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 Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 87
7
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
...this entire post seems to be a troll,


I agree.




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Who Created Man?

God.

Who Created God?

Man.

Without man, there is no religion.

There is one thing people know but do not say. Power for their God comes through WORSHIP. After all, if no one worships a god/God... then how can it exist? Once people no longer believe, it's no longer real. Every religion speaks of their god/God calling for the souls of the masses. Their is not a single religion that does not attempt to convert. One the SPIRITUAL SIDE of this coin, more believers means more power for that diety. Hence why the Upper Tier of those famous Greek and Roman Dieties were stronger than the lesser known ones, they had more power because they had more followers.

On the Conspiricy side of it, more Followers means more soilders in your army and more money through tithes.

In all cases, the Strength of a Religion is equal to the Number Of Followers.

And, after all, Man is the follower. Man Created Religion. Perhaps to say man created God is a falsity, or merely over simplifying the statement. But before man BELIEVED in a higher being and expressed that belief, there was no RELIGION.

So I may be off saying Man Created God (though through the energies of his combined belief this is a plausible theory) I am dead on saying Man Created Religion. And really, what good is a god/God without a Religion?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Who Created Man?

God.


True! Thanks for this acknowledgement.



Who Created God?

Man.


False! There's a temporal logic fallacy if you analyse this statement closely. Man, having being created after God's existence as demonstrated in your first true statement, could not go back into time to create God. This is a paradox.



Without man, there is no religion.


IF your definition of religion is the worship of God, then this sounds reasonable, HOWEVER, only if no other sentient lifeform exists.



There is one thing people know but do not say. Power for their God comes through WORSHIP.


False! The Power of God comes from God, who is an independant factor, not a tied variable to worship.



After all, if no one worships a god/God... then how can it exist?


Independant constant, not dependant variable.



Once people no longer believe, it's no longer real.


As evidenced by the Old Testament, God makes himself known to those who did not believe. This is His capability as an independant constant.



Every religion speaks of their god/God calling for the souls of the masses.


False! But I'm not here to advertise for other religions.



Their is not a single religion that does not attempt to convert.


False! Careful with those blanket statements.



One the SPIRITUAL SIDE of this coin, more believers means more power for that diety.


Have you read the Old Testament?



Hence why the Upper Tier of those famous Greek and Roman Dieties were stronger than the lesser known ones, they had more power because they had more followers.


By that line of thinking, those dieties would still be present today.



On the Conspiricy side of it, more Followers means more soilders in your army and more money through tithes.


Beware of the army of Christians who "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love your enemy"




In all cases, the Strength of a Religion is equal to the Number Of Followers.


False again. That would mean there would be no change over time nor extinction of previous beliefs.



And, after all, Man is the follower. Man Created Religion. Perhaps to say man created God is a falsity, or merely over simplifying the statement. But before man BELIEVED in a higher being and expressed that belief, there was no RELIGION.


Per your first statement, God created man and belief was instant and worshipped Him. Man cannot be the follower AND create Religion.



So I may be off saying Man Created God (though through the energies of his combined belief this is a plausible theory) I am dead on saying Man Created Religion. And really, what good is a god/God without a Religion?


He did create everything and is the only one who can give the free gift of eternal life. I think that counts for something.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Since this entire post seems to be a troll, written purely in the hope of inflicting pain or enraging, I wonder if there is a moderator around? Is this sort of post acceptable?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


When all else fails, try to silence the opposition?

The intention of this thread was to complain about the ACLU's war against anything Christian, about the corruption of the interpretation of the establishment clause, and a double standard. If discussing events that some perceive as a political conspiracy causes you pain and enrages you, I highly recommend you leave this website, you're only going to be in pain and enraged as long as you're here. Unless it's just conspiracies you disagree with that cause you pain and enrage you. If that's the case, use that ignore button. I'm not a big fan of willing ignorance, but I'd rather than for you to have a heart attack.

As to the question asking if a mod is around, yes, they have been, several have commented on this thread. It's fully compliant with Springer's rules, even though this thread was started 5 months before those rules ever came into effect.

