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: 89
7
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I just have to say that there is a news report that the ACLU lost a case in court on a "Ten Comandments" display. I will sleep well tonight. The Judge told the lawyers for the ACLU that the nation was getting tired of unreasonable people continuously trying to rid the nation of Christian expression. There is still hope for all of us to free in America.

Fromabove




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I just have to say that there is a news report that the ACLU lost a case in court on a "Ten Comandments" display. I will sleep well tonight. The Judge told the lawyers for the ACLU that the nation was getting tired of unreasonable people continuously trying to rid the nation of Christian expression. There is still hope for all of us to free in America.

Fromabove


Something about battles and wars comes to mind. Sleep tight.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Yes, I see it too Spamandham. I am encouraged.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
reduces motivation?well that is your own personal opinion in what motivates you agreed?


I suppose it could just be a reflection of myself. When I was a Christian, although I didn't like oppression, I satisfied myself knowing that the suffering of this world wasn't ultimately important since the prize was on the other side. Jesus is said to have endured the ultimate oppression without a fight, because of the eternal consequences.

If I believe all injustice will be rectified, I have less motivation to see toward such rectification myself. I have a hard time believing I'm unique in this regard.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Actually, I believe it is the duty to strive for truth, love, and justice. No one should ever just asume that we have no part in the sufferings of this world in which we live. What kind of person would I be if I saw a hungry naked person, or simply someone having a need and did nothing when I could. The Bible states that God requires three basic things from man. To do justly, love mercy, and be humble before God. While God will correct all things someday, we are asked to do our part here and now while we can. In this I am very motivated.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I suppose it could just be a reflection of myself. When I was a Christian, although I didn't like oppression, I satisfied myself knowing that the suffering of this world wasn't ultimately important since the prize was on the other side. Jesus is said to have endured the ultimate oppression without a fight, because of the eternal consequences.

If I believe all injustice will be rectified, I have less motivation to see toward such rectification myself. I have a hard time believing I'm unique in this regard.

Understandable Spam and makes complete sense to me and i`m sure your no lone ranger in that line of thought.

Personally one motivation is of endurance like running a marathon,to over come the pain of the event of this human race,its much easier to carry on the sooner one knows where the finish line is and complete what was set out to begin with.If an athlete at the 20km mark believed the prize was`nt worth (or did`nt exist)the effort i can understand him stopping turning around and going back to where he used to live.

Though God is calling you to the finish.

Oppression? i`d like to know one person who likes or enjoys it,second thoughts no i would`nt,but if i may say to you Spam your Church members may very well have done that to you,sometimes that has happened to myself sometimes i do it to myself and its a releif to remove the shackles,the difference is i find freedom in Christ,sure the are guide lines but would`nt call it oppression ,i`d call it love.

Anyway if like most you have some days off from the toil enjoy it,Mrs and me are off down the beach shortly,have a good one to all



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
As for the Indigo Children or not caring about responses, I do care about what I am learning and hearing here.


That's a shame, there's a lot of good things that can be learned here.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
However, I make it a point not to respond to things I know nothing about... or at least can not form a decent if not rickety theory on. Leads to nothing. With the Indigo Children, I am reading on them since I had no clue what they were when you mentioned them. I had most assuredly heard the term, but I know not what it means. I will get back to you once I have studied.


That's a very respectable response. Apologies for thinking you were just ignoring me.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Now, even if your Indigo Children does debunk my blanket statement (and it may, I actually though you were going to come with Buddism or other pacifist groups... most of who are not Religions or Do Convert) it still does not prove that Christianity does not attempt this... and in attempting this does not FORCE Christianity upon others.


Let me ask please, how can anyone FORCE you to believe anything?


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
I do tend to try to stay on topic, so thanks for noticing!


I think compliments should be given where they're due.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
P.S. I just want people to realize that no love is lost here. I am fully aware that not everyone feels the same about everything. In no way am I angered or alarmed at these responses, and I hope others are not angered or alarmed by me.


