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.


David Icke's Theories about Christianity Debunked

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by sinthia

"Because it isn't likely that any such character exists. The word from which we get Satan just means ADVERSARY, the supernatural boogeyman style Satan of modern Christian mythology developed over the centuries and blended with the character Lucifer. There is no evidence for any supernatural entities let alone one conjured from a composite of myths and verses over the course of centuries."

No, that is the typical conspiracy theorist fed garbage. The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact. The serpent is Satan.

"Saying that Icke and his reptilians are satanic makes you look just as crazy as Icke himself is."

The point was that Icke himself calls the bloodlines Satanic, yet puts their source down to reptilians, rather than Satan, quite an odditity.

"You might as well be arguing over the color of an invisible unicorn or what style of clothes the naked emperor is wearing."
Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links.......not everything is materially reducable.

Quote: ["No, that is the typical conspiracy theorist fed garbage. The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact."]

So the older a thing is, the more is it intrinsically 'true'?

Quote: ["The serpent is Satan."]

Your terminology lacks somewhat in precision: Which snake? The talking one with legs from genesis 2?

But in any case the chronology of OT prevents Satan and any snake at all to be identical. Possibly could Lucifer be the snake. That you're rather ignorant about science/logic is clear to me, but as a representative of a pro bible/'god'/Jesus/christian (?) position, you ought to know the bible better, than what you present here.

Quote: [" Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links.......not everything is materially reducable."]

The group of people defending materialistic reductionism as an exclusive absolute is fortunately dwindling (as their brainwashed counterpart of blind doctrinal religionism fortunately ALSO is).

I'm in a good mood today, with some spare time at disposal, so I'll (for the first time THIS week) waste some time on explaining to you, why the common versions of the pro-christian argument of 'intelligent design' are worthless. As you possibly have your knowledge on the subject from some manual of 'pro-christian arguments' and thus won't understand much of what I'm saying, is a risk you take, when you use arguments etc, you are not competent about.

If we transgress 'natural laws' as manifested in cosmos and consider an alleged trans-cosmic existence-level, we have some educated guessess implying a break-down of causality as we know it. If there is ANY causality, and in that case .... WHAT is is, we know next to nothing about. Theistic speculations and fabulations on the subject are mostly worthless, as they have no systematic methodology to lean on; any old answer from that direction is promoted to 'doctrinal truth' and these doctrines disagree wildly with each other.

IF there is a trans-cosmic level of existence, and IF it has any causality, the best we with some accuracy can say about it is, that there's 'intent' somewhere.

IF there is a trans-cosmic existence-level, and IF it has any causality, and if this causality has 'intent', why on earth is that 'intent' represented by bible-postulates (which even can't describe cosmos properly).

From a later post of yours:

Quote: ["Bizarre. How can you possibly 'do' science without at least believing that there are laws which behave in certain ways?"]

It's called abstract theories or concepts, which aren't written in stone in visible nature.

Quote (on evolving morals): ["Have they, how? If mind is simply a function of an organic chemical/electrical brain then morals are a result of chemical reactions, not independant thought. To Hitler, his morals were correct to himself - do you share his beliefs?"]

This has also been chewed over endlessly, but here we go: The ethics presented on theist premises, are postulated to be 'absolute'. The main-problem (as always) with this kind of theist argumentation is, that there is NO evidence for arriving at these absolutes except through circle-argumentation. The 'method' is bosh (it's true, because it's true), consequently the answers are also bosh.

A common theist counter-argument is, that an agreed-upon consensus morality, including a great deal of pragmatism, is dysfunctional. And also here fanatical blindness takes over. Theocracies are usually brutal, senseless and fascistic. Real secular, liberal, egalitarian democracies CARE DEMONSTRABLY for its citizens.

Quote: [" I haven't seen any evidence."]

Define evidence.

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:52 AM
The information war is unbeleivably complicated and while David Icke might seem too outrageous even for most conspiracy theorists, I believe he's actually telling a somewhat simplistic version of this world's secretive and chaotic mass-manipulative events. It doesn't really matter to the senior management of TPTB what people believe in, as long as you don't get too close to the absolute truth - and that truth (in terms of love and justice and so forth) is Jesus Christ.

In the end it'll be everybody against Jesus and his understanders (I don't neccessarily mean Christians). David Icke is probably just be a modern day Manly P. Hall.

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Robert Reynolds

You're right, both the positions and the methodologies used in the conspiracy and science/religion-confrontation area are getting to a point, where a couple of university-educations or similar seem to be necessary requisites for following or joining the debate.

But fortunately for the lay-person, there is a fuctional shortcut: 'Authority' credibility, which only requires a certain extent of specialist knowledge. If you know the basic principles of any used systematic methodology (e.g. scientific/logic criteria for 'objectivity') it's not impossible to decide if any such authority actually uses these criteria or even worse, plays under false colours and misuse them from ignorance or manipulative reasons (e.g. hijacked science/logic).

In the present context I would like to draw attention to one of my own favourites on the subject: William Bramley's classic: "The gods of Eden", which is considerably less tainted by fanatism and ideological zeal than much of the other available publications. It's more in the 'soft'-science part than in 'hard'-science.

It's rather academically straight, and starts where things should start: From the beginning instead of starting from a pre-determined answer.

edit on 24-5-2011 by bogomil because: grammar

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
Did everyone catch the FUNNY on the last few posts or so arguing about Satan with long information?

so.... ya know satan I guess?

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:31 PM
My problems with the short extract from the lengthy Chris White "debunking".
I assume Chis White is the narrator, but I'm not sure.

