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.

 

Christianity and its flawed concept of god.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
At the end of the day the commandments of Jesus are simple. Love God completely and Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus called his teachings the way. Christianity was a method for Rome to maintain control and keep the empire strong.


Though I'm not much into conspiracies, I agree with this, to the extent that we've done with Christianity what the Jews had done to their faith -- filled it with doctrinal differences that fragment the body of believers, for reasons that, on reflection, seem to be pretty superficial.

Jesus made both his promise, and his terms, pretty easy things to understand. That so many people struggle with it is a testimony to how badly we've mucked it up.




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

yeah i kind of brought that point up before. not getting a lot of reply's about the points i raised just more merry go round comments that go nowhere.



This comment makes it hard to have an equatable conversation.

I hope you find what you are looking for in a manner that meets your needs.

Peace



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by zroth
 


i understand the concepts you are trying to explain but these are not the traditional christian views. which is what i have contention with. also nothing all knowing can be surprised. its a paradox.


sure. there is no traditional Christianity without a baseline denomination to discuss. there is catholic, Lutheran, LD S, etc.


Yes and no. You may discuss Christianity as it is described in the Bible, which is Christianity without doctrinal influences. It does not, of course, exist as an organized religion today, so to put things into context, most people do need to draw in a specific doctrine.

Many Christians, including myself, have a difficult time including Latter Day Saints as a Christian faith, as their beliefs in many area are contrary to Christian teaching. If you have been baptized in the LDS Church and wish to convert to Methodism or Catholicism, for example, you will need to be baptized again, as those churches will not accept the Mormon baptism as a Christian one.


and you dont see the hypocrisy of all this baptizing? do you really think god cares??? really?? its water on your head. why would god care whether if it was done by one priest or another???


How is that hypocrisy? Baptism is one of the few sacraments of the church, meaning that it's a critical part of the process of becoming a Christian. If you come in and claim that the time someone dumped a beer over your head, yelling "Go Packers!" is the same thing as baptism, is it reasonable to believe that the Catholic Church is going to say "okay, sounds like you've already had the sacrament"?

If the LDS church is not considered Christian, their baptism has as much validity as the beer over the head one, from a doctrinal standpoint (I don't want to imply that the Mormons don't think it's every bit as valid as a Catholic or Lutheran one, but the Catholics and Lutherans would beg to differ.)


and what MAN makes that determination? by whose authority does he make that determination???????

i didnt see god on the 6 o clock telling me LDS were not christians? and what about roman catholics and anglicans what about the orthodox where do you draw the line. you cant even agree amongst your selves how can you convince a total noob.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


you aren't talking to the person that could and would address it.

the atum was more than one god. the first creation of man is not the first creation of man, it's the first creation of the adam, which were males and females. the first adamic race was males and females. the text says man in english but in the original language it is adam. the translators did that because they had to address the fact there was more than one, so they used the generic man, instead of the more specific adam. the only reason i can think of for this is they were confused by the next adam reference, which had eve being made in the image of adam instead of in the image of the elohiym. it's all the same banana. the adam was the atum, who were the elohiym (all plural words).



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by adjensen
 


im confused..... so are you saying you dont believe in the king james version of what happened in the bible as gospel truth or not? regardless about what you believe jesus's story was it all stems from the bible. old and new.


It depends on which part of the Bible you are referring to. Go reread my post, I think I made it pretty clear.

Jesus' coming was proclaimed in the Old Testament, but he is not reliant on it. The book is included as a testimony of Christ's divinity, not because it's important to know how to treat a menstruating woman, or the proper way to kill an animal intended for sacrifice in the Temple.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


my apologies sometimes my emotion gets the better of me. more proof that im human an fallible. i do appreciate you input i just sometimes get frustrated. and i understand its my inability to see certain points of view and not the fault of anybody but my own. so dont take it personal



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


interesting, where did you get all this information from if you dont mind me asking?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


no worries. I am the worst in this regard, ask the misses.

I truly do hope you find some revelations here.

We all just need need to be like water which always returns to its source. The ocean is awesome because it is humble (low) enough to allow pieces of itself to leave and come back.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


look your beliefs about jesus are all well and good but im talking about god based on what the old testament describes. my contention is with the paradoxs therein. because as far as im concerned if the old and new testament are all in one book then the PTB intend it to be viewed as one book. and thus should be treated as one. if it isnt then what they are doing is deliberate fraud. which is another kettle of fish.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tim3lord
 


The Biblical God, Yahweh/Elohim, is one of the most evil literary characters in history.

Read the Old Testament I implore you. It is FILLED with God, who is meant to be all-powerful, resorting to violent genocidal atrocities. The Old Testament law, considered by many Christians to be the basis for law in America, is absolutely disturbing and is actually believed by some people to have been passed down by God himself.

God floods the Earth wiping out thousands of innocent children, guess there was room on the ark for ALL of the animals but not the babies and defenseless children


God hardens Pharaoh's heart repeatedly during the plagues and then punishes the first born by slaughtering them wholesale - rather than punish Pharaoh.

God blames Adam and Eve for a sin they committed whilst being unable to determine what they were doing was wrong (God hadn't given them the ability to discern good and evil). Supposedly we're all damned from this original sin, we're all cursed (according to some Christians).

