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.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 39
7
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I find it to extend quite a bit further than that, since the original theme of this topic was based on the twisted logic that there seems to be a movement to silence such a wonderful religion as Christianity, which, in turn supports the validity of the very existence of said religon, due to the presence of opposition to it. Over the years, I have determined that the following attributes of, not only Christianity, but several other religions, are the bases for opposition:

In order of importance:

1. Arrogance
Encourages the mindset that the method(s) proscribed by the religion's doctrine are unique & irreplaceable as a path to spiritual enlightenment. Often results in demands or expectations that the tenets and/or symbols of the religion be recognised and/or accepted by governmental agency and/or the general public.

2. Ignorance
Encourages the adherent's mindset toward knowledge acquired by mankind (scientific for example), to range from mild disregard, through general disdain, to vehement denial, if said knowledge conflicts with the teachings and/or scriptures of the religion.

2. Presumptuousness
Encourages the propagation of the religion through methods ranging in intensity from tacit insinuation and suggestion, through peaceful evangelising, to outright violent subjugation and forceable observation of the religion.

3. Delusional Self-rationalisation
Discourages followers from questioning the basis of their beliefs, or analysing the foundational structure of said beliefs or the origins of the accoutrements of the religion. Promotes seeking answers to philosophical or spiritual questions only through approved channels, methods, or the scripture(s) revered by the religion.

4. Hypocrisy
Gross failure on the part of many professed adherents to follow the proscriptions which they are attempting to communicate or impose on others not within their belief system.


You will notice, hopefully, that nowhere is it mentioned that any message of morality/goodness is considered to be a negative issue.

(edited to correct syntax & missing word)

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Lordling]




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
What do you expect?


Some benefit of the doubt.


Originally posted by spamandham
As best I can see, you have no valid reason for rejecting the natural explanations.


And you have no valid reason for rejecting my claim.



Originally posted by spamandham
You have previously said something to the effect of "I'm perfectly sane". But that doesn't answer the contention. Perfectly sane people have the types of experiences you had.


No, they get jumped on as being mentally or physically ill apparently. Pick a side, are the sane or not? Then please stick with it.


Originally posted by spamandham
Such visions exist in people from all cultures, and guess what? The visions are always in agreement with predominant cultural norms.


An assumption that I was part of a cultural norm. Just because I'm sane does not mean I flow with the ebb tides of society.


Originally posted by spamandham
Since you claim you are a skeptic, what is your basis of dismissing natural explanations?


Because that the first thing I checked. Also, I can get revalidation not only from others of similar experiences, by God and by continuing experiences. It's not a flash in the pan, it's a life long relationship.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaypeth
The fact is that the attempt to silence the truth of christianity...


Are you suggesting that keeping religion out of the legislature is somehow 'silencing' Christianity? Damned weak religion you've got there if it's only hope of survival is the force of law.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
As best I can see, you have no valid reason for rejecting the natural explanations.


And you have no valid reason for rejecting my claim.


I don't reject that you had these experiences, I simply see no rationale for dismissing the well documented natural explanations that could easily account for it.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
You have previously said something to the effect of "I'm perfectly sane". But that doesn't answer the contention. Perfectly sane people have the types of experiences you had.


No, they get jumped on as being mentally or physically ill apparently. Pick a side, are the sane or not? Then please stick with it.


I have already picked a position and stuck with it (at least until the evidence changes). From the first time you mentioned this, I have stated that sane people have these experiences. It's well documented, and you shouldn't have any problem finding that out on your own. Considering that they happened to you, I find your lack of curiosity into investigating the conditions under which sane people can have these experiences to be ..well, curious.


Originally posted by saint4God
An assumption that I was part of a cultural norm. Just because I'm sane does not mean I flow with the ebb tides of society.


The assumption is that you are living in a predominantly Christian culture, not that you were part of it. There's no way you can live in the west and not have been inundated with Christianity even if you never were a Christian.

Other people have simliar experiences involving alien abductions. Did you know that prior to the popularization of the idea of aliens in the 1950's, no-one had these experiences involving aliens (at least on the records?


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Since you claim you are a skeptic, what is your basis of dismissing natural explanations?


Because that the first thing I checked.


