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: 75
16
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
In point of fact, I really don't mind "cross pollinating" myself ...


I didn't know, my bad. I never claimed to be a reporter, and the first one on the scene at that. I could've booleaned, then referenced the thread, lesson learned for next time.


Originally posted by LCKob
its just that I have been warned before on a number of threads for excessive quoting and I fear that the potential could come up in light of "reinventing the wheel" so to speak.


Ya, I have two, but not from a news article. I've had bad fortune with CNN News articles disappearing on me. I didn't want to happen again with a bunch of people going
"What's this saint talking about?



... but as far as I am concerned more power to you.


I appreciate the well wishes and that you'd be a brother/sister by helping me out from repeating past mistakes.


[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you seem some what worried... am i right in assuming that?


Nope, the only thing this changes is my opinion of the Italian justice system.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
500 years ago it was against the law to be anything but christian in england. so your point ''still say there is no anti-christian conspiracy...how about making christianity against the law'' comes of as pretty pathetic.

when before it was the law to be christian, you weren't even aloud to think that there was no god, let alone say there wasn't.


Welcome to 2006.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
but two 70 year old men, arguing in court...wow huge anti-christian conspiracy here folks


Are we going to look at the puzzle or argue over the pieces? You're saying this case is being brought up by one man with no support and was unplanned?

[edit on 5-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by shaunybaby
500 years ago it was against the law to be anything but christian in england. so your point ''still say there is no anti-christian conspiracy...how about making christianity against the law'' comes of as pretty pathetic.

when before it was the law to be christian, you weren't even aloud to think that there was no god, let alone say there wasn't.


Originally posted by saint4God
Welcome to 2006.


What difference does what year it is make? As pointed out previously some thought it against the law to be anything but christian. How's that tie into an anti-christian conspiracy? People used to get burned and killed for holding different view's of the church. How's that tie into an anti-christian conspiracy? The only conspiracy I see is the church violently trying to hush any thought's outside it's own. As is evident all throughout history.




Are we going to look at the puzzle or argue over the pieces? You're saying this case is being brought up by one man with no support and was unplanned?


It's best to look at all the piece's and not the whole. Your not going to figure out howto solve the puzzle untill you fit all the piece's together.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Nope, the only thing this changes is my opinion of the Italian justice system.


''The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case - prompting appeals from Cascioli.''

perhaps you should try reading the news story before you attack the italian justice system.

and the judge has merely said to the priest, of which the plaintiff also said to the defendent...'prove jesus existed by the end of the month'.

but like i said before...you seem somewhat worried.



Welcome to 2006.


exactly. maybe i should welcome you to 2006, because obviously you don't yet understand that people may just have other beliefs and oppinions different to yours.



Are we going to look at the puzzle or argue over the pieces? You're saying this case is being brought up by one man with no support and was unplanned?


it is being brought up by one man, hence the plaintiff...sorry if it's confusing. and yes it probably was planned, as he's probably been doing years of research leading up to the pre-trial.

if you read the story again it's still in the pre-trial stages, it's not yet 'gone to court' so to speak. so again why are you attacking the italian justice system? maybe it's your ignorance, to not bother to read the entire story, or maybe you're just too blind to see that maybe there's not an anti-christian conspiracy here, and it's just one man's crusade to show that the roman catholic church are dupping the italian public.



[edit on 5-1-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
God disagrees according to Exodus.


How compelling.


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.



Originally posted by saint4God
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...


"a god", not "God".


Originally posted by saint4God

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.


You seem to be agreeing that such displays are inappropriate for Christians to support, but don't seem willing to simply say that directly.


Originally posted by saint4God
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?


No, but if you quote John 3:16 as saying "God loves the world", then you have misrepresented it. There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing things, interpreting them, or even abreviating them as long as you do not present such things as if they were the original text itself.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

What difference does what year it is make? As pointed out previously some thought it against the law to be anything but christian. How's that tie into an anti-christian conspiracy? People used to get burned and killed for holding different view's of the church. How's that tie into an anti-christian conspiracy? The only conspiracy I see is the church violently trying to hush any thought's outside it's own. As is evident all throughout history.


