It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
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 comes across as " we deserve the benifits of a loving God. If we dont get 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.

Well, while what you say is true, it goes to prove nothing more than deism being a desperate attempt by humanity to gain some kind of control over the uncontrollable forces of nature.

Originally posted by orangetom1999As to the terrible world concept...I think of the world recorded in the writings of men before the Christian 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"

I don't know about restoring anything, but I don't see why you think love was in such abundance in the pre-Christian era. How much love was there in 146 BC?

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.

Er...I don't know what definition of "major religion" you are using, but it clearly isn't the same as the one I'm using. Christians have done their fair share of persecution over the years, so I don't see your point here.

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.

I think "problems" is a bit of a misnomer here. The Jews revolted a few times (because the Romans/Greeks instituted paganism in Jerusalem), achieved very little, won one battle, then were utterly crushed, had their temple destroyed and generally felt the boot for their cheek in not worshiping the Roman gods and emperor...

The Romans had more real problems with the Samnites. The Jews were literally a minor inconvenience that it only took two legions + auxiliaries to defeat.

What I meant was Judaism did not spread across the Roman Empire like Christianity did, as it was an aggressive religion designed for those who would be conquerers - as they were not the conquerors, a new religion had to evolve that explained just why they weren't the conquerors, and this found eager converts in other nations that had been smacked around by the Romans. Eventually, the Christians are the majority, and begin the merciless persecution of those who follow the old religions.

If you were a Roman or in the Roman Government..a soldier 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.

Well, it would have been a pain, but it wasn't anything the Romans couldn't handle. I think you overstate the "badness" of had been ruled by foreign, pagan, powers for many years before the Romans got there.

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.

Well, I'm not apologising for anything, so I don't see how it could be. And frankly, I'd like some more justification for your frank dismissal of something that you have done nothing to dismiss other than to say "I don't agree".

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.

No, they are not the same religion, but they are not new, revelatory religions either, despite all their claims to be.

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 --- cut---
Are any of you out there thinking yet??

I think you need to do a bit more thinking, to be honest. I have seen a noticable decline in the general intelligence of "the youth" over the last ten years. Children are not getting smarter, IMO.

But either way, in Britain organised religion is not taught in public schools outside of Religious Education classes.

With no attempt to offend, I have to say I find your attempted esotericism quite an unnecessary smokescreen to your real opinions and grasp of the issues, which I have to say I do have doubts about.

If you could present your debates/arguments in a slightly more linear and logical way, then I think we'd really be able to deconstruct them properly and get to the root of what you have to say.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

the land of shinar is the biblical name for "sumer"
500 years ago, we didn't even know it existed since it was buried under
eight feet of flood silt until recent times.

enmerkar, of the story, enmerkar and the lord of arrata, is detailing the construction of the tower of babel, which had several names, including
the etemenanki.

an akkadian description of the babel tower event, is the namshub of enki

and as you can tell by the text, it was monotheistic in the sense that one in particular was the one to which the others deferred. not that there wasn't a council of gods in their time frame, but rather that one in particular was the leader of the rest and it was to him that the people gave praise/worship/etc

these events and texts predate the exodus and moses, so clearly it can't be said that monotheism was created by moses, at least, not in the sense of history. even the biblical texts acknowledge other gods.

a brief timeline for the timeframe in question

sumer -- akkad -- early babylon -- dynastic egypt begins -- reforming of the chinese empire -- babylon

[edit on 17-5-2009 by undo]

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:16 AM
For anyone that doesnt have the time to do the research and study all the different translations there is , there is a risk that you are reading a versions of the bible that has been obfuscated over the many years. To me, its all the translations that is worrysome, much of the original texts must have been altered to some extent, perhaps we are missing something of importance.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:22 AM
reply to post by reugen

trying to debunk ancient history with modern examples of human financial institutions is a bit bizarre.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by undo

Yes its a bizarre comic but its also true, it tells you something about what lost in translation means, i bet some parts of the bible is also hearsay, interpretations of what really happened by someone who wasnt there but just got a story told to him.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:14 AM

.... 'Sun Book'...

the bible is a series of allegories on astrotheology and sun worship..

let's see this book for what it is and move on..

the universe is getting impatient, in case we haven't noticed..

