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.

 

Christian Bigotry

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
k here's a list of the times where the name samuel and anointed, are mentioned in the same verse. and the strong's numbers are next to the words that have a hebrew/chaldean/aramaic from which they were translated. you can click on them. i don't see olive oil being mentioned in the verses, only the word "oil", which is translated from the word "shemen" meaning "fat, oil". olive oil is listed as one possible source of the fat/oil, but it isn't specifically called olive oil in the verses. do you know which verse says it was olive oil?

click the link
samuel anointed


Olive oil was used,


Leviticus 24:2 - Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.


As olive oil was more easily obtained, and accessible to people, and used in religious purposes, olive is the oil. Or.....



Oyl and water don't mix.

But yes, olive oil was used to anoint Israel's kings. Well, Saul and David. Olive Oil in the Bible




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

i don't think they would be anointing special kings like david and jesus, with oil the common folk used. hehe
says as soon as david was anointed the spirit of god came upon him. dude was hosting!



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
what happened to the op?
/looks sheepishly around



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

i don't think they would be anointing special kings like david and jesus, with oil the common folk used. hehe
says as soon as david was anointed the spirit of god came upon him. dude was hosting!


Well, no one anointed Jesus with oil. What He does say is "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me". The oil merely represented, but Jesus would not need representation, He was the fullness already. He was the real deal.

David and Saul were anointed, maybe Solomon. But as the olive tree was representative of peace, and the oil was associated with "peaceful consecration" and everything was promoted to peace, that Jerusalem was the city of peace and Jesus is the Prince of Peace, the Priest after the order of Melchi-zedeck, the king of Salem, or the king of peace.

Solomon's name in Hebrew was Shelomo, which also means peace.

It would all be associated with the olive.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
what happened to the op?
/looks sheepishly around


I don't know, maybe he is a normal person and sleeps like normal people?

We aren't off topic, are we? The OP was asking about Christian bigotry and lack of interest in scholarship among Christians. Maybe he could think of all the great universities founded by Christians.


Most of us do spend a lot of time researching.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

fair enough. i think it was the messeh, though.

think about it, the first pharaoh ever, predated written history. what was a pharaoh? a god man. well, they THOUGHT they were god men, and some of them may have been godly men, but methinks they were trying to copy the original, who somebody must've seen, even if it says they couldn't see him and live, in the old testament. i mean ezekiel says he saw a man sitting on the throne of the wheels within wheels verses (ezekiel 1), that looked like jehovah. when i read that i was like.......huh? how did he know what jehovah looked like, no one had ever seen jehovah. lol yeppers somebody is hiding the juicy details from us.
edit on 13-4-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
My life's work has been spent practicing the skill of good and accurate research.

Have you researched the English language at all?
You have just come up with a new defintion of "bigotry".
Your thread title and opening post, taken together, define "claiming that somebody really lived" as bigotry.

Later on, I see you making the claim that Buddha and Mohammed really lived.
That is "bigotry", by your own definition.










posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus

Wow. I get that you really tried to be as nice as possible in your OP, and I want to return the favor, and I will try... but I'm rather in the same position in that I don't have much nice to say about this. You have made some pretty judgmental presumptions and assumptions, assigned ugly motives to a very diverse and wide-ranging group of people, and presume you know not only what is true, but what is best... for everyone. You could have questioned, discussed, even challenged; instead you lectured and dictated.

I have read many, many stories about Jesus, by many authors, of various qualifications, from many perspectives, and I know they all cannot be true... but that's all I know for sure, and I don't pretend to know otherwise. Do I think for one minute that I (or anyone) can ever prove definitively anything about Jesus? Nope. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to understand the history, the politics, and the power struggles pertaining to Jesus and Christianity. Faith doesn't replace knowledge. Do I think for a minute that proving Jesus lived automatically disproves other religions in any way? Nope. Do I want to disprove/discredit other religions? Nope. I actually think religions have far more in common than in differences, and that we can and have benefitted greatly from each other. I'm far more disturbed by those who drive wedges between faiths and between people based on faulty premises and possible agendas... especially those who appoint themselves the highest authority over all.