This was the exact reason our founding fathers wanted to make sure religion was kept seperate from the state. They wanted to make certain that the government and church did not become one entity.

I liken it also in them making sure that the commander and chief of the United States was a civilian. If not that would bring about military rule and the rule of the industrialized state. Gen. Eisenhower pointed that out to great extent when he became president.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
How compelling.


It was a position statement, not a persuasive one.


Originally posted by spamandham
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.


Very well then, who internally worships the 10 Commandments (as a god or otherwise)? I know I don't.


Originally posted by spamandham
"a god", not "God".


I agree that's what the definition says.


Originally posted by spamandham
You seem to be agreeing that such displays are inappropriate for Christians to support, but don't seem willing to simply say that directly.


I don't agree that it's inappropriate for Christians to support. I don't agree that they should be fighting for dear life to keep it because our kingdom is not of this earth. These are both my opinion though.


Originally posted by saint4God
No, but if you quote John 3:16 as saying "God loves the world", then you have misrepresented it.


Right, because you have changed the meaning and this is not what that passage says.


Originally posted by saint4God
There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing things, interpreting them, or even abreviating them as long as you do not present such things as if they were the original text itself.


Agreed.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Idolatry or not, I think that is a slight tangent to the nature of the problem ...

which is the use of "religious text" in the form of the 10 Commandments on a goverment sanctioned monument on non privately owned land.

Personally, I don't see where people would necessarily "pray or bow down" to a monument with such wording, but I would point out that ... such a monument erected as a government funded (or even privately funded for that matter) public work (on public land) ... would be construed as being "endorsed" by the governent.

Thus, given the premise of the separation of church and state ... any such "endorsements" would be problematic ... either support the possibility of every religion erecting "tag lines" for their religion ... or the present stance -
fairness to all religions by favoring or publicly endorsing none.

... and as for discrepancies to this premise ... and there are definite cases ... I would merely point out that government policy and execution thereof is and always will be the product of fallible mortals ... and with imperfect implementation, there will be flaws or discrepancies, but such occurances do not invalidate the basic principle as it stands ... it mere points to areas of future correction and adjustment as they are discovered and noted to be less than consistent or logical.

Case in point the phrase "In god we trust" ... personally I would prefer something like "Seek The Truth' (but then again, I am biased) ... or perhaps "In the people we trust" ... after all our government is supposedly "of the people and for the people" ...

... and for those lamenting such an implication, keep in mind that such a statement merely reinforces the notion of respect to the citizen as in ...

"We the Government of the People and for the People entrust to you the Citizen the inalienable rights and freedoms of ...."

LCKob




[edit on 7-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Hi,

this is my first post on ATS, so please by kind. Also, I speak French so excuse my writing, it may not be perfect.
I've read fairly a lot thought on ATS. Tanks 4 your knowledge!



So, Tassadar....I'm dedicating my first post to you...I haven't read all the pages of replies, but I'll reply to a post in the first page that frustrated me



Originally posted by Tassadar
Mr No One,
Here are the fallacies in your last post:



It might stem from the inherent hypocrisy in Christianity



And so on....that message.....


I think that this makes a lot of sense :


Originally posted by toolmaker

The Core Message holds true, but the wrapping has been corrupted.



Also a proof of the corruption is : in WW2, the Church in Germany kept changing sides between nazi and anti-nazi. they're always are on the side that advantages them the most.

The way Christianity was taught to people earlier (like in the '50) was more an imposition than a free choice....Not being Christian before was like being a monster...The people that suffered the Crusades surely had the choice to refuse God in their heads!

Also, why does the Pope encourages unprotected sexual relations?? If a family cannot have more childs for any reasons, why scare them with things like : "You won't be saved from the claws of Satan if you don't have other kids!". It's always : "Keep everyone afraid and they'll consume" (taken from Marilyn Manson in Bownling for Columbine). You see, when you talk about pride, I think it's more Christians that aren't willing to say : "We don't have the same influence as before and that's the way it is."

Casting down your pride to say "God I need you", is more to me the sign of 2 things :

#1 - Either you find life really deceiving or not "magical enough" and wish to seek for a higher person.

