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.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 19
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Why don't you ask some Jews how much Christianity has in common with their religion? I'll save you some time and give you their answer; nothing.


That's not entirely true. I work for a company which is run by a family of Orthodox Jews. I've talked religion a lot with my boss, coming to understand Judiasm and he coming to understand my interpretation of Christianity. After talking, he's made a few comparisons. He's pointed out that Judiasm has a lot more in common in their practices to Islam than Christianity (a lot of the revenge justice, eye for an eye stuff is more in line with Islam than Christianity (turn the other cheek), no Triune God, diet restrictions, and more). He also pointed out, though, that there is some similarities with Christianity as well. Obviously the Tora and prophets have been incorporated into Christianity. Histories of persecution are also in common (not so much in America, but in other countries in the world and in the past), and a lot of Christian doctrine works with Jewish doctrine if you include forgiveness into it. Interpretation of the 10 commandments, with the exception of the Sabbath, also go hand in hand.

So, were a devout Jew to say nothing, it would only be because they weren't educated in Christianity.

The rest of the points I leave to you, Saint4God, 'cause I have a ton of work to get done!




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
People who have an imaginary dog as friend are locked up in mental institutions yet people who have an imaginary god as friend are expected to be treated as sane somehow.


The above argument is ridiculous. There is nothing to base the existence of an imaginary dog on, but there is TONS (YES... TONS) of evidence to base the existence of God on.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

What "knowledge" of today can prove the literal Creationist approach is wrong or even...... improbable?


How about something as basic as the calendar. That says enough. The Hebrew calendar didn't begin until Exodus 12. So up to that point, there is nothing by way of literalness in the usage of time. Surely you realize that the Hebrew calendar to this day is the same as it was then with the exception of a month being added every so many years so that it can accomodate for the 11 short (? not sure exactly how many days but I think it's 11) and does not go by the Christian/Catholic calendar that everyday society does.


Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:8)

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

I think its quite clear by the context that the Author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods. The truth is, the evidences in favor of Noah's flood and a young earth far outnumber those in favor of an old earth and many of the old earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. Unfortunately the scientific community is entrenched on the matter and apparently they refuse to change their minds despite the weight of evidence contrary to their currently accepted paradigm. But please don't let their stubborn refusal influence how you read your Bible! According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's work week. Work six days, rest one. Rest assured, God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.

Who cares about the calendar. Even before the Hebrew calendar was created days were still ~24 hours long and marked by the light of day and the darkness of night.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Everything this thread states affirming the imaginary dog is true.


Originally posted by nappyhead

Originally posted by Simon666
People who have an imaginary dog as friend are locked up in mental institutions yet people who have an imaginary god as friend are expected to be treated as sane somehow.


The above argument is ridiculous. There is nothing to base the existence of an imaginary dog on, but there is TONS (YES... TONS) of evidence to base the existence of God on.


There's tons of evidence for the imaginary dog too! First, Simon666 told you he has an imaginary dog, so that's direct testimony - you know, the same thing admitted and respected in court.

Second, you don't have to depend just on his testimony, because it's written down write here in this thread. We know it's true because it's written above that everything in this thread is true that affirms the imaginary dog.

I visited Simon666's house the other day and smelled dog poo, yet he doesn't have a flesh and blood dog! But even more amazing, after I left his house, I continued to smell it because I had stepped in it? How do I know I stepped in it? Because I couldn't see it! Imaginary dogs poop imaginary poo. The fact I couldn't see it is proof his imaginary dog is real.

Look, no-one can prove to you that the imaginary dog is real, you have to have faith. Once you have faith, he will come to you and you can pet him then. But you have to really believe. If you have doubt, the dog will know it and will hide from you. The one thing he despises more than anything else is doubt.

The reason you don't believe in the dog is because you hate freedom.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
but there is TONS (YES... TONS) of evidence to base the existence of God on.


Produce it.

BUT, leave the Bible OUT of the equation, everyone is sick of hearing that scripture is proof of scripture (much as the scenario spamandham gave about Simon666 imaginary dog, he says its there and we read it here - is that admissable?). The Bible in of itself takes faith to belive. Faith is not admissable as proof in any scenario other than the Christians own.

