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.


Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by The Djin

might as well be a social pariah for being human then. But this should come as no surprise since wtichcraft, the enemy of christianity has its roots in Britain....

if Britain wants to be a pagan country then so be it.....i am a citizen of the USA anyways...

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by undo

as far as i can tell, yeshua was not a huge supporter of mosaic law for humans.

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

There you go straight from the horses mouth.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM
A few weeks back, during the heavy snow, Vine was on Johnny Walker's show for the scheduled plug. The show was to have a discussion on where the line is between fun and intimidation, snow ball wise. To demonstrate this deeply important, topical point, he told story about how he was hit once square in the face by a snow ball, whilst at university, and how everyone had cheered the 'shot'. Johnny laughed. So did I. Vine is a prick, I know it, Johnny knows it. My Mum thinks he's wonderful, but then she reads the Daily Mail (SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Long and short. Vine utters crap, has the intellectually capability of a midge and no one should pay the remotest attention to anything the wet rag has to say. Blah!

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by The Djin

He was not a supporter of placing faith in the law over faith in God. And seeing as he WAS the law, he was the final decider. His acts and examples show the way.

Also, seeing as you have rampantly misquoted the bible, lets discuss your most recent one.

16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Clearly, Marriage is sacred law. Divorces are not what God intended. Weather you truly feel what is your true decision on the matter requires enormous thought.

It also has to do with the fact that Jesus is proclaiming something new. The law and the prophets who taught them were to keep the Jews responsible and separate from average. Jesus was now proclaiming the new covenant with man.

So yea. As expected. ya, twisted it.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Yea you are pretty good at corrupting what it actually means.

Do I take it that you are the ultimate authority on how scripture is "supposed" to be read ? If so why is it that your godman chose you to disseminate his message and not all the writers and editors he had to decide which ones were to be and not to be used then compile them.

Needless to say, over the thousands of years since the jews first started to write, it was very presumptuous of believers to carry on reading and not wait until you were born so as to tell them what an omniscient being appears to have failed to communicate.

If indeed you are the final authority on how a bible is to be read, why have you not started your own club and instructed followers not to read these books on their own, and wait till your available to read to them conveying the actual information that your omniscient man in the sky intended?

If indeed you are not the final authority on what these books actually mean then could you please point us (and the other 34000 or so other clubs) in the direction of the final authority, so we can sort this out once and for all, before another book is given out to another unsuspecting child.

That's the trouble with these invisible men that live in the sky, for all they magnificence and wonder, throughout history they have consistently shown themselves to be the most appalling communicators.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by andy1033
Most kids at my school don't have two sense of what other believes are all they know is Atheism and Catholic.I think the school system is trying to conform us to society..

PS don't take my age into account.Treat me like you would if you didn't know my age

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by The Djin

You assume that, if you actually read them as they are, people will get a very different message. The core truth is right there. What you do with it, in the vast diversity of man, is what makes mankind special. So long as you keep to the core truth you can go do your merry little cultural things that you like to. But when somebody blatantly uses it in the wrong manner, such as yourself, then I think I will take it to be the final authority, in your specific case, my good man. And I have it on good authority that the combined minds of all the protestants, all the catholics, and all those under them would agree.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by The Djin

he's talking about the laws of god not the laws of moses. when asked which laws were the most important, he quoted 2 from the 10 commandments: to love the lord with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. (in other translations, it says to love your brother as yourself, thus giving the religion in question the excuse not to love their neighbor, but rather to only love their brothers in their particular faith,. i do not think that's what jesus meant, just based on the rest of his teaching.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:30 PM
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["But nice of you to assume another's background is extreme just because they are not the same opinion of yours."]

You know what the character '?' means. It indicates a question, not a fixed statement. And I used that in the context you refer to.

Quote: ["A slave in the time that the Bible was written was just a class. It meant you were conquered. Shall I show you pictures of societies in S America where captured enemies, though now slaves, still had honor in the eyes of their conquerers?"]

Instead of pink tales of how 'noble' and 'humanistic' slavery can be, I would be much more interested in stories about various christian missionaries' impact on indigenous cultures. E.g. South America and Greenland. Which brings us considerably closer to contemporary times than OT.

