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.

 

What is with all the "Christianity-Debunking" attempt threads?

page: 15
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by carole9999
 


problem is, every choice you make is the result of belief (and your ability or inability to adhere to your values or what you perceive to be your values). so if john wants this and joe wants that, in either case, it's the result of belief.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I can agree with you that some hypocritical circumstances are brought

about by social norms. I although wasn't talking about a social norm...

Unless to you MURDER is acceptable behavior, That and the oppression of

one's beliefs.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 


i think where most of us have a difference of opinion is WHEN IS IT A GOOD TIME TO GO TO WAR? Ever? Is competitiveness evil, which in essence is saying are games evil? you compete against each other. you compete against the computer. you compete against a disease. you compete against a christian belief. etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Is it anyone's business what another believes?



I could say the same about athiests. There have been threads bashing athiests on here, but what business of anyone is it if they don't believe?


Originally posted by Stormdancer777

If Christians are not harming anyone at this point in time, why are people so concerned?




They aren't harming anyone, but the way they unnecessarily bring God/religion into so many threads does get up some noses.

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


Originally posted by semperfortis

I actually have no intent on either arguing or defending my specific beliefs, but I will answer your question.

No I do not believe that it has been embellished or changed in any way.



Given that the bible has been re-edited and re-interpreted many times through it's history, I would say it's naive to believe that. Just my opinion.

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

reply to post by AshleyD
 


Nice explanation, thank you. However if followers were to go out and spread the word of the Christian God wouldn't that (in some cases) lead to them to have to disobey certain non-Christian authorities? Also, in this day and age, doesn't that same passage mean that goverments shouldn't interfere with another country's choice of policy as those governments have been "instituted by God"?



[edit on 8/2/09 by sotp]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
reply to post by infolurker
 


evangilical aithiests..
interesting.. thats an oxymoron..
now u see why some are such and easy target..


Yep, I find the subject interesting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

evangelicalatheism.org...
www.urbandictionary.com...


1. An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'.

2. An Evangelical Atheist is a person that is an atheist and tries to spread atheism amongst theists. It is derived from Evangelism, meaning "Spreading Good News" as practiced by Christianity. Due to the rise of the Conservative Christian movement in the United States of America and the increase of humanistic thought, along with the increased blending other many different religions, Atheism has become more and more popular. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.




What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.



[edit on 8-2-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


For you to understand this one man has fought and killed another, in this understand that you now may have to die for another to understand.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Agreed that competition is part of the human make up, just something instilled in all life regardless of species. But when does competition become world domination and where does competition become oppression? To suggest that a game of baseball would be the same as the game of politics and religion is the madness I'm talking about.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I am a Soldier, Marine and Law Enforcement Officer.
I am also a Christian.
CUT...
The only hypocrisy is what you are perceiving and what is apparently a misconception of Christianity.

Semper
[edit on 2/8/2009 by semperfortis]

Excuse me, Sir! Did you by any chance miss this verse......

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Or.... perhaps the following will put the "conflict" in proper perspective......

John 11 47-48 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

The "world" is all about their "kingdom/nation"..... The Children of God are "born again citizens of the Kingdom of God".

You cannot serve two masters......



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sotp
 



I would say it's naive to believe that. Just my opinion.


Well I have been called many things before, but never naive..


(You would have to know me, but that is funny)

You have every right to your opinion, just as I told the other poster, it is simply that mine differs..

You may find it interesting to spend some time looking up (Google I think will have it), the manner in which scholars validate and verify the accuracy of any literature, not just the bible.

Then look at how that very same research has turned out in regards to the bible.

It really is fascinating, whether you believe or not, the way it is done is interesting to say the least.

Semper



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by KOGDOG
 


I do not serve two masters

The conflict is in your perception, not my life my friend



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
reply to post by daersoulkeeper
 





To the poster who said islam is the same as christianity:

islam: convert or kill the entire world by force, no free will, kill your own brothers if they convert away from the faith. CONQUOR THROUGH FORCE - through deceit (fake peace treaties to bring a lull in fighting to re-arm)

(to anyone who denies the above statements you are the same as the luke-warm-professed-to-be-christian who does not know or read his bible- to deny the koran says convert or kill the entire world, is to not know your own religious text's)

christianity: convert without force, free will, show each other love, turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as yourself.

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

It will not matter how much reasoning i put in this post, to those who read this that already hate christianity - they are poor, pitiful and blind -



Wow.

You can post as many bible passages as you want, it does not change the issue.

You come out right off on the defensive, which isn't a good look, nor is it civil. Calling people poor pitiful and blind for having different beliefs makes your entire Religion look like bigoted egotists, and guess what, a lot of the world already perceives you as such because of that attitude.

 

The issue here is not the idealogical differences between Christianity and Islam, which you haven't seem to have grasped, but the issues of their rights on this forum.

They are both Religions, albeit vastly different, and they are both free game for discussion, debate and criticism. Just because you post a wall of bible quotes does not mean your Religion can get some kind of immunity from the debate.

Please understand, it does not matter how vehemently you believe in something, in this case Religion, it does not make it untouchable or immune to criticism.

