The great deception.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

All before the last century were sold as Christian wars.. including the civil war on both sides all the churches said the government was doing gods work.

There were many wars, historically, before Christ was born.

a reply to: Somekindofwizard

I have always had difficulty with a "father" allowing his children to be deceived with the stakes being so high. The entire concept seems manipulative and difficult to buy into as a result.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The great deception is that salvation comes from outside of oneself and that oneself is unworthy of God's love unless they believe in said outside salvation.

The only true salvation comes from within and with one's realization of what they truly are which is the divine and eternal light.

I disagree. The great deception is that we can engineer our own salvation and are not in need of a loving hand from above to lift us up, whereby the model of leadership is one where the higher always serves the lower to raise what is low to increasingly higher heights, and where the greatest among us will be the servant of all, meaning that we cannot do it alone. It's a shared burden and a shared salvation. It does not happen in isolation since no man is an island unto himself. There is no such thing as isolate consciousness and we are all in need of salvation and a rational and reasonable basis for faith in God as supreme being, even as lover and true friend.

It's a participatory eschatology. "Pick up your cross and follow me", and have your joy and your humor, mirth and charm restored, even filled to overflowing.

It comes from above.

All who are of the spirit are born of the spirit, which like the wind blows where it will because it's radically free.

There is no practice, no inward realization that's capable of accessing the truth of the love of God in Jesus Christ which bring us back into alignment with our inheritance and our birthright.

My own Grace is woefully lacking and pathetic, and there's nothing I can do of myself to earn or deserve it, but everything that I can do to receive and accept it as the free gift of incalculable value that it is and represents.

It must come from above so that it isn't and cannot be corrupted, while operating as a type of alchemy on base metals, so to speak, and in the crucible of God's own alchemy, turn to gold.

Anyone who claims that they can get there all on their own without any help is generally lying, and it shows itself in a certain loathing they have, however "enlightened" towards the idea that they are in need of God's help.

It's really quite pleasant as an unexpected surprise, but it's not for those who already say "we see". lol

Your peoples god is known not by name, but indirectly, as "the man in the sandals" and "the big guy up stairs"

Is it really that hard to see why these weak fools will be. deceived? Their own belief offends and embarrasses them! They want "God" to be the cool guy all the liberal trash will think is hip for once. Just go to church and see. Its all about not hurting feelers anymore

a reply to: Aboom

Rather than keeping something you don't understand a mystery, you manipulate it into something your recognize, for what reason? What you recognize is only what you see in yourself otherwise you would not acknowledge it. .

a reply to: chr0naut

My pleasure...

"Name one"..I'll do ya a bunch better.. you can't check a lot of historical accounts, but we are talking about earth changing events that leave a mark...

Such as;



The creation myth, 7 day creation, the sequence of creation, flood myth, Noah incesting humanity into existence, sodom and gamora, returning to your birth place for a census in the first century, the ark being able to fit 2 of every present species, Bethlehem had no church...


All can be and have been checked through DNA, archeological findings, exc..

All 100% fiction unless you are saying they were analogies.. and if so then why couldn't it all be analogies??

About the footballer....

The footballer is not claiming to hold the key to the worlds mineral deposits..

The Bible is...

The Bible claims to be the divine account of the creation of the universe and to be explaining the way the world really works..

Such as the series of the creation story..

If accurate, scientists should have found out the oceans and the seas were created before the stars and the sun..

They should have found out "yes you can fit 2 of all existing species on one boat that is "X" number of cubits, by "X" number of cubits...."

We should have found out." Yes you can create a breeding population out of one relatively small family unit and/or just one male and one female of a species...

But we found out the opposite.

originally posted by: Somekindofwizard

If aliens showed up tomorrow then the vast majority of religious people will abandon those beliefs because aliens just disproved it.

Not at all. The Christians will just run out to greet the aliens, and ask them "Did God create you too?"

Some might even think to tell the aliens "Accept Jesus into your life and be saved from your alien nature."

So yea, unless my ears, or in this case my eyes decive me as, as usual... Says God going to the damage as a response to Satan wicked work or Karma.

Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

So if aliens aren't Gods...Why you guys praying?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

My pleasure...

"Name one"..I'll do ya a bunch better.. you can't check a lot of historical accounts, but we are talking about earth changing events that leave a mark...

Such as;

The creation myth,

The creation account in Genesis 1 lays a framework to explain complex ethical and moral issues. It uses metaphorical and poetic language to explain these concepts. The Bible is primarily about human ethics and morality in response to God, with a little history, culture and poetry in the mix. It is not a science textbook and makes no attempt to be so. To evaluate it as a science textbook is absurd.

The creation may appear mythic to you, but unlike almost every other creation story from other cultures, the humans and animals in it never display supernatural powers or do anything which cannot be explained by physics. Only God does stuff that is supernatural in the Genesis account, which lacks mythic elements.

