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 true story behind the bible

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


You're comparing physical things to knowledge which is not physical. Physical things degrade over time, knowledge doesn't.

I don't worship anything because I realize there is no need to worship anything. I just live my life and experience the beauty of it while trying to be a good person.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



I don't worship anything because I realize there is no need to worship anything. I just live my life and experience the beauty of it while trying to be a good person.


This. This, I agree with.
edit on 19-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by staygreenforever
reply to post by The GUT
 
i see that you're sort of spearheading his arguement because you are saying it's circular, but i actually agree with enlightened1. you're arguing that the universe is too finely-tuned to be just an accident. but it's not an accident at all. it's had literally infinite time to become what it is...

By saying that the universe being "finely-tuned" is not an "accident" again suggests "On Purpose." And that suggests that Consciousness existed first.

That doesn't make some sense to you?

Have you studied any philosophy? The following might be somewhat dense reading for some, but it's hard to describe "first philosophy" with someone unfamiliar with it.

Aristotle's Metaphysics

A little easier:


In the Physics he adopts and improves on Socrates' teleological argument, the major premise of which is "Whatever exists for a useful purpose must be the work of an intelligence". In the same treatise he argues that, although motion is eternal, there cannot be an infinite series of movers and of things moved. Therefore there must be one, the first in the series, which is unmoved, to provide movement without being moved: described in Greek as proton kinoun akineton and in Latin as primum movens immobile.

In the Metaphysics he takes the stand that the actual is of its nature antecedent to the potential, that consequently, before all matter and all composition of matter and form, of potentiality and actuality, there must have existed a Being Who is pure actuality, and Whose life is self-contemplative thought (noesis noeseos). The Supreme Being imparted movement to the universe by moving the First Heaven, the movement, however, emanated from the First Cause as desirable. In other words, the First Heaven, attracted by the desirability of the Supreme Being "as the soul is attracted by beauty", was set in motion, and imparted its motion to the lower spheres and thus, ultimately, to our terrestrial world.

en.wikipedia.org...


Hope that helps.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by staygreenforever
 


I believe in reincarnation. I believe that no matter how you act in this life, you will be reincarnated back into this universe as some kind of animal or sentient creature.

Jesus says that in order to reach heaven, you must be 'born again'. When you are reincarnated, you are literally born again back into this universe, which is heaven.
You do have a way with words


Reincarnation? Absolutely true! But there is another aspect that is quite overlooked, and probably for good reason.

As with all of our opposites, the opposite of reincarnation, is "Incarnate". Not all of those spiritual beings took their plunge into the "Flesh Bag". Some stayed patiently behind, watching, waiting, and enjoying the show, sort of speaking. I suspect one or two of them have entered the stage, one way or another.

And, to top it off, their not here to, as the movie goes to, "Chew Bubble Gum",




I submit, to my Divine Creator, and his faceless anticipation.


edit on 19-7-2012 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


thanks for the read, to answer your question i have not studied much philosiphy/metaphysics but i'lll give it a look through later. So, just curious, does general metaphysics acknowledge the existence of a diety?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you consider stories from 2,000 years ago as how things are? Are is present tense, were is past tense and that is the word you would use to describe a story written 2,000 years ago.


Where have I defined what the basis for my beliefs are? Where have I attested to being a Fundamentalist? Your claim that I am not pragmatic, because of your suppositions regarding my basis for beliefs, and your claims regarding the Bible is an invalid one.

If it helps you, I will attest to being a Methodological Naturalist, but not a Philosophical Naturalist. I believe that the former is a rational position, but that the latter is not. As the subject of this thread is not my positions on science and philosophy, we'll let it go at that and give it a go in another thread.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by staygreenforever
So, just curious, does general metaphysics acknowledge the existence of a diety?


Not necessarily, no. As it is the study of the nature of things, it lends itself to theistic interpretations, of course, but one can be an atheistic student of metaphysics (though one will find oneself in a very small circle, lol)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


What you keep implying is that there is some entity separate from our universe that created the universe. Where is the proof of your claim? If you say the universe itself then we use the same evidence as proof for our theories.

Ever heard of Occam's razor? It means that the theory with the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one.

You assume that there is a deity separate from the universe, I do not.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Where did you learn of Jesus being the messiah and our only way into heaven if not from the bible?

You say you base your views on what is and what is practical. If you believe Jesus walked on water then you do not base your views on practicality, plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


i'm confused. you applied the 'there must be a one unmovable force to create the motion in the first place' but then it's possible to deny it's existence? i'm just trying to understand



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Thanks for the info. I don't know, all of that looks like grasping and exegesis.

Moses and Jesus were separated by about 1300 years, not 2000.

Claiming that the Golden Calf was Taurus the Bull is a leap without basis, as there were cattle worshiping religions in the area that had nothing to do with Taurus.

