The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy, shauny.

I like seeing Christians on this board do this. It reminds me that I made the RIGHT choice when I abandoned this religion. Point out genocide, calls for murder, and anti-gay stuff in the OT...well, that's not the NEW testament. Point out Christian persecution of others...well, those weren't REAL Christians.

But, this one is new to me. Point out bad stuff about the bible...well, that's not what JESUS said. But wait, I thought Jesus, bible god, and the Holy Ghost were the SAME being? So, ANYTHING bible god did/said in the OT was ALSO done/said by Jesus.

I'm curious to see the excuse for this, that anything the god of the OT did was ALSO the actions of Jesus...and the Holy Ghost too, for that matter.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy, shauny.

I like seeing Christians on this board do this. It reminds me that I made the RIGHT choice when I abandoned this religion. Point out genocide, calls for murder, and anti-gay stuff in the OT...well, that's not the NEW testament.

Point out Christian persecution of others...well, those weren't REAL Christians.

But, this one is new to me. Point out bad stuff about the bible...well, that's not what JESUS said. But wait, I thought Jesus, bible god, and the Holy Ghost were the SAME being? So, ANYTHING bible god did/said in the OT was ALSO done/said by Jesus.

I'm curious to see the excuse for this, that anything the god of the OT did was ALSO the actions of Jesus...and the Holy Ghost too, for that matter.

Hrm, seems you missed the point entirely. Very interesting selective vision. If you don't want to take personal responsibility for what men have done to women, why should I take personal responsibility for what some body who called themselves a christian did to someone else? Afterall, we can't prove they really were christians. Whereas, it's pretty easy to tell when a man is a man (usually, anyway).

Are you just a wee bit prejudice ya think?

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

that's jesus talking

any apolgetics want to tackle that one?

Originally posted by undo

Hrm, seems you missed the point entirely. Very interesting selective vision. If you don't want to take personal responsibility for what men have done to women, why should I take personal responsibility for what some body who called themselves a christian did to someone else? Afterall, we can't prove they really were christians. Whereas, it's pretty easy to tell when a man is a man (usually, anyway).

Are you just a wee bit prejudice ya think?

Oh, please. Show me where I asked YOU to take responsibility for the massacres perpetrated by Christians.

Oh, and THANKS for proving my point with the "prove they were Christians" comments. I'd like to say I expected more, but I didn't.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

that's jesus talking

any apolgetics want to tackle that one?

I admit, from my own point of view, this is one of the 'hard sayings' of Jesus.

Two things to consider, though:

If this was a muslim quote, the followers would have carried it out literally, thousands of times over. But God is a God of mercy and longsuffering, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should be given the opportunity to repent and be saved.

Christ will surely destroy His enemies when He returns, with the sword which proceeds from His mouth. (His word)

You, like anyone else on planet earth....(God's creation)....have a choice.

Life is not a dummy-run.

Make sure you make the right choice. You don't have a second chance

Originally posted by Old Man
If this was a muslim quote, the followers would have carried it out literally, thousands of times over. But God is a God of mercy and longsuffering, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should be given the opportunity to repent and be saved.

um, it was carried out by christians. there is a reason why there are so few native americans left today, it's called "missionary" work

and it was carried out thousands of times over in the crusades and various internal christian strife

oh, and terrorism isn't a product of islam, it's a product of AN UNSTABLE POLITICAL SITUATION

Christ will surely destroy His enemies when He returns, with the sword which proceeds from His mouth. (His word)

You, like anyone else on planet earth....(God's creation)....have a choice.

Life is not a dummy-run.

Make sure you make the right choice. You don't have a second chance

well, i'll go with my logic and rational thinking mind
live a good life for the sake of it and not believe in anything on the basis of faith.
if your deity hates me for it, i have a string of expletives that would adequately describe him

Originally posted by truthseeka


Oh, please.

Show me where I asked YOU to take responsibility for the massacres perpetrated by Christians.

