The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Can't we all get along just long enough to get rid of the Benny Hins that are running around stealing money from the brainwashed?

[edit on 23-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

I cannot comment on Mr. Hinn, but I know what you mean. The evangelists who persuade elderly widows to donate their life savings so they can buy another Rolls Royce are in for a shock if there really is a God.
But as to all getting along..........never happen.

Benny Hinn makes Jim and Tammy look like panhandling failures.

www.bennyhinn.org...

This guy spends a lot of time overseas and in the deep south. I think he's going to be in Louisiana soon. He literally does the "magic touch" and throws people to the ground. He even does it en mass. You haven't seen anything until 100 people fall over like fainting sheep (a real breed of sheep BTW). He also dresses in new age-looking uniforms. I might be wrong but he appears to be of eastern decent. (Not that I mean that to mean something deragatory).

A friend of mine used to call up his phone numbers in college and harass them because there are quite a few states he seems not allowed in. We wanted to go to one of his brainwashing revivals. They literally occur in sports stadiums. Think of all the swindled people young and old contributing to this tax-exempt insanity. Dateline or 20/20 cornered him once.

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
There are plenty of "new" religions, i.e. the last 1500 years or so (*pulls hand out of hat* B'hai...and including religions that keep getting new prophets), that get ignored or tolerated or revered by the same people that group all "christians" together and lambast them as if they all have big hair and preach in superdomes on upper-channel tv. Even mormons claim to be "christians" when push comes to shove and mormonism is a far cry from Opus Dei to be sure.

I jumped in here pretty late and have no full idea of where this thread has been but I've heard a million times from the far left "Don't hate Muslims because of the fundamentalist muslims". Well I don't and never did.

The same is true in "christianity". We don't all vote red or blue or green and (WOW) it can even change with every election. Where is the fundamentism in "christianity" set apart from the rest? Are all democratic states Judiasm-only? Why is the stereotype only a one way street religiously speaking?

Where is the love of the intellectually liberated atheists? Are they ALL bitter? Because they (bitter atheists) are the ones that get a lot media coverage..so I guess they are ALL (atheists) like that...tree-hugging-alternative-lifestyle-living-democratic-until-the-day-they-die-dope-heads. (that's sarcasm by the way.)

Can't we all get along just long enough to get rid of the Benny Hins that are running around stealing money from the brainwashed?

[edit on 23-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



[edit on 23-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Hahahaha ... my honest opinion? ... so long as emotion and subjectivity has sway in human interaction ... no (myself included). I do try though, as do most members of this forum ... but as you can see, there will always seem to be issues that defy compromise (my latest being the concept of "baby sinners") ...

... and as for making blanket descriptors about ones basic tenet ... there is a third category as well ... namely those who don't know or are not compelled by either extreme view ... namely Agnostics.

LCKob

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Benny Hinn makes Jim and Tammy look like panhandling failures.

www.bennyhinn.org...

This guy spends a lot of time overseas and in the deep south. I think he's going to be in Louisiana soon. He literally does the "magic touch" and throws people to the ground. He even does it en mass. You haven't seen anything until 100 people fall over like fainting sheep (a real breed of sheep BTW). He also dresses in new age-looking uniforms. I might be wrong but he appears to be of eastern decent. (Not that I mean that to mean something deragatory).

A friend of mine used to call up his phone numbers in college and harass them because there are quite a few states he seems not allowed in. We wanted to go to one of his brainwashing revivals. They literally occur in sports stadiums. Think of all the swindled people young and old contributing to this tax-exempt insanity. Dateline or 20/20 cornered him once.

Televangelists? hmmmm... I have always been suspicous of this catagory
of preacher ... but the problem is that once the people believe or buy into his message then it becomes their right to their belief right or wrong ... and the last thing an athiest (or agnostic) wants to do IMO is to fight an uphill battle in such a situation and probably be hated for the attempt ... I remember a good friend who had the best of intentions in a similar situation ... and warned another of the dubious religious nature of a televangelist ... only to have their friendship strained for the apparant critical assessment of the others religious affiliation ... in the end, my friend just dropped it and watched as large sum of money went to dubious ends.

