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.

 

Religion of science & knowledge?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I didn't know where to put this but,

I'm not big on religion but I understand the importance of faith and how it really can improve people mentally, yet also take them away physically. Before success there must be belief in success.

So, if we took lets say the Christian religion and turned it on it's side. Instead of worshiping one (or 3) entity we would gather once a week for a few hours and listen to an elected spokesman, this person would show us the light of science and technology and how if applied to our everyday lives what a difference it could make.

Most religions have always concentrated on shaping the human spirit and behavior with stories and morals, but its seems that has lost the grip it once had and for most of the younger generations it no longer matters to them. They want something concrete and proven to help them. Why not science and technology? Leave the answer of what's after death open. No one knows and we all should at least admit it or keep our thoughts about it as OPINIONS not FACT.

Just think if the energy and time went into the practice of a religion of knowledge and technology where we would be today?

How about instead of prayer everyone would take time out of their day to think about improving humanity as a whole.

If you really think about our whole idea of god(s) is basically infinite knowledge, power, and influence. Couldn't we eventually be that ourselves?

We should be worshiping us as a whole, as one. I truly believe the only way we are going to make it as a people, species, ect is through collaboration for the greater good of everyone.

It is time we evolve ourselves and our creeds.

At one time religion, science and technology was once studied all as one and we made incredible leaps for the greater good. What happened?

Think about it....


If there was an experiment that took a few communities and had each practice different religions this group would be happier, live longer, and be more prosperous as hole.




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I have what I consider to be a better idea.

Lets all keep to ourselves what we think about GOD and the here after, you have no need to stop believing just don’t go anywhere near a place of worship and keep our mouths shut.

At the same time pick someone who needs help and help, it may only be doing a little shopping for the old lady down the road, but what ever just help someone with something that they are having a problem with.

At the same time do something to help the planet.

If all of us did this we would change the planet for good not evil.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
I have what I consider to be a better idea.

Lets all keep to ourselves what we think about GOD and the here after, you have no need to stop believing just don’t go anywhere near a place of worship and keep our mouths shut.

At the same time pick someone who needs help and help, it may only be doing a little shopping for the old lady down the road, but what ever just help someone with something that they are having a problem with.

At the same time do something to help the planet.

If all of us did this we would change the planet for good not evil.


Nobody forces you to discuss it. The only thing as bad as someone who wants to force their religion on you is someone who wants to force people to not speak at all because of it. In the end, it's all a bunch of hypocrisy.

You can sit around and try to make the world so PC that nobody ever says anything that might "offend" another, but personally I think it is much more realistic and better when people learn how to live and let live, and quit being offended because someone's opinion is different than yours.

And hey, if you want people to shut up about religion, maybe you should start first.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Darkstar
If you promise someones God(s) can't sneak in and ruin the fun, then sign me up.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkStar86
 


I don't think you must understand what the bible and stuff is actually saying. So when you speak of knowledge and science and you think it's separate of religion then you are simply incorrect.

What you are actually going by is not what is said, but based on what people do in the name of it.

This is basically the equivalent of someone saying "freedom and liberty" is bad because of all the bad things GWB did in the name of it. When in reality while he paid lip service to them, his actions were quite the opposite.

And overall, do you really think what people worship is going to change all that? Seriously? Do you think that if someone isn't a christian, suddenly they are going to turn into Hippy Dave?

If you actually read what the bible says you will notice it's nothing like what mainstream Christianity is. You will notice that the people who say they follow Jesus don't actually do what he says. All they do is pay lip service while doing whatever they want, no different than GWB and freedom.

I won't be allowing either of them to define such things for me. As it turns out, what someone pays lip service too means nothing. And changing what people pay lip service to from Jesus, Buddha or whatever to themselves isn't going to change anything either. And if they were actually following what Jesus said, rather than just paying lip service then you wouldn't be posting this thread.

The bible contains more knowledge and understanding on a level that is beyond science. Sure it's not obvious and the majority of what people think is false. But if you should ever to happen to understand what is being said, then you will see answers and truth well beyond what science can give you, and well beyond the "Ostrich" attitude of someone putting their head in the sand and thinking anything they don't see doesn't exist.

