I recently encountered a different angle on the JFK assassination called "Gemstone". I found this story compelling.

The Illuminati are really the good guys and we all have been duped.

http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk

http://the-movement.info

In Defense of Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati

Of course! The juddering breasts of Angelina Jolie consistent, well laid-out plot on that jewel of filmaking, the 'Tomb Raider' film, teached me that! Paramount Pictures wouldn't lie to us!

i realized this aaaaaaaaaaaaaaages ago

here's one,

anyone with anything about "Sophia" in his username is a gnostic and an occultist and has been duped himself.

In what way are gnostics duped?

belief in false pantheon, belief in false eschatology. Erroneous ascription of significance to gnostic texts. Counterproductive understanding of the conditions of genuine salvation as stipulated by Jesus Christ.

I'm sure I can think of more, but that's the important stuff.

So their religious mumbo jumbo doesn't match yours? I was hoping for a more rational criticism.

You may not believe in anything but other agnostics and atheists might be interested in theology not to mention everybody else. Have some respect for humanity, you arrogant little prick.

You're projecting into what I wrote. But if it makes you feel better, insult away, I can take it.

It does make me feel better now that you've confirmed you arrogance.

Ok now that you feel better we can have a real discussion.

First of all I do believe in stuff, and I am not an agnostic nor an atheist. I am interested in theology, so tell me where I'm wrong and what the truth is. Whether or not I accept your point-of-view is irrelevant, I'm trying to learn, aren't you?

There's that arrogance again. Does it make you feel better to be condescending? Does it give you feelings of superiority, however illegitimate?

Right now I'm criticizing you for saying religious mumbo jumbo like a dick. You say you are a believer and are interested in theology yet you have no problem being an asshole when someone points out their differences (after you asked) and how they disagree within theology. You want a rational discussion about theology give a shit about what somebody else is saying enough not to disrespect them. Sounds like you wanted a conspiracy story about gnostics being actively deceived, not to talk about religious differences.

As for truth either you believe fully and confidently in science and it's methods at present or you don't to whatever degree.

Odd how one person's religious mumbo jumbo is another person's mockery, no? This is my whole point. One group lambasts the other group for having crackpot beliefs, but then put their own garbage on a pedestal like it is the unblemished truth. If you can't handle a little criticism, if your belief system cracks at the first bit of skeptical thought, then you probably are on the wrong track.

I'm honestly searching for a viable dissolution of gnostic beliefs. Why is that bad? If there is one, it means "gnosticism" is false, and we can move on. If there isn't one, all the better, right? Don't be afraid to shine the light of truth on anything. That's what science is about, after all.

I don't agree with anything you said. I can see right through what you're trying to do here. I refuse to argue anything so ridiculous.

well, because the Bible is truly the work of God, and no other religious texts are, my criticism is rational. Objective comparison can be made between the respective legitimacies of the two works. However, because coming to know this takes place primarily in the realm of the experiential, rather than the exclusively empirical, demonstrating this is true to an observer cannot be accomplished to any significant degree with rationality alone. Rather, it is specifically an interpretation of rationality as reality which tends to indicate the Bible is nonsense in accordance with its own criteria, obfuscating its legitimacy. Relying on it to make my argument, then, would be senseless from this position.

I attempt to address this in much greater detail here, if you happen to actually be interested.

cheers.

So I did read the link but I'd imagine we'd probably go nowhere arguing as you are heavily invested in your belief system. But consider this:

The Bible was written by man. Inspired by God, probably, yes, but written by man. Two thousand years ago. Do you not think there are more "up-to-date" religious truths now available? It seems silly to me to take any old document so seriously in this day and age. If you accept the premise that we can have a relationship with God personally, then what do you need the Bible for? Just ask God directly what's up. If he tells you to go read the Bible and take it literally, then fine... although I'd recommend getting a second spiritual opinion ;)

Euclid's Elements is older than the New Testament of Bible, yet still relevant today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_Elements

That document has different claims and uses. We can verify the math in there.

