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.

 

Jesus Christ is the only way

page: 40
60
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 





You may have felt intimidated, but I don't think you behaved like a "chicken" at all. In fact, you are the first Christian to come back to me with anything aside from "It's God word, I don't question it," or "You're going to burn in hell."


Heck, I am supposed to be one of them, and I get that. It's like a lot of them are nothing more than preprogrammed robots, spouting only certain things- and anything that gets stuck into that programming sideways is met with "DOES NOT COMPUTE!".

Tho, I will admit, the next person who quotes Job at me is gonna find that whole story shoved up their....




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat

Heck, I am supposed to be one of them, and I get that. It's like a lot of them are nothing more than preprogrammed robots, spouting only certain things- and anything that gets stuck into that programming sideways is met with "DOES NOT COMPUTE!".

Tho, I will admit, the next person who quotes Job at me is gonna find that whole story shoved up their....


I am constantly met with "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
It must be strange to go through life refusing to question anything about your faith in case your God sends you to hell for all enternity.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

Jesus is the only way for salvation and to Heaven. I have to shudder at all of the people on here that are falling right along behind the rest of the sheep on this one.



*shakes head*

Now then, what about those who came before Jesus? What about those who have faith the size of a mustard seed? Or Israelites?

...

Now back to reading the rest of this thread... oh why did I have to open this?

[edit: comments for page 2]

Jesus said he was god? I believe you are mistaken... likewise about the gospels; they were taken nearly word-for-word from Summerian texts. Congrats, the founders of Babylon wrote Genesis! Most of Psalms, too... how can the Koran be wrong, when it uses the same people, the same situations, but from a different perspective, a different side of things if you will?

[now for some more reading]

...

Gaah, too much, can't take it all! I'm going to find a nicer smaller thread...

[edit on 2009/7/17 by The Soothsayer]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 


Supposedly, all the answers are in the Bible. And sadly, no one ever tries to actually talk to God to ask about the stuff they cant find. And to be honest... I think a large % of them make up the answer from copy/ pasting bible verses, and leave God out of the equation completely. "Oh, I prayed, and...." You know how many times I have gotten "God told me to tell you" that was so far off base and completely false that I would have to have to been brain damaged to be able to accept it was true? TOO many times. How do these people say that, when it's evident "God" didn't say such things, and more than likely wouldn't- to the point anyone who's even sneezed at a church would know they're spouting bullpuckey?

Or the evangelists who (and this happened to me personally) rattle off nonsense that if it weren't so much a fraud it would have been funny? I actually had one tell me how me and my family were blessed. I told him simply ' I have no family' (and he meant wife, kids, ect)- Ol boy backpedaled like he was faced with a knife weilding 7 foot troll and changed his story to ' this is for the future, of course'.


After a few years of that- My view of God, and churches was changing. Add in all those 'Christian" women I tried to date, who used God like a ballbat (well, it's HIS will I marry mr handsome rich over there!), hid behind God, and left me to rot.... How am I going to see any 'loving' deity thru this? Especially when selfsame deity doesn't do anything but show me the same stupid ex g/f for this long (or supposedly, I am making a few phone calls to a couple shrinks to get THAT looked into)? Is he a powerful God, or just something religion made up to cover indiscretions and abuse? If he's all powerful, people like me should have prayers answered WELL before the self righteous, over privileged, money in the bank swaggering tinplated royal pains in the rear should! NOT the other way around!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

To the haters of GOD: :

Luke 11:47
Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

1 Corinthians 12:29
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

(I would read the whole chapter of Romans 3, if I were you.)
( And this chapter tells of all the gifts that are given: 1 Corinthians 12)

But beware:
1 Peter 1:9-11 (in Context) 1 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter) 2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

And if it IS coming toward the end:
Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.


