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.

 

A Consipiracy Of Brainwashed Christians?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
The last thing I want to do is offend anybody for their choice of religion, but I have a burning question that I think is a serious one and that no Christian has been able to answer for me yet. Here goes. If a group of people have been going to a church for several years, and in that time they have watched as many people approach the priest/pastor to be touched and receive the power of the lord, and these people fall the ground, my question is this. If the priest/pastor was fooling around sexually with children during the day, did these people fall to the ground because they wanted to believe so much they convinced themselves something was happening, or that the power of god didn't mind passing through a pedophile? And does this mean that all these people have been instructed over the years by the very ill priest/pastor has been tainted? I really don't mean to pick on Christians, it's just that every time I walk into a church it seems as though they are all running on the same program, in that their ability to question has been stripped from them. So how does the answer come about? That people are lying about feeling god? Or that god will work his power through a sexually sick person. And please, let us not argue whether this happens or not. They are getting done all the time for messing with kids. If you can't be safe in the house of the lord, where can you be safe? And if it is just a building, then why tell all to go there every Sunday? Or is Christianity some sort of strange conspiracy to strip the masses of their ability to question what is happening around them?




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
sorry about being in the wrong forum people... but still curious as to the answer...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Of course you didn't mean to pick on Christians...

What was that percentage of priests who do molest children to those who do not? Oh, it's right about at the national average for people who molest children vs. those who do not? How many folks make the news these days for molesting children? If they don't murder the poor child afterwards, none, save priests. Why is this?

There are several reasons. First of all, a priest is supposed to be someone you trust, and who is better at fighting such sick actions than others. For some reason we, as humans, like to see people fall from grace. The news covers some pretty petty crimes when it is someone we think highly of. When it's Joe Blow next door, though, the media doesn't give a krump. When those people we think highly of do something good, the media doesn't give a krump, either, because that's just expected and doesn't get ratings.

This causes a skewed perception of reality, though. We see all these stories of priests molesting children, nothing concerning priests doing any good, no day to day folks like you an me molesting children except the occasional blurb in the local paper for really nasty ones, so therefore most priests must molest children.

The other aspect is that the vatican did try to cover it up, and everybody loves a good conspiracy theory, especially the media. So the fall from grace compounded by the coverup ensures every instance is going to make at least the local 6 o'clock news.

So now you really have to ask yourself, is it Christians who are brainwashed because they believe in God, or is it you who was brainwashed by a message the media sent out causing you to believe it was the majority, instead of a small, small minority accused (much less convicted) of sex crimes?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Thank you, Jake. Could not have said it better myself.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
As usual the Christian way of things, completely ingore the question and babble on about some inane drivel trying to make out the christianity is so super that it can do nothing wrong (and the people who run it).
Cyberfenix says "if a group of people" and "if the priest" was a paedophile then how would God be able to work through the priest to heal/whatever the group of people. Therefore either God doesn't care whether the priest is a sick f**k or the people are believing that God is working through the priest( a kind of placebo effect if you will)


Originally posted by Cyberfenix
And does this mean that all these people have been instructed over the years by the very ill priest/pastor has been tainted? I really don't mean to pick on Christians, it's just that every time I walk into a church it seems as though they are all running on the same program, in that their ability to question has been stripped from them. So how does the answer come about? That people are lying about feeling god? Or that god will work his power through a sexually sick person. And please, let us not argue whether this happens or not. They are getting done all the time for messing with kids. If you can't be safe in the house of the lord, where can you be safe? And if it is just a building, then why tell all to go there every Sunday? Or is Christianity some sort of strange conspiracy to strip the masses of their ability to question what is happening around them?

You haven't answered anyone of these questions and you wonder why religion annoys.




