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: 88
16
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I will keep on going until I stop.


Bravo my friend! That's the spirit I was hoping to hear.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Which may be never, but I am now of the opinion that I am very unlikely to 'know' before I die.


As I said, I'd be glad to help. Since it's not on-topic, U2U anytime.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Maybe I will, but either way I will keep going until that day comes, and maybe long after.
I hope not though, I am really counting on 'knowing' upon my demise. If I am still in the dark then, I will be disappointed for sure.


No doubt...which is why I'd hope you'd not take that chance.




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
LCKob, if anyone should be defining what I meant using the word "believe", it should be me. I am, after all, the one who knew what I meant as I wrote it.

What does it mean to believe? In my analogy, I used a friend putting a gun to their head and thinking pulling the trigger wouldn't do anything.

Me? I believe Christ is the Savior of the world and the tenants and requirements for a heavenly future are contained in the Bible, and I believe that putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger will kill or severely maim you. Have I been to Heaven or Hell to confirm what I believe? No, I believe because all the evidence points to that conclusion. Have I seen someone take a gun, put it to their head and blow their brains out? No, I believe because all the evidence points to that conclusion.

If knowing, and not believing, is the requirement for being able to talk about something, for being concerned about something, or for caring for someone, then you, me, the whole world needs to stop everything it's doing. Technology needs to stop being developed because, after all, it is a belief of what will happen (it hasn't been tested in every circumstance, assumptions are made) that drives the invention.

So do you really believe that that should happen, or does that just tie into Christians professing their faith?
(tying it back to the subject)



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'd hope you'd not take that chance.


I noticed you follow the NIV, that was the first bible I read. It sounds like you are certain about your faith, and I admire that. I am certain about parts of it, like guardian angels, miracles, prayer's power, life after death. But I think that's it. God, and anything else past that is admittedly a best guess. I see no other option but take a chance, and postulate what I find to be my best choice. It is a choice I don't regret, and can't see myself regretting even if I am wrong.
'Sometimes one can do everything right and still lose, that is life.'



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
junglejake:

LCKob, if anyone should be defining what I meant using the word "believe", it should be me. I am, after all, the one who knew what I meant as I wrote it.


LCKob:

Quite true ... and since there was questionable clarity and no definition, as a proponent of SM, I provided an agreed upon baseline from a respectable source ... which of course you could (and should add to). Please keep in mind, my intent is the promotion of clarity ... not to put words in your mouth so to speak ... merely to set the stage and context for better comprehension despite the intrinsic vagueries inherent to all languages.



junglejake:

What does it mean to believe? In my analogy, I used a friend putting a gun to their head and thinking pulling the trigger wouldn't do anything.

Me? I believe Christ is the Savior of the world and the tenants and requirements for a heavenly future are contained in the Bible, and I believe that putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger will kill or severely maim you. Have I been to Heaven or Hell to confirm what I believe? No, I believe because all the evidence points to that conclusion. Have I seen someone take a gun, put it to their head and blow their brains out? No, I believe because all the evidence points to that conclusion.

If knowing, and not believing, is the requirement for being able to talk about something, for being concerned about something, or for caring for someone, then you, me, the whole world needs to stop everything it's doing. Technology needs to stop being developed because, after all, it is a belief of what will happen (it hasn't been tested in every circumstance, assumptions are made) that drives the invention.

So do you really believe that that should happen, or does that just tie into Christians professing their faith?
(tying it back to the subject)


LCKob:

Actually, my stance has always been use the tools available as they are defined and for what they are designed for ... if by accepted definition, one has an "opinion" then treat it as such ... if on the other hand, one has in incontrovertable truth ... then once again treat it as such.

Or to borrow the axiom from some engineering friends ... "Form Fits Function"

I have said this elsewhere, to similar intent ... I have no problems with voicing one's opinions, so long as they are recognized or couched as such ... and I am always open to good advice ... so long as the giver does not press beyond the point of personal opinion ... and not surprisingly, this in itself is another opinion, one among millions or perhaps even billions ... and within the context of opinion... all of equal value, until proven otherwise.





[edit on 25-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
But why did you pick and choose what to believe in the Bible? How did you know that guardian angels exist (only a very vague reference to this in Matthew exists), prayer has power, and life after death, but believe the rest of it is questionable? I guess I'm confused how you (and many others) can know which parts of the Bible should be believed and which should be dismissed.