Wheter it be the end or not yet, there have may have been more that has been in times we couldn't remember as mankind and history books go back only to certain points. As it is, it is pretty bad in America these days with many GOD-haters. Even those who try to 'sell' GOD.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
While I agree with the OP title, I find it is best to let others decide their own fate with religion/god. I love Jesus, and have seen Him, but I would not force Him on others. People go through life carrying burdens. Some people won't give them to Jesus to carry for them. They wish to carry them, or they do not know about Him correctly. I think most everyone would come to Him if they knew Him correctly. There is a lot of lying going around, usually just to make money. For example, anyone can print the King James Version of the Bible, because the copyright allows you to for free. There is no copyright. However, to have an exclusive translation will get you a copyright and you can therefore have protection and sell it, making money. Who cares if your translation is wrong or deceptive, and so many will never come to know Him correctly if you made your money.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ZenaV
 


I have read the entire Romans 3 before. Pretty poor reasoning, if you ask me.

As for the rest of the quotations: again, all you are doing is quoting out of context verses. They don't even coincide with the sentences that you precede them with.

But, they are particularly fear-filled ones. I find this interesting. Why is it that the most oft-quoted passages on this thread have been the hell-fire and brimstone ones. Of course, I quoted those to prove my point, but I would have thought that any Christian wanting to debate me would have gone with some of the verses that speak of love.

Very interesting indeed. Tell me, Christians on this thread: why do you speak of your God's love, but quote his rage as motivation? Is it fear of your God's retribution that compells you? Or a delight in the thought that he will consider you righteous whilst condemning others to hell.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 





Very interesting indeed. Tell me, Christians on this thread: why do you speak of your God's love, but quote his rage as motivation? Is it fear of your God's retribution that compells you? Or a delight in the thought that he will consider you righteous whilst condemning others to hell.


I think it's all about SUBMISSION. Submission, control, and sometimes hatred. 'Bow before me and my almighty God, Or I'll tell Him to kick your tail!' And they actually, honestly believe it. I dunno how often I have been told "God is NOT your personal genie" by the same people who use him JUST LIKE ONE. Because right out of that same mouth is "oh, look how I have been blessed! I got (_____)! God loves me so!"

If God is so good, and kind, and forgiving, and everything, why are you basically hogging God for yourselves? Why is it the ones who could BENEFIT from acts of kindness, understanding, generosity (oh, I am gonna hear it now) are the ones who get pithy lines, bible verses and the ever popular 'don't worry, I am praying for you', when it's obvious some time later, ya weren't. And then when the same people get tired of the nonsense, then they get fire and brimstone rained down their pants?

I bet I could get a count that says at least (?) 1/2 of the people who hate Christians (on here) have been burned, abused, used, lied to, stolen from by, and otherwise mistreated by Christians who used the same tactics. Basically- if God is good, kind. loving, and all those qualities that are ALWAYS mentioned, they are screwing God over WAY worse than the people that got screwed by them. I just don't get how they manage to prosper- which is the argument: 'Mebbe God ISNT loving, kind, ect ect ect'. Not when these jackals walk out of it smelling like a rose time and again. Something's out of whack there.

I gotta quit. I am wearing out this soapbox.....


[edit on 17-7-2009 by wylekat]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


What is one man's "sin" is another man's "pleasure".

As long as two consenting adults are hurting no one, what business is it of yours to judge.

Didn't your Jesus say not to judge?

Just worry about yourself and leave others alone.

That is exactly what I hate about religious fanatics, judgemental, pompous, "I have the only right way to go" attitude and feel it's their duty to control everyone else's belief. And that is what it is trying to control others through bullying nothing more.

You fanatical Christians are just as bad as the fanatical Muslims.

We are all grains of sand and "God" is the beach.

Love is the answer and everything else is an illusion. - David Icke


[edit on 18-7-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Now a challenge for all you gung ho Christians out there.

Did you know the shortest of all the commandments is the 6th one.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

No ifs ands or buts. A pure and very simple directive.

BUT

Most Christians defend capital mandated executions as well as war and executions.




Just when I was about ready to abandon my quest, I come to this – the Commandment that perhaps has the most going for it of any of them. It’s short (in fact, the shortest of them all at just 4 words totaling 16 letters); it apparently leaves little room for misunderstanding; it touches on an obviously important moral issue with obvious real world consequences – behavior that’s truly a matter of life and death; it’s perhaps the most quoted of all the Commandments; it seems to be the one people have most in mind when they say we ought to be posting the Ten Commandments in all our schools to prevent future Columbines; and it seems to be part of virtually every rational moral system I’ve ever heard of (though often qualified or modified a bit).

