Oh my GOD! Have you seen these sites?

I

iwant8inches

1
http://exodus.to/default2.asp and afa.net

Just looking at some of these headlines and reading just a couple of the news articles that are posted on these actually made me sick to my stomach. Like I had acid reflux for a second there or something. Look at these sites and really read the content. This kind of message is what scares me.

American family my ass. Cross Over ministries???? There's a nice story there, but the motivation behind it is unsettling to me at the least.
 
I only skimmed over the headlines didn't read any of the full articles. So I don't have the full picture.

But what is the main theme of this site as every article one way or another related to homosexuality. Are they for it, against it, converting to it??

If that is the case that they are converting, I already knew the Christian and Catholic church had been infiltrated a long time ago. Those at the top of the church chain don't worship jesus. I read about that then heard lectures from once very Christian believers who sang the same tune.

It was then that I decided to do some research involving the origins of Jesus and Christianity and what I found would make sense with the church's being infiltrated and such.

I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream Christians believed George Bush was the second coming.
 
kausion_420 said:
I only skimmed over the headlines didn't read any of the full articles. So I don't have the full picture.

But what is the main theme of this site as every article one way or another related to homosexuality. Are they for it, against it, converting to it??
Click to expand...

the idea of the site is that homosexuals are sinning and if your a practicing homosexual you won't go to heaven, so they are converting (brainwashing) people to go straight.
 
Shithead said:
the idea of the site is that homosexuals are sinning and if your a practicing homosexual you won't go to heaven, so they are converting (brainwashing) people to go straight.
Click to expand...

Ah OK

That would make sense then. I have no problem with Christianity or religion but I don't believe in them. To me Christianity is a prison religion.

Anyone who can get themselves high enough in the church can say what they want and people believe because they want to go to heaven. First you useto just have to accept Jesus into your heart, now you must be straight. Next you will have to be tall and athleticly built and never ask questions about your government. It's ridiculous IMO.
 
Personally I dont believe in Chinese whispers. Im not gonna persecute people because of some shit that happened 2000 years ago. Nobody outside america believes a word that comes out of george bush mouth so why the fuck would anyone change their sexuality in the name of a 2000 year old fucker? David Blane does some tricky shit to, but I aint gonna shave my head and freeze my ass in a block of ice.


IMO, chritianity is about as real as Mats 72hour plan, sounds promising but it aint gonna work. Just a teaser to make you pay the membership fee.

My 2c.
 
HungLikeHolmes said:
Personally I dont believe in Chinese whispers. Im not gonna persecute people because of some shit that happened 2000 years ago. Nobody outside america believes a word that comes out of george bush mouth so why the fuck would anyone change their sexuality in the name of a 2000 year old fucker? David Blane does some tricky shit to, but I aint gonna shave my head and freeze my ass in a block of ice.


IMO, chritianity is about as real as Mats 72hour plan, sounds promising but it aint gonna work. Just a teaser to make you pay the membership fee.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

Im yet to read about or hear any lecture or speech from a Christian that actually did some reasearch into the origins of Christianity and Jesus that wasn't totally surprised with what they found.

My problem with Jesus and such is that if I can go through what is now history from ancient societies and 10+ of them spanning different parts of the world all have the same character with a different name that has the identical story of Jesus. Same birthday, same character traits, same gifts for his birthday, same style of death. Same fact that besides the point this man was to be the sun of god and this and that noone has any knowledge of where he was from the ages of 12 to 30. Unless you believe he was trained by the Buddists like some say but is not truly documented. Now also these ancient societies didn't believe these myths to be literal but used them to educate the people.

So why is it that all of a sudden the same story then re-occurs hundreds of years later and it is to be taken literally?

But I guess the real answers to the man's existance lie in the Vatican. Problem is, they won't let anyone in there and keep everything locked down. Things like that should be allowed to be publically viewed by highly religious people.
 
I don't think of sites like these to be Christian in the newer sense. And I mean to say I never have likened the word Christian to mean a good person, which it almost always means in those circles. But as to the sites I think there is only an Evangelical allegiance. If any religious sects believe Bush actually believes in any of the things they preach they are dillusional and I feel for them. But as long as groups like the ACLU and NAACP are around I think a progressive society as opposed to a stagnated society in terms of protecting the rights of individuals is possible. I think the one thing all right wing groups (in any country really) have in common with the Evangelicals is that they believe in keeping things traditional or the same as they currently are. The Evangelicals believe their morals are universal and should apply to everyone and it should be enforced that way in government since afterall it is what God intended. They'd like to see government step in a bit more and tell us "no" more often in certain issues. The issues that are big to them are the ones that really are too sensitive to really have any definitive ruling as to whether or not something should be legal (abortion for instance), if that made any sense to you guys. Gay Marriage I guess is another issue. It just seems so strange to me that someone can get so worked up about something that really doesn't hurt anyone or anything and it simply should not be of anyone elses concern. So when homosexuality is viewed as a disease or some kind of phase a person goes through... to me that indicates there is a loathing there and an actual lack of acceptance. There's a story on one of the sites where a "former" lesbian was accepted and was treated perfectly normal by her new Christian friends even though they knew of her "lifestyle." I don't even know what that means. Lifestyle. As if all throughout her life her day was completely different to anyone else. Like she flies to work every morning on her broom or bathes in a seething caldron because she happens to eat off the carpet or that's munches carpet my bad. Truly to me I think the Evangelicals for the most part (I can't group everyone that'd be wrong) if they could have it so no one on earth was homosexual they'd do whatever they must to make it happen. Apparently it's important enough for some to have a website dedicated to some kind of breakthrough testimonial/story about how they overcame their temptation, their sin.

