The Anti-Christian conspiracy

saint4God:

Help my memory please. I'm not holding secrets. I don't doubt it though as I would politely decline for the reasons I have already given. It's very impersonal and therefore counterproductive. I cannot ask everyone on ATS what they believe and find out how to help each one of them because of it on a thread. I also doubt everyone would wish that. Rather, them sending U2U shows at least SOME initiative and desire to engage in a walk.

LcKob:

Quite true, not everyone would desire this, but the point was brought up by Shauneybaby as to the nature of u2us ... I merely reinforced the underlying notion that truth does not need coddling or a "personal touch" ... any implied personal dynamics involved in a u2u is merely the evidence of deft salesmanship or a convincing strategy.

Truth in its unmitigated and raw form should be able to stand on its own merits ... nothing more.


Saint4God:

If that's the case, why have the ability to U2U at all on ATS?


Lckob:

... for the expedient reason of truly "personalized" messages ... case in point, messages from mods to a target user (warnings etc) ... or perhaps the privacy afforded for socially charged reason ...


... but u2us are not conducive to the nature of truth and the concept of open forums ... in fact they are diametrically opposed. i.e. narrowband selective communication vs. open band receptivity for all to hear.

Saint4god:

I've found much greater progress via U2U (else I would not do it), than bickering on threads.


LcKob:

Ah ... by the usage of the term "bickering" you are associating a negative to the format ... I on the other hand promote open access for the very reason that it is much harder to rely on things other than the message for the purpose of convincing another.

Saint4god:

Finally, what does any of this have to do with the Anti-Christian Conspiracy? Yet again, we are off topic. We're not here to talk about me and how I communicate best. This is a marvelous demonstration on how quickly and easily we can get off topic. So then, back to the reason why everyone clickies on this link please...

Lckob:

Actually the "derailment" was a device to set the stage for open discourse ... I notice that you avoided a response to my assertion on the lack of conspiracy within the context of personal subjectivity. In fact, you avoided Als response as well ... hmmmm ....

bottom line is this ... it is problematic and less than convincing for the sake of argument when the opposition promotes private channels of communication ... for what should be unvarnished truth or the seeking of.

To reiterate, I stated that it is human nature to have differing views (indisputable) there is no such thing as 100% association or compliance when humans are concerned ... and that being the case, there will ALWAYS be dissent or a differing view ... does this make for conspiracy ... once again, no, it makes for the human condition. Simple human pscyhology.

Now you say that there is a conspiracy due to this evidence of dissent?

Really all that proves is that there are others with different ideas ... no more, no less ... anything else is reading into the phenomena without corraborative evidence.

So, to focus on the topic ... what is this evidence?

[edit on 26-5-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by LCKob
Quite true, not everyone would desire this, but the point was brought up by Shauneybaby as to the nature of u2us ... I merely reinforced the underlying notion that truth does not need coddling or a "personal touch" ... any implied personal dynamics involved in a u2u is merely the evidence of deft salesmanship or a convincing strategy.

Thank you for the compliment but very undeserved I assure you. You think God needs salesmen and convincing strategies? Surely not, nor is it the love He asks for in His Word, written or otherwise.

Originally posted by LCKob
Truth in its unmitigated and raw form should be able to stand on its own merits ... nothing more.

Indeed it does. Indeed I post it in my replies. Different people are in different parts of the race however and have different hurtles to overcome. Would you not agree?

Originally posted by LCKob
... for the expedient reason of truly "personalized" messages ... case in point, messages from mods to a target user (warnings etc) ... or perhaps the privacy afforded for socially charged reason ...

Are you saying I'm misusing U2U's? Are you saying mods cannot police U2U's? Are yo saying I'm using U2U's to "duck under the radar"? I'm not getting your point, please be more candid.

Originally posted by LCKob
... but u2us are not conducive to the nature of truth and the concept of open forums ... in fact they are diametrically opposed. i.e. narrowband selective communication vs. open band receptivity for all to hear.

Then why give U2U ability to individual users and not just Mods? They obviously have the ability to dictate such.

Originally posted by LCKob
Ah ... by the usage of the term "bickering" you are associating a negative to the format ...

I do see a lot of non-progress and feel that this is negative, so yes this would be an accurate feeling on my part. Not all-encompassing, but a frequent event nonetheless.

Originally posted by LCKob
I on the other hand promote open access for the very reason that it is much harder to rely on things other than the message for the purpose of convincing another.

Want a cookie?

Originally posted by LCKob
Actually the "derailment" was a device to set the stage for open discourse ... I notice that you avoided a response to my assertion on the lack of conspiracy within the context of personal subjectivity.

State your question and I will do my best to answer. So far I see statements.

