Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity - History's Greatest Scam

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I totally agree that we should allow the teaching of "religion" - not any specific one either: the majority of both mono and poly - but in an entirely secular, non-biased environment. Even though that is what these people claim to want as well, in most cases they are trying to deceive us and sneak in their dogma.

www.youtube.com...

Near the end the caller finds the supposed curriculum for this "religious studies" course and sure enough "taught as an alternative theory to evolution" or something like that. I don't doubt there are those that do wish it to be taught from a philosophical standpoint, and don't intend to force it on anyone, but the problem, as I see it, is religion is so subjective to the individual - while some wish it as a simple elective option, others are going to try and shove it down kids throats. If we set a precedent allowing it to appease one group, all of a sudden every other fundamentalist group and denomination is going to be up in arms as well.
Also, as you try to cling to this notion "evolution" is flawed, the fact they DON'T teach about the gaps explains exactly why evolution is part of science and religion isn't. No scientist would ever claim such arrogance, to know what goes in that gap without having any backing or evidence to support such a claim. These gaps you speak of don't really exist either - the fossil record is broad enough and diverse enough (it is amazing we even managed to find transitional fossils, if you understand the process of how to make one) that it shows us time and time again where and when evolution fits in. Evolution is also a fact - it makes predictions that have been observed and verified. Does "Creation Science" do that? No way in hell...
ID is a joke by the way, calling yourself a "creation scientist" is a kin to to a janitor calling himself "sanitation engineer".
ID is rejected by every major scientific body - except those of a faith base ofcourse - because all it does is pretend to do valid research and then when as you say, a gap or a unknown variable comes along, they posit god as the reason or explanation.
ID does not equal or even come close to a scientific theory.
Back to your original point - I would gladly welcome a religious studies option. It goes against the constitution to make it mandatory, and I don't think you should be allowed to force kids to learn that stuff.
I even went to a Catholic high school, where I took religion class from grade 7 to 11. Funny thing ofcourse, they call it "Religion/CAPP" - career and personal planning - but we did exactly 2 weeks of CAPP and 3.5 months of Religion. As for looking at all faiths, we studied 4 or 5 different dogmas - each for about a week - then spent the remainder learning about why Jesus and the bible are true.
That is why these religious folk can not be trusted. No matter what they say, personal bias will always manifest, and in the end, they will want kids to believe what they do. Scam artists...

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 




Is there anything wrong with discussing alternative views as to the start of the Universe? Many Christians don't want it taught as the only way. Just as an alternative and that the kids should decide.


There is nothing wrong with discussing alternative views. Creationism just doesn't belong in science classes.

If Christians want to believe whatever they want to, then I have no problem with that as long as their beliefs stay in the church. They need to stay out of politics.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 




The teaching of the Bible is very clear. What often happens when people go to the Bible though is that they bring their churches traditions to it and try to fit them into it. That basically is why there are 38,000 denominations. People didn't like another's traditions, left that church, and started their own—with no regard for what the Bible may have to say.


If the Bible is clear, then there should be less number of denominations. How hard is that to understand?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I felt that the question that you gave needed to be answered.

what question?

Rather, I said that you're understanding of Totakeke being "right" and "his faith" was faulty.

I think you need to re read the thread a bit- I'm not the only to have noticed Tota's need to be right
I even offered the olive branch- saying Tota is entitled to think what he (or she, lol) thinks and I will think what I think- to this he offered up more dogma


Being snippy.

I see

Just like some would say about Catholics.

The 'some' being you in your last post.
But, as a whole, it is hard to say that Catholics are Christian


I try daily though to try and bridge that divide.
Religion needn't separate us.

Are you joking?

You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope have other religions got when you don't even accept your own?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 



They need to stay out of politics.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The Christian movement that essentially has been trying to force America to be the way that they want has been a bad thing. Mainly because they're trying to force the nation to do things that the majority of the people don't want. Or they've gone about getting their views out in such a bad way. The Apostle Paul teaches that "we're not citizens of this world", meaning that we should be concerned about heavenly thing, going on to say that we're ambassadors of Christ. I think that many of the politically active Christian groups have forgotten about this because, one, they're trying to make the Earth today like they're expecting it to be in the future [by forcing people to comply with them] and, two, as an "ambassador" of Christ in this world, they should be concerned with representing him to the world. Which sometimes fails to happen. In addition to that, an ambassador doesn't interfere with the affairs of the country that they're in. Likewise, Christians shouldn't, in my opinion, get too involved with the politicking of the world.

Know what I mean? Hope my thought makes sense--this is a view of mine that I recently adopted and I've become quite passionate about it since I realized the error in my former way.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 



You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope have other religions got when you don't even accept your own?

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism is merged with Voodooism.