Good! I feel the same



Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Truth be told, I believe in a Creator. I see no reason to attempt to Scientifically prove their is one, though I could see Science with a reason to Disprove one. After all, all Religion is a thing of FAITH. You must believe in that which you can not see or prove. By human nature that is a difficult concept, which is what makes Faith so valuable. If you could PROVE a Creator existed, there would be no need in Faith. You would simply believe it because you could see it. That takes no trusting, no power of will, no.... well, no LEAP.

If you BELIEVE in something even though you can't prove it, then you have Faith and TRULY BELIEVE. I see that being worthy of a Creator's attention.

Faith is the cornerstone of Religion. With Proof there is no need for Faith.


That's an excellent way of looking at it, though I can say I personally required a measure and could not rely soley on the Book or someone else's word. I hold in high esteem those who can have faith without proof though.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
...fallacy of consequence.

There is no reason to believe the consequences are real if the premise they are based on is unsubstantiated.


You do believe you will die someday, yes? Is that not consequence enough?

Also, if a doctor says you can either die or apply this ointment and you'll live, do you apply the ointment? There is no proof the ointment will save you. There's no proof that if you don't apply the ointment you'll die.


Originally posted by spamandham
If god is real, all powerful, and all knowing, and he wants me to believe/accept/do X, then he knows what he needs to do to accomplish that, and he has the power to do it. The 'free will' argument is a red herring.


It's about love. He loves us, therefore doesn't not make us slaves to DO everything He wants us to. If you are a parent, do you make your children do everything they're supposed to?


Originally posted by spamandham
It doesn't address the fundamental problem that there is no reason to believe anything you are telling me regarding gods/afterlife/etc. in the first place.


The reason is that God and the afterlife may in fact exist (and I claim they do). If that possibly exists, would it not be worth exploring?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
When I was a Christian, although I didn't like oppression, I satisfied myself knowing that the suffering of this world wasn't ultimately important since the prize was on the other side.

If I believe all injustice will be rectified, I have less motivation to see toward such rectification myself.


James brought talked to some people who rested on their faith. It's a helpful read for Christians. James 2:14. Faith alone without works is not strong.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
You do believe you will die someday, yes? Is that not consequence enough?


We both agree we are going to die.


Originally posted by saint4God
Also, if a doctor says you can either die or apply this ointment and you'll live, do you apply the ointment?


You're still arguing from consequences. If I doubted the efficacy, and perhaps even suspected the ointment was harmfull, and expressed that to the doctor, and his only reply was "apply it or die", I would dismiss him as a quack and go see someone else.


Originally posted by saint4God
It's about love. He loves us, therefore doesn't not make us slaves to DO everything He wants us to. If you are a parent, do you make your children do everything they're supposed to?


You misunderstand, I'm not talking about force. If god made his presence sufficiently clear, and further let me know he would punish me for failing to love him, I would do it. I'm not an idiot.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
It doesn't address the fundamental problem that there is no reason to believe anything you are telling me regarding gods/afterlife/etc. in the first place.


The reason is that God and the afterlife may in fact exist (and I claim they do). If that possibly exists, would it not be worth exploring?


No. It requires time and effort to explore it, and there are a 10000 other mystical claims competing with yours. Worse yet, the evidence you offer - faith and personal experience - is no evidence of gods or afterlife at all.

If I tell you the boogey man is going to kill you if you don't believe in him, should you explore that possibility since the consequence is death, or would you instead summarily dismiss such a claim unless I supported it with more than just an argument from consequences?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
We both agree we are going to die.


Alright, and my second question, is that not consequence enough?


Originally posted by spamandham
You're still arguing from consequences. If I doubted the efficacy, and perhaps even suspected the ointment was harmfull, and expressed that to the doctor, and his only reply was "apply it or die", I would dismiss him as a quack and go see someone else.


I understand. It sounds like you're unwilling to trust in anyone but yourself and your knowledge. Is that a good assessment?


