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.

 

An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

page: 20
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since you keep bringing it up, could you please link to the post or posts where you definitively proved (you say) that autowrench is a liar? I'd be interested in reading it. I tried to wade through your many posts to find it, but I didn't see what you were talking about and grew weary of looking. I assume you could help me a little here? Thanks in advance.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



The sulfur and brimestone was almost pure, that doesn't occur naturally in nature.

wolf, have you ever visited Yellowstone National Park? Have you walked about on the paths through the sulfur cauldron? Do you realize that Yellowstone is a very volatile place that, if she erupts, would decimate much of the surrounding area?

That is a natural phenomenon of the living Earth -- the living planet on the surface of which we survive. Volcanoes, oceans, magnetic forces, gravity, earthquakes, avalanches, landslides, devastating storms and wildfires....
that's part of the living organism. Just because we "can't touch this" doesn't mean it isn't natural.

But there's no way to convince you that those aren't "God's" arsenal, and I see how easily people could leap to that conclusion -- INCLUDING JESUS. He didn't know any better. Now we do.

The Earth is alive, and because the Earth is alive, so are we. If we mistreat this organism like destructive parasites, the organism will die, and we along with it.

Therefore, it is right to fear the "punishment" for neglecting, exploiting, and "mastering" the very source of our lives. I'm perfectly fine with the theory that the Earth was created, through a very, very long and incremental process. Perhaps it's best if we just agree to cherish her, to nurture and safeguard her, and each other.

It doesn't matter who we sleep with, or what language we speak, or what dress we wear, or what nation we live in, or what we do or say in a church or write down in handbooks about 'God's will.'! It matters what we do to the Earth, and to each other. The Earth does not "need us" at all. But she does "need us" NOT to poison and destroy her. If we do, and we die, then we got what we deserved. We are all connected, and we are connected to the Earth.

I don't worship my house, but I try to look after it. If it springs a leak, or bursts into flame, or explodes from a gas leak, or falls down around me, that's on me for neglecting to take care of it.

If frakking results in an earthquake that destroys my home, that's on the frakkers for disrupting her perfectly attuned balance. And she will maintain that balance, with or without us, as she did before we were born, and will do after our stupid race has finally left her alone, to lick her wounds and heal.

If we all die because we poisoned and bombed and dug and blasted and disrespected her, that's on all of us. That's what we must STOP DOING. We are doing it to her, and to ourselves. If anything, God is taking notice but doing nothing to stop it. Don't swim in sulphur pits, and don't rapel into volcanoes or build you house on a fault line or a castle in the sand, or a town in the burning, barren desert or on the polar caps or under an avalanche or in a swamp or quicksand. Just stay away from them. Leave them alone, to the organisms that live in them. And that includes the oceans. Leave them alone.

edit on 24-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

When Messiah shows up thats when the gentiles are judged.

Christians believe the Messiah already came, a man named Jesus, you can read about that in the New Testament.

After his second coming there won't be anymore gentiles.
What you probably mean by that is that there will conveniently no longer be any Christians to create a sort of conflict of interest in God's attention, where God can lavish it on the Jews, while Christians are off-planet somewhere happy enough with being with Jesus.
According to the New Testament, God's chosen people are those who believe in Jesus. Also included in there is the idea that redemption is through Jesus, and only necessitated the acts by Jesus which are now in the past, and requires no future Messiah other than the one we already have.
The redemption of Israel was an apocalyptic event that fulfilled the prophecies by gathering God's people from throughout the nations and bringing them together in Christ.
What you are promoting is some sort of heretical quasi-Judaism which is neither Christian or Judaism, which denies the finished work of Jesus and the establishment of his Church, which is the promises of the Prophets fulfilled.

People who think Messiah is a hippy have no clue who he really is. Hippies wouldn't drop the hammer on Sodom and Gomorah.
This is further heresy which finds itself in conflict with the message in the Epistles of John about denying the Father and the Son. Jesus is not the same person who was the Lord in the Old Testament, and it is questionable that all the stories in the OT were accurate assessments of God's character, where the Gospel of John explains the necessity of the Son of God to come in person to demonstrate first hand what God was about, and why Jesus told the leaders of the Jews that they did not know his father.
edit on 24-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ellie Sagan
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since you keep bringing it up, could you please link to the post or posts where you definitively proved (you say) that autowrench is a liar? I'd be interested in reading it. I tried to wade through your many posts to find it, but I didn't see what you were talking about and grew weary of looking. I assume you could help me a little here? Thanks in advance.