But, as you said before, just because someone says they're Christian doesn't make it so. Their doctrine says a lot.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 




Know what I mean? Hope my thought makes sense--this is a view of mine that I recently adopted and I've become quite passionate about it since I realized the error in my former way.


Yes it does make sense
It is unfortunate that not many Christians see the way you see. Though I do understand why they do this. They are "worried" that since America has become a "godless nation", God will punish America.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by lifecitizen
 



You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope have other religions got when you don't even accept your own?

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism is merged with Voodooism.

But, as you said before, just because someone says they're Christian doesn't make it so. Their doctrine says a lot.


Instead of all the words why not just come out and directly say Catholics aren't christians? that is obviously what you think- I really don't see how that is building any sort of a bridge- to me that's says you think your religion is right and the Catholic church is wrong- that is dividing not uniting.

Where did I say 'just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so?

Also, you seem to have missed the bit in my last post where I asked you what question I asked?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 



Instead of all the words why not just come out and directly say Catholics aren't christians?

I haven't come out and said that because...it's not what I believe.


There are Catholics within the Catholic Church that truly are Christian. There are others that aren't. What is meaned by this is that they've trusted in Christ alone as the way of salvation, like the Bible teaches. And, like I said, I should accept people that believe and follow obviously false teaching just for the sake of putting up a "united Christian facade" for the world.


Where did I say 'just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so?

You made a reference to the Mormons and JWs thinking that they're Christian.


Also, you seem to have missed the bit in my last post where I asked you what question I asked?

What are you talking about? The "Are you joking?" question?

ETA--ah, got it, read your question wrong. I guess it wasn't so much a "question" that you asked but more that it didn't seem that you quite understood what Totakeke was trying to say. I felt that I could be of service because, I understood where he was going.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by octotom]

[edit on 7/28/2009 by octotom]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
You made a reference to the Mormons and JWs thinking that they're Christian.

I was paraphrasing what you said just as it's hard to say that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.
- nowhere did I say "just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so"- to the contrary that is what YOU are saying, not me


I haven't come out and said that because...it's not what I believe.

lol, okay I must have read this all wrong

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism is merged with Voodooism.

Silly me! sounds to me like you're saying the Catholic church is false and their teachings are heresy- that their church goes against scripture and that it rejects "official" doctrine and even that they add bits on- what a duffer I am



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
It is not the REAL Christianity, mind you
It is the antichristian Church with a pseudochristian facade



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by arth247
 


Some time I wish ATS boards were like the youtube comments, where I can give a comment the thumbs DOWN!!!

How does that expression go, the devil is in the details?

Let me illustrate, is the following image a picture of the same man or two different men?



Of course your going to say "thats just two different pictures of Michael Jackson, its the same guy?"

But how can that be? They are wearing different clothes, they have different hair, they have different skin color, they are each in a different place, how can they be the same person?

Whenever I try to tell people of the similarities between Jesus and other solar messiahs I always get the same responses "But Jesus was born here, he had different disciples, his mother was Mary, not (insert random Virgin Deity), he had a beard".

People always argue over the little difference and ignore the very big striking similarities. ie born of a virgin on the 25th of December under a start in the east with the three wise men or three kings or three Priests following said star and dying fro three days and then resurrecting on the fourth day.

What ever small differences they have they always share these attributes. So when ever I hear the religious types say "Ahh, but Jesus was different...", I call shenanigans, its the same guy, just with a beard and a robe instead of a headdress and a loin cloth.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent, within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this:
www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage


[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]



1.You need to accept the fact you are a sinner.
2.The wages of sin is death.
3.You have a sin debt you can't pay.
4.Jesus paid that sin debt on the cross!
5.Jesus was buried and spent three days and nights in hell for you!
6.God raised Jesus from the dead.
7.Jesus is now in heaven by the Father's right hand.
8.Jesus is coming back real soon...are you saved yet???
Time is running out and we all need to know whom we will serve,God
or satan,you get to choose!!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth

Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent, within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this:
www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage


[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]



1.You need to accept the fact you are a sinner.
2.The wages of sin is death.
3.You have a sin debt you can't pay.
4.Jesus paid that sin debt on the cross!
5.Jesus was buried and spent three days and nights in hell for you!
6.God raised Jesus from the dead.
7.Jesus is now in heaven by the Father's right hand.
8.Jesus is coming back real soon...are you saved yet???
Time is running out and we all need to know whom we will serve,God
or satan,you get to choose!!