LCKob: I don't believe that shooting yourself is fatal or extremely damaging is an opinion. I believe it is a fact. I also believe Christianity as described in the Bible is a fact, as well. Could I be wrong? It's feasible; as I said, I've never seen someone shoot themselves in the head except in movies. However, I am as certain of Christ as I am of the damaging effects of pulling that trigger.

If you want me to qualify every statement I believe to be factual because there's a chance it may not be, then I request you and everyone else here on this site do the same. There are no facts, then, only opinions. 2+2 may be 4. 2 + 2 does not equal 4. George Bush may be president. America may exist. Earth may be a sphere. If we were doing a scientific study, I would agree that our assumptions going into the study would have to be of this nature, but we're not. If we were, we would also need controls, experiments, assumptions, expectations, etc. We're having a discussion, not testing a theory.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
But why did you pick and choose what to believe in the Bible? How did you know that guardian angels exist (only a very vague reference to this in Matthew exists), prayer has power, and life after death, but believe the rest of it is questionable?


I presume that is addressed to me. You have presumed my reasons for what I see as being reality. I do not believe in any of those things because of anything I have read.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I noticed you follow the NIV, that was the first bible I read.


Huzzah!


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It sounds like you are certain about your faith, and I admire that.


Thank you, it was no easy road to get there. I'm very hard headed when asked to believe something...even if I see it.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I am certain about parts of it, like guardian angels, miracles, prayer's power, life after death.


I think that's a great start, as many have issues with such abstract thinking.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
But I think that's it. God, and anything else past that is admittedly a best guess. I see no other option but take a chance, and postulate what I find to be my best choice. It is a choice I don't regret, and can't see myself regretting even if I am wrong.


I think the question you're looking to answer is "Who?" If you believe in angels, miracles, power of prayer and life after death, then surely you've seen the factory, just haven't met the CEO yet. Great thing about this boss is you don't need an appointment, just call Him up. Don't know what to say when you have Him on the line? Again, would be glad to help.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
'Sometimes one can do everything right and still lose, that is life.'


"Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect", well, I'm well short of that remark. Fortunately there's a plan for success to get peeps like me back on the right track. I've got the blueprints right here and can say, "yes, this works", all you'd need to do is ask.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
junglejake:

I don't believe that shooting yourself is fatal or extremely damaging is an opinion. I believe it is a fact. I also believe Christianity as described in the Bible is a fact, as well. Could I be wrong? It's feasible; as I said, I've never seen someone shoot themselves in the head except in movies. However, I am as certain of Christ as I am of the damaging effects of pulling that trigger.

LCKob:

As per your qoute:

"I also believe Christianity as described in the Bible is a fact, as well. Could I be wrong? It's feasible;"

A belief that something is a fact, is not equivalent to something being a fact.

What you have described once again is assertion of opinion.

The concrete act of shooting yourself with a gun is for all practical intents and purposes a causal condition with very real consequences (barring a malfunction of course) as manifested by the destructive passage of a projectile through human tissue/bone/organs. So yes, I agree with you that this is a fact ... it has clear cut demonstrative and eminently repeatable effect for all to see and it has proven it self out time and (unfortunate) time again with little or not variation to the postulate of damage/death as proposed.

The fact that you (self admittingly) allow the possibility to be wrong clearly points to your assertion that it is by accepted definition not a fact, but as I have assessed, a belief or opinion (which may or may not happen or manifest).

junglejake:

If you want me to qualify every statement I believe to be factual because there's a chance it may not be, then I request you and everyone else here on this site do the same. There are no facts, then, only opinions. 2+2 may be 4. 2 + 2 does not equal 4. George Bush may be president. America may exist. Earth may be a sphere. If we were doing a scientific study, I would agree that our assumptions going into the study would have to be of this nature, but we're not. If we were, we would also need controls, experiments, assumptions, expectations, etc. We're having a discussion, not testing a theory.

LCKob:

If you note my posts, I do try to set context and level of veracity to my posts as applicable ... I do promote the practice in general, but I would like to point out that with such issues of fundemental "belief" ... vs. how we define fact ... that such clarity is highly desirable if not critical to accurate and pertinent communication to others of potentially differing views.

As to everytime, I think that a bit much, but in general, the more a topic leans to the issue of "belief" vs. "fact" ... the more I would urge the use of qualifiers, definitions and or conditionals.