From another thread last week: Arrius Piso wrote the New Testament Autowrench's claim, cited there: "No, it is not the Bible that was authored by the Pisos, it was the New Testament. Arrius Piso to be precise."

Follow the link On the "Roman Piso" theory and see if you agree that Arrius Piso wrote the New Testament (all historical evidence to the contrary) or if Autowrench's source just made it up, Autowrench swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and continues to tell the tale years after it was demonstrated to him that it was rubbish.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

Huh? Jesus is the english version of the greek Iesuo which is Yeshua. There's no J in hebrew, J was invented 500 years ago.

Jesus = Iesoús = Ἰησοῦς
Yeshua would be the personal name people would have that was derived from the Old Testament character, Joshua, if that person's first language was Syrian.
Jesus would be the personal name people would have that was derived from the Old Testament character, Joshua, if that person's first language was Greek.
Since the time of Alexander, Palestine was under Greek rule and had been rather thoroughly Hellenized to where a very large percentage of the population spoke Greek, especially the more educated people, and even more especially in places like Galilee, which in the time of Jesus was referred to as Gentile Galilee.
When the New Testament was written, it was written in Greek, by people who were more than just conversant in the Greek language but were well schooled in Greek literature.
Many diaspora Jews and Hellenized Jews living in Palestine went by the name, Jesus, as did the person in the New Testament who is described as having that name.
edit on 24-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's the point when the Holy Spirit indwells a man, at conversion. That's the beginning if the sanctification process.

I thought you believed there is no such thing as conversion.
Or maybe you think there could be, but not necessary, since salvation is through some other mechanism.
I John says something like, 'if you claim you are without sin, it because there is no light in you'.
That could be directed against people who thought they had some sort of "real" self that was in heaven or something and their material body was of no consequence, and its actions could not affect them.
Those may have been gnostics, but I think the same principle could apply today to "free grace" advocates, where their "real" self is already "saved" so are immune to any potential consequences to sins they are currently engaged in.
edit on 24-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Yes, I know that quite well, however, MH had notes on most the other books of the Bible.

I suppose those notes are not available for anyone to look at?
Hey since you like pod-casts, I just found some that are pretty good, I would recommend, that are mainstream (not cult propaganda). I was looking on Amazon at a new commentary on Hebrews in the NICNT commentary series. I did a google search on the author, Gareth Cockerill, and found a blog with a link to a page that has a four part lecture he did on Hebrews.
New Testament Perspectives



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Troll much?

I find it somewhat hypocritical for someone on a "conspiracy theory" website, to preach to others on personal beliefs and the espousal of such beliefs. Let me understand this completely. It is "OK" for someone to espouse aliens and UFOs that have yet to be captured and proven true. It is "OK" to push a New Age/Zeitgeist agenda. It is "OK" to push societal immorality agendas. It's "OK" to push Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Paranormal, Ghost stories...all manner of odd things that have yet to be proven true or false. BUT, when it comes to the mysticism of Christianity, that is off limits.

I am no internet preacher. Personally, I think too many Christians waste too much time trying to convert atheists, new agers, mormons, jehovah witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists. It certainly is a total waste of time and effort to debate and argue with atheists. But then again, atheists do the same thing trying to convince Christians that they are delusional.

But every once in awhile, someone asks a question, that I am willing to answer. Or...someone makes a statement that I think is completely false, or I see a topic that interests me. I certainly like to point out hypocrisy, injustice, and a lack of fair play.

You sir, are acting the hypocrite and are not playing fairly or honestly.

Edit: I have been thinking about his for several minutes after my initial response.
Why would you be so concerned about something that you don't believe? Other than pushing your obvious agenda that Christianity is delusional?
If you are so grounded in your own belief system, why waste the time and effort for us morons?
Are you hoping that someone will come along and say something brilliant to change your mind?
Fear of death is a valid reason to question ones beliefs.

