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.

 

Agnostic About Agnosticism

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Agnostic About Agnosticism



Agnosticism as a method has its benefits. Certainty is entirely vain, and one can seek comfort of mind in suspending judgement, allowing for a more fluid and open approach to learning in the case that new evidence presents itself. But as a principle, Agnosticism doesn’t seem so agnostic when it comes to certain faiths and convictions of its own, and we find, after a little ruminating, that agnosticism is merely a reaction to the fear of being wrong, and not immune to the same vanity.


“The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God is improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.”

Bertrand Russell, What is an agnostic?


Why does Bertrand Russell suspend judgement in regards to the existence of gods, yet he is convinced to the point of certainty that “there are not sufficient grounds for either affirmation or of denial”? This, of course, is an article of faith, and an assumption, however reasonable, made by Russell. For all we know, the grounds for affirmation or denial are entirely sufficient, however we could only “know for certain” if we were able to see into the future to witness the exact moment we affirm or deny and why we did; or perhaps the master of the universe simply told us the right answer. So why not be agnostic about the conviction that “there or not sufficient grounds for either affirmation or of denial”? Why affirm this faith without sufficient grounds, and not another?

To say that we can never be certain about knowledge is to say that knowledge isn’t a human affair. Outside of human affairs, no instance of knowledge has ever been found, and there is no reason to leap to and assume the opposite, yet the opposite is always presupposed. To say knowledge isn’t a human affair is to say that there is some unknowable truth—an absolute truth—that we can never be privy to; that only a God, and not man, can either affirm or deny it. But saying this is to affirm that such an absolute truth exists, yet we are too feeble to comprehend it, despite the fact that it is only ever man who is powerful enough to imagine it, reason about it, and put into words what “truth” is.

Russell affirms his belief in this absolute truth by continuing on in the essay that only God can endow him with the knowledge that God exists or doesn’t, or rather, only absolute truth can give him absolute truth. He refuses to judge until this God itself comes down and performs some parlour tricks for him. And if it doesn’t reveal itself? His principle will render him too stubborn to deny it.

It is another leap of faith to say that knowledge is out of man’s grasp. It is to say that knowledge and truth are not of man’s creation, and that knowledge and truth isn’t created, but gifted by unseen forces other than ourselves. This, of course, is an assumption, and an article of faith on the part of Russell and the agnostics who refuse to judge until this purely imagined confirmation comes along.

In other words: what is agnosticism but gnosticism? The only way to rise to God—or in the agnostic’s case, the only way to be proven right and be confident in one’s choices—is to attain the “gnosis”, the absolute divine knowledge that is only dreamed about, but nonetheless described as “truth”. And like the Gnostics, the agnostics must see the world, its effects, you, me and us, as nothing in comparison with this spirit world where “truth” and “knowledge” lie, because it is quite apparent that this world does not provide enough of it for them. But how much “truth” has the spirit world really ever given us? Is truth created in this world or the next?


Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Carl Sagan-Demon Haunted World


According to Sagan, because there is no evidence for something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. But here in lies the problem: there is no such amount or quantity called “absence of evidence”, or “no evidence”—there is only ever evidence. And because there is only ever evidence it makes sense to observe it in order to conclude reasonably what it amounts to. But like the atheist, the agnostic is too concerned with what God isn’t and not what it is; he’s too concerned with what could be there, too concerned with what amounts to “no evidence”—or to more honest ears—nothing, multiplying zeros by zeros.

The idea of “evidence of absence” is quite strange. I have no clue how anyone can ever expect to find evidence of something that isn’t there. Do they expect to flip over a rock and find an ancient inscription that says “God doesn’t exist - The Universe”? Awaiting for such evidence before judging is like waiting for a bus that never arrives, but they linger for fear that they’ll miss it. Once again, the evidence that does present itself is apparently inconsequential, and not worthy enough to be called truth. We must instead wait for "real truth". Isn’t this so?

Why not be agnostic about agnosticism? Why not suppose that there is insufficient grounds to affirm or deny that there is insufficient grounds to affirm or deny? It seems to me that being overly concerned with what God might be (as with the Agnostics), what God isn’t (as with the atheists), or what we were told to believe God is (theists), is a negation of one’s creativity and reason. We do not seem to concern ourselves with what God is, what it amounts to—where we find it, what we think about when we think it, how we express it—and most importantly, how we created it.

