Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by sizzle
Mel,
refresh my memory. I'm a little lost on this scotsman fallacy. When and where did I say anything about that since I don't even know anything about it?

Heh, it's a form of informal fallacy. T'was here from earlier:

Madness,
I see over and over how atheists go back hundreds of years to sling mud on Christians of today. I seriously have my doubts that any TRUE born-again Christians were involved in any of that. But I know this; Myself and many others are very angry over the treatment that the native americans received from the early settlers of this country. It is becoming a well known fact that Christopher Columbus was a member of the Knights of Malta, which is NOT a Christian organization. So why don't you guys update your mudslinging to the 21st century?

linky-dink

It's a bit like saying 'I seriously have my doubts that any TRUE scotsman would not eat haggis'.

Don't worry about. It's not a flogging offence or anything.

Just a thought: Scotsmen do not have an "instruction manual" on how to be a Scotsman. There is no manuscript that states a Scotsman should not put sugar on their porridge. Christians, on the other hand, have the Bible for instruction. We can look at this two ways:

1). No Christian who adheres to Jesus' teaching would convert by force or under penalty of death. Jesus said if there is someone who does not listen to our message, then we should "shake the dust of our sandals" and move along. No violence or force. Therefore, a true Christian would not use violence to convert.

2). Obviously, some Christians have used violence in the past to convert. So, are they false Christians? They are not adhering to Jesus' teaching and are therefore sinning but does that mean they lose their salvation? In the strictest sense, no. But we can question whether or not they were even Christians to begin with as "they will know we are Christians by our love." It is not loving or Christ like to kill or hurt someone. So, these people were either not Christians (those who adhere to Jesus' teachings) or they were Christians but very much confused as they were dishonoring Jesus' instruction on how to handle such things.

But what you basically do, if you suggest this is the case, is that christians move in and out of christianity consistently. Unless you are jesus himself (the one true sin free dude?), then you could never be a christian.

From your comment in the other thread:

But what does that mean? That once we accept Him as our personal savior, we are forgiven past, present, and future because he bore the sins (past, present, and future) on the cross for anyone who believed in Him. Therefore, we technically commit sins but since we are told He purifies us and "cleanses us of all unrighteousness," He has taken our burden and forgiven us like we never even sinned.

You canae have it both ways. Those christians putting people on the rack and burning witches were forgiven their sins, just like you would be for coveting your neighbours ox (or 4x4 etc).


[edit on 9-2-2008 by melatonin]

This post is in reply to Madnessinmysoul and his announcement that he belongs to the organization of the Knights of Malta, inspite of the fact that he also claims to be an atheist who is staunchily opposed to belief in any god, and opposed to murder or killing. Look what I found. Looks like he is in good company:

Initial Membership List of the Knights of Malta*


Compiled by Eric Samuelson, J.D.

