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.

 

Christianity to control the masses?! [rant]

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Lately I have been seeing more and more atheists argue about Christianity with lines similar to the following quote:

god was thought up to explain why things happen, and to control the masses.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I really wonder how much thought went into these rather simplistic opinions.

First of all:
God existing explains why "things" happen
The existance of God often brings up more questions than answers and unlike Atheists, our view on life and death is a very complicated one that leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
It's very easy to say that Christians do not only become ignorant because of their religion, but also long to stay ignorant because of their religion.
It's also very untrue.

Christianity was created by humans to control the masses
One look in any of the historybooks learns that Christians and Christianity in general was always seen as a threat and even feared by leaders and authorities. A lot of emperors saw Christianity as a direct threat to their power, and captured, tortured and killed Christians. (Nero was not the only one)

In fact, in a lot of countries the authorities still fear Christians, and churches are still forced to have gatherings in top secret, to prevent being captured or even killed. (nepal for example)
The period of time in which the bible was written and the amount of people that wrote the bible make it almost impossible for the bible to be a conspiracy to control the masses.

If you still think Christianity controls the masses, open the bible and read it.
You will find several stories about people not obeying their king/emperor, because of Gods laws.
If you want to control the masses, it's much easyer to make sure everyone is Atheist, because Atheists will not compare your laws to the laws of their God, and they will do anything for you in order to prevent being killed by you.

One more thing, the church is not the same as Christianity.
What "the church" has done wrong in the past and what people do wrong today in the name of God, has nothing to do with God or what's in the bible.
Burning women because they seem witches is not result of what's in the bible, it's result of the devil working through people to destroy the Christian religion.

KKK, mormons, the ephraim cult, Jehova witnesses, all examples of people that are inspired by the devil to use the bible for their very unchristian religion and way of life, without them being aware of it.
The supposed conspiracy of Christianity is really a conspiracy against Christianity, created by something smarter and older than any of us, Satan himself.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Jakko]




posted on May, 24 2004 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Control the masses? ?????

Well Christianity is the greatest teaching on earth, but you will be hard pressed to find a genuine Christian, especially today.

Lets see....the message of Jesus to control the masses, what did Jesus teach?

1) Love others as you love yourself, love your neighbour
2) Love God and follow his commandments
3) Love, forgive and pray for those who persecute you
4) It is no great thing to love those who love you. you have to love those who HATE you.
5)Flee from all evil.


So how can this be used to control the masses? If people did this there would be NO war or hatred! The above is the basic idea of Jesus Christ. Maybe RELIGION has been used, by false churchs and false prophets, but you cant get away from the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Gospel is a tesimony to it.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Christianity did had a very strong hold on masses in the middle ages, when people were less educated and more naive.

As people has become more educated this hold has become thin and fragile, the hold the church has now is on the third world countries of spanish speaking, but I think as they become more modernize that hold will become thin too. (My oppinion)


I think new age thinking is becoming more popular with the younger generation.


[Edited on 24-5-2004 by marg6043]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
KKK, mormons, the ephraim cult, Jehova witnesses, all examples of people that are inspired by the devil to use the bible for their very unchristian religion and way of life, without them being aware of it.


If the bible and the word of God are so easily manipulated to "evil" ends, then doesn't that make you think they're somewhat flawed in the first place?

If your idea of a "persecuted" Christianity is true, would you like to explain which organisation was the most important political and financial institution throughout much of the second millenium - not just in Europe, but across the entire globe? Could it be... the Church? Doesn't sound too persecuted to me.

And finally, to say that the Church is distinct from Christianity is quite disturbing. Are you suggesting that the greatest theologists and religious thinkers throughout the ages have pooled their resources to create a great edifice of (as they see it) wisdom and elightenment - but that they've got it wrong and you understand the truth?


Originally posted by JakkoBurning women because they seem witches is not result of what's in the bible, it's result of the devil working through people to destroy the Christian religion.


Of course it is. Because Christians never do bad things, do they? And they certainly weren't following Exodus 22:17 which says "You should not let a sorceress live", were they?

For those of you who are new to the debate, jakko is responding, albeit indirectly, to some posts on this thread right here.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Christianity is such a controvertial issue that I try to keep it lite but sometimes it become heated.
The hold of the church now lays on the leaders, the church financialy is very powerfull and that is how the keep the control, they are the financieers of must deciccions in this country. They are to me the power behind the power.


[Edited on 24-5-2004 by marg6043]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
It's true. People will insist on taking it seriously


Regarding your earlier post, marg6043 - do you think that "New Age" religions are simply replacing Christianity as a religion-for-the-masses, or do you think that they are somehow "closer" to the truth?