Unless it's going to be you personally throwing me into hell or lifting me to heaven when I go... back off bitch. That's my opinion.
 
kausion_420 said:
Im yet to read about or hear any lecture or speech from a Christian that actually did some reasearch into the origins of Christianity and Jesus that wasn't totally surprised with what they found.

My problem with Jesus and such is that if I can go through what is now history from ancient societies and 10+ of them spanning different parts of the world all have the same character with a different name that has the identical story of Jesus. Same birthday, same character traits, same gifts for his birthday, same style of death. Same fact that besides the point this man was to be the sun of god and this and that noone has any knowledge of where he was from the ages of 12 to 30. Unless you believe he was trained by the Buddists like some say but is not truly documented. Now also these ancient societies didn't believe these myths to be literal but used them to educate the people.

So why is it that all of a sudden the same story then re-occurs hundreds of years later and it is to be taken literally?

But I guess the real answers to the man's existance lie in the Vatican. Problem is, they won't let anyone in there and keep everything locked down. Things like that should be allowed to be publically viewed by highly religious people.
Click to expand...

It's about control of knowledge. You know that and everyone else does as well. The history of the world could never be completely written, but the things that have been recorded are controlled, lost, or destroyed. I'd like to know what's in there too. Maybe some day...
 
I looked at that site... and it made me sick to the gut. Religious fascism like that should be outlawed.
I've also yet to see a person with a strong religious conviction who has actually done his/her homework on the origins of Christianity. As You said, Kausion, it's based on a character that has been portrayed almost identically in the folklore of several different peoples throughout early history. The character that Jesus was portrayed to be isn't uniquely Christian by any means.

I see Christianity and other religions as a comfortable safety net (heaven DOES sound like a good deal, even to me) into which you are initiated through generations of similarily misguided people before you who have passed the burden down to you because that is what they were told to believe in, and see as the right thing to do. The heaven vs hell scenario also serves as a powerful deterrent to keep people in the ranks... god forbid your soul should rot in hell if you don't adhere to a strict code of worship and obediance of some vague, omnipotent entity, no matter how morally righteous you are otherwise. What also never ceases to surprise me is that a lot of "Christians" think they will get a free pass to heaven as soon as they die. That is another misconception that should be corrected. The whole rite of burial is based on the hope of your body being reincarnated once this very shady Jesus character makes his second coming to earth, and only IF you've been a good boy and kissed his 2000 year old ass for your entire life without ever stopping to think about why you're doing it. Once you're dead, YOU REALLY ARE DEAD until Jesus comes and brings you back to life. That's how the original version was, until man twisted it around to suit his agenda, and make the whole religion seem much more tempting and rewarding.

What the Early Church Taught

But astounding as it may seem, neither Jesus nor His apostles taught that the righteous go to heaven! Notice the admission of a secular encyclopedia:

"The dominant view in the early church seems to have been that until the return of the Lord upon the clouds of heaven to raise the dead, those who had died were asleep, and that they would be suddenly awakened to be given their new bodies, after which they would reign with Him on earth for a thousand years..." (The New International Encyclopedia, art. "Heaven," vol. 9, pp. 700-701).

The early Church clearly did not teach the concept of "going to heaven." Such teachings did not become popular until long after the death of the apostles!

Notice, however, what gradually happened:

"But, largely under the influence of Greek thought, other conceptions [gradually] prevailed. The fate of the patriarchs, prophets, and pious men of the old dispensation naturally occupied much attention and led to the idea that they [their "immortal souls"] were detained in a preparatory abode which the fathers called limbus patrum, awaiting the advent of the Redeemer. The general belief of Christians has been that since the resurrection of Christ the just who are free from sin are admitted immediately after death into heaven, where their chief joy consists in the unclouded vision of God" (ibid.).
 
