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: 117
16
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

by Shaunybaby

"and yes jesus showed a classic sign of a deadly sin... anger (wraith) or whatever you want to call it, by turning over those tables in the temple. so yes he did sin. he's supposed to be sinless, yet there he is sinning... hmmmm. "


Much of what passes as criticism of Christianity and Christians is opinion based on ignorance of what God is like, what He wants from humans, and what His rules are.

This quote is just one of several I noted as I read through this thread: It indicates anger is a "deadly sin". The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26 "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:"

Being angry couldn't be a sin anyway since as Psalms 7:11 says "God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day." We know that God is without sin, by sheer definition if nothing else, otherwise He wouldn't be God, would He?




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
so there's humour that makes light of christianity... and there's no humour that makes light of evolution?

there's one thing specifically that people against evolution loved to parody. it was the species that would be inbetween mammals on land and mammals in the water. for example it would be a dolphine-like creature that could walk, and anti-evolutionists found this funny. funny up until the point at which various creatures like this were actually found.

i could go look for examples if you want, or you can go watch that video i posted, i think it's on page 116.

i'm just pointing out that it's not just a one way street, there are anti-evolutionists out there, except you don't hear me screaming 'anti-evolution conspiracy'. sure there's anti people on both sides... but as for a conspiracy, there's zero evidence for that.

that atheismonline.com site was utterly pathetic. it was barely anti-christian, let alone a conspiracy.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Sorry moderator, but i cant agree with a concept just because a topic on internet has 2300 replies. Lots of discussion doesnt necessary means a conspiracy is going on. And yes i have read the whole thread, thanks for the advise tho. If i dont agree with something i may politely disagree with it, correct ?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikePhil
Sorry moderator, but i cant agree with a concept just because a topic on internet has 2300 replies. Lots of discussion doesnt necessary means a conspiracy is going on. And yes i have read the whole thread, thanks for the advise tho. If i dont agree with something i may politely disagree with it, correct ?


I wasn't speaking as a moderator but as a member. My role as a moderator here is to make this experience on ATS as enjoyable as possible for everyone. My role as a member, though, is to express my opinions and beliefs just as you do. Please don't feel there was any authority behind the words I spoke that is derived from the title "Moderator". I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in what I said.

(as a member now
)
As to the many replys, my only point is you had taken a snapshot of the argument at that very moment without regarding that there is far more that people have seen that causes them to see a conspiracy, not just two examples.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejakePlease don't feel there was any authority behind the words I spoke that is derived from the title "Moderator". I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in what I said.

No need to be sorry, everything is clear now, my apologies too if i looked a bit agressive.


Originally posted by junglejake
(as a member now
)
As to the many replys, my only point is you had taken a snapshot of the argument at that very moment without regarding that there is far more that people have seen that causes them to see a conspiracy, not just two examples.


Yeah i know what ya mean now; not my intention to reduce the whole discussion just too those examples; if you notice on my posts about these Christianism subjects i always try to see both sides of the coin. There are obviously people that want to turn Christianism down, and yes there is people with that intent (like there are those who try the same thing with muslins, buddhists and so on); but from that too a conspiracy its a big step, it should involve some kind of organisation all working with the same goal: destroy Christianism. And i really cant see that happening right now; show me something constructive and logical regarding it and i will be humble enough to recognize it, believe me.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Some interesting reading:


www.worldnetdaily.com...

"The town allowed the display of Jewish menorahs but rejected a woman's Nativity display, even if she paid for it herself."



www.worldnetdaily.com...

"In a dispute over display of holiday symbols, New York City schools are allowing Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents but barring Christian nativity scenes, alleging the depiction of the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event."

"The Jewish and Islamic symbols are allowed, the district says, because they have a secular dimension, but the Christian symbols are "purely religious."



www.freerepublic.com...

"Judaism is not just a religion, it's a culture, also," Davis said. "I felt that the nativity scene was definitely promoting Christianity."



www.foxnews.com...

"Two women wanted a Christ in a manger display next to the menorah but the town refused, saying the Nativity scene could only be placed in a lesser-trafficked park."

What starts here can end here:

"In the Decree of Separation of Church and State, and of School and Church in January 1918, the Soviet government established the separation of Church and State, transferred the registration of births, marriages and deaths to civil authority, prohibited instruction of religion in any school -- private or state, and forbade the ownership of private property by churches or religious associations because they did not possess the rights of juridical persons.