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Peple now a days wants to become more modern in the beliefs and I am a believer in a creator I dont want to call it god because that is gender to me. I stop believing in must of the bible ideas, they are becoming old, I am not an atheist so I prefer to call myself a new age thinker.
i know a lot of people have change their beliefs from inside the church to outside of it. You have to see how fancy the churches around were I live are I feel that is a competition on how spensive the god of this church is.

("closer" to the truth?)
I dont know I believe what I belive and so are others. remember religion is a very touchy subject.


[Edited on 24-5-2004 by marg6043]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
If the bible and the word of God are so easily manipulated to "evil" ends, then doesn't that make you think they're somewhat flawed in the first place?


They did not manipulate the bible, they ripped parts out of their context and abused them for their own goals.
This has nothing to do with how the bible was passed on/translated over time.


If your idea of a "persecuted" Christianity is true, would you like to explain which organisation was the most important political and financial institution throughout much of the second millenium - not just in Europe, but across the entire globe? Could it be... the Church? Doesn't sound too persecuted to me.


I am not talking about the second millenium, I am talking about the ages after the bible was written. Or is your point that the authors of the bible had allready foreseen their tactic to control the masses would start to work after 1000 years?
The church as you speak of it can not be seen as "Christians" in that period of time, their actions simply do not make sense with what the bible says.


Of course it is. Because Christians never do bad things, do they? And they certainly weren't following Exodus 22:17 which says "You should not let a sorceress live", were they?


Oh comon, are you serious?
Let me repeat myself using different words.
Christians do bad things, just like every other human being does bad things, but you can not blame Christianity for the evil done by its followers.
And this verse you're ripping out of its context can mean a hundred different things if you quote it like that.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
marg6043

You said:

Christianity did had a very strong hold on masses in the middle ages, when people were less educated and more naive.
As people has become more educated this hold has become thin and fragile, the hold the church has now is on the third world countries of spanish speaking, but I think as they become more modernize that hold will become thin too. (My oppinion)


I'm just curious if you understood Jakko's post, such as this sentence:

One more thing, the church is not the same as Christianity. What "the church" has done wrong in the past and what people do wrong today in the name of God, has nothing to do with God or what's in the bible.


Notice how the premise of his/her post is that christianity is not the church and the church is not christianity. This is actually true. I'd like to add: Islam is not the mosque and the mosque is not islam. Buddhism is not the temple and the temple is not buddhism. The synagogue is not judaism and judaism is not the synagogue. Nature is not pantheism and pantheism is not nature. ETC. Shall we judge all pagans on the behavior of the Emperors of the Pagan Roman Empire and its legions? Are all romans bad because some were? These concepts ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. If they were, I could say you were your house and your house was you - or you were an organization and that organization was you. Religion is an organization. People are individuals.

Christianity is a belief system some people adhere to but it isn't "the church" in the sense you use it. Many christians worship with or without a church building and in varying types of "christian religions". Worship is in the heart, not the structure or the organization, this applies to religion as well. "The Body of Christ," is more correct, as it refers to all believers in Christ, rather than a specific organization/religion. Now if you could establish that every person in every christian religion down through history deliberately made the same bad choices or were all naive and less educated, you might have a point, but I don't see how this could be an illness specifically related to a specific religious belief, as there are simply too many christian religions and too many people in those religions with differing opinions. It'd be difficult to lay the blame at the feet of all of them without, by proxy, laying at the feet of all of humanity.

The reason I make this clarification is due to the fact "the church" can be construed to mean anything anyone ever did in the name of "the church". "The Church" carries with it the negative connotations of many bad things that happened in written history of a religious and/or political nature in Europe, the US, and the Middle East. Yet there are many of those events that were as far removed from "the Body of Christ," as you could possibly get.

For example, christianity is labelled with all the Mosaic Laws of the Old Testament, such as the stoning of adulterers (typically female), yet christianity teaches no such thing. Christianity is labelled with the burning of witches in Salem, yet christianity teaches no such thing - nowhere in the new testament does it say "Suffer not a witch to live." It's just not there. In each instance, it was the sin/weakness of the people involved as christianity does not teach that type of message. Jesus' message was entirely different than the message of the old testament. Old Testament law said "An eye for an eye" - the law of retribution and redemption by works. The New Testament taught "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you..." - the law was fulfilled in Jesus, retribution not necessary, works a natural outpouring of having the proper focus on love. The problem was not the belief system, but the people themselves, which you will find is true no matter what belief system it is.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Whenever I tried to remaind people what atrocities have been done in the name of religion and God I get a lot of controversies that is why I tried to make my post wider and liter when it come to religion once I lost 50 point on a heated debate so until I really know what others post as answers to the main post I try to be vague. Some people uses this thread to preach more than to ask oppinions. Sorry if I mislead others



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
They did not manipulate the bible, they ripped parts out of their context and abused them for their own goals.
This has nothing to do with how the bible was passed on/translated over time.