Oh, and THANKS for proving my point with the "prove they were Christians" comments. I'd like to say I expected more, but I didn't.

your signature said:
"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me." - Malcolm X

But what you really mean to say is, you believe in the brotherhood of anyone who isn't christian. If they're christians, you come out swinging, you don't need to know anything else about them. You know, I wasn't born a christian. It's not a communicable disease. I'm an individual. Quit stereotyping me. You think you've had a rough life, well i got news for you, it's not easy anywhere, for anyone, and coming in here slinging mud around, is certainly not going to make it any easier for us either.

If you want to see brotherhood and solutions to problems, don't create new ones where there weren't any before. Unless you ARE holding me responsible for things other people have done. In which case, may I take you to court for the murders, rapes, burnings and stonings of literally billions of women and female children, down thru history? That okay with you?

Figure it out, please.

Point 1: The Old Testament Jehovah vs. The New Testament Jesus

Old covenant times were tough. The hybrid offspring of the angels had infiltrated almost every culture. Typically, the sign of infestation back then, was the worship of the very angels that had impregnated the human women in the community. Initially, these problems started before the mesopotamian flood. The land was so overrun by hybrids, violence and war was rampant. And according to IEnoch, the pollution of the planet was so intense, the natural flora and fauna began to die off. People began to starve to death. The hybrids decided humans looked tasty with ketchup and began to cannabalize the remainder of the human populace. We were almost wiped entirely from the planet as a race.

After that, Jehovah had a very specific approach to hybrid communities, as you can see by reading the OT. He instructed the hebrews what to do if they encountered such as situation. And they did what He told them to do (usually). When they didn't do what he told them to, the problems would intensify. Hybrid children would accumulate and the troubles would start. There is an enmity between the seed of the angels and the seed of Adam, as is clearly outlined in Genesis.

Point 2: Enter, Yeshua (Jesus). A new covenant is made, where the gentile offspring are invited to partake in the same blessings as the israelis. It's a true brotherhood of humanity. Forgiveness is available for all. The old laws of an eye for an eye, are not encouraged and in fact, Jesus teaches instead, turning the other cheek rather than killing or suing in a court of law. The entire landscape of the OT had finally matured to where it had been intended since the days of Eden. Women were no longer chattle. Stoning for adultery was eradicated. All things had become new... Well almost all things. Personal responsibility was the order of the day, and beware the man who judged his brother as Judgement is Mine, saith the Lord.

Point 3: Enter Caesar. And the rest is history.

Originally posted by undo
your signature said:
"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me." - Malcolm X

But what you really mean to say is, you believe in the brotherhood of anyone who isn't christian. If they're christians, you come out swinging, you don't need to know anything else about them.

I like how you COMPLETELY ignored my request to show where I asked you to be responsible for all Christians. Again, I didn't expect more on that. But, to answer your dodge anyway, I don't consider pointing out hypocrisy in Christians and problems with Christianity as Christian-hating.

You know, I wasn't born a christian.

Well I was.

It's not a communicable disease. I'm an individual. Quit stereotyping me.

I said nothing to you in particular. If you feel I did, too bad, not my problem. And, Christianity is indeed contagious if you buy into the "you'll fry in hell forever" line.

You think you've had a rough life, well i got news for you, it's not easy anywhere, for anyone, and coming in here slinging mud around, is certainly not going to make it any easier for us either.

Where did I say I had a rough life?

If you want to see brotherhood and solutions to problems, don't create new ones where there weren't any before. Unless you ARE holding me responsible for things other people have done. In which case, may I take you to court for the murders, rapes, burnings and stonings of literally billions of women and female children, down thru history? That okay with you?

Figure it out, please.

I'm not creating new problems. I'm telling it like it is. Like I said, I don't care if you don't want to hear it. As for your last point, as Joker from Next Friday said...

"Take me to Judge Judy, puto."

I know you're not stupid enough to actually believe that you can make blanket statements like "christians" are this or "christians" are that, and not expect christians to think you're referring to them.

