TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranceaholic well..it says somewhere in the bible that u should give 10% of ur income for those less fortunate and since this movie is his job then he should give 10% of his income to charity..if not then he is a hypocrate..though i am sure he will |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 ***writes down book on list of books to read in future*** |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Matthew Chapter 57 23:45 The formulae for giveth is as follows: A = .1(x)(y)^2 Whereby amount A is determined by 10% times salary X multiplied by the desired lodging in heaven quotient Y. If ye giveth less than A you are forever damned. Proper, timely payment however will ensure that the gates of heaven are open to you. This is the word of the lord. And there are no contradictions. |
Hey, let's hear a perspective from a lefty for a change:
| quote: |
| 'The Passion' of the Americans By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 27 February 2004 The television airwaves have been filled for the last several days with a lot of back-and-forth about Mel Gibson's new film, 'The Passion of The Christ.' A great deal of debate centers around whether Gibson has fashioned a broadside against Jewish people in the manner of the Medieval anti-Semitic passion plays of old. There are plenty of rabbis arguing with Christian ministers on just about any channel you might choose to watch, so I'm going to leave that question to them for the time being. My question is much simpler: Why would Mel Gibson make a movie about people in the ancient Middle East and cast it with so many white people? To look at the central actors in this film, you'd think Jesus did his work near Manchester, New Hampshire instead of the Holy Land. The answer to that question lies within the United States, the prime market for this film. There are millions of Christians in America, some 25% of whom would characterize themselves as evangelical. It stands to reason that this film would do very well here, especially given the controversy that has surrounded the content. The whiteness of the cast, however, speaks to a decidedly un-Christian truth that lies near the heart of this republic. Simply put, nailing a white Jesus Christ to the cross on film will generate a far more emotional response from the American viewing public than the crucifixion of a savior who actually looks like he is from the Middle East. First, let's dispense with the idea that the white people who were cast to play the most emotive characters - Jesus, Judas, and Mary Magdalene - have anything to do with historical accuracy. In truth, the region where Jesus was born was, and remains, populated by brown-skinned people. The fact of Christ's non-whiteness is borne out in the historical record, and in biblical scripture. Right off the bat, the Book of Matthew describes Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Egypt is in Africa, and is populated by brown-skinned people. For my money, this would be the last place on earth I would go to hide a white baby from an angry King. The earliest renditions of Jesus, painted by the first Christians called Essenes in the catacombs of Rome, depict a person with brown skin. During the time of Roman Emperor Justinian II, a gold coin featuring an image of Jesus was minted. This coin, which today can be seen in the British Museum, depicts a man with demonstrably non-white features and tightly curled hair. Finally, there is the Book of Revelations, which bears out the crafting of the Essenes and the Roman coin-makers by describing Jesus as having hair like wool, feet the color of burnt brass, and who resembled jasper and sardine stones. Jasper and sardine stones are both brown, as is burnt brass. The Jesus most familiar to Americans, the Jesus featured in Gibson's film, looks like the front man for an alternative rock band out of Minnesota. Judas in this film is a shorter version of the same phenomenon. White skin, long straight brown hair, decidedly European features - this is not the Jesus that preached revolution against the Empire long ago. This is the Jesus fashioned by Michelangelo five centuries ago, who used his white cousin as the model for the savior. The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason. George W. Bush calls himself Christian. If you believe him, he is on armchair-to-armchair relations with the Almighty, enjoying regular conversations with He Is What He Is on everything from tax policy to invasion plans. Bush serves a unique dual role as both the Commander in Chief and as high priest to the evangelical wing of American Christianity. When Bush did his little flight-suit strut across the aircraft carrier last May, he proclaimed victory in biblical verse and sent a signal to those Christians who see him as more than a man. Bush, that day, quoted Isaiah's passage from the Servant Songs about captives coming out and slaves being free. This is the same passage, as described in Luke chapter 4, which Jesus used to announce his coming as the Son of God. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," said Jesus. Bush's use of this incredibly loaded passage speaks as much to his messianic fantasies as it does to his status as Christian-in-Chief. Yet this is the same man who invades countries without cause and consigns tens of thousands of innocents to explosive, burning death. This is the same man who pushes tax policies that further enrich the wealthy while stripping funds and services from the neediest in this nation. This is the man who speaks the language of vengeance, of fear, of violence. This is the man whose entire moral existence flies in the face of Christ's words from Luke, chapter 12, verse 15: "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions." Sadly, the skewed moral compass of George W. Bush is shared by too many Americans who would call themselves Christian. Possibly the most important words ever spoken by Jesus can be found in Matthew, chapter 5, verses 38-45. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" said Christ. "But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." It is these words that condemn both Bush and the hands-off moral attitude of too many American Christians. Certainly, Jesus was no fool. In Luke, chapter 11, verse 21, he said, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." Self-protection, for person and nation, is both moral and intelligent. But vengeance, violence and hatred are not Christian. Mercy, love and generosity are the hallmarks of the teachings of Jesus. If you are to call yourself Christian, you must be for the poor and the weak, and against empire and vengeance. Period. These simple attributes are all too absent in the American soul and spirit. Gibson's white Jesus is but one example of how far we have strayed. It is a safe bet that, had Gibson chosen a brown-skinned actor to portray Jesus, his film would not find a connection in this country. Millions of Americans try to live by the teachings of Jesus, and do so with success, but find themselves at odds with those who carry the banner of Christianity. This is a travesty. Too many so-called Christians are blind to history, blind to the actions of our nation, blind to the hypocrisy of our so-called leaders, and the world bleeds because of it. Too many so-called Christians are people who would slaughter the savior to protect their power and position. Were Jesus alive today, he would probably nail himself to the cross to get away from all these people who act like barbarians in His name. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hey, let's hear a perspective from a lefty for a change: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut There's not much you've said that I can disagree with, since it seems like you're conceding that things like God and an Afterlife are merely matters of imagination and have no rational basis. It's a matter of belief. Thus, by those principles, I could choose to believe that hell is in fact a midget headbutting you in the groin for all eternity, and it would be just as valid using your stated principles. I'm not saying you're wrong, and as long as you are rationally consistent in your beliefs (i.e. you admit that everyone can believe anything and that there does not have to be a rational or logical basis for beliefs), then that's fine. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut However, I AM violently opposed to your attempted use of well-known quantum mechanical principles as examples of the existence of the supernatural. Allow me to take apart this "argument from ignorance": First of all, you've left out two very important characteristics that differentiate a scientific theory from a religious belief, which are: 1. Scientific theories model real behaviour in a repeatable or predictable fashion. 2. Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable, that is they are able to be proven wrong given the results of certain experiments. God has neither predictable behaviour nor falsifiability, thus it fails instantly as a scientific theory. It's what we call a catchall argument, which means it can be used to prove one thing and at the same time be used to prove its negative. The Afterlife as you are attempting to describe it is also a mystical, untestable hypothesis, thus it cannot be accepted on any rational grounds. I am not familiar with the "soccer ball universe" you speak of and I don't think it's an established scientific theory. What you're talking about sounds vaguely like wormholes and black holes/white holes, but if that's what you're talking about, then it's been grossly misstated. As for your dual-slit experiment, what you are referring to is wave-particle duality and this is a WELL UNDERSTOOD scientific phenomenon. EVERY particle acts like a wave - even, for example, a tennis ball - the difference is that the tennis ball is so massive compared to an electron that its wavelength is far too long to exhibit any visible behaviour. But the duality principle HAS been demonstrated for particles other than electrons - scientists have used larger molecules to model the exact same behaviour. The principle is surprisingly simple when you understand a bit of statistics. If we take a completely free electron, i.e. we have no idea where it is in space, we see that it can be assigned any energy or velocity. However, when its energy is constrained to a potential well - the most common textbook example being the ideal 1-D "bounded box" - we see that its position takes on a perfect probability wave function. That is, it will exhibit a sine wave function between the potential "walls" that represents the probability of it being in that particular position (actually, the position probability is the square of the wave function). Various mathematical manipulations can also be used to obtain