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: 68
7
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Hey Jungle Jake:

Are you perhaps confusing "Nazareth" with "Genessereth"?

In view of the Titulus on the Cross, which lists CRIMES not birth places we would have to assume that NAZIR was being utilised in connexion with the Roman "political" execution by crucifixion of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean:

Yeshua haNazir Meleckh Yehudah (Iesous Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum= Iesous the Branch [of David] King of the Judaeans)

All four of the canonical gospels seem to indicate a similar list of seditionist crimes on the Titulus hung around his neck on a board (or perhaps affixed to another lower part of the cross that bystanders could read clearly ?) .

The technical Messianic title The Branch (Heb. "haNazir") is a specific royal title derived from Zechariah 6:12ff, and one which the praefect of Judaea Pontius Pilatus (at least in the 4th gospel !!) taunts his thorn-crowned Daviddic messianic pretender-prisoner with in full view of the crowds (John 19:5):

Here is the reference which Pilate seems to have been quoting in mock derision:

6:12 , Thus speaketh the YHWH of Armies, saying,
Behold the Man ! whose name is (Ha Nazir) The BRANCH;
He shall grow up far away from his birth place
but it is he who shall rebuild the Temple of YHWH :
6:13 Yea it is he himself who shall build the temple of YHWH
he shall bear the Glory,
and he shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and there shall be also a Priest upon his throne:
and a Counsel of Peace shall be between them both.


This Messianic title (Nazir) gave way before the Jewish Revolt (AD 66-72) to an anti Roman Messianic group called the "Nazoreans "headed up by the Daviddic relatives of "Iesous" based on blood lineage, and not on discipleship (e.g. Yakkov bar Yosef haTsaddiq or James the Just, the brother of "Iesous", who was NOT a disciple and who apparently was involved in trying to put his brother "Iesous" away for insanity (Mark 3:21).

I don't think there is any evidence that Romans put the names of birth-places (e.g. Nazareth, if it ever did exist in AD 36) on their Tituli ("little crime sheets") which was generally hung around the necks of crucified seditionists like R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, who as you know, armed his disciples with swords on the hill during The Insurrrection (Mark 15:7) held on the 100th anniversary (i.e. in AD 36) of the Invasion of the Roman General Pompey into Jerusalem in BC 63 after 100 years of "Judaean [quasi-]self rule" .

After the failed Jewish revolt against Rome in AD 72, when the gospels were beginning to be written down (at least in their first stages of compilation) were later edited so that the Messianic Pretender Seditionist language of the Nazorean movement was toned down.

I think by the time the Greek gospels were circulating, Nazir (a Hebrew Messianic term) had morphed into a place name (i.e. Nazareth allegedly in the Galilee) and later stories about the Galilean ministry linked Nazareth to Jesus as a secondary tradition, completely annhialiting the Royal Messianic (and to Roman eyes, Seditionistic) Title "Nazir" connection with Zechariah 9:12---the canonical gospels were circulating after say AD 80-100 among Greek-non-Hebrew-Aramaic speaking Jews and other Messianic Christians of the larger Roman Empire who did not want the movement to appear seditionist in any way especially after the humiliating Jewish defeat in the 1st Jewish War against Rome of AD 66-72.

R. Yehoshua lived in pre-AD 66 (pre Defeat) times when they still imagined they could take on Rome head on apparently.

Much of the seditionist tone and strident language of R. Yehoshua was deliberately toned down, but we can still catch glimpses here and there that the Messianic/early Nazorean movement was politico-religious and involved the removal of the Roman Occupation and the Establishment of the Davidds on the throne of Israel as an independent kingdom

(e.g. "The Times of the Gentiles is fulfilled..." and "these be the Days of Vengeance") words which are attributed to "Jesus" in the gospel of Luke for example.

The first phrase certainly recalls words placed into the mouth of Moses in connexion with the Amorites who were inhabiting the Promised Land before the so-called military "Conquest" of Palestine outlined in the heinous book of Joshua, and the second phrase is taken straight out of the War Scroll which calls the Romans the "Kittim" written perhaps between BC 60 and AD 15, and which envisages the blood of the Romans rising "even to the bridles of the horses" with an imaginative Jewish Victory against them).

Either way, militaristic terminology is lurking in the background of many of the sayings placed into the mouth of "Jesus" in the gospels even after all the toning down of the rhetorc in the Greek...

And NAZIR seems to have morphed into a place name that may not have even been around in AD 36, let along in BC 12...




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I just don't see how things could have gone as they did, and God still not condone me not believing in him. How can he be god, and not have things his own way?


Because he cares what we think too. Have you ever been in a relationship where you demanded, "YOU MUST LOVE ME BECAUSE I WANT IT!". If so, can you honestly say they loved you out of their free will? and, how long did that last?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If he gave me free-will, he should have seen this coming.


