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: 44
82
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


repeated, in case ya missed it the first time:

is jesus black in your avatar? just curious.

so what do you think of the teachings of jesus? how do they apply to others and how do they apply to you?




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


black? looks middle eastern to me, hope your not suggesting he was of white skin color.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


"Snake" i think the correct word your looking for is serpent.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Aren't they essentially the same.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by undo
 


black? looks middle eastern to me, hope your not suggesting he was of white skin color.


glad you asked that question. i think he was an egyptian
semite with hebrew lineage. i don't think he was black. he was erm, semitic.
(which is like all the races mixed together, from what i can tell.)

hubby said one day that he figured god had a sense of humor and if we were prejudice against any given race in life, that's the race god would appear as. i thought that was rather an ironic twist of thinking but it kinda makes sense. infinite love is, after all, infinite, not finite.

so how do you feel the teachings of jesus apply to you and how do you feel they apply to everyone else?

if you haven't figured out where i'm going with this line of questioning yet, you will shortly



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


Yes, but serpent is also another nick name of satan.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Aren't they essentially the same.


nope.

a serpent in the bible was actually a seraph. and a seraph was singular for seraphim, which is a race of angels, that were referred to as being rather serpentine and dragon like. some were said to be firey dragons.

seraph
www.eliyah.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Aren't they essentially the same.


nope.

a serpent in the bible was actually a seraph. and a seraph was singular for seraphim, which is a race of angels, that were referred to as being rather serpentine and dragon like. some were said to be firey dragons.

seraph
www.eliyah.com...


So a race of angels that were serpentine tempted eve to eat the fruit of knowledge and ethics, why would a group of angels like that be bad?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


it wasnt ethics, it was sex

to know, to have knowledge of, in hebrew thought of the time, was to have sex. (adam knew his wife and she gave birth to......fill in the blank)
essentially, the eve was a modified adam (not saying male adam but female adam). she was a former member of the adam race, that was modified to give birth via sexual intercourse and vaginal delivery. this was also done to a male adam, although not the delivery part. the change freaked out the rest of the elohim, particularly one of them, and they agreed to further modify the modified male adam and modified female adam who was now called eve, so that they wouldn't be procreating (having knowledge of each other) and living forever. would've been a population explosion of outrageous proportions. so shortened life spans were introduced. pretty easy, just splice in a timer switch and the DNA quits replicating

we were hit with the nerf bat.


edit on 30-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

So what is the Christian view of Adam and Eve? Was it because Adam and Eve disobeyed god they were kicked out of paradise and spiritual death was brought into the world.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Thank you for the explanation.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Centurionx
 


I doubt the Catholic church will ever die. It will probably break up if society were to ever fall apart, such as during a war. I can imagine a block out of information which follows with local Catholics electing their own popes.

That did happen before you know. No reason why it can't happen again.

You should probably know karma doesn't really exist, and most people do go on with their lived unpunished unless it's against the law, and irregardless to these two things, you can't blame the modern day version of an organization for the sins of its fathers. Would you blame modern America for the destruction of the natives? Would you blame the individual Indian nations that did not unite for their own destruction? I wouldn't blame anyone. People are dicks. And occasionally, they have underlings.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Bible does seem to suggest that demons, though not aliens, were locked away to the darkness of stars.

There's a whole subtheory as to the nephilim in this regard. Some strange beings seemingly created by man, turned evil, and then purged from the world by God.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Just because I don't know how I'm made, doesn't mean I'm not made. I don't know how a 747 is made either.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
As I read through this thread I see the fallacy of religion rear it's ugly head.
The simple fact that even among Christians they can't even agree with each others dogma, subsequently they fracture into different denominations.
Each one claiming to have all the right answers.
This is were it all falls apart "all" religions of the world can't be right. Except yours.. right?
Could it be their all wrong.
Wrong for driving wedge in the heart of society.
Wrong for brain washing the vulnerable.
Wrong for bringing war upon nations in the name of God.
Wrong for judging others.
Wrong for putting religion above humanity.
It's sickening in a time and age when humanity has amassed such tremendous knowledge of his true nature, we still entertain charlatans that peddle bronze-age thinking for self interest.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Regardless of wether you believe in this or that, its a no brainer to realize that all these people came from lesser and lesser people all the way back to just two. Where did those two come from?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo
 

Regardless of wether you believe in this or that, its a no brainer to realize that all these people came from lesser and lesser people all the way back to just two. Where did those two come from?


i don't think the "Two" you refer to were the first created. those two, were later, when the procreation mods came about. the original adam was a race. the females didn't have pain in childbirth because they didn't procreate via sexual intercourse and vaginal delivery. they didn't "know" each other. adam is a plural word. the verse even says, the elohim (plural) created adam (not man but adam) male and female. now either that verse is saying the first adam was a hermaphrodite, or it was saying the first adam was males and females. a race of people, who didn't procreate in the sexual intercourse vaginal delivery method. when the procreation mod was put in, THEN there was pain in child birth, before that, no pain. so how did they reproduce? they were cloned.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


While that makes sense, I'm relatively sure you're either wrong or off. While Adam was also used to describe the human race, it was pretty clear it also meant an individual by the name. I mean, I guess you would name a race after the first. We name continents after the first to find them or someone related to them.

Adam was lonely, basically. God took pity, made him complete. I've always seen it as a parallel to God himself. Who knows. Maybe he split himself into 3 people because he was lonely. That could also be the reason why God loves music so much. Before creation, that would be all that existed.

I think you are right for the angles, but I don't think a whole race did the deed.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Why didn't god create adam so that he wasn't lonely in the first place??

Bit of a design flaw to create him incomplete??


edit on 30-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


While that makes sense, I'm relatively sure you're either wrong or off. While Adam was also used to describe the human race, it was pretty clear it also meant an individual by the name. I mean, I guess you would name a race after the first. We name continents after the first to find them or someone related to them.

Adam was lonely, basically. God took pity, made him complete. I've always seen it as a parallel to God himself. Who knows. Maybe he split himself into 3 people because he was lonely. That could also be the reason why God loves music so much. Before creation, that would be all that existed.

I think you are right for the angles, but I don't think a whole race did the deed.


well i've done some work on the etymology, and it appears that adam is from the sumerian alulim, which was 'alhiym which was elohiym = elohim. this perplexed me for awhile till i remembered that moses wrote most of the pentateuch anyway, and being raised egyptian, he would've used the egyptian equivalents for the hebrew story, since his own ancestors had moved to both egypt and ethiopia following the flood. the egyptian equivalent was atum. he was the god of creation. it all started to click at that point.

the adam race had been named after the adam creators, that the adam race was cloned in the images of. and the confusion as to the retelling of the story is predicated on whether the author stipulates the difference. moses made sure he did, by referring to elohim in the sumerian (alhiym/alulim) and hebrew root but to the created in the egyptian root. it's all the same thing, just presented (brilliantly, i think) so that there can be no doubt, that the adam were not the creators (no ancestor worship involved) but they were originally made in the image of the creators of the same name. that was a sticky point and an important one.
edit on 30-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join