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 Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Dear WarminIndy,

Perhaps you can explain a mystery to me. I've seen it occur over and over, and I only have a rough guess as to why.

Why is it, that when a criticism is leveled against the direction of a thread, the people who are behaving themselves perfectly properly are the ones who apologize? Somewhat surprisingly, the ones who are causing the trouble never seem to.

My rough guess is that the problem posters don't care for reason, respectful behavior, or discussion that actually gets anywhere, while the good posters are acutely sensitive to it. The good posters find fault where none exists, and the bad posters ignore their faults, even when it's shoved in their face.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Dear WarminIndy,

Perhaps you can explain a mystery to me. I've seen it occur over and over, and I only have a rough guess as to why.

Why is it, that when a criticism is leveled against the direction of a thread, the people who are behaving themselves perfectly properly are the ones who apologize? Somewhat surprisingly, the ones who are causing the trouble never seem to.

My rough guess is that the problem posters don't care for reason, respectful behavior, or discussion that actually gets anywhere, while the good posters are acutely sensitive to it. The good posters find fault where none exists, and the bad posters ignore their faults, even when it's shoved in their face.

With respect,
Charles1952


Charles1952

I can only guess this, that perhaps we know better, we have more to watch for?

If you don't know better, then it doesn't matter, I guess. Knowledge is power, and God would not have us ignorant, even when it comes to how we post comments on ATS.

People have to be civil before you can have a civil discussion, unfortunately, not everyone is civil. That's a sad fact of life.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




"You shall not kill" is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew it is "you shall not murder". There is a huge difference between killing and murdering, that difference is the intent.


This is a curious and open ended statement. What, exactly IS the difference between killing and murder? What is the difference in the intent?

How is the intent different. for example, from a man who catches his wife in bed with another man, and he kills them both, compared to a crowd of individuals picking up stones with the intent of killing two adulterers? Each individual still has the intent to kill.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by SyphonNexus
 

Dear SyphonNexus,


Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?
You have one response, may I offer another?

The problem is in the use of the word "need." God doesn't, of course, He doesn't need anything.

Here are some examples. A child has a bowl of cereal in front of him, but reaches over, tears a piece off the box, and starts eating it. The parent says "Hey! Don't do that, it's not good for you. Eat the cereal." No one thinks the Mother needs to have the child eat cereal, she wants him to avoid eating the wrong things and eat the good instead. It's for the child's benefit, not hers.

Several years later, about 10 p.m., the child says to the Mother "I've got a paper due in the morning. It'll take me about two hours. I think I'll go over to Bill's and party tonight." I would expect the Mother to say, "No, you don't. You're going to sit here and finish that paper." It's not said because the Mother needs to control the kid's movements, or make him a slave. She has a better perspective of what the results will be if he goes to the party. She wants goodness for the child.

So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.

With respect,
Charles1952



Good point on the need part. I think your answer is colored with human euphemism and is too simple for an explanation of god. This is my opinion of the bible.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.


God loves us so much, he made hell in case we didnt love him back.

Or how about...

"Its Jesus! Let me in!"

"Why?"

"So I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in!"



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Euphemism. *whispers* You're supposed to let them connect the dots. It's "rude" otherwise.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by charles1952
 



So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.


God loves us so much, he made hell in case we didnt love him back.

Or how about...

"Its Jesus! Let me in!"

"Why?"

"So I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in!"



LOL LOL LOL...this is textbook of todays religion..on both sides of this post. Man substituting his beliefs for Beliefs.

The doctrine I have been taught by Elders in the church is that God has a people He came to save. He did not come to save those who are not His people. He died for His Sheep..not for goats.

His people, He puts His heart and understanding in them. Those who are not His people, He does not put His Heart Way or Understanding in them. This is obvious by many of the posts on here which substitute man made thinking and man made blame/guilt conditioning for what is taught in His Word.