Alas, things are never simple when it comes to the Bible.

First off, it’s odd and troubling that such an important law is buried in the middle of the Ten Commandments. Less significant ones bracket it. Less important ones are given far more room and emphasis. This creates the impression that God didn’t take it as seriously as He should have. And if He didn’t, why should we?

Secondly, it’s one more Commandment that’s just given – plop. No explanation accompanies it. No rationale is given for its inclusion here. The consequences of following or not following it are not described. This further undermines its significance, and it also seems to reduce the likelihood of people actually following it.

Thirdly, it turns out that it is neither as obvious nor as understandable as it seems. Some people think it actually means or should read “Thou shalt not murder.”

By saying this, they force us all to go on another long detour down a rabbit hole….

Imagine you’re a teacher in a classroom. Imagine that you’ve given the following assignment: “Come up with a list of ten guiding laws or principles for moral behavior. You have as much time as you need to complete this assignment. You may have anyone and everyone help you. Go!” A couple thousand years later, a student comes in and gives you the Bible. The student tells you it was in effect written by God Himself. You spend a lot of time looking it over very carefully. In the course of doing so, you read “Thou shalt not kill,” and have a few problems with that. You whip out your red pen, leave a few comments, grade the Bible accordingly, and hand it back. Next day, the student comes storming back in and says, “Unfair! It really meant to say ‘Thou shalt not murder’!” What do you do? Do you say, “Oh, silly me – of course!”? Do you say, “Yes, I can see how thousands of years might not be enough time to polish a simple, 4-word sentence – here’s an extension”? Do you say, “Oh, sure – every perfect God is entitled to a few mistakes even when it comes to what’s perhaps the most important thing He’s ever said.” Do you decide to practice your own sort of “an eye for an eye” justice and say “Well, if YOU get to say ‘kill really means murder,’ then I get to say that ‘Thou shalt not steal’ really should read ‘Thou shalt now steal’ – so hand over your lunch money – NOW! – and nobody will get hurt!”? Or do you do what I’d do and reassign this student to a remedial reading class before he or she can waste anymore of your time?

Ok, that’s admittedly just my initial, visceral response to being jerked around this way. Here’s my completely logical, rational response for those who might be interested.

If God or the Bible meant “murder” instead of “kill,” God and the Bible should have said “murder” instead of “kill.”

On what grounds do I grant you the right to amend them? If you have the right to amend the Bible to better fit your beliefs and arguments, why don’t I? Why is it that defenders of the Bible always seem to claim the right to re-interpret the Bible to better fit current sensibilities but they never ever grant others the right to re-interpret it for the worse?

www.anatheist.net...


[edit on 18-7-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


It interests me how God says "thou shalt not kill"-yet, he commanded his priests to kill, his people to kill, HE kills, animals were killed around the clock when the temples were up, made sure his son was killed.......

Christians throughout history have killed, the church killed, the crusades killed, And today, modern Christianity kills, just not in the same fast bloody fashion, they do it slowly and cheerfully.

So- About that 'life more abundantly'....?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
You know, my bible says something different. Its says the son of man is comming. Not Christ. Not the son of God. The son of man. typo?


This title is applied to Jesus, just as Son of God and Christ.


Originally posted by Nohup
It also pretty clearly and unambiguously says that his name will be Emmanuel, not Jesus (or Yeshua). Of course, if you don't think the Bible is being literal there, maybe you can explain why we should accept anything in it as literal.


The original prophecy actually applied to the present day of that prophet. Isaiah said the king would be given a sign...a son would be conceived and his name would be Immanuel. (Which means, "God is with us.")

The direct and fairly immediate fulfillment of this is in Isaiah 8:

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the(F) wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

Here we have the prophet saying the promised child's name will be Maher-shalal-hash-baz, not Immanuel. Yet, this is the very same child who just a chapter before was to be called Immanuel.

So, in the original prophecy and fulfillment, we have an idealistic and theological name, Immanuel, versus the actual given name. Why? The name given in the prophecy speaks of God's presence with His people. The actual name given also speaks to Judah's fate at this juncture in history.

