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.

 

Religion causes otherwise moral people to do and say immoral things.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
the original belief that the ancient texts such as the bible, were filled with myths, started 300 years ago.. before the science of archaeology. before artificial insemination. before cloning. before the discovery of many places mentioned in the texts. before quantum physics. before heavier than air flight. before space exploration, before teleportation, cloaking technology, etc etc etc

i can see how a skeptical miind of the time (enlightenment period) would have trouble with the virgin birth (artificial insemination), people being fashioned in the image of the elohim (cloning), fiery chariots going up into heaven (space flight), and etc. fact is, the more we learn about the universe, the more the "myths" of the ancient texts become scientifically explainable, thus decimating the original reason to call them myths in the first place.
edit on 8-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I don't even think, i personally, have a problem with the immaculate conception or the ressurection of Jesus, i will grant these as "Miracles" (even though i doubt them) but it still doesn't prove Jesus was the son of "GOD", it doesn't prove his moral teachings were thereby correct either. Vicarious redemption is awful preaching, it's scapegoating personal responsibility.

Again, i'll grant the virgin birth, maybe it was an anomoly and no male was actually involved. They didn't have means at which to detect a man's involvement. Also ressurection was not uncommon at the time Jesus "rose from the dead".

Again, i'll grant the miracles, it still doesn't prove the existence of God or that the teachings in the bible are morally acceptable in today's society, or ancient society.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


it's meant to teach people to forgive one another, because when the dust clears, we're all a bunch of hypocrites pretending to be indignant over the less than stellar behavior of the guy next door, while doing quite a few questionable things ourselves. if history doesn't prove that, nothing will.
edit on 9-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I believe most humans are trustworthy, kind and show soldidarity with one another. Had it not been for these characterists, i don't think we would have much of a civilisation by now. All of these characterists i talk about can be understood and demonstrated without permissions from "up high".



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


that's a good attitude to have, methinks. and believe it or not, i have free will too. and guess what i'm going to do with it?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Believe in something you have no evidence for?

So if God does exist, and i doubt him, maybe he'll cast me into hellfire for eternity, is this moral?

I have no wish to believe a being that "intelligently" creates an apocolyptic landscape, i'm not negating it's beauty, but it most definetly is apocolyptic. How arrogant to think God has a special plan for humans. 99.8% of animals on earth have become extinct, what about these? We nearly came close to extinction at one point.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i already told you that i believe the entire "hell" concept is misunderstood, so bringing that up as evidence of the immorality of god (or gods) is not an useful argument where i'm concerned. you might try a different approach. like there are examples of harsh old testament laws, but interestingly enough, it appears jesus wasn't terribly fond of those laws either. it seems that some of what was construed as laws of god were actually laws of moses (otherwise known as mosaic law), and moses was attempting to keep the peace of an entire nation of people who were coming out of extraordinary circumstances (and don't forget, they were human beings, just like the rest of us).

they had no police, no courts of law, no firemen, no garbage collection service, no roads, no modern conveniences, no hospital, no doctors, no grocery stores, etc. some of the laws were so ridiculous, to assume they came from god, is just silly.
edit on 9-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
hell is thrown in the lake of fire, in the end of revelation.
how do you throw a place into the lake of fire?
and now that we're on that topic, here's the egyptian lake of fire
\

this is also the egyptian lake of fire


any clue why there's a star in a circle in the upper left hand corner ? or why there's 2 versions or why there's a royal "serpent" in the first one?

egyptologists claim the star in a cirlce is an afterlife symbol. you believe that?

those people aren't burnt black. they are black people. lol

yeah. more here than meets the eye.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



i believe the entire "hell" concept is misunderstood.


So you believe in hell, but you just think it's misunderstood?

What historians, archaeologists are looking into these artifacts/paintings?

And what do you think they are saying about afterlife, hell and heaven in this paintings? What makes it any different to the scientologist claim of afterlife? What makes you believe?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by undo
 


So you believe in hell, but you just think it's misunderstood?

