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.

 

The Morality Of Saving People From Hell

page: 26
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
lol. Little else as in, "the text itself only backs up this much of it". I mean, even if we're talking about Cthulu, we've got to go to Lovecraft for a definition, and to do anything less is not treating the subject seriously enough.



Sure, and in both cases we have to consult a text of unsupported claims about things that are not known to exist anywhere outside of the claims. Yet nobody so far has told me why I should assume that the claims are truthful.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
Well you're supposed to have a personal relationship with Him. So, for me, yes I know Him. How anybody else knows Him is probably the same, but different. Only we know our own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.


So what does "personal relationship" mean? You're able to talk about your girlfriend troubles to him over a beer in a bar somewhere? He gives you spoken, audible advice back?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
And put the pieces in that are required for YOU to have asked those questions. It's a lot easier to have agreement and understanding when you give others the details of how you get to your conclusion that the question was needed.


I have no need to do that.

How ever one interprets - - they interpret. That is the point. They basically are revealing themselves and their emotions to a blank wall. Their choice.

Occasionally I will go into detailed information. When I do - - it is my choice to do so.
Of course it is your choice. Hence why you posted "Prove it." to me when I stated something directly against you, when I ought to have said it to you first.


The thing is, when you're not willing to explain yourself, it sets up people to fail, whether or not that is your intention.

But, in this case, the accusation from the other person was basically that he finds you a bit illogical, based upon the type of questions you posted.

Hence another "Prove it" moment:

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sacgamer25
This is more written history than we have of any other single event from this time period.


It is not history - - it is hearsay. It proves nothing.

There is actual history of the time of mystical bible Jesus. He is not mentioned.

The real history does talk about a Jesus. But the real history is a far cry from the mystical Jesus.

Kind of reminds me of some of our mythical old west heroes.
Not knocking your beliefs, nor am I even bothering with a "You're wrong!" aspect. It's just that stating things without data leads to frustrating others.


Originally posted by autowrenchThey just hate trying to convert someone who knows the Bible better than they do, and can talk circles around them on every subject matter they bring up. Sadly, for me anyway, they stopped coming to my house. Dammit! I like messing with their heads!
*snort* Yes, this type is fun to play with. But I can say with certainty that I wouldn't be trying to save you from Dagon. That statue kept falling over and breaking.



Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Evolution does not only encompass an organism becoming a more complex or intelligent life form. Evolution also encompasses the variations in the traits of some organisms that allow them to survive in their environment, and to continue to thrive and multiply passing on those variants to their offspring.
And as long as we don't differentiate the two aspects, we don't always know which one is being talked about in any given issue. If we prove Evolution of Adaptation, without a doubt, using it in the same context as Evolution of increasing complexity muddies the H2O. But yes, teaching Creationism makes it hard for those who are less astute see the issue those in the scientific field have, and they argue without fully knowing the subject of which they speak. But then, I've known Evolutionary supporters that couldn't get it straight, either.I swear, every kind out there.


Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Jesus lived....Jesus died on a cross at the hands of pontius, a Jewish leader under roman rule. It is history...it happened. Jesus was the leader of a new sect of Judaism that was unnamed at the time as far we know. The whole idea of jesus being god...sorry man but there's no way anyone can prove that. It is impossible and if it was proven we would all be Christians.
Not exactly.

If I actually could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is all that he said he was, and that book is 100% true. If I could prove all that, would you submit to the Christ?

There's plenty out there who would answer NO! For these, no amount of reasoning with them will sway them. Even in a "Perfect Christian World" there will be dissenters.

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
Darkhorse76...maybe I'm wrong but Im quite sure that the earliest texts we've discovered of the new testament scriptures were written by Greeks...not Romans. Just wanted to jab that in there since you were speaking so strongly about knowing the bible.
It was written IN greek, and Latin, fairly early on. People tend to forget that most Jews were Hellenized. That is, they often read and spoke fluent Greek. Hence the reasons for the Septuagint at all.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
[Well you're supposed to have a personal relationship with Him. So, for me, yes I know Him. How anybody else knows Him is probably the same, but different. Only we know our own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.


That really does sound like an imaginary friend.

I wonder what one would imagine in a friend - - if they had first not been told the truly non-believable story of Jesus.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Any discussion - - questions - - insights from you - - - I will leave to Traditionaldrummer.

You are getting way too in-depth and detailed in off topic subjects.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
But yes, teaching Creationism makes it hard for those who are less astute see the issue those in the scientific field have, and they argue without fully knowing the subject of which they speak.