G



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Yes, I have. The contention was that the majority of people in the role of Christian leaders are child molesters, which is not true. If you want to know if a sinner can be used by God...Well, you be the judge. How many perfect people do you know? How many people helped you to grow as a human being? So yes, God can use even sinners to do His will. If He couldn't, He wouldn't be able to do much on this earth.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I appreciate all the replies so far. However, I hope you didn't understand me to mean that I believe all priests are perverted. Not at all. In fact I am more than aware of how much good the church does and that there is a small number of bad apples in ANY community. However, unlike most aspects in life, the church is a place of GOd, and within the walls it is often said that miracles happen. Now my question was, and still is, have the people that fall at the touch of the priest had the power of god moved through a sick individual, or have those persons wanted to believe so much they have brought it on themselves? I for one do not wish to believe that God would allow a child molesterer to fool with kids during the week and then bring the touch of God to others on the weekend who have brought themselves to a building that they believe is safe. I have respect for the church, but is saddens me when I hear tales of this, for this simple reason being, if a child cannot be safe in a church, a HOUSE OF GOD, then where can this child be safe? And my other question was, if it is only a building and not supposed to be anything more, then why the ceremony of attending the building every Sunday and such? Surely God can be spoken with through the heart from any location? I am not bashing Christians or the church, because the church has done a lot of good in this world. (and some would say bad.) What I am concerned with is the manner in which no Christian is able to answer the above questions. It will always amaze me that they will stare me in the eyes and tell me that it is all about faith, and give me quotes from the bible, anything to avoid the question. Well a lot of little children had faith. Who will answer their questions? Now to make it clear, I understand this is a HUMAN problem and not a religious one, because my questions are designed to try to understand the human behaviour with regards to a choice in religion. A church is not a corner store, school or family home. It has been represented in society by the church as a place of safety, of spiritual possabilities, and GUIDANCE by people that are supposed to be ANNOINTED by God. So if this person is fiddling with kids, how is it that a SPIRITUAL place can be so easily tainted? I love God, and all of creation, and understand the human being is a fragile one. But still the questions need to be answered. I DO NOT belive all priests are tainted, but you cannot deny their role is considered especially important to a religious community. I wish to offend no individuals, simply open a discussion to try to understand this problem with its spiritual dilemna.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
For whatever it's worth--I think it more of something like a threshing machine or similar mechanism for separating the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'
or, perhaps
showing to all, at some point in the future, just how incapable our human eyes really are as far as discerning what is truly after our best interests as well as those around us...

or as Paul called it--

'strong delusion that they should believe a lie.'



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
what scares me is that it is our human eyes that let us down sometimes, as well as our hearts. People sometimes will look to gifures of authority for guidance in this strange dance called life, and my only concern is that if a priest/pastor is aware that perhaps people are bringing themselves to collapse for the wrong reasons, then isn't it their job to bring a sense of real truth to the people that come to them for guidance? I would hope the church would be such a place, and the spokes people for religions, however I personally don't see this. I guess what upsets me a little is that still nobody is able to answer the question without becoming defensive, when there is really no need to be defensive when it is only the truth that is being searched. As a human being I worry about other human beings that might be misled even if it is felt that a slight misleed is still good for them. Am I making any sense? I hope so. I guess the original questions weren't the easiest to answer, but that doesn't mean that by answering them society might gain a closer relationship with the truth.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
woops.. last sentence I meant by answering them I we have a chance at gaining a better relationship with truth



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Just out of curiosity would a paedophile priest who for arguments sake beasted kids for about 40 -50 years be allowed into heaven if he repents on his deathbed?


G



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

...have the people that fall at the touch of the priest had the power of god moved through a sick individual, or have those persons wanted to believe so much they have brought it on themselves?


The answer is simple. The healing of these individuals was pre-destined by God, long before they existed.

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:4-5

If the Lord knew this about Jeremiah, and have no doubt he knows the course of everyone's life - good or bad. No doubt, you will ask for some substantial proof of what I say. I offer none except this scripture, my own faith and belief in God and his abilities. If that is not enough, so be it.

In the end, it all comes down to free will. God has the ability to make you sin free. He has the ability to change your life at this very instant. But he doesn't. He gives you the great gift of free will to make choices on the course of your life. Do those choices impact those around you? Sure. Do those choices impact the choices of others? Sure. But every single event that occurs on earth is already known by God. He is not pointing his finger and saying "Joe wins the lottery today", or "Mary gets raped today". All those events were pre-determined long before the Earth was created, and are directly controlled by the free will choices made by every other human who now walks or has ever walked the Earth. In the end, you will be held accountable for the choices you made.

Does God want a single hair on an innocent child touched? Absolutely not. But in order to prevent it, he has to remove free will from someone at some level at some point in time, and I don't believe that God will do that.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
It isn't really fair to pose a hypothetical about a child molesting priest through whom miracles flow. You need to actually present a specific case for such a question.

However, from a Christian perspective, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". So, anyone chosen as a conduit of miracles is by definition unworthy of administering them.

You have to ask why god needs such conduits in the first place. Can't he just directly perform these miracles himself using a disembodied hand that floats around the room whacking people on the forhead if that's how such magic works?

