Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christians... riddle me this!

page: 22
13
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The definition of hermeneutics is the interpretation of texts, biblical hermeneutics is the interpretation of the biblical text, nothing more.

You assume that biblical hermeneutics consists of taking the bible and what Jesus says as literal fact, without any wiggle room. That is false, completely false, and even if it weren't false (which it is), I have already taken your literal interpretation into account and believed it for most of my life.

What are you not understanding? The ignorance is strong in you.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I'm done arguing with you. I've had seminary level courses in hermeneutics with accreditation through the Dallas Theological Seminary, while you on the other hand, admitted yesterday that you had to Google what it is. That's the epitome of arrogance. Believe whatever you want to, it's your prerogative. I'm done arguing with you.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Thanks Wild

You're welcome. Watch it with the "graced us with your membership," though, eh? You know I get sensitive....and don't call me "Lady." Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
edit on 29-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


It's just the etiquette I was raised with, no offense.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It's just the etiquette I was raised with, no offense.

I know, you said that the first time it happened. Where I come from, calling a woman "Lady" is like calling a man "Bub."
Get it? Like, "Look here, Lady!" or "Listen up, Buster!" or "It's not all about you, 'buttercup." or "Now hear this, Junior!"

See??....this is an excellent case in point for building mutual understanding...

You might not have meant it, but in my dialect, that is how it sounds...


We, as the human race, have to learn to look at each other with innocent eyes...and ask...'is this what you meant?', or, when misunderstood, say "that's not what I meant."

Yes, I'm very guilty of projecting insult onto people who turn a phrase in a particular way, whether real or imagined. I'm also very able to pick up the subtle nuances and insinuations that accompany that type of "seeming" nicety -- and with people who turn around and say "wha? Me? No, nono, that's not what I meant" when they really DID mean it that way.

That is one of the things I work on, nearly daily. One of my knee-jerk weaknesses, because I'm very adept at dishing it out, I am also quick to interpret it. Therefore, I am cautious on ATS, not to use the kinds of terms that MIGHT be misconstrued or will be seen through for what they really are. In "heaven", that doesn't happen.

In "heaven", I'd have heard you say "Ma'am", or "My friend," and not "Lady". I read and double-check every post I make, to be sure I have not "accidentally" implied insult, and yet sometimes still, I see myself writing things like "dear heart" to someone...while I mean it, it could be taken as a condescending dis....I make sure that my words will be understood, and if I'm calling someone out for doing that, I try to stay calm.

How's that for self-disclosure and insight? I know what my hangups are. I fight them off. It's a long story, but it's my story, and I have to struggle to overcome those "quick" reactions. When I'm feeling fragile or worn down, I'm more susceptible, and as forthright as my posts to MrJensen were, I let them stand, for I feel the point was needing to be made. Always think about how "you" would feel in the other's shoes, and try to understand where they're coming from.

Do I always do that in pure benevolence? in some kind of a "saintly" manner? Nope. Of course not, I'm a flawed human, just like everyone else. But I try to avoid it, and usually (but not always) regret having been harsh.

In "heaven" we would all "speak in tongues", so no matter who you're talking to, the real message is never, ever lost in translation. And the words spoken are always Kind, Compassionate, Empathetic, and Patient, even if someone "messes" up, or disagrees. THAT is what God's "heaven" and "mercy" is. Unity and kindness, understanding and forgiveness, humility and regard from all to one another, equally.

In other words, "I recognize the Divine within you and honor it".

= Namaste.

edit on 29-7-2012 by wildtimes because: spelling and punctuation



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


don't get on the bashing or anti kick just because it makes you look cool because everyone else is saying it...

contrary to popular belief... it is not cool,

Whoa....Foul.
He is not a troll, and he has his head on straight, and I for one am very, very pleased to see it.
The "bashing or anti kick" is not a contrived "look at me, I'm cool," it's people waking up, realizing we've all been duped and lied to, and that the establishment wants us to stay that way.

And btw, Heavy Metal is, in my opinion, a very ugly noise.


you don't have to like my religion wildtimes... oh and his head nearly flew off when he automatically thought or insinuated someone was attacking him. I would say flew a little off the handle seemingly wanting someone to argue.

if pushing a animal bone thru ones nose and elongating the earlobes is "waking up" then we are surely regressing as a species...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I would say flew a little off the handle seemingly wanting someone to argue.

Case in point, if you read my post above yours.

And you suggesting his ideas are a contrived effort to "look cool" were certainly VERY insulting.