I would just like to add something to this little discussion. While several similar characters to Jesus do exist in other religions, they do not play quite the same role as Jesus does to Christians. In the case of most other religions, however, the characters which I assume you are referring are divinely inspired in their stories, and often ackonwledged as prophets by their respective religions. In fact Jewish and Muslim people I believe acknowledge Jesus as one of many prophets, but not as part of the Holy Trinity as Christians do. Of course they all did preach a similar message of tolerance and (dare I say it) love, and in most cases they were also persecuted and ultimately killed for their beliefs (don't personally see why that similarity is so far-fetched it was a pretty harsh time, but I 'm sure there are reasons). So while characters with similar lives to Jesus are portrayed, Jesus, and the role Christians believe he played is exclusively theirs.
While every religion has their undesirable parts that aren't very attractive socially, religion in itself isn't such a bad thing. I'm sure many practitioners don't see it as "kissing Jesus' 2000 year old ass" as Shafty put it, but really whats the worst that happens if you believe in something bigger then yourself. Say you believe and your wrong: you live a life of hope and (hopefully) are seen as a good person who is missed when they die and go the same way as everyone else. Whats the worst that happens if you don't believe and you are wrong: You potentially have a pretty unpleasant afterlife. Not trying to change anyones mind about anything because this can be a touchy subject, but there seems to be only one side to this thread so far.
 
In regards to Horus, Krishna, Mythra, Tamos etc.. who had identical lives to Jesus, these characters were seen by the ancients as mythological characters. Not to be taken literally, just to educate those societies about the action the sun takes throughout the year.

Then hundreds of years later comes Christianity with the same main story as the others only different name and is taken literally.
 
bIgjOe said:
but really whats the worst that happens if you believe in something bigger then yourself.
Click to expand...

worst thing that could happen... you kill millions of people in the name of that person and their beleifs.



i have nothing wrong with people having beliefs, i have my own beliefs. but i think the problem is when people affect people other than themselves through actions based on their beleifs.
 
Shithead said:
i have nothing wrong with people having beliefs, i have my own beliefs. but i think the problem is when people affect people other than themselves through actions based on their beleifs.
Click to expand...

And this tends to be a major problem since "getting the word out" and spreading the belief is a major part of Christianity.

I have met some really great and genuine Christian people, they do exist. I tend to take the functionalist perspective, similar to what shafty described.
 
Shithead said:
worst thing that could happen... you kill millions of people in the name of that person and their beleifs.



i have nothing wrong with people having beliefs, i have my own beliefs. but i think the problem is when people affect people other than themselves through actions based on their beleifs.
Click to expand...

Excellent Post.

Also my biggest problem with the Christian religion other than the similarities I found is that you are eliminating all possibility without knowing for sure. You then believe your sight on it is the absolute truth and close your mind to any other possibilites. And like you said in many cases wars have been caused due to religion effecting other people.

I like dealing with all possibility and not feeling I have to conform to a prison religion.
 
Shafty said:
I looked at that site... and it made me sick to the gut. Religious fascism like that should be outlawed.
I've also yet to see a person with a strong religious conviction who has actually done his/her homework on the origins of Christianity. As You said, Kausion, it's based on a character that has been portrayed almost identically in the folklore of several different peoples throughout early history. The character that Jesus was portrayed to be isn't uniquely Christian by any means.

I see Christianity and other religions as a comfortable safety net (heaven DOES sound like a good deal, even to me) into which you are initiated through generations of similarily misguided people before you who have passed the burden down to you because that is what they were told to believe in, and see as the right thing to do. The heaven vs hell scenario also serves as a powerful deterrent to keep people in the ranks... god forbid your soul should rot in hell if you don't adhere to a strict code of worship and obediance of some vague, omnipotent entity, no matter how morally righteous you are otherwise. What also never ceases to surprise me is that a lot of "Christians" think they will get a free pass to heaven as soon as they die. That is another misconception that should be corrected. The whole rite of burial is based on the hope of your body being reincarnated once this very shady Jesus character makes his second coming to earth, and only IF you've been a good boy and kissed his 2000 year old ass for your entire life without ever stopping to think about why you're doing it. Once you're dead, YOU REALLY ARE DEAD until Jesus comes and brings you back to life. That's how the original version was, until man twisted it around to suit his agenda, and make the whole religion seem much more tempting and rewarding.

What the Early Church Taught

But astounding as it may seem, neither Jesus nor His apostles taught that the righteous go to heaven! Notice the admission of a secular encyclopedia:

"The dominant view in the early church seems to have been that until the return of the Lord upon the clouds of heaven to raise the dead, those who had died were asleep, and that they would be suddenly awakened to be given their new bodies, after which they would reign with Him on earth for a thousand years..." (The New International Encyclopedia, art. "Heaven," vol. 9, pp. 700-701).

The early Church clearly did not teach the concept of "going to heaven." Such teachings did not become popular until long after the death of the apostles!

Notice, however, what gradually happened:

"But, largely under the influence of Greek thought, other conceptions [gradually] prevailed. The fate of the patriarchs, prophets, and pious men of the old dispensation naturally occupied much attention and led to the idea that they [their "immortal souls"] were detained in a preparatory abode which the fathers called limbus patrum, awaiting the advent of the Redeemer. The general belief of Christians has been that since the resurrection of Christ the just who are free from sin are admitted immediately after death into heaven, where their chief joy consists in the unclouded vision of God" (ibid.).
Click to expand...