Put that last sentence in another way. If Christianity is true, then we Christians have worked so hard in our faith to get a reward after death; the reward of immortality. Those that don't believe, get to work hard for a thousand years without any fun and then get judged by their works instead of their faith and we get the satisfaction to say "I told you so"
If Christianity is false, we wasted a lifetime trying to be righteous and did not have as much fun....and then when we are dead, we have no regrets...because we are dead and can no longer think. You don't get the satisfaction of saying "I told you so".
edit on 24-7-2012 by dirkpotters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


Not my problem if you are allergic to libraries. I prefer to grow in knowledge and spirit every day, rather than just thinking I know it all. The information given to me has not "convinced" me of anything, so I share what I have found. Take it or leave it.

Don't want to read anything but the Bible? Cool. Fine with me. You can keep portraying me as a pushy naysayer if you like, it won't make it true. Try picketing outside a public library if you think books are so dangerous. Or, you could have a big-o bonfire! Yeah! That's the ticket! Destroy all thought and philosophy that you don't like! Burn, baby, burn!

Please stop picking on me, Winds. We both know we don't see eye to eye, and we both know that you don't really understand me, though I appreciate that you've tried to see past your prejudice.


Why are you saying these things? Why are you being so rude , and twisting things to a foolish extreme ? ?
I have no animosity towards you , nor wish for any to exist.

I am not portraying you as a pushy naysayer ??

I am not saying books are bad, or that I hate them. ? ..just that I don't like them forced unto me, and told they are absolute truth, which many may feel about any religious book.

When you try to "educate" with your books, you call it helping and enlightening, but when a Christian tries to enlighten about what they believe is truth, its called "cramming down somebody's throat".

Is it just me, or is there something a little extreme and off balance about this as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks for your response. I have noted the materials to look at and will do so at another time. I don't have the time or inclination to do it at this moment. However, I did skim his thread and your source you linked to. At a glance, it doesn't seem to be that anyone was, or is, deliberately trying to deceive any others. Again though, I need to look and read more carefully. Thank you again.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ellie Sagan
 

He cannot prove a thing, Ellie, but I'll bet he sure would love to. I always post plenty of links and backup with I make a post, some is theory, true, but I say that too. Facts are facts. Most of the Christians hate me in here anyway, it is their hate, not mine. Don't bother me, and don't let them bother you, either.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Autowrench swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and continues to tell the tale years after it was demonstrated to him that it was rubbish.

You should have no trouble then posting proof of who really wrote the NT then, right? After all, you KNOW, don't you? Please, PROVE me wrong. Post your proof in this thread, so we can all see it.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 

So, let me get this straight, Making a thread that asks a question is trolling now?

You sir, are acting the hypocrite and are not playing fairly or honestly.

I believe one has to be a Christian to be a hypocrite, and I am not a Christian. No fair? I am completely fair, friend.
Just because I ask questions that make Christians made as all Hades, that alone does now make me unfair. I spend hours and days bringing good Intel to ATS, and the truth about Christianity is begging to be told. You don't what to know? Fine, let the others learn.

Are you hoping that someone will come along and say something brilliant to change your mind?
Fear of death is a valid reason to question ones beliefs.

No. And I am not afraid of Death or anything you could name. Nothing can change my mind except me alone.

If Christianity is true, then we Christians have worked so hard in our faith to get a reward after death; the reward of immortality.

Friend, you are Spirit, not Man. You are already Immortal, you don't have to earn it.
King James Bible & Reincarnation
And I am not planning to be here to say "I told you so." Just showing the truth about the matter.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen
 


Autowrench swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and continues to tell the tale years after it was demonstrated to him that it was rubbish.

You should have no trouble then posting proof of who really wrote the NT then, right? After all, you KNOW, don't you? Please, PROVE me wrong. Post your proof in this thread, so we can all see it.


Why should I bother? You've shown that you don't base your beliefs on facts, but rather delusional fantasies fabricated in the last fifty years. Go read that refutation of Piso, right here and if you can present even the slightest rational defense of the claim that Arrius Piso wrote the New Testament, I'll show you the evidence that he did not.

Otherwise, you're a liar who accepts ridiculous fantasies and ignores real facts, simply because you're so set in your irrational views that nothing else will do.

