All Roads Lead to Rome

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I mean seriously so many of you want it to be a religious thread.

Prove the religion is valid, produce the God, come on, proto is waiting.

Without being able to produce the God then in fact your religion is a hoax, and a control mechanism and a cult.

So where is the proof?

Here is your invitation to talk about the religion you all love to by actually displaying some proof for once this god is real.

Real actionable real time proof that your God exists in the same image as us, as your book tells you.

He hasn't abandoned you has he?

I mean just because of all the lies, and killing, and hating and all, this God of love and peace you all love to talk about when you aren't promoting killing some other group that doesn't follow him like you do.

Or slandering the people who don't believe in him like you do.

Or crying because some people complain about all the killing, pillaging, and stealing and slandering you do in his name.

Come on, let's prove God exists.

Let's prove proto's theory wrong. You need to prove God to do that!

Proof of life or no ransom!

Otherwise it's extortion, which is probably why such people can only operate through might makes right strength of numbers.

Heres some books you could go buy and read

Inner space - aryeh kaplan
Sefer Yetzirah - Aryeh kaplan (translated and commentary)
The Bahir - Aryeh Kaplan (translated and commentary)
Kabbalah and meditation - Aryeh Kaplan
Hebrew letters - channels of consciousness - Rabbi Isaac ginsburgh

if these books dont atleast titillate your curiosity, than i guess G-d doesnt 'exist' for you.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So your premise is that you can prove that there are ties with Rome, (which you can in some instances, I dont subscribe to as many as you put forth) But since we cant PROVE there is a God, then you must be right?

With all your intellect even you should be able to see that is a very very very weak argument........

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by dontreally

 

I will accept any living breathing creature in man's image that can right now display God like abilities as proof of God's existence, whether he likes, hebrews, christians, muslims or jelly filled donuts the best.

It has to be current proof in the here and now, as I am not living in the past.

So who has some current proof that God exists in the present tense and form, in our own image, and can do some God like stunts for us.

Otherwise you are only lying to yourself if you think you can debunk this theory and thread.

Only God could debunk it, by coming right out, right now and stating clearly he is God and proves it, and states he is running the world, and everything in all three or just one religious sects books is true and he had it written.

Come on.

proto is waiting.

You guys want to play, let's play.

Me against everyone else, let's see some proof.

I say no matter how many of you band together you still can't win the debate because you gan't prove your God exists.

At the heart of your incessent murderous religious debates is a God, so let's get the God out here, he loves you all right?

Ask him to give you some proof, so you can debunk the evil mean arrogant proto!

The Hebrew name for G-d, YHVH, is related to the words Hayah, Hoveh, Yiyeh - was, is, and will be.

Hoveh being the actual grammatical root of YHVH. G-d therefore is constantly present. Reality cant exist if hes not there willing it into existence. Hes even allowing you and anyone else to challenge, besmirch or do whateve they want. They have complete free will to either use it wisely, or, be arrogant and act asinine.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

So your premise is that you can prove that there are ties with Rome, (which you can in some instances, I dont subscribe to as many as you put forth) But since we cant PROVE there is a God, then you must be right?

With all your intellect even you should be able to see that is a very very very weak argument........

No my friend, surely you can see if you step outside of the realm of circular logic that a God no one can legitimately claim to have seen or spoken to in thousands of years and countless generations is obviously a hoax.

Yeah it sucks to admit you have been suckered, but how long do we have to go on lying to ourselves and one another and killing each other in the name of something just is not there.

In fact it's weak to pretend it is there, and this whole faith, in the unseen over the seen.

So how about we stop using circular logic and use some real logic.

How about we approach this with the SAME EXACT WAY we would any other claim on ATS.

If you are claiming God exists and your religion is legitimate, then you really do need some proof of that God, some real time proof that he is in our image, is amongst us, and influences the world, and put all this nonsense, 2/3rds of the world is constantly killing other people for in one or all the books.

Otherwise you are just lying to yourself and taking it on faith you aren't, because YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THIS GOD.

If you do, post it, some standards apply as any other claim of the extroidanary on ATS.

No deflective excuses, no beating around the bush, no pointing the other finger asking for something else first, contingent upon you proving that this God is real.

If you can't, then accept that no, God is not real, and this thread is realer than God, we can see this thread, we can talk in this thread, we can even dare to be honest in this thread.

About things like, you have no proof in relation to God existing in the present.

It's very simple.

Provide proof or understand all people are trying to do is to employ numbers and peer pressure to make an argument they can't prove.

Which is in reality what the religion, all the religions are about, using numbers and peer pressure to enforce something based on something they can't prove.