Misfit



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyheadWho cares about the calendar. Even before the Hebrew calendar was created days were still ~24 hours long and marked by the light of day and the darkness of night.
I care, and here is why;



According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's work week. Work six days, rest one. Rest assured, God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.
It would be great if you believers would actually choose literal or interpretative styles when it comes to biblical text, since there is no rhyme or reason as to why you arbitrarily apply one over another.

Genesis calls a day a day.

Peter calls a day a thousand years.

Revelations is taken as a day for a day.

Daniel is taken as a day for a year or a week for a year. (depending on who pushes the agenda.)

Never mind the gaping holes in between the supposed events as to how they relate to the timeline.

The scriptures are supposed to be God's word, he must have been one confused god.



[edit on 6/23/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

I think its quite clear by the context that the Author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods. The truth is, the evidences in favor of Noah's flood-


What evidence of Noah's flood is that? Certainly no geological evidence? A day in the life of GOD could be...duped by man, eh?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
It would be great if you believers would actually choose literal or interpretative styles when it comes to biblical text, since there is no rhyme or reason as to why you arbitrarily apply one over another.

Genesis calls a day a day.

Peter calls a day a thousand years.

Revelations is taken as a day for a day.

Daniel is taken as a day for a year or a week for a year. (depending on who pushes the agenda.)

Never mind the gaping holes in between the supposed events as to how they relate to the timeline.

The scriptures are supposed to be God's word, he must have been one confused god.


It's important to remember that these texts were not written in English originally. While that may seem blatantly obvious, there are some subtle ramifications. There are words in languages which don't have a direct complement in another language. Take, for instance, German. If I were to call you a pig dog in english, you'd proably give me a look much like those I recieve all the time. However, calling a german that would be the greatest insult imaginable. There is no way to accurately translate that.

On the same note, English has a few words, such as common. Common can mean it is likely to happen/be, and it can mean a meeting place (House of Commons). Other languages have these types of words as well. As you had said, Genesis says a day is a day. The Hebrew word yom is one of those words. It means both day and age, and you have to take it in context to know which meaning is meant. Unfortunately, both work for Genesis.

Finally, what the heck is a day before the Earth is created?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejakeIt's important to remember that these texts were not written in English originally. While that may seem blatantly obvious, there are some subtle ramifications. There are words in languages which don't have a direct complement in another language.
A purely apologetic stance. Fine let us run with that, then you tell me exactly what the translations are supposed to be in each of the three cases, I repeat: Genesis calls a day a day.

Peter calls a day a thousand years.

Revelations is taken as a day for a day.

Your argument will fall apart in front of your eyes as you type because of the widespread belief that God created the entire universe in six days: that Revelation's apocalyptic event is accepted as a day for a day, and for the obvious not previously mentioned that Daniel's 70 weeks is interpreted as a day for a year. As for Peter's well at least the author of that work tried to find an out for all all of the failed prophecies and refuted biblical accounts. You would think that after he made that stance the Church redactors would have at least had the sagacity to either edit Revelation or ditch the book, and as well heave the idiotic interpretation of Daniel.


I also repeat my assertion, that Christian belief is frought with Biblical contextual manipulation because inventing explanations of Biblical text is the only means to apologize for its bastardized dogma.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, what the heck is a day before the Earth is created?


Thanks for admitting that your position is meaningless.


If "day" has no meaning in the context it is used, then it renders the context in which it is used gibberish.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, what the heck is a day before the Earth is created?


Thanks for admitting that your position is meaningless.


If "day" has no meaning in the context it is used, then it renders the context in which it is used gibberish.