Further clarification of the execution of this decree, referred to as the instruction, was published in Izvestia in August 1918. The instruction included the following:

1. The management of all ecclesiastical property would be transferred to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

2. Representatives of the religious creed, who managed the church and other property, were required to submit, in triplicate, a list of all property intended for use in religious services to the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

3. The deputies would take over the property and give it to the inhabitants of the same religious creed, who wanted to use the property. This group would be composed of at least 20 citizens, who must sign the agreement. The agreement provided that these 20 citizens were to maintain the "National Property" and to use it solely for satisfying religious needs. Further, they must prohibit in these buildings political meetings hostile to the Soviet government, the spreading or selling of literature hostile to the Soviet government, and sermons hostile to the Soviet Government. Maintenance of the Church required that the 20 citizens must see to the payment of taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. Additionally, they could not refuse any citizen, who was a co-religionist, the right to sign the agreement after the date of the agreement. Moreover, they must allow all citizens to be buried in church cemeteries. If all conditions were not fulfilled, the 20 citizens would be held criminally liable.

4. If the persons who managed the ecclesiastical property refused to do the above, the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies would compile a list of the property in front of witnesses and turn it over to the group of 20 citizens of the religious creed; churches of historic, artistic and archaeological value would be transferred to the Museum Section of the Commissariat of Education; local citizens of the religious creed could sign the agreement, after the transfer, to participate in the administration of the ritual property.

5. If there were no local applicants to take over the building, the Comissariat of Education would determine the purpose for the use of the building; so called sacred items, not utilized in religious services, would be turned over to citizens responsible for religious items.

6. All other property of churches and religious associations, and abolished departments, such as schools and charitable institutions, would be immediately confiscated. This included all landed property, funds and profit-making investments.

7. Failure to turn over monies by the holder would result in a charge of civil and criminal embezzlement, and the illicit use of the property of the Republic would be a criminal offense.

8. The buildings of spiritual, educational and training establishments of any creed, as well as the building of the parish church schools should, as national property, be turned over to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

9. This decree prohibits the instruction in any creed in state, public and private educational institutions.

...

'Will you stop teaching the Christian religion?'
'We cannot,' came the uniform reply. 'It is the law of God.'
'That law does not exist on Soviet Territory,' replied Krylenko.
'You must choose . . . As for your religion, I spit on it, as I spit on all
religions.'"

www.loyno.edu...



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I'm not sure what the Soviet part has to do with the first part, but thanks for the history lesson.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'm not sure what the Soviet part has to do with the first part, but thanks for the history lesson.


They are decrees of the separation of church and state, the same banner some state officials (influenced by vocal "offended persons") hide behind to justify the removal of religious expression. The first amendment gave us the freedom of religion. The removal of it is from the Soviet playbook - "The tyranny of the government inhibited any further growth of the church and effectively eliminated the Roman Catholic Church as a religious force in Russia." What followed was persecution, trials and executions. We're not looking at the end of the process in America, rather the beginning. History does not change in a day...but if we're not careful the mistakes from it repeat themselves.

Notice the hypocrisy addressed in the articles? There is targeting going on. Very specific anti-Christianism. Other religious symbols "OK!" Christian religious symbols "No way".

[edit on 27-11-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I see, unfortunately your conclusion is illogical. This is an example of a logical fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" or "After this, therfore because of this"

It would be like me saying

I had eggs for breakfast, and then got hit by a car
so
Eating eggs leads to getting hit by a car.


And, I see the point of historical rememberance vs Christian mythology. The nativity never actually happened in history, where as the Crescent, and the Minorah are symbols of events or history.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I see, unfortunately your conclusion is illogical. This is an example of a logical fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" or "After this, therfore because of this"


Unfortunately I'm limited to 10,000 characters per post. If you need me to fill in the blanks, I can do that though. Just no complaints about the long thread please.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It would be like me saying

I had eggs for breakfast, and then got hit by a car
so
Eating eggs leads to getting hit by a car.


No it is not. There is no connection between your two statements, however there is a substantial connection with mine. Incoming...



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
www.worldnetdaily.com...

