Anybody else notice the stunning increase in volume in the conspiracies in religion sections? this i

BO XIAN
reply to post by freedom7

 

I'm beginning to wonder if the satanic globalist oligarchy is using some of the Destroyer in Chief's cyber warriors to provoke, identify, target

those who have a passionate believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . .

at least to identify and mark them for earlier extermination.

Such threads on such a site as this would be a great way and place to do that.

Personally, I want to be sure that there's plenty of evidence to convict me as a supporter of the Lord Jesus the Christ.

LOL man, who is going to prosecute you for the usefulness to powers you really know nothing of, and frankly those powers LOVE you all for choosing the easy way out.

Not long now, we are watching the façade crumble away, in my family alone the Jesus Lord story is dying by the day, and this is not because of attempts, but because TRUTH will see that you need no LORD, and you never did.

The Satanic Globalist Oligarchy is so in bed with the trumpeters of the Jesus fiction, they programmed this all , just for those with your DNA subsets, as a trap to fall into that would actually make you feel good, once you "accepted" that your will should be REMOVED from you.

We are seeing the dawning of a new age, some of us that CAN anyways, and we have found that even the strongest prayers to , about, and for "Jesus Christ" can be stripped of the emotion, the lie, the deceit, and after lies NOTHING, we are the stronger.

Get ready for a war you had not thought could happen, GODS CHOSEN ONES, defending themselves from YOU.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Even more obvious. Science doesn't support burning bushes talking.

Kindly cite a post of mine where I claim that it does. Or where I say that bushes talk. But nice job with the belittling

Here's your problem -- you're so sure of your position that you ignore evidence, rather than incorporating it. You believe that the universe is eternal, and so you adopt a scientific position that supports that belief, and when shown evidence that your position is incorrect, rather than abandoning it and figuring out how your worldview fits into that picture, you going scrounging about for theories you don't understand that might support your position, and once you find one, you latch onto it like a dog on a t-bone.

That's pretty much the same thing that creationists do -- they're so entrenched in their position that they ignore evidence and desperately search for something that they can hang their hat on, rather than admitting that they're wrong and figuring out how to accommodate the evidence into their worldview. That's how they come up with idiotic statements like "man and dinosaurs lived at the same time -- look at these footprints!"

Science doesn't work by starting with a premise and then filtering evidence to support that premise.

BO XIAN
reply to post by freedom7

 

I'm beginning to wonder if the satanic globalist oligarchy is using some of the Destroyer in Chief's cyber warriors to provoke, identify, target

those who have a passionate believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . .

at least to identify and mark them for earlier extermination.

Such threads on such a site as this would be a great way and place to do that.

Personally, I want to be sure that there's plenty of evidence to convict me as a supporter of the Lord Jesus the Christ.

LOL what a funny post. So now the tired rhetoric that Christianity is under attack (it isn't, that is just some BS created by a MAJORITY religion in ONE country to continue to appear like a bunch of victims) has morphed into a global conspiracy to mark Christians for... what?

But go ahead and call me a shill for this "satanic globalist oligarchy." I mean it's not like Satan wasn't invented by early Christians or anything...

So now the tired rhetoric that Christianity is under attack (it isn't, that is just some BS created by a MAJORITY religion in ONE country to continue to appear like a bunch of victims) has morphed into a global conspiracy to mark Christians for... what?


www.charismanews.com...

- Members of the House of Commons were told that the persecution of Christians is increasing, that one Christian is killed about every 11 minutes around the world, and that Christianity

- A long list of countries in which life as a Christian is most difficult was discussed, including Syria, North Korea, Eritrea, Nigeria, Iraq and Egypt.

I would imagine the ONE country you are referring to would be the United States It's which you claim Christians try to appear like "victims" to everyone.

