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.

 

Abrahamic Religion Debunked By Its Own Tenets?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Not so much a conspiracy (although linked to many), this topic is about a scandal, since it speaks to the core of religion & thus the validity of views expressed in or based on scripture. It is inspired by a discussion in this thread. I intend this to be a civil discussion about logic, spirituality & their ramifications, not a slander-fest: please help with that.
The God of Abraham (GoA), known variously as YHWH, Yahweh, Jehova, God the Father, the Son & Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, simply "God" or by extension Jesus Christ, & most recently Allah, is widely believed to be the same deity & is most often presented as male, which convention I'll stick to. Also, for the purposes of the Argument below, I will accept religious premises at face value. This may take more than 1 post, so please wait until "Have at it" before replying.
Premises
1) The GoA is omnipotent, thus is not constrained by anything other than self imposed injunction.
2) The GoA is ineffable, thus cannot be known or comprehended by mortals.
3) The GoA gave humans free will, thus will not simply place faith within us; we must come to believe on our own.
Argument
Being omnipotent, the GoA can transcend whatever boundaries may exist between Heaven & Earth in order to deliver instructions regarding His will to humans. However, since we cannot know the GoA, we have no way of determining whether those instructions came from Him or not, unless He revealed Himself to us, so that we did know beyond question. However, to do so would obviate the need for faith & the freewill that need implies, as a known deity would be in the same category of belief as a known apple, chair, house, or anything else that can be directly experienced. It would also contradict ineffability.
In simple terms, if we cannot know the GoA, then any messages that might be from Him may also have come from another deity, be a delusion, or, if passed on to us 2nd hand, simply lies.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Conclusion
If the above premises (omnipotence, ineffability & human freewill) are true, then we cannot rely on scripture as an accurate portrayal of the will of the GoA. If however, we can know the will of the GoA, then 1 or more of these premises must be incorrect. Therefore, any religion which insists on both the truth of scripture & these premises must be flawed, 1 way or the other.
Limitations
An omnipotent GoA certainly could instruct a person in such a way as to neither reveal so much of Himself as to contradict ineffability, nor compromise freewill. To accept the message as divine in origin & whether to follow the instruction would then be down to human judgement. This argument then doesn't really speak to individual spiritual experience. However, if that experience is vague & then interpreted within the framework of flawed religion, any conclusions reached as a result must be deemed equally flawed.
OK then - Have at it!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


All for one and one for all.

Abraham means "High father", which means what it says. If you go looking for the name you'll find millions of them, but not one of them will be who you're looking for.

Abraham is an action, not a guy. Issac means laughter, again not a guy but an action. Jacob means heal catcher, as in the little one on their hands and knees chasing you and tugging at your heal who will one day strike the head and become it themselves.

God loves those who DO his will. Every name in the bible is an action. Look them up and the story will make a lot more sense. You might even find out why they say the word is "living".

Peace



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 
Well, fair enough. My point here however is that, whilst the Torah, Bible & Quran may contain some of the will of the GoA, we cannot rely on any of them if we honestly seek spiritual truth.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 

You remind me of a person searching through a dark room full of precious artifacts with a candle...
...although the room is large and full of amazing stuff...
...you only get to see the bits that your candle enlightens...
...and because you only see bits randomly, you get an incomplete view of the whole.

I am in the same room...
...but for me the Son (pun intended) has risen (also intended)...
...and His Spirit is within me...
...I see you stumbling around with your candle describing stuff that you come across...
...while I see the entire room and the pieces and how they are all related to each other.

Jesus said, "I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness." John 12:46

Only when you know Him will you know where the Abrahamic faith fits in.



[edit on 13/12/09 by troubleshooter]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 
I understand your metaphor, so, sticking with it, would you agree that an inability to engage with the details of the room may be an indication of having been blinded by the light?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
3) The GoA gave humans free will, thus will not simply place faith within us; we must come to believe on our own.