Of course, the simpler answer is that none of it is legitimatly divine.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberfenix
what scares me is that it is our human eyes that let us down sometimes, as well as our hearts. People sometimes will look to gifures of authority for guidance in this strange dance called life, and my only concern is that if a priest/pastor is aware that perhaps people are bringing themselves to collapse for the wrong reasons, then isn't it their job to bring a sense of real truth to the people that come to them for guidance?
So many people aren't even truthful with themselves (which is a prerequisite first and foremost for all of us) and so even though they more than likely have the best intentions (those very same type of intentions with which they say 'the road to hell is paved') they don't even realize they are not capable to helping another come to terms with their own perspectives--they have no view but inside looking out. Doesn't make it 'right' nor does it make it 'wrong.' But it is what it is--often called the 'human condition.'


I would hope the church would be such a place, and the spokes people for religions, however I personally don't see this. I guess what upsets me a little is that still nobody is able to answer the question without becoming defensive, when there is really no need to be defensive when it is only the truth that is being searched. As a human being I worry about other human beings that might be misled even if it is felt that a slight misleed is still good for them. Am I making any sense? I hope so. I guess the original questions weren't the easiest to answer, but that doesn't mean that by answering them society might gain a closer relationship with the truth.

Your questions are not offensive, but the defense comes from the fact that the honesty with one's self is lacking, just as I said. That's the tell-tale sign. We only get offended when we feel we have something we must guard or protect--and the truth needs no security (it is security, itself) but secrets and our mechanisms for avoidance are what we jump to defend. It's not something we are aware of--because the moment we truly become aware of some certain insight about self-delusion, its days become numbered immediately. But that's the whole catch-22--we can't see that we don't see because we can't see.

But for those that seek guidance in religious leaders there is only one answer as far as finding out the truth by way of seeking it spiritually. The bible says it plain and clear--God is accessible within us--we have been given all we need, each and every one of us. But we don't trust the words of the One whom we claim to 'believe in.' The very middle verse of the bible is Psalms 118:8.

'It is better to trust in God than to put your confidence in men.'



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
If things are predetermined then I am at a loss as to how free will comes into play... also, the list is endless of tainted priests and while I do not believe this reflects anything to do with religion I am still curious as to whether or not the profound experiences that people feel at the touch of priests is real or placebo induced. I still think it is the role of the church to allow us a greater connection with the truth, and singing and dancing and people falling all over the place doesn't seem to fit with this idea. ANd in regards to free will, I can't help but feel a lot of people put their faith both into GOd (which is a good thing) as well as the preacher (which is a bad thing). Because IF the preacher is tainted, so to is the teachings of the innocent who walked into a building for a better relationship with God. It seems sometimes they would be better to develop their relationship at home, through their hearts, and not hand on the every word of a sinner.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The percentage? 2-3% last I heard. So JJ, do 2-3% of the people molest kids?

Also, faith healing is BS, it is a scam, and it is murder! "Gee, I don't need treatment for my cancer anymore, the pedo healed me!" 2 days later dies from cancer.

Edit: Links. Also, 2=3% of a group that is suppose to NOT HAVE SEX! is 2=3% to many! Especially when there are over a billion of them, that makes 20-30million of them molestors. Yet they are so Holy! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Also, who gets the blame? GAYS! Pedophilia has nothing to do with the sex of the child, or shrinks claim this anyways. So now the church is going after gay priests, which doesn't make sense. You can't have sex, therefor how can you be gay/straight? Also they expel gay priests, because everyone knows unlike pedophilia which is cured by moving the priest to a different church, being gay can't be cured.

www.boston.com...

slate.msn.com...

ktla.trb.com...

alterboys.tripod.com...

www.religioustolerance.org...
Oh for those who think this just happened in the past 5-10 years, priests and the church have molested kids for centuries!

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Full Metal]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
First, most catholics and anglicans don't put much stock in "faith healing" by a priest or other leader laying on the hands. The people who believe in such things are generally referred to as "Pentacostal," in reference to the miracles that are related in the book of Acts, concerning the birth of the Church.

Most pentacostal Christians have a "low" view of clergy. By that I mean, they don't care whether or not the cleric has attended a seminary, or has even been officially ordained as a minister by a denomination. A lot of their leaders just "set up shop" in a vacant building and hang out a shingle.

Now, all that being said, it is true that most Christians believe the Holy Spirit operates through (flawed) humans in the course of sharing the gospel.

The real question, I take it, is this:

Does the Holy Spirit flow through a vessel (person) who happens to be guilty of grievous sin?

