Conspiracy against God

Blarg

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by newday

Individual words can mean whatever you choose to make them mean.

Well aren't you just the literary rebel. So there we have it. We can now officially throw the entirety of the English language (indeed, all world languages) wholly out the window because standard sets of definitions are moot when words can simply mean whatever the hell we happen to feel like making them mean at the time of utterance.

I believe it would certainly be easier to do that than to get you to admit that you're wrong and don't even know the basic English definitions of faith and belief.

Originally posted by newday
Believing is blind to a degree, but faith is positively evidence based, unless you want to merge the two ideas into one to suppress the truth in your mind.

I would like to see this evidence. No matter what you define faith as, doesn't matter. What matters is what is at the root of faith. If there's a lack of physical evidence, it's derived from emotional "evidence". When I was a Christian, the only 'evidence' I had was emotional, or at the most convoluted stories. I would tell people "I just know God exists, I can't explain it but I know it". Is this your evidence? Because if it is, I can tell you, through psychology, what this is, and why it holds no weight as far as evidence is concerned.

Originally posted by Ichabod
I've seen the tortured logic of science try to explain the creation of the universe, origin of life, and origin of species. If anyone here thinks the verdict is in, they need to go back to school and get their minds working again.

I agree, there are a lot of theories out there that are crazy. I believe that as humans, we are incapable of conceiving the complexities of the universe. In our pocket of the universe, physics only allow for the creation of something, not the infinite existence, and yet we know that something had to be infinite. It's as if we're inside a bubble with limited physics and have no way of looking outside that bubble.

Originally posted by Ichabod
I also believe people should be careful about discarding the faith of others.

I know where you're coming from. I also know that no matter how much I type or how much you type, neither of us will change our beliefs. I guess it just feels good to get your thoughts out there. I also like the idea of debating because it makes your arguments (and mind) stronger. Though I guess I did get a bit off-topic. I'm not even sure how that happened. Oh well.

reply to post by cirerr


So, Freud and Satan have something in common then - something called the ego? I always suspected that.

I thought you were going to tell us something interesting about how Jesus' teachings were different than or inconsistent with the Old Testament but you didn't follow that line of thought. Do tell, how is the teaching of Jesus in the NT a misunderstanding of his teachings or different that the OT?

Jesus taught that he was the way, the truth, and the life and that no man would come to the father except through him. This is realized with Jesus' death and resurrection, the sending of the holy spirit, and the belief, our faith, that Jesus was in fact a sufficient sacrifice for our sins.

Yes, there is an absolute separation between us and God - because of our sin. This is not some separation anxiety created by Freud's ego, this is separation.

Sounds like you're simply refuting either: a) that there is an afterlife, or b) that we're all sinners, or c) that somebody needs to pay for that sin before they commune with God, or d) that we can commune with God in the afterlife, or e) that we're actually here living one life and will die permanently.

Which one(s) are you refuting and what does your mountain metaphor have to do with that?

(By the way, I saw an excellent Imax film on climbing Mount Eiger in the Alps. Regardless of the point this gentleman is making, I highly recommend seeing it. Breathtaking video - I have nothing against mountains.)

reply to post by Lasheic


Perhaps Newday meant to express how communication via the written or oral word is limited in and of itself. Can one accurately describe an experience to another to the effect that the 'other' could experience or 'know' that experience in the same way? Impossible

Can one observe an animal in all it's essence and accurately describe/relay their experience of it? For this to take place, one would have to accurately describe how it smells, looks, feels, sounds and perhaps tastes. Again, impossible to accurately relay this information in words, whether written or spoken.

Now can one imagine attempting to explain the nature of the Creator (God) to another with what little they know of the 'nature' of the Creator? Using the written or oral use of words make explaining one's experience of God even more difficult to relay accurately due to the imprecise meanings and understandings of the 'words' one chooses to use as well as the syntax (or sentence structure) they choose to relay their 'experience' to another. Our concepts of knowing and loving are necessarily dimmed with our own finitude. The Creator (God) has an awe inspiring knowledge of the universe our minds could only begin to fathom. All a human can hope for is to advance ones understanding of the world through our personal experiential learning coupled with the empirical sets of knowledge recorded from other humans in the written or oral form.

