It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is Love... Except when he's committing genocide...

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: r0xor
I'm not asserting that Noah even existed, much less Utnapishtim of Epic of Gilgamesh lore existed, or that God directly caused it to even happen. I'm just saying there is some evidence that water levels rose high for a short time in the past XX,000 years, causing many homo sapiens to die.


While there is of course evidence of sea levels rising (the ending of a glacial period has that effect), it's pretty unlikely that any of it was rapid enough to cause immediate loss of human life. Berengia, Doggerland, and Sundaland were all populated and are all now underwater, but the melt was a fairly drawn-out process, taking at least a few human generations. There is the possibility of local catastrophic flooding at the Black Sea and American Northeast (there used to be a huge glacial lake up there, apparently, theoried to be blocked by an ice dam back in the day) but hardly anything to the degree described in Genesis.


The same evidence says that genealogically, the current Earth's population of humans descends from as small as 10% or less of a remainder of survivors.


Actually no, that would not be the same evidence - geology does not provide evidence forgenetics, nor vice versa. You can have two different but mutually supporting theories, though. Semantic quibble, I guess.

Fact is? It does look like the archaic H. sapiens population took a big hit... roughly 70,000 years ago. Know what else happened 70,000 years ago? The Toba eruption in Indonesia. since we're posting on ATS I'm guessing you're at least peripherally aware of the notion of "supervolcanoes"? However this is apparently one of many bottlenecks. when you look at the hominid family tree, we are the last, lonely, spindly little twig on an otherwise mildly impressive shrub. Some stunting is to be expected.

However, there's another very big, very obvious reason for the relative lack of human genetic diversity; apparently there were only a handful of migrations out of Africa. That is, the founding population of the entire world outside of Africa comes from maybe a couple dozen bands, over maybe a few centuries. With some apparent genetic input from Neanderthals and Denisovans, granted. The genetics of Africa on the other hand, are hugely varied. There is more genetic variation between two neighbors in Nairobi than there is between you and Truganinni, the last full-blooded Tasmanian.


The same bologna that gets tied in with the tales of Atlantis. If it seems like I'm reaching for new mythological books to draw from, it's only because my point is that the most recent big flood was not just a biblical or abrahamic idea.


No, it was pretty clearly adopted into the mythology of the ancient israelites from other sources. The "original" does seem to be Sumerian. Which makes prefect sense if you remember that the Tigris and Euphrates were prone to irregular, sudden, catastrophic flooding. Some Sumerian came up with a stroy where the flooding was so bad that everyone in the world was wiped out, except for his grandpa or whatever. And it's a good yarn. Good enough that it's one of the few biblical stories that actually stick around when missionaries (whether Muslim or Christian) leave an area. Which is exactly how we end up with hte spate of "Flood myths."



Quite honestly, yes, it'd just take me a little bit of time. Let me get back to you on that.


cool.



The truth is, they are fanciful assumptions made by one homo sapien in his limited capacity to try to understand and describe the infinite that is the Creator of the Universe. That's all most religion really is, if you get down to it.


Not to sound belittling - I don't mean to - but wouldn't such an endeavor be better-directed with a pencil or paint brush, than a keyboard? I'll be honest, i feel such blunderings and thought-football to be kind of a waste of time. if you believe in your god, that's kind of all you need. if you're doing math to try to explain why you believe, than I'm just going to guess that you're trying to convince yourself of an idea you on't really by. and all that effort you put in with hte math (so to speak) could very well be used to create something lasting and beautiful.

Which would you rather pore over for hours? A book of apologetics, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?



True in the sense that we do not know if God truly had a hand at all in any of the events that transpired during World War II. I'm simply presenting the idea that it is indeed possible, and maybe to some, probable.


Well, we know for absolute certain that humans did it. Assuming the hand of god in perfectly explicable events comes off as more of an ego thing, like a believer wanting to pat themselves on hteb ack for worshiping such a swell guy. To your credit though, at least you go with "Yes, everything is god, even if I don't know why" rather than the god / devil duality I so often see.


All societies haven't come up with the same basic set of laws, far from it, that is IMO incorrect. In all of human history, really?!