So why is stating an opinion and the belief in a conspiracy, including providing evidence supporting my claim, in order to foster a rather lengthy conversation making this the fifth most replied to thread on the entire site where members have exchanged ideas based on where the conversation began and where it has gone to now trolling? Is this a new definition of the word I'm not aware of?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Let's see if we can start this day a little better. Charlie, thankyou for at least admitting that there was a "Big Bang". So now at least we have the beginning of the universe. Now, lets say that before matter there was energy that converted to matter, we can say at least that there was energy. I accept this as scientific fact. I call this energy God because I believe that this energy was and is intelligent. I asked a very simple question and so some posters go off half cocked at the thought of it. I told Spamandham that when I see God I will ask Him of his beginning. Isn't this at least logical to me as I believe in God and therefore gave the answer as I knew it? I already know there is a universe because I live inside it, and so far as scientists are concerned in had a beginning, so I know this to be a fact. But to those who do not believe in God as the source of it, surely they must have some idea as to how they believe it came to be and from what and where. At last, Charlie has come to the conclusion that the universe started with a "Big Bang". So I have the first part of my answer. If you atheists and unbelievers really want me to consider your suggestions, then hop up on deck and render reasons why.

As for religion and state. I personally believe that every person has the right to worship whatever and however he or she chooses. If you put up a statute of Zues on the courthouse lawn I am not offended by it. We don't base any law on his opinions so why should I be offeded. This nation is based on the precept of individual thought and worship. But when those who wish silence my right of worship and expression begin to do so in the public square it is my duty to resist as it would be the duty for anyone. Let me give you an example. Yesterday, a court denied the theory of intelligent design of the universe allowing only for a theory of evolution. This is good? There are those that cannot stand the thought of God. Yet as a Christian I believe in freedom of speech. Without it I could not hold a discussion of the issues so you, me or anyone else can make an informed well thought out decision. There are some on this post who would like me to consider there is no God yet they can't offer reasons eccept that there were some evil crusaders and Paul was just a man. Nothing about where it all began and from what. When I give discussion to my side they begin to say, "Let us be rid of him.." No answers, just contempt for the Christian.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
It goes a little like this. Church and State. By Constitutional Decree they are to be seperate.


Would you mind pointing out specifically where this is?


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
However, those same Christians would raise protest, even if their structures were/are allowed, if a Pagan Cult asked for and received the rights to place a statue of a dancing Satyr in Public.


Why would I care personally, my kingdom is not of this earth.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
By the way, which Christianity are we arguing here? Catholsism? Babtist? Southern Babtist? Episcopellian sp? Mormon? Church of God? Nazareene?There are more CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS than flavors of tea, and more RELIGIONS than grains of sand. This is partly why so many people DON'T BELIEVE in RELIGION, becuase even the RELIGIOUS CAN'T AGREE. There is no UNIFIED FRONT.


Nice try, now read 1 Corinthians 1:10


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
True Religion was forever lost, now merged or even ommitted entirely to be replaced with Agendas and Lies.


I see...and you've arrived at this conclusion how?


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Even Christians can't agree on what a Christian is, proven by the seperation of so many different Christian Factions.


All Christians agree John 3:16 is the criteria for heaven. If not, they're not Christian. You have to believe what Christ says is true to be Christian, otherwise you are not. The "factions" you speak of have different structural, organizational, and leadership differences but if you don't believe in the fundamental message of Christ, why there differences matter to you?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God


For me, the stages were:

1) raised a christian - without question
2) ignored it for a while so I could have sex without much guilt
3) returned back to it
4) fundie stage
5 ) Cocky evangelical stage
6) Eureka effect that fundie stage was a bunch of crap
7) Instantaneous deconversion following
8) Mourning
9) Acceptance that I am an atheist
spamandham, 09.30.2004, 12:30am


What I want to know is what happened in step 6?


Would you be willing to share, if not here, by U2U? I won't mention it on the board nor reply by U2U if you don't want me to, but I'd be interested in hearing.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
And what about step 7

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
And what about step 7

Fromabove


Sorry sorry, it didn't catch on my copy/paste job for some reason. I've fixed it now, edit complete.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
There are some on this post who would like me to consider there is no God yet they can't offer reasons eccept that there were some evil crusaders and Paul was just a man. Nothing about where it all began and from what. When I give discussion to my side they begin to say, "Let us be rid of him.." No answers, just contempt for the Christian.


Cut the drama, if theres any contempt here its for organized religion and thats as far as it goes. Why not say God's creator was Supergod, and the God before that was Super-Supergod? Where does it end? One unaswerable question shouldn't tried to be explained with another.

You seem to be getting mad at those who admit they don't know everything. Those who don't believe shouldn't have to argue their case, you should have to argue yours. There is no proof either way, so how could someone ever disprove God to you?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I asked a very simple question and so some posters go off half cocked at the thought of it.


If you're ready to have an actual discussion rather than simply throwing insults and strawmen around, we can let bygones be gone.


