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.

 

Thank God It is Up to the Faithful to Build an Electric Fence and Kill Gay People - video included

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 





He started the inquisition of heretics


I'm not particularly fond of the Inquisition myself. I am not fond of anyone using such means of control. It seems that part of that was due to the reconquest of the area from Islam back to Christianity. It is what it is. I hardly think that seculars can claim to be any better in the department of murdering for control than any religious sect. Take the communist party in Russia. They endeavored to eliminate all religion and murdered religious folk as well as in general put many people in gulags. Then of course there is Pol Pot, Mao(just ask Anita Dunn), Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh.


Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million


According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology – Marxism.[25



"Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[26] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[26]


en.wikipedia.org...

So all things considered, Communists and Utopians top the list as murdering thugs. And that was in a period of only 100 years.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





Yes indeed all religious books were written by men.


Yes of course. The Holy Books are considered to be Divinely Inspired.

Do you view science books to be written by a higher authority?
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 



This common underlying worldview is known as "scientific materialism. " As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists [Haught2010, pg. 48]. It is clear that there is little room for religion in this philosophical system, since religion involves faith in unseen and presumably empirically untestable entities.
But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]:

But if faith in God requires independent scientific confirmation, what about the colossal faith our new atheists place in science itself? Exactly what are the independent scientific experiments, we might ask, that could provide "evidence" for the hypothesis that all true knowledge must be based on the paradigm of scientific inquiry? If faith requires independent confirmation, what is the independent (nonfaith) method of demonstrating that their own faith in the all-encompassing cognitional scope of science is reasonable? If science itself is the only way to provide such independent assessment, then the quest for proper validation only moves the justification process in the direction of an infinite regress.




As John Haught observes, "thinking of God as a hypothesis reduces the infinite divine mystery to a finite scientific cause, and to worship anything finite is idolatrous" [Haught2008, pg. 43]. Anglican theologian Keith Ward notes that "the question of God is certainly a factual one, but certainly not a scientific one." Instead, "t lies at the very deep level of ultimate metaphysical options" [Ward2008, pg. 30]. For additional discussion, see God hypothesis.
When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws [Whitehead1967, pg. 17-19, 27]:

Faith in reason is the trust that the ultimate natures of things lie together in a harmony which excludes mere arbitrariness. It is the faith that at the base of things we shall not find mere arbitrary mystery. The faith in the order of nature which made possible the growth of science is a particular example of a deeper faith.



www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

Just a few musings in case you ever want to get your own sense of knowledge of things into perspective.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
When religion makes people nasty it needs to be stopped.

Are we seriously expected to believe that God created gay people so the rest of us have something to hate?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 





Are we seriously expected to believe that God created gay people so the rest of us have something to hate?


That is actually a basis for deep theological discussion...that is, did God create evil? A study of the Chinese tai chi symbol suggests that the world requires contrast, therefore contrast is embedded within material manifestation.

The supreme being/ultimate truth is beyond words or any conceptual understanding. When asked to name it, it is referred to as Tao or the Way. The Power of the Way is referred to as Te. Although Tao and Te are similar to other practices' ideas of God, Taoists seldom refer to God.


Taoist Belief
All matter is a manifestation of the Ultimate Reality. Generally, Taoist beliefs don't find modern scientific discoveries contradictory to Taoist thought; hence Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" is aptly named.





To understand the Taoist notion of good and evil, it is important to distinguish between the "concept" of evil versus the "reality" of evil.
As a concept, Taoist do not hold the position of good against evil; rather they see the interdependence of all dualities. So when one labels something as a good, one automatically creates evil. That is, all concepts necessarily are based on one aspect vs. another; if a concept were to have only one aspect, it would be nonsensical.

The reality of good and evil is that all actions contain some aspect of each. This is represented in the t'ai chi, more commonly referred to as the yin-yang symbol. Any action would have some negative (yin) and some positive (yang) aspect to it. Taoists believe that nature is a continual balance between yin and yang,


spiritualjourney.forumotion.net...


Now if you turn to the bible, you can find a similar idea, just expressed in a different way.


Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of "light" and "darkness," "well being" and "calamity." The word "well-being" in the Hebrew is the word for 'peace,' "Shalome." So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The "evil" that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity.


carm.org...
I hope that answered your question. If you are not satisfied, you could google free will.

edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 



This common underlying worldview is known as "scientific materialism. " As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists [Haught2010, pg. 48]. It is clear that there is little room for religion in this philosophical system, since religion involves faith in unseen and presumably empirically untestable entities.
But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]:

But if faith in God requires independent scientific confirmation, what about the colossal faith our new atheists place in science itself? Exactly what are the independent scientific experiments, we might ask, that could provide "evidence" for the hypothesis that all true knowledge must be based on the paradigm of scientific inquiry? If faith requires independent confirmation, what is the independent (nonfaith) method of demonstrating that their own faith in the all-encompassing cognitional scope of science is reasonable? If science itself is the only way to provide such independent assessment, then the quest for proper validation only moves the justification process in the direction of an infinite regress.




