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.


Twenty-Five Reasons to Doubt

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:22 AM
The Bible is not THE ONLY your minds.

Undo said it best here in another thread:

"... it was presupposed that supernatural events in ancient texts are the equivalent of what is referred to as "myth"

All religion was then redefined to be mythical, and some 5300 years of ancient history was discarded for any historical purpose.

The actual roots of this problem started during the first days of German Higher Criticism.

German Higher Criticism's primary goal was to establish the biblical text as the most correct and accurate of the ancient historical books, particularly from the perspective of papal interpretation.

The German Higher Critics were professors, scholars and priests of the Holy Roman Catholic order, who took it as a solemn duty to rip the ancient world apart and put it back together again in a way that would elevate the papacy's view of the biblical cannon above everything else -- bar none.

This had negative ramifications for the rest of the ancient world, as you can well imagine.

Firstly, the Papacy of the final days of the Holy Roman Empire
(?), viewed the planet as being only 5000 or so years old. This, of course, colored their approach to interpretation of other ancient texts as well.

The German Higher Critics knew that to advance their study, it would have to be in agreement with the papal "status quo", whom were both their science authorities and their historical authorities.

Obviously, something was wrong with papal interpretation but this was not for the Critics to decide. All they had to do was prove the papal interpretation of scripture was accurate and that all other historical accounts were mere contenders for the throne. And so the real trouble began.

Armed with the volumes of knowledge available at the time, the Higher Critics arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the ancient Greeks couldn't write.

This theory was initially advanced by Friedrich August Wolf in his book "Prolegomena ad Homerum" (1795). He concluded that Homer couldn't have possibly written the Iliad and the Odyssey because the ancient Greeks couldn't write, or so he thought.

One thing lead to the next, and all the ancient greek epics, poems and histories were tossed out and labelled unhistorical myth: This included the Greek histories of Egypt, Assyria, Media, and the annals of the Greek city-states.

As a result, greek histories were removed from historical consideration and taken out of historical and scholarly texts at the university level. Any remaining references were called "myth".

Troy never existed, or so they said.

Those whose job it was to provide the new version of history (we call these people historians, today) took the data compiled by the Higher Critics and reshaped history. And so Greece fell from glory, that is, till it was discovered some 40 years later, that the ancient Greeks could write. Unfortunately, their decision to call their ancient texts mythological, was never recanted.

As the study advanced, so fell the Ancient Hindu, the Norse, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the pagan Roman, the Babylonian, and so on, until finally,

when the dust cleared, there was literally nothing left in history that was true EXCEPT the papal interpretation of the bible.

Mind you, archaeology had yet to be created as a science.

Most of the ancient world was still buried under sand, newer civilizations and so on. They had virtually no clue about the ancient past but were determined to recreate it in the image most befitting the papacy's view of biblical texts. It was a mess.

Here science picks up the ball and runs down the field with it, gleefully reshaping history into whatever configuration is necessary to define their knowledge of science AT THE TIME --- that is, till they run into that proverbial wall where it's finally determined that the papacy is simply wrong.

It is at this point, the bible goes the same way the rest of the ancient world had gone - relegated to obscurity.

They couldn't separate the papacy's interpretation of it from the actual words in the text. To them, the two were synonmous, and so into the trash bin of history it went, along with the rest of the ancient world.

German Higher Criticism had literally, in just a couple of decades, destroyed 5300 years of ancient history, based almost entirely on their own limited understanding of the cultures it stood in judgement of, without the benefit of archaeological record, and from the standpoint that papal interpretation was the only viable possibility, else it was all false.

Now the show was on for earnest. Since the ancient past was all just a myth, the new progenitors of truth (who had replaced the papacy in that career designation) had the problem of archaeology to deal with.

It became a sore spot as it tended to disprove prior pronouncements that the ancient texts were purely myth.

Again and again, archaeological digs had proven the ancient texts of these long ago people, were in fact, quite historical. This was a BIG problem.

Before the ball could be snatched out of their court, something had to be done. They needed a new timeline by which to gauge the passage of their new history.

Obviously, they surmised, the supernatural events mentioned in nearly every ancient text, were unscientific.

