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: 56
7
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
saintforgod told me you need to accept jesus as your saviour if you want to get in to heaven, and if you have learnt about jesus and do not accept him, you don't get in.


He has then given you the best advice anyone could ever give you.

I answered your previous post for how it was written and hope you took something positive out of it.




posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Jesus a White Man??????

NO NO NO,,, Jesus was a Jew,, He most likely looked much as the Jew's are seen today..
With a good Tan and Most likely short crop hair so he was able to blend it the crows when he had to get out Town Fast sometimes..
Yep, he would had have dark skin and Black curly hair and maybe less than six feet tall ( he was a Jew)..



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Everyone will hear about Jesus before the second coming


Its way back in the OT that everyone on the earth will have the chance of hearing of Jesus and the chance to expect him for who he is or turn there Back and go the other way,,
It says that he will be here soon after he has been tougt though out all the people on earth..



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
how long will people wait for jesus though? i really don't believe people will still be waiting in another 2000 years. what it 'ACTUALLY' says in the bible is that jesus' disciple's generation would not pass before jesus came back. however, their generation did pass, and so did many many more, and yet...there is no sign of him returning. so my question would be, how long are people going to wait?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfdarby
Its way back in the OT that everyone on the earth will have the chance of hearing of Jesus and the chance to expect him for who he is or turn there Back and go the other way


Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor does the OT ever say anything about accepting or rejecting the Messiah. These are New Testament inventions.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
There is a similar story of Moses convincing god not to carry out the wrath he said he would.

Exd 32:10
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

...

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


What translation is that? Mine said he "relented" the "disaster" not "repented of the evil". It does not mean the same thing to me.

Back to the point though, it is another example of how man had asked God to spare others. God did turn from this punishment, but does not look like he would have otherwise. So it seems he punishes sin, though will lift His punishment if a person can find favor with God to ask Him to do otherwise. Again, God being the judge, not us.


Originally posted by spamandham
In Genesis, god makes a vow never again to destroy the earth as the result of the sacrific of Noah. Although this is not abrogation per se, it does demonstrate the same concept.

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.


I think there are others, but I can't recall them at the moment.


I think this is plenty, thank you for doing the look-ups and providing support. I believe the the eternal saving and appealing was done (and is being done) by Jesus per the crucifixion in the gospels, Hebrews 4:14 and Revelation. I don't know what help he can be though, if a person refuses his role and counsel.


Originally posted by spamandham
Perhaps that was the purpose of Jesus? There are groups within Christianity who view that all eventually come to salvation through Christ.


Then they must toss out several parts of the Bible. I can cite if necessary.


Originally posted by spamandham
I know the hell things sounds kind of fun and all, but you can't reconcile the universalist passages with eternal damnation. However, you can reconcile the judgement passages with universalism by examing the OT passages that demonstrate mercy can be given to third parties through the righteous request of one. From the universalist perspective, Jesus has requested salvation for all, and since he is perfectly righteous, he will be granted it.


Then why are we still committing the same sins we were before he was crucified?


Originally posted by spamandham
Interestingly, the definition you provided does not imply any action whatsoever on the part of man, including acceptance of the covenant.


The definition states Jesus Christ. If you do not believe in him being Christ, how can you be atoned?


Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus makes it clear that faith is good, but where does he ever say it is required?


John 3:11 - John 3:21, as one example. There are others.


Originally posted by spamandham
That was Paulian doctrine.


Then let's just stick with the gospel four for the moment. Paul reflected what Jesus said in many ways and demonstrated practical application. If there is something that he says that Jesus did not, then it is a possibility it was not what Jesus said/meant, but that's taking it from a very literal perspective.


Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus does speak of the few being chosen, and the road being narrow, but does he ever say that failure to be chosen is the same as eternal damnation?


Yes. See above and recitations of Matthew and what hell means as quoted in my earlier posts.


Originally posted by spamandham
Is failure to enter the Kingdom of heaven the same as damnation, or is it just not as good?


