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 cant eat lobster, wear polyester, wear gold, eat rabbit, have tattoos, get divrced, have

page: 11
76
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I recommend that you go back and read the rest of the thread, you might learn some useful stuff in it.




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


I need more from you than patronizing statements.

Present an argument.

I love debate.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
It is sinful for homosexuals to have sex out of wedlock but they are not allowed to be wed. If you cannot appreciate the bitter irony there... not sure what I can say in one thread to persuade.

Well it could be that's what makes it not acceptable from the Biblical Christian stance on the subject...


You're debating from the presumption that somewhere, somehow, you are going to argue, “rule lawyer”, or outsmart the bible that this should be acceptable from a scriptural perspective, I assure you it's not. Its not really an Irony at all, it was simply unacceptable from that perspective whether stated directly or implied. It was also unacceptable from the Jewish perspective that Christianity sprang from.


Actually, it's from the fundamentalist extremist stance on the subject, not the Biblical stance at all. The Bible doesn't say what they claim it says and their translations have distorted it to the point that they've made it into something it never was.
The Bible and Christianity don't say the things about homosexuality that the fundamentalist extremists say about it.

They are an abomination much much more than the homosexuals they try to persecute are.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I recommend that you go back and read the rest of the thread, you might learn some useful stuff in it.


There is some useful stuff in it, and there are others who are distorting what the Bible actually says for their own fundamentalist evangelical purposes. I began at the beginning and posted to the OP. I will post to others as I continue to read.... tomorrow since it's way past bed time.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Thank you for bringing us more attention. When honorable people read posts like yours, they hopefully read between the lines and question why you're so upset with people you don't know or have never met.
I understand the world is a brutal place and you fear christianity but its never too late. We're definately not fascists like the media tries to portray us. Singling out christianity for the past is highly suspect unless you have been lied to. The romans were barbaric when trying to control everyone and they even put true christians to death which isn't surprising given the historical connection with executing people they don't understand.,



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Amadeo
 


I agree. Extreme hypocricy due to their refusal of learning more about the book they base their faith on. They really have no concept of what Christianity (or who Christ) is.

...the fundamentalist evangelicals that is. There are some REAL Christians in the world, they're just overshadowed by those who distort and are led by the blind.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



You're debating from the presumption that somewhere, somehow, you are going to argue, “rule lawyer”, or outsmart the bible that this should be acceptable from a scriptural perspective, I assure you it's not.


Out-smart the Bible or out-smart God? I would be comfortable with one of those.

It all comes down to the advance of moral understanding. The evolution of societies embrace for changes in moral thinking.

The Bible has stayed the same. Yet no one can deny a cultural acceptance of an ever-changing moral understanding.

How is that reconciled!?

Other than to appreciate the idea that an internal moral compass isn't always compatible with what you read from that book.

Mark my words. Years from now Christians will live in a World were homosexual marriages are allowed and common place in this World... and during that time Christians will have changed their moral understanding in accordance to this and no longer reference OT frequently in opposition. Just as it was done during the civil rights movement of African-Americans which received similar scriptural references as a means to discriminate it.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raivan31

Originally posted by stupid girl
**yawn**.....

should't this be in the "Rant" forum?

Or maybe ATS should just go all-out and create a new "Things I Disagree With And Don't Understand About Other People's Faith" forum.
edit on 5-8-2012 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)


Quotes straight from the bible.... deal with it.
Whats not to understand? Basic comprehension skills make it pretty clear.

The three 'big' religions are all about hate, entire books filled with lists of things you should hate.
Things that make no sense and things that contradict one another.

Pick up the books, read them. It's all right there in black and white, plain as day and easy to comprehend.
You don't like it? well maybe you should question yourself and your beliefs.

In for a penny, in for a pound.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Raivan31 because: (no reason given)


Actually no, it's quoted from a specific translation, not the Bible itself but merely someone's interpretation and translation into the English language. The Bible wasn't written in English, and when those translations were made, many things were changed, added and deleted to make it say what they wanted it to say.
They have distorted the bible to such a point that it would be silly to abide word for word by what it says. Too many follow it ignorantly without bothering to look at context, history or the original language to ensure they are following what it actually says opposed to what they want it to say.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
On the homosexual subject..
Sodom was a green grass city. A place outward attractive for increasing wealth. It was looted by another country and then the King confiscated or used evil means to gain the publics wealth. Then in pride rubbed it in. They were out of luck with no recourse. This condition common in abusive cults results in rage, abuse,murder, total weirdness, mental illness, and massive stealing. It also had a liberal judge that ordered beds be placed in all the streets for the homosexual rape of any passer by. Like late night TV family night. You can only guess what else he did. Such conditions are always progressive at a point so philological toxic....... Oh, we on top are above the law but you are just worthless eaters slaves below us and that is the law you must live under.... So the story goes on today.

