The Anti-Christian conspiracy

I read through the blog paragraphs on churches. I think we do have that responsibility to get out there and tell people about Christ in our daily lives and in fact challenge ourselves by going into tough territory. It's clear to me this kind of missionary work is much needed in the world. HOWEVER, there are some very strong and beautiful churches who have the exact same goal. I was a nomadic Christian for 15 years. It wasn't until this past year that I found a church that knew how to get me excited about doing His work. I'm involved in programs that have me there 3 days (sometimes more) a week voluntarily, and I've yet to become a member. Churches have a lot of spiritual "food" to offer people who are hungry, so long as they stay by the Book.

I've still yet to see what it is that you personally have seen going wrong inside churches. Maybe I'm missing the obvious.

Originally posted by masqua
There are, remarkably, a number of well established, world renowned scientists, who, because of their deep understanding of the universe, have decided that there is a 'God'. I prefer the term Deity, but, really, it's the same idea of a sentient creator behind all of what we see.

What difference does it make what some well renouned scientists have decided about god? They have no more knowledge about metaphysics than you or I.

Originally posted by masqua
Supposition #1...how do we surmise the sex of the Deity? Isn't it anthromorphing this Deity? Why do we need to make this being like us?

...because we created gods in our image.

Originally posted by masqua

only wants those who realize there is no reason to believe he exists.

Supposition #2...you can't possibly believe you know the mind of this Deity and what it wants?

Sure I can. If there is such a deity, we can infer its will by observing its creation. Apparently, its will is chaos at the limits and usage of the central limit theorem to induce order on average. Its turn ons are logical consistency and maintaining the laws of the universe.

Saint,
What I see going wrong with the Christian Church in general would not be Obvious to anyone except someone who had spent about half of their lives seeing the inner-workings and backstage goings-on of the ministers of the majority of Christian Churches.

I'll be very clear that I believe that THERE ARE some GREAT churches out there, and they are DOING THE WORK of 10 churches or more...and loving every minute of it.
HOWEVER, the churches that are doing things as they should be done are in the minority...to say the least!

I don't have anything against the Christian Church, Christianity or Religion as a whole...as I said before, I was a minister for a long time and was extremely involved in the action of many of the churches that I went to. I even helped to start two churches that I have since seen go the way of the multitudes of the other churches and embrace a format that is pleasing to the masses rather than standing out as ambassadors for the savior that they represent.

I can find no better way to say how I feel than to say that I believe that the Christian Church in America today will be the death of the Christian Religion as it is currently known, UNLESS the Christian Church as a whole makes a concerted effort to become culturally relevant and necessary, rather than staying as they are: Quaint and Disposable...A "Religion" rahter than a Lifestyle driven by Faith.
Just the word "Christian" by itself makes a vast majority of common, everyday people CRINGE because of the people that they have known to represent Christianity...

I appreciate your comments and I believe your heart is in the right place, I hope that you understand my perception, opinion and passion as a desire to see change in the Christian church...LASTING CHANGE...to use an apt description that many "Christians" would cringe at; I believe that the Christian church is need of a Great EVOLUTION in order to survive and thrive.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by BFD]

Originally posted by jake1997
Why are so many people soo anti christian?

This is what I see. I see threads about many different subjects. Hundreds of subjects. In politics things get heated. On sports teams things get heated.
But when it comes to christianity....

I see hatred, dripping wet with venom. Why? This is not a 'hate christ' forum. Christianity is not the largest religion, nor does it have the worst human rights record in the media...it has nothing that should put it at the top of your hate list.

1.) Why do so many here feel the need to continually make topics bashing the beliefs of christians....when the topic is clearly not conspiracy related??

2.) Why do people feel the need to bust in on a topic and hijack/change it by attacking a person or their beliefs, posting the christian POV on that topic?
(look at seapeoples post history for an example)

3.) Doesnt the sheer weight of the trend in this forum show you that there is clearly some larger movement , possibly lead by a conspiracy, ...whos goal is anti-christian?

It should be THAT obvious. How can you miss it?

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Seekerof]

click the link in my signature.
The Antichrist conspiracy is the underlying conspiracy of them ALL!!!

