Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


homosexuals are born a certain way. there's evidence of homosexuality in other species, not just humanity. it's not a choice, it's something that's built into a person

sure, you can choose to commit a homosexual act as a heterosexual, but that's just being dishonest to yourself.

the vast majority of homosexuals fall into the category of people born that way.

We have 1 in 4 woman in school with STD's we have reports of as many as 40% of students saying they are Bi-sexual and I am sure Atheist will come up with "Science" saying their is a "Bi" gene. I have seen NO evidence that suggests any part of the Human brain has a Homosexual gene or chromosome. Telling me other species engage in aberrant sexual behavior proves nothing. Men often have Homosexual sex in prison and when they get out, they go back to being straight. Call it evolution. Some people are born with no hearing, blind, some born with albinism so I know that much. I just know I have never read anything to finally settle that question. I am not saying you are wrong nor am I challenging you to try to prove me wrong, in fact, I would appreciate any data you have read without further argument.




Next time you put words in my mouth to the effect that I said something about people born a certain way, then after you make the assertion, you then call it ( me ) prejudice.


No madd I was NOT saying that, at all. I was referring to the days (the last days) where accusing someone of sin will be more risk to be ridiculed then their would be risk for shame or rebuke by the sinner for engaging in it. It was a general statement. The state we are born into is sin and that means all of us.

calling the state someone is born into sinful is prejudice

Having explained,, that no longer applies,, if it ever did.

I'm not being dishonest.

You said that homosexuality is sinful and that people are taking a risk by displaying their prejudice against homosexuality.

No I did NOT and again I will ask you to quit adding context to my statements in addition to putting words in my mouth.


I see you do this all the time and YES, it is DISHONEST. The fact that you continue to sneak words and meanings I have never said is something all of us are getting very tired of. Most of the time you sneak it past people, but you will not with me. See Below Madds attempt to do it again:


"and that people are taking a risk by "displaying their prejudice against homosexuality".



Again, to clarify for the readers who you have just tried to bamboozle, they risk being ridiculed for making the charge, against a sinner. I never said anything about displaying their prejudice against homosexuality, so if you are going to quote me, fine, just don't add your own spin to it because you continue to use that tactic since UI have seen your first posts and can already predict your denial for it as I type where I am already digging up all the many, I am willing to show in rotation. I like using that method because when you seem them all go by one after another, you also see the method of obfuscation, mis-representation, circular semantic switching etc.

the pattern becomes easier to recognise in future posts and yours, like wraoth and many others are begining to see, I too, have developed a keen eye for seeing them and will not hesitate correcting them and exploiting the intended dis-honesty for doing it.

All you have tried to do is force the comment to mean anyone calling that particular sin, what it is, is actually displaying prejudice and that THAT is the risk because as everyone knows,, nobody wants to be told they are "prejudice" .

In my case, I could care less what YOUR opinion is or why YOU are more shocked at my disbelief that a Pedophile would seek the ACLU's assistance rather then why I could care less about his "freedom to express his homosexual pedophilia".

To me it isn't important. To me, what is important, is that kind of sick perversion has people like you defending his right to speak about it in the context he wants to further Nambla's agenda. To even give that kind of voice a platform is ludicrous and with members of NAMBLA, you can bet your &$$^# I am not only prejudice, I AM A BIGOT. Homosexual Pedophilia disgusts me. Don't reply with "but I didnt say pedophila" because it, like every sin we are talking about, has now become too taboo to tell those engaged in it, they are wrong.

The murdering of children still in their mothers womb, DISGUSTS ME. That some people can do that with the frame of mind that it is no differen't then flushing a goldfish down the toilet, troubles me a great deal. Freeborn mentioned that I was well intended and passionate about my beliefs and I can tell him that they weren't always my beliefs. That the more I study Jesus teachings the more my heart changes and am more sensitive to the things that were not over the line before. The more I allow to go over the line,, the more accepting I get the more desensitized I get to things that always lead down a path to more depravity and destruction.

