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.

 

The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 22
25
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 



Adult animals weren't in the ark, they were young adult animals.


Makes no difference, there are millions of species on planet Earth, the boat wouldn't have held even a fraction of them. There also isn't enough water on Earth to cause a Global flood. Geology has disproved the Global flood time and time again.


The land mass at that time was all together.


It says that where in the Bible? You're making stuff up to support your beliefs. If Pangaea were around at the time of Noah Mount Ararat where the Ark came to rest wouldn't have existed.


You keep forgetting that God is a God of righteousness and justice and He was getting rid of evil on the earth.


I don't believe for a second that every adult on the planet was evil, let alone evil enough to be drowned in a horrific flood. Also you're forgetting innocent children and all the billions of animals Noah didn't put on the Ark. Honestly I like the reason in the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh better, where the gods slaughter humanity because we were too noisy for them to sleep. If a God does something horrific and evil it shouldn't be masked behind false righteousness.


Do you admit that Jesus was real?


Yup and he's one of my favorite philosophers in history. His teachings are miles ahead of the primitive and bigoted old testament.


So that's why your against God?


Once again you confuse your perception of God as dictated by the Bible as God himself. God is not the Bible. I am against the Bible and the blind faith its worshipers have in it. Questioning beliefs is the only way to determine if they are true, questioning the Bible was the only way to learn if it was the Word of God. It failed every test.


How did you know that it had errors? Did you study the culture and history and exhaust all possible resources before you started blaming God?


Because the stories in it didn't happen. Genesis itself makes no sense if taken literally. We know how evolution works and we have mountains of evidence to back that up. We know that the Earth did not exist before the sun as Genesis states. We know that snakes can't talk and fruit can't give knowledge and people can't be made from dirt via magical creation. I didn't EVER blame God, in fact for a while after my belief the Bible had waned and died I was still an agnostic theist who believed that the Bible was merely smearing God's good name within its primitive pages penned by flawed men.

And yes I asked around, a lot, even as a kid. Most of the answers I got ended with "you'll just have to ask God when you get to heaven". What a crock, if the Bible were perfect there would be no answers missing from it and it certainly wouldn't lead me to question its own authenticity.


What is your definition of perfect?


Perfect - Without flaw or error or contradiction. If it were perfect there would be only ONE way to interpret it - God's way, there would be no denominations.


That stuff was for the Jews,


Where does it say that? Doesn't the New Testament says that not a letter of the law will pass away? In fact doesn't Jesus say that in Matthew (Chapter 5 verse 18 I believe). Even if I'm mistaken on that point it doesn't matter. This "stuff for the Jews" as you call it would still be part of the "perfect Word of God" and would therefore have to be perfect - yet we have some of the most primitive and disgusting behavior imaginable going on. God commanding genocide, witches to be killed, raped women to marry their attackers, beating of slaves to a point close to death is allowed. God would NEVER stoop to allowing sin let alone COMMANDING it as he does in the old testament (and committing it when killing the first born). If God has a universal objective moral code for ALL mankind why would he deliver the Israelites a sub-par one and then revise it later with Jesus?

Your link to christian think tank does nothing to refute my position. You cannot have it both ways. If it is the word of God than every word of it is from God - there would be nothing so horrible in such a book. Rape is not to be rewarded by allowing the rapist to keep his prey, such would not come from God.


God was bringing the Jews into their land. And the giants didn't want them there.


Wrong. If the giants inhabited the land long before the Jews left Egypt than it did not belong to them and they stole it unfairly. This is very common. Groups of people entering a new land, declaring the natives evil savages or demonic giants and then wiping them out in the name of their "God". We did the same to the native Americans. In fact we do the same today, brainwashing soldiers to think of their enemies as less than human. This is nothing more than a brainwashing technique for those in power. Hitler convinced the people of Nazi Germany to kill innocent people too - under the guise that they were inferior and that Nazis were the chosen race - sounds awful familiar to the events in the Bible.

In conclusion:

The Bible fails on every level to be perfect or to even provide a coherent concept of the God it is trying to depict. It contradicts itself every other page and doesn't line up with evidence found in geology, biology, cosmology, etc.It cannot contain both the reprehensible moral code that's just "stuff for the Jews" and still be considered the word of a perfect deity.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Why do you guys argue over religion. The bible contains some truth, it's not all of it. Evolution by definition is impossible, everything is a preset.

Most of the religions on this planet have similar stories, maybe the genesis did happen in some form. Maybe people needed to understand at that time in some way explainable to them, so it was explained in a way so they can understand. Is it really about hating religions ? or do people have something against the universe and the force that created it.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 




Evolution by definition is impossible, everything is a preset.




Statements like the above just destroy your credibility. Evolution is vindicated by every single field of biology and the evidence points exclusively to it.



maybe the genesis did happen in some form.


