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.

 

Written by the finger of god? What was ?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
George Carlin on religionwww.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Okay, here are two facts that I will ease into this with. It's always a bit ironic to see people get high and mighty then revert to name calling or telling someone they're being laughed at. If you're a Christian, you know your big book says you shouldn't be judging, so why the heck are you? If you're not a Christian, what about the golden rule, treat others how you would want to be treated? So anyway, both sides so far have done pretty poorly at keeping this an intellectual discussion. So I present you now with these undisputable facts. Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist...doesn't matter, these are some facts that we can PROVE:

FACT #1 The Bible was "put together" at the Council of Nicaea. Constantine brought together 300 "religious leaders" to DECIDE what was divinely inspired and what wasn't. Lots of text was left out.

Questions from Fact #1:
How does MAN know what God wanted in the Bible and what He didn't? How, in 325 AD, did they know what was divine and what was not? What exactly is divinity's rubber stamp? How could they tell text from one man who claimed to speak to God was more correct than the other text from one man who claimed to speak to God?

FACT #2 The Bible was "put together" again in English form later by King James. The King instructed that it be translated in such a way to conform to the structure of the Church of England. They also used various sources to translate from, instead of one version of the Bible. Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Also, all translators were holy men in the Church of England.

Questions from Fact #2:
Why would they use multiple versions of essentially the same Bible? Why were all translators Holy Men and not Scholars of the time? Why would the translations need to conform to the Church of England? Shouldn't the Church of England have conformed to the Bible and not the other way around?


So with these two facts, we can safely assume that the Bible we read/are taught today has been rearranged, decided by, and edited by mere men. TWICE. That we know about for sure. So, knowing this, all I want to know is why do people of Christian belief take it for truth that the Bible is God's word or his teachings/lessons/warnings? Do you realize that you can not open up the Bible, take a scripture, type it onto ATS and use it as proof to make your point? You can not verify that is the word of God, you can not use anything in this book to prove a point. I can verify, twice, that the Bible was written by MAN. These men who wrote the Bible were not stupid. They certainly did "put the fear of God" in those who chose to accept it. Now, they WOULD be stupid if they didn't put things in there like "do not worship anyone but me or you're going to Hell" .. or warnings against people who will question the words in the Bible. These were very crafty people. Constantine and his lackeys as well as King James and his "Holy Men"/ translators.

Please feel free to flame me for not accepting the words of men as words of an all powerful being.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


So essentially your in agreement that nothing was written by the finger of god.

Nicea has been done to death on here dude, I'm sorry to say as far as the vast majority xtians, go it would that this event did not in fact take place. They just refuse point blank, to accept this to be the editorial epicenter of the bible myths.


Yes I would agree that there's been plenty of slagging but after over 70 posts no one, has actually even attempted to prove that anything was written by the finger of god.

One can only conclude that so far, xtians are still lying in order to perpetuate their belief system.

There again I could be wrong someone out there may have solid proof and has not yet presented it to the rest of the world.

Perhaps until that time come the xtians could kindly keep their delusions and their repugnant belief to themselves or those that would seek them out.

Amen (egyptian god)



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HulaAnglers
George Carlin on religionwww.youtube.com...


So do you still have catholic tenancies all gnarled up inside you Scully or have you freed yourself from that dogmatic belief system ?

It's so sad that kids should have to endure the tyranny of the religious delusion.

Here's a man who wears a frock that cracks me up



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Yes sir I am in complete agreement that when you open up that book with the words "Holy Bible" on it, you are reading words written by men.. not a divine/supernatural being.

My point about the mud throwing is really about people who either a) "I laugh at you." "people are laughing at you if you listen closely" etc or b) "thank you for proving that you are the evil that God speaks about" or something similar... Personal attacks are so fricking worthless but that is like 90% of the text on ATS which is why I visit here lesss and lesss and lessss... a few more phony bologna space ship chanellings, a few more angry Christian vs. Not Christian threads, or a few more ignorant flame fests and I just don't think I'll ever come back. But I did see this thread and thought maybe I'd be able to contribute some food for thought. I am keeping my opinions out of it and simply gave them 2 FACTS to chew on and a few questions to think about..



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm a Christian so I believe what the bible has to say about Jesus. I also believe the bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. With all the tolerance running around in the world, I wouldn't think this would be taken as such an outlandish belief, and I state it here because I came to that conclusion after many years of living life for myself, without the acknowledgment of the almighty God. That life ended with the belief that this life was absolutely pointless, fraught with nothing but unhappiness - simply a mass of immoral subterfuge from which no man could expect anything other than to be delivered to the grave and eaten by worms. I was nothing but another crab in the crab pile trying to climb toward the top.

