Worldwide Persecution of Christians - End Times Prophecy

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Did you actually read my post?

The claim that I was referring to as absurd is the claim that the Obama administration is attempting to label religion as a mental illness, which again is absurd.

The only ones I have ever heard claim such nonsense (i.e. religion being a mental illness) are militant YouTube atheists who are void of intellect.

Every source you posted is simply evidence of the Islamic persecution of Christians in the middle east, and the persecution of religious peoples in the practically theocratic nations which are in SE Asia and China. All of these things are undebatable, and I acknowledged that in my previous post...

The persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt is disgusting. Islamic persecution in general is abhorrent and should be called out and criticized everywhere it is seen. But outside of repressive theoretically controlled nations (which I would put China and N Korea into that category) there is no mass oppression of Christians in the western world. There never has been, because the vast majority of people in the western world are Christians.

Isn't it strange that Islam is all over the news,
but their destruction of Christian churches isn't,
and then just as soon as a UN coalition enters the area,
the destruction of churches escalates.

Well I can understand why it is not widely reported in the countries that the persecution is happening in, and that is because Christians are a minority in those nations thus they are underrepresented. However there is no lack of western sources that talk about the persecution of Christians. Fox news routinely does pieces on this subject, even the super left wing Obama mouth piece CNN...

Egypt Churches

Christian persecution

All groups are persecuted all over the world be you black, white, Christian, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, conservative, or liberal, you will at one point or another be subject to discrimination or ridicule depending on what you look like or what you believe. I mean come one this is reality we live in!

Tell me again, how they won't consider faith a mental disorder.

Because they don't, and more than likely never will. Psychologists and other experts have been asked this same question many times and they always say that religion is NOT a mental illness. The only thing I have ever heard from experts on the subject that could be considered negative is that religion can be (rarely mind you) detrimental to those who already suffer from sever mental illness such as dementia or schizophrenia.

It is simple, your loving God or any other for that matter does nothing to stop all the horrors going on on the world you proclaim he created and rules over.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

How many deaths are [color=gold] you going to prevent that god couldn't? In the face of some mastermind deity that's having people murder each other, and doing nothing about it, what is it [color=gold] you hope to accomplish or prevent?

Why call me out personally?

This is ATS, aren't we supposed to address the issues, and not the person.

But since, you started it.

Why can't you just admit that your secular media failed you,
you were unaware of how many thousand churches had been destroyed in the modern era,
and that out of a sense of confusion and resentment you are attacking the victim,
because that is the only person you can find to beat up on.

Isn't that like blaming the woman for being raped?
"Well officer, her skirt was pretty short, what did she hope to accomplish?"

Mike

Why cant any religous person see that religion divides people?

As much as the religious folj want to think they are peaceful, they think that their religion is right, hence this is the total conflict.

Pesonally most religions have had centuries to make peace and love each other.

Tell me hows that working out.

Originally posted by TheLotLizard
I for one should think it is a mental illness.

Believing in some imaginary friend in the sky that does nothing before believing in yourself which is capable of anything.

Blowing off all forms of evolution even when it stares you right in the face. Making it seem that your imaginary friend put them all there at one time, even though this is the 1% of diversity left throughout time.

If dinosaurs walked with humans where's the scriptures? No not dragons they fly.

And where did they go, did your friend just get bored and smite them to hell?

Ok, first off just to prove to you not all people refer to dragons as flying animals, the Komodo Dragon. A dragon could very easily be an ancient description of a dinosaur, if we can call a big lizard a dragon......

Second, Evolution is a theory of science not a law. There are huge gaps in the fossil record, and not a lot, but occasionally we should still see intermediate species being formed. If we all came from single celled organisms, which we know reproduce asexually, then the first thing that evolved to reproduce sexually what did it reproduce with? Evolution has some very good ideas and good points that can be seen in the world today, but Darwin failed to realize their are genetic barriers animals cannot cross. For example, Darwins finches were still finches and are today still finches.

Second,


If you don't want to be called mental then don't act mental.

If you want to call Christians mental, should we call you mental for believing that you can get an entire universe from absolutely nothing? This is the equivalent of you believing that the number 0+0=1. Now who sounds crazy?

Originally posted by Openeye
The only thing I have ever heard from experts on the subject that could be considered negative is that religion can be (rarely mind you) detrimental to those who already suffer from sever mental illness such as dementia or schizophrenia.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

Notice how Bible is sandwiched between Guns and Antipathy towards others
in his quote here.

Everyone seems to have imaginary clothes they like to Make Christians wear.


Mike

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Why cant any religous person see that religion divides people?

As much as the religious folj want to think they are peaceful, they think that their religion is right, hence this is the total conflict.

Pesonally most religions have had centuries to make peace and love each other.

. [color=gold] Tell me hows that working out.

It's working out perfectly and right on schedule.

I know the modern media system would have people believe otherwise,
but it was Christian fathers who started both The Scientific Method,
and The University System.

Enjoy these last few days of living on a diet of lies and slander.
The truth always outs.


Mike

Originally posted by officerbride
The Book of Life will be a small book. Life is short, death is assured, Heaven and Hell are eternal. The choice is yours. Good Luck

I choose to believe that the ego (what christians call the "soul") disappears when we die and our energy is returned to the universe.

What's heaven and hell?

reply to post by Evil_Santa


Interesting.. it returns to the universe.. and does what? I'm actually interested. I have no idea what the "soul" is, where it goes or what it's purpose is.

But i believe our soul is more than just ego. But it's interesting...

