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.

 

Your Questions on Christianity Answered

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   


reply to post by Akragon
 
Originally posted by Akragon
Are you trying to teach me something or what....im trying to figure it out here?


Yes, you wanted to know how the ten commandments promote border expansion through war, slavery, taxation and strict laws and I did just that.



Whats the point of just repeating what i said?


My bad, that wasn't intentional, realised after the edit time limit.




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Well stated my friend, those fundamentalists take everything for real, even though many of the verses are metaphorical in "holy" books.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by SorensDespair
 


Not at all. Why would you ask?

A2D


If God holds no imperfection within him, and he was the entirety of the universe before Genesis, then how would the knowledge of imperfection exist to a level that he could create? He must have had knowledge of imperfection in order to create the imperfect. And, since all he knew was himself before creation, then the knowledge of imperfection must have existed within himself in order to be created (recreated) in humanity.

Or, if the knowledge of imperfection came from his understanding of the timeless universe (the future after creation), where he knew that he would create an imperfect being.

The ultimate point is that God created something imperfect. In order to do that, he would have needed to recognize his own imperfection.

Just a theological inconsistency.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SorensDespair
 



Just a theological inconsistency.


It won't stop those with faith.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Yeah about that, I am saying God condones slavery, war, taxation etc but the quote you made is not my quote but another members which I forgot to quote last night and left it. I was in a hurry.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by naeem11111
 


What?


I'm quite sure i quoted you. I was under the impression your question was rhetorical, and i agree that he does condone slavery etc., and i can even quote relevant passages.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


When you quoted me, it was a quote first posted by arkragon on page 11.



Are you trying to say God condones slavery?


If you scroll down, I then explained to arkragon, how it fits in with the ten commandments but for the last part(below quote) I left out by accident, as I was in a hurry.



Why are you questioning me about it? Are you trying to say God condones slavery?



To the original op, I stated that I can show war and everything else that starts from it in the ten commandments, and arkragon wanted to me to show him/her how, and therefore when I explained this to him/her, he/she makes the above quote, which I forgot to talk about and quote. Sorry if this is confusing and I agree with you, the ten commandments does condone slavery.
edit on 22/4/2011 by naeem11111 because: (no reason given)


Right, read your post below. Thanks.
edit on 22/4/2011 by naeem11111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by naeem11111
 


Oh right, yeah, i knew your intentions


I was trying to save you an argument by stating i'd already falsified the claim that the abrahamic God does not condone slavery.

edit on 22/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I think that the slavery thing is a red herring. It doesn't really address anything that is currently at issue. In ancient times slavery was just something that happened, so it stands to reason that those writing for God would incorporate slavery into the text. Using today's standards to judge ancient texts fails (analytically) every time. Modern academics understand the need to forgo modern mindsets and analyse texts in their own context.

For example, if in 3000 years, humanity became entirely vegetarian, it wouldn't be fair for them to vilify the people of today for enjoying a cheeseburger. It's just what we do.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SorensDespair
 


I don't think anyone would be silly enough to make that argument. Or to villify men of the past for their cultural/social adherences/involvement.

But it does highlight man's ongoing ignorance and evolution. It further higlights that it was written by men at the time, if it was written by God it would be unchangable - This is why religion's such as Islam are very dangerous. As they believe the lack of reform stands in favour of their doctrine's accuracy and truth.

An omnipotent being described by religions begs the question that if the GOd was omnipotent, why wouldn't he correct his mistakes or inperfections.

An omnipotent dictator who can suspend the natural law of reality should be able to make his designs more effecient etc:-

Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe:-



I think the creationism debate is over, as for intelligent design....that argument seems to be losing.
edit on 22/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Reply to Sorens Despair


If God holds no imperfection within him, and he was the entirety of the universe before Genesis, then how would the knowledge of imperfection exist to a level that he could create? He must have had knowledge of imperfection in order to create the imperfect. And, since all he knew was himself before creation, then the knowledge of imperfection must have existed within himself in order to be created (recreated) in humanity.

Or, if the knowledge of imperfection came from his understanding of the timeless universe (the future after creation), where he knew that he would create an imperfect being.

The ultimate point is that God created something imperfect. In order to do that, he would have needed to recognize his own imperfection.

Just a theological inconsistency.


Not exactly. You don't have to have knowledge of something imperfect to create something imperfect. The builders of the WTC when they built it didn't know that the towers were going to fail under pressure. Or the titanic...

The ultimate point is that God created something perfect that couldn't maintain perfection. It's not His fault, it's ours, especially considering the fact that He outlined everything we had to do in order to maintain that perfection and we still failed.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins had a perfect season...but what happened in 1973? You're right, they failed to maintain that perfect record. It doesn't negate the '72 season though....