The unfortunate difference is that outside a forum like ATS or an institution of higher learning ... religion and politics are often "taboo" topics ... relegated to politically correct verbage which in essense translates into "hows the weather today? ... nice isnt it ... yes not to warm, just right I think ....

LCKob

morning
morning
how are you
good, and you
good, so whats new
not much
.......
Politics and Religion are more appealing than that kind of inanity.

televangelists has to be one of the biggest frauds and cons of the 21st century. when you have people like that, and people who willingly hand over money(weak minded, can't think for themselves), you feel that it defines christianity in a nutshell. that's the problem with christianity if you somewhat want to be a 'normal' christian, church on sunday, prayers before meals and bedtime...it's over-shadowed by evangelists, televangelists...who seem to be taking it one step too far. the whole meaning of christianity has been lost in this fad, and will eventually be it's downfall (we can only hope).

to past church actions.
The inquisition, residential schools, and much other archaic nastiness sure makes the tv huckster look pretty good.
Least he won't torture or banish me.
Still, they are not at all the same as the faithful i know, but opposite. Wolf in sheeps clothing, secretly laughing at their prey, certain no God exists and they need fear no post mortem court.
Goddamn i hope they are wrong, and some dire fate awaits them. Fewer types of modern day crooks stoop lower.

Originally posted by LCKob
Do the faithful need such assurances?

Ooh, a nice hard question! I wanna hear what JJ and Suzy have to say about this one too. Do the faithful need assurance(s)? I can only speak for me. I know that gettnig assurances sure do help . Did I need them? I'm going to say yes. I'm one of those people who don't like to take action unless I am sure it's the right thing. If I didn't have reassurance, according to the book of James, my faith would have been without works and to paraphrase what he had to say, "what good is that?" Now, I'm speaking for myself, as I believe there are people who don't have this stigma.

Originally posted by LCKob
I was under the impression that confirmation was the domain of science?

I like the way you think . But, I cannot prove my confirmation to other convincingly, just as I cannot prove my proof as compelling evidence either. I can however, help those who are interested in their own proof to get it.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
He avoids all news agents, does no interviews, signs autographs for no one, and shuns the spotlight.

And yet promises a one-on-one relationship to anyone who is interested.
He does deliver on that promise too.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Her prefers anonimity,

He prefers us coming to Him.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
and works behind the scenes, wanting neither to be given credit nor fame.

Yeah! Ain't He the greatest?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
No proof shall be found.

...says one who finds no proof...

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
He is the one hiding,

No He isn't, He's right here. Guess you're not interested in talking to Him.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
we are the ones seeking, and we have no chance of winning that game.

He gave us the history, the rules and send His son to show us how to play. What more do you need?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
PS, Irregardless of the exact same, full and utter, absolutely perfect, totally certain, true fact reconfirming nothing but an empty void, the final conclusion is that he is completely alone, held gripped by the grasp of a timid, frightened, scared fear. Regardless of what I say.

You're free to feel as you wish but it's possible to know for certain.

Yeah yeah, we all know there are a very small percentage of televangelists who horde wealth and do the wrong thing. Nobody said all "Christians" (those who call themselves Christian) are indeed Christians. Audit and arrest them if they're illegal and let's move on. No idea what that has to do wtih The Anti-Christian Conspiracy. Oh wait! I know! It's spin to put all Christians (because you know, we're all televangelists) in a bad light so it's "okay" to be Anti-Christian and conspire because we "deserve it".