I didn't ask what you checked, I asked what was your basis for having dismissed that explanation? Why can your experiences not have been naturally caused?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
hey spamandham,

I saw your signature, nothin against it, I disagree with it, but we all have the right to our own opinion. I was just wondering why you would put that? im guessing that you dont like Bush and I was wondering why, I know thats of topic, but I just wanted to know.

EC



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I saw your signature, nothin against it, I disagree with it, but we all have the right to our own opinion. I was just wondering why you would put that? im guessing that you dont like Bush and I was wondering why, I know thats of topic, but I just wanted to know.


He brought the US to war under knowingly false pretenses. That's an act of treason. But this is off topic for this thread.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Nice post.

Since we are talking about religion and not relationships, this does not apply in the least bit to ™Christians™

Let us investigate how it might apply to the humanistic darwinist religion of evolution



1. Arrogance
Encourages the mindset that the method(s) proscribed by the religion's doctrine are unique & irreplaceable as a path to spiritual enlightenment. Often results in demands or expectations that the tenets and/or symbols of the religion be recognised and/or accepted by governmental agency and/or the general public.

Evolution holds that its theories are the irreplacable doctrine and that only enlightened people believe it. Anyone who does not believe is not enlightened. Evolutionists demand that only evolution be taught in schools and it must be taught as fact. Any indication that it is a far fetched theory is to be eradicated.
This is cult like behavior



2. Ignorance
Encourages the adherent's mindset toward knowledge acquired by mankind (scientific for example), to range from mild disregard, through general disdain, to vehement denial, if said knowledge conflicts with the teachings and/or scriptures of the religion.

This hits the darwin doctrine right between the eyes. The faithful evolutionist will disregard any information that does not agree with the doctrine. This is reinforced by a money supply system that rewards doctrine...based on findings or fantasy, instead of encouraging new explorations and ideas. All manner of real science is ignored in order to bolster the doctrine




2. Presumptuousness
Encourages the propagation of the religion through methods ranging in intensity from tacit insinuation and suggestion, through peaceful evangelising, to outright violent subjugation and forceable observation of the religion.

Evolution is forced on young children and grow adults via the school system. Anyone who does not comply with the doctrine will receive a failing grade and is doomed to repeat the process until they comply. In the end, at minimum, lip service MUST be given to the priests of evolution in order to advance.



3. Delusional Self-rationalisation
Discourages followers from questioning the basis of their beliefs, or analysing the foundational structure of said beliefs or the origins of the accoutrements of the religion. Promotes seeking answers to philosophical or spiritual questions only through approved channels, methods, or the scripture(s) revered by the religion.

This is too mild. Anyone at the post school level who questions evolution will be rideculed and branded, funding cut off, and blackballed to the fringe of society.


4. Hypocrisy
Gross failure on the part of many professed adherents to follow the proscriptions which they are attempting to communicate or impose on others not within their belief system.


Science. The adherents of evolution claim to be scientific yet at every turn they prop up their religion with more theory and fantasy. The only facts are the fossils...which do not speak directly to evolution without a large dose of fantasy. One of the 5 Pillars of evolution is the various dating methods. None of them comply with the Scientific Method. They are all based on assumption .

The Apollo 11 crew had fuel to make one burn as they did a slingshot orbit around the moon. One burn. If they were off on the timing, their trajectory would have made them miss the earth by 10,000 miles. If they were 1% wrong.

In the dating methods, we dont use scientific method.

Another Pillar is random chance.
Its like saying... "Prove God does not exist Mr Atheist"
YOu can not prove a negative.
So... they say instead "Prove random chance could not have done something"
Fantasy indeed.

Now, the logical thing to seek is the missing link. We have millions of fossils of creatures that survived...and none of the transitional fossils survived.
Why? There are billions of missing links.

You are correct in your examination findings about religion, sir.
Im glad we could apply them across the board



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

You are correct in your examination findings about religion, sir.
Im glad we could apply them across the board


You may find this surprising, but I agree with your agreement. I will be the first to acknowledge that science has been allowed to run rampant through the garden of reason. I am not a believer in the totality of the Theory of Evolution, any more than I am the doctrines of organised religions. Anyone who has read, for example, Cremo & Thompson's work, must acknowledge that, all too often, scientific proposals are based on the perceived level of expertise of the scientist, and not sound scientific method. Couple this with the scientific community's frustrating tendency to censor & discriminate against it's own members who conduct research & propose theories which disagree with the prevailing mindset, and you have exactly the same recipe for disaster.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I was indeed surprised.