If you sincerely believe this, I would strongly encourage you to read about what life is like for a Christian in a devout Islamic nation. It is and always has been the most persecuted religion because It all goes back to what Jesus said, "you will be hated because they hated me first. " And how men are so entrenched in their own darkness and sin that they HATE the light of Christ because it exposes all the dirty corners of their hearts.

True genuine Christians are by far the most committed to serving others- being there for the poor, preaching the gospel, having missionaries all over the world, healing the sick etc... It's odd that the reaction to a Christian saying he is against homosexuality is extreme- they are deemed a bigot, a hater etc... But If an adherent to Islam, Judaism, Buddhist or another religion makes a statement as to why they believe homosexuality isn't natural- it's passed off as "freedom of expression/ speech."

I am Christian so you can call me biased all you want and believe me I understand your angle, because I went through a period in my life where I Hated Christians, hated feeling so torn between where my commitments lay, and couldn't stand how they never seemed to want to stop talking about Jesus, the bible, forgiveness , love etc...

Just be honest with yourself, and ask yourself do I really think that it's a coincidence that Christianity has a way of creating so much resistance/tension but not another relgion?

Jesus is the x factor in all of this, no other prophet/ leader in any other religion fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah, nor did they endure extreme torture and death by crucifixion all the while when they could have stopped it. But chose obedience, service , mercy and love for mankind instead.

The arrogance that the Christians portrays about this Jesus being better and somehow having more effect in the world is indeed false bravado.

I can travel all around the world and find people with far more zeal for actually DEEPER realizations of what Christians can only skirt the surface of.

I also realize that the Christians are LEFT ALONE largely by everyone, everywhere despite the fact they tout the persecution, the pain , OH THE HORROR.

Indeed, all religions ARE for an agenda that literally none of the adepts even try to reach for.

And Christianity and all of its various concepts just happens to the most corrupt of them all.

reply to post by freedom7


Oh please... Try being anything BUT Muslim in a Muslim country. Heck you can't even just be Muslim. If you are a Shiite in a Sunni country or a Sunni in a Shiite country you will be prosecuted. Don't make it sound like Christians are special in this regard. I'd be JUST as prosecuted if I tried to profess that I was agnostic over there.

Oh and just like you had a period that you hated Christians (I don't hate Christians by the way, just most of their rhetoric), I used to be Catholic and even tried to just stay Christian non-denominational when I left the RCC for awhile. It's not like I was agnostic my whole life.

Oh and that prophecy nonsense. For most of those prophecies, Jesus' life was pigeonholed and altered to confirm to the prophecies or they were straight up written after his death

reply to post by adjensen


Sorry but when you claim Christian theology is validated through physics and cosmology you're not exactly coming from a position to be critical towards me in that way. I showed that Paul Steinhardt believes in dark energies possible states and that they evolve/change as time goes on. That's at least something. Now show me the science behind someone commanding the sea to part, turning water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead, humans living almost a thousand years. Or since you got this affirmation of faith through physics and cosmology perhaps skip to addressing the fact the Bible says the Earth was formed before the Sun.

This doesn't apply to you though I guess. You're exempt because you reminded me 'I don't mix science and faith' despite stating affirmation of that faith happened through science. You're playing games Adjensen and I am not in the mood. You targeted my first post and made an absurd claim I was ignoring the OP (ignoring something the OP never said) just to pick a fight. I am done. Good day

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Sorry but when you claim Christian theology is validated through physics and cosmology you're not exactly coming from a position to be critical towards me in that way.

I think I told you at least twice that I came to deism through science, not the other way around.

As I've said several times, I do not use science to justify faith, or vice-versa.

reply to post by freedom7


In reply to the OPs Heading the answer is "YES2, but why and who got the anti-Christian ball rolling.

reply to post by adjensen


This is your quote.

I came to my religious perspective long after I began studying science, and, while I came to a deistic (eventually Christian) position through physics and cosmology..

That reads to me as both your position of Deism and eventually Christianity was the result of studying physics and cosmology. That's how it reads to me. Perhaps that's my error.