And so we see Matthew's theological report of the events of Jesus' incarnation into human flesh. Yes, the one born to Mary was the true Immanuel. The very one who was God, present with His people. Quite literally, and localized in the body of a son...conceived, not merely by a young maiden this time...but by a young virgin. And yet, His name would also not literally be Immanuel, for just as little Maher-shalal-hash-baz was not named Immanuel, so Jesus would bear the name of salvation for His people (his name means Salvation of YHWH)...and not judgment, as the original child's given name signified.

Ah, this prophecy is layered with rich prophetic import. And yet, the creaky old anti-theists take swipes at it with simple minded self-contentment. The atheists have it all figured out, you know.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by Praetorian Guard]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   


www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Jesus Ministry

Custodial Religion

Source or inspiration of teachings is said to be a God, angel, or supernatural force; not a human being.

Belief in a single Supreme Being, or God, is a principle cornerstone of faith. (In earlier times, worship of many humanlike "Gods.")

Physical immortality is an important or desired goal in many Custodial religions. Adherence to doctrine, based upon faith or obedience alone, is stressed.

Severe or fatal physical punishments are sometimes employed or advocated during the religion’s history to deal with nonbelievers or backsliders.

Belief that being born in a human body, either once or
many times through reincarnation, is part of a broad spiritual plan which will ultimately benefit every human being.

Belief that there are "higher forces," "Gods," or supernatural entities which control people’s individual or collective fates. Human beings have no control over those forces and can only yield to them.

Belief that only one Supreme Being alone created the physical universe.

Human suffering, toil, and enslavement are part of a broader spiritual plan which will ultimately lead to salvation and freedom for those who obediently endure it.

Spiritual recovery and salvation depend entirely upon the grace of "God" or other supernatural entity.



The above is from "The Gods of Eden" by William Bramley and describes "The Custodian Religion"



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   


www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Jesus Ministry

Maverick Religion

Source or inspiration of teachings is said to be an identifiable human being. Belief in a Supreme Being is usually tolerated, but is a minor or nonexistent part of doctrine.

Emphasis is placed on the role of the individual spiritual being in relation to the universe.

Spiritual freedom and immortality are sought. Endless existence in the same physical body is deemed unimportant or undesirable.

Observation and reason are held to be the proper foundations for adhering to a doctrine. Physical punishments or duress are very mild to nonexistent.
Severest punishment is usually formal exclusion of an
individual from the religious organization.

Belief that there is no hidden spiritual purpose to human existence and that the process of death-amnesia-rebirth causes spiritual decay.

Belief that all people are ultimately responsible for having created their own conditions in life, good and bad, by the known actions and inactions, and that all people can ultimately control their own destinies.

Belief that everyone has something to do with the creation and/or perpetuation of the physical universe.
Human suffering, toil, and enslavement are social ills that have no constructive purpose and stand in the way of spiritual salvation and freedom.

Spiritual recovery and salvation are entirely up to the individual to achieve through his or her own self motivated effort.

THE STORY MOST people know of Jesus is told in the New Testament. The New Testament, like much of the Old Testament, is in many places a greatly altered version of the original accounts on which it is based. In addition, probably less than 5% of all that Jesus and his original followers taught is found in the Bible.

Many of the changes and deletions to the New Testament were made by special church councils. The editing process began as early as 325 A.D. during the First Council of Nicea, and continued well into the 12th century. For example, the Second Synod [church council] of Constantinople in 553 A.D. deleted from the Bible Jesus’s references to “reincarnation”—an important concept to Jesus and his early followers. Later, the Lateran Councils of the 12th century added a tenet to the Bible that was never taught by Jesus: the concept of the “Holy Trinity.”

The Christian church did not limit itself to changing a few ideas, it also rejected entire books. The church destroyed many documents and records which contradicted the radical changes that were made to Christian doctrine by these councils.

Some of the material was rightfully rejected. Other Apocryphal works, however, were omitted simply because they contradicted the official church version of Jesus’s life on several crucial details. These are details which, if carefully researched, would offer a somewhat different outlook on the life of Jesus from the one presented in the authorized Bible.


