# Through These Godless Eyes



## atlashunter (Sep 15, 2011)

Excellent video and an excellent  point made at the end.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

I'm missing the point of, "tell me that you may have a point."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 15, 2011)

nice video.....

but I don't see 'the point'

????


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 15, 2011)

Neither do we. We look out at the universe and we are told the creator of all of this pointed to a child and said "kill that for me". You really expect us to believe that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

Still lost..


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2011)

*"If we convince ourselves that we live forever, we never really feel alive at all."*



Wow......

I'm going to go hug my wife and daughter and tell them how much I love them. I should call my parents and tell them I love them too.  I should call my brother an sister while I'm at it.  

I think I just had a spiritual moment.

Thanks, Atlas.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 15, 2011)

"Children of Abraham, what are you worshiping?"

That pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

Those things definitely make sense. I'm not clear on the point made at the end.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 15, 2011)

As usual, good stuff Atlas.


----------



## vowell462 (Sep 15, 2011)

pretty cool.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 15, 2011)




----------



## bigreddwon (Sep 16, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> nice video.....
> 
> but I don't see 'the point'
> 
> ????





TripleXBullies said:


> Still lost..





TripleXBullies said:


> Those things definitely make sense. I'm not clear on the point made at the end.



I hope I don't come off mean here, but _how_ could you _not_ get it?

BTW, thanks for the vid Atlas, good one.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 16, 2011)

Same crap different day...

Nice, pretty box and ribbon this guy puts God in. Good thing the the box is empty.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 16, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Same crap different day...
> 
> Nice, pretty box and ribbon this guy puts God in. Good thing the the box is empty.




Describe to me the god that you worship.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 17, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Describe to me the god that you worship.



:


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 17, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> :


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 18, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I hope I don't come off mean here, but _how_ could you _not_ get it?
> 
> BTW, thanks for the vid Atlas, good one.



I see it as a whole. Missing what the last few sentences mean.. If that is a summation of the whole, ok... I just don't see how it makes any other point, or the whole point more clear.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Same crap different day...
> 
> Nice, pretty box and ribbon this guy puts God in. Good thing the the box is empty.



If the box is supposed to contain god and all his glory....... yep, it's empty..


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 18, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> If the box is supposed to contain god and all his glory....... yep, it's empty..



Sort of what one should expect isn't it?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

If you already knew someone was going to pass a test is it a test at all?

This is a serious question. I am not trying to be a smart A.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> If the box is supposed to contain god and all his glory....... yep, it's empty..



Applying human emotions and perceptions to the creator of our existence, our own and potential other universes, then yes it is empty and it always will be. 

It's so funny to listen to people dismiss God when they must use his "design" to prove he does not exist. Good stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Applying human emotions and perceptions to the creator of our existence, our own and potential other universes, then yes it is empty and it always will be.
> 
> It's so funny to listen to people dismiss God when they must use his "design" to prove he does not exist. Good stuff.



If you had never heard of  God you could never find direct evidence for him by studying the natural world. No one that is without knowledge of Christianity automatically conjures up THAT version of a God when they try to wrap their minds around our existence, nature and how it all occurred.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Applying human emotions and perceptions to the creator of our existence, our own and potential other universes, then yes it is empty and it always will be.



Good to know because that is exactly what the bible does.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2011)

Doesn't the Bible say the Lord is the God of God's and that there shall be no other God's before him?

Who are these other God's that the Bible acknowledges? What is the pecking order? Who is not pulling their weight?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Doesn't the Bible say the Lord is the God of God's and that there shall be no other God's before him?
> 
> Who are these other God's that the Bible acknowledges? What is the pecking order? Who is not pulling their weight?



Hunting and lusting after women are my other Gods.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Good to know because that is exactly what the bible does.



Where?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If you had never heard of  God you could never find direct evidence for him by studying the natural world. No one that is without knowledge of Christianity automatically conjures up THAT version of a God when they try to wrap their minds around our existence, nature and how it all occurred.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Please tell me you know what you typed means...you might want to re-phrase what your trying to say.

Sorry for obnoxious laugh.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Please tell me you know what you typed means...you might want to re-phrase what your trying to say.
> 
> Sorry for obnoxious laugh.



MooooHAHAHAHAHA!!
It is exactly as I want it.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 19, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Where?



