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.

 

The Bitter History Of The Man-Made God

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So your topic title is the biter history of a man made God, this would include toaism or any other man made religon.

My point was how do you accept one truth over another, truth is truth. weither it comes from one book or the next. There is truth in the christain bible, and there is not. Jesus was the living truth. His presence on this planet was to introduce them to the 1 God, to show his love and mercy. His presence here was to show to common man that there is more than just their beliefs at that time.

Jesus was never here to save any one from sin. Right and wrong do not exist in the universe. There were people here before adam and eve.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Starchild, you make a brilliant assessment of knowledge... but there is one underlying concept that you miss: why is this perception of God being angry and vengeful being perpetuated by, quite frankly, everyone? God is a loving, patient, merciful God who chastises His children out of love because He wants and knows best for us on an individual level, whether we accept that is our choice, and God knows who ultimately takes that choice. it's a matter of perception, and to know truth, being humble is the best way to start.
edit on 5-3-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
There is no god BUT allah



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


I've read many things over the years that people have written that is along this same lines as you have presented. I always find it interesting when someone takes this particular stance. So I have a question or two.

Taking the bible for face value that its descriptions are correct about god and what he is and has done, and at the same time stating "God is not human...God is beyond human, in every way." how exactly to you come to the conclusion that this entity is not worthy. I mean, if this entity did in fact create everything whether that was done in 6 days or 6 billion years, I think a little props would be deserving. That is of course if this entity is eternal and just made it happen.

Also, including the sentence above you state "We have defined God, and in doing so, falsified Him/Her/It. God is not human...God is beyond human, in every way. So how is it that human words, human concepts, human minds can grasp something that is not, and never was, human...or of the human world? ". With that statement how do you come to the realization that you have defined god correctly? Do you simply rely on your human concept, words, and mind for this definition?

I'm not trying to pick your post apart I'm just curious how you can state one thing, yet use the same thing your using to make your argument in your own definition.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It looks as though star child has abandoned his own thread. Not even trying to argue the finer points on God or even the christian bible for instance.

Star child you are not. A true star child will try to foster love. A true star child would never call themselves star children. And further more ive seen some of your comments on other threads, badgering folks who read the bible or any other spirit material you dont agree with.

instead of star child, i would change my name to Immature ascending mortal. You can explain to use why you are not, But im thinking you would rather insult others instead of just talking out the discussion.

The Kolbrin great book, so is the ra material.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by drivers1492
Taking the bible for face value that its descriptions are correct about god and what he is and has done, and at the same time stating "God is not human...God is beyond human, in every way."


Read the bible from "above" not from "below.

In other words - - - read the bible from the perspective of a "Light Being" (Energy Being) - - Evolved off-planet being that discovered a planet with primitive beings (Lilith the hairy one). A science experiment in assisting these primitive beings to evolve.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But, isn't that reading it with a pre-conceived assumption as to what I'm reading about? I don't really see how that would be beneficial at all.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Annee
 


But, isn't that reading it with a pre-conceived assumption as to what I'm reading about? I don't really see how that would be beneficial at all.


Just try it.

Believing the bible any way at all is with a pre-conceived assumption.

I would love to see a straight critique of the bible as if it was a novel.

I've read it when I still believed - - - and I read it again when I no longer believed. Very different perspectives.


edit on 6-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haites
So your topic title is the biter history of a man made God, this would include toaism or any other man made religon.

My point was how do you accept one truth over another, truth is truth. weither it comes from one book or the next. There is truth in the christain bible, and there is not. Jesus was the living truth. His presence on this planet was to introduce them to the 1 God, to show his love and mercy. His presence here was to show to common man that there is more than just their beliefs at that time.

Jesus was never here to save any one from sin. Right and wrong do not exist in the universe. There were people here before adam and eve.


I accept the truth that is scientifically feasible.

'God" was on Earth as it was being "created", therefore the laws by which our world was formed are laws that still apply. This indicates that "God" is of a natural nature...in other words, He/She/It should not defy science.

A religion that teaches of a god that defies our science is a religion that is mistaken. Additionally, a benevolent god would not desire the worship of its creations. That's pure arrogance.

I find it amusing that you would defend the Bible's most sacred truth, then completely contradict another of its sacred truths. God cannot be defined by man, yet man has tried. Ironically, man has also failed. In attempting to answer the (currently) unanswerable, man has invented a whole series of fables, and is now unwilling to admit it is wrong.

Enjoy the grass, dear sheeple.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Haites
 


I don't think Adam and Eve left the Garden on their "own accord".
Genesis 3:23- Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he came.
Genesis 3:24-So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

They were cast out of the garden and the way back in was blocked., so the Tree of Life was blocked to them.

