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 tinfoilman
Originally posted by pplrnuts
Just for saying a few choice words despite their actions in life is ALL THAT THEY NEED to do to get ETERNAL PARADISE!!! What a joke.
Well what would you have people do to get eternal paradise? Jumping jacks? It's more than just a few words. You have to try your best to live to according to the rules. For example, you can't just say you forgive someone. You actually have to forgive them. Which means becoming a different person on the inside. Such that you could actually forgive someone.
The whole thing is about changing your heart. Not just saying a few simple words. You have to believe them too.edit on 21-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by pplrnuts
Do you think you're a good person then? You've never fought, argued with anyone, lied, judged, hated, gotten angry? Ever? That's pretty cool yo.edit on 21-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by pplrnuts
Well the Bible says not to do that stuff. So what's up with that? Why didn't you listen if you were such a good Christian? That's the problem. Most people have a problem with Christians. Not what Jesus taught. But that's cause Christians don't like to practice what it says. But that's not the Bible's fault. If people just did what the Bible taught I don't think there'd be as much of a problem.
But anyway, if there was a paradise. How would you plan on getting into it? You've already violated your own rules. You said a good person shouldn't hate, get angry, lie, and all that. That's your own rules. That you made up. And couldn't even do that? No wonder people have so many problems with other people's rules. They can't even follow their own.
Tell me without forgiveness, if heaven existed, how would you get it? You've already broken the rules.
Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by pplrnuts
reply to post by pplrnuts
Hmm, you're just out to attack people. You're not out to actually debate and have a friendly conversation. That's unfortunate. I was having fun talking to you until I struck a nerve and you got angry I guess.
All I'm saying is that if the Bible didn't talk about forgiveness couldn't you easily turn right around and say what kind of unjust God would punish me eternally for ONE mistake? I only killed ONCE, I only stole ONCE, I only did this ONCE. What right does God have to send me to Hell for that? I've heard atheists make this argument.
So God turns around and say, okay. Well I guess that isn't fair. How about I forgive you. We'll make a whole new book to the Bible. Everyone makes mistakes. Let's move on and just become better people.
So, what do you do? What do the atheists do? They come in and that's BS! So, I can just get into paradise by saying a few words! That's BS!
In other words. No matter what the Bible said, either way, you wouldn't agree with it. Not because of what it says, but because of who's saying it.
Then you get judge me, insult, and make fun, which should be against your own made up rule set that you can't even follow and then produce an Ad-homenium instead of just being friendly. I'm sorry, but how is that being a good person? Can't we just chat friendly?edit on 21-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)edit on 21-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)edit on 21-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by iheartprplkoolaid
"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Matthew 6:14-15 "
So by this reasoning all we have to do is forgive people who piss us off and we are in the clear. Sounds like the only reasons for church are to give priests something to play around with at sunday school and a paycheck for the organ player.
Originally posted by ag893
Let's get something straight since I can see your clearly unintelligent and bias. There's a difference between Christians and Catholics. Get them straight before you go frothing off at the mouth about things you have no clue off.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by iheartprplkoolaid
One thing that happens when interpreting scripture is one must take into account who the letter, book, or quote was spoken to. Was it a letter to the gentiles? To the Jews? Was this statement made to the disciples? Mary? Or the unbelievers?? These are vitally important in a hermeneutic perspective.
So with that in mind, when you look at the audience of Matthew 6 Jesus is speaking to the believers. Not the rest of the world, it's not a universal statement. Christ is instructing His followers how to relate to God and to each other. If you want this verse to apply to you, the first step is to submit to the Lord, ask for His forgiveness for your sins.
going back to my origionaly post this still doesnt explain how religion is worth while at all. so if jesus isinstructing just his followers, then all you need to add is "you have to be a follower of jesus and forgive people and you will go to heaven." granted this is the whole point of religion. brainwashing people into believing things that are total garbage just because a bunch of crazy people who wrote stuff down in a book say so.
Up to your usual high standards of non-interfering principles.
Not to be nitpicking, but the difference between 'THE narrow path' and 'A narrow part' has had people killing each other for thousands of years. This is the essense of the monopoly-aspiration in especially certain parts of the christianities and abrahamic religion; whether it's organized or based on various scriptural collective or individual interpretations.
if "the world without a doubt is shown that life after death is a reality". It's not that I take an atheist stance in any of its forms, requiring a burden of proof, but there are quite a few competing religious claims on such matters, which equally rest on similar 'faith'-arguments. Arguments which eventually are doctrinal and circular.
It's a very big canvass you're talking about, and any "without a doubt"s at all are maybe not relevant or justifiable.
I hope you understand, that my opposition here only is academic
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
Thanks for your answer:
You wrote:
["I have no need of a Faith arguement as you say, this has nothing to do with faith... Reincarnation is a reality, and so is the spirit... Once you've actually experienced it for yourself, faith is not even an issue. IF you experience God on any level, you no longer have faith....you know beyond a doubt that "God" is real."]
If there's anything I avoid as the plague, it's getting into ANY variety of 'I'm holier than you'. I can and will only say, that I'm far from a novice in the experiental department.
In any case and on general lines, even on/at the experiental levels there are the same type of oppositional positions, as there are on the interpretation level.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
Thanks for your gracious words, and by the way: Earlier we had a short exchange on non-interfering principles. My comment to you was meant as a compliment. Just in case.
You wrote:
["True experience is always open to inturpretation but again, If you have experienced God in any sence of the word you would have no doubt as well. Its not even about experiments honestly... though i do say try everything to find out for yourself. Im sorry its hard to explain... Again you need to experience what God is to understand where im comming from."]
As I said, I'm 'practically' familiar with, what you're talking about, and I understand, what you imply. If it's in accordance with thread topic, I can enlarge on the subject from a comparative basis (as when you talk about comparative religion studies), because that's the only way to approach the 'absolute'-aspect of any claims on it.