Originally posted by LCKob
In fact, you avoided Als response as well ... hmmmm ....

What response? Please clarify. Ask your (or that person's) question.

Originally posted by LCKob
bottom line is this ... it is problematic and less than convincing for the sake of argument when the opposition promotes private channels of communication ... for what should be unvarnished truth or the seeking of.

I am not the author of truth my friend. It is clear without my intervention. All I'm trying to do is to find out what obstacles people have in receiving it and helping them to overcome it. I'm not sure why this is a problem. Is that what we are here for? To "deny ignorance" and uncover truth? As a facilitator am I to be charged with obstructing it?

Originally posted by LCKob
To reiterate, I stated that it is human nature to have differing views (indisputable) there is no such thing as 100% association or compliance when humans are concerned ...

I can agree with that. Should I argue things I agree with?

Originally posted by LCKob
and that being the case, there will ALWAYS be dissent or a differing view ... does this make for conspiracy ... once again, no, it makes for the human condition. Simple human pscyhology.

Again and agreeable statement, but neither of these are what I'm talking about nor what the thread is about.

Originally posted by LCKob
Now you say that there is a conspiracy due to this evidence of dissent?

I'm saying that there are groups that have an Anti-Christian Conspiracy. NOT JUST PEOPLE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS, as that is a given. As you've said and as we all should be able to agree upon. The definition of both "Anti-Christian" and "Conspiracy" have been rehashed so many times it'd make Noah Webster turn blue if he were still alive.

Originally posted by LCKob
Really all that proves is that there are others with different ideas ... no more, no less ... anything else is reading into the phenomena without corraborative evidence.

Says you and I've provided leads to discover more.

Originally posted by LCKob
So, to focus on the topic ... what is this evidence?

I've named the groups, I've named what they do. I've named the (approximate) locations of where they can be found, I've described their thinking, theology, intent and plan. I would find it rude to start naming names and taking you to their physical locations for you to meet them since they don't want me to. You know as well as I everyone says "where's your proof?" "where's your evidence" then when presented, they say "there is no proof" "there is no evidence". My function on this thread is not to make you believe what you see, only point it out and hope that you do. To think any person can do more than this is way beyond human capability. But, I'm always open to suggestions.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by saint4God]

Saint4god:

Thank you for the compliment but very undeserved I assure you. You think God needs salesmen and convincing strategies? Surely not, nor is it the love He asks for in His Word, written or otherwise.

LCKob:

I can't and won't speak for a hypothetical god ... but evidence does point to the need for those following this god to "spread the word"


Saint4god:

Indeed it does. Indeed I post it in my replies. Different people are in different parts of the race however and have different hurtles to overcome. Would you not agree?

LcKob:

Actually the scientist in me begs to differ, put all the cards on the table for all to see in the same light and then let them decide for themselves the implications.


Saint4god:

Are you saying I'm misusing U2U's? Are you saying mods cannot police U2U's? Are yo saying I'm using U2U's to "duck under the radar"? I'm not getting your point, please be more candid...

LcKob:

I am merely following the practice of community involvement ... I am saying that whatever "ducks under the radar" to use your term is by process suspect ... whether that is the case or not ... Sorry, SM is a stickler in this way.



[edit on 26-5-2006 by LCKob]

Saint4god:

Then why give U2U ability to individual users and not just Mods? They obviously have the ability to dictate such.


LCKob:

The ability to dictate censorship would be counterproductive to a board like ATS ... what I stated is just a more forthright and far reaching communicative practice.

Saint4god:

I do see a lot of non-progress and feel that this is negative, so yes this would be an accurate feeling on my part. Not all-encompassing, but a frequent event nonetheless.


LCKob:

I guess, in this situation, I would ask myself, the big Why? Why does private audience interaction work better ... it actually comes down to human pyschology again ... a one to one interaction allows for greater directed focus towards the recipient in such a way as to increase potential message pursuasion. This technique is quite common among dynamic carismatic speakers/talkers/typers.

... where the performance is a swaying factor in addition to the message.

... and no, I don't want a cookie.

Saint4god:

I am not the author of truth my friend. It is clear without my intervention. All I'm trying to do is to find out what obstacles people have in receiving it and helping them to overcome it. I'm not sure why this is a problem. Is that what we are here for? To "deny ignorance" and uncover truth? As a facilitator am I to be charged with obstructing it?


LCKob:

No, I suppose your god is the author of this truth, and you are merely the Saint4god.
... in which case, you are the salesman for this god ... who offers enlightement through u2us.

To reiterate, I stated that it is human nature to have differing views (indisputable) there is no such thing as 100% association or compliance when humans are concerned ...

Saint4god:

I can agree with that. Should I argue things I agree with?