He gave us the possibility, with all the mathmatically possible variables you could imagine. The ones we chose were not the right set by a long stretch. I'm sure God understood what those variables were (he created them) but allowed us to participate in the selection process.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Im only human . What does he expect when I have no reason to believe he exists?


I think He wants us to realize that we make mistakes, that we need to invite Him to come to us because we can't save ourselves. How? With sincerity, pray in your own words something to the effect of: "God, I've messed up a lot of things in my life. Please come into my life and change me. I accept your Son, Jesus as teacher and saviour. I'll put my trust in you instead of myself. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen". Essentially. Then, your proofs should follow. Did I miss anything JJ?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Since you have claimed to contact him, tell him no harsh feelings alright?


I most certainly will, but so could you. In fact, he's already heard it, you're just saying it around Him instead of to Him. As Geico used to say "eliminate the middle man".


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
This thread isnt about Christians, its about Christianity and what it has become.


Who else would you question about Christianity? And, what makes them a more reliable source being outside of the belief?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If you are told, this is what you believe or you die(not lately), chances are its not free-will.


100% agree. How you are able to prove what someone truly believes is tricky though, eh? There's this thing called 'lying'. A lot of us humans do this to save our hides. Just because we confess it with our mouths does not mean we believe it in our hearts, I'm sorry to report. Many people who use the excuse...er...say they were 'forced to believe' typically either know their heart already or find out later that they never truly believed in the first place. A lot of people really want to believe, yet are unwilling to give up the wrong things in their lives (Matthew 19:16, John 3:19 - 21) or are unable to give the trust needed to believe (Matthew 10:32).


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I believe Christianity has survived through fundamentalist parents who "force" it on their children and scare them with "hell".


Are they Christians then? (Cross-reference John 3:16)


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
The page works good for me, maybe it works for you too now.

Your friendly neighborhood Charlie Murphy


I think it does, browser is kicking up nicely today. I'll move to that next.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Charlie, I would really appreciate the host of this link to read the Bible instead of trying to extract one sentence from one part and one sentence from another part in an attempt to create an conflicting idea, which is clearly not the case. For example:



GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.


Maybe because in Genesis 1 it was before mankind screwed it all up and after Genesis 3 he & she did screw it all up?
It's called "before" and "after", so if we cannot wrap our heads around a cause-and-effect concept, then yes, I can see how the Book would be useless to a reader. The whole webpage is like this. I seriously doubt you want to stop up ATS like a bad toliet addressings all the fallacies in this person's lack of thinking. Will someone please actually read the Bible before making statements about what it does and does not say? I beg mercy please, to only bring up points that matter to you and will make any hint of a difference in your life.

We can argue scripture all day, discerning all the flavors and colors of the meanings within it, but will that ever answer the question: Does God exist? That's something each of us have to go to Him about. The Book makes a whole lot more sense after you can answer that question, trust me.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Interesting page, Charlie. I think many of those contradictions/inconsistencies are grasping for straws, but that's easy to say, harder to support.

The first contradiction mentioned on that page is:


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

This has been discussed a lot on this thread. If you'd like, you could check it out.

I'd like to address the next one, though:


GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.


The website links to the King James version of Bible Gateway, but I find King James very hard to understand and usually go to the New International Version. If you have a problem with that, let me know and I'll try to muddle through the KJV. The quote from Genesis 2:4-9 is interesting, but I don't think the author took everything said in those passages into account. Allow me to quote the NIV version:


4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


The claim is that this passage, specifically verse 9, demonstrates that trees were created after man. However, if you take into account the original passage from Genesis 1 and verse 6 from this passage, you have to ask yourself, watered what? Why did the surface of the Earth have to be watered, if there were no trees or shrubs? Ahh, Genesis 1:11 shows what; grass, shrubs, and trees. They didn't exist before Gen 2:6, but that was because it didn't rain and the plants couldn't get water. It was only after the streams came up that the vegetation could grow.

That still doesn't explain verse 9 in the passage above, though. For that, we have to look at both verse 8 and verse 9. It says God planted a garden in the east. This isn't to say there was no vegetation anywhere else; only that He chose a special spot to plant a garden. So it appears man was created before the trees had grown into something pleasing to the eye in the Garden of Eden, but that doesn't negate any presence of vegetation throughout the rest of the world. It doesn't even negate trees being in the Garden of Eden, only that they weren't too pretty.

More later
This is fun!



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Because he cares what we think too. Have you ever been in a relationship where you demanded, "YOU MUST LOVE ME BECAUSE I WANT IT!". If so, can you honestly say they loved you out of their free will? and, how long did that last?