If you want to call my being against it, prejudice, or my being against the Atheists semantics agenda re-naming it "pro-choice" a prejudice, let me be the first to tell you,,, Ya THINK!

Their are some prejudice I have that I feel are not only PERFECTLY normal and justified but are so much, that I am suspicious of people who would question them at all. The pendulum of life never swings to the what is best foir the greater good or to what is normal but to extremes and whether they are Religious extremes or sexual preferences and the rights to express them. The common sense as to when some of those are already in the extreme zone is well passed the idea they should even be heard let alone defended using tax dollars to defend it.

If Atheists want to test the limits of free speech continuing their efforts to change history and meanings such as church and state to where the Religious person is kept out of politics because people like YOU arte to scared to vote for them merely because they believe in GOD, is the very reason I WILL vote for them. That it isn't about freedom FROM religion but freedom OF relgion.

What it looks like is when the government pays for a state park and installs a softball field. If Softball were a religion, Atheists would protest my right to play just because they don't play softball.

They don't like it they don't believe in it and are offended by it blah blah blah. They would get together and book hours of each day and every hour booked kids that want to play would sit there watching an empty field with no one playing. They would get on the field and start playing but get kicked off because the Atheists are so un-interested in playing they are so uninvolved that they have a right to express their un-interest and their non play. I mean after all we all learned the game from our Dads but we weren't born that way. Little by little the Atheists have done to the Constitution what they would to the softball game chipping away at it till the hours of daylight play were all booked up and we would see the emptyness of a field no one is playing on as there right to NOT play, like they have a right to NOT believe.

To me the Atheists agenda to remove GOD from our language from Government is more then obvious. You still got 50 states with their own preamble to their own constitutions which all refer to God in the very begining. I see they are working on those now too. Not long the Atheists will re-write the history of those too like they are everything else we see now as people and events that go from historical people and events to mythical fables that never happened like the holocaust to people that never existed like Jesus.

Atheist are not going to get away with this unscathed I can tell you that. They are NOT under the radar anymore and what they are doing, saying and the liquid linguistic language of legion is the kind of cryptic crap we are all becoming aware of.

i really don't...

in fact, i tend to only use it when it's necessary.

It is never necessary

i asked you to show me how it hurts people

you just repeated an assertion and then made a bigger one

No you didn't ask me, you asked whammy. I offered a general opinion but if whammy hasn't already answered, I will offer mine .

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that it's simply a choice that people make?

The same Kinsey study also produced other evidence that can not be explained in terms of biological determinism, but would readily support the idea that choice is involved in sexual orientation and behavior:

• 74% of their gays admitted to having been sexually aroused by a female and 80% of lesbians said that they had been sexually aroused by a male;

• 19% of their gays and 38% of lesbians had been heterosexually married;

• 20% of gays, 5% of heterosexual men, 7% of lesbians and no heterosexual women had had sex with animals.

Consistent with these results, the Family Research Institute (FRI) 10 conducted a nationwide random survey of 4,340 adults drawn from 5 U.S. cities in 1983 and found:

• 82% of those currently lesbian and 66% of those currently gay said that they had been in love with someone of the opposite sex;

• 88% of lesbians and 73% of gays had been sexually aroused by someone of the opposite sex;

• 67% of lesbians and 54% of gays reported current sexual attraction to the opposite sex;

• 85% of lesbians and 54% of gays, as adults, had sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex;

• 32% of gays and 47% of lesbians had been heterosexually married; and

• 17% of gays, 3% of heterosexual men, 10% of lesbians and 1% of heterosexual women reported sex with animals.

These are the kinds of sexual choices one would expect from the sexually adventurous or confused. Unless Dr. Isay and his supporters are willing to believe that people are "born" to fall in love, get married or to have sex with animals, some measure of choice, rather than biological inevitability, must have been involved.

