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.
As described in the Book of Revelation, there is an epic battle that will take place in Israel after it is reestablished — Armaggedon — in which it is prophesied that good will finally triumph over evil. However, in the process, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel die and the other third are converted to Christianity. Jesus then returns to Earth to rule for 1,000 years as king.
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by WhoKnows100
As I posted above it shows your statements may be may be a bit simplistic and are certainly generalizations.
obviously if they were afraid of the church it must have been their fault?
see my above post re the strving Vikings not being allowed to learn from the innuit by the priest
they were all sacrificed on the alter of ignorance
it is often said that as a society progresses, tyrants worm their way in and use sacrifice to keep the masses under contol..this is not nesessarily indicitive of their societies as a whole...
certainly the church BURNT many they found with esoteric knowledge or nice stuff (inquisition)or who were reoected by the people and threatened their monoploly on knowledge
remeber the Kathars?
the first man to translate the biblke into english? (killed by the church)
They say dna has shown that half the people on death row in the US are innocent
how about the armys use of soldiers as guinea pigs at nuclear bomb test sites
or the children dying of vaccinations..
or staved by speculation caused price increases..
the church is one of the biggest share holders in the world you know...
you have the religious wars in europe which killed millions over which kind of christian they were
you have the Irish killing them selves off over which form of christianity they are
you have the pope declaring himself above the kings of europe,,,the sun goes around the earth
they would kill over that remember...galileo...the navigators amoungst the norse would have feared that for sure
you have crusades
etc
the church as are many power structures are slaughter machines!
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by WhoKnows100
As I posted above it shows your statements may be may be a bit simplistic and are certainly generalizations.
obviously if they were afraid of the church it must have been their fault?
see my above post re the strving Vikings not being allowed to learn from the innuit by the priest
they were all sacrificed on the alter of ignorance
it is often said that as a society progresses, tyrants worm their way in and use sacrifice to keep the masses under contol..this is not nesessarily indicitive of their societies as a whole...
certainly the church BURNT many they found with esoteric knowledge or nice stuff (inquisition)or who were respected by the people and threatened their monoploly on knowledge and leadership
remeber the Cathars?
the first man to translate the bible into english? (killed by the church)
They say dna has shown that half the people on death row in the US are innocent
how about the armys use of soldiers as guinea pigs at nuclear bomb test sites
or the children dying of vaccinations..
or staved by speculation caused price increases..
the church is one of the biggest share holders in the world you know...
you have the religious wars in europe which killed millions over which kind of christian they were
you have the Irish killing them selves off over which form of christianity they are
you have the pope declaring himself above the kings of europe,,,the sun goes around the earth
they would kill over that remember...galileo...the navigators amoungst the norse would have feared that for sure
you have crusades
etc
the church as are many power structures are power mad for profit slaughter machines! ( at times)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Danbones
One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by longjohnbritches
now that was a damn fine post LJB!
considering my participation on some raw milk threads
i think we will find too climate change plays a big part in this drama as well
and there will be currency and banking wars too
cultural clashes and just plain old misunderstandings
so there are a lot of relevent concepts to discuss here...
edit to add
I do agree about the pagan roots of christianity
many of the holidays and their patron icons like hallows eve and santa clause the Ishtar or EAstar bunny
all asimilations which gets us back to the OPedit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by Danbones
One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
Nice find. I'm kinda surprised that some are turning it into a 'paramountcy of Christianity' issue but that is a fairly limp side-story. Fact is most religions...Christianity included...have a pretty bad habit of demonising the competition and burning sites, books and adherents that cause them inconvenience. I'm not surprised that the users of this temple hid their sacred site from interlopers. We certainly wish a few more of the Mayan codices had survived the Christian scrum, for example.
But as to the question of building on the last guy's temple, what I am not seeing is a recognition that sacred landscapes and sites keep bringing folks back, no matter what the flavour of their godhead.
S&F, dude.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
One report mentions a group that reached what would now be the Canadian coast.
It was at the mouth of a river where they met what they called the Scralings (sp)
They got along fine at the camp the first day but the Europeans let the natives have some milk with thier chow.
The next morning the arrows were flying like a rain of pee.
The natives were retaliating for what they thought was intentional poisoning.
Although it wasn't. They were just lactose intolorant.
It put a hurting on the group bad enough to make them leave.
tenthmedieval.wordpress.com...
The new research I linked to above, however, goes in the other direction. At Kimmirut in Baffin Island a site has been dug which has produced woven yarn and tally-sticks, neither of which are paralleled from any other Dorset site and which therefore suggest contact with outsiders. The reporting archaeologist has some ideas about where some of this stuff is coming from, because:
Other artifacts from the area, such as a small wooden carving of a mask, missing its nose, also suggest face-to-face contacts with Europeans.
