The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
What is your view on the theory that the Sumerian stories that describe the 'Adamae' as being the first of a new hybrid who were a cross between the 'Gods' and men? Then Adam would be the first. And I read that the word 'Adamae' meant earthling. The Sumerians also wrote of a paradise they called Edenu, and they are said to be the source of the Jewish people having a 7 day week.
In a related topic, what about the Genesis account before the creation of Adam and Eve that appears to tell of the creation of a previous, possibly asexual people? If it is referring to the same thing written later, Adam and Eve, why is it twice mentioned?

LCKob:

I read some papers on Gilgamesh years ago ... but I did not think to delve ... hmmmm ...

Adamae ... edunu ... facinating, the coincidence and potential implications if correctly translated are signficant ...

Originally posted by jake1997
3.) Doesnt the sheer weight of the trend in this forum show you that there is clearly some larger movement , possibly lead by a conspiracy, ...whos goal is anti-christian?

BigEasy puts away the tin foil...



Come on man. Where's the conspiracy? Do you have any links? I'm a Southern Baptist myself and I don't feel persemecuted.

We got the biggest markets.

can you picture how Muslims must feel?
Or Jews?
Or any of the historically persecuted faiths, not to mention ethinicities.
Native Americans have had a pretty rough go, comparatively.

I watched a cartoon the other night on Cartoon Network "Morel Orel" Which is done alot like the claymation show David and golaith. Man it was so brutal to christians it made them seem so ignorant, repressed.

I know it was just a cartoon but I just keep thinking could they get away with a cartoon that portrayed Jews or Muslims in such a light?

Not a chance IMHO but its acceptable if this is directed at christians I guess in the US. I dont know its alittle like a Black comic can make fun of white people and its funny, But if a white comic made found of Black people he would often be labeled a racist.

That's because in this country, Christians are the majority. How persecuted can a MAJORITY be?

It's a bogus issue.

How many times have Christians seriously told non-Christians they are damned to hell? And they aren't joking. That is worse, imo, even though I agree that jokingly deriding any group is not great, with the possible exception of ones own group. Like me, I can say stuff about my group, and feel pretty safe.

Originally posted by BigEasy
That's because in this country, Christians are the majority. How persecuted can a MAJORITY be?

You tell me.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
How many times have Christians seriously told non-Christians they are damned to hell? And they aren't joking. That is worse, imo, even though I agree that jokingly deriding any group is not great, with the possible exception of ones own group. Like me, I can say stuff about my group, and feel pretty safe.

Joking aside, it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to be demeaned as ignorant, insulted, called a bigot for believing in Christ, and stripped of their first amendment rights of free speech simply for talking about Christ in the public forum. Make no mistake, there is far worse persecution taking place in the world today. In China, if you don't worship in official Christian churches, but instead in scripturally sound churches, you can be thrown in jail, tortured, or even executed. The Sudan doesn't even provide the option of worshipping their government under the guise of Christ. You remember the war on drugs here in the 80s, when kids were instructed to rat out their parents if they saw them use drugs? North Korea has a very similar policy if kids see a little black book in their home. The difference is those with the little black book are tortured and executed instead of just jailed and taken from their families for a time.

What of Hell? Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God. We believe what it says in it, and we believe that its message is accurate. In John 14:6, Jesus Himself clearly states how to get to Heaven. The rest reinforces this. Is it hateful, then, to tell someone how to come to know the Father, God, and to gain entrance into heaven and to warn them of the consequence of not doing so? If you believed with all of your heart the tenants of the Bible, would you be more hateful smiling and nodding as someone explains to you that they're going to Hell (i.e. they don't accept Christ) or to warn them about it?

To give a different example, and this is how I see it at least, if I were to see someone playing with a gun, loading it and putting it to their heads utterly convinced it will not hurt them, would it be hateful to tell them that if they pull the trigger they're going to die? I think it would be hateful to smile and say to them that their belief works for them.

