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.

 

I am a Theist.

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Cuervo
I hope you realize that was in jest. Honestly, though, the fear of them turning immortal trumps his threat that they would die. I firmly believe that Yahweh created them to be mortal beings. Think about the logistics. They weren't created infertile so if they were immortal and allowed to breed (painlessly, I might add), it would not take long for Earth to be overpopulated and unsustainable.

Why would we think that the God who created the universe couldn't even calculate how long it would take to "fill the earth" (his express command!)? Can we really believe God didn't have some provision for such a scenario? There is no reason to make the fall of man necessary or good.


I do think he could "calculate how long it would take to fill the Earth". That's why I think he intentionally created them mortal.

This is why I love the Bible. All believers (or even entertainers of the concept of God) are left in the dark in the same way anthropologists are when they try to practice archeology. Honestly, I'm just glad to be talking to a couple of Christians who are not offended by the slightest notion of something going against their ingrained version of interpretation.

Then you have the crowd on the outside, looking in, thinking we all sound ridiculous for taking such a book seriously. Little do they know that, accurate or not, that book has shaped humanity at almost every corner.

I'll stop taking us off-track. Unless the OP wants to change the thread title to "I am an (immortal) theist".




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



The God in the garden said she would surely die that day. When she ate it, what happened? She gained knowledge and didn't die. So, in that sense, the God didn't tell her the truth and the serpent did.


When God told Adam "in that day that he ate of the tree he'd surely die" You have to ask on who's "wristwatch" would the day be counted off? The 1,000 year reign of Christ is called the "Day of the Lord". It also says 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years with God. So who's "wristwatch" is keeping the time for the day? God's or Adam's?

Adam lived 930 years, seems like he died before 1,000 years were up. There was only one time in the scripture where satan told the truth, can you tell me which time it was?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cuervo
 



The God in the garden said she would surely die that day. When she ate it, what happened? She gained knowledge and didn't die. So, in that sense, the God didn't tell her the truth and the serpent did.


When God told Adam "in that day that he ate of the tree he'd surely die" You have to ask on who's "wristwatch" would the day be counted off? The 1,000 year reign of Christ is called the "Day of the Lord". It also says 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years with God. So who's "wristwatch" is keeping the time for the day? God's or Adam's?

Adam lived 930 years, seems like he died before 1,000 years were up. There was only one time in the scripture where satan told the truth, can you tell me which time it was?


Who says God uses base-10 math? Many cultures use base-8. Your computer uses base-2. I get what you are saying and I can't say you are wrong because I don't know that you are. I only know I'm not convinced. I guess that's in spirit of your whole thread, isn't it?

Stay faithful, brother, and don't let me be any more a stumbling block to you than you are to me. This has been a great thread.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



Who says God uses base-10 math? Many cultures use base-8. Your computer uses base-2. I get what you are saying and I can't say you are wrong because I don't know that you are. I only know I'm not convinced. I guess that's in spirit of your whole thread, isn't it?


God prolly uses base-7 math.

At least the Holy Spirit does.


Stay faithful, brother, and don't let me be any more a stumbling block to you than you are to me. This has been a great thread.


No, certainly not. Places like ATS strengthen my faith.

Thanks for participating.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth


This can also be illustrated by an excellent cartoon I saw recently about women in technology and how every woman is expected to represent all of them:




XKCD cool! My son sends me those...
Vicky



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You see Religion and it has nothing to do with what happened on Earth 4-5 billion years before human arose. Hows that one for ya.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



There is a facebook page called "Let's eat Grandma!" or "Let's eat, Grandma!"-- punctuation saves lives. Just wanted to add to the list of public service announcements.


That reminds me of a very good book for the stickler, the title of which highlights the importance of grammar - "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves"

The anology of a panda in a cafe, and it is declared that he "eats, shoots and leaves" rather than "eats shoots and leaves" - depending on grammar, it could be a criminal panda or a vegetarian panda!


www.amazon.co.uk...

A good book, very much worth the read if you enjoy the English language.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

I love that book, and I am taking the opportunity to promote this blog which is about a lot of things, but mainly the kinds of errors that drive the blogger round the bend...