A closed mind and proud heart gathers no knowledge.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


Very ture.some people who even are enlightened to the global elite don't realize that SATAN is the one who is the true leader of it all.He and his fallen angels



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
It interests me how God says "thou shalt not kill"-yet, he commanded his priests to kill, his people to kill, HE kills, animals were killed around the clock when the temples were up, made sure his son was killed.......


More accurately, he said not to murder, which is the unjust taking of human life.

We can see from context that He never intended there to be zero human caused deaths, whether human or animal.

He authorized the killing and eating of animal flesh in Noah's covenant.

In this same covenant, He also commanded the death penalty for those who kill humans.

Though the Hebrews had been sacrificing animals for various reasons since Abraham, He instituted the sacrificial system of the Aaronic priesthood. This continued until AD 70, when the Temple was destroyed.

Under the Mosaic covenant, the death penalty was expanded to apply to other behaviors. Murder, adultery, homosexual sex acts, Sabbath breaking, rape, kidnapping, bestiality, incest, witchcraft, and a number of other acts could get you killed in Israel's early days.

YHWH called for the annihilation of the Canaanites. God is Lord over all the Earth, not just the Hebrews. The Canaanites were practicing behaviors God considered wicked. God enlisted the Hebrews as His hammer of justice. They were to wipe out all the Canaanites, and so would inherit the land of Canaan as their own. The Hebrews failed to do this completely, however.

War was a fact of life for many nations back in early Israel's day. And so, they fought. Rather than expecting His people to be sitting duck pacifists, He allowed their warfare, even calling for it, and gave them rules of engagement. He even gave them marching orders and strategy. He even participated in their battles and sent angelic beings into the fray, as well. (Here's a hint at another topic...the Ark of the Covenant was not a weapon. It was a throne. Guess who sat upon it?)

And God, being the Creator of life and Lord of all that is, may terminate anyone's life should He so desire it. He owns us all. And since He has this right, He's not guilty of wrongdoing. He may administrate His creation as He sees fit. We see it everywhere, everyday, whether we like how He runs things or not. This divine prerogative does not extend to anyone on Earth, aside from the permissions and commandments He's given to particular individuals (Joshua, David, etc.) or to nations as they play out their roles and responsibilities (death penalty, justified police violence, warfare).

So...God gave a commandment against murder. But instituted and commanded other forms of killing. He is the Creator and gets to set the boundaries. Also, all sins that are committed are primarily committed against this Creator, so He is the one who gets to say what offends Him and what is acceptable to Him.


Originally posted by wylekat
Christians throughout history have killed, the church killed, the crusades killed, And today, modern Christianity kills, just not in the same fast bloody fashion, they do it slowly and cheerfully.


A nation that is self-consciously Christian may make war when it is necessary to the defense of its people and borders. This is a just war.

That nation may also put convicted criminals to death, should their crimes be of the kind that deserves death.

And I agree...there have been times when the Church took up the sword, which belongs solely to Caesar. The Church has spiritual sanctions. And when it has usurped the power of death from Caesar, the Church has been wrong and guilty of great sin. This does not invalidate the Law or Christ or even the Church. It simply shames the Church and shows that it's comprised of people who have broken God's laws, even after their conversion to Christ.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Praetorian Guard]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Harbinger777
 



Very ture.some people who even are enlightened to the global elite don't realize that SATAN is the one who is the true leader of it all.He and his fallen angels
this is a good place to say this i guess.you can get a pretty good clue on the way things work for atheists.you never see them bashing the
satanists for believing in satan. but i do notice they team up together
to bash anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.

even satanists know there's a god

[edit on 18-7-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

Originally posted by wylekat
It interests me how God says "thou shalt not kill"-yet, he commanded his priests to kill, his people to kill, HE kills, animals were killed around the clock when the temples were up, made sure his son was killed.......


More accurately, he said not to murder, which is the unjust taking of human life.

We can see from context that He never intended there to be zero human caused deaths, whether human or animal.

He authorized the killing and eating of animal flesh in Noah's covenant.

In this same covenant, He also commanded the death penalty for those who kill humans.

Though the Hebrews had been sacrificing animals for various reasons since Abraham, He instituted the sacrificial system of the Aaronic priesthood. This continued until AD 70, when the Temple was destroyed.