He is God, no excuses. He can do ANYTHING he wants. If he wanted us to love him he would of made us incapable of doing otherwise. If he gave us free-will to choose to love him or not, he accepted some would not love him. If he really is GOD he is responsible for all things good and BAD.


Originally posted by saint4God
"God, I've messed up a lot of things in my life. Please come into my life and change me. I accept your Son, Jesus as teacher and saviour.

If accepting Jesus Christ is the criteria to getting into heaven, count me out. I think that if a person tries to live a good life he should get in. But that's just the reasoning skills he gave me right?




Originally posted by saint4God
Who else would you question about Christianity? And, what makes them a more reliable source being outside of the belief?


All you have to look at what the majority do, say, believe in. I have nothing against Christians only Christianity. Many Chrisitians who have actully read the Bible immediately loose their faith. I believe you know one, his first name is Spam.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sorry to report. Many people who use the excuse...er...say they were 'forced to believe' typically either know their heart already or find out later that they never truly believed in the first place.

It is no excuse to say it was forced. As a child I was forced to go to Church, and now that Im a bit older and a bit wiser I dont believe. I did believe, but I was a child with a childs reasoning skills. How was I supposed to know anthing?


Originally posted by saint4God
Are they Christians then?

If they believe Christ died for them(what they were told).


Originally posted by saint4God
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.


You left out the most important part of that quote:
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

This is what I was getting at before.


Originally posted by saint4God
I beg mercy please, to only bring up points that matter to you and will make any hint of a difference in your life.

Right.... So because it doesnt happen to me, it certainly isnt applicable here.


Originally posted by saint4God
We can argue scripture all day, discerning all the flavors and colors of the meanings within it, but will that ever answer the question: Does God exist? That's something each of us have to go to Him about. The Book makes a whole lot more sense after you can answer that question, trust me.

Please do not post anymore verses from the Bible as they are often also taken out of context and are not applicable.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I think the primary issue with murder is the intent of the person inacting it, and the pain it causes the victim and the family.


Certainly these are important, but the real point we were discussing is whether or not we are inately averse to committing murder. I'm not convinced that we are considering how widespread it is. As a species, we seem to only be averse to killing people who remind us of ourselves.


Originally posted by saint4God
Uh, my Book says not to judge (Matthew 7). If anyone is judging people, they're not going by the Book.


Judgementalism is a cost of faith. It's tough to avoid regardless of what your book says. I no longer have try not to be judgemental, because I no longer view the world through the free will meme.


Originally posted by saint4God
I have a question. Would any of us be able to enjoy heaven if we had to bear the suffing of loved ones in hell?


The only way for there to be no suffering in heaven is if you quit caring about everything.


Originally posted by saint4God
Does God change or remain the same?


That's no longer my concern. It's your concern - one of the costs of faith.


Originally posted by saint4God
So...you don't pay taxes then?


They're unavoidable, but I no longer view it as just. From my new perspective, the government is just a powerful mafia, not an agent of god on earth.


Originally posted by saint4God
Egads! You've made a mistake, how dare you! Don't you know all Christians are perfect when drawing conclussions from stuff not written in the Bible?


Actually, it is written in the Bible. There is a complete lineage all the way from Adam to Jesus. Add up the generations + 2000 years and you have the Biblical age of the earth give or take. It turns out to be right around 6000 years. Those into eschatology love this, because they view it as a 'double prophecy', where the 6000 years align with the 6 days of creation (a day is 1000 years to god). That puts us on the eve of the 7th day - the millenial kingdom/day of rest. The symbolism was irresistable to me.


Originally posted by saint4God
Wish I could take you with me...


It would be rude for me to confront the faithful in their own house. I don't go trolling around Christian forums either.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well, that first one was a lot of fun...Did I say a contradiction a day keeps the devil away? Well...Then maybe if I do more than one I'll get him running



GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.


Again, this one looks like the author just didn't look closely at the words used in the passages.

Genesis 1:24-27
url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:7,%20Genesis%202:19;&version=31;]Genesis 2:7, 19[/url]

That first passage clearly states that God created the animals before He created man. Yet, we seem to run into a conundrum in Genesis 2:19. Man's already there, and God forms all the animals out of the ground and brings them to Adam to name. Or was he?

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them
There is one key word in this phrase that leads doubts to the author of that website's claim that the animals were created after man in Genesis 2:19. Had is the past perfect tense of the verb "have". A past perfect tense denotes an action that took place before another action that also took place in the past. As such, this leads us to believe that the animals were already there, and Genesis 2:19 was just reminding us of that fact, before going on to explain that God led them to Adam to name.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Not wishing to high jack the topic`s being discussed but fell it important to point out a discrepancy i find shocking.

KJV
Psalm 118:22
The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

NIV

Psalm 118:22
The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;

Capstone?





