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: 75
7
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Nice post Junglejake, you'd have a way above vote if I had any left.

We are not forced to do good things by a nasty God, we love a loving God and want to please and emulate him by showing our own love. It's so simple yet so overlooked. Overlooked all to often by both sides of the coin, believers and atheists.

If John Lennon was Jesus, he would have told you - "All you need is love"




posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The year of jubilee applied only to male Hebrew slaves. It did not apply to females or to non-Hebrew male slaves.


That's a good point, the Law of Jubilee did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves. However, though it does not explicitly mention women as being freed, too, it does not say they should not be. The passage states that all Hebrew slaves and their children should be freed.


54 " 'Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.



The passage uses the male pronoun, true, but also says, "the Israelites belong to me as servants." Women, too, are Israelites. The Law describes the roles for men and women, though, and states that men should be the heads of the household. When no men step up to the plate, though, women are given their commission; this is best demonstrated in the book of Ester.



You are merely arguing that their version of slavery was not as evil as ours. Does god permit evil of lesser degrees?


You are arguing from the moral standpoint that all slavery is wrong. While I would agree that slavery is wrong, it was an acceptable practice for the Jews. Today, as my last post demonstrates, we are under a different law as Christians, though. If I love my neighbor, and am to "look out not only for [my] own interests, but also for the interests of others" (Philippians 2:4), I cannot practice slavery. I would not be showing love by forcing my neighbor to be my slave. Love one another, and do unto others as you'd have done unto yourself. I wouldn't want to be a slave of another person, so therefore cannot want to enslave another to myself.

When Christ came to this earth, he didn't lead a slave revolt or rebellion, because He knew that if people followed His laws, they would come to loath the practice of slavery. His message was far bigger than just to abolish slavery.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Christ's coming changed a lot. He came, and died as the ultimate sacrifice. This passage from Matthew is interesting, because He says none of the Law will change...until everything is finished. In John 19:30, when Christ dies, he says,


30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.



I know you'd appreciate this quite a bit since you're getting into the Greek. I'm not versed in much Greek myself, but from what I understand, the Greek word used for "finished" is a financial one that also means "paid". Though I haven't checked, I hear there are translations that say "The debt is paid". Being in the business world myself, it hits me like a landslide exactly what that means. When a debt is paid, that party by all rights, legal and moral, are forgiven for whatever debt was previously incurred. They are free. In the New Testament, we see that a lot of slavery was a result of debts (see Philemon and Onesimus). In other words, we are no longer slaves if we believe he has paid the debt for us. We are free.

Thank you JungleJake, this brought up a great perspective for me.


Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
George Bush wouldn't be the first person to use God as an excuse for violence I know, but one mans insanity doesn't define a religion.


Your religion has a 2000 year history of producing such insanity. George Bush is not the first religious nutjob to rise to power. Christianity is not unique in this regard. Faith itself is the problem.


Originally posted by chebob
Atheists go out and murder people day after day after day. Does this mean not believeing in God is equally dangerous and harmful? No, we are all responsible for our actions, and believeing in God is certainly not harmful to you or me.


Yes, there are murderers, rapists, etc. of all faiths and nonfaiths, but it's much more difficult to justify massive atrocity without an appeal to deities. Whether a belief in god is harmful or not depends entirely on the nature of that belief.


Originally posted by chebob
Bush may be harmful, but christianity isn't.


Bush, like so many before him, is a product of Christianity. His insanity is fueled by it. If not for his belief in the end times and the role Israel plays in those beliefs, I doubt we would be in Iraq today. How many must die before it's legitimate to conclude these beliefs are harmful?


Originally posted by chebob
To hate someone for believeing, is incredulous.


"Hate the belief, not the believer" I like to say.


Originally posted by chebob
Both religion and atheism have their share of madmen,


Is that share equal? Not all religious beliefs are equally dangerous.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
And Hitler used a corruption of evolution to justify the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and many others. Others have used the theory of evolution to justify killing "lesser" humans, too. Does that mean that evolution is inherently evil, as you claim religion is? Me? I would say no.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

54 " 'Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.


The passage uses the male pronoun, true, but also says, "the Israelites belong to me as servants." Women, too, are Israelites.


Women and children were chattel in those days. The pronoun "he" is used because it is referring to males. You don't need to take my word on that. With very little effort you can verify that for yourself.


Originally posted by junglejake
You are arguing from the moral standpoint that all slavery is wrong. While I would agree that slavery is wrong, it was an acceptable practice for the Jews.


All slavery is wrong, except as compensation for criminal activity IMHO. I really don't care what a bunch of ancient goat herders felt was acceptable. God's commands are meaningless if all he does is reaffirm what the culture affirms. Is he making the rules or not?


Originally posted by junglejake
When Christ came to this earth, he didn't lead a slave revolt or rebellion, because He knew that if people followed His laws, they would come to loath the practice of slavery.


He could have simply said, "oh and by the way, slavery is wrong." But rather than doing something that simple, he instead adopted the language of slavery (master/servant/slave) throughout his preaching.