So, as I was preparing to deliver myself to an early demise, I had what most would call a spiritual epiphany and I cried out in great anger to the God I had so many times refused to acknowledge and swore did not exist. Something happened because from that point onward, my life has changed. I wasn't responding to someone pressuring me to believe, I wasn't caving in to marchers with signs telling me I was going to hell if I didn't acknowledge Jesus. I was alone and staring into the open grave and I cried out to God.

I personally believe that at that moment my preferences changed. I don't think a person can auto-magically change preferences. My reason and rationality was still in tact, but the basis upon which I made decisions changed. I can tell you, I'm a much happier person and getting much more out of this limited life than before. Call it a crutch, call it pathetic, mock me if you must.

As a Christian, I want to share this experience and I want to show people what I understand about the bible because I believe it has some very important things to say. I'm not trying to convict people of anything, although, if they feel the same convictions I felt, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing. The hope of eternal life in a perfect world is not a bad thing and rather than motivate me to conquer everyone on planet earth, has given me much more sympathy toward people. I have no idea what their daily struggles are, probably most are much greater than mine, but I have found great comfort in the words of the bible and maybe they can also.

I don't think the bible deserves to be mocked or scorned and I don't believe it is easily dismissed as a conspiracy of men.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman

Nicea has been done to death on here dude, I'm sorry to say as far as the vast majority xtians, go it would that this event did not in fact take place. They just refuse point blank, to accept this to be the editorial epicenter of the bible myths.




The Byzantine Manuscripts



Believe it or not, there are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in Ancient Greek still around today. There are multitudes of these manuscripts that are dated to BEFORE the First Church Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

The existence of these manuscripts is one of the ways we know which books of the Bible were used Prior to their official canonization at the Church Councils (at the council of Nicea, Hippo, etc). Most people would be surprised to learn that 99% of these ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament AGREE with each other.

The concept of confusion and multiple versions in Greek of the New Testament is an invention of Modern Textual Criticism and Dialectics. Historically, the confusion does not exist. The manuscripts are in Ancient Greek, and they are known as BYZANTINE Manuscripts.



Perhaps until that time come the xtians could kindly keep their delusions and their repugnant belief to themselves or those that would seek them out.


Got intolerance?

Christians who go to protests bum you out?
Don't go.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
sure it does.. did u ever notice that what jesus was preaching contradics the rest of the book.. he said that he wasnt here to change the law..the guys in charge were supposed too.. obviously the church hasnt changed which is gonna be the cause of the fall of the church in rev..imho

[edit on 12-1-2009 by scorand]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
sorry clear everyone knows that the greek translations were heavily mistranslated then again into english.. but god forbid u get the church, any church or most christians to admit being wrong.. and lets not talk about intolerance.. were still seeing the effects of christian/muslim intolerance all over the world

[edit on 12-1-2009 by scorand]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


I personally think we're seeing the effects of man's sin all over the world - greed, lust, anger, etc. Intolerance is only one aspect of that.

What I'm surprised at is that when I say, "I'm a Christian tolerate me..." the most common response is, "Christians are the most intolerant bastards on the planet so I'm not going to tolerate you."

And why is this? They've obviously offended someone. Is it because Christians often call sin exactly what it is or is it because some conquering Christian is in their backyard making them erect a cross? In my experience, it's the former.

Call sin what it is and prepare to reap the whirlwind.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I don't understand the fuss. If a person wants to deny God, or deny creation, or deny Christ, then I say, knock yourself out.

If there is a God, who only wants to allow people to share his eternity who are a few good persons capable of faith in Him, then why would He make His presence overwhelming?

I mean, if we could look up into the sky everyday and see Him, what kind of faith would that be? It would only be a faith from fear, not love. Faith is everything to Him, and only those with great faith can find him.

Even He has said that those who would be rewarded in Paradise would be very few. Since all are His creation, He can do whatever He wishes to the rest.

Believe or not. But you won't get me to change my mind by belittlement, and I don't care if you change your mind or not. Your turn is coming soon enough, and if what He has taught is truth, then there by the time one realizes the folly of their selfish pride, it's too late.

Why all the fuss?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I started watching the video, but the narrator was speaking to slowly and I have a short attention span. Based on the first 10 seconds, my critical thought response would be...isn't the church and theological and religious study the foundation of all other disciplines of thought and scientific inquiry. Without those books our society would be illiterate.

Besides, when I was homeless the church gave me a place to sleep and food to eat while I got things back together. No other groups were to be found.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 





the church and theological and religious study the foundation of all other disciplines of thought and scientific inquiry. Without those books our society would be illiterate. Besides, when I was homeless the church gave me a place to sleep and food to eat while I got things back together. No other groups were to be found.




