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.

 

Calling all Christians! Riddle me this...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If one of the principal apsects of the bible suggests not to judge a man by his journey, but by his destination. Frankly it says DO NOT JUDGE! Ye without sin cast the first stone! Getting my drift I hope. So, why does this countrys political agenda deal with Gay marriage and abortion? Don't the christians think that this is judgemental and casting stone to circumstances they don't fully understand? My point is, Bush is in power because he knew this much and made it an issue. But my question is why is it an issue? Isn't it a bit hypocritical?




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'd say it is more than just a bit hypocritical! I think it stinks of rotten false-piety and justification by way of unqualified condemnation.

We are to love everyone. We are all far from perfect--greed is not a virtue--more people are sick with greed than anything else in the world--but by the world's standards it is often the only road to 'success.'

There is no requirement for taking sides or justifying or condemning what another does in order to love another. Just love them and mind your own darn business is what I say--because if you are minding someone else's business-- who is minding you own?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
in regards to christianity, there are two realms of "judgements." one is a judgement regarding salvation and the other is a judgement regarding sanctification/feelings of security. a judgement of salvation is not allowed, but calling a duck a duck is not a problem. if i was to take drugs all my life, there is no wrong in calling me a drug addict and declaring that my life is void of God. there would also be no wrong in stating the repercussions of such a lifestyle. there would, however, be a problem with judging salvation with any kind of surety or boldness.


marriage is a spiritual issue and should not have any connection to any political entity. according to the scriptures, marriage involves a man and a woman. it is an agreement to a life-long commitment, ordained and upheld by God. therefore, there is no purpose for marriage if you do not believe in God. if you do believe in God, it is not appropriate to only agree with the scriptures when it is comfortable to do so.

what is the purpose for someone who is in rebellion against the scriptures to wed someone of the same sex? to make themselves feel affirmed. if they are a strong/confident/sure person, why would they need anyone's "ok" anyway? is their commitment no good unless there are some magic words said and rings exchanged? the only point of marriage is to spiritually honor God through a life-long, God glorifying "contract."

anywho, to summarize this all... it is wrong for anyone to condemn another person to hell (or heaven for that matter). it is good for people to warn others about the results of a sinful life (but we should still live in peace when others disagree!!!!!!!!!!!). marriage has no point unless it is life-long and God honoring. if it is not life-long, or God honoring, what defines marriage as anything more than a fancy title?

i posted this quickly, please forgive any incomplete thoughts or misspelled words.
daved



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
i would like to add that if it was not required of me, i would not have a "wedding." my promise to my love is enough. but since i do believe in God, i am required to make my promise "in His presence."
daved

[edit] - i would also like to add that i am in agreement that the nature of the evanegelical and modern christian church is terribly hypocritical.

i oppose homosexuality in regards to morality. but i support EVERYONE's freedom to live as they see fit in this country, even if i disagree with them wholeheartedly. i do vote libertarian.

with the amount of gossip, greed, lies and false teaching inside the church, chrisitains should be firstly worried about the health of the the "body of Christ" and the conversion of others second. every gay person i know is extremely decent and in most regards are "nicer" people than evangelicals (although this does not have very far reaching spiritual benefits).

the bible teaches that those who claim Christ's name are under more pressure/responsibility to act appropriately than anyone else. and yet all we see is a lot of finger pointing and Godlessness shouting "Jesus loves you!" go figure.
daved