#2 - You do not have to power to change your life itself, so rather than doing efforts on your own to change the way things are, you sit there and wait for someone to do it for yourself.

You know, you have the power to change things in your life...you just have to believe in what you do...God won't help you...Believing that someone will save you from the sins of life when you face them is good, and it may work for you. But it won't change the world...and you will keep getting confronted with those sins.... Remember, humans are sins.

You say that homosexuality is a crime. That's pure hatred! You are born that way and cannot choose. The sexual attraction toward one individual is far beyond your control....Why would a girl love another girl (for example) just for the purpose to contradict God?? Love is not a game period.

I think that in the Bible they say you have to love your enemy and accept the others no?? Well what do you think of all the Christian groups that are ready to pay the promoter of a Marilyn Manson concert to make him cancel the show????That's really open minded!


tnks and sorry for the long message

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Satanic Dwarf]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
Also a proof of the corruption is : in WW2, the Church in Germany kept changing sides between nazi and anti-nazi. they're always are on the side that advantages them the most.


So by analogy, Christianity is corrupted as likened by Fascism? I'd noticed the anology wasn't environmentalists, versus anti-environmentalists (big industry) or technologists versus luddites. The nazi party "sold" a lot of the people on their form of government in the same way our government has us get their "buy-in" on actions. The Church should be apolitical, as Christ himself was since the Church's kingdom is not of this earth. The "proof" you've provided is that the church was split politically, which I agree is not right, but also is proof that many saw government association as a bad idea.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
The way Christianity was taught to people earlier (like in the '50) was more an imposition than a free choice....Not being Christian before was like being a monster...The people that suffered the Crusades surely had the choice to refuse God in their heads!


Ah yes, the crusades argument again. There's plenty of addresses I and others have made to this point, though if you're not going to expend the effort to do the research, then I'll not expend the effort of repeating. If we keep digging up the tree and replanting the seeds, we'll never get any fruit.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
Also, why does the Pope encourages unprotected sexual relations?? If a family cannot have more childs for any reasons, why scare them with things like : "You won't be saved from the claws of Satan if you don't have other kids!". It's always : "Keep everyone afraid and they'll consume" (taken from Marilyn Manson in Bownling for Columbine). You see, when you talk about pride, I think it's more Christians that aren't willing to say : "We don't have the same influence as before and that's the way it is."


I think this is better addressed by a Catholic.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
Casting down your pride to say "God I need you", is more to me the sign of 2 things :

#1 - Either you find life really deceiving or not "magical enough" and wish to seek for a higher person.


That doesn't cut it, nor make a person Christian.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
#2 - You do not have to power to change your life itself, so rather than doing efforts on your own to change the way things are, you sit there and wait for someone to do it for yourself.


Where did you get the impression that someone become Christian because they expect a handout? I'd not met one who did. Also, if a person waits for God to do something for them, does that mean they only become Christian because God did in fact do something for them?


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
You know, you have the power to change things in your life...you just have to believe in what you do...


That's fine for now, but doesn't do much for you when we're dead. No guarentees on life being a satisfying experience this way either.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
God won't help you...


He can, but not if you sit there and expect things to happen.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
Believing that someone will save you from the sins of life when you face them is good, and it may work for you. But it won't change the world...and you will keep getting confronted with those sins.... Remember, humans are sins.


There's this thing called "Repentence", not to be confused with confession. Repentence is not only the acknowledgement and confessing of sins, it's also the work and effort associated with turning from those sinful says and moving toward the right way, which is not only pleasing to God, but also beneficial to all those a person associates with.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
You say that homosexuality is a crime.


I did?


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
That's pure hatred!


Hate and God don't mesh. "God is love" as it is written, but God is also just and "yet he does not allow the guilty to go unpunished". Two very important characteristics of God.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
You are born that way and cannot choose.


Are you sure? I'm not.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
The sexual attraction toward one individual is far beyond your control....Why would a girl love another girl (for example) just for the purpose to contradict God?? Love is not a game period.


Agreed love is not a game and I don't feel that there is some hidden plan to spite God through homosexuality. I could be wrong, but it's not the impression that I get.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
I think that in the Bible they say you have to love your enemy and accept the others no??