Quote: ["But overall a slave in a good household lived a half decent life."]

So that's OK then?

You seem to have some kind of fascination for diminishing the barbarity of slavery; even to the point of mixing it up with your theological speculations.

Quote: ["Don't go masta and other irrelevant terms on me."]

I take it 'masta' is a typo-error for 'massa'. Naturally it's irrelevant for you, but it isn't for me and my contemporary similar minded, and I'm quite sure it wasn't for the slaves either.

Quote: ["Abraham promised his whole positions to his slave before he had a son. Because that 's what a slave was."]

If I remeber correctly, she was a slave given to him for sexual/child-bearing services. Is that ideals you're recommending to re-instate? If not, why do you use them as examples of anything in a contemporary context?

Quote: ["That naturally leads to freedom. It's pretty obvious that when God says you and your slave are equal, he is saying you and your slaves are both the same. What's the point of having a slave if you are told you are equal to him? That is what leads to freedom."]

It probably takes a christian mindset to see the sense or logic of this.

Quote: [" And yes, plenty of Christians deserve bombing"]

Christians not being true, loving christians of the correct denomination? You have any other candidates, while you're at it. Muslims?

Quote: ["Just for the record, Gandhi was a Hindu"]

You're right. He never became a Jain nominally, though he followed Jain in practise.

Quote: ["Ok. So thousands of years ago Christians killed gnostics."]

Actually it was not 'thousands of years ago', but starting somewhere around 11-12 century.

Quote: ["Why am I responsible?"]

Without 'assuming' too much about you, it would be an educated guess that you weren't born then. So why this question?

Quote: ["Why, better yet, is the religion of today responsible?"]

Now THIS is a relatively sensible question. And a sensible answer is that some parts of the various christianities hasn't changed that much in deed or doctrine since then. I repeat my quote from above:

["plenty of Christians deserve bombing. Hence why we bombed the Christian populated cities in Germany."]

It's the same attitude, the same book and .....what else (I don't know your version of 'true christianity'). Your religion did it then, and you seem to support such methods these days...and you're surprised of oppostion?

Quote: ["Who the hell is talking of ignorance if you think that the actions of one man reflect the opinions of another."]

Temper, temper. I'm referring directly to your IMO own peculiar stances on slavery and bombing christians.

Quote: ["No people on Earth have not been slaves. No people on earth are innocent of stealing land. No people on Earth are innocent of raping and pillaging."]

And by having an ambivalent attitude to slavery and bombing some christians of the 'wrong kind', we move forward into civilized times, where the old atrocities won't be repeated.

Quote: ["Because no one is God. And it's all right there is that book what you should and should not do."]

Which part of it? And by which interpretation of this part?

Quote: ["But people ignore it."]

They have their reasons.

Quote: ["Now what counts is a man doing what he wants. What the individual does."]

In liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy....inside certain limits. What's your alternative?

Quote: ["Associating unlinked people with the same ideology is the very definition of ignorance."]

So your thoughts on slavery and bombing christians are all your own, unassociated with general christian doctrines?

Quote: ["No, Because it is ion our calling to give all we can give, save all we can save, and earn all we can earn to help with."]

Fine with me, as long as I can stay out of it.

Quote: ["That's not predestination."]

It was in your former post. Has it changed in the meantime?

Quote: ["If you want to talk God,...."]

No thanks.

Quote: ["God is out of time, He's the author. We're the characters. So the author knows how the story goes, even though the characters don't. Why? That's the way it is. You'r ein this universe, suck it up."]

I need some individual examples of what happens before I'll even believe in the story. Even less follow it. Can you supply such examples I can relate directly to. Alleged persons from your manual doesn't count for me.

Quote: ["Submission to follow what is right. Not to submit to cruel leaders."]

Again. Exactly which 'god' are we talking about?

Quote: ["Beating your enemy with a stick is not the only way to beat him."]

Generally I avoid beating people, but for your part I understand it's acceptable to bomb them.

Quote: ["I mean, your post is full of ignorance and assumptions. Can you please stop assuming and just saying untrue crap?"]