The ability to change explains the FRI findings that:

• Overall, 7.8% of women and 12% of men claimed to have been homosexually aroused at some point in their life. Yet 59% of the once homosexually aroused women and 51% of the once homosexually aroused men were currently heterosexual;

• 5.1% of the women and 9.4% of the men admitted to at least one homosexual partner. Of these, only 58% of the women and 61% of the men were currently gay;

• 4.1% of women and 5.8% of men reported that they had, at least once, been "in homosexual love." Yet only 66% of those who had fallen in love with a member of the same sex were currently gay; and

• almost a third of those who admitted to homosexual relations in adulthood were now heterosexual.

People Can Change

Where is the "biological inevitability" or "immutability" in these findings? The evidence suggests that people can modify their sexual tastes. The FRI survey in Dallas, similar to the Kinsey survey in San Francisco, found that 1% of heterosexual females and 3% of heterosexual males at one time considered themselves homosexual (i.e., were ex-gay when interviewed).

And a survey of 50 wives who had no homosexual experiences or interests up to age 30, but who participated in homosexual sex acts as part of "swinging" (where married people swap partners) reported that all of these women eventually considered themselves to be bisexual.

These are among the findings that seriously challenge the claim that sexual orientation is predetermined before or after birth, or even that it is permanently fixed in adulthood.



What is at Stake?



If sexual orientation is actually a matter of choice like drug use, we can expect that more of our youth will try homosexuality the more that it is tolerated and encouraged. Along these lines, Dr. Christopher Hewitt's analysis of the frequency of homosexuality in various societies is summarized in the Table: societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it

...so it's ok to criticize people for things they're born with

There you go again, quit trying to paint my argument in a corner where I am "displaying prejudice"



Could you be more specific?

oh dear noodley lord, you're actually going to compare homosexuality to a mental illness?

Madd! Is this a game to you?? Are you just trying to aggravate people or can you NOT argue a topic, without resorting to superimposing your own discontextual embellished exaggeration? If I have to respond to you as if you were a 6 year old, to get you to understand, I will certainly try, but I find it a little hard to believe that you would think I was suggesting such a thing as being Gay a mental Illness.



Not two paragraphs up I had to instruct you once again, that it is not MY position, such genetic, bio-chemical factors have anything to do with being gay, but that it is YOURS!



Furthermore, if you could concentrate on the central message of my post, rather than look for angles you can setup straw men or infuse your agenda into the context of my post by miss representing me.



You just might find people would not seem so much like Bigots to you. Most will not catch your little twists and they get angry not knowing what it is about you. They just cannot put their finger on it; all they know is your just too much exercise.



I CAN and I catch you, all the time and Wraoth has 100% of the time. You are either doing this because you think it is cute, OR you are having problems following. Here is what I said.



" Having said that, being Born that way, if that is how you want to argue it, has nothing to do with it. You are the one saying this. "



You are even suggesting I am calling it a mental illness goes right to the premise of my statement that is what is wrong with so called what??



"Brain disorders"comma "syndromes" comma "so called diseases" et-cetera, et-cetera, et-tedious cetera.



I see excuse for "restless leg syndrome" and all these new three letter acronyms for this disorder that complex this simplex and I am skeptical about much of what they say about the so-called "Gay Brain" especially when the arguments for your assertion that it is genetic, is the same one used by the Nambla members. That they would have the nerve to use such a study of so called science to Justify their right to access the sexual depravity they desire with young boys, and NOT to use it to prove it is why they cannot be trusted.



If it is that strong an influence that they cannot help themselves and they are a victim to their own Body chemistry their own genetic design, then perhaps we should fix them. Perhaps then MADD we can actually CRITICIZE something they were born with as a birth defect and,, I don't know,, cut it out? You tell me. Oh, that might put Gays in a rather difficult spot then wouldn't it. Ok well back to square one and your next quote.

Well, comparing her to a regular thief is a bit prejudiced. Many kleptomaniacs do not even realize that they're stealing things at the time...

Madd,, did you NOT get the point or are you just being difficult? You get the point I am making but I think as usual that is the problem, so you add superfuous details that aren't at issue and then refute the original point as if those added were part of the whole discussion.

