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.

 

How far you are willing to go in regards to your religious beliefs?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
*sigh* The number of times I've had to discuss that misconception...
I've answered that briefly somewhere else, so I'll just copy/paste

There was at no point in history, anything that could be refered to as "THE church", though that's what the Catholic church would like you to believe. The Biblical set-up is wholly independent, geographically local churches across the world. The canonical texts were already recognized, memorized, studied, read, and copied over and over again before any council declared anything. All that ever happened was some guys who got together and officially recognized what was already agreed upon.
The problem with the other "gospels" and "epistles", as is apparent to anybody who will bother looking into the matter instead of simply regurgitating what some university professor himself regurgitated from some other professor, is that unlike the 66 canonical books of the Bible they
a) have internal contradictions
b) have contradictions one with another
c) contradict the 66 canonical books of the Bible as a whole which stand as a whole
d) contain no prophecies
e) often confess they are not inspired (like the book of the Maccabees)
f) All are gnostic in philosophy, unlike any book of the Bible
g) Most of them were written years after the canon was closed
h) were utterly ignored by christian churches as is known from archival evidence and the relatively pristine condition of those manuscripts which betrays lack of use
i) display copious emmendations in the text itself

etc...

We all have of "the inquisitor" as you put it. As long as you're not born-again, Satan is your father. He was mine too. Only his questions are not innocent, they are not honest.
Isn't it strange how that only with the loss of child-like innocency comes disbelief? How's that for a witness against our supposed skepticism.

Given all the answers I've given you so far, would you be willing or able to admit your skepticism has not been as well researched or probed as you might originally have thought?
When it comes to the soul of a man, I'm patient. I'll hang around and try to answer you out of the Bible as much as I can, God helping me.

If you're right, then let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
If what I've shown you so far is true, then that book is the wisdom of God, your soul is in the balance, there's a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.


Please, seclude yourself, and put the Lord Jesus Christ to the test.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Personally I don't actually follow any organised religion as I am a believer in individual spirituality. I am prepared to share my views with any who have a genuine interest but I act on them alone and in a way that does not impact on others in a negative way.

Re: the religions of others... I respect people who are true to their beliefs and are content within them without feeling the need to advertise them without being asked.

I would not do anything crazy for my beliefs because, due to their truthful nature, nothing crazy is required.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I tried to explain to him to think of dust that accumulates in his room at home, if he never dusted his room how long would it take to achieve a layered rock formation of this size. This may or may not be a good example, but it works for me.


I think it is an excellent allegory!


Although you guys havent seen how fast dust cumulates where I live!
Give me 100 years and archeologist will be digging us out.

(serious, I havent seen this much dust before)



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Isaiah 24:21
 


ok, point G you lose on... the first gospel written was timothy (gnostic)

another point, the 66 books of canon you recognize contradict each other as well. so point B and C are irrelevant, as they apply to books you recognize.

and the 66 books you acknowledge as canon... when each of them was written they weren't meant to be considered a part of a coherent document, they were only made that way through an act of people.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Isaiah 24:21
 


ok, point G you lose on... the first gospel written was timothy (gnostic)


Timothy was not written first.The disciples who were with Jesus wrote thier accounts down, so they would not forget.
They lived wellbefore Timothy. He was not "agnostic" as much as your anti-biblical references would like you to believe.
The first chapter in Timothy starts out, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;"
No agnosticism!!!Don't just believe every website you go to without research.



another point, the 66 books of canon you recognize contradict each other as well. so point B and C are irrelevant, as they apply to books you recognize.


They don't contradict each other, they give different "takes" on the same occurances.
Each person has thier own personality, however the 'meat' of the issues is there.


and the 66 books you acknowledge as canon... when each of them was written they weren't meant to be considered a part of a coherent document, they were only made that way through an act of people.


From the time of Moses recieveing the ten commandments, everything was to be kept until God showed them what to do with them. The dead sea scrolls were intact,verifying the old testament. Although I don't know how reliable they are,(I heard they condone recieving the mark of the beast.)
Paul himself when in prison asked his fellow christians to bring him the christian 'documents', so he could study.
They just weren't put together in book form, yet.

Christians copied the pieces they could get during the roman persecutions, and then Constantine had his priests re-translate it in Alexandria, Egypt.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Timothy was not written first.The disciples who were with Jesus wrote thier accounts down, so they would not forget.


special pleading, you can't prove the existence of these accounts. they are simply something you state exists.