"The town allowed the display of Jewish menorahs but rejected a woman's Nativity display, even if she paid for it herself."


During primary school, every year we had to do the whole nativity play thing. I couldn't really care less, I was either a sheep (ironic since later on I'd earn the nick, 'shaun the sheep' after the walace and gromit fad). I think it's important to recognise all holidays, and try to show respect to all, but you're never going to get everyone to agree.

If that woman really wanted to 'show' and 'force' the nativity scene on people, she'd put it up dispite what some town says.



www.freerepublic.com...

"Judaism is not just a religion, it's a culture, also," Davis said. "I felt that the nativity scene was definitely promoting Christianity."


That 'Davis' seems to be on the ball. Was he educated at Harvard? Ofcourse the nativity scene promotes Christianity, but every symbol, story, and scene promotes each religion. For example the buddha statues, you instantly are aware 'what' it is and what connetations are attached. Same goes for a cross with Jesus on, or a stable scene, with various farm animals, baby, 3 wise men etc.

It's funny to see you almost 'whine' about how Christianity is now being shuned away by some people. I think it's about time. Christianity has had it's dirty little fingers in everything since day one. The nativity scene does not depict an 'historic event'. Battle of the Bulge is an historic event. The American civil war was an historic event. The nativity scene is a made up story for children, and all for another excuse to celebrate pointless holidays, driven in to us since pagan times, they had the same holidays, they just evolved in to what we now know as 'christmas'.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Persecution does not happen immediately or seemingly arbitrarily. Rather, it goes through a progression of stages. This progression is necessary to "win" the masses and rally for a cause.

Step 1: Silence the message. Tied in with Demonization, silencing the message means that the only voices that can be heard are those who are enacting the Demonization. How is the message silenced? Easy. Blame Christianity for being insensitive and oppressive in its expression of beliefs. Christians have an affinity for love and peace so "if they love us and wish peace, they must be silent". Do not allow Christians to say words like "Christ" and "God" because it burns the ears to those who do not believe. Do not let them wear crosses or any other religious symbol in public. Tell them if they want to do that, they have to do it in secrecy. Ban the Bible from schools and libraries. Claim their right to free speech is infinging upon other's "freedom from religion" and "separation of church and state".

"A federal judge has upheld a rule barring a convicted killer from preaching at jailhouse religious services saying the ban is designed to maintain security."

U.S. District Judge William Smith called his decision "somewhat of a close call." Although the ban on preaching violates inmates' right to religious freedom, it's related to a compelling state interest: maintaining a safe prison, Smith said."
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

"Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for a sermon he preached to his congregation in 2003 on Biblical texts addressing homosexuality. The sermon was later printed in a local newspaper and Green was prosecuted on the basis that his sermon offended Sweden’s homosexual community."
www.becketfund.org...

Step 2: Demonizing. There's nothing like taking the belief who's foundation is the Way, The Truth and the Light and representing it as something it is not. For example, Christ taught us to both "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy", yet anti-christians will point out what they see as flaws in this policy. They'll represent the crusades as an order from Christ or the Spanish Inquisition as direction from God. If anyone were to read the words of God and Christ, they would most certainly know better. Step 2, make Christianity look like "the great satan"

"For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children."

"Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven"

Step 3: Change the laws. As demonstrated by the Soviet Russia circa 1917, giving state control to mandate religion makes it an effective force for the elimination of expressing religious freedom. Still occuring today all over the world:

"Hundreds of other dissidents "have been strictly detained inside their homes during the summit," said the International Movement for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam.

Among those under house arrest were Mennonite Pastors Nguyen Duc Chinh, Ngo Hoai No, Nguyen Hong Quang, Catholic Priests Nguyen Van Ly, Phan Van Loi, as well as Professor Nguyen Chinh Ket, Economic Engineer Do Nam Hai, and Free-lance journalist Nguyen Khac Toan and members of the Bloc 8406 group, human rights activists said.

The Montagnard Foundation Incorporated (MFI), a major advocacy group, also expressed concern that over 350 predominantly Christian Montagnards remain in prison because of what it believes are trumped up charges related to their faith in Christ or human rights activities."

Step 4: Persecute. Also demonstrated in Soviet Russia, those "disobeying the law" can be put to death.