That's interesting...Shafty I think the threat that is felt by all religions is that somehow it might be realized that despite our differences and our attempt to separate ourselves from each other by pointing out such differences that we all indeed want basically the same things. In repsect to anyone's beliefs I try not to generalize as much as I know I do, but I'm not a scholar so I'll just say that we all want to believe there is something more than this life and those who oppose any related spirtiual or religious beliefs have found that rejecting the idea brings comfort in this life. Either way we all have a giant void when it comes to the two big questions. Why are we here and what becomes of us after we die. It just bothers me that we aren't all in this together. But that notion obviously got fucked up somewhere along the way now didn't it? :)
 
iwant8inches said:
That's interesting...Shafty I think the threat that is felt by all religions is that somehow it might be realized that despite our differences and our attempt to separate ourselves from each other by pointing out such differences that we all indeed want basically the same things. In repsect to anyone's beliefs I try not to generalize as much as I know I do, but I'm not a scholar so I'll just say that we all want to believe there is something more than this life and those who oppose any related spirtiual or religious beliefs have found that rejecting the idea brings comfort in this life. Either way we all have a giant void when it comes to the two big questions. Why are we here and what becomes of us after we die. It just bothers me that we aren't all in this together. But that notion obviously got fucked up somewhere along the way now didn't it? :)
Click to expand...

Great post, iwant8inches! Yes, I think we are all desperate to find the answers to the 2 most important questions of human existance, and religion seems like a great deal; all the answers in one neat package. However, I belive it is up to each and every person as an individual to search within him/herself to find the answers if they are there to be found, instead of falling back on a set of principles (any religion, basically) that claims to offer the absolute and irrefutable truth. There may very well be an afterlife... who knows, maybe we are beings of spiritual energy, trapped in a physical body... but I seriously think people should give up on man made organized religions and seek the answers elsewhere. Personally I don't want my spirituality to be shackled to a strict set of rules, and imprisoned within a doctrine that is unique to the western world (indeed, "modern" Christianity in the west is very different from its original form, having been warped and distorted over the years by man himself, even in the most fundamental aspects. After all, if the original form was supposed to be straight from God himself, should it not have remained unspoiled by our hands?). I don't think I, as a born Christian, have any right to claim that the beliefs taught in my church are any more correct than those of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any of the myriad of pagan beliefs. I've given up on those rules a long time ago, since they feel more like a burden and a handicap instead of a means to salvation to me.
 
Last edited:
Interesting point Shithead, but I was referring to people on an individual basis. Not to deny that some horrible things have happened in the name of religion, but I believe that those at the head of such events would have done so regardless of the reason. I assume you are referring to the crusades, and in that case, much like the current Islamic Jihad, these people aren't what you would call good representatives or perfect followers to the doctrine of their religion. Like I said there will be people throughout our history who will find any excuse to make their bid for power, take Hitler for instance, he committed some of the worst atrocities the world has seen less then a century ago, and in the name of some ludicrous beliefs, AND HE GOT Penis EnlargementOPLE TO FOLLOW HIM. So do take that into consideration. Kausion that is very interesting that you refer so far back in history for your examples, I was assuming you meant other religious figures like Buddha, Muhammed, etc. I don't really have a reply to that now, maybe I'll do some more research like you said.
 
Kausion I've adressed the issue of the "gods" or identical stories of Christ in a previous post... What you fail to consider is that there are many groups who use the name of Christ in their religion... yet they are not speaking of the same Christ as true believers do... they set up Christ as a figure head yet he has no authority and is indeed someone who is antiquated and has no place in their lives/faith... What I have found in regards to "researching" Christianity in it's entirty is yes the Catholic Church is not ordained of God and is straight from the pit of Hell... The reason for this is because what better way to deflect people from coming to faith than by leading wars in the name of Christ... while at the same time you are taking land, money, and people captive... What better way to discredit the true believers than for everyone to point at these events and say well then what is this??? There is so much that you could search out from other sources and say well that justifies why I don't need Christ or that I won't accept him for what He did... the Truth is only in the Word... and if you are so inclined to research then go back and look at how many Greek and Hebrew first generation texts there are... look at the integrity of the translations and then make a decision... you can find a bit of truth in anything you read... but there can only be complete truth if as it has been passed down through the centuries that the words have remained in tact... If you could support your feelings on your reserach about the other stories regarding Christ I know without a doubt that these have been fabricated... There is no original documentation and these stories have no way to be checked... so to actually put stock in such sotries as to be accurate is illogical and unreasonable... Mythra specifically had parts of Christ's story interwoven into it because the leaders/participants wanted to have a say in the current religious climate of the day since they were in the same century as the first church... so it is important for these things to be considered if you are to make a decision in regards to Christ... One simply can not go on the assumption of accuracy but to search out and find the truth/reality...

Also think on this for a moment... why would a man die on the cross when he was found guilty of no crime... why would people believe in a myth, especially in the time when there were people who witnessed these things and would have spoken up primarily the pharisiees??? Why would they allow there authority to be weakened by a cult??? The individual must answer these questions.... it's not up to me... These are necessary questions in the search for truth... does it hold up under the weight of scrutiny???
 