General Allavena
George W. Anderson
James Jesus Angelton
Julian Allason
Roberto Alejos Arzu
Grandmaster, Prince Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie (cousin of QEII)
(Former Prime Minister) Tony Blair
Elmer Bobst
Charles Joseph Bonaparte
Prince Valerio Borghese
Dr. Barry Bradley
Nicholas Brady
Monsignor Mario Brini
Pat Buchanan
James Buckley
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Precott Bush, Jr.
Frank Capra
William Casey
Gustavo Cisneros
(Cardinal) Terence Cooke
Gerald Coughlin
Cartha DeLoach
Giscard d'Estaing
Bill Donovan
Allen Dulles
Avery Dulles
(Archbishop) Edward Egan
(Count) Franz Egon
John Farrell
Francis D. Flanagan
Flynn
Licio Gelli
Reinhard Gehlen
Sir John Gorman CVO
Thomas K. Gorman
J. Peter Grace
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Gen. Alexander Haig
Cyril Hamilton
Otto von Hapsburg
William Randolph Hearst
(Baron) Conrad Hilton
Heinrich Himmler
J. Edgar Hoover
Lee Iococca
Joseph Kennedy
(Senator) Ted Kennedy
Bowie Kuhn
Joseph P. Larkin
Louis Lehrman
General de Lorenzo
Clara Booth Luce (Dame)
Henry Luce
George MacDonald
Avro Manhattan
Alexandre de Marenches
John McCone
Thomas Melady
Sir Stewart Menzies
(Prince) Angelo di Mojana
Thomas S. Monaghan
Thomas 'Tip' O'Neill
Francis (Frank) V. Ortiz
Fra Giancarlo Pallavicini
Fra Hubert Pallavicini
Franz von Papen
Baron Luigi Parrilli
Juan Peron
Harold A.R. 'Kim' Philby
John J. Raskob
(President) Ronald E. Reagan
John Charles Reynolds
George Rocca
David Rockefeller
General Giuseppe Santovito
Phyllis Schlafly (Dame)
Walter Schellenburg
Frank Shakespeare
Martin F. Shea
Clay Shaw
William Simon
Frank Sinatra
Joseph Schmitz
Cardinal Francis Spellman
Francix X. Stankard
Steve Stavros
Myron Taylor
Admiral Giovanni Torrinsi
(Prince) Anton Turkul
Canon Edward West
William Wilson

now here is an excerpt of their oath:

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that will hang, bum, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the wails in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same can not be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus."

www.biblebelievers.org.au...




And this is a Christian organization?? I don't recall Jesus teaching this. Do any of you? If so, would you kindly point me to the scripture where he says these things?
[edit on 9-2-2008 by sizzle]

[edit on 9-2-2008 by sizzle]

Originally posted by melatonin
From your comment in the other thread:

But what does that mean? That once we accept Him as our personal savior, we are forgiven past, present, and future because he bore the sins (past, present, and future) on the cross for anyone who believed in Him. Therefore, we technically commit sins but since we are told He purifies us and "cleanses us of all unrighteousness," He has taken our burden and forgiven us like we never even sinned.

Because a Christian is saved through grace even when we sin. But...

You canae have it both ways. Those christians putting people on the rack and burning witches were forgiven their sins, just like you would be for coveting your neighbours ox (or 4x4 etc).

Which begs the question, were these people Christians? They could have been but they certainly weren't acting like it. What many people fail to realize is that the "burnt witches" weren't even witches the majority of the time. They were falsely accused Christians who refused to bend to the corrupt church's man made dogma and doctrinal distortion. They were accused of being witches but most serious historians and scholars know these accusations were false.

But that is neither here nor there. Since this happened centuries ago, we are left speculating on what was really going on in their heads. How could a real Christian do such a thing? So were they even real Christians? That is what some are left wondering. Jesus warned there would be those who would kill Christians and believe they were truly doing a service to God but that "they do not know either Me or the Father" (John 16:2-4). Could this be a reference to things like the Inquisition, Witch Trials, and Crusades? It gives us a good reason to think so. On the other hand, we are told to not make judgments about another person's salvation. Kind of a catch 22.

Originally posted by AshleyD
On the other hand, we are told to not make judgments about another person's salvation. Kind of a catch 22.

Aye, it all comes down to what the definition of a christian actually is. And many christians have their own ideas of what it is, heh.

But, I think we should judge people by actions not labels.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, it all comes down to what the definition of a christian actually is. And many christians have their own ideas of what it is, heh.

But, I think we should judge people by actions not labels.

I agree. Anyone can claim to be a Christian but what are their actions? Jesus said we will know people are Christians by:

1) Their love.
2) The fruit they produce (their actions).
3) Their adherence to His teachings.
4) Obeying His instructions to love others because "If you love me you will obey My commandments."

So did these Christians seem they were following the teachings of Christ? Not remotely. So were they Christians? It doesn't seem like it. So no true Christian (one who adheres to the teachings of Christ) would so something so despicable). Unlike the Scotsman, we know what is expected of us.