Why? I can only assume that you have such a problem with ever having to say "good point" would just make you nauseous and as we have established, being wrong is not an option.

Must you insist on being argumentative even when it is OBVIOUS I am not discussing the Advanced Psychology of klepto mania and am speaking extemporaneously using it as an example.


The ONLY reason, you did that AGAIN is that it makes sense. You just can't let a thing like that get by without yet again splitting hairs so that at LEAST you can be half right while creating yet another opportunity to impart the word "Prejudice"! .



Your constant obsession with dissecting your "opponents" post before you even give it a chance to speak to you is why you totally MISSED the point in the next quote

And you're comparing apples to oranges, because homosexuality isn't inherently harmful and stealing an item is

Totally missed the point and No I am tired of re-direct

actually, it's just mean and quite possibly the worst way to deal with an alcoholic.

Madd I can think of a thousand worse ways of dealing with an alcoholic but if they can't handle being told they are drunk when they are drunk, it isn't the fault of society, me or anyone else. It is yours because you cannot seem to shut it off. LOSE the Semantics overdrive Madd it is affecting your perception of what is critical to an argument and what is just plane ridiculous. I do not care if you call them Drunk, Impaired, inebriated, hammered, wasted what ever. The Fact is you can't fix what you don't acknowledge, and playing pussy foot with people who have a problem being called something that may shed a negative light on them, doesn't mean I have to find the perfect word as to not hurt their witto feewings but GET THEM to hear what is THEY ARE. If they do not like it,, then they should not get DRUNK.



You know you could have just agreed rather then make a statement about "quite possibly" being the yadda yadda yadda.

Homosexual sex doesn't lead to fatalities (if you bring up AIDS, then heterosexual sex is just as dangerous)

Yes I will bring up the FACT that AIDS was spread like a wildfire by the Gay community where the statistics prove unequivocally absolutely by the CDC a direct correlation to Aberrant gay sexual deviance and promiscuity that existed in the bath houses, sex in bars, quickies, in cars, men behind bars.



I don't know any straight person who has died of Aids but I have personally known a hundred gay people that died of it.

(if you bring up AIDS, then heterosexual sex is just as dangerous)

Dead wrong my friend and I would again, suggest using that phrase in the most plausibly rational context below

Not "IS" just as dangerous but "Can be" just as dangerous.

Statistically however, your safest bet is the woman or man you stayed faithfully married to.



Believe it or not,, heterosexual married sex has benefits



Has Richter scale orgasms and



Less bigotry



- Con


[edit on 10-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


And who sets the standard for comprehension? Apparently, you believe you are such a stadnard-setter. I presume there are more, however? Do you have a master list of all the people who have the "correct comprehension" of the bible? Does this standardization vary for each denomination, or is the Russian Orthodoxy just SOL?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Soz whammy, but where in The Bible does it state that having "the holy spirit" in you is a necessity for understanding the "true" meaning of The Bible?
Verse and chapter please.

The Bible, according to Xians is "the" word of God.
There is no secret, gnostic, hidden message.
The Bible is words, and words are simply words.
The Bible is the tool which nearly 2 millenium of Xians have used to gain converts.

Any attempt to imply that there are "hidden" messages in The Bible is elitist and is merely an attemp to justify a particular interpretation of The Bible as THE "true" interpretation.

[edit on 10/4/08 by Freeborn]

It's true freeborn,, I don't think you will find a Christian whose genuine conversion done by the holy spirit isn't just what it says. It isn't something one can even articulate without sounding like they are schizophrenic but it is like that. Every Christian on these boards knows what I am talking about. It is that symbiotic blood flesh host relationship or as some call it their personal relationship with God.

If you have ever experienced it you would find it very hard to believe someone ever saying "they used to be a Christian" because if it was genuine, God doesn't let you go very far without smaking your butt back in line. I know you are agnostic and have seen you lean on the side of my opposition. I still think you are probably one of a few these boards are speaking too. The rest, are either Christians arguing with "Generation A" Or Generation Atheist the children of the grave who most Christians know are already dead and whose mission is about NOT having a mission they say they have no interest in, about a God they don't believe in, as they spend as much energy NOT involved in the Christian religion, as I do admitting I am. if not more.