[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Yeah yeah, we all know there are a very small percentage of televangelists who horde wealth and do the wrong thing. Nobody said all "Christians" (those who call themselves Christian) are indeed Christians. Audit and arrest them if they're illegal and let's move on. No idea what that has to do wtih The Anti-Christian Conspiracy. Oh wait! I know! It's spin to put all Christians (because you know, we're all televangelists) in a bad light so it's "okay" to be Anti-Christian and conspire because we "deserve it".

no i think it's more the point that those televangelists are the ones 'you' should be worrying about, rather than some quest you seem to have to prove some sort of anti-christian conspiracy. the conspiracy here is that you don't care enough to speak out against these televangelists are going against the biblical word and the teachings of jesus...no, you'd rather spend your time on here, telling atheists how anti-christian they are.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
no i think it's more the point that those televangelists are the ones 'you' should be worrying about, rather than some quest you seem to have to prove some sort of anti-christian conspiracy. the conspiracy here is that you don't care enough to speak out against these televangelists are going against the biblical word and the teachings of jesus...no, you'd rather spend your time on here, telling atheists how anti-christian they are.

The title isn't "The Televangelist Conspiracy" and there's already a thread about it, and yes, I commented there too: Televangelists, knowingly lying?. Apologies for sticking to the topic, it seems to be a "fault" of mine to address the issue at hand. NEVER did I say atheists are anti-Christian. Can we plllleeeeeaasseeee talk about the topic? I should be a dentist with all this experience pulling teeth.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
The title isn't "The Televangelist Conspiracy" and there's already a thread about it, and yes, I commented there too: Televangelists, knowingly lying?. Apologies for sticking to the topic, it seems to be a "fault" of mine to address the issue at hand. NEVER did I say atheists are anti-Christian. Can we plllleeeeeaasseeee talk about the topic? I should be a dentist with all this experience pulling teeth.

well maybe you're too blind to see what i was pointing out...'that maybe the televangelists are part of this anti-christian conspiracy (if one exists at all)'. the fact that, maybe they knowingly lie and take money from, 'free of rational thought', christians...that's more of a conspiracy against christianity than any atheist could ever conjure up. televangelists are doing more for the downfall of christianity than atheists could have ever dreamed for.

so instead of you appologising for trying to keep on topic, i'll remind you that i was on topic...but you were just a little bit too quick, and maybe didn't get it first time around. 2nd time lucky...

[edit on 24-1-2006 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well maybe you're too blind to see what i was pointing out...'that maybe the televangelists are part of this anti-christian conspiracy (if one exists at all)'. the fact that, maybe they knowingly lie and take money from, 'free of rational thought', christians...that's more of a conspiracy against christianity than any atheist could ever conjure up. televangelists are doing more for the downfall of christianity than atheists could have ever dreamed for.

Why would criminevangelists (talking about the very, very small percentage of evangelists who by law are engaged in criminal activity) seek to destroy the same vehicle that made them rich?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so instead of you appologising for trying to keep on topic, i'll remind you that i was on topic...but you were just a little bit too quick, and maybe didn't get it first time around. 2nd time lucky...

Where is the Conspiracy? and how are they Anti-Christian? Mind you being corrupt is not enough to be considered Anti. Taking advantage of an exploit is by no means an insurrection. If you want an Anti-Christian quote, you won't get it from a televangelist, you'll get one like this:

there's not anything that we can thank the bible for...sure it might give the odd person salvation, but as a world it's done nothing but spark murders, wars, crusades and so on.

...when clearly when a person reads the book, it states not to do these things.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Why would criminevangelists (talking about the very, very small percentage of evangelists who by law are engaged in criminal activity) seek to destroy the same vehicle that made them rich?

they're destroying whatever name christianity built up for itself, and are dragging it through the mud. by making themselves rich in that fashion they are destroying it...but they're so greedy they don't care.

Where is the Conspiracy? and how are they Anti-Christian?

taking advantage of, and exploiting fellow christians out of their hard earned money...that's not anti-christian?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
they're destroying whatever name christianity built up for itself, and are dragging it through the mud.