Granted, some people could do it more tactfully than others, but the message is there. Typically, though there are exceptions, Christians will say something like that not because they're hateful or angry with the other person, but because they're concerned for that person's very life. If I say you're going to go to Hell because you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your Salvation, it's not because I want to scare you into believing in him, it's because I truly believe He is "the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through" Him.

Originally posted by BigEasy
That's because in this country, Christians are the majority. How persecuted can a MAJORITY be?

It's a bogus issue.

Oh so its only ok to show the MAJORITY in a bad light?

Well it should be open day on Chinese since they make up the MAJORITY of people on earth.

Thats some great thinking



[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]

I can see how some might find the judgemental condemning statement that they are going to hell as also being demeaning, however well intended it may be.
I know that Buddha, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc. would not be bothered by it, but some folks get pretty hot when told they're eternally damned.
And that is unfortunate, as is an atheist calling a Christian a believer in fairy tales no more reasonably likely than the tooth fairy or boogeyman.
Live and let live, respect others ability to choose, accept their differences, and don't worry about them burning in hell, its not likely that telling them so is going to be what makes them change over to your view. Only they can do that, and I say if they don't, that is just fine. They have just as much chance of being right as anyone.

junglejake:

What of Hell? Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God. We believe what it says in it, and we believe that its message is accurate. In John 14:6, Jesus Himself clearly states how to get to Heaven. The rest reinforces this. Is it hateful, then, to tell someone how to come to know the Father, God, and to gain entrance into heaven and to warn them of the consequence of not doing so? If you believed with all of your heart the tenants of the Bible, would you be more hateful smiling and nodding as someone explains to you that they're going to Hell (i.e. they don't accept Christ) or to warn them about it?

LCKob:

Okay, as per SM ... lets define some terms ...

www.m-w.com...

belief

Main Entry: be·lief

Pronunciation: b&-'lEf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance.

BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer .

FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof .

CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent .

CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof .

synonym see in addition OPINION

So what is the point, merely this ... by your own words and by the very definition as per MW (and quite similarly in other dictionaries as well) ... what you have said is that you have an opinion of something ... a strong one, but indisuputably by definition ... an opinion ... one valid view among many.

junglejake:

To give a different example, and this is how I see it at least, if I were to see someone playing with a gun, loading it and putting it to their heads utterly convinced it will not hurt them, would it be hateful to tell them that if they pull the trigger they're going to die? I think it would be hateful to smile and say to them that their belief works for them.

LCkob:

It is said by many experienced parents, that the hardest part of parenting is "letting go" ... that point of realization that the child has become an adult, capable of making their own way through life ... complete with their own identify as manifested by their personal victories as well as defeats. IMO it is a sign of respect to grant other adults the courtesy of self determination. Now this is not to say that you cannot voice your "opinion" on something, but that you do it in a way that does not impugn the freedom of another in regards to personally directed destiny.

junglejake:

Granted, some people could do it more tactfully than others, but the message is there. Typically, though there are exceptions, Christians will say something like that not because they're hateful or angry with the other person, but because they're concerned for that person's very life. If I say you're going to go to Hell because you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your Salvation, it's not because I want to scare you into believing in him, it's because I truly believe He is "the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through" Him.

LCKob:

Well, I believe you have good intent ... just as you believe in your particular world view and message ... and generally there is no harm in that ... so long as the "believers" do not begin to act upon such opinions as if they were incontrovertable proof or an absolute truth embraced by all concerned.

One further point to consider ... I have a good number of friends who represent a wide spectrum of views and religious beliefs ... and of particular interest is the fact that while we are all good friends, the majority think that everyone else is ... well ... going to hell. ... and from my perspective, as I have known most of them for quite some time, they are IMO very good people (like my buddhist grandmother), honest, forthright, of good integrity and standing in the community,most have good jobs, loving spouses and children ... and yet, as I have said, think each other is "misguided" or at the very least "not going to heaven"...



To all of this I offer this my opinion (which I had epressed in another thread)

If there is no god, then all rhetoric is entertaining at best, meaningless at worst ...

If there is a god or gods then I would like to think that such a diety/dieties would be above the pettiness and provincialism of mortal and fallible man as such expressed most eloquently by Francis Bacon elaborating on a precept by St. Paul 'On Unity in Religion':

"A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning."

