Has Intelligent Thought Become A Lost Art at ATS ?

reply to post by Deetermined


Sorry to jump in on this one, but, if you're looking for inaccuracy in the Bible, it's not hard to find. Consider some of these...

After Jesus has cursed the fig tree, does it wither immediately, or overnight?
- Mark 11:13-23 says the tree withered overnight
- Matthew 21:19-20 says the tree withered while the disciples watched

How many demon-possessed men emerge from tombs in Gergesenes?
- Matthew 8:28 says two possessed men emerged
- Mark 5:02 says only one possessed man emerged

When Jesus commands his disciples to spread the Gospel to Israel, does he tell them to take a staff?
- Matthew 10:10 states Jesus said to take no staff
- Mark 6:8 states Jesus commanded them to take only a staff

Who carries Jesus' cross on the way to Golgotha?
- Matthew 27:32 says that Simon of Cyrene did it
- John 19:17 says Jesus did it himself

How many women went to Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning?
- Matthew 28:01 says Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went to the tomb
- Mark 16:01 says that Mary Magdalene; Mary, mother of James; and Salome went
- Luke 23:55-55 & 24:1 & 24:10 all say more than three women went
- John 20:01 says that only Mary Magdalene went

How many men were in Jesus' tomb when the women arrived?
- Luke 24:4 says there were two men in shining garments
- Mark 16:5 says there was only one man in a white garment

I could go on. There's even an awesome online quiz which I could point you to, that features all of the above material, and numerous other contradictions. The Bible is chuck full of inconsistencies, contradictions, inaccurate history and science, and many other short-comings.

In fact, why is it that the virgin birth of Christ is only covered in the gospel of Matthew, and of Luke; but not Mark, or John. You would think that, regardless of the intent of the gospel, such a miracle would be worthy of retelling in all four.

Anyway, all of these are just things for any open-minded individual to take into consideration when contemplating the validity and authenticity of their faith.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Actually, those questions have all been addressed and answered recently in this thread...

"20 Questions Christians Can't Answer"

thread...www.abovetopsecret.com...

The question I have is why do all of you ask the same questions?

Are you getting them from someone else without reading the Bible yourselves?

Something to ponder.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


There is actually. Our imaginations are limited to things which we have witnessed in some way. If it does not exist in shape, form, or artistic representation elsewhere in our world; we cannot imagine it. I know that the immediate response is to say that you can easily imagine something which does not yet exist, but to that I would simply say "prove it," and then I would show you where in the collective art of the world your imagined thing already exists. Not to say that our imaginations are limited; only that they work off of our perceptions and experiences, just like every other avenue over which we have free will.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Deetermined


I'm still reading through the 17 pages of the thread you linked. However, 5 pages in, and so far this is all I have seen concerning that thread's sixth question concerning how many women were at the tomb on Sunday:

- "depends on the gospel" (page 2)
- "I really hope the rest of the questions are more intelligent" (page 3)
- "depends on your favorite account" (page 3)
- "who cares?" (page 5)

And other cop-out answers like that. The reason such a "trivial" question is important being: if the gospels, and God himself, cannot correctly count their witnesses, why should their accounts of other things be trusted? If you can directly link to a post which clarifies how 1, 2, 3, and more than three women could have all been to the tomb; or one where it is explained how Judas both hung himself, and simultaneously fell to the ground gutted I'd be much obliged.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Our imaginations are limited to things which we have witnessed in some way.

That depends on what you mean by "witnessed" because many truths have been uncovered through dreams of which there was no "eye account witness".

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

The reason such a "trivial" question is important being: if the gospels, and God himself, cannot correctly count their witnesses, why should their accounts of other things be trusted?

Regardless of the number of women at the tomb, there were plenty of witnesses to the death of Jesus and over 500 witnesses to seeing him after his death.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by winterkill

 

I'm assuming that you're only talking about religion and politics, or do you intend to get into scientific fields like global warming, Nibiru, UFO's, and quantum physics?

People can't have intelligent opinions without gaining information. The President gets his from advisors who offer their opinions, teachers rely on books which they didn't write, etc.