There are differing opinions on when astrological ages begin or end, and the estimations for Pisces vary from between about 100BC to 498AD, so saying that it began in 1AD seems a little arbitrary.

The passage in Luke, when placed back in context, is something that happens at the end of the world, and the obvious implication is that it would represent a sudden change to the celestial bodies.

The "bearer of water" thing is symbolic of the Christian attachment to water as a spiritual and cleansing thing, and it was related to something happening then, it wasn't an end times prophecy -- saying it has something to do with the Age of Aquarius (dates for the beginning of such ranging from 1447 to 3621) is utter nonsense.

You can believe what you like, but I see absolutely no basis for anything that you're claiming.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You say you base your views on what is and what is practical. If you believe Jesus walked on water then you do not base your views on practicality, plain and simple.


Firstly, I did not say anything regarding Jesus walking on water. Secondly, I would suggest that, if you are interested, you go study Naturalism, Methodological and Philosophical, and you may understand why your question has no merit.

And thirdly, this thread has nothing to do with my beliefs, so why are you trying to derail your own thread?



Originally posted by staygreenforever
reply to post by adjensen
 


i'm confused. you applied the 'there must be a one unmovable force to create the motion in the first place' but then it's possible to deny it's existence? i'm just trying to understand


When did I say that?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Do you believe Jesus walked on water and healed the sick and turned water into wine?

If not, then why do you think we must believe in him in order to reach heaven?

If so, then you do not base your views within reality, with what is possible and practical which means you are not pragmatic.

It is my thread, I will discuss whatever I please. We are still speaking of the bible are we not? That is the topic at hand so no I am not derailing the thread.
edit on 19-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by The GUT
 


What you keep implying is that there is some entity separate from our universe that created the universe. Where is the proof of your claim? If you say the universe itself then we use the same evidence as proof for our theories.

And the proof of your armchair claims please?

No, our arguments are not the same unless you've changed some of your initial assertions somewhere along the way...and even then they're still not.

Your initial post(s) suggest that you see the "material" unconsciously creating more material that somehow then created the immaterial: Consciousness.

Since Science and "progress" can't begin to understand or explain consciousness--or for that matter infinity or paradox--then I suggest that Occam should presuppose a conscious creative agent.

Do I sense that you are now moving towards the, "we are all god" end of the spectrum? Why does that not surprise me.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 



Do I sense that you are now moving towards the, "we are all god" end of the spectrum? Why does that not surprise me.


And why do YOU mock it? Is there something you know that the whole world doesn't? Something you can prove, that will settle this vast and unproductive debate once and for all? I see, and we're the arrogant/crazy/mentally deficient ones...

Okay.

edit on 19-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


If you want to read a book of fiction that's better than the bible, how about one that has magic in it. And, sex. And, war, and betrayal, and slavery, and evil kings, and gods and devils and angels and demons and heretics and blashpemers. If I were going to write a story it would have all of these things in it. Oh wait, this IS the bible. What a great story, even though it isn't real.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


You assume that the universe had a beginning. If the universe is infinite then there is no 'beginning' of consciousness, it has always been.

You claim that a deity who is conscious (because it created the universe with the intent of it bearing life) created the universe.

You cannot have intent to create life if you do not have some form of consciousness to begin with, so me saying the universe and consciousness never had a beginning is the same as you saying a separate entity with conscious never had a beginning.

The difference is that I use what I can see, you use something that can never be seen.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


Do you believe Jesus walked on water and healed the sick and turned water into wine?

If not, then why do you think we must believe in him in order to reach heaven?

If so, then you do not base your views within reality, with what is possible and practical which means you are not pragmatic.

It is my thread, I will discuss whatever I please. We are still speaking of the bible are we not? That is the topic at hand so no I am not derailing the thread.


Um, no. There is nothing in that post that regards the Bible, it is all regarding me, and my beliefs.

You're new to ATS, so you are possibly not aware that this forum is intended for the exchange, refutation and defense of ideas and facts. My beliefs are not the subject of this thread, and they are not germane to my questioning of the claims in your original post, and subsequent posts.

Because you are posting on ATS, your claim that "It is my thread, I will discuss whatever I please" is not true -- I could (but will not) report the quoted post as being off topic, and it almost certainly would be deleted, because you don't own your thread and off topic posts are off topic, no matter who is making them.
edit on 19-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I guess what I am saying is going completely over your head. I do NOT take the bible as 100% fact. I understand that 90% of it is lies, but I also understand that some of it has truth in it.

I am not a bible worshiper, but I see the truth within it. Simple enough?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So you are avoiding the question? I will assume that your answer is yes then because you are avoiding it for a reason.

But I am asking about your beliefs on the BIBLE, which is not off topic whatsoever. What do you not understand about that?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join