London's buses go to hell

Originally posted by noobfun

by gods own law jesus should be dragged to the town square and stoned to death for being rebelious against his father and his message as well as defying his earthly parents so we should stone him twice to make sure

and as jesus is supposedly the only one without sin we should make him throw the first stone at him self so we can all join in .... both times that we stone him to death

now theres a reserection story worth preaching


[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

I'm not sure your grasp of scripture is entirely accurate here. I find it fascinating that those who protest that the whole thing is nonsense are often the ones who claim to be more rigorous students of scripture than those who actually follow it...

But to some extent all this is by the by. I dispute your central assertion that Christianity does more harm than good. I've been willing to concede that certain extremes of religious fervour are undesirable, and that there is a sense of denial about specific Christian Creationist beliefs (for example).

You get yourself very worked up about contradictions in the bible. The bible is (to Christians) an extremely important text, as it contains within its pages the message of how to live one's life. Particularly important for Christians is the new Testament, of course. But here's a thing - I count myself a Christian, yet I do not expect there to be no contradictions between the two testaments. I haven't even read the old testament in full.

My faith rests on the ideas espoused not just by the Bible but by other Christian teaching through the ages (I'm afraid to say my direct teaching at school left me fairly uninspired...) - which I take as things like love, hope, charity, sympathy, compassion - all these words by which I try (and fail) to live my life. The sort of words you get on adverts for Christianity on buses. And the sort of words that it would do no one on earth any harm to take heed of. Whether they're Christians or not.

I don't wish to sound pious or whatever - I just genuinely think there are more worthy causes out there than this - and I'm always bewildered by non-believers who take such disproportionately aggressive lines against those with faith....

LW

reply to post by LoneWeasel


it was highlighting of my t-rex beleiveing its still a fish analogy

christian teachings arnt what christianity is meant to be compared to the bible and its scripture(im more then happy to be corrected here but i have my doughts its possible without ignoring vast tracts of what it is [ a t-rex pretending its still a fish])

much of what jesus taught goes against what god taught and much of what modern christinity teaches goes against what jesus taught

so which one is right? god in his own words, god in jesus words, christinity in its own words

so can a message that teaches both love and compassion for all man and damantion for almost all those people its forgiving and bieng compasionate towards really be relavant? or forgining and compasionate as it claims to be

is the KKK forgiving and black man for bieng black and declaring love for him as they string him up really any better then the KKK just stringing him up? (yes a strong image ill grant but eternal damnation is possibly a worse fate then just death wouldnt you agree?)[also note i switched religeon for race im bieng lazy with my metaphors sorry but still a valid point]

the fundamentalists are the closest to being christianity in its biblical form a crazy mix of racism hatemongering and wildly dennying anything that conflicts while trying to hide under a blanket of peace love and tolerance

(sorry going to have to go with a nazi-esque methaphor here combination of bieng lazy again and the fact they pander so well to metaphors of christinity)

moderate christinity is like someone who joins the nazi party but doesnt really believe the message that jews are responsable for germanys ecenomic problems and doesnt really think getting rid of jews will solve the problems but the uniforms are nice and fit well so i may as well carry on instead of objecting to the policies

you may not be personally responsable for the actions taken by other nazi's but your still part of the group and so help enable them in thier actions

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Are you saying that fundamentalist Christianity = racism?
What do you mean?

The only thing believing in Hell and Damnation did to me is make me hate God, as if life wasn't bad enough for most of the polulation on the planet.

Until research on all religions, from the beginning of documented history until now, shed light on the fact that religions and the belief in Hell are nothing more than fear tactics for the weak-minded. That isn't to say there is no God, only that you have a better chance of discovering who God is outside of any and all religions and their books. From what I've learned based on our expanding universe alone, God doesn't like to be confined, certainly not to a book.

reply to post by noobfun


OK Noobfun, I do see what you're saying, and I take your points acknowledging that the analogies were lazy, so I will do my best to take them with a pinch of salt! But essentially I guess what you're saying is that I can't duck out of all the nonsensical, damaging bits of the church I follow simply because my particular faith doesn't have time for them - right? I can't be a subscriber and not accept responsibility for the whole deal?

Well, the reason the Nazi analogy is particularly flawed is that the two entities operate in a completely different way. Nazism had a specific strategic aim. Christianity doesn't. Christianity is essentially a spiritual exercise, as all faiths are. Nazism was a political organism. Almost all political movements at some point or another have claimed that God is on their side - but then we're back to using religion as an excuse for barbarism, or to put it glibly, that can hardly be blamed on God.