And yet you expressed a view earlier that those non-Christians among us should turn to the bible to find understanding. Which parts of the bible, then, are acceptable to you? Which represent this "true" Christianity that has nothing to do with evil deeds? Just the Old Testament? Just the New? Just the parts that haven't been used to justify war, murder, incest, rape, theft and a thousand other sins? What about the books of the apocrypha, and the other "non-orthodox" texts form the same time?


Originally posted by Jakko
Christians do bad things, just like every other human being does bad things, but you can not blame Christianity for the evil done by its followers.


No, but I can ask questions when human beings do bad things in the name of Christianity. To try and seperate off the "good" people from the people who follow a "warped" Christian doctrine is a regressive argument, jakko - where do you stop? Someone who murders in the name of Christ is kicked out. Someone who cheats on their wife and justifies it with passages from the bible, they're gone too. Who's next? Someone who stubs their toe and "takes God's name in vain?" Someone who harbours impure thoughts? None of these men, according to your definition, are true Christians.

Now that's an exclusive club. Can you honestly say you are a member?

Undomiel, your post was very interesting, but there's one thing I would disagree with - a church is not synonymous with Christianity, but The Church is the very embodiement of Christian faith, and the two are not seperable. I would have a lot more respect for Christians who accepted the terrible things in their shared past, and acknowledged them. Isn't pride also a sin?


Originally posted by Undomiel
The problem was not the belief system, but the people themselves, which you will find is true no matter what belief system it is.


Absolutely. But to say that the failures of the people are not the failures of the system too is disingenuous. We can all agree that love is a wonderful thing, that negativity and violence are evil and detrimental to our happiness, but to wrap up what seems a simple moral code in the trappings of mysticism is unneccessary.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
marg6043

I understand what you are saying, but realize, that is not the point of the conversation. It's obvious that mob mentality of any kind is destructive, and this also equally applies to mob mentality in religion, however, this does not mean they are necessarily following their own beliefs. If "the christian church" did destructive things, it wasn't because they were following their beliefs. You understand? If they followed their beliefs, they would be compelled by Jesus' words to love rather than hate, to forgive even if not asked to forgive, to forbear, to have faith, to have love, to think on good things rather than negative things, to have hope in positive things, to enjoy beauty and focus on uplifiting things. That is the point. It isn't the teachings that are wrong - it's when people don't follow the teachings. heh.

One more time with feeling: Not the teachings, the people. Or to quote "The Muppets Take Manhattan" -- "Peoples is peoples."



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Christianity was never about God or afterlife or anything like that. Jesus was never the Son of God. Jesus was simply are very intelligent man who saw the wrongs in the world and thought of a long-lasting way to fix or partially alleviate these problems.

Jesus invented God to give him authority in others' eyes and the afterlife to give incentive for people to follow his teachings. He realized that the best way to insure the longevity of his philosophy(ies) was to make it a religion. So he did.

Think about it. No matter how much you disbelieve christianity and what it stands for there is still that seed of doubt in the back of your mind that says, very quietly, "You know, they might be right. Maybe there is an afterlife and if you don't believe you will go to hell for an eternity, and an eternity is a long time. So go ahead, believe, it's a win-win situation." But it isn't a win-win situation. You have free will. By giving your life to "God" and "Christianity" you are removing that free will from your life. You are, in essence, a slave. Anyway, back to topic...

Jesus was a man who simply wanted to make life better by giving mankind a universal code of ethics. And it kind of worked. But the Vatican distorted his teachings into some massive, religion-conspiracy bent on distributing his teachings through any means necessary, including violence. Which is in direct conflict with the teachings they are spreading.

Which brings me to George W Bush. He claims he is a man of God in the White House. But he cannot be a good christian and be President. Why? Simple: conflict of interests. By launching us in to the Iraqi war he did not run away form violence, he initiated it. By stockpiling weapons of mass destruction himself yet declaring Iraq cannot have them he spread dissent and dishonesty among the international community. Which, again, is in direct conflict with Christ's teachings about honesty.

I thought Id add my own rant to yours....



