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.

 

Why should we choose Religion over Science?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





I'm sorry but that is a very narrow minded view. Any Christian who espouses the statements you've made obviously doesn't understand the importance of not placing limits on what God is capable of.


Well I do agree that we shouldn't place limits on the limitless, but the Torah was written by Moses so, his account is all we have to go by and Moses didn't say anything about us evolving from chickens, monkeys or alligators.


Because it's not relevant. God created man. The bible says that he created Adam out of the clay of the earth and breathed life into him (an adaptation of a much older sumerian/mesopotamian creation myth, which is the region that abraham came from originally). How you interpret that is up to you. To me, it doesn't really matter how God did it, it just matters that he did. It's also the same debate involved in the 6 days of creation. Are we talking about 6 literal days as men count them, or 6 days according to God? 6 epochs or ages? If you believe in the literal interpretation of 6 days as men count them, then there is not much point in having this discussion as we have rock solid archaeological and geological evidence that the earth is MUCH older than 6000 years old. Civilization as we define it is constantly being pushed back in age as new archaeological discoveries are made (for instance Göbekli Tepe ).

I'm not really sure why some Christians find the idea of evolution so offensive. I suppose I did at one point in time too, but my thinking has changed and I've come to believe personally that it's irrelevant if mankind evolved or not. Even if we did evolve, it is my personal belief that the process was divinely guided, so either way God's will was accomplished in his creation, and that's all that really matters in the end. To that end, I do not find science in it's pure form (not it's recent guise of almost militant atheism) to be at all incompatible with my spiritual beliefs or offensive to my religious sensibilities. I think of science as mans way of attempting to understand God's creation. The laws of physics, mathematics, and reality in general, had an author (in my opinion), and Science is simply our way of uncovering the mechanics of the great clock the master clock maker designed.
edit on 6-7-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





Are we talking about 6 literal days as men count them, or 6 days according to God?


6 days is an allegorical meaning. Who knows how long one of his days are? According to Barnabas 1 of his days is like 1000 years but that too could be an analogy for all we know. Definitely 6 days according to God.
I don't find the notion of evolution offensive, my position is, that isn't what he told Moses, and you tread on dangerous ground when you state absolutes without knowing the mind of God because you could make yourself out a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6

5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I fear him enough to not go stuffing words in his mouth when I do not know what he did or didn't do. That is my position.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 


It doesn't say he took 32 animals in the Bible, I would reread that portion of the text.


7 clean animals in pairs
7 birds in pairs
2 unclean animals in pairs
---------------------------------
14+14+4=32



No, 7 pair of the clean animals, 7 pair of the clean birds and 2 pair of the unclean. Example, a cow would be q clean animal, Noah would have taken 14 of them. Horses are clean, again 14 would have been taken, wheel 14, Goats 14 and so on and so forth. The cubic square feel of the ark would hold the equivalent of 500+ railroad cars.

That's a massive vessel.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The burden proof is on the believer. I asked for your source that Newton predicted a flying machine that was influenced by the OT. I'm just skeptical because I like to ask questions.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The burden proof is on the believer. I asked for your source that Newton predicted a flying machine that was influenced by the OT. I'm just skeptical because I like to ask questions.


probably referring to Ezekiel 1.

but i don't think that the wheels within wheels is what it sounds like, although the throne that emerges from the HOLE IN THE SKY, is a flying vehicle. the wheels are a device, and he probably picked up on that and started thinking about how spinning motion might allow for updraft and so forth.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I remember reading this and how in ancient alien circles that this was a UFO. Pretty interesting. To be honest I don't know how Newton saw this verse, but it's worth taking a look into.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


ah a matter of semantics. that's probably why this has been such a conundrum for scientists.
during a time when we know science was not very advanced (following the flood), the idea there would be 14 cows, 14 horses, 14 raccoons, 14 sheep, zebra, hippopotami, monkeys, gorillas, orangutans, giraffe, iguanas, crocodiles, alligators, bears, moose, koala bears, kangaroos, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, cougars, panthers, ferrets, mice, rats, wolves, rhinoceros, pandas, goats, sloth, and all the variants of these groups, etc etc etc, did i mention etc? and we aren't even touching on the bird types (there are so many!) and unclean types. just to store the various types of foods these different species eat, would be 500 railroad cars. a horse can go thru enormous amounts of oats, for example.

HOWEVER, if the various species that were saved from the ice age flood, were saved in the form of DNA, this would make perfect sense. the planet has been around for a very long time. the human dispensation on this planet has technically, only been for the last 10,000 or so years. prior to that, those were not homo sapiens fossil and thus, those were not the homo sapiens adam. perhaps the pre-human adam, but not the human adam. and the bible is almost exclusively about the human dispensation.

i think there's enough evidence in various ancient texts, that the pre-human dispensation on this planet was the time of testing for the angels, specifically, the seraphim (reptiles). and they grew to be technologically advanced, and this lead to an intergalactic/interdimensional war and so on. which envitably lead to the ice age.

we're the new kids on the block.
edit on 6-7-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I'm pretty sure Noah was smart enough to bring the babies not the full grown specimens. They eat much less. And are more fertile in their youth.

