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: 125
16
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
How is it hypocritical to say that rejecting God is rejecting truth, when God is truth?


The hypocrisy is that you supposedly say that you deny ignorance. When in fact it's ignorant to say something like 'God is truth'. And also to say that when people here reject God they are rejecting the truth. Since when is your opinion 'higher' than everyone elses?


Originally posted by southern_cross3
Jesus could walk on water because he created it. David Copperfield did not create the Great Wall of China.


You've not even attempted to answer some of the points raised.


Originally posted by southern_cross3
Even so, some magic is real, and I believe that the fallen angels, or demons, can make things happen that some might see to be miracles.


I've always liked slight of hand magic. This is neither here nor there, as is fallen angels. Lets keep to the topic, rather than straying to fairy tales like fallen angels.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
saint4god, I see your point about being helpful. However, I've been extremely frustrated by the amount of people on the site who seem bent on embracing ignorance, rather than deny it. Even mention the Bible and a host of skeptics show up like dogs homing in on a steak. It's very tiring to constantly defend God and his Word to people who ridicule religion.


Understandable, no doubt. But God and His Word stands on their own. Nothing you, I or anyone else can say to change that. It's going to be a rough day in the end for some people so we have to use the most effective means possible to minimize that impact...or better still, show them how to reverse it entirely. Close anger and justice, open compassion. That's what Christ was trying to show us. We deserve wrath and judgement, we got forgiveness and life. Logically that doesn't make sense...because God is beyond our sense of logic. But, such is the nature of love. One of my favorite phrases is "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"


Originally posted by southern_cross3
I suppose I feel that even nonbelievers should have respect for the God who created them.


All the best with that. Many are upset about being created because that relationship isn't there. One time outside of Philadelphia I was driving and got completely lost. I was pretty upset about this because I knew where I wanted to go but didn't know how to get there. After the frustration subsided, I finally stopped being angry about no one being able to help me. Then I pulled over, asked for directions and found the way. Sometimes those who ask for directions are still upset about being lost.


Originally posted by southern_cross3
Yes, you have the right to reject the truth. But don't call it a lie.


I agree it is disrespectful to call the truth a lie whether knowingly or unknowingly, but t'is the American way...at the very least. Think of it as an opportunity to present the evidence otherwise.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Nice aversion technique.


Southern was explaining to me his/her reaction in response to my post asking for calm and easing of offensiveness. Sc was explaining the feeling behind it. I think a wise person would ask or at least wonder why southern feels so strongly about this belief. Surely there's a reason.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You're also 'for' the movement of denying ignorance, yet you sit there and state that I'm 'rejecting the truth', when I reject God. A tad hypocritical perhaps?


One is telling the truth, one is not. This is a polar discussion as one is on one side and another on the opposite. Either God exists or He does not. Merely insisting on being correct one way or another isn't going to do the job.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
And also to say that when people here reject God they are rejecting the truth.


It is not a fact it is ignorant to say something like "God is truth" if God is truth. It would be ignorant, by definition, to claim this is false without knowing.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
It is not a fact it is ignorant to say something like "God is truth" if God is truth. It would be ignorant, by definition, to claim this is false without knowing.



Actually, both would be wrong wouldn't it? Since both sides are dealing with an absolute without knowing all of the facts. It may be more appropriate to say no one knows if god is truth, especially us puny humans. However, based on our track record for getting deities right, it's more than likely that the Christian concept of god is not the truth.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Actually, both would be wrong wouldn't it?


Not at all. Either God exists or He does not. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Since both sides are dealing with an absolute without knowing all of the facts.


One does not need to know "all the facts". One only needs to know if God exists or if He does not.



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It may be more appropriate to say no one knows if god is truth, especially us puny humans.


That would be assumptive and presumptious. Both are at great risk of being in error.



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
However, based on our track record for getting deities right, it's more than likely that the Christian concept of god is not the truth.


Now you're banking on probability due to personal assessment, which is neither the facts nor logical.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Actually, both would be wrong wouldn't it?


Not at all. Either God exists or He does not. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.


Sure it is. Since there are so many variations on "God" including a decidedly spotty origin. What I mean is through translation, omittance, and incomplete text defining origins, your God is probably very very different than my God. It's more than does he or doesn't he exist, it's in what manner does he exist, if he exists at all.




Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Since both sides are dealing with an absolute without knowing all of the facts.


One does not need to know "all the facts". One only needs to know if God exists or if He does not.


Again, since no one knows (aside from the ever unreliable "faith" answer) there is no way to know one way or the other.




Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It may be more appropriate to say no one knows if god is truth, especially us puny humans.


That would be assumptive and presumptious. Both are at great risk of being in error.


