A Most Unsettling Trend: Christians Rejoicing in ISIS

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

well technically, christians were supposed to present the message, then move along if the person wasn't interested. i'm assuming this applies to forcing people to do things against their wills, such as taking their income under the guise of redistributing it, which the gov is infamously bad at doing.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: undo

People will get lost in your interpretation.

whatcha mean?

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: undo

You mean a 1000 years ago, where it was a thousands year after Jesus who had nothing to do with Genesis, or prophesying revelations that people were believed to have believed that it was the end times then?

oddly enough, there's evidence in revelation that is only understandable if you read sumerian texts. since sumer was buried under 8 ft of flood silt from the black sea flood, the texts were not available for something like 5000 years.

Evidence in Revelation? Evidence has to be testable. How is it testable? Don't you really mean unsubstantiated claims?

originally posted by: Tangerine


Evidence in Revelation? Evidence has to be testable. How is it testable? Don't you really mean unsubstantiated claims?

in the case of ancient texts, the evidence is the texts themselves. for example: evidence suggests that seti the first built the temple at abydos. we know this because of hieroglyphic texts not because we were actually present. it helps if it is further corroborated by people who visited those locations during ancient times, as well, such as plato or his contemporaries, because their accounts tend to be closer to the events discussed and therefore, help to verify.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Tangerine


Evidence in Revelation? Evidence has to be testable. How is it testable? Don't you really mean unsubstantiated claims?

in the case of ancient texts, the evidence is the texts themselves. for example: evidence suggests that seti the first built the temple at abydos. we know this because of hieroglyphic texts not because we were actually present. it helps if it is further corroborated by people who visited those locations during ancient times, as well, such as plato or his contemporaries, because their accounts tend to be closer to the events discussed and therefore, help to verify.

Let's start by you stating the specific claim made in Revelation that you think is fact. We can go from there.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Your source twists Franklin Graham's words. I don't owe the guy anything, but he doesn't say ISIS is heralding the apocalypse. He says it is in line with THEIR goal of bringing on the apocalypse, which is different.

As for the rest, while I think that ISIS being the herald of the apocalypse is...unlikely, it seems to me that the best response to terrorists certainly isn't to be terrified. I'd shoot for a middle ground between the Christians and everyone else and settle on "unperturbed."

a reply to: Seed76

Better. Can you imagine anti-religionists, funding both sides to ensure their eradication ?

I can only speak for myself. As an 'anti-religionist'.

I don't want any harm to come to you, or another person, or yours families, just because you are religious. I don't want religious people eradicated. Religion itself, sure.

I don't think them deserving of eternal punishment for being religious. Yet how often I have read the opposite from the religious towards me... deeply saddens me.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Tangerine


Evidence in Revelation? Evidence has to be testable. How is it testable? Don't you really mean unsubstantiated claims?

in the case of ancient texts, the evidence is the texts themselves. for example: evidence suggests that seti the first built the temple at abydos. we know this because of hieroglyphic texts not because we were actually present. it helps if it is further corroborated by people who visited those locations during ancient times, as well, such as plato or his contemporaries, because their accounts tend to be closer to the events discussed and therefore, help to verify.

Let's start by you stating the specific claim made in Revelation that you think is fact. We can go from there.

my claim is a theory based on evidence, such as the abzu of enki, which is the abyss, which is the bottomless pit in revelation. chapter 9 of revelation takes place in iraq. the angels "bound" in the euphrates are bound in the bottomless pit, which apparently, is under the euphrates. however, since ancient sumer, the euphrates has laid down an additional 65miles of silt deposition out into the persian gulf, so originally, the abyss would've been in the persian gulf and is now covered somewhere under that 65 miles of new shoreline, over which the euphrates itself is flowing.

an assyriologist named samuel noah kramer, the first to translate the sumerian cuneiforms, translated one of the cuneiform cylinder seals in which enki raises his e.abzu temple up from the abyss, which he uses interchangeably with abzu (iotw, the abzu is the abyss, which is the bottomless pit).

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Lucid. I was simply made a point to show that anyone can make such claims, because the OP from all the possibilities imagines that Christians would fund ISIS...

Better. Can you imagine anti-religionists, funding both sides to ensure their eradication ?

The above statement of mine, is a reaction to his/her assertion about Christians mentioned above. In other words i wanted to give him/her, something else to think besides the mantra, "That Christians are bad and so stupid as they will fund ISIS because Christians believe in the End of the world."