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
reply to post by volitionawareness

well not exactly.

for example, jehovah is based on the sumerian enlil, who was associated with jupiter. all the old epics and so forth, referring to a council of gods, are talking about the same group.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:42 AM
holy in latin is "sanct"
in greek it is hagios
in hebrew it is ko'·desh


[edit on 17-5-2009 by undo]

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:30 AM
p.s. that's not disproving the texts, however. at least, not in my estimation.
my theory goes something like this:

the bible doesn't cover much of what happened on this planet prior to the arrival of homo sapians, however, it does hint at and suggest that the earth had a civilization on it, prior to homo sapians, and that civ developed. if we include in the deliberations the rest of the ancient texts, you can include things like...the prior civs advanced technologically, went out and colonized the other planets and/or their moons, mined them for resources and became a space-fairing race. there was a war and a cataclysmic event destroyed a planet which is now the asteroid belt. also in the war, the civs on the earth were wiped out and those capable of leaving, did so, in space ships. later, the earth was re-terraformed and homo sapians arrived on the scene. the bible is mostly about what happened after WE got here.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:02 AM
As a child, I struggled to identify any difference in nature between the stories of the bible and Aesop's fables. What if Aesop had claimed his fables to be messages from god, would there now be a church of Aesop? As time moves on, christianity becomes less and less relevant.

Someone posted a link that stated there are 2billion christians in the world. How many of those remotely follow the teachings of the bible? How many of those attend church every week? How many could answer detailed comprehension questions on the bible, without a copy handy? The answer is not many, on all fronts. I would be astounded if even 20% of those 2billion met those criteria.

People such as the author of the book being discussed by the OP are trying to search for real truth, rather than taking an old book that could have been written by a fantasist with dissociative identity disorder, an accomplished fiction author or a panel of powerful people looking for another method to control the masses, at face value. The more research that is done, and the more of it that is presented in coherent manner, the better.

Every strong chrisitian that is enlightened by reading such material, is another person that can get on with their lives and the matters at hand, rather than worrying about the words of some old book. Words that have long been warped and twisted so far from the original that even if the bible did at one time contain the real words of god, the current versions do not.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by mrmanuva]

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by mrmanuva

this mantra is only truly supported by the findings of the german universities during the enlightenment's beginning days. it was a time before the advent of archaeology or modern history. their criticisms of the ancient texts were based on things like...

1) where is the city mentioned here? it doesn't exist. therefore the text is a fable.

they were referring to troy (among many others), which has since been found

2) this gilgamesh, couldn't possibly be real. therefore the text is a fable.

they think they've found his city

3) human life can only come from natural childbirth, therefore references to birth without intercourse are fables.

um, this one is pretty much obvious. cough..artificial insemination..cough.

4) people can't fly in the sky, therefore references to them doing so, are fables.

well say hello to wilbur and orville wright, eh?

etc etc etc.

if it was any more obvious, it'd bite some of ya right on the tushie.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:22 AM
I don't think Sumer is covered in layers of silt, you know. The ruins of Babylon are pretty exposed, and the Great Ziggurat of Ur is still pretty prominent...

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

one problem is, some scholars make the mistake of including akkad and early babylon into their definition of sumer. that would be incorrect. and the cuneiform cylinder seals from sumer, were dug out of eight foot of flood silt. it's the black sea flood. now you're arguing against what has already been proven, scientifically, as well.

i don't get that particular mindset.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

one problem is, some scholars make the mistake of including akkad and early babylon into their definition of sumer. that would be incorrect. and the cuneiform cylinder seals from sumer, were dug out of eight foot of flood silt. it's the black sea flood. now you're arguing against what has already been proven, scientifically, as well.

i don't get that particular mindset.

