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.

 

Top 10 Reasons to Believe in Jesus - Evidence for Faith

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RanDeLv2
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


WTF, really now ... so it doesn't matter if i do good things ? I'm sorry for you, I really am, this will be my last reply here ...

too bad we're not in the middle ages anymore, I presume you'd burn me if I refused to believe in him, hoping that this way I will.



I turn the other cheek and forgive you. This is what they should have known in the Middle Ages. The reason they didn't is because they were not reading the Bible, but using it for political gain and power from their pride. The same is happening today. There are many true believers who have walked form their pride as Abram did when he followed God by almost sacrificing Issac. God stopped him and provided the sacrificial lamb. In the end, Issac was safe and Abram was able to keep what he loved. In our case, we sacrifice our pride and hunger for power to God. This is the sacrifice of self in humility and deference to God. In the end, Jesus paid the price and we get to keep what we sacrifice when we find Love.

Abram became Abraham. The Hebrew letter 'Hey' was added to his name. Hey is the Ancient Hebrew pictograph for a man with his arms open wide to God in love.

For you to suggest that you can work your way to favor with anyone apart from loving them is not clear thinking. We must love someone first and then show them by our actions. God chooses you, not the other way around. He chooses you when you sacrifice your self to Him. The evidence is by your actions as the result.



edit on 29-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 



The reason I believe we are special is because we are given and have 'spirit'. As far as I can tell, this spirit recycles itself, possibly in order to achieve perfection or possibly just because thats the way it works. Hell does not exist. It seems Hell is a time period of reflection on all the bad things you have done throughout your lifetimes for an amount of time before your spirit is yet again recycled. Because once you leave your body and realise you are pure light and beautiful spirit you realise the horrid things you have done and it would be torture. This is Hell. It is possible those spirits that reach perfection don't get recycled and in fact move up to higher dimensions. My journey continues..... Oh, and the bloodline


Interesting thoughts. It sounds like you are reading Gnostic texts. Be careful with anything that puts truth in a mirror in reverse. Gnostics did this, but not for the reason of projecting this as truth. It was to reveal the actual truth. I can't say this is true in every case because there is so much in the Gnostic texts that is comparable to alchemy. Many of the references are not what we think they are. They are likely similar to alchemists hiding the true ingredients with other names. We cannot know for sure so it is not a good idea to draw your conclusions form these sources. The OT God is the same God the one God has always been. If you have any doubts, find the verses that bother you and then read the Matthew Henry commentaries on them. You will be opened to the facts of divine justice and what God demands by law.

The law was a guardian. Read this-Gal 3:23-29 . "You must be born again" was not an option (John 3). We are here now and were mostly likely here then. Death is not the end. Hell, as you point out, can have an opening for debate. Many say that it is literal. I say that it is literal and we place ourselves there by actions and thoughts. Since death is not the end and "you must be born again," it is my thought that we create our own hell by walking away form the tree of life and faith in God. The flaming sword (Genesis 3) protects the tree of life. If we climb the tree apart form faith, the sword cuts us to pieces. Hell results.

I can't say that I hold any answers on this and it is a mystery because it is not fully known. When truth is not fully known, we need to rightly divide. The Bible must be the root. I've been in your shoes searching for many years. I return to the Bible now as the root source to God. There is no finer place to look, although it helps to have perspective.




edit on 29-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


No-one holds the answers. If they did we'd have clarity on the subject.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


No-one holds the answers. If they did we'd have clarity on the subject.


What you may come to realize over time is that you just stated that you hold the answer. You are correct. The point is not that you can hold the answers, but that you fight to hold them. It is the point. The struggle is the answer.

Nothing in your outside life can make you fall. You are not made evil by what happens around you. These just make you fall again. You are already fallen to begin with. The battle is not to be fought or won outside you. The battle to fight is within. The enemy is not external, but internal. The answers come when you win the battle of the heart by looking to God. Once you win this battle, then the outside enemy is defeated by default. Holding truth comes from the process. It never arrives as much as it continues to arrive. You do not arrive as much as you continue to become the answer.

We can all choose to fight either battle. The one on the outside is not fruitless if it leads you to the right place within. Either way, love is the answer. LINK


edit on 29-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


You wrote:

["One of the topics i study as a sociologist is the "sociology of morality" and as a result of that effort I for one am convinced there's no need for a religion to have morality at play."]

Could you please hang around occasionally. We are in SORE need of people with competence on political and social philosophy, regularly having european liberalism described as a close to hedonistic and nihilistic 'after the fall of civilization' scenario.




thanks for your sarcasm, I really needed that
and you can be sure; I'll hang around here just to able to serve you



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


You wrote:

["One of the topics i study as a sociologist is the "sociology of morality" and as a result of that effort I for one am convinced there's no need for a religion to have morality at play."]

