The Anti-Christian conspiracy

yeah the double arrow pointing right

if you hit the >> thingy you get taken to whatever the most recent post is for any thread.

It's interestin that now there is a movie that will be coming out called "The Beast" in which the reality of western civ is realized. JESUS DIDN"T EXIST!!!

I can guarentee a few reactions.

1. Christian groups will boycott the film, denying its possabilities all together.
2. Pat Robertson will call for the Murder of the movies writers, then recind when he finds out that doing so is illegal.

I think option 1 is the Anti-Christian conspiracy. The conspiracy isn't against the religion itself because it was those who founded the Christianity who are behind it. The conspiracy is against those that follow the religion. The product of the conspiracy is the absolute denial of anything but that which they have been tought by their "spiritual leaders". What can possibly be gained by a refusal to entertain a possability.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's interestin that now there is a movie that will be coming out called "The Beast" in which the reality of western civ is realized. JESUS DIDN"T EXIST!!!

California is not all of western civilization

1. Christian groups will boycott the film, denying its possabilities all together.

I'm sure this will happen with many. I don't understand why not supporting such a film financially is such a horrible thing, though. Did you see the Passion? The Ten Commandments? Ben-Hur?

I intend to see the film, only because I know many members here will see it exclusive of any counter information. I've read through a lot of information supporting the theory that there's never been a Jesus, but will still want to see what evidence is presented and how in the film. Know your enemy

2. Pat Robertson will call for the Murder of the movies writers, then recind when he finds out that doing so is illegal.

You're sure? I'm guessing you're not going to make it as a prophet

JungleJake, My only problem is with people not seeing it based on its being blasphemous. This is what I see being the AntiChristian conspiracy. If you tack on a word, or the proper phrase, sheeple will immediately do as they're told. Unfortunately, and I'm sure you'll agree, that there are millions of Christian sheeple who won't see the movie, or open themselves up to other possibilities because their "spiritual leader" told them not to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all Christians are sheeple, but there are more Christians who would be more willing to put their free will in the hands of their priest, ministor, pastor or pope than not.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all Christians are sheeple, but there are more Christians who would be more willing to put their free will in the hands of their priest, ministor, pastor or pope than not.

I don't think that mentality is limited to Christians. It's evident in all politics, religions, businesses, and generally in the human condition. This is how you can have people taking the lead without fights constantly breaking out.

This aspect of humanity is not Christian, it's human.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all Christians are sheeple, but there are more Christians who would be more willing to put their free will in the hands of their priest, ministor, pastor or pope than not.

I don't think that mentality is limited to Christians. It's evident in all politics, religions, businesses, and generally in the human condition. This is how you can have people taking the lead without fights constantly breaking out.

This aspect of humanity is not Christian, it's human.

Agreed For an organization to exploit that is extremely underhanded in my opinion. That is why I believe that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy in that respect. I also believe there is an anti-Muslim, anti-jewish, anti-American, and anti-________.

I begin to worry when anyone takes anything at face value without looking into it objectively. For someone to exploit that is reprehensable.

I wouldn't consider it necessarily exploitation.

Let's say, for example, you become a leader on this board. I don't mean a mod, admin, or anything like that, but someone widely regarded as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and someone who has shown him or herself to be very wise in their interpretation of whatever the subject is. Initially, people would have checked you out, investigated, etc. After they do so and find that you aren't wanting, instead pretty much on the mark all the time, they stop checking. If you somehow go astray, those people who confirmed your character before won't suspect that something is amiss unless it is blatant. At the same time, you may warn people of false, spun or skewed information out there, and suggest they not see it without being properly equipped with the facts (as you see them). Is that exploitation, or are you trying to make sure propaganda doesn't twist people into believing what you consider lies?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
What use is that to me... I'm in England. I don't ''see'' what's going on in America. I can read about it, but you're not going to get all your information from reading.

Hmmm...the most I can do for the area is research from here. Reading, as you say.

Royal Navy to allow devil worship
Sunday, October 24, 2004 Posted: 9:50 AM EDT (1350 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A devil-worshipping sailor in the Royal Navy has become the first registered Satanist in the British Armed Forces.

Chris Cranmer, 24, a technician serving on the Type 22 frigate Cumberland, has been officially recognized as a Satanist by the ship's captain.

That allows him to perform satanic rituals aboard and permits him to have a non-Christian Church of Satan funeral should he be killed in action.

A spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defence told CNN Sunday that it had a duty to allow members of the forces to practice their religion.

He added that the MoD was an "equal opportunities employer" which did not stop anyone having their own religious values.

"The Royal Navy allows this kind of approach because it is clearly in line with current regulations. We are not aware of any other individuals who want to be registered as Satanists."

Cranmer, 24, who comes from Edinburgh, Scotland, is now lobbying the Ministry of Defence to make Satanism a registered religion in the Armed Forces, says Britain's Sunday Telegraph.

