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: 48
7
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Is it right for a boy to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?


That's a question I can answer with a firm and absloute...dunno. I'm assuming you're asking the question where all other options have been exausted (otherwise I would say no...I make enough money to feed my family if need be, but could still steal a loaf instead). Maybe someone else will have an answer, I've not really looked into the exceptions to the rules in Christianity before. I do know that breaking Jewish law is acceptable when you have no other choice, such as being stranded on a desert island with only shellfish to eat. That, however, is as extensive as my knowledge of this subject goes, and my example goes...Actually, work was acceptable on the Sabbath if it was absloutly neccessary...It's possible, but again, I don't know. There would be forgiveness if you repented of it if it is wrong, though


As to your comment about someone being alive only after they left the womb, what about early deliveries? We are capable of being "born" after only 7 months and surviving. Since a doctor can force birth at that point on anyone, wouldn't it stand to reason that we're alive at least 2 months before the due date?




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Is it right for a boy to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?


Charlie, sorry for butting in, but I'd like to answer this from the perspective of someone who does not see morality as absolute.

There is no "right" and "wrong", there are only consequences. What we call "right" is that which tends to result in positive consequences, and that which we call "wrong" is that which tends to result in negative consequences.

If the boy's family is starving, he must weight the odds of getting caught times the consequences vs. what will happen if he doesn't steal the bread.

I can think of few consequences worse than me or my family starving. Stealing a loaf of bread is unlikely to result in any consequences at all, even if you get caught.

So then who's ethics are better, mine or the Biblical inerrantist?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Violence isnt always bad, if its the lesser of two evils.


Enacting death upon another I think is bad (especially when their future afterwards is undecided), but we'll get to that in a moment per below.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Some doctors have killed hundreds of patients, but I would not imprison them.


Did they enact a killing? Rather, they are trying to save lives, not destroy them. They need more props than we give them for that.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Putting someone out of there misery should not be a crime.


But what does "putting someone out of their misery" mean? Are you certain you're not sending them to a worse misery? Perhaps it's a misery for us not having their presence? Also, one would have to have no hope nor belief in miracle in order to do so.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I know there are other ways of dealing with crime and poverty but I do not disagree with this one.

I do not believe Jesus dieing did anything for me,


Certainly your decision on both and am glad we can talk about it.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
nor do I think an abortion is for anyone but the child. I do not support abortion so that the mother can have a better life, I support it so that the child does not have a bad one.


This is the first time I've heard that position. I'm grateful that you see it this way. If we can both agree that we're talking about the child here, I think we can make tremendous progress by being on the same page. Okay. How do we not know that this child, who for argument's sake did have a hard upbringing and struggled through life, would not become strong, perhaps pursue a talent or education that made him/her a doctor, teacher, good mother/father, charity worker, counselor, etc.? Rather, we're making the decision on that child's fate before giving her/him a opportunity to decide for themselves. That's where I think we're committing the error.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I always thought we are first alive when we exit the womb.


We'd have to find an agreeable definition of life, but inside the womb a baby feeds, response to stimuli and undergoes cellular respiration. That's the definition I'd gone by in biological studies. Perhaps a separate thread titled "When does life begin?" in BTS will give us a more global perspective.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I see a person who has had an abortion as more responsible than one who has 10 kids and lives off welfare.


From what I understand, welfare is a temporary fix, not meant to be permanent. My spouse grew up on welfare for a short term until mother (after father died) could get back on her feet. The system works, but only if we use it as intended.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Tell them to go an abortion clinic and maybe if they convince someone to have their baby, it will be free.


Okay. I'll see if that can be done.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Well actually no, not really. It is exactly what I was talking about when I said" What I do not only affects my fate, but everyone elses". It takes place around the present, not futuristic. Maybe by now you've seen it?


I agree that what a persons affect everyone elses' present, but will go further to say it affects their future too. Perhaps we're saying the same thing and I'm missing an obvious point...

[edit on 29-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand what your saying but in some cases I think I would be OK. My original question was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, which maybe didnt get across the right idea.

Is it right for a boy to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?


No. I know that's going to be a very ugly, unpopular answer, but there are ways to get loafs of bread without stealing them from the mouths of others.

