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.

 

Is Christianity inherently discriminatory

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


You mean the unbeliever is foolish enough to let science, logic and morality rule his life. Rather then buy into an ancient text with little or nothing to back it up. That the science behind it has mainly been debunked. Just cause they used the Iliad to find Troy doesn't mean the rest of the oddesy is true!

I don't believe in your religion for the same reason you don't believe in the rest of the religions. There's NO proof and it requires throwing everything science has learned (and tested) out the window.

I really wish y'all would quite with the ridiculous. Just place your faith in god and all will be revealed type crap. If prefer for this to be a convo on the morality of the tenants of religion.




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly
 





lmao

psy op or just stupid?


Now there's the reply, to a thoughtful, heart felt posting, I would expect from a so called "Christian" such as yourself!

"You're STOOOOPID" Yep. that's the intellectual ticket!

Way to defend your blood worshiping death cult!



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


But people listen to fear so much more easily!!



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by ketsuko
 


You mean the unbeliever is foolish enough to let science, logic and morality rule his life. Rather then buy into an ancient text with little or nothing to back it up. That the science behind it has mainly been debunked. Just cause they used the Iliad to find Troy doesn't mean the rest of the oddesy is true!

I don't believe in your religion for the same reason you don't believe in the rest of the religions. There's NO proof and it requires throwing everything science has learned (and tested) out the window.

I really wish y'all would quite with the ridiculous. Just place your faith in god and all will be revealed type crap. If prefer for this to be a convo on the morality of the tenants of religion.


MOrality is a fickle thing. If you view the ten commandments without the ones mentioning God or woshipping woudnt they make a good moral set of rules to follow when dealing with others? So one could argue that that is a pretty moral one itself right? ANd really Science has not proven 100 percent what happens after you die because it Cannot go outside of the psysical realm and dimension it is stuck in. And really Science itself has given some immorral things to humans over the years.

ANything created by man can be Immorral or moral. HUmans are flawed and not perfect. Which means Science itself is not perfect. I am of the mindset though. believe what you will because thats your right and free will being expressed. ALso one other thing. How can you test something when its unable to be tested? Scientist asked God for something and he didnt respond directly back to them? Were the scientist believers in God? I seem to remember something in the bible.. do not test the lord.

Anyway. feel free to exercise ya free will.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


The bible can't be infallible when even one part has been debunked. Fair enough if the debunked part is a mistranslation or whatever. But debunked is debunked. And infallible means it's ALL perfectly true.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


Um...what you are referring to are people's interpretations of what it (the Bible says) so all you are debunking are interpretations, not the Bible itself. Who was the Catholic Priest who determined that, according to the Bible the earth was created some 7k years ago? James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.

So you are comparing 17th century theology with 20th century science. Nice distortion. In the 17th century science had just somewhat recently discovered that the earth was not flat.

If you actually read Genesis, you will find an astonishing parallel to the Big Bang theory. With regards to evolution, it's very telling that the sequential "creation" of life exactly mirrors modern theory.

Seems that Theology bothers you on a very basic level. Otherwise why would you pursue the path you are, using tired dogma centuries old, in some cases, in an attempt to "debunk" it?

Why not just let people believe as they so choose and worship as they so choose? Are you truly prejudiced against people of faith? There is no way anyone will claim that all people of faith are inherently correct, anymore than you can claim they are inherently wrong. They are a group of people much like any other group, subject to the same dynamics.

Or are you one of those who also feel that all blacks like fried chicken, watermelon and have IQs less than 100?

Same difference



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


Funny i didnt say the earth was 7000 years old did I? There is a way to show the mistranslation of a lenght of a Day to God i have come up with. Take 6 days and divide it into the age of the earth. The 1000 years to a day could be a mis translation OR they didnt Know better when it was written. remember God Only worked 6 days on creation and rested on the last one remember?

Also.. How do you know how a being that is Omnipotent and all present in all times and places measures time in the same way? A billion years to him could be like a zillion to us. And WHY HAVE YOU IGNORED MY QUESTION ABOUT MORALITY?

Now to the There is no proof of it you can touch so it must not exist theory.

Up until recently the HIggs was untouchable so to speak. it was a imaginary particle until it was discovered. Science caught up to the theory. Under your assumtion it was a waste of time to persue a particle that didnt exist correct? What about dark matter? Point is....Abscence of proof does NOT PERCLUDE existence.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by ketsuko
 


You mean the unbeliever is foolish enough to let science, logic and morality rule his life. Rather then buy into an ancient text with little or nothing to back it up. That the science behind it has mainly been debunked. Just cause they used the Iliad to find Troy doesn't mean the rest of the oddesy is true!

I don't believe in your religion for the same reason you don't believe in the rest of the religions. There's NO proof and it requires throwing everything science has learned (and tested) out the window.

I really wish y'all would quite with the ridiculous. Just place your faith in god and all will be revealed type crap. If prefer for this to be a convo on the morality of the tenants of religion.


Now, you're making a false assumption. Why do "logic, science, and morality" have to rest on one side and faith have to rest on the other as if the two are diametrically opposed?

I'd like you to explain this to me.

Btw, science and religion are quite compatible as are religion and logic and religion and morality.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

yuppa

Up until recently the HIggs was untouchable so to speak. it was a imaginary particle until it was discovered. Science caught up to the theory. Under your assumtion it was a waste of time to persue a particle that didnt exist correct? What about dark matter? Point is....Abscence of proof does NOT PERCLUDE existence.