Christianity doesn't care about it's own name/reputation, it cares about God, what He wants, what His son taught, and what His son did. Christians have no beef unless one tries to tear down God, Christ or the words coming from thereof with slander and/or misinformation.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
by making themselves rich in that fashion they are destroying it...but they're so greedy they don't care.

taking advantage of, and exploiting fellow christians out of their hard earned money...that's not anti-christian?

No. Why should a Christian care about money? A Christian should be a willing giver. You cannot steal from someone who is giving as a gift. The televangelist isn't going to come over and paint my house, build me a computer, or "buy" my way into heaven...that's restated in the Book he's telling me to read and in the relationship with the One he's telling me to pray to. I appreciate your concern with Christians getting fleeced, but Matthew 5:38 tells us not to worry about these things.


[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]

Aite, s'more information, though this isn't an exhaustive list by any means. Science hasn't contradicted the Bible, though hundreds of times the Bible has, correctly, contradicted bad science. I have no intention of providing an exhaustive list because I've done that song and dance before on other issues. The reward for the work is either the person posing the question(s) ignoring the response completely and moving onto another attempt to say, "gotcha", or else all of the post being dismissed except for one or two points that could be debatable where, suddenly, the entire argument hinges on those one or two points, irregardless of the validity of all the other points.

That aside, the refresher was useful, I haven't looked into these things in quite a while, which brings me to an apology to ShaunyBaby.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
well, i just think if you say something, it's better to back it up there and then. i'm not too worried about the outcome, as there's people that insist the bible tells us of aliens, ufo's etc... so as for different claims about the bible, they are many and not so far between, and hold no relevance whatsoever.

Unfortunately, I'm one of those old schoolers who gets information from books still. As I have a rather extensive library, it is impractical for me to carry every book I have with me everywhere I go. I also must apologize for not having a photographic memory, since I can't immediately recall every element of what I have read. Summarize, yes, as I did earlier, but I can't verbatim recall everything in every book I have ever read. Finally, I also work at a job where they don't allow me to leave work and drive the hour home to get information from said library because a member on Above Top Secret is impatient. School is even worse, in that if I'm over a half hour late for class I am docked a letter grade.

On the ocean's currents, or paths in the sea, it has been proposed that, at the time Job was written, 4,000 years ago, the ancients who sailed would have learned where the currents are. Since ancient ships couldn't leave the coast without a good chance of never finding home again (no navigation system existed short of the coastline, including by the stars, and their ships were to small and fragile to venture into deep water), this is highly unlikely. However, this is just one example.

The person who did the research and discovered the underwater currents was named Matthew Fontaine Maury. He was superintendent of the Department of Charts and Instruments in the Navy in 1842. There is actually a statue of him holding oceanic charts in one hand and a Bible in the other because both were key to his discovery.

In Acts 17:26, Marks quotes Paul as saying,

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

In the King James version, instead of "one man", it says "one blood". This is interesting, because 2,000 years ago, people didn't realize humans all had one form of blood, nor one ancestor (be that Adam or Cro Magnon). Johan Blumenbach, commonly given credit as the father of anthropology, developed a theory of 5 human races that was widely accepted. The 5 races were the Caucasian (white) race, the Mongolian (yellow) race, the Malayan (brown) race, the Negro (black) race, and the American (red) race. To these 5 races he ascribed distinctive physiological aspects, including different types of blood. We're not talking A vs. B vs. AB vs. O, but rather cat blood vs. dog blood. That belief was maintained until 1909, when Karl Landsteiner discovered uniform plasma in the blood, leading to his discovery of non-racial blood types, confirming all humans have the same blood. Even taking the NIV version of from one man instead of one blood, this still indicates a common ancestor. We are one species, not 5 as was believed less than 100 years ago. Science had proven the Bible wrong...For a little while.

Psalm 102:25-26 states:

25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.

