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.

 

Why did God wait so long?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Scientists have found the oldest skeletons on the earth in east africa. one or more of them dating back between 3 and 3.6 million years ago.
my question is this, If God is real then why did he wait until 2000 years ago to send his son down to earth to inform people about himself and about the religion that everyone should follow? Why did he let people become "corrupted" by other religions that had been existing for thousands of years before he did anything about it? If we said that the first humans probably were around about 4 million years ago then why did he wait 3 million 998 thousand years to reveal himself if he was the person who created the earth and everything we see around us?

And also if he revealed himself to Adam and Eve, the first people on earth then why wasnt the first religion christianity?




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If one examines the logical answers to these very valid questions it is easy to see that the Bible is just a human work containing an occasional good moral, not a divinely inspired work.

The Bible assumes that the first people (after being cast out of the Garden of Eden) had agricultural knowledge. It completely skips over the period in time in which humans lived in hunter/gatherer tribes. Why does it do this? Because the Bible and the principles it is founded on is one of the cold mothers of civilization.

The nomadic hunter/gatherers settled disputes by simply going their separate ways. A fight would be proposterous as a death on either side would sorely hurt the tribe.

When the agricultural villages arose, so did the first raiding parties. People were killed, supplies stolen; but humans could now expand their population. Society developed from these villages.

Most of the rules in the Bible become invalid when applied to a hunter/gatherer culture. The problem is that people decided to think themselves superior to animals. This led to the developement of unnecessary morals used to uphold this dividing line (clothing, laws, social norms, etc.).

Following this method of analysis, I see Christianity, as well as other religions like it, to be a tool of Society. Without society, it decays and withers.

"If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." Herbalist Carol McGrath as told to her by a Native-American woman.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
my ex wife has an old Bible her mother gave to her and I used to read it a lot and then I read some other Bibles and I found that they all had entire books missing from them? People are only being shown the books in the Bible that certain priests or whatever want them to see. The book of Enoch is ancient and Jesus was said to have used the philosophy of Enoch in his teachings, however the priests removed Enoch's works from the church teachings. My point it that the religion priests are feeding us is only a tiny portion of the original information that was available for us.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   


The Bible assumes that the first people (after being cast out of the Garden of Eden) had agricultural knowledge. It completely skips over the period in time in which humans lived in hunter/gatherer tribes. Why does it do this? Because the Bible and the principles it is founded on is one of the cold mothers of civilization.


yeh ive always found it strange how the bible misses out millions of years of evolution.

Also i have heard lots about chapters of the bible not being left in yet there never seems to be any explanations why.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
On adam and eve, (of course keeping in mind that the story isn't literal history).
THe bible says that they talked with god constantly, like he's aperson in the room, so to speak (and this, in christianity, means it must be the eternal triune god.).

But without sin, there's no need for christ as delivering them from sin.

As man multiplies, god sends, in the bible, a flood to wipe out sin. Thats in a way the first attempt.

Then long after that, people have forgotten about god and his 'natural' religion. God reveals a religion to abraham, and that is created to control 'sin' and redeem it (along with uncleanness, etc). Then the triune god. decides to have the christ portion become incarnate, suffer, and redeem humanity and give man a permanent way to be delivered from sin to the 'heavenly kingdom'.

Even in, say, islam, there is a similar element. Mohammed says that abraham and the other patriarchs were righteous, but that man allways ultimately fell into sin and corruption, so god revealed to mohammed a perfected and final religious system, and after that said that there'd be no more prophets, or anything, because the new 'peace' is perfect.


Just as big of a problem as askig 'why wait so many millions of years' or 'why not reveal jesus to adam and eve', is the problem of 'why create adam and eve and doom them to sin in the first place? I mean, after all, if god wanted to create man, even with free will, why even give him a commandment that he might break?

So the story seems to say, man has free will because god gives him the faculty and ability to sin (by creating religions and letting man have the option to not listen to it), and on occasion does all sorts of things to remind people of his commandments and give them that oppurtunity to not sin.

If it was all done from a 'logical' human viewpoint, you'd just never create souls and the world anyway, you'd just created 'saved' souls already existent with 'paradise' or 'the kingdom of heaven'.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159
If one examines the logical answers to these very valid questions it is easy to see that the Bible is just a human work containing an occasional good moral, not a divinely inspired work.

The Bible assumes that the first people (after being cast out of the Garden of Eden) had agricultural knowledge. It completely skips over the period in time in which humans lived in hunter/gatherer tribes. Why does it do this? Because the Bible and the principles it is founded on is one of the cold mothers of civilization.