LCKob:

... and that being the case, there will ALWAYS be dissent or a differing view ... does this make for conspiracy ... once again, no, it makes for the human condition. Simple human pscyhology.


Again and agreeable statement, but neither of these are what I'm talking about nor what the thread is about.

LCKob

Now you say that there is a conspiracy due to this evidence of dissent?

Saint4god:

I'm saying that there are groups that have an Anti-Christian Conspiracy. NOT JUST PEOPLE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS, as that is a given. As you've said and as we all should be able to agree upon. The definition of both "Anti-Christian" and "Conspiracy" have been rehashed so many times it'd make Noah Webster turn blue if he were still alive.


LCKob

Really all that proves is that there are others with different ideas ... no more, no less ... anything else is reading into the phenomena without corraborative evidence.


Saint4god:

Says you and I've provided leads to discover more.

I've named the groups, I've named what they do. I've named the (approximate) locations of where they can be found, I've described their thinking, theology, intent and plan. I would find it rude to start naming names and taking you to their physical locations for you to meet them since they don't want me to.

You know as well as I everyone says "where's your proof?" "where's your evidence" then when presented, they say "there is no proof" "there is no evidence". My function on this thread is not to make you believe what you see, only point it out and hope that you do. To think any person can do more than this is way beyond human capability. But, I'm always open to suggestions.

LCKob:

Perhaps the difficulty is that the "proof" you provide is circumstantial but not compelling. As an individual who supports the causal sciences ... I would say that what you have provided is at best evidence of competitive opposing views.

Christian vs. Satanist?
Believer vs. Athiest?
Man vs. Woman
Yes vs No
Light vs. Darkness
Matter vs. Antimatter
Truth vs. Lies

Diametrically opposing states rarely "like" each other ... but thats not a conspiracy merely the function of mutually exclusive state dynamics.

Its either that or to accept the equally valid counterclaim that there are Anti-Satanist Conspiracies, Anti-Buddhist, Anti-Vegetarian, Anti-ad infinitum ......



[edit on 26-5-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by LCKob
The ability to dictate censoreship would be counterproductive to a board like ATS ... what I stated is just a more forthright and far reaching communicative practice.

I disagree. I don't think people want to hear a broadcast. They want to know how this information applies to them. TV broadcasts all sorts of garbage. Very little if any makes any impact on our lives whatsoever other than wasting our time. If this were untrue, you would not be sitting behind a keyboard. Rather, you'd be watching TV. There's an engaging discussion going on that you just don't get from a speech. Doubly so for U2U. No noise, two people and personal. Don't know what this has to do with the topic. I'm sure there are people who feel differently and who can in fact communicate better by radioshow, but I know that I'm not one of them.

Originally posted by LCKob
I guess, in this situation, I would ask myself, the big Why? Why does private audience interaction work better ...

For some reason, people feel more open and honest. Would you tell one person your beliefs, fears, hope and dreams or 10,000 people? It's that simple, truly. When your friend/spouse is having a hard day, do you ask them to step up to a podium or would they rather just sit down and talk to you?

Originally posted by LCKob
it actually comes down to human pyschology again ...

I really wish you wouldn't talk about people as if they're lab rats. As if we're just computers running a program. If you could figure people out, then you would have already figured me out and we would not be having this conversation.

Originally posted by LCKob
a one to one interaction allows for greater directed focus towards the recipient in such a way as to increase potential message pursuasion. This technique is quite common among dynamic carismatic speakers/talkers/typers.

Thank you for calling me charismatic, but again, hardly the case per what I had said before. It's a waste of time to be redundant. Do you think I'm "winning friends and influencing people" especially when I speak this way? Again, hardly. I'd tell them things they'd want to hear, give them a soft pillow and say "there there, it doesn't matter what you think, everything will turn out fine". This is not how I talk to anyone. Dispell that dillusion.

Originally posted by LCKob
... where the performance is the swaying factor and not the message.

Do you know what I do for a living? No, it has nothing to do with public speaking or sales. Sorry, wrong again.

Originally posted by LCKob
... and no, I don't want a cookie.

It did sound like you wanted a reward for your broadcasts.

Originally posted by LCKob
No, I suppose your god is the author of this truth, and you are merely the Saint4god.

I am not "the Saint4god" which is why I did not spell my username this way. I am a saint4God. Is this getting through yet? Don't like my answers, go to another saint for God. There are plenty out there who are equally willing to help.

Originally posted by LCKob
... in which case, you are the salesman for this god ... who offers enlightement through u2us.

God needs neither a salesman, nor do I offer enlightenment..

Originally posted by LCKob
To reiterate, I stated that it is human nature to have differing views (indisputable) there is no such thing as 100% association or compliance when humans are concerned ...

Yes yes yes, have we not all agreed upon this? This is not the topic.

