More evangelists appointed to Lords, Christians desperate to force their delusion upon my children

reply to post by The Djin

It's not a simple case of just having an opinion they're intent on forcing their beliefs upon me.

Your statement makes me wonder something... Do you let your children watch television?

Enough said.

Christian bashing is all I hear here...

peace

For those that don't think that there is a powerful evangelical cabal attepting to gain total control of the US's foreign policy and military power, just do a little reading up on C-Street, watch "The Doomsday Code" (which I linked to earlier in this thread) and then check out this vid and ask youself if these are really people you want making foreign policy or military decision or having any access to any military hardware at all....

www.youtube.com...#!

Look closely, the guy in the grey suit with the red shirt who starts dancin around like a crazy person is none other than Ted Haggard of "I hate gay people unless they're 18 year old male prostitutes in my bed with a bag of meth" fame.

Originally posted by silo13


Christian bashing is all I hear here...

peace

Well it is madness to denounce the intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism and ignore the Xtian fundamentalism. Both practice the "one right way" mode of thinking so they both want to get into high office and make policy that interferes with our lives!

I am completely against any that even hints of the fusion of Church and State.

And here is yet another vid which allows the xtian (that is what I will now refer to any evangelical, fundamentalist, or nondenominational who dares to call themselves a Christian) to proudly disply their own lunacy.

www.youtube.com...

For any mods who might be thinking that I am going off topic here, these vids are used to illustrate my point (which has been consistent throughout this thread) that there is a grave threat to our society by allowing evangelicals into positions of power in our global politisphere. The addition of evangelicals in the House of Lords in the UK is the latest in this series of attacks against human decency. I think that qualifies as a conspiracy in religion.

reply to post by silo13

Your statement makes me wonder something... Do you let your children watch television? Enough said.

As a matter of fact my kids rarely watch TV and didn't really do so even at a young age, they have a very good understanding how TV is used to market products and ideas.

Neither do they come within 50 meters of a church unless to to show respect to others such as weddings and funerals

reply to post by Control


Her's a nice debate for you Christopher Hitchens and Williams Dembski whatever you think at the endis up to you but a superb debate nonetheless.
(first few minutes of part 1 is an intro so skip straight into the meat)














Part 6 www.youtube.com...

part 7www.youtube.com...

Part 8www.youtube.com...

Part 9www.youtube.com...

Part 10www.youtube.com...

I feel so sorry for your children, what chance do they have of an after-life?
Open your heart, not just your mind. Not all christians are a true example
of christianity, many are misguided even if good intentioned.
Ask yourself what it is that you are truly scared of!
Imagine a ship of families leaving for happy land,

your child; where are they going daddy?
you; happy land sweetheart
your child; can we go to happy land daddy?
you; no sweety
your child; why not daddy is it full?
you; no theres plenty of room sweety
your child; dont we have enough money daddy?
you; no sweetheart its free
your child; so why cant we just go daddy?
you; i guess we are a little late
your child; can we catch the next boat daddy?
you; there is no next boat sweetheart
your child; why are you crying daddy?

reply to post by lestweforget

I feel so sorry for your children, what chance do they have of an after-life?

If there is one the same chance as anyone else.

Open your heart, not just your mind. Not all christians are a true example of christianity,

I do appreciate some christians believe the bibles less than others and some take the bibles less literal than others.

Rather than generalize, if I want to know what a christian is supposed to believe, I only have to pick up a bible the same as them. I read with a critical mind and don't take the extraordinary claims of men at face value where as some people do which makes them christians.

Ask yourself what it is that you are truly scared of!

The only thing that scares me are people that give books to children which clearly state among other disgusting ideas that homosexuals and naughty boys should be stoned to death. Whether or not the individual reader chooses to obey those orders I am not to know, a bit like I don't know if the next muslim I meet will suddenly decide to follow his orders and kill me.

Imagine a ship of families leaving for happy land, your child; where are they going daddy? you; happy land sweetheart your child; can we go to happy land daddy? you; no sweety your child; why not daddy is it full? you; no theres plenty of room sweety your child; dont we have enough money daddy? you; no sweetheart its free your child; so why cant we just go daddy? you; i guess we are a little late your child; can we catch the next boat daddy? you; there is no next boat sweetheart your child; why are you crying daddy?

Oh for goodness sake dude, if your "happy land " is real then there is equal possibility that Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot will be there with you !