Judging by His warnings in John, such people did not know Him or the Father. Still, we're not allowed to say these men were not saved but we can fairly accuse them of not following His instructions. They will be standing before God giving an account for their actions and will have to answer for the disgrace they brought to Christianity.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by AshleyD
On the other hand, we are told to not make judgments about another person's salvation. Kind of a catch 22.

Aye, it all comes down to what the definition of a christian actually is. And many christians have their own ideas of what it is, heh.

But, I think we should judge people by actions not labels.

Why Mel! That is one of the most intelligent, fairest statements that has been made in this thread, thus far!

Originally posted by AshleyD
So did these Christians seem they were following the teachings of Christ? Not remotely. So were they Christians? It doesn't seem like it. So no true Christian (one who adheres to the teachings of Christ) would so something so despicable). Unlike the Scotsman, we know what is expected of us.

But now you are shifting goalposts, and you are using the NTS fallacy now.

Your earlier post basically said - yeah once you accept the christor, then your past, present, and future sins just disappear.

That once we accept Him as our personal savior, we are forgiven past, present, and future because he bore the sins (past, present, and future) on the cross for anyone who believed in Him. Therefore, we technically commit sins but since we are told He purifies us and "cleanses us of all unrighteousness," He has taken our burden and forgiven us like we never even sinned.

Once we accept him....Anyone who believed in him. Even people who burnt witches. Even a mass murderer. Even someone who coveted an ox. They technically committed sins, but the jesus-dude just magics them away and forgives you. But not Ghandi.

As I said, you can't have it both ways.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by melatonin]

I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. In other words, we know what a "true" Christian is defined as according to "the manual" but we are not allowed to say who is a "true" Christian even though we can see the "fruit they produce." It's only between that person and God. Just like a Scotsman might know what a Scotsman is but they cannot say who is a "true" Scotsman. I don't think you realize I am actually agreeing with you.

[edit on 2/9/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. In other words, we know what a "true" Christian is defined as according to "the manual" but we are not allowed to say who is a "true" Christian. It's only between that person and God. Just like a Scotsman might know what a Scotsman but they cannot say who is a "true" Scotsman. I don't think you realize I am actually agreeing with you. lol

Heh, maybe you are. Don't be too harsh on me for my lacking attention, blame the 60 59 Cog Neuro exam papers staring at me. They're scaring me, heh.

So, lets say tomorrow (don't be getting your hopes up like) I really honestly accept jesus as my saviour blah blah, I run to the local church and scream Hallelujah. Am I now a christian or not?

We have two things - a false christian; a true christian. I do need to know, because if it happens I can then decide whether to just fogeddabowtit. No point being a false christian.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
So, lets say tomorrow (don't be getting your hopes up like) I really honestly accept jesus as my saviour blah blah, I run to the local church and scream Hallelujah. Am I now a christian or not?

If you accept Jesus as your personal savior then yes. Being a Christian doesn't mean being perfect- it means being under grace. But there are those who claim to be Christians but are not. We can have our opinions about whether or not your conversion was real but we cannot say, "You're fake!" Only God knows that. You don't have to answer to us. But if you start saying things like Satan and Jesus are one and the same or become a serial killer, we might have some questions for you.

Originally posted by AshleyD
If you accept Jesus as your personal savior then yes. Being a Christian doesn't mean being perfect- it means being under grace. But there are those who claim to be Christians but are not.

Aye, I can jive with that.

or become a serial killer, we might have some questions for you.

What if I covet my neighbours sheep? (I do live in Wales, so go with it, heh)

Am I still a christian?

