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: 71
7
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Apparently not odd Jake. You are a perpetrater of why this takes place. Stated right up above.


...I don't follow




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
To the first church in Corinth, Christ was very real to them; they had first person witnesses of Christ's resurrection...


There is not a single known instance of a record written by a witness of the resurrection. The Bible is 100% hearsay decades after the fact. The few secular historians who wrote prove only that Christianity existed in the first century - a point that is not contended.


Originally posted by junglejake
It's interesting to note that 10 of the original 12 disciples were killed for their belief in Christ's resurrection.


It's even more interesting to note that the only evidence we have that these men existed at all, let alone died for their beliefs is church history penned long after the alleged facts.

But suppose church tradition is correct. Does this prove that Jesus was who you say he was? Haven't other religious people "died for their faith" throughout history? What about the 39 people who committed suicide to meet up with the aliens hiding behind the comet Hale-Bopp? Are we to take their deaths as proof that they are now happily flying around with the aliens?


Originally posted by junglejake
People may be willing to die for something they falsely believe to be true, but people will not die for something they know is a lie.


That's probably true in general, but it's darned easy to get credulous people to believe lies. It's easier to convince people of lies than it is to get them to abandon lies they've latched onto.


Originally posted by junglejake
It is love for Christ that makes us change our ways, not belief.


2 Corinthians 5:10
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

While it's true that Christianity teaches you will not be condemned, it also teaches you will still be judged.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Wait...Spam, are you 80 years old?


No. I'm forty. I spent most of that forty years as a Christian.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
No if you admit it firstly to be an assumption,


You're being a bit pedantic.


Originally posted by gps777
Then why do people in general only turn to him when they need Him most?


Because they're desparate. It doesn't cost much to ask god for help. If he's there and decides to answer your plea, then you win. If no-one's listening, you're no worse off for having cried for help. By the way, not everyone turns to god in times of trouble.


Originally posted by gps777
God answers them, then they can only lie to themselves later that he doesn't exist.


Too bad the 20,000+ people who died in Pakistan over the weekend didn't cry out for help. Oh that's right, sometimes the answer is "no".


Originally posted by gps777
sounds like your a product of the same assumptions you place on all other Christians that you just went along with what others have told you and wished you believed and not had a relationship with Christ.


Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
Wait...Spam, are you 80 years old?


No. I'm forty. I spent most of that forty years as a Christian.


Yet at the same time, you said you spent 40 years in that spiritual desert. 18-20 being a Christian because your parents were Christian and raised you to be a Christian, then, after you left your parents you maintained your Christianity for 20 years. That puts you around 38 to 40 when you lost your faith. Since you said you had gone through a spiritual desert for 40 years before realizing there was no spiritual desert, which would mean you lost your faith at 40 years old. You've claimed that you had personal experiences with God, and at some point in your life you took that step from, "this is what my parents believe" to making a personal, intentional decision to follow Jesus Christ. I'm missing something here...If you never felt connected to God, how did you have personal experiences with Him, and why on earth did you accept Christ into your life? I suspect I'm missing some rather critical pieces here...



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I found my significance decreasing in finding God, not increasing.


You are atypical.


Originally posted by saint4God
Where does Jesus advocate burning of witches, executions, crusades, and torture in an inquisition?


When he ordered them stoned in the Old Testament. According to Christians, he and the father are one are they not?


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
That's a problem for you to resolve, not me.


I've heard this excuse a number of times before.


It isn't an excuse, it's a dilemma only within your belief system. For me, the answer to all such Christian dilemmas is simply "myths don't have to be consistent because they aren't actual".


Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps, but if it's not written, my question is "who knows?"


You said the 6000 year history of the earth is not Biblical. I explained how it's derived from the Bible. While it's true that you can't derive the exact age of the earth from the Bible (since it is unknown how old each father was in the lineage when the son was born), you can estimate it. This tradition dates back to pre-Christian times. Young earthers have Biblical support for their position. That's what makes them young earthers. You can't reconcile a 4 billion year old earth with the Bible unless you assume that some of the people in that lineage lived for millions or billions of years.


Originally posted by saint4God
From what I understand, not all lineages were recorded, especially if someone was engaged in illegal activity or shamed the family and such. I don't know how much of that is true, so I'd have to do more homework on it.


Perhaps that's the case, but if so, it makes the lineages somewhat pointless since their entire purpose is to establish ancestry.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
2 Corinthians 5:10
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

While it's true that Christianity teaches you will not be condemned, it also teaches you will still be judged.


Hey, this is a pretty cool point 'cause I was talking about that with 2 people the other night. Pretty weird coincidence...but I've been having tons of those lately
. Anywho, I thought it meant on earth, but can see where that means heaven too. Which it is I don't know, but agree that this isn't a moment of condemnation since by believing in him we are already saved. Reminds me of 1 John 5:13 - "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life".