Originally posted by LCKob
and that being the case, there will ALWAYS be dissent or a differing view ... does this make for conspiracy ... once again, no, it makes for the human condition.

Yes yes yes, have we not all agreed upon this? This is not the topic.

Originally posted by LCKob
Simple human pscyhology.

Humans, as you like to call us, are neither simple nor follow discrete models of psychology. Does saying "human" make you feel superior to people? Now there's a study some may be interested in undertaking. Personally I find it irrelevant, just like this line of "bickering" when there's a topic needing to be discussed.

Originally posted by LCKob
Now you say that there is a conspiracy due to this evidence of dissent?

Not just dissent my friend. It's like a previous poster who decided to trivialize things until they seemed to no longer exist in their mind.

Originally posted by LCKob
Really all that proves is that there are others with different ideas ... no more, no less ... anything else is reading into the phenomena without corraborative evidence.

Hello? Is this mic on? I don't think I'm being heard. Can someone check the soundboard please? There's a record that seems to be stuck, can we fix that too?

Originally posted by LCKob
Perhaps the difficulty is that the "proof" you provide is circumstantial but not compelling.

Not compelling to YOU. Please try to complete your sentences.

Originally posted by LCKob
As an individual who supports the causal sciences ... I would say that what you have provided is at best evidence of competitive opposing views.

Christian vs. Satanist?
Believer vs. Athiest?
Man vs. Woman
Yes vs No
Light vs. Darkness
Matter vs. Antimatter
Oil vs. Water

Diametrically opposing states rarely "like" each other ... but thats not a conspiracy merely mutually exclusive state interaction dynamics.

I've already had this discussion with Shauny. Please check his notes on page 115 (among others).

[edit on 26-5-2006 by saint4God]

saint4God:

I disagree. I don't think people want to hear a broadcast. They want to know how this information applies to them. TV broadcasts all sorts of garbage. Very little if any makes any impact on our lives whatsoever other than wasting our time. If this were untrue, you would not be sitting behind a keyboard. Rather, you'd be watching TV. There's an engaging discussion going on that you just don't get from a speech. Doubly so for U2U. No noise, two people and personal. Don't know what this has to do with the topic. I'm sure there are people who feel differently and who can in fact communicate better by radioshow, but I know that I'm not one of them.

LCKob:

Simple test then ... I for one would like to experience an open dialogue in the vein of your u2us ... I think Shuaney would too and suspect that there are others who would be interested as well ... as you say you have nothing to hide ...

saint4God:

For some reason, people feel more open and honest. Would you tell one person your beliefs, fears, hope and dreams or 10,000 people? It's that simple, truly. When your friend/spouse is having a hard day, do you ask them to step up to a podium or would they rather just sit down and talk to you?

LCKob:

This is after all an intenet forum ... hmmmm let me see....

www.m-w.com...

forum
One entry found for forum.
Main Entry: fo·rum
Pronunciation: 'fOr-&m, 'for-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural forums also fo·ra /-&/
Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR

... a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities



saint4God:

I really wish you wouldn't talk about people as if they're lab rats. As if we're just computers running a program. If you could figure people out, then you would have already figured me out and we would not be having this conversation.


LCKob:

No not computers, you miss the point entirely, we are animals ... just smarter ones, and yes if you were a computer program, it probably would be easier to parse out the logic and subroutines.

saint4God:

Thank you for calling me charismatic, but again, hardly the case per what I had said before. It's a waste of time to be redundant. Do you think I'm "winning friends and influencing people" especially when I speak this way? Again, hardly. I'd tell them things they'd want to hear, give them a soft pillow and say "there there, it doesn't matter what you think, everything will turn out fine". This is not how I talk to anyone. Dispell that dillusion.

LCKob:

I note your behavior and it has a motivation in "information dissemination" shall we say. As to the internal cause or compulsion, that is of a lessor concern for me than the external measurable behaviors.


saint4god:

Do you know what I do for a living? No, it has nothing to do with public speaking or sales. Sorry, wrong again.


LCKob:

Does that matter? It is acconted that Jesus was a carpenter ... its not the job, its the motivation as evidenced by your behaviors.

saint4god:

It did sound like you wanted a reward for your broadcasts.

LCKob:

haha and it sounds like you want salvation for yours.


LCKob:

No, I suppose your god is the author of this truth, and you are merely the Saint4god.


I am not "the Saint4god" which is why I did not spell my username this way. I am a saint4God. Is this getting through yet? Don't like my answers, go to another saint for God. There are plenty out there who are equally willing to help.

LCKob:

Then why not Mr. Normal or Everyman ... no matter the capitalization your name has intent and I suspect a degree of hubris.

