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.

 

Christians... riddle me this!

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


This is you running away from reason.

Good luck with yours as well, hopefully you realize what I have said, all I can do is try.

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why am I not using sound hermeneutics? Because I interpret the bible differently than you?
That's ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why am I not using sound hermeneutics? Because I interpret the bible differently than you?
That's ridiculous.


Goodness no I didn't invent Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis principles. Here ya go:

hermeneutics

Alternate



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


This is you running away from reason.

Good luck with yours as well, hopefully you realize what I have said, all I can do is try.

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Not "running", I'm still in the thread. I apologize, this stuff might be new and exciting for you but my "round and round with no end in sight" limit is just at about 15-20 posts. Those kinds of discussions quite frankly don't hold my attention nearly as well as they used to.


edit on 28-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hermeneutics is all about interpreting language and text, it depends on the interpreter. I guess the right way to interpret the bible is to take it at face value? Taking something at face value is not interpreting, it is reading and taking literally.

Your 'interpretation' is like if an interpreter interprets french and then tells you what it means in french and then you saying 'oh, ok'.
edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I keep presenting new evidence, you are the one that always resorts to the same tactics to 'prove' your point.

You are the one that's making this conversation go around in circles, you just don't realize it.

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hermeneutics is all about interpreting language and text, it depends on the interpreter. I guess the right way to interpret the bible is to take it at face value? Taking something at face value is not interpreting, it is reading and taking literally.

Your 'interpretation' is like if an interpreter interprets french and then tells you what it means in french and then you saying 'oh, ok'.
edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Not all of the bible is meant to be taken literally. If you do that you may get it wrong. Case in point lets take a peak at Revelation:

Revelation 14:1-5

1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. 3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

To a non believer taking a literal interpretation, they would think only virgin men who never had sex with women would be the 144,000 and they would think there was an actual Lamb standing on Mount Zion and these 144k would be following this Lamb everywhere he went. I can assure you, the underlined and bold portions has nothing to do with men who never had sex with women.

Sometimes you have to go all the way back to the beginning of a book to set proper context, sometimes just the previous chapters or a few verses ahead. Sometimes you need to know the history of Israel to set the context because many times their history establishes context. The current biblical timeline began with Israel in Egypt, everything that comes after deals with Israel, even to this day and it will end with Israel, asking yourself questions like: Who is speaking? What are they saying? Why are they saying it? What is happening in Israel at the time this is being said? Where is the speaker's location and surroundings? The literal Who, What, Where, When, Why and How.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Again, christianity is not the narrow path, it is the wide path because most people take it. What about that do you not understand?


Christianity is alot narrower than you think. Knowing the path isn't enough you have to walk down it. You don't get to the gate without walking down the road towards it. Does you absolutely no good to see the path but stay where you are. Technically we're not christians, we are messianic jews bought by the blood of the Messiah he has become our King and we enter into the House of Israel.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hermeneutics is all about interpreting language and text, it depends on the interpreter. I guess the right way to interpret the bible is to take it at face value? Taking something at face value is not interpreting, it is reading and taking literally.

Your 'interpretation' is like if an interpreter interprets french and then tells you what it means in french and then you saying 'oh, ok'.
edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


You didn't know what hermeneutics was two hours ago and now you're trying to tell me what it is and what it's not??



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I keep presenting new evidence, you are the one that always resorts to the same tactics to 'prove' your point.



How many straws do you have left? You haven't even demonstrated your position is the correct one. You claimed Christians made up the majority and your link said only 2 billion out of 7.4 claim Christianity. That's 33% as the pie graph shows. It would have to be a minimum 51% to be the majority. And that's with the most liberal estimation possible.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yeah, because I googled it and read what it meant. That's just one more piece of knowledge I have squired, now I know what it is so yes I am qualified to say what it means.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Not only that, Jesus said HE is the way. HE is the only path and gate to the Father. Every other thing, way, religion, et cetra et cetra is the "broad way" that leads to destruction and many (the majority) there be that find it."



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yeah, because I googled it and read what it meant. That's just one more piece of knowledge I have squired, now I know what it is so yes I am qualified to say what it means.


What is rule #1?

Source.

Since you admit you know what it is I will expect you to apply it.


edit on 28-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I keep presenting new evidence, you are the one that always resorts to the same tactics to 'prove' your point.