Do you really believe I'd want to spend an eternity in place where they hang out after what they did groveling to a being that killed even more than them, yet would have a girl slaughtered for not being a virgin ?

C'mon

Originally posted by The Djin

I do appreciate some christians believe the bibles less than others and some take the bibles less literal than others.

No you don't appreciate it because you bash on every Christian like I am responsible for 1 billion people. All you do is break down people's words to fit your delusion and try to trap them in your replies.

Rather than generalize, if I want to know what a christian is supposed to believe, I only have to pick up a bible the same as them. I read with a critical mind and don't take the extraordinary claims of men at face value where as some people do which makes them christians.

So you missed the whole part that Christians aren't Jews right? We evolved from the Jews but we are a different type of class. The old testament was strictly for the Jews to follow, not anyone else. We were considered gentiles and are not to follow the same rules as they. We follow the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus, but we must also follow the rules of society unless the society is leading to a path that is dark. We are not allowed to impede on another persons rights or violate their freedom.

The only thing that scares me are people that give books to children which clearly state among other disgusting ideas that homosexuals and naughty boys should be stoned to death. Whether or not the individual reader chooses to obey those orders I am not to know, a bit like I don't know if the next muslim I meet will suddenly decide to follow his orders and kill me.

Yes well you also don't know if the next Atheist leader will follow the same path as Stalin, Mao, or Pot. Right?

Again, if you didn't read my last post, those laws were written 2,000 years ago so some of their laws wouldn't make sense in today's world. Just like you wouldn't follow the laws that applied 400 to 500 years ago. BUT, some of those laws are still around and still suit our society such as stealing, murdering, etc.

I have talked to many Atheists before and a lot of them bring civil arguments. All you are doing is trying to play the trap game with many of the Christians, who have come on here and tried to have civil arguments. But it is clear you aren't trying to be civil and are trying to force your beliefs upon everyone else.

My proof is those videos you just posted up. They do nothing but try to ridicule the Christianity side and have nothing to do with your main premise.

But I will tell you something. We are not responsible for what others believe. Christians have over a billion followers so to group every sect of Christianity with extremists is kind of ridiculous.

You know how humans are. If you think every atheist is a perfect person with perfect thoughts you are mistaken. We have many more people than you do so obviously we will have more extremists than you. I am against any kind of extremism and so is my family. In fact, I have not once came across a person who thinks it is great having extremists.

So I don't understand why you are basing your assumptions on a small group of people. Have you gone out and sat with the majority of Christians or religious folk? Have you done surveys of people forcing their beliefs upon your children? If you haven't I suggest you come back with a survey of how many Christians think our beliefs should be forced down your throat or your kids throats. I think you will be surprised that many religious folk don't care what you or your kids should believe.

Okay you can go ahead and break my paragraphs up to suit your own needs now, please take everything out of context I insist.

reply to post by The Djin

What do you say to your children when they ask of god?
Or is the subject forbidden?

Why would a muslim have orders to kill you?

You have an islamic username!

Are you ex-muslim?

reply to post by Control


Well, I didn't start reading the Bible until the end of my career in the Air Force. I never pushed my beliefs upon anyone in the service or the world for that matter. It seems you are content on judging others instead of judging yourself. That is why I do my best not to judge anyone, because I am not perfect and never will be. In order to judge someone then the judge needs to be perfect or guided by perfection. Sir, you are way off point with your perception of me and my character. Your stereo type is based on your interaction with others who call themselves "Christians", but act as if they are ignorant of the character of Jesus Christ. Honestly, I can not blame you for your assumption because these hypocrites are all over the world. I assure you, I am not one of them!

reply to post by NoSoup4U


If you're not one of them then why are you defending them by attacking me a "general Christian hater?" Every post I have made regarding the evangelical threat, you have countered with the same classic deflectionary rhetoric accusing me of hating Christians, hating Jesus and hating religion.

If you truly weren't one of them, then you would not have judged me for what you did.

reply to post by The Djin


Do you realize that you are showing your ignorance of the Bible by trying to use this verse to prove that the Bible says it is ok to kill someone? The "Old Testament" actually means "Old Covenant" and :New Testament" means "New Covenant". When Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again, the "New Covenant" was instated.

Here are some of the differences between the Old & New Testaments:

OLD - A physical covenant based on physical promises.
NEW - A spiritual covenant based on spiritual promises and eternal life.

OLD - Physical circumcision
NEW - Repentance and circumcision of the heart through baptism.

