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.

 

Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



impregnated human woman

Yes, clearly again it makes much more sense if you consider that aliens artificially impregnated her or that she just made it up, or that she never existed in the first place, but instead religious people would rather believe the most unrealistic option.




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Welfhard
 



impregnated human woman

Yes, clearly again it makes much more sense if you consider that aliens artificially impregnated her or that she just made it up, or that she never existed in the first place, but instead religious people would rather believe the most unrealistic option.


LOL. I can picture it now.

"Why are you withchild?! Were you having extramarital affairs?!"

"Err- uh no. N-nNO! There were these peo-- beings that came down from the sky and one of them raped me! - It was totally not consensual."

They probably would have killed her anyway, the impregnations were more likely to have been the consequence of an unbridled orgy, which reminds me why being unashamedly sinful is so much more fun.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
u can get good things from the bible if u read between the lines its ashame its so badly tamperd and tainted .some ppl will believe anything they read from such a book wich is truly ashame it really is a blind faith .i believe when peoples animal instincts such as fear greed lust interact and override there common sense they will follow blindly false words or perhaps there simply blind sided by there passion for there faith these such things would give men reason to add dialogue to the bible. such as saying join us or burn for eternity .wich is practically terror tactics .the core of the bible seems to be good perhaps it started out as guidlines for a better way of liveing a purer exsistence another chapter in the solar mesiahs its ashame ppls own emmotions turned it into a tool of mass manipulation damageing what they sought to protect .maybe .. ..... maybe not im neutral on the matter so please dont challenge me with qeustions like what came first the chiken or the egg becuase my god is the earth .thnx for reading hope i didnt upset anyone



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 





This is a total copp out. Beliefs ought to be justified - faith is pointless.


You may well see faith as pointless and no one can take that from you. Nor should anyone attempt to take another persons faith from them or trample upon it.

You do understand what the idea of FAITH is, I'm sure. So why would you even make such a statement accept to be rude.

In any event, faith is the main tenant of any religion. Faith in that which you can not see. Our whole existence (whether based upon religion or not) is all about faith. When it boils down to it, this sort of "civilization" will eventually melt down and all we will have is each other. At this point FAITH in our fellow man is all some have to cling to. That will be the great test.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Bart Ehrman was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air, and there are some snippets on the Welcoming Spirits Blog:

welcomingspirit.blogspot.com...

Paula is the host, and it was written on April 4 of 2009.

I used to be a christian, and then I studied early christian history, and decided for my own freedom and desire to think for myself what the truth is, decided to quite being a christian, and that was about 19 years ago.

I think that Bart Ehrman mentions, in the snippet, in the above mentioned Blog, "One of my favorite things in studying religion is understanding the circumstances under which portions of the Bible were written. It's interesting to me that studying the Bible often takes the ability to split oneself into two distinct mindsets: the academic and the spiritual. Many people have difficulty separating the two sides when studying religion. I argue that its a good practice to set aside one's spiritual and emotional attachment..."



[edit on 17-5-2009 by truthandjustice]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
You may well see faith as pointless and no one can take that from you. Nor should anyone attempt to take another persons faith from them or trample upon it.

You do understand what the idea of FAITH is, I'm sure. So why would you even make such a statement accept to be rude.

In any event, faith is the main tenant of any religion. Faith in that which you can not see. Our whole existence (whether based upon religion or not) is all about faith. When it boils down to it, this sort of "civilization" will eventually melt down and all we will have is each other. At this point FAITH in our fellow man is all some have to cling to. That will be the great test.


Be careful because you are mixing together two different definitions of faith together without realising it.

Faith 1 - Religious: Believing in something without evidence.

Faith 2 - Non-religious: Having trust or confidence in a person.

The latter is irrelevant in this discussion. The reason I say that faith it useless is that to have a belief formed without evidence is entirely illogical, not only because it has no veracity, but because it can even mask reality and truth from a faithful.

