Forums → WEPR → Negative Christian Stereotypes
| 100 | 36248 |
What are some negative Christian stereotypes that first come to mind?
Please refrain from flaming and spamming, as always.
- 100 Replies
also, u may say evolution isn't that much of coincidence, but where did the matter and energy come from.
im not going to try prove evolution (espacially since i myself am a theist). what i did say was meant to show you that "this world is just to perfect" is a horibble "roof" of the existance of god
...Do you know what a day is?
yes, it is the time a planet takes to turn on its axis. a day on mercury is about 1408.8 hours while it is 24 on earth.
I don't mean timewise. The creation story of how Adam and Eve sinned and therefore sin was born into everyone else is the main reason why Jesus was sent to die on earth, to absolve the original sin. Without that story taken as literal truth, Christianity falls apart.
what does that have to do with evolution?
-Homophobic, or basically Not-Straight-And-Normal-phobic
1. not really
I guess I must have imagined all those times homosexuality was called evil, disgusting, against God by Christians on this forum alone. That's not even getting into how it's being attempted to be suppressed legally for nearly solely religious reasons.
-Blindly religious.
2. only in chick publications
I guess all those times we had a Christian stated that nothing would convince them that they were wrong in their faith isn't being blind.
-Overzealous faith
3. see above
Three words, Westboro Baptist Church. In fact I cite that for all of the above.
-Racism
4. completely false
So it's false that the harsh treatment of anyone who wasn't Caucasian had no religious influences due to tradition and identifying with religious groups?
"Wendy Wood, who was part of a team which did a meta-analysis of 55 studies on the relationship between race and religion (1964 to 2008) writes:
Religious racism stems from two sources. One is the value system that underlies religiosity and racism. People who respect tradition and value social conformity are likely to be drawn to religion because religion incorporates these values. These same people are likely to respect other societal traditions. The differences between races in our society is a traditional practice. So, people who value tradition and conformity tend to be religious and in addition tend to support differences between the races.
The other source of religious racism is identifying with religious groups. This can promote racism because religion preaches moral values of good and bad; it encourages followers to view themselves and similar others as good, moral folks and nonbelievers as bad and immoral. And this is the paradox. Good teachings that focus people on concern for others can also backfire if they focus people on moral righteousness. It's especially a problem given that people tend to practice religion within race. The majority of congregations in this country are composed of a single race--as Martin Luther King said, 11 a.m. on Sunday morning is the most segregated time in this nation. White people tend to practice religion with other white folks, and they tend to believe that their own religious group is morally right. This situation leads to racism."
-Pedophilia
5. only a few preists
Only a few priests protected by the Church with an occurrence of this through out history.
-Ignorance, and 'I just need Jesus'
6. radical protestents
Totally explains this.
"ll we need to do is go through Jesus. Jesus alone is our way to God. All we need is Jesus." -Todd Uebele (a Catholic)
-Disgust for rap, rock n' roll, etc
7. since when
Since their inception.
-SEX IS BAD, EVIL , AND MALICIOUS
8. it is for reproduction
Case in point.
1. ever think i was talking for myself, unlike others, i don't see the point in saying that stuff.
2. okay fine, chick publications and the people who read his tracts
3. i am not a baptist
4. the church is for everyone
5. last i heard the pedophile priests were being layasized
6. from what i have read of the bible, Jesus likes those who do good works
7. we are not all Amish
8. huh?
what does that have to do with evolution?
The creation story states that man was directly sculpted from dust and given life. According to the geneology of Jesus (Luke 3:23â"38), he had less than 80 ancesters. Even assuming that each person was 100 before continuing the lineage, that still places Adam within 10,000BC. There are modern human fossil remains dated much older than that. It is stated many times in the bible that the reason people die is from Adam's sins as the first human so Jesus was sent to correct it (Romans 5:12-19). Technically, anyone older than that should still be alive. If people suffered and died before the "Fall of Man", then Jesus' ransom sacrifice really had no purpose because there was no original sin to correct.
i am catholic and proud of it
Congratulations. Now, I believe pride is a sin in the 'seven deadly sins' created by you Catholics. Just like Lent, where you give something up for a month then pick it right back up and resume your lives.
I'm a 'roud' theist, and I'm sure there are other 'roud' theists and 'roud' atheists on these forums; stating that does nothing for your argument but make you a target.
...Do you know what a day is?
In their defense, it never does say a '24 hour day' in the creation story of the bible. Being a deity, wouldn't the christian God be able to make the day however long he whims it to be? The day could have been five minutes, it could have been a thousand years. We don't know.
8. huh?
What she is saying is that the Pope admonishes that sex should ONLY be used in the production of children. That's it. Now, I'm not all for sticking my junk in every hole that comes by, but when I get married....you fill in the rest.
4. the church is for everyone
Are you suuuuuure about that? I remember back during the civil war that slavery was good, and God wanted slavery. And then when it was outlawed, God wanted the white man to be superior. Pretty sure thats how it went.
The creation story states that man was directly sculpted from dust and given life. According to the geneology of Jesus (Luke 3:23��"38), he had less than 80 ancesters. Even assuming that each person was 100 before continuing the lineage, that still places Adam within 10,000BC. There are modern human fossil remains dated much older than that. It is stated many times in the bible that the reason people die is from Adam's sins as the first human so Jesus was sent to correct it (Romans 5:12-19). Technically, anyone older than that should still be alive. If people suffered and died before the "Fall of Man", then Jesus' ransom sacrifice really had no purpose because there was no original sin to correct.
Evolution and the bible don't line up at all, no matter how you put it. I believe, though, that Adam and Eve were placed being in existence closer to 3,000 or 4,000 BC.