I think this was the position spamandham was eluding to in his above post.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
There's also other ways of attaining land, other than raping it from the poor. RCC. BAM. It's a all a crock. When the invetors of a religion can't even pull it off correctly, perhaps its time to switch?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

No. I know that's going to be a very ugly, unpopular answer, but there are ways to get loafs of bread without stealing them from the mouths of others.


Correct saint. Ask some of the monied. They have been doing it for years. Many of them of off others poor health.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Minus that, what churches are we speaking of and how are they teaching out of alignment with Jesus?


Turn on the TV and watch Falwell, Robertson and many of the others. They use GOD for their own agenda. They use it by instilling fear in others who are looking for an answer. They are the work of Satan.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
There's also other ways of attaining land, other than raping it from the poor.


There should be no interest in the aquisition of land from others.


Originally posted by FallenOne
RCC.


And the U.S government (manifest destiny), and before that the English Empire, and before that the... etc. etc. etc. This is an err of mankind, not God.


Originally posted by FallenOne
BAM. It's a all a crock. When the invetors of a religion can't even pull it off correctly, perhaps its time to switch?


The problem is not the Inventor (God), but rather the flawed people who think they are not flawed. It was in much need of reform, hence Jesus' teaching & crucifixion. Whether we listen to that or not determines if we'll screw it up again or get it right.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Turn on the TV and watch Falwell, Robertson and many of the others. They use GOD for their own agenda. They use it by instilling fear in others who are looking for an answer. They are the work of Satan.


I concede the victory as I have no grounds to fight. I watch very little TV (like CNN, C-Span, Animal Planet, occasionally Sci-Fi or Cartoon Network). I've heard of these names but do not watch them. I was thinking of real churches with people inside a building. As long as they are clean, I'm not really concerned. If people have not figured out by now that TV is a "show" then I'll pray for their awakening.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
No. I know that's going to be a very ugly, unpopular answer, but there are ways to get loafs of bread without stealing them from the mouths of others.

I think this was the position spamandham was eluding to in his above post.


I was trying to make the point that given these two choices, steal bread, or starve, stealing bread makes more sense. From my perspective, ethics are not absolute, so all that matters are consequences. I use ethics as a general guide - an efficient way of assessing actions likely to result in negative consequences without having to ponder every occasion. But, I am free to override them if the underlying assessments do not apply to a given situation.

The first ethic of ethics is "don't idolize ethics".



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I was trying to make the point that given these two choices, steal bread, or starve, stealing bread makes more sense. From my perspective, ethics are not absolute, so all that matters are consequences. I use ethics as a general guide - an efficient way of assessing actions likely to result in negative consequences without having to ponder every occasion. But, I am free to override them if the underlying assessments do not apply to a given situation.

The first ethic of ethics is "don't idolize ethics".


Wow, I was expecting more of a hit than a disagree. Thanks for taking it easy on me
. Not to belabor, but I did want to clarify. I'm not saying how God will judge the poor person stealing the bread, I only know what He said and understand why He said it.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

If people have not figured out by now that TV is a "show" then I'll pray for their awakening.


I do a lot of praying about it my friend. Robertson even recently advocated murder. That's a GODly fellow for you.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
I do a lot of praying about it my friend. Robertson even recently advocated murder. That's a GODly fellow for you.


That should be glaringly obvious for anyone who reads their Book, either Exodus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John among others. Also, glad I don't watch TV that much
.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
absolute power of christianity?


what about the absolutle ludicrus, incoherant, most nonsense-filled religion that has ever had the pleasure of having so many members...

question: why do people 'today' not believe in the ancient greek gods?

answer: because that belief system is viewed as illogical and stupid, and is hard to comprehend today 'why' so many people followed. yet, go back in the day and what they knew back then, and it will become clear 'why' so many did believe in the greek gods.

question: what makes christianity 'so' different, that it won't follow the same suit as the ancient greek gods or egyptian gods?

answer: i'm hoping some christians will shed some light on the answer, with their own thoughts...

there are also many other religions that today do not exist. taking in to account since darwin's discovery, and the numbers of people going to church have dropped: they will carry on falling, and eventually christianity will also be another one of those religions we will look back on and laugh that anyone actually believed in it.

if christianity actually made sense, and really was right then everyone would believe in it. it doesn't matter if you were a scientist etc, if there was conclusive proof christianity actually held some truth, everyone would believe in it. do you really think people prefer to believe in evolution, and that there's no heaven or hell and we just die? if christianity made sense i know i'd be the first one to say 'where do i join up'. as this is not the case, it seems more logical that believing evolution is true (which has no rewards like heaven and hell to sway people), is more likely to be right.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
absolute power of christianity?


what about the absolutle ludicrus, incoherant, most nonsense-filled religion that has ever had the pleasure of having so many members...


