I sometimes question if God exists-Archbishop of Canterbury admits he sometimes has moments of doubt

a reply to: borntowatch

Seede, if this guy was perfect, if he was without doubt, how could he understand others, how could he relate on a human level. The bible teaches the Christian to endure when their faith is weak, endure when reasoning overwhelms. Jesus teaches that when we are at our least He will be at his strongest.

I am not talking about anyone being perfect or having doubt. Every person in this world (me included) sins every day of our short lives and at times has doubt. What I am repeating is that there is a difference between a repenting sin and a practicing sin. A practicing sin is not repenting but is a sin committed either consciously or unconsciously. When a man is a candidate for Archbishop he is scrutinized to fit the requirements of that office. Everyone including the Queen and Prime Minster is aware of his qualifications just as he himself is aware of his own qualifications. Those qualifications should be in accordance with the Apostles written requirements which are in the very bible which is in their hands and churches. It is as plain as the nose on your face and there is no ignorance as any excuse to flaunt this deliberate disobedience of Christ Jesus.

He can relate by opening the national bible and read the written word of God and then obey what he reads to the best of his ability. If he cannot preach and teach the requirements of being a bishop of Christ Jesus then he should be fired from that position. Everyone has the same approved bible and everyone can read the exact same words. Everyone should be on the same page. When the words are as plain English that even a fifth grade pupil can understand then a Archbishop has nothing to stand upon except his own sin. To prove my point I turn to the second Archbishop of York who denounces the very sins that the Archbishop of Canterbury practices and teaches. Both men have the same bible and same language.

a reply to: Seede



Maybe he should reinstate the proper punishment for the gays: beheading. Yes ISIS here we come

You know what, he ought to send a troop of soldiers into Israel and defeat all those pagans in the land. Smash the babies heads on the rocks, burn the cities of the heathen, do not spare woman, child or animal.

All of this and more is as plain as day in his national bible. I hope you're not wearing mixed thread clothing, or have consumed any pork, or shellfish.

Oh those are OT, before Jesus right?

Maybe he should reinstate slavery

Titus 2:9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back

when I use to go to church years ago the Vicar said that he thinks of God as Daddy.

I do think this concept of a God who created each and every living thing, again according to the vicar is amazingly egocentric. We haved teachings that man is in charge of the animal kingdom - anyone want charge of the cobras of the world "No", I didn't think so.

Some of the teachings are so childish or plain stupid, I am amazed that religion has withstood time with its ridiculous teachings. The Lords prayer was written by Eusabius I think, who brazenly said it didn'[t make sense but 'they' the people would be forced to say it.

For me religfion comes from man's conscious egocentric mind and has precious little to do with spirituality which again can be determined by different ideas and standards, but at least is a private qualifying standard for the less conspicuous to determine for themselves.

a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe its something to take up with a Hebrew scholar and the Jews

To infer it has anything to do with Christianity shows a complete lack of biblical understanding

Its about as relevant to Christianity as it is to your beliefs, but I guess you would need at least a basic knowledge of what you are arguing to understand that.

or maybe you just choose to just disregard the scripture i took the time to look up for you! that is not my failing, it is yours.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe its something to take up with a Hebrew scholar and the Jews

To infer it has anything to do with Christianity shows a complete lack of biblical understanding

Its about as relevant to Christianity as it is to your beliefs, but I guess you would need at least a basic knowledge of what you are arguing to understand that.

or maybe you just choose to just disregard the scripture i took the time to look up for you! that is not my failing, it is yours.

Ok TC, what do you base your statement on...bitterness?
Seriously what do you use to justify saying that to me, do you have anything to support saying "you just choose to just disregard the scripture"


Try to understand that the Old Testament is a book of laws written to be followed by the Hebrews.
aAs a Christian I am not subject to the laws written to the Hebrews.

Its tricky if you dont understand the context of written law, re ceremonial, civil and moral.
It would be wasted trying to explain the difference so I wont.

Just understand you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, its ok, I think 99% of secularists are the same, only about 20% of Christians understand the difference, so, dont stress it.
It just makes you so easily dismissed.

a reply to: borntowatch

Ok TC, what do you base your statement on...bitterness?
Seriously what do you use to justify saying that to me, do you have anything to support saying "you just choose to just disregard the scripture"

the fact that i posted several verses supporting my earlier statement and you chose to adddress not a single one of them.

Try to understand that the Old Testament is a book of laws written to be followed by the Hebrews.
aAs a Christian I am not subject to the laws written to the Hebrews.

i am told god is eternal. eternal means unchanging. which means the god of then is the god of now. unless you are following a completely different god, im not following your logic.