I mean Adam lived for 930 years, Seth lived to 912, Enos was 905, Cainan was 910, and it goes on. Noah was like, 500 or soemthing when he built the ark. Now, at some point, I believe that the story goes that God 'unished' man and shortened their lifespans to like, a little over a hundred so they would have 'less time to do evil' or something.
In their defense, it never does say a '24 hour day' in the creation story of the bible. Being a deity, wouldn't the christian God be able to make the day however long he whims it to be? The day could have been five minutes, it could have been a thousand years. We don't know.
No it could not have. Assuming the Hebrew word for "Day" means similar to ours, then it either means a twenty four hour period or one movement of the sun around the Earth. But there was no sun. There was no earth. The only thing it could possibly mean was a twenty four hour period.
If it was longer then that, then why in the hell would they use the word "Day" rather then a more accurate term, like "Millennium", "century", "Eon"? There is no reason they would use day if they did not mean it.
Evolution and the bible don't line up at all, no matter how you put it. I believe, though, that Adam and Eve were placed being in existence closer to 3,000 or 4,000 BC.
...You think that there where only two humans? And they lived so close to us?
I mean Adam lived for 930 years, Seth lived to 912, Enos was 905, Cainan was 910, and it goes on. Noah was like, 500 or soemthing when he built the ark. Now, at some point, I believe that the story goes that God 'unished' man and shortened their lifespans to like, a little over a hundred so they would have 'less time to do evil' or something.
That does not make any since. People lived to be twenty, if they where lucky, in the past. We have only gotten this far thanks to the magic of SCIENCE!
But by that logic, starting at 3000 BC, we take of 1000 for Adam, 1000 for Seth, 1000 for Enos, then we are already at 0 BC and into recorded history...
But by that logic, starting at 3000 BC, we take of 1000 for Adam, 1000 for Seth, 1000 for Enos, then we are already at 0 BC and into recorded history...
You're forgetting that their lives would've mostly overlapped, unless they had kids right before they died. If your grandpa's 80 and your dad's 50, that dosen't mean your grandpa was born in the 1880s.
You're forgetting that their lives would've mostly overlapped, unless they had kids right before they died. If your grandpa's 80 and your dad's 50, that dosen't mean your grandpa was born in the 1880s.
It is possible, but even just taking a thousand years to get to Noah (Who may I remind you, was at the end of the world) would still put them at 2000 BC, where we have definite humans who did not get wiped out in a flood.
I used 1000 since that is about how long it would take for Noah to get to 500 years and the other people to still be about a thousand, since the flood would have killed them...
...You think that there where only two humans? And they lived so close to us?
....I don't believe I said anything about the location of Adam and Eve, nor about there only being two humans. I said evolution and the biblical creation story don't line up, and that according to the bible, Adam and Eve popped into existence around six thousand years ago. Nothing in there about my opinion or whatnot; just facts. And I never said the biblical version to be true, as I know you'll probably bring that up next.
No it could not have. Assuming the Hebrew word for "Day" means similar to ours, then it either means a twenty four hour period or one movement of the sun around the Earth. But there was no sun. There was no earth. The only thing it could possibly mean was a twenty four hour period.
If it was longer then that, then why in the hell would they use the word "Day" rather then a more accurate term, like "Millennium", "century", "Eon"? There is no reason they would use day if they did not mean it.
'Assuming' being the keyword. You can assume anything in the world; doesn't mean it is right. So if you're 'assuming' that the hebrew word for 'day' means 24 hours....then you have no clue. The bible is referencing a deity. According to it, God gave Moses a revelation about all this, so Moses just would have written down whatever God said; doesn't mean it was literal. And since there was no sun and no earth, there is no way to measure our 'hours' and 'minutes'; those were based on the movement of the sun and the earth. Don't get me wrong, time still existed, as a unit of measurement was used, namely 'day'. But we don't know what amount of time that 'day' represented.
'Assuming' being the keyword. You can assume anything in the world; doesn't mean it is right. So if you're 'assuming' that the hebrew word for 'day' means 24 hours....then you have no clue.
He assumed correctly. The word used (yom) means a day, sunset to sunset.
But we don't know what amount of time that 'day' represented.
2 Peter 3:8 claims a 'day' for God means 1000 years to us, if that's what you're getting at.
2 Peter 3:8 claims a 'day' for God means 1000 years to us, if that's what you're getting at.
I was getting at something like that, yes.
He assumed correctly. The word used (yom) means a day, sunset to sunset.
But what I was also getting at was that there wasn't a sun and moon and such to tell time by. So time couldn't have been measured from 'sunset to sunset'....because there was no sunset.
I know you are right with the 'yom' thing though; I know the term 'day' was used. I just think it's more along the 'thousand-year day' ideal. But again, this is just the 'doctrine of me'. Doesn't mean it's true.
I was getting at something like that, yes.
Then he could have just said that...
But anyway, six thousand years still is not enough time to build a planet...
But what I was also getting at was that there wasn't a sun and moon and such to tell time by. So time couldn't have been measured from 'sunset to sunset'....because there was no sunset.
Then why would he give the measurement of his time is days?
Then why would he give the measurement of his time is days?
Since he is well....God, he could have meant anything by the term 'day'. We just happen to assume he means a 24-hour period, or the 1,000-year period, but it could be anything. I dunno how He works his ays or classifies them.
Then he could have just said that...
But anyway, six thousand years still is not enough time to build a planet...
But it would have been disputed anyways, plus I didn't have a biblical reference for it...thank you EmperorPalpatine!
Don't forget, He is deity. Pretty sure he could just snap his fingers and a planet would appear, assuming you believe in Him. If you don't, Earth took billions of years to form.
You must be logged in to post a reply!