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.

 

Pew Statistics: How USA Believers see their "Holy Books"

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Do I believe that John thought Jesus was a literal lamb? Of course not. Do I believe that Jesus took away the sin of the world? Of course I do. In just that one verse, we can see that the Bible can be read both literally and figuratively simultaneously.
I don't think any adult reader of the bible would make the mistake of thinking Jesus was literally a lamb. Please. The issue lies in the less than obvious bits that can just as well be read as a metaphors. ________________________________________For example, you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead simply because it says so in the Bible. and because of faith. However, it could also be argued that Jesus only metaphorically 'rose' from the dead, in the sense, he lived on through his teachings, and so all those references to his resurrection are not to be taken literally. Why is this interpretation less correct than yours? Why can't a ''christian'' deny the resurrection as a literal event. My point is, there is really no objective methodology in reading the bible. _________________________________________ Anything can become 'metaphorical' or 'literal' depeneding on what you want it to be and this is exactly what christians are doing. Sometimes they apply faith to believe an impossibility. According to some christians, God could raise Jesus from the dead because he is omnipotent. But God was not omnipotent enough to create man from the earth or cause a great flood.
edit on 28-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Actually, you are quite wrong.

Actually, I am quite right.

As Christians, we have the right to define what that term means, and it means an attestation to the creeds. The Nicene Creed affirms the Trinity, so anyone who rejects the Trinity rejects the Creed and rejects Christianity. Like the Gnostic Christians of the Second and Third Centuries, they are preaching a different religion, and therefore should not be labelled with the name of the religion that they do not profess.

The litmus test is whether the orthodox (small "o") churches will accept another faith's baptism. I was baptized as a Methodist, and because the Catholic Church recognizes that as a valid Christian church, I did not need to be baptized when I converted to Catholicism. However, someone who was baptized in the Mormon Church would have to be baptized if they converted, because they have not received a Christian baptism.


You know, there are some sunnis in this world who would call me kafir because I am shia, they think they get to define who is a kafir and who isn't...

Your a just another sunni who just said they get to decide for GOD who is and is not a believer. Its no wonder you people are on the other side of the world supporting the damn wahabbis. You think just alike.

You just showed me something.... something very important, for that, I thank you...



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


.....

Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

.....

No.

Both of those claims are attested to in the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith that defines who is a Christian. If someone rejects the claims made in the creed, they are rejecting Christianity. They can say that they are a "follower of Christ", but they can no longer say that they are a Christian (which they should be fine with, since they disagree with the tenets of Christianity.)

That is also why Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians who believe in Christ are not Christians.


I believe Jesus literally died, grave yard dead. Boom. Ticker stopped thumping, and that was all she wrote.

I believe Jesus arose from the dead. The whole exercise would have been pointless otherwise.

I DO NOT believe Jesus WAS God. I do not believe that a god can be killed, much less by mere mortals. Furthermore, if a god WERE to die, he could not raise himself. "The dead know nothing" - and accomplish even less. they're DEAD. That's a terribly difficult state to do anything in at all, much less undead yourself. When you're dead, you can't even raise your own socks, much less your entire body.

I am not a christian. I don't want to belong to their silly little club, nor do I need the password to enter their clubhouse, which is apparently "Nicene Creed". I take my religion from the Bible, not from some dusty piece of paper written some 300 years after the events, by heretics and politicians masquerading as "christians". I do not recognize the authority of the Council of Nicea to create a new religion and blame it on the Christ. God did not give them that authority, Constantine did, and Constantine was most certainly NOT God.

Here are some points to ponder - is excluding your neighbor from your little club "loving your neighbor as yourself"? Do you seriously believe that Nicene Christianity is the only form of Christianity there is, excluding the rest? Are they hell-bound because they do not tread the Way that your fathers paved, preferring to tread the Way that Jesus paved?

What, then, truly IS a Christian in your minds? A follower of the Nicean Council, rather than a follower of Christ? Strange world it is when a "christian" is someone who rejects Christ's teachings in favor of the teachings of Some Guys and an Emperor.

