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.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I was asked not to return to Sunday School when I started asking questions the preacher couldn't answer. That was when I was seven. [/quote
That's really sad....and not right, in the least.
It's just my opinion, but I think preachers should be people that lead a group in exploring their religion/Bible, Christianity, whatever and willing to learn and if they don't understand something, not banish people who question them on it....but work with them.
I doubt any human can ever explain every single thing in the Bible. If we're so flawed, as it says, there is no place for pride in our version of it.
So he should have just admitted that he didn't know answers. Maybe he would have learned something for himself.
Originally posted by UrsusMajor
OK, In my opinion, every single one of the examples below was a direct result of organized religion. I know Modern Christians don't like the crusades, but it was sure #1 on the hit parade with Christians when it was going on. I have spared you the obligatory Salem Witch Trials, because I know they are indefensible. In fact, all of these are indefensible, all created strife for mankind, all were caused by organized religion. Prove me wrong, or show me how any of these were a benefit.
Crusades
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy
French Wars Of Religion
wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants
Thirty Years War
Religious warfare between Roman Catholics and Calvinists
I have many, many more if you would care to open this can of worms further.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by sir_chancealot
"Vox Day has published a book called "The Irrational Atheist" that shows that "More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion." "
That certainly sounds like an unbiased and disinterested source with no agenda.
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by sir_chancealot
"Vox Day has published a book called "The Irrational Atheist" that shows that "More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion." "
That certainly sounds like an unbiased and disinterested source with no agenda.
Hey, if you can show me another book that shows all the wars throughout history, and their cause (i.e., stemming from religion or not), I'd be glad to take a look at it.
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I'm sorry but I would say that you had broken these other rules. Because the mere act of walking by me trapped in the pit is hurtful.
I don't see any distinction between these golden rules, but thank you for posting them :-)
You apparently are not familiar with what the words "do" and "to" mean. (And no, I'm not being facetious here).
Do: to bring to pass...perform, execute...
To: used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached
While the "mere act of walking by me trapped in the pit" certainly WOULD be "hurtful", it does NOT break those other rules. I have DONE nothing TO you.
In the other golden rules, I have to ACTIVELY do some form of harm to you to be breaking the rule. Merely leaving you to your own devices is not harm. You would be in no worse shape when I passed by, as you would have been before I passed by.
How have I "done" anything "to" you by ignoring you? I haven't, by the very definition of the words.
This is NOT a mere symantical difference. There is a very profound (though, again, very SUBTLE) difference in the two.
Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
Sorry I was away for longer than expected. I've wondered for a long time what life would have been like, if truly applicable, before the knowledge of good and evil. Does it mean that there was no major wrongdoing, therefore good (or good enough) reigned supreme, but that they didn't have anything to compare it to, so it didn't have any name or designation? Or could it possibly have meant that, say, whenever someone murdered, battered or raped someone else, they wouldn't have had any negative (or significantly negative) reaction to it, therefore would have been soulless automatons, Borg freaks?
Originally posted by Simplynoone
....
.everything has a price ...
Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
Originally posted by Simplynoone
....
.everything has a price ...
Really?? what is the price of love? I mean the unconditional-infinite kind of love?
Interestingly, the bible never claims that God is/has infinite love, or states her omnipotence, omnipresence, or omniscience. It's hard to be angry if you have infinite love and understanding.. hehe. Ink
Originally posted by Simplynoone
Badmedia [Notice it says you will know, not that someone will tell you and so forth. Can't be told, must be experienced]
I would only ask you one question .....if this were true then why would the apostles (not just them but everyone who they told about Jesus and believed) be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all men everywhere ?
How can they know about Jesus and what he did and why he did it unless they first HEAR OF IT ?
Numbers 12
6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Originally posted by Nohup
Well, back in the old days, you actually used to be able to buy an Indulgence from the Church, which would basically cover you for any particular sin you might have committed. It was all proper and above board, and a lot more honest in some respects than the implied forgiveness that you get these days.