The less astute are the most likely adherents to "creationism", since belief in such requires ignorance of far superior contrary theories. Accepting unscientific hypothesis over scientific theory takes a special breed of credulity.

That being said, should we decide to teach "creationism" in schools whatever will the Christians do when we have to report the at least 100 or so other creation accounts from other cultures and religions? With evolution out of the way I presume that nitpicking of the other accounts will commence until all of Genesis 1 and 2 will constitute the 9th grade science curriculum.

The Christian aspiration to denounce and demonize science and knowledge in order to create a populous of superstitious and credulous automatons is beyond reprehensible and serves only to impede human progress. We should delight when this trend dissipates.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
[Well you're supposed to have a personal relationship with Him. So, for me, yes I know Him. How anybody else knows Him is probably the same, but different. Only we know our own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.


That really does sound like an imaginary friend.

I wonder what one would imagine in a friend - - if they had first not been told the truly non-believable story of Jesus.


Give me a break. I thought you said you were raised as a believer? Like you've never heard of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? If you were raised Christian like you claim, you would know all about that. So don't tell me "sounds like an imaginary friend". Unless you weren't being honest. I didn't put down your non-belief or your lost faith. If you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ, that's fine, that's your choice, but don't act like you’re wiser or enlightened because of it. Like somehow everybody who believes in God is wrong but somehow you know better? If your parents raised you as a Christian, are you saying that your parents, and probably their parents and their parents, parents were all fooled into believing God exists and is real? They were duped, but you know better. If you don’t believe in God, why do you try to convince people that He doesn’t exist? That's just as bad as somebody who tries to convince another person in their belief. You're doing the same thing, but on the opposite side. If you truly felt that God doesn’t exist, you wouldn’t put so much effort and energy into proving it. Why would you? God doesn’t exist. If people want to believe in imaginary invisible gods, let them. But you don’t. You argue and have “facts” to prove he doesn’t exist. If God isn't real, then what’s to prove? Why do you keep responding page after page trying to prove He isn't? Why? Because you know God exists and is real. That’s why.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhostGod is a crutch for the weak minded. A cop out. A hinderance. And most often a tool of division. In the end logic and science will most likely discover "god". Your arrogant esoteric logic ( for lack of a better description ) is annoying and aimless. Why not just say I have faith in this...why all the babble? Does that help you feel like it makes more sense?
ANY belief system, or lack of a belief system can be a crutch. Generally it's the excuses you live by to justify the things you want to do in everyday life. I have not met a single person who NEVER explains to SOMEONE why they did SOMETHING they did in their life.

This is sort of a: "I reason therefore I am right"

People want to be right. The thing is there's some things that have not one whit to do with right or wrong. And each person defines that pile under different pedagogies.

The things is, to me, Christianity has always been about not just doing what you want to do. The origins ask you to not only test what you do, but test why you do it, and questions how you relate to others. Core Christianity, irrelevant of God, is a hard task.

Crutch my foot! More like Chinese Water Torture.
And I say that while espousing a lot of freedoms therein.


Originally posted by FloatingGhost Granted he thought we were religious by our very nature which goes along with your analogies...but wasn't he a sexual deviant?
Huh, thought it was Freud who was the sexual deviant. Not that it really matters to me. Jung was Freud's student, and he branched off from Freud, so to me it's like 2 sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by Annee
 


Provide evidence of Christ? It's all around you.


I always find this the dumbest argument ever.
Even if it was the most factual and true way to prove the existence of God, most people don't have the capacity to look at nature and see anything other than what they are told, so it's generally a pointless argument.


Originally posted by AnneeFor the most part they lazily accept god - - but really don't do much about it.
Oh, I think you've met a few Cajun Catholics I know. Like my Great-grandmother. The only time I know she went to Church in my lifetime, was for her own funeral. Damn, now I sound anti-Catholic.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sacgamer25
That is precisely what makes the New Testament so amazing. All of the prophecy in the Old Testament was either fulfilled or was promised to be fulfilled in Revelations.


Uh, no. The first part of the book makes claims that the second part claims to fulfill. There's nothing amazing about that. Plus, so many of the bible's claims have been demonstrated to be incorrect that there is no reason to assume any of it to be true.
Now, that's a list I'd like to see. I doubt it will have any surprises for me.


zerimar65The only thing is, they don't seem to know how to do it without turning people off and/or offending them.
This is the biggest issue. If Christians would compose themselves better than they do, most arguments against Christianity as a religion wouldn't have a chance.