From beginning to end. It was written by men wasn't it. It also is what every human does when they read the bible.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> From beginning to end. It was written by men wasn't it. It also is what every human does when they read the bible.



When you try extrapolate non-biblical truths from the Bible you get mass groups of people willing to kill another person, or race from what the "Bible" says.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 20, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> When you try extrapolate non-biblical truths from the Bible you get mass groups of people willing to kill another person, or race from what the "Bible" says.



No matter how you cut it the bible was written and compiled by men who applied their own understandings and prejudices to the book. The same thing happens with its adherents which is why there are so many different christian denominations. You may not realize it but you're wizzing on your own feet.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No matter how you cut it the bible was written and compiled by men who applied their own understandings and prejudices to the book. The same thing happens with its adherents which is why there are so many different christian denominations. You may not realize it but you're wizzing on your own feet.



I agree 100% with you, but what your saying here is different than my previous explanation. 

These books were written with all of what you stated above and what is in the Bible is exactly what he wanted and how he wanted it written.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 20, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I agree 100% with you, but what your saying here is different than my previous explanation.
> 
> These books were written with all of what you stated above and what is in the Bible is exactly what he wanted and how he wanted it written.



Well you've got the easy part out of the way in making the assertion. Demonstrating it as anything more than an assertion is another matter. But if we assume that to be true, then your earlier statement quoted below is false because the bible itself being a product of humans applies human emotions and perceptions to what it claims to be the creator. And even if that weren't true, the reader would still be applying human emotions and perceptions to what they believe to be their creator. How could they not? That's what religions are all about.



> Applying human emotions and perceptions to the creator of our existence, our own and potential other universes, then yes it is empty and it always will be.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 20, 2011)

BTW, which manuscripts of the books of the bible are exactly what he wanted? The originals which no longer exist? Or later copies that contain intentional and unintentional changes? Which copies? And how do you know this?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Neither do we. We look out at the universe and we are told the creator of all of this pointed to a child and said "kill that for me". You really expect us to believe that?



Not any more than we are expected and forced to study to  believe that we came from a worm, a fish, a monkey, I think the garden of eden is much more a beautiful theory than being a lizard and now I'm me, or kissing toads.....hahahahahahaaha.....and dang it! they never turned into a prince, and I honestly thought they would. That's why I don't believe in evolution...


----------



## allenww (Sep 21, 2011)

Well, youngun, from all us toads out here, if we could have, we would have!

    wa


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> BTW, which manuscripts of the books of the bible are exactly what he wanted? The originals which no longer exist? Or later copies that contain intentional and unintentional changes? Which copies? And how do you know this?



In my humble opinion, a similar question would be, "What is a more important human development? Man harnessing fire for the first time, or man being able to mold metal into different objects. While molding different metals is great you would not have that process without man being able to harness fire first. It is all a process that exponential creates better and better uses all from harnessing fire first. The progression had to be that way to get where we are now.

Same applies to the Bible. It has progressed from what it was to what it is by design and destiny. None of it by accident. 

So to answer your question...both.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 21, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Not any more than we are expected and forced to study to  believe that we came from a worm, a fish, a monkey, I think the garden of eden is much more a beautiful theory than being a lizard and now I'm me, or kissing toads.....hahahahahahaaha.....and dang it! they never turned into a prince, and I honestly thought they would. That's why I don't believe in evolution...



With a due respect, I don't think you understand the Theory of Evolution.  Would you like to?  

Also, there are some other VERY beautiful creation stories, much more poetic and fanciful than the one in the Bible.  Would you like to know about them?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> With a due respect, I don't think you understand the Theory of Evolution.  Would you like to?
> 
> Also, there are some other VERY beautiful creation stories, much more poetic and fanciful than the one in the Bible.  Would you like to know about them?



Well believe it or not, we even had science 4-12 and even had history 9-12.....even back in the 1800's when I was in school. hahahahahaha We only studied the theory of evolution, we never studied the theory of creation by the God I know, even though we did study the greek gods, etc.

I've read many stories/theories on creation, we actually studied those in school, too. Nothing on the bible stories though.  

Thanks for the offer though.   I've got enough theories of things running around in my peabrain....


