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.

 

Christian Thread: My opinion on the 12 Universal Laws

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Self-loathing gets you a ticket to heaven though. Self-hatred cashes it in. Making other people feel as unworthy as you is seen as a great thing for some reason.

"Good job guys, we converted this person and made them think they're evil inside and unworthy of redemption. Let's go celebrate!"

What a crock of #.




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Nope. Never made that claim. I don't believe there is such a thing as an "objective moral standard".


Oh then please explain what you meant by "Right and wrong come from within, and can't be taught."




Okay. So you believe that mankind CAN BE good because God is good.


Before I begin I want to clarify when I talk about Man. Its Man apart from Christ. So to answer your question, Man can preform morally correct actions. Man's state being is sinful. Imperfect. What this means is man has the inclination to do what is not moral if not in action then in thought. And according to the laws we are observing in the OP what is manifested in Thought will eventually manifest in action either consciously or subconsciously. Heaven is a place in which the beings that are allowed their are not evil in thought or action out of personal choice.




I don't think we need God to be good and do the "right" thing.


I don't either. As I have said you can preform righteous actions without belief in God. Are you going to deny that you have the inclination to do immoral actions at times? Are you going to deny that your an imperfect moral creature?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No NO no lets not just spew off garbage with no references or anything. Answer my questions....or are you scared you might learn something?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your definition of perfect is all wrong, perfect does not mean only one and not the other, perfection lies in the whole. How can you have perfect balance if you don't have something on both sides of the scale? What it's perfect if there is no imperfection to compare it to?


Matthew 5
45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.



Isaiah 45
7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.


How can something perfectly good (a good tree) bring forth destruction (bad fruit)? Because you can't have one without the other. To be perfect is not to never have bad thoughts, you do not control the thoughts that come into your head, to be perfect is to resist putting those bad thoughts into action.

Perfection is both sides of the scale, not just one side. To only have one side is to cause imbalance, the universe is all about balance. Perfection lies in the existence of both good and bad.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Come on quit trying to change answer the questions....



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Where does Jesus say that we are all sinners? Point it out, Paul doesn't count.

Jesus said he didn't come for the righteous but the sinners, meaning there are those who weren't sinners before Jesus ever sacrificed himself.

You call it garbage because it threatens your beliefs. It's not garbage, you just see it that way to have an excuse to deny it.

Again, reference any point in Jesus' ministry where he says we are all sinners unworthy of redemption. I've already referenced where he said some were righteous.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've already answered your question, you obviously didn't read the post otherwise you'd realize it was in reference to your reply to windword.

Why do you ask a question then refuse to read my answer? Cognitive dissonance probably.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No I want to talk on one point. I am not jumping around with you. I want to show you the errors your making. The only way I can do that with you is to have you work through the scriptures your self I asked you a series of questions about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I want to hear your responses to those questions and then I will gladly answer any question you have



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Who draws the line on where the OC ends and the NC begins? The fact is the line is drawn wherever the observer (you) decides it should be drawn. Everyone's line is different. So, how do you know us all being unrighteous isn't part of the OC? What makes you think it still carries over into the NC?

I've already pointed out where Jesus calls some righteous and others sinners, meaning we are not all sinners. Now where are your references to Jesus calling everyone a sinner? Or are you doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing: spewing garbage without any references?
edit on 3/14/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your trying to argue that point from an entirely different conversation. I am asking you where the line ends, and why you think that is the case....



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've already shown you. Your quote from the OT says we are all unrighteous, Jesus says some are righteous. You are ignoring that obvious fact for some reason. If we are all unrighteous then why does Jesus say we are not?

I answered your question, you just refuse to accept it.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

... Maybe you forgot my questions which is odd seeing as how you can go read them and respond to each one individually...the first was what is the Old and New covenant?(I am not talking about the books. I am asking you to define these) Whats the difference between the two?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jesus' sacrifice is the difference.

Now, where does Jesus call everyone a sinner as the OT says? How can you be so sure everyone being considered a sinner wasn't done away with in the NC? Jesus calling people righteous implies it was done away with (if you believe in either an OC and NC that is).
edit on 3/14/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Oh then please explain what you meant by "Right and wrong come from within, and can't be taught."


One of my earliest memories was being very small and squirming in fathers lap. I accidentally kicked him in the nuts and the pain it caused me knowing that I had hurt my dad was far more long lasting than my dad's pain. No punishment could impart the moral "knowledge" I gained that day.



Are you going to deny that you have the inclination to do immoral actions at times? Are you going to deny that your an imperfect moral creature?


What's immoral in your eyes and what's immoral in my eyes are very different things. I am not a perfect person in my own eyes. It's my opinion of myself that propels me to be better at whatever challenges me, whatever that challenge may be. If I'm a little over weight having Klondike Bars in my freezer might be a moral sin, IF I was on a diet. But, I'm not, so it isn't.



Man's state being is sinful. Imperfect.


Imperfection isn't a sin. Disobedience to "God's law", breaking religious laws is sin, by definition. (Your) God invented "sin" when he invented "forbidden" things. Adam and Eve committed the first sin, which was doing what was forbidden, disobedience. I don't believe in that kind of sin.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




One of my earliest memories was being very small and squirming in fathers lap. I accidentally kicked him in the nuts and the pain it caused me knowing that I had hurt my dad was far more long lasting than my dad's pain. No punishment could impart the moral "knowledge" I gained that day.


Thats not a moral code from within that can't be taught....That is you believe hurting people is evil so when you hurt someone you felt guilty. If I thought hurting people was good there would be no standard other than your own opinion to appeal to. I see no good reason to believe humans are the standard of morality.




If I'm a little over weight having Klondike Bars in my freezer might be a moral sin, IF I was on a diet. But, I'm not, so it isn't


.....I don't even know how to respond to this....its so far out of the realm of morals its not even funny...