Man made blame and guilt..just as does the body politic today.. with its guilt conditioning and guilt programming/manipulation to support the illumination of todays modern man.

He died for His Sheep..not for goats.

When you read many of the posts on here ...there is an assumption made. And that is that as people we deserve good things..we do not deserve bad things..but always good things.
This is the starting point of many of the posts on this and other religious threads.

This is not Bible doctrine. It comes from somewhere else.

Sarcasm does not show intelligence or Understanding to those who know the difference.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Was there a point to your post? I'm afraid I may have missed it.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Was there a point to your post? I'm afraid I may have missed it.


No problem. Bon Appetit.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


So...there wasn't a point? Okay then...



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
AfterInfinity
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



AfterInfinitySo...there wasn't a point? Okay then...


I promised myself I would not dip into this sort of frey but Ive told (asked) you before, are you seeking clarification of OrangeToms statement? You do this and its insulting (a more refined simpler model expected?) I completely understood what he was expressing. I completely understood the irony in yours as well. I wouldnt imagine Jesus having to rattle the gates of heaven OR HELL to be let inside (could be either; but Judas should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him, a 2 in one package deal). Apologies in advance.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
SyphonNexus
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



syponnexus Euphemism. *whispers* You're supposed to let them connect the dots. It's "rude" otherwise.


Let 'them' connect the dots? These kind of criptic statements are what AI rails against. If you have some idea that 'them' does not have the intellect to 'connect some dots' you must be playing tic-tak-toe with yourself instead and are confused. Rude is as defined by this comment of yours in its implication.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



charles1952
I'd like to add some information to the subject of the Seal of the Confessional. It is governed by Church law, also known as Canon law. It has been around from very early times. Here's what the law said in 1215 A.D.:

Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:


"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"

— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"

en.wikipedia.org...

That was not the first or the last condemnation of breaking the seal, but it is certainly dramatic. Here is the current law:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

www.vatican.va...


That latae sententiae business means no trial or hearing is needed. As soon as the act is done, he is excommunicated, out of the Church, and the only way to get back in is by going through the Pope or his representative. (And there's only a couple of those, all in the Vatican.) This is serious stuff, and always has been.


I appreciate your sharing this; because laws are meant to broken (then even more detailed are put in place to amend those) and at least the RCC has method (structural) to deal with violations it knew would be incurred. The crime occured is punishible by worse consequences. I see something both right and wrong with this thinking. Men of cloth being held to stringent protocol, purity are bound to question themselves; its almost as if they are baited to deny a sort of oppression on purpose; not that this is anything diabolical but is it a test of sorts. I have several books of Malachi Martin's and perhaps should take another look into his mind (just pulled Windswept House).
edit on 24-11-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

vethumanbeing


I promised myself I would not dip into this sort of frey but Ive told (asked) you before, are you seeking clarification of OrangeToms statement? You do this and its insulting (a more refined simpler model expected?) I completely understood what he was expressing. I completely understood the irony in yours as well. I wouldnt imagine Jesus having to rattle the gates of heaven OR HELL to be let inside (could be either; but Judas should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him, a 2 in one package deal). Apologies in advance.



Vethumanbeing,

Ahh...my thanks to you for making my point for me. I hesitated to respond or conversely take a bite into AfterInfinity 's post and decided to let it ride in the manner I so did.

At the same time I was also interested to see who here on this board can or could see, hear, and understand as the saying goes.

And I thank you for that. For...that is indeed the difference and the point I was making.

I too prefer not to dip into this kind of fray ...if it is indeed a fray. I dont happen to so think it is.

On the otherhand I dont find it insulting per se. I find it to be human. And yet ..I am not here to tout my human qualities.

Nonetheless..my thanks for helping to make my point.

