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.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 103
16
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Produkt, I will be addressing a lot of that on your evolution of religion thread. I also suspect I know what you're eluding to so far as the geographical "error", assuming you're talking New Testament. If I miss it, bring it up. As the conclusion to this multi-post reply will explain, there's a lot I'm leaving out; most every paragraph could have, and has had, books written about the evidence. If you're talking old, I haven't picked that apart quite yet to do a bunch of research on it, finding the critic's opinions, the refuting opinions, and, of course, how the critics respond.

As to the pagan elements behind many Christian holidays and even some Catholic doctrines, I don't deny that (yet...Haven't delved deeply into that one, either). However, because the church designated some holidays to fall on pagan holidays to convince them (that I would call a sales pitch) doesn't make the message of scripture one of pagan origin. To believe that you would have to accept the Graf-Wellhausen reconstruction of Israel, stating the religion went from animism to polydemonism to polytheism to menolatry to, finally, monotheism, which has been thoroughly debunked through archaeological evidence and literary analysis. That debunking will be presented, in small part, on your evolution of religion thread.

Shauny, no matter what you feel for me, I still consider you a friend. If it is logic and reasoning you cling to, continue to read; more and more evidence is going to be presented pertaining to the accuracy of the New Testament, I will be going on later about the Old Testament in the same way, and I will be addressing your pagan concerns in produkt's thread. I will send you the link or links when I post there.

EDIT: Part 4's not going to be coming until tonight. Had traffic court this morning and didn't bring the doc here to work
It ain't easy bein' "simple".

[edit on 3/10/06/10 by junglejake]




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I'm interested in what you have against the evolution of religion. I've never heard of any archeological evidence for judaism existing 6,000 years ago, or before polytheistic belief's were adopted. I'm also interested in what evidence you have against the fact that people of those time's borrowed off one another, both culturally and religously in that region. I'm also interested in how the early biblical author's felt the need to inaccuratly portray jesus' birth to fall on a pagan holiday just to 'win over' the heathen pagan's rather then portraying his correct birth day. Why falsely portray your savior just to win over a group of heathens? No logical sense there. We now have a more accurate time scale for the possible birth of a historical jesus, so why not correct the date in the bible? Why continue to perpeptuate a lie, to mock a savior in the name of winning over the heathen pagans. It's already been shown that monotheism has pagan origins, so I'm rather interested in what you've got against not just todays historians, but even those of even the second century AD that admit to some pagan origins.

[EDIT] Also interested in what you have to say about the slow and current evolution of religous practice and belief's. Such as, acceptance of gays. Tolerance for other religous beliefs, and many other example's if you'd like them.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
I'm interested ...


Glad to hear it, and thanks for the synopsis of where you're coming from. I haven't actually read through all of your evo thread, but will have to before replying. Out of curiosity, could you U2U me with some sources (preferably books) that you've used to come to these conclusions to ensure I'm not just turning a blind eye to the critic's case against authentic religion.


[EDIT] Also interested in what you have to say about the slow and current evolution of religous practice and belief's. Such as, acceptance of gays. Tolerance for other religous beliefs, and many other example's if you'd like them.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]


That I can answer right now. Societies and cultures try to impact the religion with their own ideologies. Some accept this, while others maintain their beliefs. A great example of this is taking place in the Christian church in China. There is an official church of China where things are taken out of the Bible to account for the Chinese government more. Then there's the underground church, where Christians are being arrested just for believing in the whole Bible instead of the government's version. There is hope there, though. At least in the Hunan province, where the government has permitted true Christian churches to be erected and permitted to practice Christianity in full.

