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.

 

WANTED 1 intelligent educated Christian to answer some questions on faith

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


lol is it cherry picking season already? Why don't you add a little context to your list.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Haven't read the entire thread but had to jump in early...

I have a few things to point out which should make any intelligent person question the God in the Bible. They start as this:

Do you worship a God or a man?

Is your God with a capital G or a lower case g?

Can you imagine what it means to be a God? Here's a clue...you get what you want regardless.

Why was God horrified at the peoples all coming together and building the tower of Babel? He then scattered the peoples and confused their languages. I'm no God and I understand it's hard for people to love other people they don't understand.

I true GOD does not have to "desire" or "want" anything or man to do/not do anything. It's part of the perks of being a GOD. I believe when God doesn't like or want something...well it doesn't happen. For instance, God doesn't want man to procreate with cows. Try as you might gentlemen, but you will never impregnage that cow! That's an example of God not wanting something.

Is there only one God or is Satan a God? If it's as I've been taught, God is the only true God. If this is so, he is the creator of EVERYTHING good and bad! It's like you owning a home and taking credit for the marvelous design and furniture, but then saying you can't take credit for the roaches in it! Nonesense! Either it's yours or it isn't.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


What you're doing is something else many people should realize. You're HUMANIZING God. Would make me believe your God is spelled god, or your God is a man.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Hi, OP :3
I'm not sure how intelligent I am, but I will try to answer your questions without sounding preachy or stupid....

1. I have heard of the council of Nicea, but I'm not entirely sure exactly what they did besides decide what books got into the bible. It bothers me, to be completely honest. I don't think any one person/group of people should be responsible for what does and doesn't qualify.

2. The contradictions!!!
I think they need to be looked at on an individual basis... because there are many reasons there are contradictions in the bible. I mean, aside from the "written by man" thing. So you should give me examples (with the locations of the actual verses, if you please.. )and I will happily give my opinion on them :3

3. I was raised as a conservative Christian. We're pretty liberal now, though, I'm a unitarian universalist....

4. The Vatican is useless and the pope is just a man. A glorified priest who gets his own country.

5. I honestly believe that Jesus would be really disappointed in the people that call themselves Christians. thats... that's really all I have to say. I just think he'd just be terribly, terribly disappointed.


That all being said, hi again

What do you believe?
edit on 5/16/2011 by SFlowers because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Christ taught Love and Peace, how do you disagree with that?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by llwormwood843ll
 


I dont disagree!!! I dont think any sane person would.

What I disagree with is the need for the sheeple to believe Jesus was some kind of superhuman or god.

Focus on the message and not the man or dogma or ritual and the world would be a much uch much better place



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SFlowers
 


Hey dude,

Thanks for the reply.

None of what you said came across as stupid, it came across as honest and sincere

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with everything you said

1) without getting to deep yep thats what the council basically did, but the really sad part is they destroyed eveery non approved text they could
so much of jesus life and teaching gone, all were really left with is an incomplete shell. I accept he was a great man but I do deny his divinity and think its sad people need him to be divine in order to accept his message.

2) There are literally hundreds but Ive heard all the rebuttles (translation wrong, scribe made a mistake etc etc) except for one that is indisputable and have never heard any explantion for. Jesus last words... You would think someone as important as the messiah/son of god they may have been able to get that right. Check your bible dude, Its kinda freaky when you realise it.

3) Cool so you didnt just stick with what someone told you, you used some initiative and found something that fit more into your belief system. Much respect (at least thats what I thibk your saying, I have no idea what those denominations mean or there differences LOL

4) strong words, I whole heartedly agree

5) Im not to sure on that one, most christians are good people, I think he would be absolutely mortified with the Vatican though. He went into a rage at the money lenders outside the temple, I reckon hed go fricken bat crazy Hulk mad with all the vatican bank and accumulation of wealth that happened in his name.

Thanks for taking the time to reply dude, I appreciate it

star for you



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



I also believe that over time, men seeking power and control over the masses perverted the message of the Bible, or they tailored the Bible to fit a particular agenda, which is where the council of Nicea comes into play. Who gave those men the authority to determine what should be in the Bible and what should not?


Don't fall for this internet myth. The cannon of scripture was never discussed at the Nicean Council. The council was convened to address the "Arian Controversy" dealing with the deity of Jesus Christ. Don't help to perpetuate this lie, expose it.

Nicea: The "Real" Story VS The Facts


I have felt this way long before the internet. It may be wrong, or it may not be, but I came to this conclusion based on several books that I have read. I am not simply regurgitating something that I saw on some irrelevant blog or website. I will certainly look into your point of view, thanks for the information.


Fair enough, but the entire creed of the Nicean Council is available to review. It's a historical document.


