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.

 

The narrow path

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Okay, now I see what you have been saying! Duh! You're saying that the "easiness" of love is relative to one's perspective on it.

I agree, for some reason that just now clicked. DERP!




posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Notice I said easier, I never said it gets easy. Haha



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Akragon


How does the slaughter of an animal justify sin?

I can't wrap my brain around the concept...

These aren't the old days. I didn't live in that particular society in the old days.

When I was a Christian, I used to just repeat verses by rote, thinking that I was saying the right thing. (the psychological trick of telling yourself, "well I don't understand it, but somebody who knows more than me wrote it, so it's got to be the right thing to do to repeat it)

Eventually, I came to realize that the people who wrote it weren't any smarter than I am. And since I had no rational way of explaining it to my self, I just gave it up. Seemed the honest thing to do.


Ok let me rephrase that...

How does anyone Justify killing an animal to resolve sin?

Even back in the OT times...







posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


but as the debate has gone on I see that he is no closer to the truth than any other run-of-the-mill Christian.

I strongly disagree in characterizing him as "run of the mill", his heart and mind seem to be functioning quite well. I haven't yet seen him spout stuff by rote.


I don't think a bit of debate hurts anyone. Do you?

No. It's you I'm worried about. Search your heart. Examine your motives.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Worried why? Because I'm having a debate on a forum made for them? I haven't said anything hateful so far have I? Please point it out if I have.

Since he believes the bible is 100% true and believes it is without flaw, that puts him under the run-of-the-mill category. Not an insult at all, just my opinion. Christians can still be great people, my parents are Christian.

Just because I do not agree with Paul does not mean you have to worry about me. I'm just fine without him.


And your question earlier about me being a Yahwist, no I do not believe in Yahweh, he was an evil, tyrannical "god" (ahem army).
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


You're an expert dodger aren't you? I see you ignored my question about Ephesians 6:5.... again.

What are your thoughts on Ephesians 6:5? I'll even quote it for you.


Ephesians 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.


If Paul did not consent to slavery then he would have never told them to obey their "masters".

Would Jesus have told those lowly slaves to obey their masters? I don't think so.
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Paul did not create slavery nor does he imply here that he condones it. He is merely giving advice to those who are slaves. He even states that if a slave can obtain his freedom then he should obtain it.

Do you disagree with the advice? If I was a slave I think it would be best for my well being to follow this advice.

You accuse me of making an assumption of Paul, when my assumption is based off other scripture.

You are making an assumption of Paul that is apart from other scripture.

I believe that Jesus, the man who said "turn the other cheek" would most certainly tell slaves to obey the earthly master that they know can cause him harm. After all he did teach us that we should obey our heavenly master that can cause us harm.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


It doesn't. But sacrafice of oneself in the name of love might.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


I actually agree with you here. I may have over-exaggerated/reacted a bit and I'm sorry for that. That still doesn't mean I like Paul any more than before though.


I do love you brother, even if I feel as though you are misguided.



edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


My opinion on love would be the same as a woman's opinion because LOVE IS LOVE, no matter how you look at it.

Since you are a man, tell me how to love. What is love since men are able to explain it better than women? If you can't explain it any better than by just saying it, then your argument is baseless.

Do you not love unconditionally? If you don't then you do not know what love is. If you do, then you love in the same exact way that YOU said women do.


Yes but as a man I needed a reason why? The women in my life were born to love, I was born to question love. Maybe my experience is different, but the women I talk to all agree, men are stupid when it comes to love.

In many divorces both parties claim to love each other. However it is usually only the wife who is actually doing the loving. You see women have become the servant in most households, so she has been placed in the position of Christ. The servant, so as the servant the role of love is to serve. So she does the role that she has been asked to do.

The man then goes to work and considers this to be loving. However to work is our duty, there is nothing loving about doing a job you get paid for. The women is looking for the same type of love that she is giving, she wants to be served because this is how she loves.

When the man assumes the role of servant in the household the wife, because it is her nature also continues to serve. Thus the two serve together. Now they are loving each other. They are truly "IN LOVE" together. Because they are doing love together, in serving one another.

Love is not something that you can say and expect to find.

To say "I love you" might be the worst possible thing that we could ever say to one another. Somehow saying the words "I love you" have become "HOW" to love. The modern teenager thinks if they make good yoohoo and say "I love you" to each other that they have found love.

Love is an action word, Love is verb. It should not ever be used without action.