 



I'm going to quote myself again here, and please absorb these words.



When I get told I'm going to hell etc etc. by some pompous zealot who spends more time singing hymns than doing good works, then that angers me.

I feel like saying, 'Please, if your God exists, stand us both before him and let him judge who followed the teachings of his Son more closely'.


[edit on 7-2-2009 by fooffstarr]


you call it defensive, i call it TRUTH

potatoe - potAtoe



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Attempting to debunk a religion is futile.

You cant use reason or logic to prove or disprove the existence of something that does not exist.

Religion requires *belief* *faith* and or *hope* all of which are intangible emotions that require no manifestations in reality for the doctrines of said religion to be preached, taught or enforced.

If anything, you can argue the ACTIONS past and present of those that believe in a particular religion, and by last body count, Christianity is still in the lead.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TNT13
 


so then it's safe to play a competitive video game in which people try to temporarily remove each other's personas from the playing field by the use of various weapons or skills? certainly safer than baseball.
i'm just trying to wrap my head around your conceptualization of "karmic debt."

what about the guy who flies a desk in the military? is he karmically indebted because of his support of the war machine, even if he never fires a single shot? even if he never pushes a button to fire a shot, and even if he never takes part in the actual process of killing? where do we end the karmic debt? it starts trickling down to everyone until the whole planet is heaped high with it

i think what you're saying is WAR is bad, but most everyone already knew that. we know it's not a good thing. we enjoy competing but we don't enjoy ending people's lives for real and earnest. the only time you see enjoyment is when the people involved have lost touch with their humanity, something that apparently is part of creating a soldier capable of ending the lives of total strangers.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



If I had to defend myself or a loved one it is possible I would break number 6.


Not at all...

Most scholars agree that the most accurate definition is closer to "Murder" as Jesus cleared up for us when he came and taught the Pharisees.

There are many allowances in the bible for Soldiers, Warriors and those that enforce the law of the land.

Read Romans when you get a chance; it will ease your mind

Semper

There ain't no excuses in the KOG. You either play by the rules or get out of the game....... NO EXCUSES!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


and there are out and out fallacies and mistakes as well.. thats all some of us tryin to point out.. if a christian wants to try to convert a supposed non-believer. then they should be able to answer the questions posed by the would be convert.. instead they get the standard u dont believe as i do so u'r gonna burn in hell speech.. they always seem to fall back on that line when they find themselves in a situation where they cant answer the question.. then harp that u donbt question the bible.. when the book itself says that u are supposed to.. then when we get fustrated because christians tend to to ignore the very self evedent double standard hypocracy then they get pissy and claim they're bashing us.. faith in god and jesus is genrally a good thing but when church dogma oversets common sense and intelligence.. thats where the problem begins.. the early church saw this and tried to change the wording in the bible to try to keep their sheep in their pen.. and the way it was done was rather slick as they keep themselves in that pen ..



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 



1) I don't understand how you can not know this answer...
Obviously Christianity is attacked more than other religions on this site because the majority of the people on this site come from Christian backgrounds or live in a predominately Christian society. Since thats the case, we know more about the religion, and can poke more holes in it. Besides, we shouldn't talk bad about things we don't know.

2)Christianity has had a rough past, so its not fair for you to try and make people forget about it; just as its not fair to tell people to not think of terrorists when they think of Muslims. Its may not be right, but its inevitable.
Secondly, Christianity has a lot of flaws. This will happen to any religion as we get more advanced. Look at the first religions on this planet, Mother Earth Goddess, Roman Gods, etc., All are now gone because Humans became more knowledgeable and outdated the religion. It's inevitable it will happen with our current religions sooner or later.

3)Freedom of speech. I wouldnt be a member of this site if people couldnt talk about what they wanted to. Religion affects us all, it would crazy not to let people talk about it, we do it with our govt. and no one seems to have a fissy fit, and isnt that what your not supposed to talk about in every day convo? Religion and Politics?




So, poke holes in that.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by thehumbleone
But just for you; let's look at what your contention is. You are arguing that because Jesus did not want to help this woman at first, that it somehow makes him a bad person. But does it really?

What was the end result? Did he grant the womans request or not? He did in fact grant her request.

There are many other instances in the Gospels where he helps out Gentiles.

As I said, this is a case of someone trying to single out certain parts of the Gospel to fit their agenda.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by thehumbleone]



Yes.. you are right, though not about being a testiment to my character. I was doing several things when reading this and I misread it. I apologize.

Okay... so, he may have answered it... BUT NOT UNTIL she realized that he was calling her a dog!

Imagine that was you for a second. You put all your faith in this person and have the guts to approach him knowing that you could be a laughing stock, and not only are you, but then you are called a dog.

Yes, she got what she wanted, but look at what she was made to be put through to get it. G.d clearly says in the TAnakh that He is not a respector of persons and Jesus NEVER treated the Jews this way when they came to him. It is biased and wrong despite the end result. She had to leave with the shame of knowing she had been seen as the same as a dog would have been seen.

His "faith" comment was no different than a man would do with his dog.

Here's your treat doggie... it is wrong to treat people that way!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

You totally missed the point of this.