Originally posted by Fromabove
I already know there is a universe because I live inside it, and so far as scientists are concerned in had a beginning, so I know this to be a fact.


We don't know that it had a beginning. According to current predominant theory, the known universe is of finite age. But also, time is part of the known universe. To say that the known universe had a beginning implies there was a time when the known universe didn't exist. This is clearly a contradiction if time is not independent from the known universe.

In other words, even though the known universe is of finite age, it has still existed for all time. There is no time or place for a creator with what we know.

Of course, we know we don't know everything, and we know it's possible that some new discoveries could displace the big bang or possibly expand our concept of 'known universe'. Perhaps some day an actual contradiction will be observed that compells us to acknowledge a creator, but that certainly hasn't happened yet. Thus far the more we explore and learn, the fewer gaps of knowledge remain that have historically been filled in with magic and mysticism.


Originally posted by Fromabove
But to those who do not believe in God as the source of it, surely they must have some idea as to how they believe it came to be and from what and where.


It's ok to say "I don't know" when that's the case. There's plenty of speculation, including the god speculation, but speculation is not the same as knowledge.

But suppose that in some sense the existence of the universe is contingient upon some sentient being as you suggest. That still tells you nothing about the nature of that being, other than it is somehow responsible for the existence of the universe. There is no rational basis for assuming it wants you to have faith in it. Such a being is thus irrelevant to us even if it exists.

All your efforts to prove the existence of a creator really achieve nothing even if you were to succeed.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
If you wouldn't care that some other religion put up statues in public because this kingdom is not yours, the after life is your kingdom... then why are you so persistant that your statues be put up? After all, this world is just a shell, and you live not for this shell.

As for Seperation of Church and State, it is a fundamental step in this Democracy (Unless I err in assuming you are from America. You may well be from elsewhere, and if so then this is clearly my mistake due to an assumption).

Now, to my origanal take, let me explain more clearly.

In the beginning there was Energy. (Big Bang or any other theory you have). This Energy was Intelligent. (I also personally believe this Energy to be Renewable, but currently I am sticking with other models, more accepted ones, as my views are not published.) This Energy created Everything, and to man when he evolved this Energy was named. This Energy, that Man calls God (under a myriad of names) created Man (as it created absolutely everything). Man in turn created Religion, giving birth to the IDEA of God. Without man, no thought or homage is paid to this Great Creator.

Without man, there is no NEED for God. Nature succeeds just fine when concerning the Lesser Animals (Hello, we are in fact ANIMALS.) However, simple nature does not set well with us Higher Mammals (Yep, we're those too!). There must be purpose and reason for Man Kind, because we are more evolved that the rest of the Animals.

We have Opposable Thumbs AND can Talk. Never mind that animals do COMMUNICATE amongst the same specis to the extent of understanding as well as humans of the same language do, and never mind that even completely different specis can communicate basic ideas. We can SPEAK and CREATE LANGUAGE. So we must be more worthy of things than these Lesser Creatures. We need more than nature, we need a God... we need Religion.

And, as I stated, I feel at one time (if not for a very SHORT time) there was one True Religion. This was corrupted and split (much like the different branches of Christianity divide). Some of this division truly was Man's own ideas emerging about Religion, and other was simply due to greed and advancement of certain tribesmember. Two things have grown since the beginning of man, and that is Knowledge and Greed. I see both being reasons for this seperation.

Some Energy Source beget all things. Man named this God, thus creating Religion. So, if essence, God created Man and Man created Religion and painted it's own picture of this God.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
If you wouldn't care that some other religion put up statues in public because this kingdom is not yours, the after life is your kingdom... then why are you so persistant that your statues be put up? After all, this world is just a shell, and you live not for this shell.


It's nice, like flowers in the park, but understand if some people are allergic to flowers.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
As for Seperation of Church and State, it is a fundamental step in this Democracy (Unless I err in assuming you are from America. You may well be from elsewhere, and if so then this is clearly my mistake due to an assumption).


Okay, first you say it's in the Constitution, and now you're saying it's a step in this Democracy. Again I ask, where is it written?

As far as the rest of your post, it has already been directly addressed in my previous post and see no need on being repetitious. Insistence does not equal correct, so I'm not sure who you're talking to in giving this speech.



[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
All your efforts to prove the existence of a creator really achieve nothing even if you were to succeed.