Giving someone free will does not rule out God placing faith within us. IN fact, God has placed faith within us and not a soul on this planet lives without faith. Everything that we do and say and believe has a foundation in faith.

We also do not always come "to believe" on our own. God brings us to Him. He gives and takes when and how He pleases.

We perceive "free will" much differently than what we should. Animals have free will then. Anything animate has a "free will" if we are assumed to have a "free will". An animal can choose to lick its butt if it's too itchy or it can choose to rub its hind on a tree. The choice may be based on proximity, but it may also be preference. We are not different from the animal this way except that we'd probably not lick our butts. Some humans are different, though.

What really separates us humans from all other life is that we are masters of choice on a totally different level. The animals do not question God's existence. The animals do not have bouts of depression worrying about whether life has a point or not. The animals become depressed like us if their loved one dies or is lost, but they do not worry over the petty things like us.

You say, "But, the animals do not speak. How do you know?"

Give an animal its favorite food when its hungry. See how much it worries about the bills.

We are made gods of our domain. God has said Himself that He made us to be masters of the earth. He is Lord in Heaven as we were supposed to be the Lords of the earth. But, alas, the earth has been taken by the Prince of Evil. And humans bowed down like pathetically weak fools who forgot who made them.

I could write a book on your post and I believe it to be a good post. However, the logic of this last statement is incorrect. I don't know who led you to believe that or why you believed that would be part of the equation. God gives and takes as He pleases-- ALL THINGS. As well, we are able to have faith in Him by our own choice, or rather, RECOGNIZE our faith in Him by choice. We all have faith in Him but many fight it and most deny it.

I would like to see who actually believes that 1000 years from now, our society will have been proven to be correct on most science. Let's look at 1000 years in the past. What did -they- think generally? God said it, that there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing that has not happened already that will happen. The secular quote is, "History repeats itself." It is one of the very few pieces of secular wisdom.

Science is based on faith. Anyone who says otherwise is certainly fooling themself and lying to everyone else. Which ATS member here is it with the signature that says, "If a man knows anything, he knows that he don't know anything." Something like that, anyhow.

God said that King Solomon was the wisest of all men then and now, and YET he was as a complete moron compared to God's wisdom.

IN closing, attempting to apply human logic to God's ways could prove to be as difficult as dragging a 200-ton brick up a muddy slope. Alone.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Well, first off, you have an unnumbered premise, that the various and irreconcilable gods of Judaiasm, Nicene Christianity, and Islam are all "the same god."

I don't see any evidence for that. On the contrary. Mohammed's story is plainly that Jews and Chrsitians had each gotten a lot wrong about the one-and-only god. And Christians and Jews were already in profound theological disagreement between themselves.

And do any of the "Big Three" now accept Mormonism's "Abrahamic god" as their own?

Whatever God is, Abraham is a legendary figure. Maybe there was such a guy, or maybe he was made up, but in any case, there is no inconvenient contemporary written record about him or what he may have done. So, if you'd like to cook up your very own story about what "Abraham's God" was really like, then you will have competition, but no refutation.


2) The GoA is ineffable, thus cannot be known or comprehended by mortals.

No. Ineffable means only that something cannot be described completely and accurately in words. Many people think romantic love is ineffable, for example.

Ineffability limits what can be known about something, but it does not exclude the possibility that some true statements can be made about the ineffable. Romantic love happens is true enough, it's just that there is more to be said about the subject, and more that is true about the subject than can be said.


3) The GoA gave humans free will, thus will not simply place faith within us; we must come to believe on our own.

That's two issues. There is nothing in any of the usual doctrines of free will that prevents God from persuading anyone. Abraham, for instance, was persuaded by God, according to the stories. Presumably, all of the prophets were persuaded by God of God. That would seem to be a bona fide job qualification.

Obviously, if someone whom God persuaded happens to persuade me, then that is second-hand. But so what? I am persuaded (for argument's sake; in real life, I am agnostic), even knowing that my information comes from a human being. That's not necessarily a hitch.