He says he wants Satanists to be able to join the military without "fear of marginalisation and the necessity to put up with Christian dogma."

www.cnn.com...

Some may be surprised that I agree one should be able to choose their beliefs so long as it does not involve killing or oppressing others. If you follow Christ, wear your cross. If you follow Satan, wear your inverted pentagram. I don't know why people feel they have to dance around each other all the time. My point is, I doubt England is a "satanist-free" country.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Sure there's a lot of Christians in American, but it's hardly the heart of Christianity.

True, we're only a few hundred years old versus Christianity which is thousands.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I could understand why there would be a lot of hatred towards Christians in American though. Some of the time things are over the top, you have those televangelists, healing rallies etc, which we don't get here.

There are good televangelists as well as those who have some malignant agenda or motive. The good ones don't get any press though. I've not been to any healing rallies, though have gone to a "charasmatic" church a time or two. The jury is still out for me on those. Not my thing.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
You also have groups trying to push ID in to the school teaching system, and if that doesn't work they teach it to kids at sunday school or summer schools specially set up.

Science should only teach things that have merit whether ID or Evolution. Or, if it decides to discuss possibilities, it should discuss them all.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
No, but you'd expect to see some sort of rift, or effect on Christianity?

There are plenty of attempts to dismantle Christianity via non-conspiracy and conspiracy. I agree that it's good to test Christianity by non-conspiracy. That is, to be upfront, open and honest about the criticisms thereof because that is much better than stewing in resentment and unanswered questions. ATS is good for that. It gets people who are otherwise afraid to speak the forum and medium to do so. Also, with its strict adherence policy to the truth, it's very attractive for people like myself to be here. If this were "talk radio" then I'd be compelled to switch it off.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
If I asked my friend 'do you think there's an anti-Christian conspiracy' I'd almost certainly get the answer no. Maybe you should move to England?

A tempting offer no doubt. I hear the scenery is beautiful, the politics equally insane, and the clubs thumping with techno/trip hop/electro but that would mean leaving my favorite Indian food restaurant behind and I'm not sure I'm willing to do that just yet.

I'm planning to visit U.K. in August, very excited about it. Gonna see some friends, London Symphony Orchestra and a cricket game. Really looking forward to it too . With any fortune, no encounters of the sort we're talking about here.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
hehe no. I got myself a rather attractive girlfriend, haven't gone all the way but hey...take things slow

Good call, no need to rush. Adds a whole new dimension of complication to a relationship. Going too fast, that is. All the best in life and love.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and this would have to do with this because...

(edit - tutut warning hey. why's everyone anti-shaunybaby)

I'm pro-shaunybaby. I can only speak for myself though.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There's been a few people who have gone off at me and recieved warnings. I think I may have to start an anti-shaunybaby thread.

I'll back you up friend, lemme know what you need me to do.

Originally posted by junglejake
Let's say, for example, you become a leader on this board. I don't mean a mod, admin, or anything like that, but someone widely regarded as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and someone who has shown him or herself to be very wise in their interpretation of whatever the subject is. Initially, people would have checked you out, investigated, etc. After they do so and find that you aren't wanting, instead pretty much on the mark all the time, they stop checking. If you somehow go astray, those people who confirmed your character before won't suspect that something is amiss unless it is blatant. At the same time, you may warn people of false, spun or skewed information out there, and suggest they not see it without being properly equipped with the facts (as you see them). Is that exploitation, or are you trying to make sure propaganda doesn't twist people into believing what you consider lies?

I see where you are going, but one generation in a thread is far different than dozens or hundreds in a true belief system. Lets expand your scenerio.

Lets say that I know the people respect what I say, and I am very greatful, so I do my best to do right by them. In doing so I bring someone I trust into the forum. I tell the members of this forum that he knows his stuff, and you should listen to him as you would me. The people do it because they trust me. Let's continue to expand this by 2000 years, hundreds upon thousands of leaders who are only where they are because they were trusted by people who were trusted by people who were trusted by people..... Eventually there will be corruption of the initial trust.

When I see Televangelists, Popes, Cardinals, Ayatolas, or whatever living in absolute luxury, while poor people are giving up what little they have to get a blessing from these "trusted" people, I call exploitation.

Any pastor, evangelist or priest who says you need to give money for a blessing from them is exploiting you. That's simple, and there were several of those during the 80s that were pretty big. However, preachers I listen to today do not do this. People give to ministries not for a blessing, but to bless others by allowing the ministry that touched them to grow and touch others as well.

I can understand why, on the surface, you might believe a preacher with a personal jet must be squandering the money given to them for their ministry on themselves. However, if you have a preacher who speaks all over the country or world, it's probably cheaper to own your own company (ministry, but more familiar term) jet than to buy 7 or 8 plane tickets a week.