They lived wellbefore Timothy. He was not "agnostic" as much as your anti-biblical references would like you to believe.


no, he was a GNOSTIC...never claimed he was an agnostic...



The first chapter in Timothy starts out, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;"
No agnosticism!!!Don't just believe every website you go to without research.


again, the word is GNOSTIC... quite the obvious opposite of agnostic.



They don't contradict each other, they give different "takes" on the same occurances.
Each person has thier own personality, however the 'meat' of the issues is there.


really?
skepticsannotatedbible.com...
388 contradictions.



From the time of Moses recieveing the ten commandments, everything was to be kept until God showed them what to do with them.


...are you aware that moses is a mythical character with no historical evidence to support him?



The dead sea scrolls were intact,verifying the old testament. Although I don't know how reliable they are,(I heard they condone recieving the mark of the beast.)


...the "mark of the beast" idea hadn't been invented yet, you just read antisemitic bigotry.



Paul himself when in prison asked his fellow christians to bring him the christian 'documents', so he could study.
They just weren't put together in book form, yet.


because they weren't meant to be!



Christians copied the pieces they could get during the roman persecutions, and then Constantine had his priests re-translate it in Alexandria, Egypt.


why would constantine want stuff to be retranslated from greek? greek was the language spoken by half the empire...



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

no, he was a GNOSTIC...never claimed he was an agnostic...


O.K., gnostic, doesn't that mean that they're wishy-washy and don't fully believe the bible??? Sorry about the misunderstanding.

That's not Paul at all.


really?
skepticsannotatedbible.com...
388 contradictions.




My statement is the same



From the time of Moses receiving the ten commandments, everything was to be kept until God showed them what to do with them.



...are you aware that moses is a mythical character with no historical evidence to support him?


Not TRUE. He was a major witness for God, even Jesus spoke to him on the Mount of Transfiguration...



The dead sea scrolls were intact,verifying the old testament. Although I don't know how reliable they are,(I heard they condone recieving the mark of the beast.)



...the "mark of the beast" idea hadn't been invented yet, you just read antisemitic bigotry.


The mark of the beast is certainly anti-semitic, in fact it's anti-HUMAN!
I just haven't had time to study the dead sea scrolls...


Of course God wanted us to have His Word for us to study...



why would constantine want stuff to be retranslated from greek? greek was the language spoken by half the empire...


Not as much to translate language as to insert meanings into it. To try and manipulate God's word for 'control'. Look up the codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus, as opposed to Textus Receptus.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by Clearskies]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I tried to explain to him to think of dust that accumulates in his room at home, if he never dusted his room how long would it take to achieve a layered rock formation of this size. This may or may not be a good example, but it works for me.


I think it is an excellent allegory!


Although you guys havent seen how fast dust cumulates where I live!
Give me 100 years and archeologist will be digging us out.

(serious, I havent seen this much dust before)


LOL now if we added my kids to that. I was trying to show him in a controlled situation no wind no water that it usually takes a long time for dust to settle on Earth in layers like in our Earths crust. Now the great flood I can see a great many layers happening as the waters reseed but it doesn’t account for the entire Earths crust, IMHO would take millions if not billions of years to happen.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   


Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21:
There was at no point in history, anything that could be refered to as "THE church", though that's what the Catholic church would like you to believe. The Biblical set-up is wholly independent, geographically local churches across the world. The canonical texts were already recognized, memorized, studied, read, and copied over and over again before any council declared anything. All that ever happened was some guys who got together and officially recognized what was already agreed upon.


So it’s your opinion that the Bible as it exists now was the same before the Council of Nicaea? The way I understood it, before the Council the Roman Empire was Pagan, and there were governmental rules for worship and rituals, ect. After the council when the Empire changed from Paganism, to Christianity, that the Bible was the New way for the people of the Empire to worship, this also laid the way for the Catholic Church via Roman Christianity. I admit I could be Way out there on this point. Now can you see where I’m having trouble believing that the Bible is inspired by God when there is so much human and human politics involved in it. Also it changes every couple of hundred years or so. Also the Bible and the books made up in it seem to be concerned with the chronological order of the books within it. I am interested in the Book of Adam and Eve where Eve trusted Satan the Archangel and he stood by and watched her eat of the forbidden fruit; he did not attempt to stop her like she assumed he would, allowing the serpent to lead her astray.