I guess it's not true to say it's useless. Cult leaders use it to indoctrinate followers. I personally view it as the grand human weakness.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Don't forget that having such a faith, which religion requires of you, takes away your ability to objectively view the world around you. If you must have faith in something without evidence, then there will never be evidence that you will be able to even consider that questions that faith while keeping that faith strong. To ask a person to give up all questioning and pondering and objective thinking is very sad and yet is the only way a religion can survive. Religion can not exist without static faith (and threats of damnation).

[edit on 17-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 





You forgot pedophilia, rape, torture and incest, terrorism, witchcraft



Please give me the books and verses that you ascribe these charges to???

I'll give you the incest. As for the rest I have yet to hear about?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




Be careful because you are mixing together two different definitions of faith together without realising it.

Ill grant you the logic, but when we are dealing with religious beliefs, faith (and I know people are going to get plenty of ammunition out of this one)
takes logical concepts out of the equation. Your faith is based upon the trust in GOD. You no longer place your trust in your own devices, you believe in GOD and place your trust (i.e. faith) in HIM.

I do see the difference in the two different types as they are defined, as for me and any other person that holds beliefs in "any" higher power they also place their faith in their creator.



I personally view it as the grand human weakness.
We are all entitled to our opinions.

I was also trying to show that no matter how you slice it we all depend upon faith of some sort in one way or another.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
Your faith is based upon the trust in GOD.


No it is not. That "trust" comes after belief. It's like saying that you trust a specific person before you have even met them.

Faith, not being based on evidence, is based on other things like the desire of appealing perspectives, ie. God is a nice concept so I'll believe it. Most often, however, it's simply because the belief was pushed on them at an early age like it was for me.


I was also trying to show that no matter how you slice it we all depend upon faith of some sort in one way or another.


Good of you to drag us all down to your level.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
I read one of the articles that summed him up.. And it's the same thing that turned me away entirely from the christian faith. I believe this happens to a lot of people when they critically study what the bible has to say.

It's what happened to me, at least.


Me too. My parents forced me to study the Bible from a young age.
That was a mistake on their part.

I find that most people that truly believe it haven't read it.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 





No it is not. That "trust" comes after belief.
I guess we could split hairs over this but there are two or three diferent types of "faith" getting tossed about in our discussion.

Faith as in trust in "GOD", Faith as in religious beleifs, and faith (as you put it) Non-religious: Having trust or confidence in a "person."




God is a nice concept so I'll believe it.
Yeah, I've seen those sorts.



the belief was pushed on them at an early age like it was for me.
And I am married to one of those today. You know what it got Her parents??? She doesn't go to Church at all to this day.

I on the other hand was made aware of Christ as a child and didn't ever really leave HIM I just didn't follow. When I got to my 20's I went back to the Church. It was my choice alone and wasn't forced in any fashion.




Faith, not being based on evidence, is based on other things
Faith for me was hearing the Word of GOD in combination with life experience. I have had many brushes with death where the only plausible explanation is that there was an outside force that compelled others to allow my continued consumption of oxygen.

Along with many prayers answered that the statistical chances are (I'm sure) greatly out of my favor.

I know I'm just speaking to the walls and I'm not trying to "convert" anyone, it's just that I don't like people to think that I (or all Christians or people that believe in GOD in any form) do it through brainwashing. Many believe through logical thought processes and life experience.

Not a bad place to be, I can be intelectual, (when I'm not being stereotyped as a drone that is too stupid to see what's in front of his own face) or so I'm told. Don't forget to drink your koolaid!




[edit on 17-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


that would make some sense, unless all of mankind was genetically engineered....but again, that's just crazy talk now..



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
I guess we could split hairs over this but there are two or three diferent types of "faith" getting tossed about in our discussion.

Faith as in trust in "GOD", Faith as in religious beleifs, and faith (as you put it) Non-religious: Having trust or confidence in a "person."