It does say to love your enemies, yes. It does not say to acknowledge all things they do as acceptable. It also says not to judge and wag our finger at others when we have our own problems to deal with. Sin is a problem we all have. Help me to correct mine, and I'll do my best to help correct yours if you like.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
Well what do you think of all the Christian groups that are ready to pay the promoter of a Marilyn Manson concert to make him cancel the show???? That's really open minded!


I don't know the whole story, but understand free speech. I'll give my opinion and not buy a ticket, but don't believe I have any rights beyond that.


Originally posted by Satanic Dwarf
tnks and sorry for the long message


S'all good, hope I was able to clarify some misconceptions.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Wow, Saint, you made waves with that post.


I posted anti-Christian stuff in the news way before you posted that article, yet YOU just found ways that my posts were not a part of the "conspiracy." Why?

My guess is that you didn't want to hear this from a non-Christian.

Anyway, I have now realized that I am anti-Christian, and I am proud of that.
I mean, looking at the Christian track record, how can you not be?
And no, don't tell me how I'm going to hell, I already know and await eternal torture for my beliefs in a finite lifespan.


It didn't use to be like this, though. I recently became fed up with Christians. I now am totally sick of Christians. After all the hypocrisy veiled behind a "moral high ground," the unabashed and unapologetic intolerance for gays (if you're a real Christian, you stone gays if you find them having sex
), the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude, just all of it.

I wouldn't be anti-Christian if they didn't impose their beliefs on others (myself included). But, they do, so I am. And, so what? I ain't sorry for it. Half of the people here now are anti-Islam after the govt sponsored terror of late, so so what? I'm proud that I am now anti-Christian, but let it be known that I wasn't anti-Christian until recently, like last month, I guess. Before, I was just critical, but now, I am anti.

So, there you have it. I'm glad that the govt is going to start cracking down on Christians, mostly because of the irony of it all. Now, that's not true, it's mostly because Christians are finally getting their just desserts. I know it's bad to support govt attack on one group because eventually all will suffer, but I get a pleasure out of watching it happen to Christians.





posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Wow, Saint, you made waves with that post.


I posted anti-Christian stuff in the news way before you posted that article, yet YOU just found ways that my posts were not a part of the "conspiracy." Why?

My guess is that you didn't want to hear this from a non-Christian.

Anyway, I have now realized that I am anti-Christian, and I am proud of that.
I mean, looking at the Christian track record, how can you not be?
And no, don't tell me how I'm going to hell, I already know and await eternal torture for my beliefs in a finite lifespan.


It didn't use to be like this, though. I recently became fed up with Christians. I now am totally sick of Christians. After all the hypocrisy veiled behind a "moral high ground," the unabashed and unapologetic intolerance for gays (if you're a real Christian, you stone gays if you find them having sex
), the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude, just all of it.

I wouldn't be anti-Christian if they didn't impose their beliefs on others (myself included). But, they do, so I am. And, so what? I ain't sorry for it. Half of the people here now are anti-Islam after the govt sponsored terror of late, so so what? I'm proud that I am now anti-Christian, but let it be known that I wasn't anti-Christian until recently, like last month, I guess. Before, I was just critical, but now, I am anti.

So, there you have it. I'm glad that the govt is going to start cracking down on Christians, mostly because of the irony of it all. Now, that's not true, it's mostly because Christians are finally getting their just desserts. I know it's bad to support govt attack on one group because eventually all will suffer, but I get a pleasure out of watching it happen to Christians.




LCKob:

truthseeka ... far be it for me to tell anyone what they should believe ... after all, by many I am considered a "fence sitter" no less being Agnostic ... but I would say this ...

Basic axiom ... we are all humans, and each human is unique and different in mindset from the rest.

This being the case, I would submit to you that within any human grouping, you will have those you can respect all the way to those that you despise .... this is true of any "ideological" grouping such as "Christians", "Athiests", "Agnostics" ... etc.

Bottom line is this ... There are going to be "bad" christians and "good" christians (for a multitude of reasons) ... so, if you say that you are "Anti-Christian" ... does this take into account the "good" ones?