"The beast answered in the language of men: 'Is it not against you, Eve, that our malice (is directed)? Are not ye the objects of our rage? Tell me, Eve, how was thy mouth opened to eat of the fruit? But now if I shall begin to reprove thee thou canst not bear it," (Book of Adam and Eve, 38:1-2)

Im interested in any links on the lost books of the bible.




Given all the answers I've given you so far, would you be willing or able to admit your skepticism has not been as well researched or probed as you might originally have thought? When it comes to the soul of a man, I'm patient. I'll hang around and try to answer you out of the Bible as much as I can, God helping me.


I thank you for the time you have invested in this thread, but as for answers, lets just say we are just at the tip of the iceberg. Please remember these are not questions that have recently been asked, this is a lifetime of questions from someone who was Raised Christian. Funny how belief and faith seem to come easy for some. I’m not one of those people. In order for me to believe and have faith, I have to accept the answers you give are true, but in order for me to believe the answers are true I must have faith. Easy to see the dilemma.




If you're right, then let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. If what I've shown you so far is true, then that book is the wisdom of God, your soul is in the balance, there's a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.


Another good point. Do you believe that Christianity is a religion based on Gods love or the Fear of going to hell, what is the stronger voice love or fear??



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
O.K., gnostic, doesn't that mean that they're wishy-washy and don't fully believe the bible??? Sorry about the misunderstanding.


no, the gnostics have definite beliefs and believe in the bible plus some other books that you don't acknowledge.



That's not Paul at all.


that's fine... because we're talking about timothy..





really?
skepticsannotatedbible.com...
388 contradictions.


My statement is the same


which means you're just going to ignore the contradictions i pointed out?
ignore the arguments i present, it just shows you can't respond to them.



Not TRUE. He was a major witness for God, even Jesus spoke to him on the Mount of Transfiguration...


ok, show me some historical evidence to support this.
sorry, no using the bible here.
just like you can't use the volsungsaga to prove the existence of odin.



The mark of the beast is certainly anti-semitic, in fact it's anti-HUMAN!
I just haven't had time to study the dead sea scrolls...


no, i meant that part where the dead sea scrolls mentions accepting the mark... that's just antisemitic bigotry...



Of course God wanted us to have His Word for us to study...


sorry, chap, the word of a benevolent being wouldn't contain so much genocide, bigotry, and hate...



Not as much to translate language as to insert meanings into it. To try and manipulate God's word for 'control'. Look up the codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus, as opposed to Textus Receptus.


actually... most additions to the bible were made during the middle ages by monks...

[edit on 9/10/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies


no, he was a GNOSTIC...never claimed he was an agnostic...


O.K., gnostic, doesn't that mean that they're wishy-washy and don't fully believe the bible??? Sorry about the misunderstanding.



They certainly don't believe the "churches" interpretation of the bible. If you want to call that "wishy-washy," then so be it.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
madnessinyoursoul,

how about listing me one contradiction at a time, and I'll bust'em for you one at a time too? deal?

As for gnosticism in Timothy, chapter and verse please.

Let's get practical ok?

As for genocide, hatred and what not, that's because the Bible is a history book...not religious claptrap like the Qur'an for example...the Bible shows your history in your image...

You just think your righteousness and standards are greater than God's, that's the bottom line my friend.

I'll try to answer your objections as they come. Sort of a Bible course 101 from a Bible-believer for once and not from hearsay or some silly site where they've never actually read the entire Bible.

Dragon;

I didn't ask you to believe everything I wrote.
I just asked would you consent to the fact that your agnosticism was not as well grounded in research as you might originally have thought.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Isaiah 24:21
 


i gave you a list of 388 of them, go down the list and address them one at a time.

and on the genocide... the bible states that god is ordaining said genocides... this isn't an issue of history here, it's an issue of god being quite the unpleasant character.

[edit on 9/12/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
It’s a good time to recap some of these beliefs in this thread to this point.

Since Christianity is the only religion discussed at this time, and that blows. That is what we will recap.

Topic 1. Young Earth Creationism:
I believe the Earth has been around for approx 4.5 billion years as science states. There is a wealth of evidence to back this up.
I also believe that humans have been on Earth for much longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years.
I’m having a hard time believing that Angels inhabited the Earth before and after humans. I’m basing this on the Fact there is no physical evidence of there existence here. No DNA evidence, no buried remains nothing but myth and stories.