When you read the bible and such, then you need to look at it in terms of a movie like the matrix, rather than a literal version. The matrix is "just a movie", and if you want to argue over the literal version of it then you are just being silly no matter which side of the argument you are on. If someone says Neo is literally real and is going to save them, then the other side can say - oh it's just a movie, you believe in fantasy. But both positions are foolish and miss the entire point of the movie, and that is exactly what people do with religion. Arguing over the literal, rather than taking in the understanding it provides.

The bible already talks about gaining wisdom and knowledge, so what you propose is not really new. As I show, it's just a matter of giving people understanding and showing them how to learn rather than what to accept.

Because the only riches in the eyes of the father is that of wisdom and knowledge. That is the purpose of this entire reality. You took for the "tree of knowledge"... Wisdom is to use the knowledge you have in order to make the correct choices.

www.biblegateway.com...

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

Btw, the father is within. When you speak of "worshiping yourselves", what you really mean is worshiping the flesh. Because you do not know the father that is within you, and you think of yourself as being your flesh and body. When you understand the father is within, rather than some invisible man in the sky, then you might start to understand what is being said better.

Science is great when put in the proper place. It however sucks by definition for anything that is beyond the realm of action and reaction. Because once something leaves that realm then the condition of being repeatable is broken. It can not handle consciousness or soul or what it means to be. What people who toot science as some end all be all like this thread forget is that there has to be a scientist to make sense of it. That is the realm of reason and understanding, and science can't handle that. That is when philosophy and religion come in. Sorry, but there is a different between that which follows logic(laws of creation/universe) and that which creates logic(consciousness/soul/god).

Don't think I'm prepared to follow someone who doesn't understand existing principles for advice on how religion should be.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I have read the Bible. Too bad for me it was the first book that I was reading from. Anyways, Bible science? Here is a few to start.

Bible passages, including Isaiah 40:22 tend to describe the earth as a flat circle, not a sphere.

How did got create light, THEN create the sources where light comes from (i.e. - the stars and the sun)?

Numbers 23:22 - Unicorns!? Really?

Matthew 13:31-32 - Jesus claims that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. Not true.

Didn't want to discuss the Bible, really. I was fond of the thought of maybe having a place that I would want to be on a Sunday morning.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


Any fool can know, the point is to understand. You are looking at things on a literal level, rather than a level of understanding.

Science has a place. Science is about the details and such of this creation. Science can tell me how much thrust at what angle is needed to propel a baseball from home to 2nd. But I can still make that throw myself without knowing physics based on simple understanding and a little practice at it.



Bible passages, including Isaiah 40:22 tend to describe the earth as a flat circle, not a sphere.


What is said is for the understanding of the time. Today we understand things better, but as for the understanding of the time, flat circle is not too far off. Plus, I've seen arguments that support the earth is actually a sphere. But whatever. Either way they were an explanation for the time. If we come to better understanding of those things, then great.

Or should I open a science book from 40 years ago and dismiss all of science because explanations of that time do not line up exactly with the understanding of today? Or should general science classes be dismissed because they don't go into the exact details of each science?



How did got create light, THEN create the sources where light comes from (i.e. - the stars and the sun)?


I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. You create an idea, and then you implement it, and thus a source. All things come first from thought, then they are manifested. Before the light bulb, there was an idea of a light bulb. Create light, then say - ahh here is a source for it. Although to be quite honest, those aren't the only sources of light, nor is it even the light you see. But that is another topic.



Numbers 23:22 - Unicorns!? Really?


A horse with a horn on it's head. Yeah, it's really hard to believe such has never happen. I don't know if unicorns existed or whatever, it could be symbolic of something else for all I know. But seriously, if a unicorn happened to be true, would it really be all that mind boggling?



Matthew 13:31-32 - Jesus claims that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. Not true.


smallest of all known seeds. This is a good example of not understanding. Does it even matter if that is true or not literally? No. Because it's not being used like a science class where you repeat what is told. It's being used to give understanding. It's hyperbole to make a point. If the seed is the smallest or not is completely beside the point and doesn't even matter. Most likely it was the smallest seed known to them. But it was used to give understanding, and for you to even present it in such a way is just plain sad. You talk about intelligence, knowledge and wisdom, but then do not use them in your arguments.