Annee
Why do believers always assume you haven't read or studied the bible - - because you don't believe it.
I tend to have that reaction because many who claim to have read it plain don't know it like they had read it. (but I make an attempt to assume that they have, when they say they have.) Besides, with the issue of out-of-context and possible mistranslations, people who stick to the English Bible, thumping it like it is the whole of the story amuses me, to some point.

In debates between Atheists and Christians - - the Atheist usually wins.
The vast majority of these times, I contest the "win" everyone touts because the debaters aren't arguing the same things. It's really pointless when two people can't even use the same word the same way, to call anything a win.

Many Atheists - like myself - wanted to believe - to find god - - - and read everything there is. Until we realized its just myth - - and really makes zero sense.
I find that the best FOR arguing the points with a converted to Atheism is one who converted from Atheism. Wiki Further lists down at the bottom shows former Christians and whatnot.

Can you imagine if the bible was released as a novel - - - what critics would say?
I don't have to: C.S. Lewis, is a believer who tackles that issue. And I can read up on any number of literary geniuses who believe the Bible is an over-glorified Novel.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
How do you know?
For some people, they lay out enough facts for "reasonable evidence". Others use logic based on probability. And for many more, since this is a faith that is about relationships and what those things do to change you, they lay out the differences in their life due to Christianity. "Knowing" is based upon a lot of things. And not everyone comes to the same conclusion on the same set of principles.


As a believer, certain you have faith and you may believe such things because of it. But, what of non-believers?
Let me make this clear, this will not be a statement about all non-believers:
A lot of non-believers and "believers lite" (you know the type, I'm quite sure) I meet cannot deal with ANYTHING based upon certainty and fall apart under pressure. I understand that mentality, as I can easily be that type--but I refuse to, and I seek that which prevents me from being like that. I have a lot of pity for them, but it doesn't change the fact that this type of behaviour is useless. Looking at a lot of these people, most of them need grounding, and as many of them are older than I am, many haven't been able to get there on their own. Most don't even notice they have a problem. So, sometimes the whole push, from a psychological standpoint, is to get these people a crutch long enough for them to learn to cope on their own--and teaching them ways to cope. This is very much a concept of "internal peace" vs. a world at peace.

But why Christianity for this purpose? Because I've seen it work. I see it working. Not just for anyone else under the sun, but for me as well. If God can't fix what's broken and useless in me, why serve God? If I could have fixed it myself, I would have never broke in the first place. I mean, it's the same reason why most people make a retirement fund, or seek therapy. The problem is that this is online. You can't see me and my relationships and how they change, so this aspect, even if and when it's 100% true, it does not relate well.

And then there's the aspect that people like to bring up: did you really need the change, or were you brainwashed into it? A genuine problem causes detriment to you and those who you want to keep around you. I don't need someone else to tell me that I need fixing, when I'm honest with myself. After all, this isn't about hoarder-level denying of self issues. Cracking under every strain, and not being able to make self decisions is a blatant problem. I swear, a hair more selfish, and I would have been a Diva.


Why should they believe such a thing?
A lot of times, it takes personal experience.


How could you convince them that they should?
When someone comes to me with the same complaint 3-4 times, I tend to point out that they're not fixing the source of their problem, and it snowballs from there. This doesn't generally get to the "Come to Jesus" speech because they have to learn that my points about what they are doing is sound before they can even begin to trust my conversations about God...although I make it pretty clear from the beginning that I'm a Christian.

......................
On the middle of page 16. Got a life that's calling me to do things, like exercise and go to work. I'll try to keep up with this one, but it gets so boring to say and do the same things over and over for 20-30 pages of material.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel


Why should they believe such a thing?
A lot of times, it takes personal experience.


How could you convince them that they should?
When someone comes to me with the same complaint 3-4 times, I tend to point out that they're not fixing the source of their problem, and it snowballs from there. This doesn't generally get to the "Come to Jesus" speech because they have to learn that my points about what they are doing is sound before they can even begin to trust my conversations about God...although I make it pretty clear from the beginning that I'm a Christian.


Okay, so we end up with the same set of distractions and sidestepping whenever the question is addressed. As always, objective proof is unavailable and the only methodology to detect the presence of a deity is a subjective and personal experience. If it doesn't work, then the still-remaining lack of evidence is "their problem" (your words). This is extremely unconvincing stuff and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to fly.

You speak with authority and certainty of a god that you cannot demonstrate exists based largely on the claims of a book that has no reason to be consumed as truthful. At what point can we meet on rational ground?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
[Well you're supposed to have a personal relationship with Him. So, for me, yes I know Him. How anybody else knows Him is probably the same, but different. Only we know our own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.


That really does sound like an imaginary friend.

