It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That ALL of the past man-made, fictional MAN-GODS were created all by some fictional BOOGIEMAN who could see some SPECIAL MAN-GOD was on the way, and therefore this FUTURE-TELLING-BOOGIEMAN spent all his time creating all those other MAN-GOODS throughout history just to fool people in the future.
Originally posted by CaptainNemo
So you're asserting that there is more than one messiah? Begone Satanic minder.!
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
If text was evidence I could quote to you about the dangers of Lord Voldemort from the gospels of Saint Potter..
Originally posted by SwissMarked
Jesus never claimed to be God... never claimed to be the son of God... never claimed to be much of what has over the last two centuries been attributed to him by men who dare to say they speak in his name while committing atrocities that go against every single thing Jesus (or Yeshua) was attempting to impart...
Originally posted by Defcon5
Jesus did in fact state that he was the son of God, that God was his father, and as a matter of fact this was one of the accusations the jews made against him to have him put to death.
Additionally, I would like to know what atrocities that you attribute to Christians in the last 200 years? The only atrocities that I know of were all done in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, and were pretty much over with by the 1700's...As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Syncretism (English pronunciation: /ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm/) is the combining of different (often contradictory) beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism may involve the merger and analogising of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.
The exact nature of the Flower Wars is not well determined but a number of different interpretations of the concept exist. One popular idea of the Flower Wars is that it was a special institutionalized kind of warfare where two enemy states would plan battles through mutual arrangement in order to satisfy the religious needs of both combatants for war captives to use in sacrificial rituals, but also, possibly, to train young warriors and enable social mobility which for the lower classes was primarily possible through military service. This view is based on a number of quotes from early chroniclers and also from the letters of Cortés. However in recent years this interpretation has been doubted by scholars such as Nigel Davies and Ross Hassig, who argues that "the mutual arrangement" of the flower war institution is dubious, and suggest that the Flower War was in fact a low-intensity, sustained conflict with the Aztec side trying to wear down the Tlaxcalteca in order to later conquer them entirely.
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Shark_Feeder