Truth and knowledge in instances such as these, like all the others, must be created, not waited for or dreamed about.




posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Good read, S&F.

I myself started as a Christian and for certain reasons began to doubt my upbringing. These doubts turned into atheism after a time where I didn't believe there was a God, then I began to be more open to the idea of a God again and became agnostic because of what I saw around me: the intricate, complex, and perfectly balanced world around us.

I began looking at pictures of the universe and stars and the Hubble Deep Field and began to believe that there must be more to it than just this one life, there has to be something driving it, some kind of force that brought/brings this beautiful universe into existence. Then I started to look within, and now I have no doubt in my mind God exists.

God is within everything and IS everything, the force behind the creation of the universe was in front of me all along, I was just psychologically blinded to it. The light of God is that spark called life, and everything that comes with it. The universe is too complex and perfect for it just to be an "accident" in my opinion.

There are quadrillions (you read that right) of atoms in just in one tiny grain of sand, now imagine just how small that one grain of sand is compared to the beach it's on, then compare that beach to Earth, Earth to our solar system, our solar system to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way to the universe. Can you even fathom the number of atoms that make everything up? We see the infinite everyday, we see the perfection of God in everything we look at.

My point is, I don't think knowing for a certainty that God exists is vain at all. God's fingerprint is on everything you see, and you are the finger that made that print.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I have yet to meet a true agnostic. Im not saying they dont exist, i just havnt met one. There are many that claim to be agnostic, but most are what i call closet Christians. While they may not subscribe to any particular branch of Christianity or Abrahamic religions, every single one ive met is monotheist.

Someone who is truly agnostic would be equally as agnostic about one God character as they would about any other God that has been followed by humanity. If you think Zeus, Odin, and Anubis are all rubbish, but God could potentially be real, then you are not agnostic.

The common thread with these agnostics is monotheism. Agnostic monotheist is an oxymoron. Someone who is inclined to believe there is most likely a single God is a monotheist. They want to be on the fringe of belief, without all of the extra baggage that comes with picking a single religion. I understand it and i say more power to them, but they should be honest about it instead of hiding behind a word that does not fit their spirituality.

DC



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   


If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments


I have never understood people comparing Christianity to other religions is it completely unique in its teachings. Proving the Olympians or Hindu Gods are not real is extremely easy. Look at a picture of earth, do you see it on the back of atlas or a turtle? No. Okay so we can reasonably conclude the religions are probably not the correct ones seeing as how they made a very big error when it comes to the way the world works.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Let's take a look at people. Do you see them walking on water or rising from the dead? How about snakes or bushes talking? No? I guess that means we can rule out Christianity being legitimate as well then, right? Why set standards for some and not for others?

Christianity teaches some things that are just as ridiculous as any other religion, the problem is bias on people's parts.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Let's take a look at people. Do you see them walking on water or rising from the dead? How about snakes or bushes talking? No? I guess that means we can rule out Christianity being legitimate as well then, right? Why set standards for some and not for others?

Christianity teaches some things that are just as ridiculous as any other religion, the problem is bias on people's parts.


Can you prove to me that Jesus didn't walk on water as I can prove Atlas and a turtle do not hold up earth? Nope. Also, please remember Jesus is not human, but rather God in Human form. Are you saying if God existed he couldn't take the form of a human and walk on water? I agree there are somethings in the Bible that have to be taken on faith, not because they didn't happen, but because we will never be able to prove the acts one way or the other.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Can you prove that Atlas or turtles didn't at one point hold up the Earth some time in the past? Nope.

How can you be so sure that Atlas or turtles didn't hold up the Earth 4 or 5 thousand years ago? According to the bible, in that same time period people lived for almost a thousand years at a time. Those statements are no more ridiculous than Jesus walking on water believe it or not.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Can you prove that Atlas or turtles didn't at one point hold up the Earth some time in the past? Nope.

How can you be so sure that Atlas or turtles didn't hold up the Earth 4 or 5 thousand years ago? According to the bible, in that same time period people lived for almost a thousand years at a time. Those statements are no more ridiculous than Jesus walking on water believe it or not.


The Earth doesn't need anything supporting it, if it did it would need it in the past and in the future. Where is the support now?
As for age, the short answer is as sin increased age decreased. Check into the water vapor canopy theory as well.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Modern science says that the Earth doesn't need anything to support it sure, but modern science also says that people cannot walk on water or rise from the dead after 3 days of decomposing. You have just as much evidence for your belief as pagans did back then. What makes your faith any better than theirs?

