Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Point Blank: Is there a God, why and why not?

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I'm not discrediting some of the historical accuracies of the biblical texts. The bible can indeed be used as an accurate guide to some thing's that happened in the past, just the same as a lot of other mythological text's have been used to discover thing's once thought to be *only* myth.

There are a few thing's that there is no evidence for that the bible give's accounts for. There was no world wide flood, no records of the exodus, even historical documents outside of the bible for Jesus are tenuous at best. If you read fiction books or watch movies or television, do you take the stories as accurate representations of reality if they depict actual events in the story line that happened in real life and then assume that the rest of it must be true as well because some of it was?

Your second link discusses how there is lack of evidence, but that it shouldn't be a sign that the bible is inaccurate.


To date, there is an absence of evidence for the biblical story regarding the walls of Jericho. This does not disprove the biblical data (see Dumbrell 1985:130–39) but does exemplify the serious problems in an apologetic use of archaeology.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Then all discussion of morality, evil and good is entirely moot. If we're all just different aspects of one creator trying to learn more about it's own existence, then we should allow this one creator the right to conduct it's learning experiences on it's own. Allow good and evil to play out it's course rather than attempting to lock up evil and throw it away. Who are we to judge the totality of an infinite creator trying to experience these two facets of itself?

Why strive to be only good, how does the one creator learn of evil if various aspects are trying to do away with it? Why punish evil if evil is nothing more than an equal part of the one creator? I see no point in being moral with this line of thought. Why should I be only good to others when evil is part of the one creators learning experience of itself?


Dearest Sirnex,

You keep thinking that we are seperate beings, we ARE the One Infinite Creator. There is no judgement on evil and good these concepts have no meaning in the bigger picture, there is no doing away with anything. There is no punishing of evil, there simply is a karmatic cyclical inertia...You get what you put out, you get what you deserve.

Side note: The key to stopping karma is forgiveness.

Evil simply means isolating yourself from connection to others to get closer or better yourself instead of helping better other selves, through progress one entity who is evil understands to keep getting closer to themselves they must be closer everything else for it is all a singular entity.

The concept of good and evil is but a reasoning for choosing of our paths, in the bigger picture there is only a singular thought, a singular being, infinity.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 



there simply is a karmatic cyclical inertia...You get what you put out, you get what you deserve.


You keep talking about how we are not separate beings, that we *are* the one creator. If that be the case, then there is no need for karma. One entity can't create a karmic imbalance on itself through acting on itself.


Side note: The key to stopping karma is forgiveness.


Who is the one creator forgiving? Is it forgiving itself? Forgiving itself for *what*?


Evil simply means isolating yourself from connection to others to get closer or better yourself instead of helping better other selves, through progress one entity who is evil understands to keep getting closer to themselves they must be closer everything else for it is all a singular entity.


If we are all the one creator, then there is no isolating myself from anything else. How can I be part of one thing but separate enough to isolate myself from it and conduct an evil deed?


The concept of good and evil is but a reasoning for choosing of our paths, in the bigger picture there is only a singular thought, a singular being, infinity.


Why do you contradict yourself? You tell me that we are this one singular creator, but then you argue as if we are separate from it. Perhaps from my perspective of this singular totality, evil is a necessary thing. Just as from your perspective of this one singular totality, striving towards good is what's needed.

I say, what is the point of leaning towards any one side when thing's can coexist in equilibrium. We look towards nature for a lot of things that we do with technology, why not then look towards nature *a part of this one creator* and take notice that nature lives in equilibrium, in balance. Neither good nor evil. Perhaps *that* is the problem with our species, we don't live in harmony and equilibrium with nature, with the one creator. Has that ever crossed your mind?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I'm not discrediting some of the historical accuracies of the biblical texts. The bible can indeed be used as an accurate guide to some thing's that happened in the past, just the same as a lot of other mythological text's have been used to discover thing's once thought to be *only* myth.

There are a few thing's that there is no evidence for that the bible give's accounts for. There was no world wide flood, no records of the exodus, even historical documents outside of the bible for Jesus are tenuous at best. If you read fiction books or watch movies or television, do you take the stories as accurate representations of reality if they depict actual events in the story line that happened in real life and then assume that the rest of it must be true as well because some of it was?

Your second link discusses how there is lack of evidence, but that it shouldn't be a sign that the bible is inaccurate.


To date, there is an absence of evidence for the biblical story regarding the walls of Jericho. This does not disprove the biblical data (see Dumbrell 1985:130–39) but does exemplify the serious problems in an apologetic use of archaeology.


Proof of Worldwide floods.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.spike.com...
sg.answers.yahoo.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Proof of the Exodus

starways.net...
www.slideshare.net... cord-by-james-d-long
sacred-texts.com...

One thing I would like to point out. If Moses and his people where not in Egypt and left. How could they have got the names right?