The Book doesn't give an option to be "in the middle". One or the other, just like the parable of sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31 as well as other parables and Revelation.


Originally posted by spamandham
Could the chosen not be the 144,000 who have a special place reserved, whereas everyone else is spared, but unglorified?


The 144,000 was the chorus of sealed people who announced his coming.

"After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm brances in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." - Revelation 7:9. It goes further to explain that these people were saved through Jesus. Is this everybody? Surely not, for as you said, few are called and the road is narrow.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
who? who should i accept as my saviour? ''jesus christ''? who's that? do you really think his surname was 'christ'? that could be almost any random individual.


Back before Television and Computers, communication happened by ink and paper. It was important then to identify people by the characteristics that made them who they are. By reading the gospels and a good number of books before it, a picture is painted on who this saviour would be and is. Even after, there's even more description of who he is. By this, not by a language's translation, will a person know Christ as defined here:

Main Entry: Christ
Pronunciation: 'krIst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein
1 : MESSIAH
2 : JESUS
3 : an ideal type of humanity
www.m-w.com...

Called Yeshua, translated as Jesus to english here:

Main Entry: Je·sus
Pronunciation: 'jE-z&s, -z&z also -"z&s and -"z&z
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek IEsous, from Hebrew YEshua'
1 : the Jewish religious teacher whose life, death, and resurrection as reported by the Evangelists are the basis of the Christian message of salvation -- called also Jesus Christ
www.m-w.com...

His physical appearance is pointless, hence why it's no where described.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
so i'm supposed to accept a feminine looking, white european, long haired man as my saviour?


I don't see where that is his description.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
that's not even close to what the 'real' jesus would have looked or been like.


Agreed.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
so the person you accept as your saviour is someone who was created and thus idolised by the western world, hence this ''jesus christ'' character, which could not be more different than the real jesus.


Are you sure about that?

Mod Edit: Lassoed stray quote tag, and brought him back to the herd.

[edit on 20/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
If this continues a a purely theological discussion it will be moved to Faith, Theology, etc. where it belongs imo.


The conspiracy to cover up the truth is in the following:
1.) Separation of church & state, which is a political 'catch phrase'.
2.) The prohibition of openly discussing beliefs among peers in the workplace, school, and in public. (maybe soon in private, who knows?)
3.) The pull of sin that violently opposes thinking and doing that which is right.
4.) The misconception that heaven can be earned by deeds.
5.) The threat that this conspiracy is not a conspiracy at all and needs to be moved to a Faith, Theology and Beliefs in BTS.
6.) The presence of Satanism that wishes to show that it does not exist, does not hold any power, is stepped on, is misunderstood, and how 'oppressive' and 'evil' Christianity is.
7.) The media's reinforcement that there is no 'morality' and it's all subjective.

Need I go on? The fact that believers are hushed because the mere mention of God causes a "sit down and shut up!" reaction should tell you somthing.

The "power" of Christianity comes from the salvation through Christ, resulting in the guarentee of eternal life. I think discussing Christ and God then is core-central to uncovering the truth and exposing the conspiracies caused by groups who wish it to remain hidden.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Then they must toss out several parts of the Bible. I can cite if necessary.


Tossing out parts of the Bible is necessary, because there is contradiction. Don't you realize you are tossing out the portions I cited before that support universalism? The contradictions and vaguaries are part of the reason different sects of Christianity exist. All sides can support their positions with scripture, because scripture is not consistent.


Originally posted by saint4God
Then why are we still committing the same sins we were before he was crucified?


No where in the Bible does it say that those who are saved stop sinning. Surely you know that.


Originally posted by saint4God
The definition states Jesus Christ. If you do not believe in him being Christ, how can you be atoned?


How does belief provide atonement? Third party atonement makes no sense to begin with, but even so, if Jesus wants all to come to him, and the Father has given all to him, and he died to atone for sin, then there's no reason all can't be forgiven, even nonbelievers. If you died for your children, would you only want to save those who undertood why you had died, or would you want them all saved because you love them regardless of what they believe? God is accountable to no-one. It's up to him whether justice trumps love or love trumps justice.