Could you please hang around occasionally. We are in SORE need of people with competence on political and social philosophy, regularly having european liberalism described as a close to hedonistic and nihilistic 'after the fall of civilization' scenario.




thanks for your sarcasm, I really needed that
and you can be sure; I'll hang around here just to able to serve you


My appreciation of your thoughts were genuine, and I like competence, so sarcasm towards you wasn'r my intention.

If you hang around or not is naturally your choice, so my suggestion of your being here was to be taken as a valuable addition to the forum. Strange claims are made on societal models and manifestations, to 'prove' some doctrinal points.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You wrote:

["Two like signs become a positive sign, two unlike signs become a negative sign. But in this case, you are walking backwards in a positive direction. Why? In mathematics this is true because you are walking the numbers in opposite, but in the direction of positive. This is easy to draw the conclusion to life. How can this be true for us? A negative had to happen for our negative to become a positive."]

You must be talking about a special, non-standard kind of math, as you do in the case of science and logic. And furthermore building allegories up around it doesn't make any of your claims more credible.

Quote: ["Jesus died on a cross for your sins. Your sins are a negative. Jesus died on a cross and this is a negative that paid the price for your negative."]

On the top of non-standard mathematics turned into an allegory adding faith-based assumptions.

Quote: ["In math, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If they then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you, then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you up three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = $0"]

IF I owe them anything. I'm meticulously carefull with both my practical and existential 'economy'. Your speculative assumptions on cosmic/exsistential debts taken from a mythological manual are just that: Speculative assumptions.

Quote: ["Jesus died a horrible death to pay your debt and mine. I fall on my knees in appreciation for this. He asks for our love in return."]

I can't see, how your running of your existential obligations, your thoughts about it and your remedies for any shortcomings have anything to do with me. Whatever problems, conflicts, unsolved questions or needs you may have are yours, not mine.

Projecting your mindset and life on mankind is meaningless.

So amongst all the options for generally making life better, yours is somewhere at the bottom of my priority list on how to run my life. Repeating the same postulates mantra-like even gives it a steady downwards movement on the scale.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


You wrote:

["One of the topics i study as a sociologist is the "sociology of morality" and as a result of that effort I for one am convinced there's no need for a religion to have morality at play."]

Could you please hang around occasionally. We are in SORE need of people with competence on political and social philosophy, regularly having european liberalism described as a close to hedonistic and nihilistic 'after the fall of civilization' scenario.




thanks for your sarcasm, I really needed that
and you can be sure; I'll hang around here just to able to serve you


My appreciation of your thoughts were genuine, and I like competence, so sarcasm towards you wasn'r my intention.

If you hang around or not is naturally your choice, so my suggestion of your being here was to be taken as a valuable addition to the forum. Strange claims are made on societal models and manifestations, to 'prove' some doctrinal points.


please accept my apologies... I misjudged your previous reply.
as stated before, I'm here on a regular basis (although I tend to refrain from debating in the "religion" forum as this usually leads to frustration on both sides)

once again, sorry for judging way too fast

take care



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


No worries. Could have been my 'bad' through a muddy formulation.

Our esteemed thread author regularly brings in e.g. Ayn Rand as an 'argument', probably based on an understanding of social and political philosophy on par with his understanding of mathematics, science, logic and the use of allegories.

And without implying you to take any part in the resulting ideological disputes, your quick 'access' to relevant material could prevent a lot of verbal shadow-boxing.

I could do it myself, but what you can find in minutes could take me days.


edit on 30-8-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   


Not believe as such. I'm a secular pastafarian. I just KNOW intellectually, by applying a special branch of homecooked 'logic', that the great noodlemaster etc is 'real'....somehow.
reply to post by bogomil
 


Now....let me see....you cannot believe in God but you can believe in tree huggers? How is that logical to see another dimension yet not believe in God?


I am not Holier than you and if you think I am...thanks!!


You say you just KNOW....that is so funny because I think I KNOW too but our KNOWing is soooo different.

I guess it is a wait and see. Maybe one of us will be allowed to talk to the other in the after life and say "I told ya so".


Oh...thats right...it isnt logical to think of an afterlife...we can't see it. I guess I will go to the corner now and eat some of these good noodles.


Why believe in anything you cannot see? That is not logical right?

Have you ever thought of everything you believe in that you cannot see? Let that intellect work... I wanna know.

Love to you Bogo!!!! xoxoxox

Jenn



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


You wrote:

["Now....let me see....you cannot believe in God but you can believe in tree huggers?........"]

I'm old enough to have experienced the sixties as a young man, and I have from the start been on the front-lines so to speak, including environmentalism. I consider tree-huggers with mild amusement. And once more: Where did 'god' get into it....on scale of belief from treehuggers to 'god'.

Quote continued: [......How is that logical to see another dimension yet not believe in God?"]