Back to the gay issue...I just have a problem with the guardians of the real truths, the ones with knowledge through intelligence (the ones manipulating for their own benefit or cause in particular...see the aformentioned websites in the first post for such an example of "guardians") keeping some willing but ill informed people facing the shadows away from the light. It's time to crawl up the path and out of the mouth of the cave. It's time for a united society where all civil liberties are protected and groups like these are prevented and punished for championing such apparent prejudice. These groups are anything but accepting. They are the antithesis of acceptance. They are saying they want you to see things their way and change who you are as if being homosexual is wrong. It's a tricky issue. It's a universal issue for the most part, but it's my opinion things would be better if we just didn't pay attention to whether or not a man lies with a man or a woman with another woman.
 
Last edited:
millionman said:
Kausion I've adressed the issue of the "gods" or identical stories of Christ in a previous post... What you fail to consider is that there are many groups who use the name of Christ in their religion... yet they are not speaking of the same Christ as true believers do... they set up Christ as a figure head yet he has no authority and is indeed someone who is antiquated and has no place in their lives/faith... What I have found in regards to "researching" Christianity in it's entirty is yes the Catholic Church is not ordained of God and is straight from the pit of Hell... The reason for this is because what better way to deflect people from coming to faith than by leading wars in the name of Christ... while at the same time you are taking land, money, and people captive... What better way to discredit the true believers than for everyone to point at these events and say well then what is this??? There is so much that you could search out from other sources and say well that justifies why I don't need Christ or that I won't accept him for what He did... the Truth is only in the Word... and if you are so inclined to research then go back and look at how many Greek and Hebrew first generation texts there are... look at the integrity of the translations and then make a decision... you can find a bit of truth in anything you read... but there can only be complete truth if as it has been passed down through the centuries that the words have remained in tact... If you could support your feelings on your reserach about the other stories regarding Christ I know without a doubt that these have been fabricated... There is no original documentation and these stories have no way to be checked... so to actually put stock in such sotries as to be accurate is illogical and unreasonable... Mythra specifically had parts of Christ's story interwoven into it because the leaders/participants wanted to have a say in the current religious climate of the day since they were in the same century as the first church... so it is important for these things to be considered if you are to make a decision in regards to Christ... One simply can not go on the assumption of accuracy but to search out and find the truth/reality...

Also think on this for a moment... why would a man die on the cross when he was found guilty of no crime... why would people believe in a myth, especially in the time when there were people who witnessed these things and would have spoken up primarily the pharisiees??? Why would they allow there authority to be weakened by a cult??? The individual must answer these questions.... it's not up to me... These are necessary questions in the search for truth... does it hold up under the weight of scrutiny???
Click to expand...

Part of what you have said is what I am talking about with religion being started as a means of control because you are teaching people to be prison minded from the start. Of course you blamed it on the catholic church however.

Once again you are not understanding what I have said. Never did I say any of these societies thought of the stories as religion. Nor did I say anything about these stories mentioning Christ. I just said that the theme is identical between all of them. From the date of birth to the type of death to the 12 deciples and no record from the ages of 12-30.

Now your asking me why a man would die on a cross when I am telling you I don't think that happened as I feel the story was just changed and taken literally. People would believe in a myth if it was pushed the right way as the masses are always looking for someone to lead them. Not to sure which cults you are talking about but I do know that those who are in power are part of the same mystery religions as they are called that outdate Christianity.

Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls found last century the few who claimed to have read them said pretty interesting things.
 
Religion and sociology and politics and god knows what else...millionman I know you know of the allegory of a cave both of you have to...so it should be easy to see what Kausion is explaining particularly about the enprisonment of the mind...
 
Yet the only imprisonment I see here is the captives of intelectualism and those who follow along with the thought of religion as control... My point is that if you remove all of man's ideas and thoughts from the different doctirnes on Christianity you would most undeniably have a more clear picture of what I am discussing. What I am trying to show is that Christ did not set up a religion, He did not say do this and this and this and then you can enter into my father's kingdom... "I am the way the truth and the life, no one cometh to the father but by me", "If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that I am Lord then you shall be saved".... Where is the religious practices... the rituals, the saints, and all other things that we elevate to importance above a relationship with Christ...

From a historical point of view it is noted that Luke was a historian of the first degree and is accepted as such in the academic world... He states very clearly that to write about Christ's entire life would fill volumes... At the same time there was not an importance, according to Jewish standards of biography, placed on writing about a person's entire life, but what they did most significantly... While at the same time the original texts of Greek and Hebrew can be read and translated, somewhere around 25,000 complete copies and over 100,000 total (fragments of texts and complete texts)... The Dead Sea Scrolls do not uphold anything that one would say demonstrates Christ as a falicy... More than anything the Scrolls support the prophecies about Christ and his coming... Josephus the first century historian writes of the Saducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes, while he also wrote about John the Baptist and mentions his contact with a Man named Jesus who is believed to be the Christ... So from this the conclusion can be made that Judaism and first century Christianity share a common thread is not at all surprising... Christ was a Jewish carpenter... During this time Judaic practices in the temples were upheld and the laws were kept... Yet Christ came to abolish the Law and speaks to such things in depth throughout the Gospels...

