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.

 

Put your Crosses Up Fight the Evil. +

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
I don't mind some of the negative responses but God does exist and without a sense of God in society we can go back reinventing him and start worshipping either objects like the TV or the playstation or something.



There is no empirical evidence that any god exists. The very fact that the existence of god is debatable ought to be a red flag to you. Nobody debates the existence of gravity, the atmosphere, the moon, the stars or anything else for which we have empirical data but there is a very reasonable doubt that god(s) exist and as long as that doubt exists there can be no conviction. Furthermore "god in society" has done nothing for society except to breed division, bigotry, war and genocide.


Originally posted by The time lordEitherway you can not get rid of spiritualism and to take that away from people is just as bad one feels it is imposed by them.


Nobody is trying to take it away from you but religionists in America, xians in particular do indeed impose or try to impose their religion on equal citizens who want no part of it.

The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'

Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, etc.

Resource Directory for the New Apostolic Reformation

Palin's Churches and the New Apostolic Reformation

Joel's Army and The Call


Originally posted by The time lord
I don't see the problem, everyone should know about the Bible and history or spiritulism and faith but to take it away then some will have to put the crosses back up in defence.


Well take the blinders off so you can see for crying out loud! Oh and putting up your crosses doesn't scare unbelievers. It only makes you sound like a victim in a B movie thriller trying to fend off a vampire by jamming a symbol of state execution in its face. @@




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


I am surprised the group "The Family" has not had more exposure in the media. They really scare me and should scare most Christians also.


I also want to point out to the OP that the symbol of the Cross is older than Jesus and Christianity. Jesus was executed on a T shaped beam, not the cross that is seen in all the churches now. The ankh of ancient Egypt was a cross and symbolized life.

I have no problem with crosses being put up, but I do have a problem with the ones that show a man being tortured slowly to death on them. The Ancients symbol of life has now turned into a symbol of torture.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Empirical evidence is what allows science to make such thundering claims, unfortunately, it dismisses what can't be explained. For example, science can measure the seed, the seeds dna, the stem size and reproductive faculties, what nutrients are needed, what time of year and size the flowers will be, how it reproduces, and dozens of other low-level observations. It can analyze environmental systems, ecological impacts, nutritional values, and all other manner of mid-level conclusions. Since science has the plant so wrapped in empirical understanding it does not feel the need to answer the big questions about the plant and its impact, but it promises to get to these and more, as soon as we can measure it.

In the meantime we are expected to wait patiently, bogged down with concerns and "red herring" understandings about the plant and its role. What science can't answer, and makes it a very darkling study indeed, are questions like "what is the purpose of the plant", who loves it enough to enable its growth, why is technology given free reign when we know it harms natural creations, why do we cut its flowers to put them in vases based on human tradition, why are TPTB not caretakers instead of destroyers, and what good is the "greater good" if it tramples what is small and insignificant to them along the way?

When you march a scientific causeway towards a "greater good", you discard value every step of the way until all value is lost and the march becomes a degraded act of human pride, bolstered by the human qualifications that permit and uphold such direction. When the foundations of modern science have been proven to be the work of a vile master plan which supports non-ethical research, why do we base our professionalism upon such a rotted foundation?

Ideas control everything, and the devil rules culture. Yet I'm sitting at this desk next to a cake lamb with a yellow ribbon around its neck, in a sterile plastic package ready for consumption. Mutton anyone. Have you stepped on an ant today? I sincerely hope not. This is the arrogance modern science leads us to. Do you question the things I do?

If I could, I would dedicate the day to Forerunner777 on YouTube, a young black pastor who knows what's going on in the world today. I would dedicate the day to a fore-understanding of what's happening now, and although I viewed his videos months ago, they make more sense now.

Please reflect on the master plan, bloodline-supported, working through Lucis Trust and the UN and representing the theosophical beliefs of Alice Bailey, Madame Blavatsky, and the ordering behind a nwo system. Her master occultic spirit in charge of the Vatican is "Master Jesus", once again a double-think example which allows them to prey on modern Christianity, and speak of "Jesus" in two entirely different lights. They aren't lying! They too believe in a "Jesus", and have often talked about him - the Judas master spirit who will set up the NWO religion through Maitreya as current appearances present. Research, research, research!! This is not the Buddhist Maitreya, but Cremes version on SHARE International (another double-think hoodwink).

