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.


Where is your God?!

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

i'm gonna have to disagree with that. primarily because in some of the earliest texts, enki arrives in a flying floating submersible advice giving glowing totally metal contraption, that has an interior that's a tangled thread beyond understanding. i believe it was the first example of a holy mountain from which later mudbrick and limestone holy mountains were modelled.

To disagree with me is nothing that's new,
only see for yourself how textbooks improve,
but not to leave clues and give you your smarts,
read more of those and lights will turn dark.

GE owns your mind,
Boeing picked out your stock,
Ford put you to work before you could talk,
Northrup and Grumann both gave you the moon,
soon they'll take it back,
then what will you do?

NBC informed you,
how you weren't a star,
told by a vision,
tele didn't go far.

Three notes are all
that hypnotize you,
like encounters three close,
you never knew

and Disney
a toast.

Media and persuasion,
Medians and Pershains
i'm telling you now,
you're under subversion,

so disagree with me,
take nothing to heart,
but I've told you here,
what has been from the start,

what to see
if you'd look,
not ponder in books

all written by men
line, sinker and hooks

nothing is hidden
it's only mistook.

History is not yours,
yours is not in a book,
rather etched in your skin,
a just savior you overlook.

He comes up before you,
loves and adores you
singing those songs
while you drive.

Tapping to beats,
that cause hearts to meet
and pound with love
for the first time.

The first time for you,
if you only knew
the mountain which
you have climbed.

Faith in your seed,
moves mountains you see
it's the oil with which to anoint,

In a holy cave
a Lot was saved
but his girls thought
all men were no more

So they Sprung from the grape
the juice that wine raped,
and lot cast his pearls
to the floor.

But now comes the time,
loving them
turned all benign,
better to burn out
then to fade away?

Rethink that word,
remember that
what you've heard
while this hour is late,

before blue lets go,
and red overthrows,
leaving our bodies
like snakes.

Enki means something,
you have yet to express,
submersed in subversion
baptismal and wet,

like Lord and abyss
or the swat of miss priss
and the look on her face
after stealing a kiss.

Time for disclosure,
when what you need
is closure,
believe me you don't want the dissss

You'll see and will find
in a matter of time
30 pieces is not
worth a kiss.

Kissing his cheek
lowly and meek
look no farther
then you

i repeat

Kissing his cheek
lowly and meek
look no farther
then you

repent means rethink
a cup none will drink
if you know this
it is your time

become or be done
a zero or one
Binary is a
parable crime

Not to be missed
or pondered
to twist
a line programming itself

I need not say
the next line
though it closes my rhyme,
so clesha and yellowed in piss

but a must is a must
to close up my bust
ignorance is most certainly


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by nightmare_david

Neither of you have 100% definitive proof of anything. Which only causes one thing. Constant arguing that does nothing but waste time because neither side will ever win.

I'm 100% confident that that I have 100%proof that there is not 100% proof of the reality of yahweh jesus being a deity.

Here's my take: I believe in a God. If there's some type of after-life, cool. If there is no God and nothing else after death, who cares? I'm dead and gone, but I had a great life and that's all that mattered.

And that's all well and good and fine by me, ;et's go down the pub for a beer.

You hardcore people on both sides of this need to sit down and look at how much time you waste trying to push your beliefs on others

This is where the arguing begins my friend, the pushing is primarily one sided and any appearance of pushing from the other, is but a defensive response to the delusion of the first.

and argue about this and then think about what else you could have been doing with that time

To be honest, I'm prepared to do this all day long if I can in order to protect my children from the nihilism of xtianity.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by Miss Misty

Why would God let me be molested? Well, I do believe it is all part of the larger plan.

I think that speaks volumes,

I'm hearing (hypothetically) a small child that has been raped by the parent that it loves dearly, trying to justify through flawed reasoning why the parent committed such a heinous act against her.

Clearly, the if the deity that is called yahwhe jesus ETC is real then it is a shameless creature and certainly not worthy of any respect from me.

In this instance alone my own morals are far superior to that of any deity, that would stand by in indolence, while its' offspring suffers the most hideous assault according to the parents design.

The entire christian proposition, is as morally bankrupt as a prostitute allowing her pimp to to bugger her 6 year old, (that doesn't see the big picture) for the price of the school bus ticket.

My heart goes out to you.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by moocowman

Would you know that Good existed in this world if Evil did not?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by undo

do you mean akhenaten?

No, I meant Akhetaten the capital of Egypt in Tell El Armana founded by the Pharaoh Akhenaten, who coincidently is the only historically documented creator of monotheism.