the momentum, energy, etc. from this wave function. This isn't a demonstration of a lack of knowledge. It is the fundamental basis for random processes which we see every day. What most people are taught in high school about wave-particle duality is not the whole story; those particles aren't literally waves in the sense that they don't exist as particles - they are particles that actually travel in wave form. They are regular particles whose properties are predictable by a probability distribution function (wave function). This is why you see a dispersion pattern in the dual-slit experiment; it is a direct application of this wave function. By constraining the position of particles to a very small range, the wave nature of their position and momentum becomes obvious as they are projected onto a dispersion screen - the dispersion pattern matches exactly that of a sine wave. Why? Because probability functions "fill out" as the number of sample points approaches infinity. This is perfectly logical, modellable, testable, and repeatable behaviour. But just to add further insult to injury, this theory actually has practical applications! Maybe you haven't realized this, but quantum mechanics is not just a theoretical field anymore, it has been the basis for the application of many phenomenon such as quantum tunneling and avalanche photodiodes (i.e. the backlight you see on many LCDs!). These are direct applications of quantum mechanics and make no sense according to the principles of classical mechanics. Why? Because classical mechanics is two hundred years old! Matter on a quantum level does not follow its laws, which only work on a macro scale. But taking this to mean that quantum mechanics is somehow "supernatural" or "beyond our grasp" is utterly ridiculous! This entire example is simply a very well-worded form of the classic argument from ignorance (I don't understand it, therefore there must be a supernatural element to it). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Frode These examples (just like the 2-d example) are not supposed to show that impossible things happen because of god or something supernatural. |
I've been following this debate for a while and it's just confirming what I've suspected for a long time. Without wishing to seem disrespectful to the theists on this board, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the cause of the "rationalists" and the "atheists" here is futile for one very simple reason: religious statements - across the board - are not statements of truth. No atheist (and we are all born atheists remember) ever enters any system of theological belief because, upon careful weighing of the evidence, he believes it to espouse irrefutable empirical, metaphysical or ontological fact. Nor are religious statements - as the theists would have us believe - statements of belief or faith. No-one submits themselves unquestioningly to an ideology because they have a "hunch" it might be true - no right thinking individual anyway.
Given this it is futile to argue with a theist. Their ideology is not bound up in truth, nor with faith or belief - the subjective, bastard sisters of truth. If it were, the deconversion process - where an individual realises via objective, dispassionate scepticism - would be much more common and much less traumatic. But it is here, in the trauma of deconversion, that we uncover the true nature of religious statements - they are statements of hope, nothing more, nothing less. "I know that heaven exists" is not a statement of truth. "I believe that heaven exists" is not a statement of truth, nor is it a statement of well-founded or intractable belief. "I have faith in the validity of the Bible, in which God declares that heaven exists" is not a statement of truth, a statement of well-founded or intractable belief, nor a statement of dispassionate credulity. All these statements convey the same message with differing degrees of self-delusion, namely: "I hope that heaven exists".
Therefore, theists do not find it difficult to rid themselves of theological beliefs because they are scared to compromise any facets of their tightly interwoven systems of truth, belief and faith (we shed held truisms, beliefs and faiths on a daily basis as we acquire new knowledge - however seemingly significant - into the world around us) but because they are scared to abandon the most primitive, yet perhaps the most important of all our psychological, systemtic processes: that is, the systemic process of hope. It's difficult to abandon the hope that we may have been created rather than evolved, that we may be able to live forever, that there may an omnibenevolent being forever watching over and guiding us, or that our life has some pre-ordained purpose - hence the trauma of the deconversion process and the unwillingness to truly delve into religious belief on a sincere epistemic, ontological or metaphysical level. Regardless of what intractable fact you sling at the theist, the religious beliefs will remain in tact simply because your not targeting the arguments at the right psychological schemata - the key to deconverting theists (not that I advocate proselytism of any sort - be it theistic or atheistic) lies not in undermining the empirical or logical evidence supporting the existence of a God, but rather in removing the dependancy on hope - the "emotional crutch" or "opiate" of the theist if you like - vested in this deity.