The reason I feel I CAN duck out of the church when I see fit is that I consider my faith to be my own. I am not responsible for the faiths or beliefs of other people, only my own. If I elect a Nazi party I am deliberately seeking to effect others. If I decide to adopt a form of the Christian faith, that is a personal, spiritual decision. I'm totally comfortable with adopting only the bits of Christianity that I actually believe in, and dropping the others. I appreciate that puts me definitively in one camp in your eyes (and of course, would alienate me from the fundamentalist Christian camp too, as they'd sooner I followed everything literally).

So here I am, a pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights Christian who doesn't necessarily believe in heaven and certainly doesn't believe in hell, despises corruption in the church but attends every Christmas and Easter, was unaffected by his religious education at school, but influenced by what he learned later, likes some things in the Koran and supports some jewish ideas, is interested in Buddhism and loves Sikhs generally....

...and I'm not repsonsible for anything anyone else things at all, but I DO think that it would be a good idea if everyone agreed in the same things I believe in.

It is possible, of course, to believe in something and yet fail to live up to it yourself.

S

Thats just straight hilarious, the eternal damnation bus, lmao... so many people will be freaking out when they see those busses, not everybody gets the point when they do big marketing campaigns like that...

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Well, the reason the Nazi analogy is particularly flawed is that the two entities operate in a completely different way. Nazism had a specific strategic aim. Christianity doesn't. Christianity is essentially a spiritual exercise, as all faiths are. Nazism was a political organism.

this is where i get to question your understanding and interpretation of scripture

the old testament is book that raises jews above all others(this is racist) and then explains its fine to kill enslave rape and pilage all who are not jews

infact you will be punished for not doing this or questioning it

the differance the nazi party had a man as its figure head the jewish religeon put a diety that can never be wrong in charge, didnt jesus and moses say god was on thier side?

no matter the atrocity they(teh jews) were just following orders

christinity comes along hijacks the old testament and changes jew to christian adds some user friendly nicety but cancels out only a tiny aspect of the killing raping massacering so it can pull it out as and when it feels like it

hence the turn the other cheek then rip his eye out double standard

christinity then adds on a twist, god will save the christian and everyone else is screwed policy raising christians above all others even further then just being gods chosen ones

while todays christianity chooses not to play up the hell and damnation(in some quarters) its still there and still an intrinsik part of the foundation of the religeon

if you believe god will save you for an ever lasting life then yes you may not say it, it may not cross your mind you may not give it the time of day but the rest of us can still burn in hell by its implications .. christians above all others

faith is just relabeled belief

the nazi party had beleif they could make germany better that they could make the world better if everyone followed thier belief (and not all of them were racist beliefs)

so the analogy still stands

a memeber of the nazi party beleiving the ecenomic reforms will make germany/the world better and improve the lives of people but not aknowleging the negative racist side of it is still indirectly empowering the negative aspect

while they premote the possative aspects to others they are still introducing them to the negative aspect if that person looks below the shiney posative vener its there quietly sat in the corner

now i could choose to sign up and be another of the saved souls its all inclusive sign your name here and be saved but that still means there are other unsaved so im signing on to put me above them

and its no different from the thousands of jews that joined the nazi party, helped finaince and run it helped fight in the german military helped run the camps

the fact they could join to find salvation doesnt make the parties actions any less racist they were still part of the problem

as logn as christinity holds onto the parts of the bible that promote racism hatred sexism violence part of the holy message it will always continue to be a fundamentaly racist belief

as long as christianity beleieves in an immortal soul that will be saved by bieng the chosen ones part of its reliegon it will always be fundamentally racist by holding its self above all other religeons and people

if christianity kept only the parts that promote only peace love and equality (from the new testament the old testament is pretty much a lost cause) and dropped the idea of eternal salvation for the few can it escape its built in racism

but would these fragments of bible scripture and a beleif that every person christian or not is saved and forever will be could it still call its self christianity?


[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun

God accepts EVERYONE who ACCEPTS His Son as payment for their sin.
Jew, greek, black, white, woman, hindu.

It IS NOT racist.