Afterall, what ignorance to suppose that dragons were emperors or that people could be born in any fashion other than via the birth canal or that men/angels, could fly in the sky or travel amongst the stars!

Perhaps the texts had been merely massaged for dramatic purpose, but were otherwise historical, they deliberated. It was merely a matter of determining which were the MOST reliable, if at all. They settled on Ancient Egypt, but removed from consideration any of the supernatural references.

...This is, I believe, the second biggest conspiricy of mankind."


Undo's original post shortened for space.

Higher criticism : ...the endeavour to determine what a text originally said before it was altered (through error or intent).

Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of god.


mod edit: quote clarity

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/11/2009 by ArMaP]

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:04 AM
God seems to have multiple personality disorder (loving/murderous) because THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD

these gods are exterrestrial higher advanced in technolgy, medicine, astronomy, etc and therefore were viewed as gods to the people of the era.

When you take 'church' and religion out of the bible, you can clearly see that:

1. The gods/angels are exterrestrial
2. The weaponry used were extremely advanced for that time period
3. The Book of Enoch ( which was purposely left out) clearly is describing abduction
4. "God" and "Lord God" are two different gods
5. The Virgin birth is simply artificial insemination
6. A "chariot of fire" is a flying vessel
7. etc, etc, etc

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

If God is real and chooses to damn me to hell, than so be it, I can only do my best to try to find and understand Him and to the best of my knowledge the Bible and the religion surrounding it are flawed so I have given up any attempt to find God within them.

Yes we are imperfect, this proves my point about religion, everything we humans touch is tainted. That being said even if God's holiness is far above my own is it wrong to expect a Holy being to be more merciful then a sinner like me? If God wants to set an example why do the writers of the Bible have him doing all those horrific and evil things? I at least would expect him to follow his own commandments and yet the Old Testament makes clear that he can't even do that. There isn't a human being in the world I would wish into damnation for an eternity, Hitler perhaps. And the worst part of all is that they are not damned for their deeds but instead damned for not believing in some guy who lived 2000 years ago that there is no evidence for. There are too many flaws in the Bible and in the religion itself, God may well be blameless as you state, but the stories about him paint him as anything but. It just doesn't make one lick of sense in my mind that God would choose one divided messed up religion, choose one majorly flawed book, send one son, and force you to believe it all without evidence, and then damn you if you don't. Sorry but that creates a little too much Cognitive Dissonance for my taste. I end with some quotes:

Tell me please where are you seeking to find the real God? How will you know when you do in fact find the real God?

This is why I asked you to create for me a god greater than the one revealed within Scripture. Leave out your emotions for a moment and think deeply about this subject. How will you know what is and what is not of or from God?

I can give you a will be a god that agrees with what you have already perceived in your mind to be the real and true god. Not based on objective evidence and thought but rather totally subjective ideas that make you "feel good" about yourself.

Your god will be all loving, never condemn and accept all.

Your world view is illogical and contradictory. The question now becomes is it your own world view or has God predestined you to hold such a view?

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by TangoVooDoo

In order to seek God I must first reach some simple conclusions, the first conclusion I reached was that all religion is flawed and seems aimed at controlling behavior and creating slaves rather than setting one's soul free. After tossing out organized religion I turned to some attributes I believed a true God would have.

In order to create this vast Universe any true God would be bigger than one religion, one group of people, and would certainly be present in all things. The Universe would be an extension of God or God's Will and so we would all be a piece of God. God wouldn't pick one religion, one book and damn the rest, that's the limited thinking of man, doesn't sound like divine planning to me. A God found through blind faith and indoctrination would be a false one.

So I became an agnostic, if God wants me he knows where to find me, but at least now I know that the true God cannot be found in the Bible or anywhere within organized human created religion.

Sure my world view is flawed, as is yours and everyone else's.

If objective/scientific evidence of a deity emerged I would have no choice but to accept that deity as the true God but so long as it remains a matter of faith I will refuse to believe in the deity described in the Bible on account of the many flaws in the Bible.

I do not think my God would forgive all as you state but at the same time I cannot imagine a loving all powerful being who would punish someone for an eternity. Punishment is fine if it fits the offenses for which it is offered but no one is deserving of eternal torment, that is the invention of men seeking to frighten people into believing and obeying human teachings laid out in religion.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by dthwraith
reply to post by Skyfloating

The God of the Old Testament is not the God Jesus is referring to in the New Testament. The Old Testament God is an Extraterrestrial who is posing as God. The God Jesus refers to is the Supreme Source.

