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: 154
16
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


the KKK sure had no problem burning down churches when they were preaching their twisted version of the book of genesis in which the "sons of cain" were black...

so yeah, i don't see any conflict of interests with christians burning down churches.

christians have killed each other on interpretations before.




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   


Originally posted by HIFIGUY
reply to post by Lilitu
 



Originally posted by Lilitu
Were it real you could readily demonstrate the reality of it but you cannot do that. You deal with myth, fantacy and delusion and then imagine a conspiracy against your ignis fatuus when people start getting fed up and call it bull#.


The person you describe is yourself.


Thank you. I couldn't have hoped for a more avoidant response. How telling! Don't you believe that "truth" (that which is true) can stand up to scrutiny? And if it can then how hard would it be to demonstrate the truth of it?

I have heard many a preacher teach that the truth is self-evident but if that is so, it can be demonstrated that it is indeed true.

As for your story about China, this doesn't prove a conspiracy against christianity. It proves that if you go to China, violate their laws and get caught, you are going to get thumped. The same would have happened to some street punk pushing crack.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Lilitu,

He does not understand the power of God latent in the manifestations of holy spirit nor that God defends Himself, that is that the truth is its own defense.

Not ever having actually seen the God he worships do anything in reality he fears in his heart that perhaps his God is not there and when some one challenges his beliefs it pains his ego.

Christianity is in decline in terms of its value just as the dollar is even though there are more of both dollars in peoples hands and people in Christian churches.

There is no more an attack on Christianity than there is a clash of civilizations or a war against the American way of life it is just propaganda.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jake1997
 

ah yes..one more christian using that word "hate" to describe someone who doesn't "believe". how original...you see... this forum is for people that can reason, doubt, and question. but in your world view, that is described as "hate". no grey areas for you...and that is the whole crux of your disscussion...life, if lived for any amount of time, simply shows that there are grey areas in every facit. and that is why you are critized, you deal in absolutes, dictated by a mythical being, and rely on faith to uphold those dictates. most of us here don't. but you people continue to use the word "hate", convenient, emotional, and used by those on the far right against those who tend to disagree with their way of either doing or looking at a subject. using the word "hate" eliminates all reasoned and thought out arguement and is a cheap and ignorant way to divide. for all you preaching christians out there...try and keep it in your home and churches and if anyone outside wants to go into one of those churches and find out about the "word of god", they won't have a hard time finding one...there are more churches in this country, then 7-11's and starbucks combined.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 
and for the conservetives...i mean "far" right, and also "far" left...there are issues where i take a conservetive view on as well as a liberal one



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the KKK sure had no problem burning down churches when they were preaching their twisted version of the book of genesis in which the "sons of cain" were black...


The KKK are anti-Christan as well. I'm surprised I have to place identifiers onto things that should be otherwise obvious.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


then the term "anti-christian" is ENTIRELY subjective, as they believe themselves to be christian as much as you do

now, with something as subjective as vague bronze age writings, we really can't know what the true meaning is. thus, nearly any interpretation holds water.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Ah, madness must be a subscriber to relativism:



"Main Entry: rel·a·tiv·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1865
a: a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b: a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them"


Notice the term did not exist until 1865.

I can show both logically/literally and Biblically who is and is not Christian. Further Biblically (since the dicitonary is a limited book), those who follow Anti-Christianity and the head conspirator thereof. Not that it matters, the discussion has been repeating itself for the last 80 or more pages.





[edit on 3-1-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


so you're saying that the bible is a book that is completely, 100% objective and leaves absolutely no room for interpretation whatsoever?

are you also saying that it's not contradictory?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so you're saying that the bible is a book that is completely, 100% objective


Ten commandments = objective. I liked the tee shirt that says, "What part of 'thou shalt not' don't you understand?"


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and leaves absolutely no room for interpretation whatsoever?


Jesus' parables = allogorical application, although literally it works just as well.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
are you also saying that it's not contradictory?


It's important to not read with fuzzy eyes. The Bible says what is and is not literal. Most of Jesus' teaching had to be re-explained several times so that there was no margin for misinterpretation. No contraditions here. We've ran this loop before and am unsure how this relates to the topic of discussion other than to say many Anti-Christian tactics resort to relativism, hem'ing and haw'ing as to "what is truth anyway?" (psst...it's in the book) , or saying God/Jesus didn't really mean it. Actually, He does.

Here's comes the part where people ask if I sacrifice sheep at the temple every Sunday. If we're going to run the loop again, let's do it in full. You already know my answer, so please go ahead with the script and I'll say my lines.

Or! We can do something truly innovative and new by moving the discussion forward along the lines of the topic!

[edit on 4-1-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ten commandments = objective. I liked the tee shirt that says, "What part of 'thou shalt not' don't you understand?"


here's an ample example of how somebody is subject to a mistranslation. the commandment is NOT "thou shalt not kill"
a proper translation is "thou shalt not MURDER"
the bible clearly has no problem with killing.