Religion and politics, in one form or another, go back thousands of years. They have been discussed and experimented with by some of the most intelligent men in the world in discussions which have, in some cases, continued over centuries. Are you suggesting we throw all that out and restart the process on our own?

I must be misunderstanding you, for what I think you're suggesting is, well, words don't do justice to my opinion.

Since when has "nibiru" been a scientific field?
My answer for you, OP is yes.
People turn up to this site, with controversial or religious views that they want to tell people about.
Basically, half the people here lack the basic ability to question what they have been told is true and are unable to think for themselves.
Anyone who claims they are 100% correct about a subject and therefore others opinions don't matter, is clearly ignorant and deluded.
I've been tempted to make a thread on the meaning of the word "ignorance" just to watch these fools squabble over who's right and who's wrong.

And, I find it hilarious when people refer to UFOs being driven by "alien grays" or "the galactic federation of light". If this were true they would be identified flying objects, there would be no phenomena, and this site wouldn't exist.
Anyone who comes here claiming to have proof that a phenomena is what they say it is, is 99% of the time wrong and in most cases religiously insane.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

The reason such a "trivial" question is important being: if the gospels, and God himself, cannot correctly count their witnesses, why should their accounts of other things be trusted?

Regardless of the number of women at the tomb, there were plenty of witnesses to the death of Jesus and over 500 witnesses to seeing him after his death.

Where's your evidence of this? You clearly don't understand the OP

Another novel idea is to free your mind, we always seek to influence people one way or another,

People on the forum dictate to one-another,

I think maybe the word you really want to use is discernment.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

There is actually. Our imaginations are limited to things which we have witnessed in some way. If it does not exist in shape, form, or artistic representation elsewhere in our world; we cannot imagine it. I know that the immediate response is to say that you can easily imagine something which does not yet exist, but to that I would simply say "prove it," and then I would show you where in the collective art of the world your imagined thing already exists. Not to say that our imaginations are limited; only that they work off of our perceptions and experiences, just like every other avenue over which we have free will.

~ Wandering Scribe

I agree, I was watching a program on the industrial age, and it dawned on me all we ever do is create better means of travel, communication, weapons, and improve on fire.


Everything is about making survival on this hostile planet a little more comfortable.

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

The reason such a "trivial" question is important being: if the gospels, and God himself, cannot correctly count their witnesses, why should their accounts of other things be trusted?

Regardless of the number of women at the tomb, there were plenty of witnesses to the death of Jesus and over 500 witnesses to seeing him after his death.

Where's your evidence of this? You clearly don't understand the OP

What is it that I don't understand?

Here's what I do understand. Regardless of who came running to the disciples to tell them that the tomb was empty, the disciples all went to check it out for themselves before Christ "appeared" to all of them himself while they were together in a locked room and told them exactly what happened. So, while the stories of who told them the tomb was empty may differ, what happened afterward and what the Lord told them, all remained the same.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

The reason such a "trivial" question is important being: if the gospels, and God himself, cannot correctly count their witnesses, why should their accounts of other things be trusted?

Regardless of the number of women at the tomb, there were plenty of witnesses to the death of Jesus and over 500 witnesses to seeing him after his death.

Where's your evidence of this? You clearly don't understand the OP

What is it that I don't understand?

Here's what I do understand. Regardless of who came running to the disciples to tell them that the tomb was empty, the disciples all went to check it out for themselves before Christ "appeared" to all of them himself while they were together in a locked room and told them exactly what happened. So, while the stories of who told them the tomb was empty may differ, what happened afterward and what the Lord told them, all remained the same.

The meaning of the word "evidence" obviously.
Just look at my signature mate.
I can tell you that the sea is made not chocolate all day long, you'd probably believe me. Doesn't mean its true.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Obviously, the evidence we're referring to is what's written in the Bible.

All we can do is compare what's written to get a sense for what's true.

If you want to argue that the Bible can't be proven, we can also argue that the Bible can't be disproved.

In the meanwhile, you have archaeologists digging up artifacts that correlate to the Bible and science discovering that humans and animals did indeed originate from the dust of the earth, just like the Bible says.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Wongbeedman

 

Obviously, the evidence we're referring to is what's written in the Bible.

