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: 73
16
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Huh? Since when were you forced to worship any roman diety? No one force's you to look at anything, you ARE free from the sight of paganism ... DON'T LOOK at it.


Bingo! Thanks for illustrating my point. Same goes for the 10 Commandents, ~3 foot monument.


Originally posted by Produkt
Unfortunatly I can't say the same for myself... I have to deal with those moron's that go door to door trying to "save" me and teach me about god. Did I ask for them to try and force they're view's at my place of residence? NO! Now we got them trying to force they're way into public school's... Did we ask for that? NO! No one is opressing your religion, but your religion HAS opressed other's throughout history and DESTROYED them in the name of god.

Innocent people were killed in recent history for being accused of practising withcraft, another form of religion some people follow. Your religion killed them, they didn't come after you and opress your religion.


MY religion hasn't gone door to door nor forced anything. Neither has it oppressed nor destroyed. It'd probably be best to know who you're talking to rather than making judgements or assumptions.



Violence - Look at your religion's history. Thousand's of live's killed. Culture and history destroyed if it didn't fit the church's view.


See above



Language - Only thing wrong with cuss words is becuase SOCIETY say's it's wrong.


That's not what Colossians says.



Nudity - what's wrong with nudity? I have no problem's with nudity at all...


I'm sure you don't. What do you tell your children when they see it on tv ask you questions about it?



Sex - Sex is great man! try it


The problem isn't sex, it's who's having sex with who. I.E. the witnessing and promoting of adultery.



Greed - one of the many basic human attribute's. No amount of religion will get rid of it. No amount of law's will get rid of it. We're all greedy, every single human on this planet is GREEDY.


That's not true. In addition, I think your advocacy of greed deplorable. I hope someday you'll see the benefits to letting go of it.


[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
...which is why they aren't law in this country.


...more importantly, it shows that the 10 commandments are not the basis of law as is fallaciously claimed by 10 commandments idolators. Rather, ancient Hebrew law is the basis of the 10 commandments.


Originally posted by saint4God
Not so, anything a person puts beside or above God is idolatry. Money, pride, success, lust, addictions, and so forth.
...
and besides who bows...nevermind, asked it a bunch of times without answer on both threads


You agree that idolatry does not involve only overt acts of worship, yet you keep asking who is overtly worshiping the 10 commandments displays as if that proves they are not idols. You seem to have an incoherent formulation of idolatry.


Originally posted by saint4God
...nevermind, asked it a bunch of times without answer on both threads

... look at the dates and times of the postings of the two threads side by side and see who is engineering the conversation to come out the same on both.


Pot, meet kettle.


Originally posted by saint4God
It sure is, it towers over me physically, that roman goddess made of bronze, reminding me that I'm not free to be without sight of paganism.


File a lawsuit if you believe it violates the 1st Amendment. While it does have religious overtones, it's intent is not religious, but secular. If there were a legitimate secular intent behind the 10 Commandments displays, there would be no issue with them. But there isn't. They serve no secular purpose, and the intent behind them is purely religious as well.


Originally posted by saint4God
Some Christians support a lot of things Christ said not to. I'll go further to say I have supported things that I shouldn't have in the past. That's why people should follow him, not me.


More directly then, why do you support the erection of monuments to the 10 Commandments on public property, when you agree that Christ fulfilled the law and Christians are not supposed to be engaging in legalism anyway?


Originally posted by saint4God
I don't see where the law changed because it didn't list your neighbors wife, maidservant, ox, donkey or "anything that belongs to your neighbor".


If you can't see that "Thou shalt not covet" is not the same as "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.", you should probably take a remedial English course.

It's one thing to explain what you think is the intent of scripture, but it's quite another to intentionally misrepresent the text and propogate the misrepresented text as if it were the original.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Bingo! Thanks for illustrating my point. Same goes for the 10 Commandents, ~3 foot monument.


Well unfortunatley ... there's this whole seperation of church and state thing. Now why should the church have any right to put any religous artifact's on any public/state property? If they're aloud to do that, then by every right satanist's should be allowed to do the same. This is where the greed part come's into play ...


MY religion hasn't gone door to door nor forced anything. Neither has it oppressed nor destroyed. It'd probably be best to know who you're talking to rather than making judgements or assumptions.


Maybe not the specific one you practice, but they all stem off of an original monotheistic god based religion from the past and it's the same basic concept being forced down our throat's no matter what you call yourselve's.