Don't hate, appreciate.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
question: what makes christianity 'so' different, that it won't follow the same suit as the ancient greek gods or egyptian gods?

answer: i'm hoping some christians will shed some light on the answer, with their own thoughts...


Ask and you shall receive. Instead of being based entirely on story, folklore, and legend, Christianity has a foundation upon an active, living God. I believe if nobody bumped into God, nobody would believe and it would trail off as something that fails to present any proofs.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
there are also many other religions that today do not exist. taking in to account since darwin's discovery, and the numbers of people going to church have dropped: they will carry on falling, and eventually christianity will also be another one of those religions we will look back on and laugh that anyone actually believed in it.


Is that what Miss Cleo says?



Originally posted by shaunybaby
if christianity actually made sense, and really was right then everyone would believe in it. it doesn't matter if you were a scientist etc, if there was conclusive proof christianity actually held some truth, everyone would believe in it.


First your complaint was that there's too many people believing it, now there's not enough. Which do you want?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
do you really think people prefer to believe in evolution, and that there's no heaven or hell and we just die?


Some do, yes. If not, then they should want something more and seek something more.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
if christianity made sense i know i'd be the first one to say 'where do i join up'.


I accept your offer! Now, where to begin? What is the deepest, biggest, "non-sensical" issue you have with Christianity? One at a time please, biggest to smallest, we'll see if your statement holds true.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
as this is not the case, it seems more logical that believing evolution is true (which has no rewards like heaven and hell to sway people), is more likely to be right.


Okay, you're saying evolution and ceasing to exist is a fallback, not a desired course but all that appears to be true. I think that's perfectly understandable. Let's explore other possibilities per above.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The power in all religeons is its peace, if anyone assumes that a belief is being forced on them, then 90% of the time they are feeling inner conflict between the belief told and the one they believe, they feel attacked so they're instinct is to defend their belief.

If you always deny the truth, which will survive more than 2000 years, as we all know, then you are just letting your mind get in the way of something that will set you free from conflict, and the heaven you will go to will be the one on earth, the peace of mind.

The thing is you need to experience this to believe it, and if no one wants to listen to the truth, how else will they experience it without it being "forced upon them" ?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Don't hate, appreciate.


i don't hate, nor can i appreciate. from learning about christianity, and learning about evolution (not within the confines of a school), i came to the conclusion that evolution is the more logical answer. i choose evolution over heaven according to you...i must also then be crazy or perhaps the fact that a person would give up this 'heaven' for a belief in evolution would suggest that there must be an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.



Instead of being based entirely on story, folklore, and legend, Christianity has a foundation upon an active, living God. I believe if nobody bumped into God, nobody would believe and it would trail off as something that fails to present any proofs.


the stories of jesus are mainly 'folklore'. the 'proofs' you say of jesus are the four gospels, yet these do not substantially prove jesus' story. folklore is an unsupported story, of which the bible has many. the legend of 'horis' is very similar to that of jesus', and belongs to the ancient egyptian faith. so christianity is infact 'mostly' folklore tales, legends and myths, intertwined to create this 'active, living god'.



First your complaint was that there's too many people believing it, now there's not enough. Which do you want?


i never complained 'so many believe in christianity', i also don't have a preference to 'how' many believe. i was merely stating that many people still do class themselves as 'christian'. however, i then stated that numbers have been falling. i think this shows less and less people 'need' religion, obviously less than we did 100 years ago. therefore, if the trend of falling numbers continues, it probably will follow the same path as the greek gods.



Some do, yes. If not, then they should want something more and seek something more.


why, what advantages are there to 'not' believing in christianity, heaven or hell? i would say none. other than some people must think it is absolutly obscene rubbish taught by christianity and in fact makes it easier to decide to opt for evolution.



