reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Jack says true religion is preaching to heathens on AboveTopSecret.com

A Christian has the holy Spirit of God within him to help him to discern matters on an individual basis. A man without the spirit is a dead man. Ephesians 2:1 "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" Now charity covers a multitude of sins but we are only saved by the blood of Christ. He so everthat believes he died on the cross as a ransom for sin and rose from dead on the third day; and then is Baptised in hs holy name recieves eternal life. The real church is not a organization it is a group of people much like in the first century son. Do not be confused and led astray by the politics and dogmas of man. Salvation is in your heart when you humble yourself and trust in Jesus. It is not the property of a system of men. You know about the Death Cookie don't you?












[edit on 16-4-2008 by Jack Thomas Chick]

reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick

---

Might want to chuck the scripture quotations and man-in-a-robe talk there, if your goal is to try to convert people. Speaking plainly and personally works far better for that end than diving behind the pages.

So with that in mind, let me again ask you.

With all the varied and often contradictory beliefs held by the many varieties of Christianity in the world, who has it "right" and who is, as you term them, "a satanist"?Pentecostals and the United Church of Christ can't both be right, much less Calvinists. So let's see some names of what Christian paths lead to god, and which lead... elsewhere.

Just a fair word of warning though, I fully embrace my heathenry. I just don't want you to be disappointed, y'know, if your attempt at namecalling fails to get much of a result.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, purportedly one of the oldest surviving texts, he realizes his clone, Enkidu, is dead. This bothers him greatly because he's 2/3rds "god", a nephilim, a hybrid human. Other than his mortality, he had pretty much the upperhand in everything else he encountered, but he couldn't stop his death as he had seen the evidence in the death of his clone - 2/3rds god was still not enough to be immortal. It's quite an interesting story.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by undo]

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Wrong "hence" WW. I became a Christian due to the evidence. First and foremost God answered my prayers and radically changed my life. It wasn't fear of death. It was gratitude to God.

reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick

---

You I have come across this particular brand of Christian foolishness not too long ago.
It was Halloween and some fool was giving those to children.
And in that book it said in a nutshell "Celebrate Halloween, die and go to hell." Which is a rather nasty mean spirited thing to give to a child.

So I emphasize the descriptive word foolishness as it is the nicest thing I can say about that particular piece of downright evil Christian propaganda.

Those comics are spewing intolerance. Which is a evil that mankind MUST rid itself of. Didn't your late JC preach tolerance even?

[edit on 16-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

---

so far as i know, the big J guy didn't preach anything about intolerance (the old testament is a different story)

but i want to agree. i got one of these things and a "accept jesus' love or burn in hell" pencil every year from one house (i went out of habit and hope that they might have real candy at some point). the kids were giving them out.

i was also spammed with chick tracts when i was in high school, it's why i turned down having a locker and carried all my stuff around for two years.
one of the most amusing ones is the one that calls D&D a gateway to satanism

Could i call you down from your christian high horse for a moment to remind you of some more atrocities

Hitlers armies with belt buckles reading "Gott mit uns" Slaughtering 6 million jews,

Cortez and the conquistadores wiping out a few "pagan" civilisations in south america.

the destruction and subjugation of native americans, aborigines, africans, indians and various other peoples standing in the way of the righteous non atheist white man and his money.

Vlad the impaler and his "forest" of 10000 impaled turk soldiers

the conflict in former yugoslavia

both gulf "wars"

the quashing of the cathar uprising in france

I do not think that because these things were committed by religious people that they necessarily represent the general beleifs of all the people within that faith, it is the individuals and groups of people pursuing their own agendas that are the source of evil and not the religion or lack thereof, whilst it is true that religion was often the excuse and was often condoned by popes or their equivalent we must not be so narrow minded as to tar an entire group with the same brush as the few individuals who are causing the damage

is it not a christian tennent that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" well my friend, no one belonging to any group, whether atheist or religious has the right to be casting stones. a minority of people are evil regardless of their beleif.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

I think it is true that he never really said the Aramaic equivilient to the word "tolerance" but it seems to me (Christian beliefs of course not being my domain) that tolerance is at the core of what he was talking about, the guy is said after all to eat with those most at the time considered not worth sitting down and eating with, taught love thy neighbor, and do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

But I could be wrong but I don't see a person who taught those things turning around and condoning any sort of intolerance.

I want to point out an obscure, at least to Jack Chick it seems, part of the way ATS works. These forums are NOT a bully pulpit to preach from. We are here to discuss, not lay down the law of a particular sect.