OLD - People did not have God's Holy Spirit and were to obey in the letter of the law.
NEW - Converted believers have the gift of God's Spirit and are to obey in the spirit of the law.

OLD - If obeyed in letter of the law, person could live in community, worship at the earthly tabernacle
NEW - Believe in Christ and obey in the spirit, have direct access to worship God in heaven through Jesus.

OLD - Had works of law, offerings, animal sacrifices, vows, washings, etc.
NEW - Have Jesus' sacrifice, fruits of the Holy Spirit, prayer and good works.

OLD - If law transgressed, physical atonement for certain sins, death penalty for others.
NEW - If law transgressed, forgiveness upon repentance, second death for unpardonable sin.

OLD - Had physical ordinances of divine service and earthly sanctuary.
NEW - Has actual divine service and a heavenly sanctuary.

OLD - At institution of Old Covenant and earthly tabernacle, blood of animals used for consecration
NEW - At institution of New Covenant and heavenly tabernacle, blood of Jesus used for consecration

OLD - Sons of Aaron were high priest of earthly tabernacle.
NEW - Christ is High Priest of heavenly tabernacle forever.

OLD - Priest offered animal sacrifices for justification to earthly tabernacle, high priest went into Holy of Holies only once a year
NEW - Christ offered Himself once as sacrifice for world's sins, all who repent and are baptized are made right with God in heavenly tabernacle

OLD - NO direct access to God the Father
NEW - Direct access to the Father through Jesus

Maybe you can see now that when Jesus died on the cross that a new covenant was made with man kind. I just wanted to try the best way I know how to tell you the truth of the bible. Hopefully, you understand a little better now.

reply to post by The Djin


I would rather that man had not have murdered the mass murderer. You want me to find an atheist murderer so we can be even? Or do you think there are not any? I can find gay murderers too if it would help you dismount that high hourse, Djin.

reply to post by Control


I have not made any of those accusations toward you. I am not judging you.
If you want to have a real conversation then I am more than obliged to do so.
If not, then I will not waste any more of my time.

Originally posted by Control
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Your very response to my post outright admits that I am correct. You are an extremist.

So was Jesus Christ, moot point. Those whom are "mainstream" are commonly referred to as "APOSTATES".

It is extremism which is the greatest threat to our society.

Says you? You're presenting arbitrary information.

Where will you draw the line?

Jesus's teachings?

What acts of extremism would you not be able to justify if you "hope to be on the extreme side?"

I hope to be on the extreme side as in the "fringe", not mainstream whatsoever.

You say you're not a Baptist, or a Methodist, or whatever, but you're naming mainstream Christianity. A Christianity that you yourself have admitted you want nothing to do with.

Which I don't. You mislabeled me as a 'pentecostal', I'm not one, nor do I identify with any denomination of Christianity.

You call yourself "nondenominational?" Hey buddy? That is the largest grouping of xtian terrorists on the planet.

Non-denominational basically means "independent", or not a member of a church that has a State or National governing board that determines doctrine to be preached from the pulpit. "Non-Denominational" isn't a specific type of church, but is the antithesis of organized Christianity.

Nearly every single abortion clinic bomber has been "non-denominational" and ALL of the so-called mega-churches in the US are non-denominational.

AND? You're again using the exception to define the rule, it's still just as much a fallacy of logic as it was on the last page of this thread. less than 1% of the Christians on the face of the Earth attend a mega-church, and furthermore, I'd argue that not one single abortion clinic bomber was a genuine Christian. For the life of me I can't recal a single instance of Jesus or His apostles instructing the church to kill. That's absurd. Jesus stated "by their fruits you shall know them", meaning not what a person says makes them a Christian, but their deeds and actions reveal who is a sheep and who is truly a "wolf". if a person claims Christ, yet feels it's okay to murder I'm certian that person was deceived and not born-again.

Jesus Camp was filmed at a non-denominational evangelical camp.

Again, who cares? Non-denominational means = independent. Jesus Camp, if non-denominational, is property of some church and their pastor's and deacon's responsibility.

So don't use the also classic deflectionary of "I'm non-denominational, don't lump me in with the Methodists who lost Christ..." The Methodists don't want you lumped in with them either, so no worries there.

Straw man, I never claimed such. You're ignorant to the fact that "non-denominational" in essence means an independant church, not affiliated with any church hierarchy.

I have a problem with xtians like you who want to see the world turned into some "godly" totalitarian theocratic dictatorship. Again, you will get your "Handmaid's Tale" only after much bloodshed.

