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.

 

Former evangelist: Religious right is 'trawling for assassins'

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by AshleyD
 
This is the only way liberals can fight back,they can't argue with facts or logic if they do then everyone would know there real agenda, to have there way or ruin it for everyone else.I love when the Christian hateing libs do this so blatantly, it shows who they really are as people.Totally insecure about everything but there hate.

Madcow is the perfect example of the liberal left in altering the truth to meet the needs,her and NBCs rattings show it.

I can't help but wonder when the last time Madcow codemmed the Muslim extremist or anyone on NBC for that matter.



Well it's not just "Madcow" but if you had of read the article it was an exChristian Evangelist making the charge. "Madcow" was just reporting it.

And I sense a bit of hate in your post also. You act like it's just the liberal left that hates. Conservatives......hypocrites much.

And perhaps you should review this as to #5.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 
What it takes is a person to take a religious book,any religious book and twist it the way they need to meet there needs.

If you lean towards hate ,you will see hate,if your not full of hate you see the verse for what it is,nothing other then a tackyattempt at hopeing Obama is a one term president.

That being said,I do see your point and it leaves room for thought if it was directed to someone I cared for.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


there not different - they are the same , christian terrorists have bombed / burned and murdered just as much as the others.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 
Im not talking about them.My question was ,how does the religious fanaticism differ from what "YOU" are preaching.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I would just like to take this opportunity tell everyone that this is the most corrosive and explosive type of debate there can be. A combination of Religion and Politics.

If you would like to visualize this, take oil, heat it to it's auto ignition point, then toss some cold water on it. That is what happens when you mix Politics and Religion. It's a huge mess and everyone gets burned.

Just thought I would throw that out there, it's a dangerous mix. Just know you have been warned.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
arg. these people are not 'trawling' for assassins. they found 1 verse that speaks about someone's days in office being short and thought it was funny. anyone who saw this section of maddow's show know that SHE was the one who took the t-shirts and merchandise out of context by siting versus near to the one in question that spoke of a leader's death. there's a reason why people picked the verse they did, it fit. the fact that a nearby verse speaks of death doesn't mean anything. maddow is attempting to generate controversy out of nothing.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I would just like to take this opportunity tell everyone that this is the most corrosive and explosive type of debate there can be. A combination of Religion and Politics.

So,what do you recommend peole talk about?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 



So,what do you recommend peole talk about?


Oh, by all means discuss, just know what your dealing with is all.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 
I read the artical and Maddow(for you)is the one who took what was said by the exChristian and ran with it.In NBC the hate flys when you don't agree with them or this administration,this is there whole format,watch them sometime,if you don't already

No hate here,just an observation of facts,trying to deny ignorance where I can.

You brought conservatives into this,do not assume....makes you look foolish.

WOW #5.I have to agree but if the mods enforced it ALL the time I doubt there would be much to some threads.Just an obervasion.By the way,could being accused of "hypocrites much"(what ever that is) fall under good old #5??




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


so you have an issue with wanting peace then? why are you supporting terrorism?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Kinda a shame,the two things that affect people's lives the most are the things that some people are afraid to ever speak of!

Anyway,glad to see that smile at the end of your sentence! For a second there,I thought you were saying something along the lines of,"Can't we all just put aside our differences and get along?"

(Like that's ever going to happen!)



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 
Man ,you just dont get it do you,more to the point you don't want to get it.Now your trying to turn you rage on me by saying I don't want peace.

How are YOU any different then the fanatics when you want to do to them the same thing you say they want to do to everyone who does not agree with them??????????????????????

How much more clear do I have to make the question.

Ya,Im reading your mind Ashley,just let it go,there is no netural ground here.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think a big portion of the issue here is in the presentation.

AshleyD brings up an interesting point with her plaque that reads "Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.". She openly admits that it's taken out of context (in regards to the actual story of Joshua 24); however, when printed 'as is' it makes a nice Christian knick-knack where most would have no clue that it's referencing picking sides before heading off to war.