"...a government crackdown on Christians has escalated in Uzbekistan over the past weeks, according to Forum 18. On February 11, a house meeting of 40 Protestants in the southern village of Kum Kurgan was stormed by police, who summonsed the group for the next 18 days to be interrogated from 6:00 a.m. through the late evening. Police mocked them and confiscated their Bibles, giving them only one meal break each day."

"Buddhist militants attacked two church services in Sri Lanka on November 12 and hit Christian workers returning from a funeral."

"A suspected Muslim militant on Wednesday, November 15, admitted he was involved in the beheadings of three Christian schoolgirls..."

"I read a study a while ago that made the argument, and it is a plausible argument, that there has been more persecution of Christians in the 20th century than in any of the preceding 19 centuries," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

"As a result of a religious dispute, nearly 5,000 Christians were displaced and six were injured on September 20th, when Muslim rioters destroyed and torched at least 18 churches, 20 Christian homes, and 40 Christian shops in Dutse, the capital of Jigawa state in Northern Nigeria. "

"On August 15th, high-profile Christian human rights attorney, Gao Zhisheng was taken into custody by security agents at his sister’s home in Shandong province for his involvement in Christian persecution cases, according to VOM contacts."

"August 30, 2006 Just after 10:00 p.m. on August 21st, Pastor Joseph’s rented house was broken into by militant Hindu groups accusing him of not bowing before the Hindu gods. "

"After attending a Sunday home worship service on June 27th in Langzhong, Sichuan province, eight Christians were blocked from continuing down the road by a police car, a van and three motorcycles. The eight believers were promptly forced into the van by officers who would not show their identification. They were then interrogated at Baoma town’s Public Security Office.

Officers then arrested those three believers, falsely accusing them of “assaulting a police officer” and “interfering with the performance of an officer’s duty.”

...

The eight Christians originally detained from the road block were all released after 5 to 15 days of detention, but the four house-church leaders have been transferred to “re-education through labor camps.”

More articles can be found here (among other places): www.worthynews.com...

[edit on 27-11-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I think it's important to recognise all holidays, and try to show respect to all, but you're never going to get everyone to agree.


I agree those wishing to express their religious beliefs should have the right to do so across the board. I'm not looking for universal agreement, but what's good for the menorah is good for the Cross.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
If that woman really wanted to 'show' and 'force' the nativity scene on people, she'd put it up dispite what some town says.


If someone 'forces' a menorah, what's the difference?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Of course the nativity scene promotes Christianity, but every symbol, story, and scene promotes each religion.


Well said.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
For example the buddha statues, you instantly are aware 'what' it is and what connetations are attached. Same goes for a cross with Jesus on, or a stable scene, with various farm animals, baby, 3 wise men etc.


Right on.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's funny to see you almost 'whine' about how Christianity is now being shuned away by some people.


I see, and I suppose reading the news is 'whining' about the war in Iraq, and 'whining' about the man shot down the street. This is reality.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I think it's about time. Christianity has had it's dirty little fingers in everything since day one.


See above "demonizing"


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The nativity scene does not depict an 'historic event'.


Surely it does.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Battle of the Bulge is an historic event. The American civil war was an historic event.


Feel free to worship your guns, land and power then.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The nativity scene is a made up story for children, and all for another excuse to celebrate pointless holidays, driven in to us since pagan times, they had the same holidays, they just evolved in to what we now know as 'christmas'.


See above "demonizing". Merry CHRISTmas, happy holyday.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I agree those wishing to express their religious beliefs should have the right to do so across the board. I'm not looking for universal agreement, but what's good for the menorah is good for the Cross.


I'm sure you're aware of the term 'Jesus-Fish'. Those little simple fish shaped symbols people seem to love to put on the back of their cars. As far as I'm aware that's year round, and there is no plan to get rid of those or any worry about those. The problem with the nativity scene is that it's a Christian holiday symbol, hence something Muslims, Jews, Hindus don't recognise nor celebrate.

The problem is that Christmas has become such a huge holiday season for western civilisation, you don't neccesarily need to be Christian to celebrate it. I've never classed myself as 'Christian' but every year we still got presents under the christmas tree. Christmas for the masses has basically lost most, if not all, religious connetations that used to be stringed along with it, hence the worry about saying 'merry christmas' or putting up a nativity scene.



If someone 'forces' a menorah, what's the difference?