LCKob:

... in which case, you are the salesman for this god ... who offers enlightement through u2us.


saint4god:

God needs neither a salesman, nor do I offer enlightenment..

LCKob:

... if you were to say no more on the subject ... I would believe you, but I am guessing that this is not to be the case.

Not the salesman, but vocal ... not offering enlightenment but there with the u2u ...
... not charismatic but persevering despite job disparity ....

hmmmm ... if this is what you mean by god not needing salesman that I can see your logic.





[edit on 26-5-2006 by LCKob]

LCKob:

To reiterate, I stated that it is human nature to have differing views (indisputable) there is no such thing as 100% association or compliance when humans are concerned ...


Yes yes yes, have we not all agreed upon this? This is not the topic.

quote: Originally posted by LCKob
and that being the case, there will ALWAYS be dissent or a differing view ... does this make for conspiracy ... once again, no, it makes for the human condition.


Yes yes yes, have we not all agreed upon this? This is not the topic.

LCKob:

Ah, but it is the core of the answer. You say there is a conspiracy, and I say that there is none ... and that whatever persecution you may feel or seem to observe is merely the encroachment of other ideas or diametrically opposed views.

Nothing special here, just global competition.


saint4god:

Humans, as you like to call us, are neither simple nor follow discrete models of psychology. Does saying "human" make you feel superior to people? Now there's a study some may be interested in undertaking. Personally I find it irrelevant, just like this line of "bickering" when there's a topic needing to be discussed.

LCKob:

Odd, I would think that classifying myself as a "thinking animal" would be anything but angrandizement ... as for the term humans ... I suppose I could use Homo Sapiens Sapiens ... or "people" or what have you ... but the term is applicable and accurate yes? I am a human being ... I assume you are one too.

LCKob:

Now you say that there is a conspiracy due to this evidence of dissent?

Saint4god:

Not just dissent my friend. It's like a previous poster who decided to trivialize things until they seemed to no longer exist in their mind.

LCKob

From my perspective, not trivializing, but putting into perspective ... you make it sound as if Christianity is the only religion to recieve less than warm regards in the realm of acceptance. I would say that most if not all religions and creeds have suffered their share of frictions and injustices ... do I call those conspiracies ... once again no, its what we humans do on a global scale ... we form cultures and societies that follow a basic civilization profile ... and those who do not meet the criteria tend to be cast as outsiders. Trivialize the situation no, and likewise not trying to blow it out of proportion either.

LCKob:

Perhaps the difficulty is that the "proof" you provide is circumstantial but not compelling.


saint4god:

Not compelling to YOU. Please try to complete your sentences.

LCKob:

Okay, fair enough, I call upon the external viewer to "compile" this evidence and process it through the basic steps which comprise the Scientific process ... is the available evidence as promoted by saint4god sufficient and compelling to support the hypothesis of conspiracy?

Moderators?
Forum Gurus?
Established Scientists?

Diametrically opposing states rarely "like" each other ... but thats not a conspiracy merely mutually exclusive state interaction dynamics.



[edit on 27-5-2006 by LCKob]

o.k...

So I went back to the atheismonline.com and took a little more of a look around. Still however, I can't see much there that would constitute to a conspiracy. There's not even much anti-christianity stuff there, personally I've seen more here.

atheismonline.com is no different to www.christiananswers.net or www.drdino.com

A quote from the site:

''The other two features, forums and chat, provide a place for unbelievers and believers to discuss issues related to atheism''.

Notice the 'believers' and 'unbelievers'... although a better word would be 'non-believers', but that's not the point.

The point is that this site is an atheist site, obviously. However, it's barely anti-christian, it is not saying burn christians at the stake or overthrow the vatican.

It really is the worst excuse ever for even anti-christianity, let alone a conspiracy of any sort.

also there are a number of anti-evolution things...and i'd say maybe even more so than anti-christian, and at the very least there is an equalibrium on both sides.

check out a book 'the lie - evolution'. or perhaps answersingenesis.org

however, you don't hear me screaming 'anti-evolution conspiracy'. i do notice the anti-evolution agenda that some people have, but i don't see it as a conspiracy, the same as i don't see anti-christianity as a conspiracy.

biblegod.org...

the link is to a very good video, you can watch pretty much the first 15-20 minutes to understand where i'm coming from. it's got some info on anti-evolution.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by LCKob
Simple test then ... I for one would like to experience an open dialogue in the vein of your u2us ...

Wow, you sure do know how to make someone feel like a labrat . I do not know why you'd wish to waste my time on experiences and find it very impolite.

Originally posted by LCKob
I think Shuaney would too and suspect that there are others who would be interested as well ... as you say you have nothing to hide ...

Shauny has already heard what I had to say via U2U. Use his notes.