I have not implied that people who belong to religions do morally good deeds, you hint as though only those who get their morals from the bibles are able to do this.

When I was homeless and on my butt I was extended great kindness and compassion from people who are total atheists. It would appear that our morals do not come from a bible mountain god.

I find it totally insane to claim that "The church " (which ever one you are referring to) is the foundation of all other though and scientific inquiry, this is preposterous.

Did you miss the bit where would be scientist were burnt alive, for alleged practicing witchcraft ?

So, Satan hiding dinosaur fossils in order to tempt us is the pinnacle of scientific inquiry thanks to this "church you"

Lets take a look at two " Scientists " having an intelligent debate shall we, guess which one is the atheist, tell you what I'll give you a clue he's not the one on the defensive licking his lips.

If your short attention span, gives you problems again with this vid, i odn't recommend you even attempt reading any of the bibles as you probably won't get passed the bit where god created the earth, then the sun the moon a and the stars a bit later bit.


Guess which one of these men is is a homophobic bigot and guess which one is a pillowmunching junkie. (no disrespect to gay people out there as I'm sure they'll see the point)




Here's a fine example of xtian tolerance as instructed not by the finger of a god




posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Yes there are thousands of manuscripts everywhere, but surely the most important one is the one that was written by the finger of god ? Now what was that called ?



Was Jesus gay? Some scholars, especially the late Dr. Morton Smith, believe so. Here's why:

In 1941, a 26 yo graduate student named Morton Smith traveled to Jerusalem on a traveling fellowship from Harvard. While there, Smith visited the Mar Saba monastery. He stumbled upon the monastery's library and realized that there were several priceless antiquity books there that desperately needed to be cataloged. Smith returned to the States after WWII and received two PhD's - one in ancient Christianity and another in ancient Palestine. He became a professor at Columbia University. In 1958, Dr Smith decided to return to the Mar Saba monastery to complete the work of cataloging the library. While going through the books, he noticed something peculiar in the back of an early edition of the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. What he found was a remarkable discovery that could perhaps change our viewpoint on Christianity and the historical persona of Jesus.

What Smith had discovered was a copied ancient letter by Clement of Alexandria. Clement is a very important figure in early Christian history, and most of his writings have been preserved today. However, we did not have any letters from Clement until Smith made this startling discovery. In the letter, Clement is writing to an unknown individual named Theodore, in response to some of his queries about a particularly notorious sect of early Christians known as the Carpocratians. They basically believed that since God was sovereign over all, no one owned anything, property, or person, including their spouse. So, they practiced 'wife swapping' and other sexual acts as part of their worship.

Anyways, in the letter Clement praises Theodore, who apparently is some sort of church leader, for silencing the false teachings of the Carpocratian sect within his region. Clement continues by explaining how the Carpocratians had grossly misinterpreted passages from the Gospel of Mark, from whence the sect had claimed their sacred authority in committing their odd liturgy. Then he proceeds to clarify Marks Gospel and how it was falsified by the heretical sect.

In the letter, Clement basically talks about how there were three accounts to the Gospel of Mark. There is one in which Mark first wrote - the one presumably in our canonical bible today. Then, Mark wrote another gospel for the 'spiritually advanced' Christians in which he added more stories to help the Christian elite progress in their knowledge of the truth. Then there was the Gospel of Mark that the Carpocratians had taken, supposedly from the second Gospel Mark wrote, in which the sect modified it to make their religion fit.

Ok, after all that said, here is the most significant part. In this letter, Clement quotes two passages from the second, secret Gospel of Mark. In these passages, we are given a glimpse of ancient accounts of Jesus that are not known from any other source, until this letter appeared. The first passage, Clement indicates, occurs immediately after what is now Mark 10:34, and reads as follows:

They came to Bethany, and a woman was there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus, saying to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But his disciples rebuked her. Jesus became angry and went off with her to the garden where the tomb was.

Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb. Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. Immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand, and raised him by seizing his hand.

The young man looked at him intently and loved him; and he began pleading with him that he might be with him. When they came out of the tomb they went to the young man's house, for he was wealthy.

And after six days Jesus gave him a command. And when it was evening the young man came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. He stayed with him that night, for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. When he got up from there, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

This story has, of course, has caused a great stir among scholars. Although the story has similarities with other stories such as the raising of Lazarus, and the rich young man in Mark 10, there are startling differences. To some interpreters, especially near the end, the story has a homoerotic overtone to it. Jesus becomes acquainted with a young man who loves him and comes to him with nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. Then they spend the night together where Jesus teaches him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. What's that all about?

The second passage Clement quotes is anti-climatic in comparison. Clement indicates that after Mark 10:46, there was another addition in the secret Mark Gospel that is not in our canonical bible. It simply states:

And the sister of the young man Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not receive them.