Semantics are important. These definitions are not freely interchangeable.

Bit ignore them, for a moment. You must recognise that your beliefs are not based on evidence, and I mean real empirical evidence, not that silly "I had a vision" crap.

Having trust in god and having faith in god is illogical. People believe in god, then they believe that God tells them things, like that he is real, which they then use as evidence of God. Then you factor in the bible. LOL!

"Why do you believe in God?"
"Because the bible says so."
"Why do you believe the bible?"
"Because God says so."

It becomes this strange self-based circular belief.


And I am married to one of those today. You know what it got Her parents??? She doesn't go to Church at all to this day.

I on the other hand was made aware of Christ as a child and didn't ever really leave HIM I just didn't follow. When I got to my 20's I went back to the Church. It was my choice alone and wasn't forced in any fashion.


So what you mean is that as a child, you were made convinced of "Christ". That's kinda my point.



Faith for me was hearing the Word of GOD in combination with life experience. I have had many brushes with death where the only plausible explanation is that there was an outside force that compelled others to allow my continued consumption of oxygen.


H-yeah! Because it's impossible to get lucky. Of all the 100's of millions of people who "brush with death" not all, not even most will actually die - yet everyone will find it hard to believe they got lucky when statistically that's exactly what happened.

"OO I nearly died, it must be gods work."



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


I apologize about the delay in response.

To clarify my mention of honor: I meant for the word to be used in a "in the eye of the beholder" concept. I wasn't saying that this god did honorable, noble things, but that people perceived it to do so.

Your history is illuminating and a great example of how religion is molded to fit scenarios of specific cause and/or a lack of understanding. Divide and conquer? Pray or worship? Why not a combination of both? The choice is yours for the taking.

Anyways, in light of your words... What do you, or anyone for the matter, think about religion being at the root of destruction? Is it possible that religious differences are what's going to be the downfall to today's equivalent of Rome (the United States)?

Religion divides, it oppresses, and what separates it apart from intricacies of Hitler? I'm not saying that the bible, or religion, hasn't done anything beneficial. Some of the teachings of religion are completely necessary and beneficial for a multitude of reasons. They provide morals to people that otherwise might lack them. It gives people a path to follow when times are troubled. It's also possible that it makes a great scapegoat for people that might not be able to face certain aspects of reality. It is what it is and to each, their own I guess. I'm not sure, but maybe through all this fog.. there is some truth in these books. One thing is certain though, it's easy to tell that it's pretty good at predicting human ignorance.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Bit ignore them, for a moment. You must recognise that your beliefs are not based on evidence, and I mean real empirical evidence, not that silly "I had a vision" crap.
Granted, if we are approaching this from the stance of a scientific debate. Or the practice of Scientific logic if you will.

On the flip side I already said that in this instance we can’t really apply such standards due to the religious ideology. I know it's like a merry-go-round.





So what you mean is that as a child, you were made convinced of "Christ". That's kinda my point.
I wasn't really convinced of anything, my mother isn't that sort. Let's not turn it into one of these conversations with assumptions applied. I was exposed to the Lutheran Church. There was no forced attendance or anything. In fact I wasn't even baptized until I was well into my 20's and it was of my own accord.

It was being exposed to it as a child not convinced. It would have taken many more visits to Church in order to accomplish that, my mother isn't what you consider a Bible thumper or a Church goer. She just wanted me to be exposed to Christ and make up my own mind.




H-yeah! Because it's impossible to get lucky. Of all the 100's of millions of people who "brush with death" not all,
Well in all fairness I'll say that I never was a believer in coincidence; However, it's not impossible to get lucky. Of course one can get lucky in life a few times.

But, I didn't get lucky nor did I have "a brush with death" I walked amongst it. Daily! This was a relatively constant thing for me. I'm not claiming the accolades of a soldier (they truly walk with death) nor do I wish to get into specifics as I consider that a past life.