Evolution proves that the Genesis events depicted in religions did not take place. Bio-diversity is the result of natural processes, not magic. Everything is NOT preset, if it were human beings wold each be genetically identical. The fact that there are genetic differences in every human being means that we are not static or preset.

In fact some populations develop entirely new genes to help them thrive:

Genes Explain why Tibetan's thrive

Speciation, the change of one species into another, has been directly observed.

Genesis is wrong, the Bible is wrong and therefore it is not the word of God.

The reason I am combating the Bible is because it has a group of fundamentalist followers surrounding it who believe it is perfect and flawless. They begin with this preset notion and throw out or ignore everything that disproves it. I combat it because I was trapped beneath the oppressive belief system myself and am trying my best to wake others who are equally deceived.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   


Makes no difference, there are millions of species on planet Earth, the boat wouldn't have held even a fraction of them. There also isn't enough water on Earth to cause a Global flood. Geology has disproved the Global flood time and time again.

Maybe it's just a story close to the truth. Geology is not an actual fact, it's just a proximity factor, no one knows for sure how the earth looked and how it changed over the time, if the south and north ice caps were to all melt down you would have a rise in sea level. Another thing, place any object in a glass filled with water and you will see the water level rise from the object at the bottom. Earth or water on top ? or better put and said... mountains are not flat so you can walk on this earth. You are 90% liquid.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   



Statements like the above just destroy your credibility. Evolution is vindicated by every single field of biology and the evidence points exclusively to it.

Evolution happens by laws too. You cannot become something you are not meant to be. In other words, evolution is not evolution. Not everything is possible and nothing is at random. For example do you think regression is possible or is it real ? It's for example where you are fat and you loose weight or is it evolution by regression. In other words there are laws of what you can become and what you can't become from the start to the end.
I would not call that evolution, just a preset of how things grow and shape.
Everything is meant to be and nothing happens by accident, everything has a design, a blue print, it should make you wonder, can't become something else other than what is in the blue print.

Evolution is a fairy tail and yes the universe has laws already defined, old laws that can't be broken. If you don't think I'm right then grow some wings and fly, evolve into a butterfly and see how gravity stops you.





[edit on 8-6-2010 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I wonder why laws don't evolve? Do you see an evolution there, in laws ? Then if everything is guided by laws then it will change by law in what it's dictated.





[edit on 8-6-2010 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So that would be not a single one.

You do not have one example of archeological evidence proving the account of the bible. What you do have is exactly what you have already been told would not even be considered for the huge beating it has already taken by reality.
Are you blind?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Some people's main issue is that there is still war going on over the land that the Bible has called 'special'.

This has set up forever bloodshed, in the name of God.

Sorry...but Ill stand up against such things...it is holding us back as a unit, as a people, as a species.

I kindly debate...against alot of what the Bible says...I worry about some honest hearts that are just following another man instead of stepping back and thinking about this so called nature of God in the Bible.

I am a believer in God, I know the Holy Spirit is real, I know there is more past this life. So all the more...I want to help fellow beings know they are loved and can step away from the fearful God who awaits to punish them.

Any 'belief' should be challenged....I welcome anyone to challenge my path to me. It helps me weigh and measure my own choices and being.

I think the Bible has caused a very very sad situation that is going to cause much reaping of karmic debt to many of my fellow beings. I would be selfish to not share with them the view that I also see. The idea of blood sacrifice, chosen people and land, and reaching self salvation (reward of self).....are all a path of self. These souls will have to reap these ideas, for these beliefs are only markers for them, and for their self after death....to see what they still need to learn. I encourage other beings to seek a path that is of service to others...a offering of self with no rewards except the knowing you offer yourself back to help others....and to carry their own wrongs upon their own cross. Oddly enough....even Jesus said....pick up YOUR cross...and follow me.

I think it is natural for humans to discuss and debate....in fact I think it is very healthy for us as a group.

Just my take
LV



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


How about the word 'emanation' instead of 'evolution'....



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
FFS.
The subject was NON-Christian sources for Jesus !
Now you claim Paul was an non Christian source !?
Wake up, Jeff.
Kap
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]


Jesus showed up to Saul (which he was renamed to Paul). At that time he was a non-Christian when Jesus appeared before him.
Who is Jeff?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So that would be not a single one.

You do not have one example of archeological evidence proving the account of the bible. What you do have is exactly what you have already been told would not even be considered for the huge beating it has already taken by reality.
Are you blind?


No, I just understand the difference between "an account" and a location.

