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.

 

We Stopped Beleiving In Witches, When's The Bibles Turn?

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Dun DUn DUn....Welp... We Win




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   


Hmmm, god smites everyone, satan says hey, have fun! How many people has satan killed? Read the bible, god "smites" millions of people, hell, he murders everyone but Noah and freinds in one storm. Satan? Read the bible, he has killed...... no one. Only reason



Dude you got some jacked up issues if you think Satan is cool and groovy. God "Smites" people as you say that are like you, defiant, nonbelieving, and sinful with no remorse. You sound like a child who's parents are out of town, thinking you can do whatever you wish with no consequences.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I don't think he is cool or "groovey"(disco era are we?) I just don't understand how he is "evil". He was a slave, he fought against his master, and sent to hell for not being a slave.

And again, how do you know the bible is correct? Cause the bible says so? WTF! It amazes a man to see such, uh, well, "logic". I am correct cause I say so. How can I prove it? I said so. How does that work? Fine, using his logic, he has to believe everything I say cause I said it and I can prove it by saying it. So I am your new god, why? Cause I said so. How can I prove it? Cause I SAID SO! Hahahahaha, man, I like this way of thinking, even if wrong still right cause I said I was right. I could never lose on Jeporady! What is 3? What? It's not wrong, it is right, cause I said so! So I win that question next.... What is 3? Cause I said so! Damn, wonder if I can get away with that, the bible does.(I just copy/pasted this from the last 3 posts of mine, asking the same thing/saying the same thing)



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   


don't think he is cool or "groovey"(disco era are we?) I just don't understand how he is "evil". He was a slave, he fought against his master, and sent to hell for not being a slave.


Whatever dude,,,, I don't expect you to accept my ideology, It is just that God said that as a Christian that I am the salt of the earth. It is my responsibility to inform you of his word.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
He is right though, people think it is the truth because they read it in a book that has no factual base, besides a few names of people and places. Its the truth because some man stands up in front of them in robes and tells them its the truth.

If you actually think about it Satan isnt bad. Maybe he got tired of God creating then killing. Maybe God is actually a really sadistic person, and Satan was tired of it and left. The bible is GODs point of few on satan, and to me that is very biased. Personally I wouldn't mind reading Satans version of the story, because I bet it is different then what everyone thinks.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   


it says "at best" and at best is Matthew, Mark and John.

there is no evidence that any of these are first hand , eyewitness accounts.
the first copy known was written 30-40 years after the fact. most were
related orally well into the second century.


dee: you are right you should not be compared to David Duke. along side you
even Duke looks intelegent. perhaps Guzman or Torquemada would be closer



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Whatever dude,,,, I don't expect you to accept my ideology, It is just that God said that as a Christian that I am the salt of the earth.

Salt of the earth?

Sweetie.. to be christian you're suppose to actually make an attempt to emmulate christ.. you haven't so don't assume calling yourself a christian makes you closer to 'god' than anyone else.

It is my responsibility to inform you of his word.

Could you please could give some examples of where you have promoted love, compassion and tolerence?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



it says "at best" and at best is Matthew, Mark and John.

there is no evidence that any of these are first hand , eyewitness accounts.
the first copy known was written 30-40 years after the fact. most were
related orally well into the second century.
Then your point exactly is? Is it that you wish me to concede there are no first hand accounts, as "at best" does not suffice? I cannot, for Clement claims to have been in the company of these men, who claim to have been in the company of Jesus. If that is so, there is no time limit pre-death that I know of for recording an event, and reasonability precludes my denying them as the authors, total recall excepted. For me to discount it all, I would have to discount Clement, and the records supporting his existence. Hence, "at best" is as far as I am willing to concede as to the number of authors.

I may be very tough on the records supporting the scriptures, and question that which seems illogical and contradictory, but I am not willing to stretch the truth further than I have researched it to be.

Perhaps I am mistaken as to identity, but did I not see you later refer to these three in the same vein?



[edit on 1/26/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 1/26/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I dont think so. Matthew and luke are at least partial copies of Mark and there
is some evidence that Mark and John are partially based on other writings.
there is also evidence that the names attached to the gospels are not the names of the writers.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Someone needs to tell the lady (who thinks she's a witch), who flops around in my front yard, when there is a full moon. One November she shaved her head. Ugggly!! Be careful of those who claim anything!!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Who thinks she is a witch? Uhm you need to do a little reading, Four Hoursemen. The religion is called Wicca. It has nothing to do with the commercialized version of witches you see everywhere on hallowe'en.

