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 leira7
What I'm saying it that this Logic can be reversed. If someone somehow were to miraculously prove that the God of Abraham was, indeed the real God he claims to be in The Bible, then it forces the non-believer/Atheist to accept that Yaweh IS God, and who the hell wants to do that?
Originally posted by adjensen
Good grief.
Do you get paid for each thread that you create along these lines?
That's a serious question. These sorts of threads serve to do nothing beyond attracting "atta boy" messages from those of similar thought, and righteous indignation from those who don't agree. The likelihood that you will change anyone's perspective is effectively zero.
How about creating a thread that encourages intelligent discussion, rather than just another "I want to bash those of faith and collect stars and flags from similar disbelievers" line?
Originally posted by leira7
I think it is dangerous when people use this type of logic:
"Abrahamic God is _______ (fill in blank) until you can finally say that he is --> NOT REAL,
and therefore, since it has been proven that the God of Abraham is Not Real, then it should be undeniable fact and proof that there is NO GOD. "
Originally posted by adjensen
If someone proved that the God of Abraham is the God that is depicted in the Bible, what kind of fool would NOT want to accept that? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that I do believe this, what on Earth would lead one to any other conclusion if absolute proof was given?
We all (supposedly) seek the truth. Your supposition is that the truth is given -- by what means do you represent that this is a bad thing?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And why did you fail to actually address the post?
We all (supposedly) seek the truth. Your supposition is that the truth is given -- by what means do you represent that this is a bad thing?
Out of all the possible deities, I don't think the Abrahamic one would be the best choice to be true, so that could be seen as a bad thing.
I'd still accept the existence of said deity and try to conform my thoughts to said existence, but I wouldn't necessarily be happy about the existence of that specific deity.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And why did you fail to actually address the post?
Because I am not a fundamentalist, and therefore, arguing about the Old Testament is pointless. Where it is in conflict with Christ's teachings, a non-fundamentalist does not need to "figure it out," because it doesn't matter. We are not Jews, so Jewish Law is not relevant. Period.
As for the New Testament, if one follows Christ's two commandments, one can neither own slaves nor rape anyone, so, again, your point is moot.
Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven
5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The question is not whether you'd be happy or not, but why one wouldn't accept the truth, given absolute proof.
Your unhappiness, at any rate, is predicated on your fundamentalist view of God, which is not the prevailing Christian view. If you are bound to a fundamentalist or Conservative Jewish view of the Old Testament, yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on meeting him after spending a lifetime badmouthing him, either :-)
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Straight from the mouth of Jesus. He's the one that states that the laws still bind, even though in other parts of the NT it says that they don't.
How do you reconcile the fact that you needed a new law system?
I still have a problem with Jesus no matter which view you're given. The simple act of vicarious redemption is deplorable enough for me, and that's a universality of the Christian religion.