That argument is strong as death, strong as nails, which is why the only chance you have of defeating it is getting me to doubt the sensibility of asking for proof.

Courts ask for proof, people ask for proof, maybe it's about time, all the billions of people fighting over God stop long enough to prove he exists.

Otherwise you are all arguing and killing each other for a lie.

Now who does that lie serve?

That's what this thread is about.

reply to post by dontreally


That my friend is an excuse of why you have no proof.

God created man in his own image, therefore he exists in our image, therefore you must produce said god in our image, and get him to do some God like tricks.

It's real simple, no excuses, no riddles, no the bible realy meant this, the torah really meant that, the quran really meant this.

It says real plain, we are created in his image.

Says it right off the bat.

So it's either a lie right of the bat, or the truth right off the bat, but you need to produce him and display proof that he is God as the books claim.

Otherwise all the religious arguments in the world, are just that unwinnable, pointless, waste of time, self defeating arguments.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I will accept any living breathing creature in man's image that can right now display God like abilities as proof of God's existence, whether he likes, hebrews, christians, muslims or jelly filled donuts the best.

It has to be current proof in the here and now, as I am not living in the past.

My friend, I apologise for my part of bringing God into your thread. Religion is the way the Empire maintains its control over the masses, so I thought it a fitting thing to discuss in your thread. As it is yours, I will withdraw my direction.

As far as your proof of God. I cannot prove he exists. No man can. God is all of this creation as a whole. All we can perceive with our human faculties are his parts. We can know that he exists through these parts though. By the exact order of existence, which defies mere random chance. Laws of motion which can only come from something higher than ourselves.

I do not subscribe to any religion. I have my own, and believe all have a right to define their own. We have free will, we all have senses to perceive our environment, and we all have a mind to comprehend it. No one has a right or the ability to control another's mind. We do with it what we want. What I see as God is all around us. Every single area of our existence is filled with something and all these something behave with each other under very strict guidelines. It is an order, a natural order. It defies randomness and thus proves, for me at least, that something bigger is pulling the strings.

Personally, I am at a loss as to how anyone who has been present at the birth of their child can look n those eyes and not see God. But, it is not my will they are using, it is their own.

How do I know what God wants me to do in this life? Because I know what I want at my very core. That is to be loved. I have not found one, not one single person who does not want to be loved at their very core. As I want it, and I know all others want it, then that MUST be Gods will to me. Love and be loved.

I am sorry for disturbing your thread my friend. I will now return to being a spectator until the opportunity presents itself to pop back in with something more fitting the subject matter.

Judge not, Love all, Be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by dontreally


Not interested in a book list, I am interested in real time proof of God, in our form, this would mean a late night appearance on Lettermen, a stop by the White House, a stop by CNN headquarters in New York, a coke and a smile with proto.

Books do not prove the existence of anything but a book.

It's like milk, the milk commercial, you either have milk or you don't?

God is not a book, milk is not a book.

Prove God.

No one has seen him in thousands of years and been believed to have seen him.

So lets do an update, like we do with out computers WE NEED A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM, this one does not work, look around at the world, and know all you are doing is engaging in a three way argument you can't win, because you can not produce the God it is centered on.

Only, let me repeat only, God can settle the argument over him.

No one else, and it doesn't matter how many people one kills or insults.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well, Proto - this is really the point when it comes to the belief in God or any of his/her other forms/names within whichever Religion one chooses. The proof exists and is not debatable for those who believe, while at the same time the proof does not exist and is debatable for those who do not believe. This is an argument no one can win. Faith cannot be proven.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


No lol you cannot prove its a Hoax, just as you cannot prove that he is real........

Its clear, very clear to me after reading so much of this, that this is a very well written, very well contrived attack on religion as a whole....

You can cloud motives in conspiracy theories , well written lines of text, and cleverly allegory......

It might fool a lot of people, but i can see it for what it is.........

Its ok, its your right, and your opinion ...........and i respect that........

However I am bothered by the many many posts that you seem to boost your own ego repeatedly and use some very clever "cloak and dagger" insults to people.........to me thats bad form........

Anyway, good luck on your thread

reply to post by IAMIAM


Love is never having to say your sorry, and its obvious you are a kind and gentle soul, so there is nothing at all for you to applogize for.

I think the only way I am presently going to quell the hopes of some to simply turn this into an endless debate about the past and religion, because that is their prirmary focus is religion, and promoting it and talking about it, is getting them to understand that it is only legitimate if they can prove the premise it is all based on.

Does God exist in man's image as claimed, if so, then no riddle, no ancient sighting, no excuse, no reason actually sufices for not being able to produce him considering all the murder, stealing, raping and lying that's done in his name, by people who insist he exists, and they are doing it in his name.