As to your example of telling others, listen to this person, etc. for 2000 years, you're basing that assumption on the idea that the only people who questioned Christianity were there with Jesus, and no one since has questioned one word. This is not true. Every one of us has gone through a questioning phase, even those who were raised as Christians. The fact that there have been divisions in the church proves that people are continually questioning what the respected leadership says. Today for non-Catholic Christians, there is no leader, no name above all names, other than Christ. That being the case, how can your scenario be true? If it had started 2000 years ago without question, there would be one major religious leader that all Christians would follow besides Christ.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
When I see Televangelists, Popes, Cardinals, Ayatolas, or whatever living in absolute luxury, while poor people are giving up what little they have to get a blessing from these "trusted" people, I call exploitation.

So it's all about money?

Surely if they wanted to exploit anyone, they'd exploit rich people... as you say they're 'poor' people, so why exploit them...they've got no money.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
When I see Televangelists, Popes, Cardinals, Ayatolas, or whatever living in absolute luxury, while poor people are giving up what little they have to get a blessing from these "trusted" people, I call exploitation.

So it's all about money?

Surely if they wanted to exploit anyone, they'd exploit rich people... as you say they're 'poor' people, so why exploit them...they've got no money.

It's easier to exploit those with no hope by giving them false hope. Plus, if you exploit millions of poor people for dollars a day, it adds up. But I don't think it's all about money. It's about power and control.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's interestin that now there is a movie that will be coming out called "The Beast" in which the reality of western civ is realized. JESUS DIDN"T EXIST!!!

... But that's not true, so ..... ?

I can guarentee a few reactions.
1. Christian groups will boycott the film, denying its possabilities all together.


... I'm not a Christian group. The thesis of this film is wrong. Okay, now what? My personal experience is that "Jesus" (actually, "Yeshua") changed my life when I was a kid. So all the films in the world won't change that.

2. Pat Robertson will call for the Murder of the movies writers, then recind when he finds out that doing so is illegal.

... Pat Robertson is either a Montauk mind-controllee or a closet something or other. He doesn't speak for most grown-up Christian converts.

I think option 1 is the Anti-Christian conspiracy. The conspiracy isn't against the religion itself because it was those who founded the Christianity who are behind it. The conspiracy is against those that follow the religion. The product of the conspiracy is the absolute denial of anything but that which they have been tought by their "spiritual leaders". What can possibly be gained by a refusal to entertain a possability.

... The real question is, WHO just follows the herd and WHO follows Jesus, who was an independent THINKER that wasn't afraid to "make waves"?
... Independent thinkers are not willing participants in the New World Order, because the NWO has STRIPPED "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" out of every single Law and Policy of every single Western Civ Government that the Illuminati have touched. "Consent of the governed" no longer exists in the Western World. Our leaders have adopted totalitarianism; and they have consigned the USConstitution and the UK1689 Bill of Rights to the dustbin of history.
... What else is new?

Emily E. C. Windsor-Cragg

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's easier to exploit those with no hope by giving them false hope. Plus, if you exploit millions of poor people for dollars a day, it adds up. But I don't think it's all about money. It's about power and control.

At the end of the day the responsibility is with the people, not the leaders. The people don't have to give away their money. In all honesty if they weren't giving it to the church they'd be conned or swindled out of it someway.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's easier to exploit those with no hope by giving them false hope. Plus, if you exploit millions of poor people for dollars a day, it adds up. But I don't think it's all about money. It's about power and control.

At the end of the day the responsibility is with the people, not the leaders. The people don't have to give away their money. In all honesty if they weren't giving it to the church they'd be conned or swindled out of it someway.

You're right. That's why my take on the anti-Christian conspiracy is actually an anti-sheeple conspiracy. Anyone who is willing to be controlled will be controlled. The conspiracy is against anyone who is willing to give up their own point of view for someone else's.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
So it's all about money?

Surely if they wanted to exploit anyone, they'd exploit rich people... as you say they're 'poor' people, so why exploit them...they've got no money.

Hehe, I like the way you think.

Well my point was, if you need something physiologically or psychologically, how is that different than a christian needing God? I'm trying to establish an argument for Shaunybaby's judgement that all christians are weak-minded and in need of a crutch. Many people use their various body functions as "crutches" in the sense that Shaunybaby is applying it to christians, an example of that is the urge to procreate or the alternative versions of that. I suggest that rather than saying that christians need God because He represents a crutch for them, that rather He provides a necessary aspect that we as humans require, much in the same fashion that people need food and so forth. We are more than simply physical, we are also spiritual. If that aspect of our being isn't nourished, we are depriving ourselves of growth in that area.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by undo]

This was from pages back..but someone said that morals are not a stem from God but man. How can man be the stem when they have proven to have less morals than nature itstelf. Throughout history man has showen nothing but disrecpect for life itself. Explain to me how man deserves such an honor to be the stem of morals.