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, I would like your opinion on these verses.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Again, no it's not a problem with either the writers or the translators. The problem is society, we change the definitions of words over time. "Conversation" used to mean "manner of behavior", now it means " two people speaking to one another". Another is that 100 years ago "gay" meant "joyful/happy" today it means "a person who practices homosexuality". Another is 100 years ago "fagot" meant "a pile of sticks" today it means " a derogatory or vulgar reference to a person who practices homosexuality".

That's why new translations and revisions are made every few decades, to keep up with how words and their definitions change in modern vernacular.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


From the link it says that god didn't change his mind, only Moses convinced him to change his mind. That doesn't make any sense because if Moses convinced him to change his mind, then that means he changed his mind. There's no way around it using that logic.

It also says that god did it to teach Moses a lesson, which is bunch of bologna because god instilled in him righteousness, which means there is no reason for god to teach Moses because he already knew the lesson.

Linking to a clearly biased site is not helping your case out either.

Also, the verse clearly states that god 'repented'. If god did not repent then why does the bible clearly use the word?
edit on 9-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
Back when I was still a Christian, I asked those in the position of authority in my church about this. It left them flabbergasted and without response. One person called me a liar and refused to even read the passage. However it had me very troubled.
Even though I no longer believe, I still would like to hear what Christians think of this this.
This is not an attack, just an attempt to deal with something that has been bugging me for several years.

Exodus 32: 9-14

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.






What particular question do you have? Do you need an explanation for the entire text? This is what it means, that when they were out of Egypt and given civil laws to live by they insisted on living the same as when they were in Egypt and Moses is merely pleading for them to be spared.

The spiritual and practical meaning is this, if you have come out of a terrible life situation and through your own stubbornness try to go back into and live like before, you deserve the consequences of your behavior, especially if you know better. Moses is saying "Look God, I know these people are stubborn and insist on going back where you saved them from, but they are kind of stupid because they don't know yet about life beyond the slavery they were in, give them some slack until they get it, OK?"

Basically that is what it means, and the comparison to life in this day, and spiritual meanings should be applied for us in our day, (after all, religion should be practical), if a drug addict is sober, and he goes back into drugs he deserves the consequences. That is why people believe drug addicts should have some type of rehabilitation. Think of this scenario as an intervention and the addict refuses to give up drugs even though his loved ones are pleading for his life. That is merely one comparison.

Does this help you any? BTW, addiction is a type of slavery, that is why it applies.The Bible is for practical living and the lessons contained are for all people in all times in all places.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


From the link it says that god didn't change his mind, only Moses convinced him to change his mind. That doesn't make any sense because if Moses convinced him to change his mind, then that means he changed his mind. There's no way around it using that logic.

It also says that god did it to teach Moses a lesson, which is bunch of bologna because god instilled in him righteousness, which means there is no reason for god to teach Moses because he already knew the lesson.

Linking to a clearly biased site is not helping your case out either.

Also, the verse clearly states that god 'repented'. If god did not repent then why does the bible clearly use the word?
edit on 9-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


The same reason good parents feel sorry if their child makes serious life decisions that are harmful and destructive and the parent feel like they want to do something drastic and then feel sorry for that feeling. That is what it means. Has no one ever in your church experience ever taught that Christianity should be practical and the life lessons in the Bible can be applied in all situations?

As a Christian I understand the frustration that comes when other Christians approach the Bible as though it were some highly romanticized idea forgetting that the Bible clearly teaches a practicality to life and that actions do cause an effect, whether it be positive or negative. Believe me, I understand the frustration. But please, when you come across something in the Bible, see how it applies to your life or a situation others may be in and see how it was handled. The bad way it was handled shows the consequences the same as the good way is presented. If you limit the Bible simply by what Christians say then you miss out on a whole lot of good things. Read it for yourself, apply it for yourself. God is not a romantic notion and it does not help when that is how He is presented.