It's very seldom I see someone say something so stupid and so wrong, someone who clearly beyond a shadow of doubt has no understanding whats so ever of what they are talking about.

Jeff Foxworthy would say "heres your sign."

I long ago stoped caring about what people posted here, but I just had to respond to that cracked out post.

Actually that would be Bill Engvall, lol.
Here's yours.

Just joking ya man '-)

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:08 AM
Flaw 1: God is supposedly loving and merciful, yet sees fit that every first born CHILD of Egypt is to be mercilessly killed, this punishment is said to befall all who do not spread the blood on their doors, this would include innocents (who are, I remind you CHILDREN). Rather than punishing Pharaoh for his sin God punishes the most innocent of Egyptian people.


posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Tormentations
Flaw 1: God is supposedly loving and merciful, yet sees fit that every first born CHILD of Egypt is to be mercilessly killed, this punishment is said to befall all who do not spread the blood on their doors, this would include innocents (who are, I remind you CHILDREN). Rather than punishing Pharaoh for his sin God punishes the most innocent of Egyptian people.


The flaw is in your reasoning. I again state that *IF* this event did take place and *IF* the God revealed within Scripture is true then God can do as He so pleases to His creation. He can, if it so pleases Him, damn us all to an eternal separation from Him. Likewise He can bless all or those He so chooses to an eternal bliss. He is the Potter, we are the clay.

If I build a puzzle, model or clay vase I can do whatever I want with it because I made it. I can set it out for display. I can sell it, I can toss it in the trash or smack it with a hammer.

*IF* The God within Scripture is true then we are at HIS mercy. God is the final Judge and He will have mercy on those whom He pleases.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:52 PM
how is it that they had poor nurishment. they grew all their food naturally without any addiditves, hormomnes,pesticides ect.. they had the purest form of everything full in nutrients. were the ones who are poorly nurished.
And they DID live much longer than we do.

the rest of them is just nitpicking things you have no understanding about.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Bean328

There is no evidence, archeological or otherwise, which shows humans living to be 900 plus years. Evidence shows that humans thousands of years ago were generally shorter and less longer lived due to lack of medicine, malnutrition, etc.

Don't accuse me of nitpicking, the thread is addressed to those who take the WHOLE Bible as the perfect word of God meaning they take the entire thing as Holy and blameless even the flawed parts that I have mentioned. For the whole thing to be true one would expect a clear picture of God but instead we get a muddled ever shifting perception and a self-contradictory collection of books melded into one and sold as absolute truth. But if your understanding is so much greater why not enlighten me?

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:40 AM
i didnt say i have a full understanding of the bible. i understand some things that i have learned along the way through studying it. you have to understand things how they were then.
The things you mentioned are old testament scripture and happenings. you cant use the old tesament when talking about the bible and comparing God of today and God of the old testament. the old testament is the old covenant of abraham and that was replaced when God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins and thus begins the new testament and a new age of grace/forgiveness/love/mercy ect..

and i am in no way saying that there are or is more than one God. same God, NEW covenant, different situations, events, and time.

im happy things today arent as they were in the old testament because God or the people didnt play back then. you do something wrong and most of the time you were stoned. i for one am glad God IS a God of mercy and compassion and loved us enough to send his son to die for us.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Bean328

you cant use the old tesament when talking about the bible and comparing God of today and God of the old testament. the old testament is the old covenant of abraham and that was replaced when God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins and thus begins the new testament and a new age of grace/forgiveness/love/mercy ect..

Yes I can. Christians use the Old Testament, it is included in every Bible I've ever picked up or seen (and I used to be a Christian, so I've handled dozens of them). Also, God claims his Covenant with Abraham is everlasting. Christians also make the claim that the old Testament still applies though they are the ones who are nitpicky about which verses to believe and which ones to throw out under the excuse of "well, it was thousands of years ago, people were primitive."

