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 Bible Isn't Stupid, We Are

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thousands of beliefs? There are only 2 beliefs. Those who believe they can save themselves and those who believe they need a saviour. All of the religions of the world basically tell you there's something you need to do to save yourself. But the message of Christianity is unique in this, that it proclaims to men and women a saviour.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Like I said God said: THY SHALL NOT KILL. If a war is created because of religion then people are not using religion they are opposing it. Because, a religion cannot cause a war if it's main moral is not to kill. So, the people who practice religion are bad not religion.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.


Evidence is visible. The lack of a trail is not visible, it is only surmised.



Science is a tool. I do not put my FAITH in it, Science is a tool that helps us understand the universe. One does not need to put faith in something that can be verified using the scientific method.

If you believe that science has proved that there is no God, then you have put your faith (confidence, trust) in science.



The world either is or it is not. Science helps us separate what IS from what IS NOT. This is the difference between Science and Theology.

Not quite. The more advanced levels of physics deal with theorizing on what IS NOT using ideas from what IS.

Science, then, becomes philosophy. This is also how theology started.



You are inferring that, I am not implying that. There is a difference, and let me be quite clear. I am -fortunate- to be educated and intelligent and never -blame- anyone for their lack of either. Jesus is the one dealing in absolutes. Jesus is the one the tells me I can't get to heaven unless I believe he is God. THAT is quite arrogant and rude, if you ask me.


I was referring to items 6 and 7 of your list, in which you mock anyone whose religious beliefs have been proven wrong as willfully ignorant - fingers in ears, loudly making noise to cover "the truth".

You say that Jesus tells you that you cannot go heaven without believing he is God.

Really, though, it is people that have told you that you can't get to heaven without believing Jesus is God.

Read the Bible from cover to cover and come to your own conclusions, don't worry about what other people have told you. They are just going on what they believe is true. That doesn't mean it is true for everyone.

And, yes, I do agree - arrogance is arrogance, no matter where it is coming from.


I, personally, think that a God could or a God couldn't exist. What's the difference? We are here and we are alive, so why not focus on who we are and bettering who we are as a people rather than trying to prove how superior our beliefs are to the beliefs of other people?

Makes no sense to me.



Well, this thread isn't about getting along, it is about discussing the Bible. If the topic doesn't make sense to you.. I think you see where I'm going here so I will stop.

I was actually talking about the world, not this thread. If you'd actually read what I said, you would have realized this. Unfortunately, you could not resist letting your arrogance shine again by trying to imply I cannot understand the topic.





You are right in that "God" can be substituted for any universal emotion of humanity.

What I was illustrating, and what you also illustrated, is that actual proof is the tangible evidence of an intangible force.



That is proof of higher brain function, not God.


And where did I say the proof was God?

Again. The actual proof is the tangible evidence of an intangible force.

As we have both illustrated, the intangible force can be human emotion.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Furbs
 



We keep going round and round on this. There -is- empirical evidence. That evidence is the -Evidence of God's Absence-. If God were here, much like the elephant walking through my garden, he would have left a trail. There isn't a trail. This lack of a trail is the evidence that God, like the elephant, isn't here.


I can answer all of your arguments by answering this one quote.

If an elephant walks through your garden and transforms itself into a new garden, wiping out all trace of it ever having been there, will you still walk out and decide there were no intruders?


Elephants cannot do that, ergo, we would not be dealing with an elephant. So the point that no elephant walked through the garden would still be correct. How are you still having a hard time with this very simple concept?


Suppose God became the universe...what then? Would you still expect footprints? Especially if God gave every single piece it's own bit of intelligence, or it's own blueprint...

Source (as I call it) is the greatest architect in existence. Why? Because it made it's masterpiece out of its own flesh. It transformed into a vast space full of potential opportunities for life and knowledge.


I kind of don't understand what you are saying. Your sentence structure in this bit is a little hard to follow. I would love to comment, but I just don't get at what you are trying to say.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   


I don't have to be everywhere to state that there is not evidence that a "God" character was ever -here-.
reply to post by Furbs
 


What is 'evidence' in your eyes for the existence of GOD. If you don't know what criteria defines that evidence, how can you know where to look for it, let alone what you are looking for.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood



I don't have to be everywhere to state that there is not evidence that a "God" character was ever -here-.
reply to post by Furbs
 


What is 'evidence' in your eyes for the existence of GOD. If you don't know what criteria defines that evidence, how can you know where to look for it, let alone what you are looking for.