How can it be considered just to spare people of the consequences of their sin simply because they believe? God already proves his willingness to let love trump justice in that act.


Originally posted by saint4God
John 3:11 - John 3:21, as one example. There are others.


Note that the passage does not say when you must be born again. What prevents this from happening after death? That is the universalist perspective.


Originally posted by spamandham
Yes. See above and recitations of Matthew and what hell means as quoted in my earlier posts.


Now you are combining scriptures out of context. The passages from John 3 you cited to not say anything about eternal punishment.


Originally posted by saint4God
The 144,000 was the chorus of sealed people who announced his coming.
...

It goes further to explain that these people were saved through Jesus. Is this everybody? Surely not, for as you said, few are called and the road is narrow.


Read it carefully. 144,000 is the complete number of those saved. If you wish to be a literalist and inerrantist, you have no choice but to accept that.

How do you justify rejecting this scripture?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor does the OT ever say anything about accepting or rejecting the Messiah. These are New Testament inventions.


Hmmmm...missed the books between Isaiah and Matthew?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so my question would be, how long are people going to wait?


"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." - Matthew 26:36

[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Tossing out parts of the Bible is necessary, because there is contradiction. Don't you realize you are tossing out the portions I cited before that support universalism? The contradictions and vaguaries are part of the reason different sects of Christianity exist. All sides can support their positions with scripture, because scripture is not consistent.


A generalized claim that I'm working daily to correct.


Originally posted by spamandham
No where in the Bible does it say that those who are saved stop sinning. Surely you know that.


My point exactly. We're still sinning, still flawed, still need Jesus Christ to save us from the result of that sin.


Originally posted by spamandham
How does belief provide atonement? Third party atonement makes no sense to begin with, but even so, if Jesus wants all to come to him, and the Father has given all to him, and he died to atone for sin, then there's no reason all can't be forgiven, even nonbelievers. If you died for your children, would you only want to save those who undertood why you had died, or would you want them all saved because you love them regardless of what they believe?


As I've said before, MY wish is that everyone would be saved. This is not how God says He is.


Originally posted by spamandham
God is accountable to no-one.


Agreed, so He does not need to abide by our want for everyone to be saved.


Originally posted by spamandham
It's up to him whether justice trumps love or love trumps justice.


That's true, though it has been foretold what will happen by a witness of God.


Originally posted by spamandham
How can it be considered just to spare people of the consequences of their sin simply because they believe? God already proves his willingness to let love trump justice in that act.


Is that why everyone but Noah & crew died in the flood? Or how Sodom and Gamorrah got blitz? Or maybe even the fact that we all die after 70 + - years? As you've said, God decides the balance between love and justice. He made the promise of eternal life when His son spoke and historically speaking, He was the One who kept to His end of the covenants. We're the covenant breakers time and time again.


Originally posted by spamandham
Note that the passage does not say when you must be born again. What prevents this from happening after death? That is the universalist perspective.


That's a dangerous way of looking at it. Like speeding on a motorcycle with no helmet. Clearly breaking the law, hoping an accident won't happen that will instantly kill you. The consequence is clearly there, so why not put on the helmet and obey the law?


Originally posted by spamandham
Now you are combining scriptures out of context. The passages from John 3 you cited to not say anything about eternal punishment.


No I'm not. I'll leave it to the reader. Better still, one should read all 4 gospels comparatively.


Originally posted by spamandham
Read it carefully. 144,000 is the complete number of those saved. If you wish to be a literalist and inerrantist, you have no choice but to accept that.

How do you justify rejecting this scripture?


I did read it carefully. And completely. And repetitively. I quoted a full paragraph. You only had a number. Who's taking things out of context?

How can you justify claiming I'm rejecting scripture?

Here. I'll help with bolds and underlines for the relevant parts:

"Then, I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless." - Revelation 10:14

Are you saying that the only people going to heaven are male virgins? Careful with your answer. Also, how does this passage negate those who were saved in two chapters previous within the same book of Revelation?


