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: 37
7
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Sure, let's go through these, shall we? Since out of the 695 pages of my Bible, this is all you have issue with...


I never said that, I just picked some particularly nasty highlights at random.


Originally posted by saint4God
Yes yes, I think we're all familiar with the old law of the land. Are you also familiar with "You shall not kill" as a commandment and what Jesus says is the fulfillment of the law in the New Testament?


Are you trying to argue that the Bible contradicts itself by commanding witches be killed but also commanding "though shalt not murder"?

Yah yah, Jesus "fulfilled the law", which is a convenient way of saying the law is still in place but it's no longer being enforced as long as you believe in Jesus. That being the case, are Jews still obligated to kill witches?


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Huh? I thought there was only one Son of God™
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)


Hey look, Jesus already talked to what that means in my previous quote. How about that...


Jesus wasn't around when Deuteronomy was written. How does "jesus fulfills the law" address that the OT talks about multiple sons of god each being assigned to different nations by god himself?


Originally posted by saint4God
Already talked about this before in the other thread (or was it earlier in this one) - dead gods made of wood, stone, silver and gold.


Your merely assuming that. There's nothing in the context to indicate what you are claiming. An alternate theory that happens to be supported by archaeology as well as passages such as this one, is that early Judaism was polytheistic. 'El' was the national god of Canaan ('El'ijah, Emmau'el', 'el'ohim, etc.), who was worshipped alongside YHWH and others early on.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Bummer for those vowed by someone else as "doomed to the Lord"
"Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death." (Leviticus 27:28-29)


Redundant per above.


I disagree. It was once theologically acceptable to vow someone else's life to god, and then kill them in honor of that vow. Jesus "fulfilling the law" doesn't wipe away the sociopathic brutality at the root of Christianity. How could a loving father ever have allowed such psychotic behavior? The god of the New Testament is a different god than the god of the Old Testament.


Originally posted by saint4God
As the bible says, you should not swear upon the Lord. Here is exactly why. There are moral lessons in the Bible. It's helpful to learn them.


Yet the Bible is also filled with morally repugnant "lessons". It would be helpfull to expunge those.


Originally posted by saint4God
Hardly world domination, taking back land originally occupied. Old Testament has a series of books on it.


This is how you justify killing the women and children as a direct command from god? I agree that the OT is filled with similar atrocities. You are white washing them away, and I recognize them for the evil that they were.

Who's argument is going to sway those who have not yet formed an opinion about the Bible? Apologetics only convinces those who already believe.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Uh. Whatever interest I may once have had, I just lost it. Now that you can have this procedure done with modern medicine, why aren't all you Christian guys lining up for a trim?
"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)


Where does it say you have to be a eunuch again?


It's a short passage, I don't know how you can possibly miss the last sentence. I put it in bold this time. This is a direct order from Jesus to become a eunich if you are able to do it. I'm not making it up, nor am I obsessing over it. It's a clearly stupid command from Jesus himself, which is universally ignored by all Christians (maybe one or two exceptions somewhere in the world) who implicitly realize that it's stupid, yet simultaneously claim Jesus is god.

Please explain why you are not "able to receive it". There's really no excuse with modern medicine. Don't you agree that babies are "able to receive it"? Why don't Christians have their baby sons "fixed" just like they have them circumcised (wait, didn't Jesus "fulfill" that one anyway?)?




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I noticed that you overlooked my own post on the above subject. You can find it here www.abovetopsecret.com...

It may answer some of your questions, but I am not holding my breath about it changing your mind; that it seems is already made up, no matter what evidence is presented or refuted.


Have a great day!

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   


Jesus wasn't around when Deuteronomy was written. How does "jesus fulfills the law" address that the OT talks about multiple sons of god each being assigned to different nations by god himself?


actually if you read I John 5:7 it tells us that The father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one, they are the same person.

there is no easy way to explain it but I have two analogies to help people better understand the trinity.

1. the trinity can be understood as 1^3. we as humans try to limit God by saying that instead of him being 1x1x1=1 we try to say that he is 1+1+1=3
in other words, we are putting limits to God. God is not limited by anything.
but 1x1x1=1 can be better understood like this Father x Word (jesus) x Holy Spirit = God.