Just because a culture says something is right doesn't make it so.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
For much of christianity history, it had quiet abit of power, even within the government. As we all know as well, the victors write the history. Christianity, in the case of religous belief's was the victor. It lied, cheated, and stole it's way to the top religous belief in it's infancy. It rewrote jesus' birth to win over the pagans as well as other pagan holidays. It rewrote the epics of gilgamesh. It rewrote nearly all previous and older teaching's with nearly the same exact teching's and similar events. If christianity, or monotheism were the one true holy religion, it wouldn't have been born in the midst of culture's with polytheistic belief's and some philosophical musing's of a one true god. There would be records of this one true religion predating polytheistic religion's, yet there are none. There is nothing to indicate that monotheism is the oldest and most truest religion. Yet we can see 15.000 year old cave painting of ritualistic hunts (animism) we can see 10.000 year old shamanistic villages. We can see 7-6.000 year old polythiestic culture's springin up. We can see 4-3.500 year old monotheism starting out and eventually and sometimes violently winning over the older religions. This is what the archeological evidence teach's us.

The one thing that strikes me as odd... 300 or even 400 years ago, gays were not accepted. Other belief's were not tolerated. It wasn't the culture nor the government of those time's. It was the church. The vatican took over 400 years to apologize to galileo for his blasphemous teaching of the sun centered solar system. The vatican is a church, not a government facility. The crusade's were done by the church, not the government. Witch trials, thanks to the holy and infallible bible were commited in error on innocent young and old women, and some men. For what reason? Supersitious fears. This wasn't brought about by the government, it was brought about by religous teaching's. The government doesn't teach thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. The holy infallible bible teach's this. The church has twisted the bible so many time's to push it's own agenda's, start it's own holy war's. Government need not apply. And today, it's the church deciding these thing's are now acceptable. Culture need not apply.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Shauny, no matter what you feel for me, I still consider you a friend. If it is logic and reasoning you cling to, continue to read; more and more evidence is going to be presented pertaining to the accuracy of the New Testament, I will be going on later about the Old Testament in the same way, and I will be addressing your pagan concerns in produkt's thread. I will send you the link or links when I post there.


If there's so much of this 'evidence' that proves the bible true, then why are there 4 or 5+ billion people who don't believe it?

obviously you're seeing something that we are not. heaven's going to be one empty place, whereas hell's going to be overcrowded. hey, i'm used to that...i live in england.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
If there's so much of this 'evidence' that proves the bible true, then why are there 4 or 5+ billion people who don't believe it?

That's a great question.


obviously you're seeing something that we are not.

This seeing isn't some special gift. Anyone can do it. I've spent a lot of time researching all sides of the argument. As my signature says, the truth fears no questions. When I was an atheist, I believed this as well. When I challenged those beliefs by reading the perspective of those critical of my own beliefs (post-JJ's Story), the evidence started to point me in the direction of Christ.

It wasn't divine revelation that made me a Christian. It was a willingness to be found wrong, and a willingness to challenge my own beliefs.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
This seeing isn't some special gift. Anyone can do it. I've spent a lot of time researching all sides of the argument. As my signature says, the truth fears no questions. When I was an atheist, I believed this as well. When I challenged those beliefs by reading the perspective of those critical of my own beliefs (post-JJ's Story), the evidence started to point me in the direction of Christ.

It wasn't divine revelation that made me a Christian. It was a willingness to be found wrong, and a willingness to challenge my own beliefs.


The funny thing is that you sit there thinking you're right. When across the other side of the world some muslim thinks he/she is right...and so on. You may use the excuse that they're all in some way connected, but I doubt many muslims would think the same, that the bible in anyway confirms their belief in a God etc.

By this very pure fact that there are other religions around, makes the so called 'truth' of the bible, look false. If Christianity was the only religion ever made...You'd have a hard time not believing in God. The fact that there are so many religions, like I said; makes it looks nothing other than a man-made concept, which has evolved to be almost 2 billion people's belief. Heck scientology sounds like a load of rubbish, yet there's 500,000 members who are willing to shove thousands of pounds in to it, just because they need something so badly to believe in.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
It's actually the rabid challenges to Christianity that have affirmed my faith in it. Because there are so many people trying to poke holes in every verse of scripture, and scripture is holding up to the scrutiny, I believe. No other religion has undergone the systematic and thorough challenges on every level from literary, evolutionary, historically and scientifically that Christianity has. That's why I'm confident in telling someone who wants to check out another religion, go for it, but apply the same questions you did to Christianity to that religion, and always keep Christ as an option.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It's actually the rabid challenges to Christianity that have affirmed my faith in it. Because there are so many people trying to poke holes in every verse of scripture, and scripture is holding up to the scrutiny, I believe. No other religion has undergone the systematic and thorough challenges on every level from literary, evolutionary, historically and scientifically that Christianity has. That's why I'm confident in telling someone who wants to check out another religion, go for it, but apply the same questions you did to Christianity to that religion, and always keep Christ as an option.