So even if we are successful in proving to spamandham the existence of a creator, we've achieved nothing. Have I misconstrued this statement at all spamandham?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Since this entire post seems to be a troll, written purely in the hope of inflicting pain or enraging, I wonder if there is a moderator around? Is this sort of post acceptable?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


When all else fails, try to silence the opposition?

The intention of this thread was to complain about the ACLU's war against anything Christian, about the corruption of the interpretation of the establishment clause, and a double standard. If discussing events that some perceive as a political conspiracy causes you pain and enrages you, I highly recommend you leave this website, you're only going to be in pain and enraged as long as you're here. Unless it's just conspiracies you disagree with that cause you pain and enrage you. If that's the case, use that ignore button. I'm not a big fan of willing ignorance, but I'd rather than for you to have a heart attack.

As to the question asking if a mod is around, yes, they have been, several have commented on this thread. It's fully compliant with Springer's rules, even though this thread was started 5 months before those rules ever came into effect.

So why is stating an opinion and the belief in a conspiracy, including providing evidence supporting my claim, in order to foster a rather lengthy conversation making this the fifth most replied to thread on the entire site where members have exchanged ideas based on where the conversation began and where it has gone to now trolling? Is this a new definition of the word I'm not aware of?


ACLU just brought up a case against the display of a manorah (SP) in a government building. i'll try to find the story.

the ACLU is just trying to preserve the few civil liberties we have.

jj, would you have any problem if the ACLU filed suit against the government for displaying a sign that read:

"As to Jesus, I have some doubts as to his divinity"
-Benjamin Franklin

or what about one posting the beliefs by which satanists worship?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
As for Seperation of Church and State, it is a fundamental step in this Democracy (Unless I err in assuming you are from America. You may well be from elsewhere, and if so then this is clearly my mistake due to an assumption).


Okay, first you say it's in the Constitution, and now you're saying it's a step in this Democracy. Again I ask, where is it written?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

establishment clause of the first ammendment.

maybe you could pick the constitution up and read it for yourself...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Man would you look at you atheists go! Screaming and yelling all over the place. Spamandham, God doesn't have to strike you down now at this instant, He is patient and will wait till you come to Him. Madness, first Spamandham calls me stupid and now you too. I'll have to look over my posts to see if I called you that in the context you mean it. I don't need to say I know where God came from, I can see the universe. You can not get something from nothing. This is a fact. If the universe is here, it got here by some means. You can not explain it. That's not my fault. God does not exist in the physical as we do. We are from this universe. We come from Him. Hey, here's a thought, try it out. Let's say you go to sleep and you have a dream, any dream. It's one of those vivid dreams so real you can actually feel taste, etc. In what part of the brain does it come from? OK, let's say a certain portion made for the purposes of dreaming. Now when you dream, everything you do and see is actually inside your head, right? The whole universe you see and feel at the time exists only within the confines of your brain. Now say you walk for a hundreds of miles in your dream or fly off to Alpha Centari. Yet you never really left your head. But then you talk to people for a long time, how is this done, I wonder. Are the things in the dream real or are they perceptions of things as they appear. Consider that this whole universe is held together by the thought and will of a consciousness vast beyond anything known to the universe. Christians know all this as the "Word of God" that holds it all together. The universe is held together by force of the will of God. I know the universe is made. I exist in it. I percieve it is divinely made. So, I have an answer to give you. You cannot give me any answer and say "I don't know". And you openly call me stupid? One has to wonder and marvel.

Fromabove







posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
It is impossible for something to come from nothing. That's been stated a few times here. Let me break it down for you.

There are, and can ONLY BE, two schools of thought to the Beginning of it All. Sadly, both takes will be viewed as wrong... because one questions drops all support for each scenario.

(A) Something came from Nothing, and expanded.
(B) There is no beginning, Something has ALWAYS been in the universe.

Both can be defeated by simply asking "What came before that?"

Example A. There was nothing, then a Big Bang occured. Time Begins.
"Um, okay. If there is nothing to bang, then exactly what banged? What created the big bang or was even there to bang... if there was nothing?

Example B. Time is a circuit. It doesn't end or begin, it is constant. Something has always been here.
"Um, okay. What created the circuit? If it's there and active, apperently it got there somehow."

There is not a single winning argument case for a Beginning. This is why Religion held sway over Science for so long. That had questions that even today can not be answered.

However, this in itself does not make one a winner. If your answer to everything is "Because it is so", that does not lead to much credibility.

Taking the Theory of the Judeo Christian God in fact is not possible through Philosopical Debate, nor is taking the Theory of Scientific Beggining possible to take into fact. Both are losing arguements, because you place the burden of proof on YOUR argument, when there is no proof.