If I drive by the homeless man and say "I love you" Did I? No, therefore I am a liar.

If I stop and give the homeless man a dollar, I don't even need to say "I love you" because I already performed the action of love.

For a marriage the words "I love you", can lead to indifference. Where the words become the only action. If one truly wants' to use the action word "LOVE", they should simply perform the action of love.

Anyone who pursues love will find love. Action is pursuit.

How can someone who needs a reason to love debate with someone who does not? They simply won't be talking the same language. I don't need a PHD to understand that depression is so high amongst women because they don't feel love, simply because men refuse to listen to Christ.
edit on 16-5-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


It seems as though you are making a lot of assumptions about how women think, seeing as how you are a man. I don't think you can speak for all women when you say they love differently.

Unconditional love is true love and both parties (male and female) ARE capable of having unconditional love, not just women. You said yourself that you love unconditionally in a previous post in another thread, so your assumption that only women can love unconditionally is proven false by your own words.

You say that giving money is an act of love, even though it is not.


Matthew 6
24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.


Jesus makes it very clear that money is not god, and since god is love, giving money to someone is not an act of love. Showing compassion for them and telling them that you love them IS an act of love.

You say that you want to serve love, which means you want to serve Jesus. This is not necessary according to Jesus.


John 15
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.


If you give yourself to love, there is no need to serve it. All you have to do is practice it.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Its ok I can see quite clearly how close we are and how little our difference really matter. But the debate "man to man", is always fun if it is done in love. Haha, I had to say that if I am going to defend it.

One more thing to defend Paul a little. I believe that when he said it was a disgrace for women to speak, I think he was inferring that it was disgraceful if the women actually knew more about logic and reason than did her husband, or the men who were speaking in Church. The man would feel disgraced by the woman being more wise than the man.

So it could be assumed that Paul was protecting women from men's stupidity. In those times I imagine a husband and wife at church, and the wife speaking up. I would imagine that the husband of the wife would face ridicule for not discussing the matter quietly with her husband.

This is not found in the bible, but can be inferred by understanding even the modern history of women. So maybe Paul agreed with me that it is very difficult for men and women to debate love. And because women more naturally understand love the debate is not really for them. Most of what women add to the debate confuses us men anyway. Or he could have been protecting them from stupidity. Or maybe he was a shovenist pig.

Personally I think men and women simply don't see love the same way, and this too is beautiful.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



Jesus makes it very clear that money is not god, and since god is love, giving money to someone is not an act of love.


This depends on the condition of the heart... Giving money is charity... so it can be a loving action depending on the intention of the giver...

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.




posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


I don't think that's what Paul meant personally. If women are wiser than men, let them speak! Maybe they can bestow that wisdom on the men. Them staying silent does not help the men's case of being unwise.

If anything, women staying silent hurts matters because them staying silent means their wisdom will never be known, and who doesn't want wisdom? Maybe that's why Paul didn't want to women to speak?

How can women complicate matters on love if they can only explain love as to do it? That's not very complicated at all, and you are the one that said that. You're not really helping your case here because you seem to keep contradicting yourself.
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I stand corrected.


I was confusing love of money with money itself. Two separate things, though money tends to always lead to love of money, so there is that aspect.

I just wish we could get rid of money altogether.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


It seems as though you are making a lot of assumptions about how women think, seeing as how you are a man. I don't think you can speak for all women when you say they love differently.

Unconditional love is true love and both parties (male and female) ARE capable of having unconditional love, not just women. You said yourself that you love unconditionally in a previous post in another thread, so your assumption that only women can love unconditionally is proven false by your own words.

You say that giving money is an act of love, even though it is not.


Matthew 6
24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.


Jesus makes it very clear that money is not god, and since god is love, giving money to someone is not an act of love. Showing compassion for them and telling them that you love them IS an act of love.

You say that you want to serve love, which means you want to serve Jesus. This is not necessary according to Jesus.


John 15
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.


If you give yourself to love, there is no need to serve it. All you have to do is practice it.




James 2 14-17 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

If a man holds a sign that says I need money and I say "I love you" then drive past I have done nothing. His sign tells you what he wants. The bible says treat others as you would like to be treated.

I promise if I am on the street corner begging for money, the only way to love me is to provide me with food, clothing, or shelter, or the means in which to provide these things for myself. And if all you have is $1 to spare I would prefer you give me what I ask for and not what you want to give me. If you give me $1 when I need it you have loved me.