2Thes.2
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Rev.13
[14] And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

its amazing what one little word being changed can envision,i would like to be able to read Hebrew but i`m still struggling with English,so my choice is to stick with the KJV and continue to struggle.
But i`m just pointing out not to be fooled by someone claiming to be Christ the capstone in the future.
There maybe a lot more of these discrepancies between the two books and between Hebrew and the KJV,though i`d hazard a guess the NIV would be the most widely read because its easier to read.
Comments or opinions appreciated



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Originally posted by shaunybaby



i'm not searching, i don't need to search, i don't need god in my life, and i cannot for the life of me think why i or any person would.

Well something must of interested you in evolution/creation,its no different to anyone elses search for Truth,it comes down to does one accept info which they find comfortable and can live with as the Truth.
Those who searched and found God are those you cannot understand to a degree,thats understandable.


i've been shown courtesy by some Christians on this board and to those i try and show the same back. those who don't, i have no reason to either.

I must have started viewing your comments to people that had not shown you respect then?


to my best of knowledge, if i am shown any courtesy in a discussion on here then i reciprocate. i'm not sure who made you judge, jury and executioner.

NO,you now talking about condemning,if i said to you "your wise intelligent none offensive"that would also be a judgment,i hav`nt and dont condemn anyone.I have said though that the things that tick you off you also do.People yourself myself can have bad days CystalSword said it well, someone may not be the same tomorrow.



i remember, not sure what it was about, mine wasn't so much a rant and rave, more of an observation i had made about some Christians who had been doing so. it wouldn't make it hypocritical, it'd make it ironic that i was ranting and raving about Christians who rant and rave.

I to find it ironic that when you call someone hypocritical and you have done the same things but only claim it to be only ironic.



well the bible is inaccurate and flawed(crystalsword's words), why can the belief system not also be that? i don't remember me saying one of my goals is to show christians their belief system is flawed and illogical. that quote 'you should take up something achievable' you said to me, which is why i said you sounded 'frightened'. all it seems as you're doing is twisting a lot of words around.

Not twisting anything its your time, spend it how you like then.
These inaccurate and flawed topic`s of the Bible is a concern for Christians as well,though Christians dont think of them as such,people who try and prove there is no God will,Saint4God and JJ and others are well studied on the Bible but they would be the first to admit they are still learning even though they debunk most of the so called inaccuracies that people like to use to believe that God dos`nt exist.



as soon as people stop handing out the insults and labels to me, i'll stop giving them back. i don't do to anyone what they haven't done to me.

A lot of the time i end up feeling the same way,i have patients but after a while of treating them how i`d like to be treated i end up treating them the same way they treat me,then they end up commenting on how rude i was,
i find myself praying "God please grant me patients NOW!!! "


[edit on 6-10-2005 by gps777]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Well something must of interested you in evolution/creation,its no different to anyone elses search for Truth,it comes down to does one accept info which they find comfortable and can live with as the Truth.
Those who searched and found God are those you cannot understand to a degree,thats understandable.


so 800,000,000 people 'seached' for god. every individual had to search for god? i don't believe this for a second. my christian friend has been christian since she was like 5, i really doubt she was 'searching' at that age. she was 'told' he existed, no 'shown' he existed.



I to find it ironic that when you call someone hypocritical and you have done the same things but only claim it to be only ironic.


i'm a hypocrite because i write about christians ranting and raving? maybe i thought it would be funny to do so... that's your call




Not twisting anything its your time, spend it how you like then.
These inaccurate and flawed topic`s of the Bible is a concern for Christians as well,though Christians dont think of them as such,people who try and prove there is no God will,Saint4God and JJ and others are well studied on the Bible but they would be the first to admit they are still learning even though they debunk most of the so called inaccuracies that people like to use to believe that God dos`nt exist.


i will bring to your attention this:

www.timesonline.co.uk...

so the catholic church now believes some of the bible may not be truth, as it does hold innacuracies. crystalsword, who is a christian also thinks the bible is flawed and innacurate. for something that is being accepted as flawed and innacurate, doesn't half have a lot of people living by it.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so 800,000,000 people 'searched' for god. every individual had to search for god? i don't believe this for a second. my Christian friend has been Christian since she was like 5, i really doubt she was 'searching' at that age. she was 'told' he existed, no 'shown' he existed.

I`ve heard these same arguments before Shauny,i fully understand what your point or gripe with it is.I`ve know similar people in the same position as your friend and they left the Church in their late teens,some came back after finding their own way,some never returned.Something that the individual has to search ultimately themselves.