God provided the way and all anyone has to do, is accept it.
He makes you a new, perfect (in His eyes) and qualified FOR ALL BENEFITS AND GIFTS.
No MATTER WHAT!

reply to post by mmariebored


you have my sympathy

but i cannot condone the hatred of god, partially becasue hating him would imply he existed but also hating a figure that promotes hatred does nothing to cure the problem

if i kill a racist out of hatred for his beleifs i am simply becoming that which i oppose

i replace him with me

only education and intelegence can combat hatred i hope you find it in your heart to forgive them and help educate them towards a better more understanding message

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by noobfun

 

God accepts EVERYONE who ACCEPTS His Son as payment for their sin.
Jew, greek, black, white, woman, hindu.

It IS NOT racist.

God provided the way and all anyone has to do, is accept it.
He makes you a new, perfect (in His eyes) and qualified FOR ALL BENEFITS AND GIFTS.
No MATTER WHAT!

and the nazi party accepted jews and balcks and russians and poles and made them part of its grand plan for world salvation all they had to do was sign on and be gifted with a brand new world a perfect world

that didnt help the millions of russians and poles and dutch and french and germans and africans and americans it killed in the name of its message

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

This is just another marketing campaign for Dawkins and his 'get rid of god' rally.

Darwinism the Atheist Religion;

Meh, people can believe what they want in my opinion.

But I too have been irked the wrong way by the constant onslaught of religious pushes. It's not just ads telling you you're going to hell that ticked me off... it's the religious jerks on your doorstep that won't leave... like a damned mosquito, with just about an equal level of intelligence as one too.

You tell them sternly that you're not going to be converted to their little club, and they get offensive, telling you you're evil and that you're going to rot in hell for all eternity.

Then they get offended when I even remotely insult their "god" by telling them he might not exist.


Yeah... screw the religious people... I say we plant atheist slogans everywhere, and only bring them down when religious people finally clue in and realize they're being just as offensive.

Let's not try to convert them, that's against the whole purpose of atheism... lets just aim for the same level of insults they've hurdled at us.

Originally posted by Clearskies
This is just another marketing campaign for Dawkins and his 'get rid of god' rally.

yes yes us crazy atheists have been rumbled

if only we could make christians beleive sciencey thigns like maths physics biology chemistry then our secret plans would work

that statements about as retarded as saying yes "wind in the willows" the religeous book of christianity

heres a scarry thought ready for it?

some atheists beleive in evolution
some atheists dont
some christians beleive in evolution
some christians dont
(owe noes evil evolution believing christians how can god possably let them into heaven?)

and for it to be a reliegon it would need to be based on faith not science .... and by having a scientifc base it relise on evidence and interpretation of evidence

but thanks for trying to villify atheism and evolution as another religeon to hate your proving my points from above christians above all others!

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Clearskies


i felt your video needed its own post

that is a spectacular fail

it views darwinsim as a religeon in order to attack it

darwins theory is wrong, not a single evolutionist or biologist will tell you its correct 100%accurate, it was a starting block like all science it is open to change as new evidence is brought forward

new science discoveries have proven some bits right and some bits wrong and the theory its self has evolved its still evolution but not as darwin knew it

no one holds up a copy of darwins origins and declares it the unfaltering absoluite truth (unlike the bible quaran and other holy texts)

so a false premise will always give a false conclusion .. sorry that part of your documentary failed

next we see archeopterix held up to the glare of transitional species and finds by its self its not conclusive proof .... and? we have physical evidence of dinosaurs having scale like skin we have evidence of later dinosaurs taking on the anatomy we consider bird like we have evidence of feathered dinosaurs we see practically every step from early dinosaur to bird

NEWS FLASH: there is really no such thing as a transitional species as all animals our selves included are constantly in a transitional form from what we were to what we are becoming ......... another epic fail

oooo now on to eugenics woohooo

Darwins cousin didnt invent eugenics sorry eugenics was the name he has given to selective breeding in people, selective breeding goes back thousands of years

all species of dogs are a result in selective breeding your pet cat .. the same, cows sheep ducks chickens all the product of selective breeding

the yellow banana that fits your hand and mouth so well the shiney green apple in your fruit bowl orange carrots guess what all the product of selective man made man guided plant breeding

so eugenics is way way way older then evolutionary thoery and not a whole lot to do with it ...epic fail

now when applied to people it became called eugenics, but heres an astounding thing eugenics when first realised was a posative breeding program. you breed into the population possative qualities and features no one perticular group was held higher then any other yes thats right black men had posative qualities as did arabic oriental or any other racial group you want to name, that if breed into each other would infact make us all better