Originally posted by LCKob
This is after all an intenet forum ... hmmmm let me see....

www.m-w.com...

forum
One entry found for forum.
Main Entry: fo·rum
Pronunciation: 'fOr-&m, 'for-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural forums also fo·ra /-&/
Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR

... a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities

The dictionary is my second favorite book. Thanks for the refresher but I don't see your point.

Originally posted by LCKob
No not computers, you miss the point entirely, we are animals ...

Which explains why you wish to treat me like a labrat then...

Originally posted by LCKob
just smarter ones, and yes if you were a computer program, it probably would be easier to parse out the logic and subroutines.

Hehe. You've got it all figured out. So you're saying your both a psychologist AND a computer programmer? Where do you find the time?

Originally posted by LCKob
I note your behavior and it has a motivation in "information dissemination" shall we say.

I.E. Telling the truth? Finally a correct statment and also compliant with the motivation of ATS to "Deny Ignorance".

Originally posted by LCKob
As to the internal cause or compulsion, that is of a lessor concern for me than the external measurable behaviors.

I doubt anyone else cares either. Rightly so, we're not here for me.

Originally posted by LCKob
Does that matter? It is acconted that Jesus was a carpenter ... its not the job, its the motivation as evidenced by your behaviors.

The is was greatest compliment I have received thus far from you.

Originally posted by LCKob
haha and it sounds like you want salvation for yours.

Um, already got salvation. Just trying to share. Some kids in the sandbox horde their toys, others like to give them away.

Originally posted by LCKob
Then why not Mr. Normal or Everyman ...

I could have done that. After observation on the site for a while, I'd noticed those who utilized names that "get to the point" often get to it faster.

Originally posted by LCKob
no matter the capitalization your name has intent and I suspect a degree of hubris.

The capitalization does in fact matter as I did NOT slap down on the screen. As far as hubris goes, have I ever bragged about myself? Am I telling people that I am their leader? Have I ever said I was more intelligent? Have I ever used words other than "friend", "brother" and "sister" when addressing people? No? Well there is a reason why. Since you love studying me so much, I'll leave you to work on it.

Originally posted by LCKob
... if you were to say no more on the subject ... I would believe you,

[edit on 27-5-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
The Inquisition was an Anti-Christ conspiracy, well done, but not one that is currently in existance.

So now the Church itself created a conspiracy against themselves ?

Here ya have another reason for people dislike on Christians; even when i made a compliment about how beautiful the religion was you come up with "Nice blanket statement, care to provide any suporting evidence?"
I get this feeling that you guys have a weird paranoia that people are always attacking you; what about the expression "take it easy"?
"The inquisition doesn´t count, its over"; so is nazism, even tho people talk about it. Church itself through Inquisition wrote history, not me. "did not last as long and on a grand scale as many people apparently think it did" You want evidence, ill provide you some:
- Medieval Inquisition is first registered on history in 1184 also called as episcopal inquisition. The name of the document approved by the Pope Lucius III is the Ad abolendam that origins the so called episcopal inquisition.
This type of approach didnt work quite well so in 1230 Church comes up with papal bulls originating the papal inquisition. So in 1252 Pope Innocent IV with the famous Ad exstirpanda authorizes the use of torture by inquisition.
- Spanish Inquisition approved by Rome in 1478; the Auto da Fé is a very revealing document for deep research on this. Tomás de Torquemada is a fine example of what yours "not as long as people think it is" argument is senseless.
- Roman Inquisition: Pope Paul III established in 1542 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. These were the gentlemen who created the Index of Forbidden Books wich is considered by many the basis for inspirating totalitarism governements to supress freedom of speech in literature.
These historical dates were registered according to the official church documents that i have mentioned above. From 1184 till 1542 i count 358 years. "Not as long as people think" ? You are actually the first Christian i know that had this less bright idea of discussing Inquisition. The most funny thing about Inquisition is that everything was historically recorded by Church official documents! So, there is no, "that source is not good" thingy.

Also im not saying Church knows how to make people think like robots. Im saying they are experts on it. Oh, and that argument "they say us to go home read the bible so its not mind control" is at least ridicolous; or are you trying to tell me when you go to a church the only thing they tell you is "Go home and read the bible" Last time i heard about it priests chat more than 10 seconds when they are in a church.

So, what else you need about Inquisition ?

[edit on 27-5-2006 by MikePhil]

Originally posted by MikePhil

So, what else you need about Inquisition ?

