Top Ten Signs that You're a Christian
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
there is more than one interpretation to your statement..
IE;
A, One can utilize the data presented in the bible to achieve a particular goal,they do not have to believe in the data to use the data for a goal.
B, One can say they believe the data to be true to be accepted in the group..
C, The data can be correct, but you have to learn how to understand it..
there are pry more,but this should be a good start..
you left out one...DUUUUHHHH...ER...GRUNT...*picks nose and wipes it on the forum*
pretty decent analysis to build on my premise.
A sounds very reasonable, even non-christians can benefit from some of the beautiful poems of wisdom in the Bible. I'm talking about B, which I find absolutely absurd and unfathomable from my from a moral standpoint.
C isnt impossible, Im aware of various theories purporting such claims, and that the koran predicted the speed of light and all that, and days in the book of revelations correspond to years after the death of christ and so forth, Im just not convinced.
thats what C is for..
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Oh damn. It's going to take a LONG time to get that image out of my mind.
They're metaphors. Metaphors are very useful because they distill important lessons down to easily remembered sound bites. Members of other religions, perhaps most notably the Hindus, have no problem at all accepting the elements of their faith as metaphors. They don't really believe there was an actual big blue elephant with multiple arms, but his stories are good lessons for life.
The trouble with Abrahamic fundamentalists is that they lack the mental ability to grasp the concept of metaphor. Everything to them is either "true" or "false."
Joseph Campbell talked about that. He said he met a Christian fundie in the Bible Belt, and asked him, "What if I told you that the moon is a silver chariot on an endless journey across the sky?"
The guy replied, "That's a lie!"
Is it any wonder I call it the Religious Redneck Retard Revival?
I believe. When the moon swelled in the sky two thousand and eleven years ago, briefly blocking out the sun, it changed tides and caused many natural disasters. However in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, Atlantis, rose out of the sea, because of volcanic eruptions, and an island appeared. The Pharoah of Egypt seached for this land so he may kill the baby Jesus, however it would appear that he was unsuccessful. He was killed Thirty years later.
Last edited:
The moon swelled?
The problem atheist have is they often try to define the past in terms of the present. The Romans were not PC correct. However, a rational person will not judge Rome by modern PC. Such judgements are out of touch with the cause and effect of time.
The ancients did not have modern technology, so their data would have been based on what the eyes could see and not based on modern technology. To see the moon swell, simply meant based on the eyes viewing the moon, the moon looked bigger. If you have even been outside, at different times of the day and year it can look bigger. They were not talking about laser measurements of moon size since lasers did not exist then.
Atheists are suppose to be rational, but transposing the standards of today to the past is not even rational since it will result in illogical conclusion. This time transposition irrationality often makes atheism appear like another religion, that is very irrational in time. A rational standard looks in the context of a given time, considers what they could have known, and will then use that to infer what they meant.
The ancients did not have modern technology, so their data would have been based on what the eyes could see and not based on modern technology. To see the moon swell, simply meant based on the eyes viewing the moon, the moon looked bigger. If you have even been outside, at different times of the day and year it can look bigger. They were not talking about laser measurements of moon size since lasers did not exist then.
Atheists are suppose to be rational, but transposing the standards of today to the past is not even rational since it will result in illogical conclusion. This time transposition irrationality often makes atheism appear like another religion, that is very irrational in time. A rational standard looks in the context of a given time, considers what they could have known, and will then use that to infer what they meant.
Did the ancients really believe that the moon was swelling rather than coming closer?
Perhaps they did.
I just haven't heard that before.
Did the Greeks believe that?
Perhaps they did.
I just haven't heard that before.
Did the Greeks believe that?
Yeeeee
You are right sister, Other people generalizations don't know what are they saying....She forgot Christ is the ONLY god that has died for our sins, NOT other religions claim such thing, all the way around they make people to die for their gods, how about that...? DOn't forget this. I choose every time an "IDIOT" on the floor flapping around and speaking in tongues than a guy wearing a bomb and blowing himself in pieces and killing innocent people.. I choose Christ every time...
You are right sister, Other people generalizations don't know what are they saying....She forgot Christ is the ONLY god that has died for our sins, NOT other religions claim such thing, all the way around they make people to die for their gods, how about that...? DOn't forget this. I choose every time an "IDIOT" on the floor flapping around and speaking in tongues than a guy wearing a bomb and blowing himself in pieces and killing innocent people.. I choose Christ every time...
Last edited:
What about when she said that the Mexicans bred like cockroaches?
Number 11 perhaps?
It's all very well being happy clappy about love and Jesus, but what about the poor in your own community?
This religiosity is all about self.
"Being "Saved"
God giving you forgiveness no matter how evil you are.
Your being "blessed" by becoming rich in the face of other's poverty.
It's Christianity turned on its head.
It is fundamentally wicked.