So I'll return the favor. Men are cruel. You're a man. Therefore, you're cruel. Doesn't matter if you're cruel or not. Doesn't matter if you've ever done a kind thing in your life to contest that. A blanket statement, is a blanket statement and yes, it is your problem. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you're not a man!

It's the same type of freakin' problem that convinced millions of americans that it was okay to go kill innocent people in Iraq. Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. Don't shadow box with me. I'm not so blind that I don't recognize it for what it is.

Learn, please. If you're gonna get on the high horse, know how to use the saddle.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by undo]

on the previous page, which you no doubt read and then summarily ignored in your opening blanket statement, I said the following to the other poster I was talking to:

I agree, Christians have done that. Absolutely. In fact, I said that right off the bat, and I didn't even say they weren't christian when they did it. It obviously wasn't an example of following christian teachings though. And that's essentially my point.
/end of my previous statement

Now, I don't know what part of this doesn't make sense to you, but when someone has a set of rules or standards or religious creedos to follow and then they don't follow them, it's safe to say, they aren't following them. It's very rudimentary mathematics. yes, 1 does indeed equal 1. no, 1 + 0 does not equal 2.

Jesus totally changed the way we approach the topic of Old Covenant judgement. He demonstrated it by his handling of the woman caught in adultery. If you can't accept that, that's not the fault of the texts.

Originally posted by undo
So I'll return the favor. Men are cruel. You're a man. Therefore, you're cruel.

Thanks for noticing. But, can you clarify for me? I mean, am I cruel like
kids making fun of other kids cruel? Or cruel like Kratos from God of War cruel? I hope you mean the latter; Kratos is one off the chain video game character.

Doesn't matter if you're cruel or not. Doesn't matter if you've ever done a kind thing in your life to contest that. A blanket statement, is a blanket statement and yes, it is your problem. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you're not a man!

As Austin Powers would say, "I'm a man, baby. Smashing."

It's the same type of freakin' problem that convinced millions of americans that it was okay to go kill innocent people in Iraq.

Hey, Bible god told President Bush to attack Iraq. He also wanted Bush to be the prez. I'd say Bible god is a sick freak for that, but the stuff he did in the bible does a better job than comments from Chimp Face.

Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution.

Speaking of Chimp Face...

Don't shadow box with me. I'm not so blind that I don't recognize it for what it is.

Grab some gloves so we can spar, then. Unless you want to do it old school with bare knuckles.

Learn, please. If you're gonna get on the high horse, know how to use the saddle.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by undo]

I am the high horse.

Anyway, now that you've decided to turn it into a joke fest, I guess I'll go talk to someone else that actually cares about the topic.

''But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me''.

Are we to interpret this literally. Surely if you don't go out slay Jesus' enemies, then you're not following Jesus' word. All the time it's been about Jesus' Word in the NT that Christians follow. I can't see how you could follow this one without doing any wrong.

It was a parable, not a command to God's people. The parable is that if you've been given talents from God you should use them. It was pointed at the gathered pharisees and scribes. As the anointed of God's people, they had been given much in the way of special talents for the purpose of ushering in the advent of the Messiah. But when the Messiah came, they hid their talents, and refused to use them, which was the very reason they had been given the talents to begin with - to usher in the Messiah (it's not about money, it's about spiritual gifts that they were supposed to be in possession of so that on the advent of the Messiah, they would recognize Him as the prophesied Messiah). The poignant part is that since they didn't fulfill their role, even after having been given so much in order to fulfill it, they should be removed from the promise entirely. To be removed from the promise doesn't mean that you are killed on the spot. It's all symbollization of the spirit of God, which, when removed from those previously in possession of it, is the equivalent of a death sentence in a spiritual sense, not a literal sense.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Saint4God, you did not do anything,

Thank you, I don't like being charged for crimes I did not commit.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I refer to Christians as a whole, by name and not by actual Christlike lives.