You're pissy at the Christians who adhere to the "Kingdom Now"/Dominion theology hersey. SO AM I. We have nothing to argue with there. Kingdom Now theology is HERETICAL. Quit trying to lump me in with that bunch, I think the theology is WRONG.

reply to post by The Djin


Well,there is more than one lord in the bible "the lord came to tell everyone jesus was about to be born" Believe it or not,i am that lord,So how can you not believe in god? I will tell you how you cannot believe in god,i didnt just prove anything to you. If you dont believe in the lion will it not bite?

Re Equinox99:

You wrote:

"Again, if you didn't read my last post, those laws were written 2,000 years ago so some of their laws wouldn't make sense in today's world. Just like you wouldn't follow the laws that applied 400 to 500 years ago. BUT, some of those laws are still around and still suit our society such as stealing, murdering, etc."

My comment:

1/ So you're one of the 'pickers and choosers', who adjust, re-interpretate or even leave out part of the bibles to adapt to contemporary society and/or competing systems or knowledge (e.g. science). In my opinion that is theoretically an excellent idea, but then the question will naturally arise: "What IS christianity then?".

Literalist christians would ofcourse disagree with you about any part of the bibles being open for any change (in spite of a 2000 year tradition of doing this), because the whole bible is said to be directly dictated by D-g, representing eternal and unbending ultimate truth. Confronting the problem of biblic selfcontradictions such christians resort to 'ineffalillibillity' or 'cherry-picking' (as Djin calls it).

On the other hand some christian sects started out with the bibles as a basis, but eventually arrived to the conclusion, that the bibles aren't useful as the fundament of christianity.

Even implying the barest minimum of logic, and no matter which of the endless christian methods used for approaching the bibles, the bibles will, because of their incoherence and weird assumptive character, ALWAYS end with totally subjective interpretations. And said interpretations have led to the longest-lasting conflicts in known history between competing bibles-interpretation factions. (I have recently noticed comments like: "First I was a catholic, but later I became a christian).

2/ On top of their infra-fighting, the christianities have a rather high percentage of obsessive missionary types directed at non-christians, and no amount of explaining away this will change the brutality and atrocities used in the missionary efforts. I recently read a fundie-site, where the witch-hunts were toned down to 'not being so bad as popularly imagined'. What nonsense; such only make christians look ridiculous.

3/
a/ Finally there's the purely academic perspective, where the christianities demonstrate the same very extensive confusion and inter-christian disagreement on methodology. Christians flitter in and out of logic, often with zero understanding of formal logic, sometimes inventing their own variety, sometimes hijacking results from external sources and twisting them into absurdities (e.g. 'intelligent design', which is so embarrasingly stupid, that I almost pity christians using it).

b/ There's the christian postulates of both their doctrinal and practically applied ethics being 'superior' or even EXCLUSIVELY 'right' (e.g. compared to buddhist compassion or utilitarian philosophy).

c/ There's an abysmal ignorance about epistemology amongst most christians, who e.g. seem unable to understand the simple difference between an axiom and an assumption. Or who seem to believe, that you can start from faith-assumptions and then build rickety super-structures of 'logic' on top of that.

d/There's the question of christian social, political and not least monetary involvement.

Most christians tend to avoid the above issues, alternatively drone on and on with: "I'm right, because I'm right".

So Equinox, do you find it so strange, that non-christians have a deep-rooted distrust of christians in positions of power? The christianities haven't much to give to mankind, which can't be done better (and safer) from another direction.

You see, I'm actually coming from the strange position of 'metaphysics' (rather convinced of the existence of an 'invisible' level of existence), but siding with atheists, agnostics and some non-christian (semi)-religions, where I 'ought' to at least partly defend a theist position.

I do this, because I consider most (but not all) christian 'defense' against criticism as meaningless from a rational point (sometimes with strong missionary attitudes). Take your own case, your stance is the same as the critics here have. Extremism is not good. But in spite of it being said again and again, that most of the critics aren't out to close down the christianities, only reduce them to private rights for individuals or consenting adults, I get the impression about you, that you from sheer paranoia manifests as a critic of critics of extremism, because the main example here is CHRISTIAN extremism. You're sure, that there somewhere inside you isn't hidden a little fundie missionary? It's far from unknown on ATS, that christians pay lipservice to tolerance, but preach endless sermons of christian 'ultimate and exclusive truths', disguised by sugarcoating.