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I don't see the point of your post really. Obama (who is a Christian) does not call religion a mental illness. He says that during times of hardship and confusion that traditional practices are used as a crutch.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


I guess all historical scholars have a mental illness since they believe that Jesus was a real historical person. And I guess they have the same with Paul the Apostle who seen the disciples of Christ who saw Jesus after His resurrection.

You should go and find out more info before shooting off at the cuff.

reply to post by texastig


I can't tell if you are making a joke or not.

You read a story by someone who heard from someone who knew someone who said they saw something.

reply to post by biggm


You forgot that it was Adam that ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that's why we have problems. It wasn't God's fault.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I'm not joking. All historical scholars believe that Jesus was real and also Paul the Apostle.
The disciples and Paul the Apostle seen Jesus after His resurrection. Paul went to Jerusalem
and saw Peter and James who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ.

The historical record for the Bible is better than any other ancient record in history.

Originally posted by texastig
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I'm not joking. All historical scholars believe that Jesus was a real and also Paul the Apostle.
The disciples and Paul the Apostle seen Jesus after His resurrection. Paul went to Jerusalem
and saw Peter and James who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ.

The historical record for the Bible is better than any other ancient record in history.

Saying all historical scholars believe would be a lie now wouldn't it? Come on you can be truthful and still make a point.

Lately, much effort has been expended by the more educated Christians in trying to establish that first century historians mention Christ in their writings. This is really nothing new, but a reincarnation of earlier attempts.

Firstly, I should mention that I consider that it is a possibility that a man named Jesus really did live in that part of the world, at that time. If he did, I think he was a political radical, a religious reformer, and a teacher of morals (much like Ghandi), and I think his followers built up a religion around him, turning him into a god.

But I will also state that it is a possibility that he never lived at all, and was a construction of those who would create a new religion. I do not know-- and I don't think anyone else does either.

That being said, let us look into the possibility that first century historians wrote about him. If this is true, that would lend weight to the claim that he really walked the earth. But some caution needs to be exercised here. If there was positive proof that historians wrote about him, then that might substantiate his existence, but not his divinity. All it might do is indicate that a man of that name once lived. It might even mean less than that. It might show only what Christ's followers said about their leader, and may mean nothing in regards to the man himself.


What is a good source? A contemporary historian-- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes-- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay... secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character of the man they follow. As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of the documents turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ.

Here is something to keep in mind as you read this article. Ask yourself this question. Could historic passages have been forged? Could the volumes of the historians have been tampered with? The answer is: yes they could have. Where were these historic volumes stored? In the local public library? In individuals' private homes? No. They were in the posession of the Church, who studied from them and made copies of them. In what form did these writings take? On a typeset page, bound like a modern book? No. The printing press was not invented for a further 1300 years. The fact that the Church could write means that the forgeries could have been made. The Church had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to forge historical documents.

freethought.mbdojo.com...

Do I really need to pull up quotes from historians that say Jesus was a manufactured persona from other religions?
Here is another savior of that timefreethought.mbdojo.com...www.truthbeknown.com...

Fact or myth/Borrowed miracles


Check this post www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go to 5:20

10 Christ like figures listverse.com...

List of messiahs en.wikipedia.org...

Was Jesus a sequal??

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

The ink-on-stone document, which is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector and reportedly came to light about a decade ago, has been dated by manuscript and chemical experts to a period just before Jesus' birth. Some scholars think it may originally have been part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trove of religious texts found in caves on the West Bank that were possibly associated with John the Baptist. The tablet is written in the form of an end-of-the-world prediction in the voice of the angel Gabriel; one line, for instance, predicts that "in three days you will know evil will be defeated by justice."


Read more: content.time.com...

So there isn't a consensus on the subject.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Surprise, surprise. Oh well, maybe people will one day grow out of religion and admit that it causes more death and destruction to the human race than anything save for natural death. Keep supporting religion, and never see a peaceful day on this planet.

reply to post by biggm

than Fukashima ever will, shall we keep going??

You can go as far as you like with your lil grade school tit for tat game.
Your post doesn't diminish the point of my reply in the slightest.
And my faith is something personal, meaning it's far and away the last
thing you should be telling me about. As you read from a page
on Zietgiest.

reply to post by texastig




Even if the biblical character of Jesus DID exist and he really was crucified, if other people saw him he probably survived his ordeal, and didn't really die.

Occam's razor, my friend!

Anyone who believes they came from a rock billions of years ago really needs help. That's why I'm here. Evolution is a religion. Time is their God, Darwin is like a false prophet and the museums and colleges are the churches and synagogues. You need faith to believe in something that happened just by accident billions of years ago. Hahaha! God laughs at you... And I do too. There is no evidence for the dumb hypothesis. No one has ever seen it happen. It's funny that the very evidence they need to prove it is missing! They're are no missing links. Ha. NONE! Read your bible. Study real science. Science is a tool. Use it. Plus.... Evolution hasn't done anything for mankind except hinder us. It hasn't put man on the moon, made a miro circuit, no scientific advances at all. If you think so.... Then please help me here. It's completely useless.

reply to post by MrConspiracy


The energy of the universe is finite, from what i understand, and thus the electrical activity that gives life to all creatures comes from somewhere and goes back to the same pool.

Looking at it from a multi-dimensional aspect (m-theory, 11 dimensions) the "spirit world" would be one of a 4th or 5th dimension where time is something that is meaningless.

Going off the 11 dimensions/m-theory, they also have a hypothesis to describe the big bang, as one universe colliding into another universe and the matter/energy broken off from that collision gave birth to our universe.