But as for a small child its mainly a good environment not bad,what would you expect the parents to do,leave them with a baby sitter etc?
If you Shauny had a child and believed in something i`m sure you`d involve the child if it was morally correct.


i'm a hypocrite because i write about Christians ranting and raving? maybe i thought it would be funny to do so... that's your call


I never called you one,though i pointed out your ranting and raving that you say Christians do and also pointed out that you called CrystalSword a Hypocrite.I asked you what you call that?though i do see IT as hypocritical i did`nt call you a hypocrite.


i will bring to your attention this:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Maybe you hav`nt understood in me stating before that nothing brought forward could alter my faith,its not based on interpretations,writing`s archeologist's finds,scientific finds etc.I found Him personally he would have to tell me himself that he dose`nt exist and thats not going to happen.There are lots of questions i`d like answered but i know i`ll just have to wait to find out those answers and that has`nt changed my faith one iota either.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
He is God, no excuses. He can do ANYTHING he wants. If he wanted us to love him he would of made us incapable of doing otherwise.


Certainly he can do anything he wants. This is the way He chose it. I can't argue with Him about that.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If he gave us free-will to choose to love him or not, he accepted some would not love him.


I knew in having a child, there were going to be days the child will be defiant. I also run the risk of the child leavng all togther. That doesn't mean I wish it to happen, and do my best to make sure the love flows between us. Ultimately what she chooses to do with that is the child's decision.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If he really is GOD he is responsible for all things good and BAD.


That would explain the flood, Sodom and Gamorrah, and Revelation pretty well I think
.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If accepting Jesus Christ is the criteria to getting into heaven, count me out.


Sorry, I don't make the covenants and change change the agreement.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I think that if a person tries to live a good life he should get in.


That'd be nice if we got to make the rules. However, there is that problem of staying in His house without knowing and loving Him. That be pretty weird, huh?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
But that's just the reasoning skills he gave me right?


One can use a hammer to build a house, or they can use it to break windows. No sense in blaming the hammer for either I think.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
All you have to look at what the majority do, say, believe in. I have nothing against Christians only Christianity. Many Chrisitians who have actully read the Bible immediately loose their faith. I believe you know one, his first name is Spam.


What of the many Christians who have read the Bible and have a stronger faith? Put me into that catagory please. 'Course, reading the Book isn't much help when you're looking for a way out instead of a way in.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
It is no excuse to say it was forced. As a child I was forced to go to Church, and now that Im a bit older and a bit wiser I dont believe.


What changed?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I did believe, but I was a child with a childs reasoning skills. How was I supposed to know anthing?


It's not rocket science, it's an off-on switch. Do you believe or do you not believe? I don't think adult reasoning skills are that necessary, though it is something harder to hold on to it when more 'bad stuff' happens in our lives. Who's the first one to get blamed when we don't get what we want? Our parents, but, when we are too old to have parents, guess who the next target is?


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
If they believe Christ died for them(what they were told).


Yeah, that seems like a fit to me so I'll agree with that.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
You left out the most important part of that quote:
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

This is what I was getting at before.


One of two schools of thought here. 1.) God is a teacher, who does arrange these things so that we experience the lesson. In other words He has us "run the loop" to get the handle of the track. 2.) God has prepared time in such a way to experience it with us, instead of for us. He's God, as you say, He can do ANYTHING He wants.

Perhaps there are more theories, but those are the two most prominent I've heard, but welcome others. I find it amusing that we apply our human logic to 'why God is wrong' when He has stated Himself that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Right.... So because it doesnt happen to me, it certainly isnt applicable here.


I'm no help to a website. The website can't think, talk, feel, etc. Me talking to it is like talking to graffiti on a wall. It's like me telling you at every question "read the Bible. Read the Bible. It's in there, read the Bible!" Sorry I got so impatient about it, but I'd much rather interact with a person who can do these things.


Originally posted by saint4God
Please do not post anymore verses from the Bible as they are often also taken out of context and are not applicable.


I know that quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it doesn't do much good. I've learned that lesson here. The irony of course is that you've been referring me to verses of the Bible and asking me to address them. It's like saying, "I can quote your Book, but you can't!" Hardly seems fair, huh? Kinda silly. If you want to talk about the Book's 'inconsistencies' then I should be able to talk about the Book and why it is consistent. Otherwise, let's not quote verses, I'm good with that. I do parathesis verses so that other Christians know I'm not off base, or if anyone feels I'm making this stuff up, they have a way of verifying what's being said (and to insure it's in the context of the discussion). Beyond that, I don't see where I've quoted pages of scripture unless someone else "started it"
. If you want to talk about the God that is living and present right now, I'd certainly prefer it too
.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Maybe you hav`nt understood in me stating before that nothing brought forward could alter my faith,its not based on interpretations,writing`s archeologist's finds,scientific finds etc.I found Him personally he would have to tell me himself that he dose`nt exist


I assume you did not raise yourself on a deserted island. Even if you had no religious upbringing, you have been inundated with god talk your entire life from the society around you. Assuming you grew up in the US or UK, you have also been immersed in Christian culture. There's no way you found him personally. You simply adopted the predominant meme of the society around you.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Charlie, you're right, God can do anything He wants. What He wants, though, is for us to love Him back. Is it really love if we're forced to do it? I would say no, that's not true love. It is just like obedience. Are we really obedient if we have no choice but to obey?