A bit stereotypical to say "Christians as a whole". It's like saying "all Americans think..." or "all left-handed people are..." or "all librarians know..."

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
None of the atrocities done in Christ's name were by 'Christians', but that is not the point.

Thank you...but it is the point.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The victims were killed by folks who said they were. They were not any other faith, and so the reprisals, if any, would be aimed at the group who hurt them.

So if folks committed atrocities and called themselves "peaches", we'd blame the fleshy, fuzzy fruit?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If I were to discount every crime that self-proclaimed Christians committed, there would be none, of course!

I accept your challenge. Begin recounting every crime and provide evidence they are a self-proclaimed Christian...starting with Lenin:

"At Perm, 25 Catholic priests had been shot and the bishop buried alive, while at Osa, 30 Orthodox priests had been massacred." - www.loyno.edu...

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The numbers I meant are relative ones. Millions upon millions killed by soldiers who grew up singing 'Onward Christian soldiers', versus the unknown, but clearly many times fewer Christians killed in the name of Satan.

Let's see the numbers. I've started with one small specific, please begin with your support.

Wow, 55 dead... that is small, indeed. Okay, the sacking of the Orthodox Christian city of Byzantium in the early 1200's, '04 I think, by Christian militants too impatient to wait until they reached non-Christian targets before they looted, sacked, raped, pillaged, and burned something. In the decades immediately following that, the southern French Crusades were said to have been responsible for between 250 000 and 1 000 000 dead, for the crime of being from a different faith, yet they were also Christians. It is not known how many millions of Native Americans the invading armies from the staunchly Christian nations of Europe slaughtered in the genocidal conquest and destruction of the local cultures.
It is not at all even a measurable percent of the total killed by warriors who fought with the Cross over their heads in the last millenia. Yet, still, I have shown many millions who were killed by people who were clearly, vehemently, and brutally adamant that they were doing the Lord's work.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by saint4God]

''Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.'' Mark 6:11

''Don't associate with non-Christians. Don't receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.'' 2 John 10

''Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ, is a liar and an anti-Christ.'' 1 John 2:22

''Christians are of God; everyone else is wicked.'' 1 John 5:19

''The non-Christian is a deceiver and an anti-Christ.'' 2 John 7

''Everyone will have to worship Jesus - whether they want to or not.'' Philippians 2:10

''A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing.'' Romans 8:33

Christians care to explain these? Especially the very judgemental quotes from the book of John.

In no particular order.....

Philippians 2:10 - I did a concordance search and did not see any of them that translated or intepreted this passage the way you provide - from what Bible? Here is where I looked bible.cc...
Now, this might be YOUR take on the verse, but I don't see that as being acceptable. If you are going to quote scripture, quote scripture.

Context is everything. So many of the quotes that were tossed out are lifted out of context. Example; if one were to deliver a speech saying 'In the end, it is unforgivable to go forth and slaughter the [insert group of choice here].' And then someone claimed that the speech said 'go forth and slaughter [insert group of choice here].' This is taking something out of context. As a teacher, I thought that it is important to illustrate a concept that so few seem to grasp. A fine example is the snippet taken from 1 John 2:22

John is one of the most mystical of writers; his work has multiple levels of meaning and require a fair amount of reflection and consideration to unlock. Hence, he is the writer most often trotted out and used with little consideration for meaning and context. This is a good example. John is speaking of the need to recognize that the Father and the Son are as one; one cannot be seperated from the other. To deny the Son is to deny the Father. Those who deny Christ are rebelling against the Father as well. Anti-Christ, Anti-God...

1 John 5:19. Once again, where exactly are you getting your translations? A look at any decent concordance will suggest something more like 'we know that we are people of God in a world full of wickedness (people who are NOT of God)'. Let's see. As I said before, I am a teacher in an urban environment. My church and the other churches in my community work to provide a lot of opportunities for our young people to keep them off the street. Kids who participate in our programs aren't running wild in the street, getting into trouble, and getting arrested or dead. Forgive me for thinking that people of Faith are correct in recognizing that there is a lot of wickedness in the world and trying to do something about it. The implication in this verse is that we are to be aware that this world is rife with evil and to stand up against it.