So you're happy for 'all' religions to force their beliefs and symbols in to the public eye? That for you would be 'equality'?



I see, and I suppose reading the news is 'whining' about the war in Iraq, and 'whining' about the man shot down the street. This is reality.


You pick out a whole host of Christian news stories, like that's the 'only' religion ever to be affected by anything. Just because some town council won't allow a nativity scene, suddenly the whole world is against Christianity. :LOL:


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The nativity scene does not depict an 'historic event'.



Surely it does.


I just finished reading 'the da vinci code', therefore the Jesus bloodline, and everything surrounding it are all historic events. Afterall, it's in a book. That's ofcourse sarcasm, and it's not true. Just as the nativity scene is nothing but a story in a book.



See above "demonizing". Merry CHRISTmas, happy holyday.


Are you saying that christmas didn't take over something which was originally a pagan holiday? Nothing demonizing at all. That's the truth, it's what happened. History isn't opinion, it's fact.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm sure you're aware of the term 'Jesus-Fish'. Those little simple fish shaped symbols people seem to love to put on the back of their cars. As far as I'm aware that's year round, and there is no plan to get rid of those or any worry about those.


Yet.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The problem with the nativity scene is that it's a Christian holiday symbol, hence something Muslims, Jews, Hindus don't recognise nor celebrate.


I don't celebrate Hannukah, but the symbol and candles of the festival are allowed to be displayed.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
So you're happy for 'all' religions to force their beliefs


How do religions "force" their beliefs?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and symbols in to the public eye? That for you would be 'equality'?


Sure.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You pick out a whole host of Christian news stories, like that's the 'only' religion ever to be affected by anything. Just because some town council won't allow a nativity scene, suddenly the whole world is against Christianity. :LOL:


You've only read one of my quotes? How about the "evolution of persecution" post?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I just finished reading 'the da vinci code', therefore the Jesus bloodline, and everything surrounding it are all historic events. Afterall, it's in a book. That's ofcourse sarcasm, and it's not true. Just as the nativity scene is nothing but a story in a book.


Congrats on your love for fiction. I don't share it nor do I wish to get involved in it to where I can no longer discern the difference between fiction and history.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Are you saying that christmas didn't take over something which was originally a pagan holiday? Nothing demonizing at all. That's the truth, it's what happened.


The CHRISTmas holyday was re-dated with a pagan holiday around that time to appease the townpeople. I agree this was a bad idea and we should separate them again to avoid any confusion.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
History isn't opinion, it's fact.


Indeed, but you seem to have more interest in discussing The Da Vinci Code's fiction rather than discussing reality.

Even secular history books have facts on Jesus. From 10th grade public school to Western Civilization in college, it was included in all my textbooks. Doubt history? Fine, the answer is still obtainable without them.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
saint, there are no "facts" on jesus

i took history from secular history books, none point out any actual evidence that the man existed

it's just generally accepted, which is ignorant

anyway

atheists seem to be the most oppressed group in the USA

do you really think a non-religious person is going to win a presidential election?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm sure you're aware of the term 'Jesus-Fish'. Those little simple fish shaped symbols people seem to love to put on the back of their cars. As far as I'm aware that's year round, and there is no plan to get rid of those or any worry about those.


Originally posted by saint4God
Yet.


In a country where the leader is an over-the-top Christian, I'd say you can pretty much keep your hopes up that you'll be allowed Jesus-Fish on your cars.


Originally posted by saint4God
I don't celebrate Hannukah, but the symbol and candles of the festival are allowed to be displayed.


But not as 'much' as Christian holiday symbols are displayed, they're not as 'in-your-face'. As I was driving through a nearby town, I couldn't help but notice the rows upon rows of Christmas lights with a few lit up 'Merry Christmas' signs. I've never ever seen any Jewish or Muslim holidays celebrated in the same way so publically.


Originally posted by saint4God
Congrats on your love for fiction. I don't share it nor do I wish to get involved in it to where I can no longer discern the difference between fiction and history.


The point was that you're just taking something from a book and calling it fact. It's ignorant to do so, as is picking up the da vinci code and calling that fact. It was a comparison if you hadn't noticed.


Originally posted by saint4God
Indeed, but you seem to have more interest in discussing The Da Vinci Code's fiction rather than discussing reality.


