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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i dunno. they had pretty advanced ideas about dietary laws and surviving the diseases that were decimating other populations. you have to admit, that sexual promiscuity tends to spread disease in populations and that's not even touching on bestality, necrophilia and some of the other abberations going on in many of the surriounding cultures. i think it actually shows that if nothing else, they had good intel on how to survive with the most chances of success, although certainly not a fair set of laws, they served the purpose of the times they lived in and were eventually corrected/fine-tuned when jesus came and explained that the laws they were still holding as divine, were actually from moses.
edit on 14-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
oh i hadn't read leviticus in ages. you're right. and the LORD in the verse is identified as jehovah. well the only explanation i have for it is that it was a law of survival of their time, and given their circumstances. can't make children if you're banging same sex and can't keep the peace, if you're bed hopping (no lawyers at the time, no courts, etc. they had to solve problems quickly). imagine having that many people without any form of law and order, following you around in a 40 year desert caravan (entire generation of kids being born and grown to adulthood).

i'm also of the opinion that increases in homosexuality are partly spurred on by large groups of people living in close quarters, diet and genetic mutations.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



i dunno. they had pretty advanced ideas about dietary laws and surviving the diseases that were decimating other populations. you have to admit, that sexual promiscuity tends to spread disease in populations and that's not even touching on bestality, necrophilia and some of the other abberations going on in many of the surriounding cultures.


Then i grant, FOR IT'S TIME, it may have been a great resource for a guide to a way of life, but the moral and metaphysical truths it claims are questionable, and most have been morally or logically outgrown over time. Slavery and genocide were advocated in the bible, as were many vile punishments and torture, in most societies today, especially in the West and democratic countries, we find these ideas morally contemptable.

"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told, religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right"

Fortunately religion has managed to overcome commands to kill children and massacre other races or people, most people with religious belief anyway
But it still doesn't stop their prejudice, casting beliefs and hocus pocus visions of hellfire onto homosexuals, it's all deep routed in the core belief in the deity of their doctrine.

Religion does not have a monolopy on health, morality, charity, nor should it's metaphysical claims be respected along with it's moral philosophy.


. i think it actually shows that if nothing else, they had good intel on how to survive with the most chances of success, although certainly not a fair set of laws, they served the purpose of the times they lived in and were eventually corrected/fine-tuned when jesus came and explained that the laws they were still holding as divine, were actually from moses.


So, what's your point? It still doesn't make the metaphysical claims of God true and shouldn't compell anyone to worship a deity they cannot prove. Nor does it means Jesus was the son of God or that man didn't realise what morality was until Moses handed the 10 commandments over.

Besides, we have much mroe comprehensive information on "how to survive" these days, just go to a book store and you can pick something up a lot more informative than the bible.

My i'm not being sarcastic here, i'm just being honest to your responses. Look back over my posts and re-read my points as i have re-read yours, I'm being honest, my position is of agnosticism, and that's why i'm an atheist.

I don't know what this reality really is, the why, the how, (even the who) so making presumptions is irrational before we have proper evidence, and believe me, we are gathering more everyday.

Maybe it is some supernatural deity, possibly with consciousness or human emotion, maybe it's an endless loop of infiinty we exist in, our universe within a sea of universes, a multiverse, a macroverse, who KNOWS! YET!!!!

Again, you may find this man's words arrogant and ignorant or you may find them insightful, it really depends on your belief - but i ask you - Do you have the reason to believe? or the WANT to believe?


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



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
i'm gonna keep a running commentary on the link you gave me (the evil bible site), as things i read recall things i've learned to my mind:

1. i'm of the opinion that the "fruit of knowledge" was sex. "to know" someone was to have sex with them. the full explanation basically goes like this:

the first "Adam" was the name of an entire race. this is evident in the first reference to Adam (which is listed as "Man" in english, but was originally Adam in hebrew. the verse says that the elohiym (plural) created adam, male and female. this means the first adam was women too. (no eve yet). in this reference, Adam is basically cloned in the image of the elohiym (plural), not made from dirt. in other words, sounds as if this race was cloned.

to break it down further, moses wrote this creation account, and had been raised as an egyptian. so the egyptian story of creation (which is nearly identical to the mesopotamian (sumerian) version, is referencing (my theory) the egyptian god, Atum. In other words, there was an entire race of atums, created/cloned in the image of the Atum ( which sounds like it was probably originally a plural word as well...et.al, the Atum gods, cloned the Atum race, thus named because they were clones of the originals). They weren't reproductive, however. Later, one of the Atum's, tinkered with them genetically, so they would reproduce, providing an endless supply of workers.. This made the head honcho angry, because the modification not only took the decision of the creation of more atums out of the hands of the gods but put it in the hands of the atum clones, who were originally meant to be servants.