Good hints on usage



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You see Religion and it has nothing to do with what happened on Earth 4-5 billion years before human arose. Hows that one for ya.


... and he said nothing about religion. Religion definitely has nothing to do with what happened billions of years ago. However, a deity of some sort might have and you can't really prove otherwise. In fact, if fits into the more progressive physics models of late. You watch; science will someday prove in God's existence. Though I think the God it unveils will upset both atheists and fundamental Christians, alike.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





You watch; science will someday prove in God's existence


I'd word it like this myself

ScienceMAY one day prove in A Supreme Beings existence.

And btw Most religions have a lot to do with Supreme Beings and/or deities so don't try and skew things.

I'm agnostic by the way

Agnostic = Uncertain of All claims of knowledge.
Or

A person who doubts truth of religion
edit on 10-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse

And btw Most religions have a lot to do with Supreme Beings and/or deities so don't try and skew things.
edit on 10-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


Yes, "most religions have a lot to do with supreme beings and/or deities". But no supreme being, deity, or god has anything to do with religion.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by Cuervo
 





You watch; science will someday prove in God's existence


I'd word it like this myself

ScienceMAY one day prove in A Supreme Beings existence.

And btw Most religions have a lot to do with Supreme Beings and/or deities so don't try and skew things.

I'm agnostic by the way

Agnostic = Uncertain of All claims of knowledge.
Or

A person who doubts truth of religion


When you look at it like this the contrived term and/or concept of god and religion aren't any more plausible than me making up a magical mythical hard-to believe story and claiming it absolute fact.

Which is absurd.

Then you step back and realise man is not complacent with the possiblity of there not being a god and/or creatore of the universe etc

So he must wants to beleive that something and/or a supreme being and/or creatore and/or some thing. Created the Universe

But thats the thing You can't prove what created the Universe and we may never prove it or we may prove it.

There may be mutli-verses there may not, There may be a bigger universe outside our observable universe.

There may have been time infinite before our existence now and time never began and that may be plausible as well.

Any theory is just as plausible as the contrived term of god (personified by most religions as god in mans image) and/or religion


I think i'll stick with it being just another possible theory and a concept contrived by man.

Its just as plausible as any other Random Theory of how things begun were created and/or were not ever created and just were.

Honestly it seems like God and/or Religion is just mans way of coping with his Existence in the universe. So Meager So Small So weak So feeble.

Pale Blue Dot.



For me it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan




Socrates-" I Know That I Know Nothing"



The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as "I know that I know nothing" stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things.[2] This may be better exemplified in another translation, that is perhaps more correct, "I am only wise insofar as what I don't know, I don't think I know"


edit on 10-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote to Benevolent:

["No there is not, I can either choose to believe or not believe, it's my choice. Information can be rejected. That's my point."]

Information can be rejected; ...sometimes both ways. This can be done on principle, because one (or both) part(s) simply isn't interested in a chain of reasoning, but only want to propagandize..

If a chain of reasoning is the aim, an actual search for 'truth/reality', e.g. in a situation where the outcome can be of academic or social interest, the reasoning-chain can be regressed from plain disagreeing 'answers' to comparing methods to analyzing methods (are there better methods?).

You have a standing offer from me to follow such a regressive reasoning chain. You have sofar not participated.

Quote: ["I already said I apologize for my handicap of a public school/government education. What else do you want me to say?"]

A close friend of mine for many years was a fundie pentacolist. He had 4-5 years of shool in his life altogether, but was a practical genius (besides being a wonderful do-good christian. He never preached, and there was never a pricetag on his help). He was respected and liked.

He did, what he was good at, and never exceeded his competence with empty claims of knowledge he didn't posses.

I've said it several times: Play with true colours. If you do that, there's no need to excuse or be ashamed of any lack of education etc. Everybody is good at something, bad at something. Our value doesn't depend on that. The problem is, when a false or cosmetic facade of non-existing 'knowledge' is used to 'prove' something.

