Couple of christianity questions
Options
Comments
-
BOSS KTULU wrote: »yes there is: an arbitrary claim of right to rulership
There is nothing inherently wrong with have the right to rule. The question is how is that right used by the person or whether or not that right is used for good. Monarchs usually don't work that well because kings tend to abuse that right. -
Shuffington wrote: »I dont see a reason to test someones "will" if you know the conclusion as to how they will react/ respond to a given set of circumstances.
Well, I don't know how the story ends so I'm fair game. -
American Loo VII 3D wrote: »Then why did he bother creating the world if he knew eventually Satan would take it over.
Why did he bother testing Adam if he knew Adam would fail.
I thought the purpose of a test was to learn its results.
What would a being that knows everything possibly learn?
Shaytan has not taken over anything
Adam (and mankind) was created to be a vice-regent on the Earth
? is not the one being tested we are, we're suppose to learn not Him -
alissowack wrote: »What does being able to see the future have to do with the will? I can see disaster a mile away, but I can decide whether I want to avoid it or face it for reasons I may feel is good.
How in the hell do you equate seeing something from a distance, to seeing exactly what happens days, months, years, eons from now??? Think about what you just wrote!!! -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Whats ironic is that you will worship the Lord one way or another KTULU. You will either do it voluntarily because you love Him or you will do it because of obedience, reverence, fear and awe. One way or another your knee will bow to the Lord in the life to come. How you choose to do it, will be determined in this life.
Dude, you sound like that crazy lookin cat who got his arm chopped off talkin about arrows will blotting out the sun type ? on 300. What's ironic is that your comment is so arrogant and ignorant at the same time, I can see why your replies mainly consist of cut/paste scriptures, nothing of value ever comes from your keyboard. -
kingjust627 wrote: »How in the hell do you equate seeing something from a distance, to seeing exactly what happens days, months, years, eons from now??? Think about what you just wrote!!!
It's no different than me say if I could see something years from now. It will take time to get there. My will is still involved. Each second of our lives is even uncertain yet I can be willing to accept the time it takes to get there or not. -
What's your opinions on the stories of Horus, Zeus, Xenu, and Mithra? Do you give any credence to those stories and the people who believe them? Or do you lump them all into stories of mythology and look at their followers as being strange or weird?
-
They assume religion only belongs to one hemisphere of the world because ? would ignore the rest of the world's population like that.
-
Xenu we all know is complete ? , Scientology is ? weird. What the hell is wrong with white people and will smith?
anyway, Im a christian and Greek and Roman mythology always got my interest. If you read their beginnings and saviors along with christian, isalmic, and judaic beginngs and saviors, it will all sound almost the same. The only followers that are weird and strange is Scientology. -
scientology is not a religion. the ? who created it found a legal way to cipher money from these dumb azzz rich folks. smh...smh that i didn't come up wit this idea
-
The_Maryvale_Joker wrote: »Xenu we all know is complete ? , Scientology is ? weird. What the hell is wrong with white people and will smith?
anyway, Im a christian and Greek and Roman mythology always got my interest. If you read their beginnings and saviors along with christian, isalmic, and judaic beginngs and saviors, it will all sound almost the same. The only followers that are weird and strange is Scientology.
Why are their beliefs strange and yours not? And how do you know it's complete ? ? Is there any more proof of the existence of Xenu and that creation story than there is of the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans, or Jews?darkone360 wrote: »scientology is not a religion. the ? who created it found a legal way to cipher money from these dumb azzz rich folks. smh...smh that i didn't come up wit this idea
The US government recognizes Scientology as an official religion. What basis are we going on to determine what's a religion or not? What makes the belief that Xenu was the catalyst of creation of man insane, but the belief that Jehova created man completely logical? Why not accept the fact that maybe it wasn't the Jewish ? , but instead it was Gaia and Erebus from the Greek creation story that started it all. Or why can't Ra be the accepted deity who started the creation of the universe and everything in it? -
01. the creator of the "religion's" insistence that Scientology was NOT a religion until it became financially beneficial to call it one;What basis are we going on to determine what's a religion or not?
02. the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find another religion that makes you pay money to find out what its belief system is -
01. the creator of the "religion's" insistence that Scientology was NOT a religion until it became financially beneficial to call it one;
02. the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find another religion that makes you pay money to find out what its belief system is
I don't think anyone would use your definition to substantiate what is considered a religion. The text book definition is:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
I've never encountered a definition of religion that used monetary means as a basis for its classification. Also who is the creator of the Islamic, Christian, and Judaic religions? Is there any proof stating that those religions didn't insist on becoming a belief system until it was financially beneficial to the upper echelon of the group? For instance in all three of the Abrahamic religions, you don't have to pay to find out their belief system, but you do have to pay in order to be deemed in good standing with that group. In Judaism you're required to give a tithe, in Christianity you're required to give a tithe (as well as other financial offerings) and I'm not sure about Islam, but I'm pretty sure you're required to give alms as well. Not paying is considered a sin, and will lead to one being judged by that groups deity.
Also, if one were to remove the financial aspect from Scientology that you object to, would you then give it the same credence as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? Would you be willing to accept the possibility that Xenu is the actual creator of humanity? And not Yahweh, ? the Father, or Allah? -
How is it that the most celebrated actress of the 20th century, who won a record-breaking four Oscars, and have a career span 7 decades...just so happen to be an atheist?