I accept your offer! Now, where to begin? What is the deepest, biggest, "non-sensical" issue you have with Christianity? One at a time please, biggest to smallest, we'll see if your statement holds true.


i've read parts of the bible, sung hyms in church, sung hyms at school, said grace at school, said prayers at school and my leaving present from my primary school...a bible. if there was some sort of overwhelming evidence to suggest the christian god was real, then i would believe, but never have i seen any of that evidence. for me i'd like to see the body of adam and eve. the first two humans ever! yet, we have no physical trace whatsoever of these two finest miracles that ever occured. there are many problems i have with your faith, all combined make me turn away and look for evidence elsewhere of other theories.


Originally posted by woodsyboy
The power in all religeons is its peace, if anyone assumes that a belief is being forced on them, then 90% of the time they are feeling inner conflict between the belief told and the one they believe, they feel attacked so they're instinct is to defend their belief.

The thing is you need to experience this to believe it, and if no one wants to listen to the truth, how else will they experience it without it being "forced upon them" ?


a common misconception of religion is that its main element is peace. however, to a person of islamic beliefs, who believes by flying a plane in to the WTC towers, gets him inner peace, brings him closer to allah that he'll ever be...is that really peace? that's peace to the 'believer'. on the other hand, it most certainly not peaceful looking at it from a outsiders point of view.

if religion isn't forced then what do you call making children going to church? a child is incapable of making such a decision of 'religion' or 'faith' at such an early age. they are also incapable of 'knowing' the extent of other threories such as evolution. however, once they've been to church for a significant amount of time, it is very hard to turn their back.

i think it's a valid and logical point to make if i say that two christian parents are likely to bring up two christian children and that two muslim parents are likely to bring up two muslim children. is it not then obvious that children with religious parents are merely 'copying' their parents. some won't 'copy' and be athiest, yet on the whole, most will follow in the footsteps of their parents within the church.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i don't hate, nor can i appreciate.


As long as you don't hate, that's a good start I think. I'll try to help with the appreciate part as best I can.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
from learning about christianity, and learning about evolution (not within the confines of a school), i came to the conclusion that evolution is the more logical answer.


With Biology as my major, I'd come to the conclusion that biodiversity is such a necessary component for a viable ecosystem that life as we know it could not have been "grown" through evolution, but there are already threads out there still going through this kind of discussion.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i choose evolution over heaven according to you...


Er, no, I meant that some people want to chose evolution over heaven, despite their knowledge of either or both. I'd be very judgemental and contradictory to your statement if I said you'd prefer evolution over heaven. I can respect having evolution as a default over having no explanation at all. All I'm offering is explanation of more. Then, asking a reassessment or exploration of other possibilities.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i must also then be crazy or perhaps the fact that a person would give up this 'heaven' for a belief in evolution would suggest that there must be an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.


I think a good, hard look at the 'evidence' for evolution is called for. Also, evolution is independent of heaven. It is a mechanism used to describe how life came to be, not who generated it. There are Christian Evolutionist, there are Christian Creationalists. I'll label myself 'Christian not conviced of evolution due to lack of data and testing yet'. I've done the Drosophila Melanogaster (Fruit Fly) experiments as well as with Ostrinia Nubilalis (European Cornborers) and others. Still, empty. The systems stabilize despite disturbances (induced mutations).


Originally posted by shaunybaby
the stories of jesus are mainly 'folklore'.


That's judgemental decision. One that I'm hoping to help illustrate in a different light.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
the 'proofs' you say of jesus are the four gospels,


Not just the four gospels. I'm talking about the living God, that we can be in communication with right now.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
yet these do not substantially prove jesus' story. folklore is an unsupported story, of which the bible has many. the legend of 'horis' is very similar to that of jesus', and belongs to the ancient egyptian faith. so christianity is infact 'mostly' folklore tales, legends and myths, intertwined to create this 'active, living god'.


The Book did not make me believe. I sought out God. God then pointed me to the Book. I state this only to say that it is not only very possible, but did in fact happen. Perhaps some people can read the Book and believe. I admire that, truly, after realizing how much proof I demanded in order to accept it to be true. Feel kinda silly that my skepticism was so severe, that it took a couple of traumatic wrong turns on my part to shake me out of it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i never complained 'so many believe in christianity', i also don't have a preference to 'how' many believe. i was merely stating that many people still do class themselves as 'christian'. however, i then stated that numbers have been falling. i think this shows less and less people 'need' religion, obviously less than we did 100 years ago. therefore, if the trend of falling numbers continues, it probably will follow the same path as the greek gods.