Bad argument, sin has increased the past few hundred years with the invention of tools of war like missiles and bombs, corporate greed as increased thanks to computer systems and such, yet the average lifespan has increased fairly dramatically in that same time period. Sin does not equal shorter life expectancy, if it did the life expectancy wouldn't have increased like it has since the recent past.

There is not enough water in the world to cover the entire Earth. If there was we'd be under water right now. Where did all that flood water go exactly?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Modern science says that the Earth doesn't need anything to support it sure, but modern science also says that people cannot walk on water or rise from the dead after 3 days of decomposing. You have just as much evidence for your belief as pagans did back then. What makes your faith any better than theirs?

Bad argument, sin has increased the past few hundred years with the invention of tools of war like missiles and bombs, corporate greed as increased thanks to computer systems and such, yet the average lifespan has increased fairly dramatically in that same time period. Sin does not equal shorter life expectancy, if it did the life expectancy wouldn't have increased like it has since the recent past.

There is not enough water in the world to cover the entire Earth. If there was we'd be under water right now. Where did all that flood water go exactly?


The average life span of a human is about 70-80 in most parts of the world. This is also the average lifespan mentioned in the Bible(Psalm 90:10). This lifespan is one of the main reasons I believe the rapture has to occur by 2021, maybe a little later.



There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the Flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note “waves”). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the Earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the Earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the Earth's topography.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Yeah, and that lifespan is an increase from a hundred or so years ago. The life expectancy in the 19th century was only 50 years old. Why has life gotten longer since the advent of nuclear weapons and corporations creating monopolies?

If sin reduces lifespan as you assume, why has life expectancy increased by nearly 30 years when sin is bigger than ever today? It seems as though sin equals longer lifespans in today's world. Life expectancy has increased by nearly 20 years since 1960 alone. Why is that?

So god altered the Earth's geography, as in mountains rising and valleys sinking visibly all across the world? Talk about stretching it! That's a pretty ridiculous idea and reeks of denial on the part of believers. You can't reject the story so you make ridiculous claims that have no basis in logic or history.

First it was the water vapor theory, now it's this. What will it be next?
edit on 15-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Yeah, and that lifespan is an increase from a hundred or so years ago. The life expectancy in the 19th century was only 50 years old. Why has life gotten longer since the advent of nuclear weapons and corporations creating monopolies?

If sin reduces lifespan as you assume, why has life expectancy increased by nearly 30 years when sin is bigger than ever today? It seems as though sin equals longer lifespans in today's world. Why is that?





Genesis 1:6-7 mentions the water above the expanse, a canopy of water that surrounded the earth. Such a water canopy would have created a greenhouse effect and would have blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth. This would have resulted in ideal living conditions. Genesis 7:11 indicates that, at the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth, ending the ideal living conditions. Compare the life spans before the flood (Genesis 5:1-32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10-32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically. Another consideration is that in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans. Read more: www.gotquestions.org...


Ok so after the flood peoples life span dropped tremendously. However since then the top of the mark has always been relatively close to 70. The fact that the average is where it is now should be a sign that we are in the last stages of the Church age.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


You still haven't addressed why life expectancy has increased since the invention of nuclear weapons and corporate monopolies.

If sin really reduces our lifespan then life expectancy wouldn't have increased so dramatically since 1960. It has increased by nearly 20 years since then.

Why has this sinful world's life expectancy grown when sin is supposed to reduce lifespans as you say? We're more sinful today than we have ever been before, so why has life expectancy increased along with the increase of sin in today's world?

And no, the top of the mark has not always been 70 years. The top of the mark in the 19th century was only 50 years. It has increased right along with sin. The only conclusion is that sin does not affect life expectancy in any way, and if it does (IF) then the evidence shows that sin actually increases life expectancy.
edit on 16-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   