... and of course, that is my opinion ... I leave it to the admin and moderators to enforce whatever set of rules and guidelines they deem fit for any and all forum discourse.




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
OK...

As for the bible being ahead of science...



If I recall, the sun, which drives photosynthesis, was created AFTER plants were created.
How is it that the thing which drives plant existence was created after the plants themselves were created? Oh, that's right, the plants probably could have survived a day without sunlight...or a thousand years, depending on who you ask.


As for the stars, there's a part in there when they fall out of the sky.
. Boy, science sure was wrong about stars being massive balls of energy billions of miles from here. According to the bible, one day they're gonna zoom in at speeds way past that of light and fall to the earth.


Then, science is wrong again, because science says that water cannot be transformed into blood or wine. Oh, yeah, it can once it enters an animal's body or a plant's system, but once again, science, NOT the bible, lets you know that. So what animal provided all that blood for Egypt?


What about that dude stopping the sun? Once again, science is wrong because the sun moves aroung the earth.


And death? Again, science says that if you've been dead for 3 days, you ain't comin back. Wrong again! Think about it; you meet people who have been dead for 3 days who come back to life all the time!


Science also says that if you are placed in a furnace with no protective gear, you will get crispy REAL fast. Again, science...dee dee dee!
As the bible says, those 3 dudes went in that furnace and didn't get even 1 hair singed.

Oh, there you go, science ain't jack when it comes to the bible. From here on out, technology, medicine, biology, astronomy, and all that good stuff should be handled by the bible.




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
truth, stop using so many emoticons, it's annoying.

before i go any further on this ENOURMOUS thread, i want to have a few questions answered.

1: for the purpose of this discussion, what is a christian?

2: for the purpose of this discussion, what would qualify as a conspiracy?

and throw in any other things that are extremely relevant to the direct discussion.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1: for the purpose of this discussion, what is a christian?


a person who believes in jesus, who is also part of the trinity, so god and the holy spirit too.



2: for the purpose of this discussion, what would qualify as a conspiracy?


well i think we've had neighbours and simpsons, both popular tv shows that have been attributing to this on-going conspiracy. and basically any person on here that isn't christian is supposedly part of the conspiracy too. i guess with one billion members, christians still can't feel safe...strikes me as though they're worried even with all that backing.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
A belief that something is a fact, is not equivalent to something being a fact.


Which is interesting, because there is no such thing as a "Fact"... only substantiated evidence. Facts are little to no difference from beliefs. Facts are assumed to be true, a priori. Beliefs are assumed to be true, a priori.

What I've found fascinating is not everyone with beliefs pushes their beliefs upon others, but more frequently people with "Facts" do.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I think you had a pretty good definition of Christian shauny, but I'd like to take it one step further if I could. It's not enough to call yourself "Christian", rather a Christian is one who had accept Jesus Christ, son of God, as their lord and saviour. This includes following his teaching, as he as instructed in the gospels. Within these teachings is having a personal relationship with God.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and basically any person on here that isn't christian is supposedly part of the conspiracy too.


Gonna havta disagree with this statement here. For simplicity's sake, I like to refer back to the dictionary most of the time, specifically merriam-webster online since it's the most commonly used and widely accepted. To be part of a conspiracy, you much be joined in secrecy for the purpose of dismantling a belief or organization. That's my summation of this definition here, which I'd rather people use to define: www.m-w.com... . Pages ago, many of us here on both sides of the fence agreed there was in fact a conspiracy, the direction it has gone afterwards is to what extent and how are the people being affected. I contend that it is indeed I myself have been both the initiator and victim of Anti-Christianity throughout my lifetime. I may not have joined the club, but I did have a guest-pass and was invited to.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i guess with one billion members, christians still can't feel safe...strikes me as though they're worried even with all that backing.


I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from with the people here. I've not seen any "worried" Christians who feel "unsafe". How can a saved person feel unsafe? Quite a contradiction there.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Which is interesting, because there is no such thing as a "Fact"... only substantiated evidence. Facts are little to no difference from beliefs. Facts are assumed to be true, a priori. Beliefs are assumed to be true, a priori.

What I've found fascinating is not everyone with beliefs pushes their beliefs upon others, but more frequently people with "Facts" do.


Every now and then when your digging in the coals, you find a Crystal Sword...