There are many cults/sects that date back to Joshua if not before... The worship of Baal has gone on for centuires, and it did not end with Christ's death... In fact such worship is mentioned in revelations and also mentioned by Christ throughtout the Gospels... Wroship of money, love of oneself, idolatry of any kind would fall into Baal worship... so yes there are other practices that go on, and indeed predate Christianity but this does not change the reality of Christ's death on the cross nor discredit it in any form... I have searched for the information that you are talking about specifically finding information about the Great Pyramid and the stories scrolled onto the walls... Yet this structure is written about in Isiah 19:19, and again is actually written about in egypts history that a shepherd had close contact during a 30 year period when the great pyramid was built, and also during this period the temples of the gods were shutdown... It must be noted that this is written in scripture as well as having outside verification...

I would like to ask why is it so offensive for a group of people to stand up for what they believe, and actually attempt to reach people... The attacks that I've read in this thread in regards to this group are absolutely the reason why they should continue in their persuit... If you believe that these groups should be stopped then what about the groups who seek to end hunger, or to help those in need... why should we allow the anti-war groups to dominate, or the homosexual community to dominate the land scape and gain control... Don't you see the hypocrisy of your own statements??? If you remove one, you must remove the other... neither would have a place if it weren't for the attempts at balance... Funny story... The ACLU said it was illegal to have a pro-life sticker on your license plate, that you had to represent both sides of the arguement... Yet if you were to do such a thing you would have no position at all... There would be no use for a sticker... How can we let an organization as hypocritical as the ACLU determine what is and what is not a violation of our civil liberties... HOW??? If you chose to point fingers please point them where they should go... Stand for what you believe and don't simply be led to the slaughter, that's ultimately what they are working towards, is for everyone and no one to be equal... these are the groups that should be eleminated... opposing views always create a balance, because there's always someone to oppose the other...
 
I don't remeber saying anything about trying to stop your group. I just stated why the group in general may be a target to attacks. The reason I said that was because someone earlier had said something about why Christians are always being slandered.

But I will leave it at that because I notice that either you are mis-reading what I write or you are putting words into my mouth.

In your book of Revalations did you ever read of a mystery religion that worshiped an often sacrificed to an owl named Molech?
 
millionman said:
Yet the only imprisonment I see here is the captives of intelectualism and those who follow along with the thought of religion as control... My point is that if you remove all of man's ideas and thoughts from the different doctirnes on Christianity you would most undeniably have a more clear picture of what I am discussing. What I am trying to show is that Christ did not set up a religion, He did not say do this and this and this and then you can enter into my father's kingdom... "I am the way the truth and the life, no one cometh to the father but by me", "If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that I am Lord then you shall be saved".... Where is the religious practices... the rituals, the saints, and all other things that we elevate to importance above a relationship with Christ...

From a historical point of view it is noted that Luke was a historian of the first degree and is accepted as such in the academic world... He states very clearly that to write about Christ's entire life would fill volumes... At the same time there was not an importance, according to Jewish standards of biography, placed on writing about a person's entire life, but what they did most significantly... While at the same time the original texts of Greek and Hebrew can be read and translated, somewhere around 25,000 complete copies and over 100,000 total (fragments of texts and complete texts)... The Dead Sea Scrolls do not uphold anything that one would say demonstrates Christ as a falicy... More than anything the Scrolls support the prophecies about Christ and his coming... Josephus the first century historian writes of the Saducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes, while he also wrote about John the Baptist and mentions his contact with a Man named Jesus who is believed to be the Christ... So from this the conclusion can be made that Judaism and first century Christianity share a common thread is not at all surprising... Christ was a Jewish carpenter... During this time Judaic practices in the temples were upheld and the laws were kept... Yet Christ came to abolish the Law and speaks to such things in depth throughout the Gospels...

There are many cults/sects that date back to Joshua if not before... The worship of Baal has gone on for centuires, and it did not end with Christ's death... In fact such worship is mentioned in revelations and also mentioned by Christ throughtout the Gospels... Wroship of money,<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=Love&id=31';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> love </a>of oneself, idolatry of any kind would fall into Baal worship... so yes there are other practices that go on, and indeed predate Christianity but this does not change the reality of Christ's death on the cross nor discredit it in any form... I have searched for the information that you are talking about specifically finding information about the Great Pyramid and the stories scrolled onto the walls... Yet this structure is written about in Isiah 19:19, and again is actually written about in egypts history that a shepherd had close contact during a 30 year period when the great pyramid was built, and also during this period the temples of the gods were shutdown... It must be noted that this is written in scripture as well as having outside verification...