This question is neither meant to be rhetoric, derogatory or aggressive. As a rather enthusiastic supporter of science myself, I would be the first to voice an active criticism of the great shame of science, its fundie-version 'scientism'.

Re NoturTypical

It doesn't really matter if you're member of an organized denomination or not, because your own words define you rather clearly, no matter how evasive you are or how much you sugarcoat your attitude, to make it look socially harmless.

"Silencing the heretics";

"Enlisted in the lord's army"

From your post:

"I hope to be on the extreme side as in the "fringe", not mainstream whatsoever."

So even if you nominally aren't a calvinist, you manifest some of the insanities of his version of christianity. The glee of the selfrighteous, when they lightened the fires under 'heretics'. The genocides recommended by 'soldiers of god'.

As you spend most of your time on ATS defending the god-given christian right to be fascist, it's only to be guessed at how far in atrocities you will go.

You are a brilliant example of the need of such threads as this. Your ilk ruled most of Europe some centuries ago, and the only equalent to this period of terror-regime is Hitler's nazi Germany. We don't want your type back ever again in positions of power, education or whatever.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re NoturTypical

It doesn't really matter if you're member of an organized denomination or not, because your own words define you rather clearly, no matter how evasive you are or how much you sugarcoat your attitude, to make it look socially harmless.

No, your ignorance of scripture and Christianity is the issue at hand...

"Silencing the heretics";

A "heretic" is not a believer of another religion. A 'heretic" is not an unsaved person. A "heretic' is not an agnostic or atheist. A "heretic" is someone who professes to be a Cristian yet is a false teacher, a 'wolf in sheep's clothing". A person who says "Hey, I'm a sheep", but are clearly not one by deeds and speech.

Luther said "You can never be too gentle with the sheep and you can never be to harsh with the wolves."

"Enlisted in the lord's army"

I am, but as Paul says in Ephesians 6:12: "We wrest (war) NOT against flesh and blood..". Meaning our battles are not against humanity, but are spiritual warfare. With fellow man Jesus said to treat everyone as we would like to be treated and to love and bless our enemies. If I acted contrary to that I would not be following Christ's teachings.

From your post:

"I hope to be on the extreme side as in the "fringe", not mainstream whatsoever."

So even if you nominally aren't a calvinist, you manifest some of the insanities of his version of christianity. The glee of the selfrighteous, when they lightened the fires under 'heretics'. The genocides recommended by 'soldiers of god'.

Absurd. I've made it clear now twice that those "Christians" adhere to the "Kingdom Now/Dominion Theology" camp. And now three times I have stated it's a heresy. This is now the third time I've stated it's wrong and I do not subscribe to it whatsoever. You either can't read or you're purposely using a straw man argument.

Secondly, "Religionists" are the ones who are self-righteous. I hate religion most passionately, I believe only in "Redemption". The two words are absolute opposites. Religion gives a list of do's and don't's to follow to be "righteous". Redemption says Jesus has done everything already and I only have His imputed righteousness and none of my own. Religion says there are two kinds of people, good people and bad people. Redemption says there are two kinds of people, unrepentant evil sinners and repentant evil sinners.

I'll be the first one to tell you I have no righteousness whatsoever of my own, I'm a sinner BIG TIME.

As you spend most of your time on ATS defending the god-given christian right to be fascist, it's only to be guessed at how far in atrocities you will go.

*Sigh* Yet again, either you've failed to read my post or you're purposely using a straw man. I've stated I can't think of a single teaching of Christ that affirmed the duty of Christians to commit atrocities. Didn't Christ say when we are struck "to turn the other cheek" and not strike back? Yes. Didn't Jesus say to "bless those who persecute you.."? Yes.

You might not be aware of this but a TRUE Christian is only a follower of Jesus Christ, hence the term CHRISTian. A classic example of a "heretic" is someone who claims to be a Christian yet acts and speaks contrary to what Christ taught.

You are a brilliant example of the need of such threads as this. Your ilk ruled most of Europe some centuries ago, and the only equalent to this period of terror-regime is Hitler's nazi Germany.

No, the Roman Catholic church ruled Europe centuries ago, I most certainly reject Catholicism and the RCC. During the inquisitions the RCC was persecuting and murdering over a million of my 'ilk' thank you very much.

We don't want your type back ever again in positions of power, education or whatever.

Good, I don't want the "Kingdom Now" heretics in power myself, I've stated now several times that theology is heretical and I don't subscribe to it. Second time I've said you won't have an argue from me on that statement.

But who's counting anyways???