Show the entire passage.



Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:


www.answers.com...



Parable
A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.


Get it?



Didn't want to discuss the Bible, really. I was fond of the thought of maybe having a place that I would want to be on a Sunday morning.


Sure you did, you came to a religious conspiracy forum and put down religious stuff you don't even understand. What you want to do is to be able to say whatever you want without being called on it.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Sure, I understand. I understand differently than you. If you look at any other posts I have made on religous matters, you will see that I have no desire to take religion from anyone. If someone believes in something and it helps them get through the day, I'm happy for them.

You even helped me out in your last post by inadvertently removing the hand of God from the writing of the Bible. You said "Either way they were an explanation for the time." Anything written by or from an all knowing, creator God (or his Son) should be the most accurate account of everything and stand the test of time. My only concern is that I do not believe the Bible was inspired by any supernatural force. It was written by the hand of a human and from the mind of a human.

I will not argue that there is wisdom to be found in the Bible. I will also extend that to almost any holy book of almost any religion. There is a great wealth of wisdom to be found in the Bible and other holy books.

Should it be used to try and prove creation or the existence of a God? Probably not.

And honestly, I did not come here to discuss the Bible. I came to this thread in the same way that I find my way to any thread at ATS. I looked at the page of most recent threads and clicked one that interested me. I did not look at what forum it was in.

I like the idea that the OP has. If people can get together, leave religion at the door and discuss what science is doing now and how it is improving our lives (and even the opposite), I think that there would be some good to come from that.

All I think he wants to do is to have a place to congregate in a friendly environment to learn or share non-spiritual things. What's wrong with that?

I spent the first two and a half decades of my life believing that the bible was the word of God. I spent the next 5 years or so after that pretending to believe it was the word of God. I have spent the last 10 years being honest and saying that I do not believe the Bible is the word of God.

That does not mean that I think the Bible is not a good book and that people cannot learn from it.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   


I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. You create an idea, and then you implement it, and thus a source. All things come first from thought, then they are manifested. Before the light bulb, there was an idea of a light bulb. Create light, then say - ahh here is a source for it. Although to be quite honest, those aren't the only sources of light, nor is it even the light you see. But that is another topic.


You do not create light and then build a lightbulb. You do not create light and then build a fire.

Anyways, do we have to argue about these things? I will never believe again and I do not care if you stop believing or not.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Badmedia,

You are just spinning your wheels here. I totally understand your point but once again may I need to remind you the younger generations around the world are growing up in the information age. They don't accept old scriptures into their lives anymore and you cannot force them to. So lets move on....

You talk about all the great lessons to be learned from the bible just as many Christians do and we get it, but if you're trying to tell us you can also find great scientific knowledge there also that is not correct. Now, maybe at one time before the bible got edited by the many rulers of the old world there was but not in the current version.

Tamusan,

I would never take freedom of speech away. But in this creed we would only go over factual knowledge and how it can be applied to better our lives. So unless we come in contact with a "god" then no, there will be no talk of god(s) in the religion.



All I'm saying here is, we should stop trying to make old creeds fit our new ways. It hasn't worked now or in the past. You may argue that these old scriptures show us morals and values. Sure they do. But I know many people who have learned them through other means besides a book and a religion. Good and evil reveals itself through knowledge.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


My dear badmedia

I am not discussing it that is my whole point; I think people should believe what they want without indoctrination by religious zealots. Whose whole interest is to have power over others. A person’s belief or not in God and the here after is a purely personal thing and great evil has come over the centuries because one lot of religious zealots wants to force their beliefs on another. So all I am saying is believe what you wish just don’t try and convince other that your belief is the correct one.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by DarkStar86
 


I don't think you must understand what the bible and stuff is actually saying. So when you speak of knowledge and science and you think it's separate of religion then you are simply incorrect.

...