Number 11 perhaps?
It's all very well being happy clappy about love and Jesus, but what about the poor in your own community?
This religiosity is all about self.
"Being "Saved"
God giving you forgiveness no matter how evil you are.
Your being "blessed" by becoming rich in the face of other's poverty.
It's Christianity turned on its head.
It is fundamentally wicked.
Last edited:
1I'd Oyler
Registered Member
I don't think any atheist has a difficult time understanding that the past was different and that Romans were not "PC." ( We'll ignore, or course, the fact that they were the ruling political power so, for all intents and purposes, they were, in fact, 'politically' correct as long as they did things according to roman law.)
However, what is a bit out of touch is to think that the suffering Jesus went through was some how spectacular when we have many cases of 'mere' humans going through far worse. If anything, pulling the crucification out of historical context seems to better fit your complaint of a judgement being "out of touch with the cause and effect of time."
That is exactly the point. If ancient people didn't have the technology and knowledge to make sense of such occurrences, then why should their accounts be believed without question? Science isn't a set of unconnected principles that can be believed as one sees fit. The concepts tie into each other and strengthen each other. If you are going to accept mircowave ovens, internal combustion, nuclear power and atomic weapons, you have to accept that we now have, at the very least, a basic understanding of physics and chemistry. That being said, if those sciences then make assertions that disagree with a book written by those very same ancient people thousands of years ago, the science and not the book is probably right.
I wish I had such a rational standard now so I could infer what you meant in your last paragraph.
salvation is individual, the only way to save yourself is to find your saviorself.
Christianity in today's form here in america is a false religion. This country is run by fake christian politicians who use who claim to follow jesus in order to get elected. The truth is they dont give a fuck about what Jesus really taught, look at their mansions and look at the conditions so many people live in; their real religion is capitalism. They dont honestly believe in turning the other cheek or love thy neighbors or none of that bullshit, thats why they build the suburbs far away from the ghetto so they dont even gotta share the same streets with filthy poor homeless people.
Christianity in today's form here in america is a false religion. This country is run by fake christian politicians who use who claim to follow jesus in order to get elected. The truth is they dont give a fuck about what Jesus really taught, look at their mansions and look at the conditions so many people live in; their real religion is capitalism. They dont honestly believe in turning the other cheek or love thy neighbors or none of that bullshit, thats why they build the suburbs far away from the ghetto so they dont even gotta share the same streets with filthy poor homeless people.
1I'd Oyler
Registered Member
I cannot speak for others but I, myself, would simply like to have a life free of religious persons attempting to save me, arguing (or attempting to) with me -- not by logic, rationales or data, but with the default "god (or the bible) says so."
To have the opportunity to sit and think, to read without interruption from some random stranger who is trying to "save me" -- who won't leave me alone even if I lie and tell them "yes, I believe" because I belong to the wrong church.
I would like to not worry about religious zealots denying children medical treatment because it disagrees with their beliefs, of groups preaching hate at what should be a time of mourning for the family and loved ones of fallen soldiers.
I'd like to have a world in which people are free to question, to say what they want, to think, to create art -- all without the fear of an organization declaring a death sentence on them.
I'd like to world in which humanity devoted itself to petty squabbles over which interpretation of the data is correct, as opposed to which mythology is correct.
Really, are these unreasonable desires?
I love
My Mexican brothers and sisters, I learned Spanish with them, I worked in the fields with them and I know about their suffering. As a Christian I feel I was saved to understand the grate God's plan with Humanity and the Universe. I get HIS wisdom in many different ways.
My Mexican brothers and sisters, I learned Spanish with them, I worked in the fields with them and I know about their suffering. As a Christian I feel I was saved to understand the grate God's plan with Humanity and the Universe. I get HIS wisdom in many different ways.
I don't think any atheist has a difficult time understanding that the past was different and that Romans were not "PC." ( We'll ignore, or course, the fact that they were the ruling political power so, for all intents and purposes, they were, in fact, 'politically' correct as long as they did things according to roman law.)
However, what is a bit out of touch is to think that the suffering Jesus went through was some how spectacular when we have many cases of 'mere' humans going through far worse. If anything, pulling the crucification out of historical context seems to better fit your complaint of a judgement being "out of touch with the cause and effect of time."
That is exactly the point. If ancient people didn't have the technology and knowledge to make sense of such occurrences, then why should their accounts be believed without question? Science isn't a set of unconnected principles that can be believed as one sees fit. The concepts tie into each other and strengthen each other. If you are going to accept mircowave ovens, internal combustion, nuclear power and atomic weapons, you have to accept that we now have, at the very least, a basic understanding of physics and chemistry. That being said, if those sciences then make assertions that disagree with a book written by those very same ancient people thousands of years ago, the science and not the book is probably right.
I wish I had such a rational standard now so I could infer what you meant in your last paragraph.