How many times have mankind 'misunderstood' another whether through translation of the same language or translation to another language. Attempting to translate from one language to another rarely accurately translates the intended meaning.

The other issue is the communicator in question. This reminds me of the old adage "Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
www.phnet.fi...
This is my last post on this topic.
Preace Brethren.

i have to wonder if this conspiracy against god entailed agents masquerading as priests for lifetimes, molesting thousands of little boys and then getting caught all to cast doubt on catholic patriarchy.....or does religion just lend itself to more abuse than say evolution and having ethics?

reply to post by re22666


Of course this event has done a lot to foster the conspiracy and has been used to great effect by the enemies of God. Many say they won't believe in God because men misuse his name in open hypocrisy. The church is adding fuel to the fire because they've attempted to cover this up and pay off the victims, as if open sincere apologies and firing these vermin wasn't the obvious first step. The obvious second step was criminal prosecution.

So, these folks are guilty of some serious sins against God - they've allowed people to blaspheme the name of God because of their behavior.

Since it's obvious from what everyone says that this results in God hating, I have to admit it as part of the conspiracy - both the infiltration of the church by such demons and the liberal use of it by the media to manipulate public opinion against God.

Originally posted by Lasheic

Well aren't you just the literary rebel. So there we have it. We can now officially throw the entirety of the English language (indeed, all world languages) wholly out the window because standard sets of definitions are moot when words can simply mean whatever the hell we happen to feel like making them mean at the time of utterance.

I believe it would certainly be easier to do that than to get you to admit that you're wrong and don't even know the basic English definitions of faith and belief.

Thank you, I have never been called a rebel before, literary or otherwise, and you make me an official of the English language too, fabulous.

Why don't you believe to do both, that is make your words mean whatever the hell you want them to at the time of utterance, and get me to admit I am wrong and don't know the basic English definitions of faith and belief.

All words, like the two of us are using now are dead, they have no life other than what we give them.

I would like to say also that I am very thankful I never had much education, when it comes to the basic English definitions of most all words, there is nothing much really for me to throw out.

Not having to ever learn all that useless information has meant that there has been less to unlearn, so it isn't so much a throwing out of definitions as it is a not allowing them into my head to eat holes in my brain in the first place.

If you accept the official version of anything including words, then you are finished, you are already dead, you are only going to believe what has been scripted for you to believe in, nothing more, a victim of the conspiracy against God..

It is better to search for the truth and risk being wrong, than it is to only seek things that don't exist, like confirmation we are right.

You are apathetic, trusting authority to define the truth and what is possible for you, good luck with that.

The quantum nature of the universe is discussed in the bible in great detail, as it is in the Koran and numerous other holy things received by inspiration of God..

In english in the bible the word we read translated most often as, "believing, believe, or faith," is key to seeing this truth.

If you will accept that in certain contexts it is describing a universal governing law, not just an idea of the mind, like most authorities of all kinds would have us think regarding faith, you can understand and apply this law to prove the things of God and the spirit in real physical terms, anyone can, it is a law.

But I have no reason to believe you or anyone, who thinks there is no proof or evidence for the spiritual, will ever investigate and apply the law of faith, because it would mean first admitting that there are some things you are lying to yourselves about, and that you are using the authorities who offer you the lies, as an excuse for the occasion.

Originally posted by Ichabod
reply to post by re22666

 

Of course this event has done a lot to foster the conspiracy and has been used to great effect by the enemies of God. Many say they won't believe in God because men misuse his name in open hypocrisy. The church is adding fuel to the fire because they've attempted to cover this up and pay off the victims, as if open sincere apologies and firing these vermin wasn't the obvious first step. The obvious second step was criminal prosecution.

So, these folks are guilty of some serious sins against God - they've allowed people to blaspheme the name of God because of their behavior.