Jesus' parables = allogorical application, although literally it works just as well.


but other parts can be seen as allegorical. the symbolism in revelations speaks heavily to allegory, yet it is often thought of as literal.



It's important to not read with fuzzy eyes. The Bible says what is and is not literal.


could you point out where?
i mean... is the first story of creation literal or is it the second?



Most of Jesus' teaching had to be re-explained several times so that there was no margin for misinterpretation. No contraditions here.


except there are contradictions. there are multiple tellings of the same story that contradict each other within the bible.

also... there are just plain ethical teaching differences. the old testament teaches: revenge = good
the new testament teaches: revenge = bad (with the exception of jesus, who is allowed to take revenge on people who don't believe in him by casting them into an eternal pit of fire...)



We've ran this loop before and am unsure how this relates to the topic of discussion other than to say many Anti-Christian tactics resort to relativism, hem'ing and haw'ing as to "what is truth anyway?" (psst...it's in the book) ,


it relates to the topic because you accuse these of being "anti-christian" tactics, when they're really just pro-truth and logic.



or saying God/Jesus didn't really mean it. Actually, He does.


then why didn't jesus pen the book himself?
i'm sure an omnipotent/omniscient being would be literate...



Here's comes the part where people ask if I sacrifice sheep at the temple every Sunday. If we're going to run the loop again, let's do it in full. You already know my answer, so please go ahead with the script and I'll say my lines.


i have a question for you. do you have long hair? i'm just pointing out something specific in the new testament. it's clearly not an allegory, it says it's an abomination for a man to have long hair



Or! We can do something truly innovative and new by moving the discussion forward along the lines of the topic!


alright, then move along the lines of proving the anti-christian conspiracy. why must those who represent the negative position move things forward? we're not trying to prove anything, you are.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
(sorry for not joining in on the conversation at hand, I only just saw this thread and don't much feel like going through every post before me to get the jist of things
)

I'm not anti-christian, I am anti-religion. Organised religion anyway. I just don't agree with it.

I agree with some of the things that some religions are trying to teach mind you. Rather, some people from whatever religions are trying to teach. Like peace, tolerance, acceptance etc.

I don't like it when people present their personal beliefs as fact. Like at school, I was taught bible stories as if they were fact. They are not fact. They are exactly what they are called, "stories".

Though, in my teachers' defence, it was a Christian school ,so what did I expect?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that with all these religions around and so many different beliefs, how can anyone anywhere say anything as if it were fact.

I think I'm about to go on a tangent. Because, to me, nothing is fact unless it is proven by science. But, wouldn't that just be my beliefs too? So, going by what I have said, I cannot present this as fact either, because it is just mine and some other peoples personal beliefs.

And I have now done my head in and this post has become all but pointless and confusing.

But yes, I do not agree with religion in general. I do however like that it does make other people feel happy and safe. So each to their own, eh?

Also, another thing I don't like about some religions is that they try and make people not of their faith feel bad for not "believing". And when people here start going on and on about the rapture, or judgement day, or whatever. I do not come on this site to be preached to.

That being said, I don't think less of anyone just because of their religion. I will treat each and every person as they should be treated - equally. Regardless of colour, religion or anything else like that that really doesn't. Matter.

Cheers for listening to me rant!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I'm coming clean on the whole anti-christian conspiracy.

I run it. Any questions?

We meet Thursdays at 6pm, worship Jefferson's brain in a jar and pay no taxes. And Fox is right. We want to destroy Chris Cringle.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
im anti religion but not in a preaching way, you either believe or you dont, i see christianity the same way a lot of christians see scientology its obviously made up and is a giant cash cow, im lucky enough that i live in a fairly open minded society and religious zealots are few and far between, maybe thats why religion amuses me but if i lived in a place where my religious alliance could be the choice between life and death, failure or prosperity then im sure the smile would be wiped off my face.

that was actually quite preachy wasnt it, my bad



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by R-evolve
that was actually quite preachy wasnt it, my bad


Not bad at all, and so true about the government in some places wiping that smile off your face. I love America, because it is NOT a Christian nation as the treaty of Tripoli states.

Thank GOD for protecting me from His followers.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
here's an ample example of how somebody is subject to a mistranslation. the commandment is NOT "thou shalt not kill"
a proper translation is "thou shalt not MURDER"
the bible clearly has no problem with killing.


This isn't subject to mistranslation. It's subject to mankind's rationalization. We're looking for a reason to justify killing by our own judgements and standards and there are none. How can you "love your enemy" as Jesus commanded and yet kill them?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but other parts can be seen as allegorical. the symbolism in revelations speaks heavily to allegory, yet it is often thought of as literal.


I guess we'll find out.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
could you point out where?