I am not making the claim that God exists, therefor I cannot claim what would constitute evidence of that existence. I can only evaluate the evidence brought to the table, and since no peer reviewable empirical evidence has ever manifested supporting the claim of a creator, we have nothing of merit to discuss.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 



I don't have to be everywhere to state that there is not evidence that a "God" character was ever -here-.


That is also a faulty statement. In order to "know," by your meaning of the word, that God doesn't exist, you'd have to be -

Ah yes. If He were truly everywhere, you'd run into Him no matter what, according to your thinking, yes? But what if our eyes cannot handle him, in every sense of the phrase? What if He truly is, in reality, something that exists in all things, yet the pure source of it would burn us?

Something in another plane, perhaps...or another range of perception?

And have you made a lifelong study of this matter? Have you spent enough time to know what a few dozen men, students for many more years than you, do not?

Agnostics are the most accurate people, in regards to religion. They say that they can't prove God does or doesn't exist, but they question the necessity of the question, as applied to how they lived their lives. I know this because I was one.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


I hate commenting vs religion cause its a lost cause...but man...I was raised Super Serious Catholic and I find the Bible to be a bit of a joke. I can't stand when people just pick and choose which verse they wanna follow and dismiss the crazy ones as misinterpretation...the Bible has some sick # in it. I believe in the possibility of a god, but the Bible is nothing more than good morale philosophy with some sick stories and ideas on the side. Why does the Bible have to be better than other books out there or other religions....my mom is going to cry if she reads this post lol.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The truth about religion is this.

In your body there are millions of systems that are running without your awareness. The organs, cell all have a mission, a plan imprinted on them. They follow this plan without knowing the purpose. Example would be that the cells in your body have no idea that they make up a complex body but they do what they must. Some cells though do not follow what is right and decide to live free without a purpose or a purpose of their own. These cells are cancers and diseases. They go around trying to convert other cells into their way of living. Granted the cells will live and propser but in whole the body is dying.

Do you understand that we are cells as well. We have a purpose and mission that is far greater than we will understand and like the cell in your body we have no idea what we are inside and what function we play. Religion and beliefs in God's will is our version of a cell doing what he believes he must for the greater good of what will be forever unseen.

Many cultures pray to their god and it goes something like this : Dear god guide me with your will. Let your will be done. Let me be an instrument, your hand if you will to do your works. All I ask in return is to give me my daily bread ( a roof over my head and some food) and I know you will protect me and grant me a prosperous productive life.

Dont hate religion. You may hate the people who promote it and rightfully so some of them are complete bafoons and quite oblivious to what they are doing and saying. Man for 10;s of thousands of years maybe in the millions have alway believed in something greater than them.
edit on 6-4-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




Dont hate religion. You may hate the people who promote it and rightfully so some of them are complete bafoons and quite oblivious to what they are doing and saying. Man for 10;s of thousands of years maybe in the millions have alway believed in something greater than them.


It's always a good thing to remind people that their system isn't perfect. It helps to encourage productivity and survivalism. How else are you going to live, if you base your entire self on a lie?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Wow! Because I'm stupid, I'd have to read the bible to become more smarter, excellent!

edit on 6-4-2012 by sam_inc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sam_inc
Wow! Because I'm stupid, I'd have to read the bible to become more smarter, excellent!

edit on 6-4-2012 by sam_inc because: (no reason given)


Well, has mankind proven itself to be intelligent? It has not only been to the moon and created cures, it has attempted genocide and abandoned thousands to the mercy of tyrants. Even now, we continually poison our world.

How does that strike you for an intellectual, benevolent species?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by netgamer7k
Thousands of beliefs? There are only 2 beliefs. Those who believe they can save themselves and those who believe they need a saviour. All of the religions of the world basically tell you there's something you need to do to save yourself. But the message of Christianity is unique in this, that it proclaims to men and women a saviour.