[edit on 10/14/2005 by Dasher]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I spoken to a few on the street ( for my own research paper ) I spoken to a few at work. Mind you most of the major religious people I spoke to who are Christain Catholic Prot, Bap, Luth, and a few more ( they say ) are against gay couples getting married for the sake of taxes. Thats right TAXES. They feel that they shouldn't have the same write offs, and other admenments. The next big thing was medical. Then it went to morals. I understand what they say, yet I'm wondering myself, why not can their souls , mind, body , what every be the same as everyone elses. And, why should we care, it is everyones own life to do what they will.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Dasher I have a problem with both of your post on this thread. To quote all the things I disagree with would probably cause blindness. We can start with you first paragraph



in regards to christianity, there are two realms of "judgements." one is a judgement regarding salvation and the other is a judgement regarding sanctification/feelings of security. a judgement of salvation is not allowed, but calling a duck a duck is not a problem. if i was to take drugs all my life, there is no wrong in calling me a drug addict and declaring that my life is void of God. there would also be no wrong in stating the repercussions of such a lifestyle. there would, however, be a problem with judging salvation with any kind of surety or boldness.
.

Here you must give scripture to back up this theory of your's which seems to contradict itself. If one calls a drug addict's choices "void of God" it is the same as judging the addict's "salvation with surety or boldness". If a sin can make a person's life "void of God" then surely it damns them, and you in turn damn them by pointing it out.

Being under grace and not the law means that a sin does not damn you. Jesus was plain about sin needing only repentance. If an addicted gave into his flesh daily...and asked forgiveness daily it is the scripture that he is forgiven daily. Surely, he will be delivered but until then, the struggle maybe necessary and even the work of God. That is why it isn't your's or mine to point at his sin. Jesus also made that plain in the scripture. He goes so far as to say "I judge no man" (John8:15). He only pronounces God's judgement when it is required of him by God. (John5:30)"... My judgement is just because I seek not my own will but the will of the father which have sent me."

Christians are not to preach to the sin but to the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God and only through that belief can a person be saved. The problem in so many of our faiths is to try to re-save those already saved. Belief is what saves you--convicts you when you sin--causes you to repent. Sin is part of being in the flesh--the very thought of repentance is a sign of belief and through that belief you are saved. So many times people are talked out of their salvation by the church and the spirit of the anti-christ that dwells within it.

the verses I quoted can be looked up here.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If one of the principal apsects of the bible suggests not to judge a man by his journey, but by his destination. Frankly it says DO NOT JUDGE! Ye without sin cast the first stone! Getting my drift I hope. So, why does this countrys political agenda deal with Gay marriage and abortion? Don't the christians think that this is judgemental and casting stone to circumstances they don't fully understand? My point is, Bush is in power because he knew this much and made it an issue. But my question is why is it an issue? Isn't it a bit hypocritical?


The only ones I see getting judged here are the babies -- 1.5 million of them each year in this country alone. Their heads are twisted off their living bodies, and their arms and legs are pulled away. They are then either sold for parts or incinerated like so much garbage. Then we have poor Terri Shiavo who was starved and dehydrated to death on TV for everybody to watch over 9 days. The state judged her, said to go ahead and kill her, installed guards around her bed to keep her parents from slipping her an ice chip.

NWO, here we come. When the tyrants who think they have a right to own the world and sort out which people to keep and which to kill begin in earnest, just remember what you've said here. After all, who are we to judge?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Theres a place in the Bible that says to love thy neighbor as thyself. I think that is a pretty tricky situation because many deep down hate themselves. So if one hates themselves, how do you think they are gonna respond to another? With hate.

Good News:
Theres also a place in the bible that says, to love one another as "I" (Christ) loved you. That even when you were dead in your sins, Christ died for you so that you may live.

What if certain people are placed on the planet( Killers, Rapists, Gay people, Atheists, yes even satanists) to test this love that christ had. It also says in the Bible,,,it really is no big deal to love your own kind...the barbarians do this. Question is, can you love someone outside your relm, no matter what?

I think the Bible is kind of a true false test. See which ones are truly in christ and which ones that still need work.
Ever see the christian that goes to church regularly, knows every bible verse, prays regularly but yet is meaner than a hornet?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
You are wrong on a couple of fronts It is not wrong to know what is wrong. You are attempting to do it yourself, except you are incorrect in your understanding of the scriptures. Now,m understanding what is wrong, it is not wrong to protect your society, your nation, from those who are trying to pervert and destroy the Christian nation. It is not wrong to not go blindily down the path of nationally declaring an immoral act is merely "alternative".