What historians, archaeologists are looking into these artifacts/paintings?

And what do you think they are saying about afterlife, hell and heaven in this paintings? What makes it any different to the scientologist claim of afterlife? What makes you believe?


hell is so many things that to call it one thing without considering the other things, is probably not good scholarship. it was originally associated with the abyss, the pit, the valley of hinnom and associated with mollech, hades, pluto, orcus, the underworld, gehenna, death, and the grave. its roots derive from things like ALPHA,. which is "first" or "beginning" and "to see" or "to know."

originally, the abyss (bottomless pit) was the sumerian abzu, which was initially a huge gate at the bottom of the ocean and smaller underground gates, almost always associated with :"glowing water" (the event horizon of a wormhole, the entrances of which were almost always underground, typically under temples like ziggurats and pyramids). the abyss of glowing water eventually became known as lake of fire (translation bias).

my theory is that it was associated with a gate destination for living people who had fallen out of favor, not dead people. the destination sounds like a mining colony on another planet(s),. which was not a pleasant destiny.. such gate travel was one way for humans (meaning once you were there, you couldn't gate back if you were human, which gave the ancient people the impression that it was an "eternal" punishment, separated from their loved ones). thus a person sentenced to the mining facilities/colonies, was typically thought of as dead since their families would never see them again.

later, humans would assign additional meanings to it, particularly when attributed to the valley of hinnom, a deep crevasse (the underworld connection), in which dead bodies and garbage were burned to keep the cities free of sickness and disease associated with refuse and dead bodies.

in other words, it evolved over time because of translation bias.

i could be wrong, but so far, this seems to be the most logical and best supported (etymologically) description.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I love your theories but even entertaining the possibility that these claims do represent the truth, it still doesn't prove God.

Again, this sounds a lot like the Annunaki/Alien/Ancient Civilisations theories i have heard, and it interests me, and humans well could have seen these people/races as "GODs" but it certainly doesn't satisfy my ponderings regarding the causation of reality itself, of the universe.

Thanks for your words. Although we may disagree on some things, i am interested and open-minded to some potential theories you may have, however, not enough to renounce my agnostic atheism.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


again i ask, what's a god? people are stumbling all over themselves to disprove this god guy and don't even know what a god is in the first place



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Exactly.




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


well to find out you have to pursue it, like you would something of great value.
otherwise, i'm thinking the answer just isn't that important or you've already decided.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Why has no scientist endeavoured to "pursue" any theory, they have to find evidence for it first. Darwin didn't pursue evolution, evolution was formed as a result of his findings.

So far no scientist, historian or theologian has ever demonstrated empirically or logically the existence of a supernatural deity. I can't think of a single area of mainstream science that is focused on finding "GOD", "GOD" is a conjuring word of what we currently do not understand, it's certainly not truth. And simply labelling the "mechanics" or forces behind nature "GOD" doesn't get us anywhere. It's dogmatic.

Entertaining the "GOD" theory begs a few questions:

We don't know whether the universe is infinty or required a creator, but then who created the creator, what reality does it exist on?

Again what's the point of persuing "GOD" when "GOD" has not even been defined, . We're learning things every day about the universe, but currently we don't know whether there is an omnipotent creator being with human emotions, but what seems evidence is that this being is capricious, malevolent and perhaps fascist is you go by many religion's definitions.