Makes no sense unless you have the holy spirit pointing out what is so obvious to us. They have a God all right

Don't let their "non religious"

actions fool you hehe

- Con




[edit on 10-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

And who sets the standard for comprehension? Apparently, you believe you are such a stadnard-setter. I presume there are more, however? Do you have a master list of all the people who have the "correct comprehension" of the bible? Does this standardization vary for each denomination, or is the Russian Orthodoxy just SOL?

I said I was still learning Fox. I don't have all the answers. I have good teachers and the Holy Spirit. But I know enough to see how superficial and nonspiritual your interpretation is. I do no take credit, it is not a matter of the intellect only, it is a matter of the heart and it is spiritually discerned. Believers can make the same mistakes non believers do when they use worldly wisdom alone. Or are influenced by sin. We have the option to ignore the Spirit. We aren't perfect by any means.

You are right that there are denominations and organizations with different views. But these are not the true Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is like an organism not an organization. It is the believers who love each other and God. No person sets the standard God does.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


How old are you? You seem pretty young. I think when you mature you will change a lot of your ideas. Thinks will become less black and white and you will learn to think for yourself more. At least, I sure hope so!

reply to post by rizla


Sorry but you have it exactly backwards. I am probably a lot older than you are. I did not become a Christian until I was 37 and that was a while ago. The more I mature the more I see it is all true. It takes a change of heart to be able see the truth. God blessed me with one. The wisdom of the world makes sense in some regards but it never satisfies. It doesn't compare to the wisdom of God as revealed in the Bible. I think as you mature you will find that to be true.

Originally posted by rizla
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

How old are you? You seem pretty young. I think when you mature you will change a lot of your ideas. Thinks will become less black and white and you will learn to think for yourself more. At least, I sure hope so!

aaah yes the old veiled you are too young to know jack tact.

That black and white thing is why answers are asked by Lawyers to be answered YES or NO so things don't get muddy.

People who like to muddy the waters do so to make it harder to find truth.

Truth is and should be

Black and white

Fallacy and Fact

Right and wrong

Get it?


- Con

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

I think that it's been said before in this thread but I'll say it again it's not just Christianity that atheists are against. I think muslims, jews, hindus and other sects are just as confused and misled. For example if I was attacking every other religion in the world except Christianity would Christians feel threatened? For the sake of a good argument some will say yes, but I tend to believe it would be kosher in the eyes of most. After all if history has shown us anything people love to fight about who's god is best and as long as it's not yours getting attacked then why would it bother you.

I would like to point out that by definition an atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. This is not just about Christianity although Christians tend to take it that way. Just because the definition uses the word God does not dictate that it is God in the Christian sense. Is there a conspiracy to overthrow Christianity? No, There is am movement of people who judge all religions based on merit and as luck would have it they don't see the merit in any of them.

Originally posted by mug2k

O, really?
1. The most people in world history were killed by atheists.
2. The most wars in world history were non-religious.

Now thats a big statement. If its your personal opinion so be it. Fact ? please back it up with evidence !

EVIDENCE. God I love that word. If any religion can prove their supernatural claims with simple EVIDENCE many atheists would instantly convert! Unfortunately, religions like christianity want us to believe whatever they say without showing any kind of reliable proof. Fact checking and evidentiary standards are foreign to them.

DarkElf,

How wonderful to recieve your post. Agree wholeheartedly with your explaination of how the HolySpirit works in our understanding of the Word.

I have found myself often reading a verse for which I have read many times and one day....Wow!! A new or more complete understanding just seems to come up..or often this new understanding goes on to complete and magnify another verse and understanding. It is like a light bulb just came on ..that was not there five minutes previous. It is a marvelous thing to behold. In this manner we grow and mature in the Word.

