Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ok now that i realize the proportions this thread took i think everyone deserves to know what it is really about.

Being a theistic evolutionist i do believe in God.
My God is the God of Abraham.
I also believe that evolution is true and a work in progress. From the evolution of elementary particles to complex marvels like my brain.

If i was to believe in the story of Genesis,to take it literally, i would be standing in contratiction.

So for me either A) the world is 5000 years and was created as stated in Genesis or B) it is 13 billon years old and was created by God through cosmological and biological evolution.

Now one cannot stand in contradiction if he wishes to remain intellectualy honest, so i choose option b).

Now the point of the thread was to ask Christians who think the Genesis is real to debunk these atheist argument against the Genesis in hope that they would realize how futile it is to try and defend the creation of God as stated in Genesis.

I read the whole thread , most thought i was a Christian who truly believed in Genesis other that i was an Atheists, others that i was a troll. some of you realized what i was up to.

Anyways, thank you all for the replies.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede



TextYou question is: how can the world come out from this light?
reply to post by spy66
 


spy66

I enjoy the information that you have given me and believe me you give a lot to think about.

Read this verse very carefully.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That verse says (to me) that this earth was in darkness without this form that it has now. In order for this earth to be in darkness it had to be created before light was declared. If that is true and it was created before the light, then how could it be created after the light or because of the light? I understood you as saying that the creation started after the light and that Genesis 1:1- 2 were only descriptive verses before creation began.


The reason Gen 1:2 is confusing is because, people think earth is already present. But that is not what Gen 1:2 is saying. It is saying that Earth is not formed yet. It is without form and void. If earth was there in the dark, it would have a form of some kind and density of some kind. Wouldnt you agree??
But the verse does say: without form and void. That means non existent.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I won't speak to the specific points made in your thread, because I think more importantly, there is an overarching way of understanding the inconsistencies throughout the Torah/Pentateuch (whichever you prefer). Have you heard of the "Documentary Hypothesis"?


The documentary hypothesis, holds that the Torah was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors)....Biblical scholars, using source criticism, eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was composed of selections woven together from separate, at times inconsistent, sources, each originally a complete and independent document. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, and the Priestly Writer, P.

the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
(wiki)

Jahwist
This framework makes sense if you understand that the god Yaweh was one in a pantheon of gods (Edom, south of Judea) Yahweh, the god of war, would have made sense from the framework of a people in exile, (up through exodus) The Yawest source" unlike E, D, P, refer to their god by his personal name, YHWH, (rather than an ambiguous term "god" or "lord") thus, Yahweh is understood in the context of a pantheon of gods, monotheism not yet established at the time of this source's contribution. (although later sources will edit/change parts to fit monotheism). The Jahwist source starts off in Genesis and up through Exodus 3.

Elohist
The Elohist source can be understood from the framework of a people no longer in exile or under the subjugation of others, but now having established a kingdom in Israel (~850 BC). (Yahweh no longer singularly important to people no longer in exile) Unlike the Jawist source who referred to their "god" using his personal name, YHWH, and as a human like figure who would show up in person (i.e. your comment about walking through eden @ 3:8-11) The Elohist references to god were more abstract, "El" or "Elohim" (use of supernatural figures like angels common) The Elohist source starts after Abram begins migration and copies/parallels much of J sources material through part of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers (resulting in much of the seemingly contradictory text).

Deuteronomist
The Deuteronomist (contains Deuteronomy, also Joshua, Judges, Kings) comes from around the time of the Babylonian exile (600 BC) and can be understood from the framework as such, whereas D sees the destruction of the kingdom as punishment for "breaking the covenant with god", again whereas Yahweh (Edom, god of war) was of primary important during Egyptian exile, then lost importance/abandoned under kingdom/peacetime. D subscribes to the view that the Babylonian exile was deserved, a direct result of declining loyalty to Yahweh. This is the first time, historically, that preference for monotheism is presented (although not necessarily linearly since D also has gone back and edited J and E) and historically is a time of religious reform as well (again, monotheism)

Priestly
The Preistly source can be understood as written under newly established religious reforms, emphasizing monotheism, and as "god" at the center of everything, including the creation story with humans created in his image, dominion over the earth, etc. "God" is also declared to be "good" (unlike under a pantheon of gods where we would expect them to display specific personalities or traits, like under the Yahwist source). P source emphasized genealogies, laws, dates, with "god" being depicted as distant and unmerciful). P is responsible for the first chapter in Genesis, another fifth of Genesis, portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus.

