Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are you a Fundamentalist Christian? Top ten signs!?

page: 1
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+20 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblle claiming that we were created from dirt!

You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God....

Your face turns purple when you hear of the atrocities attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientific established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by the Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

u believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most tolerant" and loving.

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

You define 0.01% as a high success rate when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

You may believe homosexuality to be a sin, but you don't support stoning people who work on Sundays.

edit on 9-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 


some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
This ↑ one =

[color=5C5C5C]Well, all of em actually, but especially that one.





[color=F3F768]you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and [color=F3F768]ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and [color=F3F768]trees!
Now that's just pure evil. Trees are extremely useful.


edit on 2/9/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I know that this is a joke type thing, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sunday is Sabbath (or any other specific day that I can find)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
You will proudly admit to voting for which ever political party your church tells you to.
Usually ultra right-wingers.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

That was a pretty vigorous attack, all right. And it met with a lot of approval, I can see the stars and flags.

Tell me, what is the purpose of your post. Is it to persuade Christians they are believing in a false religion? If so, then Christianity's defenders can come out for a discussion.

Is it to tell Christians as individuals that they are stupid?

Is it to tell Christians that they should be as kind, polite, gentle, loving, and thoughtful as you are?

When I know the answer, it will be easier to know how to respond.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

That was a pretty vigorous attack, all right. And it met with a lot of approval, I can see the stars and flags.

Tell me, what is the purpose of your post. Is it to persuade Christians they are believing in a false religion? If so, then Christianity's defenders can come out for a discussion.

Is it to tell Christians as individuals that they are stupid?

Is it to tell Christians that they should be as kind, polite, gentle, loving, and thoughtful as you are?

When I know the answer, it will be easier to know how to respond.


This isn't a debate thread and no I'm not calling anyone stupid. I just don't support evil. www.evilbible.com...
edit on 9-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

That was a pretty vigorous attack, all right. And it met with a lot of approval, I can see the stars and flags.

Tell me, what is the purpose of your post. Is it to persuade Christians they are believing in a false religion? If so, then Christianity's defenders can come out for a discussion.

Is it to tell Christians as individuals that they are stupid?

Is it to tell Christians that they should be as kind, polite, gentle, loving, and thoughtful as you are?

When I know the answer, it will be easier to know how to respond.


I think the point is...well, according to my viewpoint, is that if it both resonates with you, and at the same time makes you feel foolish..it should give you pause for thought as to your structure of belief and why you think as you do...
sort of like see the programming the church put on you and how incompatible it is to your common sense.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
This shouldn't be in jokes and puns though verses religion in general

or arguably even conspiracies in religion considering there is a programming conspiracy to damn what you yourself practice as laid out by ops.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My own beliefs and spirituality aside.... I can say that I once had the pleasure (not) to sit thru an hour-long sermon that was nothing more than the pastor railing about Bill Clinton and repeatedly enumerating all of the reasons that the members of the congregation should not vote for him in the (then) upcoming election. The pastor insisted that since he was from Arkansas, he was an authority on Clinton and knew how truly evil he was. The main theme was that our souls would burn in hell if we voted for him... Let me tell ya, it was really difficult to keep a straight face thru that mess.

The saddest part of the whole affair is that everyone else was shouting "Amen!" and nodding their heads and eating it all up...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsEvolutionBaby
You will proudly admit to voting for which ever political party your church tells you to.
Usually ultra right-wingers.


Edited removed comment?
edit on 9-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

Dear anthonygillespie2012,

You're absolutely right and I was mistaken. I somehow didn't notice that it was a humor thread, I made the mistake of thinking it was serious. But you're quite right, it's not a debate thread, and I'll make sure I don't debate in it.

I'm sorry for any upset my error might have caused.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: humor not debate



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
nowhere in scripture have I found as to how long Adam and Eve remained in the garden as perfect creations. Therefore, the age of the Earth could very well be much older than a mere 6000 years as some Christians may propose but I am not one of those proponents.



I won't even start at the mountain of absolute and near baffling ignorance of the science you are bringing to light. just too much, and I am of the opinion that with soo much information on this website alone, much less the whole net..you are specifically choosing to remain completely ignorant of actual science and understanding.
your choice

So, will just put a hammer to this one part of yours..the book your cherish so much, and how you fail at even understanding that

Gen 5:5

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

he was 930 years...day to night, etc...not 4 billion years old...he was 930.
the only way to debate that is to deny the bible, and if you do that...well, then everything you wrote crumbles..so, yes..if you follow the biblically stated lineage...the world is around 6000 years old. just deal with that and don't pretend any of your beliefs may have some scientific merit..

and don't try to bs your way out of it either...its trash..you either go with narnia or science...don't try to straddle your legs for the benefit of those not in the know..just makes you either a liar, or ignorant of your own religion.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: humor not debate



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
nowhere in scripture have I found as to how long Adam and Eve remained in the garden as perfect creations. Therefore, the age of the Earth could very well be much older than a mere 6000 years as some Christians may propose but I am not one of those proponents.