this is where the story of the fall comes in. when the head atum finds out they are reproducing, he and the other elohiym decide to make another modification so that they don't have the same longevity as their progenitors. if they can reproduce enmasse, no need for them to live extremely long lives, as many short lived, is similar to a few long lived in usefulness. i do believe it was originally decided by the atum who gave them reproduction because it created a sort of automated process, where they didnt have to be onsite, monitoring every moment of the activiities of the workers.

if ya read the texts, the first humans were slaves and were created to be slaves.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
although i share your enthusiasm for humans, i do believe that life without the moral lessons in the bible, does not necessarily indicate morals and ethics, as revolutions often indicate in glaringly gruesome detail. the communist revolution required the dead to be turned into food, to feed the armies. they'd kill the people and then cook them up for dinner. in france's famous revolution, they weren't just beheading people and putting their heads on pikes, they were disembowling them. chopping them up, and generally behaving like they were rabid animals (most animals are not THAT vicious). i think we are being instructed in the biblical texts, to behave better than animals, even if most of our DNA functions similarly, we do have the ability to not react as purely instinctual creatures.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Next is the subject of SIN.
sin was the name of an akkadian god, who i believe is the sumerian enki. enki was the atum or elohiym, that modfied the atum clones to be reproductive. so SIN was originally, to have sex, to reproduce, to have knowledge, as was given to the humans by enki. even if you could reproduce, it wasn't encouraged following the fall narrative, unless there were special considerations (such as a priesthood, for example). .

as a result of sin's modifications to human dna, and following the later modifications to change human life spans, the entire "death" thing came in, connecting death to sin.
edit on 14-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Pardon my ignorance, is the ancient scriptual "evidence" of an ancient race, possibly the Annunaki/ Nephilm? Is this what you are referring to? Nibiru etc. etc.?

The possible "GODS" that the egyptians worshipped or had legends of?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


yes and no. i don't believe there's a planet called nibiru. nibru was the name of enlil's city, which was situated on the banks of the euphrates and had a famous crossing, where you could cross the river. this was associated with the as above, so below, teaching, in which the sky was mirrored on the earth.

jupiter would cross the river of the sky, and when it did so, it was called, nibiru, mirroring the crossing of the euphrates at nibru. later, enlil would become associated with jupiter (or may have already been)

the hebrews were the hibiru/habriu, who were the hyskos shepherd kings. they actually had a stint at being pharaohs, fell out of favor, were enslaved in egypt, and "chased out" by the pharaoh ahmose (who moses was named after). they were going to inherit one of the ante-diluvian sites on which enlil had built a massive temple complex...in jerusalem. that place is a hotspot. i wouldnt be surprised if there's a gate buried there.

anyway, the hibiru were named thus after enlil's city of nibru. they were the original temple builders/stone masons, and a special priesthood, who had been taught how to construct the temples for the anunnaki. this skill gave them the opportunity to gain favor with the pharaohs, and the rest is the story of moses and the exodus (in biblical texts). you can also read about the egyptian version by googling "hyskos shepherd kings."

edit on 14-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
here they are

edit on 14-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Thanks very much for the information.

I don't mean to be rude at all; but you have been rebutting my points for a while now, so i figured you are not here just to argue for the sake of arguing or for sake of your own pride/ego.

I honestly get the feeling you wish to enlighten me, but what do you wish to convince me of?

An ancient civilisation existing, potentially engineering humans or that an omnipotent/intelligent being created all that is and was? Or both?

What evidence do you omnipotent/intelligent being? Surely this is currently unknownable, despite how much knowledge we have of black holes (now or then)? What is beyond the "big-bang" so it were? What's your evidence?

I'm more than happy to grant you the possibility that an ancient race engineered us, but who engineered them? And what plane of reality do they exist on?