Topic 2. Dinosaur’s fact or fiction:

I believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth for many millions of year’s base on all the factual evidence we have found. I don’t believe that Satan or any other being planted evidence of there existence.

Topic 3. United States was Founded as a Christian Nation:




Originally posted by clearskies:
In the summer of 1778, while meeting with representatives Benjamin Franklin arose and addressed the troubled and disagreeing convention. The eighty-one-year-old leader and representative said "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered.........Have we now forgotten our powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance?"


"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" Benjamin Franklin

I’m still on the bubble on this one even though at the present time post for post I can still come up with arguments from our founding fathers very mouths that we were not founded as a Christian nation, but of a nation of many different beliefs including Christianity but not exclusively Christianity.

Topic 4. Prosperity Theology/ Doctrine:

In my opinion this is a complete fraud and a affront to all the poor that have ever believed in God. This IMHO is corruption of all that Christianity was to stand for. It’s just as bad as all the millions of people killed in Jesus’ name. And to all the priest who have harmed children, the whole church will someday be judged, if you believe in God. Have they lived by Jesus teachings or not.

Topic 5. Pre-tribulation Rapture:

I could take the book The Stand by Stephen King or really any book ever written and take a sentence from chapter 1 then another from chapter 10 then another from chapter 25 and so on and so on and form a separate story if you will. If the second coming of Christ is important they would not have to draw from here and there to formulate a theory.

Side notes:




Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21:
You see here's the thing with the Bible. The book is alive and fully answers the questions of the seeker............. according to his heart's attitude.





Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21:
As for genocide, hatred and what not, that's because the Bible is a history book...not religious claptrap like the Qur'an for example...the Bible shows your history in your image...


any comments??


UFOs are Demons:

LOL I almost forgot this one......I have stated my option on this and stand by it.



Originally posted by LDragonFire:
IMHO if 0.01% of all planets in the universe have life and only 0.01% of those planets have intelligent life, I believe that the possibility of us being visited by aliens is good, if not expected.


And no Isaiah 24:21 I'm not pretending that I know all the answers, thats kinda the point of this thread.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by LDragonFire]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

that's fine... because we're talking about timothy..


The books 1st and second Timothy were not written by Timothy.....



which means you're just going to ignore the contradictions i pointed out?
ignore the arguments i present, it just shows you can't respond to them.


I've already said what I believe about the differences.



sorry, chap, the word of a benevolent being wouldn't contain so much genocide, bigotry, and hate...


I'm not a 'chap', I'm GeneralT's wife.
God has to deal with humans the best he can with our free-will.


actually... most additions to the bible were made during the middle ages by monks...

Which manuscripts did they use???(The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.)




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

that's fine... because we're talking about timothy..


The books 1st and second Timothy were not written by Timothy.....


i was referring to the gospel of timothy, the first gospel written.



I've already said what I believe about the differences.


that they aren't differences? but you can't point out how they aren't.



I'm not a 'chap', I'm GeneralT's wife.



...i call everyone chap... i actually started calling people chap with my mom..
anyway.



God has to deal with humans the best he can with our free-will.


that's a nonsequiter it has nothing to deal with the point i made. why would god have to order misogyny, homophobia, racism, and genocides because we have free will?




Which manuscripts did they use???(The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.)


um.. there aren't just 2 sets of manuscripts...



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I'm interested in any links on the lost books of the bible.


Early Christian Writings
Nag Hammadi
Dead Sea Scrolls

A lot of texts on those sites; sure to keep you busy reading for some time! "~)



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I'm interested in any links on the lost books of the bible.


Early Christian Writings
Nag Hammadi
Dead Sea Scrolls

A lot of texts on those sites; sure to keep you busy reading for some time! "~)


Thank you very much. I'm always searching and studying. I just want to know, but I doubt that I ever will. Unlike others on this board that have all the answers, I will never claim this.
The more I learn the more questions I have.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Dragon,

you still haven't answered my question.

Madnessinyoursoul,

pick your best contradiction.

Concerning genocide, I deal with that in the thread "what is good/evil" which you've probably seen by now.


[edit on 13-9-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Isaiah 24:21
 


just get to it and pick one. i don't care which one you address first, you have 388 to go, get cracking.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join