See above


Yes... see above


That's not what Colossians says.


Do you really need a bible to tell you what a bad word is and what a good word is? Or would you rather use common sense and understand that a word is a word is a word. A tree is only a tree because we labeled it a tree. We could call tree's car's if we wanted. What's the difference if I said poop head to someone, or said the other word for poop instead... Becuase society says that other word and head together is bad. The word itself isn't bad just beacuase. It's bad because of SOCIETY.


I'm sure you don't. What do you tell your children when they see it on tv ask you questions about it?


Honestly... they know a penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina. Both me and my wife have sat down and talked with them about how babies are born and about sex. There's no shame in it at all. Your born naked aren't you?


The problem isn't sex, it's who's having sex with who. I.E. the witnessing and promoting of adultery.


No one's promoting adultry. It's just human nature. We aren't monogamous, as much as some people would like to think we are... There are some animals that are truley monogamous tho. they pick a life long mate and they stick to that mate. Human's have NEVER done that in any point in history, including today. So wherever this adultry stuff is comming from is going against human nature.


That's not true. In addition, I think your advocacy of greed deplorable. I hope someday you'll see the benefits to letting go of it.


Deplorable... why so? You can't sit there and act all high and mighty and tell me that there was never a time in your life you weren't greedy. That's bull. We're all greedy and no amount of scripture is going to change human nature.




[edit on 4-1-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
...more importantly, it shows that the 10 commandments are not the basis of law as is fallaciously claimed by 10 commandments idolators.


I'd like to meet these 10 commandment idolators, they sounds like a rare bunch, as I've never met one. I don't know how this name-calling is any different than "heretic" or "heathen" by the way. Just FYI.


Originally posted by spamandham
Rather, ancient Hebrew law is the basis of the 10 commandments.


God disagrees according to Exodus.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
Not so, anything a person puts beside or above God is idolatry. Money, pride, success, lust, addictions, and so forth.
...
and besides who bows...nevermind, asked it a bunch of times without answer on both threads


You agree that idolatry does not involve only overt acts of worship, yet you keep asking who is overtly worshiping the 10 commandments displays as if that proves they are not idols. You seem to have an incoherent formulation of idolatry.


As I've said, idol is anything beside or above God. I've yet to see you make any establishment that anyone considers the 10 as = or > God. Perhaps you can give me your formulation of idolatry and I'll do my best to work with that, since the dictionary isn't working for you:

Main Entry: idol·a·try
Pronunciation: -trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -tries
1 : the worship of a physical object as a god
www.m-w.com...


Originally posted by spamandham
Pot, meet kettle.


I'll tango, but not lead off topic if there's any way to help it. I think on my initiated posts here I stuck pretty well to the topic and even in replies do my best to describe the correlation to it. I will not however go from one to another starting the same arguments. Finally, notice how many times I had to re-state what the actual Anti-Christian Conspiracy actually was, and how still no-one wants to go into it. Fine by me though, don't really care to advertise for the other side.


Originally posted by spamandham
File a lawsuit if you believe it violates the 1st Amendment. While it does have religious overtones, it's intent is not religious, but secular. If there were a legitimate secular intent behind the 10 Commandments displays, there would be no issue with them. But there isn't. They serve no secular purpose, and the intent behind them is purely religious as well.


Disagreed, but in regards to the lawsuit, that would have two requirements for me to do so:

1.) I would have to care, or feel "oppressed" by lady columbia looking down upon me.
2.) I would be seeking some kind of financial gain.
3.) I'd be seeking some kind of retribution for being "violated"
4.) I'd have to ignore what Jesus and the rest of God's Word about loving my neighbor, because somebody would have to pay for the court's time and/or awardings.

Since none of these apply, no suit will be filed by me. My response is to sue someone over the 10 Commandments if it bothers you if that's your answer to resolving problems.


Originally posted by spamandham
More directly then, why do you support the erection of monuments to the 10 Commandments on public property, when you agree that Christ fulfilled the law and Christians are not supposed to be engaging in legalism anyway?


This is a good question. The answer Christ gives is in Matthew 22:34.


Originally posted by saint4God
If you can't see that "Thou shalt not covet" is not the same as "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.", you should probably take a remedial English course.


Round table, what do you all think? Do these two phrases state the same values?


Originally posted by saint4God
It's one thing to explain what you think is the intent of scripture, but it's quite another to intentionally misrepresent the text and propogate the misrepresented text as if it were the original.