If you believe your hero Abelard Reuchlin, defend him. Here and now.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Wow, judging by the rude and arrogant opening post I am inclined to completely disagree with that comment wildtimes.
autowrenches comment was a nasty little sledge and attack on people who believe in Christianity and was baseless and ignorant in its premise of what Christianity is.


You've not been here very long. Try reading through his threads from his profile page and get a real feel for him.

If "Christians" and "preachers" choose to feel defensive about his post, you should maybe look to your own methods, or those who you listen to as "preachers." It's really quite unpleasant stuff.
But, you are free to disagree, I'm not surprised that those of closed-minded thought would be defensive or take offense. If the shoe fits....you know.

I'm not a preacher, so it didn't offend me. Those on here who do relentlessly preach, though, are irksome indeed, and I, too, would be interested to know how many people they feel they have "rescued" from so-called "demonic" and "Satanic heretics." If you'd endured the brunt of the vicious and never-ending attacks on him as some kind of evil anti-Christ-like monster, you'd feel differently, I'm sure.

Come to think of it........I could unleash that kind of accusation and condemna-----
naah. Never mind. Not worth my energy. I'm not nasty, mean-spirited, and closed-minded. Nor am I afraid.

Sorry your feelings got hurt. Mine didn't. Simple difference of perspective, I guess.

How about a recent thread entitled "Why New Agers are 'Spiritually Dead' and blah blah blah." Courtesy of RevelationGeneration. You'd like that one better, prolly. Here you go. www.abovetopsecret.com... It'll make you feel better.

Brightest blessings, borntowatch.



Dont patronise me sweety
Your little mate autowrench has an anti Christian hate agenda. Read his signature before trying desperately to defend his attacks
As for how long I have been here, I hardly see the relevance of this to his position and enmity to Christianity. I cant see how your defence of his character camouflages autowrenches attacks on Christianity and Christians either. Care to shed some light on how my time here/on earth (whatever you implied) relates to autowrenches hate for Christianity....Please

My comments are clear and precise and expose the shallowness of your support of a person causing hate and animosity.
Strangely dear girl my post was not about you, you are not the centre of my galaxy. your comments denying your "mean-spirited, and closed-minded. Nor am I afraid" nature, are clearly hypocritical in light of your support of autowrench.

Sadly I am not interested in all the other crap you wish to bring to my attention.
Cheers, have a noice day.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 


hmmm thats something very similar to what I wrote somewhere here. Almost worded as I had said them. Same order, some a bit more broad. Almost as if I wrote this again but not sure for what responce. Yet, edited and writen by someone else. strange....



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Huh? Jesus is the english version of the greek Iesuo which is Yeshua. There's no J in hebrew, J was invented 500 years ago.


The written J was invented 500 years ago. The J sound did exist back then. It was spelt Yehshuas. The Y had a J sound. The two H were silent. The A was silent. Yehshuas was spoken as Jesus.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 





When you try to "educate" with your books, you call it helping and enlightening, but when a Christian tries to enlighten about what they believe is truth, its called "cramming down somebody's throat".


Thats hypocrisy bro. Classic open and shut case. Also one of the things Messiah hates most.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Yes, I suspect there is no definitive proof to be had, but I thought it was good to at least check out what adjensen was talking about.

I have trouble not being bothered by people who wrongly accuse others of something. I guess I should learn to let it roll off my back.

I see your posts and have read some of your threads and I see why they may hate you. You threaten them. You shake their beliefs. They may not realize that's what it is, but I've been there and that is what I used to feel. I was Christian and even though I welcomed debate with people, I realized that a lot of times I had no good response for people's questions about me and my religion. The reason I left my church and eventually the religion, was because I do ask a lot of questions myself and a lot of it just didn't sit right with me. My heart was telling me something was wrong with a lot of it, but I was in denial I guess.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The reason you should bother to bring us your wisdom and knowledge about the matter is because it is an important matter and would definitely give you more credibility. You can lead us to that page, but it seems you cannot put into words yourself the "proof" you speak of. That seems suspect in itself.


I see no proof on that page that the Piso theory is inaccurate. I see the author as condescending and insulting. He is also ignorant and has a closed mind.
edit on 25-7-2012 by Ellie Sagan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join