Jesus WAS first sent to the Jewish people. That was his first mission, although God was planning to expand the mission to the Gentiles, as the Old Testament says many times, because he knew the Jews would REJECT Jesus. That was the point! God wants us all to be saved.

All of His followers were Jewish men at this time, and the accepted view of the Canaanites (among others, such as the Samaritans) was that they were dogs, it was a derogatory view similar to whites that call blacks ni**ers, or even the Jews at the time, and still, who think of anyone other than Jews, as beasts, per the Talmud.

Jesus was actually teaching His OWN followers a lesson by this incident, showing that even a people who were considered to be less than them, had more faith that Jesus was who He said He was than His own people.

This was just one example of several situations that Jesus used to show His followers that others besides the Jews believed in Him, and they didn't even have the scriptures to support their belief.

The Jews should have known Jesus was the messiah because of the SCRIPTURES!

Some of the other circumstances were the woman at the well, who recognized Jesus was the Son of God and told others, and the story of the Good Samaritan.

The Jewish people should have known, because all the previous scriptures pointed to Jesus as the Jewish messiah, and Jesus was giving the Jewish people every opportunity to recognize him as the promised one.

But just as today, some of the common people could not recognize him because they didn't read the scriptures for themselves, they relied on the religious leaders of the day and believed what they had to say.

The religious leaders knew Jesus WAS the messiah, but they rejected him because they wanted to keep the status quo, and all their power and riches. They didn't want a messiah, they wanted a political leader who would help them overthrow the Roman government.

By the way, Justamomma, you finally answered the one of the point-blank questions I asked you in another thread, now there's only one to go, which is, what was happening in your life at the time that caused you to reject Jesus.

Even though you would not answer the first question, I could tell you were Jewish anyway, I just wanted your confirmation.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound

Originally posted by VelmaLu
^^^^ This is exactly my point.

Proselytizing at every opportunity.


I am just trying to help people.


Funny, if your God is as all powerful as you imagine, that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, then likely they don't need your help.

In fact, if everything you believe is true, then God would know EXACTLY what I need to believe and have faith and would give it to me. It's rather arrogant to assume that God requires or wants your help. And the best way to spread the "Good News" is to live your life by example, not by beating your chest and informing everyone the unbelievable news that "you're saved."

Your God doesn't need your PR efforts. And we don't want to hear it.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


i think its more of debunking some misconcetptions of whats pushed as docterine. well at least for me it is.. these people dont seem to realise that theres a difference in questioning the church and its stance.. the bible may be inspired by god but it was written and interpeted by man.. and as we grow in knowlege and understanding the we are starting to see that we have been duped by the church at least on one level.. the church leaders want to keep control, keep their power.. even the bible states this but some bible thumpers choose to ignore this..



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Attempting to debunk a religion is futile.

You cant use reason or logic to prove or disprove the existence of something that does not exist.

Religion requires *belief* *faith* and or *hope* all of which are intangible emotions that require no manifestations in reality for the doctrines of said religion to be preached, taught or enforced.

If anything, you can argue the ACTIONS past and present of those that believe in a particular religion, and by last body count, Christianity is still in the lead.




Actually not quite true.. Atheism's Body Count - Ideology and Human Suffering Atheism's Murder Rate: More than 250 Million Dead in the Past Century

www.hawaii.edu...
www.hawaii.edu...
www.scholarscorner.com...


It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao's Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism's world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done "in the name of the people" to create a better world.

Atheism's Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom

What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and "re-education" centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the "Dear Leader." Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all "on behalf" of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.

And while it is often said that Hitler was a Christian, the Nuremberg documents clearly reveal the heart of this ruthless man who believed in social Darwinism and had devised plans to completely eliminate Christianity after the Third Reich was firmly established. He wanted to use religion to subvert it for his own political purposes, but he had rejected his Catholic heritage long before. What should be of concern to every atheist is that Hitler thought he could best succeed if he eliminated the Church's influence on politics. He promised not to persecute Catholics if the Catholic Church agreed to stay out of politics. However, many Protestants could not accept Hitler's claim to be a German Messiah or submit to an absolute allegiance to the German State, and many Protestants and Catholics were put into Concentration Camps along with the Jews for their resistance to the Führer.

Hitler's view of the Master Race was highly influenced by both Nietzschean Philosophy and modern, Darwinian evolutionary view of science. So we can also obviously see that evolution must be wrong because it led to more than 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews murdered in this quest for Führer worship and absolute power.

My point is this: you cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of God by comparative body counts. What people do in the name of religion is no worse than what people do in the name of atheism. All it proves is that human beings are capable of unspeakable evils, regardless of their affections or faiths. The Book of James says as much – that people use the cloak of religion to hide their greed and oppress one another:

"What causes fights and quarrels among you? Aren't they caused by the selfish desires that fight to control you? You want what you don't have, so you commit murder. You're determined to have things, but you can't get what you want. You quarrel and fight. You don't have the things you want, because you don't pray for them. When you pray for things, you don't get them because you want them for the wrong reason--for your own pleasure." James 4:1-3, GWV.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join