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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
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


So how are old are you?




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
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.


Is God showing off there or is he just a little vain? Why would he need to specify that, surely he does not doubt?

There you go again quoting the end result of various inaccurate translations...
Why would that prove that God actually said that ?

Everybody can quote:

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use.
Galileo Galilei.

Or this one

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
G. Bernard Shaw.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   


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


if you believe that the muslim deity is only posing as one and you see how much muslims believe in their faith then you should be able to put that into context with your own religion.
How do you know that your god isnt also posing? bearing in mind that muslims believe full heartedly in a god you say isnt there. Just like you believe full heartedly in your god. they would say the same about yours.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Too the topic of this thread, Free will, and evil let God wait. The devil Mad evil, God let it continue so we may have free will to choose. God got tired of those who know him, know his power and turn on him. The devil was a angel and took a 3rd of the angels with him.The devil created evil. God let it continue because of free will. I cant tell u for share but most likely why God chose the moment when Jesus is at that point God's work wound be done more. Those desicpes were born then, and God wanted them to be desicpes, he chose them for that perppose.So the answer would at that point God word would spread through those people.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by dbrandt
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.


Is God showing off there or is he just a little vain? Why would he need to specify that, surely he does not doubt?



God is telling us that we will not understand everything that takes place. But He does. And He goes about things much more differently than we would think or than we would.

Plus He is re-enforcing that He is God, we are not.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
So how are old are you?

For whatever relevancy that question has to this thread ............ 40sumpin'.

Msifit

[edit on 27/9/06 by Misfit]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by dbrandt
So how are old are you?

For whatever relevancy that question has to this thread ............ 40sumpin'.

Msifit

[edit on 27/9/06 by Misfit]


I asked because you said you listened to christianity for 14 years, and I wondered if I was talking to a 14 year old person.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by dbrandt]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

I asked because you said you listened to christianity for 14 years, and I wondered if I was talking to a 14 year old person.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by dbrandt]

It wasn't just listening, however ......... I lived it, I know quite well that sect of life called Christianity - I'm just glad I made it out.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

It wasn't just listening, however ......... I lived it, I know quite well that sect of life called Christianity - I'm just glad I made it out.

Misfit


What denomination was it?



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
There is proof (warning, 99% of christians will disagree with this proof!)

I was an atheist until sometime in 2002. I heard my half sister say certain words, those words got me thinking, I made an investigation, and here I am today, a believer in the bible.

The proof:

No MAN can see the future (because there is no future).
And yet, less than 2000 years ago a MAN penned the following "prediction":

A Great metropolis, the Financial Capital of the globe, Host City to the Headquarters of the only TRUE Global Political Body, would be attacked AS FOLLOWS:

The attack, being made by "hateful bird(s)" [PLANES] would cause the world to become watchful (guarded) against "every foul spirit(s)" [TERRORISTS] and hijacked planes "unclean and hateful bird(s)".

The attack is two-pronged, said biblical, it is "Double ACCORDING to her WORKS" [TWIN Towers]

The attack leaves a rubble that is "utterly burned with fire", and "the smoke of her burning" is seen from VERY FAR.

The destruction occurs in just "ONE HOUR". Within that one hour period the cries "WOE" and "WOE" are heard, TWICE !!

The attack occurs in the FALL season.

The attack leaves "dust on their [the observers] heads".

The attack is compared to "a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down" [NOTE: a millstone is a PAIR OF STONES, meaning, the attack will resemble the quick, sudden, violent crash of TWO ___]

CONSIDER!!! The WORLD TRADE Center complex was SEVEN BUILDINGS. They ALL CAME DOWN, even though not many understand WHY building 7 [had to] come down so many hours after the TWIN Towers FELL. That question has generated several conspiracy theories, YET, the bible tells us that the harlot sits on Seven Mountains. Coincidense?

CONSIDER!!! The TWIN Towers came DOWN, Violently [in under 10 seconds], within an hour. And in EVERY place where the author describes the people talking about the destruction, we read "WOE, WOE, for within ONE HOUR...". NOTE: No other book in the bible repeats the word WOE. It is not simply a style of writing to do such thing. Also, in the beginning of the chapter, we also read "IS FALLEN, IS FALLEN". Again, no reason to repeat the phrase, but the author does so anyway, for the same reason he repeats the word "WOE". It is an event which repeats itself, within an hour's time!

Consider!!! EVERY Soverign Ruler of EVERY Soverign State [except the Pope/Vatican] is a signatory to the UN Charter, and LEGALLY BOUND to the decisions of it's "executive branch" the Security Council. The UN is HEADQUARTERED in NYC.

Consider!!! New York City is the Financial Capital of the World.

Consider!!! The World Trade Center complex IS OWNED BY the PORT AUTHORITY, and the bible SPECIFICALLY mentions them as one of the groups which suffer directly from the attack!!!

Consider!!! Another group mentioned specifically is Merchants, thereby revealing the nature of the attack. It was the WORLD TRADE CENTER that was attacked.

