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 pieman
1 John 1:7 "the blood" here means "the death", not the actual blood. as in, "the freedom was won by the blood of free men" but regardless, these are johns thoughts, not the gospel, which was my point. interpritation of the facts destroys the message.
A jealous God:
jealous, as in not happy about you talking to other gods when you go to the bar to buy a drink. what is it now, if you can't evidence for it in the gospel you'll change the meaning of the word?
A deceitful God:
John 16:25 :a proverb is not a lie, it is clear that a proverb is a story to illustrate a point. a lie is a story that hides the facts. there is no deceit implied in a proverb.
Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value. God is in control of everything. Consider what was allowed concerning Job.
Matt 6:13 :i assume the "lead" element is a reference to the good shepherd concept, and this entreaty is preceded by "give us our daily bread" and followed directly by "and deliver us from evil", clearly the requests are not intended to be taken literally but more in the sense that god lends a man the strength to do these things himself. do you believe they were meant as literal requests?
John 6:5 : that's johns opinion of what jesus' motivation was for asking a question. none of the other gospels mention this and two say the deciples asked the question. johns interpretation of the events is hardly proof of a deceitful god. his opinion is worth as much as mine or yours.
A testing God:
Luke 8:13 this does not say that god will tempt you, it just says you will be tempted. jesus himself was tempted, a mention of temptation or testing does not imply god will be the one testing you.
here again, in every case, you seem to require quotes be taken out of context or the meanings of words need to be changed or certain interpretations of the facts need to be included to make the teachings fit your beliefs. This attitude is the main issue with both religion and science, if a view is formed to the point of dogmatic belief and the facts are then sought to prop up that belief then the truth of either is hidden.
religion and science are compatible, to echo rich23's sentiment, if only religious people and scientists were.
to be honest here jim, i'm not at all sure it's that simple. there are questions to be answered.
Originally posted by Jim Scott
He gave up His life for us, so we could have eternal life. Do you agree?
I looked up the meaning of the exact words used, referenced them for you from the exact language, and you criticize me for that?
though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'
Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value.
paul's opinion was valued as equal to the apostles though he had never met or trained with jesus, although perhaps your belief that you are not the equal is whats giving you issues.
My opinion is not worth as much as the Apostle John. I was not an eyewitness and trained by Jesus Christ.
Gospels frequently do not mention, repeat, another. You have different points of view of the same reportable situations.
no, my point is that we know that being tested does not require that god does the testing. we are clearly told that the devil tests jesus in the desert.
However, your point is that Jesus himself never said it.
You have not demonstrated any error on my part, only personal attacks.
I agree that Christianity (not all religion) is 100% compatible with science. *snip* God made everything aged.
Originally posted by pieman
to be honest here jim, i'm not at all sure it's that simple. there are questions to be answered.
Originally posted by Jim Scott
He gave up His life for us, so we could have eternal life. Do you agree?
I looked up the meaning of the exact words used, referenced them for you from the exact language, and you criticize me for that?
not so long as you reference the meaning every time you use the word, because the word zealous and the word jealous have different meanings to the modern reader or listener. i've no problem if you call god devoted or zealous. to call it jealous is misleading, deliberately so for you to do it seeing as you know the word jealous doesn't mean jealous, apparently.
though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'
the important word here is "may". deceit requires that you deliberately hide the truth.
Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value.
oh i never said interpretation wasn't needed, clearly it is, we need to interpret parables for instance. what i am saying is you need a lot of interpretation to shoehorn the passages into your beliefs. as in, you couldn't come to that conclusion unless you already had it in mind before you started reading.
this is a good example, you wouldn't assume that the prayer is meant to be taken literally unless you really wanted to believe it is meant to be taken literally.
paul's opinion was valued as equal to the apostles though he had never met or trained with jesus, although perhaps your belief that you are not the equal is whats giving you issues.
My opinion is not worth as much as the Apostle John. I was not an eyewitness and trained by Jesus Christ.
i don't mean to attack you personally, outside of your beliefs, and i wouldn't have a problem with them except that you're trying to spread them.
I agree that Christianity (not all religion) is 100% compatible with science. *snip* God made everything aged.
doesn't that mean science is "compatible" with religion on your terms? for you to be correct, then science would need to conclude contrary to evidence with reference to god, this is not science as science stands.