Er, right, because what I had said was such a concrete and vitriolic attack on what you had said.

I had really postulated something due to evidence I have seen - if you'd care to post a few links to verify what you have said (silt could quite concievably come from the river Babylon sat on over time) then I'd be happy to accept it as fact.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

did you watch the videos i linked on the previous page?
it's already a foregone conclusion that there was a black sea flood

here's a quote from archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley

When excavating the site of Ur in 1926-29, Sir Leonard Woolley found an eight-foot band of "perfectly clean clay" (21) probably laid down by a massive flood around 3500 BC. Woolley estimated that the flood may have affected an area of the lower Tigris and Euphrates river valleys "perhaps 400 miles long and 100 miles across" (24). The flood was by no means universal, but such a deluge could have given rise to the tradition of a flood which happened in the dim beginnings of time.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by undo]

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by texastig
The French philosopher Voltaire, a skeptic who destroyed the faith of many people, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth.

Voltaire's only mistake was to underestimate human stupidity.

You do realize that the Bible is the only religious text to make any everyday and normal life sense right? It perfectly points out our faults and weaknesses and most people don't want to be judged. The judgment comes from your own judgments. I think that is why life the way it is. That and the Bible says don't have sex until marriage.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Connector

The atheist is not making any positive claims -- the theist is. Therefore, by rule of logic, the burden of proof is on you. It is impossible to prove any nonexistence claim. Atheist aren't saying there is no god reality what they are saying is I have no proof of a god, therefore there isn't one. If theists provided real proof/evidence other then just faith, you'd have a hell of a recruiting tool and there would be no atheists.

Here is where an atheist goes wrong:

"I have no proof of a god, therefore there isn't one."

You make a deduction based on the first premise? YOU have no proof of a god, hence, YOU jump to the conclusion that there must not be one.

Can you not see the arrogance in that? Because a group cannot find proof within limited science which primarily uses only the left side of the brain, then this discounts the right side? Ironically, either through God and evolution - both sides of the brain DO exist! Why?

Most abstract knowledge implements the left brain computer chip along with balancing it out with right brain reasoning. Most atheists I have found have a very difficult time bridging the left and right brain. So they stick with what is safe: tangible black and white thinking, which generally relies on someone else's research.

The reality of "God" NEEDS to use the function of both sides of the brain. Leave one out, then there will be extremes in views. Either; extreme emotionalism or extreme black and white with no gray areas.

High abstract reasoning takes in the capabilities that both sides of the brain contribute. Hence, high EQ & IQ.

As long as one only uses formulas and tangible proof, there can be little doubt that this person will ever experience anything as complicated, and abstract, as a God!

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by freeyourmind1111

As can I relate as well. Very valid point. My opinion is that we should start looking inward for answers and guidance instead of looking to what others say is right. I think God is smart enough to equip us with all we need.Cheers!

Very true. God also uses teachers, so it is important to look beyond ourselves to find the truth. The teachers are usually temporary, though.

I read a lot of books but I don't make their authors - gods, just messengers. I am an author and I don't expect to be worshiped either.

HE can speak through anything, if we are looking. Would you not agree?

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by MatrixProphet

"You make a deduction based on the first premise? YOU have no proof of a god, hence, YOU jump to the conclusion that there must not be one."

You have no proof god exists, therefore you know he exists. See the arrogance in that? Atheists say, "We have no proof that gods exists, show us what you got." And theists consistently fail at show-time. Doesn't bother them, they just keep on with the god-bothering. See the arrogance in that?

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by volitionawareness


.... 'Sun Book'...

the bible is a series of allegories on astrotheology and sun worship..

let's see this book for what it is and move on..

the universe is getting impatient, in case we haven't noticed..

I believe Biblia translated can also mean: library.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in