I would suggest that you appraise and assess individuals on their own merits and label them as such ... as for my personal experience, I can say that I have encountered "better" individuals of other views ... as well as "lesser" ones promoting what I believe.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
christianity can be a fine thing...however, when so-called "christianity"
causes suffering...are you aware of the picture from england about jehovah's witnesses/united nations drama...sodomizing the truth...for a
library card?...jw/un drama the wt society's idea of a "miracle" and just
another "it never happened"...love/norris attorneys of fort worth, tx, usa...
attorneys and legal experts marci hamilton, annmarie timmins, carmen
durso...folks dealing with thousands of abuses and coverups by wt society
...a few in court....christians to hurt, frame, punish?...take a look for your-
selves and decide if i tell the truth...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Basic axiom ... we are all humans, and each human is unique and different in mindset from the rest.


unique and different...how can you say one billion christian's beliefs can be unique and different, sure in some ways they may be, yet in most they are exactly the same.

hopefully most of you have heard of the teapot theory, i'll give you the jist of it:

there is a teapot that orbits the sun, we cannot see it as there is no telescope powerful enough, yet the teapot is still there. we cannot disprove this theory, but we 'choose' to not believe it. the same as we cannot disprove unicorns, elves, faries, ghosts, alien abductions, crop circles or gods, but some 'choose' not to believe them as we use our intelligence to come to those decisions about our beliefs.

in the same way that i can't disprove god or the teapot, you also can't prove god or the teapot, so what it comes down to at the end of the day is belief and faith. i have faith in the fact that there is no teapot orbiting the sun, the same as someone has the faith that there is a god somewhere and they will be going there if they follow some rules, go to church and worship god.

i'm in no way anti-religious, and more specifically im not anti-christian. however, ask the same question to a christian and you'll get a totally different response. if i say i believe in evolution and have faith in many of the theories surrounding it, then a christian would tell me im straight out wrong and probably say something along the lines of 'oh, so i guess the eye is just an accident then' and if that doesn't work they'll intwine their ID beliefs to somehow account for changes. like it or not there is absolutly zero proof to suggest the earth was created by some devine being in a given period of time. christians take that on 'faith'. now if i were to take the teapot theory on faith, and say there is actually a teapot orbiting the sun, you'd probably say i'm stupid or crazy. however, when a christian has faith, it somehow trancends to some sort of truth.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
LCKob:

Basic axiom ... we are all humans, and each human is unique and different in mindset from the rest.

shaunybaby:

unique and different...how can you say one billion christian's beliefs can be unique and different, sure in some ways they may be, yet in most they are exactly the same.

LCKob:

Well I can't speak for you obviously, but in my experience (I have alot of "christian" friends) ... while they all share a "basic" belief structure ... their personalities and how they apply this belief is different from person to person ... I have friends who profess to pray for me daily to "see the light" all the way to those Christians who "see many paths to salvation" ...

hopefully most of you have heard of the teapot theory, i'll give you the jist of it:

there is a teapot that orbits the sun, we cannot see it as there is no telescope powerful enough, yet the teapot is still there. we cannot disprove this theory, but we 'choose' to not believe it. the same as we cannot disprove unicorns, elves, faries, ghosts, alien abductions, crop circles or gods, but some 'choose' not to believe them as we use our intelligence to come to those decisions about our beliefs.

in the same way that i can't disprove god or the teapot, you also can't prove god or the teapot, so what it comes down to at the end of the day is belief and faith. i have faith in the fact that there is no teapot orbiting the sun, the same as someone has the faith that there is a god somewhere and they will be going there if they follow some rules, go to church and worship god.

i'm in no way anti-religious, and more specifically im not anti-christian. however, ask the same question to a christian and you'll get a totally different response. if i say i believe in evolution and have faith in many of the theories surrounding it, then a christian would tell me im straight out wrong and probably say something along the lines of 'oh, so i guess the eye is just an accident then' and if that doesn't work they'll intwine their ID beliefs to somehow account for changes. like it or not there is absolutly zero proof to suggest the earth was created by some devine being in a given period of time. christians take that on 'faith'. now if i were to take the teapot theory on faith, and say there is actually a teapot orbiting the sun, you'd probably say i'm stupid or crazy. however, when a christian has faith, it somehow trancends to some sort of truth.