You touched in the head?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Wrong.
Paul NEVER met Jesus.
He wrote DECADES after the alleged Jesus.
He never even gives a DATE for Jesus at all !
You've never actually studied any of this, have you ?
Kap
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]


1Cr 15:8 [Paul is speaking about seeing Jesus]
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."
There is no 'alleged' Jesus. Even critical scholars believe He existed.
For historical scholars decades are acceptable.
I sure have studied it. I know that Josephus wrote about Jesus and the Josephus historian, Steve Mason will testify in court to the validity of Josephus statement about Christ.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
FFS.
The subject was NON-Christian sources for Jesus !
Now you claim Paul was an non Christian source !?
Wake up, Jeff.
Kap
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]


Jesus showed up to Saul (which he was renamed to Paul). At that time he was a non-Christian when Jesus appeared before him.


So funny !

YOU claimed there were dozens of NON-Christian sources for Jesus.
But when pressed for evidence you come up with ONE FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN !

You just make it up as you go...


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
Wrong.
Paul NEVER met Jesus.
He wrote DECADES after the alleged Jesus.
He never even gives a DATE for Jesus at all !
You've never actually studied any of this, have you ?
Kap
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]


1Cr 15:8 [Paul is speaking about seeing Jesus]
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."


Paul had a VISIONS - so what?
People have VISIONS even today.
So what tex ?



Originally posted by texastig
There is no 'alleged' Jesus. Even critical scholars believe He existed.


99% of those 'scholars' are faithful Christians were work in Christian establishments. The most biased sample possible.



Originally posted by texastig
For historical scholars decades are acceptable.


What does that even MEAN?



Originally posted by texastig
I sure have studied it. I know that Josephus wrote about Jesus and the Josephus historian, Steve Mason will testify in court to the validity of Josephus statement about Christ.


There we have it -
What matters to YOU is the TESTIMONY of BELIEVERS.
You don't care about the facts at all.

Josephus' passage is CORRUPTED or totally FORGED.
But it's your BEST evidence.
A source that has been TAMPERED with by CHRISTIANS.


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus.


No he didn't.
Paul had a VISION of Jesus.
So what?

People have VISIONS of Jesus or Krishna or whoever, to this dat.

So what, NOT ?
So what?


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Appeal to numbers fallacy for one, secondly, the Bible is considered even by skeptics as a historical document.
Fail x 2.


(You idiot. YOU said "everyone knows the bible is historical"
Which is nonsense, and an appeal to numbers.
You made the fallacy ! Now you pretend it never happened.
I made that statemement specifically to show the falsehood in your claim.
Then you dishonestly pretended you never said it.
Dishonest hypocrisy.)

Completly, totally, 100% wrong.

Many sceptics, such as myself, consider the bible a book of fantasy and myths.

Your claim is simply false.
But you always do that - just say any old crap that supports your faith, you never bother with the actual FACTS.

I could just as easily say :

EVEN FAITHFUL BELIEVERS ADMIT THE BIBLE IS MYTHS and LEGENDS.

Are you convinced?
No?
But you think you can say "sceptics believe the bible".

What rank idiocy.


Kap


[edit on 8-6-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Like I said to Kap...there is no absolute to either argument. It does fall back to belief when we bring God and heaven and all the other supernatural stuff into it.


Wrong.

Science does NOT depend on BELIEF.
Religion is all BELIEF and no facts.

The bible is proven to be wrong on many many issues.

Which you all keep IGNORING :
* the garden of eden
* the flood
* the exodus
* the conquest
* etc. etc.

All FICTION and MYTHS.


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true.


But you FAIL over and over to tell us ANY !

And you IGNORE the evidence proven FALSE :

* garden of Eden
* Flood
* Exodus
* Babel
* etc.

Numerous Bible accounts PROVEN FALSE.

ZERO accounts from NOTurTypical of any such accounts shown correct.
ZERO.

Time and Time again, we can expect NOTurTypical to keep preaching his BELIEF :

"Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true."

But he will never produce evidence of course.
Just PREACHING.


Kap




[edit on 8-6-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
instead of making arbitrary statements, why don't you provide us with examples of the bible being erroneous in what it says transpired in history.


I did,
you keep IGNORING the facts.

Garden of Eden - myth
Flood - myth
Exodus - myth
Babel - myth

Will you ignore this evidence for ever?


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
So, the Book of Mormon is true then, according to YOUR argument.
And Scientology is true too - according to YOUR argument.
Your argument is nonsense.
It does NOT matter WHEN a book of religious fiction was written.

In the old historical world, decades are fine ACCORDING TO CRITICAL SCHOLARS. Let me repeat that for you. DECADES ARE ACCEPTABLE TO SCHOLARS IN THE OLD HISTORICAL WORLD.
As for the book of mormon, there is no archaeological evidence for it. But there is for the Bible.
I don't know that much about scientology except that Tom Cruise is in it.

Originally posted by Kapyong
You just ASSUMED Jesus DID exist, then claim Paul wrote shortly after - but that ASSUMES what you are trying to prove in the first place !
Kap

I don't have to assume. Josephus wrote about Jesus and one of the world's leading Josephus scholars, Steve Mason said that he would testify in court to the validity of Josephus statement about Christ.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join