Its tricky if you dont understand the context of written law, re ceremonial, civil and moral.
It would be wasted trying to explain the difference so I wont.

theres no point explaining the scripture i posted. it explains itself. the point is that i provided examples of my claim and you completely overlooked it. thats not very polite.

Just understand you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, its ok, I think 99% of secularists are the same, only about 20% of Christians understand the difference, so, dont stress it.
It just makes you so easily dismissed.

oh, so you ARE being dismissive on purpose. my, my, what would jesus say. im sure he wasnt the sort to ignore someone who had questions. but i guess you just know so much better than me that you ought not to waste your time on an ignorant heathen. of course, according to scripture you are supposed to kill me, so i should be grateful i suppose.

a reply to: zardust

Titus 2:9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back

In this era of Jesus, a master is one such as a landlord. Some were indentured servants by free will while others were servants through debt. The Jewish nation itself was a slave to Rome in the days of Jesus. A servant of any Hebrew was freed and debt released every jubilee (50 Years). Yes those barbaric Jews had more compassion than your government has today. A slave is not necessarily a servant and in fact there were no slaves to the nation Israel as Christ Jesus walked the earth. In fact the Jews were true slaves in Egypt as well as Rome and Babylon. You are a servant today as almost all people in the world are servants to their masters.

One important fact you have left out of your rage is that Jesus taught that the master was to treat his servants well and in a godly manner. Not with a whip or starvation or tongue lashing but with respect, kindness and love as a human person. Your insinuation that a servant was to be a whipped and starved slave is not honest whatsoever. You are propagating misinformation to say the least. Jesus taught that as a servant we should respect the master who we are in debt to as well as the master do the same to us.

a reply to: Seede

Ok I'm going to try and stay calm here as I've obviously been raging seriously bro? (Silly Little Man)

You might want to check yourself:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Ok now for your point. First you say that they weren't real slaves in Israel because they were indentured servants, and they get off after 50 years. But then you say well we are the real slaves now. Yet we aren't "technically slaves" any more than the slaves in Israel were "technically slaves". But then say Israel were the real slaves in Egypt. Um yeah like a millennia and a half before Jesus. And what does that have to do with anything. The fact is those people were slaves regardless of if Israel was in slavery to Rome, or Egypt a thousand years earlier. And you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think their "servitude" was any better than slavery. Yes there were many who treated them with respect and love. But many not, and many were treated just as harshly as the Africans ported to our shores of the US of A. And the fact is the entire system in place was no different than any other country of its day. There were the elite, the workers, and the slave class. Oh yeah they could move up in life, except no Jubilee was ever recorded to have taken place. And the same problems that we have now with our system in regards to our slave class existed but even worse because there was no upward mobility for the majority of people in ancient times.

a reply to: zardust

Interesting. Seems like a lot of modern religions are primarily composed of an elaborate ballet between psychological projection and psychologixal injection. Basically the polar opposite of projection.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


oh, so you ARE being dismissive on purpose. my, my, what would jesus say. im sure he wasnt the sort to ignore someone who had questions. but i guess you just know so much better than me that you ought not to waste your time on an ignorant heathen. of course, according to scripture you are supposed to kill me, so i should be grateful i suppose.

I did address you and why you are wrong, I stated they are Old Testament commands, consider that addressed sufficiently for the attitude you express.

I didnt dismiss you, as you can clearly see I addressed the issue by explaining that they were OT commands.

What I did is not to go in to any detail because you would never listen.

You are not interested in conversation, you just want to attack.

The thought I should just kill you shows the depth of your complete lack of understanding of the differences between the old covenant under law and the new under Christ.

Its really sad to see someone so completely lacking in understanding, pretending they have some idea what they are talking about.

tell me honestly, do you think you understand the bible?

a reply to: TzarChasm

You might be interested in Rene Girards theories, starting with Mimetic desire

Girard’s fundamental concept is ‘mimetic desire’. Ever since Plato, students of human nature have highlighted the great mimetic capacity of human beings; that is, we are the species most apt at imitation. Indeed, imitation is the basic mechanism of learning (we learn inasmuch as we imitate what our teachers do), and neuroscientists are increasingly reporting that our neural structure promotes imitation very proficiently (for example, ‘mirror neurons’).