Your point about God being to blame because we choose to turn away from him is an interesting one. That same point is making some major headway in our courts, where suddenly the criminals are the victims. He gave us free will. Yes, there was the potential for us to turn away, but He gave us many reasons not to. You blame God because he gave you the potential to screw up. Do you blame your parents because they brought you into this world, enabling you to have the option to screw up your life by becoming a major criminal and spending your life in jail or becoming dependant on drugs and losing everything else in your life? Your grandparents for having your parents, allowing them to have you? The store/foodshop/movie where your parents first met? etc.

To your next point about living a good life, what is a good life? Who sets the bar? If we set the bar ourselves of what a good life would be, we're all good. We justify actions that others see as wrong, and therefore are always being good. Hitler probably thought he was being good. What accepting Jesus Christ gets you is a blanket covering of all our inequities. If we were to use God as the standard of what is good, none of us measure up. If there is no forgiveness, then that cookie you snuck into your room to eat late at night when your 5 makes you a bad person, compared to God. God doesn't steal, yet you did at one point in your life.

Many Christians who actually read the Bible have their faith reinforced, as well.


In regards to the Genesis quote, I'm slowly working my way to that one
Please, if you see any discrepancy in the reasoning I have used for the previous points made about the contradictions from that website, point them out. That's one of the primary reasons I come to this site. I know there are a vast number of opinions here by some very smart people, and they will be more than willing to point out discrepancies in my arguments. I only ask that you explain where you're coming from when you do so, because obviously I didn't see it from that light when I wrote whatever



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Certainly these are important, but the real point we were discussing is whether or not we are inately averse to committing murder. I'm not convinced that we are considering how widespread it is. As a species, we seem to only be averse to killing people who remind us of ourselves.


I think we have the ability to recognize pain and death, and consequences thereof despite differences. Well, I do anyway.


Originally posted by spamandham
Judgementalism is a cost of faith.


Er, I don't see how they're related.


Originally posted by spamandham
It's tough to avoid regardless of what your book says.


Ya, it's the negative side of human nature.


Originally posted by spamandham
I no longer have try not to be judgemental, because I no longer view the world through the free will meme.


So you're saying you have not been judgemental with anyone? (Careful, I have resources to point out where.)


Originally posted by spamandham
The only way for there to be no suffering in heaven is if you quit caring about everything.


How is that possible when caring is an integral part of believing in God and helping one another as His children. What I'm saying is, one must trust God to deliver the promise of eternal life and happiness. Revelation tells us the decisions are judgemental, not legalistic. We have to trust that judgement and pray for those subject to it. Otherwise we turn our backs on them. Now as a friend, if someone were to do that to me, THAT would be damnation.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
Does God change or remain the same?


That's no longer my concern. It's your concern - one of the costs of faith.


No, it's two possibilities to consider. In either case, it works. Which it is, I don't know but if I can tell you when I get there, I will.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
So...you don't pay taxes then?


They're unavoidable, but I no longer view it as just. From my new perspective, the government is just a powerful mafia, not an agent of god on earth.


Jesus in this statement seemed not to care about the government and reinforced that his kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. So, who cares about green pieces of paper so much that it keeps them from going to their real home, where the rule is not the mafia and is God Himself?


Originally posted by spamandham
Actually, it is written in the Bible. There is a complete lineage all the way from Adam to Jesus. Add up the generations + 2000 years and you have the Biblical age of the earth give or take. It turns out to be right around 6000 years. Those into eschatology love this, because they view it as a 'double prophecy', where the 6000 years align with the 6 days of creation (a day is 1000 years to god). That puts us on the eve of the 7th day - the millenial kingdom/day of rest. The symbolism was irresistable to me.


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of numerology myself, just because if one works hard enough they can 'prove' anything with some assumptions being made. Way too many 'unknowns' and way too many variables. I've heard the explaination before but don't see it as substantial at this time.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
Wish I could take you with me...


It would be rude for me to confront the faithful in their own house.


Uh, they asked for it. It's called an "inquirer's weekend" right? I wouldn't go with malicious intent, but rather seeking answers out of love and patience. There may be some "agree to disagree" but if you are genuinely concerned, I don't see what the problem would be.


Originally posted by spamandham
I don't go trolling around Christian forums either.