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> With a due respect, I don't think you understand the Theory of Evolution.  Would you like to?
> 
> Also, there are some other VERY beautiful creation stories, much more poetic and fanciful than the one in the Bible.  Would you like to know about them?



Took the words out of my mouth. The beauty of a story has no bearing on it's truth or falsehood. But that's the reason given for believing.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> In my humble opinion, a similar question would be, "What is a more important human development? Man harnessing fire for the first time, or man being able to mold metal into different objects. While molding different metals is great you would not have that process without man being able to harness fire first. It is all a process that exponential creates better and better uses all from harnessing fire first. The progression had to be that way to get where we are now.
> 
> Same applies to the Bible. It has progressed from what it was to what it is by design and destiny. None of it by accident.
> 
> So to answer your question...both.




So for example when God revealed the gospel of John to the original author and he left out the story of the woman taken in adultery that was intentionally omitted? So the early christians reading that version didn't have the full word? And then God inspired someone later on to add it but it's still 100% true? How do you know? And if that is true then who is to say it's now a completed work? Maybe Joseph Smith was on to something after all.

How about the details which the gospels contradict each other on? How do you reconcile that with the idea it's 100% truth?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So for example when God revealed the gospel of John to the original author and he left out the story of the woman taken in adultery that was intentionally omitted? So the early christians reading that version didn't have the full word? And then God inspired someone later on to add it but it's still 100% true? How do you know? And if that is true then who is to say it's now a completed work? Maybe Joseph Smith was on to something after all.
> 
> How about the details which the gospels contradict each other on? How do you reconcile that with the idea it's 100% truth?



The Bible is what it is. Contradictions in all. When there are contradictions it's from telling a story from another point of view, not theologically contradictions.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

I agree. The bible is what it is. But one thing it's not is pure unadulterated truth. It has all the imperfections one would expect from its human origins.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I agree. The bible is what it is. But one thing it's not is pure unadulterated truth. It has all the imperfections one would expect from its human origins.



Disagree. The point of view contradictions are there because this book was written 2000 years ago. You didn't have the internet or CNN to corroborate historical events. You had different people seeing events through their perspective, or the story was told to someone else who passed it along, etc. The Bible is a book written with all the literary tools we use today. What the Bible is for sure in my FAITH is the inspired word of God. 

Faith...it all comes back to that doesn't it?


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Disagree. The point of view contradictions are there because this book was written 2000 years ago. You didn't have the internet or CNN to corroborate historical events. You had different people seeing events through their perspective, or the story was told to someone else who passed it along, etc. The Bible is a book written with all the literary tools we use today. What the Bible is for sure in my FAITH is the inspired word of God.
> 
> Faith...it all comes back to that doesn't it?



Well let's take the example of the different crucifixion accounts in Mark and John. This isn't only a matter of two accounts told from different perspectives. The stories conflict in ways that can't be reconciled. One of them might be right but they can't both be right unless you think Jesus was crucified twice. If the bible is the result of stories being told and retold for decades and then being written down by different people who weren't there but are writing stories that they heard after years of being passed around then we should expect to see contradictions like this. But not if this is the infallible word of an all powerful all knowing god.

You keep trying to judge the bible by the standards that we would judge any other book. That is fine as long as we admit the bible is entirely man made just as any other book. But as soon as you claim it is the inerrant work of a supreme being you raise the bar that it must meet to justify that claim.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well let's take the example of the different crucifixion accounts in Mark and John. This isn't only a matter of two accounts told from different perspectives. The stories conflict in ways that can't be reconciled. One of them might be right but they can't both be right unless you think Jesus was crucified twice. If the bible is the result of stories being told and retold for decades and then being written down by different people who weren't there but are writing stories that they heard after years of being passed around then we should expect to see contradictions like this. But not if this is the infallible word of an all powerful all knowing god.
> 
> You keep trying to judge the bible by the standards that we would judge any other book. That is fine as long as we admit the bible is entirely man made just as any other book. But as soon as you claim it is the inerrant work of a supreme being you raise the bar that it must meet to justify that claim.



Again, the crucifixion was told from different view points. There are many variances in the Gospel about the day Jesus was Crucified. All versions are equally important. 