A final thought - there is a name, even in the Catholic Church, for those who reject the Old Testament, and believe that the Christ was NOT the son of the God of the Jews from the OT which they reject - that word is "heretic"... specifically "Marcionites".

Thanks for the link.

Enjoy your club.

Have a nice day.


edit on 2013/12/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
@adjensen...''Are you claiming that God is not omnipotent and is incapable of making a virgin pregnant or bringing someone back from the dead?
/'' _________________________________________ In case, you were unaware, islam teaches that God is omnipotent. Muslims believe Jesus was literally born of a virgin and that God will literally resurrect everybody who has died. I also don't recall ever questioning the virgin birth. As for the Islamic account of Jesus, one interpretation is that God took his soul from the cross and returned it to Jesus while his body lay in the tomb, and then raised him up. This not only nullifies the crucifixion, but it is also identical to the account in the gospel as well. Hence the Koran says ''they boast that they crucified Jesus, but it only appeared to them that way''.
edit on 21-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


I fail to see how that "nullifies the crucifixion".

When we die, our soul is separated from our bodies. That is WHY we die - the body "gives up the ghost". What do you think happens? Your soul just stays there and beats it's little soul fists against the insides of your temples screaming "Lemme out! Lemme out!"?

And of course to animate a body, whether after death or in birth, soul has to be added, or "returned" in the case of a ressurrection.

So where is the discrepancy that nullifies the crucifixion?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
@nenothtu... if your government executes a criminal, and then a few hours later, the criminal comes back to life and walks away, can you honestly say ''we killed this criminal?''. The same thing applies to Jesus. A ''crucifixion'' is an execution procedure that ends in death. The Jews may have had him 'crucified', but since he came back to life and went away (to return again), they did not exactly succeed in killing him, but boast that they did. So the ''crucifixion'' was nullified.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
nenothtu...

soul has to be added, or "returned" in the case of a ressurrection.
...and that is exactly what I said. God returned Jesus' soul and made him come back to life. Seeing that he is alive, why Jews are in error when they say they ''killed'' Jesus.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


WHAT
is your point? (Aside from totally derailing this thread?)

As the hostess (with the mostess), I am going to ask you one more time to PLEASE, KINDLY, provide the barest of skeletal remains of a story as to what "Christianity" you started out with, and WHY you converted.

You make no sense, as far as I can tell.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



I don't think any adult reader of the bible would make the mistake of thinking Jesus was literally a lamb.

Then why (oh, why?), would they believe in a man made from dirt, a woman from his rib, a talking snake, hell as a fiery brimstone perpetual place of torture (as described according to Dante, Milton, and multiple MORE ANCIENT mythologies), and so on and so forth?? It's just as absurd.

What exactly DO you believe, sk0rp? Just that you need to kill Christianity and prove Islam correct?

That's what it seems to me. (In case you care, which I know you don't.)




edit on 12/29/13 by wildtimes because: firey? no: fiery. Engrish hard



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



(Aside from totally derailing this thread?

Derailing? I'm just going with the flow of this thread.
As far as I recall, this thread was about how people view their books.
Then came the subject of how one interprets Biblical subjects as "literal" or "metaphorical", and the resurrection was one of them.



provide the barest of skeletal remains of a story as to what "Christianity" you started out with, and WHY you converted.

I had accepted the Bible cover to cover, though I felt that there were some inconsistencies here and there, especially towards the end in Pauls books, where the line between man and God starts to blur. When I read the Koran,and figured it is not only consistent with the basic premise of the Bible, but also corrects the mistakes of the Bible. So what of it?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



I had accepted the Bible cover to cover, though I felt that there were some inconsistencies here and there, especially towards the end in Pauls books, where the line between man and God starts to blur. When I read the Koran,and figured it is not only consistent with the basic premise of the Bible, but also corrects the mistakes of the Bible. So what of it?

Nothing "of it", except that it helps me decipher your point(s) of view.

Thanks.

ETA:
One more thing: which version and according to which denomination were you 'accepting the Bible cover to cover'?

Cuz, obviously, lots of people don't "accept the Bible cover to cover" - but you seem to have a hard time reconciling that.

Just sayin'/askin'.


edit on 12/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



lots of people don't "accept the Bible cover to cover" - but you seem to have a hard time reconciling that.


Lots of people also have rejected the Bible cover to cover, and call themselves atheists. Whats your point?

I am not interested in scrutinizing statistics, but rather the "religion and theology" of the Book, preferably with people who want to do the same.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



but rather the "religion and theology" of the Book, preferably with people who want to do the same.

Again:
Which version of 'the Book', and from which denominational perspective?

THIS thread is about how religious believers comprehend/interpret their holy books. I'm interested in what you have to say about the statistics represented in the OP. Your recent post history has more to do with whether or not people who take the Bible "literally" are more correct than those who do not.

THIS thread has provided you evidence that a large portion of self-identified "Christians" do not, in fact, take the Bible literally.

You, however, seem (most decidedly) to do so [take it literally]. Therefore, it's a nonsequitor for the thread if you won't share with us which version and from which denomination you 'hail'.

Please answer the questions, Sk0rp.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



THIS thread has provided you evidence that a large portion of self-identified "Christians" do not, in fact, take the Bible literally.


Exactly what parts are they not taking "literally"?
Does your "evidence" explain that? Then its not very helpful in this case.

And what of self-identified "Christians" not taking the Bible literally? It has no bearings on the accounts in the book or the actual messages of the prophets and Jesus.



Therefore, it's a nonsequitor for the thread if you won't share with us which version and from which denomination you 'hail'.

Its a non-sequitor to even bother with the backgrounds of people posting here. I could be an agnostic and still ask the same questions.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
Exactly what parts are they not taking "literally"?


Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.


So do you believe the sun "literally" sets in a muddy pool?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


What you are seeking no man can tell you, only God.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Your a just another sunni who just said they get to decide for GOD who is and is not a believer. Its no wonder you people are on the other side of the world supporting the damn wahabbis. You think just alike.

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point. This is not a matter of dogmatic differences that are of no consequence, this is a matter of someone practicing a completely different religion.

If a person claimed to be a Muslim, but rejected the whole "There is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet" bit and said "no, there are sixteen gods, and Mohammed was not a prophet", would you say that they are a Muslim? If not, you're on track to understanding why Mormons are not Christians. If you think that they are a Muslim, in spite of disagreeing with a foundational creed, then what is the point of saying that anyone is a Muslim? You might as well say that Christians, atheists and Hindus are all Muslims.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Here are some points to ponder - is excluding your neighbor from your little club "loving your neighbor as yourself"? Do you seriously believe that Nicene Christianity is the only form of Christianity there is, excluding the rest? Are they hell-bound because they do not tread the Way that your fathers paved, preferring to tread the Way that Jesus paved?

How am I excluding anyone by stating that a person who does not agree with a fundamental Christian creed is not a Christian? Show me where I've said that there is anything wrong with not being a Christian, or where I've said that non-Christians are "hell-bound."

All I've said is that the label "Christian" should not be applied to someone who practices a different religion, something that we apparently agree on, so I don't know what's with the criticism.



edit on 29-12-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Whatever pretty words that help you sleep at night.

I see you for what you are now, and nothing will change that.
edit on 29-12-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



I see you for what you are now, and nothing will change that.

I don't know what you think you "see me for", but why did you dodge the question?

Is a person who says that they are a Muslim, but claims that there are sixteen gods and that Mohammed was not a prophet, a Muslim? That's a simple yes or a no answer.


edit on 29-12-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


People call themselves Muslim every day... and you use this an excuse to kill innocent people... I don't stop them.... I do not say they have no right. I say it is between them and God.

What I do say, is that they will be judged for the blood on their hands...

What is your point?
edit on 29-12-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join