Since it's obvious from what everyone says that this results in God hating, I have to admit it as part of the conspiracy - both the infiltration of the church by such demons and the liberal use of it by the media to manipulate public opinion against God.

can you really call it infiltration by demons when the church itself had been conspiring to keep it such a secret for so long? would that not mean that every molester PLUS everyone above him that knew about it and kept it under wraps.

reply to post by re22666


Absolutely, I think they're all culpable and many are engaged in plenty of deception and are actively participating in the conspiracy. They compromise with their faith like a pack of politicians compromise with other people's money. Total hypocrites. Why the faithful of the Catholic church have tolerated it is beyond me. Maybe it's a good posting topic or a separate thread for this topic.

God is no respecter of men and I follow his lead.

The heart is deceitful above all things, desperately wicked, who can know it?
Jeremiah

Originally posted by optimistic skeptic
reply to post by Ichabod

 

To answer your question, I am content with the belief that if God exists and he created me (along with my "scientific" mind that makes me perhaps more skeptical of things I cannot see) then he will love me in spite of my faults.

Exactly.

Ultimate faith to me is believing in good intentions.

Being sad, upset, or fearful should be considering the worst affronts to God, being dissatisfied with the great system and the gift of existence.

Being positive and spreading positivity is real faith, everything else is man made semantics and bull#.

Originally posted by re22666



that is not proof

According to who? In a court of law this might be the very proof someone on a jury would be compelled to tilt in any direction depending on the case. Personal experience is often used as evidence in cases where TESTIMONY from expert witnesses is part of the process in determining a case and is used as proof and proof prima facia in some cases. Sounds like you are only willing to accept proof under your own definition so be sure to get an extra dictionary for yourself too.

i am afraid that baby would be left in the dark until it died and apparently went to hell for denying a god that is was never given a reason to know or believe in.

Proof? You realize you are guilty of the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent.

i cannot wait until christmas to get you a dictionary.." I am sorry, what you have is personal experience that to you is beyond a shadow of a doubt. unfortunately, that only counts to you, only proves things to you, and therefore is no more or less valid than my assertion that i have personal proof that there is NO god.

Yeah, that's what she was trying to tell you, weren't you reading?? Or is it you are (as usual) too busy looking for loop holes in peoples posts you can upstage them with your superior logic and intellect. You give the impression you have got it all figured out in every post I have read of yours. I don't know how you can stand living in world where you are surrounded by such idiots. It must be very difficult for you,, frustrating I imagine,, ya know,, knowing everything, or at least thinking you do.

Yeah that is the impression I get at least, am I right?







[edit on 8-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX


no, but anyone that says that they know someone else's most intimate thoughts is in no position to accuse anyone else of presumption. we already covered what you call 'proof.' how can you people continue to equate the bible with eyewitness testimony in court. that would work just fine if, the bible were a living breathnig eyewitness that was talking. it is not. i will try to explain this again. you go to court and try to win a case with this testimony -"i myself did not see it but it was written down 2000 yrs ago and passed through many different languages and owners before it got here but , ahem, here it is..."
see how the judge and jury are just wowed by that testimony. if you are going to take the time to assume to know me as well as try to 'upstage' me. please read back and see if i did not pre-emptively make you look stupid by already destroying the point you are about to make. if you get too lazy and what i said here confuses you, feel free to U2U me and i can say it a third time, slower and with many small words.
look, i did not proclaim to have it all figured out or to be simply looking for loopholes in people's posts. i feel the bible is the weakest piece of crap upon which to build any argument. i have my right to express that. if someone is to try to shut me up but explaining that i need to study the judiciary and educate myself on testimony (twice,) well i will be just as snarky back when i point out the huge flaws in that arugment. i am sorry that my opinion bothers you. perhaps i should not be posting on the internet in america with my own personal opinion.

reply to post by re22666


I enjoy this discussion. I think the veracity of these things should be discussed and questioned as long as people are seriously looking at the material and being honest judges.

One thought about this is to look at (to the extent we can) the behavior of the purported eyewitnesses after the main event. The disciples of Jesus would have been the best eyewitnesses to the NT events surrounding Jesus. Many of them are mentioned in the gospels and then several of them apparently wrote their own letters to various groups of Christians and Jews of the day. If you read them, they're certainly interested in some practical matters. Seems like a stretch to believe that this was all part of an orchestrated fable. If it is, it's the greatest piece of literary work in history written by dozens of different people. Granted, these things were copied and translated as are many history books. I guess I don't know of any other way to document something that is old. It certainly makes sense that multiple people would write about an event like that. If it happened to you, you'd write everything down you could think, correct? Would video have been more trustworthy? It has a shelf life also. And I doubt it would be trusted because in court people would attack the identity of the individuals in the video. Regardless, I'm not sure that necessarily corrupts the message but I suppose an information theory guy could weigh in on it. How much noise can a message have introduced and still be the message?