Visual Representation of 4 Sources, J, E, D, P, of the Torah/Pentateuch:


Also, this video does a good job at explaining DH, (part of a larger documentary by Evid3nc3 that I highly recommend) "A His{tory of God, Part 1:


A History of God, Part 2: HERE,

Entire documentary "A History of God": HERE.

-------
Basically, the overall point is that this makes sense if you understand, the Bible, the torah, the Pentateuch as something written by man, several men, all full of mistakes, biases and contradictions...as opposed to "the word of god" of an infallible supernatural being
edit on 11-9-2012 by meeneecat because: added



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 


Man that video is whack. It's like the narrator read everything he could get his hands on about the Bible, but never actually read the Bible. If he had, he would have found out they agree with each other.

It makes it sound like the Bible was a big cover up to hide polytheism in the Bible, but if you read the OT, there is no such cover up at all. The entire OT is one big rant from God about how the Israelites are worshiping everything under the sun but him.

Like every single book in the OT there's a section where it's like, oh brother, here they go again. They're worshiping Baal again or worshiping the Egyptian gods again. Oh look, now they're worshiping idols! THEY'RE JUST PIECES OF WOOD GUYS! STOP DOING THAT!

Oh wait! now they're worshiping a golden calf! Yup, they're worshiping a FREAKING COW now! Oh Lord, what I'm going to do with these people!

But the point is there is no cover up whatsoever. The entire OT is about how they're trying to worship everything BUT Yahweh. Trees, rocks, spirits. Whatever they could get their hands on. You don't have to read anything other than the Bible. The Israelites pagan/idol/polytheistic practices are right in there plain as day. No cover up.

Also he again makes the common mistake that the Egyptians never used slaves to build the Sphinx or the Pyramids. But the Bible never claims such a thing. When the Bible claims they were "slaves", it claims that was much later after the Pyramids and Sphinx were already built.

And it never says they weren't paid either. The word employee didn't exist back then. Even a paid servant would still translate to the word "slave" depending on the translator. In fact for decades translators have been arguing about this very thing and have been wanting to change it to the word servant.

Also, the video makes it sound like the "slaves" were treated super badly and wanted to leave. That's there's no evidence that the Egyptians treated their slaves brutally bad or something.

But if you read the Bible you'll find out it says the same thing. The slaves didn't WANT to leave. They were forced out because of the plagues. The so called "slaves" spend like two entire books ranting at Moses because they want to go BACK TO EGYPT because they liked it better there! And Moses has to try to explain to them that something better awaits them where they're going.

And he tries to make it sound like there's no evidence that the Egyptians ever enslaved an entire race of people. Really? No way! You don't say!

That's because the Israelites DIDN'T EXIST until AFTER they left Egypt and started their own RACE! lol. Before they left Egypt they were just Egyptians! The Bible says they settled there intentionally, and we're talking like 70 guys max here. They didn't become slaves until after they were already in Egypt for a hundred years or so.

Simple mistakes like that show it's just another new age video where the guy tries to make it sound like the Bible says something different from what it actually says.

I don't know why people do that all the time. Maybe just to make people not believe anymore. Convince people the Bible says something different than what it really says. But he's just having a straw man argument with a book that doesn't really exist.

The actual Bible, what it ACTUALLY says, agrees with the guy and says the same thing plain as day.


edit on 11-9-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-9-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I've always felt that Asking another man to prove god exists for you was mudane, lazy, and pre-prone to disagreement.

You have to find answers within your own "journey" or you don't. And there can be a thousands reasons why "you haven't"..found those answers but that's your own personal ordeal. Nothing you can blame or burden on anyone else.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   


TextThe reason Gen 1:2 is confusing is because, people think earth is already present. But that is not what Gen 1:2 is saying. It is saying that Earth is not formed yet. It is without form and void. If earth was there in the dark, it would have a form of some kind and density of some kind. Wouldnt you agree?? But the verse does say: without form and void. That means non existent.
reply to post by spy66
 


spy66

The reason that Genesis seems as though it is confusing is that most cosmologists and biologists can not explain creation from their perspective. If they can't put it in mathematical chalk on the blackboard then they are lost. Their's is the claim that everything that exists can be proven mathematically and yet they have theoretical biologists who parrot nothing but theology every day. When they are wrong they simply tell you that the model has changed or is shelved till a later time. That is their way of saying that they were wrong and can't understand what they try to sell. If we do this in the field of religion then we are chastised and ridiculed.