Similarly I believe in religious Darwinism. The religions that most strongly cling to this formula are those most likely to survive. Any religion that encourages free-thought or open-scepticism, or any religion that bases its ideologies on issues of fact or epistemology - for instance - is likely to fail, simply because it renders itself open to falsification. The second doubt is cast on this sort of religion religion, its adherents abandon it, for they have no emotional stake in the preservation of its ideological intergrity. The religion most likely to survive, therefore, is the one its adherents are least likely to reject. Now as religions based on fact (and belief and - to a degree - faith) are easy to for its adherents to shed (just as more mudane "facts" and "beliefs" are shed in day-to-day life as we become privy to more knowledge) they cannot survive long. On the other hand, those religions capable of fostering hope and then creating an emotional dependancy on the preservation of this hope, are highly likely to survive (especially if this fostering of hope is coupled with the rejection of the validty of empirical knowledge - a la Islamo-Christian Avoerism - and a culture of credulity and anti-skepticism). In this context, a religion can only survive if it makes sure it establishes an emotional dependance within its adherent based on the baseless "hopes" of the latter.
Christianity goes one step beyond this "Darwinism", however. In addition to latching onto generic, latent human hopes (hope of transcending death, hope of a greater purpose etc.) it creates its own need for "hope" by poking yet more holes in the human ego, creating an even greater need for hope and - from this - an inescapable emotional dependancy on its own theology, that cannot be satisfied by any other. I posted this on another forum:
| quote: | ||
Christianity contains within itself a perfect circular mechanism - it makes man sick so that it may offer him the cure. If you are able to fully convince a man that he is debauched, weak and that he is a sinner against the rest of mankind from the point of his conception, then he is more likely to be susceptable to your promise of "salvation". However, once one accepts this salvation and the rest of the message Christianity prescribes, one simply retreats further into self-depreciation - man becomes yet more convinced of his evil nature and of his weakness and as he does so he becomes even more dependent on the salvation offered through Christ. From this point there is no going back: one cannot be so convinced of one's own debauched worthlessness and then expect to function without some hope for redemption. People find it difficult to stray from the flock because after accepting the disease (Christianity's pesimism concerning man-kind) the only cure comes in the form of a 2000 year old man wearing a robe and sandals. Thus the only way to help a Christian from his "cage", as Neitzsche put it, is not to convince him that God doesn't exist or that Jesus never rose from the dead (or any other argument of a metaphysical, empirical or logical nature), but merely to convince him that man-kind is not sick, it is not debauched, and that every one of us is a unique, free-thinking moral agent with the power to help and work for both himself and the rest of man-kind. Once a Christian is "rescued" from his self-depreciation - freed from his disease - all of a sudden the "cure" laid out in Christian theology no longer quite seems so appealing. He may never free himself from theism, but he will be free of his emotional dependence on theism and, as an atheist, I believe that that is the first step towards true redemption. After all, what good is the cure if you no longer have the disease? |
| quote: | ||
Freedom exists and is appealing because in a Godless universe I am free to define who I am and what I wish to be. To quote Satre:
No longer do I possess a prescribed essence. No longer am I a being "created" in the image of God. No longer can I blame God for my definiciencies or believe that the path towards correcting these definiciencies lies in God's hands alone. I am a being possessing free-will: I create myself, continually defining and redefinining who I am. We human beings often take it for granted that we are the only beings in the known universe - out of that virtually infinite expanse of matter - that possess this power - to define what we, in essense, are. But we also possess another unique ability, which ties in with what I meant by "sensuality": namely, the ability to comprehend being both in-itself and for-itself. Extend your hand, flex your fingers about and think about all that this action means. Look at your fingers - that's you. Doesn't this seemingly small, meaningless action in itself inspire some significant, existential awe? That you are able - upon your very own whim - to extend your being out into the world and to act upon it as you wish? That you exist and that you have power to act directly upon your free-will? Go outside, then, and gaze up at the stars. Consider how frightfully huge the universe is, how much matter there must be and how virtually infinite the expanse of space must actually be. Then extend your hand out in front of your face and flex your fingers again: feel the air upon them and try to grasp exactly what it means to be and what it means to sense the world around you. Try to understand your role as an organism abandoned an an infinite, cold and