It would be presumtuous to believe that we don't know for sure if God is Truth? I think it would be presumtuous to conclude that God is Truth with no evidence other than one's own unreliable faith.




Originally posted by Rasobasi420
However, based on our track record for getting deities right, it's more than likely that the Christian concept of god is not the truth.


Now you're banking on probability due to personal assessment, which is neither the facts nor logical.


I'm banking on the fact that throughout history people have explained away basic concepts with magic or mysticism. We know that Zeus doesn't hurl lightning. We know that the sun isn't Apollo's chariot wheel, and we know that winter doesn't come because of Persephone traveling to the underworld. The concept of Christian God=Truth is the next evolution of that mindset, and in no way provable.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Sure it is. Since there are so many variations on "God" including a decidedly spotty origin. What I mean is through translation, omittance, and incomplete text defining origins, your God is probably very very different than my God. It's more than does he or doesn't he exist, it's in what manner does he exist, if he exists at all.


Hiding behind relativism makes no grounds to discover the truth.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Again, since no one knows (aside from the ever unreliable "faith" answer)


Not no one since YOU don't know. YOU cannot establish God exists, fine. It doesn't mean no one can.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
there is no way to know one way or the other.


Blanket assumption, presumption, generalization, and also false. See previous statement to see why. I submit there is a way, that I have followed it, and will help anyone who sincerely cares to do the same for free to receive the great free gift of eternal life God has to offer.



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It would be presumtuous to believe that we don't know for sure if God is Truth?


This is not what I said.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I think it would be presumtuous to conclude that God is Truth with no evidence other than one's own unreliable faith.


I agree. Some may disagree, but for me I required proof.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'm banking on the fact that throughout history people have explained away basic concepts with magic or mysticism. We know that Zeus doesn't hurl lightning. We know that the sun isn't Apollo's chariot wheel, and we know that winter doesn't come because of Persephone traveling to the underworld. The concept of Christian God=Truth is the next evolution of that mindset, and in no way provable.


You have not proved it, no. This does not mean it is unprovable.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
It's not mine to prove. If you can't prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian God exists, why should I believe it? And further more , why shouldn't I argue that it's untrue?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Just wanted to chime in and say I haven't dropped out of the discussion, but as I received an official warning for my "behavior" in this thread, I suppose I'd better not do things anymore like claim that "God is truth", or maintain my belief that Jesus walked on water, literally.

While others get away with comparing their Creator to a cheap parlor magician, I am warned for my unapologetic defense of God. Apparently, certain moderators don't think that's appropriate for this forum.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I think you got warned for saying someone had the mental capacity of an amoeba. You can believe what you'd like, just lay off the personal insults.

And you can say God is Truth if you'd like, but be prepared to back it up against scruteny without personal attacks.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Just wanted to chime in and say I haven't dropped out of the discussion, but as I received an official warning for my "behavior" in this thread, I suppose I'd better not do things anymore like claim that "God is truth", or maintain my belief that Jesus walked on water, literally.


Then elaborate on 'why' you believe it was a literal event. I was asking why you think David Copperfield is a mere magician, when he walked through the Great Wall of China, yet when someone 2000 years ago walks on water, he's called God.


Originally posted by southern_cross3
While others get away with comparing their Creator to a cheap parlor magician, I am warned for my unapologetic defense of God. Apparently, certain moderators don't think that's appropriate for this forum.


I didn't make a comparison. You're the one who's making the comparison between Copperfield and Jesus, I wasn't comparing them.

If you defense of God includes comparing my brain capacity to that of an amoeba, then maybe you need to re-think your defense. I've had my fair share of warnings for such incidents, I've learnt from them though, and try my best not to do it again.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's not mine to prove. If you can't prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian God exists, why should I believe it?


I'm not offering to prove it to you (or anyone) beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm offering an opportunity to help someone get the proof themselves so that there is no shadow of a doubt. There's always doubt when someone else shows you something. Doubt is removed when you're a part of the experience yourself.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
And further more , why shouldn't I argue that it's untrue?


Nothing wrong with arguing that it is untrue. Did it myself before and think it was the very thing of not knowing that bugged me so much I had to obtain a definative answer.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I think you got warned for saying someone had the mental capacity of an amoeba. You can believe what you'd like, just lay off the personal insults.


I agree and think the mods should have explained the reason for the warning if they hadn't done so.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
In discussing the various tools used by anti-Christianity, there are both stentorian and subtle. I'd outlined pages back the strident ones, who they were, where they meet, what they do, when, etcetera but I think it bears mentioning the full range of equipment utilized in this conspiracy. To demonstrate, I'll use first-hand testimony.