All we can do is compare what's written to get a sense for what's true.

If you want to argue that the Bible can't be proven, we can also argue that the Bible can't be disproved.

In the meanwhile, you have archaeologists digging up artifacts that correlate to the Bible and science discovering that humans and animals did indeed originate from the dust of the earth, just like the Bible says.

But, we can easily use evidence to disprove most of it, actually the most important parts.
Surely that means the earth created mankind then? Where does god come into this?
I know you'll say "well he created the earth, therefore everything on it"
Our basic understanding of the universe completely contradicts the story the bible tells.
Lucky for you, the bibles very vague, leaving lots of room for bending contexts.
By all means, the bible may be based on historical fact.
If true, though that does NOT refer to the old testament. Only to the existence of a man called Jesus, and to historical events that occurred in the same are around the same time.
It is your faith or your hope that brings you to the conclusion that what Jesus said was true, and for that reason alone you think it can be presented as evidence.

reply to post by Wongbeedman

Our basic understanding of the universe completely contradicts the story the bible tells.

How so?

If true, though that does NOT refer to the old testament. Only to the existence of a man called Jesus, and to historical events that occurred in the same are around the same time.

From my understanding, archaeological evidence hasn't been limited to only the time of Jesus, but includes the time of the Exodus out of Egypt. Plus, the Old Testament prophesied of events that would happen during the time of Jesus that was accounted for in the New Testament.

reply to post by winterkill


I'm a bit confused. Your title mentions intelligent thought, but your OP is mainly concerned with ORIGINAL thought. Did you think they were the same? They may coincide, but they are not mutually inclusive.

So which are we talking about? Intelligent thought, or original thought? I can see people getting mixed up because of this, and I would like you to clarify, so as to avoid further mishaps in this discussion.

Originally posted by Rubicant13

Originally posted by misfitofscience
They kicked John Lear off, so yes.

No offense, Misfit, But i did get a good laugh of this. Old John Lear... "There is a soul collector on the moon, but don't ask me anything about verifying it's existence." Yeah, he was one of the better minds here.

I didn't know that John Lear thought that there is a soul collector on the moon! Did you know that L R Hubbard taught the same thing back in the 1960's? I wonder if they collaborated? Hubbard did know Jack Parsons.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by winterkill

 

I'm a bit confused. Your title mentions intelligent thought, but your OP is mainly concerned with ORIGINAL thought. Did you think they were the same? They may coincide, but they are not mutually inclusive.

So which are we talking about? Intelligent thought, or original thought? I can see people getting mixed up because of this, and I would like you to clarify, so as to avoid further mishaps in this discussion.

Sweet how intelligent of you

this is the best part of the OP

You may find it odd that I use another man's words to express this thought, but I do so for a reason. I have researched his life, and what made him and what he made of others. I know from this, that his words are if nothing else, his and his alone, and truthful, and it is because of this I wanted to show you what it was like to hear words of truth straight from the man who created them, and not those who paid to be taught them. So, what is YOUR and only YOUR thoughts on this?

reply to post by winterkill


How sparklingly unoriginal of you.

Most people quote others who support conclusions which they, themselves, have reached. People do not bother to venture an opinion which is not fervently believed. Often, a quote from another source is a reinforcement of the validity of an opinion.

Thinking about it, your OP is ill-informed and makes unfounded assumptions about other users of ATS. This is entirely unfair.

reply to post by winterkill


Excellent thread, i had this same thought a while back regarding specific topics where members simply regurgitated information they read somewhere or whatever the popular belief was at the time....without examining it themselves...

I thought ATS once stood for genuine investigation of matters by means of examinations and deduction.

I still try to hold up those values by providing proof and evidence or at least providing a member with a logical explanation as to why i belief a certain theory to be true. This is intelligent thought, the ability to observe, examine and deduce.

Nowadays, ATS is full of more opinions based on wild guesses and gut feelings, and less proof and intelligent thought.

Did people get lazy?

Personally, my education helped me hone my ability to provide theories and thoughts based on methods of logical deduction/ analysis....

But i believe the majority of everyone in the world has this ability (moreso ATS), were just very out of practise.