Isaiah 50:9 states:

It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me. Who is he that will condemn me? They will all wear out like a garment; the moths will eat them up.

Isaiah 51:6 states:

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail.

and Hebrews 1:11 states:

They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.

Everything will wear out like a garment. What is so interesting about these verses is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics confirms what they are saying. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the one that talks about matter and energy seeking uniformity. This is also where the concept of entropy comes from. One possible end result of the universe, if there's not enough mass to cause it to stabilize or contract after reaching a certain size, is that it will continue to expand until all the universe is uniform. Like a garment, slowly the universe will decay into a uniform state.

Jeremiah 33:22 states:

22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.' "

Genesis 22:17 states:

17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,

The Bible is making a bold claim here. Before Galileo, it was believed that there were about 3,000 stars in the sky. After all, that is typically the number people can see. Yet the Bible claims they are innumerable. The Bible even compares the number of stars to the number of grains of sand on the shore. There are probably more than 3,000 grains of sand in a small bucket, let along the entire beach. Yet, there's the claim. Science didn't have to prove the Bible wrong, anyone who looked up at the sky could prove the Bible wrong...until the advent of optics.

Remember, too, that many societies believed the stars were closer to the earth than the sun was. As such, it was believed they were all visible.

1 Corinthians 15:41 states:

41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Whew, Paul almost blew it there, except he notes that each star is different, which would include our sun. Look up at the night sky, and what do you see? You see hundreds of points of light. It was not until the invention of spectrography that the unique signature of each star was really understood. Every star is different, in its makeup and its...

Job 38:7 states:

while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

The morning stars sang? We all know stars don't sing...Right?

Grote Raber proved the Bible false in 1941 and 1942. He attempted to see if stars did, in fact, emit any kind of sound by detecting radio waves from the sun. None were detected, and a second experiment yielded the same results.

Meanwhile, in February of 1942, shortly after radar hit the scene, the US Army was testing radar to detect German ships. They were measuring radio waves at 400 to 500 centimeters when their radar systems were flooded with a high pitched shriek. It rendered the radar inoperable, and German jamming was suspected. The direction of the jamming was detected, and, as it turned out, was coming from a sunspot. The stars didn't sing; they shrieked. Still, the Bible was incorrect stating they sang...right?

The Hebrew word for sing is ranan, which means the emitting of a loud, shrill, creaking sound. What that says for the ancient Hebrew's singing ability, I don't know, but there it is. 4,000 years ago, Job quoted God telling him about the shrieking stars, about 3,950 years before radar was detected. Since the human ear isn't capable of detecting sound waves between 500 and 600 centimeters, it took science thousands of years to develop the technology to measure this. Sure enough, when it was finally measured, it turned out the sound is, in fact, there.

There are a few examples of the Bible contradicting bad science, only to have science recant and conform to the Bible.

Junglejake:

On the ocean's currents, or paths in the sea, it has been proposed that, at the time Job was written, 4,000 years ago, the ancients who sailed would have learned where the currents are. Since ancient ships couldn't leave the coast without a good chance of never finding home again (no navigation system existed short of the coastline, including by the stars, and their ships were to small and fragile to venture into deep water), this is highly unlikely. However, this is just one example.

LCKob:

Well, as per my contention as provided by your context of the concept of currents ala "paths to the sea" , as you yourself pointed out it was a known and common phenomena ... nothing special ... somewhat like saying that the sky is a wonderful shade of azure ... when one does not know what "azure" means ... and thus it sounds exotic or mysterious.

But I would add to the historical pot with this citation:

www.archaeology.org...