2 John 10
Sigh.
In the early days of the church, congregations met in houses - there were no churchs or cathedrals. John is not saying that Christians should never talk to non-Christians - it's a Missionary, Evangelist faith for HEaven's sake - he IS saying that Christians in congregation should bar the door to false teachings. As the letters of Paul indicate, most of the early leaders and ministers to the people were travelling extensively and relying on the hospitality of local Christians. John is warning the people to be careful and not be taken in by those who would seek to profit from or corrupt the Faith.
To intimate that John is telling Christians to shut out non-Christians is ridiculous. How else would the Faith grow?

2 John 7 runs along the same vein - see how taking things out of context can be a problem? Once again, John was writing from the desire to protect the congregations against inflitration from cults, sects, or improper teachings. Infiltration was a serous cause for concern in the early church, and John recognized the need to be vigilant against it. And - once again - your choice of paraprasing the verse is fascinating. What bible do you use? The 'New Testament for those who hate Christianity'?

Mark 6:11 is quoted along lines similiar to the King James. I - as a traditionally minded Roman Catholic - prefer the Douay-Rheims. In MOST of the concordances, the emphasis is on the lack of reception will be a testimony against them. Once again, the secular humanist or non-Christian has a problem with authority. If Christ is the Son of God, that means that He indeed is a judge. We all have free will. God loves us and wants us to love Him. If we are disobedient despite the efforts of God and His agents - then why should the disobedient be rewarded? Oh, I forgot - we can do anything we want to without any sort of boundries or limits.

Romans 8:33 In the Bible as I read it - the Douay Rheims - this passages reads as 'Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God that justifieth". The King James reads "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."
WHERE IN THE NAME OF COMMON SENSE IS "A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing." ???
What this passage is saying is that any Christian who suffers for doing the right thing will be rewarded in Heaven. THis may come as a surprise to some of you out there, but Christians are generally pretty concerned with the quality of their afterlife over the quality of their life - despite unfortunately obvious examples to the contrary. The Catholic church lists numberous saints who went willingly to their death rather than oppose God's will. Also, anyone who has embraced Christ is absolved of sins against God by the Blood of the Lamb.

I hope that this response is adequate. I would recommend that if you are going to attack the Christian faith - pick better ammo. Taking snippets and then paraphrasing to suit your position is not terribly sophisticated.

Thanks for your attention.

Originally posted by shantyman
I hope that this response is adequate. I would recommend that if you are going to attack the Christian faith - pick better ammo. Taking snippets and then paraphrasing to suit your position is not terribly sophisticated.

Thanks for your attention.

Attacking the Christian faith? Nice of your to judge me. Christians seem to be doing a lot of that around here.

I wasn't doing any attacking.

It's got nothing to do with 'taking things out of context'. It's got everything to do with 'Interpretation'. A Christian's interpretation of '7-day creation' for example, may not mean a literal 7-human-24-hour-days, but instead could span for thousands/millions/billions of years. So if you can interpret parts like that mean 'anything' then you can interpret other parts and do the same. So why can't other people interpret The Bible to mean something else? Just because the words aren't laid out infront of you, it doesn't mean it's not been said. It's all to do with interpretation. That's why you have so many sects and denominations of Christianity. I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-A-T-I-O-N. Basically you were saying 'MY' interpretation of The Bible was wrong, as it wasn't the same as your interpretation, again thanks for you judgement.

Oh nonsense. The paraphrased quotes were biased to the extreme. The paraphrasings - or intepretations - were lifted out of context and slanted to illustrate your point. In fact, a number of your paraphrasings - excuse me, intepretations - were radically different than what I was able to find using a half-dozen biblical sources. Once again, I challenge you to find me actual quotes that are truly anywhere near what you wrote WITHIN context. I have a problem with the use of quotations. How many people would not have even bothered to check to see if you were quoting texts that are canonical? This is changing the playing field. If you said - 'this is what I BELIEVE these passages mean', I would have no problem with your use of intpretation as an argument. You didn't. You led the reader to believe that these were lifted from a biblical source in toto. My research indicates that this is far from the case. You may think that this is splitting hairs, but it is not.