You ask me to say c***. Why? As to assuming, do you define this as disagreeing with you, you religious manual or do you have other reference points I can relate to?

Quote: ["If you rebel, you die. That's what all governments go by. If you don't rebel, you go up. Slowly. It's much slower, but it gets you there in the end. This is what works."]

I'll take my chances.

Quote: [Now, if the world was perfect, leaders would help their people. Slaves and the underclass would work with pride, and the people in between would do the same. People would do with pride what their skills have allowed. As I said, cotton farming is not the only work for a slave."]

I may be wrong, but does this imply, that there will be slaves in your new religious Utopia.

Quote: ["Many times in history slaves had honor. In fact the Turks had a class of slave that they turned into leaders called the Devşirme. The Architect Mimar Sinan is one such example, and he is arguable one of the greatest Islamic architects ever. They would take a person with skill, enslave them to learn that skill, then put them into a job that their skills could be used for as freemen."]

I believe Saudiarabia would be just the place for you. If rumours are correct, they still have some kind of in-official slavery there.

Quote: ["Do stop assuming all kinds of wild idiocracy."]

I'm actually a very factual person. So relating to your christian loving hostility (which without doubt is for my own good) I have another suggestion. If you can get out of all your words and doctrines, we can consider 'assumptions', 'wild' and 'ideocracy' (whatever that is) together from a rational perspective
edit on
edit on 19-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling
extra DIV

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:38 PM
YHWH is punishing them.

In 1610 a new word was made up in the English language...."G-o-d".

Was it based upon scripture? No.

Did it sound like what we had been calling our deity? No.

Our deity ordered to be called YHWH. And here we in 1610 made up a word from someone's rear and started calling our deity the new word....'god'.

Christianity is on the decline because it's a religion that tends to make things up and doesn't follow the old scripture that it was based upon.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by Pervius

yeah god is a german word, "gott". (i think it survives from the first german translation of the bible)
yahweh is from jehovah, which is from yehovah.
yehovah is actually two gods in one name.
enlil and enki, at least, from what my research shows, thus making yeshua correct when he claimed to be god and the son of god at the same time. people always wonder how he could be both. the jews knew of him as yehovah (yhvh), or yahweh, and they also knew of enlil as yehovah (yhvh) or yahweh.(yhwh). enlil was the father of enki.

that is, if my research is correct, which so far, it seems to be.
edit on 19-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:47 PM
Re Undo


["...and to love your neighbor as yourself...."]

And if you yourself is a flagellantic masochist with dreams of martyrdom, that would be OK for your neighbour also, because it's what you want.

But then eventually it would 'be for his own good', being exposed to what a real christian wants instead of sitting in front of the TV with existential uncertainty. Without christian norms society will surely collapse, as can be seen in Asian buddhist countries. They are collapsing all the time.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

It also has to do with the fact that Jesus is proclaiming something new. The law and the prophets who taught them were to keep the Jews responsible and separate from average. Jesus was now proclaiming the new covenant with man. So yea. As expected. ya, twisted it.

It's always " It also has to do with the fact that this or the other" dude, the guy said (well allegedly) what he said.-

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

He did not "un say it" nor add "but" or "unless" "until" the statement is there plain as day no conditions attached .

Dude I can actually read as well as anyone else !

So for 98000 years or so Humanity lived, died, warred, suffered, gor killed , killed each other suffered disease, died in childbirth blah blah , while an invisble man in the sky watched not giving a crap.

The, one fine day the man in the sky decides to have a plan says to man "Hey I/we am Elohim enough of that crap here is the deal" Humanity didn't want to listen so the invisible man killed all Humanity and animals except for the ones that he didn't know about and a couple of automatons.

Later on the man in the sky called himself Yawhe type thing and gave some men who believed he was real, in a very small area near the Sinai but forgot to mention them to the rest of the population of the planet.

After a couple of thousand years the (allegedly omniscient) by now not always invisible being, decide that the rest of humanity who (were in most part doing quite fine thank you very much) needed sorting out as well as the first lot. So the invisible man once again gave himself a human body and changed his name to Jesus to sort out these buggers who just won't do what he wants once and for all.