7 day creation,

I authored a thread on this subject here on ATS. Please give it a quick read, it is called: One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

the sequence of creation,

The only issue, of which I am aware, in the sequence of creation is that plants were created before the Sun.

While this seems counter to what many now assume regarding plants, you must remember that science suggests that life may have first arisen in deep ocean thermal vents. As such, that early life would not photosynthesize and could even have begun as soon as the first hot water began to pool. We have examples of such non-photosynthetic life in oceanic thermal vents to this day. Here's an article on it: Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents.

Since science suggests that the Earth and the Sun condensed from the same gaseous and particulate cloud (the Nebular hypothesis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), their beginning as solar system bodies was approximately synchronous because the accretion rate and accretion source are essentially the same for both (and the gravitational constant is invariant).

The ignition of nuclear fusion within the Sun requires significant gravitational pressure (Star formation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), so the Sun must have existed as a cold solid body before gravitational collapse was sufficient to initiate the fusion process: i.e, the Sun accreted matter and during this process became solid and then, after that, the Sun lit. Here's supportive link: Accretion (astrophysics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So a sequence of simple non-animal life (and therefore plant life, to ancients who did not have an established taxonomy) arising before Solar ignition is actually the most scientifically plausible sequence.

flood myth,

There is significant geological and fossil evidence of a massive flood, to high altitudes, affecting Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the approximate time-frame. Evidence for a Flood - Smithsonian Magazine.

Noah incesting humanity into existence,

It was actually Noah, his sons and their wives according to Genesis (a total of at least five unique progenitor genetic lines. It may be more because exclusive monogamy is not even inferred) but that is beside the point.

Of course there are far fewer inbreeding occurrences in the Biblical account, than would be due to evolution, which implies hundreds of thousands of 'incests' for the spread of a single genotype to dominate a population.

If it is implausible to you to have significant inherent genetic variability in a progenitor over just a few generations, consider how much evolutionary process must make all life on Earth incredibly more inbred and genetically damaged.

sodom and gamora,

Possible site of ancient Sodom yields more finds

returning to your birth place for a census in the first century,

Census of Quirinius From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

There is a two year discrepancy between Christian and the secular accounts of when this occurred. The suggestion that the Biblical date is the one in error hinges on the town of Nazareth not being within the Judean district, where the census was held. This may be explained by the possibility that Mary and Joseph were actually Judean, but had recently moved to Nazareth to escape the social stigma of being an unwed mother, or to escape Herod the Great's despotic and dangerous rule (remembering that both Mary and Joseph laid claim to being of the Davidic royal line and Herod the Great wasn't Jewish and had no Jewish mandate to rule. Herod the Great also had a history of wiping out those who might usurp his rule, this included his own children).

Certainly, Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, lived in "a town of Judea in the hills of Hebron", which is close to, but south-west of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and nearly central within Judean boundaries. Which suggests a Judean origin for Mary and presumably Joseph.

It may also provide additional reason for them going to Bethlehem for the census, because that may be where they, and their immediate families resided, prior to moving to Nazareth (rather than from a tribal affiliation).

the ark being able to fit 2 of every present species,

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes - Smithsonian Magazine. Also mentions the calculated carrying capacity is sufficient for 2.15 million sheep or about 1.7 million separate species.

Bethlehem had no church...

Not sure what you mean here? The Bible makes no claim that there was a church in Bethlehem.

Bethlehem Ephrathah is close to Jerusalem (9.6 km, a 2 hr walk) which houses the Temple. No need for one in Bethlehem.

... snip... (sorry ran out of edit, so I cut it).

The Bible claims to be the divine account of the creation of the universe and to be explaining the way the world really works..

Such as the series of the creation story.. If accurate, scientists should have found out the oceans and the seas were created before the stars and the sun..

They should have found out "yes you can fit 2 of all existing species on one boat that is "X" number of cubits, by "X" number of cubits...."

We should have found out." Yes you can create a breeding population out of one relatively small family unit and/or just one male and one female of a species...

But we found out the opposite.

Everything you posted immediately above is a repetition of what you said at the top of the post, and is incorrect as explained in my previous replies.

a reply to: Somekindofwizard

Sure, it's the UnBelievers who will be deceived easily huh??

But the Believers who will be difficult??

I think it's the opposite.

After all one of those two are already "Believers" who choose to believe in a bunch of nonsense already.

Nonbelievers tend to want stuff like evidence and proof before they get on board with something.

a reply to: chr0naut

I find it strange that you start off talking about how the Bible isn't a science textbook and evaluating it with science is absurd. But then spend the rest of the time trying to do just that.

It seems like you're trying to play both sides on that one. You throw out a little science here and there when you think it applies but then you always have the "It's not a science book" idea to fall back on when that doesn't work for you.

I think you should stick with it being a book of morals and ethics and cultural stories handed down rather than try and justify it with science. That's just my opinion.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Somekindofwizard

Sure, it's the UnBelievers who will be deceived easily huh??