An example of a bad life decision that is in the Bible, David lusted after another man's wife. He sent the man to be killed because he got the woman pregnant. David lost his children for this action. His grandchildren squabbled for a kingdom that they split up and lost. So yes, the consequences for his actions caused destruction. God never absolved David of that, he was called out by his friend Nathan, the prophet. He was confronted for his actions and the result was dead children and not being allowed to build the temple. God said to David that he was not allowed because his hands had blood on them.

Cause and effect, the Bible teaches that. The next time you read something, ask yourself "What did these people do?" Generally you will find that they did something really bad. The Bible shows us both sides, the good and the bad.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So it isn't "God" that's the problem, it's the writers. And since the writers are clearly imperfect, we cannot rely on them to impart a flawless understanding of a flawed topic.

There's really no point to trying to understand, then. There will always be mistakes. Good to know.


The moment you have repented and decided to follow Jesus, the Holy Spirit starts to impart wisdom unto you. In fact, this wisdom, the longing for the truth is innate in all of us even if we have not known Jesus.

I mean look around you, something's not right. We go party all night, every fridays, saturdays, dinner in someone else's house every week, and realize there are people around the world dying of starvation.

I stumble upon truths many years ago on the reality of our world that the misery of those who are very poor are significantly caused by the consumerism of the wealthier nations/people. High demand is driving prices up which increases desperation among the poor. All the demand-driven human activity is also wreaking havoc to nature and animals which God - the one Jesus calls Father deeply care about and loves.

It's only recently I had a personal revival and begun to study all texts, including non-Canon to conduct a deeper search of the truth. My findings many years ago was confirmed in the Book of Enoch more. Our economy, profits from the slave-labor like conditions somewhere in China or in 3rd world countries. If you really want to seek the truth, you'll have to go outside the Canon Bible which is incoherent, and many explanations left out are explained in some of the non-Canon texts.

Mainstream/Orthodox Christians call those who read 'outside texts' evil, but this is the same thing cults do. Someone who is wise will look at everything with discerning eyes guided by the Holy Spirit.

Many Christians today are helping to oppress and kill the poorest of the poor simply by partaking in the system, working to feed their desires, buy houses, cars, gadgets financial stability, their hobbies, consumerism, etc, and they don't know it.

They don't know that a healthy family in USA has a starving neighbor all the way to Africa (Luke 10:25-37) Parable of the Good Samaritan. All this tells you that something is wrong with the mainstream Christianity, it doesn't change or affect the world but only their own 'little worlds' called 'my sweetest family', in fact they are only adding to the misery of others.

The wrath of God is upon them in the Judgement day - the real one, not the one orchestrated by the Antichrist who will persecute the real Christians who truly follow Jesus' teachings in its literal context.
edit on 9-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I have already applied what the bible means to how I see the world, I do not deny it has truth in it. What I deny is that it is the infallible word of god, because it is not and should not be treated as such.

The bible is the fallible word of man, and the many inconsistencies and contradictions only prove that it is not the word of god. It is a fabrication inspired by natural things and those natural things are twisted and metaphorized.

The fact that Christians see their god as all-knowing, yet believe he has the ability to repent is a major flaw in logic, and I am not against pointing it out.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I have already applied what the bible means to how I see the world, I do not deny it has truth in it. What I deny is that it is the infallible word of god, because it is not and should not be treated as such.

The bible is the fallible word of man, and the many inconsistencies and contradictions only prove that it is not the word of god. It is a fabrication inspired by natural things and those natural things are twisted and metaphorized.

The fact that Christians see their god as all-knowing, yet believe he has the ability to repent is a major flaw in logic, and I am not against pointing it out.


When you were a child I assume your parents or at least one of them knew you, knew what you were like, knew what you were capable of and knew you by your actions. I am sure many times your parents as well as every parent, even the good ones repented for even having their child at some point in their lives. But repented for that thought. Again, take it to a more practical level. If you want to point out that God cannot repent just shows that you view God not as a Father but the old view as some guy up there in the sky with lightning bolts ready to strike anyone for disagreeing with Him.