Now imagine if that plaque merely read "Joshua 24:15" and nothing else. Friends and relatives might have some interesting questions once they looked up the verse for themselves. By simply referencing the book, chapter, and verse one inherently implores the reader to find the context/meaning of the verse, and that's a notable distinction.

If the marketers' products said...

Pray for Obama!
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. ~ Psalm 109:8

...then they take the passage out of context, and make a novel, though tasteless, "joke"; however, when they force the reader to see the verse in context first, one walks away with the actual meaning, and the implied threat in "May his days be few", simply by viewing Psalm 109:9 in the process.

Sure, people can come tongue-in-cheek and claim "But Psalm 109:8 is a harmless verse!"; however, the merchandise doesn't quote this verse anywhere. It merely references the verse, and then forces the reader to look it up and see it in its actual context (where it's anything but harmless). To then expect the reader to twist the verse back out of context, after forcing them to read it with its correct meaning, seems quite disingenuous. This does little more than to add a bit of shameless "plausible deniability" to what can easily be viewed as an implied threat.

[edit on 11/20/09 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


No the quote is Psalms 109:8. You cannot add 109:9 when they are not quoting it. When you do this you are clearly trying to spin it in the wrong direction. Either get the quote right or stop debating it. The quote is 109:8 not 109:8,9.

109:8 clearly says “let his days be short and let another take his office”. Please stop adding to the quote what is not being quoted. Again this seems to be a problem with the secular world as well as nut cases who would like to spin things to their liking.

It seems you might be the one letting your ideology get in the way of common sense.

Raist



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


No because I believe in looking at scripture from the individual stand point. But since you want it that way why are you not quoting all of 109 and not just the verse after 109:8?

But again the secular world wants to make things into what they want just as any nut job would. You can read anything into this you chose to. I chose to read the scripture quoted and think of it as someone getting in office in 2012 other than Obama.

Actually my pastor uses single verse quoting in many of his messages. I see nothing wrong with single verse quoting. The bumper stickers and such quote only 109:8 take it for that or why not quote all of 109. Heck for that matter why not quote Psalms in general?


The point is if you want to use the context thing the question is where do you start and where do you end? What message are you trying to portray? See that is the difference. Those who chose to not understand will not understand and make it say what they chose.


Raist



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Why are you quoting more than the bumper stickers are?

They quote only 109:8 and nothing more. Again why is everyone adding stuff that is not there?

I believe it might be because they do not understand and chose not to. Because if they understood they would see the quote for what it is 109:8 and nothing more.

Again the secular world and nut jobs read into scripture whatever they chose to read in it.

Raist



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
No the quote is Psalms 109:8. You cannot add 109:9 when they are not quoting it. When you do this you are clearly trying to spin it in the wrong direction. Either get the quote right or stop debating it. The quote is 109:8 not 109:8,9.


Incorrect, and there's the crux of it. They didn't "quote" anything; they merely referenced Psalm 109:8.

Read the post above yours to see why that leads to a notable distinction.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


This post summed it up quite well.

If they had just meant it to be that line they would have put in just that line. The way they have this printed it urges people to look it up for themselves. Well once you do that you can see that it goes well beyond the "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

Of course even if it was referencing just that line you would also have to ignore the fact that when the bible talks about "his days", it means the length of a person's life. So if we are just to take this one line as written it still says that they hope he dies.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


True they are not quoting it. You are correct there and it was my error. But the reference is simply 109:8. Those who chose to turn it into something else by reading the rest would do so anyway. This was my point the secular world and nut jobs will do this. Those who understand will not. Sort of an inside thing I guess.


Just like when John 3:16 is referenced. Everyone including many in the secular world understand you only read John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

That verse is so famous everyone knows (for the most part) to only read that verse when it is referenced. For the most part most people are smart enough to figure out to only read what is referenced. But many in the secular world chose not to and nut jobs will turn it into what ever fits their needs regardless.

Raist



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Read the post below yours.

I believe it sums it up quite well.

You can read into his days what you want or what you chose to read in it.

The only question is where do you stand on those choosing to read it as you are? I would assume you are just of the secular world. I doubt you are the latter.

Raist




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join