It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you stop believing if Religion is a proven lie?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Now tell me how many people who are religious investigate the religion?

I can not see how after investigating religion you still would believe in what it tells you unless you have IQ of monkey.

In fact I don't think monkeys believe in God.

It is inevitible that a collection of individuals who die in a short period of time would begin collecting their most profound and usefull priniciples and thoughts. Why could it not be possible that this is all a natural progression.
If you choose not to look for lessons and wisdom and then through faith in them explore their principles then pain is all that you will know in education. Everyone deserves a chance to avoid the pain of fumbling around in the dark, but that would require faith in somone elses experiances. "seek and you shall find" "knock and the door will be open to you"

Im glad that you are here to talk about it, but remeber that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.........

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:23 PM
the Bible has also been proven to exist in more ancient cultures than Judeo-Christain. Stories the same, differing characters.

Faith itself is part of what we are as human beings, else why would it even exist. Faith in God. Absolutely. Even the Bible says that God is everywhere, even us...ergo we are God. When you express your faith in God, you are expressing your faith in yourself. Religion itself, no matter what the faith, helps us to focus our faith. Now I wouldn't be so foolish as to try and run around and lord it over anyone. Only myself. When you pray to the God within you, it is your attempt to access the miraculous in youself. Wishes do come true. Would you like some fries with that?


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by CrashGecko
the catholic religion and Dante's Inferno. Enough said. Read them both you will see

That's what I like about religous folks, they care so much (about themselves). Spirituality and Religion are not the same thing, and I know all about dogma, and to use your logic, dog is god spelled backwards!

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:36 PM
Alot seems to being made about "Faith". Personally I don't care if you believe in the tooth fairy or not, BUT the only thing you should have faith in is YOURSELF.

Someone asks a guy who are you, and the guy says, I am a Baker. Existentialists would say this is the wrong answer, the guy is really a human being, a father, son, brother, husband or friend who currently happens to work at a bakery. This is what is called "BAD FAITH" to belittle what you really are to appease your boss, church, wife or "others". The only Faith I believe in is the faith in oneself.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by seb2882

Actually, Enoch is not one of the 66 books of the Bible.

Another note, those books weren't manipulated over centuries. When we compared the current book of Isaiah with the very old copy found among the Dead Sea scrolls, the two books were nearly identical. Nothing has been changed.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:02 PM
Well japan is a largely non-religious country. But they're often some of the nicest people on earth.
Check their crime/poverty/rape statistics compared to the rest of the world.

No, people don't need religion because they're weak minded.
They've just been raised to be weak minded, though improper thought and beliefs.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by T0by

Nothing personal, mind you, but people who are quick to label others as "weak minded" or "fools", etc. are usually the most dim-witted people I've ever run in to. The smartest people I've ever met are smart enough to realize that they do not have it all figured out. Humanity as a whole has not figured out everything, we have not figured out half of everything...not even 10% of everything. It's very possible God exists within that ignorance. Don't count your chickens so soon my friend.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by T0by
Well japan is a largely non-religious country. But they're often some of the nicest people on earth.
Check their crime/poverty/rape statistics compared to the rest of the world.

No, people don't need religion because they're weak minded.
They've just been raised to be weak minded, though improper thought and beliefs.

Horrible mistakes can teach a wonderfull lesson. The very fact that in the infinite pissiblitys of reality that THIS here around us even exists is proof of some resonance or design. In this design we can easiliy see (if we choose to) how our actions effect and cascade through time.

Its not the perfection of the physical that is important. Its your desire and intentions towards life. If you have a pure/holy spirit in your desires for knowledge and wisdom then not only shall you seek it in your desire but you will hold on to every crumb not just for your sake but for others.

There are people out there dispensing wisdom to help you avoid pain. if you have no ability to decern what is pure/holy then you can not have faith in it. You cannot learn from things that you have no faith in. In that lack of faith there is no desire for implimentation of that wisdom into your own life.