The hypocrites the people with double standards, the liars, that all hide behind these books, and these religions are in fact destroying the world.

Since they pretend to represent a God and what that God wants, lets get the God out here front and center.

Otherwise they are all just lying to them selves, lying to each other, and lying to me.

Need proof, and if any of you think proof of God is wrong to ask for, then yes you have been programed to believe that, and it sure as heck was not by me.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

No lol you cannot prove its a Hoax, just as you cannot prove that he is real........

Its clear, very clear to me after reading so much of this, that this is a very well written, very well contrived attack on religion as a whole....

You can cloud motives in conspiracy theories , well written lines of text, and cleverly allegory......

It might fool a lot of people, but i can see it for what it is.........

Its ok, its your right, and your opinion ...........and i respect that........

However I am bothered by the many many posts that you seem to boost your own ego repeatedly and use some very clever "cloak and dagger" insults to people.........to me thats bad form........

Anyway, good luck on your thread

You can't prove a negative, you can only prove a positive, in fact if you can't prove something exists with tangible evidence, of it's existence, then no it doesn't exist.

This is an absurd argument that then relies on simply attacking the person demanding proof which is in fact what you are resorting too.

Making an excuse on why you have no proof, claiming that a negative can be proven, when only a positive can be proven, and then attacking directly the charchter of the person asking for proof.

So that's all deflection and proves you have no proof.

Personally I don't care who likes me or doesn't, I care whether you have proof that God exists, which you don't.

So I don't have to prove he does not exist, because you can't prove a negative, you can't prove a zero sum number, only a postive, that adds up to something calcuable.

2,000 years is plenty of time to get some real proof, to get him to show up, to get him to settle everyone's disputes.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by dontreally

 

That my friend is an excuse of why you have no proof.

God created man in his own image, therefore he exists in our image, therefore you must produce said god in our image, and get him to do some God like tricks.

It's real simple, no excuses, no riddles, no the bible realy meant this, the torah really meant that, the quran really meant this.

It says real plain, we are created in his image.

Says it right off the bat.

So it's either a lie right of the bat, or the truth right off the bat, but you need to produce him and display proof that he is God as the books claim.

Otherwise all the religious arguments in the world, are just that unwinnable, pointless, waste of time, self defeating arguments.

Do you not realize that the torah is speaking allegorically?

All mythologies are allegorical. Torah, though, is also literal.

Heres whats meant by man being made in G-ds image. G-ds 'image' Tzel in Hebrew, is the divine man, called Adam Kadmon in kabbalah. Hes an anthropomorphized so one can visualize how 'his' 10 attributes correspond to human physical constitution


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b0d3caf9de1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Well, Proto - this is really the point when it comes to the belief in God or any of his/her other forms/names within whichever Religion one chooses. The proof exists and is not debatable for those who believe, while at the same time the proof does not exist and is debatable for those who do not believe. This is an argument no one can win. Faith cannot be proven.

Absolutely false because the Hebrews claimed to have witnessed this God. So no it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of whether the God exists.

It's all double speak and beating around the bush, and backing out of somethign that would solve a whole lot of problems it creates.

Many of the people now taking part in this debate use their faith to promote war against those that don't share it.

So yeah if there faith revolves around a God that only became real because someone once upon a time claims to have seen it.

Then proof requires the God be displayed.

If you can't display the God yes your faith might exists, but the God sure doesn't.

Which means you now have faith in something someone else imagined a long time ago, that is driving the world to the brink of disaster after thousands of years of war over it.

Enough with the excuses and nonsense.

Produce the God. Produce proof, establish it's legitmate like any other claim has to be when made on ATS.

No more double standards for the love of an invisible man people use an excuse to do the most horrible things in it's name instead of taking responsibility for them in their own.

Time to bring down the empire based on that nonsense.

Seriously.

why cant i post images?

reply to post by dontreally


I really don't care what a book dedicated to a non existent diety uses as a way to communicate things, nursery rhymes, riddles, french or latin, it's all just words.

Produce the God, proof of life is required before any ransom is paid.

Otherwise what we have here is an extortion attempt to defraud the people of their own sovereignty by bestowing it to the church and state, that derives it's legitimacy from the church and this concept of God.

So either lets give people their sovereignty back, and free them from the slavery to these false concepts and fairy tails that have divided the world for thousands of years in war, and cruelty or produce the actual God and have him tell us in his own words and his own voice NO RIDDLES what he expects, and what he plans to do if we don't and we can expect to recieve if we do.