So please do not perceive it as an attack.

Peace

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The only Christians saying this are Biblically illiterate.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: borntowatch

You said you welcome the apocalypse, in other words the destruction of humanity and the world . You don't care if people die, you welcome it because you believe you are going to heaven. Sounds pretty arrogant and lacking love to me.

Yes of course I welcome the return of Christ.
If I say the lords Prayer I ask Gods Kingdom to come and His will be done.
It would be hypocritical to say otherwise.

I am not asking for God to return as a destroyer but as a liberator and its not just for me, its a desire for world peace, that will only happen through Jesus and His return.

Are you a Christian?

I can't wait for an arsonist to burn my house down and kill my family, so I can finally get that leprechaun living under my floor and have his pot of gold.. Oh yes..

Such delusion should be treated, not worshipped.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The amount of assumptions and "misrememberings" in that diatribe are simply breath-taking.

At this point, I think I simply live in your head rent free as some kind of colossal straw man you have created for yourself to knock down. Nothing is beyond the person you think I am and so you can tilt at windmills in every thread and think yourself on some kind of moral high horse.

This is why I simply avoid speaking to your directly whenever possible. There is no there, there, and if this board had an ignore function, you would be the only person on it.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Please stop this complete nonsense. Comparing ISIS to contemporary American Christians is not only irresponsible, uninformed and ignorant, It is outright a blatant lie.

What you are referring too is the "Westborough" faction of "Christians" and it's disingenuous and rather offensive to use the thread title you did, insinuating that all of us be lumped into the same category. It would be like saying all black people are gang bangers or all Muslims are terrorists. It's absurd.

Sensationalist rubbish.

a reply to: ketsuko

The amount of assumptions and "misrememberings" in that diatribe are simply breath-taking.

Really?

Well....in that case:
excuse the hell out of me !

Ma'am, if I am mistaken in your intent, or my interpretation of your posts, it is on YOU to clarify yourself. I am merely relaying to you what I have gleaned from my readings of your posts. If I am mistaken, and have misinterpreted your posts and statements,.......well then "sorry"...PLEASE straighten me out - without trying to use big words that I already know.

A diatribe? Really? Madam, you are not above reproach, and neither am I.
But since it has been stated that you are hypocritical and inconsistent (not that I am not) , NOW it is on you to clarify!

Spend some time rewording, or editing, or revising, or whatever (I am a writer and editor also, my dear friend)......
so that I understand you.

Is it possible that I have misread your position? Sure. Yes, it is possible. That is what happens when we write - some people don't understand our underlying meaning.

I wonder - what if you have misread mine?
And furthermore - have you actually been rethinking your position? Because, you know what?, it rather seems so.

I don't really expect you to admit it here on ATS - but I'd be very interested to know what gymnastics your grey matter has been practicing and experiencing.

Sorry to have upset you, though, kets.

a reply to: Helious

His title said 'Christians', it didn't say all Christians.

His OP further qualifies it by saying "So if you are a fundy christian"..

Sounds to me like you actually agree with the OP with your mention of Westborough as they obviously represent fundamentalists.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Helious

His title said 'Christians', it didn't say all Christians.

His OP further qualifies it by saying "So if you are a fundy christian"..

Sounds to me like you actually agree with the OP with your mention of Westborough as they obviously represent fundamentalists.

Ok, the next time I make a thread about violence in Southern California perpetrated by the Crips I'll just label them blacks. Right?

a reply to: Helious

If you don't see the point I made or agree with it then that's fine. To me it was clear when you combine the title with the OP it was referring to fundamentalists and not a blanket statement towards all Christians.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Helious

If you don't see the point I made or agree with it then that's fine. To me it was clear when you combine the title with the OP it was referring to fundamentalists and not a blanket statement towards all Christians.

The title my friend says "Christians". It does not say, fringe, some, many, a few, overzealous, fundamentalist, baptist, radical or anything else. It says....... Christians.

I don't take any issue at all with what you said, your opinion, the OP nor his opinion. I take issue with the degradation of the Christian faith on a whole because the title of this thread does not contain any of the annotations you would like it too to justify it as you have tried to do but in point of fact, is a gross and inaccurate generalization of the entire faith and purports it to be something it's not.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

/hugs

a reply to: sn0rch

i'm with lucid, i don't want anyone to burn down your house or kill your family, and frankly, i don't think that's supposed to be anyone's fate.