[edit on 10-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Yet at the same time, you said you spent 40 years in that spiritual desert.


I guess I misunderstood what you meant by spiritual desert then. It seemed to me just to be a description of everyday life for believers, where you constantly struggle with the guilt of sin. As a Catholic for a good number of years, I had that one down pat.


Originally posted by junglejake
That puts you around 38 to 40 when you lost your faith.


I think I was 36 at the time. ...rounding error



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
63561710 Monday

Originally posted by spamandham
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by spiritual desert then. It seemed to me just to be a description of everyday life for believers, where you constantly struggle with the guilt of sin. As a Catholic for a good number of years, I had that one down pat.


Though this condition is common in many Christians, Christ did not come to this world to condemn it, but to save it (John3:17). Condemnation comes not from God, but from a lack of faith in His grace. When we ask for His forgiveness, we are forgiven. If we continue to dwell on our failures after that, we are essentially saying we don't believe Christ really died for our sins, and we have to fix it after asking for forgiveness through the law. Galatians 5:1-6 makes this clear:


1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.


It is through trying to legalize our faith in Christ that we open ourselves to condemnation. If we but love Him, we will be refined and reshaped over time to follow Him completely. Do not be a slave to guilt! We are not commanded to be condemned, but to be forgiven and free. In Christ we are free, in condemnation we are slaves.

EDIT: "I believe that He's returning to judge the quick and the dead and the sons of man" -- Rich Mullens

[edit on 10-10-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
You forget which number you're on! I believe I'm on the big one-zero (that's 1010 for my computer friends). I almost missed this one because I had it highlighted, assumed I had answered it, but didn't remember having done so. Ah well, here's part ten in our ongoing series:


GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.


God preferred Abel's offering over Cain's, causing Cain, in a fit of jealousy, to kill Abel. Yet, at the same time, God does not show partiality, and treats all alike. Is this a contradiction? Let's take a look at the passage in Genesis. In order to get the full context, we're going to look back from Genesis 4:2-3, and then include the verses quoted from the website, Genesis 4:4-5:


2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.


Abel keeps flocks, while Cain is a gardener, and from the surface it looks like God prefers the shepherd over a gardener. Is this accurate, though? Genesis says Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as his offering to God. However, there's something key here that we cannot dismiss. The conjunction is "but", not "and". This means that Abel did something different from Cain. The passage points out that Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Bible does not flat out state that Cain did not do this, but the intention, using the fact that the word "but" is used, and that firstborn is mentioned, indicates that Cain’s offering was not so substantial.

Song of Solomon talks about fruits, and in every instance, he has a word before the word fruits. This word is "choice", indicating they were the best of the best. Song Of Solomon 4:13 Song Of Solomon 4:16 This word is missing in the passage about Cain. This, too, indicates that Cain did not bring the first fruits of his labor, or that which would be choice. Hebrews 11:4 speaks further on this:


By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.


"By faith" is an interesting aspect of this verse. What does this mean? Hebrews 11:1-2 goes more into depth of what this means, establishing a meaning before explaining it through example:


1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.


It appears as if Abel gave his offering, even if they both gave their first fruits, with faith in God. Cain, it seems, did not. As I quoted before, Leviticus commands that the offering be a freewill gift. Other verses indicate this must be done joyfully. It could be that Cain gave his offering not because he wanted to, but because he felt obliged, possibly to emulate his brother's faith.

If anything, this verse enforces the others that God shows no partiality. He held both Cain and Abel to the same standard, and Cain came up lacking. Be it faith or reverence, Cain did not give in the same way Abel did, and therefore did not have the same level of pleasure from God. If he did not give it as a freewill gift, the offering would mean nothing to God, because it would not display any love for Him.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Who was it in the opening pages of this thread that said they wanted the 10 Commandments removed from public buildings?

Do you even know what they are?

#1 Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."
God is the One who created you and gave you life! Why wouldn't you give Him the respect and worship He deserves?

#2 Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Anything that comes before God in your life is considered an idol. Money, spouse, kids, job, etc.

#3 Exodus 20:7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
That is considered blaspheming and using His holy Name as a curse word.

#4 Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
You have been given 7 days a week, why can't you give at least one back to Him?

#5 Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Is this a bad thing? Why would anyone want this sentence to be removed from a public building?

#6 Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." DITTO!

#7 Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery." DITTO

#8 Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal." DITTO

#9 Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."
This simply means that we shouldn't lie to our fellow man. Why should this be removed?

#10 Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
To "covet" means to want something that does not belong to you.


So, my point is, do you want it to be removed simply because you've been told that it is God's Holy Law? Because it's in the Bible?