wait what? it wanted to breed everyone to make a better human ..... WOW

imagine that a world without black people or white people no oriental people no arabic nothing just people all people equal and the same (while the master race were bieng improved the regualr everyday people were staying where they are so its still eleveating the master race above them making it still a racist ideal but more posative then what was comming)

then a bunch of crazies got hold of it and starting creating negative eugenics, dont breed things into the population breed them out so traits became seen as bad an people carrying those traits were forcably steralised so they couldnt screw up the world with thier negative genetics

this is what helped with the whole master race thinking of the nazi's (despite the fact that jews blacks or infact anyone could join the nazi party and become a useful member ... hipocracy or what)

so evolution is different to eugenics and eugenics is different to what it became used for ..... epic fail

then we get to the science thinks eugenics is good so why doesnt it promote it .. morality and apparently without the bible there would be no morality ..... epic fail

without the bible there would be no morality is as absurd as saying without the bible there would be no racism/sexism/rape ... it has more pages devoted to those 3 prinicples then it does morality

yes epic fail after epic fail after epic fail

this is at best laughable but more realistically bad propaganda for an athiest hating evolution hating owe noes they are comming to get me thinking guy with a camera and a point to prove

a point that anyone with a tiny understanding of history and biology and internet access could see if ... guess what an epic fail





[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]

One thing i would like to add to this discussion is that religion has become big business.
I have heard that there are a lot of churches around the world that have assets in the tens of millions, so i suppose that while money can be made from something then it will be hard to get rid of it.

reply to post by full997


keep those donations comming in for the lord dig deep and spread the glory

remember god $ave$ but jesus keeps $pending your donations

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Clearskies

 

i felt your video needed its own post

that is a spectacular fail

Like this?

it views darwinsim as a religeon in order to attack it

Or your atrocious spelling?

darwins theory is wrong, not a single evolutionist or biologist will tell you its correct 100%accurate, it was a starting block like all science it is open to change as new evidence is brought forward

Just like 100% of current evolutionists ARE NOT CORRECT.

next we see archeopterix held up to the glare of transitional species and finds by its self its not conclusive proof .... and? we have physical evidence of dinosaurs having scale like skin we have evidence of later dinosaurs taking on the anatomy we consider bird like we have evidence of feathered dinosaurs we see practically every step from early dinosaur to bird

Archaeopteryx is a fake.

Darwins cousin didnt invent eugenics sorry

eugenics was the name he has given to selective breeding in people, selective breeding goes back thousands of years

all species of dogs are a result in selective breeding your pet cat .. the same, cows sheep ducks chickens all the product of selective breeding

the yellow banana that fits your hand and mouth so well the shiney green apple in your fruit bowl orange carrots guess what all the product of selective man made man guided plant breeding

so eugenics is way way way older then evolutionary thoery and not a whole lot to do with it ...epic fail

From Wiki; Eugenics.

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.

Bolding mine.

You may notice that Eugenics is PRIMARILY HUMAN.

now when applied to people it became called eugenics,

Yes, that's what I meant.....
That's what the video said.

but heres an astounding thing eugenics when first realised was a posative breeding program. you breed into the population possative qualities and features no one perticular group was held higher then any other yes thats right black men had posative qualities as did arabic oriental or any other racial group you want to name, that if breed into each other would infact make us all better

wait what? it wanted to breed everyone to make a better human ..... WOW

imagine that a world without black people or white people no oriental people no arabic nothing just people all people equal and the same (while the master race were bieng improved the regualr everyday people were staying where they are so its still eleveating the master race above them making it still a racist ideal but more posative then what was comming)

then a bunch of crazies got hold of it and starting creating negative eugenics, dont breed things into the population breed them out so traits became seen as bad an people carrying those traits were forcably steralised so they couldnt screw up the world with thier negative genetics

this is what helped with the whole master race thinking of the nazi's

EXACTLY!!!