You bet, thanks for showing me a new way to spin words


If "day" has no meaning in the context it is translated, then perhaps the other meaning of yom would apply, or God experiences a periodic cycle as we do. As I stated in the original post.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This deal about the day length. During my Christian upbringing, and moreso after I dumped it (allowing me to see from an open viewpoint), concepts such as this is directly related to how grandeous a story needs to be. I mean, how "miraculous" it is took a thousand years to make grass & trees? Take that to ONE DAY, oh boy this is a MIRACLE HALLELUJAH PRAISE GOD THE ALMIGHTY LORD JESUS CHRIST SAVIOR OF MY SOUL GIVER OF LIFE.

Wife says I can get dramatic at times, one day it hit me WHY it is I do that - childhood + teen years of being subjected to it daily year-round. Ironically, I see the same thing here day in day out, just as I typed. I guess you mellow-dramaitc thumpers just don't realize how ridiculous it makes you appear to those you are trying to sway to your god, the one you are trying to sway is thinking "do you REALLY think I want to be even remotely associated with that?".

Ah well, I can see now :=]

Misfit



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Obviously the Tora and prophets have been incorporated into Christianity.

Only insomuch as it appears in the "OT."


Interpretation of the 10 commandments, with the exception of the Sabbath, also go hand in hand.

Is your first commandment the same as mine? Behold I am the Lord G-d that brought you from Egypt. One and only G-d would be the first commandment and is a part of our shema.


So, were a devout Jew to say nothing, it would only be because they weren't educated in Christianity.

Let's see, being educated in both, I would say there is essentially nothing as well. The Tanakh is incorporated only to back up the NT and rightfully so since things like the laws of the Torah do not apply to you.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
There is nothing to base the existence of an imaginary dog on, but there is TONS (YES... TONS) of evidence to base the existence of God on.

What? No there isn't. Beleif in god is irrational, fundamentally all faith is irrational. Its not supposed to be rational (ie based on logic or evidence and the like).

The statement wasn't absurd. People give 'special consideration' to any idea as long as its a religious one. Why should they?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

I think its quite clear by the context that the Author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods.

Really? It says 24 hours? Nope. And the word that you're trying to sound like you know so much about is defined as either literal or figurative. See Strong's Concordance or Here for a full explanation If you don't want to read that much, read the appendix at the bottom for a basic summary.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What? No there isn't. Beleif in god is irrational, fundamentally all faith is irrational. Its not supposed to be rational (ie based on logic or evidence and the like).

The statement wasn't absurd. People give 'special consideration' to any idea as long as its a religious one. Why should they?


God provided proof, evidence and logic numerous times in the Bible. So much so it would take a multi-page outpouring for me to even begin. After all, if you believe in God, you believe logic and reason came from Him. Just because He's not showing Himself to all the peoples of the earth today (which by the way is our fault) does not mean there is no logic, proof, evidence, etc. There's just no way to share proof and evidence convincingly without faith as a tool.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
God provided proof, evidence and logic numerous times in the Bible. So much so it would take a multi-page outpouring for me to even begin. After all, if you believe in God, you believe logic and reason came from Him. Just because He's not showing Himself to all the peoples of the earth today (which by the way is our fault) does not mean there is no logic, proof, evidence, etc. There's just no way to share proof and evidence convincingly without faith as a tool.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by saint4God]


But that goes straight back to the "proof" of because it exists it is made by God joined with "the Bible tells me so".

How do you propose to show proof of a God to a non-religious person, when the Bible as an evidence base is non existant to one not beliveing in the Bible? That is what is being asked here, not to show proof within the Bible. If I showed you exerpts from any number of Pagan books (those held as true form within Pagan community) that Christianity has adopted Pagan religions to be its own, would you believe it? Why not? It says so in "our" books, so it must be true!

Misfit



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Produce it.


Look in the mirror.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

Produce it.


Look in the mirror.


Mirrors were of no consequence to evolution.

You really did not see that coming?

Misfit

edit = immediately added second line

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Mirrors were of no consequence to evolution.

You really did not see that coming?


This is all an illusion. What is the energy holding you and everything else together? The energy that runs through everything animate, and inanimate throughout this universe.

One seems to oppose GOD because of rejection of specific religions.

GOD is not a religion.

Had to get my quote thingies right!!


[edit on 24-6-2005 by madmanacrosswater]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join