Are you people really all this afraid to live your own lives?

Seriously, in this great big beautiful universe you want to keep dropping bombs on and killing others in, over this nonsense, you can't agree on, because none of you can produce the God.

Proto isn't lying any more for the sake of bigots, fairy tale lovers, ego maniacs, war mongerers and liars.

You guys are perpetuating a hoax if you can not produce the God.

Real proof, no riddles, no nonsense.

reply to post by masqua


it sounds like the guy is complaining that the other folks have taken to writing descriptions in the margins

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It's a circular argument. Faith is needed to believe in the existence of God. If there is faith, then that is the proof. If there isn't, than the existence is in question and the proof does not exist. I know I'm saying pretty much the same thing I just said, but I don't see any way this argument/debate/social/religious issue will ever be reconciled. I really wish it could be, for as you said, too many things have been done over the centuries in the name of Religion and belief in something that requires we take a side. I think this is an ultimate lesson in futility to require that which you are requiring of those who believe.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


well if the hebrews are the habiru/hibiru/hyskos shepherd kings, and they hailed from nibiru/nibru (temple city on the euphrates now known as nippur) oi.uchicago.edu...
which was presided over by the sumerian anu-nakki god known as en.lil, who was said to be in residence at the temple city, the likelihood that they literally saw him is just as possible as the likelihood that egyptians literally saw pharaohs (living gods who ruled temple citiies of egypt).

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

It's a circular argument. Faith is needed to believe in the existence of God. If there is faith, then that is the proof. If there isn't, than the existence is in question and the proof does not exist. I know I'm saying pretty much the same thing I just said, but I don't see any way this argument/debate/social/religious issue will ever be reconciled. I really wish it could be, for as you said, too many things have been done over the centuries in the name of Religion and belief in something that requires we take a side. I think this is an ultimate lesson in futility to require that which you are requiring of those who believe.

That's a cop out and an excuse, if you go to the grocery store and they charge you for a loaf of bread, you demand the loaf of bread. If there is no loaf of bread in your bag, but they charged you for one on your reciept then Houston, yes you have a problem.

You don't go home then on faith that a loaf of bread will show up in your bag, or hope to return later to get your money back without any way to prove you didn't take home a loaf of bread.

It's real simple if you can't provide the same kind of proof you would that a loaf of bread exists, why pretend something important as a god exists.

People need to stop being children and grow up and pretending there is some invisible Daddy out there that excuses or encourages them to do bad things.

Lots of people have, athiests and agnostics who realize how religion is being manipulated to favor the church and state and propel and justify war, taxation and economic slavery.

The cycle ends when each and every person becomes honest with themselves, stops using dual standards steps back and disengages and realizes faith is just another way of saying pretend.

It does not consitute proof.

The book any book is not God supposed and alleged to have made man in his own image, talking about the book and arguing about the book, does not make God real or prove God is real, it just proves that there is a book you like to argue about.

The cycle stops the minute people stop pretending the cycle can't be broken.

When they exercise their own good sense, to disengage and demand the same level of proof that they would to believe the existence of anything else.

the book of genesis as written by moses, who was named after pharaoh ahmose I, tells the egyptian creation story. the english and latin translations of it, have added additional words in such a way to make it fit into their understanding of the texts at the time in history when the texts were printed and to make it more correct english/latin, grammatically.

adam was the egyptian atum. adam was originally a plural word and applied to both males and females. as indicated in Genesis 1:27:

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

the numbers are strongs concordance reference numbers for the words that are actually in the text. if there's no number after a word, it wasn't in the original text and was added by translators. further translators had the additional task of fitting their understanding of the text into english/latin languages. therefore Genesis 1:27 actually says:

Elohiym created adam image, image Elohiym created; male female created.

Since Elohiym was a plural word that referred to the gods who basically cloned themselves, the text is saying that the Atum(s) self-created (see the egyptian Atum). Since the word for image in the reference is tselem and can also mean images, i think images is probably the more correct translation. et.al, the verse would read

The Atum(s) created self-images, images Atum created, male female created.

The reason I say this is because the word man in Genesis 1:27 wasn't the original word there. The original word was "adam". the translators chose "man" as a plural indicator since the verse goes on to say males and females were created, and did so because Atum was not thought of as plural even though the verse reveals that's exactly what the Atum is == et. al, plural gods. Elohiym is plural!

That's an example of translation bias. It doesn't nullify the text, it simply does it's best to make it work in the language and with the knowledge available on the subject, at the time of translation. This is also what i think the argument is regarding the book of revelation. it isn't that the text was WRITTEN by the bishops. it's that the text was being understood thru the lens of the time.