Do you mean another 'dimension' inside cosmos or 'outside' (there IS a difference)? And when you have answered this, why should 'other dimensions' lead to the conclusion of 'gods'. Maybe other dimensions are filled with pink candy-floss. Agnosticism is the only rational position on this until some kind of evidence manifests.

Quote: ["I am not Holier than you and if you think I am...thanks!!"]

Practically everybody are holier than me, as I'm not holy at all.

Quote: ["You say you just KNOW....that is so funny because I think I KNOW too but our KNOWing is soooo different."]

It's a special part of european culture called humour. Don'r worry about it.

Quote: ["I guess it is a wait and see. Maybe one of us will be allowed to talk to the other in the after life and say "I told ya so"."]

In an alleged afterlife I'll be to busy for that. I'll start by pressing alleged Saint Peters, Jesuses and Buddhas for competence- and authority credentials.

Quote: ["Oh...thats right...it isnt logical to think of an afterlife"]

No, not in a positivistic (absolute) sense.

Quote: ["we can't see it."]

As above. But why do you direct such comments my way? Do you have NO idea of my position and 'methods' after all the communication we've had?

Quote: ["Why believe in anything you cannot see? That is not logical right?"]

You probably mean 'observe'. And more to the point..... who does that apart from the few surviving reductionist materialists?

Quote: ["Have you ever thought of everything you believe in that you cannot see? Let that intellect work... I wanna know."]

My favourite example: I believe Debussy is better than rap-music. Why should I 'think' about this, as it is not a subject for 'thinking'.

edit on 30-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


To "see" is to "observe"...don't let your mind confuse you. I am here for ya!


I do know your position and it is quite a confusing one. You like to hear yourself and in doing so play with words to fit your definition. You like to debate about God. You do not believe in God though. Am I correct?

You stated you "observed" tree huggers and the like. You see weird images, you comprehend what you are observing to not be of this world...yet you do not agree there is a God, the source which provides your "life" to come on this forum and debate.

So you are saying your belief is there is dimensions....just not a creator?

I know all about having a good laugh as I do laugh every time you reply to me because I find you quite amusing to communicate with....and I am not European....go figure.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


You wrote:

["To "see" is to "observe"...don't let your mind confuse you."]

I'm not the least confused about either the simpler or the more complex versions of epistemology (as far as such goes). And in any case 'seeing' is just one version of 'observing'.

If categories are to be used, it's an advantage if they are precise.

Quote: ["I am here for ya!"]

On your own initiative. Never asked you.

Quote: ["I do know your position and it is quite a confusing one"]

As would be that of a car-mechanic, the supervisor of a nuclear powerplant or a stampcollector discussing watermarks.

Quote: ["You like to hear yourself ....."]

Keep to the subject, which doesn't include character-analyses.

Quote continued: ["......in doing so play with words to fit your definition."]

I can be both flippant and glib at times, when I'm opposing repetitive "because" arguments. It would be terminal boredom otherwise.

Quote: ["You like to debate about God."]

From several perspectives and as a part of a more extensive truth/reality-seeking.

Quote: ["You do not believe in God though. Am I correct?"]

Correct.

Quote: ["You stated you "observed" tree huggers and the like."]

I once had a long-time girlfriend, who liked the religion-of-the month approach. One period it was treehugging; to the general amusement of the whole local community, which saw her literally hanging on to the same tree day after day. I believe, she had some kind of romance with it, with new-age good 'vibes' involved in the process.

Quote: ["You see weird images, you comprehend what you are observing to not be of this world..."]

Theoretically I COULD be bonkers, though medical authorities have assured me at worst only moderately so. As to "of this world", anomalies are mainly mundane, but unknown phenomena. No 'gods' (of the abrahamic version) needed or manifested.

You CREATE 'bridges' between events/concepts A and B on a speculative basis.

Quote: ["yet you do not agree there is a God, the source which provides your "life" to come on this forum and debate."]

There ARE on this forum the, even amongst theists, really odd types, who claim to be 'god' or whatever, but apart from such non-sense, I've not met anything here validating the existence of theist concepts (circle-arguments don't count).

Quote: [" So you are saying your belief is there is dimensions....just not a creator?"]

Ofcourse there are 'dimensions', but you still haven't answered on WHICH kind of dimension you're talking about.

Quote: [" I know all about having a good laugh as I do laugh every time you reply to me because I find you quite amusing to communicate with....and I am not European....go figure."]

Good. I hope, you have passed the point, where pie-throwing and banana-peel-slipping is funny.



edit on 30-8-2011 by bogomil because: paragraphing



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
double
edit on 30/8/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 
(Your reply to user: BOGOMIL)


I do know your position and it is quite a confusing one. You like to hear yourself and in doing so play with words to fit your definition. You like to debate about God. You do not believe in God though. Am I correct?


