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: 93
7
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4god
I'm not convinced. Any Christians here think the posting of the 10 commandments outside a court of law infringes on the rights of others? It's an unoffical poll, but it's a start.



Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
From a christian perspective: It is not my duty to push my faith upon others but to practice it in good light. I don't believe in errecting statues, monuments and the 10 commandments.


Saint, does this address your poll?


Not really. Unless Cajun is saying that it does infringe on the rights of others. Please clarify if that's a case. I agree it's not worth fighting over and also feel it is not my duty to push my faith upon others but practice it in a good light. We're in agreement here. S/he doesn't believe in errecting monuments and though I don't seeing myself doing it either, I know how the 10 relate to a courthouse. I'm interested in reading more about what Cajun has to say too, so welcome!


[edit on 12-1-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you don't have to go north or south, go west or something.
--directions from a forest ranger, very enlightening when you think about it.


Sounds to me like the forest ranger is lost too, therefore not helpful in getting out of the woods.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
he was referring to a lake we were trying to get to, one that had 4 paths leading to it. he told us that we didn't have to use the north or south path (they were blocked off) and that the other paths were just as good.

there is no point on earth which has only one path leading to it, that's my point. therefore, there is no absolute path.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Which better reflects my views on the subject... there are many different paths leading to spiritual awareness and enlightenment.

One could certainly argue that providing any sort of worship to an object, be it the cross or the ten commandments in a courthouse, could be considered blasphemous in the eyes of God, as per those very commandments.

One should not revere the book, the commandments, or cross above god itself. I have always felt that the crucifix was representative of idolatry. As is representing Christ or God with other symbols.

I think the point is to believe without need of symbols, without the need for Proselytizing to others. In a way, religion should be a private thing, ones own spirituality and communion with god... it truly is each individuals choice whether they wish to believe or not.

Of course, I am grateful that this conversation has been a discussion overall rather than preaching on either the pro-religion or anti-religion side of things.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
but does one need to actually revere god?

wouldn't god in all god's wisdom have enough selfesteem?

i'd think an omni^3 being wouldn't be that conceited and egotistic.

i've found that revering divinity could be viewed as a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Of course God doesn't need the belief... I would Argue that a divine being like the one I ascribe to is worth my reverance, not that I must revere him as my Creator.

I don't feel it is a requirement to revere God in order to gain it's favor, I think that the Creator Being Favors all creation, regardless who or what it is.

But then, I am not your typical Christian, nor your typical flavor of Christianity.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
One could certainly argue that providing any sort of worship to an object, be it the cross or the ten commandments in a courthouse, could be considered blasphemous in the eyes of God, as per those very commandments.


Correct. And that's my point. Nobody worships these things.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
One should not revere the book, the commandments, or cross above god itself. I have always felt that the crucifix was representative of idolatry. As is representing Christ or God with other symbols.


The words you used up there "Christ" and "God" are a bunch of alpha-numeric symbols that when put together represent them. Is your use of these words idolatry? I'm fascinated at the prospect of those who do not believe in God or trust in Jesus know what is satisfying and unsatisfying to them.



I think the point is to believe without need of symbols, without the need for Proselytizing to others. In a way, religion should be a private thing, ones own spirituality and communion with god... it truly is each individuals choice whether they wish to believe or not.


True that it is an individual's choice, but were here on ATS to discuss these things in public, are we not?



Of course, I am grateful that this conversation has been a discussion overall rather than preaching on either the pro-religion or anti-religion side of things.


It is nice to be able to discuss these things then to be under a totalitarian dicatorship where such conversations are forbidden.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but does one need to actually revere god?


Do you need to love the person you're married to? I suppose not, but it makes for a lousy relationship unless you both agree it's for the tax breaks and reduced car insurance.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
wouldn't god in all god's wisdom have enough selfesteem?


God is fine, it's us who are not.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd think an omni^3 being wouldn't be that conceited and egotistic.


He's not, He's pretty cool once you get to know Him.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i've found that revering divinity could be viewed as a waste of time.