I would like to ask why is it so offensive for a group of people to stand up for what they believe, and actually attempt to reach people... The attacks that I've read in this thread in regards to this group are absolutely the reason why they should continue in their persuit... If you believe that these groups should be stopped then what about the groups who seek to end hunger, or to help those in need... why should we allow the anti-war groups to dominate, or the homosexual community to dominate the land scape and gain control... Don't you see the hypocrisy of your own statements??? If you remove one, you must remove the other... neither would have a place if it weren't for the attempts at balance... Funny story... The ACLU said it was illegal to have a pro-life sticker on your license plate, that you had to represent both sides of the arguement... Yet if you were to do such a thing you would have no position at all... There would be no use for a sticker... How can we let an organization as hypocritical as the ACLU determine what is and what is not a violation of our civil liberties... HOW??? If you chose to point fingers please point them where they should go... Stand for what you believe and don't simply be led to the slaughter, that's ultimately what they are working towards, is for everyone and no one to be equal... these are the groups that should be eleminated... opposing views always create a balance, because there's always someone to oppose the other...
Click to expand...

No one has said let this group or that group dominate or take over...the ACLU tries its best to prevent people's rights from being denied and attempts to give people the rights that they are denied. I'm not talking about absolutes or extremes here. How is it that because you believe something to be true you fight to protect and preserve that belief and its still okay despite the fact that you are not just attempting to make others believe what you do, but all the while what you're belief stands for has nothing to do with your own self, but with the outcome that is being worked towards, which will affect millions of others. And when groups like the Evangelicals begin to ask for government help by taking a stance on homosexuality and their rights (which we know has happened) how can a minority escape the majority's influence??? I'm against denying someone to be what they want to be (so as long as they aren't affecting rights of others or breaking the law ) and making it possible for rights to be denied based upon racism, sexism, religious persecution, and sexuality among other forms of bigotry. You can do and think and believe what you want, but leave me out of it if I am doing no harm. I don't want to be homosexual so if the tables were turned and homosexuals went out of their way to convert heterosexuals what would you say to that? I'd see something wrong in that. I don't take the same stance with the ACLU on everything, but I think the organization does do its part in leading society towards progress or what those people of the past who have been denied civil rights would call the road of all things fair and equal. I mean seriously how can a Christian actually argue that "no one understands" or in other words woe is me when the Christian religion is huge! and has pretty long reach into our culture apparently? How many people of Christian faith believe homosexuality is wrong, or immoral, or blah blah blah. Many more than are homosexual and what about those who are gay that are Christian? Do they have to stop being who they are? How is fighting for a minority's rights (in this country, which has a past that has made a lot of progress in recognizing minorities rights in particular) the same thing as the majority which has the most rights, which were fought for and protected? It's not the same...if things didn't progress in the 1960s things would still be as they were and would it not be in the same spirit for black Americans to fight for rights and equality? Should they just be okay with the majority telling them they aren't equal and go on with the same inhuman treatment? When it comes to gay rights it's a FAR cry from the civil rights movement that's for damn certain, but it's in the same spirit of things. You're talking about beliefs in general. Well, Adolf Hitler believed in something too so are you saying it's okay for anyone to do whatever or anything to happen in the name of balancing things out?? I doubt you are. Because groups like that exodus one or whatever the hell it was called is part of the problem in accepting homosexuality. When are people going to realize homosexuality is here to stay? It isn't just going to go away. Millionman you talk about balance...if I am a heterosexual then surely there must be a homosexual around here somewhere.
 
i have nothing wrong with people having beliefs, i have my own beliefs. but i think the problem is when people affect people other than themselves through actions based on their beleifs.
Click to expand...
*cough* Pot pol - cambodia, Mao Ze Dung - china, stalin - russia, hitler - germany *cough* atheists *cough*... At least the crusades were a war, and not genocydical(?) slaughter, where one people hate another. At least the muslims and christians hated each other! :-D lol

I like dealing with all possibility and not feeling I have to conform to a prison religion.
Click to expand...
Exactly why Christianity is so bitterly hated, it demands you to be humble, admit your wrong, and give the reigns of your life to someone else. With all the messages thrown at us these days completely telling us to take control, and that its society's and the world's fault, who would in their right mind believe the former?

the ACLU tries its best to prevent people's rights from being denied and attempts to give people the rights that they are denied.
Click to expand...
LOL... aclu = crock. Good beginning intentions and beginnings though...
 
sephin said:
At least the muslims and christians hated each other! :-D lol
Click to expand...
*cough* PURE IGNORANCE *cough* but definately not something that surprised me as you seem to have a trend.

Exactly why Christianity is so bitterly hated, it demands you to be humble, admit your wrong, and give the reigns of your life to someone else. With all the messages thrown at us these days completely telling us to take control, and that its society's and the world's fault, who would in their right mind believe the former?
Click to expand...

I really don't think that would be a real reason Christianity is hated. Anyone that says RELIGION is for the prison mind is speaking of RELIGION not just CHRISTIANITY. But then I forgot, your religion is the truth and all else is false.