Exactly what parts of scripture hold up?

The part where God creates the universe, and everything in it in seven days? = no evidence 'for' that whatsoever.

How about the part where Noah builds an Ark to carry two of every animal, even get the animals that were on other continents? = no evidence 'for' whatsoever.

The parts where we read about Jesus' miracles, mainly the four gospels? = no evidence whatsoever that these are at all 'accurate' tales of Jesus' life.

I'm not sure what scripture you're on about that has 'held' up to scrutiny, but none of that above, and many many more do not.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm not sure what scripture you're on about that has 'held' up to scrutiny, but none of that above, and many many more do not.


And what do the Biblical scholars say about this? Do they have any defense explaining these things?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
JJ,


  • The birth of the universe does not hold up.
  • Noahs Flood does not hold up. In fact, out right stolen from older mythologies. And mistranslated. (the sumerians believed the land they lived in WAS the whole world... which was in fact flooded at one point. oops)
  • Jesus' life story and teaching's are very similar to much older 'saviors' and their teachings.
  • Evidence for evolution goes against creation, unless your one of those new age monotheistics who don't take the biblical text literally as people used too.
  • Miracles performed are easily done by todays stage magicians, and if I recall, even by those back then refuting those so called miracles.
  • Fact that the victors get to rewrite history. (ask any native american who had his land stolen by the white man)
  • There are geographic errors written by those who were supposedly first hand witnesses of jesus and supposedly native's of the lands they screwed up with.
  • The fact that man created god
  • The fact that not everyone from a fallen cult will stray from it's teaching's.
  • Egyptian account for the exodus isn't the same as the biblical one, nor even at the same time (if I'm not mistaken).
  • failure to get jesus' birthday right ... blasphemous bastards trying to win the hearts of heaten pagans.
  • Fact that if mary hadn't claimed to be carrying the son of god and used a jewish 'prophecy' to lead people to believe this, she would have been stoned to death (enough to make anyone lie)
  • Fact that horus and jesus are almost the same person in both life and teachings (as well as many others)
  • IF monotheism were the one true religion, it would pre-date polytheism. It would pre-date shamanism. It would pre-date animism.
  • IF the account for creation were true, archeological digs would point to this, but it in fact doesn't. It tells a whole different story of man slowly becomming civilized and slowly developing tools. Slowly learning to farm.



Much more, but I don't feel like spending all night posting out a whole list.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Produkt, that's not what I asked. What is the evidence for it? It's all fine and good to say the cases for whatever don't hold up, but what are the cases? What do biblical scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff say about it?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Produkt, that's not what I asked. What is the evidence for it? It's all fine and good to say the cases for whatever don't hold up, but what are the cases? What do biblical scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff say about it?


It'd be nice if you stopped avoiding our points we make. Christians on this forum seem to do a good job of that.

It's got nothing to do with biblical scholars or theologians...the fact is that there is absolutly no 'proof' or even supporting evidence that there is such thing as a literal 7 day creation, or the garden of eden, or adam and eve, or miracles of Jesus, other than writings. the problem with these writings, whether they're historically or geologically accurate is not the point. the text within them cannot be proven.

that is where the bible does not hold up to scrutiny. so for you to say that it does is plain ignorance.

and you want me to prove there's no such thing as 7 day creation?... how about it defies laws of physics, biology etc. the same laws that dictate how you see the stars, did not apply to adam as god brought them to adam and he saw them straight away. already there is inconsistancy there. sure 'god can do anything'. however, the reason that is there is that they didn't understand light, like we do today.

that is where the bible does not hold up to scrutiny.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   


Oh, wait, you were serious when you told me to stop avoiding your points.