Great post. Well the point of it from my perspective, at the least. If you want to read some silly stuff in the bible, read all the "Soandso begot soandso" part. I don't see how you can completely discount something based on the first few pages. In my experience you have to read the whole thing before you can really pass judgement on it.

Back to the OP...
I distrust technology, even this computer I'm on. I guess it's all those Terminator movies and Matrix spin-offs I've watched. This may not be what you meant, but I don't really want to be 'god,' so no I wouldn't join this church of Science.

Relgion is good sometimes, but it's mighty dangerous.
Science is good sometimes, but it's mighty dangerous.

...and no, I'm not a Christian, but would you discount what I said if I was?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
Sure, I understand. I understand differently than you. If you look at any other posts I have made on religous matters, you will see that I have no desire to take religion from anyone. If someone believes in something and it helps them get through the day, I'm happy for them.

You even helped me out in your last post by inadvertently removing the hand of God from the writing of the Bible. You said "Either way they were an explanation for the time." Anything written by or from an all knowing, creator God (or his Son) should be the most accurate account of everything and stand the test of time. My only concern is that I do not believe the Bible was inspired by any supernatural force. It was written by the hand of a human and from the mind of a human.


If you are making posts on religous matters, then you are opening yourself up for religious discussion period.

I am not a Christian, and I do not think the bible is the "Word of god". It has become a replacement for the actual word of god. But as for the comment that it should be accurate to the test of time, that is not how the father gives.

I am able to "know" just about anything I want, if I ask the father gives to me. Does that mean I say - hey god, who's going to win the world series this year and he gives me that? No. That is not how the father gives. The father gives understanding and wisdom. Rather than simply telling you the answer as an authority, he gives you the understanding and wisdom so that you will know something for yourself, so that you will understand it for yourself. It is from that point that one takes what they have learned and understand and try to express/manifest it. However, at this point it goes from understanding to literal, but the literal is only meant to bring about the understanding. Thus, when you focus on the literal you completely miss the true understanding and wisdom.

Unavoidable is that each person is not only going to understand things based on their current knowledge and surroundings, but it also has to be expressed in such a way. Communication requires one to take a thought or image and break that up into words, you then take those words and you give them to another person who then takes those words and tries to rebuild the thought or image. By default there is going to be some "corruption" of the data between the 2 people communicating.

If you go to a dog and give him a physics paper on how to build a rocket and the science behind it, then what good is it to that dog? It's not. Unless you are able to stay within the perimeters of that dogs intelligence, it's useless. And it is no different with humans from back then.

In fact, one of the things I noticed in regards to when I was working on AI was that any AI will by default have to be "dumbed" down a bit just to stay within the "intelligence range" of humans. If the AI becomes smart on a level well beyond humans and leaves the range of intelligence for humans, then the intelligence is no longer recognizable. You get the same effect as giving a dog those physics papers.

But just like throwing a baseball, I can simply understand the general principles behind it and still throw and catch the baseball. I don't need to know the physics for it to happen. And what you are doing is pretty much is saying that anyone explaining how to throw a baseball is wrong if they don't use the physics of it.



I will not argue that there is wisdom to be found in the Bible. I will also extend that to almost any holy book of almost any religion. There is a great wealth of wisdom to be found in the Bible and other holy books.


Ok, then why would you want to dismiss a book with such wisdom? Simply because of what people do in it's name?



Should it be used to try and prove creation or the existence of a God? Probably not.


Nothing can be used for that. The father is within, thus it is impossible to prove to someone who doesn't know. It's something everyone has to find for themselves, it can't be done for you. What you really do when you talk about "proof" of such things is you expect everyone else to feed you information. And as long as you do that you'll be eating whatever someone else decides to feed you. I'm not a man of "faith", I know. For me it is fact. Trying to prove it to you is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind man. If he can't see it, then he can't see it period and nothing I say can make him see it. It's like trying to prove dreams exist. Sure we accept they exist because we all experience them, but prove it to the one who has never experienced a dream. That is what it is like trying to prove god to someone.



I like the idea that the OP has. If people can get together, leave religion at the door and discuss what science is doing now and how it is improving our lives (and even the opposite), I think that there would be some good to come from that.