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I would apologize for all the women who have done bad things as well as I am a woman, but it's rather pointless. I would apologize for all the bad things caucasians (eek, forgot how to spell it) have done as I am caucasian, but what's the point. I would apologize for all the bad things americans have done, or floridians have done, or midwesterners have done, or people with blood type A have done or blondes have done, or christians have done, or book readers have done, but honestly sir, what's the point? I can only apologize for what I have done (such as my propensity to be redundant. heh)



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The problem is that the teaching of the bible had been miss used time and time again, I see the bible as a historical and full of myth book, I also see Jesus and a figure that his meanning and role in history has been over done and over used, maybe he had a purpose but just like other martyrs in history.
one more thing I done believe in the devil every action done in this world is done by men and mens along (when I say men means the human species men and womens)

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by marg6043]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
And yet you expressed a view earlier that those non-Christians among us should turn to the bible to find understanding. Which parts of the bible, then, are acceptable to you? Which represent this "true" Christianity that has nothing to do with evil deeds? Just the Old Testament? Just the New? Just the parts that haven't been used to justify war, murder, incest, rape, theft and a thousand other sins? What about the books of the apocrypha, and the other "non-orthodox" texts form the same time?


The most important thing is not to rip lines of their context. Whenever people do this things go wrong. Try to understand why something is somewhere in the bible, what purpose it serves.
The rules of Christianity all come down to three basic rules:

1. Do not damage yourself.
2. Do not damage others.
3. Do not damage God.

But because these rules are way too general for the average human being to be able to apply this to the whole of their lives, additional rules were made to specify these rules.
It's honestly not hard to understand the bible, if you look at the bible as a whole, and not a set of one-liners.


No, but I can ask questions when human beings do bad things in the name of Christianity. To try and seperate off the "good" people from the people who follow a "warped" Christian doctrine is a regressive argument, jakko - where do you stop? Someone who murders in the name of Christ is kicked out. Someone who cheats on their wife and justifies it with passages from the bible, they're gone too. Who's next? Someone who stubs their toe and "takes God's name in vain?" Someone who harbours impure thoughts? None of these men, according to your definition, are true Christians.


Everyone makes mistakes, so in that light noone would be a true christian, not even me. That's why Jesus had to come and set things straight, our sins are no longer put on our account, but on Jesus account as long as we understand why something was wrong.
The examples you give kind of suck, of cause cheating or killing can not be done in the name of the Lord in any way.
Each case is individual and I do not hold the wisdom God contains.


Now that's an exclusive club. Can you honestly say you are a member?


Yes I am!
And I can guarantee you there's enough wrong with me as well.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
I would apologize for all the women...


I don't expect you to apologise, Undomiel, or for anyone else to apologise either. It must be accepted as part of history, but I don't hold any contemporary Christian responsible for any heinous act in the dim and distant past.

I apologise for any confusion.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Either you believe in Jesus or you dont. Theres no inbetween. You have to believe the entire truth. Jesus said he was and is the way the truth and the life. Everything that happened by Jesus was predicted and fullfilled 100%

Jesus came to save mankind. To die for our sins. To take our place in Gods judgement for our evil. No one can get near or even see heaven without being changed from within. This cannot happen without Jesus Christ who becomes one with you when you receive him. You die when you receive Jesus and receive a NEW life in him.

Jesus is the saviour of mankind, there is no other and there will be no true other. He is the Prince of Peace and the heir of all things. As for New Age that is very very simple to understand. Sooner or later within New Age you will lean exactly what the basic message is. You are not guilty and you have the potential to be God...a God. Same # from the Garden of Eden, you can be like God. No one is like God!! The New Age is not new! Its just a mixture of occultic and pagan belief and it is a lie. People say that paganism outdates Jesus Christ? Read the Word of God, before the foundation of the world was laid, Jesus was. Before Abraham Jesus was!



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I have to agree. It's nigh on impossible to be both a devout christian and a president, as the two concepts are at odds with each other. It's impossible to defend your country without also being willing to DEFEND your country (with violence, if necessary). Sad but true. I guess the resolution under such circumstances would boil down to massive prayer, gigantic faith, continual hope, excellent defense systems, great negotiaters, fantastic diplomats, and the total absence of greed. Of course, under such circumstances, most of the world would be enslaved to some other power that had no scruples at all. Also sad but true. What a dilemma.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   


Also sad but true. What a dilemma.

Which is why I try and remove myself from humanity as much as possible. If an alien were to land next to me one day and climb out and ask me if I knew those people (while pointing to humans) I would say, "No. They climbed out of the trees one day and just took over! I don't know what the heck they are! And I am most certainly not related, though appearances may be decieving."

The problem with world-wide conspiracies is that they leave no place to run and hide...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join