Life expectancy is an average. Most people live either much longer or much shorter than what the life expectancy indicates. When life expectancy is low, this is mostly due to a very high child mortality rate. Those that survive the dangers of childhood can expect to live to a relatively old age, even in countries with very low life expectancy.
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[5] Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.[6] Although over 200 gene variants have been, according to the LongevityMap database,[7] associated with human longevity, these explain only a small fraction of the heritability of longevity.[8] Recent studies find that even modest amounts of leisure time physical exercise can extend life expectancy by as much as 4.5 years.[9] In preindustrial times, deaths at young and middle age were common, and lifespans over 70 years were comparatively rare. This is not due to genetics, but because of environmental factors such as disease, accidents, and malnutrition, especially since the former were not generally treatable with pre-20th century medicine. Deaths from childbirth were common in women, and many children did not live past infancy. In addition, most people who did attain old age were likely to die quickly from the above-mentioned untreatable health problems. Despite this, we do find a large number of examples of pre-20th century individuals attaining lifespans of 75 years or greater, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Cato the Elder, Thomas Hobbes, Eric of Pomerania, Christopher Polhem, and Michelangelo. This was also true for poorer people like peasants or laborers. Genealogists will almost certainly find ancestors living to their 70s, 80s and even 90s several hundred years ago. For example, an 1871 census in the UK (the first of its kind) found the average male life expectancy as being 44, but if infant mortality is subtracted, males who lived to adulthood averaged 75 years. The present male life expectancy in the UK is 77 years for males and 81 for females (the United States averages 74 for males and 80 for females). Studies have shown that African-American males have the shortest lifespans of any group of people in the US, averaging only 69 years (Asian American females average the longest).[10] This reflects overall poorer health and greater prevalence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer among African-American men.


Longevity

People since the flood have had the genetic capacity to live between 70-80 years of age. Intellectual advances are what has enabled us to reach our potential.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


So you agree that sin has nothing to do with life expectancy then. As sin has increased over the past 100 years or so, people have been living longer and there has been a lower child mortality rate. If sin decreases life expectancy, this would not be the case would it?

There were a couple of thousand years between Adam and Noah. According to biblical evidence there was about 2,000 years between creation and the flood.

If Adam brought sin into the world and it took 2,000 years for the life expectancy to drop by 900 years, why haven't we seen sort of the same rate of decrease in the 4,000+ years since the flood? Especially since sin has only gotten exponentially worse, particularly in the past 100 years or so.

Why are people more likely to live longer today compared to 200 years ago if sin affects age? Either sin has absolutely no bearing on age or sin increases age as the evidence of the past 100 or so years suggests.

The only reason people in the OT supposedly lived so long was because the authors had to create as much history as possible with as few characters as possible. Sin does not affect age at all, if that were the case the man who brought sin into the world wouldn't have lived for 930 years.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


So you agree that sin has nothing to do with life expectancy then. As sin has increased over the past 100 years or so, people have been living longer and there has been a lower child mortality rate. If sin decreases life expectancy, this would not be the case would it?

There were a couple of thousand years between Adam and Noah. According to biblical evidence there was about 2,000 years between creation and the flood.

If Adam brought sin into the world and it took 2,000 years for the life expectancy to drop by 900 years, why haven't we seen sort of the same rate of decrease in the 4,000+ years since the flood? Especially since sin has only gotten exponentially worse, particularly in the past 100 years or so.

Why are people more likely to live longer today compared to 200 years ago if sin affects age? Either sin has absolutely no bearing on age or sin increases age as the evidence of the past 100 or so years suggests.

The only reason people in the OT supposedly lived so long was because the authors had to create as much history as possible with as few characters as possible. Sin does not affect age at all, if that were the case the man who brought sin into the world wouldn't have lived for 930 years.


No, I dont agree, but I dont believe sin is quantifiable as you do. I see our longevity drop from Immortal to 930 years then from 900 to 70-80. These drops happen after major Biblical events. Immortal to 930 sin entered the world. 900 to 70-80 after the flood. We have the fall, then we have the baptism(the flood), then we our born a new(the Rapture). The Rapture is the next global event to occur. Half of the Earth;s remaining population will die in a course of three years, what do you think our life expectancy will be then? You see the Bible establishes patterns and these patterns are usually followed throughout Scripture.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Men are pretty good at creating patterns aren't they? The bible follows patterns, men are great at creating them... see where I'm going with this?


Maybe even the men who run the world today are following these patterns in order to fulfill them?

The bible says that before Jesus comes back there are supposed to be wars and rumors of war. Wars have been fought for thousands of years. Every time a war is fought, believers think Jesus will be coming back, so they support and/or are complacent about these wars. They do nothing to stop them because they want Jesus to come back.