The only problem is you are basing this opinion not on what either actually does, but based only on your general opinion of them. Each of them has a proper place, and they need to stay there. Those who want 1 or the other likely don't understand the one they don't like. As it turns out, it doesn't need to be an either or thing.

Plus, the notion that by getting rid of religion and focusing on science is suddenly going to make people better is silly in itself. But because you base these things on opinions of them rather than actual affects/purpose you make such assumptions. Silly IMO. Or is "science" in this case just code for "socialism"?



All I think he wants to do is to have a place to congregate in a friendly environment to learn or share non-spiritual things. What's wrong with that?


Nothing, nor is anyone stopping you. It's that you have to "drop religion" in favor of it that I find silly. You need both.



I spent the first two and a half decades of my life believing that the bible was the word of God. I spent the next 5 years or so after that pretending to believe it was the word of God. I have spent the last 10 years being honest and saying that I do not believe the Bible is the word of God.

That does not mean that I think the Bible is not a good book and that people cannot learn from it.


I spent 30 years not believing any of it. I don't accept anything any man tells me, and I never will. I do not trust men and do not accept them as authority. The bible just so happens to repeat what I learned and I know what it says is true. But I am not a christian, I think the christian religion is the anti-christ religion warned of. Came after Jesus, in his name, and then proceeded to persecute anyone who didn't agree with them. But I'm not going to drop the wisdom just because of what they do in it's name.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by badmedia
 


My dear badmedia

I am not discussing it that is my whole point; I think people should believe what they want without indoctrination by religious zealots. Whose whole interest is to have power over others. A person’s belief or not in God and the here after is a purely personal thing and great evil has come over the centuries because one lot of religious zealots wants to force their beliefs on another. So all I am saying is believe what you wish just don’t try and convince other that your belief is the correct one.


No man has legitimate authority on this earth over another. Those who accept the bible because it is feed to them by authority are just as blind and ignorant as the ones who don't accept it as authority. Either way you are not thinking for yourself, you are allowing other people to think for you. Rather than focusing on what makes sense and following it, you end up focusing on what other people say about it.

I am extremely harsh on criticism over what religion has done. I bring it up often. But at the same time I bring up the fact that the texts their religion is based on directly says not to do it. But you dismiss the texts which say not to do it based on the actions of those people, and that is what I find silly and not very intelligent.

If I couldn't separate the 2 then I'd still have the same opinion you do. See I wasn't brainwashed into this, I didn't accept it, I was literally shown the truth and then seen it repeated in the bible. And I'm sure not going to let what other people do define it for me. Why would you allow what people to define it for you?

It's like people who go around talking about how bad free markets and such are because of whats going on today. They blame these things, but the only base their opinions on what has been done in the name of them, not what they actually mean and stand for. If you look at the definition of free markets, then you see that while they may say it was free markets, it actually wasn't by definition. But yet people still go on and on based solely on what people claim something to be. Bible and religion is no different.

Personally, I find it to be very low levels of thinking, zombie like. Bunch of non-thinkers walking around in a daze accepting everything they are told and repeating it over and over as fact.

It is not about what people believe, science/religion or otherwise. It's all about the levels of thinking people use to get them. Those who accept and reject based on "authority" and "credibility(establishment of authority) are zombies, they use only memory(repeaters), not their intelligence. It goes for religious people and atheists alike.



Leonardo da Vinci

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStar86
Badmedia,

You are just spinning your wheels here. I totally understand your point but once again may I need to remind you the younger generations around the world are growing up in the information age. They don't accept old scriptures into their lives anymore and you cannot force them to. So lets move on....


I would never force anything on anyone. To do so is to miss the point completely. But if you are dismissing it based on what people do rather than the knowledge contained, then it's promoting ignorance period.

The truth is the bible contains knowledge and understanding that science can not even begin to touch, because science isn't equipped for it. Science struggled at even quantum physics, much less spiritual stuff.

It doesn't really matter what you do, I learned without the bible and I'm sure other people have too. But after you've learned the bible makes sense.