What about those who believe they don't need saving at all?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by sam_inc
Wow! Because I'm stupid, I'd have to read the bible to become more smarter, excellent!

edit on 6-4-2012 by sam_inc because: (no reason given)


Well, has mankind proven itself to be intelligent? It has not only been to the moon and created cures, it has attempted genocide and abandoned thousands to the mercy of tyrants. Even now, we continually poison our world.

How does that strike you for an intellectual, benevolent species?


M.I.B Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Like I said God said: THY SHALL NOT KILL. If a war is created because of religion then people are not using religion they are opposing it. Because, a religion cannot cause a war if it's main moral is not to kill. So, the people who practice religion are bad not religion.


God did not say "they shall not kill", that is factually incorrect. The verse is "You will not murder". Big difference from "thy shall not kill". It is a mistranslation - the cause for a lot of problems. Murder and killing are separate concepts in Jewish law.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
who WROTE the "Bible"?

what version are we talking about here?- KING James? New World??

who decided whether the "Book of Daniel" (and others) was part of the Bible or not???



Constantine is the one responsible for the bible as we know it Contrary to belief, it was not decided upon at the First Council of Nicea however 50 were commissioned by Constantine in 331AD. Who wrote it? It depends on the individual book. It looks as if members of the council of Nicea helped Constantine to decide what books to be included in the bible, but there is no evidence of that or that it was decided at the first council of Nicea.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The Bible was a literal historical text. In otherwords, while the Bible is indeed interpretable in many different ways, the only correct way to read it as if it was through the eyes of someone thousands and thousands of years old - before the dead sea scrolls, before any of the "current" books of the Bible were written.

The stories that transpired in the Bible were true - to an extent.

Angels were not beings made of some magical divine energy that was all-healing, sent from the all-powerful. In fact, it never even says this in the Bible - and doesn't even drop a hint as to such an idea in the Torah (Old Testament).

No. In fact, the word "Angel" in the New Testament is actually a word that was made up at a later date.

In the times of these biblical events, the "Angels" as New Testament Christians know them today were called "Messengers" plain and simple. (Stoic Old Testament Followers / Jewish people who read in Hebrew still call them this today)

Why?

Figure it out for yourself, and use real world logic to do so. Don't let your personal opinions, emotions, or beliefs cloud your mind - look at it completely objectively.

The only conclusion you can sensibly come up with (besides these just being stories for the sake of being stories) is that these were beings from another plane of existence. This could be another time (insinuating that these beings could even be US from the future), another dimension that we can't conceive with our current technology (much as a fish is oblivious to land), another planet (Extraterrestrials).

Now, granted, just because we can't conceive biblical heaven at this time does not entirely dismiss the idea that it could exist - but since we have no physical proof, or scientific evidence that such a place exists, that leaves us only the 3 options. Things we already know DO exist, which are times, dimensions, and worlds existing seperately yet simultaneously to our own.

That said, IMO, both we and the Bible are stupid together.
edit on 6-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


The bible is a ridiculous book. If you are over the age of 10 years old and still quoting the bible, then you are an idiot.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by Starchild23
 


The Book of Enoch was never included, in the Bible.
Like many other little books.


Indeed it wasn't. Yet the writers of the New Testament have written about stories of this book which make it known that it was a very popular book at the time. Even the old testament mentions it in one passage.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleSun

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
who WROTE the "Bible"?

what version are we talking about here?- KING James? New World??

who decided whether the "Book of Daniel" (and others) was part of the Bible or not???



Constantine is the one responsible for the bible as we know it Contrary to belief, it was not decided upon at the First Council of Nicea however 50 were commissioned by Constantine in 331AD. Who wrote it? It depends on the individual book. It looks as if members of the council of Nicea helped Constantine to decide what books to be included in the bible, but there is no evidence of that or that it was decided at the first council of Nicea.


Funny, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written a LOOOOOONG time before Constantine was around, if memory serves.

In fact, not only did Constantine NOT WRITE THE BIBLE - He DIDN'T EVEN BRING IT TO ROME.

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Church. In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith without oppression.[203] This removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[204] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which stated that all confiscated churches would be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.




top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join