Man can't know these truths. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether god exists, any man claiming to know should be questioned on that truth, asked for evidence, unless evidence is presented i will not renounce my Atheism. I feel this is the most reasonable approach; not pre-supposing a creator and being open minded to a truth someone claims providing they have evidence.
edit on 13/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


god HAS been defined. but the place where he's defined, is called mythological, so the definition is also considered mythological. it's like asking me to study a scientific phenomena associated with comets and having me refuse to use science texts to study it. instead, just insisting, via my limited understanding of the subject (afterall, i'm refusing to study the text where the data is available) that such phenomena don't exist in the first place, so why should i bother.

i say the same thing to people who claim they are believers. read the freakin' books. study them in their original languages, get good references, actually DO the homework. if you haven't done at least that, you can't hope to answer the question or have your current view, ever challenged again or broadened. a good analogy might be graduating from the milk of knowledge, to the meat of knowledge



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I've studied the bible, as have many great historians - any thinking person can see this is fiction or mistranslated, misinterpreted language. There is no explanation that accompanies these "theories" God made this, God made that, Jesus rose from the dead therefore miracles exist, God wants homosexuals dead, Kill those who insult there parents.

I don't think i'm yet to be convinced by your arguments or points that stand in favour of bible representing human knowledge of God. Humans wrote the bible, they had (by today's standards) immature philosophy, immoral preachings and pseudo-science suggesting the temporary order of nature was suspended. (Miracles)

I'm sorry but Socrates has been debunking the philosophical irrationality of the bible and many other philosophical straw man arguments since before Jesus was even born.

It's been a nice discussion but i think this is where the debate ends as we can't agree, we have reached a dead end.

I wish you good luck in your discoveries and study.

Peace.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


where does it say god wants homosexuals dead? i'm guessing that was mosaic law, sorta like stoning your kids for misconduct and women, for adultery. need i remind you, they had no police, no courts of law, no lawyers, no family counselling, firemen, medicine, doctors, bathrooms, feminine hygiene products, condoms, or any other form of keeping disease at a minimum. they were also called to separate themselves from the other nations, which were into bestality, pederasty, and on and on. i think the point was to protect their people during a time when the diseases associated with sex with animals, and lack of medical care or proper hygiene (compared to our standards) played a huge part in what was dangerous to their entire people.

let me give you an example. there's a village in africa right now, where all the adults are dead. how this happened was,, an outbreak of hiv, which their witch doctor told them could be cured by having sex with virgins. when they were no virgins left, they started having sex with babies and small children. now, they are all hiv positive. the whole village.....or what's left of it.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



where does it say god wants homosexuals dead? i'm guessing that was mosaic law, sorta like stoning your kids for misconduct and women, for adultery. need i remind you, they had no police, no courts of law, no lawyers, no family counselling, firemen, medicine, doctors, bathrooms, feminine hygiene products, condoms, or any other form of keeping disease at a minimum. they were also called to separate themselves from the other nations, which were into bestality, pederasty, and on and on. i think the point was to protect their people during a time when the diseases associated with sex with animals, and lack of medical care or proper hygiene (compared to our standards) played a huge part in what was dangerous to their entire people.


This is the bible that is supposed to be divinely inspired. If it was so holy and so divine why not just include the abolishment of slavery in the commands? Why pretend to know God when you cannot.

I know the bible may have been a useful tool for people at the time, because they were severely naive, Science, debate and philosophical discussion were not common, and often misunderstood. Maybe it braught people together and deterred people from rape or general unkindness. But today we have outgrown these moral teachings, we're better than that, better than the "word of God"

We didn't have knowledge that we existed in a solar system, let alone what the universe and gallaxies looked like. Are we supposed to believe that they had evidence of God before they had evidence of the round planet they existed on or the disease that made them ill. Even if we did have that knowledge, like we do today - is still doesn't validate or prove that the metaphysical claims of the bible are true.

These are my points, like i said, i think we have come to a stale-mate in our discourse.

Peace and good luck,

PS. Although the bible does not speak of death as such, it may invoke it, read through Leviticus 20:13. Even if it is not death, it certainly condems homosexuality as a "sin" - Sins are considered to be against God and are punished by eternal damnation, or a child may think that, this is wrong, and irrational. Homosexulity is a form of love, and for that - it should deserve our respect.

Leviticus 20:13
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Is the bible fit for worship?

Not asking you to read it, but it does contain references/sources if you want to have a look and see for yourself.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join