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.

 

Meta Conspiracy: Evidence of Conspiracy Ignored

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
In my parenthetical I was simply pointing out the use of "them."

Nothing you provided by way of context refutes that God is saying here that he hates "them" - those who are being cast out before you. Who do you think "them" is that he's talking about? They are sinners by definition whether the context is that he's relating that to the Hebrews not to follow "them" or whether he's talking to "them" who he abhors. You can't understand this? It doesn't take your context to understand this. Your context only provides more ammo to show that God does this carefully, that he explains the consequences, and isn't capricious.

It's totally different than merely saying "I hate ."


If "they" no longer did what "they" did, then would he still "hate" them? No. Because it is about the action not the person who does the action. Does that mean you won't have to pay for your sins(mistakes)? No, you will.

Thus if they repent(fix/change the mistake) they are forgiven. Why? Because it wasn't a matter of the who, but the action they were doing.

That verse is actions that he says not to do. The verse before that tells them what they should do. Thus the 2 verses you quoted are about actions, not the person. You added the context that it was towards the people.




At any rate, I do have kids. I love them just like you do and I punish, correct, and chastise them just like you do. That's actually irrelevant to this discussion because I didn't say that God's hate for some people was mutually exclusive from the fact that he loved them also. For instance, that he was willing to sacrifice his son so that "all" may live. Unless you want to narrow "all" based on some context to a chosen few.


It is completely relevant. The relationship between father and son is the entire point here. I am looking at this in terms that god is my father, not that god is some external authority trying to turn me into a slave. Not some external authority that says - don't do it because "I said so". It's not like that at all.

Also, your bit about the sacrifice is church stuff, and I don't agree with that at all. Those who view Jesus as a sacrifice so that they may live are those who live in the lie. It is a sacrifice of truth so that they lie may live, and it does until the truth rears it's head again. I call such worship the church of Satan, and I think that pretty much sums up the majority of Christianity as an organized religion. Jesus "saves" based on the understanding and path he gives, so that maybe you will see/believe and take that understanding and follow his example. That is what few will do, and obviously very few do as you can look around and see.

I'm not a christian, I actually follow the example rather than praising the example and thinking I can do whatever I want and be "forgiven".



Be honest here - love and hate are not mutually exclusive and we see this all the time in our own lives.


Sure thing, and we love the person but hate some of the things we do, not the other way around. If it is the other way around, then you are just using the person.




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

end of debate


Good example of someone taking things out of context.



1In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?

2For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart.

3If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

4The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.

5The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

6Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

7For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.


In the Lord I put my trust, not in Paul. Trying to put Paul in the place of the Lord here is just taking things out of context.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by miriam0566

psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

end of debate


In the Lord I put my trust, not in Paul. Trying to put Paul in the place of the Lord here is just taking things out of context.


what does psalm 11:5 have to do with paul?

and how does quoting the entire chapter change what its saying?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Sorry, did I misunderstand? I thought you were quoting the verse in defense of me saying that about Paul's writing. If that is not the case, my apologies.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
You might enjoy arguing, for instance, about what constitutes God rather than what God's behaviors are?


Neither really.

Those sort of discussions are meaningless to me. In the same way that much theology is meaningless to me. However, why people believe is interesting, but not the sort of discussion that gets far here.


What kind of an atheist are you? Atheists say there is no God - so why would you engage in a discussion about one facet of God rather than another? Are you just getting your exercise? What's the matter, not enough physics to go study to exercise your intellect and move the world forward? No further contributions to neo-Darwinian theory left - got that all wrapped up have we? Surely, you have something better to do - and this comes from someone who was astonished that more atheists didn't jump into my post! Why? Because atheists as a class aren't true to their convictions as evidenced by their behavior.


lol

I'm an atheist who would rather at least try to spend my time here in areas were lulz are plenty and there is something worthwhile to discuss.

Again, you were the one specifically targetting atheists, and so I provided an atheists viewpoint. Wha da matter?


The problem with argumentative atheists is that their "care" hangs out like a shirttail that needs tucking. Stop caring, and I'll believe you're an atheist. You've got much better things to be doing, like procreating, and getting on top of the crab pile, and grabbing all the gusto you can. Start serving self and stop serving others by trying to keep them from the self-delusion of God. I suppose you'll claim that your heroics are actually self-serving, in that by your argumentation against God you will help create a better society for yourself (and your descendants who in general you should not give a damn about if you believe in evolution) even though all historical examples are entirely to the contrary. Hmm - where was the last atheist society? Would you say the last atheist society was a net positive or negative for its people? 'Gulag' makes fascinating reading.


lol, I haven't even argued anything about god. I've just said that much of the discussion is meaningless to me, I gave a perspective as to why atheists might not have responded to your thread. It was in direct response to one of your complaints. If others want to discuss or believe, that's their perogative. You see, I don't care, I just cared enough to respond to your complaints that atheists appeared to not give a damn about your topic.