You actually made one for me that I was hoping you would, thanks. You have no idea what the other side says. You listened to the prosecution and judged the case without ever having allowed the defence to present its case, or even show up.

You say you're going to rely on logic and reasoning. Is it reasonable or logical to make a decision without ever having heard both sides of the story?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I believe that the animosity towards Christians, at least in America, is in retaliation to the hypocritical, holier than thou moral police attitude that so many supposed "christians" here take on. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, religiously or otherwise, but the Christian right is seldom seen as an open minded type of crowd. They believe that what they believe is correct, the word of God, and will not give anyone else a word in edgewise. They try to legislate and intimidate those who do not agree into submission, and I believe that most people resent that. Also, with all of the scumbag liars that show up on television begging for dollars every day, it paints a poor picture of the religion as a bunch of money hungry snake oil salesmen who use fear and promises of hellfire to fleece the small minded, the elderly and the gulible for personal and financila gains. Then when you take into account that so, so many Catholic priests have been proven to be pedophiles and sexual predators hiding behind the cloth, and the fact the the RCC has done little to remove or punish these swine, it is no suprise that people have developed a serious distaste for Christianity as a whole. Just my 2 cents



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well, as for the other side of the case. There are plenty of christians who now admit that evolution is real. There are many who now see the evidence for the big bang and an old universe as well as earth. Hence, seven day creationism, as taught by the early biblical folk. There are christians who do admit to 'some' pagan origins in the bible. The church's now tolerating and accepting gays, other religions, and other thing's once considered 'blasphemous' (evolution of religion). Like I said, it's not the culture, it's not the government. The church itself is doing all this. The religous people themselve's are doing all this. No one is forcing them to change their belief's just because man made law says different, or because cultural norms have changed. Watch the new's. Use google and research abit more. Heck, you can even find some of this on christian site's themselves.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Again, that's my point. You don't know the evidence against what it is you believe. You're only stating stuff you've learned that is in support of what you believe without addressing any of the possible counter arguments that have been presented. It leads one to believe you're getting all of your information from websites like evilbible.com and athiests.org without ever learning the other side. The Art of War doesn't spend most of the time talking about knowing your enemy for no reason. If you know where your enemy, in this case someone with a different faith than your self, is coming from, you can counter their arguments before they even have a chance to make them, stealing their thunder. It's the way to win battles, and it's the way to win debates. Remember, the truth fears no questions. If you really believe what you're preaching is the truth, then there should be no problem going to websites like christiananswers.net, carm.org, or icr.org.

If you don't know both sides of an argument before going into the argument, you can't be assured of victory. If both sides know eachother's sides, that's when you get thoughtful and interesting debates.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
BlackOps719, those are some very likely possibilities. I don't agree that that's all of it, but it is a large part. In the 80s, there were a lot of televangelists who were in the spotlight, ambassadors for Christians throughout the country and world. When scandal struck one after the other, all of them seeming to topple like dominoes, it did a huge disservice to Christ's message. They were not practicing what they preached, and in some cases were complete charlatans in the business for the money. It was a very sad time in America for Christianity; a great medium by which to bring the message of Christ to the nation, the television, after so many turned away and looked to themselves in the 60s and 70s, also turned out to be the magnifying lens on their lives, showing their hypocrisy.

While the Roman Catholic Priests convicted of pedophilia are not anywhere near the majority of priests, or even a slight minority, the way the Roman Catholic Church handled such allegations and evidence pertaining to the priest's actions only caused the same effect that the televangelists had. By the Church trying to hid it as they had done in the past when they were a stronger political organization, actually ruling Europe for a while, they only caused people to question and doubt others in the Church. Since so many don't see the difference between the Roman Catholic Church and other sects of Christianity where this hierarchy does not exist, this is attributed to them, as well. When you screw up, especially in such a horrible way, you must come out and admit it yourself. If you hide it away and let someone else expose it, people will wonder what else is hidden and you will no longer be credible.