You have voted TheCrystalSword for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


You know I'm going be coming back throughout the day to read your post here a number of times.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Which is interesting, because there is no such thing as a "Fact"... only substantiated evidence. Facts are little to no difference from beliefs. Facts are assumed to be true, a priori. Beliefs are assumed to be true, a priori.


well if my tooth hurts, it's a fact if a say a statement such as 'my tooth hurts'. so yes there are 'facts'.



What I've found fascinating is not everyone with beliefs pushes their beliefs upon others, but more frequently people with "Facts" do.


when christianity first arose, people were sent far and wide to 'spread' the word of this new faith and jesus, hence 'push' their beliefs on other people. this is the only way this news could have spred so wide...by pushing it on people. sure facts are pushed on people, but so are beliefs.


Originally posted by saint4God
To be part of a conspiracy, you much be joined in secrecy for the purpose of dismantling a belief or organization.


thankyou for stating my point exactly. do you see any people joined in secrecy for the purpose of dismantling a belief? because i don't. i see some people with some heated opinions on faith, but they probably also feel the same way toward other faiths. do you really think the simpsons and neighbours, the two programmes mentioned to show christians in such a negative stereotypical way, are part of a secret conspiracy? or the two or three peolpe with strong opinions against christianity are really trying to dismantle the whole belief?


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from with the people here. I've not seen any "worried" Christians who feel "unsafe". How can a saved person feel unsafe? Quite a contradiction there.


that's the very reason why you feel unsafe in the first place, the fact that you have the need to be 'saved'. now that you are supposedly 'saved', you're still trying to insist there's a secret purpose to dismantle this, and that is what you're worried about, when you shouldn't be, because there's no such purpose to do so. if you weren't worried about it, you wouldn't be on here everyday telling us about it.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
thankyou for stating my point exactly.


Glad I could help.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
do you see any people joined in secrecy for the purpose of dismantling a belief?


Yes, and I have stated three times on this thread who, how, and why...but it seems to get ignored or trivialized each time.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
because i don't.


Good for you. Hope someone flips the lightswitch to "on" for ya.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i see some people with some heated opinions on faith, but they probably also feel the same way toward other faiths. do you really think the simpsons and neighbours, the two programmes mentioned to show christians in such a negative stereotypical way, are part of a secret conspiracy?


No, but if you've been reading what I've said you'd already know that.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
or the two or three peolpe with strong opinions against christianity are really trying to dismantle the whole belief?


No, but if you've been reading what I've said you'd already know that.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
that's the very reason why you feel unsafe in the first place,


Thank you Dr. Shauny, should I pay the secretary on the way out? By the way, where is your Masters in Psychology coming from? I'd like to know if I'm visiting a professional or a street psychic.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
the fact that you have the need to be 'saved'. now that you are supposedly 'saved', you're still trying to insist there's a secret purpose to dismantle this,


Not dismantle me being saved, the opposition should know by now that's not possible. We've met, we've talked. Next time we schedule a meeting, I should toss you an invite.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and that is what you're worried about, when you shouldn't be, because there's no such purpose to do so.


I'm not worried and agreed there's no reason to worry about myself. In fact, I'm specifically directed NOT to worry.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
if you weren't worried about it, you wouldn't be on here everyday telling us about it.


Are your teachers/professors worried about the material they teach? If they are, you should schedule a psychaitric session with them too.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well if my tooth hurts, it's a fact if a say a statement such as 'my tooth hurts'. so yes there are 'facts'.


Actually, that's not a fact at all. You perceive your tooth to be hurting, but really all that's happening is your brain is telling another part of your brain something is wrong with your tooth. It isn't the actual tooth that hurts; it's your brain.

So when an amputee has phantom pain and says their leg (which was taken off) hurts, it's their brain misinterpreting the nerve messages coming from their stump that tells them their leg is hurting.

Not a fact; that's perception.

Now, if you were to say your tooth hurts because you took it out, filed it down to an edge and slash random people with it, you could make a better case. Even then, though, the pain is in perception, and some people have a far higher tolerance than others of pain. Some people don't even feel things that others would be bellowing over.

So I gotta disagree with your tooth hurting being a "fact".



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
LCKob:

"A belief that something is a fact, is not equivalent to something being a fact."


TheCrystalSword:

"Which is interesting, because there is no such thing as a "Fact"... only substantiated evidence. Facts are little to no difference from beliefs. Facts are assumed to be true, a priori. Beliefs are assumed to be true, a priori.