And I have one simple question for so-called scientists. Why is MSG found in chips, crunchie snacks, and a plentitude of snacks available To Our Children, In Schools, when it is dread hazardous to health. This is an FDA controlled substance, just like "SPICES", an umbrella term which allows hundreds of various compounds to be added. Yet you trust the science-approved FDA which costs hundreds of millions to actually pass a drug into being. Bad politics or bad science? Both, and full approval of both behind the scenes - a real tough tag-team.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The edicts, long-sown in our culture. I think this covers the tip of the iceberg. As outlined in Forerunner777's video on Youtube. I wrote these down months ago : I AM WRITING IN CONTEXT TO THE AGENDA AND AM NOT SUPPORTING THESE EDICTS.


1. Push God out of the schools. If the people grow up without reference to God, then they will consider God irrelevant to day-to-day life. in the last fifty years this has happened. God is irrelevant to most people.

2. Break the traditional Judeo-Christian family concept. Break communication between parents and children so that parents can't pass on spiritual values to their children. Do this by pushing excessive child rights.

3. Remove restrictions on sex. Sex is the biggest joy and Christianity robbs people of this. People must be freed to enjoy it without restrictions. It's not just for married, it's for everybody.

4. Since sex is the greatest expression of man's enjoyment of life, man must be free to express sex in all its forms. Homosexuality, orgies, even bestiality are desirable so long as no one is being abuses or harmed.

5. People must be free to abort unwanted children. If a man can have sex and then live without the consequences then the same should be true for a woman. A woman must have the right to abort an unwanted child.

6. Every person develops soul-bonds, so when a soul-bond wears out a person must be free to divorce. When one starts to grow, one must be free to get together with that person, even if they are married ...

7. Diffuse religious radicalism. Christianity says Jesus is the only way. Diffuse this by:
A) Silencing Christianity and
B) Promoting other faiths. The creation of interfaith harmony

8. Use the media to influence mass opinion. Create mass opinion that is receptive to these values by using tv film, the press, etc. Note well that what western believers call normal, in the African Church would be pornography.

9. Debase art in all its forms. Corrupt music, painting, poetry and every expression of the heart and make it obscene, immoral, and occultic. Debase the arts in every way possible.

10. Get the church to endorse every one of these nine strategies. Get the church to accept these principles and to say they are okay - the legal ground is given for these value to get a foothold.


What we see is the culmination of many slippery slopes. The devil rules culture, and it is the foul poisoned heart that many cling to for life. Sidestep culture, the western circus society and government, see past the upper hardcord face of socialist world government, and figure out what ideologies are really in place. Fast-track your educations, because the time is short! Don't get caught in culture or partisan politics which is nothing but divide and conquer, one citizen and their clique against another.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Empirical evidence is what allows science to make such thundering claims, unfortunately, it dismisses what can't be explained.


That just isn't true. Science has no problem admitting that there are things we cannot explain which are nonetheless borne out by experiment and empirical data. Consider the wave/particle duality of matter. This duality has been confirmed by countless experiments. It is not in doubt. Yet it can only be explained by the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. Every effort to make sense of it from a common-sensical point of view fails. We humans just cannot make sense of how elementary particles of matter can manifest as discrete particles existing at a certain place in time or as waves spread out in space and time depending on the experimental arrangement. It is bizarre! It is counter-intuitive! And yet confirming it experimentally is trivial. It is a fact.

Furthermore science has no problem in admitting that there are plenty of things we do not yet understand. There is still room for mystery. We stand in awe of nature but we have no particular affection for maintaining an air of mystery just because it feels good to be in awe. The quest for a scientific understanding of ourselves and our world goes on and if that turns mystery into the mundane, so be it. In the mean time we are not going to throw up our hands at what science cannot yet explain and fall back on primitive superstitions to fill the gaps in our understanding.

Let's get back to what I said about about empirical evidence. Most of the people who believe in god(s) just accept this as an idea. They do not have or seek any evidence to support this idea, they just believe it and we all know people like this who believe there is a god but it has no bearing on their lives. They are as irreligious and impious as any atheist. They just believe in a god and are quite content to give it no further consideration. Then we have the religious; the moderates, the fundamentalists and the mystics. These groups make very specific claims as to the nature of god and reality and claim to varying degrees to have real experience to back their claims. For them it is more than mere faith. They claim to "know" what they believe is "the truth". For them it is "self-evident".

Now let's ignore for a moment that after many millennia religionists of differing faiths cannot agree on the nature reality and focus on this aspect of self evidentiary experience, of being able to "know" there is a god. If the existence of god is so self-evident that otherwise average people can experience and know that god is real then confirming that ought to be trivial. Just as trivial as confirming that gravity is real, something anyone can readily accomplish. We find however that this is simply not the case. On the contrary what we find upon examination is that the claims of religionists do not accord with the shared reality of human beings and that in the end they do not differ from any other form of delusional ideation.