Seeking knowledge is not bigotry. Having faith is not bigotry. But making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people is bigotry.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Maybe there is not enough evidence for you, but what you write you deny in beforehand evidence which is yet to be find. Interesting view.
We have no idea of evidence hidden from us. Vatican secret archives has kept a lot of secrets for 2000 years.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

I went to sleep! I'm awake now, catching up on the posts and considering my response...

Honestly it's hard to read so many negative comments, and comments that have missed the point.

I blame myself.

I'm collecting the critcisms and points made by others, and will try and dump one solid post down as a response.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

man - come on how many times do I hae to state this issue - I know I have done, now three times.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The bigotry part is where you use histroy in a premeditated effort to say 'my religion is right, your religion is wrong'.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: undo

I went to sleep! I'm awake now, catching up on the posts and considering my response...

Honestly it's hard to read so many negative comments, and comments that have missed the point.

I blame myself.

I'm collecting the critcisms and points made by others, and will try and dump one solid post down as a response.


re-reading your op to see where i made the boo-boo



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
big·ot·ry; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Still doesn't match well. Merely saying that something is true is not being intolerant to those who disagree.
Presumably you think all the statements in your own posts are true. Would that make you a bigot, on the grounds that your belief in the truth of your own statements defined you as intolerant towards those who disagree?


The bigotry part is where you use histroy in a premeditated effort to say 'my religion is right, your religion is wrong'.

The problem is that those who deny that Jesus really lived have got precisely the same motive. They want to say to Christians "Your religion is wrong".
You on your high horse, are you not guilty of operating double standards if you are willing to allow one side to attack, but not willing to allow the other side to respond?
edit on 13-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
okay well i think i addressed the bigotry part and could do so even more, if i continued in that vein, since there's also references in akkadian and sumerian, as well, as a few obscure references in ancient chinese canon. could also do some fantastic comparative analyses with norse, roman and greek examples. even britton druidic data.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Text

Thank you everyone, I appreciate all the comments, negative and positive, and am thankful for even the off-topic issues that are being brought into the conversation.

I have noticed a trend in some of the comments suggesting I think all Christians are bigots, or that ‘you’ personally are a bigot. I do not think this, I do not know you. My statement is simply that Christians, and truly anyone of any system of beliefs, is a bigot if they attempt to use what should be an objective study, like a historical study, in order to validate already-held beliefs at the expense of another system of beliefs.

I hold this to be true, as an opinion, because history is a difficult area of study, as many of the facts have been destroyed or obscured. There are many historical subjects that can never been understood completely. We as a people must earn to be comfortable with that mystery.

I stated my words as an ‘opinion’ in the OP. I did this specifically because I have no desire to prove anything to anyone on this issue. I do this because I understand that the issue cannot be ‘proven’. I have observed a human behavior, I don’t like it because I find it offensive, I’m talking about it. I don’t have a magic piece of research that I alone hold that can make it all ‘real’ for you. I am in fact arguing that such information does not exist.

I personally believe that the study of history is noble, and several comments have assumed I have a problem with biblical research in general. I do not, I have a problem with its use as propaganda.

Many of you are making assumptions about my personal beliefs – I don’t know you, you don’t know me.
My favorite comment so far was when I was accused of being a bigot myself, specifically that if one prefers one soda over another…

You are not a bigot for preferring 7up, you are a bigot I you prefer 7up and want everyone else to drink it too, can prove in documents that 7up is the only drink right for humanity, and all sprite and sprite drinkers are going to hell.
Many of you have mentioned some of the interesting comparisons between the Old Testament and various periods in ancient Egypt, this is wonderful but really is a trap. It is all fascinating conjecture.

The phonetic connections of language are easier to prove than historic events – hence amen/aman/amun. Hebrew is not older than Egyptian, but whatever man.