He clearly had no problem shaking up the status quo, so why did he not simply condemn slavery just as he condemned divorce, another common practice of the day acceptable by Jewish custom?



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham



Yes, there are murderers, rapists, etc. of all faiths and nonfaiths, but it's much more difficult to justify massive atrocity without an appeal to deities. Whether a belief in god is harmful or not depends entirely on the nature of that belief.



I believe it depends more on the nature of the person. In every circumstance, the only blame is that individuals mind. I can be told that God wants me to kill someone, but I know that thats wrong because I'm what I like to consider "normal". If some nutjob kills someone and says God made me do it, it is a copout of a most vulgar variety. God gave us free will for a reason, to make our own decisions and live by their consequences. God does not make you kill, but you can make God a scapegoat for your killing. That's a shame, because it stains the whole image, but if anyone of any group, religious or otherwise, does something undesirable, you cannot lay the blame on the group, only the person.

Whether someone justifies their actions through God or not, their will always be only one Judge of those actions in the end, and it's neither you, me or the perpetrator.

I guess what it comes down to is you blame the belief and I blame the believer, and I don't think that will change. Just don't think (as I've said somewhere else on this almost evangelestic religious posting spree) that were all the same, because it's like being racist. A follower of Jesus is just that, and that is the only choice that he needs to make in that respect, every other choice he makes, he makes as a human, not as a Christian, and he knows, as a follower of Jesus, that he will be judged by those choices.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Women and children were chattel in those days. The pronoun "he" is used because it is referring to males. You don't need to take my word on that. With very little effort you can verify that for yourself.
The "don't take my word for it, but I won't do the research, you do it," argument again?






All slavery is wrong, except as compensation for criminal activity IMHO. I really don't care what a bunch of ancient goat herders felt was acceptable. God's commands are meaningless if all he does is reaffirm what the culture affirms. Is he making the rules or not?
Well...If He established the culture, is He really reaffirming what the culture affirmed, or the other way around?


He could have simply said, "oh and by the way, slavery is wrong." But rather than doing something that simple, he instead adopted the language of slavery (master/servant/slave) throughout his preaching.

He clearly had no problem shaking up the status quo, so why did he not simply condemn slavery just as he condemned divorce, another common practice of the day acceptable by Jewish custom?


As I said, His message was far, far greater than supporting just one cause. He was there for all of mankind, not to just lead a slave revolt. By delivering a message of love, those who follow Him truly would detest slavery. How can we own something that God has laid claim to?



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The "don't take my word for it, but I won't do the research, you do it," argument again?


Who is the one trying to claim that "he" doesn't mean "he"? I don't care if you accept what I said or not.


Originally posted by junglejake
Well...If He established the culture, is He really reaffirming what the culture affirmed, or the other way around?


If he established it, then he established slavery. I'm ok with that.


Originally posted by junglejake
As I said, His message was far, far greater than supporting just one cause.


Even if that were true, it doesn't make sense to adopt the language of something you consider evil. His repeated usage of analogies based on masters and slaves shows implicit acceptance of that relationship.

Jesus likens our relationship with god to that of master and slave in Luke 12:45-48. That hardly seems appropriate for someone who sees slavery as wrong.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
And Hitler used a corruption of evolution to justify the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and many others.


If you insist on bringing Hitler into the discussion, I'll take the opportunity to remind you he was a Christian. His eugenics program was aimed at producing a master race. In his warped view, aryans were the Biblical chosen race which had been displaced by Jews through trickery and deceit - yet more disgusting religious nonsense. His antisemitism was widely embraced by Christians worldwide due to the New Testament portrayal of Jews as the murderers of Jesus. It was only after the world saw the fruit of this hatred that minds began to change.

Evolution did play a role in this bizzare racist perspective, just as it often does today. Racists today frequently see themselves as more "evolutionarily advanced" and thus superior.

Anyone who actually understood evolution would realize there's no such things as being more advanced. Evolution is a purposeless chaotic process.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
I believe it depends more on the nature of the person.


Beliefs are part of that nature. Our actions almost always reflect our beliefs.


Originally posted by chebob
That's a shame, because it stains the whole image, but if anyone of any group, religious or otherwise, does something undesirable, you cannot lay the blame on the group, only the person.


I'm not blaming the group, I'm blaming the beliefs of the group, and the meme that produces them.


Originally posted by chebob
Just don't think (as I've said somewhere else on this almost evangelestic religious posting spree) that were all the same, because it's like being racist.


You should take note that I have repeatedly clarifified that not all religious beliefs are equally dangerous. Those that promote a sense of superiority or exclusivity are particularly rancid, which includes claims to absolute truth, teachings that make distinctions between people based on beliefs, teachings that use language such as "chosen people", or those that explicitly condone/promote immorality such as slavery etc., whereas those that teach things like "love they neighbor" are positive.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Beliefs are part of that nature. Our actions almost always reflect our beliefs.


Does that mean someone who claims to be Christian that consistently acts differently than the very scripture that defines who they are, is not truly Christian?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Does that mean someone who claims to be Christian that consistently acts differently than the very scripture that defines who they are, is not truly Christian?