A note on this. Only the cities that had these judges were destroyed by God. The others homosexual or not were not. Then comes the weirdest story in the bible as Lot and his wife left. Both ordered by God to not even look back. She turned around and did so. As to maybe go back. Then turned into **a pillar of salt** from doing it. In extreme situations like these people are so adjusted warped they can not leave an abusive situation. However it is so weird to understand why be turned into a pillar of salt in any kind of judgment?

. . .



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
If the old testament doesn't count for Christians then why do they still believe in Noah's ark and Genesis and all that, pretty sure they still read genesis, at least the young earth creationists do anyway. Someone should tell them they are not supposed to read that part because its "not for them".


In this thread, at this moment, the OT isn't applying to the fundamentalist evangelicals. In the next thread that pops us, it will be considered the most important part. That's how they work. They cherry pick what they want and expect others to go along with it.
They do not represent Christianity and Christianity is not what they claim it to be. They continue to try to monopolize the term, but it isn't going to work as long as there are other Christians who won't allow them to speak for everyone.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Again someone quoting bible verse's that do not apply to christian's. The old testament was for Isreal. We follow the new testament. I think if you study the new testament. You will find your conclusion's are all wrong.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

Again, I recommend that you go back and read the thread. We've already trodden down this path to get to this point, I'm not going to rehash whats already been discussed here.

As to you're claim that the Bible has been “re-translated”, that is incorrect, and is normally spewed by those who are anti-religion. The Bible has been consistent since the early church fathers, at least two of which were students of the Apostle John himself, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. Both Clement of Rome (96AD) and St. Irenaeus (180AD) both were already quoting extensively from the now accepted books that make up the New Testament, well before the RCC even existed or the birth of Constantine.

Believe me, if the RCC had been able to change the contents of the book of the New Testament, then they would have done so to prevent the Protestant Reformation. This didn't occur because it was already too well known what the books contained from the writings of the early church fathers.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

Again, I recommend that you go back and read the thread. We've already trodden down this path to get to this point, I'm not going to rehash whats already been discussed here.

As to you're claim that the Bible has been “re-translated”, that is incorrect, and is normally spewed by those who are anti-religion. The Bible has been consistent since the early church fathers, at least two of which were students of the Apostle John himself, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. Both Clement of Rome (96AD) and St. Irenaeus (180AD) both were already quoting extensively from the now accepted books that make up the New Testament, well before the RCC even existed or the birth of Constantine.

Believe me, if the RCC had been able to change the contents of the book of the New Testament, then they would have done so to prevent the Protestant Reformation. This didn't occur because it was already too well known what the books contained from the writings of the early church fathers.



I have read the thread and I have stated my position on a number of posts.
I suggest you use the box that is provided to state this is your own opinion and not the position of ATS as you are a moderator and posting your opinion into a thread. It is important that you separate your own view from the view of the site.
The Protestants are a direct descendent of the RCC whether they like it or not. The RCC was the first group to come together as Christians and they are the group who compiled the bible. They are also the group that first translated it into other languages. The Protestants came afterwards and the fundamentalist evangelicals came after the Protestants. Many Protestants do not accept the fundamentalists evangelicals as Christians and I agree with them. They fail to do the study and learning needed to comprehend what the Bible is saying and pick out and use what verses they wish to use in order to say what they want to say without a thought given to what was originally said or meant.
I am not straying off topic, I am not disrupting the thread, I am responding to posts that were made with my opinion on the matter and that is perfectly acceptable.
Not being attackful at all, just posting my view as others are doing and as you are doing. We are all entitled to our own views on our on belief system and mine is in accordance with many Christian groups, mostly mainline protestants of the liberal stance.

ETA: I am not at all incorrect that it has been re-translated. There are clear records that it has been. There are millions of translations out there, many done by translations that already existed including the King James Version and the newer "easy to read" versions that exist. They are not from the original text but translations of the original text.
edit on 6-8-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by b14warrior
reply to post by FidelityMusic
 


If fundamentalist Christians did not persecute and try to stop homosexuals gaining human rights then I would let them be.
I have not started a thread about Bhudists or Sikhs. Why? Because they don't try to stop others from living how they chose.
edit on 5-8-2012 by b14warrior because: (no reason given)


I think you are confusing western or modern forms of those religions.

www.religioustolerance.org...