Im glad those words came from you. My words , because of my faith background, will be rejected. You yours, they will be considered at least a bit. There are not many like you ya know......who can see what you see in that.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
My words , because of my faith background, will be rejected. You yours, they will be considered at least a bit.



He is admitting there is flaws in science, Can you admit the flaws in organized religion?


Evolution is forced on young children and grow adults via the school system. Anyone who does not comply with the doctrine will receive a failing grade and is doomed to repeat the process until they comply. In the end, at minimum, lip service MUST be given to the priests of evolution in order to advance.

May I ask where you first learned of Christianity? Most likely it was your parents, although I'm not saying it was. Many parents force their young children to follow the same religion. I can't tell you what exactly happens to children that don't listen to their parents, but I'm sure its alot worse than a failing grade.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Just as there are no flaws in the basic philosophy of a moral religion, there are none in true Scientific Method. The failure is always due to human weakness. In a comparative analysis of the two, I feel Scientific Method may have an advantage, in that it inherently seeks to disprove a theory in order to validate it. It is designed to attack itself constantly to justify it's existence. Applied properly it is a shining example of efficacious use of the deductive reasoning powers which mankind possesses. Applied improperly, it misleads everyone, and retards the advancement of our species; the same in regard to religion.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
AMEN again!
Your hot dude. Keep going!

Charlie

They raised me Roman Catholic. I was a good boy and followed up on everything. After school I joined the army and moved away.
I learned the truth, and follow God instead of the church now.
I still have the dog tags with roman catholic on them as a reminder.

I dont have a label today. Non-denominational bible believing follower of Christ.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   


He is admitting there is flaws in science, Can you admit the flaws in organized religion?


charlie, I know that you along with other people might not understand this, but this is how evolution works with science, or rather this is how they try to associate evolution with science, ill give you an anology.

1. Beer is sold at football games, beer has nothing to do with football, and beer does not become athletic by association with football, they dont go together, if you drink beer, you will become a football player, and beer does not help your health at all.

2. Marlboro is associated with cowboys, why? do you have to smoke marlboro to be a cowboy? no. do all cowboys smoke marlboro? no. if you start smoking marlboro do you become a cowboy automatically? no
you may smell like a horse, but you are not a cowboy.

3. rat poison is 95.995% good food. there is very little poison in rat poison. of course the poison is what kills the rat, but those two do not belong together. unless you want to kill the rats which some people do.

I hope you got the point of those three examples.

now here im going to explain science and evolution to you, and like I said before, you might not understand and be blinded by your own beliefs.

Evolution is not a part of science, Evolution is tied with science because some people think that if it is tied in with science, it will become scientific.

Science is knowledge gained by observation, testing, demonstrating, ect. Evolution is not scientific, it is based on assumtions, there is the key word right there. the reason why some scientific theories and or laws are based on assumptions is because its already been observed and is assumed to always work the way its been oberved. Gravity is assumed to work with anything that has great mass such as the earth. gravity is assumed to work all the time because we observe it every moment of our life.

no one denies science. science is KNOWLEDGE gained by OBSERVATION, TESTING and DEMONSTRATING. ect.
Evolution is not based on anything by the definition of science, we dont ever observe anything evolving from one KIND of animal to another. no one has ever observed this.
no one has ever observed life coming from non-living material. now I understand that tests have been done to try and get life from non-living material. but no one has ever gotten life. maybe a few amino acids that were both right handed and left handed. that doesnt work because all life uses the left handed amino acids to form proteins. so life from non-living material has never observed.
no one has ever observed a star form, they assume that stars form because there are trillions of stars in the universe. how did they get there? no one knows. no one knows how all of the elements formed without the stars, you need the stars to make up the elemtents but you need to get the stars there first, the elements make up the stars but the stars make up the elements.
and no one else knows how time, space and matter came into existance.

see all of evolution is assumed to have happened, all except for micro evolution. this has been observed, and is indeed scientific. all other terms of evolution are religious and the reason why they stress that it had to happen by the way of evolution is because the only other theory that could possibly explain the origin of the entire universe, the origin of life, is intelligent design/creation/God did it/ or something other than a naturalistic explanation.