I won't even start at the mountain of absolute and near baffling ignorance of the science you are bringing to light. just too much, and I am of the opinion that with soo much information on this website alone, much less the whole net..you are specifically choosing to remain completely ignorant of actual science and understanding.
your choice

So, will just put a hammer to this one part of yours..the book your cherish so much, and how you fail at even understanding that

Gen 5:5

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

he was 930 years...day to night, etc...not 4 billion years old...he was 930.
the only way to debate that is to deny the bible, and if you do that...well, then everything you wrote crumbles..so, yes..if you follow the biblically stated lineage...the world is around 6000 years old. just deal with that and don't pretend any of your beliefs may have some scientific merit..

and don't try to bs your way out of it either...its trash..you either go with narnia or science...don't try to straddle your legs for the benefit of those not in the know..just makes you either a liar, or ignorant of your own religion.


930 years from the day he began to die, from the day he was cast out of the garden.

6000 years as from the moment when man fell into sin.

Nothing about the scripture you provide necessitates a 6000 year old earth, only 6000 years of mankind since we fell into sin.

Truly, we don't know but the fact that the possibility exists means that "science" can't disprove the bible in this case. Is that why you sound so angry?
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff


930 years from the day he began to die, from the day he was cast out of the garden.

6000 years as from the moment when man fell into sin.

Nothing about the scripture you provide necessitates a 6000 year old earth, only 6000 years of mankind since we fell into sin.

Truly, we don't know but the fact that the possibility exists means that "science" can't disprove the bible in this case. Is that why you sound so angry?
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition

Was he alive in the garden? yes or no binary question

If yes, then he was alive, as stated in Gen 5:5, then he lived for 930 years
If no, then many errors pop up about breathing life into the mud and muck, etc...and the passage of how he -lived- is incorrect

you are making stuff up where it doesn't make sense, and in turn, going fully against what the words say because it doesnt suit your understandings.

Science disproving what part of the bible in specific btw?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff


930 years from the day he began to die, from the day he was cast out of the garden.

6000 years as from the moment when man fell into sin.

Nothing about the scripture you provide necessitates a 6000 year old earth, only 6000 years of mankind since we fell into sin.

Truly, we don't know but the fact that the possibility exists means that "science" can't disprove the bible in this case. Is that why you sound so angry?
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition

Was he alive in the garden? yes or no binary question

If yes, then he was alive, as stated in Gen 5:5, then he lived for 930 years
If no, then many errors pop up about breathing life into the mud and muck, etc...and the passage of how he -lived- is incorrect

you are making stuff up where it doesn't make sense, and in turn, going fully against what the words say because it doesnt suit your understandings.

Science disproving what part of the bible in specific btw?


I'm only presenting an alternative theory based on the scripture's reading that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousands years with him is as a day. I understand the meaning is that being with Him is timeless but along those lines they were with the Lord in Eden so who knows what and how times worked outside the garden while they were inside. And like I say, it's just an alternative view and has no bearing on my faith, hope, or love. It's just a speculation that by mere possibility nullifies the argument that science definitively proves the Bible wrong because it reads the Earth is 6000 years old while science says the Earth is billions of years old (by the way carbon dating really is only accurate up to about 10k years.)

It's really all speculation anyways and only worth talking about humorously in a humor thread so chill out; I did once I realized this wasn't a debate forum, regardless of the critical nature of the thread.

Btw, in God's presence He is the source and light which means while in the Garden and in God's presence, their lives wouldn't necessarily be determined by days and nights. That counting would only come once they left the light of God's presence and became susceptible to the Sun.(also just a speculation)

edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: btw
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: spelling



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
by the way carbon dating really is only accurate up to about 10k years.

Hense why they don't use carbon 14 dating for discussions about things over 10k years (given the nitrogen halflife is about 5700ish years)
but radiometric dating is quite accurate.
consider this

There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe. other isotope pairs cover intermediate time periods between the spans for carbon 14 and uranium.

You are saying the C14 tests (the beginning half to test for relatively young things..for instance ancient ruins and such) doesn't work, therefore the rest of the tests, used for progressively longer timeframes, also don't work..but give no reason

Stop listening to your preacher that denies you objectivity and skepticism...dig for yourself..toss out the websites that will give you a 1/24th of a truth and say that is the full truth.

humor thread my butt..this is a valid topic. thread should be moved..but ok, not gonna comment anymore unless it is moved.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
by the way carbon dating really is only accurate up to about 10k years.

Hense why they don't use carbon 14 dating for discussions about things over 10k years (given the nitrogen halflife is about 5700ish years)
but radiometric dating is quite accurate.
consider this

There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe. other isotope pairs cover intermediate time periods between the spans for carbon 14 and uranium.

You are saying the C14 tests (the beginning half to test for relatively young things..for instance ancient ruins and such) doesn't work, therefore the rest of the tests, used for progressively longer timeframes, also don't work..but give no reason

Stop listening to your preacher that denies you objectivity and skepticism...dig for yourself..toss out the websites that will give you a 1/24th of a truth and say that is the full truth.

humor thread my butt..this is a valid topic. thread should be moved..but ok, not gonna comment anymore unless it is moved.



We don't know what the atmosphere was like way back when so there is a great assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant in the past.

Too, the earth's magnetic field may or may not have been stronger in the past which, if stronger like scientists believe, would cause inflated ages. This would mean that the cosmic radiation was shielded in the past; less cosmic radiation = less radiocarbon in the atmosphere. Less radiocarbon in the atmosphere = artificially old dates.

I listed the above for other readers but as for radiometrics:


Biblescience.org reads:The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron" dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.


The arguments against the dating are according to other scientists, not my preacher. Why are you so angry?

edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: typo
edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Fact is, no one knows how old Earth really is.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join