Getting back to Genesis. Note that the Hebrew text (in English) says the word earth. Try to picture a wad of Clay (earth) on the potters plate. It is our earth but it also is without form. As the potter forms the clay into a pot or vase, or whatever he chooses, it then becomes as his skill has formed it. Regardless of what the potter formed it is still the earth. That ingredient will never change.

Now turn your thought to God as the potter. There is earth that He created but this earth is unformed as yet. In fact this earth is mixed with water and still unformed. That water was the water which God separated and made the earth dry and made the 350 miles of atmosphere. Moses called this the firmament or 1st heaven that surrounds the formed earth.

Before the water was separated from the earth, this entire mass of earth and water was a glob of mud. It was unformed but it still existed as earth.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Then God (who is spirit) moved across the waters and formed the earth into a world of earth. But He still has to separate the earth from the water. But He did not do this right away. His next step was to give the universe a creative light. The ancients believe, just as you have pointed out at the onset of this discussion, that this light was the beginning of this world's creation days. The ancients call this light the spirit God Himself.

So in one respect you are correct when you say that the world's (not earth's) creation started with this creation light. The entire creation started with a mud pack and now (in day three ) God starts to separate the unformed pack of mud and water into the world which we now see. This earth might have been particles of earth mixed with water but we do not know exactly what the unformed mixture was in the beginning. This world is still made with water and earth but it now has a form or shape and an atmosphere of about 350 miles .

Now why did God show the Primeval Light on this first era (day)? Because that was marked time in the entire creation story. Without the light of creation it could not be marked as day one. Some of the ancients scholars have determined that this could very well be an era of thousands or millions of years while other scholars believe it was our twenty four hour era of day.

If you have ever had a top as a child then you can see that when you wind that top up completely it will spin many times faster than when it finally loses its energy and wobbles to a stop. I am not a scientist but common sense tells me that if this pertains to our earth then it could pertain to time in that first creation era. I really don't know.

Any way Spy66 it has been a pleasure to gab with you.
God Bless



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   


TextMan that video is whack. It's like the narrator read everything he could get his hands on about the Bible, but never actually read the Bible. If he had, he would have found out they agree with each other.
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


tinfoilman

I also read his rant and agree line for line what you posted. I don't understand why people will not be original and truthful. If you have a disagreement then have the courtesy to at least listen to the other guy for a change. That's how you get smart. All of us could be wring on any given topic. I know I have been not only wrong many times but way off base and I have been chastised for this too. I finally realized that I was not only belligerent but stupid in many matters that I thought I was intelligent. I hope to have learned my lesson in life and listen to the other guy.

Thanks tinfoilman



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


I did listen to it, I watched the whole video. I swear. The video isn't even wrong about what it says. It's just wrong in how it implies the Bible is wrong trying to make it sound like a controversy, when actually they both say pretty much the same thing.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Oh boy..

First. The bible has many documented inconsistencies. You just prefer not to notice because you have trouble "squaring" this with what you were told to believe.

I have noticed a trend of those considering themselves to be more religious to accuse atheists, agnostics, non-religious, of "never having picked up a bible in their lives" But in reality, the opposite has shown to be true."Why Do Atheists and Agnostics Know More About Religion Than The Religious?"" Truth is many atheists, like the guy in the video, actually come from highly religious backgrounds and childhoods. It isn't until, usually years of independent investigation, into religion, archeology, and history, do they come to find their answer in atheism or agnosticism.

You mention the world "cover up" which I find peculiar (it may seem that way to you if you have only been presented with one correct truth via religion) The information that I presented is not part of a conspiracy. In fact if there is a cover up, it is the religious organizations that are responsible in proclaiming that the bible is the "word of god" obscuring actual history (esp. given your lack of knowledge of how the bible was written). What is accepted by historians, archeologists, religious scholars is that the bible was written by man, specifically J, E, D & P (the Torah). In fact the person who first told me about the DH was a Rabbi and Jewish history scholar!

What is meant talking about monotheism & polytheism in the bible has nothing to do with the idea that it existed. It has to do with the evolution of the so called Jewish god presented throughout the text. Did you fail to see the point?...Because the bible was revised several times, it contains confusing & contradictory information that would be near impossible to understand fully by just reading the bible alone. But because we have a historical context & authors whose perspective we can understand, the inconsistencies start to make sense. The point is, again, history, context: what we know of how the people back then lived & worshiped, since the writing of the authors, J, E, D & P would have been influenced by the times in which they lived...indeed we can start to see the traits/perspectives and contradictions between these 4 different authors throughout the Torah and this authorship is important to our understanding of the Israelites' god(s).