"Yes, Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. James A. Haught, editor of 2000 Years of Disbelief, quotes this from the October 1991 issue of Ladies' Home Journal:"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people."
"Katharine Hepburn once appeared on the Phil Donahue show and was asked if she believed in ? ; her answer:
"No, I don't believe in a ? and as far as when I die, I'm looking forward to a nice, long rest in the ground!"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/06/29/katharine-hepburn-dead-at-96.htm
Would you say she was blessed and highly favored? -
uhhhhh.......THE LIBERAL MEDIA!
-
Punisher__ wrote: »How is it that the most celebrated actress of the 20th century, who won a record-breaking four Oscars, and have a career span 7 decades...just so happen to be an atheist?
"Yes, Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. James A. Haught, editor of 2000 Years of Disbelief, quotes this from the October 1991 issue of Ladies' Home Journal:"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people."
"Katharine Hepburn once appeared on the Phil Donahue show and was asked if she believed in ? ; her answer:
"No, I don't believe in a ? and as far as when I die, I'm looking forward to a nice, long rest in the ground!"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/06/29/katharine-hepburn-dead-at-96.htm
Would you say she was blessed and highly favored?
'? ' raised her up the same way he raised up the Egyptian pharaoh in Exodus. The Egyptian pharaoh was an atheist. He didn't technically believe in the Israelite's "? ". However, he was a celebrated king and he lived in the lap of luxury. In a nut shell, I am basically saying '? ' has purpose for everyone's life. -
Punisher__ wrote: »How is it that the most celebrated actress of the 20th century, who won a record-breaking four Oscars, and have a career span 7 decades...just so happen to be an atheist?
"Yes, Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. James A. Haught, editor of 2000 Years of Disbelief, quotes this from the October 1991 issue of Ladies' Home Journal:"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people."
"Katharine Hepburn once appeared on the Phil Donahue show and was asked if she believed in ? ; her answer:
"No, I don't believe in a ? and as far as when I die, I'm looking forward to a nice, long rest in the ground!"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/06/29/katharine-hepburn-dead-at-96.htm
Would you say she was blessed and highly favored?
Celebrated by who?
The Academy has given awards to degenerates so it doesn't mean much. Not saying she was, but she was banging another woman's husband for twenty five years.
Was she being nice, when she was doing that?
No she was not blesses and highly favored. -
Celebrated by who?
The Academy has given awards to degenerates so it doesn't mean much. Not saying she was, but she was banging another woman's husband for twenty five years.
Was she being nice, when she was doing that?
No she was not blesses and highly favored.
Not that this is the place for it, but celebrated by those who have an appreciation for the field, which is probably why she was voted the greatest actress of all time by the American Film Institute.
Having four Oscars, out of 12 nominations, is just further testament to her artistic credibility. You don't get FOUR, just for the sake of getting four. Do you know how hard it is for actors to just get one?
My question is, how can a person be an atheist, but yet be so incredibly renowned and have such an illustrious career? -
Punisher__ wrote: »How is it that the most celebrated actress of the 20th century, who won a record-breaking four Oscars, and have a career span 7 decades...just so happen to be an atheist?
"Yes, Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. James A. Haught, editor of 2000 Years of Disbelief, quotes this from the October 1991 issue of Ladies' Home Journal:"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people."
"Katharine Hepburn once appeared on the Phil Donahue show and was asked if she believed in ? ; her answer:
"No, I don't believe in a ? and as far as when I die, I'm looking forward to a nice, long rest in the ground!"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/06/29/katharine-hepburn-dead-at-96.htm
Would you say she was blessed and highly favored?
this is 1 of the dumbest things i ever heard! -
Being a Christian (or atheist for that matter) doesn't equate to having a great talent. Someone can be Christian and just suck as a actor or actress. It doesn't mean that this lady's beliefs should be embraced because of her talents. Blessed...sure, if you are talking about her talents. According to the Bible, her talents is not going to earn her favor with ? .
-
You would think ? would "bless" those who followed him, as opposed to those who didn't...right?
-
Punisher__ wrote: »You would think ? would "bless" those who followed him, as opposed to those who didn't...right?
No, I wouldn't think that. It would be foolish to think so. That is say is that if I just follow the rules, then ? will make me rich. I'm making the false assumption that ? will reward my moralistic acts with material gain. There is no reward in being "good" other than what I make for myself. Even if I am somehow "blessed", it shouldn't give me reason to think I had anything to do with it. -
Stupid premise. But here is the answer.
"43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matthew 5:43-45 -
alissowack wrote: »No, I wouldn't think that. It would be foolish to think so. That is say is that if I just follow the rules, then ? will make me rich. I'm making the false assumption that ? will reward my moralistic acts with material gain. There is no reward in being "good" other than what I make for myself. Even if I am somehow "blessed", it shouldn't give me reason to think I had anything to do with it.
Well isn't this the basis of Christianity? Doing good deeds in hopes of ? rewarding you for it? It's pretty much the same as saying, "I'm gonna give this homeless guy 5 dollars. Maybe I'll get blessed for it."
Ironically, the idea that "there is no reward in being 'good' other than what I make for myself", is pretty much the same ideology that Katharine Hepburn, an atheist, held.
-
regardless if you believe in ? or not, this argument is stupid, because you should know faith is rewarded in the afterlife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCVKfmVvSlg