Total Posts:399|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Six Days

bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:48:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

Religions keep changing their interpretations. The church was teaching in the past that the earth is flat.

As far as the 6 days of creation are concerned, people who are interpreting it as 6 periods are wrong.

genesis 1
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

genesis 1 reference
http://www.biblegateway.com...

You can see that the word "day" used in genesis 1 is actually a 24 hour day because it is mentioned along with evening and morning. If it were a period then it would contain many evenings and mornings. Not just one evening and morning in all of the 6 days of creation.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.

A few hundred? Could you document the first instance of this "change" for us, so we'll have a starting point?

Why has that changed?

We aren't sure that it has - yet.

Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:15:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

The one person i know for sure as to how he changed his views from a literal six day creation to millions of years, was Lord Kelvin, who was a creationist, but his study in thermodynamics forced him to conclude that the earth must be atleast a couple hundred million years old.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:13:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.

A few hundred? Could you document the first instance of this "change" for us, so we'll have a starting point?

Why has that changed?

We aren't sure that it has - yet.


Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.

You should take a look at the interpretation of early Christians. That will answer a lot of your questions. The interpretation of modern Christians is surely different. See link

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:15:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:13:13 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.

A few hundred? Could you document the first instance of this "change" for us, so we'll have a starting point?

Why has that changed?

We aren't sure that it has - yet.


Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.

You should take a look at the interpretation of early Christians. That will answer a lot of your questions. The interpretation of modern Christians is surely different. See link

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I'm wanting Bulproof to provide the evidence for his statements, that's all.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.
Nolite Timere
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:31:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

This is precisely the point that I try to get through to evolutionist Christians.
But to be fair, there is the possibility that God didn't mean six days. Of course, this is unlikely.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 2:57:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM, annanicole wrote:

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.

Or perhaps that it's all a myth involving morning and evening before the sun existed, Earth before stars existed (not possible), plants before the sun existed (not possible), and reserves of liquid water before the atmosphere existed (and at sub-cryogenic temperatures), also not possible. So... it must not mean literal days even though they are defined as literal days six times in under 30-verses.

It's always "God's word" until it's shown to be wrong, then it's man's translation. Nothing like some double-standards to keep your delusions afloat.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:31:41 PM, Crescendo wrote:
...there is the possibility that God didn't mean six days. Of course, this is unlikely.

As well as the probability that God had nothing to do with any of it. When a bunch of men sit down and write out stories and myths based on their imagination and superstitions, and then hundreds of years later (thousands, even), a different set of men sit down and decide which of the writings they think best fits with their personal subjective ideas, lists the writings they cherry-picked and then declares they are "God's word", one has to succumb to some level of delusion in order to buy into the claim.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity.
So then, you would deny that the more we learn through science, the less we find religious claims to be true?
Would you also deny that science has never once demonstrated any truth to any supernatural claim, and has actually found natural explanations for many previously proclaimed "supernatural" events?

We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.
In other words, when it turns out to be untrue, then we simply try to alter it to be consistent with scientific findings, and claim that's the way God intended it, all along?

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.
Perhaps you would be willing to present that "certain passage" and show us how it was intended to be interpreted... since the church tried Galileo, found him guilty of heresy, forced him to publicly denounce his findings, and then subjected him to house arrest for the rest of his life. Oh... but the church finally did admit their wrong-doing in 1992.

Please, show us this verse.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:34:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2 Peter 3:8
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:15:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:48:34 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

Religions keep changing their interpretations. The church was teaching in the past that the earth is flat.

And Galileo was actually persecuted, for this. Why? Because the church held power, both political and "spiritual." Both of these "powers" were held in a world where people were ignorant and stupidstitious. No church could rise under any other circumstances.

As far as the 6 days of creation are concerned, people who are interpreting it as 6 periods are wrong.

genesis 1
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

genesis 1 reference
http://www.biblegateway.com...

The text READS as six literal days. The separation of a day and a night being "...the first day..." makes it so. Religion had to move the goal posts, in order to maintain power. Power is the only thing with which religious organizations have ever been concerned.

You can see that the word "day" used in genesis 1 is actually a 24 hour day because it is mentioned along with evening and morning. If it were a period then it would contain many evenings and mornings. Not just one evening and morning in all of the 6 days of creation.

No religious theist can admit this, today, without opening a whole set of fallacies and inconsistencies for which they cannot account. The bible is garbage.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:35:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 2:57:49 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM, annanicole wrote:

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.

Or perhaps that it's all a myth involving morning and evening before the sun existed, Earth before stars existed (not possible), plants before the sun existed (not possible), and reserves of liquid water before the atmosphere existed (and at sub-cryogenic temperatures), also not possible. So... it must not mean literal days even though they are defined as literal days six times in under 30-verses.

You been corrected on "liquid water" once. I see that it flew right over your head.

It's always "God's word" until it's shown to be wrong, then it's man's translation. Nothing like some double-standards to keep your delusions afloat.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 4:40:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 4:35:42 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 2:57:49 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:13:43 PM, annanicole wrote:

All it would prove is that men were wrong in their interpretation, in their assessment of literal versus figurative.

Or perhaps that it's all a myth involving morning and evening before the sun existed, Earth before stars existed (not possible), plants before the sun existed (not possible), and reserves of liquid water before the atmosphere existed (and at sub-cryogenic temperatures), also not possible. So... it must not mean literal days even though they are defined as literal days six times in under 30-verses.

You been corrected on "liquid water" once. I see that it flew right over your head.

It's always "God's word" until it's shown to be wrong, then it's man's translation. Nothing like some double-standards to keep your delusions afloat.

Want to see a "double standard"?

(1) YOU must examine the evidence at hand, in any age be it 250 AD, 500 AD, 1000 AD, and 2000 AD, and interpret God's word THE SAME based upon your degree of knowledge at the time.

(2) WE on the other hand will examine whatever evidence we have, and WE will flip and change and maneuver as the evidence indicates. If not, then the next time you are feeling puny, go get some leeches.

You want to talk about a double standard. Look in the mirror - and start talkin'.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:09:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity.
So then, you would deny that the more we learn through science, the less we find religious claims to be true?
Would you also deny that science has never once demonstrated any truth to any supernatural claim, and has actually found natural explanations for many previously proclaimed "supernatural" events?

Absolutely not. Science has done a fantastic job in disproving certain religions, such as religions based on polytheism.

Christianity however, is an interesting case. You see, science and religion are one and are inseparable. This is because if God exists, then God created the Universe. Therefore, truths about God can be found in his creation. This is why Christianity does not deny science. Once Christianity begins to deny science, Christianity also begins to deny God and the creation he made.

We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.
In other words, when it turns out to be untrue, then we simply try to alter it to be consistent with scientific findings, and claim that's the way God intended it, all along?

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

Perhaps you would be willing to present that "certain passage" and show us how it was intended to be interpreted... since the church tried Galileo, found him guilty of heresy, forced him to publicly denounce his findings, and then subjected him to house arrest for the rest of his life. Oh... but the church finally did admit their wrong-doing in 1992.

I don't know what the passage is and I find it irrelevant what the Church did to him then.

The Church, be definition of being the Church, is a place of love and acceptance. The Church cannot be defined by how some people have acted inappropriately within it.

In the same if a group of people in Planned Parenthood decided they were against abortion, that would not mean Planned Parenthood has decided to change their ways, rather those people within Planned Parenthood simply acted against what Planned Parenthood stands for.
Nolite Timere
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why would God create things according to a timetable of that which he has yet to create?

That is to say, since a "day" is just a full rotation of the earth, but he hadn't created the earth until a bit of the way in, why did he decide to create things based on its timetable? To be poetic?

To me, it just shows the tendency of the Judeo-Christian tradition to glorify humanity and hold it as the peak of all creation. As if an unimaginably large universe of glory and awe were created just for us. We are not the center of the universe, literally and existentially. I really hope we find other life in outer space, it would destroy all anthropocentrism once and for all.

Also, I think that if people take Genesis literally they have to take Revelation literally. As if it weren't already ridiculous to take a story of a dragon that forces people to get tattoos as a literal account, I want to focus on one specific thing. Revelation recounts the end of earth. To me, this implies that the apocalypse will occur before we begin serious space voyaging and colonization as a species. If that's the case, then why did God create such a massive universe when not even .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% would be relevant to its one glorious creation, humanity? Assuming God exists, then we must not be nearly as important as we think.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:23:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 4:19:56 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
When did christians start to claim that six days were not actually six days?
Because until a few hundred years ago it was literally six days.
Why has that changed?
Was six days literal for thousands of years? Why have the believers changed it to mean six periods of time?
Because science has proven their book wrong?
Oh no that would prove their god wrong, after all, it's his word.

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

As far as the 6 days of creation are concerned, people who are interpreting it as 6 periods are wrong.

genesis 1
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

genesis 1 reference
http://www.biblegateway.com...

You can see that the word "day" used in genesis 1 is actually a 24 hour day because it is mentioned along with evening and morning. If it were a period then it would contain many evenings and mornings. Not just one evening and morning in all of the 6 days of creation.

You should also take a look at the interpretation of early Christians. That will answer a lot of your questions. The interpretation of modern Christians is surely different. See link

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Even if we interpret according to "peter", then it gives a total of 6 thousand years. You still can't make it billions of years. Age of Earth is 4.54 billion yeras according to science
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:41:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:37:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 3:09:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity.
So then, you would deny that the more we learn through science, the less we find religious claims to be true?
Would you also deny that science has never once demonstrated any truth to any supernatural claim, and has actually found natural explanations for many previously proclaimed "supernatural" events?

Absolutely not. Science has done a fantastic job in disproving certain religions, such as religions based on polytheism.
Well, I shouldn't hesitate to point out that Christianity IS based in polytheism, and still holds to polytheistic concepts through the Trinity. No matter how much Christians like to objective, three distinct names, three distinct sets of knowledge, different tasks, limitations and functions denote three different gods, not just one. And there are numerous verses still in your Bible today, which demonstrate Christianity's polytheistic roots. I'm tempted to suggest that you may be painfully ignorant of much of Christianity's history, such as the fact that Yahweh was originally a flesh-and-blood warrior God, with whom Abraham (a pagan), formed a special covenant, to be worshiped above all of the "other gods", as is still found in the First Commandment. I can show you many other Bible verses pointing to polytheism in claiming the existence of other gods. Would you like to see them?
Not only that, but Christianity adopted most of it's holidays, claims, rituals, and concepts from pagan beliefs. Baptism, Easter, Christmas, Hell, salvation, prayer, Heaven, demon possession, communion; the Vernal Equinox was adopted as Annunciation, the Lith-Summer solstice was renamed the "Nativity of John the Baptist" and "Christianized", ancient Greek "pharmokos" became Christian salvation; these were all pagan before Christianity adopted them. Even the cross of Christianity was adopted from an earlier pagan symbol.
"The Truth, the Life and the Way" and "the blood of the lamb" were nicknames for Mithra some 600-years before they were applied to Jesus.

And you seem to be saying that while science has shown that lightning is caused by static discharges in the clouds rather than Zeus, it's best that we just ignore the fact that an atmosphere is necessary for a planet to capture and retain liquid water, that plants can't grow without the heat and light from the sun, that planets are composed of elements created in the deaths of stars and that frozen water doesn't flow or flows only very slowly (as in glaciers), and thusly, forget that Genesis One is wrong on each and every one of these examples within the first 17 chapters?

Christianity however, is an interesting case. You see, science and religion are one and are inseparable. This is because if God exists, then God created the Universe.
And if God doesn't exist, then God didn't create the universe and man created God in an attempt to explain what he didn't understand. And as science progresses, we should find that it tends to contradict Christianity... which is exactly what we find.

Therefore, truths about God can be found in his creation. This is why Christianity does not deny science. Once Christianity begins to deny science, Christianity also begins to deny God and the creation he made.
Okay, let's be clear on this; you keep talking about how science and Christianity are one and inseparable, and then you talk about "God's creation". Right? So I assume you're completely unaware that one of the most fundamental laws of science - the First Law of Thermodynamics - shows us that creation is a fallacy. It openly states - not that the universe can't create matter/energy, but that matter/energy can't be created. So when you claim God "created" anything, you're contradicting a fundamental of science so deeply rooted in reality, that were it untrue, the universe would lose all stability and cease to exist as it is known to exist.

And a great many Christians DO deny science. They insist big-bang, abiogenesis, radioactive decay rates and evolution are all false. In fact, in America, more than half of the public denies the confirmed and observed natural process of evolution, and they do so only because it is in obvious conflict with multiple claims in the Bible.

We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.
In other words, when it turns out to be untrue, then we simply try to alter it to be consistent with scientific findings, and claim that's the way God intended it, all along?

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

Perhaps you would be willing to present that "certain passage" and show us how it was intended to be interpreted... since the church tried Galileo, found him guilty of heresy, forced him to publicly denounce his findings, and then subjected him to house arrest for the rest of his life. Oh... but the church finally did admit their wrong-doing in 1992.

I don't know what the passage is and I find it irrelevant what the Church did to him then.

But don't you find it interesting that you're sitting here claiming that the passage can now be interpreted as God originally intended, when you don't even know what that passage is, and therefore, don't even know what it says? How can you claim we can now interpret it "as God intended", when you don't even know what it says?

The Church, be definition of being the Church, is a place of love and acceptance. The Church cannot be defined by how some people have acted inappropriately within it.
Hmmm, according to the Bible, the "church" is the people who hold the belief. And those people not only act in horrendous ways, but decide exactly what the "church" will and won't do. Do you think pedophiles raping young boys and the church trying to cover it up, and just moving these pedophiles around to try to mask their crimes, is showing "love and acceptance"? Do you think imprisoning a man for making a brilliant scientific discovery is a display of "love and acceptance"? Do you think it was an example of "love and acceptance" when the church legalized torture? Do I even need mention the church burning a man at the stake (Giordano Bruno), simply because he wouldn't renounce his belief that there might be planets around other stars? I have to suggest your arguments appear rather dramatically one-sided and somewhat blind to some of the more important issues. And since the church is the people who hold their belief (according to your Bible - Cor 12:13, Romans 12:4-5, Ephesians 1:22-23), how can you even suggest that what the church does isn't important?

In the same if a group of people in Planned Parenthood decided they were against abortion, that would not mean Planned Parenthood has decided to change their ways, rather those people within Planned Parenthood simply acted against what Planned Parenthood stands for.
We're not talking about a small group of people within the church, we're talking about the people who form the controlling power of the church, thereby deciding what actions the church will take, which defines the nature of the church itself. Its more analogous to the administrative members of Planned Parenthood defining that Planned Parenthood announced they were going to conduct an ongoing violent revolt against all forms of abortion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet. You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity." The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity. You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."
While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business. They are an underhanded dishonest business. All churches are, first and foremost, a business. They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet.

No, it wasn't. The church of the New Testament was fully organized and functional before the ink dried on the last book, possibly either the gospel of John or III John.

Over five hundred years later, the emperor Phoecas styled old Boniface III the first "universal" or "worldwide" pope that this world ever heard of.

How you equate the two as being the same thing is beyond me.

You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity."

Watch me.

The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity.

And the criterion for whether they are "Christian" or not is not "whether or not they are an embarrassment".

You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."

I do not consider them to be Christian. Nor do millions of other people so consider them.

While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business.

Then add that to the mix.

They are an underhanded dishonest business.

Absolutely. They are crooks.

All churches are, first and foremost, a business.

No, they are not.

They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.

We left facts and delved off into your opinion. Certainly the majority of what you loosely call "Christian" religion is an underhanded farce. But Christianity itself is not an underhanded farce.

I wish you knew a little less about nonsensical messes like the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, and a little more about the identifying marks of the church of the New Testament. I will point out, since you brought it up, that so-called tithing is a relic of Judaism - and was not practiced and is not taught as a practice of the NT church. Giving? Yes. Forced giving? No. Giving to support a hierarchy? No. Giving to support some sort of organization larger than the local congregation? No.

The churches of this county support and fund an orphan's home - the only such orphan's home in the county. To date, their biggest problem is government interference, but then again, look at what is at the head of our government: a baboon with human DNA.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:09:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

Its the Roman Catholic Church remember. One of the earliest. Protestantism came much later.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 as the six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306"373) and Basil of Caesarea (329"379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330"397), believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

https://answersingenesis.org...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:10:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:01:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet.

No, it wasn't. The church of the New Testament was fully organized and functional before the ink dried on the last book, possibly either the gospel of John or III John.

Over five hundred years later, the emperor Phoecas styled old Boniface III the first "universal" or "worldwide" pope that this world ever heard of.

How you equate the two as being the same thing is beyond me.

You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity."

Watch me.

The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity.

And the criterion for whether they are "Christian" or not is not "whether or not they are an embarrassment".

You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."

I do not consider them to be Christian. Nor do millions of other people so consider them.

While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business.

Then add that to the mix.

They are an underhanded dishonest business.

Absolutely. They are crooks.

All churches are, first and foremost, a business.

No, they are not.

They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.

We left facts and delved off into your opinion. Certainly the majority of what you loosely call "Christian" religion is an underhanded farce. But Christianity itself is not an underhanded farce.

I wish you knew a little less about nonsensical messes like the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, and a little more about the identifying marks of the church of the New Testament. I will point out, since you brought it up, that so-called tithing is a relic of Judaism - and was not practiced and is not taught as a practice of the NT church. Giving? Yes. Forced giving? No. Giving to support a hierarchy? No. Giving to support some sort of organization larger than the local congregation? No.

The churches of this county support and fund an orphan's home - the only such orphan's home in the county. To date, their biggest problem is government interference, but then again, look at what is at the head of our government: a baboon with human DNA.
How very christian of you.
When's the next KKK meeting? Very liberal of them to allow you to be a member.
Jesus loves you, aren't you lucky your imaginary friend does, because humans wouldn't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:10:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:01:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet.

No, it wasn't. The church of the New Testament was fully organized and functional before the ink dried on the last book, possibly either the gospel of John or III John.

Over five hundred years later, the emperor Phoecas styled old Boniface III the first "universal" or "worldwide" pope that this world ever heard of.

How you equate the two as being the same thing is beyond me.

You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity."

Watch me.

The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity.

And the criterion for whether they are "Christian" or not is not "whether or not they are an embarrassment".

You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."

I do not consider them to be Christian. Nor do millions of other people so consider them.

While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business.

Then add that to the mix.

They are an underhanded dishonest business.

Absolutely. They are crooks.

All churches are, first and foremost, a business.

No, they are not.

They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.

We left facts and delved off into your opinion. Certainly the majority of what you loosely call "Christian" religion is an underhanded farce. But Christianity itself is not an underhanded farce.

