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.

 

For anyone who thinks non-believers are going to hell

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: piney
Only through the water and the spirit
Can you be saved

If you have come to Jesus
It is because his father had sent you
As he will rise you up in the last days

Now you know why you have not found Jesus

As for proof of God all I have to offer you is his word
His word is prophecy
Revelations

If it comes true will you then believe
But by then it maybe too late for you



I do not believe in the Bible. Why would I read something I don't believe in order to be convinced of believing that thing I'm reading? WTF?

Revelations is a pretty kick-ass story that could be a big-budget film, I think.




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




Just be honest with us. What's your deal? Are you a theology student who needs "practice" dealing with external arguments? Because now you're just insulting our intelligence.



I like seeing various sides of the debate and arguing from different angles. You understand people better if you argue from their point of view. I don't think I've been misleading - I'm not here to win awards.




In the last week or so, you've made threads saying that a belief in God is irrational & that you could prove so without science.


I'm glad to know you follow my progress here on ATS. I think I have proven that belief is irrational - at least to anyone who can think rationally.




Then you turned around and made a thread claiming you could answer everyone's questions about Creationism, as if you believed in it.


Where did I claim that I believed in it? I "believe" in evolution - I just happen to understand the creationist argument better since I studied theology, not biology.




Now you claim you're either atheist or agnostic, as if you don't know that the 2 terms are completely different.



First, I've been claiming for this entire time that I am agnostic - you'd know that if you read through my threads. There is a nuanced difference between the two terms, but they are technically the same if one accepts the atheist definition of themselves (which divides atheism into anti-theists and agnostic atheists).





That would work much better than pretending that you're on a different side of the issue every 2 or 3 days. Nobody likes to feel like they're being lied to or manipulated. Is that really how you want to represent yourself?


My position has been made clear on each thread I've started.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: scorpio84




Hint: If you are not familiar with the term Q source, you could not begin to start a debate with me on Christian theology. So, here's a challenge - convince me that God is real and I will become a believer.


pretty sure this is the same challenge as debating theism, and pretty sure your ability to know about a hypothetical document doesn't make you an expert on Christian theology.


No, a lot of other factors make me an expert. That was just a baseline example. The real question is...did I know Quelle (the "Q") means "source" b/c I studied theology or b/c I studied German?



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




You're missing some key factors regarding Christian doctrine. It isn't the Christians job to convince you. It is the Christians job to obey the commandment to preach the good news. It is the "holy spirit" that convicts you of sin, and gives you the faith needed to understand your need for redemption through Christ. The Christian is just a vessel used by god as a witness.


First, to know which "doctrine" you are talking about, I'd need to know the denomination. I agree it isn't their job, per se - but if they make the claim, i.e. God exists, non-believers will burn in a lake of fire, etc., the onus is on them to prove that claim (or at least rationally justify it). Christians who make no such claims are under no obligations to prove anything. If someone says "I believe in God," I would not say "prove it." Prove what - that they believe? Faith is just a way of saying believing something with no good reason.




There are a handful of doctrines on hell in the church. Even Christians can't agree on it. I'm not going there.


Christians can barely agree on anything. They've been arguing since the very start. At least no denominations (that I'm aware of) take the Bible as literally as Origen did (if you don't know the story, search Origin+castration or Origin+eunuch on Google).



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

In English, it is known as "Q source"...but yes, the word Q comes from the word "Quelle."

Even in German it is called the "Logienquelle Q."



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Kentuckymama

Seems to me he is more hellbent on challenging believers to jumpstart his belief, with a preconceived notion that they will not be able to.

I agree with him.



Yes, pretty much that is the challenge. If they are so worried about my soul, give me good reason to believe. It'd be easier for them to worry about my sole, and just buy some good shoes.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Hard heads always penetrate further.

Sorry, but speaking metaphorically isn't going to logically convince me of much - basically you are saying that believing in the Bible requires you to suspend logic and just trust something for no good reason.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

Yea we all know your an expert logician, theologian, and scientist. We shouldn't question your expertise.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I wouldn't claim to be an "expert" - I did study Theology rather intensely for several years, so I think I have a solid knowledge in that field (I'm also pretty good at German grammar).

I challenge you to a debate on God (I could start a thread) and others may comment and judge. If you accept, I'll create the thread.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: Gothmog
Someone had to be there to press the big red button. The one that stated "do not touch" . The one that ignited the great expansion and brought this universe and this miserable world into existence.And God said "Let there be light..."


Why does there have to be a beginning to existence?

There would of necessity HAVE to be a beginning . Whether you believe in science , religion or no belief at all.With that being said , we are stuck in a closed loop. Once the universe expands to the nth degree past the dark matter/energy driving that expansion. The universe will begin to collapse back upon itself . Smaller and smaller until back to the singularity . The bang , here we go again. Think about it. Trillions of years in the future , you and I will have this same exchange right here on ATS
See ya in a few




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




we are stuck in a closed loop


Ergo, no beginning



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Gothmog




we are stuck in a closed loop


Ergo, no beginning


No , a closed loop can have a beginning. Think programming.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

no. I'm saying you don't have to believe anything
..instead of believing we are told to live what we believe....if you love others you don't just believe it...you do it.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Touche.

Still - not convinced there need be a beginning. Even the vacuum of space isn't completely nothing.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
The heart pumps blood...it isn't involved in though processes.


Well, not anymore, but unless I'm mistaken (and I'm not), it was generally accepted that, during the times when the bible was said to have been written, the heart was the center of intelligence in the human body.

Keep that in mind when you read about pleas in the Bible to use your heart to make decisions or to guide you, as I'm not convinced that it meant to use your emotions to guide your thought process (and, yes, emotion originates in the brain, too, but you know what I mean).
edit on 1-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Interesting. Well, when you live in a time that nothing about the natural world is explained other than in terms of the divine, I could see the logic. After all, one all-powerful deity does make a little more sense than saying there are multiple all-powerful deities. Still, traces of polytheism abound in the Bible.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
you know what I think?.. I think you want to " feel" the belief so badly that you are asking others to convince you of something that can only come from Jesus...

Jeremiah 29:13 (KJV) tells us,

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

So there you have it. Little faith gets little results.

Purge your heart of the things this world tells you and ask to "see" with new eyes. But you have to mean it from the heart without disbelief that God can surely do as you ask.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

Abound? Just because Christians try to explain away the Holy Trinity doesn't mean that it's not a polytheistic religion. I would say polytheism doesn't just abound in the Bible, but it's the basis of the religion.

But that gets people all flustered and agitates their heart-brains, so I don't discuss that much.
edit on 1-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84




Still - not convinced there need be a beginning. Even the vacuum of space isn't completely nothing.

I agree and am not convinced there is a beginning. I am led to believe that only with time can there be a beginning. Without time, existence remains static. Hebrew theology teaches that time became after time was created. If Hebrew theology is correct then before time was created there would not be a beginning as we understand that to be.

Some cosmologists believe that the universe is not static and is still expanding. If correct then all are uncertain of what the universe is expanding into. Without expansion we then have no age because age is governed by time. Could the universe be expanding into time itself? My understanding is that only the created that remains in the the created warp can be in time or have a beginning. Once out of the time warp there is no beginning or end.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toseekthetruth
Jeremiah 29:13 (KJV) tells us,

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.


See my my comment about hearts and brains during the time the Bible was written, especially back during the Old Testament days. Maybe YHWH was telling us to search with all of our logic, not a "little faith."

And from what that passage (and the rest of the bible, and everything I was taught for 20 years as a Christian) tells me, it's not just a "little faith" that gets results, but absolute trust that what the bible claims is real that gets the claimed results.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join