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 Contradictions (and complete misunderstandings) of Christianity

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


I don't have a theory about Adam and Eve. I don't believe the story happened, and, in my opinion, and others, science proves that it didn't happen. I haven't lied or misquoted, I've cited and I've linked scientific findings that have to do with twinning and DNA to make a point about genetic diversity. Even if Adam and Eve had entirely separate DNA, they still would lack diversity to sustain the human race, as we know it.

But, there are plenty of other scientific avenues that aslo debunk the myth.

There is no way that humanity came from one man and a magical "rib" woman, after being seduced by a talking snake. While you may not take the story literally, plenty of Christians do, and defend it to absurdity.




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


While you may not take the story literally, plenty of Christians do, and defend it to absurdity.



Well that's up for them to defend. Not me. I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve either. And one may make the case that a literal Adam and Eve lacked the genetic diversity for the story to be plausible. That may or may not be true, I'm not arguing that.

I'm just saying that even if they lacked the genetic diversity for the story to be plausible, it wasn't because they were clones.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Catholic priests are referred to as 'Father' and I believe Christ said that there is no Father but the one in Heaven. So then why are priests called 'father'?
That is a misunderstanding I have.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 




Catholic priests are referred to as 'Father' and I believe Christ said that there is no Father but the one in Heaven. So then why are priests called 'father'?
That is a misunderstanding I have.


Because perhaps the Catholic's are wrong. But from a Catholic point of view one thing to remember is they don't believe the Bible is the only source of authority. They believe that long standing church writings and tradition is many times just as important as the Gospel itself.

And sometimes when their practices seem to slightly contradict what the Bible says, they'll say, well there's church tradition to consider on the matter.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





-The Bible teaches incest is wrong, but Adam and Eve's family had to have sex with one another.


Incorrect, those are the jewish civil laws established during the Israelites time at Mt. Sinai and Horeb, and you couldn't marry someone in your immediate family. Cousins and second cousins were a different story. What happened to Lot was frowned upon, but his daughters thought the world had ended and their only recourse was to get their father drunk and have sex with him to jumpstart the human race again.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





-The Bible teaches incest is wrong, but Adam and Eve's family had to have sex with one another.


Not only that, but, since Eve was cloned from Adam's rib, they would have shared identical DNA, and their offspring would have eventually died out from lack of diversity!




I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical. And what makes incest dangerous today isn't similar DNA, it's similar defects of the DNA strand between close relatives. The first humans created wouldn't have degenerated DNA structures. That happens over many generations.


Otherwise no problem then? That's good because by the looks of things many on here will be greatly relived.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





-The Bible teaches incest is wrong, but Adam and Eve's family had to have sex with one another.


Incorrect, those are the jewish civil laws established during the Israelites time at Mt. Sinai and Horeb, and you couldn't marry someone in your immediate family. Cousins and second cousins were a different story. What happened to Lot was frowned upon, but his daughters thought the world had ended and their only recourse was to get their father drunk and have sex with him to jumpstart the human race again.


Besides they were still pissed off that dad was about to toss them to the hungry sodomites. Yea they got dad drunk. They probably did some wine trading with a trade caravan on its way around the area. So much for the end of the world.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
Well I applaud that you have been enlightened... but tell me

Who or what do you think the creator is?
Why must you go through Mary or Jesus first?

I have not read the entire Bible (and am not religious), that is why I have more questions for you.





I hope you found my answer to someone else about who the real Creator is?

And the bit about Mary and Jesus is just what Protestants and then Catholics believe.

I kind of mixed the truth with what they believe, so I guess it can be confusing.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


There's lots more I could add about Catholicism like transubstantiation but I decided to just go the Protestant route. But maybe I'll update with a special section of Catholic nonsense too. That'll at least double the list.

And yes, the Catholic church does ascribe itself to the whole infallibility thing. Which is just ingratiating.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Well then why make a thread if you don't intend to support your prejudicial arbitrary conjectures? You could have stuck this in the Rant forum for that approach. And I didn't say anything about dispensations. I asked two pointed questions. When was the command given to not procreate with close relatives? And how can you say the rapture is a new concept when the word rapture is a theological carryover term from the Vulgate?

Thank you for addressing my post.
edit on 29-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Are you trying to argue that incest is okay at one time but not others?

And are you saying that the concept of a Rapture was in early Christianity?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Sorry unity, but try that on me again. I understand what you're saying, I just don't know how it relates to what I said (that you disagree about).



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


So are you trying to say that incest is fine in the Bible now?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I have faith in real science and the real Creator. And I trust in true knowledge like the Ancients once had. It's not all lost but unfortunately a lot of it is. Any wonder why they label Gnostics pagans? And had them all wiped clean?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


And that's exactly the verse the Vatican uses isn't it? What symbol do they have there looking from above?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Just the part where wasn't sure if you were saying Creator, or Source, or Family of Goodness, because some say Family instead of God, some mean both, wasnt in the bible and that the dark side created us, because they may have done some genetic labs but they didn't create cosmic human, earth human or our souls or this planet or the cosmos. Just was checking to see what you meant there. The contradictions should be noted. I keep noticing that those who are fundamental in their faith, tend to overlook all the clues, and try to post in ways to make others gloss over them.

To me they're there on purpose to get one questioning and looking deeper. Its a good thread.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


I'm at a disadvantage talking to everyone in one fell swoop. Of course I wouldn't talk this way to someone depending on who they are. But most Christians I've met are simpletons and they need a good slap upside the head. Not all, but if you're smart you'll see why this is necessary. Chances are though, if you're offended, it means you're not very confident in your beliefs. Take Bush jr as the ultimate example.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Not liking something is not a logical argument to say it doesn't exist. I don't like low sodium soup. I think it's an abomination on the earth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It definitely does and I see it in the stores all the time.


edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




I ALMOST DIED LAUGHING when I read the above statement.

Completely valid point framed in a hilarious manner.


Also, death to low sodium soups.

edit on 7/29/2013 by jcutler12888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   


-Jesus only hated hypocrites, not sinners, but Christians hate sinners.
. Your right.. Christians do many things they aren't 'supposed' to do according to the bible. I'm not going to start my arguments because they will be never ending. Some will deny what you say even if the facts are in front of their face. Great thread though...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
LMFAO at the Simpleton Christians who argue over the DNA of Adamu oops Adam and eve

have you forgotten what the OP said in the first place.
you just proved his point with out him adding anything extra, by arguing amongst yourselves you show that even as Christians you are divided

no point telling you how the Bible is only plagiarized from Sumerian times, Its where Adam and Eve came from. how its been translated so many times from one laguage to another, how humans decided to delete certain gospels at the Council of Nicaea. first council sat in 325 AD arranged by Constantine Who at the time was still a Pagan. how the true meanings of certain words in their original writings have been mis-interpreted. But hey You believe what you want to be told to believe and I`ll Believe what I research and study with an open mind.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join