dead universe. Consider your part in the incomprehensible span of space and time, then consider that none of this - not you, not the trees, not the universe, not anything - need exist at all. That the odds against you existing at this very moment are incomprehensively large and yet there you are. A being. In the universe. With the power to act as you wish. Eternal life? Pah. Knowing that I needn't (and mathematically shouldn't) exist at all, and knowing that once day, in the not too distant future, I will never again be able to stand on my balcony with a cigarette, gazing up at the stars behind my extended hand - and to realise with morbid awe the intrinsic significance of this scenario - is all the impetus I need to ensure that I make all that I can from this life: that I make it full and meaningful and that I waste as little time as possible worrying about unobtainable dreams like "God" and "heaven". That I will, if all things go to plan, have lived for but 70 years wedged between two expanses of infinite nothingness is a miracle, when put in those terms, far greater than anything I could ever dream of encountering in heaven. But it is only the inevitability of this finality that infuses existence with its very purpose in the first place: death gives life meaning, an importance. The unattainable hope of eternal life merely dulls us to that which we should hold must dear in this life here and now - that we should be grateful every day for the short time we have received on Earth and it is up to we alone, as free-willed beings, to make what we can of it. Why would we take time to smell the roses if we had an eternity in heaven to do so? Don't be decedant. Realise that you are here today and that you may not be here tomorrow. Understand this, and you'll understand why I'd find far more "comfort" living one day as an atheist than an eternity as a Christian. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Virus Come on Nellie what are you trying to achieve? Personally I think that you are trying convince yourself of your improbable believes. I think you already have alot of doubts and thats why you keep posting on this forum. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tranceaholic wow dude..why so mean? isnt he entitled to ur opinion too..he can believe whatever he wants..u shouldnt force him to believe in anything or even judge..just cause u dont agree with him doesnt men u have to dismiss him like that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Frode Religion creates models and theories of supernatural questions. You stated the major difference to science: these theories cannot be proven. So why establish them in the first place? If you care, let me know, we can discuss that as well. |
| quote: |
| ...If we don't know which slit the electrons passed they behave like a wave, if we do know which way they took they behave like particles. Why? With the theories I know so far, I can not rationally explain this, but it still happens. I do not believe this is supernatural, I know there has to be a cause. Until you explain the theory that explains this phenomenon, it will be inconceivable for me. That is the point I was trying to make before! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Freewill, It's Cyrus' choice. Jesus died on the cross so that none of us would have to go to hell. It's not God's fault that Cyrus chooses not to follow Him. |
| quote: |
| God is real, I know it. I can't quite explain it to you,because you'll just make fun of me,or anyone else who says they've had the same thing happen to them. But, God is real. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Verse? That is interesting if true. Is 10% considered the rule of thumb for charity giving for Christians? |
| quote: |
| Diginut I am not familiar with the "soccer ball universe" you speak of and I don't think it's an established scientific theory. What you're talking about sounds vaguely like wormholes and black holes/white holes, but if that's what you're talking about, then it's been grossly misstated. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Matthew Chapter 57 23:45 The formulae for giveth is as follows: A = .1(x)(y)^2 Whereby amount A is determined by 10% times salary X multiplied by the desired lodging in heaven quotient Y. If ye giveth less than A you are forever damned. Proper, timely payment however will ensure that the gates of heaven are open to you. This is the word of the lord. And there are no contradictions. |
You crack me up | quote: |
| Will you either tell us what exactly is the source of your certainty, or will you just kindly shut up about it? Saying "I know it but I won't tell you how I know it" is really retarded. |
| quote: |
