The Irony of Christian Ideology

Step 1: Find an athiest (Someone Who does not subscribe to any higher power or Supreme Being)

Step 2: Convert the athiest to Christianity. (Christians believe that Jesus is the manifestation of God in man form, and also that they should be more like Jesus. Therefore Christians strive to be more like God.)

Step 3: Teach newly converted that there is only 1 God (Monotheism).

Step 4: Ask them " If God neither subscribes to the belief there is a higher being than God, and worships no higher being, and follows the first commandment, then isn't God an athiest?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Since Christians wish to be like Christ,

2) and believe Christ is God

3) God worships no higher power, nor subscribes to any Supreme Being higher than God's self

4) then the ultimate goal of christianity is to be an athiest.

Your definition of atheist is suspect. As someone whose mother tongue is Greek I feel that I should point this out.

The word atheist stems from the Greek word 'theos' meaning God with the prefix 'a' meaning without. To be an atheist is to be 'without God' or 'without a belief in God.'

I am sure God believes in himself, thus he is not an atheist.





Mod Edit: to remove big quote

[edit on 9-11-2005 by kinglizard]

Here we go using mortal human terms to describe a diety

Next thing you are going to say is that God murders, thus is in violation of his own commandment and should be sent to hell. The commadments were HIS rules for humans to follow, so they could please him.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
3) God worships no higher power, nor subscribes to any Supreme Being higher than God's self

Sorry ET, you are guilty of equivocating. "Supreme being" does not imply that said being is "higher" than oneself, it merely implies that no other being is "higher". If god is the "highest" possible being, then he can be a theist simply by recognizing his own "highness".

(don't you find it interesting that the word "high" is used here even though god is not thought to reside physically above us in modern concepts of god? Where does the idea of "above" originate from? Hmmm.)

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
Your definition of atheist is suspect. As someone whose mother tongue is Greek I feel that I should point this out.

The word atheist stems from the Greek word 'theos' meaning God with the prefix 'a' meaning without. To be an atheist is to be 'without God' or 'without a belief in God.'

I am sure God believes in himself, thus he is not an atheist.

I'm more than willing to concede that certain specific terminology is not necessarily interpretted to mean the same thing to individuals. I am also more than willing to concede that certain specific jargon has gone through transformation in regards to accepted percieved definitions.

Conspire is also a word that stems from greek meaning to breath together (so I've come to believe), but few people in society equate the word conspiracy to mean a group of people breathing in synchronicity.

My point is some people do believe that athiest has different defintitions, and I have found a dictionary that has one of the meanings to be: "One who does not believe in a higher supernatural being, or creator deity", all be it in a 20 year old (english) dictionary.

So, under this specific definition, does GOD subscribe to the belief that God was created from another creator deity? Not necessarily that GOD created GOD, or believes in GOD's self as existing.

However, I do accept your definition as possibly being the most accepted, it is not the only way a lot of people choose to integrate the meaning of the word "athiest".

Originally posted by spamandham

(don't you find it interesting that the word "high" is used here even though god is not thought to reside physically above us in modern concepts of god? Where does the idea of "above" originate from? Hmmm.)

I also find it interesting to see that scrolls and books from the distant B.C.s and echoed in many Genesis accounts talks about the "firmament" as being what seperates the lands and seas and the heavens, where the birds fly. This sort of hints to knowledge that there is an end to the Earth's atmosphere. I sometimes wonder where and how the idea of a "firmatment" that parrellels the description of the atmosphere stems from when I doubt mankind went high enough to know that the atmosphere is not endless.

I also wonder how the Egytians in their mythology seem to know that Orion's belt was regarded as the center of the Heavens, when we could not come to that conclusion until the mid 1990s.

In 1994 the Hubble telescope mirror imagery problem was corrected, and one of the reasons it was built was then implemented.

The Earth's atmosphere reflects approximatley 70% of all light that hits hit.

This means that on a clear night away from the city lights one would be lucky to see 3 of every 10 stars that are actually visible from only 38 miles up.

The WORLD's top SCIENTISTS utilized the doplar effect to determine and date the big bang.

The doplar (spelling?) effect is when we look and analyze light through a spectrum to determine whether the red or blue shift of the lights spectrum is hitting us first. If the red shift is hitting us first, then the object is moving away from us. If it is the blue shift, then the object is moving towards us.

The worlds top scientists (Source is from both NASA and SETI reports and Discovery magazine September issues of 1994 or 1995) observed 196 gallaxies to determine with the technology we had outside the Earth's atmosphere when the big bang happened.

There findings indicated that 189 gallaxies were part all at the same location and were accelerating outward in a sphere like shape, while our gallaxy and the 6 other gallaxies closest to us were heading in trajectory inconsistent with us being part of the big bang.

We are heading towards Orion's belt. The Egyption mythologies seem to show some understanding of this and claim the knowledge of the heavens originated with one of thier first Gods.

They also built on Giza a mirror image of the stars of the constallation Orion, or it is merely coincidence that they line up.

So, I often ponder if they did know this knowledge, then how did they obtain it when the only reason we knew it was because we had technology outside the Earth's atmosphere.

I've come to 2 possible conclusions (based upon current understanding).
1) They were taught this (as their mythology figuratively supports) by someone who had obtained this knowledge from outside the Earth's atmosphere. or ...
2) They had been recording the movements of the stars for approximately 40,000 years and figured it out.


Incidently, the second strongly supports your religion is ancient astronomy theory. As do the Viking and Nordic legends that seem to teach natural procession of the zodiac and the changining of the ruling house every 26,000 years.

But, it is just one way to interpret the facts and misunderstood mythological beliefs of the ancient world.