What I've found fascinating is not everyone with beliefs pushes their beliefs upon others, but more frequently people with "Facts" do."

LCKob:

"The fact that you refer to a quoted statement by myself leads me to the possibility that your assertion is directed at me? If that is the context then my reply is as follows:

I agree in principle with what you are saying, and consequently have repeatedly brought up the point and promotion for the use of qualifiers, conditionals definitions to set the context ... I did so with the terms "belief" and likewise qualified the defintion of "fact" as per my quote below ...

"The concrete act of shooting yourself with a gun is for all practical intents and purposes a causal condition with very real consequences (barring a malfunction of course) as manifested by the destructive passage of a projectile through human tissue/bone/organs. So yes, I agree with you that this is a fact ... it has clear cut demonstrative and eminently repeatable effect for all to see and it has proven it self out time and (unfortunate) time again with little or not variation to the postulate of damage/death as proposed."

... as compared to: www.m-w.com...

fact

Main Entry: fact

Pronunciation: 'fakt

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

... the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY

... something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence

... a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth


In which case, I would think we are actually in agreement as per my assertions and demonstrated intent. I commend you for your perspective and look forward to reading / assessing your posts given that you promote the notion and practice of posting clarity (within the vagueries of context, sematics and subjective view)."





[edit on 27-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Glad I could help.



endless sarcasm, never ceases with you. and that general smug appearance too. is that universal with christians, or just the way you are?



Yes, and I have stated three times on this thread who, how, and why...but it seems to get ignored or trivialized each time.


*oright...yeah, there is conclusive proof of an anti-chrsitian conspiracy, because you've ''stated'' there is* (*sarcasm*)



Good for you. Hope someone flips the lightswitch to "on" for ya.


there's that smug approach you so casually love to use. maybe if you weren't so smug all the time, people may just pay attention once in a while. because right now you're acting like an 8 year old. want people to take you seriously, grow up.



Thank you Dr. Shauny, should I pay the secretary on the way out? By the way, where is your Masters in Psychology coming from? I'd like to know if I'm visiting a professional or a street psychic.


there's that sarcasm again. i think you should seek professional help. because every comment somebody makes you come back with a lame sarcastic defensive response, and completly miss the question or comment that was made.



Not dismantle me being saved, the opposition should know by now that's not possible. We've met, we've talked. Next time we schedule a meeting, I should toss you an invite.


well if it's not possible to dismantle your beliefs, why are you worried. and if you're not worried, why are you on here trying to make everyone believe what you believe in...''that there's an anti-christian conspiracy''? what do you hope to achieve? you must have some sort of goal?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, that's not a fact at all. You perceive your tooth to be hurting, but really all that's happening is your brain is telling another part of your brain something is wrong with your tooth. It isn't the actual tooth that hurts; it's your brain.


actually it's the nerves that send the signal to the brain that something is wrong. in this case the tooth is loose because it's got a hole in it. it tells my brain that it hurts, hence i feel the pain. and thus my tooth is hurting me. there are facts. whether or not my brain is or isn't feeling the pain, i am still feeling the pain. so a comment such as 'my tooth is hurting me' is a fact.



So when an amputee has phantom pain and says their leg (which was taken off) hurts, it's their brain misinterpreting the nerve messages coming from their stump that tells them their leg is hurting.


except i haven't got a phantom tooth. that's a completly different situation and has no relevance to my tooth hurting me, which is a fact.



Now, if you were to say your tooth hurts because you took it out, filed it down to an edge and slash random people with it, you could make a better case. Even then, though, the pain is in perception, and some people have a far higher tolerance than others of pain. Some people don't even feel things that others would be bellowing over.


well if someone can't feel their tooth pain, then a comment such as 'my tooth fell out, but i feel no pain' is also a fact. if they don't feel the pain, whether it's perceived or not, it's a fact that they don't feel the pain. the same as for me it's a fact because i do feel the pain.



So I gotta disagree with your tooth hurting being a "fact".


so what you say is actually therefore 'fact'? you telling me that my pain is just how 'my brain is percieving the situation'...that would therefore be the fact that you're telling me. so either way, if my statement of my tooth hurting isn't a fact, then your statement about percieving the pain is therefore a fact, or vice versa. so whatever way you look at it, either my statement is fact, or your statement is fact.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join