Mind you now..for those unbelievers who will read this..I say in all humility that this does not in anyway make us better than others..No way..not possible. It does however make us different. Not better but different.

I know this because after my conversation and when I no longer gloried in the flesh and the desires of the flesh... it was not me who noticed this in my person...but those with whom I used to spend time in glorying in the flesh and the things of this world. These peoples seemed to notice something was changing in me ...first....not myself noticing it. Some of them began to mention this to me. On my part ..I finally began to notice that the things which used to appeal to me and In whch I used to glory..this appeal and glory were rapidly diminishing.
Most likely this paragraph will sound strange to unbelievers..but this is pretty much what happened. Most of these people with whom I used to run and glory...I have little with which to do. I no longer enjoy that olde lifestyle. I see them on occasion and I am civil and we talk about olde times and peoples but I no longer run in Wildlife with them.

NOw days my prayers are in thanks for seperating me from the olde ways, For His Grace, and in his Mercy in strengthing me in the Word and becoming a daily testimony to Him and His Way. I also thank Him for the knowlege and understanding of Salt in this strengthening.

Pavlovsdog,

Your quote of Ephesians 2:8 is very strange to me. I am given to wonder from what version you are quoting

Here is your quote

Ephesians 2:8: "You have been saved by God's love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God

Followed by this..

A believer in Paul's church needed only make a statement of belief to fulfill all the requirements of Paul's Christianity. It was enough to believe that the Messiah died on the cross for the forgivness of sins.

A Believer in the Word and the Way..cannot make a statement of belief unless the Lord has done His work in them to make them in His Image..not mans image. A believer is made acceptable...by Him..this is called Soverign Grace. Chosen people do not choose..they are chosen. We are a chosen people not a choosing people. None of the Apostles chose..they were chosen ..plucked out of the world and the world system. Moses did not choose..he was chosen. It is the Lord who does the choosing and for his purposes..not ours. The Miracle is why the Lord would choose a wretch like me or others out here to carry His name upon our Lips daily.

You followed up again with this....

Humankind was to develop its own salvation by changing within. No one would give it to a person as a gift.

Yeshua promised the transformation would require work:

This is very strange...if this is so ..what difference does it make what happened on the Cross??

It also contradicts this in Ephesians 2:9..you did not take the verse far enough in your above quote of Ephesians 2:8. These two verses go together. This is obvious.

Ephesians2:8
For by grace are you saved by faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Notice also what is stated in Ephesians 2:10...For we are his workmanship...meaning we are not our workmanship.

We do the work because we are already changed...not to get changed or transformed. Your quotes put the cart before the horse. This is also the pattern of the pagan religions. Works. This is known.... Pay....put your moneys in the box...do this or do that in order to get saved...
We do works because we are already saved..not to get saved. This is an important distinction for which many believers do not understand nor are they taught by their preachers or other members of the flock.
Many of the Atheists and non believers are correct in their descriptions of this pattern except that they do not take it back far enough to its real origins. It is pagan..?Works to get saved.

Humankind developing its own salvation was already going on in many nations for centurys before the Hebrews and Christians came on the scene. This is also the pattern the Hebrews were told not go get involved in doing ..because the nations surrounding them were already doing this abomination in multitudes of ways. History is replete with this if you know where to look..and I mean non Christian History..secular history. It is all over the place...you just need to look for it through Spiritual eyes...it is the most dominant history out here.

As to the Nicene..pattern..I know that there are and were churchs who did not follow this pattern and chose to seperate themselves from this works belief system. These churchs are still here today Worshiping and giving Thanks to Him. Many people are wont to make the Nicene pattern the pattern of the whole Christian church and a default setting to represent all of Christianity. Not so.

The Church of which I know can be traced from today..right now...back to John the Baptist ..in Baptizing Jesus in the River Jordan whereupon Jesus took on His ministry and his Priesthood. It did not begin with the Council at Nicea. in 325 AD.

Gotta go..thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom


[edit on 11-4-2008 by orangetom1999]