(However, shifting the definition of the Judeo Christian God to a more balanced approach can at least yeild you some victories in a Higher Intelligence. Simply stating following the EXACT BIBLICAL MODEL of the JC God is an impossibility).

Now, let me tie this in with the origanal post as well, which was forcing Christianity on people.

Any religion will, due to circumstance, attempt to make itself the only dominion. It is a natural process, and ALL RELIGIONS do this. (Blanket statement, yes. But I'll lay the burden of proof on YOU to find me one that doesn't do what I'm about to describe.)

There are two ways this is acheived. (A) Gaining supporters by CONVERTING NON BELIEVERS INTO BELIEVERS. In every religion there is some way to gain acceptance and to be allowed to be a Believer OR (B) Through War. You don't convert? Fine, we kill you. Now you are dead, you do not exist. You no longer count in the balance of Believer/Non Believer.

Why do ALL RELIGIONS tend to this, is some adherence or another? Because if you are not the ONLY FOCUS, then another focus can take away from your strength.

In a spiritual light, what good does a person do if that person does not favor the God? What value is he to that God? It is logical that an All Powerful Being would intend to make EVERY SUBJECT, especailly one HE MADE, to be devout in him.

On a human nature slant, it is logical that those of high office that benefit through money/power/respect would wish to keep such a high status and even strengthen it.

Religion is the largest Political Machine in the World. In it's essesnce, no matter what brand you prescribe to, the attempt is GLOBAL DOMINATION. The Bible stresses reaching out to non believers to convert them. The Catholic Church acquired power, money and lands by reaching out and Converting. The Romans knocked down pagans, or in a slighty smarter approach CONVERTED PAGAN GODS INTO THEIR OWN RELIGION to gain acceptance from those they took over. Mislead Muslims will kill those not of their religion, and even the Koran speaks of bringing people into the light and understanding with in it's religion. Go into the Rain Forest and unknowingly desecrate a holy relic. You will pay the price because you are not of that Religion or are a Heretic for desecrating such a relic.

Assimilation through Conversion or Force is the goal of EVERY RELIGION. True, not all Religions are open about conversion. Many would rather the unworthy just die and receive their punishment. Being unworthy means you are not equal, thus ridding the world of you is a GOOD THING. Killing those unworthy is REWARDED. So here we have a case of FORCE. All Religions are built on ASSIMILATION. Without Followers, you have NO RELIGION.

To that end, when the Christian Majority attempts to keep the 10 Commandments in a Courthouse, it is FORCING it's view on others in an attempt to assimilate them. Its not a TV channel or Radio station that one can just 'change'. You shouldn't go stumbling around a court house because you refuse to open your eyes because a religious reprensentation is there. That is AN INVASION, thus FORCED UPON the masses.

True, some don't mind things being FORCED upon them. They accept, and maybe even convert. Others do. And that is the point.

Let us say I am a Pagan worshipper of a God Of Lust. (I am not, this is a point being made). In your Courthouse you have your 10 Commandments, and maybe even a nice painting of Moses. There are you 'nice to look at flowers' that you state you don't have to have because your world is the next life... not this empty shell. I get a commision to put up my Hedonistic Orgy. 4 guys and 3 girls nude, in a daisy chain including homosexuality. Do you, Good Christian, say "My right to have MY WORKS displayed is being preserved. So I can and will accept this IN A PUBLIC FORUM." IS THAT TRULY THE STANCE YOU TAKE?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

establishment clause of the first ammendment.

maybe you could pick the constitution up and read it for yourself...


I'm familiar with what it says, but you said, "Seperation of Church and State". True that government cannot make laws establishing a religion, but you've yet to show me where people in government cannot be religious and must prohibit any expression thereof. In fact, the constitution according to this statement, PROTECTS the right of a person in government to express it. When a president says, "God bless America", that's well within Constitutional guidlines. Please try again.

And, as it is my Constitutional right to say this:

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Any religion will, due to circumstance, attempt to make itself the only dominion. It is a natural process, and ALL RELIGIONS do this. (Blanket statement, yes. But I'll lay the burden of proof on YOU to find me one that doesn't do what I'm about to describe.)


How about Indigo Children. You either are one or are not one, correct?

As far as the rest of your post, did you not read my response to you at all or do you just not care?

posted on 21-12-2005 at 10:20 AM Post Number: 1874258 (post id: 1896151)


[edit on 22-12-2005 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join