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: 130
16
<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Rockpuck,

Interesting comments.

Question to a Mason: So what exactly is the criteria to become a mason?
Answer from Mason: You must believe in a god, a supernatural being, is the first requirement.

The real test of this particular damage control statement is in the way its employed. How does one believe and not believe at the same time? I think I know the answer to this but want to hear you say it.

I direct you to re-read your comment. "Religion" is the problem. Of course, "Religion" is the definition of believing in a god or supernatural being, the first rule of Apophis (sorry, wrong TV show).. I mean, the first rule of masonry.


Your comment regarding "feelings hurt" was really eye-opening. Thank you for the confirmation of my theory. What-a-pal.


My criteria as a Mason was: Do you believe in a supernatural supreme being?

Answer: Yes.

Which god? How many gods? None of your business, though it most likely is not your god.


Can science co-exist with a supreme architect? .. oh yes.. it is the master plan set in motion before time began.. however, god plays little to no part in your daily life.. he does not send prophets or have children on earth.. there is a plan, the laws of nature, the laws of science, that is the beauty of God.

Does evolution prove god wrong? No. It proves religion wrong, it however fully supports God. Just depends, I am spiritual and no institution tells me what to think.

Don't be so quick to judge Undo, Science is God.
IMO of course, I would never expect anyone to agree with me, nor do I wish to press my belief on you.




posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Religion is just a fancy way of saying paradigm.
if you think god is a box of cigars, that's your paradigm
if you think god is the atom, that's your paradigm.

in short, religion is any set of beliefs that result in a paradigm, an outlook, an answer or set of answers about what it all means. this includes masonry, it includes science and it also includes atheism.

i will not accept that only ancient historical texts are incorrect.
i will not accept that our ancestors were too stupid to realize they weren't actually seeing what they said they saw and yet brilliant enough to create nearly impossible structures.
i will not accept that atheism is not a religious belief system.


[edit on 27-3-2007 by undo]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Right.. I am affraid I fail to see your point..

As for ancients.. there is a line between inteligence and understanding.. inteligence leads to understanding, it is not understanding its self.. inteligence is also the capacity to understand.. people 5,000 years ago where just as inteligent as they are today, we simply understand more.. and im sure they knew things we dont.. I dont know how to farm, I would be ignorant in their eyes.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Right.. I am affraid I fail to see your point..

As for ancients.. there is a line between inteligence and understanding.. inteligence leads to understanding, it is not understanding its self.. inteligence is also the capacity to understand.. people 5,000 years ago where just as inteligent as they are today, we simply understand more.. and im sure they knew things we dont.. I dont know how to farm, I would be ignorant in their eyes.


You think you understand more. That's because you've been lead to believe the ancient world was filled with people who were only barely evolved from the apes.

in the Legend of Re and Hathor, it makes references to his "Eye" (the Eye of Ra) being able to search out people who hid in the caves from his wrath. It could see threw solid rock, like ground penetrating radar and infra-red sensors. It flew around and found them and then destroyed them.
The text says his "Eye" was the most powerful "Eye" on the Planet, which is not what you've been lead to believe (it's not the sun).

There's hundreds of examples like this. Have you read the Hindu Mahabarata? The ancients were neither uncivilized or lacking in understanding.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
LOL... I honestly think you need to stop assuming what I do or have been ..ah.. "lead" to believe..

6,000 years ago at the rise of human civilization.. we where not genetically different then today, except for issolated mutations in pocketed tribes, most of which you probably have in your own DNA now.. can you digest milk? Thats one of them.


Evolution of our species is well over 1 into 2 million years old.. civilization came about for a different reason, completely unacoiated with evolution. But you know that because you know everything eh?

To insult evolution without KNOWING evolution is just arrogant..

To claim you know my God or beleif, as I said, it is none of your business.. and your no where close..
so stop assuming, please.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
RockPuck,

if you are within your rights to tell me I am wrong and to assume, why am I not in my rights to tell you, you are wrong and assume? Why is it when you do so, you're just enlightening me and when I do so, I'm being quick to judge and assume?

Replace the word "Apes" with "Neandethral" "cavemen" or whatever, the evolutionary premise is the same - that homo sapians is white guys, and everything else is pre-homo-sapians thusly the reference I quoted from the evolutionist who said that black people were the intellectual equivalent of 11 year old white guys.




[edit on 27-3-2007 by undo]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The thing that really gets the white supremacists is to point out the features of the Sphinx at Giza are very much african and asian in appearance.


The uncivilized mongoloids and low-intellectual capacity negroids, as they called our fellow humans, with their 11 year old, adrenaline-addled brains, built the pyramids of Egypt and the Sphinx. Ain't it amazing what 11 year old barbarian cavemen can do?



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   


How did that just turn into a "white people only believe in evolution because it makes them superior" thread?

I am done talking to you.. I do not converse with ignorant school children.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
The premise is that the founding fathers of evolutionary theory (a bunch of prejudice white guys) were looking for a science that would position them at the top of the heap, as science was the new, repackaged "religion" of the planet. It was very much a racist scientific theory. To maintain it, though, they had to ignore things like the appearance of the Sphinx and countless statues depicting pharaohs with obvious african and/or oriental features.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by undo]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Wow, you know nothing of Darwin.. you know your own little version of the big bad white guys keeping the afro man down..
not the real Darwin..

Can evolution be used to say that one race is superior to another? sure.. do most do so? No.. Can you say that the hypothesis of racial superiority is false entirely because you say so? No.. we know rather little about our past... it very well could be true no one knows though, I personally don't, recent genetic comparision says its not true, that our COLOR evolved due to enviromental reasons (Europe has more cloud cover and shorter days.. wow go figure, white is best suited for that enviroment)

As for your little description of satues and such, this is not the thread for the discussion, its been beat to death here at ATS and never in your favor.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Perhaps you're right, Mr Mason.