Some one else may have pointed this out. Haven't read the whole thread yet.
edit on 7-3-2012 by ellieN because: to clarify



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


I'm still curious as to how your coming to your definitions of this god entity to make your assertions since you clearly believe, or state you believe, man cannot define said entity. How can you come to the realization that this entity cannot defy science? I mean if you do think we cannot define god how can you make statements about it and think that your correct?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


While I do see your point I think I would prefer to remain as objective as possible when reading religious texts. I will say that I have considered something along the lines of what your referring too and personally found it baseless. But, there is always the chance I am very wrong.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ellieN
reply to post by Haites
 


I don't think Adam and Eve left the Garden on their "own accord".
Genesis 3:23- Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he came.
Genesis 3:24-So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

They were cast out of the garden and the way back in was blocked., so the Tree of Life was blocked to them.

Some one else may have pointed this out. Haven't read the whole thread yet.
edit on 7-3-2012 by ellieN because: to clarify


When someone gives you a bike, the logical option is to ride it, yes?

When you eat of the "Tree of Life", the logical option is that you may no longer stay in the Garden.

The word "punishment" was never used. It was a simple matter of causality. The concept of "punishment" in connection with Adam and Eve in the garden was inferred through interpretation...and because we don't fully understand anything beyond the obvious of what was said.

Humans will think as humans do. We aren't very sophisticated creatures, when it comes right down to it. How can you expect us to really understand anything about how "God" works?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ellieN
reply to post by Haites
 


I don't think Adam and Eve left the Garden on their "own accord".
Genesis 3:23- Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he came.
Genesis 3:24-So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

They were cast out of the garden and the way back in was blocked., so the Tree of Life was blocked to them.

Some one else may have pointed this out. Haven't read the whole thread yet.
edit on 7-3-2012 by ellieN because: to clarify



If you believe word for word what the bible says then yes you will find no truth in my words. I say again that Adam and Eve left eden on their own accord. The supposed temptation of Eve had nothing at all to do with the tree of life or gaining God's knowledge. Further more they where not the 1st humans, They where in fact half mortal half angel. Sent to earth to uplift the population at that time. Prior to their arrival, Van, Amandon and his associates began building the garden for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve knew full well before they even set foot on earth that this planet was in peril, due to the lucifer rebellion.

They full on accepted this and tried their best to teach the native peoples about health, agriculture, spiritual truths, amongst other things. Where Eve faltered was having relations with the leader of a great tribe outside of Eden. In this she failed her task. Eve never meant to do harm but looked upon having children with this man as a good thing, but never the less she broke a golden rule. In learning of what Eve had done Adam sought out a female leader of one of the tribes inhabiting eden and had relations with her, not as a pay back but he so loved Eve that he wanted to share her pains. To endure the repercussions with her.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
True! We can only think in human terms..because that IS all we know. We are very young in this Universe and time and time again we have had to concede, that much of what we thought was true was way off.
We know what our Science says is impossible. We seem to think that if we can't do it, then no one else can.
A power that we don't understand, just maybe be able to do the impossible.

Please, Don't flame me because I am quoting the bible...But the verse above 23 and 24 has quite a lot to say. Most interesting...
Genesis3: 22--And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

That verse sure has a lot of implications....
edit on 7-3-2012 by ellieN because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by ellieN because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Annee
 


While I do see your point I think I would prefer to remain as objective as possible when reading religious texts. I will say that I have considered something along the lines of what your referring too and personally found it baseless. But, there is always the chance I am very wrong.


Fact is we know nothing. Everything is pretty much baseless. Do we "believe" what is comforting and acceptable in society?

Is it "Son of God" or is it "Suns of God"? I personally saw a UFO once. Daytime - clear blue skies. It glowed - - as if it was self illuminating. "Suns of God"? A glowing sun coming down from the Heavens? That has more reality for me then some ancient book - - transcribed/translated by novice monks - - then compiled into a book from chosen writings by god believers. What if it was transcribed/translated/compiled by people who believed in Ancient Astronauts - - - and were not swayed by a mystical belief?

There is nothing in actual real history that supports the "mythical biblical Jesus".

There are many other writings that make far more sense to me then the bible. Its too bad the threat of death or imprisonment for blasphemy dulled our senses - - prevented (and still prevents) other possibilities.

Most on this planet are assimilated from birth that a God created everything. They are "shackled" by this globally spread myth. One must intentionally by decision/choice step completely out of the "god circle" to become objective. Few do.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Haites
 

A very interesting read you have there! How do you know all this?

No..just quoting what is in the bible..... Have my doubts like many here. Like many people here..I want to believe.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I can see how a personal experience would have more merit indeed. I personally have no issue with the idea that this jesus character may have existed. I don't believe he was divine. It seems to be a trend in ancient texts to embellish on facts which are written about. Right along with simply making things up from thin air. But, at the same time I cannot dismiss them since there is a reason why those stories took hold to our societies. If it was simply a need to give understanding where there was none or to show direction in what some see as a life without I don't know.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


I believe he is referring to the Uratu or Kingdom of Van. This link can get you started if you are interested in looking up more information.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Never heard of Uratu before now. My sources are from the Urantia book.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join