So by your own admission you believe the Old Testament doesn't apply to God despite the fact it is the SAME GOD who later sets up a new covenant? So how in the heck does that mean the Old Testament doesn't apply? So this means all those horrific things the Old Testament attributes to God's wrath are perfectly okay for God to be doing and actually happened? God all of a sudden has mood swings and decides not to be such a mean hombre (but he'll still damn plenty of people).

i for one am glad God IS a God of mercy and compassion and loved us enough to send his son to die for us.

Not if the God of the Old Testament is the same one as today, mood swings or not, Jesus or not the God represented in the Bible is fluctuating, changing and inconsistent. One minute merciful and the next damning folks to a pit of fire. It just doesn't make any sense of

An all knowing all powerful God vast enough in scope to form the cosmos who then chooses his favorite group of people, favorite religion and says "Alright folks, OBEY or BURN, convert to this religion on blind faith alone (won't get any proof) or else it's skin melting hellish torment for eternity!"

Nope. Honestly worries me that anyone with a thinking brain could believe it

The reason it doesn't make sense --- it was made up by human beings.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 09:41 PM
Yes the old testament still applies in part though. Old testament stuff is basically updated and made better or corrected in tthe new. God wasn't having moodswings it was a completely different situation. From ol to new basically him allowing us more leeway or mercy. There isn't a one way or burn doom and gloom like you put forth. I don't know wat denomination you were apart of but as long as you are living your life right and believe in God and that jesus was sent to die on the cross for our sins and sincerely mean it then you are saved. That's all the basis right there.
Everything involved in living your life right is apart of being a human being. Any decent human can live their life right. But along your journey you learn more and grow in your faith.
I'm not able to talk more on the other things right now because I'm not home and I'm on my cell phone but when I get to a computer ill respond to more.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Bean328

I was raised in a multi-denominational Church and bombarded by a lot of different versions of Christianity but the one that made me start to question it all was my Father's fundamentalist views and of course my own reading of the Bible left me with more questions than answers as well (hence the existence of this thread).

That whole faith in Jesus thing is exactly why it makes no sense.

1) His name wasn't Jesus, that's merely a translation of his name and his last name wasn't Christ since that is merely a title so Christians who sing about "power in the name" are actually praying to the wrong name.

2) There is no first hand evidence Jesus ever lived, there are some second hand accounts.

3) The Romans got a hold of Christianity and pumped a fair share of pagan influence into it, before that it had been a peaceful loving little religion (the way Jesus likely intended) but once they picked it up they changed everything around (Cross is a pagan symbol, Jesus turned into a Solar deity who "rises", use of Mary and the Saints to attract polytheists, use of "Trinity" to attract polytheists, use of pagan Holidays, etc).

4) Why should I have blind faith? And why should someone who's never heard of Jesus or never thought to accept him but who lived a good life be damned for eternity. And why in some verses does it claim we are judged by deeds and in other claim we are judged by whether we accepted Jesus, and Jesus himself confuses it further by saying his "When I was hungry you fed me" speech about being good to everyone you meet. So the Bible isn't clear on what it takes to be saved.

So the enitre thing, Bible, teachings, the whole thing is confusing and while Jesus preached love today's Church would rather preach prayer (treating God like a genie), fire and brimstone and instill you with guilt. I know the important thing is loving one another but Christians lose that because of all the other gobbly-gook peddled for truth in Church. That's the point of this thread, I want people to actually be able to question what they were taught without fear of any imaginary Hell, cause any truly Holy and good deity wouldn't penalize you for trying to find answers and actually using your mind in an attempt to find what "He" really is and strain out all the nonsense that clearly isn't.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:04 AM
1) For some reason,the Egyptians imagined a firstborn(man or animal) to possess a superior quality to the next-born. This value is unfounded except for within their own imaginations. This exposes the Egyptians for the idolatrous beings they were; they equated animal to man. So what's the relationship between firstborn animals, firstborn sons, and idolatry? Well, just wait a minute. ..."Israel is MY Firstborn"...Exod. 4:20-23

So, basically the ultimatum was this: Recognize whose life is truly valued, or you will lose what you value. Projecting fantasy onto reality(assuming firstborns, even animals, possess greater value) while the jews are enslaved is a worthless life, and My destruction of your firstborns will teach this lesson. It was a lesson in the value of humanity versus the value of firstborns(including animals).