I find it interesting that many have made judgments on where I get my assertions – TV and the internet and such – I am sadly too old for that. Most of my research was done in a library, with books, lots and lots of books, for years. I had the advantage of living next to one of the largest state libraries in America. The internet was still mostly useless back then, and we were instructed to never use it. The internet is a wonderful source of entertainment and social interaction, but finding original articles, peer-reviewed studies, and reliable sourced information remains troublesome.
I’m tempted to get into the off-topic issues that have been cropping up here, looks like fun, but to stay true to the post, I’m here to say the following:

Do as you like, everyone has a unique spiritual experience. When historical study is used as a weapon against other faiths, so that those faiths are somehow more ‘wrong’ and your faith is somehow more ‘right’, this is bigotry. This is bigotry because you cannot be more ‘right’ in faith than anyone else. These experiences are private and subjective, and the NEED to prove those beliefs external is a type of self-validation that belies a lack of faith and confidence in your own assertions. I don’t need you to prove anything to me and you should not need me to prove anything to you.

Thanks again everyone – many of you have said some lovely things about your faith, and I truly wish you luck in life and happiness.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
oh no you don't. you ain't just chalkin' it up to "a trap" and exiting stage left. lol
what i'm sharing with you here is not exactly mainstream info and it's even more indepth and verifiable than what i've offered so far. tons o' data. tons i tell ya, tons.


the concept of throwing out all ancient histories except the bible, was started at the beginning of the enlightenment, in fact, it was what lead to the enlightenment. what happened was, the papal throne had been moved to germany. while there they had established a school of thought called higher criticism, ran by catholic priest-scholars. their job was to prove that the papal interpretation of history was the most accurate and only legitimate historical account in existence.

one day, one of the critics discovered what he thought was evidence that the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time their annals, epics and other histories were written (the critic was wrong but it took 40 years, after the creation of archaeology as a science, for that error to be corrected and by then, it was too late). it was determined that ancient greek history was mythology and it was either removed from history texts in the german universities, or only footnoted at the bottom and summarily dismissed. since ancient greece was a lynchpin for the histories of the surrounding areas, it started an avalanche of dismissing of other ancient texts. eventually all that was left for historical consideration was the papacy's version of history, via their position on biblical texts.

to their chagrin, an enterprising student noted that the bible also no longer had any supportive evidence, since all the other ancient histories had been disqualified, and wham, the accumulated histories of mankind, spanning over 5000 years, were tossed in the garbage bin labelled "mythology", including the bible, and thus began the enlightenment.

this view of ancient history, leaked over into the protestant churches that sprang up after the creation of the printing press, where people were actually able to read the bible for the first time and realized what the papacy was enforcing as the words of god, were not in the bible at all. everyone became a skeptic, even religious people. lol it was a mess!




edit on 13-4-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus
Christianity, by its very nature, is incompatible with any other belief or non-belief, in the universe. Christianity MUST be the ONLY religion in the world. You are either a Christian, or you are the walking dead, and heading for eternal damnation. It's that simple.

They cannot and will not leave every one to their own beliefs or religion. Nor can they respect anyone elses right to believe and live as they will. Biblical Christianity is, and has always been a tyrannical and conquering dictator. Those who say otherwise are not being honest with themselves, or anyone else.

So the very premise of your thread, while noble, can never be. Remember. In the end, they expect to inherit the earth, and see the rest of us eternally punished by god himself. The love and mercy of god is for those in the clique. Not the living dead outside the walls of the city.


edit on 4/13/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




I'm back, just came to this thread and had to just ask that question.


Yes! I see you're back! Welcome back and Warm hugs....you [..]!



How can Jesus not be about facts and forced obedience if Jesus never existed?


How can "we" discuss the relationship of Luke Skywalker to "His" Father (not to mention his sister that he ALMOST boinked!).....while "we" know it's just modern mythological fiction, and Luke Skywalker never existed?!

It's just so.... abstract!!



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Just saw the thread this morning.
Very well written, OP, and thank you for joining the discussion.

S/F

I always appreciate when knowledgeable people, with actual mileage behind them (like decades of reading and study, and advanced knowledge of how it is best accomplished) speak up. It's a shame that so many people attacked, but it's to be expected here.

I realize that it makes some people very nervous to have their beliefs invalidated or questioned, and have often asked:
Why are Christians so afraid? What are they afraid of that prevents them from accepting the collective progress of human understanding?

Religion is for adults, and should be an 'elective' subject, not forced onto children far too young to understand what any of it means.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Come on he blatantly ranted at me when I was simply supplying my own perspective and opinions. The OP of this thread is a hypocrite, not trying to insult but I don't know any other word to describe it
edit on 13-4-2015 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join