In fact, your argument is quite insane. In almost every aspect of life today(engineering, national sports, etc etc), knowledge of imperfection works the other way around. We examine known faults, known points of weakness, and strengthen them. We work with imperfection in order to achieve "perfection". We don't simply see the faults and still continue on with the work as is. We work through the problems and solve them. Knowledge of imperfection leads to a more stable or "perfect" creation. If God were to have knowledge of imperfection, we would expect to see a (more)"perfect" creation...but since we know that man is not perfect, it is safe to assume (theologically) that God does not have knowledge of imperfection, but rather humans do.

We theists see it like this...or atleast I do. God created everything in perfection. Satan was one of these created perfect in all his ways. However, Satan chose to rebel and thus "created" imperfection. Satan introduced rebellion, lies, deceit...he created what is known theologically as "sin". He was not created with "sin" in him, but rather created it. This is why he is called the "Father of lies" or "Father of sin".

A2D
edit on 22-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: wrong quote

edit on 22-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Which edition, or version of the Bible is the most pure, and least edited and changed?
MY wife tells me, My Father in law, (whom I never met, he died before I met my wife) he used a Greek translation because he thought it was very close to the stories written by the many authors.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


Honestly, it doesn't matter. If it really DOES matter, to you personally, I would suggest comparing it to the original text of the manuscripts. If it doesn't suit you to learn a new language and do some translating, then I'd suggest the oldest known version that you can comprehend.

On the other hand, if you agree that it doesn't matter, then all you have to do is pray. Studying the bible is something you can do with any version because it's not the words that matter, it's the Spirit. You see, the bible is mainly law, but Jesus is fulfillment of that law. When you ask Jesus into your life, the law lives inside of you or is "written on your heart". With the law being inside of you, you can effectively compare what you see externally, with what you know internally.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Which edition, or version of the Bible is the most pure, and least edited and changed?
MY wife tells me, My Father in law, (whom I never met, he died before I met my wife) he used a Greek translation because he thought it was very close to the stories written by the many authors.



Well that depends on who you believe.... the earliest translations of the bible into english were made by Wycliffe. The problem is Wycliffe bibles arn't all the same, they were individually written so you'll find different words in every one of them. Most scholars believe the KJV is the most accurate one though.




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



No offense intended at all, but I won't be praying about anything.
But I do believe there is some truth in some of the stories.
Perhaps some exaggerations, as they are merely stories to me.
But I do find them interesting. My personal belief about the Bible is that is is a collection of stories, current to the times, and also taken from other earlier writings. I'm simply looking for early translations.
Thank you for your help!



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



I've read the KJV a few times. Also another one, which included some modern day interpretations of what was being told in the stories. I can't remember the name of those books..Scofield perhaps?
But thanks for the reply my friend!



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


What would you recommend, as an early translation..in English.I am Uniligual..LOL



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

No offense intended at all, but I won't be praying about anything.
But I do believe there is some truth in some of the stories.
Perhaps some exaggerations, as they are merely stories to me.
But I do find them interesting. My personal belief about the Bible is that is is a collection of stories, current to the times, and also taken from other earlier writings. I'm simply looking for early translations.
Thank you for your help!


None taken. I've been around long enough to realise not everyone is open to prayer. I'm just here in case there is one that is willing to pray...

As far as translations, there are several Old English versions that are older than Wycliff's translations. These would include the Venerable Bede and Aldhelm translations. The oldest known english translation of the gospels is probably the translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels by Aldred. There are also the Wessex Gospels, which is a west-saxon dialect of Old English.

Although I doubt you're much into Old English, these would be great reads, especially if you can read Latin because most copies will have the literal english translatiosn scribed above the Latin.

If you prefer a more modern version of English, I would recommend the Tyndale.

In the end, I would use something more formally translated, or translated literally word for word. These would be difficult to understand without a doubt, but would be the closest to the original texts.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


no problem, apparently im here to help...heh.

Funny thing is i join this forum for conspiracies


who knew...



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by naeem11111



reply to post by Akragon
 
Originally posted by Akragon
Are you trying to teach me something or what....im trying to figure it out here?


Yes, you wanted to know how the ten commandments promote border expansion through war, slavery, taxation and strict laws and I did just that.



Whats the point of just repeating what i said?


My bad, that wasn't intentional, realised after the edit time limit.


Actually you didn't prove anything, you just made a statement. Considering church and state are supposed to be seperate, and the simple fact that God didn't write the bible. How does God Condone any of this?

You can't just make a statement and call it a fact without anything to back it up my friend




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join