Orangetom



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
orangetom1999
vethumanbeing


VHB
I promised myself I would not dip into this sort of fray but Ive told (asked) you before, are you seeking clarification of OrangeToms statement? You do this and its insulting (a more refined simpler model expected?) I completely understood what he was expressing. I completely understood the irony in yours as well. I wouldnt imagine Jesus having to rattle the gates of heaven OR HELL to be let inside (could be either; but Judas should be standing shoulder to shoulder with him, a 2 in one package deal). Apologies in advance.



OrangeTom
Ahh...my thanks to you for making my point for me. I hesitated to respond or conversely take a bite into AfterInfinity 's post and decided to let it ride in the manner I so did.
At the same time I was also interested to see who here on this board can or could see, hear, and understand as the saying goes. And I thank you for that. For...that is indeed the difference and the point I was making. I too prefer not to dip into this kind of fray ...if it is indeed a fray. I dont happen to so think it is. On the otherhand I dont find it insulting per se. I find it to be human. And yet ..I am not here to tout my human qualities.


It is not insulting to me so much (as you say) Im embarrassed for them as to the neglect of the OPs content of Its statement; I suppose in the greatest sense its a jackboot kick or a thumb nosing to the entire point of ATS and its thread generators reason d'etre. I do not see where the anger is coming from but its definately observed and felt. Persons that post to some forums have a chip on their shoulders and I never want/wish to harm/suppress their integrity or spirit as all is allowed but "My God Jim Im a doctor, not a prophet!" I have a sense they hang about because they want answers and are not happy with the results/responses (so they continue to needle with pin pricks and are failing to hit a main bleed out artery).
edit on 24-11-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Hence the quotation marks. I'm not familiar with this forum and it idiosyncrasies. It was just a play on words. Normally in a debate you reply with logic to insult not a confirmation of the insult.

Was I insulted? did he insult me? Yes see right there *points emphatically* the inflection is clear.

Tell me why I'm wrong. Then the conversation grows as we intellectually spar.

Do I sound like a pretentious moron? Why yes I do!?



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


First, you didn't ask or tell me squat. Second, my confusion was pretty damn clear.

Third, I'd prefer an answer from the guy who actually posted, given that he knows more about what he meant.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



the people who are behaving themselves perfectly properly are the ones who apologize? Somewhat surprisingly, the ones who are causing the trouble never seem to.


I know you asked Indy, but I'll take a stab at this one.

The ones who are behaving themselves are trying to have a dialogue. One doesn't succeed in having a dialogue if the other party leaves the room. So, we apologize, to try to keep them in the room.

The ones who are "causing the trouble" don't WANT a dialogue. They want everyone who disagrees with them to shut up. So, they don't apologize when it occurs.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


In most cases one can't have a dialogue with those people anyways

Impossible when their minds already left the room... and the planet usually




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
SyphonNexus
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



SyphonNexus
Hence the quotation marks. I'm not familiar with this forum and it idiosyncrasies. It was just a play on words. Normally in a debate you reply with logic to insult not a confirmation of the insult.


The quotation notation around the word "rude"? or the astericks around the word *whisper*? I missed the logic in your response to AfterInfinity; what I percieved was this: YOUR GIVING IT ALL AWAY (revealing the SECRET of your brilliant point) to these boneheads. Not at all a play on words. Normally in a debate you reason with logic and I havent seen Plato show up raising his hand in defending you.


SyphonNexus
Was I insulted? did he insult me? Yes see right there *points emphatically* the inflection is clear.Tell me why I'm wrong. Then the conversation grows as we intellectually spar.
Do I sound like a pretentious moron? Why yes I do!?


Astericks then become more than points of 'pay attention to this as it may be of an important CONTENT'. No one is ever wrong regarding a viewpoint expressed; its actually brave and guess what? someone else reads it and considers your point of view to the point of commenting. You are who you are and certainly not a *PM*--sorry cant type those words as so not true application to you. I can give you an example of the word Pretentious: anyone ever tried to read "THE SHAPE OF TIME" by George Kubler? I keep it as a memorial to the idea of incomprehesible EGO at work. Worst book ever published in its egocentric ineptitude.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join