LCKob

To those Christians who are of the opinion that non Christians get thrown into hell for being what they are, consider the following:
1) There is definitive proof that Christ spent his missing years in India learning from the sages there. He was returning the kindness bestowed on him by the sages of India for visiting him at his birth, by making a visit to India. There are detailed accounts of what Christ did in India in several monastries in India. Christ was called Essa when he stayed in India.
2) The Second Council of Constantinople removed all mention of reincarnation from the Bible - of which there was plenty. Hence a majority of Christians still believe that reincarnation is a myth; but this concept forms the corner stone of all religions from the East. The sleeping prophet of America, Edgar Cayce who was brought up as a staunch Christian and therefore disbelieved in reincarnation became troubled when his ' readings ' frequently referred to reincarnation. He eventually believed in the concept of reincarnation.
3) A fresh take of the gosples can be found in a double volume book written by the great Indian saint Paramahamsa Yogananda. It is called " The Second Coming of Christ " ISBN 0-87612-555-0 It can be purchased from Amazon.com ( paper back is cheaper ). Read this with an open mind and you will come away amazed. This book has already started making ripples in the Christian world.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
can you picture how Muslims must feel?
Or Jews?

How many people say they are proud to be Anti-Muslim or Anti-Jew or say they "have it coming"? Now look back on this thread and see how many people said they're proud to be Anti-Christian or say "they have it coming". Notice a difference? You should.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Or any of the historically persecuted faiths, not to mention ethinicities.
Native Americans have had a pretty rough go, comparatively.

I agree that we need to give at least 4 or 5 states back to the Native Americans. If you start the thread, I'll gladly join you. I feel awful about the imperialistic genocide and broken words by our government at that time. Hopefully none have taken my words to mean I live under constant physical attack. Mental attack sometimes. Spiritual attack frequently, but it's all part of the job. It's an awareness thing, not a "call Amnesty International now!" thing. At least not yet.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
How many times have Christians seriously told non-Christians they are damned to hell?

I don't know, but I also don't know who granted them the authority to make that judgement. Apparently they missed Revelation 20:11...where God makes that call.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
And they aren't joking. That is worse, imo, even though I agree that jokingly deriding any group is not great, with the possible exception of ones own group. Like me, I can say stuff about my group, and feel pretty safe.

I think the psycology must be one a few scenarios:
1.) There is indeed a superiority complex...which is a big problem according to the same Book they hold.
2.) They've missed the message of what spreading the good news means.
3.) They're honestly afraid for people who are not with God, that they will be sentenced to hell. Since the odds seem likely to be the case, they may be trying to help.

The only way to discern which of these possibilities exist, you'd have to talk to them more and ask many questions such as, "Why do you care?" and/or "Then why are you spending your precious time talking with me?"

God did not send His son to die to condemn the world, He raised His son from death to save it. That's some good news. God cares about us enough to send a part of Him to get us out of a spiritual rut. I'm grateful for that. He doesn't ask a person to walk a thousand miles and pray at a statue or spend ten hours a day in deep meditation, all He asks is that we believe this to be true. For someone like me who was going through hell on earth, my response was "what have I got to lose?" I went "all in" as I had before on things I should not have trusted and it cost me dearly. This time, I was told to keep the chips and then was given an endless supply. Eternal life. It's a beautiful thing.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Hey Guard, not picking on you by replying so much to your posts. On the contrary, I think you've got a lot of good discussion to bring to the table and would like to talk about it.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I can see how some might find the judgemental condemning statement that they are going to hell as also being demeaning, however well intended it may be.

Agreed.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I know that Buddha, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc. would not be bothered by it, but some folks get pretty hot when told they're eternally damned.

Yeah, I think I would be to...but it would also bother me enough to do some digging to find out if it's true. I think I'm the exception and not the rule in this case.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
And that is unfortunate, as is an atheist calling a Christian a believer in fairy tales no more reasonably likely than the tooth fairy or boogeyman.