What I'm about to say truly sounds like a cop out and I will not deny that, but unfortunately this is something that one can not understand unless they have experienced it. Reply to you later, getting late.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
but unfortunately this is something that one can not understand unless they have experienced it.


I can understand it. I can totally understand it. Subjective personal experience has a huge impact on a mind that will believe in things without evidence.

The ludicrous part is that any kind of divine evidence, the religious will immediately attribute to their own God. So maybe you get lucky an
"implausible" amount of times - that just has to be the christian god at work!

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


A lil lol @ the movie you posted as the "I Am that I am" phrase was the colloquial way of saying "It'd doesn't matter who I am" when asked by Moses "Who are you".

People with modern concepts influenced by the last 2000 or so years of philosophy have interpreted much deeper connotations in this phrase than is actually there when viewed through the eyes of a Hebrew scholar.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by InnateNight
I apologize about the delay in response.


No problem at all.


Originally posted by InnateNightTo clarify my mention of honor: I meant for the word to be used in a "in the eye of the beholder" concept. I wasn't saying that this god did honorable, noble things, but that people perceived it to do so.


Interesting concept - do you have any examples of this? I can't think of any, myself. I tend to find people are generally desperate to reconcile a loving god with a terrible world.

Personally I think the Gnostics had it right!


Originally posted by InnateNightYour history is illuminating and a great example of how religion is molded to fit scenarios of specific cause and/or a lack of understanding. Divide and conquer? Pray or worship? Why not a combination of both? The choice is yours for the taking.


Thank you, I'm actually pondering whether I should write a book on it, but I suspect it may have been done already.


Originally posted by InnateNightAnyways, in light of your words... What do you, or anyone for the matter, think about religion being at the root of destruction? Is it possible that religious differences are what's going to be the downfall to today's equivalent of Rome (the United States)?


This is a tricky one, really.

It isn't really emphasised just how many religions there were in the Roman Empire, because the Christians wish to have it appear that Christianity was the major religion, second only to Roman Paganism.

Honestly, before monotheism became widespread, religious tolerance and comparative religion was pretty-much a normal affair.

Whenever the Romans conquered someone, they were inevitably polytheists (Jews aside, but they were a very small part of a very large empire) and so they had a high god, a thunder god, a god of love, a god of agriculture, etc, so the Romans simply said "who's your high god? Right, that's your name for Jupiter" and so on.

The pagan Romans never took religion as a means of justifying conquest, except perhaps with the slanders against Carthage and even then it was really just a smear campaign to drum up more public support rather than being the real reason.

It was only with the rise of Christianity that religion became a dividing force, because its fundamental doctrine flew in the face of all other religions at the time - there is only one god, and it isn't your god.

I don't think religion is specifically the root of destruction, I think it just gives a convenient reason to kill "the other".


Originally posted by InnateNightReligion divides, it oppresses, and what separates it apart from intricacies of Hitler? I'm not saying that the bible, or religion, hasn't done anything beneficial. Some of the teachings of religion are completely necessary and beneficial for a multitude of reasons. They provide morals to people that otherwise might lack them. It gives people a path to follow when times are troubled. It's also possible that it makes a great scapegoat for people that might not be able to face certain aspects of reality. It is what it is and to each, their own I guess. I'm not sure, but maybe through all this fog.. there is some truth in these books. One thing is certain though, it's easy to tell that it's pretty good at predicting human ignorance.


I think its quite romantic to say that religious history is full of innocents who have been "blessed" enough to be able to pierce the veil and get a glimpse of the "truth", and have generally mis-reported things due to their own lack of understanding....but I think this is generally a bit of an apologist argument.

Since its clear that none of these religions has evolved in a vacuum, one can easily pick out the links to previous religions, and therefore it seems that all of religious history is simply a copy-cat version of prehistorical beliefs, with slight adjustments made throughout time, depending on the will of one person, and probably to enhance their own personal power.