The agenda of the synod included:

1: The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father
and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being


2: The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation

3: The Meletian schism

4: The validity of baptism by heretics

5: The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius



The Council was primarily convened to address the "Arian controversy" dealing with the divinity of Jesus Christ coming out of Alexandria, Egypt. And it wasn't even trying to determine if He was divine or not, but how to define His divinity!


The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire but most theologians actually did not believe in the divinity of Christ at the time. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father........


St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.




"MISCONCEPTIONS"

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all. The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.



First Council of Nicea ~ Wiki







edit on 16-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



Dude stop it..... I nearly wetting myself with laughter.

You use as a refference for information on the council of nicea something called serious christian.org

ROFLMFAO

yeah Im sure thats not biased in anyway.

Seriously do you do stand up when your not trolling the boards at ATS?



How about Wikipedia? It says the same thing as the Christian source. Besides your claim of "bias" is irrelevant, the book/movie/website et cetra is biased that made the error of claiming Nicea is where the Biblical Cannon was decided upon.


You're incredibly ignorant on the Council of Nicea. There is a reason Dan Brown's books are located in the "Fiction" section of bookstores:



"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.


First Council of Nicea ~ Wiki


You're a half-wit, I still have no reason/desire to answer your biased rants, they are illegitimate questions.

edit on 16-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Go ahead. I've spoken to the most virulently anti-theists you will ever meet. You on the other hand have been very reasonable so far.

It's unfortunate that more Christians don't understand their faith, theology, Bible, or history. It's lazy, complacent, and will be their undoing when they meet an intelligent atheist with an axe to grind. Most anti-theists know just enough about the Bible and Christian history to slam it, which is more than your average believer knows. This is absolutely unacceptable and is why I pushed myself so hard to understand my faith and its history.

So, if I can clear the air of some ignorance or preconceptions, I will.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I say, watch the movie "The Man From Earth" (2007). In my opinion, that movie pretty accurately predicts how easy of a time they'd have answering your questions. Everything they believe in is based on the bible. But if man got his hands on the bible and edited/altered it, then then how accurate is the bible, really? I am a spiritual person, but what the bible states as 'fact' I cannot just accept. There are just too many contradictions and vague concepts that are open to interpretation.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



I also believe that over time, men seeking power and control over the masses perverted the message of the Bible, or they tailored the Bible to fit a particular agenda, which is where the council of Nicea comes into play. Who gave those men the authority to determine what should be in the Bible and what should not?


Don't fall for this internet myth. The cannon of scripture was never discussed at the Nicean Council. The council was convened to address the "Arian Controversy" dealing with the deity of Jesus Christ. Don't help to perpetuate this lie, expose it.

Nicea: The "Real" Story VS The Facts




Dude stop it..... I nearly wetting myself with laughter.

You use as a refference for information on the council of nicea something called serious christian.org

ROFLMFAO

yeah Im sure thats not biased in anyway.

Seriously do you do stand up when your not trolling the boards at ATS?


Seriously, despite obvious Christian bias, the information is sound. The canon was not the subject of discussion at the council of Nicaea. There were various Canon's being considered at the time, but a finalized canon wasn't established until the council of Carthage if I'm not mistaken. Laodicea, which was a century later, actually established a narrower canon that excluded Revelations. It was overturned of course, but that just goes to show how tentative the Church was on its Canon. Nicaea was called to establish a statement of faith and to end the Arianism vs. Trinitarianism debate, that's it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I think some people here are confusing Nicea and Laodicea

Bibical Cannon was discussed at the council of Laodicea 364 A.D

Laodicea




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It bugs me how some of you will point to "contradictions" in the bible without ever having read a word from the bible. It bugs me how some of you will blindly paint an entire group of belief as "ignorant" for not believing what you believe.

I'm a scientist, an engineer, have plenty of education, and I'm a Christian. Christ saved me (again
) about 6 months ago, and it's just one of those things that without personal testimony, it's hard to believe for those who root their lives in facts. But never ONCE before then did I criticize anyone for believing whatever they believed.

Ironically, there are many on this website who refuse to believe in Jesus but will buy any piece of made up conspiracy from some guy's blog.
edit on 16-5-2011 by MidnightATL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Dude your losing your touch, I only laughed out loud twice reading your last lot of drivel




How about Wikipedia? It says the same thing as the Christian source. Besides your claim of "bias" is irrelevant, the book/movie/website et cetra is biased that made the error of claiming Nicea is where the Biblical Cannon was decided upon.


Wikipedia, damn you got me there. If its written on a publicly editable site it must be true.

I love how ignorant IsmISTs always assume that the more curious out there hadnt heard of these concepts before Dan Brown came along and sensationalised it all.