Move on? I'm still waiting for the majority of you to catch up.



You talk about all the great lessons to be learned from the bible just as many Christians do and we get it, but if you're trying to tell us you can also find great scientific knowledge there also that is not correct. Now, maybe at one time before the bible got edited by the many rulers of the old world there was but not in the current version.


The bible talks about things beyond quantum physics. In fact, quantum physics will end up proving Jesus right and give understanding on what he was saying. Ask me about the universe sometime, or I'll go hunt up a post on it for you. There is a reason why Jesus calls it "the way" and a "path". But paying lip service does not walk that path, and Christians as a majority aren't a reflection of it. They walk the "other" path and belong to the "synagogue of satan".

And btw, I didn't learn from the bible, I seen what I learned in the bible. My defense of it is because the bible spoke and told of my experiences long before they happened and told exactly what happened to me. And while that might not seem like a big deal to you, when you are thinking nobody else in this world understands, it's nice to see that others knew and also helps to explain things for those not so great with words.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


My Dear badmedia

I have not mentioned the bible at all what so ever.

However since you bring it up, the old testament is a collection of tale passed down by word of mouth for centuries and we all must relies how corrupted that can be. I am not disputing how valuable some of these tails are in the moral value that they bestow to us but tails just the same.

However the New Testament is far worse, it is a selection of pasted down tales. The operative word being a selection, that was selected as a latter day advert to gain followers in order to control. This occurred in 180AD when all the other writing of the life of Joshua were rejected therefore totally obscuring the truth of the life of Joshua son of Joseph. Or not as the truth may be.

My point here is that is all any religion is about Control. It is all it’s about today and all if was ever about. It brings great joy to billions I know, however it also brings about great evil.

At this time we are at the beginning of the next Holy war and those who created this conflict have done so to promote their power and control so my point is again keep it to yourself that’s all.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hey Badmedia.
I simply no longer believe and I feel very comfortable with that. My life has not taken a turn for the worse, as some would predict. Actually, it is quite the opposite, my life is 1000% better than when I was a Christian. Please not not missunderstand me, I am making no claim that lack of faith has improved my life. I think that my current state would be about the same with or without faith.

You made many valid points and I want to acknowledge that they deserve a response. Time is short for me right now. I apologize.



The only problem is you are basing this opinion not on what either actually does, but based only on your general opinion of them. Each of them has a proper place, and they need to stay there. Those who want 1 or the other likely don't understand the one they don't like. As it turns out, it doesn't need to be an either or thing.


I'll touch on this really quick. I understand that I do not need religion to feel good about myself, to succeed, to help others, or to contribute to my society. I've made my mind up about God and I am very comfortable with my choice. I understand our existence in a manner that works for me. Just like you appear to understand it in a way that works for you. That brings me to my next point. Anytime we (you and I) will discuss religion, we most likely will disagree and that will lead to frustration, partly because neither of us have any empirical evidence. However, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with others, including you, and have a chance to listen to anything that can be addressed with empirical evidence. We could listen and discuss, we could see that we probably aren't all that different, and maybe we could get along. but bring religion into it and we will start to disagree again.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I have always wonder why we never understand or visualise the same things when we all read the same text and words.

I believe in A God as a source to everything.

In this sentence i have two clues: 1. A God 2. A source.

But if you have knowledge you would know that these two things are not the same. God is just a name given to The source.

By giving the source a name you still wouldn't know what the source is. But you can visualise the source by giving it a character. This is what the Bible have done.

To be able to build your knowledge further you have to know the difference here.

God is just a name. The source is the clue to everything.


This source has to be infinite. Because if not where would everything come from.

Since we have time and changes we cant say that everything just is. Because its not it is changing all the time.

We can make energy out of a atom. But we cant make solid matter from pure energy. We need energy to make matter from an other matter.

Have we ever observed energy make anything solid from a Big Bang. How big dose the Bang have to be to make energy into a solid like a atom or a planet.

Since we can destroy an atom we know that the atom can't be infinite. So something must have made it.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Going to make 1 reply, and I think it will address the majority of the responses.