It seems that some evidence is not really considered evidence by mainstream science.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Proof of Worldwide floods.


Your first link is against the world wide flood.
Second link appears to be pure speculation.
Third link has answers for and against.
Fourth link discusses a Mayan oral tradition and date the structures well after the biblical flood account.

Here is a few links for you to read.

LINK
LINK
This one is lengthy, but you'll learn a lot.


Proof of the Exodus


There are at least four dates given for the Exodus.

First link is speculation as evident from the notes section and throughout the text.
Second link doesn't work.
Third link is of questionable source, I would prefer something a bit more reputable to be honest.

Doing a search myself on the Exodus, I can find no mention of any archeological records indicating that it was discovered that the Egyptians recorded this supposed important event in history.


One thing I would like to point out. If Moses and his people where not in Egypt and left. How could they have got the names right?


Have you been to the many places you've heard about? How do you get their names right? Have you ever met someone in prehistory? How did you get their names right?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Proof of Worldwide floods.


Your first link is against the world wide flood.
Second link appears to be pure speculation.
Third link has answers for and against.
Fourth link discusses a Mayan oral tradition and date the structures well after the biblical flood account.

Here is a few links for you to read.

LINK
LINK
This one is lengthy, but you'll learn a lot.


Proof of the Exodus


There are at least four dates given for the Exodus.

First link is speculation as evident from the notes section and throughout the text.
Second link doesn't work.
Third link is of questionable source, I would prefer something a bit more reputable to be honest.

Doing a search myself on the Exodus, I can find no mention of any archeological records indicating that it was discovered that the Egyptians recorded this supposed important event in history.


One thing I would like to point out. If Moses and his people where not in Egypt and left. How could they have got the names right?


Have you been to the many places you've heard about? How do you get their names right? Have you ever met someone in prehistory? How did you get their names right?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by sirnex]


www.jpost.com...

If these are indeed real, then the Exodus happened.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I know that all of this sounds absurd to you. I can't blame you for that. If it didn't happen to me it would sound the same. Science just does not explain it for me. There is more. I wish you could understand. If you do not experience it then can not know. How do you prove to a blind man that the universe is beautiful. You cant. They just have to take your word for it. Anyways enough of this thread for me. Have a good one.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


That link is very lacking in any information or evidence for what it's stating.


I know that all of this sounds absurd to you. I can't blame you for that. If it didn't happen to me it would sound the same. Science just does not explain it for me. There is more. I wish you could understand. If you do not experience it then can not know. How do you prove to a blind man that the universe is beautiful. You cant. They just have to take your word for it. Anyways enough of this thread for me. Have a good one.


That's all fine and dandy, I get it really. You have to believe in it in order for it to be real. I've posted a link many times in other threads about why people still believe in thing's like ESP that could equally be applied to religious superstitions.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ineverknew
Now my definition of God is an entity that is omnipotent and omnipresent.


To answer the question using your definition...no. How could there be such a thing or being? To me this very concept is a cop out...a big blobby theory put out there by some people to attempt to understand that which we (collectively as the human race) do not and cannot accept.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 
thanks, though I have posted your point of view,that I share for the most part, in mroe detail, before on other threads.

Thanks for enlightening and enlightened one though hehe.

i am all that Is, and you are all that is, and you are me and I am you and we are all ONE, and everything around us is also part of us and is ONE with us. There are no US, there is only ONE.

But God is a word used by the religious,for some entity ,and such an entity called "God" does not exist.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magantice

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by 30_seconds
 


That is because people believe that the One Infinite Creator is a seperate being when everything IS the One Infinite Creator, there is no seperate-ness....

My comment has often tended to be that the Creator is attempting to gain in knowledge and appreciation of Itself. The Creator wishes to know Itself. Thusly, it sends forth parts of Itself within illusion to see what will happen
and to learn from the colors created in the palette of emotions that you
have created through many experiences and incarnations.



Dearest Psychonaughty
This was explained to me exactly as you discribe above some years ago by "The Council". The parts that the creator sent forth into the universe are known as souls. we need to BE AS ONE because we are a part of the ONE. so.......we Are because he IS.
yes,exactly. it is self-exploration. The whole of existence and the whole of reality is simply the self-exploration prcoess,the self-analysis. Introspection if you will, and the mroe separate fragments there are,the more different viewpoints there are(for ex 7 billuion people having 7 billion with each having their own unique viewpoint) For ex our viewpoints concerning these things seem to match,but they are nto quite identical still. Them roe viewpoints there are,the more rich the experience is and the more knowledge is gained through self exploration. We are discovering and rediscovering ourselves.

I also see the Maya and Hopi timewindow of ascension from 2007-2015 as the window for those who are ready to move into the 4th dimension,dimension of love,one step closer to reachig full ONENESS again.(ofocurse time is also an illusion,so when i say again,i mean NOW, but it will seem to us as if again,because we experience the illusion called "TIME" )

Your thoughts?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychonaughty

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
There really is no way to explain it in a narrow human perspective without being hypocritical.