What part of the law don't you agree with?



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by just me 2
Do you even know what they are?


Yes. I'm curious if you know what the real meaning of manservant and maidservant are in #10. Does it really make sense to sanction slaves and concubines? Why Christians push for the display of ancient Semitic laws that don't even apply to them is beyond me.


Originally posted by just me 2
What part of the law don't you agree with?


These 5 are particularly stupid. Coveting is probably also not a great idea, but if your society is so morally bankrupt as to allow slavery, what difference does it make if people covet them?

#1 Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."
#2 Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven ...
#3 Exodus 20:7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God,
#4 Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
#10 Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

...and this one is lame if your parents are abusive scum...

#5 Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

...what if the spouse(s) are ok with this one?

#7 Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

By my count, 5 of them are downright asinine, and two more are conditionally lame. That leaves you with 3 out of 7 that aren't idiotic. A 1st grader could do better than this. Perhaps YHWH needs to go to kindergarten and learn some ethics.


Originally posted by just me 2
So, my point is, do you want it to be removed simply because you've been told that it is God's Holy Law? Because it's in the Bible?


Yes. Freedom of religion doesn't mean only the right to practice your religion on your own dime, it also means your right not to be compelled to support someone else's nutjob religion invented by ancient fascist goat herders staring at the stars seeing mushroom induced visions.

If they are to be displayed, it should only be as a warning of the stupidity people will accept as TRUTH™ when they abandon skepticism in favor of credulity.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Our perspective on slavery is that of a master flogging another who works without any benefit. Though this was true in a lot of cases in Egypt and early America, that is not to say that was the practice in Judea nor the way it was regulated.

"Remember that you were once a slave in Egypt and that the Lord your God redeemed you; that is why I am giving you this order today." - Deuteronomy 15:15

A.k.a, don't forget where you came from.

More about that history and culture at: jewish.com...

From what I understand, most slavery was a way of working off debt. Perhaps a more versed historian can expand on that point, but seems to be clear that's the case in the epistles.

Speaking of epistles, how about what the Bible has to say about the differences between slave and master in Galatians 3:26? - "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself in Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" What what what?! Could this possibly be Paul, the one so oft accused of being misogynistic with oppressive racist and sexist law enforcement? Indeed it is. If one were to study more about Paul, I'm sure you'll see likewise passages and exactly what he means by them, thereby dispelling these accusations of prejudice.

On coveting. Want for people and things is an unfulfilling hunger. If you want someone else's love or their things, then you'll never be satisfied or fulfilled. The lusting greed never ends, can enslave us, and is the precursor to wrong doing. I don't think I'd get any disagreement on that except to those who have less than ten years work experience. As the Beatles used to say:



May God bring to you a wonderful miracle that cannot be denied.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Now for a comparatively easy one before I tackle the next, which is anything but.
Cheat Commandos, time to Rock, rock on!!!


GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.


Adam, where are you hiding? Cain, where is your brother? Why would an omnipresent God have to ask these things? Why do we assume He does?

Both of these stories, the one with Adam and the one with Cain, have several things in common. Someone sins; they really screw up. In Adam's case, he violated what God explicitly told him not to do; Cain killed his brother because he was jealous of God's favor being on him as I explained in the last question (10). Adam's immediate reaction was to run. I've talked elsewhere on this site, contemplating what life would have been like for us today if Adam came to God saying, "God, I screwed up..." instead of trying to hide from Him.

Cain returned God's question with an accusation of sorts, saying, essentially, "what are you asking me for? Did you put me in charge of Abel? Am I his keeper? I didn't think so."

Cain, knowing he did wrong, turned it around in his mind so as to relinquish any blame from himself and put it on God. Like the chance God had granted to Adam, He gave Cain an opportunity to come clean. To confess, as our legal system and Christianity call it today. God knew darn well where Abel was. This is shown in the future passages, because Cain never admits to what he did. God explains that Abel's blood is crying out to him, but may have given Cain another chance to confess. He asks Cain, "what have you done?" We don't know how long the pause before God says the blood is crying out to him or when God administers the punishment for Cain’s deed is. Like a parent who, knowing full well what happened, demands their child confess what happened, God did the same thing.

Let's go from a parenting example. You come into the kitchen after a lot of loud noises have woken you up, and your four year old is standing in the middle of the kitchen, a broken bowl next to him with milk and cereal all over the floor. "What happened here?!" is usually the reaction. We try to instill integrity into our children; at least, I know my parents did me, and many other parents I know do the same. The child's punishment, if there will be any, hasn't yet been established. If they go off on a tale about aliens or a monster or some other thing that is perfectly plausible in a 4-year-old's mind but not in the parent's, the punishment will be worse. The child lied in the face of being caught red handed. On the other hand, if the child admits they were trying to get a bowl of cereal and it fell, depending on the circumstances (multiple warnings about this vs. none), the punishment will be lighter if there is one at all. Why would God, whom we call Father, not want to establish in us a willingness not to bear false witness?



