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.

 

Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

page: 11
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   




I just read your post above and I started laughing...not at you...but at all the lunatics and weirdness that are in the Bible.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Christianity isn't a religion?

What, pray tell, would you define a religion as?

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that Christianity was the very definition of 'Religion.'

Enlighten Us Oh Wise One...


Here's how I would field this one.
Belief in Jesus Christ need not belong to any religion. Christ being of the Father. Religion being of man.

Christianity is belief in THE FACT that Jesus Christ was word for word what scripture says he was. That Jesus Christ was in fact the word of God in the flesh.

Religions like Buddhism, Harry Krishna etc.also there are religions that divide ( in the hope of conquering ) Christianity. Baptist, penticostal, Catholicism being of man. Add atheism and evolution as the most whimsical of all these. There are of course arguements from atheists and the science community about the last two. But, if it comes from the mind of man and concerns his belief in the Holy Father. No matter the direction it takes his belief. It is a religion. IMPOV.

edit on 29-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jimnuggits
 


Well, the first thing God was doing was chillaxing on the formless void that would be the Earth. From a technical standpoint, it is the first place he is documented as being. Though that's really not something fathomable.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


guess you didnt read the Sumerian text,,,or look into the Counsel of Nicea



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

This is stupid talk

hmmmm, what is stupid is arrogance. Just because someone doesn't believe exactly like you doesn't mean they are stupid and it takes complete ignorance to say so.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


These results were slightly harder to predict than the other polls, but it's fairly close to what I was expecting. It seems to be missing a question though:

"The origins of human life on planet earth are the result of a combination of terrestrial dna and extraterrestrial dna, defined by the science of genetics, engineered by the Anunnaki thousands of years ago."


edit on 29-8-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: spelling, and change "life" to "human life"


:clap::clap: I was actually hoping this question was in there, and I was disappointed when I saw it wasn't there.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.

ATSers are not religious loonies who believe in made up stories created by organized religion so they could make a buck and get power.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


You miss his point, believing in higher powers as individuals, without the bs trappings of organised religion isn't really being religious loonies at all.
I'm surprised by the atheists on ATS.
I thought IDers were the main bunch here...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


The results are expected, but for me, as an evolutionary gnostic Christian mystic, sadly, they display only ignorance.


It needn't be an either/or proposition. See my thread "A Question (or two) for Atheists" in my sig for more on the alternative viewpoint.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


What does it matter whether or not one believes in the accuracy of the Bible? It's been a while since I went to Church but last time was there all that was required to be a good Christian was to believe that God was the Creator, Jesus was his son who he sent to Earth to die for our sins, and to help your fellow Man and to treat them as you would want to be treated. Now, earlier you said that you didn't take everything in the Bible literally. How do you determine what to take literally and what not to take literally? It seems to me that if you believed in the absolute word of the Bible then you would take it all literally, yet you have essentially admitted to doing what Gorman has done. You recognize that the Bible tells a history, but it might not be 100% accurate so you have to choose what things are literal and what are not. Yet in the end you both get the same message.


The bible is literally true where it is intended to be literally true, figurative where it is intended to be figurative, poetic where is meant to be poetic, etc. Therefore, we must examine the wide diversity of biblical writing using logic, contextual analysis, etc. Do I believe that God created the earth in the order that is described in Chapter 1 of Genesis? Yes I do. Words mean what they mean in context. This applies to verses as well.

As for your venture into Christianity, more is required than what you listed, you forgot one ingredient, and that is to repent and turn from your sins, in doing so you will be immersed with the holy spirit and become a changed being, believing in Christ is simply not enough, even the demons believe in him, does that mean they're saved? Of course not. Hope that helps.
edit on 29-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


And what about Genesis 2? Which is not in the same order. Does it not suggest a difference in view between God and Man?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Christianity isn't a religion?

What, pray tell, would you define a religion as?

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that Christianity was the very definition of 'Religion.'

Enlighten Us Oh Wise One...


I believe I actually may have a somewhat satisfactory answer to that. Here's a thread on it I made quite a while ago.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Centurionx
 


The God of abraham isaac and jacob is NOT an extraterrestrial. I am really SICK of you people saying this, its an outright insult to our almighty God. Our god does not dwell on another planet and is not coming back on a spaceship like the ones you see in starwars... This is stupid talk God (1 god in 3 persons) is all powerfull and all knowing and can see every last little thing you do or type here at ATS. When you say extraterrestrial you are meaning alien, from another planet annuaki style, which is not true at all. God the father is in heaven, and his son is also in heaven preparing it for our arrival. This is not some place in the universe but rather in the spiritual plane of existence where your soul go's after you die if your a born again believer.
edit on 29-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


I think you misunderstand me, I don't subscribe to the Annunaki or ancient astronaut theory. And I never said creator is from another planet, nor the sons of god. You agree That the sons of god are not from earth do you not? Therefore..making them ET.......

You Christians really need to wake the hell up to the lies that have been fed to you ever since the messiah left our world. Do you really think jesus came here to set up an organized MATERIAL religion? If you do, you are in darkness, and have not the Resurrection in you. You know you must attain the Ressurrection before you die, otherwise how will you rise from the pit?

A BIG test of faith is coming, we will know then who really does the will of the father and not of the flesh.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by jimnuggits
 


I believe the Bible to be true.


Yet you also claim evolution to be true...

edit on 29-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Centurionx
 


Not a material religion, but certainly a body of faith, with material processes. Just not the goal.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I would love to know the average age of ATS users.
I reckon most are Gen Y and under.
It's that age that you know everything.......lol, didn't we all !!!

God bless your brainwashed little souls.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Evolution seems to be very possible given the inconsistent timeline of Creation viewed by God in Gen1 and Creation viewed by man in Gen2



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


And what about Genesis 2? Which is not in the same order. Does it not suggest a difference in view between God and Man?


Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are not meant to be scientific explanations. They are two accounts of the one creative movement of God. In section (Gen. 1), seven days are described and then in another, basically, one day is described. This is consistent with the ancient Jewish system of writing where a single event is used to describe the whole. Remember, they didn't have typewriters, word processors, and a stack of paper next to them that enabled them to write large amounts of prose. When they wrote, they had to write efficiently because the supplies were not as prevalent as we are so accustomed to here and now.

Therefore, it would make sense that the second "account" of the creation is not intended to be as literal as the seven-day description; rather, it is a short representation of the preceding information. Please note that Gen. 2:4 says, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” We see in this verse a description of the summation of the previous information found in Chapter 1. So, we can be confident to know that the writer was fully aware of the previous information and chose to speak of it any more condensed form in the above verse.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
ill sleep a little better tonight having seen these results

The death of the judeo-christian god is near.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


That made your argument completely vague.

What of the Apocryphal Texts?

True, or rightfully omitted?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


You just said that they had to be efficient writers so they repeated themselves.

Any contradictions there, in your mind?



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join