The nomadic hunter/gatherers settled disputes by simply going their separate ways. A fight would be proposterous as a death on either side would sorely hurt the tribe.

When the agricultural villages arose, so did the first raiding parties. People were killed, supplies stolen; but humans could now expand their population. Society developed from these villages.

Most of the rules in the Bible become invalid when applied to a hunter/gatherer culture. The problem is that people decided to think themselves superior to animals. This led to the developement of unnecessary morals used to uphold this dividing line (clothing, laws, social norms, etc.).

Following this method of analysis, I see Christianity, as well as other religions like it, to be a tool of Society. Without society, it decays and withers.

"If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." Herbalist Carol McGrath as told to her by a Native-American woman.




First, moral relativism cannot stand so it is not pick or choose your morals. Morals are Absolute. Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not lie, Love your neighbor, etc. Your morals come from an innate knowledge of God.

Second, please explain how morals came to be by way of evolution based on empirical methods? In other words how is it that murder is universally wrong based on empiricism, as in did one smell, taste, feel, see or hear that murder is wrong?

Lastly, based on empiricism, how is it that you even know the word "logical"?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays
my ex wife has an old Bible her mother gave to her and I used to read it a lot and then I read some other Bibles and I found that they all had entire books missing from them? People are only being shown the books in the Bible that certain priests or whatever want them to see. The book of Enoch is ancient and Jesus was said to have used the philosophy of Enoch in his teachings, however the priests removed Enoch's works from the church teachings. My point it that the religion priests are feeding us is only a tiny portion of the original information that was available for us.


These are all assumptions based on hearsay.

First you need to demonstrate books are missing. THat they were intentionally taken out by evil priests.

Then study and do research on the early church and then also study and do research on how Jews came to know a book was "God breathed".

Please also demonstrate how Jesus used "the philosophy of Enoch in his teachings"??

Finally please tell me what the "original information" is and how you came to have this information. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159

"If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." Herbalist Carol McGrath as told to her by a Native-American woman.


Your post is excellent Daniel and this last bit is very wise.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA

[These are all assumptions based on hearsay.

Finally please tell me what the "original information" is and how you came to have this information. Thanks.


Surprisingly, the contemporary records of the Roman and Greek world say little of Jesus or the early Christians or the Gospel events. Where there should be evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events - there is not. What evidence is usually cited for Jesus is actually all late and/or suspect. Many authors argue Jesus was a myth.


Oddly, while missing from history, the stories of Jesus do seem to have clear similarities with other mythologiies of the milieu - the righteous Jew, the suffering servant, the expected Messiah, the anointed one, and the pagan dying son-of-God figures such as Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysius.

The Gospels of the New Testament are completely based on hearsay, why does that not worry you?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by UnrealZA

[These are all assumptions based on hearsay.

Finally please tell me what the "original information" is and how you came to have this information. Thanks.


Surprisingly, the contemporary records of the Roman and Greek world say little of Jesus or the early Christians or the Gospel events. Where there should be evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events - there is not. What evidence is usually cited for Jesus is actually all late and/or suspect. Many authors argue Jesus was a myth.


Oddly, while missing from history, the stories of Jesus do seem to have clear similarities with other mythologiies of the milieu - the righteous Jew, the suffering servant, the expected Messiah, the anointed one, and the pagan dying son-of-God figures such as Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysius.

The Gospels of the New Testament are completely based on hearsay, why does that not worry you?



Why does it not bother me?

Mainly because you have no clue what you're arguing here. You presume that this Jesus guy is a myth and that He is based on all the other so called messiahs. You presume that the Jesus myth came after these others, Christianity borrowed from them.

You also skirted my questions and replied with the same accusations. Namely that it's all hearsay and Jesus is a myth. If this continues we shall get nowhere.

So again, you need to demonstrate how books are missing and which ones. You then need to demonstrate just what was the "original information" and how you came to know just what is "original". You then need to demonstrate how the Jesus myth came from other pagan religous figures.

OR...you could just concede that you made an error in your charges, regroup yourself.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
Mainly because you have no clue what you're arguing here. You presume that this Jesus guy is a myth and that He is based on all the other so called messiahs. You presume that the Jesus myth came after these others, Christianity borrowed from them.

You also skirted my questions and replied with the same accusations. Namely that it's all hearsay and Jesus is a myth. If this continues we shall get nowhere.

So again, you need to demonstrate how books are missing and which ones. You then need to demonstrate just what was the "original information" and how you came to know just what is "original". You then need to demonstrate how the Jesus myth came from other pagan religous figures.