[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

The conspiracy to cover up the truth is in the following:
1.) Separation of church & state, which is a political 'catch phrase'.
2.) The prohibition of openly discussing beliefs among peers in the workplace, school, and in public. (maybe soon in private, who knows?)
3.) The pull of sin that violently opposes thinking and doing that which is right.
4.) The misconception that heaven can be earned by deeds.
5.) The threat that this conspiracy is not a conspiracy at all and needs to be moved to a Faith, Theology and Beliefs in BTS.
6.) The presence of Satanism that wishes to show that it does not exist, does not hold any power, is stepped on, is misunderstood, and how 'oppressive' and 'evil' Christianity is.
7.) The media's reinforcement that there is no 'morality' and it's all subjective.


Now, I'll have to delve into your points my friend. Remember, my side of the fence is the same as yours. However, life is looked on slightly differently.

1. Separation of church and state-Yes, our founding fathers were Christian. However, many of them and their ancestors came from countries whose religion was interwoven into their government. Exactly the reason they left, and did not want to see it repeated over here.

2. There is no prohibition of discussion in the school systems per se. Prayer HAS NOT been eliminated as many have been led to believe. However, prayer should not be led by a member of the State(gov't employee) while ALL are required to be in attendance.

3. The "pull of sin"-I'm not gonna touch.

4. I don't think that it is quite the misconception that I "hear". Christ asked for all to do the good deeds. I know what you are trying to "say", but allegiance to GOD should be automatic.

5. One of the true conspiracies I have stated before is the attack on "My form" of Christianity which certain members of the "religion" really are trying to take away from me and others.

6. Christianity itself is not "evil and oppresive". However, certain representatives of it are.

7. This part bothers me my friend saint. Stay away from its "the media" fault characters. If one doesn't want to see what is in the media one has the power to turn it off. Just as I do when I see so called "Christians" on the boob tube.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
A generalized claim that I'm working daily to correct.


You wouldn't need to work at correcting it if it were false. Finding ways to harmonize scripture through speculation (aka apologetics) is not the same as disproving inconsistency.


Originally posted by saint4God
As I've said before, MY wish is that everyone would be saved. This is not how God says He is.


According to the Bible it is. I quoted the relevant scriptures a page or two back.


Originally posted by saint4God
That's true, though it has been foretold what will happen by a witness of God.


...and that was the purpose of the discussion we had regarding the Old Testament. God is under no obligation to punish anyone, and has demonstrated an inclination to 'change his mind' regarding such threats.


Originally posted by saint4God
That's a dangerous way of looking at it. Like speeding on a motorcycle with no helmet. Clearly breaking the law, hoping an accident won't happen that will instantly kill you. The consequence is clearly there, so why not put on the helmet and obey the law?


...the consequence isn't clearly there. No one has any reason to believe anything the Bible has to say. It's just a bunch of ancient writings written during a credulous time when there was little distinction between reality and mythology. But even if you accept that the Bible is more than just a collection of myths and legends set against some actual history, there is Biblical support for universalism which I already cited. You have not explained why those passages do not mean what they say.


Originally posted by saint4God
Here. I'll help with bolds and underlines for the relevant parts:

"Then, I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless." - Revelation 10:14

Are you saying that the only people going to heaven are male virgins?


No, and neither is that passage saying this, except to a literalist. Revelation is filled with imagery that was not intended to be taken literally. But if you take the literalist stance, then it's proper to conclude only 144,000 male virgins make it to the Kingdom and its toasty time for everyone else.


Originally posted by saint4God
Also, how does this passage negate those who were saved in two chapters previous within the same book of Revelation?


It doesn't. Revelation 5 and 6 do not mention anyone else who is saved. They speak of the 4 beasts, the 24 elders, some unspecified huge number of angels, and those slain for the word of god. There is no reason to presume that the elders and those slain are not part of the 144,000.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
You wouldn't need to work at correcting it if it were false. Finding ways to harmonize scripture through speculation (aka apologetics) is not the same as disproving inconsistency.