Whoa - hold up there.
This is basically the type of spittle that compelled me to make this thread.
You aren't really doing your religion/dogma much of a favor pushing it onto other people - that is why it is shrinking at a considerable rate.
Why am I a sinner? Please...tell me.
What kind of bizarre world is it if we can simply "pay off" our responsibilities.
This is the number one problem with Jesus and Christianity - vicarious redemption.
What a disgusting and shameful teaching, in my opinion, one in which mistakes are never learned from, and wrong-doings are never made up for.
Sickening really, how you people don't even clue into what you are preaching.
Also, I believe Jesus was in hell for approximately 36 hours, not really 3 days and nights....
I am pretty sure "Jesus is coming back, really soon" has been thrown at "sinners" for almost 2000 years....really soon indeed.

Based on god's kill count compared to Satan (according to the bible), I'd side with god for sure - he blows Satan out of the water for quantity! I think its like...2.17 million to 2. Oh damn Satan, you lose again!
www.youtube.com...

Though Satan killed Job's kids for god...so let's call it 2.172 to 0!



[edit on 29-7-2009 by makinho21]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Great statistics but don't expect to get very far, logic does not work with some people it seems.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by arth247
 
what does that really mean?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


For some true enlightening facts, check out Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. Pretty much goes were you are here, in greater depth!



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
What's most amusing is that the chief Christian god, "Father", is also an amalgamation of pagan gods. Particularly the Genesis "God", who was angry with humanity for shedding their ignorance. That story is derived mostly from Sumerian mythology, in which a group of heavenly beings were said to have created humans to be their servants, making them without conscience so they would be blind to their own enslavement. The Annunaki, as they were called, were incredibly vain and warlike. They demanded to be worshiped and were nothing short of tyrannical. I would "garden paradise" as a kind of propaganda. Only in total ignorance can one find bliss in slavery, but humanity did for a long time until they were liberated by another group who were once slaves to the Annunaki, who called themselves the Brotherhood of the Serpent.

Genesis was written with a very obvious bias. If any of you recall, in reference to the Tree of Life, God says he fears man will "become like us". That's right, he refers to himself in the plural. The Tree of Life is a real concept. You can look it up. It's sometimes called the Path of the Flame Sword and it leads to a spiritual empowerment that is so great, it transforms those who follow it into masters of perception.

Before there were "gods", there were the Annunaki, and they were never called "gods". They were described as having came down from the heavens, but that literally meant the sky to ancient people. A loose translation of the word "Annunaki" would be "Those from the sky". The Rib Woman was created to heal Enki of a deathly illness by the same goddess who gave it to him, along with eight others for the tainted plants Enki ate. In Sumerian, "rib" and "life" are the same word. It's a pun. Enki was more like Prometheus, though he is somewhat equivalent to "Adam". He was the one who warned the Sumerian equivalent of Noah to build an ark to survive the Deluge because the Annunaki had grown irritated by the humans, who had by now realized they were slaves and were behaving rebelliously.

In short, many Christians are trying to make themselves as ignorant as possible so that the Annunaki will come back and make them servants again. That's not how these Christians see it, of course. That's just the origin of this whole twisted mentality. And there have been countless "holy" individuals who have been more than happy to exploit this subservient mentality.

I'd like to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment to speculate the possibility that these "Annunaki" might have actually existed as beings who came from the sky and engineered (remember, the word for "created" becomes "built" if you translate it properly) primitive humans as servants and left out segments of DNA which would have supported a higher awareness (while adding many others, like those birds and fish, which I've heard are actually in our DNA today, but I've not yet looked it up myself) but were thwarted by another group they had brought along for help (notably, Enki or "Ea") and, following some major conflict that may have adversely affected the climate enough to melt some of the glaciers, were left without the technology necessary to appear as "gods" and so were reduced to a cult. It's all silly talk, of course, but wouldn't it be amusing if the Christians were worshiping their own interpretation of an extra terrestrial group who made their ancestors to be their slaves? It's absolutely ridiculous and I don't believe a word of it, but isn't just the notion enough to bring a chuckle to you?

I think that's enough of my prattle for now. What say you?


[edit on 30-7-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I say that your attempt to demonstrate that the Hebrew Creator God was derived from other cultures is a bit off the mark...

They were the original monotheists and, whilst there may be common elements between their story and others from the region (animal sacrifice, wrathful deities etc), the differences and uniqueness of the Hebrew God and the Hebrew story are profound enough to nullify arguments of derivation.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
As for the original post:


Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent, within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this:
www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage


[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]


This kind of diatribe is of little value to a discerning reader. It is filled with obvious prejudice and emotion.

In my opinion, true Christianity doesn't "spread immoral teachings" "hidden like a coiled serpent". 10 points for melodrama, though. As far as ethical standards go, it has the same core as most of the other mainstream religions, and that is the universal Golden Rule. Can't go far wrong with that. Additionally, it has formed the very benchmark and foundation for modern Western ethical standards. If misguided fundamentalists twist its message to persecute gay people or abortionists, that's their problem. Doesn't mean that the underlying philosophy is necessarily at fault.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join