I wish you knew a little less about nonsensical messes like the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, and a little more about the identifying marks of the church of the New Testament. I will point out, since you brought it up, that so-called tithing is a relic of Judaism - and was not practiced and is not taught as a practice of the NT church. Giving? Yes. Forced giving? No. Giving to support a hierarchy? No. Giving to support some sort of organization larger than the local congregation? No.

The churches of this county support and fund an orphan's home - the only such orphan's home in the county. To date, their biggest problem is government interference, but then again, look at what is at the head of our government: a baboon with human DNA.
How very christian of you.
When's the next KKK meeting? Very liberal of them to allow you to be a member.
Jesus loves you, aren't you lucky your imaginary friend does, because humans wouldn't.

See the leaflet of KKK in which they criticize atheists. KKK only accepts Christians. You can tell where the support of KKK is coming from.

http://law2.umkc.edu...

The leaflet of KKK says :
We are looking for, and enlisting ONLY: Sober, Intelligent, Courageous, Christian, American, White men who are consciously and fully aware of the basic FACT that the physical life and earthly destiny are absolutely bound up with the Survival of this Nation, under God. Our governmental principles are precisely those of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution. Our members are Christians who are anxious to preserve not only their souls for all Eternity, but who are MILITANTLY DETERMINED, God willing, to save their lives, and the Life of this Nation, in order that their descendants shall enjoy the same, full, God-given blessings of True Liberty that we have been permitted to enjoy up to now

About atheists KKK says this
"The White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi is, of necessity, a SECRET organization. The administration of our National Government is now under the actual control of atheists who are Bolsheviks by nature. As dedicated agents of Satan, they are absolutely determined to destroy Christian Civilization and all Christians. We have nothing dishonorable to hide, but we must remain SECRET, for the protection of our lives and families."
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:28:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:21:32 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:10:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:01:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet.

No, it wasn't. The church of the New Testament was fully organized and functional before the ink dried on the last book, possibly either the gospel of John or III John.

Over five hundred years later, the emperor Phoecas styled old Boniface III the first "universal" or "worldwide" pope that this world ever heard of.

How you equate the two as being the same thing is beyond me.

You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity."

Watch me.

The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity.

And the criterion for whether they are "Christian" or not is not "whether or not they are an embarrassment".

You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."

I do not consider them to be Christian. Nor do millions of other people so consider them.

While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business.

Then add that to the mix.

They are an underhanded dishonest business.

Absolutely. They are crooks.

All churches are, first and foremost, a business.

No, they are not.

They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.

We left facts and delved off into your opinion. Certainly the majority of what you loosely call "Christian" religion is an underhanded farce. But Christianity itself is not an underhanded farce.

I wish you knew a little less about nonsensical messes like the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, and a little more about the identifying marks of the church of the New Testament. I will point out, since you brought it up, that so-called tithing is a relic of Judaism - and was not practiced and is not taught as a practice of the NT church. Giving? Yes. Forced giving? No. Giving to support a hierarchy? No. Giving to support some sort of organization larger than the local congregation? No.

The churches of this county support and fund an orphan's home - the only such orphan's home in the county. To date, their biggest problem is government interference, but then again, look at what is at the head of our government: a baboon with human DNA.
How very christian of you.
When's the next KKK meeting? Very liberal of them to allow you to be a member.
Jesus loves you, aren't you lucky your imaginary friend does, because humans wouldn't.

See the leaflet of KKK in which they criticize atheists. KKK only accepts Christians. You can tell where the support of KKK is coming from.

http://law2.umkc.edu...

The leaflet of KKK says :
We are looking for, and enlisting ONLY: Sober, Intelligent, Courageous, Christian, American, White men who are consciously and fully
...............................................................................
The bold is that to which I referred.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:28:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:21:32 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:10:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:01:28 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:37:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:10:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/12/2014 4:35:03 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:24:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:28:22 AM, bulproof wrote:

Christianity evolves with science. Science and Christianity are not enemies, rather science exists to progress Christianity. We use science in order to help us decipher certain verses as God originally intended.