Originally posted by spamandham
You misunderstand, I'm not talking about force. If god made his presence sufficiently clear, and further let me know he would punish me for failing to love him, I would do it. I'm not an idiot.


I had no intent on inferring you're an idiot and apologize if I did. I know better. What if God wants you to come to Him?


Originally posted by saint4God
No. It requires time and effort to explore it, and there are a 10000 other mystical claims competing with yours.


I'd say get crackin', we don't have 10,000 years to find out what's valid and what's not. Or are you accept defeat by being overwhelmed? I'm not sure I understand the lack of motivation.


Originally posted by saint4God
Worse yet, the evidence you offer - faith and personal experience - is no evidence of gods or afterlife at all.


I'm not offering you evidence good sir, knowing full well my evidence will not satisfactorily convince anyone, I'm offering to help you get the evidence you need.


Originally posted by saint4God
If I tell you the boogey man is going to kill you if you don't believe in him, should you explore that possibility since the consequence is death, or would you instead summarily dismiss such a claim unless I supported it with more than just an argument from consequences?


I have explored the idea. Long story. Yes, I've been told someone or something was going to kill me and I did look into it. "Boogey man" didn't show up to the party. Interesting history behind the "Boogey man" if you're interested in those kinds of origins.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Alright, and my second question, is that not consequence enough?


I do not believe you have more insight into these things than I. Nor do I have any reason to suspect ancient men did either. So the answer to your question is, the consequeces are irrelevant until the basis is established. For all I know, this is all a grand experiment to extract the freethinkers - the diamonds in the rough, and dispose of all others. Are you willing to take that chance?


Originally posted by saint4God
I understand. It sounds like you're unwilling to trust in anyone but yourself and your knowledge. Is that a good assessment?


The better assessment is that I am unwilling to trust in what appears to be BS.


Originally posted by saint4God
What if God wants you to come to Him?


He has the knowledge and power to accomplish that. Are you calling his omnipotence or omniscience into question?! I don't reject god because 'i love sin'. I doubt I'm more of a sinner than the average Christian, and I also understand that from the Christian meme perspective, sin doesn't really even matter. I reject god because the term is undefined or incoherent, and there is no credible evidence. I reject leprechauns too.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'd say get crackin', we don't have 10,000 years to find out what's valid and what's not. Or are you accept defeat by being overwhelmed? I'm not sure I understand the lack of motivation.


I've wasted too much of my life on this already. I will continue to try to learn, but my default assumption is 'false', as it should have been all along.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm offering to help you get the evidence you need.


You and I have discussed this many times already. By now I would expect you to know a little about me.


Originally posted by saint4God
"Boogey man" didn't show up to the party.


The boogey man shows up after you have died, and snatches your soul into hell. God allows this because the boogey man has a treaty with god. Are you ready to believe yet?

By the way, the proof that you believe is a cashiers check for $1000 made out and mailed to me. Better safe than sorry don't you think?



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I just have to say that there is a news report that the ACLU lost a case in court on a "Ten Comandments" display. I will sleep well tonight. The Judge told the lawyers for the ACLU that the nation was getting tired of unreasonable people continuously trying to rid the nation of Christian expression. There is still hope for all of us to free in America.

Fromabove



Originally written in the CONSTITUTION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I reject leprechauns too.


The Absolute Power of Leprechaunity!




there's absolute proof of leprechauns. well, not absolute, but more than you'll get for god...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created



Fromabove



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
In the Beginning God created.

Okay, was this a first hand testimony written while witnessing the actual occurance? Was this written in the cosmos by the creator, keeping a detailed account of his workings?

Or are you taking this statment, written and then translated by a multitude of people since that original manuscript (and humans can err, moreso in translation) as SCIENTIFIC PROOF, or Proof of anything?