I was accused of "flying off the handle" at a "perceived insult" in this very thread myself. When I saw others doing it to him, I said something. Give the young man some credit. We need more thinkers like him (I'm assuming it's a male, but may be wrong.)

I'm out for now.
Have a good day, and be nice to people.
edit on 29-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You are insinuating that your interpretation of the bible is the only one worthy of being considered. That is not true, I have stated what my interpretation is, it is now your job to consider my interpretation. Get it?

Just because I didn't know what it was two days ago does not mean that I do not k ow what it is today. That is part or the process, learning new things, which I did. What is arrogant about that? Have you always known what hermeneutics is or did you too learn of it at some point?

The fact that I have ALREADY considered your interpretation and believed it means that I have already taken the first step. Now why can't you do the same with my interpretation? Are you too good to consider it? What's the deal here?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
More wars and killing has been done in the name of 'god' than anything else, that is a FACT. Now please close your ignorant mouth?


BZZZZ... wrong.

Here is an interesting study that the BBC did a while back: The War Audit

Since you probably don't want to read the whole thing, I'll summarize -- the authors assigned a value to all major historic wars, from 0 to 5, with zero being "conflict has nothing to do with religion" and five being "totally about religion", and in recorded history, only three conflicts scored a "five" -- the Arab conquests, the Crusades and the Thirty Years War.

In fact, 60% of these wars scored a "zero" -- religion played no role whatsoever. Only 10% scored a "three" or higher.

And let us not forget the tens of millions killed in the 20th Century by the anti-religious governments of the Soviet Union, Communist China and Cambodia. It is estimated that less than 5,000 people were killed during the vaunted Inquisitions. Don't get me wrong - one person is too many, in my mind - but it is insignificant in light of the atrocities of the secular 20th Century.

So, your statement quoted there is not just wrong, it is egregiously wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Wow! Thanks for posting this report.... It was a genuine eye-opener and a very interesting read indeed.... It totally trashes any argument that religion is responsible for the majority of wars and deaths (although they are careful to say this is not definitive and their methodology leaves room for discussion, it is also a good, general guide and we can probably, fairly safely say that the overall points made are sound). I also found the part about atheist states being less inclined to go to war (on the proviso they aren't working with a "millenarian or totalitarian ideology") particularly interesting. Although, I would contend that there has never been a single killing in the name of atheism in the literal meaning of the word (a- without, theism belief in god) because you cannot have no motivation for killing (I.e. without belief IN something) and any killings by those actively AGAINST religion would fall under ANTI-theism (anti- against, theism belief in god).

Anyway, I found the report enlightening and fascinating.... I especially liked the fact they highlighted the teachings of each religion AGAINST violence (although some permit violence as a defence, which raises some tough questions. However, I think they also addressed this issue quite well - where they talk about justice and the elasticity of the concept).

Again, thanks for posting, much appreciated...
edit on 29-7-2012 by Milkflavour because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

TextWhat i want to know is... what next? Do we just sit around smiling...."yay we made it!" Once you're with Jesus, what will you do together? What is there to do in heaven with Jesus once you get there? Is it like a huge meditation session?
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon -- That is a great question.

Not easily answered because it would tale a lot of replies to answer, according to the bible, but will try to condense it for you. In most bibles there are two systems of belief. One is Judaic and the other is Christianity. I will assume that you mean Christianity. I will condense without bible verses because of space allowed. You die. You are then a conscious spiritual entity called a soul or spirit. You are not resurrected at this time and find yourself standing before Jesus in judgment in Sheol. Then you are judged on merits of deeds and belief and if you are found salvageable you are then resurrected from a spiritual body into a celestial body. A celestial body is covered in a celestial covering (Garment) and given a white stone with your new name written on that stone. (This is all biblical) - You are then allowed to enter New Jerusalem where the twelve manner of celestial fruit exists along with the celestial water of life. You are not judged again because you have already been judged otherwise you would not be in New Jerusalem. You are always conscious.

At this point if you are not found salvageable, you are left in Sheol and interred in Hell. At the final day of Judgment, when the heavens and earth are destroyed, hell is then cast into the lake of fire for eternity.. You are not judged again because you have already been judged. Otherwise you would not be in hell. You remain a spiritual conscious soul but are a naked spiritual soul and not resurrected into the celestial realm. All souls are spiritual but not celestial. As a condemned soul you will remain in this earth till its end.
You are always conscious.