How many straws do you have left? You haven't even demonstrated your position is the correct one. You claimed Christians made up the majority and your link said only 2 billion out of 7.4 claim Christianity. That's 33% as the pie graph shows. It would have to be a minimum 51% to be the majority. And that's with the most liberal estimation possible.


Cut the Islam piece of the chart off and compare which slice is bigger, Christianity or Islam? Christianity will be the bigger piece because it has 33% and Islam has 21%, Christianity has more followers than Islam, more people, bigger path. I am amazed at how you cannot comprehend that.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Christ wasn't comparing his followers to another religions followers. He was comparing His followers to all that do not follow Him. And furthered to state His followers would be the minority. By very liberal estimates His followers make up 33% of the population, that leaves those who do not follow Him at 67%.

33 is the few, 67 is the many.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Christ wasn't comparing his followers to another religions followers. He was comparing His followers to all that do not follow Him. And furthered to state His followers would be the minority. By very liberal estimates His followers make up 33% of the population, that leaves those who do not follow Him at 67%.

33 is the few, 67 is the many.


Muhammed wasn't comparing his followers to other religions followers. He was comparing his followers to all that do not follow him. By very liberal estimates, his followers make up 21% of the population, that leaves those who do not follow him at 79%.

21 is the few, 79 is the many.

See how that goes both ways?
edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Yes, I have anger issues....anger at people who continue pushing this ridiculous agenda. I am angry at society for not stepping up, for saying "it's never going to get better" and hiding behind dusty dogma that makes no sense. And I am angry at the religious right being so pompous and arrogant


I contemplated how to respond to this bit of bile on your part for some time today, and decided to mostly ignore it. Your rant may be fixated on me, for some reason (again, what set you off had nothing to do with you, and clearly wasn't taken as an insult by the person to whom it was directed,) but I suspect that your issues with not being taken seriously run far deeper than Internet forum postings, so I'll leave you to sort that out on your own.

However, I do think it important to point out that to decry someone else as being "judgmental", and yet refer to their beliefs as a "ridiculous agenda" is pretty straight forward hypocrisy.

It's also clear that you don't know what my beliefs are, because anyone who knows me "in real life" would have a good laugh at you painting me as a "conservative Christian" and "the religious right". I am, in fact, politically neutral, though I tend to side with Democrats on more issues than Republicans.

However, I believe that it is my philosophy that you hate, rather than my political leanings. I'll reiterate said philosophy for you -- I am a pragmatist. In colloquial terms, that means that I see things as they are, rather than what I would like them to be. Truth is only truth if it is borne out in its practical application. It aggravates me, to no end, when people present opinion as fact, declare something to be true when it is patently obvious that it is not, and ignore logical conclusions, simply because logic and facts conflict with their opinions.

My studies, in a number of fields, have led me to the conclusion that Christianity is truth. That, in turn, has led me to an in-depth study of Christianity, and so I have a fairly broad knowledge of church history, theology and common practices. Because of my interest in it, you will often find me in the ATS religious forums, but I don't limit my pragmatism to matters of faith.

Here I explain a recent United Nations issue

I was an active poster in this thread, debunking "multiple shooter" claims in the Colorado tragedy

A thread on banking/Federal Reserve matters

"Sarcastic" post to UN haters

... and on it goes.

I will attempt to be a bit more cognizant of your sensitivities when I reply to your posts in the future, but if you post claims that fly in the face of what I know to be evidential facts, realize that I'll likely be not far behind.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Personally, I have always believed that the "Narrow Way" wasn't Christianity, but rather, the correct application of Christianity. Let's face it, following Christ isn't easy -- and I suspect that people who go to church on Sunday and ignore him the rest of the week are those who may be included in the "Lord Lord", "I never knew you" teaching. A lot of people who consider themselves "saved" might be in for a rude awakening.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Have you done all of that on the list yourself? If you haven't then that makes you a hypocrite.

That website is clearly a christian fundamentalist website, try a less biased source next time, maybe wikipedia or dictionary? Of course they're going to give me a long list of things to do, they are completely biased.

Why are you ignoring the definition that is at the top of the page? I am clearly doing what that definition says, so yes I am using hermeneutics exactly the right way. I am interpreting what the bible says into real world standards.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

In my opinion, that is a very narrow-minded viewpoint. You are discarding all other possibilities other than Christ and throwing them in the trash, saying they are all the same way when they are all vastly different ways, they are separate, there is not just one right way and one wrong way, there are many different ways you can travel. But the narrowest one, the one with the fewest amount of followers, is the way to life.
edit on 28-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join