Originally posted by jake1997

Why are so many people soo anti christian?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I cannot speak for the rest, but as for myself, I am not "anti-christian" perse, but will speak out when certain issues come up ... the most recent being the promotion of "Intelligent Design" in school. I do not see compelling evidence to support even a generic diety in the form of a watchmaker for the cosmos. ... and any such predispostion will bring up the notion of "which god"? ... which runs ahead of "is there a god". So, so long as religion stays out of the state funded non religiously aligned public school system, and does not try to insinuate "moral" profiles into our legal system ... then by and large, I don't have issues with religion.

No offense taken. I can tell about it because I have EXPERIENCED it for myself. There is no teacher better than experience. I was trinitarian baptist before I came to Truth. If what I believe is error, then I will still make it to heaven (provided I stay Holy). If on the other hand you are wrong and what I believe is true...your soul R in the hands of a merciful God is all I can say.

You have experienced it yourself? Is so I reckon you could translate easily and without any type of translating device-Vo est der bahnhof, bitte. Erste strasse links est der tiergarten.

Ah, the big "threat". Makes me quiver in my boots. GOD knows which side of the fence my lot is cast, and no man or "religion"(especially religion) can threaten that lot. That I do thank GOD for.

I find your ability to quote Bible verses top notch. However, now one must show me his ability to interpret those verses. The interpretation that Jesus intended, and not what has been drilled into you by man.

If one can produce someone that truly speaks and has the ability to understand "tongues" as one calls them than surely one can ask that person to also ascend to heaven.

One is born with the Holy spirit within them. If not no being would be functional for the energy of the Holy spirit is what keeps this mass of bags, bones, and really yuch active and going. That is true with anything in this physical universe.

Revelations 2:2-3 know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and ar not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast NOT fainted.

See, my friend, I'm purty good at those verses also. It is the understanding of the verses that makes each what we are or are not.

May God be with you.

It is science which has, for the past few centuries, slowly driven a wedge between between faith and logic. It is this new 'religion of natural sciences' which has forced people to choose. Science, for the past 150 years, is the anti-Christian conspiracy.

Darwin, for example, has been a thorn in the side of Christianity, never abating right up to todays headlines. As we develop a greater understanding of our environs, both micro and macroscopic, the framework of theology has been eroded to the point where they have become seperate institutions.

When Einstein or Hawking made statements which attempt to bridge this gap, I see it as a hopeful sign. Newton saw science as a facet of religion, revealing the Deities pefect design. I am hopeful that science and religion, rather than oppose each other, can one day find reconcilliation.

perhaps you have provided a hint, as follows;

originally posted by spamandham
If there is such a deity, we can infer its will by observing its creation. Apparently, its will is chaos at the limits and usage of the central limit theorem to induce order on average. Its turn ons are logical consistency and maintaining the laws of the universe.

The 'If' with which you begin, indicates, at least, a willingness to entertain the actuality of such an entity (as I do).

However, I fail to follow the logic you provide within the Central Limit Theorem, other than perhaps how the particles, which constitute all matter, will react to induce a seemingly natural order. i.e. Are you specifically saying that a hydrogen atom comes into existance because of the laws governing probabilities? Perhaps I'm being thick headed here, but could you elaborate on this, please?

mathworld.wolfram.com...

The theory actually falls neatly into remarks made by Einstein about God and dice.

www.stat.sc.edu...

note; the above url has an applet

[edit on 15-11-2005 by masqua]

Masqua says:

It is science which has, for the past few centuries, slowly driven a wedge between between faith and logic. It is this new 'religion of natural sciences' which has forced people to choose. Science, for the past 150 years, is the anti-Christian conspiracy.

LCKob Responds:

If there is a discrepancy between Faith and Logic, then I see you point ... Scientific Methodology primarily seeks who, what , where, when , why and how ... so if you see these questions as threatening in a "anti-Christian" way ... then so be it. Irrespective of source, Science will ALWAYS ask for the "5 WH""

__________________________________________________________

Mosqua says:

Darwin, for example, has been a thorn in the side of Christianity, never abating right up to todays headlines. As we develop a greater understanding of our environs, both micro and macroscopic, the framework of theology has been eroded to the point where they have become seperate institutions.

LCKob responds:

I take it by "thorn" you imply irritation? Believe me when I say that it goes two ways here ... and as for 2 institutions ... as the engineers creed goes ...Form Fits Function.