The now sometimes invisible man (allegedly omnipresent) decided to have himself killed by the men he first failed at getting to comply, they did as he planned and then he came back alive again with the idea that the other humans would now comply.

2010 years later still no one is complying and the invisible man has made himself conveniently absent and along the way has been usurped and preceded by other invisible men with much the same attributes as the aforementioned.

And that your honor is the evidence for - - - - - - -

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by bogomil

i could just be tired (a wee bit of dain bramage left over from the coma and many hours of debating with people from another part of the world who think i'm a baaaad person) but i didn't quite understand your post. could you reword it? i'm sorry. i read it and i'm sure you know what you meant, and i'm usually really good with words but i don't know what you are trying to say. : /

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by undo

i do not think that's what jesus meant,

And right there you (along with all the rest) destroy any case you believed you had.

Tell me is it so difficult for you to replace "I do not think" with "I don't know" ?

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:59 PM
oops, double post please remove
edit on 19-1-2011 by The Djin because: double post

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by zombiesC4
reply to post by andy1033
Most kids at my school don't have two sense of what other believes are all they know is Atheism and Catholic.I think the school system is trying to conform us to society..

PS don't take my age into account.Treat me like you would if you didn't know my age

Nice of the young to join the debate.

Hey, how does this grab you -

This how my kids were educated in relation to religion

"Some people believe there are invincible men that live in the sky some people don't. If there is I'm sure if they have anything to say to you they'll do it in person. When you are older and out of school and the invisible men have still not spoken to you, feel free to read up on them but for gods' sake demand extraordinary evidence for any claims made..

I have 2 very happy well adjusted kids who are getting along no better nor worse that any other child randomly selected.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:13 PM
EL was ENLIL thusly:

EN meant LORD.
LIL meant of the Air, Sky, Heaven

LIL became IL
IL became EL
EL became AL.

thus you see the foundation of every god word in mesopotamia, including Ba'al, Al'lah, Bel, El, Il, Ilah, Ilyah, Ilu, yah'weh, yahveh, jehovah, yehovah, etc etc etc ETC.

EL was ENKI thusly:

EN meant LORD.
KI meant EARTH.
Later he was also known as EA, which is the god of the water., god of the abyss.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enlil and the council of Anunnaki voted to flood the earth.
Enki saved Ziasudra by instructing him how to build an ark, and how to appease Enlil once Enlil found out there were survivors. Ziasudra exited the ark, and built an altar to Enlil, which saved Ziasudra from Enlil's anger.

In "Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata", Enki confused the languages of the humans (This is the akkadian version of the tower of babel story). (this story is loaded with really incredible information that most people who read it don't understand because they think it's a myth just as they think the biblical version is a myth).

And finally, yehovah was from hay'yah
pronounced ha -yah (which i believe is EA (pronounced A-yah). And EA was ENKI.

and there you have my fast and furious version of who jehovah was.
i think.

edit on 19-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by bogomil

No I'm not endorsing slavery. But to state all slavery in the history of the world is the same thing as cotton pickers in the 1800s South US is simply ignorant.

Also, the priests in S America were some of the first opponents to Spain's slavery. So you see, for every bad Christian, there is a good one fighting it. Please stop saying All this or All that did A B C. It simply is not true. Christians, like anybody, have gone through bad times and good times. However, we've learned to know what each cases were in those categories. Something you seem not to understand.

If you are going to have slavery, then yes, it is a good thing they are treated with respect and dignity. But you're talking about the king of the highest turd in the toilet empire. In fact, the provocative words of Christianity helped end slavery in the western world. And yes it helped create it in some cases. But in the end, it helped end it more than it helped create it.

No. Masta massa or however you would wish to call it is not relevant to you. You are not 150 years old, and therefore slavery did not happen to you. Any desire to use it is some sort of desire to recall back to it. If you come from the time that Jim Crow was in the south, well, it is still not relevant to me. because I would not support those laws. I would be with the nuns and other white folks in the MLK protests. But hey, who isn't for needing to blame the crimes of the father on the son. Oh right, the modern world.