2) God doesn't damn anyone to hell. There's a choice to be made and you're making it as I type. Is it unfair? Absolutely not. You want to know what's unfair? I think it's unfair that Jesus died for your sins and you don't think it's a big deal.

3)I'm assuming you already have knowledge about the story of Joshua and the Israelites destruction of the people of Jericho and Canaan. Two verses in particularly give a rather clear reason as to why -

Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.... In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure..." (Genesis 15:13-14, 16).

"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:24-28).

So, the Israeli conquest was part of God's punishment. It's said many times that God is just. Each person is responsible for his/her own fate. Like I said with #2, there's a choice to be made. Unfair? No, it's not...Also, the canaanite religions were polytheistic, idolatrous, and sexually immoral to name a few. In order to prevent the worship of the true God being fused with the worship of Baal and the gods of Canaan the people in that land had to be destroyed. It's difficult to accept that, I know, but that's Divinity for you.

"Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy. 20:17-18). Genesis 15:16; 2 Kings 21:11; Ezra 9:1; 1 Kings 11:5-7; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 23:13; 2 Chronicles 36:14; Ezra 9:11; Judges 10:6.

4)"Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. The subjects of kings, even being free citizens, were often called "slaves". The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor. Social inferiors often times even referred to themselves as "slaves" when speaking with one of higher social status. There were many conditions that were also regarded as being "slaves", such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge. The word "ebed" denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Is a housemaid a "slave" by your standards? Is a butler a "slave" by the same standards? How about valet parking?

4.1) Again, there is a wide variety of translations for "slaves". Also, there are strict commandments governing the treatment of so-called "slaves". Many of these commandments are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt. Supporting verses: Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19

"If a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today." Deut 15.15

I am currently at work on the rest. Forgive me if it takes several posts to get through all of it. This is a fairly large thread but some of the more decently posed questions I have seen. Thank you for not being as hostile as some of the others would be.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

1) I don't care what the Egyptians believe. A Holy or Good deity does not slaughter/kill or maim children, if it is claimed that God does this it is a lie written into the book. The Pharaoh is the one who sinned, those children did nothing wrong. There are more merciful ways for God to teach a lesson but instead the writers of the Bible chose to portray God as vengeful.

2) The choice is an absurd one to be expected to make. To be expected to accept a God who cannot be sensed or proved to exist, to have to go on blind faith and believe the words of flawed men written in the Bible as truth. Question God's infinite love and be damned FOREVER. The Forever damnation is absurd as well... There is no evidence Jesus died for anyone aside from second hand accounts in the Gospels, my own belief after reading and rereading and doing a bit of research is that the resurrection was added by the Romans to give the story a pagan solar deity twist (the sun is killed and is born again at dawn) in order to attract practicing pagans to the new state-sponsored version of Christianity. Jesus, in many versus, preached responsibility for your own sins. I find it tragic that this poor man tried to teach love and was put to death for it only to have his religion hi-jacked by the Romans and others to uphold centuries of violence and evil. This tragedy is further played out when people, instead of loving each other and trying to be their own savior (the whole meaning of being like Christ is to become your own savior through love) they'd rather throw all their sin's on an innocent man. I firmly believe Jesus's message should be interpreted as "Stop waiting for a Messiah that will never show up, if you love each other and take responsibility for your actions/sins and you will be your own Savior"...

3) What is in the Bible is nothing less than Genocide by the Israelites. God does not condone this sort of thing. Again this is an invention of the Israelite leaders to justify their murderous conquest.

4) If these slaves are not to be taken for sexual purposes what reason would their be to differentiate virgin from non-virgin? Also, any kind of slavery goes against the whole concept of God, which is to set you free from sin and death.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:30 AM
1)You're projecting what YOU think a holy or good deity should do onto said deity. Think about it. If there is a better way, who would know it, the human or the Creator of said human?

2) I would say you are partially correct in saying "stop waiting for a messiah, love each other and take responsibility for yourself". To acknowledge his message is to acknowledge him as an individual though. With that said, Jesus is the "way and the life". Which to me means, his "life" is the "way". "Pick up your cross(take responsibility) and follow me(live a life similar to his)"

3)Again, you're speaking for God. "My way is not your way." So, in effect, what you think would be a more appropriate means of going about said situation, doesn't necessarily make it so in God's eyes.