James talks about action accompanied with faith. It's a valuable lesson to believers.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
so god is to me in existence
as a wife is to me in marriage..

one problem, people CHOOSE marriage, and if god exists, there isn't much of a choice on my part...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so god is to me in existence
as a wife is to me in marriage..


They are similiar in that it is a loving relationship. The difference is we are not equals with Him.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
one problem, people CHOOSE marriage, and if god exists, there isn't much of a choice on my part...


You CHOOSE whether to love Him or not. In fact, you can walk away from Him, just like you can walk away from your spouse in a marriage. You cannot choose whether or not your spouse exists after you're married. I don't think the parallels are that abstract.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so god is to me in existence
as a wife is to me in marriage..

one problem, people CHOOSE marriage, and if god exists, there isn't much of a choice on my part...


Nope, there's not. And therein lies the problem with overanalyzing an analogy -- you will always find a flaw with it. You can't choose your parents...How do you feel about them?

From a Biblical Christian viewpoint, you do have to revere God. Your faith needs to be "hot". So if we're discussing Christianity (as defined in the Bible), there’s not much question on this point. If, however, we're discussing philosophy and questions about a God that may exist and what (S)he/it may want from us, then the issue is open. Naturally, I would say that the Bible makes a darn good case for the character of God and what He wants from us.

Now, if we're debating the God that Christ spoke of, the first commandment expressly states where our devotion is to reside.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
so you stop my argument by saying its the bible, and we have to believe the bible.

questions

who wrote the bible?

when was the bible written?

and what gives it the gravity it has in your mind?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so you stop my argument by saying its the bible, and we have to believe the bible.
If we're going to be talking about Christianity, yes, we do. We have to accept, in order to debate any element of Christian faith, that Christians believe in the Bible. If you dismiss the Bible as hooey and try to convince Christians they're wrong based on that assumption, you may as well bang your head against the wall. You have two options here, you can present why the Bible is false and try to convince those of us who believe it to be true, or you can use the Bible to point out where we are not following it. You will be ultimately unsuccessful by going in and repeating the Bible is crap, the Bible is crap, the Bible is crap over and over, then explaining your own standpoint as the one to follow, to people who fundamentally disagree with your basic premise.



who wrote the bible?


Many, many individuals over time. Are you suggesting there was one author? If you were, I would be forced to agree, as I believe the Holy Spirit authored the Bible through individuals inspired.


when was the bible written?


Which book? Are we talking OT or NT? You're going to have to be a bit more specific.


and what gives it the gravity it has in your mind?


That we have discussed time and time again, my signature contains a link giving a brief synopsis of why I believe ("JJ's Story -- How I became a Christian"). Unfortunately, if you want every reason, you're going to have to wait for the book to come out, as there is no way I could explain why, in detail, covering every reason, without losing my job due to absence.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
see, here's the point i was trying to make, many people wrote it over a long period of time.

the bible as its ordered today isn't even in the order it was written.

also, the holy spirit couldn't have written it through inspired individuals, that is proposterous.

it's the same as saying the bible is true because god inspired the bible and god exists because it's in the bible.

you've got to prove the existence of said holy spirit (or ghost to some) before you can say that said disembodied divine entity wrote something.

now, i've tried many times to point out the problems in the bible, HOWEVER none of the die hard christians seem to even acknowledge my arguments as more than demonic temptation.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
So it was written over a lengthy period of time, at least 3,000 years, possibly 5,000. Throughout the entire book, there are no contradictions. Nothing can be proven false. All of the prophesy in the Bible has come to pass, with the exception of that which is to come. Only book in the world that hits 100% on that issue, including specific prophesy as is found in books like Malachi and Isiah. It's to the point where skeptics don't argue the validity of the prophesy, but try, while reaching for straws, to convince people that the prophesy was written after the fact. There is one common theme through the book that, while the New Testament seems to put the Old on its head, actually fulfills all that was spoken of in the Old Testament upon in depth study.