Therefore my question to you is.....

Is the Bible the unquestionable, ultimate word of GOD.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


You know what?

All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


You know what?

All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.


His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly
 





lmao

psy op or just stupid?



Way to defend your blood worshiping death cult!


Nice.

Let me just point out that if you consider yourself to be a progressive thinker you just failed. Why is it so many progressives insist on tolerance from other groups and declare them to be barbaric based on the lack of tolerance and yet they, themselves cannot exercise the least bit of tolerance themselves towards a religious group or a conservative group? Or for that matter anyone who thinks differently than themselves....

Instead they mouth, at times, the most bigoted or nasty statements possible not even recognizing how hypocritical they are being.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.


His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.


I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.

Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.

Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.

I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


You know what?

All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.


His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.


He disproved a religion?

I missed that part. He went on a rant about things that require a literal interpretation of the Bible, something most Christians don't do. Again, he disproved a bunch of humans' assertions, not the faith.

He finished it up with the statement that he has faith that science will someday disprove it all, including God, because science has apparently disproved the interpretations and assertions of some people.

Basically, it's like me finding examples of people who got their science wrong. I could point to Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Franz Joseph Gall and Hans Horbiger and scream that I've completely disproved science! Of course, that's utter nonsense. And the same holds true with Christianity.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


It's in order if you consider this an analogy for that and so forth. Either the bible is mans attempt to explain what at the time was unexplainable or it's a divinely written text that should be infallible. If let there be light is an analogy for the Big Bang. Then wouldn't that insinuate all the stories are analogies instead of hard historical fact?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


The only third option is it's divinely inspired but written by men, so no telling what is man and what is god.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Logarock

Akragon
reply to post by Logarock
 



No I must insist because you have wax in your ears.

Your use of scripture is most generally a cherry picking, twisting affair to prove some point, sometimes not really related to the scripture you are using. Its not even about my opinion when you cant even use scripture in context. So then it becomes my opinion when you are confronted for using the bible like Hints From Heloise or Readers Digest abridged short stories ect or some excuse to dismiss things as irrelevant that are clearly relevant, like it or not, to the Christian faith.


Oh im sure you must insist.... and again I urge anyone who reads your posts to look back in your post history and see what your game is...

You assume, you lie about others...(like what you're doing with this post) and... You attack without provocation...

and when you're wrong you disappear...

I also urge the readers to look into my threads or my posts and see if you find me attacking anyone... I quote the gospels only, and back my posts with the same...

To the OP... is Christianity discriminatory?

Only when dealing with people like this...




Really? And the above from Mr. gospels who says there is no hell.

Jesus Christ ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!"

Now I am very interested to watch you wiggle out of this. This quote right here undermines your entire credibility as a person that speaks with knowledge about the gospels and several other positions you have taken.


sigh

Look up the word gehenna... Hell isn't even the word that is used in any of the gospels... Gehenna is an actual place outside the gates of Jerusalem, also called the Valley of the Son of Hinnom... A place where they destroyed garbage, and disposed of the bodies of people that couldn't afford a proper burial... they happen to use sulphur to dispose of the material in this place, which is where we get the imagery of eternal burning fire.... its said the fire in this place never went out, but burned day and night...

The Christian idea of hell is taken from Dante, and has no actual biblical backing...

So yes... Hell..... or at least your idea of it, doesn't exist... Its something that was made up to promote conversion by means of fear...

and in fact it works so well the gnostics took the idea one step further... actually describing the tortures that await the "unconverted" in hell...

Are you afraid of Hell?

So believe in a myth if you will... I will not...

hell is incompatible with a loving creator... Yes Jesus mentioned it... but he certainly didn't mean what you believe he did




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

ketsuko

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
 


Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.


You know what?

All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.


His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.


He disproved a religion?

I missed that part. He went on a rant about things that require a literal interpretation of the Bible, something most Christians don't do. Again, he disproved a bunch of humans' assertions, not the faith.

He finished it up with the statement that he has faith that science will someday disprove it all, including God, because science has apparently disproved the interpretations and assertions of some people.

Basically, it's like me finding examples of people who got their science wrong. I could point to Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Franz Joseph Gall and Hans Horbiger and scream that I've completely disproved science! Of course, that's utter nonsense. And the same holds true with Christianity.


He disproved religion. Religion that does not change that does not adapt to include new information or test to confirm itself.

You say you can find examples of where science was proven wrong. Great that is a good thing. Because science is not ment to be dogmatic it isn't a religion where change and testing is welcome. Science and religion is like Apples and oranges in that respect.

Well I am glad we can throw out any notion of the bible being infallible unfortunately some people are to indoctrinated to understand that it is just a bunch of man made stories that have been interpreted a thousand different ways over a thousand or more years and disproven a thousand different ways.


No one prove or disprove the existence of a deity or deitys but religion can and has been disproved.
edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Well, congratulations for adding to stew!

We have among us, a self professed "Christian" promoting a God who "hates", calling out another poster, who took the time to write out a heart felt, personal response to the OP, and our self professed lover of the "my way of the highway, God of hate, with no other intellectual banter than to call that poster "stupid".

Yeah. I can get a little irked, and a little intolerant. And, I don't need a lecture from you about my "progressive facade."

And, yes. Christianity IS a blood worshiping death cult that has become a mainstream religion.


edit on 23-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join