Questioning and trolling are two different things in my mind. Questioning is earnest seeking of answers without anticipating responses. Trollling is malicious badgering without consideration for any answer. I may have my definitions wrong so anyone is welcomed to correct.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
You know, if I keep numbering these, I'm going to confuse myself...Ah well, I'm confused as to why I'm writing this, too, so I'll probably get over it



GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.


So when I answered the fourth inconsistency about the animals, I had meant to answer the one about birds, but had opened the verses linked to on the website for the animal inconsistency. So, as I was going to answer the bird one and opened the scripture, I shook my head in annoyance with myself and asked aloud, "did I just do that again?" Turns out the same scripture used to talk about man being created before animals is used for many being created before birds. As a result, I'm going to link this explanation in with this one.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Judgementalism is a cost of faith.


Er, I don't see how they're related.


Originally posted by spamandham
It's tough to avoid regardless of what your book says.


Ya, it's the negative side of human nature.


I don't believe it is human nature, or at least not to a great degree. It stems from the belief that we have free will and that sin is a choice, and that some will be judged unworthy by god. If you believe you are saved and others are not, it's difficult not to view them as less important than yourself. As a minimum, it creates and us/them mentality, which is a dehumanization process - hence the burning of "witches", executions of heretics, and things like the crusades and inquisition.


Originally posted by saint4God
So you're saying you have not been judgemental with anyone? (Careful, I have resources to point out where.)


No, I'm saying my judgementalism has reduced by an order of magnitude. That doesn't mean I take no action against people who annoy me, it means I take no action against people who are not bothering me and do not threaten me.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
The only way for there to be no suffering in heaven is if you quit caring about everything.


How is that possible when caring is an integral part of believing in God and helping one another as His children.


That's a problem for you to resolve, not me.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Actually, it is written in the Bible. There is a complete lineage all the way from Adam to Jesus. Add up the generations + 2000 years ...


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of numerology myself, just because if one works hard enough they can 'prove' anything with some assumptions being made. Way too many 'unknowns' and way too many variables. I've heard the explaination before but don't see it as substantial at this time.


Nevertheless, it is Biblical if you accept that the lineages given are actually true. You can't get an exact number this way since the ages of the fathers at the birth of the children is not provided for everyone, but you can get a good approximation.

To claim it isn't Biblical requires that you make claims unsupported by the text such as 'father really means ancestor and there an unknown number of unspecified generations in between the specified ones'.

But this strikes at the very heart of the purpose of these lineages, which is to establish ancestry by demonstrating an unbroken chain back to the ancestor in question. Otherwise, you could simply say 'David begat Jesus' and skip all the intermediate ancestors. The whole purpose of these lineages is to prove this ancestry. That doesn't work if you skip generations.


Originally posted by saint4God
Uh, they asked for it. It's called an "inquirer's weekend" right?


I'm not an inquirer from their perspective. I wouldn't be going to learn about their church/faith. If they had "heretic night" I could go in good conscience.


Originally posted by saint4God
Questioning and trolling are two different things in my mind. Questioning is earnest seeking of answers without anticipating responses.


This is going to sound arrogant, and it probably is, but I already know more about Christianity than most Christians. I'd be interested in questioning scholarly theologians, but the average teenie bopper hanging around on Christian forums has nothing to offer. They are not there to learn or to teach, but to reinforce one another.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

The claim is that this passage, specifically verse 9, demonstrates that trees were created after man. However, if you take into account the original passage from Genesis 1 and verse 6 from this passage, you have to ask yourself, watered what? Why did the surface of the Earth have to be watered, if there were no trees or shrubs? Ahh, Genesis 1:11 shows what; grass, shrubs, and trees. They didn't exist before Gen 2:6, but that was because it didn't rain and the plants couldn't get water. It was only after the streams came up that the vegetation could grow.

That still doesn't explain verse 9 in the passage above, though. For that, we have to look at both verse 8 and verse 9. It says God planted a garden in the east. This isn't to say there was no vegetation anywhere else; only that He chose a special spot to plant a garden. So it appears man was created before the trees had grown into something pleasing to the eye in the Garden of Eden, but that doesn't negate any presence of vegetation throughout the rest of the world. It doesn't even negate trees being in the Garden of Eden, only that they weren't too pretty.


See what happens my friend? Man's interpretation of man's interpretation of "GOD"s word becomes a royal merry go round.

Now surely as many have claimed that GOD chose someone to write his word there should be NO contradictions!! If GOD's word was written by whomever he chose to write there should be NO contradictions.

This is why I call the Bible the teaching of man. A great guide(in most cases) but NOT the literal word of GOD as many claim. If it was the literal word of GOD then there would be NO contradictions.