(despite the fact that jews blacks or infact anyone could join the nazi party and become a useful member ... hipocracy or what)

I am AMAZED that you believe that.
I need you to find at least ONE source for that.

then we get to the science thinks eugenics is good so why doesnt it promote it .. morality and apparently without the bible there would be no morality ..... epic fail

Not, really, when you think about 'The Selfish Gene'

... guess what an epic fail

EPIC FAIL










[edit on 24-10-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by mmariebored

 

you have my sympathy

but i cannot condone the hatred of god, partially becasue hating him would imply he existed but also hating a figure that promotes hatred does nothing to cure the problem

if i kill a racist out of hatred for his beleifs i am simply becoming that which i oppose

i replace him with me

only education and intelegence can combat hatred i hope you find it in your heart to forgive them and help educate them towards a better more understanding message

If you'd read further down in my post, you'd see that I DID educate myself after the initial emotion of anger and hatred. If you were ever trapped in the ideology of your parent's beliefs from childhood brainwashing, you'd understand that there's a process you go through before cleansing your brain of the BS. Anger and hatred are a beginning step out followed by education and research which leads to understanding and wisdom. Once you have those, they take the place of anger and hatred. But thank you for your concern, that was nice of you.

The signs on the buses will help people in the anger stage of pulling away from their brainwashing dogma. It's a trigger that promotes the "why" factor and it's a powerful one.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Like this?

no if the video was that guy he would be washing the parking bay in the rain and had never owned a car, he would also have a toothbrush poking out of his jeans pocket for when he gives it a real good scrub to get it shiney

or your atrocious spelling?

i fear this will be the best and only realistic or relevant point ... i type to fast and dont bother to spell check

and your face looks funny ... childish and not helping the discussion really

Just like 100% of current evolutionists ARE NOT CORRECT.

no we arent 100%(shock horror) but we are getting there and learning all the time ^_^

but not bieng 100% correct doesnt mean we are 100% wrong

and if your comming from the point your 100% correct and cracks start appearing then pretty soon the whole thing could come crumbaling down

as i said earlier, science is a question, religeon as answer ... if the answer is wrong its time to restate the qustion better or check the answer was right in the first place

Archaeopteryx is a fake.

*yawn* .. what about the other archaepterix? yes we have more then one, the omg its a fake has be disproved too .....

are all the other fossils showing a transformation from early dinosaur through to obtaining bird like pelvis and bone structure feathers etc all faked?

Tiktaalik also faked?
Ambulocetus the same?
Eohippus>Mesohippus>Parahippus>Merychippus>modern horse, all faked too?

You may notice that Eugenics is PRIMARILY HUMAN.

tell me is it hard work down in the quote mine?

did scientology invent aliens and ufo's becasue they made them religeous? no changing the use and renaming it does not mean you invented it

Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class. Many eugenicists took inspiration from the selective breeding of animals

(my bold)
wait didnt i say that its based on a much older practice and that he didnt invent just gave it the name eugenics and applied it to people(who are still a type of animal)

The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of humanity. Tribes such as the Fans, aboriginal tribes and ancient Prussian tribes all carried out policies reminiscent of eugenics.[12]The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state

wow guess he really really didnt even come close to inventing it

maybe you should read the entire article.... but wait plato? but evolutionary theory came thousands of years later ... could it be evolution = eugenics is wrong after all, like all the evidence suggests?

(despite the fact that jews blacks or infact anyone could join the nazi party and become a useful member ... hipocracy or what)

I am AMAZED that you believe that.
I need you to find at least ONE source for that.

www.kansaspress.ku.edu...
www.npr.org...this was more an accidental
www.truveo.com... heres someone that pretended they wernt jewish joined the ss and ran a nazi death camp

the worlds a crazy place, there were also jews who joined the army and pretended not to be jewish for the sole purpose of bieng placed in a positipon where they could save jews

and there were jews that fought alongside the germans in allied armies and recieved german miliarty medals .. its not all cut and dry


www.nydailynews.com... this is a good one ... neo-nazi anti jewish jews

-_- seriously people what are we doing to our selves

Not, really, when you think about 'The Selfish Gene'

read the book? guess not

there are very practicle reasons for the selfish gene to co-operate and aid others living in a group structure .... its called mutual survivability

read the book and think about what it says

do other animals that live in group society kill each other constantly? ... hmm do they share food? help each other in the gathering of food? teach each other ways to access new food sources? help defend each other? help nuture each other? help raise others offspring? ... funny i never saw chimps and elephants with a bible hanging out thier back pocket

so ... um ........ yeah your right about my spelling ... it might be worth me throwing it through a spell checker

and its nice your still trying to club Evolution Eugneics and Atheism all as 1 entity when they are 3 seperate ones but really this has been proven wrong so many times why does it still get dragged out and flogged?

[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by mmariebored


my appologise your correct i skipped the last few sentances (i was rushing)