__________________________________________________________

Mosqua says:

When Einstein or Hawking made statements which attempt to bridge this gap, I see it as a hopeful sign. Newton saw science as a facet of religion, revealing the Deities pefect design. I am hopeful that science and religion, rather than oppose each other, can one day find reconcilliation.

LCKob responds:

Reconcilliation would be nice, but in all honesty I see them as being flipsides of the same coin. Joined but opposing in fundemental outlook.
Can one reconcile two forces when one by nature asks "why" and the other says to "believe"?

LCKob



[edit on 15-11-2005 by LCKob]

Originally posted by masqua
Science, for the past 150 years, is the anti-Christian conspiracy.

If you consider the quest for knowledge to be a conspiracy against Christianity, then you are admitting that Christianity is not itself involved in such a quest. I agree on that point.

Originally posted by masqua
When Einstein or Hawking made statements which attempt to bridge this gap, I see it as a hopeful sign.

You would be well served to understand what these men are talking about in regard to religion before being too hopefull.

Einstein equated religion with the belief that the universe will continue to behave as it has behaved. Is that what you have in mind? Interestingly, such a belief is axiomatic in that you can not function if you cease to accept consistency of the universe. This is not in the same category as religious faith.

Originally posted by masqua
The 'If' with which you begin, indicates, at least, a willingness to entertain the actuality of such an entity (as I do).

Of course I'm willing to entertain such ideas. One caveat though; you must consistently define 'god' before it becomes legitimate to discuss the actuality thereof.

Originally posted by masqua
However, I fail to follow the logic you provide within the Central Limit Theorem, other than perhaps how the particles, which constitute all matter, will react to induce a seemingly natural order.

That's pretty much it. At the lowest levels, uncertainy rules the day. But as you add up all these uncertainties, the limit approaches certainty according to the central limit theorem. At the everyday level we observe, the number of such uncertainties involved in a single observation are so mindnumbingly huge, that we can not even begin to notice the remaining uncertainty.

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, an example might help. On a sunny windfree day, drop a single grain of sand from a two story building. You have no idea where it will land. The odds it will land in a 10 foot circle perpendicular to the hand that dropped it are not bad. If you expand that circle to 20 feet, the odds are even better. By 100 feet, the odds that the grain of sand will land within such a circle are a virtual certainty. Now drop a second grain, then a third. Continue this untill you've dropped 100 trillion grains (this could take a few minutes). You will notice a pile of sand. Without touching the pile, make measurements of it's diameter and height.

Now repeat the experiment and make the same measurements. You will see that the diameter and height of the pile are the same.

But how can that be when you consider the individual grains can fall all over the place!? We can predict what will happen in aggregate, even though the fundamental particles behave randomly. This is the result of combining the central limit theorem with measurements of limited precision.

Causality works the same way. It is not fundamental within our universe as best we can demonstrate (although there are theories that use hidden variables to assume fundamental determinism, it can not be proven thus far, and is an unnecessary assumption).

Rather, causality appears to be the result of the central limit theorem. If Einstein had realized this, he probably would not have made his "god does not play dice with the universe" statement.

But if it's true that at the most fundamental levels, reality is not causal at all, then there is no longer any philosophical reason to even suspect the existence of the universe has a "cause".

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

No offense taken. I can tell about it because I have EXPERIENCED it for myself. There is no teacher better than experience. I was trinitarian baptist before I came to Truth. If what I believe is error, then I will still make it to heaven (provided I stay Holy). If on the other hand you are wrong and what I believe is true...your soul R in the hands of a merciful God is all I can say.

You have experienced it yourself? Is so I reckon you could translate easily and without any type of translating device-Vo est der bahnhof, bitte. Erste strasse links est der tiergarten.

Ah, the big "threat". Makes me quiver in my boots. GOD knows which side of the fence my lot is cast, and no man or "religion"(especially religion) can threaten that lot. That I do thank GOD for.

I find your ability to quote Bible verses top notch. However, now one must show me his ability to interpret those verses. The interpretation that Jesus intended, and not what has been drilled into you by man.

If one can produce someone that truly speaks and has the ability to understand "tongues" as one calls them than surely one can ask that person to also ascend to heaven.