In other words what is self-evident, what anyone of reasonable intelligence can know upon examination is that religious "reality" exists only in the minds of the adherents. Though very real to the person experiencing them, they are neither in accord with or the basis of our objective shared reality. That being the case, religion is a private matter. It has no more place in public policy and dialog than do the hallucinatory experiences of schizophrenics and persons suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. In the public square we must meet and interact on the basis of our objective shared reality.


Originally posted by Northwarden
In the meantime we are expected to wait patiently, bogged down with concerns and "red herring" understandings about the plant and its role.


It's interesting that you should bring up this logical fallacy because that is what your reply amounts to. A red herring.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


"1. Push God out of the schools. If the people grow up without reference to God, then they will consider God irrelevant to day-to-day life. in the last fifty years this has happened. God is irrelevant to most people."

What about separation of Church and State? USA has Jewish, Muslim, atheist and many other students in today's schools to think about. Why support one religion and debase all the other beliefs? Religion should be done at home or the churches, not at school.

"2. Break the traditional Judeo-Christian family concept. Break communication between parents and children so that parents can't pass on spiritual values to their children. Do this by pushing excessive child rights."

I take it you have never dealt with troubled children who have been abused as toddlers. I have seen old cigarette burn scars and teenagers given to them at very young ages. Children need some protections and it is terrible to have to protect them from their own parents. Sad, but true in many cases.

"3. Remove restrictions on sex. Sex is the biggest joy and Christianity robbs people of this. People must be freed to enjoy it without restrictions. It's not just for married, it's for everybody."

This is nothing new. Most of our Founding Fathers had mistresses and many fathered out of wedlock children.

You are correct that controlling sex is what the churches are all about. They have never been able to do that fully even in their own church. Many popes of the past had fathered many children.

"4. Since sex is the greatest expression of man's enjoyment of life, man must be free to express sex in all its forms. Homosexuality, orgies, even bestiality are desirable so long as no one is being abuses or harmed."

Homosexuality is always equated with bestiality by some Christians. If two people love each other and are soul mates, why not let them have the full benefits of society?

"5. People must be free to abort unwanted children. If a man can have sex and then live without the consequences then the same should be true for a woman. A woman must have the right to abort an unwanted child."

Surprisingly to many, I am pro life in this argument.

"6. Every person develops soul-bonds, so when a soul-bond wears out a person must be free to divorce. When one starts to grow, one must be free to get together with that person, even if they are married ..."

Divorce has always been around. King Henry VIII was one to get a divorce instead of the usual annulment (the marriage never happened). I agree divorce rates are high, but that is something the people involved in the marriages need to work out. It is better to divorce than stay in a loveless marriage.

"7. Diffuse religious radicalism. Christianity says Jesus is the only way. Diffuse this by:
A) Silencing Christianity and
B) Promoting other faiths. The creation of interfaith harmony"

Again, there should be no promotion of any one belief in the school systems or the government. (I also believe churches should be taxed, but that is another discussion.) We are seeing what is happening all over the world as one religious group says they are the only way. Blowing up the infidel and killing others in the name of their one "true" religion. Mutual respect is a good thing here.

"8. Use the media to influence mass opinion. Create mass opinion that is receptive to these values by using tv film, the press, etc. Note well that what western believers call normal, in the African Church would be pornography."

I do agree that the more adult programming should be shown later at night. But I am opposed to censorship of any kind. I wonder if showing a young man being bludgeoned to death on a crime show is OK, but to show him stepping out of the shower is a sin according to your church?

"9. Debase art in all its forms. Corrupt music, painting, poetry and every expression of the heart and make it obscene, immoral, and occultic. Debase the arts in every way possible."

So is Peter Paul Rubens nudes considered immoral? And a nice jab at Paganism and Wiccans in here too. If an artist wants to make something obscene, go for it. Just do not use tax dollars to support it.

"10. Get the church to endorse every one of these nine strategies. Get the church to accept these principles and to say they are okay - the legal ground is given for these value to get a foothold."

The churches are opposed to all of these. They will never support them as they are good fund raisers.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Lilitu, I am not arguing that science is beneficial, it is, it can be. It was a God-given ability for All Of Us to embrace, so please take a step back from trying to prove that science is effective! As for the application of science, another matter entirely.