I like some of the Wiccan philosophies, respect nature, and all living things (I think). When I think of witches now adays, I see them in a forest, walking around talking to trees, the wind, the water. Everything has a life force.
It's one of the better religions out there.

So, Four Horsemen, go back a few pages and check out the links she was posting.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by _BLiND_]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
I dont think so. Matthew and luke are at least partial copies of Mark and there
is some evidence that Mark and John are partially based on other writings.
there is also evidence that the names attached to the gospels are not the names of the writers.
I do not accept blanket statements as proof. If you wish to proffer your case where I interpret "I don't think so" to mean that Matt, Mark and John were not written by those three then do so, I would be delighted to review this evidence and adjust my position from "at best" to definitely not, if it is sound.

Further, if "I don't think so" means that Matt, Mark and John are not the authors, then your next statement is of no news to me in that somehwere way back when, I have already stated that the most recent thinking is that Mark's was the first to be written and then copied. Nor do I care about Luke as that gospel is not mentioned by me as even being slightly plausible independent testament to Jesus, evidenced by another statement I made just a few days ago. Aside from that, I do not see your point in mentioning Luke, but I await receptively your evidence proving Clement was wrong.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I'm sorry "eyes shut and ears clogged".

I thought you titled your thread, with the word "witches". My eyesare..fail..ing.. me. You are a mighty one!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The title of the thread does contain the word "witches", but that is irrelevent. You said that someone "Thinks" she is a witch, like she is insane. But in all reality she IS a witch. Just not of the brand you are thinking of.

Witches in the title of the thread was an example of something that man could not explain so he created a ridiculous story. I could have substituted it with, dragons. Would that make more sense to you? Or how about the world being flat. Does that click? I doubt it.

Some People...
I-D-I-O-T-S ( not directed at anyone, but everyone. )

[edit on 27-1-2005 by _BLiND_]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
somewhere, the i dont think so was in reply to this,


Perhaps I am mistaken as to identity, but did I not see you later refer to these three in the same vein?

sorry I ran it all together .



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BLiND_
Who thinks she is a witch? Uhm you need to do a little reading, Four Hoursemen. The religion is called Wicca. It has nothing to do with the commercialized version of witches you see everywhere on hallowe'en.

I like some of the Wiccan philosophies, respect nature, and all living things (I think). When I think of witches now adays, I see them in a forest, walking around talking to trees, the wind, the water. Everything has a life force.
It's one of the better religions out there.

So, Four Horsemen, go back a few pages and check out the links she was posting.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by _BLiND_]



We see fish. I would say the wiccan belief pre dates the bible. If you look at religion through out history, nature is portrayed as a nurturing mother.

If you removed all the trees from earth, you would definitely would go breathless with remorse.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   


If you removed all the trees from earth, you would definitely would go breathless with remorse


And I hope you see what is happening to our world by removing God from it. Not a good thing.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   


Who thinks she is a witch? Uhm you need to do a little reading, Four Hoursemen. The religion is called Wicca. It has nothing to do with the commercialized version of witches you see everywhere on hallowe'en


How do you figure it has nothing to do with the commercialized version. It has everything to do with it. The word itself "wicca" is an old english word that means the "practice of magical arts" Pretty self explanatory to me. I do not expect you to accept my views just as I have no intentions of accepting your views,,,, but it would be nice to stick to the facts and stop sugar coating wiccanism, and stop misquoting the Bible, and spreading hearsay rumors. If you and the other wiccans on here choose this cult (wiccan), yes according to the latest version of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, as well as Handbook of Denominations in the United States, wiccanism is considered a CULT as well as a member of the OCCULT, but you choose to be a member of this cult then that is your choice. Christians are here to stay, God does not hate you, he hates your sin. I know you do not feel you have sinned. I know I have, I am not perfect. I sure hope you are right.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



If you removed all the trees from earth, you would definitely would go breathless with remorse


And I hope you see what is happening to our world by removing God from it. Not a good thing.

Absence of god caused the hole in the ozone layer? Wow. I didn't know that.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
In a research book entitled "Escape From Witchcraft" by Roberta Blankenship, two girls, both witches, wrote to Roberta that as part of their initial ritual:

They had to go to a graveyard in the dead of night, walk across a mansized cross, and denounce any belief in Christ. Afterwards, a ritual was performed and the girls had to drink the blood of animals that had been skinned alive.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join