wrote those books did so as witnesses to history. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

The reason might be that he sees so many cases where he thinks that Christians are spreading falsohoods.
I have two possible examples which are quite relevent.
First, there is a school of thought that has concluded the earliest non-biblic reference to the city of Nazareth does not appear before about five hundred years after Jesus' life. This has made some conclude that the Nazareth references are not about the city. Instead, one theory goes, it is in reference to the Nazoreans. a Jewish sect. This would make him Jesus of the Nazoreans. I can definately see a point to their theory.
Second, In the case of the bible being written in the name of Jesus. That is another misrepresentation. It does not take into acount the first 2/3rds of the book. The OT was not written in the name of jesus anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join