I gave two examples, we can go through more if you like. The Old Testament spoke more heavily to verbatim law. The New Testament was more of a guide of how to think instead of what to think.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i mean... is the first story of creation literal or is it the second?


There was only one creation. The only time anyone should have any confusion is if they're using the Oxford Study Bible from 1993 which is out of print. Probably for good reason.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
except there are contradictions. there are multiple tellings of the same story that contradict each other within the bible.


That's confirmation, not contradiction. I must admit, you're getting 'warmer' as to some really nice theological discussion, but don't know what it has to do with the Anti-Christian Conspiracy.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also... there are just plain ethical teaching differences. the old testament teaches: revenge = good


Strange, I thought it teaches "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." - Leviticus 19:18


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the new testament teaches: revenge = bad (with the exception of jesus, who is allowed to take revenge on people who don't believe in him by casting them into an eternal pit of fire...)


Why is revenge bad?

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." - Romans 12:19

In other word, with our flawed sense of justice and the inability to be omniscent, we could not possibly pass a right judgement. God on the other hand, is perfectly fair. He's the only one qualified.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it relates to the topic because you accuse these of being "anti-christian" tactics, when they're really just pro-truth and logic.


Says you



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
then why didn't jesus pen the book himself?
i'm sure an omnipotent/omniscient being would be literate...


Being a fan of Revelation apparently, I thought you'd recall when the witness was instructed to "write this down". So why didn't Jesus spend it time writing instead of teaching? Quite simply, he had a lot of work to do. Everyone else who did not were the ones who wrote the books. It was intentional.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i have a question for you. do you have long hair?


What is "long"?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm just pointing out something specific in the new testament. it's clearly not an allegory, it says it's an abomination for a man to have long hair


Hehe, funny that you point out a statement that begins "Judge for yourselves..."


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright, then move along the lines of proving the anti-christian conspiracy. why must those who represent the negative position move things forward? we're not trying to prove anything, you are.


I would think that all people here would be interested in a progressive discussion. Rehashing the same old stuff over and over or found on a different thread is a bit redundant and a waste of time, is it not?


[edit on 7-1-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
This isn't subject to mistranslation. It's subject to mankind's rationalization. We're looking for a reason to justify killing by our own judgements and standards and there are none. How can you "love your enemy" as Jesus commanded and yet kill them?


take it up with god, he's the one who you think dictated the commandments.



I guess we'll find out.


ah, so you're admitting that there is room for doubt...



I gave two examples, we can go through more if you like. The Old Testament spoke more heavily to verbatim law. The New Testament was more of a guide of how to think instead of what to think.


but there are explicit commands in the new testament.
it even says that my current hairstyle is an abomination onto me because it's long and men shouldn't cover up their head before god (but women should...)



There was only one creation. The only time anyone should have any confusion is if they're using the Oxford Study Bible from 1993 which is out of print. Probably for good reason.


or if you're just reading the stories.... the order of events change, the style of writing changes, and in one humanity is created both man and woman simultaneously and in the other man first.



That's confirmation, not contradiction. I must admit, you're getting 'warmer' as to some really nice theological discussion, but don't know what it has to do with the Anti-Christian Conspiracy.


they're not confirmation when there are complete differences of opinion on what happened.

and, well, it's really up to you to provide material on the conspiracy, i don't believe it



Strange, I thought it teaches "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." - Leviticus 19:18


that's why i said there are contradictions.



Why is revenge bad?


it's not necessarily bad, it's just hypocrisy from the artist behind the hit song "turn the other cheek"



"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." - Romans 12:19


revenge isn't a good act. it's an act of pettiness
actually, it's quite befitting the petty judeo-christian god



In other word, with our flawed sense of justice and the inability to be omniscent, we could not possibly pass a right judgement. God on the other hand, is perfectly fair. He's the only one qualified.


omniscience does not mean one has perfect judgment. knowing all does not make one perfect. your being knows all, yet does not know how to overcome a problem with jealousy...





Being a fan of Revelation apparently, I thought you'd recall when the witness was instructed to "write this down". So why didn't Jesus spend it time writing instead of teaching? Quite simply, he had a lot of work to do. Everyone else who did not were the ones who wrote the books. It was intentional.


i'm sorry... but your only argument is that he had a lot to do? he's omnipotent for his sake! he could just poof the book into existence.



What is "long"?


i don't know, but for a man to have long hair is a shame on him, so sayeth the bible.




I would think that all people here would be interested in a progressive discussion. Rehashing the same old stuff over and over or found on a different thread is a bit redundant and a waste of time, is it not?


well, then find different evidence or a new line of argument.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I'm coming clean on the whole anti-christian conspiracy.

I run it. Any questions?


Isn't there something in the terms and agreement in ATS about lying?

You're not the one who runs it. I've met the one who runs it and you're not it. Sorry to dash your delusions of grandeur.