At the end of this world all of the people who are living at this time are instantly dead and stand before a white throne judgment just the same as those who died one by one before them. Those who are accountable and are salvageable are then resurrected just the same as those who had been judged before them. This finds all of the human race who were judged and found worthy living in the New Jerusalem. Not all people are judged at this point because there are those who were not accountable for their actions. This includes the aborted, the infants, the mentally challenged. You are never judged more than once and you are not judged unless you are accountable for your life.

Then the new world is unified with New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem with all of the saved souls comes down to the new earth as its city of God. Then is when the aborted, infants and mentally challenged are restore as humans and placed upon the new earth to live up to100 years and then receive their judgment just the same as all other humans had to be judged. New Jerusalem has twelve gates in which the saved people can leave and enter by credentials. It is believed that the judged do minister to those who are restored but not judged.

When the world ends and all are instantly dead is when the aborted, infants and mentally challenged are placed in limbo within Jesus Himself. These people are restored in their original terrestrial body and are not spiritual till their time of judgment comes. These are the ones that Isaiah and John tell us live outside the city. Now after the 100 years have passed, all of the human family has expired and all flesh destroyed. The entire human race exists either in the new world or the lake of fire.

An example would be that a mother has her infant daughter in her arms when the world ends. The mother can not save that child of hers because that child must pass through the same fire as that mother must pass. The mother is found righteous and given New Jerusalem. The child is taken into the bosom of Jesus and restored upon the New earth. In the same manner as Lazareth was dead and restored. Lazareth was not resurrected in that account but only restored to his original estate in the flesh. The child is not yet permitted to visit the mother in the New Jerusalem but the mother is permitted to raise the child on the new earth. She has permission to leave the city and enter the city. The child will live upon the new world up to a hundred years and then face death and judgment. It is only appointed to die once and to be judged once and all must face this judgment before The Word of God.

I did not cover the second coming of Christ to this earth because had to condense.

From there it remains untold. Personally I believe that we all take residence on the new world and build a first class civilization. You will be busy, never fear.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You missed the point I was making, the point was that wars HAVE been started in the name of god, there have been zero in the name of no god. None.

I agree that I exaggerated a little too much.
edit on 29-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


There have been terrorist attacks and shootings in the name of atheism. Let's not forget about that.
edit on 29-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


How did you get all of that from the Bible?

Also, it sounds like a load of nonsense you tell children to make them behave. Oh, wait...
But in all seriousness, I will accept that the explanation you have given is just a long list of metaphors that have yet to be decrypted; but if you mean for us to take all of that literally, then good luck.
edit on 29-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


I am not an atheist, so I have no connection with Richard Dawkins so I had no reason to think you were insulting me.

What I have a problem with is you ignoring the fact that your god orders the killing of over 2 million people within the bible, but I guess you turn a blind eye to that fact huh?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I'm not an atheist so I do not condone the actions of them.

Could you provide a link to support this? I'm genuinely interested.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Yes, let's compare the criminal history of God with Satan's track record.

What was Satan's great crime again? Sharing forbidden knowledge? Yeah, okay.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Ever read the book "She Said Yes"? It concerns the Columbine shooting.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Just felt like letting you know that you're a Douche Bag. Have a nice day.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


You missed the point I was making, the point was that wars HAVE been started over religious differences, there have been zero in the name of no god. None.


Well, I can't really make headway of what you're saying there, but this is your original statement:


More wars and killing has been done in the name of 'god' than anything else, that is a FACT.


I have demonstrated to you that your claim that religion is responsible for more wars and killings than "anything else" is absolutely not true.

If you want to say that no wars have been started by atheists over atheism, I would tend to agree, but there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion that atheists are, by nature, peaceful. One need only look to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to note significant exceptions to that claim.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


You missed the point I was making, the point was that wars HAVE been started over religious differences, there have been zero in the name of no god. None.


Well, I can't really make headway of what you're saying there, but this is your original statement:


More wars and killing has been done in the name of 'god' than anything else, that is a FACT.


I have demonstrated to you that your claim that religion is responsible for more wars and killings than "anything else" is absolutely not true.

If you want to say that no wars have been started by atheists over atheism, I would tend to agree, but there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion that atheists are, by nature, peaceful. One need only look to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to note significant exceptions to that claim.


I shouldn't have said that it was a fact, I assumed it was when I didn't know for sure, I apologize.

God killed over 2 million people in the bible and that outweighs any atheist in history by a very large margin.

I was trying to say that wars in the name of god outnumber the wars in the name of atheism which adds up to zero.
edit on 29-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


ETA: The same exceptions can be applied to people who believed in a god as well.
edit on 29-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)









 
13
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join