Then you invalidate the entire argument.


Than invalidated it is.

I'm simply trying to explain the core of truth that the bible has built itself upon about 'satan'/lucifer.
I highly suggest you read the whole 100 pages of HIDDEN HANDS information
www.illuminati-news.com... - the information you said contains plotholes contains none as explained properly by this person. and much more in detail and more coherently too.

psychonaughty is correct in his idea,but he is doing this information a bit of disservice because he was unable to coherently express this information.And it is possible to do just that.
Please fidn the time,both of you, to read these hundred pages, they are read fast. I did in one day, but you can take your time,just be sure to have continuity in your head.It is all very improtant information,so pelase read it all.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Valeri
 


Time is only present within this term/density of light that we experience in the current incarnation.

Your probably expressing the 4th density or different light (density), that the earth will be progressing to within the next 2-3 years (this being on certain vortices depending on an infinite amount of outcomes).

There is no fear for me I do not fear death, nor do I fear anything at all for fear is unimportant as I know that I will be indefinitley.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 



Time is only present within this term/density of light that we experience in the current incarnation.


There is no such thing as time, no fundamental 'thing' we can point to an measure in and of itself as a 'thing of time'.


Your probably expressing the 4th density or different light (density), that the earth will be progressing to within the next 2-3 years (this being on certain vortices depending on an infinite amount of outcomes).


Yes, and when it doesn't happen we can readily claim that those 'certain vortices' just didn't happen and push the next time it should occur another two or so years until we die and don't have to worry about it anymore.


There is no fear for me I do not fear death, nor do I fear anything at all for fear is unimportant as I know that I will be indefinitley.


On one side, I think it's great that people can find some vice to use in order to cope with death and yet on the other hand I think the fervent blind religious belief in that vice as the only possible answer is at the same time detrimental to our society.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Then a waiting game I say?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Yes, a very long and boring waiting game. For the last seven thousand years we've had to wait for the so called end of the world as well.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yes but those last 7000 years didn't fall onto the last day of the 76,000 year cycle (broken into 3 seperate cycles of ~25,300).

Interesting times we live in on an amusing planet of frictious opposites.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


What cycle?

Second Line.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
you 2 quarrel like old lovers,get a room for those one-liners will ya


But the 2-3 years that naughty speaks of,I presume he takes the october 28th 2011 date of Ian Xel ungold and dr Calleman with their interpretation of the mayan calendar and when all the cycles come to an end, simultaneously. the dec 21 2012 date is when timewave zeros all cycles come to an end,also simultaneously,for they are all within each other,each shorter and faster than the last.

If either of those theories are correct, then according to the 2011 date, the change we see in 360 days nowadays, that amount of change will happen every 20 days, starting february 10. 2011.
That is basically 13 times faster.
And the universal cycle will last for 260 days and end on ocotber 28 2011(now less than 2 years to go)

The same goes for Terence mckennas timewave zero, it reaches a point on dec 3rd 2011, when the last 384 days until dec 21. 2012 will have as much change as the years from 1945 to 2011 will.

So the amounts of change that occured from 1945 till 2011 will be equaled by the same amount of change happening in only 384 days.

So...those dates are close, and the timewave is close to the mayan calendars proposed date.

FYI though, the mayan calendar does not end on dec 21 2012, because that day is smack in the middle of their 260-day calendar year. the days 13 AHAU,as they call their last day of the 260-day calendar, will end in august 2012 and the next time that will happen is somewhere in april-may 2013.
But the MAYA state that it is the unlikeliest of days when something will happen.(dec 21 2012)
They give a window of time, just like the Hopi and other indigenous cultures. They say the timeframe for the shift is 2007-2015, with the shift happening at any point in that window of time.

So it may happen tomorrow, or it may happen as late as 2015. So 2011-2012 would be smack down the middle.
I'm looking forward to seeing if Calleman and Ungold were correct or not at all with feb 10. 2011 being the day when their true test begins, since the amount of change from there on will be 13 times faster.

But with the timewave zero the amount of change within 384 days is equal to the LAST 67 years(not in general 67 years),so that the amount of change will be equal in 1 year to that of the last 67.

When nothing has happened by jan 2016 at the latest, then it will be clear, either those who were meant to ascend, DID or the dates were all wrong and I will never relay on any dates EVER.
Because my intuition is telling me,my gut feeling that the ascension is nearing,but when,I can't pinpoint a year, let alone a day. but certainly in the next 6 years.

[edit on 11/3/2009 by Valeri]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Valeri
 


There are certain vortices that take place on the exact time that the clock strikes the hour and this planet is no longer available for 3rd density work.

The transition is taken place will be done within the next several years.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join