It is the writing of man and what man "understood" GOD to say. Nothing more and nothing less.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
SAINT-
I can't argue against your Biblical rhetoric so I left alot of your post out.

Originally posted by saint4God
What changed?

I got the internet.
No, no I just started thinking. I thought of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being and I came to a conclusion. If he really is all these things things are the way he wants them to be, or there is no God. But my logic not working right now, can I borrow yours?


Originally posted by saint4God
Who's the first one to get blamed when we don't get what we want? Our parents, but, when we are too old to have parents, guess who the next target is?


I believe we are all born relavtively equal(excluding mentaling handicapped people) and that our personalites are shaped by our expeinces throughout our life. I do not blame my parents for my phyisical condition, I only said they greatly affect who we will become.

Originally posted by saint4God
One of two schools of thought here. 1.) God is a teacher, who does arrange these things so that we experience the lesson. In other words He has us "run the loop" to get the handle of the track. 2.) God has prepared time in such a way to experience it with us, instead of for us. He's God, as you say, He can do ANYTHING He wants.

I would have to know your definition of God but if you think he is omniscient, then thats different. Then he knew before he created us that we would Eve would eat the apple, we would sin, Christ would die. How can you be disappointed when he knew what was going to happen? Its like knowing 2+2=4, but when you add them up and get 4 your unhappy.


Originally posted by saint4God
I find it amusing that we apply our human logic to 'why God is wrong' when He has stated Himself that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways.

Yeah so instead of giving us logic capable of understandig, he chose to give us this flawed logic?


Originally posted by saint4God
Sorry I got so impatient about it, but I'd much rather interact with a person who can do these things.

You are talking to me not the website.


Originally posted by saint4God
It's like saying, "I can quote your Book, but you can't!" Hardly seems fair, huh? Kinda silly. If you want to talk about the Book's 'inconsistencies' then I should be able to talk about the Book and why it is consistent.

Actually, many of you have been quoting the Bible, and then when I did you turned around and said:

Originally posted by saint4God
I beg mercy please, to only bring up points that matter to you and will make any hint of a difference in your life.

Which I took to mean if it doesn't happen to me, shut up about it.


JAKE-
Although I'm not respsonding, I am reading every post.

SPAM-

Originally posted by Spamandham
but the average teenie bopper hanging around on Christian forums has nothing to offer. They are not there to learn or to teach, but to reinforce one another.

Could you please elaborate on this? I have already learned so much from you, Saint and Jake. I didn't respond to my question about Atheism and Agnosticism, but before my definitions were a little hazy. Now I know Atheism isnt necessarily a disbelieve in God, but can also just be a lack of belief. It helps to have knowledgeable people arguing both sides.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
JAKE-
Although I'm not respsonding, I am reading every post.


LIAR!(You responded right there
)

Aaaanyway, it's time to take on the fifth charge of inconsistency. This one actually has some meat to it, and the next one will be the one Saint brought up. Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy! (Sorry, I'm having a terribly fun time going through this website, and I'm quite looking forward to the really hard ones that I expect will be coming
)

So here's the charge:

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)


The part differentiating the daughter from a son I'm not going to address, because it is of a political/cultural nature, not a contradiction in the Bible. On the surface, this looks like a sound charge. After reading the passage in Leviticus, it really appears at first as though God had become inconsistent there in saying, be fruitful and multiply, then saying multiplying is unclean. However, on the surface, many things appear one way, but digging deeper they turn out to be something completely different.


The passage in Genesis is that oh, so famous one of "be fruitful and multiply" (which has other connotations, too, but they're unrelated to this discussion. Really cool, though!
). Then, when establishing the Levitican Law, God seems to have a change of heart:

Leviticus 12:2,4 (you can see the full passage [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2012:1-8;&version=31;]here[/url, if you want to confirm I'm not taking these things out of context)

2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period....4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.


As it turns out, this does not contradict God's wishes that people be fruitful and multiply. Childbirth involves blood; you're squeezing something the size of a watermelon out of a hole the size of a lemon, so there will be some tearing. Levitican Law is very clear on issues about blood and humans. There are many passages that talk about this, from kosher laws dictating that blood cannot be ingested and must be completely drained from animals before consumption to coming in contact with it, even to the point of cutting someone off of the Jewish people if they willingly ingest it. Blood plays an interesting role of being both extremely holy (the priests would sprinkle it in various places for the sacrificial offering of a clean animal) to the very opposite (if you get blood on a garment, you must clean it in a holy place). It is the flow of blood that makes the woman giving birth unclean, not the act of childbirth its self. This is made very clear in Leviticus 12:7:


7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.


Since the atonement will make her ceremonially clean from her flow of blood, it implies it was the flow of blood that makes her unclean, not the act of childbirth.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join