Under the Mosaic covenant, the death penalty was expanded to apply to other behaviors. Murder, adultery, homosexual sex acts, Sabbath breaking, rape, kidnapping, bestiality, incest, witchcraft, and a number of other acts could get you killed in Israel's early days.

YHWH called for the annihilation of the Canaanites. God is Lord over all the Earth, not just the Hebrews. The Canaanites were practicing behaviors God considered wicked. God enlisted the Hebrews as His hammer of justice. They were to wipe out all the Canaanites, and so would inherit the land of Canaan as their own. The Hebrews failed to do this completely, however.

War was a fact of life for many nations back in early Israel's day. And so, they fought. Rather than expecting His people to be sitting duck pacifists, He allowed their warfare, even calling for it, and gave them rules of engagement. He even gave them marching orders and strategy. He even participated in their battles and sent angelic beings into the fray, as well. (Here's a hint at another topic...the Ark of the Covenant was not a weapon. It was a throne. Guess who sat upon it?)

And God, being the Creator of life and Lord of all that is, may terminate anyone's life should He so desire it. He owns us all. And since He has this right, He's not guilty of wrongdoing. He may administrate His creation as He sees fit. We see it everywhere, everyday, whether we like how He runs things or not. This divine prerogative does not extend to anyone on Earth, aside from the permissions and commandments He's given to particular individuals (Joshua, David, etc.) or to nations as they play out their roles and responsibilities (death penalty, justified police violence, warfare).

So...God gave a commandment against murder. But instituted and commanded other forms of killing. He is the Creator and gets to set the boundaries. Also, all sins that are committed are primarily committed against this Creator, so He is the one who gets to say what offends Him and what is acceptable to Him.


Originally posted by wylekat
Christians throughout history have killed, the church killed, the crusades killed, And today, modern Christianity kills, just not in the same fast bloody fashion, they do it slowly and cheerfully.


A nation that is self-consciously Christian may make war when it is necessary to the defense of its people and borders. This is a just war.

That nation may also put convicted criminals to death, should their crimes be of the kind that deserves death.

And I agree...there have been times when the Church took up the sword, which belongs solely to Caesar. The Church has spiritual sanctions. And when it has usurped the power of death from Caesar, the Church has been wrong and guilty of great sin. This does not invalidate the Law or Christ or even the Church. It simply shames the Church and shows that it's comprised of people who have broken God's laws, even after their conversion to Christ.
Well said the catholics were responsible for the inqusitions not god or true christians.Catholisism is pagan



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Harbinger777
 



Very ture.some people who even are enlightened to the global elite don't realize that SATAN is the one who is the true leader of it all.He and his fallen angels
this is a good place to say this i guess.you can get a pretty good clue on the way things work for atheists.you never see them bashing the
satanists for believing in satan. but i do notice they team up together
to bash anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.

even satanists know there's a god

(Exactly It takes more faith to beleive you were created by nothing than to beleive in a creator.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Later, the Lateran Councils of the 12th century added a tenet to the Bible that was never taught by Jesus: the concept of the “Holy Trinity.”


This is really quite laughable. The 12th century? Really?


I believe Jesus did in fact teach us about the Triune God. And even if He didn't the rest of the New Testament is dripping with Trinitarian theology.

However, what really makes me laugh is the date of the 12th century in that document you're quoting. There are Trinitarian overtures in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. (Actually, I think they're pretty blatant in their Trinitarianism.) But the Athanasian Creed, written, oh, about the late fifth or early sixth century.
This creed is explicitly Trinitarian and even maps out very clear language as to the relation of the members of the Trinity to each other. Here's the essence of this creed: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are God; however, the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit, and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

Though it's not biblical literature, and neither was it written in the earliest days of the Church, it's a very far cry from the 12th century!

Honestly, the guys who wrote that document you quoted are pikers as far as history goes. There are cavernous holes in the balance of their article, there as well.


And I know, they're saying the Lateran Council added a tenet to the Bible, and here I am quoting 6th century creeds. But that brings up a good point...how do these chaps know that council added anything to the text of the Bible? We have Greek manuscripts of the New Testament dating very far back, plus we have the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Exactly where are these men getting their ideas?


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Praetorian Guard]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Praetorian Guard]



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join