Money is not the problem. Greed is the problem. You cannot serve money but you can work and give the money away that you don't need. There is no harm in charity.

I am Jesus friend, and you're right I don't actually serve him. I follow him. If anything he is still serving me and I through him serve you. It will always be my role to serve others, for this is the way I have chosen to show my love to the world.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


I don't think that's what Paul meant personally. If women are wiser than men, let them speak! Maybe they can bestow that wisdom on the men. Them staying silent does not help the men's case of being unwise.

If anything, women staying silent hurts matters because them staying silent means their wisdom will never be known, and who doesn't want wisdom? Maybe that's why Paul didn't want to women to speak?

How can women complicate matters on love if they can only explain love as to do it? That's not very complicated at all, and you are the one that said that. You're not really helping your case here because you seem to keep contradicting yourself.


It does sound that way, but I have studied women enough to know two things.

First they are always right when it comes to matters of the heart, even though I will fight to the death to defend my inadequacies.

Second as a man I have come to realize the only way to win a debate with a women is to not debate. Even when I win I feel as though I lost. So it becomes obvious that to debate with a women leaves man with no option but to lose.


Honestly, these thoughts about women and men have come from debates with women. Some of whom are no longer in my life because I couldn't begin to understand them and what they were asking for. It took 2 divorces for me to understand that women need to be served, exactly how Christ suggested. It is not until I accepted this that I finally began to understand what the women were asking for. I loved my exes but the words "I love you" became a means to indifference. It wasn't as though the marriages were horrible, the women just didn't feel love, and I didn't understand what they were saying.

If married couples can't figure it out in the privacy of the home, why would we think they would do any better at church. Since women already are prone to understand it just kind of works for the women and the male ego.
edit on 16-5-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Unfortunately the world serves money over everything else. If you have a job, you serve money by working for it. A few hours on Sunday and/or Wednesday does not compare to a 40 hour work week.

I would make the claim that most if not all Christians (and people in general) serve money and not god, because if they work they serge money, and as Jesus says you cannot serve both at once.

Paul even says that men must work for their food otherwise they should go hungry.


2 Thessalonians 3
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Paul did not serve god because he "worked night and day" in order to gain money to eat. You cannot serve god and money at the same time, and since Paul supposedly worked "night and day" in order to get money to eat, he was serving money and not god.

He even says that others should imitate him by working night and day for money. Red flag!
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


You say that men should serve women, but Paul disagrees.


Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


The body serves the head and Paul says that men are the head of the wife (body), meaning he says that women should be submissive to and serve the husband.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


but as the debate has gone on I see that he is no closer to the truth than any other run-of-the-mill Christian.

I strongly disagree in characterizing him as "run of the mill", his heart and mind seem to be functioning quite well. I haven't yet seen him spout stuff by rote.


I don't think a bit of debate hurts anyone. Do you?

No. It's you I'm worried about. Search your heart. Examine your motives.


It's ok, what I say is different. You can't even Google most of the things I say the bible and Christ were teaching. So it is with understanding that few, if any actually believe me.

How can a book have so many radical interpretations over the years? And then comes me, why would anyone trust what I say about the book. Who am I? Do I have any credentials?

To say that the bible claims that God is love and in complete control, and that Jesus is the spirit of love. Well now those are rather radical concepts. Concepts that I am 100% convinced not only are the concepts that Christ taught but also 100% the truth.

I have had an experience with Christ that cannot be denied nor refuted. I have watched him work in my children.

If I am wrong, so be it. I will continue to worship and serve love. -Peace-



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


You say that men should serve women, but Paul disagrees.


Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


The body serves the head and Paul says that men are the head of the wife (body), meaning he says that women should be submissive to and serve the husband.


A man makes dinner for his wife and then asks her to do the dishes.

When a man takes his wife out to a certain romantic restraint and he asks her to make love.

When a woman naively befriends a man out of her innocence and her husband realizes the man's intentions are not pure, he asks her to stop being his friend. Simply because his logic and reason is sound.

Each of these situations provides for the type of love that Christ and Paul are speaking of. The man who serves his wife should expect that she listen to him when he is asking for love, Even if she doesn't understand the logic or reason behind the request. Since she is more prone to love, she is more prone to be naive. This too is part of her beauty that should be protected and cherished. The man who is by nature more reason and logic driven should be the head of his family.

You see the major problem is you can't expect a biblical wife unless you are willing to be a biblical husband. We are equal but different, we are a compliment to one another, we complete each other.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join