You know the Bible says the seraphim were made of fire, no?
edit on 6-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The burden proof is on the believer. I asked for your source that Newton predicted a flying machine that was influenced by the OT. I'm just skeptical because I like to ask questions.


probably referring to Ezekiel 1.

but i don't think that the wheels within wheels is what it sounds like, although the throne that emerges from the HOLE IN THE SKY, is a flying vehicle. the wheels are a device, and he probably picked up on that and started thinking about how spinning motion might allow for updraft and so forth.


No it was the prophecy about the future return of the Jews on the "wings of eagles", he predicted that one day mankind would travel by air. And was severely ridiculed by Voltaire who mocked him by saying "See what fools Christianity makes of otherwise brilliant men? Doesn't Sir Newton not realize if man were to travel faster than 60 mph his skin would peel away from his face?"



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Here is the verse you're talking about. To me it seems you're taking the verse out of context.


Isaiah 40:30-31 (KJV) Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.


In the Jewish bible I own it first points out Jews should have faith in God, while also talks about returning to Zion without obstacle.

To me I don't see this verse talking about planes and I don't think Newton believed this verse refereed to planes. I'm still skeptical because I cannot make a connection.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


Me taking it out of context?? I didn't make the prediction, Newton did.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 



You know the Bible says the seraphim were made of fire, no?
edit on 6-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


good point about the babies. that's a possibility. however, i still think my theory has some merit, and that mostly because it ties several lose ends together.

as far as seraphim, perhaps AFTER they moved on to the heavenly realms, which by the time of the human dispensation, was the case for a great deal of them, anyway.

when adam and eve encountered the seraph in the garden, he was physical, bipedal (can't lose legs you don't have in the first place. i mean, i have a different theory about the serpent reference but that's a different post), and could talk, give them things, etc

one of the problems is people have so mystified the text that they've overlooked verses that demystify it. presumably, on purpose. this has the effect of rendering it into fairytale like status in their minds, even if they are otherwise believers. it's a very vibrant and alive text, referring to all manner of interesting things.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Adam and Eve never encountered a Seraph. Hylel was a cherub class of angel.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 


Adam and Eve never encountered a Seraph. Hylel was a cherub class of angel.


which is where it gets really interesting.
if he was a cherub, and a seraph is a serpent, and he was a serpent, how many kinds of seraph are there? could cherub be a kind of seraph perhaps? or could a seraph be a kind of cherub? i think the answer to that question is partially found by looking up the meanings of words as regards the serpent. the word is nachash. it refers to "magic" several times and as an example it says enchanter, whisperer of magic spells, diviner. this guy is a sorcerer. sorcery is pharmacopeia. and pharmacopeia is this


he was a geneticist. those symbols are dna (double snakes) and rna (single snake).


that's the serpent in the tree.
the serpent on moses rod.
the reference jesus made of himself as the serpent raised on moses' staff to bring healing to the people.
edit on 7-7-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, even though you did discuss the verse. Do you have any more information about this? I'm still curious about it, but I'm doubtful.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I never said seraphim were serpents. The Bible says they are angels made of fire.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 


I never said seraphim were serpents. The Bible says they are angels made of fire.


Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for "seraph":
8314, saraph saw-rawf' from 8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.

---

Num 21:8 And the LORD 3068 said 559 unto Moses 4872, Make 6213 thee a fiery serpent 8314,, and set 7760 it upon a pole 5251: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten 5391, when he looketh 7200 upon it, shall live 242


------

the numbers are strongs numbers that allow you to look up the meaning of the words in the verse in the original hebrew.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I know what Stoeng's is. Did you notice it said "figuratively"? So, no they are not reptiles, it's used for them in a figurative manner. They are angels that are made of fire.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by undo
 


I know what Stoeng's is. Did you notice it said "figuratively"? So, no they are not reptiles, it's used for them in a figurative manner. They are angels that are made of fire.


like i said, different time frames.
do you think the angels were created and never left heaven?
there are several different kinds of angels, aren't there? prior creations some of which may have been right on this planet, such as dinosaurs. now follow me here for a second: what if some of those dinosaurs were upright, sentient and civilized. how would they wage war against god in the scenario where the 2/3rds of the angels fell during the war in heaven? was the war in the sky or in the spiritual, other dimensional heaven? the universe is gigantic and contains many creations. this planet happened to be the domain of the reptiles for millions of years. that's pretty significant.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Dinosaurs were not angels. Even in the writings of King Cyrus the Great he details the dragons he owned and how many people he had to care for the dragons.


edit on 7-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join