See, you were not struck by a bolt of lightning just then when you made that comment. Do you view God with that image? If you do then you are like most people who don't know God as a Father. He is my Father and has been a good parent to me, letting me know when I have done wrong and letting me know I have done right. My prayers are answered when they are needed to be. When I act like a bad child and am selfish or mean, right away He makes sure I understand that I have to change my attitude.

Again, bring it down more to practicality. When you do, you will see reality more clearly. God knows His creation pretty well, but the creation lives like there is no cause and effect to their actions because the creation is really stupid sometimes.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I view your god as you view him: omniscient. Do you agree with that? If so, that leaves no room for repentance because he knew the outcome long before Moses came into the picture.

Repentance =/= omniscient, it goes against logic.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I view your god as you view him: omniscient. Do you agree with that? If so, that leaves no room for repentance because he knew the outcome long before Moses came into the picture.

Repentance =/= omniscient, it goes against logic.


Does omiscient also mean that God would be aware of His own thoughts and emotions and the way He would react? Just because God is omniscient does not mean He is not capable of emotion and grief and to have a self-awareness of that?

When you were little did you ever think "My dad is the awesomenest and can beat up anybody"? If you did not have a father like that then I apologize if there was no relationship. But if you did have that good relationship, what caused you to feel that way? And how did you feel knowing your father was capable of showing sorrow? Did it make you feel like he was less than a father?

I don't know your father and apologize for any assumptions. But still the practical side is this, God is omniscient and is well-aware of His thoughts and His reactions and knows what to do. Sometimes earthly fathers do not have a clue what to do and react without thinking. Yes, omniscient means everything, so that would mean He knows His thoughts, emotions and reactions.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


From the link it says that god didn't change his mind, only Moses convinced him to change his mind. That doesn't make any sense because if Moses convinced him to change his mind, then that means he changed his mind. There's no way around it using that logic.



Keep reading... get to the part about "anthropomorphisms". This time don't scan the site for something to criticize, but read the whole thing carefully for context. And you just used the "circumstantial ad hominem" fallacy again by mentioning "bias". Bias has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is true or false. All truth statements stand or fall on their own claims. Everyone has bias/presuppositions.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Why do you keep comparing your god to my father? You are comparing something that is perfect to an imperfect human? That doesn't make any sense and the two are not comparable when looking through your world-view.

You are clearly missing the point, something which is omniscient cannot repent because he already made his decision not to kill the Egyptians long before the situation came up, meaning he never truly repented, which calls into question why the bible states god repented.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Why do you keep comparing your god to my father? You are comparing something that is perfect to an imperfect human? That doesn't make any sense and the two are not comparable when looking through your world-view.

You are clearly missing the point, something which is omniscient cannot repent because he already made his decision not to kill the Egyptians long before the situation came up, meaning he never truly repented, which calls into question why the bible states god repented.


Because God is a father and the pattern for how fathers should be.


Omniscient :adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


My statement holds correctly because the definition is to have all of those listed and God, being omniscient, would be well aware of His own thoughts, emotions and reactions. If you go simply by the definition, my statement still holds. Your view is that God is omniscient without awareness of His own need for repentance means that you do not agree that God is omniscient. Your statement earlier was that you agreed God was omniscient. Therefore, if God is omniscient, He has a self-awareness and knowledge of what He is capable of and what His emotions are. And being omniscient, He would also understand how those emotions impact everything.
edit on 8/9/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm)
n.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.


So you're saying that god is an inanimate object? Or an animal? What about natural phenomena? I'd have to go with the last one myself.