One example I already mentioned is the use and meaning of the word "God". In Genesis through Exodus the J text uses "YHWH" referring to the god from Edom (using his personal name Yahweh) as the god known to belong to a pantheon of gods and personified by the Israelites much in the way greek or roman gods are depicted as appearing to the greeks & romans, i.e. having a physical body and interacting with humans. E uses the word "El" or "Elohim" which refers to god in a more abstract way, but still in the context of polytheism, however the Edomite god YHWH had largely fallen out of preference and other gods were seen as being more relevant at the time (again, this is HISTORICAL context)...And again at the time of D and P texts, religious reform was underway and religious leaders especially moved toward a doctrine of monotheism (~600 B.C.)

Again, no "coverup" because the Document Hypothesis is accepted among most historians, religion scholars, archeologists and scientists as actual history. The false information comes with this notion that the god presented in the Torah, as written about in these first five books is all referring to the same god, (the "Christian / Jewish god") ...when in reality there are actual historical differences between the gods as worshiped by the Israelists: "YHWH", "Yahweh", "El/Elohim" and later on (D / P authors) "God/The Lord"

Secondly, I either question the fact that you even watched the video I posted, or you have the comprehension ability of a 5th grader. The narrator in the video was actually teasing Christians for promoting the idea of Israelites as slaves in Egypt he never said that the bible refers to them as slaves (nor anything about the pyramids)...If you actually listened you would have heard him say "the Israelists as depicted in Egypt, particularly the modern interpretation depicts the Egyptians as the ultimate assholes, viciously enslaving an entire race for the sole purpose of erecting colossal monuments to their own glory" Clearly he is using hyperbole here to make fun of this premise, which he knows is absolutely ridiculous despite the fact that this is what many Christians apparently believe (the cartoon is given as example).

I guess I can look at it this way (instead of just doing a face palm), your post = more evidence that "the religious" know very little about the history of their own religion.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by Seede
 


I did listen to it, I watched the whole video. I swear. The video isn't even wrong about what it says. It's just wrong in how it implies the Bible is wrong trying to make it sound like a controversy, when actually they both say pretty much the same thing.


Because you are confusing bible with reality and then accusing "history" of the "coverup". There is no "coverup" in so far as much as you apparently have been fed a false truth your entire life (that the bible is "true/fact/the word of god") and so have trouble with the actual truth when it is presented to you (i.e. the complex history of how the bible came to be/was written by humans).

If you want to believe that the majority of history, archeology, religious scholars are believing a "false account of history" that's your business. But don't accuse them of the "cover up" when in fact it was you yourself who originally pulled the wool over your own eyes. ...and in fact you continue to eschew knowledge whenever you try to explain away complexity any of the real hard, complex problems/solutions with "god did it". i.e. the history of how the bible came to be is long, complex and can require years of study to understand. vs. "god did it".

And the part about the guy in the video being on a "rant" or whatever. (Yea, he totally had his panties in a knot getting all worked up) I still have trouble you even watched it. Or maybe it just totally flew over your head that he was actually making fun of Christians for believing in a ridiculous historical inaccuracy. Which is very ironic given what you accuse him of (believing in said lie, when in fact he is totally calling it out). You are kinda reminding me of how conservatives have been known to watch "The Colbert Report" not realizing that he's actually making fun of them. This is why it's hard to talk to religious people about stuff when they just willy nilly change the definitions of things, like: fact = fantasy, science/evidence = believing in something on faith, and bible=real and history=fake.
edit on 11-9-2012 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 


So I agree with your video and you call me an idiot and I don't know anything about religion? So, is your video stupid and retarded too? Since ya know, we agree with each other?

Do you usually keep arguing with people even when they agree with you? What are you gonna prove your own point wrong now? You're just mad probably because it turns out the Bible you hate so much actually doesn't say what you thought it said. Like first book, Elohim, plural for Gods. Not God.

Worship no other Gods before me? Well what's the point of saying that if they didn't believe in multiple Gods? It's a well known fact the Israelites were polytheists. It says it right in the Bible. I'm agreeing with you. Why don't you just take their own words for it?