Ah! This is stated substanially different than your prior post that says what Christian will do and how foolish people are for believing. Much more clear this time around and appreciate how it's said, though of course I disagree. Glad we could clear that up.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
why, what advantages are there to 'not' believing in christianity, heaven or hell? i would say none.


I would say there are plenty. Christianity says there's an absolute good and an absolute evil. That is, things that God approves of and things that God does not (sin). If that's the case, as a Christian, your concern is whether or not you're being, thinking and doing the right thing. You're bound by the moral law of God. To do otherwise is to invite punishment and shows a lack of love for Him. So, knowing about Christianity but refusing it give a person the feeling of personal 'freedom'. We want to pursue the hedonistic lifestyle so that we can "live life to the fullest", "satisfy" ourselves, "be a success", and have "fame, fortune, and power". Very attractive isn't it? Problem is, it is a hunger that never gets fed. Being a hedonist means getting, using, throwing away and looking to get more because the spirit never gets filled. Only by rejecting the hedonistic lifestyle can one be and do for God which in turn also means being and doing for others as well. In that, the spirit is filled, God blesses, and the fruits of such labors grow and perpetuate positive life.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
other than some people must think it is absolutly obscene rubbish taught by christianity and in fact makes it easier to decide to opt for evolution.


I will admit that Christianity on the onset seems unconventional. Kinda like looking at a rollercoaster for the first time, as an analogy. It seems to purposeless really, causes fear of the unknown, and we wonder why everyone is standing in line. After being on one though, you know it's safe, a whole lot of fun, and understand why it's a growth experience.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i've read parts of the bible, sung hyms in church, sung hyms at school, said grace at school, said prayers at school and my leaving present from my primary school...a bible. if there was some sort of overwhelming evidence to suggest the christian god was real, then i would believe, but never have i seen any of that evidence.


And that's totally okay, but can I ask for an open mind ready to accept evidence?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
for me i'd like to see the body of adam and eve. the first two humans ever!


Yech, they're probably dust by now in one form or another anyhow. Still, I wouldn't consider that compelling evidence. It could easily be explained away as, "yeah, they were the first humans, but no proof they were the actual Adam and Eve the Bible talks about" or "so there was a first male and female, so that folklore is true. But what about the rest of it? What about God and Jesus and heaven, etc?"


Originally posted by shaunybaby
yet, we have no physical trace whatsoever of these two finest miracles that ever occured.


...and that is intentional. If there was a big "See! Believe!" fest by God for everyone everywhere, we'd have no need for belief, faith, hope, etc. and all the other tools we need to grow spiritually. God gave me just enough proof that launched belief, faith, hope, etc. in the rest that was not shown to me. This is what I want to help you obtain. It's individual to each person because it seems to me God doesn't say "ya'll" but rather "you" because He loves each one of us individually.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
there are many problems i have with your faith, all combined make me turn away and look for evidence elsewhere of other theories.


Let's back up then to just before that turn. What's the biggest issue you have and we'll go one at a time.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

and that is intentional. If there was a big "See! Believe!" fest by God for everyone everywhere, we'd have no need for belief, faith, hope, etc. and all the other tools we need to grow spiritually. God gave me just enough proof that launched belief, faith, hope, etc. in the rest that was not shown to me. This is what I want to help you obtain. It's individual to each person because it seems to me God doesn't say "ya'll" but rather "you" because He loves each one of us individually.


should we have faith that God well help us through our problems or have faith that he exists at all. and even if we have faith that God exists, we'd also need faith that Jesus was God according to many christians. I personally believe that Jesus was not God, but a good son of God. but aren't we all children of God?

Mark 10:18 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Luke 18:19 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.


Matthew 5:9 - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Romans 8:14 - For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by passengername
I personally believe that Jesus was not God, but a good son of God.


If that's the case, though, you then have to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't. How do you make the judgement of what it true and what is false?




top topics



 
7
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join