Since that particular verse is an anthropomorphication, and is the fallible interpretation of what god is, what makes you think the bible is infallible? You are using doublethink, saying one thing and believing it yet believing the opposite at the same time. That shows a lack of critical thinking.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You still refuse to understand what I am saying. You cannot repent if you know you are going to 'repent' beforehand, that is not repenting because god knew what decision would be made infinitely before it was made. It is not repenting when you never truly meant to do what you said you'd do before 'repenting'. That implies that god NEVER planned on killing the Egyptians, which means he never repented to begin with.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that. I even repeated what I said several times over to make it as clear as possible.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm)
n.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.


So you're saying that god is an inanimate object? Or an animal? What about natural phenomena? I'd have to go with the last one myself.

Since that particular verse is an anthropomorphication, and is the fallible interpretation of what god is, what makes you think the bible is infallible? You are using doublethink, saying one thing and believing it yet believing the opposite at the same time. That shows a lack of critical thinking.



reply to post by WarminIndy I view your god as you view him: omniscient. Do you agree with that? If so, that leaves no room for repentance because he knew the outcome long before Moses came into the picture. Repentance =/= omniscient, it goes against logic.



reply to post by WarminIndy You are clearly missing the point, something which is omniscient cannot repent because he already made his decision


Doublethink much? Either God is omniscient, by your own claim, and is self-aware, or God is not omniscient, by your own logic, and is not aware of His thoughts.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You still refuse to understand what I am saying. You cannot repent if you know you are going to 'repent' beforehand, that is not repenting because god knew what decision would be made infinitely before it was made. It is not repenting when you never truly meant to do what you said you'd do before 'repenting'. That implies that god NEVER planned on killing the Egyptians, which means he never repented to begin with.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that. I even repeated what I said several times over to make it as clear as possible.


This whole discussion hinges on the definition of omniscient. Is God omniscient or not?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Key word 'your' god, not mine. I am only stating what every christian believes their god is. It all hinges on whether YOU believe he is omniscient, not me. I am only putting what I say within your perspective because I am talking to you and trying to make a point, and that point is if YOU believe he is omniscient, then he cannot repent.

This discussion about your god and what you believe he is or isn't, it's not about mine.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


The definition of omniscient is knowing everything, from beginning to end. If your god knew that he wasn't going to kill the Egyptians beforehand, then how can you possibly believe what he did was repentance? It honestly shouldn't be this hard for you to grasp.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Key word 'your' god, not mine. I am only stating what every christian believes their god is. It all hinges on whether YOU believe he is omniscient, not me. I am only putting what I say within your perspective because I am talking to you and trying to make a point, and that point is if YOU believe he is omniscient, then he cannot repent.

This discussion about your god and what you believe he is or isn't, it's not about mine.


No, the discussion still remains on the definition of omniscience. It would not matter whether or not it is my God or your god or any other being. We are discussing the definition of omniscient.

You cannot repent if you know you are going to 'repent' beforehand, that is not repenting because god knew what decision would be made infinitely before it was made.


You have claimed that God is omniscient, you did not say "your view is your God is omniscient". Should we continue to scroll up and read your statements?

All the ex-text is from your posts. Can we stay with the discussion of omniscience or have we descended to "let's duck the subject"? The discussion was whether or not God is omniscient based on the act of repentance. Using the definition of omniscient, I made the statement and it holds accordingly. By falling to the argument, "I am using your point of view to point it out" means that you disagree with the definition. What is that called in a debate?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


The definition of omniscient is knowing everything, from beginning to end. If your god knew that he wasn't going to kill the Egyptians beforehand, then how can you possibly believe what he did was repentance? It honestly shouldn't be this hard for you to grasp.


Again, just so we know the definition...
Omniscient

adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


If you make the statement that God knew this beforehand, and aware of the outcome, then He could not be omniscient if He repented then you need to support that. My statement was that God is omniscient because of the definition alone and was well-aware of the wisdom of repentance, His own thoughts and emotions regarding the repentance and knew not only that He would, but the need to. And omniscience means that God not only knew it, but acted on it. Therefore, by virtue of the definition, it stands.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join