evolution is not scientific and many people are indoctrinated in believing that evolution is part of science when its not. you have to have faith that it all happened. there isnt any evidence for the evolution theory.

and when I ever talk about the evolution theory I am not talking about micro evolution. because that is scientific and biblical.

charlie, evolution is an organized religion, its even tax supported and taught in schools, if you read what Jake had to say, you would realize that already. just because I dont believe that evolution happened becuase there is no real evidence for it doesnt mean I should get a failing grade, if a student even challenges the idea that maybe evolution didnt happen at all, the student fails until he/she complies with the theory.
the questions in schools already have a built in assumption. an example would be: "do you think humans are still evolving?"
there is only two answers that imply that they did evolve. if the student puts as an answer "they did evolve at all, they have always been human and were designed by a creator" they are going to get an F on that answer. why? because the religion of evolution is being forced upon the students by people who have the money and power to do it.

any teacher who questions the evolution theory or hands out current articles that contradict the evolution theory or even darwins beliefs, get fired. if you want examples of this, let me know, im sure you will find a way to excuse it, or refute it.

Evolution is a religion and a dangerous philosophy. nothing more. its not science, science is knowledge gained by observation, testing and demonstrating.
Evolution does not fit the definition of science.

EC



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Evolution holds that its theories are the irreplacable doctrine and that only enlightened people believe it.


Do you have a reference to a scientific journal that gives more detail on this fundamental facet of evolutionary theory?


Originally posted by jake1997
Evolutionists demand that only evolution be taught in schools and it must be taught as fact.


Not true. Any explanation for life that fits the evidence and is falsifiable at least in principle may be taught. "God created everything 6000 years ago" neither fits the evidence nor is it testable.

Intelligent design was a valid scientific theory for a short period of time. But it's pillar, "irreducible complexity" has already been refuted by nature. The highlight of ID, the eye, actually does exist in nature in intermediate less complex forms ranging from photosensitive cells to partially formed eyes to completely formed eyes like ours.


Originally posted by jake1997
The faithful evolutionist will disregard any information that does not agree with the doctrine.


The faithful of anything will disregard all contrary evidence. That's the nature of faith. Can you see how faith diminishes your ability to seek truth?


Originally posted by jake1997
Evolution is forced on young children and grow adults via the school system. Anyone who does not comply with the doctrine will receive a failing grade and is doomed to repeat the process until they comply. In the end, at minimum, lip service MUST be given to the priests of evolution in order to advance.


Perhaps this is true today, I don't know. From my personal experience, evolution was not taught in public school.


Originally posted by jake1997
Anyone at the post school level who questions evolution will be rideculed and branded, funding cut off, and blackballed to the fringe of society.


Questioning does not get you cut off. Proposing silly ideas without evidence does. If what you were saying were true, then evolutionary theory (which is a composite of numerous theories across disciplines) would be stuck at the same point it was when Darwin proposed it. It is subjected to the same crucible as all other science. The fundamental concepts have all been directly observed in nature and in the lab, except for abiogenesis (which is not technicaly part of evolutionary theory).


Originally posted by jake1997
The only facts are the fossils...


Oh my. Someone hasn't bothered to actually learn anything about that which they wish to classify as religion. I would expect nothing less from someone who's entire outlook on life is based on "i believe it because I hope it's true". Apparently the schools that seem to teach nothing but evolutionary "doctrine" are doing a poor job of it, as there are tons of evidence for evolution outside the fossil record.


Originally posted by jake1997
In the dating methods, we dont use scientific method.


By scientific method, do you mean "consult the Bible"? Why is radiometric dating not scientific in your mind? Why are red shift and measurements of cosmic background radiation not scientific?

If we wish to ascertain anything about the past, there's going to be error involved and mistaken assumptions, since we obvioulsy can't relive the past in a lab experiment. If you have alternative dating techniques in mind, your free to publish your results.


Originally posted by jake1997
Now, the logical thing to seek is the missing link. We have millions of fossils of creatures that survived...and none of the transitional fossils survived.
Why? There are billions of missing links.


If your going to go off the deep end of wild accusation, at least get the numbers right. There are only a few hundred thousand different catalogued fossil species. Within that group, there are a few dozen clear transitional forms, which is in line with what would be expected.