This is as public a warning as a person gets. Stay on topic, use whatever is to hand to defend your position, but the public posting of the intent to "preach to heathens on ATS" will result in your name and habits being called into question. Ask others, I am not given to being overly charitable towards "lawgivers" of any stripe.

Bear in mind, this is NOT just an American site, but an international site. Your opinions are valid only to the extent they resonate with those who care to think about them. But, this is NOT a captive audience for you to preach from.

I point out this:

We will discuss. Not be preached to; by you or no one else. And the calling of everyone who is not of your belief "heathens" is offensive.

This is not just towards Mr. Chick. We all know the rules. Civility and the golden rule.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by NGC2736]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

---

yep, exactly.

j man wouldn't have been down with intolerance, it's why i'm an atheist for jesus (with reservations about one or two things, but it'd be weird if i 100% agreed with anyone, wouldn't it?)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Generally when someone agrees 100% with something I generally find it to be forced, generally.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

---

unless it's free cake, but i digress

i think we've found through this thread that atheists may be airbrushing history, but not more so than any other group in particular

it's not because we're atheist, it's because we're humans and we have access to an airbrush (metaphorical one at least), not because we don't happen to believe in god.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

I can agree with that.
Cheers!!


But I think a sign of a good person is one that could admit that they have a bias.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Impact of Evolutionism on the History of Communism

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

Hmmm...I guess it's kinda lucky for you BW that film/video was only invented in the last century. Imagine the horrific scenes that could be posted of say - the storming of cities by the Crusaders, where they would maim & kill every last man, woman & child? Or perhaps the witch trials?

I really don't see the connection between 'communism' and 'atheism' any how. Besides, don't you realize that Jesus was basically a communist himself?? Yep - 'faid so. He lived communally, shared all his earthly possesions with his desciples, and epoused others to do exactly the same. Pretty well a textbook description of 'Communism'. Oh, the irony

J.

Atheist Atrocities: Frightening Stats About Atheists

YouTube Link

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

I kinda agree with this.



But both sides need to realize that. Just change the names. Cause it seems to be a favorite human silly past time.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

ugh, not this **** again. someone (in an attempt to convert me) sent this video to me (though their link was from godtube...)

there's nothing to prove that the "godless structures of man" are the cause of any of this. it's just a simple list of facts. it doesn't go into why those people were killed.

the simple fact is that there's nothing to show that atheists commit more atrocities than theists.

we're all human and all equally fallible.

and this video doesn't take 2 simple things into account: population size and killing methods.
i'm sure genghis khan's death toll would have been exponentially higher with an exponentially bigger population to slaughter and a bunch of ak47s
and if the crusades had the tech of the cold war? wow...i don't think we'd be left.

it also repeats many falsehoods. the chinese government didn't liquidate churches because of atheism, it was because the churches were a political threat. if those churches helped they'd get state funding....

[edit on 5/5/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Hold on. Isn't this the very reason for the freedom of religion guaranteed to us by the first amendment? Doesn't that also include the freedom NOT to believe in anything? And doesn't the first amendment also guarantee freedom of speech? Just because these so-called "radical atheists" call for the abolishment of all religions doesn't mean that anyone else has to agree with it. It is a point of view, and they have every right to express it--just as those of the opposition have every right to express their distaste for such an agenda. Religion will never go away; that's been proven by various regimes that have tried to terminate any religion. People believe what they want to believe, and that is one of the great things about being American because we allow people to believe what they choose to believe without being persecuted for it. Expressing disagreement with any religious view or philosophy is not persecution. It is simply expression.

But when we all try to make each other out to be the bad guy, we all lose something. Tolerance is the key. Personally, I have known some nonjudgmental Christians, but the few who are full of hate ruin it for those who are not. The same can be said of almost all religions or philosophies. When we all learn to accept that others do not have to agree with us, we will be better off. I just don't see why it is so important to anyone that his or her religion be the right religion. If you look at various religions throughout history, you can see threads of similarity in all of them. Why not celebrate that?

Sorry, but I have to make an objection here. It is entirely possible that I may be smarter or more rational than any other sinner. I didn't include "better" because it's not something I aspire to. But this kind of rhetoric is what makes it difficult for an Atheist have a meaningful conversation with you. You are aligning me with a "sinner" without even knowing what kind of person I am, aside from our spiritual disagreement, you may find that I have many qualities you'd admire and few vices to condemn.

Let's try this on for size:

You are no more pious, devout or righteous than the maniac bible freaks out there.

How does that sit with you?