The book of exodus claims that up to 2million "Hebrew" slaves went into exile from egypt and sojourned in the "wilderness" for 40 years until sealing the land of Canaan.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this event ever taking place, there simply could not have been 2 million slaves in Egypt as this would have been as much as the Egyptian population itself.

We know full well that the Egyptians documented much of their way of life yet there is "nothing" relating to any Hebrew slaves let alone the incredible 2 million of them.

Yet, there did take place a large exodus from Egypt, and that was the remnant of the Monotheistic cult of Akhetaten the super wealthy capital of Egypt that was destroyed in order to reinstate the Polytheistic cult.

Is it too much of a leap of imagination to consider that, the Hebrews were in fact a group Egyptians in exile settling into Canaan, already an outpost of the Egyptian empire?

Add to this mix, a period of later Babylonian (enemies of Egypt) enslavement and the incorporation of Babylonian (Sumerian) mythology to appease the Babylonian king.

Could we not be looking at here, a cult of Christianity whose' roots lay very very deep in Egypt and ultimately Sumer.

The only thing nagging at my mind is where did Akhenaten suddenly affront entrenched tradition and get the idea of Monotheism from ?

I cannot help but wonder where the link is, between the cult of the "Aten" and Sumer I have this gut felling there's one there and perhaps the link lays with the character "Abraham".

There seems to be ( to me at least) a scattered trail of crumbs from freemasonry, the templars ETC running all the way back through Jesus and Moses to Egypt then Sumer.

There dots appear to be all out there, but scattered like the optical illusion of the Dalmatian in a black and white painting. Just patiently waiting for the right set of eyes to see the dog.

Any thoughts ?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by moocowman

Would you know that Good existed in this world if Evil did not?

Is this question supposed to prove anything ?

If god is the creator of all that there is/ was/ and ever will be, how is it possible for something,to be that which god is not ?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by moocowman

my thoughts are to not read into the bible in a literal way. take it symbollicaly.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by moocowman

who said god isnt neutral?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by moocowman

don't think they were actually monotheists in the strictest sense of the word. this link explains

the earlier translations of deutoronomy 32:7, seem to show that there was a divine council of gods, that the nations of the world were divided up amongst them and this was common knowledge to the israelites

DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of His inheritance. (Brenton's LXX)

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:51 AM
addendum to my post above:

the god word is very liberally applied in the old testament passages. here's an example:

from michael s. heiser's paper on "what is an elohiym?"

I know how difficult it was for me to understand that some cherished notions about the word G-O-D were actually misconceptions. One was an idea dealt with in the last chapter, that the false gods of the Bible were only idols. Another notion that didn’t conform to the reality of the text was that the word G-O-D is only a name, not just an “ordinary” noun. Because I thought G-O-D was exclusively the name of a personal being, and a unique being at that, I tended to assign the attributes of that being, Yahweh of Israel, to the three letters G-O-D. When I came to realize that there were other G-OD- S in a heavenly council, it seemed (and that’s an important word) as though Yahweh was just one among equals. That bothered me.

In the last chapter I explained why this concern was imaginary. Yahweh is inherently distinct and superior to all other gods. Yahweh is an elohim (a god), but no other elohim (gods) are Yahweh. I’m not assuming that the last chapter answered all your questions about the divine council, though. I’m betting that many of you are like I was after first discovering what the inspired text really says—what the ancient worldview of Israel really assumed. You still may be stuck on the idea that there can only be one elohim since Yahweh is called elohim in so many places in the Bible. And if that’s not true, you might be asking, then what is an elohim? Even further, you might doubt that Yahweh can be part of the class of elohim and still be “species unique” as I described in the last chapter. That’s what we’re going to address here.

The second doubt is easily handled. On one level, it is no problem for Yahweh to share attributes with inferior creatures he has created. After all, he does that with respect to us. We mirror the creator in what theologians have often called “communicable” attributes. Examples would be love, mercy, intelligence, and so forth. Those attributes Yahweh alone possesses are often termed “incommunicable” attributes. Examples would be omnipotence, self-existence, and omniscience. By definition only one being can be all powerful (omnipotent). If that being’s power is matched by another, then he wouldn’t truly be supreme in power. As the High God shares attributes with us as his creatures, so lesser elohim may share some of his qualities.


alot of this confusion is removed by simply reading the text in its original language with the use of a concordance, like strong's concordance. there's even one online for free:

[edit on 21-8-2009 by undo]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by Toughiv

the bible says he is all-loving, all-benevolent.

To try and ignore that is like stabbing yourself in the eyes so you mustn't see what's in front of you.