I will never declare that a homosexual, or a murderer, a rapist, a thief or any other person living in sin is going to go to Hell. Only God knows the outcome, what decisions will be made by the person on down the road. At the same time,. I do not suggest allowing any of the other "choices" be considered ok.

The other mistake you have made ios by not paying attention to what forum you start threads. This is not comspiratorial, this is simply the same old regurgitation of "How bad, those silly Christians!", said with a lisp.
Sending to proper forum.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Only saved people go to heaven.

That being said, you don't know whether a gay person will repent tomorrow and receive Christ as his Saviour. I think that's what's meant by don't judge by the journey.

The apostle Paul killed plenty of Christians before his conversion. God promises not to remember those sins anymore once we repent. And we know that Paul was one of the major apostles. Just think--a guy who went from killing Christians to being a major pillar if you will.

Certain actions are sins whether you believe in moral relativism or not. Some things are black and white.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
marriage is a spiritual issue and should not have any connection to any political entity.



Originally posted by Dasher
i would like to add that if it was not required of me, i would not have a "wedding." my promise to my love is enough. but since i do believe in God, i am required to make my promise "in His presence."
daved


What prompted you to sign the legal documents, then? If marriage is a spiritual issue and should not have any political entity, why did you get 'legally' married?

As regards the original topic, I find it extremely convenient, hypocritical and comical that the Christian religion has interpreted the bible to mean that it's really ok to judge someone as sinful, immoral, heathen, wrong and abominable, but just not say they're going to hell. So it's ok for Christians to point out the things people are doing as WRONG. God says it's ok. It's their duty, really. They have to save the world. Then they claim to be the victims of hatred when people don't like it! Hilarious!



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
firstly, most questions asked of me were answered in my post. i will not entertain the ignorance.

secondly, in regards to quoting scriptures... there are many good resources out there in which you can search the bible with terms such as; "marriage," etc. if you care to make a reasonable attack on an ideal/belief, please be sure that your statements are valid. if the questions are simply out of ignorance, don't throw around such heavy words as hypocrites, etc.

lastly, this is not a christian nation! this country was founded by those who believed in a "creator of nature," not "the God of abraham, isaac and jacob." we MUST live peacably! even with those we differ with. this is demanded by the declaration of independence and the scriptures. if you are too lazy to know your own beliefs or research those which you question... TOO BAD FOR YOUR LAZY BUTT.

daved



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Dasher,

Two things: First, is your name daved? If so you shouldn't sign away as, no one cares.

Second- You say this isn't a christian nation. I believe it was the evangelists that put Bush in the white house twice! It's no secret! His campaign catered to christians beliefs. Talk about doing some research. And our founding fathers were dietists. And they also thought african americans were sub-human, what is your point? Let's worry about the world we live in today, 2005, not you clouded version of what our constitution states, because that thing was bastardsized a long time ago. LAZY BUTT



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
1 Corinthians 5: 9-13 This should give hope to some


I Have Written you in a letter not to associate with sexually Immoral people 10, Not all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the Greedy and the swindlers, or idolaters. in this case you should have to leave this world 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother, but is sexually immoral or greedy an idolater or a slanderer, A Drunkard or a swindler with such men do not even eat.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will Judge outside. Expel the wicked man from among You..

To me that would keep a lot of the name calling to a degree, that if you think a little before You condeme any one, well there would not be to much to talk about most of the time .......



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
This was once a Christian nation, believe it or not, and most of our Founding Fathers were Christians, not deists.

Did you know that 200 years ago the government could order Bibles for schools and everyone was okay with that? Nowadays you do that and you get the Anti-Christian Liars Union on your case. (Note--I agree with the ACLU on one or two things--the rest is a bunch of crap.)