I'm glad you recognize why this statment would be offensive.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Live and let live, respect others ability to choose, accept their differences, and don't worry about them burning in hell, its not likely that telling them so is going to be what makes them change over to your view.

Agreed. Also a Christian should know they they cannot convert anybody. Their job is to point them to the One who can. Question for you, do these same people say "God is love." as it's written 1 John 4:8b? If you experience love, you experience a part of God's character. God does not want to punish us. However, He's holy and just so He must punish sin. He set forth a plan and a promise, repeated time and time again with the most famous summary given in John 3:16.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Only they can do that, and I say if they don't, that is just fine. They have just as much chance of being right as anyone.

I don't find taking chances at being right acceptable. Either something is right, or it is not.

Originally posted by carlosox
1) There is definitive proof that Christ spent his missing years in India learning from the sages there. He was returning the kindness bestowed on him by the sages of India for visiting him at his birth, by making a visit to India. There are detailed accounts of what Christ did in India in several monastries in India. Christ was called Essa when he stayed in India.
2) The Second Council of Constantinople removed all mention of reincarnation from the Bible - of which there was plenty. Hence a majority of Christians still believe that reincarnation is a myth; but this concept forms the corner stone of all religions from the East.

Do you have any actual proof of any of this? I'm aware of a number of theories about Jesus (including one rather interesting one that says that he was a zealot and that St Paul suppressed most of the anti-Roman parts of his teachings) but spending time in India is a new one to me.

Christ spending time in India is not new Darkmind. I first saw a video about this called ' The Lost Years ' about twenty years ago. It was an excellent video, but I'm not sure if you can get it now. However, there seems to be a newer version with much more proof and documentation that Christ spent the missing years in India. The original research was carried out by a British researcher who had to beg his way into a Buddhist monastry which kept written records for every single day for over two thousand years. The abbot of this monastry took pity on this researcher and showed him the documents he wanted to see. There is an incident in which Christ drove out merchants from a temple in Varanasi ( the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world - sometimes also called Benares ). As a result of this the priests of the temple ( who were in league with the merchants trading in the temple), took out a contract on Christ's life. At this stage Christ made a hurried return to his birthblace. It is uncanny that Christ again drove out merchants from the temple of Jerusalem in a similar fasion.
Christ was very much loved and venerated during his stay in India. Although he discussed much about religion with the spiritual giants of India, all those who came into contact with Christ while the latter was in India immediately acknowledged his spiritual might.
In fact I can safely say that Christ is venerated as a savior much more in India than in the West, where his name has been used only to further people's business interests and acquisition of power.

The Book says he appeared to many people and performed many miracles not recoreded in the book. My question is then, if the people of India saw and believed then, why do they not believe now?

quote: Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
'Only they can do that, and I say if they don't, that is just fine. They have just as much chance of being right as anyone. '

'I don't find taking chances at being right acceptable. Either something is right, or it is not. ' Saint4God
I don't find the concept that one can know they are right, regarding matters of faith. If I could get an interview with God maybe I could say that I don't accept taking chances, but till then I feel taking a chance is the best I can do. I feel there are as many different right answers as people, so we could all be right. But I don't know that, it is a best guess and if I'm right, great, if not, oh well. I gave it a shot.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I don't find the concept that one can know they are right, regarding matters of faith.

Not to be confused with saying I know everything. On the contrary, I only know one thing for certain.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If I could get an interview with God maybe I could say that I don't accept taking chances, but till then I feel taking a chance is the best I can do. I feel there are as many different right answers as people, so we could all be right. But I don't know that, it is a best guess and if I'm right, great, if not, oh well. I gave it a shot.

Wouldn't you rather know? I admire and was in the same boat at taking chances in the past, but I needed to pursue until I knew and not rest on a "sounds good" answer. I didn't mean "don't take chances", I meant going even further until you know.

I will keep on going until I stop. Which may be never, but I am now of the opinion that I am very unlikely to 'know' before I die. Maybe I will, but either way I will keep going until that day comes, and maybe long after.
I hope not though, I am really counting on 'knowing' upon my demise. If I am still in the dark then, I will be disappointed for sure.