As to the concept that Christians - in this case, myself - are attacking the poor, defenseless critics of blind faith - well, I have found that when reasoned arguments are disproved or exhausted, the typical fallback is a counter attack. I defended a postion. In my defense, I made a number of reasoned responses and counterarguments. Sorry that you don't like them. Instead of attacking the arguments in detail, the response was 'you don't like my interpretaion, I don't like yours.' Fine. You don't have to. Tell me why. And use sources that illustrate your perspective without warping them to suit your needs. This is intellectually indefensible.

"Christians care to explain these? Especially the very judgemental quotes from the book of John" - this is a quote from your missive.
Sounds fairly confrontational to me. Especially in the light that the sum of your posting to that point has been illustrating Christianity as doctrinally prejudiced, narrow-minded, judgemental, and exclusionary. If it looks like a dog, sounds like a dog, and smells like a dog, please don't tell me it is a cat.

Was my post intrepretative? Of course it was. Instead of posting each quote, I included a link to a concordance site where the interested reader could look up each verse according to a half-dozen versions of the Bible. I preferred to use my 6500 characters for my argument. In my post, I atttempted to provide my position in context of the rest of the chapter and verse as well as the historical perspective of the times. As a scholar of the bible and a historian, I used my knowledge and beliefs to sift my argument. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with me.

I must say again that the source of my ire is the poor citations. The use of paraphrasing as quotes is - again - indefensible. It is a clear indicator that instead of providing a strong argument, you are willing to warp the playing field to your advantage. Even if I weren't a Christian, I would be disturbed by that practice. Judge you? No, not hardly. I believe that there is another who judges us all. I would not presume to judge you or anyone. Judge your argument? Absolutely. As a teacher, I am trained to evaluate an argument for merit and validity and criticize the thinking behind it. Your post would be a D+. Interesting arguments, could have actually built something out of the thesis, but failed to provide valid sources in an approved format.

And - playing devil's advocate - you COULD have built a more convincing argument using some of those sources. THere is a good reason why the BIble remains one of the most debated documents in existence. I am not intolerant of the argument per se, I am appalled by the methodology.

Finally - why is it always, always, always 'attack' when Christians defend their positions? In this secular-humanist society, people like me are marginalized. We refuse to accept the gospel of the expedient and the convenient, and we are criticized. If we are are pro-life, we fight against abortion and capital punishment. Our belief is that life is sacred. That my tax dollars are spent to suport programs that conduct these practices, I have the right to advocate against them. Do some people of faith go overboard? Certainly. Are some of them - actually, in some places, you can ague many of them - judgemental and haughty? Absolutely. Have too many Christians forgotten that Christ calls on us to love our enemies? Seems likely. Has organized religion commited horrible acts in the name of God? Unfortunately true. God is perfect. Man is not. God gave man Free Will and sometimes that means making bad choices. Do I believe that secularists are seeing the weakening of organized religion and attacking it like a pack of wolves surrounding the old deer? Sure do.

As this thread is the "Anti-Christian Conspiracy", I think this is a valid point.
Over the course of this thread, posts have wandered all over the map. I do thank Shaunybaby for returning it to it's intended flow. I hope that when people post, they will be cognizant that their attitude and style of their posting will dictate the postings they receive in return. To wit - 'if you want it soft, I'll play it soft. If you want it hard, I'll play it hard' (I paraphrase from where I can't remember....). If you review my posts, you will see that I respond in a tone and manner consistent with the oringinal post. Now you can charge that this is very Christian of me. Well, I do believe in love my neighbor. I do believe in love those who would wrong you. I also believe in tough love.

Happy Easter to all!