Originally posted by RANT
We meet Thursdays at 6pm, worship Jefferson's brain in a jar and pay no taxes.


That's going to make the government very unhappy.


Originally posted by RANT
And Fox is right. We want to destroy Chris Cringle.


You're anti-Chris Cringle. Get it yet? I highly doubt it.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
take it up with god,


I have no issue with God. You do, remember?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
he's the one who you think dictated the commandments.


Indeed He did.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ah, so you're admitting that there is room for doubt...


Nope, I'm admitting that neither of us know exactly how literal Revelation is going to be. I think it'll be unmistakeable, but 'we'll see' as in you wouldn't believe it unless you see it. Am I wrong?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but there are explicit commands in the new testament.
it even says that my current hairstyle is an abomination onto me because it's long and men shouldn't cover up their head before god (but women should...)


As it says "Judge for yourselves..." God isn't going to start segregating people because of what they look like. If you need me to quote many proof texts to it as well, I can.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
or if you're just reading the stories.... the order of events change, the style of writing changes, and in one humanity is created both man and woman simultaneously and in the other man first.


Chapter 1 was the creation of all things. Chapter 2 is the account of Adam and Eve in the garden "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they're not confirmation when there are complete differences of opinion on what happened.


Four different people wrote of the same events. Four different perspectives, same Jesus, miracles, resurrection. It's obvious they were different people BECAUSE of the different perspectives. Confirmation.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and, well, it's really up to you to provide material on the conspiracy, i don't believe it


No worries, I'm not here to make anyone believe anything, but appreciate the touchstone to the topic.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's why i said there are contradictions.


What contradicts it?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's not necessarily bad, it's just hypocrisy from the artist behind the hit song "turn the other cheek"


As stated before, we're unqualified for the job of extermination. We created none, therefore we are unfit to destroy none just because we believe they deserve to die.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
revenge isn't a good act. it's an act of pettiness
actually, it's quite befitting the petty judeo-christian god


We don't know what perfect justice is. Any act that we take to 'get back at someone' is therefore revenge.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
omniscience does not mean one has perfect judgment. knowing all does not make one perfect. your being knows all, yet does not know how to overcome a problem with jealousy...


Knowing all is one part of perfect judgement. You seem to be implying that God has a hint of evil and would make a bad call. But, that's our human rationale speaking, not the reality of perfection.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm sorry... but your only argument is that he had a lot to do? he's omnipotent for his sake! he could just poof the book into existence.


Of course He could, but instead of spoonfeeding us like mental vegtables, He involves us in the process.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i don't know, but for a man to have long hair is a shame on him, so sayeth the bible.


So misquoteth you for leaving out the beginning of that statement which says "Judge for yourselves..." Mind if I quote a few words you've said and leave out the meaning? Not fair, is it?



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, then find different evidence or a new line of argument.


No one has really addressed what I've brought up so far. Why continue when there's been no previous progress made on three examples.

Let's follow current events as THEY are moving forward:



Lying in a hospital bed in this rural hub of Kenya's Rift Valley, a man describes surviving two machete wounds to his head and multiple slashes to his hands. He says he was attacked by people who now live by the rules of tribalism.

"They have to be stopped," he said. "It is the work of the devil."

Nearby, another machete-attack survivor, John Machana, said he thought he was a dead man when he was attacked.

"I was sure they would kill me," he said, nursing slashes to his backside and still lying in his bloodstained clothes.

"They told me the blood in Kenya now had to be pure and clean, and they accused me of being of mixed tribal blood."

www.cnn.com...

Smart man. I don't know what his level of education is, but his instincts are greater than a lot of people I've be in my lifetime.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
And then there's one of the mouthpieces...



Saints were psychotic and advances in modern medicine have essentially wiped them off the planet. That's "the view" of comedian Joy Behar, as expressed on national television Wednesday.

Whether or not Behar was joking, "The View" co-host's remarks sparked a loud debate on and off the program.

Behar got things started by saying: "I have a theory that you can’t find any saints anymore because of psychotropic medication. I think that [in] the old days, the saints were hearing voices and they didn’t have any Thorazine to calm them down.

"Now that we have all of this medication available to us, you can’t find a saint anymore," she said on ABC's daily chatfest.


Actually, there are quite a large number of living saints. I know them personally. Maybe she was thinking of a different definition?


People are declared saints because they have first of all exemplified a heroic living of Christian virtue."

"Clearly she is no church historian. Saying 'she didn't believe 100 percent' is a simplistic and superficial reading of the news," said Morris. "Why would you spend 60 years in a slum in the name of Jesus out of love for God if you don’t believe in Jesus or God 100 percent?"

www.foxnews.com...

Certainly all the previous examples I'd mentioned are worth talking about much moreso.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 151  152  153    155  156  157 >>

log in

join