I don't know what sources you are reading but I don't see ANY messages telling the masses to take control. Do you have any clue what this world would be like if they did??? we'd be a lot free'er I can tell you that.

Societies fault for what? the world's fault for what?

The fact that there are now 6.5-7 billion people on this earth and yet a small percentage of that controls us through media and education. Since these people are controlling us they must be doing something or know something that we don't. Why do these same people belong to the Mystery Babylon Religions that go back thousands of years. Why does noone else interbreed except those in high positions. There is obviously a bigger picture to it and why their bloodlines can be followed back so far. You can't tell me you've never once asked yourself that question. I first asked my teacher that question when I was little.

I do get a little concerned when these same people are doing the same blood rituals and such that they were thousands of years ago. Worshiping the same idols that the revalation speaks of. If your truth religion is above all other religions and well above anything else you must ask yourself why those at the top are from the so called "religions" that outdate Jesus.
 
Last edited:
iwant8inches said:
No one has said let this group or that group dominate or take over...the ACLU tries its best to prevent people's rights from being denied and attempts to give people the rights that they are denied. I'm not talking about absolutes or extremes here. How is it that because you believe something to be true you fight to protect and preserve that belief and its still okay despite the fact that you are not just attempting to make others believe what you do, but all the while what you're belief stands for has nothing to do with your own self, but with the outcome that is being worked towards, which will affect millions of others. And when groups like the Evangelicals begin to ask for government help by taking a stance on homosexuality and their rights (which we know has happened) how can a minority escape the majority's influence??? I'm against denying someone to be what they want to be (so as long as they aren't affecting rights of others or breaking the law ) and making it possible for rights to be denied based upon racism, sexism, religious persecution, and sexuality among other forms of bigotry. You can do and think and believe what you want, but leave me out of it if I am doing no harm.


Sephin, the topic of the response had to do with balance and control. Whether or not you believe the ACLU is a legitimate group helping to protect rights is not the point. The bold text should be sufficient information for you, but just in case...the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act...( or the potential of a Constitutional Amendment to the extreme language of banning same sex marriage or civil unions, which most likely won't happen since there is so much that needs to happen besides the 38 or however many states it takes for there to be such an amendment)The DOMA is an example of being one such government involvement fueled by the majority's influence and such groups like the ones mentioned in the first post of this thread (a legislative process mind you also)...it is very difficult achieve anything if the judiciary route is not how matters such as Same Sex marriage or equivalents are settled. The President during his campaigning (trying to get the Evangelical vote...the Christian right to come out strong voting day...plenty of their leaders are starting to get pissed because of the many empty promises he gave that they are now beginning to see) even tried to prevent those "radical judges" from helping award rights to gays. So again where is the balance here if the PRESIDENT was even asserting that the majority of the country proved they wanted to "protect" the definition of marriage in 1996? How can that be balance...in fact I think that is THE PROBLEM with this country right now. No balance whatsoever.

The main problem with this issue exists in the difference between groups like the ACLU and anti gay rights groups. One believes it is right and wants to further invoke the government's power with its own influence. Meanwhile those that will suffer STILL do not have the rights they deserve. A problem also exists in the similiarity of how members of Congress wanted to resist change in the 1960s with the civil rights movement and how things are today with same sex couples/homosexual rights movement... Those that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were not in the minority of public opinion so much as they were for the reasons they didn't vote in its favor. They didn't neccessarily vote against the whole thing because it was shared by many that voting rights, educational opportunities, etc needed to be given to the previously discriminated..but they were moreso against the relief of discrimination in public accomidations...there were plenty who opposed the act that argued Congress shouldn't be able to have that much influence over something like business or interfere with citizens lives to that degree....So one can see the hypocracy of those who are basically cut from the same cloth as the Congressmen of yesterday who stand on a principle like that even though the Act had an enormous potential to help create protected equal rights for those who had been previously discrimnated against because of color, religion, nationality, or race. That whole "I stand by my principles BS" to me is kind of along the same lines as saying "in the name of whatever helps create a balance is fine by me. why shouldn't we have both sides of this issue...or let them believe what they want." That kind of thinking doesn't fly with me especially when all things are not equal as of yet and balance hasn't been achieved in the first place. When the side with the most influence and rights feel a slight tug at the other end of the rope and whine about it...sickening.

SO when the majority wants to impose its will with government help that is like having their cake and eating too. You can't aruge something both ways. It shouldn't be argued that its wrong for government to impose itself even if it helps progress society and then argue that its okay even though it would impede societal progress. That is how I see the situation. There are those without equal rights and there are those who apparently do not see such people as equal or even acceptable in society. Such anti gay groups like the Evangelical ones with the websites preaching that they want to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality are problematic and nothing more.

The idea that homosexuality is immoral is shared by many (not by homosexuals obviously) but it doesn't mean it is true to all or worthy of government intervention/denial of rights...It's not the same thing as with the 1960s like I said earlier but it is essentially a similar situation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top