I wonder what one would imagine in a friend - - if they had first not been told the truly non-believable story of Jesus.


Give me a break. I thought you said you were raised as a believer?

Like you've never heard of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? If you were raised Christian like you claim, you would know all about that. So don't tell me "sounds like an imaginary friend".



You were told a story. You chose to believe that story. You chose to have a personal relationship with the lead character in the story. Who in reality is imaginary.

It sounds like an imaginary friend to me.

BTW - there is nothing derogatory in what I said - - - other then how you choose to interpret it.


edit on 4-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
You argue and have “facts” to prove he doesn’t exist.


How does one prove a negative?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
You argue and have “facts” to prove he doesn’t exist.


How does one prove a negative?



Actually, as most atheists are prone to say: we cannot prove a negative. But actually we can and we could even disprove god(s) depending on how they are defined.

We can actually prove a negative with a coin toss. If a coin comes up heads we have proven that it is not tails. Once we get beyond a set of binary choices the process gets more difficult. Even so, scientific discoveries have proven many of the biblical claims to be not true. The Christian god is nearly impossible to disprove because they have defined him out of falsifiability.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
You argue and have “facts” to prove he doesn’t exist.


How does one prove a negative?



Actually, as most atheists are prone to say: we cannot prove a negative. But actually we can and we could even disprove god(s) depending on how they are defined.

We can actually prove a negative with a coin toss. If a coin comes up heads we have proven that it is not tails. Once we get beyond a set of binary choices the process gets more difficult. Even so, scientific discoveries have proven many of the biblical claims to be not true. The Christian god is nearly impossible to disprove because they have defined him out of falsifiability.


Nice - love the info.

I wasn't thinking of anything concrete. Was just thinking in terms of belief.

Now if someone answers the question you keep putting forth - - we can jump to step 2



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
You argue and have “facts” to prove he doesn’t exist.


How does one prove a negative?



You tell me. You seem to know it all.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Throw a microchip at a pile of ants. Watch them walk over it and inspect it. This is the same as humans pretending to know what God or creation is. Pointless.

But whatever....good luck.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by zerimar65
[Well you're supposed to have a personal relationship with Him. So, for me, yes I know Him. How anybody else knows Him is probably the same, but different. Only we know our own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.


That really does sound like an imaginary friend.

I wonder what one would imagine in a friend - - if they had first not been told the truly non-believable story of Jesus.


Give me a break. I thought you said you were raised as a believer?

Like you've never heard of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? If you were raised Christian like you claim, you would know all about that. So don't tell me "sounds like an imaginary friend".



You were told a story. You chose to believe that story. You chose to have a personal relationship with the lead character in the story. Who in reality is imaginary.

It sounds like an imaginary friend to me.

BTW - there is nothing derogatory in what I said - - - other then how you choose to interpret it.


edit on 4-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)


I didn't say you said anything derogatory. If God doesn't exist to you, why do you keep arguing? He must exist because you feel it necessary to keep saying He doesn't. If God doesn't exist he wouldn't be so much on your mind. The nothingness of God is making you have to keep making comments about Him.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
I didn't say you said anything derogatory. If God doesn't exist to you, why do you keep arguing? He must exist because you feel it necessary to keep saying He doesn't. If God doesn't exist he wouldn't be so much on your mind. The nothingness of God is making you have to keep making comments about Him.


Derogatory being used as a simplified single word to capsulize your rant. Or would you prefer I drag that rant out in a post and address every single accusation you made toward me.

Where am I arguing?
Lack of belief does not require belief.
I like social discussions. This is a discussion board.
God is definitely not on my mind.

I post in a statement style - - stating what I think.

I responded to a post - - stating my thoughts on the subject - - not the poster. (First Post before rant)

Where in that FIRST post did I make any direct comments to you? Or directly disagree with your thoughts - - as in an "I'm right - you are wrong" argument?



edit on 4-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Throw a microchip at a pile of ants. Watch them walk over it and inspect it. This is the same as humans pretending to know what God or creation is. Pointless.

But whatever....good luck.


Except the ants know that the microchip is real.

What's pointless is trying desperately to insert a god into a universe devoid of one. Good luck...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
You have to experience it, basically if someone doesn't have love the Lord God doesn't want them in His Heaven, the Bible is about the sheep triumphing over wolves, the good triumphing over evil, the beaten down triumphing over the ones doing the beating, if anyone doesn't have a heart for the weak beaten down sheep people then what are those that don't have a heart for the sheep people? They are wolves.

Forget about all beliefs for a second and think: "Does anyone that doesn't love the weak deserve to be loved when they themselves become weak?"



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join