With my pure desire i can see it in others and in the way they speak. From that prespective it is easy to see and have faith in those words and by doing so avoid pain of consequence. i have chosen to read everything and allow these trillions to become my one and that pure intention to guide me.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by metatronscube

The fact that those books weren't changed, if true, shows only that at some point things weren't tampered, but in no means could prove the undeniable truth of that religion in all its extent from its begginings.

Interesting pointd Nicolas Flamel and everyone, a lot of you are saying "I believe in God, or in myself" but not in organized religion. I really don't understand how so many people can blindly follow something not even asking once if there is at least an ounce of lie on what they are taught to believe. That's why I made this topic regarding "organized" religion, not individual beliefs, because that would be much harder to disprove, like someone said, "they have to disprove my dreams too".

Posters like the ones that attacked me, like someone said, just appear to feel like they're on some kind of mission to spread the word and impale heretics! I met a lot of very religious, fundamentalist people who wouldn't even listen to what I had to say without telling me that I needed to repent immediately or go to burn in Hell! What makes a person go this way?
And I'm familiar with religious rites, having been a Lutheran all my life (until some years ago when I realized that it wasn't my truth) but even then I never understood fundamentalism.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by seb2882]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:16 PM
My form of belief has progressively given my life context and meaning beyondany I can currently concieve of having without belief. I view my Understanding of The untimate reality as a personal relationship much like that between a grandson and grandfather. As i am just egotistical enough to revolt at the concept of Human rulership,I find serving the will of Jehovah and His appointed King Jesus as quite acceptable as I feel Love both from and for them. I am therefore now Under the order of Divine Rulership which is actually liberating because I follow its precepts of my own free will and with no fear of man. This experience is very hard to describe your mind has to grow into an understanding of it. My religious order is a kingdom separate and distinct from human rule. My people are those growing progressively toward a unified understanding of God. They are learning a pure language, breaking down all ethnic , class,economic, and racial barriers. They are becoming maximally altruistic in the model provided in the Holy Scriptures . These same texts provide satisfying (to Me) answers to some of lifes biggest questions, what happens when we die. Is thier any hope for the dead. Will mankind ever experience true peace and security. will suffering ever end. What will become of this beautiful world we live in. Will we ever be reunited with our loved ones who have died? All these are answered for me and I also experience indecribable joy in my daily life as I have a type of ongoing emotional and sometimes physical interaction with what I can only decribe as the divine wind (ruach) which guides me subtly. Without this phenomenae I believe I would be just as miserable and lost as so many around me, as lost as I once was. I have asked myself the question " If i found absolute proof that no form of Supreme being existed would i continue to serve The will of the God i perceive?'' My conclussion is that I would Hide the proof from everyone and, If possible ,even from myself. Such is the value I place on my form of faith. I believe I have the True form , I acknowledge I could be wrong, I have been and am willing to adapt to Whatever the great " I shall proove to be what I shall proove to be" prooves to be. I pray that everyone will one day experience and benefit from what I am still discovering. I appologize for my inadequate explaination. I hope I have helped some to comprehend.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:20 PM
I don't have any opinion on other religions, but the Buddha is not sacred not only for his existence but is sacred because of his teachings. To do good, not do bad, and mind purification.

If some one could prove that he wasn't a royal prince, I would still abide to his teachings because it is what I believe is the right thing to do.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:46 AM
I was a former Christian and an "Independent Baptist" which is like Evangelical with Puritan values, gays should die, races should not mix etc..etc... They pretty much believed that women should wear dresses, men should have certain haircuts. Any music that was catchy was deemed of the devil. Dancing was conjuring Satan. I went to their church and school but, I was not happy.

Every weekend and every Wed. the people got clobbered by the pastor. You are evillll! There was so much bad will going around in that church that it felt stifling. They hated everyone outside their church and viewed other churches with disdain.

When I became a teenager I sat down and researched it all and found that many of these beliefs were borrowed from Pagan religions. I experimented with Paganism and it too dwindled down to just worship of the Sun, Moon, Stars etc.

