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.
Originally posted by Deetermined
No, what you said was that it made more sense that aliens/ET's made humans over the story of God having done it.
What amuses me is all of the people who claim they believe in Jesus, yet don't want to believe everything the Bible has to say about him and the only text in which he is quoted.
What amuses me even more is that you're capable of acknowledging some kind of Creator, but you don't think He's capable of preserving words in the Bible. It amazes me how many limitations people throw on God.
All I did was explain why you don't believe in every word of the Bible and why you don't understand it. I think it's quite clear.edit on 26-7-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by studythem1
If I post Bible quotes it's because the words stand on their own without any explanation.
It appears as though anytime a Christian gives any kind of explanation on here that we're all accused of being arrogant and/or judgmental, so what's the point?
Better to just read the scriptures for yourselves and make your own determinations from them.
As for debating on ATS, we're not here to convert you, for we know better. Do you really think that anytime someone gives an explanation to you that it's meant for you and only you? No. It's meant to counter anything you say for anyone/everyone else who might be reading it. That's all. That's what ATS is all about!
If I post Bible quotes it's because the words stand on their own without any explanation.
It appears as though anytime a Christian gives any kind of explanation on here that we're all accused of being arrogant and/or judgmental, so what's the point?
As for debating on ATS, we're not here to convert you, for we know better. Do you really think that anytime someone gives an explanation to you that it's meant for you and only you? No. It's meant to counter anything you say for anyone/everyone else who might be reading it. That's all. That's what ATS is all about!
Originally posted by studythem1
but we cannot play their game and do it...we cannot be bound by their religions...
this is what Jesus meant by putting new wine in old wine-skins...but yet people try to do it time and again, and in the end the old wine-skins fail...
Jesus followers understood this, but later those that claimed to follow Jesus (like Paul and Constantine) did just that...put the new wine in the old wine-skins, by placing the spiritual lessons he tried to teach us, into the old corrupt occult...the old religion, the old bondage...it never works...edit on 26-7-2012 by studythem1 because: more explanation
Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Hello StudyThem,
Pleased to meet you!
I do agree, in large part, to your views on not getting stuck in the old mold, which is what clearly has been done again and again. Religion is a formula empowered by various human weaknesses.
The world would be better off holding meetings around ancient stone monuments that speak to nature, than any of the games of the Abraham derived religions. Stewardship and benevolence topics, and how to live in each others care as the discussion themes for fellowship.
We don't need a god, nor a king, or age old rigged beliefs that need any form of faith, other than the community of man being our goal. It can happen on the Internet, here on ATS, and just speak to the issues of science and intelligence.
The world doesn't need a bunch of scare mongers telling unless you get dunked you go to hell, or unless you do this and that, the devil is gonna get ya. We don't need utter nonsense. Just those that have clear and rational thinking will do just fine, as in the times of Thomas Jefferson.
This god thing seems to prey on a human weakness with serotonin, and the ancient Pinal Gland, and appears to feed off of depression in individauls and grab them at their weakest moments in life and keep them mentally chained to the addictions of getting deeper attached to their co-dependence type game.
A real man doesn't need all these emotional attachments to be a good citizen or become a fine steward of the environment, or always make systems have benevolence toward others. If we had no religion at all, and were just the community of humanity, that should be enough.
The issues of god crept up in Sumeria, over faked up Nephellium, fallen ones, and their greed for gold, and to have others serve them. Slavery yes, and the churches appear not very keen to break that tradition, nor tell the simple truths.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MagnumOpus
So where did the Nephilim come from? Guess I better ask Autowrench...
God is exempt from the Sabbath law.
Jesus said he can work.
Originally posted by studythem1
......
about whether or not i believe we should have religion or worship a creator...i believe worship is exactly what you described...being a community, extending benevolence and being good stewards of the earth...raising families, being honest and true...living life...
but what has happened is we are in an unnatural arrangement, where we live in cities, crammed in less than healthy proximity, unable to fend for ourselves (because of government), unable to feed ourselves (because of convenience), and unable to focus on what really matters (because of glossed over slavery)...
and because of this arrangement we are in, we find ourselves trapped in an unnatural hierarchy, over and over again...it is far too complex and inefficient...it is like a Rube Goldberg invention...ridiculous and impractical...
if we would all spread out some and forsake the evil systems we live under...they would collapse and we would have to learn how to really live all over again, but it would be better for the earth, and better for us...there is plenty of room in the world, just not in the cities...
the kind of civilization we live in is not healthy...but we dont have to destroy it, we just have to turn away from it...thing is "they" will never willingly let us do that...they want control, and religion truly is the opiate of the people...opiates keep people numb, and unaware of what is going on around them...