One is born with the Holy spirit within them. If not no being would be functional for the energy of the Holy spirit is what keeps this mass of bags, bones, and really yuch active and going. That is true with anything in this physical universe.

Revelations 2:2-3 know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and ar not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast NOT fainted.

See, my friend, I'm purty good at those verses also. It is the understanding of the verses that makes each what we are or are not.

May God be with you.

Thanks for that last bit. Now I don't want to hijack this thread by making it into a "what I believe thread". So I will just say that, I am pro-choice in your religious preferrences, as is God. I think people have been lead to think that just because one person harbors ideas that seems to be "wrong" they are persecuted for their faith. Christianity is a fine example of what folks will do to a good religion when it either does not meet their need (because they don't really believe in the first place or lack the umph to press thru to faith) or twist it out of its original format to conform to their views. In closing, I will say that tongues is a gift. Just as interpretation is a gift as is a miriad of other gifts. If you really want to KNOW about God seek Him and His truth with an open mind to His will and pray for wisdom, even if it flies in the face on conventional teaching by "mainstream" theology. There is no experience like the real person experience you can talk about. Right has always been right and likewise with wrong. Thank you, thank you very much...


Translation: To get to the station, ask. The zoo is the first road on the left.

[edit on 16/11/05 by OneGodJesus]

(This post also applies to LCKobs input...thank you)

spamandham]
You would be well served to understand what these men are talking about in regard to religion before being too hopefull.

Einstein equated religion with the belief that the universe will continue to behave as it has behaved. Is that what you have in mind? Interestingly, such a belief is axiomatic in that you can not function if you cease to accept consistency of the universe. This is not in the same category as religious faith.

Thank you for your 'well thought out' response in this debate. I'm beginning to think that there is not so much an Anti-Christian Conspiracy as there is a redefining of theology which has an effect on Christian thought.

I understand the direction Einstein took when he said; "There is neither a will or goal, nor a must, but only a sheer being." He was a Pantheist at heart, excluding an anthropologically defined God but seeing Deity in the very substance of the creation. The concepts of Pantheism relate well to a number of non-Christian theologies, including, interestingly enough, much of Native American tradition.

Robert Russell, a leading theologian today, says that; "Hawking is actually our ally, theoretically, because he tells us that the notion of a finite universe as the creation of God can be sustained, whether or not it has a beginning point."

At a very basic level, there is an undercurrent of compatibility between advanced scientific theory and theology as a whole. Since science cannot circumvent fact, it falls to religion to incorporate changes into their doctrine. There is no Anti-Christian Conspiracy...there is only an unwillingness to adapt theology to the sciences even though our leading thinkers have already begun to make the connections.

IMO...it is Dogma which is the major stumbling block to revisionist theology. If we deny our knowledgeable understanding of the world as it applies to religion, it can only cause the rift to widen. Inversely, by incorporating science into our religious concepts, we close this perceived schism.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by masqua]

I see where you're coming from and appreciate the clarification. Also thanks for acknowledging there are some good Bible-teaching churches out there. I like to think I attend one of those that has fed me 15 times more than if I were to go it alone. I can explain how I got that calculation sometime if you're interested. The blog and initial presentation did seem quite anti-church rather than, let's make the church more intimately involved in our way of life. I'm all for that as well. My questions were not meant for prodding, but rather to get a better view of what you were saying. I'm sure there is much you can teach me and look forward to that. I ask a lot of question of my church as well, and they too have been very patient with me.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

Yes, I also am glad to see you relaxed a little bit. "Uptight" religious people scare many.

You were quite close on your translation. However, the way you had it worried surely showed me a little German-American translation book!

"Where is the train station, please. The zoo is the first street left.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Yes, I also am glad to see you relaxed a little bit. "Uptight" religious people scare many.

You were quite close on your translation. However, the way you had it worried surely showed me a little German-American translation book!

"Where is the train station, please. The zoo is the first street left.