I'm not correcting scripture, I'm correcting the claim. As in, the claim is not correct. Sorry I wasn't clear. Even the Bible as clear as it is, seems to be misread or misundersood. I cannot be as clear as the Word, just able to point out what it does say. In that case, let each of us go to God and ask our question(s), being sure to read the Book to help increase understanding of Him.


Originally posted by spamandham
According to the Bible it is. I quoted the relevant scriptures a page or two back.


Weeee! Here we go in circles. Just don't say I didn't address them already.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
That's true, though it has been foretold what will happen by a witness of God.


...and that was the purpose of the discussion we had regarding the Old Testament. God is under no obligation to punish anyone, and has demonstrated an inclination to 'change his mind' regarding such threats.


How is this a response to what I said? I see you refer to Revelation on the 144,000, yet neglect it saying that he'll punish sin. Why is that?


Originally posted by spamandham
...the consequence isn't clearly there.


I consider printed warning as "clear", like the speed limit sign in my example. I've had to "tell it to the judge" when speeding one time, but he didn't seem to think my "the consequence isn't clearly there" speech had any relevancy to the law. He asked me one question, "Were you speeding?". I said, "yes". *thump* went the gavel, guilty.


Originally posted by spamandham
No one has any reason to believe anything the Bible has to say.


I have reason.


Originally posted by spamandham
It's just a bunch of ancient writings written during a credulous time when there was little distinction between reality and mythology.


God is still here, it can be checked.


Originally posted by spamandham
But even if you accept that the Bible is more than just a collection of myths and legends set against some actual history, there is Biblical support for universalism which I already cited. You have not explained why those passages do not mean what they say.


What part(s) did I miss?


Originally posted by spamandham
No, and neither is that passage saying this, except to a literalist. Revelation is filled with imagery that was not intended to be taken literally. But if you take the literalist stance, then it's proper to conclude only 144,000 male virgins make it to the Kingdom and its toasty time for everyone else.


Again, 144,000 isn't "a great multitude that no one could count". 144,000 is a number. Something that "cannot be counted" is greater than a defined number. Therefore "great multitude" > 144,000. Reading on past what I quoted, it talks about how they were saved and what it means from that point on.


Originally posted by saint4God
It doesn't. Revelation 5 and 6 do not mention anyone else who is saved. They speak of the 4 beasts, the 24 elders, some unspecified huge number of angels, and those slain for the word of god. There is no reason to presume that the elders and those slain are not part of the 144,000.


How can the elders sing to the elders?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
1. Separation of church and state-Yes, our founding fathers were Christian. However, many of them and their ancestors came from countries whose religion was interwoven into their government. Exactly the reason they left, and did not want to see it repeated over here.


Understood that that's the history. However, a foothold stance has been taken and interpreted this to mean that we are not free to practice our religion as a way of life, rather something that's be done in private or secrecy. Even raising a child exposed to your personal beliefs is shunned. Notice I did not say "forced" but "exposed". There is a difference but shunned in the same way.


Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
2. There is no prohibition of discussion in the school systems per se. Prayer HAS NOT been eliminated as many have been led to believe. However, prayer should not be led by a member of the State(gov't employee) while ALL are required to be in attendance.


I noticed the idea of a conspiracy for not being able to discuss in public and the workplace went unaddressed. As far as the school system, I think there are plenty of hot topics being discussed already on other threads here on ATS' main page. No, prayer has not been eliminated....yet. As far as discussion, I'll say there's no "law" against it, but there is enforcement in other ways to cease.


Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
3. The "pull of sin"-I'm not gonna touch.





Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
4. I don't think that it is quite the misconception that I "hear". Christ asked for all to do the good deeds. I know what you are trying to "say", but allegiance to GOD should be automatic.


There are communities out there who have been convinced that you have to "do" things to get eternal life and that belief in Jesus Christ as son of God, our saviour isn't it (contrary to John 3:16). Good deeds should flow after having this belief though, as you say.


Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
5. One of the true conspiracies I have stated before is the attack on "My form" of Christianity which certain members of the "religion" really are trying to take away from me and others.



Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
6. Christianity itself is not "evil and oppresive". However, certain representatives of it are.


...as the Bible says, yes. They are called false prophets among other things.


Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
7. This part bothers me my friend saint. Stay away from its "the media" fault characters. If one doesn't want to see what is in the media one has the power to turn it off. Just as I do when I see so called "Christians" on the boob tube.


Turning it off, doesn't make it go away. It just blinds me to what's being propagated. There are some things I will not watch, but there are times I need to check-in to see what others are being led to believe. So far, here's what I see are 'truths' according to TV: Look out for yourself as #1, buying things will make you happy, be sexy to everyone, insults are funny, violence is good, want/desire everything, money is god, lying is okay as long as you have a good reason, disobey your parents, stealing someone else's food is okay if they're a friend or in your family, solve problems by fighting, and so on and so on. And that's just network tv, I haven't even started on cable yet!



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I believe the 144,000 is talking about the reps of the 12 tribes of isreal that go in the rapture. as far as the all men who didn't know women, this is purely a thing brought on by paul who was "undesirable" to say the least. He attempted to become a pharisee to try to get a jewish woman to marry him.


I noticed the idea of a conspiracy for not being able to discuss in public and the workplace went unaddressed.


well, I guess I'll tackle it. no one says you can't! the whole idea is to keep church and state seperate. no one says that you as a private citizen can't rant and rave all you want to about all us sinners going to hell. we just don't want OUR funds(your's included i'm afraid) to pay for it.



[edit on 20-9-2005 by passengername]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I consider printed warning as "clear", like the speed limit sign in my example.


Your case is somewhat unique in that you believe you received direct communication from god. Most of us have not, nor do we have any reason to believe your experience was what you think it was.

For the rest of us, how do we choose which printed warnings to consider? We have the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Indian Vedas, the Book of Mormon, Egyptian writings, etc.


Originally posted by saint4God
I have reason.


You've rejected the straightforward natural explanations for your experience out of hand. You have motivation to accept it, but not a reason.


Originally posted by saint4God
God is still here, it can be checked.


Uh huh.


Originally posted by saint4God
What part(s) did I miss?


You didn't explain why even though god wants everyone saved (1 Tim. 2:3-6), and everyone has been given to Jesus to save as he sees fit (John 3:35), and he gave himself as a ransom for all men (1 Tim, again), that these do not equate to universal salvation.

All you did was play dictionary games and say that just because he wants it doesn't make it his will, and to further insert into the text your interpretation that 'ransom for all' really mean 'ransom for some'. The straightforward read of these passages supports universalism.

Of course, your perspective is supported by other passages. Hence the numerous Christian sects.


Originally posted by saint4God
Again, 144,000 isn't "a great multitude that no one could count".


It can be it isn't intended to literally be 144,000, but rather represents a large perfection of perfections (12=perfect number). This is where a literal reading causes problems, but a symbolic reading doesn't.

In Rev. 7 it states those in the white robes are the ones who came out of great tribulation (not "the" great tribulation BTW). Rev.6 speaks of those with the white robes as the ones who had been slain for the word of god, and Rev 14. refers to the 144,000 as those who were the 'firstfruits' - a reference back to sacrifice of the Old Testament, which gives context that they are those that were martyred, and are the same group thus spoken of in Rev. 6 and 7.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Hmmmm...missed the books between Isaiah and Matthew?


Care to be more specific?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Hey lets all go by what the corrupt book says instead of what God says! Abortion is not a sin!
www.mwillett.org...

Hell the fetus isn't even property unless a guy punches your wife in the stomach causing her to miscarry, and even then only if you want to fine the man for doing so. It is below property! Why one should go by what God gave us, the 10 Commandments, not the corrupt, not the church, not the evil that is mass religon.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join