I worked in a company for about a decade where it was more than mere taboo to say the "G" word (God). If I had said it aloud, I'd find myself in the Personnel/Human Resources office trying to explain why I was being insensitive to the beliefs of others, why I was usuing company time and money to propagate my personal crusade, or how it is I've come to make mention of the word that was clearly not written in the company dictionary. This is a "western style" way of thinking. It's even present on college campus'. I can remember a video my freshmen orientation that included "appreciating a diverse environment" which essentially advocated not saying anything that could possibly upset someone of another belief system. I'll explain who developed this and why in a moment.

Contrast: Having joined a different company, there is no restriction on speech so long as it does not interefere with another's work. I can have a Bible on my desk (I have it face down as not to be "in your face" but like to read it), a cross necklace, and when someone sneezes I can say "God bless" instead of the german unrelated "gehzunheit" or the mumbled "garblesshoo" which would occasionally fly under the radar. It was by being here that I realized just how suppressed this first amendment right was in my previous work environment.

The company I work for now is global one - having sites in India, England, Canada, etc. It's likely that I'll sit next to someone who's Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Orthodox Jewish (to name a few). Surely this is a recipe for disaster according to American "logic". It's a war waiting to happen (because we all know that religion is the root cause of war...
)and we're leading over the cubicles to beat each other with sticks and rocks, right? Wrong. I can say "God bless you" when a Hindu sneezes, a Hindu can say "Krishna be with you" when I leave for the night. Even though I don't believe as they do, I appreciate being wished the best.

Okay then, if all these religions can sit next to each other, firm in their beliefs, where is this "you're being insensitive to the beliefs of others!" meme coming from? The answer is from those who have no beliefs. Something stirs deep down that irritates a non-believer to the point that they get uncomfortable or agitated by thoughts of: God, death, after-life, supernatural occurances, creation, infinity, and so forth. For example, I was discussion time travel/infinity with a coworker at my previous company with my boss in earshot. She asked us to break off the conversation because talking about the future and past reminded her of death and she didn't want to hear about these religious-like things. We weren't discussing God, afterlife, etc. but it reminded her of these things and we were directed to be quiet.

Anti-Christ organizations are familiar with this tool and exploit it to their advantage to the fullest extent the law (and arguably beyond) will allow. Christians who know what "blessed are the peacemakers" means, invariably will concede for the sake of "sensitivity" to others. This Christian, however, knows that a war of words causes no casualties, rather "For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline" and "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." There is clearly a division between Christ and Anti-Christ. The good news is, we all get to decide which side we wish to be on.

To believers, I ask you if you're being pressured to be silent or are uncomfortable discussing God. If the answer is yes, ask yourself who that serves.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I worked in a company for about a decade where it was more than mere taboo to say the "G" word (God). If I had said it aloud, I'd find myself in the Personnel/Human Resources office trying to explain why I was being insensitive to the beliefs of others


So why should I have to go to work and listen to you talk about God? Do I not have the right to be in a work environment that is free from religions/gods?



because we all know that religion is the root cause of war...



Why are you laughing? Religion and opposing religious views have been what many wars were fought over. I don't think that's a false statement.



and we're leading over the cubicles to beat each other with sticks and rocks, right? Wrong. I can say "God bless you" when a Hindu sneezes, a Hindu can say "Krishna be with you" when I leave for the night. Even though I don't believe as they do, I appreciate being wished the best.


So what about an Atheist? He/she has to put up with people saying 'God bless you' when they sneeze, and someone else saying 'Krishna be with you'? It's okay, so long as YOU get to say God bless you, and tell us that Jesus loves us?



Okay then, if all these religions can sit next to each other, firm in their beliefs, where is this "you're being insensitive to the beliefs of others!" meme coming from? The answer is from those who have no beliefs. Something stirs deep down that irritates a non-believer to the point that they get uncomfortable or agitated by thoughts of: God, death, after-life, supernatural occurances, creation, infinity, and so forth.


So it's Atheists who are the problem? You're annoyed at Athiests? Why should an Atheist have to hear about God, and hear someone say God bless you? Do they not have a rights also? Yet, it's all about me me me, when it comes down to Christians, they have to be able to profess about God and Jesus, otherwise it's not fair. Well did you ever think for one second that maybe some people don't want to hear about your God and Jesus? I'm not saying I don't want to hear about it. I'm saying that surely if you have the right to talk about God and express your religious views, then others surely therefore should have the right to 'not' hear about those religious views?



For example, I was discussion time travel/infinity with a coworker at my previous company with my boss in earshot. She asked us to break off the conversation because talking about the future and past reminded her of death and she didn't want to hear about these religious-like things. We weren't discussing God, afterlife, etc. but it reminded her of these things and we were directed to be quiet.