There is no misrepresenting going on here and no-one is claiming these are the tablets Moses took down from the mountain. If I write "John 3:16" am I misrepresenting because I'm not saying what John 3:16 literally says? If I say what John 3:16 means, am I misrepresenting by not quoting it verbatim?

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

The problem isn't sex, it's who's having sex with who. I.E. the witnessing and promoting of adultery.


This brings about a question my friend saint. Can one point me in the Bible about having sex while neither are married? I would like to read up on that part. It may lead me to the question:

What is adultery?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Aldultery is understood to be the action of breaking the marraige covenant, either by a married person having sex with anyone other than his/her spouce, or as a single person having sex with another person who is married but not to you. Fornication on the other hand is sex between two persons unmarried. There is one more type of sexual sin but I won't go there cause it may cause a riot.

Fromabove



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Just as an aside, there is an interesting historical context to the whole idea of what is adultery and why it is wrong and such (all based on some historians and linguists that I've read sometime in the last couple of years).

Adultery was a form of theft and trespass in the ancient world. Women were property and were owned by first their fathers and later by their husbands. Using another man's property without his permission was deemed "illegal" because it was a form of theft (of services, I suppose). To the ancients, to have sex with another man's wife was like milking another man's goat without his permission or allowing your sheep to graze on his land. There was not some great moralistic connotation nor was there any concern about "holy bonds of matrimony" because it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have sex and father children with any woman that he owned. Many men owned several women - wives, maidservants, slaves, etc. Now, I can't remember but I think there was a taboo about a man having sex with his daughters, even though he owned them. Anyway, a man would have been stupid to have sex with his daughter because he needed her to be a virgin in order to sell her to a husband and fetch a good price.

So, all the Biblical stuff spouted today about morality in regards to sexual activity and marriage really has no basis whatsoever in the Bible because there was no such concept in that region of the world until about 1,000 or more years later.

OK, I hope you enjoyed this brief sidebar...you can now go back to bashing each other in the name of some diety or another or none whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
So, all the Biblical stuff spouted today about morality in regards to sexual activity and marriage really has no basis whatsoever in the Bible because there was no such concept in that region of the world until about 1,000 or more years later.


"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23)

Where does it say "property of" in this verse that was before the 10 Commandments were issued? The words I see are "united", and "one flesh". More interesting is that the man is united to his wife, not the other way around.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Saint - the "words you see" are English translations, no?

Perhaps they are even correct translations but that would be kinda hard to believe based on both actual and Biblcal histories (not that the two are mutually exclusive - just making a point about cultures and traditions). I don't know what the original literal translations of the actual words were...just that many great and pious men, found later in the Bible, didn't seem to have the same translations. Perhaps, "united" just meant something like "obligated to provide for" - just my conjecture. I wish I had time to go look this all up but, I won't any time soon.

I'm certainly willing to consider other evidence.

Edited to add:
I should point out that I'm a huge fan of monogamy! I've been happily married to the same woman for more than 25 years and both sets of our parents were happily married for more than 50 years. I don't think adultery, in either the ancient or the modern context is a good thing. I think promiscuity can be seriously injurious to the parties involved so, I'm not a fan of promiscuity, either. I just don't consider whether those things are "sins" - it's neither here nor there to me. I don't do them and I don't recommend them but it's not my place to tell others that they are prohibited from doing them or that they will go to hell for it. In my opinion, adultery and promiscuity are just bad ideas and that's as far as I go with it.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Al Davison
So, all the Biblical stuff spouted today about morality in regards to sexual activity and marriage really has no basis whatsoever in the Bible because there was no such concept in that region of the world until about 1,000 or more years later.


"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23)

Where does it say "property of" in this verse that was before the 10 Commandments were issued? The words I see are "united", and "one flesh". More interesting is that the man is united to his wife, not the other way around.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]


The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet


I disagree. What evidence have you for support?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Produkt
The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet


I disagree. What evidence have you for support?


uh, thanks anyway, Produkt but, that actually was not my point. You can make it your point, though, if you want.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Produkt
The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet


I disagree. What evidence have you for support?


Question for you saint4God ....

How old do you think the human race is in years (round figure estimate)?

... and as a corollary ... what religion/denomination are you referring to (there are many) ...

LCKob

[edit on 4-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Produkt
The point was BEFORE the bible came around. Yes, amazingly there were other culture's, religion's, and such before god was even first mentioned by any man on this planet


I disagree. What evidence have you for support?