You are arguing against those who use the bible as authority and use the scripture as authority. I would agree with you, except that is also EXACTLY what Jesus dealt with and warned of.

That is the the thing, all that you can name that is "bad" about religion and such, they are all things that Jesus himself dealt with, or things which Jesus himself warned against. If the bible and Jesus did not specifically warn and talk about such things, then I would be in agreement with you.

This is not apparent to you and others because you aren't looking at the "fruits" of the people, you are instead looking at what they say and what name they do things in. Jesus specifically talks about this in Matthew 7.

www.biblegateway.com...

I suggest reading the entire chapter, as it all makes sense and applies to this topic, but I'm going to point out a few things.



20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Their fruits are their actions and such. Jesus here is saying - you can't go by what people claim they are(he speaks of wolves in sheeps clothing before these verses). He says instead you have to look at their actions and what they do.

He goes on to say that just because all these people are going around doing and saying things in his name, it doesn't mean they are right. "Iniquity" means sin, so what he is saying there is that many will say lord lord, look at all the great things we've done in your name! And he is going to reply to them saying - I know you not. Because what they did, they did in sin. This is talking about people who use things for control and use the people for bad things etc.

The last 2 verses in this chapter is extremely telling.



28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


A scribe is someone who does what? Writes books and keeps the written word. These people you point out do EXACTLY this. They all hold onto what the scribes say and consider what the scribes say(bible) to be the authority. But it is NOT the authority. As the father is within, the only true authority for a person comes from within. Thus, the people are the real authorities. The bible(written and oral word) has become a replacement for this relationship and that is what Jesus is talking about.

So when I see threads like this, that talk about advancement of knowledge and intelligence, it's a smack in the face to me. Jesus is actually on "your" side, but because you do not understand him, you do not realize it. Instead, you allow those who do things in his name to define it.

If Jesus instead was saying - hey, the bible is the authority, do as it says and if it goes against the bible you are wrong(as most christians do). But that ISN'T AT ALL what he says, quite the opposite.

I can go on and on about this stuff. For any man to establish himself as an authority over others like churches and preachers do is WRONG. Jesus specifically says - do not do this. Which is also what the father told me not to do.

And thus why I reject the majority of the NT. The only part of the NT I really pay attention to are the 4 gospels, which contain the actual words of Jesus. These are gnostic texts, they give understanding and wisdom.

IMO, Paul is a false prophet warned of. While I can see this based solely on the way he contradicts Jesus and such, the real "proof" of this is found in "Acts". Where his entire "experience" is fake. Not only does he change his story 3 different times(and by changing, I mean completely), none of them are actually at all in line with what the OT says at all. Unless he is like Moses, which would be hard to believe considering his life until that point.

Paul's writings make up nearly half the NT. More than all the disciples who actually walked with Jesus and Jesus himself. He appeals to the political powers of the time and tries to establish a government with it. All things the disciples are told NOT to do.

But all this is unknown to those who do not understand. And that goes for both sides of the argument, Christians and Atheists. You do not argue over what is true, what is giving in understanding, but on the literal only. Which is about like arguing over if the matrix is real or not rather than seeing the truth is speaks of society.

If you look at their fruits then you can see how the things Jesus dealt with are the EXACT SAME THINGS we deal with. And this is important because this is why he is the "Way". If you can't see how your life and what you deal with is like what he did with, then you can't really apply his way to things.

When reading Jesus, understand these things.

Jews = Christians. Where Jesus says Jew, he is also talking about Christians. Because back in that time Christians did not exist, if you followed him you were a Jew. So when he is warning of fake Jews, he is not just talking about Jews, but also Christians. And if you want to be really smart, then you can say he is talking about all such religions and people who claim to be things they aren't.

Pharisee = religious hypocrite. You see them on TV, and out and about. Religious leaders who do things like that westboro church and so on. You can see their hypocrisy, it's probably what leads you away from all this to begin with, I know it did me for many years.