Fine, you can take the bible as "symbolic", instead of a literal story, then why do you use it to back up your belief in the first place. If the book is not 100% truthful and accurate - as it claims - where is the divinity in that?

I have no problem with people coming to their own understandings about the bible and it's teachings. However, that simply indicates that it is flawed and outdated:
if we have to make excuses for things we know are wrong, or atleast not acceptable today - as in many of the rules set out by god in the old testament - what does that say of the "divine" and "holy" truth the book contains...a truth that doesn't need correcting or editing (supposedly).

Thankfully, though, most people recognize that alot of the stuff in the bible is almost barbaric and would not be welcome in today's society.
They have the intelligence to realize a "bending" of the rules is needed.

Which is why we see an INFINITE amount of various personal interpretations of the good book

My problem is why they even bother to do the bending. You have to make excuse after excuse to create some tangible sense of "belief" from that book, and yet, they still do it.
They force themselves to buy into these "curve-ball" assumptions, in order to hang on to their feeble delusion.

At that point, I'd hope they see why lots of us find the bible and it's stories entirely pointless and completely false. hope is found wanting quite often.

I try not bring this up too much, but the biggest issue I think (that deals with this specifically) is bashing homosexuality.
Ok so you want to take that part literally, but not some of the other retarded laws like:

should your daughter be found not a virgin on her wedding night, her husband - and the townsfolk - can bring her to your doorstep and stone her to death.

I'm certainly glad we follow that rule in modern society - not

This is where personal convictions come into play: people take and leave only what they want. They have a sick feeling or a "icky" feeling about gays, well, there you go, god hates gays too, so it's ok.

Its not god or jesus making these's us.
Where is the holy in that?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:05 AM

yet another addendum to my 2 posts above:

i will discuss the rest of your post, after you've had a chance to read the material i linked above. i think it is necessary to dispel with the concept that the israelites were truly monotheists. they knew of the existence of the other "gods" but only worshipped one of them and felt he was superior in might to the others, which elijah demonstrates in his confrontation with the priests of ba'al. this also made the other gods "false" in their eyes. not false in the sense of non-existent but false in the sense of inferior. the word usage is also very important and as a result, knowing the original languages of the verses and using the oldest available texts, is crucial to understanding the situation.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by undo]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by makinho21

it's not so much that the texts are irrevocably flawed, just that you really have to want to know the answers to what it actually says before you will get anything less than confusion out of it as a non-believer. this is also true, to a lesser degree, for the believer. the believer doesnt seem to need as much understanding as they are happy in the faith and that alone sustains them. however, it also says to study to prove yourself worthy and with that, should be the requirement that studies cover all the languages it was written in and every translation it has passed through. most folks don't want to put that much time into it, so they are happy to just sit and listen.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by moocowman

my thoughts are to not read into the bible in a literal way. take it symbollicaly.

And who is it that informs you which parts of which bibles are symbolic ?

Or do you take all bibles symbolically and if so what is the symbolism behind the instructions to beat your slave (your property) but only till it almost dies ?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by moocowman

who said god isnt neutral?

Since in your previous post you suddenly claim that the source of your belief (the bibles) are only to be taken symbolically then your question is a moot point.

If we are to derive symbolic meaning from the bibles then anything goes.

We could easily conclude that - the empty tomb of Jesus is the symbolic representation of Marys' womb which had been secretly filled with the son of jesus, a symbolic code for the persecuted initiates.

There you go then yet more evidence to show that xtianity is a make it up as you go along cult.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by undo

We seem to have gone off on a tangent here.

See if we can agree on these points to begin.

There never was a community of 2 million Hebrew slaves living in Egypt.

The population of Egypt around the times in question would barely touch 2 million.

If we accept for one moment that the bibles exaggerate or are in error and just stuck with 600000 Hebrews without wives children elderly their own slaves (yes I said that but for another time) and the "commoners".

Then 600000 "slaves" in an Egyptian population of not 2 million is insane, more so the fact that "nowhere" is there any record of their existence. Even the Bush administration couldn't cover up that lol.

The first ever recorded (and only) case of Monotheesm occurred in Egypt and was instigated by the Pharaoh Amen hotep IV later known as Akhen aten grandson of Thut moses IV.

This Pharaoh for no apparent reason discernible as yet introduced the worship of the Aten as the one and only true god superseding the pantheon of gods.

At a later date the pharaoh Ay (addonay) orchestrated the exile of the priests ,commoners ans servants of Akhetaten, the intended destination "Cannan".

Egypt would then return to Polytheism while the worshipers of the Aten would inherit the "promised " land of Cannan.

Is this Plausible? well I think so as it is recorded on the temple walls of Egypt.