OR...you could just concede that you made an error in your charges, regroup yourself.


I am not presuming anything, I am telling you that there is no factual evidence for the existence of Jesus and that Christianity copied from previous myths

www.jesusneverexisted.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

If you say Father Xmas exists and I say he doesn't; it should be up to you to prove his existence not me prove his inexistence.
The same is with Jesus, you say there is evidence for his existence, I am simply asking you to tell me where the evidence is.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
because god might be a fraud?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBourne
Scientists have found the oldest skeletons on the earth in east africa. one or more of them dating back between 3 and 3.6 million years ago.
If God is real then why did he wait until 2000 years ago to send his son down to earth to inform people about himself

And also if he revealed himself to Adam and Eve, the first people on earth then why wasnt the first religion christianity?


The millions of years thing is a lie. God didn't wait 2000 years. Adam and Eve were informed of the substitutionary sacrifice in their place for the forgiveness of sin after they disobeyed.


Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy ., and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

The truth has always been there, it's lies that have been hiding it.


[edit on 26-9-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   


Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy ., and thou shalt bruise his heel.


how does that proove anything to do with the questions i have asked?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBourne



Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy ., and thou shalt bruise his heel.


how does that proove anything to do with the questions i have asked?


You asked why Christianity wasn't the first religion. Those verses indicate it was.

Christianity is this in a nutshell, Jesus is the substitutionary sacrifice for a person's sin.

Before Christ came there was a foreshadowing of His sacrifice on the cross. The foreshadowing was in the sacrifice of an animal. In Genesis 3:21 God made coats of skin to clothe Adam and Eve. Where did He get these coats of skin, from and animal that was sacrificed for their sin.(God explained the meaning of the sacrifice in their place and all that it means).

Gen. 3:15 explains to Adam, Eve, satan and the universe that the Savior would be coming, to totally crush sin and death.

It answers your questions when you know what they really mean.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
You asked why Christianity wasn't the first religion. Those verses indicate it was.

Christianity is this in a nutshell, Jesus is the substitutionary sacrifice for a person's sin.

Before Christ came there was a foreshadowing of His sacrifice on the cross. The foreshadowing was in the sacrifice of an animal. In Genesis 3:21 God made coats of skin to clothe Adam and Eve. Where did He get these coats of skin, from and animal that was sacrificed for their sin.(God explained the meaning of the sacrifice in their place and all that it means).

Gen. 3:15 explains to Adam, Eve, satan and the universe that the Savior would be coming, to totally crush sin and death.

It answers your questions when you know what they really mean.


If you ask a Hindu or any other religious individual they will tell you that their God was there first...

Why would an Omnipotent being go to all this fuss: Adam and Eve, mud, bits of bones, goat sacrifices, son on the cross, fluds etc ets.

The verse do not prove anything, they just prove that somebody wrote them.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz
Why would an Omnipotent being go to all this fuss: Adam and Eve, mud, bits of bones, goat sacrifices, son on the cross, fluds etc ets.



Isaiah 55:[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
You asked why Christianity wasn't the first religion. Those verses indicate it was.

You and Thomas Crown must have taken lessons from one another on attempting to prove Christianity is real by resorting to the Christian Bible as proof.

To prove anything to a non-Christian, such an action is simply illogical, I fail to understand why Christians on a hell-bent purpous to witness keep resorting to this method when the non-Christian keeps telling them to show other proof and maybe I'll listen.

By this logic, one must also admit that the Koran, the Muslim "Bible" is also true writings, simply because, as your Bible, it was sent to them by the diety of their religion - another religions' God is just as real to them as yours is to you..

Misfit



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
You and Thomas Crown must have taken lessons from one another on attempting to prove Christianity is real by resorting to the Christian Bible as proof.

when the non-Christian keeps telling them to show other proof and maybe I'll listen.

By this logic, one must also admit that the Koran, the Muslim "Bible" is also true writings, simply because, as your Bible, it was sent to them by the diety of their religion - another religions' God is just as real to them as yours is to you..

Misfit


I'll bet there's more than just 2 of us.

It's your choice not to listen.

There isn't a real muslim diety, only one posing as a deity.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
There isn't a real muslim diety, only one posing as a deity.

Ah yes, the wonders of being blatantly and willingly close-minded absolute.


Originally posted by dbrandt
It's your choice not to listen.


I listened, for 14 years - had enough, found out there was a whole world and universe out here to enjoy, while at the same time listening to my Creator, without religion.

Misfit




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join