That’s because, although the mask is carved in a Dorset Inuit manner, it shows a long and possibly bearded face with straight and heavy eyebrows, wearing what may be Viking headgear.
Nonetheless, the problem lies in the dating, because the yarn apparently dates to some hundreds of years before the Viking settlements in Greenland were a going concern. (The article doesn’t say how they dated it, but even C14 doesn’t miss by whole centuries.) As the article says:
So, as Sutherland said, if you believe that spinning was not an indigenous technique that was used in Arctic North America, then you have to consider the possibility that as “remote as it may seem,” these finds may represent evidence of contact with Europeans prior to the Vikings’ arrival in Greenland.
They quite carefully refuse to pronounce on whether or not the yarn must be of European-style manufacture, but it’s interesting all the same. If Irish on Iceland, Irish on Greenland? And if on Greenland, Baffin? Brendan come home, all is forgiven…
Aerial view of the Brough of Deerness
Meanwhile, on another lump of rock where there certainly was Norse settlement, it’s turned out not to be quite what was expected. When the Vikings took over in Orkney, they are usually supposed to have been raw and pagan still, fresh from Norway or wherever, and generally taking no prisoners. A really good place to fortify yourself in such an endeavour is this Orcadian stack, Brough of Deerness, on which we have for some time known there was some settlement. That settlement includes a church, which again we knew had a precursor, but now the precursor has been dug, and it turned up a coin of King Edgar of England (959-75). That might pretty much make it contemporary with the Viking take-over, though of course Vikings didn’t always take their coins in for reminting when it was ordered and it’s possible that coin had been in circulation a good long time by the time it was deposited. All the same, it may suggest that one thing the new warlords did was set up a chapel, or at least, keep one going. As the excavating officer, Dr James Barrett of Cambridge, says: “It shows us that, even in the most Scandinavianised regions of Viking Age Britain, power was maintained by eventually accepting the local religion, in this case Christianity.” So remodel your Viking chieftain image accordingly…
(Hat tip for both of these to David Beard’s Archaeology in Europe, which also ran this article at the same time about the much-better-known Norse settlement at l’Anse-aux-Meadows in Newfoundland and its visitor centre.)
Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by longjohnbritches
Hi. I'm "bashing" christianity.
Now you know where it's "comming" from. Me. In Chicago. I'm neither Marxist, nor a former supporter or resident of the USSR. I grew up here in Chicago. Born and raised in an evangelical christian home. I am an atheist and stand opposed to all organized religion. People can believe what they want, but it's their own private beliefs and should have no effect or bearing on society as a whole, and most importantly, not their government.
Your religious persecution complex may be helped if you sought psychiatric help.
Have a wonderful day.
Originally posted by Danbones
we may have IRISH on baffin Island before Vikings who says here left europe about the time of the christian Invaders of Norway
. Much of it is speculative, indeed, but speculation fuels research, eh? The problem arises when the difference between the two is blurred.
The Farfarers: Before the Norse (2000) is a book by Farley Mowat that sets out a theory about pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Mowat's thesis is that even before the Vikings, North America was discovered and settled by Europeans originating from Orkney who reached Canada after a generation-spanning migration that used Iceland and Greenland as 'stepping stones'. Mowat's ideas are controversial and have been accused of being over-speculative. The book has been published in the UK as The Alban Quest.en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
In other words Atheism is the religon of the Marxist Communists.
Originally posted by Danbones
A fascinating discovery is shedding light upon pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and early Christian inroads into Norway. In the Norwegian press, this highly important find is being called "unparalleled," "first of its kind" and "unique," said to have been "deliberately and carefully hidden" - from invading and destructive Christians.
Located at the site of Ranheim, about 10 kilometers south of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, the astonishing discovery was unearthed while excavating foundations for new houses and includes a "gudehovet" or "god temple." Occupied from the 6th or 5th century BCE until the 10th century AD/CE, the site shows signs of usage for animal sacrifice, a common practice among different peoples in antiquity, including the biblical Israelites. (E.g., Num 7:17-88) Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.
www.examiner.com...
Well, I thought this was an interesting find
One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer
Originally posted by Malcher
So this person got all that from a little dirt on top of the site. No facts or evidence required?
You really can say anything and some will believe it. It is bad enough we have little information from history from that time but make stuff up???
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by Malcher
So this person got all that from a little dirt on top of the site. No facts or evidence required?
You really can say anything and some will believe it. It is bad enough we have little information from history from that time but make stuff up???
Well, then...so now you know why archaeology is a science. They obviously excavated features that led them to decide that the site had been sealed/hidden, and then set about establishing why. Historical research would provide details. When you are dealing with archaeologist/historians/anthropologists, they have a certain expertise that allows for something a little more concise than 'make stuff up'.