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.
Originally posted by spamandham
Not to mention, I have to laugh everytime I see a "Jesus fish" since I know it's actual origin (hint, it precedes Christianity and is related to the number of fish caught in John 21:11).
Originally posted by suzy ryan
When two or more people join in declaring, promoting and repeating what they know to be a lie, it is a conspiracy. Or do you want us to believe that ALL Christians are blindly lead and stupid?
Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Do you know why the church would want to take over a symbol with such a strong sexual meaning?
Originally posted by saint4God
Um, what?
The pre-Christian history of the fish symbol:
The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.
In Greece the Greek word "delphos" meant both fish and womb. The word is derived from the location of the ancient Oracle at Delphi who worshipped the original fish goddess, Themis. The later fish Goddess, Aphrodite Salacia, was worshipped by her followers on her sacred day, Friday. They ate fish and engaging in orgies. From her name comes the English word "salacious" which means lustful or obscene. Also from her name comes the name of our fourth month, April. In later centuries, the Christian church adsorbed this tradition by requiring the faithful to eat fish on Friday - a tradition that was only recently abandoned.
Originally posted by saint4God
that again.
Originally posted by saint4God
I've read the unsubstantiated claim before. I think this kind of propaganda is a part of the Anti-Christian conspiracy, so glad you brought it up.
Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Actually I think this points towards the Christian conspiracy(remeber that?).
Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
The need to take over this symbol, and conceal its true origin is just a small part of it.
Originally posted by saint4God
Christianity has no need to capture symbols from anywhere else. All a Christian symbol is good for is advertising. Christians don't need symbols nor do they hold any inherent "powers" in Christianity.
Originally posted by masqua
Do I understand you correctly that no symbols are 'borrowed' by Christianity from other traditions?
Originally posted by masqua
Are you saying that the cross is not a powerful Christian symbol?
Originally posted by masqua
Is it not true that the cross was a symbol of meaning to cultures previous to 60AD as well?
Originally posted by masqua
It is also a fact that many cathederals and churches were built on existing pagan sites in old Europe. This practice, in a way, did the same thing as 'borrowing' symbols...it eradicated sacred places for 'earth-based' religions, supplanting their locations by a Christian altars and surrounding edifices.
Originally posted by masqua
btw...if you really think that symbols are unimportant, then I would suggest you read Carl Jung's involvement in this book; Man and his Symbols (ISBN:0-440-35183-5), reprinted 17 times between Sept 1968 and July 1978 (which copy I have). It's a very slim little paperback and available at lots of used book stores. My tattered copy, often read and annotated, is a prized addition of my library. In it you will find the reason why symbols are important...that they can carry an unsullied message through the millenia.
Originally posted by masqua
The conspiracy here is one of conquest, replacement of symbols and belief and the ongoing denial that it happened at all.
Originally posted by saint4God
It meant something (though not religious) for the Romans pre-A.D. but it didn't mean the same thing after. Savvy?
Originally posted by saint4God
.
Originally posted by masqua
The conspiracy here is one of conquest, replacement of symbols and belief and the ongoing denial that it happened at all.
More spin? The topic is "The Anti-Christian conspiracy". All y'all are doing is perpetuating the evidence of one existing.
[edit on 25-11-2005 by saint4God]
Originally posted by jake1997
Originally posted by saint4God
.
Originally posted by masqua
The conspiracy here is one of conquest, replacement of symbols and belief and the ongoing denial that it happened at all.
More spin? The topic is "The Anti-Christian conspiracy". All y'all are doing is perpetuating the evidence of one existing.
[edit on 25-11-2005 by saint4God]
You have voted saint4God for the Way Above Top Secret award.
I constantly find myself in awe at the mindlessness of it all. Sometimes I am able to catch myself and ask myself an important question that helps explain most of the cases.
"Do you think they have really read the bible like nearly all have claimed to do?" Of course, the answer comes back no. SO many times I see Christ saddled with sins as though he condoned them, as opposed to died for them, by people who claim to know Christ.
The conspiracy started the day of the fall, and it will end when Jesus once again wields His sword in Israel.
Originally posted by masqua
For me, the theology behind the symbol of the cross is this;
consider the horizontal part of the cross as your lifeline, from birth to death. At some time, in your life, you become spiritually aware and this is shown as a perpendicular line, descending from above and crossing at a point in your lifetime.
Originally posted by saint4God
Which may have been helpful on the bigillion Christian conspiracy threads. But we're talking about the Anti-Christian conspiracy here, no? At least, that's what the title at the top of my screen says.
Originally posted by saint4God
Christians don't need symbols nor do they hold any inherent "powers" in Christianity.
Originally posted by saint4God
Propagandists should get together to at least come up with a consistent or cohesive line of thinking before claiming that the fish is not Christian in origin.
Originally posted by saint4God
Rather than "theories", can we stick to the facts?