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: worldstarcountry
a reply to: BingoMcGoof
...
I really want to know more about the super older stuff.
INCEST, child murder, cannibalism—these were some of the absurd charges leveled against Christians in the second century C.E. This led to such a wave of persecution that professed Christian writers felt obliged to defend their faith. Later known as the apologists, or defenders of their beliefs, these writers set out to prove that their religion was harmless so as to win over the Roman authorities and public opinion.
It was a risky undertaking, for the empire and public opinion were usually appeased only by giving in to them. There was also a real danger of stirring up more persecution or of watering down the Christian faith by unwarranted compromises. Just how did the apologists defend their faith? What arguments did they use? And what were the results of their efforts?
The Apologists and the Roman Empire
...
originally posted by: whereislogic
The teachings of modern religion as well as ancient religion trace back to the religious teachings in ancient Babylon.
Definition: The world empire of false religion, embracing all religions whose teachings and practices do not conform to the true worship of Jehovah, the only true God. Following the Flood of Noah’s day, false religion had its beginning at Babel (later known as Babylon). (Gen. 10:8-10; 11:4-9) In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.
What evidence points to the identity of Babylon the Great, referred to in Revelation?
...
Ancient Babylon was outstandingly noted for its religion and its defiance of Jehovah
...
Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide
“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.
Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
Use of images: “[In Mesopotamian religion] the role of the image was central in the cult as well as in private worship, as the wide distribution of cheap replicas of such images shows. Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner.”—Ancient Mesopotamia—Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964), A. L. Oppenheim, p. 184.
Belief regarding death: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556. [whereislogic: notice the contradiction in this philosophy? I bolded it. Satan was the first one that lied to Eve about not really dying if she ate from the fruit of that special tree. Since Eve died, he was proved to be a liar, so he had to change it up a bit, modify his lie so it became less obvious and could be adopted by Christendom. Now it's, 'well, your physical body dies, but the real 'you' won't die, cause you will continue living as a spirit or some form of energy.' I.e., your soul won't die. See Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal from the article series One Myth Leads to Another.]
Position of the priesthood: “The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861.
Practice of astrology, divination, magic, and sorcery: Historian A. H. Sayce writes: “[In] the religion of ancient Babylonia . . . every object and force of nature was supposed to have its zi or spirit, who could be controlled by the magical exorcisms of the Shaman, or sorcerer-priest.” (The History of Nations, New York, 1928, Vol. I, p. 96) “The Chaldeans [Babylonians] made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call ‘astrology.’”—The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (Chicago, 1938), R. M. Engberg, p. 230.
Babylon the Great is like an immoral harlot, one living in shameless luxury
Revelation 17:1-5 says: “‘Come, I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters [peoples], with whom the kings [political rulers] of the earth committed fornication, whereas those who inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.’ . . . And upon her forehead was written a name, a mystery: ‘Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.’” Revelation 18:7 adds that “she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury.”
Is it not true that the dominant religious organizations have made it a practice to consort with political rulers for power and material gain, though this has resulted in suffering for the common people? Is it not also true that their higher clergy live in luxury, even though many of the people to whom they should minister may be impoverished?
Why can religions that profess to be Christian properly be viewed as a part of Babylon the Great, along with those who know nothing of the God of the Bible?
...
originally posted by: 19Bones79
...
A brilliant video by Mark Dice that complements this thread nicely.
originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: 19Bones79
Ahem...like i mentioned in the other thread ,Sepehr is not trustworthy .
originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: whereislogic
The irony of someone doing someone else the favor of pointing out that they may be a victim of propaganda and then to strengthen their case they quote scripture must be completely lost on you.
And one last tip, always try to avoid falling into this trap (behavioural pattern), because the behavioural pattern is widespread, and propagandists of all kinds and in all walks of life (from politics to the sciences, from religion to philosophy, from business to the practice of medicine) make efficient use of this widespread phenomenon:
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)
“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)
The act of pleasing by artful commendation; adulation; false, insincere, or excessive praise. It is usually done to gratify the self-love or vanity of the one flattered and is therefore damaging to him. Its motive is to gain favor or material benefits from another, to create a feeling of obligation toward the flatterer or to bring glory to him. Often it is designed to lead the other person into a trap. (Pr 29:5) The use of flattery is not evidence of the wisdom from above; it is of this world, being characterized by selfishness, the making of partial distinctions, and hypocrisy. (Jas 3:17) Insincerity, lying, adulating or glorifying men, and playing on the vanity of others are all displeasing to God.—2Co 1:12; Ga 1:10; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Re 21:8.
A contrast of the Christian course with that of flattery is found in the apostle’s words at 1 Thessalonians 2:3-6: “For the exhortation we give does not arise from error or from uncleanness or with deceit, but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts. In fact, at no time have we turned up either with flattering speech, (just as you know) or with a false front for covetousness, God is witness! Neither have we been seeking glory from men, no, either from you or from others, though we could be an expensive burden as apostles of Christ.”
While the use of flattery may appear to be the gainful course, the Bible points out that “he that is reproving a man will afterward find more favor than he will that is flattering with his tongue.” (Pr 28:23) When a person employs flattery to gain advantage over another person, it is the opposite of love. A hater may resort to flattery but will eventually have his deceptiveness roll back on him like a stone.—Pr 26:24-28.
Flattery employs smooth talk in order to beguile its victim. The expressions “flattery,” “smooth tongue (lip, or words)” (Ps 5:9; 12:2, 3; Da 11:32), “smoothness” (Pr 7:21; Da 11:34, ftn), and “double-faced” (Eze 12:24, ftn) are translations of the Hebrew root word cha·laqʹ or related words. In every Bible instance cited, the motive of the smooth talker is bad.
...
originally posted by: 19Bones79
...
Personally I want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
RELATIONSHIP TO KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
Understanding must be based on knowledge, and works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental fact is God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards and thereby assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Prov. 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Prov. 2:10, 11; 18:15.
Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is the “prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Prov. 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5; see KNOWLEDGE; WISDOM.
originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: whereislogic
Not one of your replies involve the content of the video.
...
How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.
First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’
originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: whereislogic
Well then you are the perfect person to ask about the Book of Enoch, any why Christianity cast out these writings in the fourth century?
...
Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) ...
originally posted by: whereislogic
... True Christianity doesn't teach man-made creeds and doctrines).
originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Some things are just too vile to see the light of day, but they'll be on ATS or youtube anyway. But I'm not going to make comments that are conducive to that type of message shared or promoted. I don't have to go along with that behaviour.
I'm also happy to note that the video above dispels the notion that Robert Sepehr is an anti-semite, as it it is clear that most Jewish people are unaware and not involved in what is being discussed in the video.
...
Playing on the Emotions
Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.