It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tungus
Originally posted by Jordan River
But we are indeed the gem of the universe. we live on the greatest planet.
Kidding aside, but how can you say that we live on the greatest planet? That would preclude that after visiting at least several other planets you indeed can confirm that we live on the greatest planet.
I have read accounts of yogis who say that the moon is much better place than the earth. They do out of body travel and although I cannot verify their statements there is a way to check their claim.
For example, looking at a gray antatomy would suggest that they are a low gravity creature that can go through space and is use to the hostiility of outer space. We are not. I love them too as much as I can. aliens that is. But were seprated for a good reason.
I agree that we were separated for a good reason but that reason is to keep the rest of the universe from us. We are separated the same way the maximum security prison population is separated from the rest of humanity.
Our separation is a little more complicated though. We are separated from others by dimensions rather than by space, there is space separation but mostly is dimensional. That way, no matter where we look we don't see anything and all the planets seem like dead rocks to us. The outer space is hostile only because we are in meatbags and gravity makes sure that no one is going anywhere anytime soon. No need for ball and chains made of iron when you have a thing like gravity, eh?
Think of this planet more like the "Count of Monte Cristo" scenario and you will get the idea. Of course, if you were born in a prison it is very hard to realize that you are in a prison.
If your god loved any of us he wouldn't keep us locked up on this planet. You only have the word of the bible to tell you that you live on the greatest planet. Good for you.
Originally posted by Jordan River
You sound so much like the people of greek who thought their gods were better than the hebrew God. Much will happen to you on a positive spiritual level I will make sure of it you will believe
Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.
So...heaven couldn't possibly translate into...oh say...heaven? I am sure ancient man knew other words that they could use to portray "the sky".
Originally posted by impaired
If I'm not mistaken, it's used in a plural sense a lot. But that's not even it.
People back then did not know what was beyond the sky. This was due to limits in the knowledge of physics and astronomy. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that there was only one generic word for the sky. There wasn't "space". Couldn't have been. Space wasn't discovered back then.
If you take the bible literally, you are using THEIR vernacular (whoever wrote it back then) and seeing it from THEIR perceptions AND perspectives back then. Now we know a little about science, physics, and astronomy. Why is it so hard to interpolate the stories by using a more modern form? Why does it have to be taken literally the way it was written? It was written thousands of years ago. Why not plug astronomy and physics and all of that into the story of the bible? Why not read in-between the lines? Is this allowed?
[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]
Am I crazy, or does this sound probable????
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Originally posted by impaired
If I'm not mistaken, it's used in a plural sense a lot. But that's not even it.
People back then did not know what was beyond the sky. This was due to limits in the knowledge of physics and astronomy. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that there was only one generic word for the sky. There wasn't "space". Couldn't have been. Space wasn't discovered back then.
If you take the bible literally, you are using THEIR vernacular (whoever wrote it back then) and seeing it from THEIR perceptions AND perspectives back then. Now we know a little about science, physics, and astronomy. Why is it so hard to interpolate the stories by using a more modern form? Why does it have to be taken literally the way it was written? It was written thousands of years ago. Why not plug astronomy and physics and all of that into the story of the bible? Why not read in-between the lines? Is this allowed?
[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]
Perhaps they didn't say "space" but heavens could still mean heavens in every sense of the word. Explain these if man didn't have that much astronomical knowledge.
"'I will make the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister before Me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.'" (Jeremiah 33:22)
Note: Only about 3,000 stars can be seen with the naked eye.
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. (1 Corinthians 15:41)
(I'm probably guessing that you'll say splendor means that they "shine" differently when in all actuality it can be interpreted as different compounds and elements.)
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31)(Really? Gravitationally bound star groups when most others, with the possible exception of the Hyades, are not bound? That's odd.)
By the way, I don't think it matters if they say "heavens" or "heaven" it all comes down to the same thing. If you interpret it as plural then you think they are saying there are multiple "skies"? You lost me...
[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]
We're talking about a "omnipotent" being that can tell the future but also has an ego problem and other seemingly imperfections (for a divine and perfect being). The bible is written from HIS side of the spectrum, told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time. So it's incredibly biased from his side.
Not necessary.
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.
So...heaven couldn't possibly translate into...oh say...heaven? I am sure ancient man knew other words that they could use to portray "the sky".
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by impaired
We're talking about a "omnipotent" being that can tell the future but also has an ego problem and other seemingly imperfections (for a divine and perfect being). The bible is written from HIS side of the spectrum, told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time. So it's incredibly biased from his side.
You said it yourself, "told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time." How then can you say that God is the imperfect one because WE are the ones that can't describe HIM. We are the imperfect ones my friend.
edit to add: Would you think your Dad or Mother had ego problems because they wanted you to obey them and not some other person?
[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]
Originally posted by impaired
I wouldn't want my mom or dad to send me to hell for eternity because I got derailed in life. All life is valuable - alot of creatures - including us feel pain. Why make things so nasty? It really seems like an alien ant-farm, if Jehova is really the all-seeing-eye of past, present and future.
Jehova creates everything, knowing his right hand man would get kicked out and be his biggest adversary (and ours!) Why impose eternally agonizing punishments on us because of HIS mistake of creating the script in the first place if you already knew the out-come? If we're imperfect, than the one(s) who created us should take responsibility and fix THEIR problem for us. We shouldn't have to pick up (and deal with) someone else's wreckage.
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Things are nasty because we are nasty. He offers His love and compassion and yet we refuse. We see it yet we deny it. We hear it yet we block it out. Why impose eternal suffering? Because you refused eternal peace. What else is there? Peace or suffering...it's your choice to make. Refuse one and by default you win the other.
HIS mistake? It's your mistake for following the ways of sin. Do you not have a choice? Trust me, the satans(yes plural) judgments shall be much more severe than yours. You were deceived and have willfully continued. They(satans) are the ones that have deceived you. They will pay for that, and you too will pay if you continue in your ways of rejecting God.
It is NOT someone elses wreckage. It is OUR wreckage. We were deceived yes, but we CONTINUE on in the blasphemous ways of man. We know now what we do, and so we are to be accountable for our actions.
Originally posted by impaired
Where's his love? Is this a fact? It's just info coming from his mouth to a transcribist's ears. Then even manipulated though out the many years.
There is more than one-way to peace. You can follow the rules and be a good person (service to others) and not have to have this guy as you're "God". Why not?
What if I do the right thing to the best of my ability? Does that cut it?
I don't reject "God" (Whatever that word means, anyway). I just reject Jehova.
And I thought all evil is the influence of satan and his possee?
Also, what if I don't accept him personally but still follow the code by doing the right thing anyway?
And what are some of the blaphemous ways of man? Do they include questioning an ultimateum that it given to us by many other religions? How are we supposed to know that your religion is any more right than the Koran, or the Torah, or the Sumerians? The egyptians? Why is your God one of many OTHER God's? Why is he in competition with them? Very insecure. What are the implications of these other god's existing and religions proclaiming the same thing? That Jehova isn't the only "God".
Bottom line is, you're believe a book with translation-issues from a 3rd-hand source that is from HIS perspective and his influence. What about them apples??
[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]
[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]