Pray tell, do you really think that all those people who wrote these books comprised in the Bible were able to maintain one consistent theme without any contradictions over 5,000 years could be done by people without any Divine help? Personally, I would think it preposterous to think people could do it on their own.

If you want a Bible in chronological order, check out this one. Not unheard of, nor contradictory.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
christianity has many good features and generally does more good than bad to it's adherents. but then you get to the nasty core of it, where high priests call themselves "infallible" and get away with molestation due to their position in the church. would god appreciate men using political power in his name to achieve selfish goals? and then there is the clash of different religions, christians are the only ones who get it, muslims know the real truth...No buddhists have got it right. what MALARKY! who are we to say what man had it "right" when trying to interpret something that by it's very nature is undefinable and definitely beyond the limited scope of humanity's understanding. muslims and christians both have a version of "thou shalt not kill", yet as soon as they get into the same space as one another, they start their "holy wars". and then you bring extremist religious leaders into power in two different countries with nuclear ability (US and Iran) in some mad rush to bring about an apocalypse that all religions "know" is coming. rather than allowing these "prophecies sent by god" to be proven wrong, they are just gonna make sure they bring about armageddon by their own hands just so they can say i told you so to the other religions. and then we'll all be dead at the same time and can meet in heaven/hell/elysium who we can all hope are neighbors so we can stick our tongues out at each other across the cosmos. nya nya na na nya na! pure malarky.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndicaDragon
christianity has many good features and generally does more good than bad to it's adherents.


Like what? The morals it promotes most of learned before we left kindergarten, long before we even understood the religious indoctrination. The rest of it's just ego stroking to keep people emotionally immature.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

So it was written over a lengthy period of time, at least 3,000 years, possibly 5,000. Throughout the entire book, there are no contradictions. Nothing can be proven false. All of the prophesy in the Bible has come to pass, with the exception of that which is to come. Only book in the world that hits 100% on that issue, including specific prophesy as is found in books like Malachi and Isiah. It's to the point where skeptics don't argue the validity of the prophesy, but try, while reaching for straws, to convince people that the prophesy was written after the fact. There is one common theme through the book that, while the New Testament seems to put the Old on its head, actually fulfills all that was spoken of in the Old Testament upon in depth study.

Pray tell, do you really think that all those people who wrote these books comprised in the Bible were able to maintain one consistent theme without any contradictions over 5,000 years could be done by people without any Divine help? Personally, I would think it preposterous to think people could do it on their own.

If you want a Bible in chronological order, check out this one. Not unheard of, nor contradictory.


actually, the bible was first WRITTEN less than 3000 years ago, much less. around 2200 years ago.

also, during the translations certain parts got skewed or were flat out removed.

i meant it wasn't published in the order the books were written, that bible is nothing more than chronoligical ordering of events.

also, there are contradictions. it BEGINS with a contradiction, 2 seperate accounts of creation.

try reading the original greek, and then see all the contradictions that aren't in king jame's horrible translation (well, linguisticly speaking it's horrible).



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
IndicaDragon, buddhism doesn't claim to have the singular path, only one of many. it accepts that there are multiple ways to enlightenment.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, there are contradictions. it BEGINS with a contradiction, 2 seperate accounts of creation.

try reading the original greek, and then see all the contradictions that aren't in king jame's horrible translation (well, linguisticly speaking it's horrible).


I don't read Greek yet. I'm assuming you do?

What, specifically, are you talking about? Personally, I agree about the validity of the KJV of the Bible; I rarely read that translation. I use several translations, though, and haven't seen these two separate accounts of creation. Care to expand on this issue?

Also, if it's only in Greek and no modern translation is accurate, please provide information on a Greek Lexicon and the specific words that draw up this contradiction that has been missed by almost all modern Biblical scholars. I have three online Greek Lexicons that I know of an occasionally use, but the one you use may be different, so provide that as well.

By the way, the Torah wasn't written until 200 BC? Where does that information come from?!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join