I became much more of a Taoist even though I don't even follow even those beliefs carefully except just trying to better one's self and achieving balance. If there is a God I would be more impressed if he came down and gave a message directly instead of relying on over mis/translated books. I will say one thing though and that is that I'm perfectly happy now.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:13 AM
As a youth, I was agnostic until a series of compelling and real experiences let me to believe otherwise. I wouldn't say I am "religious" as I do not adopt formaliities of religion, but I am consciously and keenly aware of Divine principles and even the existence of Divine beings. I guess you could say it was "proven" to me.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:23 AM
I used to be religious, even devout you may say. But I loved and respected science to much to not think philosophically about things. When I worked out it made no sense, was not historically accurate, and outside the bible there was no evidence of most of the stuff in the bible, I threw in the towel.

Religion brought me nothing but confusion and internal confliction.

It didn't have to be proven a lie for me, I just had to think for myself.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:30 AM
Not all things in the bible is exact but it has truth in it, its just tryn to figure out what is literal and what is firgurative.
the vatican left out some books because the writers of them were not around during jesus' time and cannot be vericated.
lets take matthew for example this was not written right after jesus' death or even by him but it was written some 30 or 40 years after while matthew was still alive (he told someone what to write because he couldnt so it is in his words.
I dont think there will ever be a solid argument against it being real but i know that when (and if for athiests, agnostics etc) the lord returns we will know

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Now tell me how many people who are religious investigate the religion?

I can not see how after investigating religion you still would believe in what it tells you unless you have IQ of monkey.

In fact I don't think monkeys believe in God.

Im glad that you are here to talk about it, but remeber that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.........

Look. If you need religion to love that is your problem, not mine. I have no fear and I do not mind suffering - that is part of life. Just be careful, look after yourself.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by metatronscube
Another note, those books weren't manipulated over centuries. When we compared the current book of Isaiah with the very old copy found among the Dead Sea scrolls, the two books were nearly identical. Nothing has been changed.


Yet another apologist myth that is completely wrong.
(And yet another apologist who repeated something he heard without checking it.)

There were two main copies of Isaiah found (and a few smaller sections of it too.)

One copy was very different to our modern version.

The other was a bit more similar - only a 1000 or so differences.

Among these very many differences were some so significant that modern Bibles have been CHANGED to match :

Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.

Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.

Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah … as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.

Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 14:4
The NJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV all follow 1QIsaa in the text. It is the only Qumran reading followed by all eight of the translations studied by Clark (1984). The NJV provides the explanation of this remarkable unanimity: “madhebah (the MT) is of unknown meaning.” It is likely that one letter, d, in the MT is incorrect, and the text should read r, a letter that is quite similar in shape. In fact, this is the reading of 1QIsaa: marhebah, and is translated “insolence” (NRSV), “fury” (NIV), or in similar terms. In many cases the MT presents difficulties for the translator because of certain obscurities in Hebrew grammar or lexicography. But in some cases, as here, the difficulty is created by textual corruption, and the Qumran evidence provides valuable assistance.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by Kapyong]

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:40 AM

Isaiah 14:30
The RSV and NRSV follow 1QIsaa in translating, “I will slay,” instead of “he/it will slay.” The Isaiah scroll seems to better fit the context in which this passage is preceded by another first person singular verb. Among the ancient versions, only the Latin agrees with 1QIsaa. Burrows finds the Qumran reading quite convincing (1955:307), and the NEB/REB concur. However, HOTTP prefers the MT, explaining the shift to third person as a reference back to “the venomous serpent” of 14:29.

