- This topic has 134 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 05 2008,14:21) Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 06 2008,06:31) Quote (kenrch @ Jan. 05 2008,10:49) Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 06 2008,00:04) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2008,06:42) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 27 2007,12:37) Hi Tow,
The roles given are small and the work is done by God through us.
We do not to produce a return on the investment made in us.
Only later will we know when and how he has used his lesser servants.The firts priority is to seek the kingdom as Mat 6 tells us.
But the will of God is kindly and we can fulfill it perfectly, or well or acceptably so long as we are not idle and unavalable to serve.
This is mental slavery. Or actual slavery. Still, scripture is quite clear about what you may do with slaves, so I shouldn't be surprised.Stuart
You're right Stu. People take scripture and think every bit of it applies today.Do you know why the Southern Baptists split off from the main Baptists early in their history? They wanted to keep slaves and saw the bible as supporting this right.
Some primitive minds will never be enlightened.
They were no slaves in the OT that you declare to be the only truth?What is you choice today? Who will be your master? You have a boss…you are a slave! Your boss has a boss and is a slave! Either we are slaves to God or Satan. You have a choice as to WHO you will serve. But that's it!
Only God has no master!
I never said Tanakh didn't have slavery in it. As I said, only primitive and closed minds still accept every thing in the various religious writings as still applicable today.
As if this at one time WAS applicable?Sounds like the archon Jehovah who chose his slaves the Israelites decided to make laws on what should be done with his slaves slaves.
A good God would outright reject slavery period.
Show me where Jesus condemns slavery.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 05 2008,15:53) Hi tow,
He does not.
It is against your moral standards and you would apply them to God?
So not only are you an anti-semite, you support slavery as well. Open up a calender Nick, its 2008. We don't do these things any more.Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 06 2008,13:52) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 05 2008,15:53) Hi tow,
He does not.
It is against your moral standards and you would apply them to God?
So not only are you an anti-semite, you support slavery as well. Open up a calender Nick, its 2008. We don't do these things any more.
Hi tow,
On the other hand you are right.
How could we not believe in slavery when every day we meet folk enslaved to weak principalities and powers, false religions and vain philosophy?
Of course we too are happy but poor servants and slaves to a Master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.Hi Nick
Quote How could we not believe in slavery when every day we meet folk enslaved to weak principalities and powers, false religions and vain philosophy?
But of the Abrahamic follies, surely Islam and Christianity are the ones that show vanity! Judaism really doesn’t and if you know a few more atheists, humanists, agnostics and buddhists I think you would find it hard to keep up your pretence that they follow self-centred philosophies (no primary loyalty to collecting points on the Heaven Club card over concern for fellow humans and all that). Perhaps a working life is a kind of slavery but in secular democracies we have choices which do not compel us to follow it, or to live in countries that have defacto slavish requirements (like most theocracies, arguably including the US).Quote Of course we too are happy but poor servants and slaves to a Master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.
Again, the plots of most B-grade vampire movies follow the same line!Your resignation and equivocation in the face of an abuse of human rights is alarming. Would you be easily convinced to follow a malevolent dictator? As you know I think you already do.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
The bible demands we accept it on it's terms or totally reject it as false.
You have done the easier thing of rejecting it but the book is so amazingly consistent
and resilient to all attacks that the first option is really the best one.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 06 2008,18:26) Hi Stu,
The bible demands we accept it on it's terms or totally reject it as false.
You have done the easier thing of rejecting it but the book is so amazingly consistent
and resilient to all attacks that the first option is really the best one.
Hi NickWhat shape is the earth?
What is the value of pi?
How do you fit all animals, including all the ones not yet known, into any king of boat, then deliver them safely around the continents to make it look like allopatric speciation has occurred over hundreds of millions of years?
How old is the earth?If you have to accept the bible literally, then rejecting it is the only rational option. If you can accept it as allegory, then I suppose at a stretch some of it could be called consistent.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 06 2008,01:26) Hi Stu,
The bible demands we accept it on it's terms or totally reject it as false.
Where do you see that written?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 05 2008,22:18) Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 06 2008,13:52) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 05 2008,15:53) Hi tow,
He does not.
It is against your moral standards and you would apply them to God?
So not only are you an anti-semite, you support slavery as well. Open up a calender Nick, its 2008. We don't do these things any more.
Hi tow,
On the other hand you are right.
How could we not believe in slavery when every day we meet folk enslaved to weak principalities and powers, false religions and vain philosophy?Weak? Seems that 3/4 of the world is not Christian. Looks pretty strong to me.
Quote Of course we too are happy but poor servants and slaves to a Master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.
Yes, believing in fiction can be easy I suppose. That and thinking “All I have to do is believe in Jesus and I won't burn in hell!”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 05 2008,21:20) Hi tow,
Did I say anything about my view?
You judge falsely amigo.
Wake up.