Evidence for what? That there were other culture's and religion's before man ever mentioned god?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Question for you saint4God ....


I'll answer any question.


Originally posted by LCKob
How old do you think the human race is in years?


I dunno. And that's my answer.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Evidence for what? That there were other culture's and religion's before man ever mentioned god?


Ya. *nods, counting number of characters in that answer to make sure there's enough to post*



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
Question for you saint4God ....


I'll answer any question.


Originally posted by LCKob
How old do you think the human race is in years?


I dunno. And that's my answer.


Okay, taken in the spirit of "absense of knowledge" and not "the evasion of knowledge" ... are you adverse to the notion of humans being around for say 100, 000 years (rough estimate)? or for the sake of argument lets say a range of 75,000 to 150, 000 years?

... out of curiosity ... what age does your religion put humanity at? (notice I am referring to information as it may be provided in your religious texts?)

... and if you would provide the following information as well ...

... and as a corollary ... what religion/denomination are you referring to (there are many) ...

LCKob


[edit on 4-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ya. *nods, counting number of characters in that answer to make sure there's enough to post*


Are you serious? Pick up a history book... The ancient egyptian's, greek's, roman's etc... none of the started off believing in the god you believe in. They all believe in
more then one god



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Okay, taken in the spirit of "absense of knowledge" and not "the evasion of knowledge"


Good, because there is no "evasion of knowledge" coming from me. Hard to deny ignorance otherwise
.


Originally posted by LCKob
... are you adverse to the notion of humans being around for say 100, 000 years (rough estimate)? or for the sake of argument lets say a range of 75,000 to 150, 000 years?


Don't matta to me. Don't think scientists really know either. At least the 5 years at the state university never told me if they did and I want my money back if they were holding info from one of their bio majors.


Originally posted by LCKob
... out of curiosity ... what age does your religion put humanity at?


My religion doesn't.


Originally posted by LCKob
... and if you would provide the following information as well ...


I shall do my best...


Originally posted by LCKob
... and as a corollary ... what religion/denomination are you referring to (there are many) ...


Aha! Now you're asking the right question. The word "religion" I go by the dictionary (with my highlights for emphasis) as:

the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

pulled from: www.m-w.com...

I follow Christ, so my religion is Christian. As far as a denomination goes, I'd say I'm a Proteprebymethobaptist, but that's the best I can do for now. I think Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10, and am looking for the day that there aren't so many flavors. It works for Baskin Robbins, but I'm not a fan.



Okay, I shouldn't have posted that picture, now I'm wanting dessert...and probably will be thinking about that when I go to church...



[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
Okay, taken in the spirit of "absense of knowledge" and not "the evasion of knowledge"


Good, because there is no "evasion of knowledge" coming from me. Hard to deny ignorance otherwise
.


Originally posted by LCKob
... are you adverse to the notion of humans being around for say 100, 000 years (rough estimate)? or for the sake of argument lets say a range of 75,000 to 150, 000 years?


Don't matta to me. Don't think scientists really know either. At least the 5 years at the state university never told me if they did and I want my money back if they were holding info from one of their bio majors.


Originally posted by LCKob
... out of curiosity ... what age does your religion put humanity at?


My religion doesn't.


Originally posted by LCKob
... and if you would provide the following information as well ...


I shall do my best...


Originally posted by LCKob
... and as a corollary ... what religion/denomination are you referring to (there are many) ...


Aha! Now you're asking the right question. The word "religion" I go by the dictionary (with my highlights for emphasis) as:

the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

pulled from: www.m-w.com...

I follow Christ, so my religion is Christian. As far as a denomination goes, I'd say I'm a Proteprebymethobaptist, but that's the best I can do for now. I think Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10, and am looking for the day that there isn't so many flavors. It works for Baskin Robins, but I'm not a fan.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]


Okay ... seeing as your religion is eclectic? i.e. "Proteprebymethobaptist"
... and given your tentative acceptance of the postulated age ranges ... would you then say that you have problems with the possibility (I say this because I am agnostic) of a creater forming what we see by processes that humans are becoming aware of by means of Scientfic Methodology?

I have no real problems with the notion of a creator (just no compelling evidence for such) ... what I find difficult to reconcile is in the histories of various institutionalized religions ... and how they conflict with findings and views posed by the vehicle of Scientific Methodology.

What is your stance exactly?

LCKob



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join