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.

 

Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 30
22
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


I hope you realize that the book of Enoch has been proven to be a fake? The older part of it was written after the old testament, and the newer parts written after the new testament. In both cases, it was written after the original scriptures, indicating it was a copy-off and impossible to guarantee validity of originality.


Something that happened a lot in ancient texts in general...which explains why many of those pseudo-predictions aren't really predictions as they were made up AFTER the actual events. Why?

To make it seem more miraculous, which made it easier to control the masses. After all, they should fear/worship the super natural, right?




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Many churches have been taken over by right wing/political forces to manipulate
Christians to support endless wars, death and destruction of multitudes and other right wing factors.

From the pulpits they have more to do with the Old Testament then the New Testament

Giving only lip service to the teachings of Jesus.

This is one of the main reasons so many real Christians in the USA have left the church in droves.

Many of the churches have been perverted by having politics brought into the houses of the Lord here, pretending to serve one master when in reality it is attempting to serve two masters in houses divided.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote:

["no christians normally don't ascribe to the virgin birth being artificial insemination."]

The present direction is about how such relates to SCIENCE. If you wish to switch to doctrinal perspectives, to ancient science perspective or anything else, this has nothing to do with contemporary science on an evidence level.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Undo

You wrote:

["no christians normally don't ascribe to the virgin birth being artificial insemination."]

The present direction is about how such relates to SCIENCE. If you wish to switch to doctrinal perspectives, to ancient science perspective or anything else, this has nothing to do with contemporary science on an evidence level.


you said:


A great favourite with some christians.


that was my response. you can't blame other christians for my wacky theories. although there may be some who share my conclusions on one level or another.

well how else can science relate to science other than relating to science? this has leaked over into ufology a bit,which is why i said earlier, i get in trouble from pretty much everybody lol not because i'm trying to be mean, i'm just looking for answers that satisfy the most questions.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["yes it does. You asked which, I said which."]

What does what, and which which is which?

Quote: ["In order for me to understand your statement that I am ignorant in certain subjects, I need examples."]

And I am giving you examples all the time, which you consequently ignore.

Quote: ["We disprove the other person's beliefs as they disprove ours. To put it simply, right until proven wrong."]

So any claim, however absurd, id true until disproven? That's your 'logic'?

Quote: ["yes, unchanged doctrine is a sign of truth. Gnosticism has changed. It absorbs lots of religious beliefs from whoever is around."]

I have already given you a very reliable source on this, which you ofcourse ignored, because while it fits the requests you prove yourself with, it unfortunately didn't fit your prefabricated answer (and still doesn't).

Your chestbeating about your religious knowledge doesn't impress me. Demonstrate it, instead of just declaring yourself an authority. And once more, establish some solid cornerstones for your fabulations.

edit on 23-1-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
i'm just looking for answers that satisfy the most questions.


But you can't just throw logic and rationality out of the window just to get answers that SUBJECTIVELY satisfy you. You either know something because you have objective evidence, or you have to ADMIT that you DON'T know because of a lack of credible evidence...you fall in the 2nd category as long as you don't come up with hard scientific evidence other than subjective texts/art.

Sorry to burst your bubble



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote:

["that was my response. you can't blame other christians for my wacky theories. although there may be some who share my conclusions on one level or another."]

I'm not blaming anyone for your individual opinions (which by the way interest me much, and to which I'm far from negative. I just don't want to turn guesses and speculations into more than they are).

What's COMMON for this kind of argumentation is, it's methodology so to speak, is that it's neither logic nor even remotely scientific. Trying to give it some respectability by hinting at 'science' isn't really very honest (and I believe, that you have a decent level of personal integrity, where you wouldn't cheat consciously).



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh no, the biblical predictions of Jesus are too strange to work out. Now if you want me to offer some doubt, yes, it is more plausible that a rich learned man impersonated it all and followed through with all those predictions, and from a purely statistical viewpoint, this is more likely than the probability that Jesus was the son of God. But I fail to see why somebody would do that. Thus, I believe Jesus was the son of God.

Those predictions, you see, were held in high authority by every Rabbi and it would be impossible to edit it. This is why most religious texts never change once they have an established hierarchy of people who guard the faith. However, Christianity remains the only known religion to have survived the collapse of civilization and not change through it. If you want an example of what that kind of event does to a religion, just look at Ancient Egypt before and after the two times their government collapsed between the new old and middle kingdom.


reply to post by undo
 


I'd like some proof of that.

reply to post by bogomil
 


You asked which was my reference to the oldest church, I said to you it is the oldest body of believers, not physical building.



And I am giving you examples all the time, which you consequently ignore.


Such as?



So any claim, however absurd, id true until disproven? That's your 'logic'?


nay. Any claim that has been around for an exuberant amount of time should remain true until proven false undeniably. IE, The universe being 6000 years old, at least to our relativity, has been proven false undeniably. Thus it is an established claim that should be believed until something undeniably disproves it.



I have already given you a very reliable source on this, which you ofcourse ignored, because while it fits the requests you prove yourself with, it unfortunately didn't fit your prefabricated answer (and still doesn't)


Such as? The fact is Gnosticism has changed, and it too often has just munched on the beliefs on whoever is around at the time. Thus it does not fulfill any form of qualification of being true because it has been proven that it changes. If it changes, it is not permanent. If it's not that, then it's not credible by faith alone. Which is all it's got going for it.



Your chestbeating about your religious knowledge doesn't impress me. Demonstrate it, instead of just declaring yourself an authority. And once more, establish some solid cornerstones for your fabulations.


