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.
Originally posted by Dragonfly79
There is just one issue for me about Christians, their whole belief states unbelievers like myself go to hell. People can dance around this all their life and not make it a big issue but somewhere at the bottom line the Christian psyche will consider unbelievers as being lesser human beings and some will treat them as such. This must influence their approach to others in society, I can't see how you can be happy while speaking to someone whom your faith predicts will suffer in hell for all of eternity, while you get to go to heaven. Further developing that attitude and it would appear it is best for Christians to see fellow Christians as whole people and non Christians as defective in some way. However one puts it, nonbelievers may treat Christians with genuine kindness while Christians have to fake kindness in their attitude against the nonbelievers.edit on 18/1/2011 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by daggyz
reply to post by The Revenant
If Atheism is not a religion, why do we find them trolling the religious sections and debunking evenone who believes otherwise?
Come on Undo you've been at this long enough and been corrected time enough Hitlers Germany, the people that put him in office "the german people" and backed him all the way were mostly "Christian". All the German army swore an oath to god.
Adolf Hitler was a roman catholic Christian, the church celebrated his birthday.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by daggyz
That's true.
Atheists claim it's not a religion, it's a "lack of belief".
But they "believe" in that "lack of belief".
Therefore it's a religion.
I honestly don't see any difference from atheism and a theism.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Djin
yeshua is a common jewish name (joshua). that other people were called joshua in the same time frame, is irrelevant. i'll look at the rest of your argument but no one is ill prepared, we are all guessing at historical data, based on current understanding (i call this translational bias).
Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.
We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas - writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it. Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to explain it away.
Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and misquotations of the Baraitas and in order to get an accurate picture of Yeishu one should ignore Christian authors and examine the Baraitas directly.
Hayyim ben Yehoshua
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by The Djin
UTTER TWADDLE .
Mr Vine is being an over sensetive neurotic
it is not " socially unacceptable " to be a christian - but it is now socially acceptable not to be and even GASP publicily challenge the veracity of religious dogmas .
thats what Mr Vine and his ilk are really afraid of - the simple fact that " god did it " is no longer the unchallenged answer to everything they do not understand
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Djin
would depend on your interpretation of "science". and nothing can ever be said to be proven, because ultimately, there's always the chance there's some bit of data or lots of bits of data, that prove the original assumptions/science totally incorrect or partially incorrect.
that we grasp onto each other's partially incorrect bits to prove the entire thing is incorrect, is one of humanity's foibles, from what i can tell.edit on 18-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)
In 1997 and 1998, Birmingham City Council ran a promotional campaign called Winterval. It was three months long, and included celebrations of Hallowe’en, Bonfire Night, Diwali, Ramadan, Eid, Hannukah, Advent, Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve and Chinese New Year. At Christmas, according to a statement from the council, "there was a banner saying Merry Christmas across the front of the council house, Christmas lights, Christmas trees in the main civil squares, regular carol-singing sessions by school choirs, and the Lord Mayor sent a Christmas card with a traditional Christmas scene wishing everyone a Merry Christmas"
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Advantage
Your dad's beliefs are probably closets to the truth. Of all societies, only native peoples manage to live sustainably in their environments. All western religions are homocentric (which is embarassingly ignorant and anti-intellectual) and therefor first and last about dominance. Spirituality and religion are as different as black and white.
Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by undo
it's pretty obvious that the same tactics that resulted in the deaths of jews, christians, buddhists, hindus, muslims and gypsies in hitler's germany and stalin's russia are once again (blatantly) in active mode but now they also have the advantage of large groups of new atheists,
Come on Undo you've been at this long enough and been corrected time enough Hitlers Germany, the people that put him in office "the german people" and backed him all the way were mostly "Christian". All the German army swore an oath to god.
Adolf Hitler was a roman catholic Christian, the church celebrated his birthday.
i believe he was a hebrew of the line of david, who was in line to be the next pharaoh of egypt at the time,