Thanks for the star; I believe, I got it because I was trying to say: I'm not mind-police. (But I AM often querulous and irritating).



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ya know, it's funny... your OP never even specified which God. The ensuing comments are hilarious when you consider that.

But in making your point you've also made mine: that people cannot grasp and retain a topic. There's reasonable diversion, and then there's hijacking.

Want some popcorn while we wait for anyone to come up with a rational, logical argument to convince us that no God exists? I use an air popper, real butter, and sea salt... then wash it down with Dew.

S+F for the successful experiment in getting people to completely switch sides in a debate without their being aware of it.


And there's the method of making endless claims of competence or knowledge, never manifested or demonstrated, and when the pressure for validation becomes to big to make disappeance acts, resort to character defamation and finally calling in the cavalry if anything else fails.

The aim apparantly justify whatever means for you.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cuervo
 


The Hebrew for God is "Elohim", which is a plural term used as a singular noun. That's because God is a Trinitarian God. "Let us make man in our image" is one person of the Trinity speaking to the other two persons of the Trinity. And like the Triune God man is comprised of 3 parts, a body, soul, and spirit. The Son had not yet incarnated in a body so He couldn't have been speaking about Himself when He said "in our image". That's why in verse 27 it continues "And so God (Elohim) created man in His own image..."

Genesis 2 is an in-depth account of what happened on day six. Newspapers do this all the time, they will have a brief in the headline and go into all the details in the body of the article.





Sorry, but the tri-gunic model is far older than christianity, where it in a hijacked and very distorted form first appears openly in pauline-christianity.

To postulate the existence of a trinity 'god' already in OT is something YOU do with the use of one of the special interpretation-methods christians are so fond of.

In any case the tri-gunic model necessitates still another perspective level, which is included in the earlier uses of it, but censored away in pauline christianity.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by scottromansky
 


Bill Maher? Bill Maher??

Vulger mockery is not persuasive to people who actually do think, as opposed to those who merely claim to be "free thinkers". When you want to persuade, you don't send in the clowns.


Clowns are far superior to incompetence disguised by twisted semantics.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth


Likewise, if an atheist says or does something inconsistent with atheism, nobody thinks anything of it. But if a Christian does something inconsistent with (real or perceived) Christian teachings, we all are denounced as a group. I can't begin to count the number of times, even just here in ATS, I see things like "Christians are all hypocrites", "Christians are backwoods morons", "Christians are against science", ad nauseum.
edit on 9-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)

The only thing an atheist could say that is inconsistent with atheism is that he believes in god. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's all. As an atheist, I can say that the big bang did not happen and that would have nothing to do with my atheism. Another atheist can say that evolution is not true, and it has nothing to do with atheism. Again, atheism is only the lack of belief in gods, not the study of anything else.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


When God told Adam "in that day that he ate of the tree he'd surely die" You have to ask on who's "wristwatch" would the day be counted off? The 1,000 year reign of Christ is called the "Day of the Lord". It also says 1,000 years is as 1 day and 1 day is as 1,000 years with God. So who's "wristwatch" is keeping the time for the day? God's or Adam's?

Adam lived 930 years, seems like he died before 1,000 years were up. There was only one time in the scripture where satan told the truth, can you tell me which time it was?

Can an almighty, all knowing god NOT communicate his message clear enough so that we can understand exactly what he meant? Surely he would know exactly which words to use for us puny humans to understand his message.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
The only thing an atheist could say that is inconsistent with atheism is that he believes in god. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's all. As an atheist, I can say that the big bang did not happen and that would have nothing to do with my atheism. Another atheist can say that evolution is not true, and it has nothing to do with atheism. Again, atheism is only the lack of belief in gods, not the study of anything else.

When atheists claim they are good citizens but pull pranks like sneaking in the back door of the Creation Museum and forcing an impromptu "interview" (Bill Maher, as I recall), or claim to be less harmful to humanity than religions but murder millions (famous atheist despots of the world), or claim to be rational yet obsessively make thread after thread about Christianity (several examples of ATS members), they live inconsistently with atheism. While some atheists are content to simply not believe in gods, many are aggressively targeting religious people (esp. Christians) and say such people are dangerous and must be eliminated... thus imposing their own preferred "morality" on others. I could go on. But the point I was making is that atheists expect to act or speak however they want and never be held to account, while demanding perfection from all Christians.