She was a slave with dignity. And God took care of her. And no, her son was heir to the thrown. Now maybe I'm just being silly, but it seems to me that when the king offers his heir to his slave, that's saying something about how he views that slave. Most slave owners, if they had no sons, gave their slaves to other people or got some random guy to inherit. Abraham chose the closest thing he had to a son. And that happened to be a slave. Now what does that say to you? Just because it doesn't agree with how you view right and wrong doesn't make it right or wrong. If two people love each other they will do something. No nothing is said about if they loved each other directly. However, fyi, Abraham's wife was jealous of her. IE, Abraham loved his concubine quite the bit. But if you;d like to assume something else by all means go ahead. But without any proof, you're just assuming. And a case built off assumptions doesn't stick up. Besides, God isn't into coming down and demanding people change. he works subtly. Otherwise faith wouldn't play no part in it. The fact that polytheism slowly but surely went away seems to say that God did not agree with it. And the fact that Adam and Eve did not have anybody else together, seems to indicate that it's not suppose to be. But people sin. God loves them anyway, and tries to bring them to the right side. It seems his desire got through, as he no longer had a concubine when he had his biological son. And the woman went off, and God took care of her. Clearly, God fixed what man broke. But I'm sure you have a way to corrupt that too.

If it takes a Christian mindset to see that then so be it. Slavery exists because people think they own or are better or are more human than another. If God is saying, and Jesus is preaching, that you are worth the same as your slave in the eyes of God, and that you must treat them with respect, changes a mind. How can you be worth the same of someone you don't consider human? This can only mean 2 things. You are wrong on how you view them, or God is wrong. And if you think God is wrong, you're a lot further away than you realize it. God is saying a slave is your equal. This is in direct contradiction to what slavery is. That statement, and slavery, cannot co exist. If you cannot understand that, it is sad.

You are to love another with all your heart and soul. I am saying some Christians deserve to be bombed. God is not. Can you tell the difference? Perhaps your inability to disassociate the two answers a lot of your own problems with Christianity. Yes, I think Muslims deserve to be bombed in some places. God does not. I think a lot of people in a lot of places deserve to get bombed. God does not. This is my opinion. And I do not intend to act on it, for the sake of God's words. My opinion and what I do are two different things. Once again, your inability to disassociate the two begs to question your intelligence.

If you want to go by practice, your entire argument collapses. Few and far from Christians act Christian. Most Christians act like normal people who don't do the right thing. In fact, in my observations of my friends and neighbors, I've never seen more than a handful of catholics actually act catholic. In fact I do not act catholic, though I do consider myself one by practice. But I far more agree with protestants and their thought processes in most parts. See I don't title people. People are people. For instance, your a foolish human who seemingly cannot go one sentence without assuming a bunch of facts about a person which in most cases are not true. But I am not going to assume all atheists or whoever you are are the same. I don't think you're Stalin. I don't think your a black panther. I don't think your anyone but a man or woman who has to fix a lot of things. And sure, I'll say I love you for who you are. But you have a lot to learn.

Christians have been killing gnostics since the first gnostics formed. So yes, over a thousand years ago.

Yes. Plenty have not. But that does not give you a right to assume so much about so many people. It's amazing how much you have bent biblical quotes, assumed BS about people and their faiths, and just flat out lie here. Can you please just stop embarrassing yourself?

Old atrocities will always be committed because the world will always have fools and on the rare occasion they'll get into power. Do you honestly expect mankind to ever be perfected or true peace to ever occur without some form of divine intervention? This species slaughtered the first non-human species with intelligence we ever met. Now to me that just proves that we naturally decay into barbary. Somebody added the idea of what civilization is into our minds. You can say aliens, I say God. But the fact remains that civilization is not the natural order of man. Man's natural order is to destroy. And some would argue that that's why region was created. Like I said far far ago. Humanity is going to decay. Get rid of religion, and within a few generations people forget why they have to respect each other. if anything the fall of Rome proves that. How fast did th Christians loose their way once they could no longer read the words?

And most of the rest of your sayings is just to ignorant to go on.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM
Re Undo

My latest post rephrased. Sure.

'Love your neighbour as you want to be loved yourself'. Sometimes ' you love yourself'.

The way you want to be loved, is maybe not the way your neighbour wants to be loved.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in