[edit on 27-5-2006 by MikePhil]

You left out:
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209 - 1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the religion practiced by the Cathars of Languedoc, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy considered apostasy. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards; the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France, acting as essentially Catholic mercenaries, who then nearly doubled the size of France, acquiring regions which at the time had closer cultural and language ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). Finally, the Albigensian Crusade had a role in the creation and institutionalization of the Medieval Inquisition. (from Wiki)

"Gospel of Judas" Irrelevant in Light of Even More Startling Ancient Text

www.gaiaguys.net...

media release by Michael Horn & Professor Emeritus James W. Deardorff

"Evangelium von Judas" Irrelevant bei Licht Noch Erstaunlich Alter Text.

”Evangelho de Judas” É Irrelevante à Luz De Um Surpreendente Texto Ainda Muito Mais Antigo.

El "Evangelio de Judas" no es Pertinente a la Luz de un más Sorprendente Texto aún más Antiguo.

"L’Évangile de Judas" est non Pertinent à la Lumière d’un Surprenant Texte Encore le plus Antique.

"Il Vangelo di Giuda" È Irrilevante alla luce di un Più Spaventare Testo Tuttavia Più Antico.

"Evangelie van Judas" Ontoepasselijk in Licht van Zelfs Meer Ontstellend Oude Tekst.
www.gaiaguys.net...

could we be anymore of topic?...

lets get back on track. also any responses to my last posts.



[edit on 27-5-2006 by shaunybaby]

Al Davidon: thanks for completing my explanation on Inquisition.

saint4God:

Wow, you sure do know how to make someone feel like a labrat . I do not know why you'd wish to waste my time on experiences and find it very impolite.

LCKob:

I am sorry you feel that my seeking truth is a waste of time and impolite ... but we all
do and promote what we feel is right. If you find SM theatening and or intimidating, I can't help you there.


saint4God:

Shauny has already heard what I had to say via U2U. Use his notes.

LCKob:

His notes were a good reference, but as per SM direct observation is always perferred. Basic practice.


saint4God:

The dictionary is my second favorite book. Thanks for the refresher but I don't see your point.

LCKob:

Merely that this is an open forum with directed topic threads, why not use it as such ... u2us speak to one ... the forum allows for all who wish to participate.


saint4God:

Which explains why you wish to treat me like a labrat then...

LCKob:

I treat life like a causal phenomena, and I treat you as a human as a thinking animal within the causal environment ... does that help you?


saint4God:

Hehe. You've got it all figured out. So you're saying your both a psychologist AND a computer programmer? Where do you find the time?

LCKob:

All figured out?

Actually no ... were that the case, I would be a strong advocate for either extreme ... instead of being Agnostic. Although, by virtue of your claim, I could say this of you no?

... that you have it all figured out.

I am guessing that you are in your mid twenties?

I suspect that I am older than you ... I have minor degrees in Psychology, Computer Programming, Graphic Arts and Teaching ... and taught on the highschool level for 10 years ... before entering the Graphics Industry.


LCKob:

Does that matter? It is accounted that Jesus was a carpenter ... its not the job, its the motivation as evidenced by your behaviors.

saint4God:

The is was greatest compliment I have received thus far from you.

LCKob:

Your perception speaks to to pride ... the comparison to the individual was not by virtue of comparative worth, but merely to denote that ones "job" has no bearing on total skill set.

Nothing more ...


saint4God:

Um, already got salvation. Just trying to share. Some kids in the sandbox horde their toys, others like to give them away.

LCKob:

Ah, yes, you already have salvation locked in ... pardon my ignorance here, but does not your faith require that you die first and and then judged at that time for worth of entry into heaven?


LCKob:

Then why not Mr. Normal or Everyman ...

Saint4God:

I could have done that. After observation on the site for a while, I'd noticed those who utilized names that "get to the point" often get to it faster.


LCKob:

... as I stated earlier (which you have confirmed), your name does indeed have "intent".


LCKob:

no matter the capitalization your name has intent and I suspect a degree of hubris.

saint4God:

The capitalization does in fact matter as I did NOT slap down on the screen. As far as hubris goes, have I ever bragged about myself? Am I telling people that I am their leader? Have I ever said I was more intelligent? Have I ever used words other than "friend", "brother" and "sister" when addressing people? No? Well there is a reason why. Since you love studying me so much, I'll leave you to work on it.


LCKob:

Ah, so defensive ... simply put, actions speak louder than words ... as your past and present actions quite clearly indicate time and again.


LCKob:

... if you were to say no more on the subject ... I would believe you ....

... and by including this statement at the END or your rebuttal, you prove me right in my prediction.




btw... I would have preferred to wait for the SM proof assessment, but far be it from me to ignore your directed responses.


