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.
Originally posted by junglejake
Why would a nation make laws against murder? Isn't morality relative? Why would a nation be so inconsiderate to psychopaths?
Most importantly, why would a nation be so intollerant of people as to say that if you broke their laws you would be punished? Why do they say ignorance of the law is no protection from the law? Why do nations enforce laws that some people disagree with? How dare they?
Why should God have to cater to us? Shouldn't we be the ones catering to God?
EDIT: Oh yeah, and when in physics did they state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless you don't want the reaction to be opposite, in which case it will have a different reaction/path of trajectory.
[edit on 1/2/06/02 by junglejake]
Originally posted by junglejake
You're talking about the creator of the universe, the dude who invented physics, where there is one and only one possible reaction...Except on the quantum scale, in which there are two...Still in line with Christianity (you can choose to reject or accept, but there is only one way).
As to citing evidence, I did, you just didn't see it. My point was that governments operate in this manner, and generally we accept it. It makes sense. I come to your country, I have to follow your laws. Well, in this world, we are in God's land, and we have to follow His laws. If we don't want to, tough. If we think they're unfair, tough. Nations don't cater to someones decision that they're wrong, why do you expect God to?
As to the multiple paths having about the same morality, people have been trying to understand God for a long time. However, our pride gets in our way. God is apparent in the very air we breath, but we try to interject our pride into our understanding. We try to make God fit us, instead of us fitting God. As a result, religions are formed that don't represent the true God, but instead a God blended with human pride. So ask yourself, the religion you practice, atheism, did it make you, or did you make it? If you made it, and it conforms to who you are exactly, are you sure it's not yourself you're worshipping?
Originally posted by junglejake
...Where did Jesus have a problem with keeping Kosher? As to the strict interpretation, He didn't have a problem with that, either. He had a problem with it being skewed into a classist interpretation. Hence the money lenders in the temple. Where did you tell me you were a Buddhist before today? If you are, why is it you hate Christians so much? (A fine dodge of my points, by the way. Y'all, yet again, changed the subject Ask me where you've done that in the past, and I will give you many, many links )
ET, that's my point. Many have come close to understanding what God wants from us. Buddha's teachings are definitely closer than any other I've looked into. Yet, you still have to follow them flawlessly to get in sync with God. Christ provided a different, better alternative. Follow the rules, but if you screw up, there is forgiveness through Him.
How many times have you known what was the right thing to do, what you should do, but you didn't do it? It's the human condition, our fallen nature. Buddha taught us to do what is right, yet still, knowing that, we do not always do this. Because of that, we are not in sync with God, and He is perfect. As such, He can't abide imperfection to hang with Him. Christ offers us that perfection, Buddha did not.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
3: Jesus is asked by a rabbi why he and his followers don't follow kosher, and he replies with something akin to, why would god care what we eat?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
jesus never once utters anything about starting a new religion,
Originally posted by dbrandt
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
jesus never once utters anything about starting a new religion,
Luke 24:46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The veil was removed from the OT, and now the story was complete. Jesus did tell them and us, the way(Himself), that gets us on the right path back to God.
[edit on 3-1-2006 by dbrandt]
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what exactly is "the gospel"?
In the beginning was the word, and the word was GOD
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
which of these passages says to start a new religion?
what exactly is "the gospel"?
what translation of the bible are you quoting? if i'm not mistaken it seems like king james.
before i respond, i'd like to get these answers.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, i guess the old fancy words are always a dead give away. how about evidence from a version of the bible that hasn't gone through 3 seperate mistranslations, and is more true to the greek manuscripts?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well i learned it from a catholic priest teaching in the seminary, so i'm pretty sure he's not against the bible.
i've also met with various christian theologians that concede that the best source for biblical evidence is the original greek texts, because they remain the least tainted by human error.
so my sources aren't anti christian,
Originally posted by dbrandt
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well i learned it from a catholic priest teaching in the seminary, so i'm pretty sure he's not against the bible.
i've also met with various christian theologians that concede that the best source for biblical evidence is the original greek texts, because they remain the least tainted by human error.
so my sources aren't anti christian,
No, it's possible to say you are a christian and not have faith that is true.
1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
2 Corinthians 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Why not make only one way to God?
[edit on 4-1-2006 by dbrandt]