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Our perspective on slavery is that of a master flogging another who works without any benefit. Though this was true in a lot of cases in Egypt and early America, that is not to say that was the practice in Judea nor the way it was regulated.


Sorry Saint, but the Bible itself indicates the nature of the slaves of Hebrews. Slavery didn't simply mean "compensated servant" as apologists like to claim. Go read Exodus 21. If slaves were not beaten, then why were special regulations needed to deal with the beating of slaves?


Originally posted by saint4God
More about that history and culture at: jewish.com...


Oh great, now we're pulling in Jewish apologetics sites as well. I understand that slavery was part of that culture, just as it was part of US culture 150 years ago. Were the Jews better masters than the surrounding cultures? Who knows, maybe archaeology will figure that out some day.

But the 10 Commandments are claimed to be more than just the laws of ancient Hebrew culture, they are claimed to be the commands of god himself.


Originally posted by saint4God
From what I understand, most slavery was a way of working off debt.


Yes and no. Females and children were also taken as slaves as spoils of war. The children of slaves became the property of the master as well. These facts are told us by the Bible itself.


Originally posted by saint4God
On coveting. Want for people and things is an unfulfilling hunger. If you want someone else's love or their things, then you'll never be satisfied or fulfilled.


I agree that desiring that which you can not obtain legitimately is a self destructive, although making it a capital offense is pretty rediculous. The real problem I have with #10 is it's sanctification of slavery. #10 and similar passages from the Bible were used to justify American slavery.

And guess what, the Bible hasn't changed since then. The Bible still condones slavery even though our culture has moved beyond it. You will not find a single passage in the Bible that condemns slavery, but you will find numerous passages that support it. This fact alone should be enough to convince a skeptic that those books are not the word of god.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
You both are forgetting one critical piece of information. The Year Of Jubilee. Every seven years, the Jews were required to release all of their slaves, compensate them to get them started again, return land that was sold to pay debt, etc. Leviticus and Numbers go into great detail of all that must happen in the year of Jubilee.

There's also one primary difference between slavery as we in the US knew it, and slavery as the Jews knew it. We, as Americans, much of western Europe, and most of the middle east enslaved people based simply on race. If you saw someone with dark skin, you were a slave. If they were not, they were about to be. It was a disgusting practice, and one where there was no freedom for those slaves. They were born black, so they lived their lives as slaves. The Jews, as both Saint and Spam pointed out, enslaved conquered peoples and debtors, but even those were still held to the law of Jubilee. If you enslaved someone a year before Jubilee, you only got one year of their services; the year after, seven years. There was an end in sight, though.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
isn't the most ignorant stance anyone can take to believe in 'one' religion, but dismiss the others as mere frauds. i wear a symbol of ra on my necklace, and i also have ring...my christian friend told me these were satanic, as any other symbol of a god is satanic. therefore, a christian must dismiss all other religions as satanic, hence the ignorance goes on.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
isn't the most ignorant stance anyone can take to believe in 'one' religion, but dismiss the others as mere frauds.


No, one of the most ignorant stances one can take is to assume someone is inferior because their skin color is different than your own. This becomes the most ignorant stance when those who maintain that mentality meet and like people of that "inferior" skin color and assume that they just know all the exceptions to the obvious rule of inferiority through skin color.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
No, one of the most ignorant stances one can take is to assume someone is inferior because their skin color is different than your own. This becomes the most ignorant stance when those who maintain that mentality meet and like people of that "inferior" skin color and assume that they just know all the exceptions to the obvious rule of inferiority through skin color.


o.k so we've defined skin color racism as one of the most ignorant stances you can take...how about asserting yourself to the question raised though?

if every other symbol of a god is deemed satanic, according to my christian friend, then that means every other religion is also satanic...based on no logically basis whatsoever, other than 'they are other gods, hence they are satanic'.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
That depends on what your definition of Satanic is. If you believe Satanic means against God, then this is true:


"You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

Exodus 20:3-5a

Intention also counts with God, though. Why do you wear those symbols? Do you wear them because you worship Ra? Because you like to cause a reaction in others? How would you react if they were stolen, would you view it as loss of finances, or something very personal? If you know that they depict Ra, or a symbol or Ra, what is it you're proclaiming by wearing them?

I will grant you that, if we as Christians believed other religions were right, as well, it would be ignorance to not know them. However, if we believed Christianity was the one true religion, as the Bible states in many places, would it not be foolish to turn away from it and seek other false Gods, against this commandment?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join