I have. But you ignore it. It's almost everything you are you are blaming me for being. Very strange.
edit on 23-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by undo
i'm just looking for answers that satisfy the most questions.


But you can't just throw logic and rationality out of the window just to get answers that SUBJECTIVELY satisfy you. You either know something because you have objective evidence, or you have to ADMIT that you DON'T know because of a lack of credible evidence...you fall in the 2nd category as long as you don't come up with hard scientific evidence other than subjective texts/art.

Sorry to burst your bubble


i disagree. logic suggests to me that 5500 years of history can't possibly be all fake and mythological. that the reason they were ruled as such was because at the time of the decision, 300 years ago, our science still didn't know what to make of such things as flying into the sky in fiery chariots, vimanas and super massive black holes and artificial insemination, so they called it all myth. and now that science has developed to reveal such things are possible afterall, i can only conclude that the texts were already describing scientific facts, long before we knew they were scientific facts. it just makes more sense to me than the alternative



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


One last time, the only pseudo-evidence you have are ancient texts and art...that is NOT scientific proof, no matter how often you claim it is


You have a very incomplete picture of history as you fully focus on art/texts and completely ignore the complete lack of other evidence. History doesn't back you up!!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo
 


One last time, the only pseudo-evidence you have are ancient texts and art...that is NOT scientific proof, no matter how often you claim it is


You have a very incomplete picture of history as you fully focus on art/texts and completely ignore the complete lack of other evidence. History doesn't back you up!!
]

the other evidence is, that nothing that was described is scientifically impossible, and i included that in my deliberations.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


eh, that's an illogical statement. I mean, anything is possible. That doesn't make it true, it just means it has a probability of being true. As humans we must chose what is most probable, no matter how unlikely. And your points are less probable than established points.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


it just has the added benefit of correcting the original assumption that it must be myth because it isn't scientifically possible. it's the original logic that was used to call it myth, in reverse.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo
 


One last time, the only pseudo-evidence you have are ancient texts and art...that is NOT scientific proof, no matter how often you claim it is


You have a very incomplete picture of history as you fully focus on art/texts and completely ignore the complete lack of other evidence. History doesn't back you up!!
]

the other evidence is, that nothing that was described is scientifically impossible, and i included that in my deliberations.


I don't think you fully understand what evidence means. Absence of evidence isn't evidence!!! The mere possibility doesn't allow you to state something. If it were, I could state pink unicorns roamed "nothingness" for ages before all creating one huge fart that served as the basis for our universe. You can't prove me wrong, but that doesn't mean what I say is logical/rational or true.

You're just creating your own fantasy world based on subjective interpretations of subjective texts and art...all the while you don't have a single shred of other scientific evidence to back up those claims. It's a prime example of SPECULATION!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


No, myths, from a scientific viewpoint, are the least probable, but still possible, events that mankind has recorded. A myth can neither be proven true nor false unless physical proof can be discovered. It is not good to assume something is true without some kind of undeniable piece of evidence it is. You are hypothesizing on issues that have virtually infinite possibilities, yours being no more probable than others.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Gorman91
 


it just has the added benefit of correcting the original assumption that it must be myth because it isn't scientifically possible. it's the original logic that was used to call it myth, in reverse.


That doesn't give you the right to randomly make stuff up...which is what you're doing given the complete absence of scientific evidence.

You can't just say: "We have no evidence of this, but it could be possible...ergo it happened."

That's not logical or rational!!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i did quite a bit of research on the ancient mesopotamian and egyptian texts, as a result of trying to understand something in the bible. i realized that the ancient people had deified a device, called the gate of the gods, and the function of that gate, which was, the creation of the gods, which was also the gate of paradise thru which humans were ejected from eden. when i finally saw that video about super massive black holes, that i linked earlier in the thread, and learned about the enoch reference, i realized that the story of god creating the universe derived, in part, from the deification of the gate of the gods and its associated wormhole, which was part of an even older story, that super massive black holes had created the universe. this is played out visually, in muslim hajj, which is itself a very old celebration that predates islam by thousands of years.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T PROOF!!!

For crying out loud, people keep on telling you texts/art aren't scientific evidence...and in every single one of your answers you continue talking about ancients texts as your source of evidence.

Repeat after me: ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo
 


ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T PROOF!!!

For crying out loud, people keep on telling you texts/art aren't scientific evidence...and in every single one of your answers you continue talking about ancients texts as your source of evidence.

Repeat after me: ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!!


repeat after me, modern texts are not
proof that ancient texts are fables.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo
 


ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T PROOF!!!

For crying out loud, people keep on telling you texts/art aren't scientific evidence...and in every single one of your answers you continue talking about ancients texts as your source of evidence.

Repeat after me: ANCIENT TEXTS AREN'T SCIENTIFIC PROOF!!!


repeat after me, modern texts are not
proof that ancient texts are fables.


Yeah, but modern scientific texts back up their claims with evidence!!

And modern scientific texts can in fact debunk myths. Take Noah's global flood for example, we know it didn't happen. We also know for a fact that women weren't originally created by a man's rib. So in essence, you're wrong...modern scientific texts can very well debunk old myths...like the one that the earth is flat


If I start a blog today, and write about giant space turtles...and in 4000 years someone reads it, in no way should they believe those space turtles existed, even if I accurately describe London in an effort to show which way they flew over London. That is, unless you throw logic and rationality out of the window like you.

You're essentially the person 4000 years in the future, reading my blog, and going "yup, giant space turtles clearly exist".

It would be fine if you admitted it's nothing but speculation, but you insist it's what happened...that's quite sad.
edit on 23-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join