Sure we have. There are certain factors essential to survival of society, and factors that are detrimental to society. By our very nature, we gravitate to enforce the former and discourage the latter. Every society on earth has prohibitions against murder, assault, theft, and lying. There is of course variation on the theme, but every society builds from these common foundations.

It's because we're a social species. we have actually grown, as a species, to resist antisocial behavior (antisocial as in, "bad for existence of any society," not as in "disapproved by a particular society.") Soldiers haveto be trained to kill. And even those men who never pull the trigger on another human being in their life, still suffer stress from that training. Why? becuase our brains are literally wired to resist killing each other. Obviously not to the point where it's impossible (instinct only pushes so far) but certainly to the point where every society has some variation on "Thou Shalt not Kill" and punishes offenders in some way, without society batting an eye.


But good point regarding Abrahamic faiths. They do come from a former time in history when things were much lower on that j curve of yours and they were written into text at that time. Set in stone from there on. Not subject to edit. Imperfect forever. Just like humans.


Even at the time, they were pretty brutish, is the problem. The Greeks and Egyptians and Assyrians - no saints themselves certainly! - all considered the region to be a barbaric backwater. The Romans did as well, and were only interested in the region as a strip of land connecting their Eurasian holdings to their African holdings (in retrospect, probably would have been less of a headache for Rome to just let the Hebrews keep chopping each other up and getting conquered by Persia every twenty years or so, and just invest in better boats)




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06

The first link refers directly to the verse I was speaking of in 1 Timothy, that the "American model" of slavery was forbidden in the NT, it's where a person or some other steals/kidnaps a person and sells them into slavery. So when the member said the NT condones the American model that's wholly untrue. Men and women were stolen in Africa by slave traders and sold all over the world.

The term "servant/bondservant" in the NT is a "doulos", which is a bond servant/indentured servant. Someone who enters into that agreement of their own will and volition, and generally our of necessity. So when the statement is made that the New Testament affirms the "American model" of slavery that is completely false, it condemns it.




Dude you don't have to kidnap some one to own them as a slave!!!!!


Sounds to me life the bible has a problem with theft, not slavery.


Most slaves were bought or born. Not kidnapped... The NT says it's wrong to steal someone into slavery, not to buy a slave!!!


You think the slaves who were bought or born into slavery were treated differently?!? They were not!

It's refering to stealing as a sin, not slavery!



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Without God you are left with nothing but the empty, cold, heartless universe that has no thoughts about killing babies.

So if a flood, earthquake, tornado, hurricane or other natural disaster happens, hey that's just the universe and nature that has no intellect, no remorse, nothing.

Why should you care either, if you are simply a random by product of that cold universe? Don't tell me how you evolved with empathy, because empathy is not part of the universe.

The sun doesn't have empathy when it sends solar flares our way. The earth doesn't care when it shifts on its axis and causes magnetic fluctuations and lions certainly don't care when they eat human babies. So why should you?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Dude you don't have to kidnap some one to own them as a slave!!!!!


I never said someone did only have to do that. I refuted the claim that the NT condones the American model of slavery. Which was men stolen from their homes in Africa and sold here as slaves. The NT most certainly condemns that.

You cannot overlook the fact that in that time millions of people entered into servanthood out of necessity. It was a fact of life, and in many place on Earth even a reality to this day. There wasn't bankruptcy court and there wasn't credit cards. People who went broke or who could not repay a debt often had that as an only option.

You also have the problem of English being a very lazy language compared to the Greek. In the Greek "doulos" was very specific, a bond servant or indentured servant. Someone when entered into that of their own choice. Yes, that person is still a "slave", but it doesn't carry the same definition of "slave" as in America, or like the Jews endured in Egypt. A bond servant was freed after their debt was satisfied or a certain amount of time had passed, the American slave had no hope of freedom.

So no, the NT in no way condones the American type of slavery.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Dude you don't have to kidnap some one to own them as a slave!!!!!


I never said someone did only have to do that. I refuted the claim that the NT condones the American model of slavery. Which was men stolen from their homes in Africa and sold here as slaves. The NT most certainly condemns that.

You cannot overlook the fact that in that time millions of people entered into servanthood out of necessity. It was a fact of life, and in many place on Earth even a reality to this day. There wasn't bankruptcy court and there wasn't credit cards. People who went broke or who could not repay a debt often had that as an only option.