LOL! Something like it. I just Googled it for German. I don't get uptight about folks not seeing it my way. I just love everyone i can, as best I can. Pray against the sin, love the sinner. I try to remember that is you are a big knuckle-head no one will even give you time to tell them what has happened to you and in you. I mean after all, all of us have an experience we can share, right? I don't judge other religions, just love the people and if they see your walk they will ask. Then you tell them. It is really simple, really. Most churches make it more confrontational that it needs to be. Or better yet they teach you and coach you on what to say, pretty funny really. I like to quote right back at them when they do it to me. Turn about IS fair play after all. If you read regular you know what to say. That is a problem with almost all religions, the people do not read for themselves and pray for understanding. Too many problems come as a result. Cheers!

Do you think the Davinci code is adding to the antichristian propaganda and needs to be "dealt with" or do you think that people need to chill out and let stories be told. Also, if you would like to elaborate, tell us what facts you dispute within the book.

Do you think the Davinci code is adding to the antichristian propaganda and needs to be "dealt with" or do you think that people need to chill out and let stories be told. Also, if you would like to elaborate, tell us what facts you dispute within the book.

I personally don't see much "antichristian propaganda" out there. What many are rebelling about, and this includes Christians, is the Falwell, Robertson, etc wing of the religion. They are now coming from way far out in the field, and this makes many step back including myself.

Many think the church-state seperation thing is an attack on Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that the state doesn't need to prop up GOD, however GOD needs help in proping up the state. There is a tremendous difference when one steps back and looks at it with an objective point of view.

If many of our "leaders" would consider doing the right thing for the people the discussion would be virtually nil for many of our problems would vanish in the night.

One can't send our boys off to war with juiced up propaganda, and quote a few Bible verses claiming the high side of the moral issue. I am not just picking on him, but the buck starts and stop there.

Originally posted by Donegal
Do you think the Davinci code is adding to the antichristian propaganda and needs to be "dealt with" or do you think that people need to chill out and let stories be told. Also, if you would like to elaborate, tell us what facts you dispute within the book.

I don't care what fictional stories that are told, so long as they're representative of fiction. When an author claims fact from fiction or a reader claims fact from fiction, that's when they are treading on dangerous ground. I've seen some non-believers thump the DaVinci Code like a Bible and can't help but wonder if they realize what it is they're holding onto.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by saint4God]

Saint, an interesting thing I've noticed about the ones that are becoming "Da Vinci Thumpers"...In talking to some of "them" I've noted in almost every conversation that "they" displayed (almost) a NEED to believe that what Dan Brown wrote about was fact...A need it seems that is founded in their own lack of faith that Jesus was who he said he was; and that he did what he came to do.
In other words, what I've seen is that the people that (before) had little or no belief in Jesus at all, read the DVC and (after) suddenly had ABSOLUTE faith that Jesus was real, albeit perhaps not as divine as previously taught.

What's interesting is that for some the DVC has been a bridge that has gapped the seemingly HUGE gap between "them" being human and Jesus being divine and brought a new sort of understanding of Jesus' life and mission and perhaps historical reality...although all of this personal revelation is at the sacrifice of Jesus' divinity in "their" minds!

What a dilemma.

My own thoughts on the subject are that I thought the DVC was a great piece of fiction based on a good amount of research into previously known cult beliefs that have survived the ages by staying a the core and sometimes hidden dimension of some "secret" societies.

I enjoyed it but it didn't shake my faith, I'm looking forward to the film, I'm sure I'll enjoy it too

Dan Brown and The Davinci Code is a rather poor knock off from the ideas put forth by Micheal Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln who, together, studied and wrote about the blood line of Jesus, Mary Magdelane, what her actual relationship with Jesus was and her particular interest in a part of France. His novel, reading like a romance with lots of fictional sub-plots, action filled pages and ne'er-do-wells, IMO, cheapened the findings of these fine authors who actually did some research.

Those books are; the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy. Anyone seriously interested in anything Dan Brown glibly suggested in his comic books should take the time to read these well received books instead.

before I get too far off the intended topic in this thread)

While Dan Brown did much to reduce the importance of such theological and historical material by presenting it within the framework of a fictional novel, he did, however create a renewed interest within the minds of millions. He would not be what I would call anti-Christian in that he does nothing to mock the original foundations upon which the church has been built (prior to Constantine and the Edict of Milan).






[edit on 16-11-2005 by masqua]

You guys answered the dvc questions right on the nose.

I do feel that the dvc and peoples willingness to be misled by it is a good sign of how far gone society is.