In the account about Thomas Jesus tolerates this kind of disbelief rather than simply shouting down Thomas. When he appears to the disciples, Thomas is full of doubt and Jesus effectively says, "O.K. - put your hand in my side." He gives him physical proof. So, Jesus himself was willing to do what was necessary to help Thomas believe.

Maybe he'll do the same thing for you. You certainly seem like an honest person so if God exists, maybe he'll make himself evident to you in a way that you can believe. If he did that, would you believe? What would it take?

reply to post by Ichabod


i guess my problem with the way you are looking at it is that i put absoloutely no veracity in the bible at all. at best, the bible was written by strangers 300 years after Jesus' death. just imagine if noone wrote down anything about 9/11 for another 300 years. id love to read that story. and at worst, it was a tightly knit cabal that got together and wrote it all and made it look like it was written at a different time, by different people. so the everywhere in between is not the most credible of places from which to tell tales as far as i am concerned. i guess i really have a problem with anyone putting faith in something that has been retold by the rulers and the elite throughout time, retold in ways that better suited their political motivations. and so many 'christians' seem to accept the fact that man has interpreted the bible so many times and they are following man's idea of what it meant. would that not be the easiest route for satan to turn souls away? i dunno, the whole bible is so full of holes that the fact that people defend good ol' english king james v 1.234345345345345345 as a word for word factual account of anything just kills me sometimes. i have no problem with faith, belief, even organized religion. but christians in particular put themselves out there and have the most to be quiet about. just take the fake war on christmas crap. even if there were, who cares. when do the jews get to start complaining about not hearing happy chanukah, or not seeing enough cardboard cutouts hanging up in windows and on and on. this is america right? the great melting pot. so we dont really see as much of any religion's winter celebration, not compared with christmas, yet we have to have every christian group across the country on Faux news crying that they went to wal-mart and were told to have a happy holiday instead of ...i guess happy jesus day. so they stand on their bible, shout over the crowd, and then when called to answer for their complete misrepresentations or innocent misinterpretations, the fight, get angry, lash out, preach, then scorn. it's just if you are selling a product and you have a terrible power point presentation, you shouldnt be a whiny jerk too, ya know. not you, but in general.
anyway, i just have alot of trouble believing the bible for so many reasons, but also, how do i know who really wrote the first draft. how do i know who really decided the criteria upon which to keep and reject parts. how do i know just what the true authors meant in their native tounge, compared with the sloppy english that has a chain of ownership too long to even NOT consider. so it is just much easier to dismiss that as fairy tales or mind control, until something, anything, comes along and shows me otherwise. i know it sounds closed minded but believe me, i am open to convincing, i have just given that a really good try already.



[edit on 8/9/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by re22666


I guess I'm just not that skeptical. When I read a compendium of letters purportedly from a guy named "Paul" who another part of the bible says used to be "Saul of Tarsus" who had this experience on the road, I read them. If Paul's letters were full of confusion and were internally inconsistent, I might be skeptical. Fortunately, they aren't. They read like a bunch of letters written by an inspired leader of the early church. The same thing holds true for books like Chronicles and Kings, Judges, Ruth, Ester, Daniel, etc. These don't read like fiction and they don't read like somebody trying to make a case for continued royal rule. Quite the opposite, they read like a good history book. Do they make fantastical statements? Absolutely. Who ever heard of someone surviving the night in a lion's den, or the walls of a city tumbling down, or a cloud of glory leading people out of bondage? Sure, very supernatural.

