It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Look What I Found At My Church

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by the_denv

What the hell is the Tower of Babel (and also Adam and Eve) doing in a stained glass window in a Roman Catholic church!?

You are aware that Adam and Eve, as well as the Tower of Babel are in the Bible, right? While I can't say this for sure, it could be that they were there because all of the stained glass together told the general story of the Bible. I've seen several churches that have had stained glass doing that sort of thing.

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by BroketheWall

well the catholic church got to choose what books are in the christian faith so it does have a connection

That's not true. Most of what we view as the New Testament was widely accepted by Christians across the Near Eastern world well before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. I say most because there were questions about a handful of books, such as Hebrews; 2 Peter; Jude; and Revelation. The questions were about their apostolic authority; in other words, if it was written by an apostle. The church didn't "reject" any books as it popularly stated either. Those other "books" are late and pseudo-graphical; they were written after the time of the apostles in the name of an apostle, or other important figure. Since they were late, they really couldn't be considered to be an apostle's work.

On a side note: One of the major doctrines of Christianity is the divinity of Christ. Many of the "rejected" or "lost" books of the Bible portray Christ in a much more divine way than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do. Knowing that, it's always made me chuckle when people will say that these other writings were rejected because they didn't fit and "agenda".

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Have you ever listened to his testimony?


What exactly is so hard to believe about his story?

Almost everything.

He was an avid practicing occultist who dabbled in many different areas of the occult (which is essentially what all the aforementioned religions/practices are).

No, he is an obvious shill and self-promoter. The fact that he was all of those things at the same time shows that he did not taken any of them seriously and was only invloved for personal gain.

I'm sure his story hits a little too close to home for you, and clearly it makes you uncomfortable that he's sharing some of your beloved secrets.

I could care less if he blabs about the passwords and handshakes, that has been out there for more then 300 years.

That being said, next time you want to attempt to slander someone, you should consider presenting something that might be considered incriminating evidence.

Slander is spoken, I typed my insults of Bill the Shill, which if he dceides to sue me, would make it libel.

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

So, simply because he was at one time simultaneously involved in more than one arm of the occult he is a shill? Throwing around ad hominem insults does little to prove your case. The fact that Schnoebelen's participation in various occult groups overlaps can hardly be used against him.

Clearly, you lack any real evidence that Bill is what you make him out to be. To the contrary, it seems that your reasons for suspicion are the very reasons I find his story to be believable.

Let me explain...

If Mr. Schnoebelen's primary intent was personal gain (as you have suggested), he would never have chosen this path as I highly doubt he makes a great deal of money selling his books/DVDs...also, as we've seen, his unusual testimony hasn't necessarily helped his reputation or credibility.

I will admit that some of his accounts seem outlandish, bordering on incredible, but it is for that very reason I feel they are genuine. Just listening to him relay his experiences you can tell that he absolutely believes what he his saying regardless of whether or not anyone else might think.

You have to at least recognize that if Schnoebelen's testimony did indeed hold water, one would expect to see the very kind of careless demonization that we've seen from you and others in an attempt to protect their more nefarious secrets. You have no real evidence of deceit, but continue to propagate your slanderous (or libelous) rhetoric.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Let me boil it down to its barest esscence.

Does it make sense that someone is a Roman Catholic-Wiccan-Vampire-Mormon-Satanist? And I purposely left things out.

You can not preach that you were once 'truly' all of these things at the same time and understood their beliefs or teachings since some are diametrically opposed to others, and some are not compatible.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:00 AM
An eye could be a symbol for 'watching over'


posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:02 AM
The roman Catholics aren't Christians, the whole sect originated by the romans to control the Christians...
It was illegal to be christian but the faith was continuing to grow and the Romans couldn't do anything about it...
Infiltrate and strategy to conform and control anything.

So long story short the whole structure of the pope, cardinals religious acts, etc etc has zero to do with the true christian faith.

Nor does most churches of any domination for that matter.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Rollo]

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

If one were honestly and wholeheartedly seeking for THE ultimate spiritual truth, you would expect that they would non-exclusive to one practice or religion until they were 100 % satisfied that they had found it. Obviously, as you stated before he was not fully dedicated to, or satisfied with any of the occult branches he had dabbled in.

I could argue that one could never call them-self a true Christian while willfully accepting the Luciferian philosophies of Freemasonry, yet I know plenty who do. Does this make them a liar or a "shill"? No...simply confused.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:47 PM
In the late 19th century and early 20th century a pyramid with an eye in the center symbolized the "Eye of God." It looks as if your church is fairly new though. There are many interpretations of the Eye of God. There are churches in Europe where the Eye of God is prominently displayed above the outside of the church.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by octotom

well...i do understand that but so were the gnostic and there were many other sects of christianity like you see today...the romans just wanted to put the books in that best fit their agenda of dominating all cultures and religion. Your own bible tells you this in revelation but even the elect our deceived i guess??! and if you research it enough you'll find that that the stories in the bible were told long ago in pagan in the end it doesnt matter its all the same truth just explained with different characters at different times to conquer and divide!

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:03 AM
Its the Eye of Providence. The all seeing eye of god...etc...etc. I've seen things like this in quite a few churches, and most likely it is just meant to be god looking down on everyone. Not something sinister or anything, this eye does not always represent the eye of horus either the eye of horus is actually quite different than this. This symbol is commonly used worldwide to simply represent the all seeing eye of god.

And the eye of providence is not a mason symbol, its been around a lot longer than freemasonry. Just thought I'd say that since some people have said stuff like, "Its obviously freemasonry". Although it is used in some lodges and stuff as decoration...etc..etc its not specifically a freemason symbol. And I've seen a few people in this thread talking about the "higher levels" of freemasonry, I know you aren't going to believe me, but there are not "higher levels" of freemasonry. Yes, there is the 33rd degree in the scottish rite which is a honorary degree, I know quite a few 33rds, but they are not above everyone. The real "highest degree/level" of freemasonry is the 3rd degree, master mason. Once a man is made master mason, he is equal with all other masons. But yall are free to believe whatever you want about freemasonry, I don't care.

But enough with my ranting, neat picture dude, thanks for posting it!


[edit on 30-4-2010 by jeasahtheseer]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in