Youve been....propagandized. Well at the very least your reading material is selective.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by b14warrior
 


I am not a Christian, but I can tell you that your logic and insecurity of someones elses religion is extremely flawed!
Leviticus was from the old testament, (Torah) which was a set of laws for the Jews! NOT CHRISTIANS!
The New Testament is for the Christians!

Not sure why you have to post against someones religious beliefs if you don't yourself agree with them, and if you do, you might want to make sure that your posting is accurate!
edit on 5-8-2012 by seeker1963 because: wording


Well, I am a Christian, and I will tell you that offering false information to the Sheep is a Sin in itself.


Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


These are words attributed to Christ and found within the New Testament my friend. The OP is correct in his assessment and his Thread Topic.

Christ did not come here to Change the Law. He Came to fulfill prophesy. The Old Testament Laws are as valid today, for Christians, as they where for Israel 3500 years ago.

The problem arises from a misconception the various sects of "Christiandom" and their Dogmas, Doctrines and Theology have created.

There is a misplaced emphasis placed on a Verse which speaks about Swine and Gentiles, and somehow this has enabled the various Religious Cults to twist things, much like their inspirator wishes, to dismiss the Laws, and deem them as no longer applicable.

Go Figure, and they claim to be the Defenders of the Faith and Stewards of the House of GOD.

And, for the record, ALL have Sinned and come short of the Glory of GOD. So Forgiveness is required until the Temple is rebuilt, and the sacrifice resumes.

Then we are all F'ed. Who can afford to atone for their sins by Slaughtering a Acceptable Sacrificial Beast

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


That's like asking why they went back and made Star Wars episode 1 2 and 3. It's so you know the stories before the new testament.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


As you know, I was not referring to you. There is really no point in "debating" further.

The bible is not a book you can take pieces here and there out of and mold to your own beliefs. As you and others implied some Christians do. In this case they are as ignorant as you are regarding the bible.

There are many sins in the book, homosexual acts being only one of them. They are all wrong. You can not pick and choose what laws or sins you will not commit. A Christian must do his best to obey them all.

Christians are commanded to not judge. I know you gag on that because you have a very liberal view of what judging is. I don't care what dictionary you got it from, but that is not judging. Judging usualy comes with a penalty for the judged. Christians do not fork out punishment. The bible clearly states this in many places. I don't give out a lot of addresses if you really want to know, you can look them up, you seem fairly brite. joking! but really you do.

Christians are not here to condem but to carry on where Jesus left off, to be a light to the world. Untill he returns.
There are very simple things that you do not understand about Christian beliefs to argue deeper would be futile.

I will leave you with this. If you would read Acts chapter 2 pay special attention to verses 36 thru 38. You can take it or leave it.

Also this "But there is only one sin that shall not be forgiven of man and that is blaspheming the Holy Ghost."
All other "sins" will and can be forgiven, but an effort has to be given on our part.

I know you probably say, you "don't believe in him," or maybe just my view of him.
I hope you get a touch from the lord. You may not understand that. But from a believer it is the best wish I could hope for anyone. Maybe someday we could do coffee together, even if we still disagree.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 


I very much agree with you. The Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament is. It is our job as Christians to study and learn so we can fully understand both before we insist that others follow what we say.
Verses cannot be pulled out and utilized for whatever purpose we may choose, it has to be taken in context.
The Bible is a complilation of writings that are considered to be in accordance with the inspiration from God, not the word of God directly from his mouth or written by his hand. Too many of the "new" Christians don't undestand this because their own pastors don't understand it. They have not had the training and study required to "lead" people, yet they try to do so anyway and it is the blind leading the blind and both have wound up in the ditch.

When people actually do the research and the learning required, they finally see the error in what they had been saying for so long. It's really a shame that more don't put in the effort to comprehend what it is they claim to believe.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
People just hate it when someone nitpicks their religion. So get ready for the you are hating on Christians crew to come in and dump on your thread. Besides Christians nowadays pick and choose what they want to follow when it comes to the bible.


Christians are series about their spirtuality. I don't see anyone nitpicking Musilims, Buddist or Jews here. I suppose there's a reason why the OP chose Christianity.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q33323
Umm... Your O.T. mentions relate to Jews.

Next?... Lol


Ummm Your assumptions that Israel is somehow restrictive to Jews only is comical in itself.

Israel is made up of 12 Brothers and their descendants. It wasn't until around 600 BC when Judea was the main populace remaining and/or not "Lost", (As in the Lost Tribes of Israel, which truely are not lost, but just ignorant as to who they really are).

Next? .....


Ciao

Shane




top topics



 
76
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join