LCKob:

Actually as an agnostic I simply reserve judgement based upon what I judge to be compelling evidence (for and or against) the presense or absense of any diety or dieties ... thus in all honesty, I fail to see why you are addressing me? I allow for possibility, weigh against improbability and judge for viability with scientific methodolgy ...

... so in short ... what is your point exactly (in reference to my post?)



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
... so in short ... what is your point exactly (in reference to my post?)


the only reference to your post was the part about people in religion being unique and different.

the teapot theory was mainly about faith. like i said, if i have faith in that the teapot is really orbiting the sun, people will say i'm wrong or stupid to have faith in such an absurd concept. in the same way i can't prove the teapot exists, they also can't disprove it. the same faith concept can be applied to a god, it can't be proven, yet it can't be disproven. so why am i stupid or wrong to believe and have faith in a teapot orbiting the sun, but someone who believes and has faith in god is to themselves...right and true.

athiests and religion have a lot in common. more than you can imagine. where religions disregard all other gods but their own, atheists merely go one god further.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by LCKob
... so in short ... what is your point exactly (in reference to my post?)


the only reference to your post was the part about people in religion being unique and different.

the teapot theory was mainly about faith. like i said, if i have faith in that the teapot is really orbiting the sun, people will say i'm wrong or stupid to have faith in such an absurd concept. in the same way i can't prove the teapot exists, they also can't disprove it. the same faith concept can be applied to a god, it can't be proven, yet it can't be disproven. so why am i stupid or wrong to believe and have faith in a teapot orbiting the sun, but someone who believes and has faith in god is to themselves...right and true.

athiests and religion have a lot in common. more than you can imagine. where religions disregard all other gods but their own, atheists merely go one god further.


Ah Wakarimasu. Well, from a personal perspective I have no problems at all with your statement ... after all agnostics are all about possibilities ... as opposed to assertions.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
i also agree that religion is 100% about faith. that's why most people have problems with people forcing christianity (or any other religion) into the public realm (prayer in school, god in the pledge, etc). we're all just guessing, and have a lot of faith in our guesses.

though atheism is based more on a lack of faith, than faith in nothing.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I am not anti-Christian. I AM Anti-Christian Leaders-who-try-to-manipulate-and-control-the-masses-through-fear.

I think that ppl over the last 50+ yrs have seen Catholic Priests abuse little boys, steal, etc. and that eh Catholic church is SO Critical, that they are looking elsewhere.


I dont think they are ANTI_CHRISTIAN, only, not avid blind believers.

NO OFFENSE TO ANY ONE OUT THERE ~~~~CHRISTIAN OR ANTI_CHRISTIAN..



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This thread is almost a conspiracy against Christianity in that so many posters use it to insult those of the faith and lie or mislead about it's history rather than address the movements and actions of the more influential of their Anti-Christian stand.

One example of the conspiracy is 'popular' television.

There is a soap opera called, "Neigbours", that has been going for 25 years, where most charactors are secular or of 'hippy' New Age/occult leanings, and generally, nice, kind, good people. The Christian charactors however are those who make bad decisions based on their portrayal of the faith.

The most recent episodes of this show, with millions of dedicated viewers who have literally grown up with this image of what good and bad neigbours do and are, is the one Salvation Army member, who at a time of his greatest crisis,becomes murderous from what he perceives to be answers to prayers.

Yes it is just a T.V. show, but for many people who have watched it their whole lives, this is all they 'know' of what Christianity is, and it comes a very poor last to all the 'other options' of belief. It's also hard to find any viewers of this programme who don't reference it's story lines to justify their 'own' beliefs.

I also just finished watching the entire series of "Firefly" and again, even in the far future, there has been no 'Second Coming', Prostitutes are respected and revered, the opposite to 'men of God', and all who still have faith in a God are portrayed as ignorant and worse, while faithless men and women are the good, just heros and 'saviours'.

These are just two examples of the countless, passionately loved, 'entertainments', 'drip feeding' the message that Christians (who's faith is consistantly misrepresented) are blindly lead fools who can and do become dangerous.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join