Yes, science and christianity ARE enemies. The fact that christianity steals the efforts of science, and adapts them to fit already-drawn conclusions does not make them partners. It makes christianity a thief and science the victim.

For example, once upon the time the Church thought the Sun revolved around Earth do to a certain Bible passage. After it was found that Earth revolved around the Sun we used science in order to correct our interpretation of the verse in order to get the meaning that was originally intended.

The church, even after recognizing that Galileo and Copernicus were, indeed correct, left Galileo confined for the remainder of his life. It was discovered many years before the church deigned to admit that they were wrong, despite "gawd's guidance." Read your history, kid. The catholic church set science back centuries, in favor of its own power and control. Science and christianity (all religion, for that matter) are enemies, of the most volatile kind. The christian church simply no longer has the authority to control or subvert science. Therefore, it feigns partnership with science, in order that it may, by proxy, hold on to what tenuous power it has left. In all honesty, christianity is doomed. It is only a matter of time before its legs are cut out from under it. I just hope I live to see the day.

You won't. And besides that, you wrong call "the church" the "Catholic Church", i. e. you pick out what practically everyone admits is an apostate group of sociopolitical hoodwinkers and label it "the church".

You state that as though you know it to be true. We're moving toward that day, as I type. Further, you and I have had this discussion, before. The catholic church was the first organized church on this planet.

No, it wasn't. The church of the New Testament was fully organized and functional before the ink dried on the last book, possibly either the gospel of John or III John.

Over five hundred years later, the emperor Phoecas styled old Boniface III the first "universal" or "worldwide" pope that this world ever heard of.

How you equate the two as being the same thing is beyond me.

You don't get to pick and choose what is and is not "christianity."

Watch me.

The fact that it is an embarrassment does not mean they are not part of what it called christianity.

And the criterion for whether they are "Christian" or not is not "whether or not they are an embarrassment".

You wish to magically disassociate yourself from anything that doesn't suit your "argument" but, like it or not, they are a part of what is considered "christian."

I do not consider them to be Christian. Nor do millions of other people so consider them.

While I agree with you that they are a "socio-political" group, they are also a business.

Then add that to the mix.

They are an underhanded dishonest business.

Absolutely. They are crooks.

All churches are, first and foremost, a business.

No, they are not.

They simply don't have any valid or meaningful product or service. Their "product" is the gullibility of the masses, and it always has been. Taxing religion would pull in over $80 Billion a year. Not taxing the most useless, unproductive business on the planet is an huge mistake.

We left facts and delved off into your opinion. Certainly the majority of what you loosely call "Christian" religion is an underhanded farce. But Christianity itself is not an underhanded farce.

I wish you knew a little less about nonsensical messes like the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints, and a little more about the identifying marks of the church of the New Testament. I will point out, since you brought it up, that so-called tithing is a relic of Judaism - and was not practiced and is not taught as a practice of the NT church. Giving? Yes. Forced giving? No. Giving to support a hierarchy? No. Giving to support some sort of organization larger than the local congregation? No.

The churches of this county support and fund an orphan's home - the only such orphan's home in the county. To date, their biggest problem is government interference, but then again, look at what is at the head of our government: a baboon with human DNA.
How very christian of you.
When's the next KKK meeting? Very liberal of them to allow you to be a member.
Jesus loves you, aren't you lucky your imaginary friend does, because humans wouldn't.

See the leaflet of KKK in which they criticize atheists. KKK only accepts Christians. You can tell where the support of KKK is coming from.

http://law2.umkc.edu...

The leaflet of KKK says :
We are looking for, and enlisting ONLY: Sober, Intelligent, Courageous, Christian, American, White men who are consciously and fully
...............................................................................
The bold is that to which I referred.

Another point to be noted is that KKK criticizes leftists as well which is mentioned in its leaflet. So you can tell that the support of KKK is definitely coming from Right wing political parties in USA
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...