Sorry quite a few questions, but i feel i have to ask these before i continue to entertain your ideas. Or at least persue these theories myself, but i feel i won't gain any "enlightenment" or "knowledge" but i'm sceptical, that's me.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


And what of these shepherds? What makes them important? I see men or humans with animals; wildstock, was this just not a depiction of their agricultural prosperity? So what? Pardon my ignorance again.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


well i had to come to grips with all this myself, since i have been a christian most of my life. i think there's 2 entirely different narratives in the old testament, because jehovah was both enlil and enki. for example, the enuma elish, enki is seen confusing the languages (which i theorize was a gate event. new people were brought here thru the gates, perhaps from some other planet or some other place on this planet) at the tower of babel (whereas in the bible it says jehovah did it. this caused me to research where the word jehovah originated from and found that it came from both enlil's and enki's names. (just keep thinking about that. 2 guys, both called jehovah in the biblical texts.....)

when jehovah kicked them out of eden thru the gates, i theorize they were gated here and the gate on this side, was guarded so no one could go back thru it without permission (similar to what you see in the epic of gilgamesh and the "scorpion men" guarding the gates of paradise).. i'm guessing the idea of what the wormhole really is, partially answers your question, as i indicated earlier in the thread. the singularity is where the transformation from just a couple guys in ancient texts with a few genetically enhanced slaves, becomes something else entirely.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


those are the habiru/hebrew, the original stone masons,
who herded sheep as well (for food and clothing).



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



i'm guessing the idea of what the wormhole really is, partially answers your question


It doesn't really satify my ponderings, nor have 70% of astronomers concluded that "GOD" is the singularity at the blackhole, that singularities explain the existence of a Deity, in fact some theories suggest that the entire universe is made of tiny singularities, that cascade at a fractal level. Is this God? Why so?

It doesn't really explain God or help persue knowledge just stating "well....there's a wormhole, that's God." It's just pointing and labelling.

You say the text is evidence of knowledge of black holes, but wheres the space crafts, the science to get there, the mathematics, the diagrams of our solar system. Why so vague, why so open to interpretation.

Also i had a scour through some of the Hyksos culture, i find it quite contemptable the idea of the deity "Ba'al". No person or deity has the right to "master" or be a "lord" to any human life. But like i've said before, ancient civilisation have formulated and discarded ancient superstition, no one believes in "Zeus" any more. No one believes in Neptune or Oden or Ra. They fade and dissapear, it's myth, part fiction, over-exaggerated. Am i truly ignorant to think this?
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


no no, i don't say the singularity is god. i did say earlier, that the ancient people misunderstood the data, and ended up deifying the wormhole and singularity. what i'm saying is, if you are in a state of existence in which time is irrelevant, you would, by virtue of the ability to see past present and future, be omniscient, at the very least. and i'm guessing, anyone capable of that level of understanding, would also be omnipotent, particularly as it applies to cavemen.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



if you are in a state of existence in which time is irrelevant, you would, by virtue of the ability to see past present and future, be omniscient, at the very least. and i'm guessing, anyone capable of that level of understanding, would also be omnipotent, particularly as it applies to cavemen.


I'm not in a state of that existence though so i would be unwise to assume. If i was close to the centre of a black hole do you really think i would survive? You say "see" past present and future, but you are associating and assuming human characterists with a natural phenomenon. Again i state, this is simply a labelling act calling a black hole a God. I assume "GODs" would "fight" when gallaxies collide?

Besides the above concerns with your ponits, I'm more than interested in ancient civlisation by the way, and i thank you very much for all the incite and reference you have provided so far.
edit on 14/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
babel means gate of god.

just thought i'd mention that.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


okay the description of god, is that he is omniscient and omnipotent. you asked, i offered an explanation relating to the "all seeing" thing in the texts. if time is irrelevant, all time is viewable.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



In the story of the Tower of Babel, God makes a very interesting observation:

“The LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” – Genesis 11:5 – 7

God knows that power is a very corrupting force, and no individual or group of people should have too much of it. When people unite, they can do some very powerful things, both for good and for evil. And unfortunately, the most unifying political movements of history have always been invariably destructive.


Horrible destructive preaching. Like i said, i have nothing but contempt for the moral and ethical philosophy in the ancient scriptures, this is not God at work, this is man. The idea of this abrahamic myth as truth makes me sick and disgusted.


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



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


We're back to square one, this is my concern and my point of contention, i don't believe an omnipotent being exists.

Have you not heard of this philosophical paradox? "The problem of evil"? I don't feel there is any logical or empirical evidence for the existence of an omnipotent supernatural deity.


The "Epicurean paradox" is a version of the problem of evil. It is a trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists); or more commonly seen as this quote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?



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



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join