[edit on 27-5-2006 by LCKob]

Saint4God i would just like to say that you are a rude arogant and closed minded individual. After reading your post and your attack against my own you obviously consistantly deny and attack anyone who has thought that do not reflect your own closed minded interpretations. you asked why china, india and islamic countries still have strong ties to their religion? lets look at Turkey. Turkey is an Islamic state, yet because it has adapted to the western style economic relations, it has eventualy lost touch with its fundamentalist islamic base. Countries like Iran are also showing a social movement that leads away from hard core islamic values. In the eastern world the religions are so strongly tied to the people because their nations are poor and have not yet gone through our technology and information revolution. as more and more countries begin this revolution they to will stray from their religious base. You obviously have no knowldege of economics, politics and especialy diferent world religions and customs, you simply attack what you dont understand. Is there a conspiracy against christians? no, its just natural that we no longer need a belief that a god stands over us ready deal us eternal pain and damnation for not complying to his laws.

This was first posted on another thread, then I found this one and it seems more appropriate to this subject, even though the majority of the posts I've read here are seemingly complaints about a manner of communication(!?) Still the name of the thread is ANTI-CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY and the context seems to be whether there is one or not, so:

There is a conspircy:

It's just that most look at man and say, "Ah ha, he is a conspiracist", when in truth the conspiracy against Christianity is the same as it has been against mankind since the Garden of Eden days: Satan is roaming and scheming.

With the Da Vinci code all the talk right now, I've been reminded of some other signs of the coming days when Christians will be laughed at, scorned, and possibly killed right here in good ol' North America.

Recently the National Geograpic magazine had a pic of a cloaked man on the front, apparently, and under it was the single word "Judas". Apparently Judas is no longer the traitor to His Lord but the "greatest apostle". I was told by a friend recently that she saw a cartoon after the fashion of the Simpson's that starred none other than Jesus as a cartoon figure, a laughable one at that. Anyone who ever watched any "religious" programming on the Discovery channel knows that the entire program will be slanted towards leading to "incredible, new" discoveries which contradict Scripture.

Not only is satan showing his heinie more often, he is doing it with increasing confidence, as the remaining faith-focused symbols fall. He is still a copy-cat, but it seems he knows more now, more about what God is going to do, so that he gets his act out first....take for example, David (?) Blaine, Criss Angel, David Copperfield, practicing magicians who are doing some truly astounding feats, feats that ordinary people find miraculous. While most or all of them may be tricks, I've watched Blaine on the street on TV, and what he does looks very "magical". Christians are supposed to be the waterwalkers, aren't we? Our elder Brother was the first, and we are to be like Him, are we not?

I have no real desire to walk on water, since I can't even get in a row boat without getting seasick, but what about the other miracles that Jesus did and said His followers would do greater?

Since satan has upped the ante on his side, it seems it would behoove Christians to do likewise.

I've long wondered about the verse from Daniel 7:25, where it says he will "wear out the saints of the most High". I've wondered how that could happen, since he is a defeated foe and so on. Well, we know that it is his spirit which energizes the majority of humanity, why could he not use them to "wear out" the ones with the Holy Spirit?

Still, I don't think that means Christians must yield to the inevitable. After all, we are sons of the Most High, called saints, given all things pertaining to life and godliness, more than conquerers, having a great high Priest who intercedes for us constantly.
Can we not say, by the power of the Holy Spirit, "enough already"? Can we not pray down healings, miracles of all sorts, and demonstrations of power that will attract just as many to Christ as are now attracted to the "magicians"? I think the answer is yes, but it will necessitate, for us as for the enemy of our souls, a concerted effort.

So, yes, there is a conspiracy. It is old, well-formed, and in growing power. But, no, it will not succeed utterly. Our God has the final say and He says we are going to live and dwell with Him forever, if only we hold fast to the faith first delivered to us by the Apostles from Jesus Christ Himself.

So, your arguments on a anti-christianism conspiracy are based on a cover of National Geographic magazine and a Simpson´s episode ? Laughable.

Originally posted by MikePhil
So, your arguments on a anti-christianism conspiracy are based on a cover of National Geographic magazine and a Simpson´s episode ? Laughable.

You know what I find interesting here? There are over 2300 replies to this thread, and people seem to think that everything stated already needs to be restated every time someone who believes there's an anti-Christian conspiracy speaks.

No, the arguments don't only consist of a National Geographic magazine and a Simpson's episode. These are additional symptoms that have been brought up as examples. Many additional symptoms.

If you go to court, the lawyers present evidence. They don't rely on one thing to convince the judge or jury that a person is innocent or guilty. If they did, that would be laughable. They present a lot of evidence supporting their case coming from many angles. That's why a jury has to be there throughout the case, not just during the closing arguments or for one piece of evidence before they render their verdict.

If you think this thread has grown so large because of a Simpson's episode and a National Geographic, I suggest you read through the thread. You will discover there are many reasons people believe this is taking place. If it was just a Simpson's episode and a National Geographic, this thread would have died after about 20 replies like most do.