Isaiah 15:9
In Isaiah’s oracle against Moab, the well-known Moabite city of Dibon is mentioned in 15:2. In 15:9 Dimon is mentioned twice in the MT. 1QIsab agrees with the MT, but is only extant for the first occurrence. The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading, “Dibon,” and the NIV cites this Qumran evidence in a note. Should the translator follow 1QIsaa or 1QIsab? Dimon may be understood as an alternate name for Dibon, using this name as a literary device to sound like the Hebrew word dam (blood) in the same verse. This explanation is plausible, since name puns are used elsewhere in the OT. It is also possible that this is another city in Moab, although it is otherwise unknown. The RSV opted for the 1QIsaa harmonization with 15:2. Burrows (1955:307–308) implies that this is one of the thirteen 1QIsaa readings adopted by the RSV committee that he would reject upon later reflection. However, the NRSV retains Dibon. The NEB translates “Dimon,” while the REB renders “Dibon,” but fails to offer any textual note, in contradiction to their general policy of citing Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 19:18
In a note, NIV cites Q (= Qumran), along with some MSS of the MT in support of the reading “City of the Sun.” Other versions, including RSV and NRSV, read “City of the Sun” in the text without adding a textual note. This follows the general practice of many translations that do not cite textual variants if there is any manuscript support in the Masoretic tradition.

Isaiah 21:8
The NJV offers an English rendering of the difficult MT, “And [like] a lion he called out.” The bracketed “like,” which is not part of the MT, makes “lion” a simile and helps it to fit the context. Otherwise, “lion” hardly seems appropriate here. Earlier translations resorted to conjectural emendation here, but now 1QIsaa offers a more intelligible reading, hr’h (the lookout/watcher/sentry) for the MT ’ryh (lion). The NIV, GNB, RSV, and NRSV all follow the Qumran reading in the text. HOTTP suggests that translators may follow 1QIsaa, although it believes that this is “certainly not the original text.”

Isaiah 23:2–3
1QIsaa differs from the last word of verse 2 in two letters, adding kaph and reading yodh instead of waw, “your messengers,” instead of “they filled you.” 1QIsab appears to offer the same reading, although 4QIsaa reads ml’k, probably in agreement with the MT. The NAB, RSV, and NRSV follow Qumran, connecting “messengers” with the “merchants” of the previous line. The NJV and NIV translate the MT, and NIV gives the Qumran reading in a note. It is reasonable to assume that 1QIsaa preserves the better reading here.

Isaiah 29:5
The RSV translates the first line of the verse, “But the multitude of your foes,” adding a footnote to explain that “foes” is based on a conjecture for the MT zryk (your strangers). The NRSV has made no change here, but the NAB follows 1QIsaa zdyk “your arrogance,” and the NJV cites the same Qumran evidence in a footnote. Apparently, the NRSV did not find the Qumran evidence compelling and retained the conjecture to clarify the more difficult reading of the MT. The GNB translates it “foreigners,” a rendering that is appropriate to the context.


posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:41 AM

Isaiah 33:8
The RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NIV follow 1QIsaa in reading ’dym “witnesses” instead of the MT ’rym “cities.” “Witnesses” seems appropriate to the meaning of the passage, and the interchange of resh for daleth is understandable in light of the similarity of the letter shapes. The NJV also calls attention to this reading in a footnote.

Isaiah 34:5
The NJV cites the 1QIsaa variant, “be seen,” in a note. The NEB and REB place the Qumran reading, tr’h, in the text. Other modern translations follow the MT, “be drunk,” although the GNB, “The Lord has prepared his sword in heaven” may be based on a conjecture that adds mem to the beginning of the word.

Isaiah 37:25
Although the NIV generally follows the MT more often than other modern translations, in this case the NIV alone puts the reading of 1QIsaa, zrym (foreign), in its translation, “I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.” While this is a plausible reading, it may be a case of assimilation to a parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:24. 1QIsaa contains a number of other examples of assimilation to parallel passages in Kings.

Isaiah 37:27
The RSV and NRSV translators were influenced in their translation here by the parallel passage of 2 Kings 19:26, preferring “blighted” for the MT “field.” The NJV and NIV cite 1QIsaa’s reading, hnshdp, and translate “blasted/scorched,” which appears to be the preferred reading.