However, according to Girard, most thinking devoted to imitation pays little attention to the fact that we also imitate other people’s desires, and depending on how this happens, it may lead to conflicts and rivalries. If people imitate each other’s desires, they may wind up desiring the very same things; and if they desire the same things, they may easily become rivals, as they reach for the same objects. Girard usually distinguishes ‘imitation’ from ‘mimesis’. The former is usually understood as the positive aspect of reproducing someone else’s behavior, whereas the latter usually implies the negative aspect of rivalry. It should also be mentioned that because the former usually is understood to refer to mimicry, Girard proposes the latter term to refer to the deeper, instinctive response that humans have to each other.

Those rivalries go on to the community going into chaos, and so a scapegoat is chosen to unite the people:

When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy.

And this leads to religion:

According to Girard, the scapegoat mechanism brings about unexpected peace. But, this moment is so marvelous, that it soon acquires a religious overtone. Thus, the victim is immediately consecrated. Girard is in the French sociological tradition of Durkheim, who considered that religion essentially accomplishes the function of social integration. In Girard’s view, inasmuch as the deceased victim brings forth communal peace and restores social order and integration, she becomes sacred.

Overview of Girard

Yahoshua didn’t write a single word of the scriptures and he is NOT ”the word of the God” (the bible) that Christians worship and believe in.

Yahoshua nor the disciples “created “ Christianity nor were they “Christians” in any form.Men with perverted “religious carnal minds” (satan..the adversary) created (and believe in) Christianity because they do not “know” the creator God and they only believe in their “religion” Belief System (BS).

a reply to: zardust

Ok now for your point. First you say that they weren't real slaves in Israel because they were indentured servants, and they get off after 50 years. But then you say well we are the real slaves now. Yet we aren't "technically slaves" any more than the slaves in Israel were "technically slaves". But then say Israel were the real slaves in Egypt. Um yeah like a millennia and a half before Jesus. And what does that have to do with anything. The fact is those people were slaves regardless of if Israel was in slavery to Rome, or Egypt a thousand years earlier. And you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think their "servitude" was any better than slavery.

You still do not understand. A servant and a slave are and always were two completely different aspects in life. I did not say we are slaves today. You misread what I wrote. I said most all people in this world today are servants and have a master. If you owe any man you are a servant to that person. You are indebted to that man.

I did misspeak about the year of Jubilee. Actually the Hebrew sabbatical year was every seventh year of release. In fact the master was not allowed to charge any usury fee (Interest) to another indebted Hebrew. Every seventh year that debt was forgiven and every seventh sabbatical year was counted as a Jubilee. Every sabbatical year all of the harvest belonged to all of the community as well as being the year of release. That is amazingly more than fair by our standards of today. Today credit is the way of life and almost all people use credit as a way of life. That is becoming a servant to the ones they are indebted to. Today the masters charge interest and have no sabbatical year of release from that debt.

Now today most Jews do not adhere to this at all simply because Orthodoxy has gone the way of other Jewish denominations. Simply because these civil laws are not practiced today does not mean that they have ceased to be the Godly institution of Moses. What it does mean is that the people ignore the laws of God. Is God going to beat them up and make them obey these laws? No, God gave them freedom of choice and by their own choice look at the financial ruin of all of the world. In other words they were smarter than God and they made a mess out of it.

This same thing applies to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He and the nation have choice. Their choice is to ignore the bible and laws of God and follow their own degradation. They will continue to enlarge this sin till it becomes irreversible. It may be too late now. This same phenomenon is world wide and is getting worse by the day.

You are correct in your last statement of there being no means of escape and moving out of being indentured. By our own stupid choices we have now entrapped ourselves in the web of credit and legal theft as well as disobedience to the laws of God. Our masters are now looking towards world dominance. We are all now servants by choice but you should also bear in mind that even if the Archbishop did repent and turn away from his stubborn sins that it would destroy him from his office because now the nation thinks the way that he taught. He has spawned evil and it is now hatched into mass disobedience.

a reply to: zardust

its a survival tactic. whether you are merely surviving or proactively fighting, you will be most effective as a team only so long as you are in sync. the left hand must know what the right hand is doing and be working to assist it. and imitation seems to fall right in line with that. imitation is like self-indoctrination.

a reply to: Jesuslives4u

How can someone lead anyone of faith if he himself does not have any?

He is human after all. How about you leave ATS after some of your recent rants. They show that you are after all human too.

Oh hang on you did promise to quit the Religious forums on Feb 18 2014. That promise didnt last long did it?

a reply to: Seede

If he cannot preach and teach the requirements of being a bishop of Christ Jesus then he should be fired from that position. Everyone has the same approved bible and everyone can read the exact same words

And where does Jesus exactly say in the New Testament form a new church in "my name" or even have Archbishops. What you all fail to see is that you worship a religion created by the Old dying Roman Empire. You are slaves to Rome whether you see it or not.