Christianity is a religion of perpetual war, a religion that serves those in power perfectly. It's no coincidence that powerful men are the ones who legalized it at the Council of Nicaea.

What's the best way to gain support and/or complacency for wars you want to start for your own benefit? Clothe it in biblical prophecy, follow the pattern the bible has set out for you. It's a never ending waiting game and Christianity has been a huge pacifying mechanism for those in power, which is why it's so popular in such a corrupt world.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Men are pretty good at creating patterns aren't they? The bible follows patterns, men are great at creating them... see where I'm going with this?


Maybe even the men who run the world today are following these patterns in order to fulfill them?

The bible says that before Jesus comes back there are supposed to be wars and rumors of war. Wars have been fought for thousands of years. Every time a war is fought, believers think Jesus will be coming back, so they support and/or are complacent about these wars. They do nothing to stop them because they want Jesus to come back.

Christianity is a religion of perpetual war, a religion that serves those in power perfectly. It's no coincidence that powerful men are the ones who legalized it at the Council of Nicaea.

What's the best way to gain support and/or complacency for wars you want to start for your own benefit? Clothe it in biblical prophecy, follow the pattern the bible has set out for you. It's a never ending waiting game and Christianity has been a huge pacifying mechanism for those in power, which is why it's so popular in such a corrupt world.



You are accusing God of doing evil things, however, it is actually Men doing evil things in Gods name. I can go kill a class of first graders and claim it was cause the God of the Bible told me so..that isn't God thats Man in God's name.

That would be like me punishing you for a crime you didnt commit just because the criminal charged said he was doing it your name.

Yes, the Bible says wars and rumors of wars and an increase in earthquakes and storms which has been occurring for the last few years. However, no where does it say go start a war to make sure God comes back.However I am not quite sure why you act like our political leaders are Christians many of them admit to going to the Bohemian Grove where they have been filmed worshiping Molak, and preforming mock human sacrifices. The politicians are setting up the antichrist empire on earth.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I'm not accusing God of anything, I'm accusing the men who wrote, edited, and put the bible together. God did not write the bible and the bible is not his word.

Yet people have been believing the end is coming for thousands of years now. The saying in the bible of wars and rumors of war is a great tool for those in power to make war constantly.

That's the point of saying Jesus is coming back, so they can sucker people into being complacent about the wars they fight. Notice how those who order the wars to be fought are never actually fighting them, they are profiting off of them.

This is why the bible is so popular, because it promotes complacency. Sin is unavoidable and Jesus will come back to fix everything for us. Both teachings of laziness and complacency. Read Romans 13 and tell me the bible isn't a tool of those In power. If it weren't a tool for them, it wouldn't have become so popular and lasted for so long.

We can barely get the truth out of them today, so what makes you think they would have let the ultimate truth spread so widely for so long? Because it is a tool for them to keep us complacent, which is why you see churches on almost every corner in America. Not only do they let it spread, they promote it and encourage people to believe it.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I'm not accusing God of anything, I'm accusing the men who wrote, edited, and put the bible together. God did not write the bible and the bible is not his word.

Yet people have been believing the end is coming for thousands of years now. The saying in the bible of wars and rumors of war is a great tool for those in power to make war constantly.

That's the point of saying Jesus is coming back, so they can sucker people into being complacent about the wars they fight. Notice how those who order the wars to be fought are never actually fighting them, they are profiting off of them.

This is why the bible is so popular, because it promotes complacency. Sin is unavoidable and Jesus will come back to fix everything for us. Both teachings of laziness and complacency. Read Romans 13 and tell me the bible isn't a tool of those In power. If it weren't a tool for them, it wouldn't have become so popular and lasted for so long.

We can barely get the truth out of them today, so what makes you think they would have let the ultimate truth spread so widely for so long? Because it is a tool for them to keep us complacent, which is why you see churches on almost every corner in America. Not only do they let it spread, they promote it and encourage people to believe it.


Just because the Bible predicts wars doesn't mean people are happy about them, or want to stand by and watch them. The people have no power. The government has no power over our money, so that tells you they don't run things. The Bible does not teach that Jesus will come back and fix everything. It teaches that we have a chance to accept a pardon for our sin, and God pleas with us to accept it before his righteousness demands his wrath. It does not teach laziness it teaches to spread the truth and to love one another. After that, Jesus comes to fix everything

edit on 16-11-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join