ever see a heroine addict passed out but still standing up? eyes closed almost falling over, but weebles dont fall down? its called the junkie lean...well... thats how religion has people...edit on 26-7-2012 by studythem1 because: spelling
The apparent plural form ’Ēlîm or ’Ēlim 'gods' occurs only four times in the Tanakh. Psalm 29, understood as an enthronement psalm, begins: A Psalm of David. Ascribe to Yahweh, sons of gods (bênê ’Ēlîm), Ascribe to Yahweh, glory and strength Psalm 89:6 (verse 7 in Hebrew) has: For who in the skies compares to Yahweh, who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of gods (bênê ’Ēlîm). Traditionally bênê ’ēlîm has been interpreted as 'sons of the mighty', 'mighty ones', for, indeed ’ēl can mean 'mighty', though such use may be metaphorical (compare the English expression God-awful). It is possible also that the expression ’ēlîm in both places descends from an archaic stock phrase in which ’lm was a singular form with the m-enclitic and therefore to be translated as 'sons of Ēl'. The m-enclitic appears elsewhere in the Tanakh and in other Semitic languages. Its meaning is unknown, possibly simply emphasis. It appears in similar contexts in Ugaritic texts where the expression bn ’il alternates with bn ’ilm, but both must mean 'sons of Ēl'. That phrase with m-enclitic also appears in Phoenician inscriptions as late as the 5th century BCE. One of the other two occurrences in the Tanakh is in the "Song of Moses", Exodus 15:11a: Who is like you among the gods (’ēlim), Yahweh? The final occurrence is in Daniel 11:36: And the king will do according to his pleasure; and he will exalt himself and magnify himself over every god (’ēl), and against the God of gods (’ēl ’ēlîm) he will speak outrageous things, and will prosper until the indignation is accomplished: for that which is decided will be done. There are a few cases in the Tanakh where some think ’ēl referring to the great god Ēl is not equated with Yahweh. One is in Ezekiel 28:2, in the taunt against a man who claims to be divine, in this instance, the leader of Tyre: Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: "Thus says the Lord Yahweh: 'Because your heart is proud and you have said: "I am ’ēl (God), in the seat of ’elōhîm (God or gods), I am enthroned in the middle of the seas." Yet you are man and not ’ēl even though you have made your heart like the heart of ’elōhîm ('God' or 'gods').'" Here ’ēl might refer to a generic god, or to a highest god, Ēl. When viewed as applying to the King of Tyre specifically, the king was probably not thinking of Yahweh. When viewed a general taunt against anyone making divine claims, it may or may not refer to Yahweh depending on the context. In Judges 9:46 we find ’Ēl Bêrît 'God of the Covenant', seemingly the same as the Ba‘al Bêrît 'Lord of the Covenant' whose worship has been condemned a few verses earlier. See Baal for a discussion of this passage. Psalm 82:1 says: ’elōhîm ('God') stands in the council of ’ēl he judges among the gods (elohim). This could mean that God, that is Yahweh, judges along with many other gods as one of the council of the high god Ēl. However it can also mean that God, that is Yahweh, stands in the Divine Council (generally known as the Council of Ēl), as Ēl judging among the other members of the Council. The following verses in which God condemns those whom he says were previously named gods (elohim) and sons of the Most High suggest God is here indeed Ēl judging the lesser gods. An archaic phrase appears in Isaiah 14:13, kôkkêbê ’ēl 'stars of God', referring to the circumpolar stars that never set, possibly especially to the seven stars of Ursa Major. The phrase also occurs in the Pyrgi Inscription as hkkbm ’l (preceded by the definite article h and followed by the m-enclitic). Two other apparent fossilized expressions are arzê-’ēl 'cedars of God' (generally translated something like 'mighty cedars', 'goodly cedars') in Psalm 80:10 (in Hebrew verse 11) and kêharrê-’ēl 'mountains of God' (generally translated something like 'great mountains', 'mighty mountains') in Psalm 36:7 (in Hebrew verse 6). For the reference in some texts of Deuteronomy 32:8 to seventy sons of God corresponding to the seventy sons of Ēl in the Ugaritic texts see ’Elyôn.
Originally posted by openlocks
Oh wow... look what I stumbled into. Are you guys writing a book or something? So much to say about nothing.
Breath in, breath out. Life goes on.
Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by network dude
Point to which words have been changed in the New Testament
Gods word has remained the same, you do not know who Jesus really is. If he was just a man then his sacrifice wouldnt have been suffecient to pay for our sins. I agree religion causes alot of harm but Christianity is based on the Bible not on a church or pope. The Bible has not been corrupted as you claim, there are thousends of manuscripts to back it up. Having a personal relationship with jesus and knowing him is the only way to heaven. Of you die without accepting the free gift of eternal life you will go to hell and spend eternity in tormentThjs is what Jesus preached. The gospel offends those with a scorned conscience.edit on 26-7-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament) writes about this variant reading:
It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why orgistheis ("being angry") would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to splagchnistheis ("being filled with compassion"), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support of orgistheis is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splagchnistheis. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3:5) or indignant (10:14), have not prompted over scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading orgistheis either (a) was suggested by embrimesamenos ["warn sternly"] of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, "he had pity," with ethra`am, "he was enraged"). [pp. 76-77]
Originally posted by studythem1
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MagnumOpus
So where did the Nephilim come from? Guess I better ask Autowrench...
based off of what we know from ancient texts, they were the offspring of human earth women and some other species similar to humans...
the book of Enoch goes into some detail about them and the customs of the ones who came down from the "heavens" and forced these women into matrimony...
.....
Originally posted by MagnumOpus
StudyThem,
Very Good to see that you are up to speed in the Clan of Anu, the fallen ones, and the Sumerian Creator gods into breeding. I don't think AutoW could explain much better.
Even got into the Christians from Ethiopia like the Book of Enoch. Where these local Christians ask: what is that.
I think the fallen ones had a way point on Mars, but the home territory appeared to be one of the planets near the Orion Constellation.
With all the religion theme on gods and fallen ones, it is a easy point to make these gods were rather like a character on Star Trek, and hardly gods. Though the Earth primatives took that idea, and the theme carries on today, but that doesn't become a correct conclusion in today's times.
There are two Creations, one from Adam and the Anu god games, and the real one for the creation of the universe from some unknown intelligent force that nobody can discribe or make symbol for or even communicate with. Unless a planet has a soul, but I think not.