Then again, perhaps I'm right.

What do you say we both agree to disagree at this juncture and both go forth believing our own versions of ancient history? Please refrain from eradicating my "less than you"-ness, as I'm actually quite agreeable provided the topic doesn't degrade into "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" (the rest of the Origin of the Species title before they had to change it in fear of it being trampled to death by the other 3/4 of the planet that actually liked being alive on planet Earth).



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
No because it has been so engrained into the educational institutions that almost everyone accepts it as gospel. So many who dont have a single prejudice bone in their bodies, still are believing what appears to be racist science theories.


So there are no black people who believe in evolution theory? No asian people who believe in evolution theory? It's just a white people's thing?

PS. Waaaaay off topic btw.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
that's not what i said, now was it?
i said even people who aren't prejudice believe it now.
even people of different races believe it.
even races that are basically considered lesser lifeforms by darwin's theories and the theories of his colleagues, believe it.
they don't realize the implications.

i have photographic evidence that the pharaohs were from various races, including japanese, chinese, african, and even caucasian and semite.
so apparently the idea that the other races are not at the very least, homo sapiens is incorrect. and since it is the foundation of darwin's theories, you gotta wonder how much was built onto that in the name of white supremacy. if anything, many of the pharaohs appear to be hybrids, much more advanced than homo sapiens.

hey, i'm caucasian but i can see no reason to assume black people are the intellectual equivalent of 11 year olds and not even part of the human species

[edit on 28-3-2007 by undo]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
that's not what i said, now was it?
i said even people who aren't prejudice believe it now.
even people of different races believe it.
even races that are basically considered lesser lifeforms by darwin's theories and the theories of his colleagues, believe it.
they don't realize the implications.


you didn't say it. but you suggested it when you said that evolution theory suggests other races are lower evolved species, hence why would other races believe in a theory that states that? quite simply, they wouldn't. they don't know the implications, because there are none. your 'white supremist racism evolution theory' theory is pure speculation.



many of the pharaohs appear to be hybrids, much more advanced than homo sapiens.


why would a hybrid be more advanced? because they 'appearance' is different? that means they're more advanced?



hey, i'm caucasian but i can see no reason to assume black people are the intellectual equivalent of 11 year olds and not even part of the human species


and there's no reason to assume evolution theory is racist or driven by white supremists.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Actually, evolution was used as the foundation for eugenics and the Nazi movement as well as several white supremacist movements through the last 150 years. Evolution on its own is not inherently racist, but the potential is most assuredly there.

However, I am curious, shaunybaby, as to your logical reasoning for dismissing such assumptions that one race could be superior to another based on the theory of evolution.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
However, I am curious, shaunybaby, as to your logical reasoning for dismissing such assumptions that one race could be superior to another based on the theory of evolution.


logically came to that reasoning because we all share the same ancestor, people in australia, china, africa, and uk may 'look' different, and therefore evolved in slightly different ways, adapting to their surroundings, but it doesn't mean one race is higher or lower than another. infact the masai tribes of africa have a verg tall average height, it's way above 6'4''.. and that's average. i hardly think that shows a 'lower' evolved species.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by junglejake
However, I am curious, shaunybaby, as to your logical reasoning for dismissing such assumptions that one race could be superior to another based on the theory of evolution.


logically came to that reasoning because we all share the same ancestor, people in australia, china, africa, and uk may 'look' different, and therefore evolved in slightly different ways, adapting to their surroundings, but it doesn't mean one race is higher or lower than another. infact the masai tribes of africa have a verg tall average height, it's way above 6'4''.. and that's average. i hardly think that shows a 'lower' evolved species.


Agreed! Darwin would disagree with you, as would his colleagues. Not all scientists in his peer group agreed with him. But I guess it was just too attractive of a concept. White man is superior and here's the proof! White man is his own god and here's the proof! lol Okaaaaaaaaaay.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, evolution was used as the foundation for eugenics and the Nazi movement as well as several white supremacist movements through the last 150 years. Evolution on its own is not inherently racist, but the potential is most assuredly there.


if you take it out of context, you're right. but the theory of NATURAL SELECTION doesn't lend itself to eugenics.



However, I am curious, shaunybaby, as to your logical reasoning for dismissing such assumptions that one race could be superior to another based on the theory of evolution.


nothing can be superior in terms of evolution, especially within the same species. sure, there can be specific people that are better, but not entire groups of "more evolved" or "better evolved" people.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
let's get back to the anti-christian conspiracy as well, the latter of this discussion would have been more at home in an evolution themed thread..

i believe there were two dead christians with satanic symbols left at the murder scene..

often false clues can be left behind in order to throw off the authorities to make it look like a certain group commited the offence..

we can't be sure that satanists or even anti-christian people/group are the murderers..



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Surely most murders leave a trail or clue?

Whether that clue/trail is an obvious satanic symbol or a hidden piece of forensic evidence, there's often a trail.


We would have to do some fact-finding to get the answer. I will say this though, there are many people (and more everyday) who are still "missing" whether dead or alive.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Just because satanic symbols were left at the scene of the crime, this doesn't make it a hate crime. It's not certain that the killer/s knew his/her/their victims, and it's not certain that he/she/they knew their victims were christian.


It may not be certain, I agree. It's something to make you go "hmmm"... then count up those "hmmm"s and it helps paint a bigger picture. It sounds like I've got a longer list of them than some others on this board due to past exposures.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in

join