As John Haught observes, "thinking of God as a hypothesis reduces the infinite divine mystery to a finite scientific cause, and to worship anything finite is idolatrous" [Haught2008, pg. 43]. Anglican theologian Keith Ward notes that "the question of God is certainly a factual one, but certainly not a scientific one." Instead, "t lies at the very deep level of ultimate metaphysical options" [Ward2008, pg. 30]. For additional discussion, see God hypothesis.
When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws [Whitehead1967, pg. 17-19, 27]:

Faith in reason is the trust that the ultimate natures of things lie together in a harmony which excludes mere arbitrariness. It is the faith that at the base of things we shall not find mere arbitrary mystery. The faith in the order of nature which made possible the growth of science is a particular example of a deeper faith.



www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

Just a few musings in case you ever want to get your own sense of knowledge of things into perspective.


Now that was funny. You are a victim I see. You also have a severe reading comprehension issue. No where did I say you can't have your faith or that god doesn't exist. I said your holy books were made up. And they were. Faith in God is one thing. Faith in a "book" is another. No matter how much you spin it.

CJ



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





That is actually a basis for deep theological discussion...that is, did God create evil? A study of the Chinese tai chi symbol suggests that the world requires contrast, therefore contrast is embedded within material manifestation.


In response to a posters question about god creating homosexuals so we can hate them. What in the???? So you are one who believe homosexuals are evil. Got it. I believe in free will. It is obvious you don't. Thank you God for giving me the strength to see through the religious wacko ideas and realize that the EVIL that is spoken of was NOT created by GOD but by MAN himself.

CJ



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
No, it's more likely that God created people with dispositions towards different sins, so we could SHOW OUR COMPASSION. Really, if Christianity is THE truth, then we've been given the job of selling, without giving up our integrity. So this means a balancing act of unconditional love v.s. right and wrong. There's plenty of scriptures about the issue of choosing to be IN the right over BEING right.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Christ was pretty clear that it was his job to judge, not ours.
The words that you give so much importance to, the concepts that you feel must be followed are for YOU to follow in YOUR relationship with Christ, not the things you should be demanding of other people. They have their own relationship with Christ (even non-belief is a relationship) and Christ will judge that, not you.
Judge not lest ye be judged. By what measure you judge, you will surely be judged. So.... if you are going to judge others based on a misinterpretation and nitpicking from the book of Leviticus, YOU will be judged by ALL of Leviticus. If that's the measure you set up to judge others by, that's the measure you will be judged by. Not just the misinterpreted, nitpicked verses, ALL of the verses from the book. Each and every last one. So... go ahead and judge and hate homosexuals based on what you think it means, but be ready to uphold every jot and tittle in the writing because that's the measure you chose.
You can't pick one out and say, "no, that doesn't apply anymore, but this other one does". If you have chosen a particular book for your basis of measurement, you are responsible for each and every line, each and every word, each and every concept. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by denver22
 


That's all very nice, I thought you were making a case for socialism?
Nahh mate, i am making a case against your sheep in wolves clothing i.e the "popes" for breaking gods commandments for far too long, while preaching the gospel of thou shalt not kill , to name but a few
.. Shall i go on as we are on the subject of the - what was it you called the pope.... ahh yes "the vicar of god".. shall i continue sir...
here is your popes taking the words of men instead of the commandments . Also this is what god had to say about your popes and leaders..


"You pretenders, hypocrites! Admirably and truly did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said, 'These people draw near Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts hold off and are far away from Me.' Uselessly do they worship Me, for they teach as doctrines the commands of men."

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

The popes are responsible for doing what god told them not to do throughout history ..
Please do not bring up hitler and stalin as i am talkng about the people in power with the pointy hats, who are your- as you say, vicars of god in charge with spreading the divine word from rome. Like i say from my first post on this thread ... how very christian like ..

TextSeeing that we shall be judged by the word of God, it would seem reasonable to expect those who say they are Christians to follow that word. But, as the scriptures warn us that there will be false teachers who "privily shall bring in damnable heresies". It seems that no matter what God says, Rome always goes the opposite direction.
It also seems that they change their word about god, more times than my mrs changes her mind on what shoes she likes to wear..



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join