Observation is true science, and we can observe quite easily how exploited it has become - a tool in the hands of many. As a matter of priorities, I tend to avoid high-flung arguements here in favour of a realistic bottom-line. I could take days and research discrete mathematics, quantum physics, etc and try to "compete" with your obvious understandings in the scientific realm. But no, I appreciate what you know, and would rather support your understandings to the degree that they benefit others. A knife is a tool, used for chopping vegetables, or a weapon used for defence, or a weapon to use against someone. Common, simple, easy-to-understand explanations of science will do for me, because logic is a science too and also. There are rules against using a knife as a weapon, and it's illegal to use one as a weapon for most elements of open western culture. That is one example of the protection we have against a basic scientific invention being used for maligned purposes. Now let's bring up nanotechnology, and biological viruses. Here is a knife we can't see, and which we have only fledgling rules against in society. The rules have not been put in place, but the technology is wide-spread and in-use.

I am only one vote out of many, but where was my vote to say that this technology should have very stern regulations. Was I lazy to miss that referendum? No, there never was one. Nor for nukes, or any such monsterous invention that I/we don't agree with - it was before my time, but we most know the decision was never offered us. Further, scientists who invent something represent a ruling faction, that ruling faction has its own agenda, that agenda works on controlling principles, those principles are the matter to consider - Not the invention themselves. What is boils down to, is, were/are the principles that control the application of science in place to serve God, or to serve themselves. Were/are the principles in benefit for our fellow man, or were they to bolster the worldly strengths of corporations who seek power. Ah God - does He exist, or doesn't He. I'll simply say that the scientist who discovered more about the reality of this universe considered those findings theirs in too many cases, and used it for advantage over others instead of helping others, and serving their Creator. You can Believe whatever you want, but to approach spiritual matters from a scientific standpoint is Demented from the eyes of angels. Thought accredited to Emmanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell - despite his possible Illuminati connections (not sure, he seems very Christian-minded to me) he dialed the point well.

In light of what you said, I'd like to know under what moral authority you have us locked up under here.

"In other words what is self-evident, what anyone of reasonable intelligence can know upon examination is that religious "reality" exists only in the minds of the adherents. Though very real to the person experiencing them, they are neither in accord with or the basis of our objective shared reality. That being the case, religion is a private matter. It has no more place in public policy and dialog than do the hallucinatory experiences of schizophrenics and persons suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. In the public square we must meet and interact on the basis of our objective shared reality".

What is self-evident? What is self-evident about what exists in my mind? Our "objective shared reality" also Includes what is in my mind, and in yours
Perhaps you would rephrase that in a better sense, but it's not a fine summary in my opinion. Please consider this essay.

www.conspiracyarchive.com...


[edit on 4-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
In grade nine I studied an ethical essay which outlined the many-fangled paths of good and evil, enough to know that it can be examined from thousands of different angles. What is right for one person is not right for another. While one person sees "the greater good" in a high circle around us, others will look from a lower trajectory. There are regional divisions. What is "evil" to one person can be "good" to another, and so forth. This should not blind us to the fact that the same tyrants who formed universities also secularized science, politics, maths and all other
disciplines Away from Ethics, which ought to have tempered everything. I receive my ethical guidance from the Bible, but Gods laws were written in my heart and in every persons heart as an inherited truth of my condition. We Know what's right and wrong but refuse to listen, or are overpowered. Yet simple scientific observation shows me that other peoples inventions are having a drastic and negative impact on my life and those I care about, that science was for the greater good of another, or was designed to harm us deliberately. Oh, and it was a deliberate attempt to harm us! That's right, there is an agenda to depopulate the world! Mystery solved.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Hmmmm man and their scientific ways want God out of society, maybe because the world does know that God does exist and they only want to justify the wrong things they do. Hebrews 11:1.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Lilitu, I am not arguing that science is beneficial...In light of what you said, I'd like to know under what moral authority you have us locked up under here.


I have no idea what you are going on about. I am not arguing in favor of science or science versus religion.


Originally posted by Northwarden
What is self-evident? What is self-evident about what exists in my mind? Our "objective shared reality" also Includes what is in my mind, and in yours


You are confusing objectivity with subjectivity. Our objective shared reality are those phenomenal aspects of reality upon which we all agree. Your inner world of religious experience is entirely subjective because nobody but you experiences it. It is not a part of our shared reality.

Now you can find other religious people who can concur with your description of your inner experience. They may say it's just like their experience but in reality, it is not the case. Basically all you are doing with such a person is agreeing on the meaning of the words used to describe the experience, not the experience itself which exists only in your mind. Indeed, descriptions of such experiences are typically accompanied by a great many use-mention errors (the confusion of a concept of a thing with the thing itself). Just because two people use the same or similar terms to describe a religious experience does not mean they share the same experience. We cannot grow society based on a foundation of ephemeral fancies, imaginings and bronze age superstitions.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Lilitu]




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join