Intervening again, and with permission this time: I don't believe you're correct in your assumption as I do not believe Bogomil as professed a positive disbelief in "GOD" - And of course, a definition of "GOD" would have to be specified as there are many belief systems surrounding just that word ("GOD"), albeit, it may be true that Bogomil ultimately does not believe in certain definitions of "GOD".

I'll join you in your assumptions and state that it seems that Bogomil's arguments highlight an agreement with certain anthropic principles, and perhaps a rejection of many "designer/creationist" theories that are often spouted on these forums (and elsewhere) without care for philosophical reflection.


You stated you "observed" tree huggers and the like. You see weird images, you comprehend what you are observing to not be of this world...yet you do not agree there is a God, the source which provides your "life" to come on this forum and debate.


Even if it was said that Bogomil was an atheist; there's nothing to stop an atheist (someone who disbelieves in God) to be curious, or keane in regards to the trancendant or the unknown. But it takes a "leap of faith" as it were to arrive at certain conclusions based on experience(s) in our physical realm.


I know all about having a good laugh as I do laugh every time you reply to me because I find you quite amusing to communicate with....and I am not European....go figure.


Not sure what was intended by that off the cuff remark, but hey, i'm a European too - Hope you find me funny too; a laugh a day keeps the doctor away.....Well, that....and an apple.



Good day to you, Jenn.
edit on 30/8/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NeverForget
 


You wrote:

["I'll join you in your assumptions and state that it seems that Bogomil's arguments highlight an agreement with certain anthropic principles,"]

Bingo. You have won a very ugly small vase or an even uglier teddybear, designed to scare small children to submission.

The anthropic principle is actually part of a reasoning-chain far surpassing the design-concept, if a theist wants to become somewhat logically housebroken. Though it also has some 'dangers' for theism. But I'll sadistically leave it to theists to find meaning in these cryptic statements (brother superiored may be amongst the interested).

So let this be a cliffhanger.

Quote: ["Even if it was said that Bogomil was an atheist; there's nothing to stop an atheist (someone who disbelieves in God) to be curious, or keane in regards to the trancendant or the unknown."]

Esoteric Buddhism is 'atheistic'. There is precedence.

PS Sure, don't forget the apple, courtesy of Eris...hail her.




edit on 30-8-2011 by bogomil because: PS added



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Bingo. You have won a very ugly small vase or an even uglier teddybear, designed to scare small children to submission.


I couldn't honestly ask for a better prize




Esoteric Buddhism is 'atheistic'. There is precedence.




Heard of Alan Watts? Perhaps this will spark your interest?


Alan Watts (1915-1973) who held both a master's degree in theology and a doctorate of divinity, is best known as an interpreter of Zen Buddhism in particular, and Indian and Chinese philosophy in general. He authored more than 20 excellent books on the philosophy and psychology of religion, and lectured extensively, leaving behind a vast audio archive. With characteristic lucidity and humor Watts unravels the most obscure ontological and epistemological knots with the greatest of ease. Bibliography


Perhaps not an "academic" philosopher as such, but is philosophy really an academic pursuit, as such?

You will be able to find multiple audiobooks/mp3s by Alan Watts, perhaps, would you like to listen before bed or during the day.

Here's an amazon reference too:-

www.amazon.com...

Buddhism the Religion of No-Religion (Alan Watts Love of Wisdom) [Paperback]
edit on 30/8/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NeverForget
 


Amongst all the 'gurus' of my youth in the sixties (we had just invented the wheel, so there was a general optimistic atmosphere), Alan Watts is one of those worth listening to. They don't make them like that anymore.


edit on 30-8-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NeverForget
 


I have had "talks" with Bogo...no need to jump in once again and talk for him. You and I of course can have our own discussion whereas you are not making assumptions and can have complete clarity. Thanks though for jumping in to clarify his view point, but again...I think I have a pretty good understanding of his beliefs and he does mine as well.

One can deny the evidence through which he has sought out....makes no difference to me. I have a complete 38 years of observation through my sense's that tell me what I need and or want to know. To each his own. I love Jesus and I love to talk about Him....for this reason I am on this thread talking with you right now. My motives are not to convince or "save" anyone. That is on the individual. All I am here for is to talk Jesus. For one to learn on any subject do you not think one should not just be a talker...but more importantly a listener?

We are all here learning on a daily basis about one thing or another. To analyze each sentence will most assuredly lead one to miss the entire paragraph. This is what I take note of....why? Because I too analyze yet I have learned over the years to sit back and quiet myself so that I may learn to see the bigger picture. Otherwise you will miss it all together.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


How silly of me to assume your ignorance of such a great mind.

Perhaps you should have children? (If you don't already, of course!)

Alas, if not, hope is not lost; there's always "anomolies" amongst the masses

edit on 30/8/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join