I could right "And the Great Rooster hatched the Golden Age of Man, as is seen by the Shape of the Earth we Inheireted. It is seen on every Morn, as the Disciples raise their heads and Cry out to their Great Father." 1,000 years from now that could be found and taken as Proof of the Creation. Heaven forbid if others wrote similar things, or if ever one wrote of being miracilously healed by a Rooster! Then we would have BOOKS to my bible. Does it make any of it true? If so, only by coincidence.

You take words written by different authors through out time, and then TRANSLATED by others (think ol' James didn't have an Agenda when he issued an English version to the Bible and elected the greatest writers of the time the commission?) as factual.

How accurate would you take the ideas of some one who took Aesops Fables in the LITERAL sense? Most, if not all, of the Bible is just that. Allusions and Allegory to learn from.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
However when I see some of the techniques posted here I decided to make this post.

Spamandham you posted:

"I do not believe you have more insight into these things than I. Nor do I have any reason to suspect ancient men did either. "

This is a very astonishing statement to me. If this is so..we are wasting tiime studying history. We need to be rewriting history since ancient men were not more insightful than us or you.
If you study words ..particularly the language fields dealing with etymology it becomes clear how insightful ancient men were on a great many things and how uninsightful are many of us today. Math itself was developed by ancient men as was a related field of architecture.
When you speak today of the scientific fields the speculations they use in debating thier points have thier origins in two systems of thinking..Aristotelian and Neo platonic reasoning.
The most modern man has done is build on these ancient systems.

Bradkellborexkl
YOu like many are trying to make a scientific point about Faith. You keep going back to your religion...science to make your points. This seems to be your faith, your religion..science. It is intresting to me ,however, that many of the Believers dont seem wont to catch on to or notice this point.
I would like to know the doctrine ..the writing in science where it instructs one to measure and gauge Faith by science. Is there a paper on this?? A dictim a dogma. Are there instruments to measure this???
What I see in these rooms so often is one group of people debating Faith and the other group of people debating science. Neither group seems wont to notice the views they are trying to promote from thier religious beliefs.
You did post one thing correctly and that is about King James having a agenda. However there was already a version of the Bible in English ..and it was called the Great English Bible.
King James comissioned his version of the bible when documents came into the posession of the English showing that their Great English Bible and other versions in thier posession had different origins than the documents of which were then coming into posession.
Remember something about these documents BradkellBorexkl. They came into English posession not because of some plot by the English in some smoke filled back room. They acquirred them becasue the Moslem Turks were decimating many Eastern European areas having conquered Constantnople and spread across Eastern Europe. These surviving religious leaders could not take their documents into the Roman Catholic areas as there had been a long standing conflict between them. They fled into Northern Europe and finally to England taking with them thier documents. This is how the English Leaders came to understand the difference in these documents. They already had a English bible before the one comissioned by King James.

And finally ..I am not aware that Aesops Fables is a work of Faith in the manner of the King James Bible. Nor am I aware that it is a work of science.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I can't see air, but I believe it's there. I can't see atoms but I believe they are there too. I can't see the south pole, even the snow that falls there but I believe in them both. Iv'e never seen the back side of the moon but it's there. I've never seen love, but I can experience it's touch. I know I have a brain but I've never seen it. I believe many things that I cannot see. It's called faith. I believe in God and I have never seen His face. Even science takes faith. It takes faith to believe in atoms and then to search to prove them. All things take a degree of faith. It's just a matter as to how you apply that faith.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Spamandham you posted:

"I do not believe you have more insight into these things than I. Nor do I have any reason to suspect ancient men did either. "

This is a very astonishing statement to me. If this is so..we are wasting tiime studying history. We need to be rewriting history since ancient men were not more insightful than us or you.


If you have been refraning from posting for just the right time to equivocate, I suppose now is as good a time as any. I never said we have nothing at all to learn from ancient men. The context was specifically metaphysics.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Even science takes faith. It takes faith to believe in atoms and then to search to prove them. All things take a degree of faith. It's just a matter as to how you apply that faith.

Fromabove


.....OK seriously.....

Faith has little to do with approximations and the successive falsifiable tests that back them up. please think more.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join