So one person's ignorance equals an entire conspiracy against Christianity?



Anti-Christ organizations are familiar with this tool and exploit it to their advantage to the fullest extent the law (and arguably beyond) will allow. Christians who know what "blessed are the peacemakers" means, invariably will concede for the sake of "sensitivity" to others.


Sensitivity to others? Yeah I'm sure that preacher guy shouting about Jesus and The Bible and God really had sensitivity to other's beliefs. I've seen plenty of people like that in city centres, they have absolutely no regard for other people's beliefs, other than their own personal agendas.



To believers, I ask you if you're being pressured to be silent or are uncomfortable discussing God. If the answer is yes, ask yourself who that serves.


'Believers'? So you're not trying to persue the anti-christian conspiracy anymore, it's now an anti-religion/believers conspiracy?

I think my main point is: why should you have the right to talk about God in the work place? Should another person therefore have the right to be free from all religion? Yet, how can that be possible with all these people walking around saying God bless you and Krishna be with you? It's not possible. But so long as you're happy and got your own way, I guess that's okay.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
when people say "i'm pressured to not talk about god" i ask them to think about how i'm put as an atheist

i know that i can never hold a federal office in the united states, yet i'm as much of an american as the next person
however, a university of minnesota study puts atheists as the least trusted group in america, less trusted than CONVICTED FELONS

all because i don't believe in a deity



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
From what I am aware of, the constitution does not provide Freedom FROM religion, only Freedom OF religion. The first being a form of intolerance, the second being a form of expression provided to all human beings as an inalienable right.

It was what the United States was founded upon; the idea that you can live with your gun toting neighbor just as much as you can live with your neighbor whose opinions you hate and who you don't invite to cocktail parties.

Freedom OF religion means you must tolerate those who are different from you. Otherwise, it is just struggling for a universal sameness that everyone must act like. I feel that it is a form of oppression that is entirely undesirable.

So what if you dislike the baptist at work? You don't have a right to be FREE from them. You have a right to your own opinion, and you make that opinion up for yourself, my friend. Just as the Baptist doesn't have the right to be free from satan worshipping, goat sacrificing pagans. They don't have that freedom... they have the freedom of their words, their expression, and their own opinions. Not the words, expressions, or opinions of others.

I do believe that is the first amendment.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Anybody seen this one happen.

LINK




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shizzle5150
Anybody seen this one happen.

LINK



Hehe, that's pretty rough. I'm sure that's true in some cases, but would also be a mistake to conclude all believers are this way. Although that would be stereotyping, I don't think the cartoon was attempting this. I think readers do this often times though.

The inherent flaw with the argument is the attempt to logically prove God exists. As if logic created God and not the other way around. We like to think our brains are superior to God and therefore can figure him out to the letter. In that way we are higher than God, a belief system called "humanism". Here's the flow of the pseudo-logic: If a Christian says they know God, then they must know all about Him. If they do not know something about Him, then they don't really know God, therefore He does not exist. Anyone spot the flaw in this conclusion?

I can attest my witnessings were not logical at all. But, that does not mean the mechanisms of faith, hope, love, and trust do not have logical components. Logic is a tool, it isn't God itself even though some people worship logic as a god. Worshipping the creation instead of the Creator.

Do I think the cartoon is part of an anti-Christian conspiracy? Not apparently or directly. It was more of a rub on a minority of non-thinking believers. Though one must recognize anything in media has a certain level of "broadcast".

[edit on 23-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The inherent flaw with the argument is the attempt to logically prove God exists. As if logic created God and not the other way around.


logic is a construct of a mind
if god exists and is in fact the first being as you postulate
god did not CREATE logic
it just happened as a result of god existing



We like to think our brains are superior to God and therefore can figure him out to the letter.


veiled arrogant atheists/people that try to put logic to dogma attack



In that way we are higher than God, a belief system called "humanism". Here's the flow of the pseudo-logic: If a Christian says they know God, then they must know all about Him. If they do not know something about Him, then they don't really know God, therefore He does not exist. Anyone spot the flaw in this conclusion?


.....
that isn't humanism at all
where did you get that crap from?
and why are you attacking a perfectly valid idea PRESENT IN THE TEACHING OF "JESUS" in this thread?
from his teachings, "jesus" was akin to a modern reformed jewish humanist



Do I think the cartoon is part of an anti-Christian conspiracy? Not apparently or directly. It was more of a rub on a minority of non-thinking believers. Though one must recognize anything in media has a certain level of "broadcast".


the media is anything but anti-christian



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join