I'll leave you with a few brilliant verses from Deuteronomy 22:


20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.



22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.



23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife


Note in the above verse that the man is not being penalized for rape, but for adultery with another man's betrothed wife. A few verses later we find out what happens to man who rapes a virgin who's not about to get married:


28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


HE GETS TO MARRY HER


Source

Of course the Old Testament is terrible and many Christians try to get out of it by claiming that its not the same God or that the Old testament doesn't apply anymore. As if God making a new covenant erases the fact he slaughtered infants and demanded a rape victim marry her attacker. In truth the New Testament doesn't get much better, even Jesus admitted he came "not to bring peace but a sword".

Also Revelation 21:8 which says that people go to Hell for things as simple as lying, cowardice or being a "magician". The fact that people are being sent to an eternal Hell for a finite list of sins is bad enough to begin with but the fact that a simple lie every now and then could send you there, absolute poppycock.

So yeah, the Biblical Christian God, about as evil a character as they come, Darth Vader pales in comparison.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
i didnt see god on the 6 o clock telling me LDS were not christians? and what about roman catholics and anglicans what about the orthodox where do you draw the line. you cant even agree amongst your selves how can you convince a total noob.


I suspect that you don't know anything about the LDS church, and I'm not going to try and educate you. If you are interested, go look into it, and if you have an understanding of mainstream Christianity, you'll quickly understand why, though there are some beliefs are in common, we have major issues with significant part of their belief system.

In general, Christian baptism is consistent and is accepted across "party lines." I am a Methodist. If I chose to become a Catholic, I would not need to be re-baptized. I will be buried in a Catholic cemetery, and they have no issue with that.

There are differences, of course, but they are mostly (maybe entirely) differences of human opinion, and, while they needlessly complicate things, unless you have a problem with the faith in general (as you seem to) you find a doctrine / theology / community that you feel comfortable with, accept Christ, follow his commandments as best you can, and you're done. It is unlikely that, for example, Baptists will be saved and Lutherans will not, purely on the basis of doctrinal differences.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


With all do respect, you are totally wrong.

Jesus quoted the "Old Testament" many times, and talked about Noah. Mathew 24 36-39

1Peter 3:20 and Hebrews 11:7 also talk about the account of Noah.

Isaiah contains many prophesies relating to Jesus.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


it's in genesis. and a good strongs concordance can tell you what the original words were and which words were added to make it make sense in english (and fit the translation bias). remember, moses wrote the pentateuch (first five books of the bible), and he was raised egyptian and their story of creation is identical to the hebrew (hibiru/hyskos) version of creation. it's just language barriers and time that has created the confusion

ever notice the talith and phylactery of a jew ? it's the pharaohs headdress. apparently later pharaohs dropped the ball, and the god of israelites (who was the first pharaoh, the alpha), moved them outta egypt. my theory is that they built the temple on temple mount because there had been a temple to jehovah there, pre black sea flood, and they were building it again, same place..



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tim3lord
 


I too came to the same place after reading the Bible(s) and anything on Ancient things and religion, and the Occult Teachings, either there is no God at all, or else the real God got lost somewhere and ET beings masqueraded as Gods. I too wonder why people still cling to these beliefs as if they are set in stone and can never be changed. They hold the Bible up high and proclaim, "The word of God" at the top of their lungs, and yet, never read it through, or never question anything the preacher says...after all, he is Jesus on Earth, isn't he? One fine day all fundies will get a big awakening, and most will probably lose their minds, right before boarding the craft of the Draco for the long journey into Hell, the one they created for themselves. Glad I know what to do upon death of this meatsuit. Wish everyone did.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by adjensen
 


look your beliefs about jesus are all well and good but im talking about god based on what the old testament describes. my contention is with the paradoxs therein. because as far as im concerned if the old and new testament are all in one book then the PTB intend it to be viewed as one book. and thus should be treated as one. if it isnt then what they are doing is deliberate fraud. which is another kettle of fish.


Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but your perception doesn't change Christian Theology. If you want to complain about the nature of God in the Torah or other books in the Old Testament, you need to talk to the people who wrote it, who were not Christians.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


i have a side theory that yeshua was also
the hindu krishna but i can't prove it



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 



how can god be jealous of man worshiping another god when there is only one god. how does that work? are there other gods?


For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1 Corinthians 7:36


I answered your question.

Will you please answer mine?

Would it be wrong for the man (in my earlier post) to be jealous?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by adjensen
 


With all do respect, you are totally wrong.

Jesus quoted the "Old Testament" many times, and talked about Noah. Mathew 24 36-39

1Peter 3:20 and Hebrews 11:7 also talk about the account of Noah.

Isaiah contains many prophesies relating to Jesus.


As I said, the Old Testament is critical to the Christian faith, in that it describes and anticipates the Christ. But whether Noah existed, and whether the behaviours of his described in Genesis truly happened have no bearing on Christ, none.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



But whether Noah existed, and whether the behaviours of his described in Genesis truly happened have no bearing on Christ, none.



If Noah didn't exist, then Jesus is a liar. Mathew 24:36-39




[edit on 25-7-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


he just meant if noah was a metaphor for a deeper lesson or message, but i personally believe noah was real, and the epic of gilgamesh verifies that further. see epic of gilgamesh, tablet XI



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join