The narrator here claims Icke makes all kinds of false assumptions about the Bible and its symbolism.
He even says that Icke makes the "Pisces" fish connection to Christianity.
Yet, a sentence later he reveals that the connection is quite old in Catholic and other Christian traditions.
Only the narrator's current brand of Christianity and its fish stickers are deemed as being based on a harmless, "non- Babylonian" acrostic (although all churches pretty much give that official explanation).
Apart from pointing to inconsistence between Icke's early and more recent books (which he freely admits, and is not unusual for free thinking authors), this is the basic methodology: the occult connections and view of the Bible were all the additions of later pagans, Catholics, Masons and Luciferians. Only the narrator has the sanitized version of Christianity. One assumes the narrator is speaking from the view of modern protestant Evangelical Christianity.

This gets somewhat confusing, as the narrator wants to appeal to common sense, but yet never passes an opportunity to bash Catholicism and other forms of Christian thought. So the pagans indeed modeled statues of the nativity on the pagan goddess Semiramis and Tammuz (because that's just what the Vatican did to popularize an unpopular sect, and if they hadn't, most probably nobody would have given a hoot about it today), but to save himself from agreeing with Icke, he says in the next breath that mothers and children are simply popular images in global art. This is neither here nor there in conspiracy theory, because the best place to hide something is in plain sight. But what is it now? Are all the Catholic, Anglican (yes they who translated the King James Bible) and Orthodox statues of the Virgin and her divine infant simply accidental tropes in art?
Or did the Catholics mix in pagan influences (as Icke claims) in violation of the commandment against "graven images" (one would assume that renders fish stickers, crosses and the entire clip blasphemous). The narrator cannot seem to make up his mind.

The same occurs with the miracle of the fish and the Pisces symbol. The narrator seconds that it is indeed in the Bible, but because it occurs twice with different numbers the first number must be co-incidental! Wow, that's a novel approach to Biblical interpretation.The narrator cannot think of another explanation for two fishes (except the astrological one, which he feels it simply cannot be for whatever reason), so it's just a meaningless coincidence. So by the narrators system, if something is referred to twice in the Bible and it is not identical, then it is meaningless! Then we are told that the pagans invented halos. I'm not so sure, considering the Transfiguration:

As they looked on , a change came over Jesus: His face was shining like the sun, and his clothes were dazzling white. Matt 17:2-3

Then there are some problems with history. The narrator says that Constantine converted to and legalized Christianity after the sect and the Jews and been persecuted for 300 years. Of course he then says that he's not sure that actually happened (one assumes he refers to Constantine's conversion). He claims that pagan imagery only entered Catholicism later, when Justinian banned the pagan religions. Yet the superficial conversion of pagan temples to Christian shrines in Jerusalem already began with Constantine's converted mother, Helena. The point is that we are given a picture of history of Bible believing Christians (the "true Christians", meaning of course the narrator's kind of Christians), and these pre-modern "modern evangelicals" were persecuted by the pagan Empire and later by its paganized church.

This is a common trope in fundamentalist Christianity - the Catholic church burnt the true Christians, rather than the pagans, gnostics, Cathars and heretics. That is quite an astounding claim to make with no evidence except a picture of unidentified people being burnt at the stake! The same reworking of history can be found in everything from sermons to emotive gospel videos by Carman (see their revisionist claims: Never mind that the early Christians were first not divided from the Jews in pogroms, and that later they were hardly unified on issues like the Trinity or the divine nature of Christ until Constantine's Council settled what would be official doctrine. Indeed the same doctrine that Luther kept with the Reformation and that most Protestant sects keep today (although they still accuse each other of blasphemy on a number of other issues).

Otherwise, all that is said in this clip is that Christianity and the Bible has been congruous with several occult traditions.
This is exactly what Icke writes:

In the same way, an initiate of the esoteric knowledge will read the Bible differently to a Christian or a Jewish believer. The initiate will recognize the symbolism, the numerology and esoteric codes, while the believer takes the text literally.
(David Icke: The Biggest Secret. 2001,p. 81).

So the narrator is really giving an unsure historical context, and an approach to the Bible without what is currently deemed to be "the occult". Astrology would be one example of what the narrator considers occultism, which renders the ancient symbol of the cross and the 12 disciples representing 12 houses as a mere coincidence in the Bible. However, astrology was not always considered occult, but was once an accepted science.
The church not only forbade the commoners from reading the Bible, but many other forms of knowledge (including the Greek philosophies), and these became "hidden".
How much current Protestant Christianity is really free from Catholic doctrine is debatable.
Some sects say the rapture is literally in the Bible, while others say this was a heresy originating from Catholic futurism.
It is fair enough that the narrator wants to distance himself from other churches and leaders who (as Icke points out) have used occultism.
Sadly, where Icke does directly address Biblical doctrine, the answers seem so uncomfortable or unsound that they are ignored. Icke asks what happens to unbaptized/unsaved babies when they die (Ibid. p.105).
According to both Catholic and Protestant teachings on Original Sin the straight answer is that they go to hell or some kind of limbo.
However, that's not an answer they like to give, or an issue they like to discuss without adding to the doctrine.

Ironically the narrator ends up agreeing with Icke (that is, where he actually agrees with his own statements), the only difference is that he broadly argues that the occult meanings weren't intentionally put in the Bible.
That is really irrelevant to Icke, since he clearly states that he aims to offer his findings on the esoteric reading of scripture, and not that of the believer.
edit on 24-5-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

No matter where you 'come from' (I can't remember), this was an awesome post. Bravo.

edit on 25-5-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in