4) Again, the term "slave" has come to mean something entirely different(on a sociological scale)than what it meant in biblical times. However, I cannot say exactly what causes the distinction between virgin and nonvirgin. I do know that there was a certain fascination placed upon virgins in those times. Also, virgins were considered pure and so that may be something that the author of that particular passage was alluding to. Perhaps they took the "pure"(virgins) as slaves instead of just slaughtering them like the rest? I really don't know the answer to that one.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

1) No. I'm taking what the Bible says about God (namely that he is 100% Good) to heart and then seeing a contradiction. A Good and Merciful God does not kill children, end of story. So if the Bible claims God did something evil (like kill children) it is an issue with the Bible NOT with God.

2) I do believe Jesus existed and was a great philosopher and teacher but I believe the Resurrection and some of the other parts were altered or added by the Romans. Jesus claimed that "I" am the way, I don't believe what he meant was that he was the only savior but that he meant "I" as in the Divine I, the self. Jesus taught them to pray "Our Father" he taught we were all children of God, I don't believe he meant it literally when he said he was the son of God but he meant that we ALL were children of God and could all save ourselves through love, through sacrifice, and that cross could be seen as responsibility for ones own sin.

3) I'm not speaking for God because God is not the Bible. If God wishes to speak he must speak but from what I've seen of the Bible it is NOT God's word and if God is real I doubt he wants it to be assumed as his word. After all God has never come forth to validate the Bible, the Bible merely makes the unfounded claim of being the truth.

4) I'm aware it was a custom of the time to have slaves and that would be fine IF the Bible wasn't also claiming to be Word of God, because if they had slaves I'm sure God would not condone it, fair treatment or not. See my issue is not with God but with the Bible and the current claim that it is the 100% flawless Word of God (made by many religious people). It's a flawed book and I want people to wake up and see they can question and doubt the book/religion without loosing faith in a creator but it seems many have an issue separating God from what they have been told about him.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:02 AM
1) I believe in the Bible it says that God is JUST(not 100% good).

2) I agree(except for the addition of the resurrection as pagan symbolism). However, without Jesus, we wouldn't have that example and therefore he could, technically, be considered a savior for humanity, yes?

3) "Ask and you shall receive." Ask for knowledge. Ask for guidance. The bible will reveal things through spirit whether it's "validated" or not.

4) I can agree with that statement. It's true that men wrote the bible and that men are indeed subject to error. However, I think with diligence and a truly seeking heart and spirit, the bible definitely reveals things. That's the whole thing though, one can't just read it and accept it, it has to be truly examined through spirit and mind. It may not be 100% truth, who am I to say, but I do know that it serves it's purpose if one is truly seeking.

It's late and I'm not sure if I've said this already but thank you for being respectful. It's not common around these parts.
S&F for you.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

1) I believe any true God would be Just but the writers of the Bible sometimes made God out to be a jerk.

2) Yes, Jesus did a lot for humanity and could be deemed a savior which is why it pains me that the Romans took his teachings and turned them into a State-Sponsored religion that led to years of genocide and oppression. I think Jesus would be very sad to learn what was done with his teachings, instead of being used for peace they were used for some of histories worst atrocities.

I believe the Bible does contain wisdom but I think its too flawed to find God in it. I consider God far too big a concept to be found in one religion or one book, that's humans limiting God to one specific group that claims to have all the answers. I think I've gotten all the wisdom I can from it, the flaws became too apparent for me to go one accepting it blindly. God knows were to find me, its up to him now.

Thanks. It was good debating with you.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I consider God far too big a concept to be found in one religion or one book, that's humans limiting God to one specific group that claims to have all the answers.... God knows were to find me, its up to him now.

You're right. God isn't found through the book itself. He is found through self revelation and a seeking spirit. One has to question themselves, their existence, everything around them and ultimately look much deeper than this physical realm. It's a journey friend, and a rough one at that.

The part that really saddens me is that you say it's up to HIM to find YOU. That is, IMO of course, completely backwards. You must find Him. He's all around you just waiting for that moment when you open your heart. "Surely if you lift a rock there you will find IAM." He's not hiding, He is here with us. "For those that have eyes, let them see."

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in