John 1:1 says that Jesus (in this verse, refered to as "the word") is God.

second analogy

2. water has three forms. Solid, Liquid and Gas.

Ice, Liquid and Vapor are all water just different forms.

thats the best way I can describe it.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Great analogies, EC. I'd not heard the 1^3 one before


One of my favorite ones is comparing it to a triangle. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up three points of the same object, God. Just like we consider a triangle one object though it consists of three sides and three points, so too is God.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



Jesus wasn't around when Deuteronomy was written. How does "jesus fulfills the law" address that the OT talks about multiple sons of god each being assigned to different nations by god himself?


actually if you read I John 5:7 it tells us that The father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one, they are the same person.


The wheels on the bus go round and round...


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there is no easy way to explain it


Yes, I find that contradiction is pretty difficult to explain as well.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It's true Jesus's loudest message was love your neighbor. He said that that was the greatest commandment, the most important rule to follow. However, he also made very clear that there is only one way into heaven:

John 14:6-7
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

You are negating what you say is his greatest commandment. Worship is an admittence that one is more powerful than the other.. there is therefore no room for peace and equality as war is always a fight over power.. a religion is defined by it so in the presence of other religons holy war is inevitable. 'Love thy neighbour' is incompatable.

Jesus was not a humanist. He loves humanity and every individual person, but He does not believe we can be perfect, nor does he believe we can be free of sin. If He did, He never would have sacrificed Himself for us, he would have stayed and taught and taught until we got the message and started living clean lives. Even Jesus got upset when He was refered to as "good", explaining the only one who can justifiably called "good" is God the Father, and God the Father alone.

Humanism is not about worshiping humanity or being selfish.. this is a common misconception perpetuated by some christians. It is about nurturing and protecting humanity with a goal to achieve peace. Your statement that he was not a humanist also implies that I have not interprited the bible correctly [despite the fact that I was raised on it and made an effort to investigate it properly].. why is your interpritation 'more correct' than my own?

Truely, truely I say to you, His message was one of servanthood and worship.

If your god needs to have his ego fed so much.. it's not for me anyway. All worship has created is spiritual dictatorship. Tell me this.. would a grandfather demand he be fed by his children if it meant his grandchildren starved? If a being was omnipotent.. he wouldn't require worship.. and a good parent would want to see his children do well.. not slit eahcother's throats trying to get his attention. If I were a god.. I'd like my creation to take care of itself and not destroy itself in my name. Vanity is alos a human charactoristic.. I'm unsure what use it would be to a deity.

Mark 9:35
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

He's refferring to other human beings.. takeing care of eachother.

Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Again. Servents to all.. as in eachother.

If we're supposed to live our lives trying to be like Jesus, and he was a servant of all, would it not make sense that we, too, are to be servants of all?

As to worshipping:

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "

That would seem to contradict your previous statements.

Jesus advocated worshipping, and it is riddled throughout the entire Bible that it should be done in everything. That doesn't mean you have to be on your knees day and night, but rather in everything you do you should be glorifying God. If you'd like me to get deeper into that concept, I can, but it is difficult to explain. If you're interested, I'll go into detail

As I have already stated before.. I cannot believe in god. I cannot force myself to believe in what I have already found to not exist.. so if I were to worship 'him' it would be hollow ritual, meaningless and dishonest to myself. Even if I wanted to accomidate a christians wishes for me to convert I wouldn't be able to.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogWasCat

It's people's misinterpretation of their religion that causes things like this. For others, it's a lust for power where they see using that religion as a platform will allow them to get people to do things for them with all their hearts. It's also the fault of the followers who don't know their own religion well enough to recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not the religion its self that propogates this behavior, it's humanity. I will be the first in line to condemn the actions of someone who kills an abortion doctor in the name of my God, because it is not in synch with who my God is and what he expects of us. We are to love our neighbors, and, if necessary, gently rebuke them when they are wrong, as they should do for you. Killing someone isn't a gentle rebuke, it's a final judgement made by someone who has no right to pass that judgement.


I believe this is what Riley, et. al., are saying. People not only misinterpret their own religion but, acting on these misinterpretations, they stir up trouble - from convincing others that they know the truth to inciting holy wars. Just because you identify yourself as a Christian and don’t do these things, doesn’t mean that other Christians are of the same mind (as has been proven historically and stated in numerous postings on this thread). I can’t speak for Riley, but for me, I fear these people greatly.