No. It means they don't really believe what they claim to believe. From my perspective, anyone who calls themself a Christian is one.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
From my perspective, anyone who calls themself a Christian is one.


In that case, I call myself "independantly wealthy!" *checks wallet...*



Hey, why didn't that work?

[edit on 14-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Only reason I brought Hitler up was because he corrupted the idea of evolution to serve his own genocidal needs. He was a Christian? I'd love to see some evidence on that, all my studying of Europe from about 1925 to 1945 has indicated otherwise...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Only reason I brought Hitler up was because he corrupted the idea of evolution to serve his own genocidal needs. He was a Christian? I'd love to see some evidence on that, all my studying of Europe from about 1925 to 1945 has indicated otherwise...


Oh JJ, it's so obvious he was Christian. The Nazi flag had a "broken cross". Get it? Cross? Surely only true Christians use crosses throughout the whole of history. What about the mass murderings? You can't possibly take Exodus 20:13 and Matthew 5:43 for their literal meanings because he was 'saving' the 'superior race'. What more of a model do you need for the representation of 1 Corinthians 13 that that man? His soldiers had Christians in concentration camps spit on a picture of Jesus so that they would begin to appreciate the diversity of the world, to tear down the idea of division between beliefs and bring about a unified peace. If you can't see him being Christian after all that....then God bless you.



[edit on 14-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
From my perspective, anyone who calls themself a Christian is one.


In that case, I call myself "independantly wealthy!" *checks wallet...*



Hey, why didn't that work?

[edit on 14-10-2005 by saint4God]


You have to give it 10 to 15 minutes to work. Check again, your wallet should be filled with cash. If not, go outside, pluck a few leaves from the trees, take a marker and write $100 on them. Most banks will honor that.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
From my perspective, anyone who calls themself a Christian is one.


In that case, I call myself "independantly wealthy!" *checks wallet...*

Hey, why didn't that work?

[edit on 14-10-2005 by saint4God]


I am not an authority on what is or isn't a True Christian™. If someone calls themself a Christian, that has as much authority as anyone else's definition as far as I'm concerned. From my perspective, there is no independent authority on what makes someone a Christian regardless of what the Bible says or the Catholic church or anyone else.

Unfortunately Saint, the wallet trick won't work. It isn't enough to simply declare that your wallet is full. "You have to have faith."™



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
From my perspective, there is no independent authority on what makes someone a Christian regardless of what the Bible...


The Bible defines who is and is not a Christian just like the dictionary determines what is an electron. Yes, it's that specific. Hopefully we both can agree that an electron is:

Main Entry: elec·tron
Pronunciation: i-'lek-"trän
Function: noun
Etymology: electr- + 2-on
: an elementary particle consisting of a charge of negative electricity equal to about 1.602 x 10-19 coulomb and having a mass when at rest of about 9.109534 x 10-28 gram or about 1/1836 that of a proton
www.m-w.com...

To ignore this basic definition isn't very scientific, no?


Originally posted by spamandham
Unfortunately Saint, the wallet trick won't work. It isn't enough to simply declare that your wallet is full. "You have to have faith."™


It appears my faith that your logic is true failed me. Fortunately faith in God has delivered every time. Hm... I think I go with the One with the better track record. By the way, I'd be careful using that trademark, people get sued for making imitations without permission.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Only reason I brought Hitler up was because he corrupted the idea of evolution to serve his own genocidal needs. He was a Christian? I'd love to see some evidence on that, all my studying of Europe from about 1925 to 1945 has indicated otherwise...


Then you haven't studied it much.

Yes folks, Hitler was a Christian

He had his own warped version of Christianity in which he himself played a central role (sound familiar? can you say W?), not in the least representative of what you would call Christianity, but he certainly considered himself Christian as documented in Mein Kamf, his public speeches, and even his personal letters, and others also considered him a Christian as documented in . In his youth he even studied for the priesthood.

Here's a gem from Mein Kamf explaining his hatred of Jews, which he reused again years later in a Reichstag speech, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." The Nazi motto included "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us). (hmmm, "In God we Trust"?)

There is a highly questionable 2nd hand collection of "table talk" quotes attributed to Hitler floating around on the internet from a book titled "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944" also published under the title "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944" (same book, different title), and quoted extensivley by other aithors. On the internet, people seem to be quoting from this book and claiming they are excerpts from Hitler's personal diary, or that they were his own writing. They aren't. They are 2nd hand accounts. There are multiple copies of these notes floating around. Rather than go into the long story, there's an excellent article that examines these sources and proves that these anti-Christian quotes are embelished versions of the original quotes. On the trail of the Bogus quotes

Mythical thinking has no bounds. Once you go down that road, you have to decide for yourself what you will consider authoritative. Many choose the church as the authority, many choose the Bible, and many choose themselves. There is no way of determining truth because you are outside the domain of knowledge where anything goes. Once you enter, you are at the mercy of your own imagination.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join