| It's called tithes, I don't know if that's spelled correctly. God asks for 10% of what you make,only 10%. It's saying really that money doesn't have a hold on you. It's you giving back money to God,and it's showing God that money doesn't control you. It's not just for charity. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut One might argue that religion creates the questions as well, not merely the answers. Although I am curious as to what you think the usefulness of these theories are - why indeed would anybody create them? To the best of my knowledge, religion was created as a means of societal hierarchy, control, and taxation, and modern religion is merely a relic of that, holding on for dear life. But that is, of course, just an opinion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE] I thought I explained that earlier, but I'll give it another shot. Every particle exhibits wave behaviour because its properties are never determinate - they are random. Not random as in "we have no clue what's going on", but random as in "we know the exact probability of it being in any particular place/having any particular speed." What you are talking about is the HUP. As we further and further constrain the position of an electron or photon, its velocity becomes at the same time more and more unbounded. This is what gives it the wavelike behaviour. The same relationship, oddly enough, applies to energy and time. In physics they are called "canonically conjugate pairs". Matter has both particle and wave properties on a quantum level, and the experiments you speak of merely induce them to exhibit one behaviour or the other. You are saying that simply because something can behave in two different ways, it means that we don't understand it. But we do understand it. It's based on the HUP and quantization properties of matter. The HUP is one of those things that has just been abused and abused by non-scientists, because to them, "uncertainty" somehow indicates a weak theoretical position. But this is not true - it simply relates to measured and measurable quantities, and the experiments you speak of depend on measurement and are merely an illustration of this principle. Try this link - it's a pretty good explanation of the HUP and how it seems to be so widely misunderstood. I don't have a URL for the particular thing you are talking about, but the explanation for it is pretty much a textbook example of quantum mechanics (actually I'm not positive if the experiment you are talking about is actually correct, because I don't remember my quantum textbook all that well, but the phenomena you are thinking of is definitely explained in the books). And on the wave nature of the electron: here. Enjoy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...universe+soccer |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Frode But again, you misunderstood me. I never said "we cannot understand it". I said "I don't understand it because I don't know the theory behind it." That's all. I'm not criticising science at all, I was only trying to show that the understanding of reality had to be adapted to new discoveries in science over time. |
| quote: |
| About the experiment: It looks like this: |
I'm just trying to explain how these theories are known and testable and don't really bear any significant resemblance to theological ones.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, that argument can be used to explain why bad people go to hell. But it can not be used to explain why good people have horrible things happen to them. |
| quote: |
| Will you either tell us what exactly is the source of your certainty, or will you just kindly shut up about it? Saying "I know it but I won't tell you how I know it" is really retarded. |
| quote: |
| I'm not sure I'm understanding why God needs the money? I mean, it's not like he's going to go to Wal-mart on a shopping spree. It seems as though this money is paying for the preist and the pillar boys to have new outfits to work in and for pointless crap around the church that isn't really needed. Do they really need a statue of every person in their religious "history"? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Again,freewill. It's what you choose. The only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior into your heart. I do know some religious folk believe that good deeds get you into heaven..but, there's a verse in the Bible that says there's only one way,and that way is accepting Jesus into your heart. |
| quote: |
| If you want to know the reasons, you can private message me. Otherwise, I'm not about to post them right out here out in the open.Some people here are far to immature to understand the real reasons. Bare in mind, I'm still picky and choosey about who I tell even if they do PM me. |
Save me Jebus!
[[[smoke]]]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cammie Genesis 28: 22 (Jacob speaking to God) "the stone that I set up will be as a pillar, will be God's house, and of all that You give me, I will give You a tenth." Deuteronomy 14: 22-29 "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year......." Numbers 18:26 (God speaking to Aaron) I give to the Levites all the tithes in Isreal as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving in the Tent of Meeting." Nehemiah 10:37 Moreover, we will bring to the storerooms of the house of our God, to the priests, the first of our ground meal, of our grain offerings, of the fruit of all our trees and of our new wine and oil. And we will bring a tithe of our crops to the Levites who collect the tithes in all the towns where we work." lots of other citations as well.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Again,freewill. It's what you choose. The only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior into your heart. I do know some religious folk believe that good deeds get you into heaven..but, there's a verse in the Bible that says there's only one way,and that way is accepting Jesus into your heart. People can be very good,and do very good deeds,but that doesn't mean that they're permitted into heaven. I hope you get what I'm saying. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.