Consider!!! AFTER 9/11 the world became MUCH MORE VIGILANT in their pursuit of "foul spirits" and "unclean and hateful birds". Oh, and please don't be a smart-az, a man from 2000 years ago would have to be at a loss of words when trying to describe an airplane!

So here we are: a man almost 2000 years ago writes about an attack on a SUPER CITY. He tells us WHERE and WHEN[Rev 18:14]. He tells us HOW the attack will occur, WHO it will effect, WHAT the observers will see AND SAY!!! and what global ramifications will come from the attack. FYI, in the chapter beforehand, HE EVEN TELLS US WHO THE ATTACKERS WILL BE. [Rev 17 informs us that a group of ten nations will harbor strong hatred toward the US, and will cause a fiery attack on her. Daniel 2 tells us these ten nations ARE ARAB!!!!!! Ya Don't believe me, take out a bible concordance and look up the word MIXED in Daniel 2]

But hey, it's all coincidense, right.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
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"?

Okay, I'll bite.

First, who says morals are absolute? If they really were, people wouldn't spend so much time arguing about them.

In point of fact, moral codes vary from culture to culture and sometimes within cultures. Hence the prevalence of polygamy and polyandry in some cultures, of sexual grooming of minors by adults in others (ancient Greece and elsewhere) and, in still others, the sacrifice of virgins in order to persuade the sun to rise. You just happen to think your particular set of morals defines an absolute morality. It doesn't.

Morality evolves with culture. Primitive cultures like the ones that produced the Bible have primitive, stunted moral codes. More advanced cultures have more advanced morals. That's why we don't sell our daughters into slavery any more, or offer them up to be raped like Lot did with his. We've moved on from the snot-flying prophet stage of moral development. But some people remain more comfortable with that level of morality, possibly because they cannot conceive of anything better, so they thump Bibles and Korans at the rest of us.

Second, morality arises, not out of the dispensation of some fictitious god, but from obvious biological and sociobiological imperatives. It's very simple. Morality, like all culture, is born of our need to survive and reproduce. Homo Sapiens is a social species, one that thrives best in groups. Individual behaviour can sometimes threaten the group; at other times, the group is a threat to the individual. So we evolve a set of social behaviours that tends towards an optimal balance, in terms of selective utility, between individual and group interests. Please note that I said 'optimal', not 'ideal'. This set of behaviours, abstracted as a code of conduct, is morality. It continues to evolve as our species and its social institutions evolve.

There is nothing inherently absurd about the idea of deriving morality empirically. It isn't about -- what did you say? -- smelling or tasting that murder is wrong. What you see, smell, taste, etc. are the consequences of murder for a social speicies. Since you and your fellow-humans are intelligent creatures, capable of communicating with one another, you eventually come to agree that depriving someone of life against their will is wrong. So you evolve a 'commandment' (or if you're more sensible, a simple law) that prohibits murder.

If you think it is impossible to derive a moral code empirically, perhaps you should study Buddhism, a belief system in which morality is developed with absolutely no reference to a god.

Finally, does your question about how one even understands the word 'logical' based on an empirical approach imply a Platonic approach to epistemology based on the concept of forms? The idea that God had to put everything into our heads in order for us to be able to understand His Creation? I'm tempted to add a row of nasty grinning smileys here, but I'll content myself with saying that, philosophically speaking, that is very old hat indeed and the moths have been at it for quite a while now.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

God is telling us that we will not understand everything that takes place. But He does. And He goes about things much more differently than we would think or than we would.
Plus He is re-enforcing that He is God, we are not.


Why would he emphasize that he is God? Could he possibly doubt?

God himself has not told anybody, various jewish rabbis wrote a book which you happen to believe.
If there were a God, he would not address himself to a "chosen people"



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Astyanax

Very good post,
some people think they have the Moral High Ground" because they repeat the words of a book which no longer translates back into the original Hebrew.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Astyanax

Very good post,
some people think they have the Moral High Ground" because they repeat the words of a book which no longer translates back into the original Hebrew.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Astyanax

Very good post,
some people think they have the "Moral High Ground" because they repeat the words of a book which no longer translates back into the original Hebrew.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by dbrandt

Plus He is re-enforcing that He is God, we are not.


Why would he emphasize that he is God? Could he possibly doubt?



No, God knows who He is. Who does doubt,................people. So He is telling people, I exist, don't doubt, believe and live!!!!!



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:33 PM
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.
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 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?


First of all i seriously doubt that some 3 million years ago that any humans on earth could even fathom the idea of what some people today consider god. For quite a large group of people, the sun was a god for a long time. People today even consider the figure Jesus as god, assuming that somebody named jesus existed, (i'm not saying yes or no) jesus was only a very enlightened being.

There is no ONE religion that everyone should follow, we all have different needs and different religions cater to our personal beliefs. There is only one true path in life, the road that leads to all leads to one.