Originally posted by AshleyD
Just a thought: Scotsmen do not have an "instruction manual" on how to be a Scotsman. There is no manuscript that states a Scotsman should not put sugar on their porridge. Christians, on the other hand, have the Bible for instruction. We can look at this two ways:

Okay. Comparing the bible to an instruction manual. Imagine if your VCR's user's manual contained instructions in English, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, and German, as many do. Now imagine that each version gives a different and sometimes conflicting set of directions for operating your VCR. And finally, imagine that the instruction manual then has all of the different languages translated into, say, Farsi, and presented as a single instruction manual

1). No Christian who adheres to Jesus' teaching would convert by force or under penalty of death. Jesus said if there is someone who does not listen to our message, then we should "shake the dust of our sandals" and move along. No violence or force. Therefore, a true Christian would not use violence to convert.

He also said bring them before him and slay him, and condemned those towns that turned him away to punishment in the eternal fires of hell. Then we have Paul, who a great many Christians seem to favor over Jesus, setting back many of Jesus' teachings and bringing institutionalized means of discrimination, railing about the threats of nonbelievers to Christians, and the like. Then we further apply the fact that the majority of Christians choose when and where and if Jesus "counts"... and we're left with painfully few "true Christians" aren't we?

What is the definition of a Christian? The very basic is a person who accepts that Jesus is the messiah, come and sacrificed to save them from their sins. Everyone who accepts this as truth is, in fact, a "true Christian." The main thrust of most branches of Protestantism is that it's absolutely not what you do, but what you believe that will save you - accepting Jesus is all you need, even if you are actually one hell of an awful person. Arguing that "bad people" aren't "true Christians" is about as silly as saying that, well, a Scotsman who sweetens his porridge isn't a "true Scotsman."

2). Obviously, some Christians have used violence in the past to convert. So, are they false Christians? They are not adhering to Jesus' teaching and are therefore sinning but does that mean they lose their salvation? In the strictest sense, no. But we can question whether or not they were even Christians to begin with as "they will know we are Christians by our love." It is not loving or Christ like to kill or hurt someone. So, these people were either not Christians (those who adhere to Jesus' teachings) or they were Christians but very much confused as they were dishonoring Jesus' instruction on how to handle such things.

It depends on their interpretation. Is it loving to kill a gay person? You and I say no, of course not. But there are those who beleive "freeing" that person from their sinful existence is an act of love. Is slavery a loving act? Again, we say no - but in the American south, it was accepted that slavery was the best thing that had ever happened to blacks - and you can still find that attitude today "better that your ancestors were enslaved by generous whites than to be left languishing in Africa!"

I've brought this up to you before, the weird concepts many people have about what constitutes "love." It's such a diaphanous word, and is very diluted in this day and age, where "love" can be applied to everything from a single well-made taco, to the person you see yourself spending the entirity of your life with.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Okay. Comparing the bible to an instruction manual. Imagine if your VCR's user's manual contained instructions in English, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, and German, as many do. Now imagine that each version gives a different and sometimes conflicting set of directions for operating your VCR....

But does the Bible actually do this? Sure, there are some words and phrases that do not translate well due to idioms and such but the message of salvation is still loud and clear: Jesus. Mistranslations will occur as all books translated into another language will have some problems. That's just the way it is. But even still the revelation of salvation (the entire point of the Bible) remains the same. I don't know of any translation errors that are so severe it says something like Jesus was only a man or the way to salvation is by killing eighty people. You know?

He also said bring them before him and slay him, and condemned those towns that turned him away to punishment in the eternal fires of hell. Then we have Paul, who a great many Christians seem to favor over Jesus, setting back many of Jesus' teachings and bringing institutionalized means of discrimination, railing about the threats of nonbelievers to Christians, and the like. Then we further apply the fact that the majority of Christians choose when and where and if Jesus "counts"... and we're left with painfully few "true Christians" aren't we?

You'll have to give me some specific examples so I can look at the context.

It depends on their interpretation. Is it loving to kill a gay person? You and I say no, of course not. But there are those who beleive "freeing" that person from their sinful existence is an act of love.