If you meant at no point studying science (physics or cosmology or otherwise) aided your belief in Christianity than fine. Thanks for clarifying. If that is not in fact what you're saying, then what I said in my prior post stands. You would be no more exempt from 'latching on to dog bones' with a preconceived premise than me.

Additionally. If it's [your belief] truly entirely faith based and entirely separate from science and therefore divorced from empirical reason how on Earth do you think you are in the position to judge me negatively for believing….well….anything...

If faith without that kind of reasoning is valid I could simply have faith in a god that supports a cyclical Universe. Faith that this god through her omnipotence and omnipresence could manipulate dark energy directly and cause a big crunch.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

That reads to me as both your position of Deism and eventually Christianity was the result of studying physics and cosmology. That's how it reads to me. Perhaps that's my error.

If you meant at no point studying science (physics or cosmology or otherwise) aided your belief in Christianity than fine.

No.

I came to the conclusion that there was a primary cause, which I attributed to something outside of our reality, as a result of studying physics and cosmology. What that actually meant came later, and had nothing to do with my study of science. Wildtimes did a thread last year about spiritual journeys, and I posted mine here, which lays it out.

If it's [your belief] truly entirely faith based and entirely separate from science and therefore divorced from empirical reason how on Earth do you think you are in the position to judge me negatively for believing….well….anything…

I'm not judging you, I'm just pointing out that, on this matter, at least, you're demonstrating the same behaviour that many criticize Creationists for -- ignoring empirical evidence in favour of a theory that supports a pre-conceived notion. It isn't scientific when the Creationist does it, and it isn't scientific when you do it.

If faith without that kind of reasoning is valid I could simply have faith in a god that supports a cyclical Universe. Faith that this god through her omnipotence and omnipresence could manipulate dark energy directly and cause a big crunch.

And I would support you in that belief -- I don't really care what you believe, because it doesn't change reality, any more than my beliefs change reality. I am an apologist, not an evangelist.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm not judging you

You and I differ on what that word means.

ignoring empirical evidence in favour of a theory that supports a pre-conceived notion. It isn't scientific when the Creationist does it, and it isn't scientific when you do it.

Okay. If that's what you take from it. Personally I think there is a distinct difference between claiming something is objective truth and doing what I did which was express the belief it was the likely outcome. If you see no difference there, okay. Furthermore, to say I was ignoring the empirical evidence all the while I was acknowledging the consensus of the scientific community did not favor Big Crunch seems a little off mark. Let me summate my posts and my position. It's clear that although the science community doesn't currently favor the theory there is reason to believe scientifically in the possibility and I am wagering (call it a bet) the science will in the future once again favor the Big Crunch model. That's the extent of the belief I was expressing and that you say is analogous to evangelical creationists. If that's what you see. Cool. You go ahead and think that and I'll give you pardon for no reason towards how much sense your faith makes in respect to the nature of reality.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Let me summate my posts and my position. It's clear that although the science community doesn't currently favor the theory there is reason to believe scientifically in the possibility and I am wagering (call it a bet) the science will in the future once again favor the Big Crunch model. That's the extent of the belief I was expressing and that you say is analogous to evangelical creationists.

Yes, and here is why I think it's the same thing:

It's clear that although the science community doesn't currently favor creationism there is reason to believe scientifically in the possibility and I am wagering (call it a bet) the science will in the future once again favor creationism.

That's obviously not something that I would say, but it is something that a creationist might say, because both he and you hinge your statement on a personal belief that science, today, is wrong, and in the future, science will revert to something that science believed was true in the past, but for which, today, there is absolutely no evidence.

There is nothing wrong with that perspective, I just think that a better approach is to accept what the evidence indicates and figure out how one's worldview fits in with that -- per the current discussion, I can think of a number of solutions that incorporate a non-cyclical universe with a lack of deities, indicating that one's atheism need not be discarded in the face of a reality that has a discrete beginning, and a discrete end, as appears to be the case for ours.