You got what I was saying in a nutshell.. these people terrify me as well. I find it strange that some christians can use the old 'but they weren't really christian in the first place' when they've been several popes who ordered murderous rampages. Were they not christian? Did they not read the bible daily? Who decides who is christian and who isn't? Isn't making that kind of judgement on another christian inherently unchristian anyway?

Absolute power of christianity!

Even this one line gives me chills. Absolute power always corrupts so too much of it is never a good thing.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   


Absolute power always corrupts so too much of it is never a good thing.


the creator of the universe has absolute power, I mean, cmon, he can speak everything into existence. all he has to do is speak and things happen and out of nothing.
I call that infinite power and God is not evil either. of course he is not human either.

but yeah I would have to agree that power whether it be by money or social status, always causes evil in that persons heart. unless they are humble about it. which does not happen very often.
the bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. often times money = power. so yeah I agree

I think that the "absolute power of christianity" didnt mean to imply phyisical power of power of man or any such thing, I would interpret that as the power of Christ through man. big difference.

thats just the way I see it.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
I noticed that you overlooked my own post on the above subject. You can find it here www.abovetopsecret.com...


One apologist per subtopic is my official maximum policy. saint posted first.


Originally posted by lightseeker
It may answer some of your questions, but I am not holding my breath about it changing your mind; that it seems is already made up, no matter what evidence is presented or refuted.


I don't have questions. I am your antagonist. However, if you present some actual evidence and not just apologetic claptrap I'd be interested. Realize that I start with the presupposition that the Bible is nothing special, so simply quoting or "explaining" scripture isn't going to be convincing unless you can demonstrate the veracity of those scriptures with external sources. By the way, I already know you can't come through on that.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I think that the "absolute power of christianity" didnt mean to imply phyisical power of power of man or any such thing, I would interpret that as the power of Christ through man. big difference.

thats just the way I see it.


You addmitted you had dropped in a little late, so you may want to read [the first post. Jake was talking about the Absolute Power of Christianity and it being forced upon others.

We've all heard it on here and in our day to day lives. Christianity, by being in the public square, is forcing its views on people. I find the use of the word "force" very interesting.


[edit on 28-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Even this one line gives me chills. Absolute power always corrupts so too much of it is never a good thing.


It does in the hands of mankind because in the heart of mankind is the tendency towards evil when power is acquired. A key point to Christianity is to give up that desire for power to God, so that He in His infinite wisdom and loving hand will guide our steps instead of us trying to force our direction for our own goals, for our own reasoning.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

I don't have questions. I am your antagonist. However, if you present some actual evidence and not just apologetic claptrap I'd be interested. Realize that I start with the presupposition that the Bible is nothing special, so simply quoting or "explaining" scripture isn't going to be convincing unless you can demonstrate the veracity of those scriptures with external sources. By the way, I already know you can't come through on that.


It sounds to me as if you are intentionally making the required proofs so onerous that they are impossible to meet; but I didn't really expect anything different.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
It sounds to me as if you are intentionally making the required proofs so onerous that they are impossible to meet; but I didn't really expect anything different.


The required proof is reasonable; archaeological evidence, extra-Biblical historical records, physical evidence, modern day miracles witnessed by skeptics, etc. None of these are beyond what is reasonable to expect, and if the church has been continuous since the time of Jesus as is claimed, the artifacts should exist and be preserved.

So although the demands are reasonable, I already know from my own research that the required evidence does not exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when a given premise strongly suggests such evidence should exist.

It's hard enough to swallow that god walked on earth as a man, but it is impossible to believe that no-one who witnessed it personally thought it important enough to write a first hand account, or to preserve artifacts, or even for external corroborating evidence to exist for the spectacular events surrounding his birth and death.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

It's hard enough to swallow that god walked on earth as a man, but it is impossible to believe that no-one who witnessed it personally thought it important enough to write a first hand account, or to preserve artifacts, or even for external corroborating evidence to exist for the spectacular events surrounding his birth and death.