As for the whole adam and eve story, well all i have to say about that is, if there were only two people responsible for populating the entire earth, we must be very mutated and weird looking today (compared to them). I believe this story was meant to be metaphorical.

(towards 'why wasn't christianity the 1st religion')
Chrisiantinty wasn't even meant to be a religion, in my opinion. I say this because the figure of jesus was jewish, he went around showing people love and unity. Jesus never meant to have a religion started after him (assuming there was a jesus and he was a man). It's the same with buddhism, i feel that buddhism isn't meant to be a religion, but simply philosophy for life. I know not everyone does this, but there are people out there that go around worshipping buddha like people worshipp jesus. I personally don't choose a religion, as i only see them dividing people currently. We just need to stop tyring to argue about who is right and try to make life better for all.

Peace, love, and light

Pancho



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   


First, who says morals are absolute? If they really were, people wouldn't spend so much time arguing about them.


First, why are you arguing then?

Secondly, people, like yourself, argue or deny that morals are absolute because you also deny that Truth is Absolute. You hold to a relativist world view yet to deny Truth is Absolute confirms it for you demonstrate this by arguing another point. If your world view were true, that truth is relative, then you would have no need to reply and seek to correct me. The relativist mantra is, "What's true or right for you may not be what's true or right for me!" Following that logic I state you're in error and by your own world view you must agree with me. To disagree would indicate that 1) Truth is not relative and 2) Your world view is conytradictory.




In point of fact, moral codes vary from culture to culture and sometimes within cultures. Hence the prevalence of polygamy and polyandry in some cultures, of sexual grooming of minors by adults in others (ancient Greece and elsewhere) and, in still others, the sacrifice of virgins in order to persuade the sun to rise. You just happen to think your particular set of morals defines an absolute morality. It doesn't.



"In point of fact" ?? Would that be an "Absolute" ?

Culture does not dictate morals. If an infant is sacrificed to Molech does that make it right because a "culture" states it is? Have you asked the infant if they want to be thrown into the fire? What of the virgins, has anoyone asked them if they want this? You KNOW this to be wrong, regardless of culture.

When and where is it ever right to kill another human in cold blood? When and where is it right to molest a child, rape an infant ? If 100 people blast off to Mars, could murder then be right there? Morals are not bound by location or culture. We have a rash of school shootings lately and if the shooter states he comes from a culture where this is OK to do would you deny him his cultural "moral"? If you hold to moral relativism then you have no right to cry "FOUL" at any wrong doing by anyone. Hitler never did anything wrong and Saddam was only gasing others because it was part of his culture. You have no right to feel any outrage, yet why do you? Is it because your culture says to feel or be angry at it? If so then you have no right to again disagree.

If one states, "I like M&M's more than ice cream" they have stated a personal preference. It is an area that is subjective, relative to those that prefer M&M's over ice cream.

Another then states, "To kill a human in cold blood is wrong" is not making a personal preference claim. This does not stop people from commiting murder but they know it to be wrong. This is not a subjective statement as it it only pertains to certain people. "Do not murder" is a claim of what people OUGHT not do. It is a moral claim and moral claims hold true for all people everywhere and tells us what we ought and ought not do.




Morality evolves with culture. Primitive cultures like the ones that produced the Bible have primitive, stunted moral codes. More advanced cultures have more advanced morals. That's why we don't sell our daughters into slavery any more, or offer them up to be raped like Lot did with his. We've moved on from the snot-flying prophet stage of moral development. But some people remain more comfortable with that level of morality, possibly because they cannot conceive of anything better, so they thump Bibles and Korans at the rest of us.


First, your ignorance is showing. No where did God tell Lot to offer up his daughter. IF the people of Lots "culture" had heeded God the whole incident would never have taken place. It was a judgment against the sin of the people.

If morals evolved does this mean that murder may one day be "right"? Funny how God stated murder to be wrong in that "primitive culture" yet we still hold to it today.

Your hatred for God is showing by your emotions.




Finally, does your question about how one even understands the word 'logical' based on an empirical approach imply a Platonic approach to epistemology based on the concept of forms? The idea that God had to put everything into our heads in order for us to be able to understand His Creation? I'm tempted to add a row of nasty grinning smileys here, but I'll content myself with saying that, philosophically speaking, that is very old hat indeed and the moths have been at it for quite a while now.


No Plato here. I am asking you how anything came from "observation"? How does one "observe" and gain "knowledge" by way of that observation ?

If you state that "I observe that fire burns, therefore I know that fire burns" places the cart before the horse for in order for you to "observe", to even "know" you are in fact observing anything at all, you must first have "knowledge". Without knowledge first you would have no idea you are observing anything at all. You would be a drooling moron and not even "know" you're alive.

Place in syllogistic form how knowledge came from observation.

In closing, if you hold to truth being relative then you're contradicting that world view by arguing I am wrong and your view is correct. If I call you a "moron" you have no right to disagree being that that is my moral culture upbringing, to call all unbelievers "morons".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join