For example, I checked the local online weather before logging on here. I am persuaded about the temperature second-hand, but persuaded just the same.

I suppose in both cases, gods and temperature, I have decided that my informant plausibly knows something about what they're talking about. It's also not clear that I could get better information: I may be less skilled at thermometer reading than a professional, and possibly I would simply be overwhelmed by a direct encounter with God. There is nothing inherently irrational, then, in "leaving it to the professionals" to establish facts for me to use.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 




I will accept religious premises at face value.


Ok.



2) The GoA is ineffable, thus cannot be known or comprehended by mortals.


Therefore you can't understand. Your attempt here at logic is meaningless, yes?



Conclusion

If
then
Therefore


You are attempting to use a logical process on something that stated right upfront that it could not be understood.

Why? I thought you said you were going to accept the premises at face value.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by troubleshooter
 
I understand your metaphor, so, sticking with it, would you agree that an inability to engage with the details of the room may be an indication of having been blinded by the light?

What do you mean by 'an inability to enage with the details of the room?'
They are clearly visible and can be engaged at will.

For me the light was illuminated gradually so my sight became accustomed to it...
...but I am still inside the room with you...
...there is a world outside in broad daylight we are yet to know.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


You can't argue with idiots mate.

Present as many facts, as many rational points of logic as you like, the result will always be the same...blunt, immovable ignorance.

The irony is, that most of these people appear to be intelligent, 'with it' people. They have an uncanny ability to ignore pretty much anything and everything that doesn't fit their belief systems, and are unwilling or unable to consider ANY new evidence or discoveries that may impinge on their blinkered views.

Do you know, i once argued with a 'religious person' (being polite there), regarding the uncanny parallels with biblical stories and much earlier accounts from long gone cultures in antiquity...you know what the retort was? Are you ready? Ahem...

"The stories from earlier times, are exactly the same because Satan (Yeah...Satan), travelled back in time (!) and placed the same stories there in order to confuse us and make us doubt gods word today...

That is the size of what you are up against. Obstinate, immovable and willing to invent just about anything from thin air to support their ridiculous thought processes.

If you think applying logic and reason, with a healthy dose of historical evidence will change ANYTHING...you are going to be very disappointed.

Nice try though.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 





You might even find out why they say the word is "living".

oh oh I know this one. I know I know.

I won't spoil your fun. Almost.

Always with the name calling.lol
Spikey can't you even read?
Why would you say something like this to the OP?
I would bet he is at least smart enough to argue with idiots.
What a very well planned debacle this is. lol



[edit on 13-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Giving someone free will does not rule out God placing faith within us. IN fact, God has placed faith within us and not a soul on this planet lives without faith.
Perhaps I didn't word that premise so well. It is my understanding that the Abrahamic religions believe that, whilst God may have created us with the capacity for faith & belief in Him, He does not force that belief upon us, but rather leaves it to our choice. This is what I meant.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
We all have faith in Him but many fight it and most deny it.
I dispute that. Despite a christian upbringing, I was an atheist until about 20yrs old. Honestly, aged 7 I insisted my parents stop taking me to church, as I didn't believe a word of it & just got really bored. Reflection on some events of my teens caused me to drift more to agnosticism. In the 22yrs since, I've developed a faith, but not at all like that espoused by the followers of the GoA: for 1 thing I'm not a monotheist.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
IN closing, attempting to apply human logic to God's ways could prove to be as difficult as dragging a 200-ton brick up a muddy slope. Alone.
To be clear, I'm not attempting to apply logic to God's ways, but rather to human ways, as they relate to spirituality.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I could write a book on your post and I believe it to be a good post
Thanks!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I appreciate your humour in this matey, it's nice that i can say what i think and not get a frothing at the mouth, pulpit delivered kind of reply...so thank you.