But the Believers who will be difficult??

I think it's the opposite.

After all one of those two are already "Believers" who choose to believe in a bunch of nonsense already.

Nonbelievers tend to want stuff like evidence and proof before they get on board with something.

Funny, I thought believers and non-believers both want proof. The process is 'hypothesis - doubt - test - confirmation (or otherwise)', in a continual loop.

It must be nice to live in a world of "black and white" with no ambiguities.

a reply to: chr0naut

If that was the case then Belief in God wouldn't need faith would it??

Now, I'm not saying all believers and nonbelievers are the same. Some take more convincing than others and some require more evidence than others.

But clearly when one side requires something be built upon faith and the other doesn't, one side will have a tendency to Believe without evidence while the other won't.

hypothesis - doubt - test - confirmation is hardly what is used for a Belief. If you tested a belief and could confirm it and have others do the same then it would be fact and belief wouldn't be needed as it could be objectively verified by anyone.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

I find it strange that you start off talking about how the Bible isn't a science textbook and evaluating it with science is absurd. But then spend the rest of the time trying to do just that.

It seems like you're trying to play both sides on that one. You throw out a little science here and there when you think it applies but then you always have the "It's not a science book" idea to fall back on when that doesn't work for you.

I think you should stick with it being a book of morals and ethics and cultural stories handed down rather than try and justify it with science. That's just my opinion.

Why, should I do that?

It would turn these forums into rather uninteresting and uninformed opinion-fests if you couldn't address topics directly.

I was also responding specifically to someone who posted on the forum, not to the writers of the Bible.

... and I thought I addressed every point raised, quite thoroughly.

If you have something to contribute to the topic, rather than to my motivations, I welcome you to do so.

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, you said it yourself. That to evaluate the bible using science is absurd. But that's what you then went on to do as if it isn't absurd.

I just found that odd for obvious reasons. Then I suggested that out of those two choices I would stick to the idea that it's a book of stories geared toward Morals and ethics, etc. That's all.

I'm just repeating your own advice you were giving that other poster so I don't know why it's wrong when I say it. It was your idea first.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

If that was the case then Belief in God wouldn't need faith would it??

Now, I'm not saying all believers and nonbelievers are the same. Some take more convincing than others and some require more evidence than others.

But clearly when one side requires something be built upon faith and the other doesn't, one side will have a tendency to Believe without evidence while the other won't.

hypothesis - doubt - test - confirmation is hardly what is used for a Belief. If you tested a belief and could confirm it and have others do the same then it would be fact and belief wouldn't be needed as it could be objectively verified by anyone.

To quote (and paraphrase) Hebrews 11:1 from the Bible:

"Faith is what assures us that we will get the good things that we hope for, the reasoning that evidences what we cannot directly measure".

This implies the ability to think and put facts together, not just "I saw it in a video, so... real" mindset.

I assure you; doubt, test, reasoning and resolution are very important steps in the inner life of a believer, however it is subjective and often difficult to convey to another who is not the experiencer.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, you said it yourself. That to evaluate the bible using science is absurd. But that's what you then went on to do as if it isn't absurd.

I just found that odd for obvious reasons. Then I suggested that out of those two choices I would stick to the idea that it's a book of stories geared toward Morals and ethics, etc. That's all.

I'm just repeating your own advice you were giving that other poster so I don't know why it's wrong when I say it. It was your idea first.

I was responding to someone else's assertions about what they believed were factual or scientific, but were not. Several of them had little to do with science.

a reply to: chr0naut

Actually that is saying nothing about facts at all. It's saying faith is continuing to believe despite any measurable evidence to support it. Which is exactly what faith is. Belief without any direct evidence to support that belief.

Facts are things you can prove demonstrably and require no belief to make them true.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Bible is primarily about human ethics and morality in response to God, with a little history, culture and poetry in the mix.

It's also about a divine romance with fallen man, which at times was and continues to be a twisted and sordid affair but one that, thank God, has a happy ending if we can follow it to it's conclusion, beginning with the end in mind.

.. let us all now turn to the last page of the Bible and note the happy ending for all who thirst.

It's a divine romance and a great comedy at the most fundamental level, just not in the way that we might have expected is all.

Nor is it what the Christians of Churchianity would have us believe, precisely, since it must eventually become a practical, felt experience as something "grokked" to borrow a funny term from Robert Heinlein's "A Stranger in a Strange Land".

It is also food to be eaten, a wedding reception, the celebration of the return of the prodigal son, the works!

I think it's high time to read the Bible again with more of the Spirit to inform the word.

Thanks for being a sounding board.

Best regards,

Ankh

a reply to: Somekindofwizard

It is already in process and shall accelerate the time will come that the spirits of mankind will thirst for truth and not find it, for the Lord has left the footstool a time. Therefore the Devil even the Antichrist shall have power to darken and blind the minds of mankind into believing his lies.