This issue came up VERY early in the church's history. When Christianity was still illegal, some priests who had been arrested and tortured by the Roman state had renounced their faith in Christ. Many Christians of that time considered this an unforgivable offence; since many others allowed themselves to be tortured to death rather than renounce Jesus or "name names" of the underground church.

Once Christianity was officially legalized, some of these priests wanted to be re-instated. The issue festered for over a hundred years. The nascent See of Rome, the future Papacy, ruled that it was the office, and not the individual priest, that was used by the Holy Spirit. (More importantly, the See of Byzantium agreed; this was more important because THEY were the premier Archbishopric as capitol of the New Roman Empire.) Thus, if you were baptized by a wicked priest, or recieved communion when he had presided at Mass, you still recieved spiritual benefit, while the priest was heaping increasing judgment upon himself for hypocrisy.

There were a LOT of Christians who disagreed with Rome, and more importantly, with Constantinople. In Asia, they followed a leader named Montanus, who maintained that your blessing was qualified by the person it flowed through. He and two female consorts claimed to get messages direct from God. Although true montanism dissappeared within a generation from most of the empire, the question of Spiritual authority gave the name "montanist" to a variety of philosophies.

Montanus' adversaries had claimed that he was without authority because he had never been ordained. He responded that he didn't need a bishop's approval to prophecy in God's name.

The Montanist church became very large in Africa. Like much else in classical Christianity, though, it was swept away by the tide of Islam that eradicated Christianity from all of Africa except for a tiny minority in Egypt.

As an historical sidenote, a lot of anti-christian rhetoriticians on ATS act like Christianity is monolithic, and unchanged over 2000 years. Clearly, that is not the case. It happens to be, along with the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) Church, the only forces in the west that could stand up against both Vandal and Muslim invasions.

The pentacostal churches (the ones which claim to heal people by hand, etc.) have clear affinities with the Montanist sect of early Christianity. They believe that God is revealing "New Gospel" in an ongoing way.

I think a pentacostalist would say the sin of the leader DOES affect the blessing.

I suspect a catholic would say that such "blessings" are outside the church proper and so are not real in most cases any way. They WOULD argue that the blessing they get from Mass comes from GOD ultimately, and not from the officiant (priest), so the individual worshipper is not responsible for discerning someone else's interior spiritual state.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I really appreciate the comments. I definately agree tis better to look to God and not to man, and I feel I have learned a little with regards to the fact that such issues have been discussed in the history of the religion. It is more than refreshing to hear that some of the ceremonies of the church are being questioned by Christians. I guess this is where I was so suspicious, that people on a level of trust in an institution that is based on truth can, by the structure itself, find themselves in somewhat control of the thinking of others. And here I was thinking that these sorts of questions I would never find any attempts and answers for. Maybe at the end of the day it is just common sense to agree that there is a BIG division between God and Man, and this I guess leads to that big question of what exactly is the role of the church in the first place? But not sure if that is for here.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
It seems like the place to me.

The teachings of Jesus in the 4 canonical gospels stress the idea of a community of followers. The book "The acts of the apostles" which immediately follows those gospels, lays out the story of Jesus' original followers, and how they tried to maintain this community as it spread to other cities around the Roman Empire. In Acts, the Spirit is manifested at one of these gatherings of people who come to hear from Peter why Jesus really was the prophesied savior.

Most world religions began as an attempt to found a community of love that would make it easier for followers to stay on the right path. Islam definitely has this concept. So do Judaism, Buddhism, and even Taoism, although Westerners don't usually think about it that way.

The idea is that the followers are supposed to help each other stay on the right path; and help each other in times of oppression.

During the protestant reformation in the 16th century, reformers like Calvin started differentiating between the official institution and the spiritual bond between all believers. They called the second one the "invisible church" and thought it was much more important. They made a lot of jokes in Latin that Jesus had called his followers to AMOR (love), while the institutional church had become the exact opposite: ROMA (Rome, the catholic church).

Most newcomers to ANY spiritual discipline want to go live in a cave by themselves on a desolate mountain-top, so they won't be "polluted" by the worldlings around them.

Religious leaders of all stripes have always stressed that true religion consists in serving other people, not in avoiding them.

The whole Christian emphasis on preaching is supposed to remind you of the parts of the Bible you'd rather not think about. It's such a thick book that people tend to hunt and select the only parts they want to live out in the world.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
great words for me to think about. I've got this overwhelming feeling it's time to pick the negatives in myself before I continue to cast stones....




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join