You also have the problem of English being a very lazy language compared to the Greek. In the Greek "doulos" was very specific, a bond servant or indentured servant. Someone when entered into that of their own choice. Yes, that person is still a "slave", but it doesn't carry the same definition of "slave" as in America, or like the Jews endured in Egypt. A bond servant was freed after their debt was satisfied or a certain amount of time had passed, the American slave had no hope of freedom.

So no, the NT in no way condones the American type of slavery.


Most slaves were taken during conquest, not because they couldn't feed there families so they agreed to be the slave of someone who could. Which sounds completely horrible as well. How very Christian of some one to say "sure I'll give you food, but only if I can own you and your children..."

If I'm right wasn't the same word used for multiple versions of the word slave?? Like wasn't dulous used for man servant, slave and a few others, with the translator 1000 years later deciding Which one was gonna which?

No where in the bible does it say you can only own indentured servants but true slavery is wrong. It just tells you to pay for your slaves or win them in battle, don't steal them. That's you deciding (rightly so) that it would be pretty jacked up if Christianity was cool with slavery... Because it is.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Dude you don't have to kidnap some one to own them as a slave!!!!!


I never said someone did only have to do that. I refuted the claim that the NT condones the American model of slavery. Which was men stolen from their homes in Africa and sold here as slaves. The NT most certainly condemns that.

You cannot overlook the fact that in that time millions of people entered into servanthood out of necessity. It was a fact of life, and in many place on Earth even a reality to this day. There wasn't bankruptcy court and there wasn't credit cards. People who went broke or who could not repay a debt often had that as an only option.

You also have the problem of English being a very lazy language compared to the Greek. In the Greek "doulos" was very specific, a bond servant or indentured servant. Someone when entered into that of their own choice. Yes, that person is still a "slave", but it doesn't carry the same definition of "slave" as in America, or like the Jews endured in Egypt. A bond servant was freed after their debt was satisfied or a certain amount of time had passed, the American slave had no hope of freedom.

So no, the NT in no way condones the American type of slavery.


Please where does the NT condone normal slavery?? I just looked it up and the OT is very clear on the fact non Hebrew slaves are completely fair game. Also a slave owner cannot be diciplined for beating a slave to death as long as he survives for 2 days.


The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4 (NASB):
If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.


This is refering to a Hebrew who was released after 3 years..... Saying his children belonged to his old master... Dispicable...



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Please where does the NT condone normal slavery??


Somehow what I have said several times is being lost in the English to English translation...

I said: The NT does not condone the "American model" of slavery. Here your statement that I challenged and refuted:




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.


1. You said the "New Testament"
2. You said it condones the "American Model" of slavery.

The NT condones no such thing, if fact it does the OPPOSITE in Timothy, it expressly condemns "manstealers" (slave traders/theft of men for slavery). Why would the Bible condemn indentured servanthood or bond servants? That was a normal way of life in that time for a vast segment of the population, and likewise those servants entered into that means to support themselves or to repay debts by their own choice.




I just looked it up and the OT is very clear on the fact non Hebrew slaves are completely fair game. Also a slave owner cannot be diciplined for beating a slave to death as long as he survives for 2 days. The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4 (NASB): If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. This is refering to a Hebrew who was released after 3 years..... Saying his children belonged to his old master... Dispicable...


That is all Old Testament ^^^^. Which has nothing to do with what you originally said, which was "New Testament". Don't change the goalposts in the middle of the game, and also ask the Jews about that.


edit on 25-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




No where in the bible does it say you can only own indentured servants but true slavery is wrong. It just tells you to pay for your slaves or win them in battle, don't steal them. That's you deciding (rightly so) that it would be pretty jacked up if Christianity was cool with slavery... Because it is.


Again, that is the Old Testament, you said New Testament. Attack the Jews for that, not the Christians.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Please where does the NT condone normal slavery??


Somehow what I have said several times is being lost in the English to English translation...

I said: The NT does not condone the "American model" of slavery. Here your statement that I challenged and refuted:




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.