Whatever the Bible said in 500AD and now in 2011 was destined to be that way...the same as you and I have this debate.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Again, the crucifixion was told from different view points. There are many variances in the Gospel about the day Jesus was Crucified. All versions are equally important.
> 
> Whatever the Bible said in 500AD and now in 2011 was destined to be that way...the same as you and I have this debate.



It's not a matter of different viewpoints. It's a matter of irreconcilable differences in the details.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not a matter of different viewpoints. It's a matter of irreconcilable differences in the details.



Name the " irreconcilable" differences?


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 24, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Name the " irreconcilable" differences?



What day was Jesus crucified?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What day was Jesus crucified?



Friday or the day before the sabbath, which was saturday. I mean that is the traditional belief. Some say it was wednesday to give it the 3 day and 3 night theory.

The important part for me is not ceremonial however, it is the fact that Jesus was crusified for my atonement. Just like Christmas, I know He probably wasn't born that time of year, even, but ceremonial wise that's when we celebrate it.

I put my Christmas tree up the week of Christmas, late I know. But I leave it up until the first of march, which is mine, my sisters and granddaughters birthday and we have another celebration of birth and our rebirth. Then the tree comes down and the baby plants are planted outside for yet another birth and time for planting towards the harvest.

Whatever any of that has to do with anything. Just up late and can't sleep.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What day was Jesus crucified?



The 15th.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> The 15th.



Not according to John. John doesn't have him eating the passover meal like Mark does and says that he was crucified on the day of preparation for the passover which is the day before passover. So which account is true?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not according to John. John doesn't have him eating the passover meal like Mark does and says that he was crucified on the day of preparation for the passover which is the day before passover. So which account is true?



Not to mention( or maybe I just did) the time of death discrepancies within the Gospels. One even mentions an earthquake at the time of death and the others don't say a thing about it.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Not to mention( or maybe I just did) the time of death discrepancies within the Gospels. One even mentions an earthquake at the time of death and the others don't say a thing about it.



They will dismiss the earthquake account by just saying it could have happened but wasn't mentioned in every account. It's not necessarily a contradiction. Just like with the virgin birth not being mentioned in every gospel. But different claims about what day and time he was crucified can't be as easily dismissed.

The question I always come back to in these discussions is, do you care if your beliefs are true? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that so many appear not to. It just isn't something I can relate to.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> They will dismiss the earthquake account by just saying it could have happened but wasn't mentioned in every account. It's not necessarily a contradiction. Just like with the virgin birth not being mentioned in every gospel. But different claims about what day and time he was crucified can't be as easily dismissed.
> 
> The question I always come back to in these discussions is, do you care if your beliefs are true? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that so many appear not to. It just isn't something I can relate to.



Well heck, the part about the Tombs opening up (because of the quake) and the dead arising would have me mentioning it!!!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well heck, the part about the Tombs opening up (because of the quake) and the dead arising would have me mentioning it!!!!!



Apparently zombies weren't all that uncommon back then...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Apparently zombies weren't all that uncommon back then...



Yeah with all the concentrated amount of amazing things happening in that small part of the world to those chosen people, most would not bat an eye at the dead rising from the tombs.

Funny how none of the people that followed other religions/cultures didn't mention it either.


----------



## larrypeters83 (Nov 27, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> If you already knew someone was going to pass a test is it a test at all?


aint it tho..... agreed completely.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 8, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> If you already knew someone was going to pass a test is it a test at all?
> 
> This is a serious question. I am not trying to be a smart A.



What is the point of a test if the result is already known?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What is the point of a test if the result is already known?



Omniscience


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

Tests are pointless for the omniscient.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Tests are pointless for the omniscient.



They are not for Him. They are for you.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> They are not for Him. They are for you.



You don't have the foggiest idea what this conversation is even about do you?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You don't have the foggiest idea what this conversation is even about do you?



Same as it always is.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Same as it always is.



 Try watching the video and come back when you know what test we are talking about.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Try watching the video and come back when you know what test we are talking about.



OK, I made it through eight and one half minutes of the video. I had to turn it off because I was choking on snot and boogers. That was the dumbest thing I have ever seen, narrated by some bloke with a slick accent.

What is different about THIS conversation than any other I have participated with you on this forum?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

So.... what test are we discussing?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So.... what test are we discussing?



How could the God of the bible be a God of love while asking his follower to sacrifice his own son.

How is this discussion different from many others we have had?


----------