Creationists are playing games. They look at a fossil that is neither form 1 nor form 2, but clearly looks like form 1.5 and then declare that since it isn't 1 or 2, its 3. Creationists demand a form 1.5 and then when presented with it simply proclaim that since it isn't 1 or 2, it isn't a transitional form. Thus feathered raptors are classified by creationists as feathered raptors rather than a clear mid point between unfeathered raptors and birds.

I have a question for you jake. Since the flood killed mammals and dinosours simultaneously, why are mammal remains not found in the same sediment layers as dinosaur remains?

[edit on 31-7-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
He is admitting there is flaws in science, Can you admit the flaws in organized religion?


I can. Here is the flaw: mankind. Only by trusting in God can you forego those failures. Does that mean don't go to church? Certainly not, just make sure you go to one that knows God and His Word.




[edit on 31-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
did any of you even read Post Number: 1578617 ?
I think you will find it very interesting.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
charlie, I know that you along with other people might not understand this, but this is how evolution works with science, or rather this is how they try to associate evolution with science, ill give you an anology.

Hmm, An attack on evolution, having nothing to do at all with what I said. Seems like nothings changed.



I hope you got the point of those three examples.

I assume your examples were that Evolution is not scientific, and that the two are tied together without any direct connection.


now here im going to explain science and evolution to you, and like I said before, you might not understand and be blinded by your own beliefs.

I understand Evolution and I am not blinded by anything.



no one has ever observed a star form, they assume that stars form because there are trillions of stars in the universe. how did they get there?

The whole era of humanity is but a speck on the cosmological timescale, Do you have any idea what the life of a star is anyways?


Mirco Evolution is fact, and the fossil evidence does not contradict Macro evolution. Darwin observed the changes in genes among spceies, and he did not assume, but theorized that Macro Evolution was possible.

Geological evidence contradicts creation. I did not say that I believed evolution, but I lean towards it over creation.



charlie, evolution is an organized religion, its even tax supported and taught in schools, if you read what Jake had to say, you would realize that already

And if you'd read what I wrote you would see that religion is supporting itself in an even worse way the evolution.



I just because I dont believe that evolution happened becuase there is no real evidence for it doesnt mean I should get a failing grade, if a student even challenges the idea that maybe evolution didnt happen at all, the student fails until he/she complies with the theory.

I don't know where your from, but Biology is an elective here. You don't have to learn evolution if you don't want. You need a sciense class, and there are plenty of them.



. if the student puts as an answer "they did evolve at all, they have always been human and were designed by a creator" they are going to get an F on that answer. why? because the religion of evolution is being forced upon the students by people who have the money and power to do it.


Again, thats never happened here.


any teacher who questions the evolution theory or hands out current articles that contradict the evolution theory or even darwins beliefs, get fired. if you want examples of this, let me know, im sure you will find a way to excuse it, or refute it.

Yes I always go about refuting the truth.



Evolution is a religion and a dangerous philosophy. nothing more. its not science, science is knowledge gained by observation, testing and demonstrating.
Evolution does not fit the definition of science.

Evolution does not fit the definition of religion. A religion is an experience and then assumption. Evolution is an observation and then assumption.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
macro evolution has never been observed or demonstrated. therefore its not scientific. Micro evolution does not go against the bible at all. micro evolution does not change a cat to a dog or turn a dog into a non-dog.

all we observe is Micro which is proof of what the bible says in Genesis. they will bring forth after their kind.

I opinion still stands

EC



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
macro evolution has never been observed or demonstrated. therefore its not scientific. Micro evolution does not go against the bible at all. micro evolution does not change a cat to a dog or turn a dog into a non-dog.

What are you talking about? I never said macro evolution has been demonstarted, I never said micro evolution goes against the Bible,I never said micro evolution changed a cat to a dog.


all we observe is Micro which is proof of what the bible says in Genesis. they will bring forth after their kind.

Micro Evolution is in no sense proof of what the bible says in genisis

Did you even read my post, or just change yours up a lttle bit and then repost?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
macro evolution has never been observed or demonstrated.


It has been demonstrated. Nature does not distinguish between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". These are artificial constructs. What you call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than the accumulation of "micro-evolution" which you already admit happens.

You argument sounds like "we know you can add 1 and 2 to get three, but we never observe 1 turning into 100 through addition".



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join