I hope that you, individually, though, do not attribute these failings to all Christians or to Christianity as it is described in the Bible. Men may stumble, men may fail, but Christ is always and forever the same. Christians cannot place their faith in any one man, no matter the reason. That is why we place our trust in God alone. That is why we place our trust in Christ alone. The scripture is above the teachings of man. If someone's teachings violate the scriptures, those teachings are false. There is something else there at work causing that individual teacher to skew or misconstrue what is written in the Bible. Please, don't hold us accountable for the actions of other Christians; hold us accountable for what is written in the Bible. Hold the individual accountable for the individual's actions, not the group.

Thanks for the great post!



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I have a couple problems with this section of the site attempting to prove the bible was divinely inspired.



The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas

1. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11, NIV)


This particular passage is used for explanation of the flood, how it happened. There was no biblical world wide flood, and no ammount of biblical passage's is going to prove this. There is not enough water on this planet for such a flood to happen, even christian's are starting to accept this is just a story and not a historical account. And accept it's borrowing from older pagan flood myths, most notebly, the epics of gilgamesh, which come's from an even older story.

One part that struck me as rather interesting.



Though nothing in the above lists "prove" biblical inspiration, they are strong evidence that it is indeed inspired. Add to them that millions of people all over the world testify to having an encounter with the God of the Bible, the seemingly powerful nature of the words of the Bible, the changed lives of countless people and you have further, though more subjective, evidence that the Bible is the inspired word of God.


The site openly admits that the passages provided aren't proof in themselve's for divine inspiration of the bible. Nor are the passage's strong evidence for divine inspiration. Many culture's were indeed sea faring people and not only knew of ocean current's, but made use of them as well, these culture's predating monotheism itself. And so thusly, this passage here is another fine example of not evidence for divine inspiration.



# The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas

1. "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).


Another passage also stands out to me on that site of 'evidence'.



The Earth is suspended in nothing

1. "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.


The greeks in fact were the first to discuss a spherical earth, rotation on an axis. Fixed stars, and the wandering planets. Unfortunatley, this idea never took wide spread belief as the theory didn't explain everything. But, thankfully after many hundreds of years we grew out of our religous egocentricism and realized the truth. Sound's much like evolution. Despite all the evidence pointing to it, and also pointing to religous evolution, it hasn't taken wide spread belief because it doesn't explain everything. But already we can see a change in this as more and more start excepting the evidence, just as they did with the sun centered solar system. So, obviously your biblical scholar's perpeptuating lies of evidence for divine inspiration weren't paying attention in history class. Common mistake by most people of faith. If it goes against my religion or disproves parts of it, ignore it.

If you'd like I could go through that whole site and see what else of this so called evidence is actually in error.

www.carm.org...

Actually, I could set up a whole team of people here on ATS to help out with the research. Get a whole thread in the research forum dedicated to tearing down this one website alone. If anyone is interested, U2U me, I'll send you a link where we can chat in private about this and exchange IM screen name's.

[EDIT]

I could also, as it's going to be rather lengthy, get a website dedicated to just this and just link from the research thread to that website.

[EDIT]Also wanted to point out that the book of enoch describe's a flat earth cosmology very similar to other flat earth cosmologies in the surrounding biblical lands.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You actually made one for me that I was hoping you would, thanks. You have no idea what the other side says. You listened to the prosecution and judged the case without ever having allowed the defence to present its case, or even show up.

You say you're going to rely on logic and reasoning. Is it reasonable or logical to make a decision without ever having heard both sides of the story?


It's nice of you to 'assume' that I haven't heard the other side of the story, but I have...time and time again. It's from hearing the other side of the story that i'm able to come to my conclusion that your side has no defense whatsoever.

However, if you think otherwise, i'd like for you to explain how Adam saw the stars straight away, even the ones that were billions of light years away. that alone does not fit. as i'm sure your answer to get out of it is 'that may not have happened, but it doesn't sway my belief in god' - hence you ignore it. or 'god can do anything' - again you ignore it. so if anyone else is 'ignoring' the 'other' side of the story it's christians. by ignoring the fact that adam could see the stars straight away, you're ignoring basic fundalmental laws of physics that govern how light moves. which, also would make you a hypocrit in trying to judge me, by saying i've not heard the other side.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join