Do we really think Muhammad was a holy man of God, sent to go against the other monotheistic religions as God is concerned they got it wrong, or was he a man of little import who saw the great empires north and wondered why the Arabs, and himself, didn't have that same kind of power?

On human ignorance, this seems to be the major reason for organised religion. It doesn't take tithes to the church or mosque to believe in God. Organised religion is about control, clearly, and has always closely followed social trends.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth and InnateNight
 



I tend to find people are generally desperate to reconcile a loving god with a terrible world.


I have great difficulty with this concept of a loving god. I do not have difficulty with the concept and understanding of a Sovereign God.
The essence of God is that He is Sovereign..and not subject. Ironically this understanding is missing from even many Believers.

When I hear the concept promoted by Believers and even Unbelievers of a Loving God..it comes across as " we deserve the benifits of a loving God. If we dont get it ..it must be God's fault ..not ours. We want a subject god...with us as sovereigns..not god. Our god answers to us ..not the other way around..because we deserve..because we are good people. And we all know good people deserve good things...always. Right??
If we dont get good things...why its god's fault ..not ours!! Everyone knows this.

As to the terrible world concept...I think of the world recorded in the writings of men before the Christian Era...how much love, love, love there was to be found everywhere. You folks reading this know of what I speak...right??? There was Love, Love, Love..everywhere you turned back then. Therefore the world needs to be returned back to this era which was so great ...before the Christian Era...the world era of love, love, love.
Some folks would call this return back to the pre Christian Era by the term
"The Restoration of the True Brotherhood"

Dont you folks reading this just feel the love. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE!!

Isnt Gnostic, Sophist, Diestic, Wiseman thinking great!!??


the Christians wish to have it appear that Christianity was the major religion, second only to Roman Paganism.


Christianity has never been a major religion..ever. Christians like the Ancient Israelites have been a minority surrounded by wildlife who do not like them. There is nothing new here. This pattern is both true and ancient.
Nothing changed.


[ii]It was only with the rise of Christianity that religion became a dividing force, because its fundamental doctrine flew in the face of all other religions at the time - there is only one god, and it isn't your god.


Hmmmm..not quite correct here. The Romans did not get along with the Hebrews/Jews ..even before the Christian Era. The Romans were having problems with the Jews from the begining of their taking over Palestine under the Olde Testament. It is ironic that the Romans had problems with the Hebrews/Jews and then later ..problems with the Christians. Yet what is also not often mentioned, even by Christians, is that the Hebrews/Jews also had problems with the Christians.
If you were a Roman or in the Roman Government..a soldier etc...one of the worst places to get assigned for duty ..was Palestine. Palestine was one of the armpits of the Roman Empire. This is not widely known..even by Christians today.


Since its clear that none of these religions has evolved in a vacuum, one can easily pick out the links to previous religions, and therefore it seems that all of religious history is simply a copy-cat version of prehistorical beliefs, with slight adjustments made throughout time, depending on the will of one person, and probably to enhance their own personal power


This is apologist dogma..standard issue. It is also gnostic, sophist, wise man rationale.

This line of thinking and rationale can be found carried to its logical conclusion and called by names such as "Prisca Theologia" or Hermetic doctrine.
Identifying the things all religions have in common...therefore all religions are the same religion. All gods are the same god. etc etc et al.

I know some of you feel the Love in all this!!??


On human ignorance, this seems to be the major reason for organised religion. Organised religion is about control, clearly, and has always closely followed social trends.


I have problems with statements like this quote above..simply because I notice how smart we are becoming across the board today in public schools. This causes me to ask what organized religion we are teaching in public schools? Feel the love here ..in public schools??
Are they not also following closely social trends in public school??
Are any of you out there thinking yet??

Be very careful what is rational, logical, and reasonable. Be careful as well as to what is love.

Thanks,
Orangetom








[edit on 17-5-2009 by orangetom1999]




top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join