This passage isn't important by itself, but when one looks at our canonical Gospel of Mark 10:46 it seems rather odd until this 'secret' passage Clement quotes is inserted. In our version, why does Mark state that 'they' came to Jericho if they didn't do anything there? And why did Mark say "he went out of Jericho with his disciples"? Why not just say 'they' again, as he did in the first part of the verse? Alas, if you insert Clement's passage from apparently the longer, secret version of Mark's Gospel, this is what you end up with:

46 And they came to Jericho. And the sister of the young man Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not receive them. And as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people...

Doesn't that make a lot more sense?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
i would like to add that all the men \ women who where born and died before Jesus arrived on the scene and didn't know about heaven are they in hell for being born too early..
are all these millions of people burning because Jesus arrived after they died...
Christianity is based on the Jewish religion with all the references to Jews taken out..
Jesus was even a Jewish Rabi and not a Christian...
i myself think we are all supposed to worship the sun ( the light ) and be afraid of the dark .....
at least thats what early man did...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
No what I'm really doing is asking xtians why they insist on forcing their delusion on other people. Their delusion is quite clearly based on lies is totally irrelevant and damaging to humanity with a potential to harm my children.

Believe what you want just keep it to yourself so to speak, however xtians insist on inflicting their bizarre beliefs upon the rest of us based on the bible being written by the finger of god which is a lie.


No you don't. You go around all the time posting about the christian religion more than most people who claim to be christian do.

You operate on the same ignorant level of thinking as racists. That see's people not as individuals, but as an entire group. And then just like a true racist, you focus on the worse examples you can find as a way of painting the entire group.

I somehow doubt you would like it very much if we took samples of the worse gay people we could find and used it as an example against you. How do you like such things? But yet, this is exactly what you do.

And then you want people to shut up with their beliefs, but yet you have no problem posting and saying your own beliefs? Hey, why don't you try to live and let live. Why don't you learn how to allow other people to have their beliefs and then maybe you will have a foot to stand on when you ask to be allowed your own beliefs.

You are a hypocrite. You are no better than the people you point fingers at, and THAT is why you get what you do in return. You openly ask for it. I have pointed this out to you multiple times. Because this is not even the first time you post these kinds of things.

Pull your head out and get a clue. Personally, I find it hard to believe that you could be this ignorant. You must be a troll.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 




What I am saying is that Education itself, modern schools, colleges and universitites have their origin as offshoots from the theological establishment in all lands, Europe, Africa, Middle East and Far East. A quick survey of this will show that Kings, Saints, Emperors, Capliphs, Priests, Sultans are personally responsible for the exsistence of 'educated society' and established the concept of learning and critical thought.

Ultimately even an Aethist, which is a religion like all the rest, would have to admit that they owe their superior knowledge and analytical ability to people that believe in God. Quite Ironic.

As far as scietists being killed at certain points in History because of "their discoveries", I think its more likely they died because they were a$$hole$ who decided to use their superior intellect against the very establishment that grew them.

In retrospect it should be obvious that while certain personalities from the middle ages made discoveries which ultimately contributed to specific disciplines, not one can be said have made a discovery so profound that the entire establishment should bow to his genius.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





You operate on the same ignorant level of thinking as racists. That see's people not as individuals, but as an entire group. And then just like a true racist, you focus on the worse examples you can find as a way of painting the entire group. I somehow doubt you would like it very much if we took samples of the worse gay people we could find and used it as an example against you. How do you like such things? But yet, this is exactly what you do.



You mean to say there are different types of christians ? Really ? Well there you go I was led to believe that there was only one word of god.
So to give respect where it's due I apologize profusely to all those xtians that don't believe the bibles were written by the finger of a god, or don't agree with the contents and historic veracity of said books.

Contrary to your assumption I would find it most interesting indeed if you were to , how did you put it ?

"I somehow doubt you would like it very much if we took samples of the worse gay people we could find and used it as an example against you"


So who do you have in mind ? Would you say for example that Ted haggard is a worse gay than George Michael ?
Or was Rock Hudson a worse Gay than Elton John ?
If Jesus were gay would he be worse than Ted Haggard ?

How do you measure this by the way? I'm heterosexual so I'm a little lost in your (closet?) gay terminology .



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Personally, in my experience I have seen more hate come from you than any Christian preacher I have heard lately. In fact, I think the real danger here is that you will displace and become what you despise if you have not already. Isn't the argument in your tag line what Christians use to speak about gays? We (Christians) don't hate gays just what they do...



[edit on 12-1-2009 by GTORick]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


For a guy with supposedly such a short attention span you've really focused on the keyboard there lol

You ever heard the phrase blagger dude ?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join