Can an almighty, all knowing god NOT communicate his message clear enough so that we can understand exactly what he meant? Surely he would know exactly which words to use for us puny humans to understand his message.

He did. But people rebelled against him, yet he sent prophets to them. Eventually he set apart a whole nation to serve as his witnesses, but they rebelled too. Then he sent his own Son, whom they killed. (This is exactly what Jesus meant by a parable he told about the owner of a vineyard.) Yet even after that Son rose from the dead, and just as Jesus said in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, people won't listen even then.

God's message has been clearly communicated as to how people can be reconciled to him.

You have to remember that much of the Bible is history and prophecy, quite a bit is exclusively for the Jews, and there is also poetry and wisdom literature. The NT also has history (the gospels and Acts), prophecy (Revelation primarily), and the Letters (the "teachings of the apostles"). People, being human, will always argue about the details, but the message of creation, fall, and redemption is very simple. You can't demand that God spoonfeed us or micromanage us and operate us like puppets. He has more purposes for us in this life than simply obedience; there is also the development of character and learning to cooperate with each other, and to develop the character to make allowances for disagreement. How we handle that says much more about our character than just checking off a list of commands.

As the Bible itself says, "In these last days he has spoken to us in his Son". Jesus is the pinnacle of God's clear communication to us. How difficult is that? And how deaf and dense we must be not to see it?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
When atheists claim they are good citizens but pull pranks like sneaking in the back door of the Creation Museum and forcing an impromptu "interview" (Bill Maher, as I recall), or claim to be less harmful to humanity than religions but murder millions (famous atheist despots of the world), or claim to be rational yet obsessively make thread after thread about Christianity (several examples of ATS members), they live inconsistently with atheism. While some atheists are content to simply not believe in gods, many are aggressively targeting religious people (esp. Christians) and say such people are dangerous and must be eliminated... thus imposing their own preferred "morality" on others. I could go on. But the point I was making is that atheists expect to act or speak however they want and never be held to account, while demanding perfection from all Christians.

What one atheists does is his OWN doing. If he/she does something evil/wrong, what does that have to do with me or other atheists? He/she doesn't do evil things in the name of atheism, he/she does those things because he/she is a bad person. We don't have a dogma, or guidelines in which we all have agreed upon that tell us how to behave and/or live. We don't have an all mighty, all knowing deity guiding us and helping us live our earthly lives. (Maybe that's why we react the way we do when christians mess up, because they supposedly have this god helping them but act no better than anyone else) We simply do not believe in gods, until there is credible evidence presented to us that could sway us.

We are held to account in how we act or speak. There are prisons and punishments for those who break laws.



Originally posted by SaberTruth
He did. But people rebelled against him, yet he sent prophets to them. Eventually he set apart a whole nation to serve as his witnesses, but they rebelled too. Then he sent his own Son, whom they killed. (This is exactly what Jesus meant by a parable he told about the owner of a vineyard.) Yet even after that Son rose from the dead, and just as Jesus said in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, people won't listen even then.

God's message has been clearly communicated as to how people can be reconciled to him.

If god's message is clear, why are there thousands of christian denominations? All of them are trying to live for the god of the bible, yet they have many distinct differences on how to do so, and how to be reconciled. Some say you have to be baptized, others say you do not. Some say you have to be filled with the spirit, others say you do not and that the holy spirit ceased to work in humanity after the apostles passed on. Some say you have to partake in communion, others do not. There are those who believe Jesus and his father are one and the same, and others do not. I can go on and on. So if it is clear, why is it not seemingly so? Is it just me? Even in the church I used to attend as a christian, there are people who don't believe in hell and there are those who do. Both sets of believers are spirit filled, meaning they prophecize and speak in tongues and all that jazz.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Hydroman because: spelling

edit on 10-6-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join