It'd be nice if you actually read a word of what I say. Instead of making up BS in your own mind and mindless annoying comebacks that are neither here nor there, and do no one any good at all. Grow up.

The point was not about the da vinci code at all. If you fail to see that, then perhaps you need to re-educate yourself. It was a comparison, it could have been any fiction book, but that happened to be the one that caught my eye when I was at my desk. It could have been the three little pigs or little red riding hood, the subject matter was not the point.

It was that you pick up the bible and call it fact, where it is actually fiction, myth, legend, stories and so on. It would be like me picking up the da vinci code and saying 'this is historic fact', when it is not, and nor is the bible.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
the christians do it them selfs in the way they act. just like the muslims are acting and we are more and more against them.
its the way the religion is taken to the extreme and people like me are getting the feeling that its being shoved into us, they are pushing us every were you'll see crosses and churches and in holland we see a rapid rise of mosques.
the leaders of religions are not willing to let loose of there control over us, religion and the believe in a god is a personal thing, no vision is the same everyone got an own vision and way to intrepid the bible.
so going to a church is bull because only the basics are the same but everybody has an own believe and vision.
so praying and reading the bible can also be done at home.
people who were signs or otherthings which we can see to which believe they hang must stop to give peace a change.
if a jew were's its headwear and a muslim his clothing they will not work to gether if they don't wear it people are more willing to work together because they don't know there religion.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
saint, there are no "facts" on jesus


Sure there are. Cannot make anyone accept them, but they are there.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i took history from secular history books, none point out any actual evidence that the man existed


Because it's history, not anthropology.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's just generally accepted, which is ignorant


How do you think it came to be "generally accepted"?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
anyway

atheists seem to be the most oppressed group in the USA


Make the thread about it



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
do you really think a non-religious person is going to win a presidential election?


It's a wonder we don't have pastors and priests for president
. America, the great theocracy. Sorry friend, it's not public religious convictions that make someone president.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
In a country where the leader is an over-the-top Christian, I'd say you can pretty much keep your hopes up that you'll be allowed Jesus-Fish on your cars.


At least until '08. Being an "over-the-top Christian" neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone from being a president. If people vote for a president based merely on publically declared personal beliefs then they're in for a ride. I know popular world opinion is that Americans aren't bright enough to realize that, but living here I can comfortably differ with that.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
But not as 'much' as Christian holiday symbols are displayed, they're not as 'in-your-face'. As I was driving through a nearby town, I couldn't help but notice the rows upon rows of Christmas lights with a few lit up 'Merry Christmas' signs. I've never ever seen any Jewish or Muslim holidays celebrated in the same way so publically.


So...you're saying Christians are responsible for putting up Jewish and Muslim decorations?
Not sure what you're getting at here.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The point was that you're just taking something from a book and calling it fact. It's ignorant to do so, as is picking up the da vinci code and calling that fact. It was a comparison if you hadn't noticed.


You'd compared the Da Vinci Code, a work of declared fiction with the Bible, a work of declared fact. I understand the comparison very well and think you'd put it clearly.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It'd be nice if you actually read a word of what I say. Instead of making up BS in your own mind and mindless annoying comebacks that are neither here nor there, and do no one any good at all. Grow up.


If you don't like talking to me you are not required to do so. Your demand for me to undergo increased cellular activity supernaturally over a reduced timeframe is neither possible (unless you believe in the majick of evolution) nor necessary.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The point was not about the da vinci code at all. If you fail to see that, then perhaps you need to re-educate yourself.


I got the point. Why you cannot see the difference between written fiction and fact is beyond me. Also, I have not forgotten my education, so "re-education" would be a redundant effort. Further, one cannot become educated through themselves, rather education comes externally from a source and is comprehended by the one receiving it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It was a comparison, it could have been any fiction book, but that happened to be the one that caught my eye when I was at my desk. It could have been the three little pigs or little red riding hood, the subject matter was not the point.


Again, the difference between fiction and fact but I doubt I'm the one able to point out the difference for you.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It was that you pick up the bible and call it fact, where it is actually fiction, myth, legend, stories and so on. It would be like me picking up the da vinci code and saying 'this is historic fact', when it is not, and nor is the bible.


Verify your sources. It's that simple. I'm not going to do that homework for you because it is only beneficial when we do it ourselves.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join