Exactly. And such people are insane. That is one of the things that has puzzled me about such people. If you believe such people are "sinful" then all you're doing is actually sending them to Hell faster. What the heck? That doesn't "save" them at all. You never led by an example of love. And by "you" I mean "them" of course. Jesus never said to do this but to love them and let God handle the rest. It's not our place. You can't beat Jesus into people.

reply to post by AshleyD


Hi Ash,
I always enjoy your wise and well thought-out posts here and across the ATS board.
I have to agree with your statement on the insanity of ppl who commit murders, etc in the Name of the Lord or Christianity. Time and again, it has been proven to be based on a type of fanaticism, that generally is connected with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, etc.
I think one of today's most recent examples would be of Andrea Yates killing her 5 children to keep them from becoming evil beings.
If any of you have ever watched her life story, it is one of the saddest things I have ever seen. If someone had gotten that woman the proper help, her children might be alive today.

edit for spelling errors

[edit on 9-2-2008 by sizzle]

To the original post,

No. I don't believe there's a conspiracy to overthrow Christianity because at this time it's impossible. Some people are just too stubborn or blind to give up their idea of God. The only way to overthrow Christianity is to either convert or kill all Christians. It is impossible to convert hardcore Christians. No matter how much information and scientific data you throw at them, they refuse to stop believing in imaginary friends. And we Atheists are certainly not interested in killing Christians for their beliefs. That would be your job, and a damned fine job you're doing.

What you believe to be a conspiracy is really just a backlash from Atheists who are tired of Christians forcing their ridiculous beliefs on the rest of society. I'm fine with Christianity, as long as you keep it to yourself. It's when Christianity leaks into politics and schools that I start to get pissed off. I'm also sick of all the damned propaganda against homosexuals, liberals, theory of evolution(actual science?! gasp!), and holidays among other things.

I still cannot believe to this day there are arguments over abortion and same-sex marriage. Use your brain, not your religion to figure out what's right. Use truth as authority instead of authority as truth. Use some goddamned sense for once. Christians are not special, and society should not bend over backwards to accommodate their ridiculous belief systems. You don't see Shintoists forcing government to stop the destruction of forests. And you don't see Buddhists forcing government to stop damming up rivers. But you do see Christian groups sticking their noses into places they don't belong. I'm sick of it, and as long as their's breath in these lungs I'm going to retaliate.

reply to post by Clearskies


hey, these are some pretty sharp people, maybe we aughta' pay attention to what they have to say eh? Cause, what we've been payin' attention to for the last 4 to 8 millennium isn't producing desirable results! And nothing out of the past century has done much to fix things either, ah but if you have some money to give or a check to write, they will be all to happy to take it!!!

side note: after reading this thread, I feel like I'm several million miles more further from agreeing with...make that swallowing church/christian dogam/doctrine...do you guys (believers) ever look at your statements and say "gee, [thunk upside the head] I coulda' had a V8?

reply to post by sizzle


Ironically, it's the right wing backed up by Christian voters, who put in to power Republicans who consistently cut funding across the board social services. Take that to church this Sunday!

reply to post by skyshow


Skyshow,
That's exactly why I steer away from Churches that spew so much man-made doctrine. It's confusing and leads ppl away from the original teachings and gives overall Christianity a bad rap.
I see in another post, that someone has inferred that Christians and science do not mix. I beg to differ.
Would everyone agree that Einstein is a scientist?
Is everyone familiar with the Theory of Relativity?
If your answers are yes, then you must realize, that here is where Einstein became convinced that there had to be a Master Creator.

And if you say, "Well, that was only a theory!"
Then you have to admit that what Darwin had, was only a theory.

Would also like to add that since the discovery of DNA in recent years, further studies and testing has pretty much proven that evolution would be an impossibility, because it would cause horrible mutations. But yet, so many ppl still cling to the hope that they belong to the monkey family.
I will see if I can find a link on that, as I was just reading about it.
Also, it wasn't too long ago, that the NY Times published an article about a fossil skeleton that they uncovered, which also dashed the hopes of evolution.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by sizzle]