So, I would contend that manipulative fiction has many qualities that are not found in the bible. I would say for good examples of manipulative fiction, read the editorial pages of any major U.S. newspaper or its front page articles. haha

Anyway, I hope you find what you're looking for.

reply to post by Ichabod

not that skeptical? i can see your point and i would completely embrace it except for a few things. what language were those letters originally written in? were they then translated directly to the english you are reading? how many times were they translated before making it to english. how many people had a hand in republishing those letters with maybe a little reason to change parts of what they originally said? what are the chances that things were mistranslated? what about misinterpreted? sure if i had some letters from one person to another i might give them some validity. if what i had was thousands years of interpreting and translating those letters...im a bit less inclined to believe the fantastical claims therein, especially if they dont really make sense anymore.

reply to post by cirerr



i just had to comment on the post by Cirerr

i hope you get to read this , too cirerr

because i am very impressed

you explained some very difficult things to explain, and yet
i understood, and i learned alot

i like that.especially since it is a topic i thought i knew soooo
much about
since i am usually the one in my peer circle who is the one
teaching others about "life"
and God
and it was amazing to be able to have someone open my eyes even more,
and yet as was reading n learning....it just made so much sense.

Beautiful, really......i love life....
anyhow, this is all irrelevant to this topic...so ....i end it at that!


carry on!
....renee

Okay, I have a feeling that a lot of people aren't going to like what I say, but this is just my take on the whole issue.

I hate God. Pure and simple. Why? Well, because people like me have been slaughtered like animals for generations. What kind of person am I? I'm gay, a knowledge seeker, and someone with alternate views than what the bible indoctrinates. Not only that, but the deity of the religion, God, commands his followers to fear him. Okay... What now?

I understand that I can be christian and gay (there are quite a number who are out there), but there are two things that stand forefront to me when I look at christianity: 1) The bible (God's Word on Earth, as it were), namely Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man lies with mankind as he would with womankind, both have committed an abomination and shall be put to death, their blood be upon". In other words, homosexuality, in the eyes of the holy doctrine, is a sin punishable by death. Many argue that Leviticus is part of the Old Testament. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but it seems to me they're implying that because it's part of the Old Testament, it should be followed less than other books. Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but isn't cherry-picking through a holy doctrine like that, christian or otherwise, like trying to blind-side God or something?

Turning away from Bible Studies, let's look at the history of the religion. Since it began to become the dominate religion throughout Europe, the church has maintained a stance to try and convert and maintain people to follow its beliefs (maybe that's part of the human ego, wanting to be "right", I don't know). So, to attain that goal, wars were started, such as the Crusades, taking back the holy land and an attempt (at the very least) to stamp out the muslims, people with differing views on the spiritual world. Not only that, but "Lesser Crusades" have been an ongoing part of the church for centuries; mainly spreading the religion and stamping out local beliefs (example: the Christian movement in Asia and the Americas). Short of the long: The religion has always been hungry for more supporters and, to do so, has either converted the willing and/or stamped out those who tried to remain true to their faith. (Maybe I didn't explain that too well... Oh well, you get the general idea)

So, now the church has new followers. So, how does it maintain these new supports as well as old followers? Easy, bringing people under control by using their baser instincts. For example, inquisitions and witch hunts: people were tortured and/or threatened with death in order to root out so called "witches" hiding in the populace. This halfway goes back to the previous point, but now that the religion has been established in the region, the church is turning its suspicious eye on its own followers. Our basic instinct (like anyother creature on Earth) is to avoid pain, so the church used just that. People were tortured (or just flat out put to death, IE burned at the stake) just so that they would "admit" to being a "witch". But think about, if you were in unbearable agony, wouldn't want to try anything to get the pain to stop, even lie? Well, that's what a lot of people did to escape the pain or death. And what awaited these people after escaping the church's wrath? Social persecution and/or ostracization.

And, lastly, God commands us to love and fear him? Sounds similar to "Battered Wife" syndrome... To me, anyway. It just goes back to my other points.

So, however flawed and full of holes it maybe, here's my case. Make of it what you will.

I believe there is hatred for God because that is the way he created us! The Bible says so! I believe everything is happenning the way he wants it to happen, and all will be saved in the great white judgement. YES, EVERYONE!!! There is no battle between God and the devil never was. God created the devil to do what he does nothing more, nothing less! God is in control, this life is for learning or rather teaching or strengthening our spirit! the real school of hard knocks!