1. You said the "New Testament"
2. You said it condones the "American Model" of slavery.

The NT condones no such thing, if fact it does the OPPOSITE in Timothy, it expressly condemns "manstealers" (slave traders/theft of men for slavery). Why would the Bible condemn indentured servanthood or bond servants? That was a normal way of life in that time for a vast segment of the population, and likewise those servants entered into that means to support themselves or to repay debts by their own choice.




I just looked it up and the OT is very clear on the fact non Hebrew slaves are completely fair game. Also a slave owner cannot be diciplined for beating a slave to death as long as he survives for 2 days. The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4 (NASB): If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. This is refering to a Hebrew who was released after 3 years..... Saying his children belonged to his old master... Dispicable...


That is all Old Testament ^^^^. Which has nothing to do with what you originally said, which was "New Testament". Don't change the goalposts in the middle of the game, and also ask the Jews about that.




Man stealer was how you acquired your slave!!! Not how you treated them!!!!! No matter how many times you pretend man stealer is refering to how you treat your slaves doesn't change the fact it's not true.

Omg......

It does not go on to say " manstealing is treating your slaves like animals, slaves you treat well are indentured servants". You are 100% making that up! Every definition of manstealer you look up says that it means kidnapping some one into slavery. . Not one single definition says that it refers to ANY slave you bought through the slave market nor if they were spoils of war!!!! IDK how anyone could be so ostritch like..."I want i want to believe it means how you treat your slaves, so I'm gonna!" It's like debating a child...

Please show me one definition of manstealer where it says it refers to how you treat your slave, not how your slave was acquired... Please...


Where does it say that?!?!? No where, it doesn't!!


Also, blame the Jews?!? Wasn't it the same guy who told the Jews to treat there slaves like that who you worship? The same guy who ordered the slaughter of millions?!?

No where in the NT does it say you shouldn't own human beings... It says it's A OK to. Which is obviously discusting...
edit on 25-1-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Man stealer was how you acquired your slave!!! Not how you treated them!!!!! No matter how many times you pretend man stealer is refering to how you treat your slaves doesn't change the fact it's not true.


I never said it was. Are you even reading my posts??






It does not go on to say " manstealing is treating your slaves like animals, slaves you treat well are indentured servants". You are 100% making that up!


Actually, you made that up. I never said anything like that, you created a straw man of what I've been saying and tried to attribute it to me. You even put quotation marks around it.




Where does it say that?!?!? No where, it doesn't!!


You made it up, tell me where it came from, answer your own question.




No where in the NT does it say you shouldn't own human beings...


Nobody can prove a negative statement.



It says it's A OK to. Which is obviously discusting...


You keep ignoring that servanthood was a normal way of life for a vast segment of the population, as has been stated SEVERAL times people who could not repay debts or who went bankrupt often entered into servanthood. And even women who had been raped or who's husbands died also did this to be able to support themselves and their children.

Your SPECIFIC statement that the New Testament condones the American model of slavery is totally fiction, it doesn't condone it, and in fact, I've already proven that it condemns it in Timothy. You keep going back to the Old Testament.

Did you know that the Old Testament is not the New Testament?


edit on 25-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Man stealer was how you acquired your slave!!! Not how you treated them!!!!! No matter how many times you pretend man stealer is refering to how you treat your slaves doesn't change the fact it's not true.


I never said it was. Are you even reading my posts??






It does not go on to say " manstealing is treating your slaves like animals, slaves you treat well are indentured servants". You are 100% making that up!


Actually, you made that up. I never said anything like that, you created a straw man of what I've been saying and tried to attribute it to me. You even put quotation marks around it.




Where does it say that?!?!? No where, it doesn't!!


You made it up, tell me where it came from, answer your own question.




No where in the NT does it say you shouldn't own human beings...


Nobody can prove a negative statement.



It says it's A OK to. Which is obviously discusting...


You keep ignoring that servanthood was a normal way of life for a vast segment of the population, as has been stated SEVERAL times people who could not repay debts or who went bankrupt often entered into servanthood. And even women who had been raped or who's husbands died also did this to be able to support themselves and their children.

Your SPECIFIC statement that the New Testament condones the American model of slavery is totally fiction, it doesn't condone it, and in fact, I've already proven that it condemns it in Timothy. You keep going back to the Old Testament.

Did you know that the Old Testament is not the New Testament?



Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire , the Roman Empire practiced the exact same form of slavery as "American slavery".

The OT is the only place where the rules of slavery are discussed at all. So how can you assume those rules changed after Jesus came? When no new rules were givin?

The only people who think the slavery of the bible was talking about some softcore version instead of the slavery that's been around the rest of human history, are Christian revisionists. People who want the bible to match their personal moralities so they twist it where it's not the book of horrors it mostly is.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Please where does the NT condone normal slavery??


Somehow what I have said several times is being lost in the English to English translation...

I said: The NT does not condone the "American model" of slavery. Here your statement that I challenged and refuted:




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.


1. You said the "New Testament"
2. You said it condones the "American Model" of slavery.

The NT condones no such thing, if fact it does the OPPOSITE in Timothy, it expressly condemns "manstealers" (slave traders/theft of men for slavery). Why would the Bible condemn indentured servanthood or bond servants? That was a normal way of life in that time for a vast segment of the population, and likewise those servants entered into that means to support themselves or to repay debts by their own choice.




I just looked it up and the OT is very clear on the fact non Hebrew slaves are completely fair game. Also a slave owner cannot be diciplined for beating a slave to death as long as he survives for 2 days. The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4 (NASB): If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. This is refering to a Hebrew who was released after 3 years..... Saying his children belonged to his old master... Dispicable...


That is all Old Testament ^^^^. Which has nothing to do with what you originally said, which was "New Testament". Don't change the goalposts in the middle of the game, and also ask the Jews about that.




Huffington post


Don't let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures -- Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman -- but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves' labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).



The reason the bible , assuming it's the immortal pinnacle of morality, should have spoken out against slavery because it's EVIL! Murder and rape have always been common place, but the bible stopped to mention at least murder. (Does the bible ever mention rape??)


Half the churches in the country split because the bible agrees with slavery. That's where southern baptists came from.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06


I see people ALL the time say "god is love". Well how can the atrocities of the Old Testament be attributed to a being that is love personified?



Exactly, the bible does not say God is love, the Old Testament often speaks of God's love, but does not say that God is limited to just one thing, such as love.

First of all, people do not know what love is, because their love is not unconditional.

People are hypocrites, it is just common reality in the world.

Religion was a priority to manipulate, because when a person believes in something with their heart, it makes their body chemistry produce chemicals that seem to confirm the belief is right and correct. They will fight with denial because they love what is false.

The whole world has been tricked. The Romans killed the first Christians because they did not want them to gain power. But the modern world listens to the lies of the Roman world in their Christianity. It is completely hypocritical. The Romans took what the Jews had, killed them, and claimed to own what they took from the Jews. Not only that, but they took their own practices from the pagan mystery religions and incorporated them in Christianity. And now, the first Christians are regarded as Heresy.

Well let me tell you this, Heresy was created to discredit the first Jewish Christians, the very apostles of Jesus. It was an elaborate scheme by the Roman world power. That is why we worship a GREEK New Testament. It is why our GREEK books were written by people who could not of witnessed Jesus, well after the fact. The first Jewish Christians strongly opposed Paul, yet nobody cares, nobody listens to them. And that is how we know they are God's true people, because everybody else in the ancient world stepped on them, over and over, and over, and over, to this very day, we disrespect the direct apostles of Jesus every day and we chose the Roman point of view, in direct opposition to the truth. that seems so sad, yet it is God's own plan to stay hidden from the world, hidden from those stubborn hypocrites because they don't deserve Him, and Paul didn't deserve Him.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: Entreri06


I see people ALL the time say "god is love". Well how can the atrocities of the Old Testament be attributed to a being that is love personified?



Exactly, the bible does not say God is love, the Old Testament often speaks of God's love, but does not say that God is limited to just one thing, such as love.

First of all, people do not know what love is, because their love is not unconditional.

People are hypocrites, it is just common reality in the world.

Religion was a priority to manipulate, because when a person believes in something with their heart, it makes their body chemistry produce chemicals that seem to confirm the belief is right and correct. They will fight with denial because they love what is false.

The whole world has been tricked. The Romans killed the first Christians because they did not want them to gain power. But the modern world listens to the lies of the Roman world in their Christianity. It is completely hypocritical. The Romans took what the Jews had, killed them, and claimed to own what they took from the Jews. Not only that, but they took their own practices from the pagan mystery religions and incorporated them in Christianity. And now, the first Christians are regarded as Heresy.