Anywhere you look (even your serious christian site) will tell you that there isnt any records from the meetings and what fragments (mainly letters and of course the nicean creed) we can gleam of the actual council says very little about what was discussed.
But heres a couple facts

At the time of the first council there was a large rift in christianity, by the looks of things you spent the past few hours doing some research so I wont bore you with details that are obviously fresh in your mind. After the council practically what half of all christians believed was scrapped and considered heresy. I forget the guys name but all his work and works that resembled his were burnt and if caught with any you were killed. so already we see significant censorship But you would have just learnt this so moving along

The Nicean creed (Jesus is divine, virgin birth etc etc) was to be the blue print for what it meant to be christian. any texts that contradicted this were henchforth considered heresy and like wise burnt, Jesus divinity was questioned as you can observe in Gnostic texts that have been found that mention Jesus merely as a man.

Soon after the council the head bishop compiled approriate books and sent them to Constantine who made 50 copies, these copies were the original for the work of fiction that is known as the bible. Since that time it has been edited and amended on many occasions when it suited the church to do so.

Im not an atheist and I have been interested in religion since I was 5 when I first asked my mum what religion we were, she told me she wanted me to make my own decision. This started a quest for knowledge that included discussions with priests and any other adult who expressed any interest in religion. By the time I was 17 I had read pretty much all that was publicly available (OK slight exaggeration but I read a freakin lot) on church history. While names and dates have since left my mind the big picture remains.

LMAO I just rechecked your post to see what foolishness I needed to rebutt next and you even qouted it for me.
6 years after the council Constantine was distributing the 50 original bible blue prints.

Seriously dude, you read this, cut&pasted then posted and you didnt find it odd or coincidental

To be fair that source is useless (Im guessing another christain propaganda site or an editable site edited by christians with an agenda) the level of diversity in the early church up to that point was mindblowing and to say they had an established and widely distributed book at that point in time is just....... I think I have to make up a new word to descibe its level of ignorance.... hmmmmm....... got it.... FUGNORANT. Even the bible talks about the level of diversity and all the heretical books that were around (the letters section).

Unfortunately like everything else in your particular brand of IsmISM truth has been supressed and actively hidden from the public for nearly 2000 years and 2 hrs on papal propaganda websites and wikipedia aint gonna enlighten you a great deal.

Jesus divinity was necessary to make christianity accessable to the everyday roman to whom Christianity was to be a means of control, as you posted in the thread to Optimus many theologians and lay people did not consider Jesus divine but once the creed came out to say otherwise meant death.

Dude your alot of fun, go back to wiki or your bible basher validation sites and see what else you can dig up but perhaps this time to make a valid point try not to include info that hurts more than helps your case.

p.s I am genuinely finding this amusing but your coming across a tad agitated, maybe you should take a break?
Who cares what I think anyway, youll have the last laugh in a few weeks or next year when Jesus comes back to pick you up in his space ship



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Jesus Christ was the most "educated" Christian anyone will ever find. Regardless of a person's stance on Christianity, He was the founder of it and any teachings claiming to fall under the umbrella of Christianity yet teach opposite, or something different, than He taught is simply not a Christian religion. All the creeds, confessions, councils, doctrinal statements, feelings or beliefs are irrelevant if they do not fall in line with the teaching of Jesus. (Of course, this only applies to Christian denomination which Catholicism is not part of due to their praying to saints, belief in purgatory and other contra-Christianity teachings.)

However, regarding The Council of Nicene and the books they chose to make up the canon of Scripture, those people who call themselves Christians have to trust that while man was deciding what to put into the Bible, they were doing it under the influence of the Holy Spirit just as the authors of the 66 books of the Bible were.

Paranoid User with undergraduate degree in Religion, currently pursuing my MDiv



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by paranoiduser
 


Uhm, christ wasn't Christian...

Nor did he start Christianity




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Correct you are. Jesus was a Jew. what I did say, or tried to imply, was that His teachings were the catalyst for HIs followers who were first called "Christians" in the book of Acts. So followers of Jesus were called "Followers of the Way" and "Christians". Maybe "Christianity" has a better ring to it than "Followers of the Wayianity".

On a serios note, I never said in my post that Jesus was a Christian.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


One more reply, I missed addressing this is my previous reply.

You say Jesus did not start Christianity, who did?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
 


Correct you are. Jesus was a Jew. what I did say, or tried to imply, was that His teachings were the catalyst for HIs followers who were first called "Christians" in the book of Acts. So followers of Jesus were called "Followers of the Way" and "Christians". Maybe "Christianity" has a better ring to it than "Followers of the Wayianity".

On a serios note, I never said in my post that Jesus was a Christian.


Isn't that what this says?


Jesus Christ was the most "educated" Christian anyone will ever find.



Either way i know what you meant, i just felt the need to correct that tiny issue.


edit on 16-5-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join