That's funny, I thought that the Gospels of Matthew and John were first hand accounts; they were disciples and were with Jesus for the entirety of His earthly ministry, were with Him when He was arrested and crucified; saw Him risen and alive from the grave. As far as artifacts are concerned, let me ask you a question, what artifacts do we have on hand to authenticate the existence of Socrates, Plato or Cicero? Don't say their writings because anyone could have written them; oh, there are scholars who attest that they wrote them? there are Scholars who claim the gospels and epistles are authentic.

But, I will see what I can come up with and get back to you.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
modern day miracles witnessed by skeptics


Hey, I didn't know I'd fall into one of the catagories of 'proof'. Wow, that's kinda cool.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
That's funny, I thought that the Gospels of Matthew and John were first hand accounts;


Nope. Do some real research.


Originally posted by lightseeker
As far as artifacts are concerned, let me ask you a question, what artifacts do we have on hand to authenticate the existence of Socrates, Plato or Cicero?


I don't know, and it doesn't matter, none of these men are claimed to be god. The claims behind Jesus are not ordinary, so ordinary evidence is not sufficient. The more spectacular a claim, the more spectacular the evidence.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The required proof is reasonable; archaeological evidence, extra-Biblical historical records, physical evidence, modern day miracles witnessed by skeptics, etc. None of these are beyond what is reasonable to expect, and if the church has been continuous since the time of Jesus as is claimed, the artifacts should exist and be preserved.


To build off of Saint4God's point, when a modern day miracle takes place and a skeptic witnesses or is part of it, they tend to become believers. What would your criteria be for this skeptic? Would they have to continue to not believe in God even though they witnessed the miracle? Personally, I don't think I would be able to trust their account, because it obviously didn't move them to believe in God. Therefore, they probably didn't see a miracle. Would you accept the personal account of a miracle by someone who is now a believer but wasn't when they witnessed/experienced the miracle?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
modern day miracles witnessed by skeptics


Hey, I didn't know I'd fall into one of the catagories of 'proof'. Wow, that's kinda cool.

Care to elaborate and offer proof that you are a miracle?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
To build off of Saint4God's point, when a modern day miracle takes place and a skeptic witnesses or is part of it, they tend to become believers.


Said miracles would have to leave a trail that any other skeptic can confirm. Saint4God's experiences don't, as there is a natural explanation for them (although he doesn't accept the natural explanations). The types of experiences he has described on these pages can be induced by stress, drugs, temporal lobe epilepsy, night terrors, hypnosis, brain injuries of varying forms (including minor strokes that leave no other symptom etc) and chemical imbalances in the brain (I may have left some causes off the list). They are commonly experienced by ordinary people, and can be induced in ordinary people as well.

An example would be the sun moving backward in the sky after it had been prophesied, or people regrowing limbs in response to prayer, etc.

Saint says he was a skeptic, and I'll take his word for it, but he has also given other clues into his state of his mind at the time; he was under great existential stress and his skepticsm was on the verge of "breaking" him.

He has dismissed the natural explanations for his experience without explaining why they could not apply. It seems to me he had a psychological hole that needed to be filled, and his mind filled it for him in the way he expected and required. I don't know that of course, but it's a reasonable alternative to a supernatural explanation.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
What about miraculous healings? First, what would you consider a miraculous healing (personally, I haven't heard of limb regeneration, unless you count teeth as limbs), and second, what kind of evidence would you need of one having taken place?

What about divine intervention? Cases where the laws of physics seem to be suspended in answer to prayer. What kind of evidence would you need for something like that? Would personal accounts be sufficient, or would you need the extremely unlikely event to be even more unlikely by being videotaped?

Then there are also the everyday miracles which could be attributed to chance, but the coincidences mount up to the point where, though it could be chance, the likelihood of that event happening is next to nil. Would you consider something along those lines to be a miracle, and if so, what kind of evidence would you need?

What about unexplainable events, such as a massive joy attack hitting everyone and anyone who goes to a revival that goes on for years in a city, to the point where hotel workers come to expect to have to step over people just laughing in the hallways, restaurant workers don't even notice anymore that people throughout their restaurant near where the revival is taking place seem to all be bobbing their heads in unison, though they are separated by partitions, don't necessarily know each other, etc?

So I guess the question is, what sources would be allowed to get you to believe something actually happened, and what do you constitute as a miracle?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join