What's immoral in your eyes and what's immoral in my eyes are very different things. I am not a perfect person in my own eyes.


My point exactly. You and I both know the moral code written on our souls and we both know we don't live up to it all the time AKA sinners...




Imperfection isn't a sin. Disobedience to "God's law", breaking religious laws is sin, by definition.


In the Christian world view God's law reflects the moral purity of his nature. God is the essence of Good so when one transgresses God's law they have done something in direct opposition to the very standard of Good.

"I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Jesus' sacrifice is the difference. Now, where does Jesus call everyone a sinner as the OT says? How can you be so sure everyone being considered a sinner wasn't done away with in the NC? Jesus calling people righteous implies it was done away with (if you believe in either an OC and NC that is).


It's not just Jesus' sacrifice its what his sacrifice gave us which is the gift of God's grace. Grace is the difference. The Old Covenant is the Law. The New Covenant is Grace. Those who choose to commit to the new covenant by accepting Christ are judged under the law of Grace. Those who don't are judged under the law.

If you truly think you are 100% righteous don't worry about it. Jesus didn't come with a message for you but for people like me who are broken.

"17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""

"Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

Jesus understands sin to be something much deeper than just a deed. In matthew 15 he say "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." Sin is disfigurement of the human heart.

In John 2 he won't entrust himself to anyone because he knows the conidition of all men, and he knows what in men..."24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man."

Matthew 7:11
11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

You are also leaving out the fact that Jesus was a Jew and accepted the OT as the word of God...



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Thats not a moral code from within that can't be taught....


It is in my view.


That is you believe hurting people is evil so when you hurt someone you felt guilty.


Nope. It's an example of empathy in action, forming my personal moral compass. I remember that feeling every time I watch America's Funniest Home Videos, and some guy gets a crotch shot. I don't feel guilty, I feel empathy for the guy.



.....I don't even know how to respond to this....its so far out of the realm of morals its not even funny...


I've been told that abusing one's body is a sin, whether it be by drugs, alcohol, tobacco or sugar and fat.



You and I both know the moral code written on our souls and we both know we don't live up to it all the time AKA sinners...


Everyone has to do what seems best for them at the time. There is no pat code of morality that is always true for everyone, all the time. I live up to my own moral code, almost everyday. Sometimes I give into a temptation to do something that's not the best thing for me to do, and I repent to myself, pick myself up and start again.



In the Christian world view God's law reflects the moral purity of his nature. God is the essence of Good so when one transgresses God's law they have done something in direct opposition to the very standard of Good.


Not seeing it. I don't see moral purity exuding from the biblical god or the Bible. In fact, I find many Christian values to be immoral.


edit on 14-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Those who sin are a servant of sin, are you a servant of the lamb or sin? Do you worship and serve the sinless Son or the Son that became sin? You say that you sin every day, does that mean you serve sin? Jesus was sinless so you can't be serving him can you?

If Jesus accepted the OT then why did he change the rules? If anything he rejected parts of it.
edit on 3/14/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Yea I would get tired of all my logical fallacies getting pointed out to..



LOL!!!!
Niiiiiice.


Whatever.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
I don't understand your first point as it seems to agree with what I've said.


The snake in the Garden stated something will happen if you eat from the tree, and it will result in X i.e. becoming like Gods…

If the first part of the sentence is only a half truth, as you say, then the second part, can’t be completely true either!

That was just the point I was trying to make…




Originally posted by Joecroft
And secondly (which is my main point) you can’t know both good and evil, until you’ve experienced them both together…IMO





Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Genesis 2:17
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.

God's command to Adam shows that Adam understood the difference between life and death.


Yes, God told them the reason for it being wrong etc... but IMO they still didn’t know what evil truly was, until they ate from the tree…which is in correlation with the serpents words, about how their eyes would become opened…




Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
It also shows that Adam would think of death as a consequence not a reward. Understanding the difference between life and death easliy gives the one the understanding that its right to preserve life and to prevent death. If he didn't understand that one was good and one was bad why would death be thought of as a consequence.


But they couldn’t have known what death was, until that moment of eating from the tree…if they had known, they would have never have taken from the tree to begin with…

But IMO the story is all metaphorical, and is not meant to be taken literally. It’s really a story that’s trying to get a specific idea across; about how man turned away from God internally and how this ultimately led to spiritual death.

It’s really about how man followed in his own knowledge and ways i.e. after the flesh, and turned away from the knowledge and wisdom of God…IMO

Of course if you see it as all literal, then I respect your beliefs; just thought it only fair to explain my own perspective.



Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
We can see the two together and understand that one is good and one is evil. Adam had this understanding as well as its clear from God's command. So Adam and eve knew what good was and they knew what evil was. They had not yet however experienced being evil. Which I think we agree on.


Gods command did NOT give Adam any understanding as to why it was wrong though…that’s what you’re overlooking…and even when God gave them the reason, of it leading to death etc, they were really just obeying God, but still had no understanding or knowledge, of what death was…

But of course I don’t see the story as literal, I take a more general wider viewed approach, by trying to look at what the writer is trying to portray within the story itself. Which is not an easy thing to do, and wont happen overnight…



Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Also, You(hopefully lol) and I have never experienced murder. We would both say that murder is wrong. Why? Because we have experienced life and death in the world.


Yes, but in the garden of Eden (if you go with the literal view) no one had ever conceived of murder before, it was an unknown…but once it became known, no one had to commit murder, to know what it is/was…Where as in the Adam and Eve child like state, Evil things weren’t known of prior…


The Adam and Eve story, is really giving a broader idea about perception, and how you need to know both good and evil, in order to judge something correctly…IMO


- JC



edit on 14-3-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join