And yeah, i can read...been reading for decades now...i learnt how to do it while i was at school...of course this was from an era when they actually taught kids to read and write at school...unlike today.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Well, first off, you have an unnumbered premise, that the various and irreconcilable gods of Judaiasm, Nicene Christianity, and Islam are all "the same god."
You're right. For the moment tho, I'm going to refer to this as an assumption, for clarity's sake, because, as far as I'm aware, "The Big 3" do all subscribe to the numbered premises & it is the internal logic of these vs what we can derive from that, which is my main point. I made the assumption mainly for brevity.

Originally posted by eight bits
Ineffability limits what can be known about something, but it does not exclude the possibility that some true statements can be made about the ineffable.
Precisely! However, if we cannot know the full extent of deity, then it stands to reason that all that we can know could be imitated or duplicated by something else, eg another deity, a different kind of unknown entity, or mental illness.
re: persuasion
As I said under "Limitations", I agree that the GoA could act in that manner, however it does make a crucial difference whether any resulting instruction comes 2nd hand, when for instance, the reported 'Will of God' places power in the hands of some & discriminates against others, as there clearly is a motive for lying.
Thanks for engaging with the logic!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 

You are attempting to use a logical process on something that stated right upfront that it could not be understood.
Why? I thought you said you were going to accept the premises at face value
No. As I said above, it is not the GoA, or any divine influence, that I'm applying logic to. Rather, it is the beliefs & actions of human beings I'm attempting to analyse using the best tool reason has given us, ie logic.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

What do you mean by 'an inability to enage with the details of the room?'
Sticking with the room metaphor, what I mean is that the internal logic of a belief structure is part of the furniture. It may be that it works just fine the way it is, but maybe it needs rearranging, perhaps some bits thrown out, others brought in.
An inability to test the furniture out speaks to me of a preconceived idea of the rightness of it, which in turn suggests blindness to new possibilities, some of which may have been intended all along by the interior designer but somehow got muddled up in translation.
Dropping the metaphor, either a belief structure is internally self consistent or it isn't. If it isn't, its a recipe for confusion, which is an open invitation to abuse.
That is what this thread seeks to find out: is Abrahamic religion self consistent or not?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Giving someone free will does not rule out God placing faith within us. IN fact, God has placed faith within us and not a soul on this planet lives without faith.
Perhaps I didn't word that premise so well. It is my understanding that the Abrahamic religions believe that, whilst God may have created us with the capacity for faith & belief in Him, He does not force that belief upon us, but rather leaves it to our choice. This is what I meant.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
We all have faith in Him but many fight it and most deny it.
I dispute that. Despite a christian upbringing, I was an atheist until about 20yrs old. Honestly, aged 7 I insisted my parents stop taking me to church, as I didn't believe a word of it & just got really bored. Reflection on some events of my teens caused me to drift more to agnosticism. In the 22yrs since, I've developed a faith, but not at all like that espoused by the followers of the GoA: for 1 thing I'm not a monotheist.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
IN closing, attempting to apply human logic to God's ways could prove to be as difficult as dragging a 200-ton brick up a muddy slope. Alone.
To be clear, I'm not attempting to apply logic to God's ways, but rather to human ways, as they relate to spirituality.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I could write a book on your post and I believe it to be a good post
Thanks!


The only thing God has chosen not to make us do is serve Him willingly -- which is obvious, because how do you force someone to be willing of their own accord?

To serve Him willingly, we are asked to recognize Him as our God and show true love to everyone. IN Christianity, we are also to recognize that He sent Jesus Christ to die for all of us and that He was successful in redeeming us through Him. Someone can know the truth about something and still choose to not recognize it.

So, for your arguments, the third premise would better be worded, "God cannot force one to recognize His deity and do His will of their own accord." Which again, is obvious logic as one cannot be forced to do of their own accord.