This isn't a Christian nation anymore, sad to say. And no, Bush is not a Christian. Tell me what real Christian would say it's okay to torture people--how many have heard that he wants to VETO legislation that would ban torture?


As regards the original topic, I find it extremely convenient, hypocritical and comical that the Christian religion has interpreted the bible to mean that it's really ok to judge someone as sinful, immoral, heathen, wrong and abominable, but just not say they're going to hell. So it's ok for Christians to point out the things people are doing as WRONG. God says it's ok. It's their duty, really. They have to save the world. Then they claim to be the victims of hatred when people don't like it! Hilarious!


Let me correct you here. If it's wrong, say it's wrong. If you say something is wrong and YOU'RE doing it, then you're a hypocrite. The Bible does tell us to judge righteous judgment. The "judge not" that people are so fond of MISUSING applies to HYPOCRITES. If you read further in that (off the top of my head I think it's Matthew chapter 7), it says take the mote from your own eye THEN you can see clearly to take the speck from your brother's. Don't stop at one verse--keep going and get the context.

Know what the "Great Commission" is? It's preaching the Gospel.

And yes, Christians ARE victims of hatred. It's part and parcel of being a Christian. Believe it or not, Christians are being persecuted everywhere, especially in places like China, North Korea, Indonesia, etc. The time is coming when AMERICAN Christians will be heavily persecuted (and no, no rapture to bail us out either--Matthew chapter 24). In fact it's already starting. The Philadelphia 11 is an example. Fortunately all charges against them were dropped, and the city of Philadelphia is in hot water over First Amendment issues.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
This was once a Christian nation, believe it or not...


Oh I believe it. My couch used to be Hindu, but it recently converted to Islam.


WRONG.

You are familiar with the unanimously approved Treaty of Tripoli are you not? Approved by outgoing President Washington, incoming President Adams, all of Congress, read in newspapers by the American people...

Article 11 beginning...

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

And just so you know? No. There's no wiggling out of that. That was ratified law. No accident. Not an oops. They knew what they were talking about. Are you sure you do? I'm quite sure you don't actually.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
RANT, would you mind showing me this Treaty of Tripoli? Because I've never heard of it.

I hope you've read the Declaration of Independence.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Hey RANT, I did a Google search on it and read it.

Then I did a bit more delving and came up with this--apparently that Article XI, which flat-out denies a Bible-based government, was not in the Arabic translation!

A new Treaty of Tripoli was drawn up and signed a few years later.

The Myth of Separation of Church and State

The first act of the United States Congress was to authorize the printing of 20,000 Bibles for the Indians.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Hey RANT, I did a Google search on it and read it.

Then I did a bit more delving and came up with this--apparently that Article XI, which flat-out denies a Bible-based government, was not in the Arabic translation!

A new Treaty of Tripoli was drawn up and signed a few years later.


I've seen alot of sources try to skirt it (though that link doesn't seem to), but this is what everyone saw and approved.

The US certainly is not a bible based government and the arguments between pastors and our founders on that point began almost immediately.

Jefferson was compelled to go so far as to point out other prevelant errors of revisionist pastors... our law had no biblical foundation either.


Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:


"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible.


These guys were smart. Enlightened. Illuminati. Really, it's amazing when you think about it how much smarter they were than the average American now. But it's honestly irrefutable that all the circa 1950's anti-commie revisionism about this being a Christian nation is just that, revisionism.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Amethyst,

I think you do other people's talking for your own words. I understand your situation though, it is clever brainwashing, yet it is control none the less. That is how they get you, they make you believe, it did not happen over night, other over time you begin to defend. Ask your theory this, if these founder fathers were christians, why would they advocate slavery, owning and trading, (one of the reason they left GB is because they were doing away with it in Europe) and going as far as to say that blacks are "Sub-human" to justify their cause? Is that christian?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join