How are we supposed to verify the wacky Biblical doctrines? We can't. Has God come down to anyone recently and told them to "render unto Caesar?" Oh wait.

i suppose we could debate the merits of "turn the other cheek"

Bully Body Slammed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYThQX7WVs8

see,

it really doesn't matter the Bible was written by man when I see it evidenced these men were distinctly doing the will of God by writing it as they did. It's like making the argument that because my post is typed on a keyboard, it isn't an accurate reflection of what I mean, because the keyboard is posting it to the internet, not me. That's silly. It makes no difference whether or not the functionality of the keyboard is governed by its own rules. I'm writing the post. The keyboard is just the instrument I'm using when I do it.

why would truth need revision? That would mean it was wrong before. It wasn't. We call Jesus the Christ and the Messiah because his intermediation, by itself, is all we need in order for salvation to be made universally accessible. If the significance of his involvement only pertained to the people immediately around him at the time, for example, the Bible would no longer be as consistent as it is throughout, because the most fundamental tenet upon which its overarching message is based would be invalidated.

besides, I can only imagine the reason you would suggest a revision or an update is appropriate in the first place is because you have a grossly inaccurate understanding of what the Bible is saying to begin with. I don't just stick up for what it says because it's the Bible, y'know. I believe separately its tenets are philosophically sound and apply unilaterally to everyone. I mean, I even came up with lesser versions of most of them, myself, without reading the book. They make an incredible amount of sense to me on a deeply personal level.

I accept the premise I can have a personal relationship with God, but only under the conditions stipulated by the Bible, which grants me the functionality. I could ask God what's up directly, and I do, but the only way I'm going to know if what I come to understand in response is accurate is by comparing it against the Bible, which does not yield to the bias I am deeply susceptible to as a human being. Because this bias exists, a mechanism such as this is required in order to facilitate my interaction with God at all.

I am a second spiritual opinion. I do not need a third.

[deleted]

I already answered your question, but I will phrase it differently.

I can have that communication with God. I do. However, because former interactions with God ended up in the Bible, verifying the conformity of these exchanges to God's will, they inherently serve as a gold standard by which the legitimacy of my communication with God is, thus, gauged. I see how they do it, I learn from them, I do it myself. Pretty simple. This is absolutely not something I could do without the Bible, just as it wasn't something they could do without the intervention of Jesus and the context provided by the Old Testament.

Thanks for explaining your point of view to me, even though we disagree.

np.

well, because the Bible is truly the work of God, and no other religious texts are, my criticism is rational.

Okay you lost me right there. Anyone can say that about any religious text. Muslims say that about the Koran, etc. Pure circular reasoning.

I have my own criticisms of gnosticism, especially the Illuminati one on that site, but they aren't based on contradictions with other fairy tales. I have to admit, I like the concept of being able to "know" God personally; but they go off on rants about Simon Magus, Lucifer, and other horseshit, making them sound no different than crazy "Christians" and other ranting nuts.

Thanks for the link - I will read in a while when I got some time!

Say, did you see this:

In September 1957 the cooling system in one of the tanks containing about 70–80 tons of radioactive waste failed, and the temperature in it started to rise, resulting in a non-nuclear explosion of the dried waste having a force estimated at about 70–100 tons of TNT, which threw the concrete lid, weighing 160 tons, into the air. There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, which released an estimated 2 to 50 MCi (74 to 1850 PBq ) of radioactivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

Distressed Japanese reactors are storing more that 10 X that much.

The whole "earthquakes caused by a comet" theory is sort of new -- whacky as hell, but new.

or the LHC

or haarp

http://reddit.com/search?q=haarp&sort=top

Or movement of cosmic bodies...

or a comet that really is a brown dwarf

Not really a"conspiracy theory" but look into Agenda 21

Google "The Franklin Coverup" and go deeper down the rabbit hole

Part of the NWO is Blue Beam

That the Port Chicago disaster was a nuclear bomb test.

http://linkedtheory.blogspot.com/2011/02/conspiracy-timeline.html

One of my own: the bizarre game shows, clips, panty-selling vending machines, etc. is basically Japan trolling the world.

'Posted a clip from another game show. Went viral in hours.' 'You'd think people would notice there are never two clips from the same show.' 'What's the buzz?' 'That we're a bunch of crazy people with sadistic tendencies.' 'Fantastic! But let's not get too arrogant. We need to top this. Any ideas?' 'Toads dancing on cats?' 'Too tame.' 'What about if we have another game show where people are supposed to play chess against a toad while playing the harmonica.' 'You get a raise! Now let's go on break.'

Kennedy was shot by the driver, and it's plainly visible in the zapruder film.