In reality, events do affect what we believe. However, the test is to realize that no event can change the reality that has existed before and that which continues thereafter. Meaning, whether you are blessed with a good and rich life or cursed with death and/or violations/perversions, the reality that God exists and God has done what HE has done does not change. It is our duty as Christians to inform everyone that regardless of circumstances, God exists and does as He will. It is our duty as Christians to simply be always thankful. I myself lose patience over silly things like, say, stupidity, but have a lot of patience in most other areas. Therefore, my strength must be to perservere through mindlessness. However, should I, if God does take advantage of my weakness in order to prove to me my own stupidity, claim that He is not there or on my side? I mean, does not my faith make me His child?

Once again, we must realize what we do/would do as parents. Would I challenge my son/daughter to see their own faults if I see them faulting others? OH yeah. You betcha --and two-fold. Why do so many people act so incredibly weak when God stops giving them their perceived blessings? How spoiled can we be?

And beyond that, the things that we think we earn. What have we earned? Is it by our own choice that if we do good in front of people that we receive glory? I mean, does it take a nuclear physicist to be able to figure out simple cause and effect? Who says to themself, "I am so awesome because I did that good thing." Whatever!! We did not invent cause and effect! We did not create the effect that goes with each cause! Yet, we take the glory for these things. Who should get glory for a "discovery"? To discover simply means to reveal what was once hidden. That does not mean that it didn't exist!! So, therefore, is the One who created it lesser than the one who found it?

IF there are many, where is the root? We find in nature that it is a reflection of what potential there is. Potential is the closest physical aspect of the spiritual world. Two seeds can combine, but he same stem does not come from both. One seed begets one stem. There is an Origin and He is not many, but He is WHOLE.

Human ways are equally as complex to discuss, but are not complex at all in reality. Humans are masters of lying as we have been taking good lessons from the most experienced liar for thousands of years. WE lie to ourselves and don't even know it. We lie to people around us and pretend it will become a truth, in hope. Ironically in hope, for so many deny that which they hope for!

If you want to apply logic to human ways, it is best first to discern the true logic behind such a thread. Allow me to exhibit some.

The most likely reasons for the creation of this thread are as follows:

1) The poster seeks, in vain, new evidence to help him/her to understand God more.
2) The poster is bored and realizes that any thread having to do with religion will gain traffic.
3) The poster is attempting to discern his/her own faith in an attempt to create a more perfect religion for his/her self.
4) The poster seeks to completely discredit God in order to feel better about having developed his/her own faith. The poster does not like invisible eyes.

Whether or not these are true, the point I intend to make is made valid. I have attempted to discern the logic of the creation of this thread and I am inevitably right or wrong. The reason for this is because I had to reason with myself, "Why would I have created this thread?"

However, if we get beyond our selfish delusion and realize that our perception is so limited, we will realize why God did not make us many voices in one physical brain rather than individuals.

So that we would be REQUIRED to act on faith to ever become right is the answer.

And personally, you shouldn't be ashamed of your past. God has always been watching, what's the difference? NO one can hide. Stop judging yourself so harshly and start making better choices and you'll be alright.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 

Satan (Yeah...Satan), travelled back in time (!)
Yeah, that's pretty funny. That said, as you pointed out, there are plenty of intelligent people here who are apparently religious, so I dont think that a debate is out of the question, as long as we can refrain from calling each other idiots mind. I've done similar myself on occasion, so perhaps I shouldn't complain, but I have spent some personal effort into thinking about & putting forth this argument in clear logical terms, as opposed to copy & paste-ing some article, so if it gets derailed I'm going to be miffed!
Then again, intransigence certainly is an issue. If it turns out that my argument cannot be refuted & people persist in the belief structure it describes, what is it about religion, as opposed to spirituality, which causes this? Still, I'm here to see what happens, if someone does point out the error of my logic, I'll be pleased to have learned something.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

I would bet he is at least smart enough to argue with idiots.
What a very well planned debacle this is. lol
Thanks... er... I think

In the grand scheme of things, I am an idiot, so I'd have to agree with you.
Debacle? Probably, but I honestly hope not.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join