Isaiah 45:2
The second line in the MT reads, “I will level the swellings/rough places.” The Hebrew word rendered “swellings” occurs only here in the OT. 1QIsaa reads hrrym “mountains,” which is followed by the NIV, NAB, and RSV/NRSV.

Isaiah 45:8
The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading wyprch for the MT wyprw, a difference of only one letter, cheth for waw, which yields the translation, “that salvation may sprout forth [RSV]/spring up [NRSV],” instead of, “that they may bring forth salvation.” The NAB follows the same Qumran reading. The NEB and GNB, in dynamic equivalent renderings, demonstrate that both the MT and Qumran express a common idea. The NEB translates, “that it may bear the fruit of salvation,” and the GNB has, “[it] will blossom with freedom and justice.” Neither translation has a textual note here. HOTTP prefers the Qumran reading, but as can be seen, there may be little difference in the translation of the MT or Qumran.

Isaiah 49:12
The MT says that the people of “Sinim” will come to Zion, but this place name is otherwise unknown. 1QIsaa gives the name as “Syene” which is located in Egypt and is known today as Aswan. This was the location of a Jewish settlement known as Elephantine. The NAB, NIV, and RSV/NRSV all follow the Qumran reading here. The NEB also translates “Syene,” identifying this as a scroll reading. The REB retains “Syene,” but has dropped the footnote. This is either an oversight or an exegetical decision on the part of the translators to identify the MT “Sinim” as “Syene/Aswan,” without resorting to a textual variant. The NJV cites the variant in a footnote.

Isaiah 49:24
The phrase “captives of the just” in the second half of 49:24 is somewhat awkward in this context. The NIV, RSV/NRSV, NEB/REB, and NAB all follow the 1QIsaa reading, ’ryts (tyrant/ruthless), citing the manuscript evidence from Qumran. GNB also translates “tyrant” without a textual note, since GNB does not cite textual variants that have the support of at least one Hebrew manuscript. HOTTP recommends that translations follow the Qumran reading.


posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:42 AM

Isaiah 51:19
This verse ends in the MT with the question, “How can I comfort you?” In 1QIsaa the word for “comfort” begins with the letter yod instead of aleph (third person instead of first). The NAB, NIV, RSV/NRSV, and NEB/REB all follow the Qumran reading, although HOTTP believes the MT should be followed in translation and considers the 1QIsaa reading an assimilation to the third person verb used earlier in the verse. There is no compelling reason to doubt that in the prophetic style, God would be speaking in the second half of the verse. The acceptance by most modern translations of this Qumran variant illustrates how an evaluation of manuscript evidence can be combined with a decision regarding literary appropriateness. This has been the traditional approach of translators when dealing with textual problems. A newer trend, as exemplified by HOTTP, tends to evaluate variants such as found in 1QIsaa here, as just as likely to be the result of an ancient scribe adjusting the text in response to some perceived difficulty. Accordingly, modern translators would be advised to be a bit more cautious in accepting textual variants of this type.

Isaiah 53:11
Many recent translations, including the NIV, NAB, NEB/REB, and NRSV, accept the addition of the word ’wr “light,” in both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Not only is the weight of the manuscript convincing to these translators, but the balance of the parallelism is improved as well. HOTTP agrees that translators should follow the Qumran reading here. Morrow (1973:143), however, disagrees, calling attention to the fact that “light” plays a significant role in the theology of the Qumran community. The assumption that the Qumran scribes would have added “light” to the text presupposes that both copies were made at Qumran, which is not necessarily the case.

Isaiah 60:19
The NJV and RSV/NRSV follow the addition of blylh “in the night” in 1QIsaa. As in several other cases such as 53:11, this Qumran addition gives the parallelism of the verse better balance. However, one must be cautious about accepting readings that could have been motivated by the scribe’s sensitivity to Hebrew poetic style. This is why HOTTP does not advise translators to follow 1QIsaa here, even though many modern translations do.

Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament, ( Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).


top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in