Oh that's right, because no matter what the Bible says, even when you agree with it, Atheists still can't agree with it just because it's the Bible right? What I am saying is there's no cover up. It's still in there. Right there. Plain as day.

Sure Historians think there was more than one source to the Torah. What doesn't make any sense is your theory that there was a big conspiracy for people to go in and edit the Bible to remove any mention of polytheism only for them NOT TO REMOVE IT? That doesn't make any sense?

Think about what you're saying. That's like saying there was a big conspiracy for us to go into the store and steal all the toothpaste, but we leave WITHOUT stealing the toothpaste? That's absurd. Isn't it more likely that if we left the toothpaste then perhaps we broke into the store for a completely different reason? Like I don't know. To steal the money?

Same thing with the Bible. If they edited the Bible to remove any mention of polytheism only for us to open the book and see it's STILL IN THERE plain as day. Wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that they edited it for some other reason entirely? Or perhaps not at all?

Sorry, but the OT does not show the early Israelites in a good, we only worship one God because we're really good guys, kinda light. It just doesn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So, using simple logic we can conclude that if someone did edit the Bible, it wasn't to remove any mention of worshiping multiple Gods because that's all still in there. It must have been for some other reason.




The false information comes with this notion that the god presented in the Torah, as written about in these first five books is all referring to the same god.


Sounds like a Jewish problem. Not the Bible itself. Christians read the Bible and come away believing in three main Gods at least.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by Seede
 


I did listen to it, I watched the whole video. I swear. The video isn't even wrong about what it says. It's just wrong in how it implies the Bible is wrong trying to make it sound like a controversy, when actually they both say pretty much the same thing.


Because you are confusing bible with reality and then accusing "history" of the "coverup". There is no "coverup"


No your video is the one claiming there was some type of cover up to edit the Bible to remove mention of polytheism. I'm telling you there was no cover up. That's still currently in the Bible. Did you just trick yourself into arguing against your own viewpoint? lol.

Or can we both just agree there was no conspiracy. There was no cover up?
edit on 11-9-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


This is completely asinine.

If you need help debunking something ?

you shouldn't be debunking it !



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 





TextBecause you are confusing bible with reality and then accusing "history" of the "coverup". There is no "coverup" in so far as much as you apparently have been fed a false truth your entire life (that the bible is "true/fact/the word of god") and so have trouble with the actual truth when it is presented to you (i.e. the complex history of how the bible came to be/was written by humans).


meeneecat

I can't make heads or tails of what you are saying. In the first place if you are directing this to me then please quote me instead of quoting some one else.

I did watch your video and it is presented in a nice package but it is the opinions of people and have seen many forms of the same spiel down through the years. I realize that you have an agenda and that agenda is to trash any belief in the God of Abraham. You are given that right to your opinion and I respect your right to express your own opinions but you also should give us the right to disagree with you.

I don't really have the desire to debate your points of view because it would take volumes of space and much effort to make my points and it would not not change a thought that you have pertaining to religion. As far as history or archaeology is concerned, I would recommend that you subscribe to "Biblical Archaeology" which is a scholarly monthly edition of great facts. I think that you would really gain the truth of this matter if you would even take a peek at the contents.

You stated that I have been fed a false truth all of my life. That is not true at all. In the first place a truth cannot therefore be false nor can a false be true. And again you have no idea of my age or life or what I have always believed. It might shock you to really know me or what I do believe and can prove.

As far as the historians are concerned, you listen to only that which suites your own desires. Historians only produce that in which they have understood to be.and they do skew their outlays to suite their own understandings. A good example is to read some of your opponents opinions and then make your decisions on the evidence. You cannot obtain a fair opinion in being biased.

Original Torah's date is not known. We believe that Moses wrote Torah under the revelation of God and that is all that we claim. We have never claimed that God wrote Torah by His own hand. Actually we do not know where Moses got all of his information but it is possible that he also relied upon historians just as you rely upon historians. We do not claim supernatural intellectual insight to Torah. We have always declared that ours is a theology and nothing more but we have always declared Torah as the writings of man.

You should consider that history is all tradition till it is recorded and that history is recorded also by man. So to parrot your spiel of great historians, it is nothing more than than was Moses. Your faith is in secularism and mine in God. It's as simple as that.

