It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astrophysicist angers Christians with Christmas tweet

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I don't see the problem with this, newton was born december 25th and Jesus wasn't (maybe not at all). 'Turn the other cheek' as they would say.




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Reactions like this are why Christians over react so much... We get blamed for everything no matter what we do or how we live.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Where did these people think they were?

What the hell do these people think Neil is going to tweet about at any given time?

Yet... somehow... it only makes sense in 'Murica that there would be religious people that are sitting there reading Niel frigging Degrasse Tyson's tweets so they can get upset.

As if I needed any more reason to know that the general populace in this country has absolutely LOST it.

I think more and more that the human race is going to fragment itself with "us" versus "them" conflict SO COMPLETELY as to flush our entire civilization into oblivion.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Entreri06


The real question is would newton buy Christianity if he knew how edited and just flat out wrong the bible is, like we do today?


i hate to break the news to you Newton did know that the bible was corrupted.
again a wiki cuase it's fast.


A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. This was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690 and built upon the textual work of Richard Simon and his own research. The text was first published in English in 1754, 27 years after his death. The account claimed to[citation needed] review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records",[1] and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture".[2] He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world[1] and accuses it of "pious frauds".[2] He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".[3]
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture


this is just two he talks about, during his time to criticize the church could cost you dearly. that's why many of his writings and thoughts came much later after his death.



Virtually every historical "fact" in the bible from creation to when camels were used in the Middle East to the size of bethleham have been found to be wrong.


really, i won't address all of this just what you mentioned.
camels:
the bible says Abraham used camels, and people connected to him in Genesis. and where did Abraham come from Ur of the Chaldees in southern Mesopotamia, some people want to say there was no such city, others there was. that's not the important part, the important part is the Country/ region which was southern Mesopotamia, because there is evidence that shows that dromedary camels( single hump) where indeed being used in Mesopotamia, up to 1000 years before Abraham, and bactrian camels ( double hump) about five hundred years before him. so it is completely plausible that they were used by Abraham, and be mentioned in the bible.

bethleham:
not sure what your trying to say, the only mention of it size is how small a place in Micah 5:2 back then, which scholars say it true. as it was just a lodging stop along the way to Jerusalem.

if you have any soucre for the size of bethlehem in the bible post it.






About bethleham's size. The bible refers to a synagogue in bethleham ran by the church. At the time of Jesus bethleham had a estimated population of about 40. So there would have been no synagogue there. Only far more populated places have synagogues.

It's been awhile since I read the article on the camels. Maybe it was when building the pyramids? Honestly can't remember. .. Just that some archeologist had just dug up the place and found no sign they were using camels.


But that is literally the tip of the iceberg. There was no single global flood in human history. There was no 7 day creation. In fact there is no reference to Jesus being the son of god previous to the council of nicea. Hell they can even trace some of the changes to this or that scribe.

Newton was smart enough to realize the bible had been edited but didn't have the science available to know there had been no global flood, nor did he know all matter came from fusion inside stars. Newton was truely brilliant, he wouldn't have thrown out the Big Bang theory to hold on to the book even he knew was edited into irrelevance.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
How could I have forgotten this in the op.

Merry Newtonmas Everyone!



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: CB328

Reactions like this are why Christians over react so much... We get blamed for everything no matter what we do or how we live.


The reason Christians over react is because of all the "war on Christmas " type stuff that conservative media spoon feeds them...



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Good grief...he was being witty, not offensive. This is an example of a nerdy scientist trying to be funny. Instead, Christians would rather get up in arms about a fact? They used their energy to get upset about their PERCEPTION of the intention behind the tweet rather than the content itself?

How in the world is this offensive? What did he say that was an attack on Christianity? What did he say that wasn't a fact? What did he say that was an insult to any Christian or even Jesus?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nunya13
Good grief...he was being witty, not offensive. This is an example of a nerdy scientist trying to be funny. Instead, Christians would rather get up in arms about a fact? They used their energy to get upset about their PERCEPTION of the intention behind the tweet rather than the content itself?

How in the world is this offensive? What did he say that was an attack on Christianity? What did he say that wasn't a fact? What did he say that was an insult to any Christian or even Jesus?




That's just it he didn't say anything bad about Christians. If people were to do some checking they would find that most Christians hate Tyson because if his views on religion. Because of this they will use any excuse to jump on him and what he says at any chance.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Hehe I don't have tv and rarely touch msm, but just from going off the required briefs I've gotten over the last 18 years federal service and there is no doubt Christian belifs are under assault in the USA.

But that is my opinion and my opinion alone..



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Nope my only issue with Tyson is he has a tendency to speak in absolutes which seems short sighted to me for a scientist.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

Hehe I don't have tv and rarely touch msm, but just from going off the required briefs I've gotten over the last 18 years federal service and there is no doubt Christian belifs are under assault in the USA.

But that is my opinion and my opinion alone..



What do you consider under assault? Will you be fired for being a Christian? How about beaten up or incarcerated?

I think anyone who has actually been assaulted would disagree.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

I suppose my questions were more rhetorical than anything


While the severity of the reaction to a refusal to conform to Christianity may have changed over the centuries, not much else has. The very idea that some people are not Christians is offensive in itself to them. So an (i.e. the inquisitions, etc) astrophysicist agnostic choosing to observe December 25th as it applies to him personally is an affront to them.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If you have to tell the average Joe that you are a Christian with words, you might be missing the whole picture. Plant a seed and let it grow. That's about it. This isn't heaven and some people will be surprised if they end up in hell. The road to hell is paved in good intentions so its said. Who knows I may die and come back a grasshopper just to be smashed by a self aware robot on a movie set.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

When a person is told by govt officials they cannot publicly speak about there religion or face punishment, yet other religions can speak without fear of repercussions what word would you use to describe it?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06
[...] there is no doubt Christian belifs are under assault in the USA.


Sure...if "assault" is now defined as "a refusal to observe, practice, and repeat the beliefs of others".

Christians are not being punished for their beliefs. Rather, Christians are not permitted to use their beliefs to discriminate others in a public forum.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

When a person is told by govt officials they cannot publicly speak about there religion or face punishment, yet other religions can speak without fear of repercussions what word would you use to describe it?


Can you please provide an example of this?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

When a person is told by govt officials they cannot publicly speak about there religion or face punishment, yet other religions can speak without fear of repercussions what word would you use to describe it?


You must mean it's illegal to attempt to convert people's children while getting paid to educate them by the state... The same state that's main defining feature is not to choose a religion or back any religion.

Who has ever gotten arrested for preaching??? No one....



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
First before anyone gets in a tizzy over my defense of Christians, I'm a Catholic married to a witch so religion isn't that big a deal for me. And I certainly don't preach to people, everyone will find their own path to god.

Second it's hard to provide proof of a military briefing.

Third; while it may be cool to bash Christianity, it's kind of hypocritical to do so based on mistakes of the past when you will be hard pressed to find a religion that hasn't been used for nefarious purposes.

Edit: you can punish without arresting you do understand that right?
edit on 27-12-2014 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Maybe God made all religions true. Each person choses their truth and we each judged by our adherences to what we believe. That would be a kick in the jingle bells.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ttropia

That's actually pretty close to what I believe, and yes I realize that makes me a heretic.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join