Synagogue = physical church. Whenever Jesus talks about a synagogue, he is talking about the physical churches. He is not just talking about a Jewish synagogue. Sure, they changed the name from synagogue to church, but a rose by any other name smells the same. Where Jesus says Church, he is talking about wisdom and understanding that you keep within yourself, which no man can touch etc. He is not talking about physical buildings of religious authority.

Everything you see Jesus deal with is still present today. It's just not obvious because they don't call them the same things. The blind read "beware of those who call themselves Jews but aren't" and they don't understand it's not talking about just Jewish people.

And then we see warnings of a new religion that will be in the name of Christ, but is the "anti-christ" religion. And that religion is Christianity. Came after Jesus? Check. Religion in his name? Check. Gains political power and authority on earth? Check. Won't be happy until it is the world religion? Check. And so on. But you are never going to see or understand that if you all those same people to define things for you.

continued...



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
As for control. I will explain the "path" and the "way" the way it was shown to me(not by any man btw).

If you look at the commandments you come to see 2 basic requirements. 1 is towards god and respect for god, and the other is to basically not impose on the free will of others. Stealing, murder and so forth, these are all things that impose on another persons free will.

The rest is about what kind of society you want to live in. A hellish society, or a peaceful/heavenly society. And I don't mean heaven as in 24/7 church.

If you steal, then how can you expect to live in a society that doesn't have theft? If you murder, then how can you expect to live in such a society? etc. Thus, these things aren't about "control" it's about the fact that if you are "evil" then by default any society you are in contains "evil". The path of Jesus is one that showed the correct way to live and thus not be evil, thus making yourself someone who can live in a peaceful society aka heaven.

The universe is action and reaction. What action you put in you get opposite and equal reaction. And this is the same thing as you reap what you sow and so forth. So it's hardly a matter of control, it's a matter of being aware of what you are sowing and what you will reap.

The general breakdown of this "reality" is this. We take from the "tree of knowledge" to experience and know both good and evil. Like hot and cold, you can't understand one without the other. It is up to you to learn these differences and then choose the "good" way. This is to have wisdom. Wisdom is using the knowledge, experiences and understanding gained to make the best choice.

As you were now capable of evil you are "quarentined" or moved away from the garden/heaven. This is done to protect the "tree of life". Meaning, you being evil have been seperated from those who are good or have choosen wisely in order to protect those people. Because if you being evil are allowed into that society, then it can no longer be the same society. More on this later.

So, the people were given the basic commandments to follow. So that they can make the right choice. However, due to hypocrisy and such, the people didn't actually understand how to follow those commandments. They thought they were justified or doing the "Lords work" for killing the man who killed. Because he killed, they were justified in killing him. They forgot "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". So they were not really justified at all, their actions were just hypocrisy and it was seen not as being justified, but as 2 sins(means mistakes) rather than 1. Those who thought they were justified became the greater evil in reality.

And so we get Jesus and those like him. Who come to show the correct way to follow the commandments and give the people an example of doing that, so that maybe - just maybe, you will see that they are right and follow in their footsteps, so that maybe you can be saved. So that you can live in that peaceful society.

Peaceful society = The best "government" is actually no government. Anarchy. However, this is NOT realistic at all on this earth. Because we have evil. Those who promote anarchy on earth either have other motives(ie they want to replace the current eventually, with worse usually), or they haven't considered everything. Where as in a peaceful and heavenly society, you could leave your house, come back 20 years later and find your stuff is still there, in this world if we did that we can come back 20 years to find everything of material value is gone/stolen.

Because we have evil, we get that neccessary evil called government. But in a society where the people aren't evil there is no need for it. Not much need for police when their are no criminals etc. So this goes back to why you were quarentined on earth to begin with. Because if you hadn't been, then everyone who can live peacefully would be made to suffer and be subject to that evil. The same society can NOT exist with evil among it.

So when threads like this are posted, I just have to shake my head. If one can not see these things clearly now, and see how Jesus is actually against all that you see is bad, then how can we expect that it will be seen in the future?

Any fool can know, the point is to understand. Any fool can run around saying Jesus is real, or Jesus is fake and religion is about control and so on. But the point is to understand, not to just know. What you know you accepted as authority, rather than using your intelligence. You are in both cases taking authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join