Most all biologists have books to refer to and use as teaching tools. Do all biologists perform the proofs that they teach? Not in a million years. Most biologists are nothing but book worms that parrot their peers. They take most of their science knowledge by faith just the same as historians do the same. Can you tell me if the same biological elements that exist today actually existed a million years ago in the same proportions? If you expect me to believe that man evolved from a lower primate than why would all other elements remain constant? Can you prove this in your lab? If not then isn't a biologist disingenuous to make this statement as a proven fact? You can spin this any which way but is it the truth?

I could go on and on in my own rantings but it would fall on deaf ears simply because people are people and they will only believe by choice. Through all of this, am I correct in my assumptions? No and I realize that as additional information is given to me that I also change by beliefs in certain aspects. That is only good common sense. So to end my spiel, I wish you the best in life.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John 3:3

People need The Holy Spirit, To be able to receive and understand TRUTH!



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ResearchEverything777
 


Amen !



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
May I suggest you visit
www.urantia.org...
that might just make your day.
It did for me, after 35 years of study.
Seek and Ye shall Find...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zadkiel
May I suggest you visit
www.urantia.org...


The Urantia Cult is Luciferian one world demon channeled Illuminati fraudulent crap.

Don't be fooled... It's a ruse.

May I ALSO suggest you visit:

The Urantia Cult is a Skull & Bones Spin-Off
aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com...

The Urantia book may be one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of deception.
creationists.org...

Urantia CIA experimental mind control programming
www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg115683.html

Links to CIA and the MK Ultra
www.scoreboard-canada.com...

The Cult of Urantia
lifeofafemalebiblewarrior.wordpress.com...

The Urantia Book Scam
devolutionx.com...

Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
www.equip.org...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   


TextThe Urantia Cult is Luciferian one world demon channeled Illuminati fraudulent crap.
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Murgatroid,

I admire your honesty. I have a copy of Urantia in my collection of books and I also read it almost cover to cover. I really could not understand why it was written. Actually there is no need for the book to exist. It was written by ghost writers with no agenda that I could understand and the doctrines of the work were in direct conflict with much of what Jesus taught. I simply discarded it from my mind several years ago.

I had no idea of this movement till I read your post and I thank you for all of the links that you posted.
I believe that our churches are not doing a good job and that people of today want answers that they are not getting. The churches of today have strayed so far from the teachings of Jesus that most all of them do not even teach the doctrine of Christ anymore. Thanks again for the links and will look at them for sure.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

Seede,

Your post really made my day.


Its a sad fact that most readers on ATS rarely READ or even believe what they see here.

ATS has some of the most awesome people you will ever meet but it also has many who simply REFUSE to listen to any truth or any warnings you throw out there.

Sadly many have been completely blinded to reality and truth by the massive amount of mind control tools such as Urantia and Zeitgeist, etc.

THIS is the real agenda behind Urantia and all other false religions and this is why many of us here on ATS warn others.


Originally posted by Seede
I really could not understand why it was written. Actually there is no need for the book to exist. It was written by ghost writers with no agenda that I could understand and the doctrines of the work were in direct conflict with much of what Jesus taught.

There IS a stealth agenda behind these things and it is FAR more dangerous than people realize.

Here is the bottom line: ALL false religions are Illuminati mind control

Religion is propaganda and the primary goal is to deceive the mass's into believing that the truth is actually a LIE.

This is why they target and focus on Christianity

THIS is why there is so much HATRED for Christianity.

This is the REASON for things like Urantia

There is a VAST Satanic conspiracy to deceive every person on earth.

The Illuminati use lies and propaganda to cause the world to believe that God is the cause of wars and death.

In reality THEY are the ones behind the scenes manipulating ALL world events.


Originally posted by Seede
I believe that our churches are not doing a good job and that people of today want answers that they are not getting. The churches of today have strayed so far from the teachings of Jesus that most all of them do not even teach the doctrine of Christ anymore.

This is all part of the agenda and is anything BUT accidental:

There is a stealth agenda behind all false religion and virtually every denomination and organization in Christendom has been infiltrated.


The Vatican has infiltrated, or neutered and spayed, virtually every denomination and organization in Christendom. Various means have been used, but Opus Dei has played a major role in this.

OPUS DEI-- War on Protestantism

..the goal is to infiltrate and destroy the Church from within.

Satan has infiltrated organized religion

Religion is a major tool of the Illuminati agenda

BTW one of the links in the last post refused to behave:

Urantia CIA experimental mind control programming
www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg115683.html

Here is an alternative:

groups.yahoo.com...





edit on 13-9-2012 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join