Well let me tell you this, Heresy was created to discredit the first Jewish Christians, the very apostles of Jesus. It was an elaborate scheme by the Roman world power. That is why we worship a GREEK New Testament. It is why our GREEK books were written by people who could not of witnessed Jesus, well after the fact. The first Jewish Christians strongly opposed Paul, yet nobody cares, nobody listens to them. And that is how we know they are God's true people, because everybody else in the ancient world stepped on them, over and over, and over, and over, to this very day, we disrespect the direct apostles of Jesus every day and we chose the Roman point of view, in direct opposition to the truth. that seems so sad, yet it is God's own plan to stay hidden from the world, hidden from those stubborn hypocrites because they don't deserve Him, and Paul didn't deserve Him.


I agree with you, but so iyho what's the truth? Or has it been lost to the ages?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Well, I must say I think it's just maniacal when people who
don't believe in God, bother to judge him. I don't believe
in Islam but, I don't judge Allah or mock Mohammed. The thought
never enters my mind. And tghe fact that God can do what ever
the hell he sees fit. Is enough for me to keep my mouth shut.
Because our alternatives are nil and you know nothing of the
questions you ask. You are incapable of reasoning anything
about God and how he deals with the disobedient. So you might
consider not making a bad situation worse for yourself when you
can either shut your mouth, or go to hell. Simple really.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: greyer

. . . the bible does not say God is love . . .
2 Corinthians 13:11 Then the God of love and peace will be with you . . .
1 John 4:8 But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love. ...
1 John 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Entreri06

Well, I must say I think it's just maniacal when people who
don't believe in God, bother to judge him. I don't believe
in Islam but, I don't judge Allah or mock Mohammed. The thought
never enters my mind. And tghe fact that God can do what ever
the hell he sees fit. Is enough for me to keep my mouth shut.
Because our alternatives are nil and you know nothing of the
questions you ask. You are incapable of reasoning anything
about God and how he deals with the disobedient. So you might
consider not making a bad situation worse for yourself when you
can either shut your mouth, or go to hell. Simple really.


Just LOL!! You would be in the minority of Christians if you don't judge Islam. I mean damn, there is a whole voting block of anti Muslim Christians!! All of right wing radio, Fox News, drudge and the list goes on of Christian groups who pay their rent bashing Mohammad. Calling him a pedophile and suc ( which is prob true). So you would be about the only Christian who doesn't judge atheism or opposing religions. I am just playing out scripture to it's logical conclusion. It's not my fault that leads you to a horrible place.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Not sure what horrible place you could mean.
And I don't belong to any of those " Christian groups "
you related too. In fact I don't subscribe to any group,
affiliation or church. I try to understand why atheists
feel they must hate God but, I don't hate them because
they do. I don't believe in atheism at all. I think everybody
knows or some how feels their is a God. And their really
just the same kind of human being, that foolishly chose
to make a world without the guidance of our one true
oracle. So God backed off, gave man what he wanted.
And now you get these atheists whining about why
doesn't God do this or that? Why does he let good people
suffer? Why is the world full of evil and agony. Well, because
dumb asses like them made that choice a long, long time ago.

So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way we
wanted it. Well we gets it! Frankly, I think atheists are only
fooling themselves, if they can't see that our intelligence
needs guidance. Because without it, we've come to a the point
where our very existence is threatened and we aren't going to
get much further. So I pray he doesn't give up on us completely
and puts an end to this madness, that we ourselves have created.
It really is a perpetual mess we are facing without him. This is not
the world he intended I garantee you that. this place is turning into
hell on earth right before our very eyes. But if you don't see that yet?
You will.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Don't let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures -- Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman -- but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves' labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).


Another red herring.

You said NEW TESTAMENT.




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.




edit on 26-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire , the Roman Empire practiced the exact same form of slavery as "American slavery".


The Roman Empire also had wild orgies, prostitutes, and worship of Zeus, that doesn't mean the "New Testament" supported those things. You said the New Testament supported the American model of slavery.




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.


And that's a lie.



edit on 26-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join