No, but you support the bible 100% so you therefore support anti-semitism and slavery since both are in GT.Hi Colter,
You say
“Adam and Eve (incarnate spiritual beings before the fall) arrived on an ancient and previously populated world as evidenced by fragments of edited material within the OT books. This took place long, long ago. “
Which gnostic source did you find these myths in?
Well, evidences abound, and this is one. I should say that there could be many more at hand, but when they have been found by fundamentalist Darwinians, they have been ignored, hidden or simply destroyed. Destroyed by those who later on demand such evidence. An example of this is the “mysterious” disappearance of more than 50 perfectly kept gigantic antediluvian skeletons (between 10-14 feet tall) found in a cave in Arizona.
You may, or not, have heard that Mr. Samuel Hubbard, discovered remains of giants in a cave in the magnificent Grand Canyon of Arizona. His discovery was very important: He found 2 petrified human bodies about 15-18 feet tall respectively. One of these was buried under a recent rock fall which required several days' work to remove; the other, which Mr. Hubbard photographed, was in a difficult to access crevice. Both bodies were formed of a limestone petrification embedded in sandstone. He also found an ancient beach, now sandstone, that contained a great number of footprints of an entire race of giants: men, women and children. The prints of the adults were between 17 and 20 inches long and corresponded in size and shape to the Carson City and Blue Ridge prints. With these prints are also associated those of a huge elephant, somewhat similar in size to the remains discovered in the La Brea pits –the Elephas Primigenius– as well as tracks of a very small horse, which probably corresponded to the “Pliohippus.” This beach where all this was found was evidently occupied when the river was many hundreds of feet above its actual level. Some of the human prints wee partly covered by the overlying stratum of stone, which is gradually weathering off. Lastly, he found wall drawings that showed dinosaurs, elephants, ostriches, and ibexes; as well as the same figure of the serpent with the egg in its mouth as it has been found in the Mississippi mounds, with numerous other drawings. One of the drawings showed an elephant attacking a man. If the drawing is to scale, and if the elephant corresponds to the La Brea animal, then the man must have been about 18 feet tall.
Even Darwinians have fond specimens so enormous that they have called : “Gigantanthropus” or “Gigantopithecus” (Scientists love those high-sounding names to impress you, and make you think that they know much more than they really do) The following is an interesting quote from Dr. Franz Weidenreich of the American Museum of Natural History and who computed the size of “Meganthropus.” And found out that it was about 800 pounds and, if proportioned like modern man, then he would had been 9 feet tall. About the same height as that famous Nephilim called Goliath a contemporary of another Nephilim, Og the king of Bashan. Dr. Weidenreich said: …
But the gist of the whole story, which arouses our foremost interest, is the fact that “Gigantopithecus” is not a giant ape, as von Koenigswald assumed, but a giant man and should, therefore, be called “Gigantanthropus.” This follows beyond any doubt from the very characteristic pattern of the occlusal surface of the teeth, which differs fundamentally in the structure of the cusps from that of any known anthropoids but agrees even in the minutest details with the hominid pattern as shown by the molars of “Pithecanthropus,” Sinanthropus” (other kinds of Nephilim) and even modern man. On the other hand, the form of the teeth, especially that of the third lower molar, and the condition of its root indicate that it has preserved a very primitive character, much more primitive than the known third molars of any fossil hominid. Therefore, we have the same combination which struck us in the human fossils of Java; namely, primitives together with gigantic proportions. But in the case of “Gigantopithecus” the gigantism reaches a new climax. The volume of the crown of the third lower molar is about six times larger than the average crown of modern man; compared with the corresponding tooth of the gorilla, it is about twice as large. We should remember that there have been found human tracks 21.5 inches long in Texas and even a phenomenal 24 inches long in Australia. On the other hand, let's not forget that every ancient culture on earth has recollections of giants that became part of their mythologies.
Good post's I find it interesting. I also have a theory how they got there. In Genesis it says that some of the Angels found the woman of the earth beautiful, and they married them. IMO that produced Giants. Does anybody else has a comment on this?
Peace and Love IreneIrene, I find it sad that you tell people that they must stick with what the scriptures say in order to determine truth, however you grossly neglect what the scriptures say, and you create and follow your own ideas.
Notice what the scriptures specifically say,
Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The giants existed IN THOSE DAYS and AFTERWARD when the sons of God came in to the daughters.
Those giants that existed at the time and afterward were MEN, human beings. NOT some sort of halfbreed. The scripture also state precisely that it was the wickedness of men. The scriptures say NOTHING about angels, or halfbreeds. The giants are shown to be existing during the time that the sons of God came in to the daughters of men. The sons of God are shown to be men and their children are shown to be humans.
Irene you need to take a good hard look at what the scriptures actually say IMO. Read what is written, your adding and distorting it.
Peace and blessings to you and Georg, Jodi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