Your opinion, be for we move on ?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by moocowman

the times in question are incorrectly calculated from what i've read, this mostly stemming from the contest of years undertaken by berossus of babylon and manetho of egypt, both of which were trying to prove their civilization and people were the oldest and therefore keepers of the most truth.

berossus gave into evidence the sumerian kings list
manetho gave into evidence the dynasties of egypt, which he placed end to end so that no two pharaohs ruled concurrently.

later, with the advent of higher criticism, frederich wolf concluded that the greeks couldn't write in the time when their histories and epics were authored, and the entire history of the world had to be rewritten without the use of grecian documents.

this lead to the belief that the ancient cities mentioned, such as troy, were also not real. it started an avalanche. if that document was no longer accurate, this one must not be either. and that one and that one, till all the historical references for ancient history were removed from consideration except manetho's egypt. at the time, archaeology hadn't been invented yet. 40 years later, they found out the ancient greeks could write but it was too late to recant... the enlightenment was in full swing.

it was a knee jerk, 180 degree turn that has been characteristic of human understanding. something either has to be 100 percent accurate in its current, popular incarnation or we aren't even going to consider it all. as a result, it took another 200 years to discover troy and people still argue over whether that's really troy or not...they have that many big names invested in the belief that the old documents are useless, who all quoted each other as they went along, that currently, your guess is as good as mine about what the right timeline should be.

i will say this however, i believe all the old texts, including the biblical texts, contain truthful statements about historical events, and that includes the exodus of the israelites. at this point, i'm leaning in the direction of hyskos sheperd kings being the israelites. they came in, conquered, then were conquered in return, forced into slavery but had all the stone mason knowledge. the exodus depicts them leaving enmasse, perhaps as an alternative to them overthrowing egypt again.. i dunno

[edit on 21-8-2009 by undo]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by undo

at this point, i'm leaning in the direction of hyskos sheperd kings being the israelites. they came in, conquered, then were conquered in return, forced into slavery but had all the stone mason knowledge. the exodus depicts them leaving enmasse, perhaps as an alternative to them overthrowing egypt again.. i dunno

The exodus does indeed depict a group of people leaving enmasse but again I have to point out that there is simply no evidence whatsoever for this exodus.

However, as I have also pointed out there is evidence for the Exodus from Akhetaten which would have been peopled by a mixed bunch drawn to the monotheism of Akhenaten and the splendor of the Egyptian capital.

Here we have a smoking gun a monotheistic wealthy cult the Pharaoh himself a god on earth.

We must bear in mind that the so called "slaves" of the bibles somehow magically materialized a great deal of gold.

Gold enough to build an ark not dissimilar in description to to artifacts found in Egypt such as the tomb of King Tut.

Gold enough for Aaron to have them build a golden calf to revert to worshiping the Egyptian goddess Hathor who was depicted as a cow (not a bull calf).

How is it possible that "Slaves" left egypt with great wealth ?

The answer is obvious, there were no Hebrew slaves we know this as fact, there was however a very wealthy Egyptian monotheistic religion who's adherents were forced to head to Canaan by the Pharaoh/ Divine father Ay.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:11 PM

However, today the term Hyksos has come to refer to the whole of these people who ruled Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt's ancient history, and had to be driven out of the land by the last ruler of the 17th Dynasty and the earliest ruler of Egypt's New Kingdom.

so yeah, there's evidence of an exodus of a group of people named the hyskos, who took over, were unpopular, were beaten and eventually driven from the land. whatdya wanna bet that's the israelites? the interesting thing is, this supposedly happened during the life of moses. seems also interesting that the pharaoh at the time was ahmose the first.

the israelites were not monotheists, i've already pointed out this interesting piece of information as well. a monotheist believes no other gods exist except their god. this is not true of the early hebrews. they knew other gods existed, they just didn't believe the other gods were as powerful as their god. their god was THE god, the head cheese, the big kahuna. the lord of the command.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:18 PM
What I find interesting is the fact that God gave us freewill....thus us this crazy, evil, unfair and terrible world in which we live out our "physical" lives, if we did not have free will, then yes Virginia, God could be considered to be at fault for letting all these terrible thing come to pass. Alas, however, God did give us freewill......this allows some of us to be evil and terrible towards others, some the opportunity to whine and complain about all the injustices and evil in this world and lose faith and a few others to grow stronger in faith and spirit which I believe was the point all along. Consider it a test of how you react to evil.

Faith is not something you are born with. Faith is something that you come to realize by seeing all the other wonders and good that also exists parallel to the evil in this world.

Flame on!

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in