I think gulags were associated with totalitarian communists. There's a difference. But I suppose baiting atheists is one way of attracting attention. There, there.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


So, you admit that God did hate "them" albeit for their actions, which is the only reason anyone rational would hate another person, until they repented if they did indeed repent. I think I already mentioned restoration through confession, repentance, and obedience. He certainly doesn't hate them because they have any particular non-behavioral attribute. I see that nowhere in any of my quotes.

Case closed on hating - thanks for your total agreement!

On other topics, you don't think it's little arrogant for you to suggest that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice, the lamb or God, when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. If you're having trouble with this concept (and you're not a Christian, so you no doubt will), then take a look at the seven things Jesus is reported to have said on the cross.

He was in court dude - getting the condemnation for us. What do you call it when someone not guilty takes the heat for something someone else did? When people run into a burning building and save someone but die trying, they make a .....


sacrifice. This isn't some old testament baloney, it's directly tied to the examples given in the OT.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


So then, if all your statements are true, which can be summarized as "I don't care unless somebody is attacking atheists" why do you bother responding? In fact, your responses are shifting sand. First you say you'd find X more interesting than Y then you say you find neither of them interesting. Typical of distracting non-contributors, just making it up as they go along.

I suppose the peanut gallery might be interested to know why you care if I attack atheists. I certainly do because it's totally irrational on your part. Your existence on planet earth has nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks about atheists or atheism. In fact, the most rational approach for an atheist when confronted by topics related to God is to simply hide their actual beliefs on the matter and not engage at all. Unless you think you need to save all these misguided people or something.

Atheists have a savior complex - that's why they argue.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ichabod
 


wth is up with some of you wanting to wanting to declare "case closed" as if you are somekind of authority. 2nd time in this thread someone has done that. Sorry, but the case isn't "closed", your mind is.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between the sin and the sinner, and want to define people according to sin. If god hated the sinner, then it wouldn't matter what that person did, they would always be hated.

This is exactly why I didn't respond to your first thread. Now suddenly it's not a matter of if god hates the sin or the sinner, just a matter of if he hates or not? Dumb.



7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.


As for Jesus, his death showed that it is better to die than to become the evil and fight back. It is in his life example that one may find salvation by following the path. Only those who live in the lie find salvation in the death/sacrifice of truth. I know this because it is the same path the father taught me. As it turns out, god can actually speak directly to people, and doesn't need a book.

Nothing said on the cross changed that.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Ichabod
 


wth is up with some of you wanting to wanting to declare "case closed" as if you are somekind of authority. 2nd time in this thread someone has done that. Sorry, but the case isn't "closed", your mind is.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between the sin and the sinner, and want to define people according to sin. If god hated the sinner, then it wouldn't matter what that person did, they would always be hated.



We announce it closed because we know you're finished, unfortunately you just don't know it yet.

You want it both ways. You want to argue that hate is transient and therefore somehow not actual hate but you also want to say that if I point out an instance of hate where God says he hates them because of their sin it is persistent and permanent even though I've already explained 4 times about restoration. Are you finished yet or are you going to keep arguing this?

You agreed that God hated them because of ... and that if they would change their wicked ways that he would forgive them...do you not believe Is 55:7-9?

So God hated - you have nothing else to say. That was the premise of the thread. Many of those he hated he also wiped out, for instance, the perverts at S&G, so they died in God's hate.

And what's with the Paul bashing on a separate thread? The only people I've ever heard attack Paul were neo-Gnostics and Muslims. Are you either? Your position on Jesus as sacrifice makes me suspect same.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ichabod
 


So the topic went from does god hate the sin or the sinner, to just does god hate?


The quote I gave you in proverbs says very clearly what he hates.

Yes, I have much more agreement with gnostics than I do the church. I do not belong to any groups or any church however.

I actually know the father.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
So then, if all your statements are true, which can be summarized as "I don't care unless somebody is attacking atheists" why do you bother responding?


I don't care for discussions about meaningless stuff. I cared enough to provide you with one atheist perspective. And I care about lots of other things.


In fact, your responses are shifting sand. First you say you'd find X more interesting than Y then you say you find neither of them interesting. Typical of distracting non-contributors, just making it up as they go along.


Eh? The ontological question is somewhat meaningful, but past that? To me, meaningless.

Who is a non-contributor? I answered to a direct complaint of yours in this thread. But you just want to bait.


I suppose the peanut gallery might be interested to know why you care if I attack atheists. I certainly do because it's totally irrational on your part. Your existence on planet earth has nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks about atheists or atheism. In fact, the most rational approach for an atheist when confronted by topics related to God is to simply hide their actual beliefs on the matter and not engage at all. Unless you think you need to save all these misguided people or something.


This was a topic related to another thread on the topic of god. This was meant to be a conspiracy because sufficient people didn't answer your other thread. And because, of course, your topic is so important (lol), people must be purposefully ignoring it in some grand conspiracy.

Perhaps it was just a tedious topic? I make enough of my own, no shame in it - what I find interesting or important other people find a bit dull.


Atheists have a savior complex - that's why they argue.


lol

I'm not arguing - again, I gave one perspective for you. You do appear to be desperate for attention, though.

Have fun.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join