First Mariners Volume 51 Number 3, May/June 1998
by Mark Rose

[image] Before the arrival of early humans ca. 900,000 years ago, Flores was populated by pygmy stegodon (a dwarf elephant species), Komodo dragons, and giant tortoise. (Michael J. Morwood) [LARGER IMAGE]

New dates from two sites on the Indonesian island of Flores prove that Homo erectus was able to navigate open waters between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago. Previously, modern humans who colonized Australia were credited with the earliest sea crossings, 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Michael J. Morwood of Australia's University of New England and his colleagues presented their conclusions, based on excavations at Tangi Talo and Mata Menge, in the journal Nature. Tangi Talo yielded the remains of pygmy stegodon (a type of elephant), giant tortoise, and Komodo dragons, but no tools. Mata Menge, however, produced a small number of stone tools, including some made of nonlocal chert, as well as remains of large stegodon, crocodile, giant rat, freshwater molluscs, and plants.

Archaeologists excavate pygmy stegodon tusk on Flores; inset, stone tool from the Mata Menge site. (Michael J. Morwood) [LARGER IMAGE] [image]

Morwood dated the sites using a technique that analyzes individual zircon crystals from volcanic deposits. A sample from Tangi Talo, taken near a pygmy stegodon tusk and giant tortoise shell fragments, yielded a date of about 900,000 years ago. At Mata Menge, a sample from just beneath the artifact-bearing level dated to about 880,000 years ago, while another, taken above in situ artifacts, gave a date of about 800,000. The sites' early dates and the identification of the stone tools seem secure, according to Carl Swisher of the Berkeley Geochronology Lab.

Tools this early in Southeast Asia can only have been made by Homo erectus. Unlike Java, which was periodically connected to mainland Asia and accessible to early humans on foot, Flores could be reached only by crossing an 11.4-mile-wide strait, even at times of lowest sea level. The Mata Menge artifacts prove that H. erectus was able to make the crossing.

The new dates also support the suggestion made by Dutch paleontologist Paul Sondaar more than a decade ago that the extinction of pygmy stegodon on Flores ca. 900,000 years ago was the result of human predation.
*

Now as such findings seem to indicate, humans (and ancestral proto humans) seem to have embraced the challance of substantial maritime activity up to and including significant naviational "blue water" achievements which seem to indicate a fair observational knowledge of the sea. Keep in mind that the time period postulated is at the most conservative estimate 10 times older the 4000 year period as stated by yourself.

In short, humans seem to have been challanging (and consequently learning) from the ocean for a very long time ... and one of the most fundemental and readily observable element is the phenomena of currents as described by context within your post as "pathways to the sea".

How intuitive and obvious is this phenomena? I will give you a real world example of analogous discovery. I have 3 nephews and 1 niece ... and one day when the eldest (a girl of 4) went into the childrens pool, she came out puzzled and I asked why ... she said "the water seems to be cold, but as I moved in it, warm water flowed past me? why is that?

To which I replied ... well think to when you take a bath (knowing that would raise some interesting questions ...)

She replied: Yes, but uncle, hot water is pouring in and when they mix I can feel hot and cold ... where is the hot water coming from?

I replied with a straight face ... You see that little boy smiling at us, the one you swam next to? ... there is a good chance, the "warm water" came from him ....

She paused then shrieked loudly and refused to go into the pool until I softened the joke and explained to her about the possibility of currents in bodies of water for various reasons.

My point? That the simple expedient of observing current like phenomena is well within the practice and inclination of ancient man (and perhaps proto man as well) ... thus such a descriptor such as "pathways to the sea" can be argued (as I have stated earlier) as merely an artistic descriptor to a common everyday occurance to someone who has basic knowledge of the sea.

LCKob

Originally posted by saint4God
but Matthew 5:38 tells us not to worry about these things.

shame he didn't tell you to not worry about silly little things like make-believe anti-christian conspiracies.

So LCKob, am I to understand that your counter to that entire post is that it's feasible that sailors could have known there were currents in the water? So what? Let's say people knew 4,000 years ago that there were ocean currents that never changed. First, does that mean the entire world, including Asia Minor (expected home of Job), was told of this, or was it a sailor thing (Job was a farmer)? Second, how does that discredit the Bible?