1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Surfing_Pikachu, Dec 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Surfing_Pikachu

    Surfing_Pikachu ____________

    So, why do some people have such a profound hate for religion? I really don't understand it. It helps out culture in many ways, and hurts little. Let's take a look.

    The big pros of it are that it instills morals and goodwill and provides mental security/piece of mind, and what exactly are the cons? I often hear the argument that "It's holding us back!" which isn't true at all. I'm a Christian and I'd love to know what is smaller than a Quark and I'd love to colonize on far away planets. That doesn't mean we should stop looking for the secret behind out creation either, we'll never know for sure until we look. Another argument is that it promotes hostility towards other religions, which is a misguided myth. In Christianity, God and Jesus would look at "sinners" (followers of the a different faith or gays) with forgiveness and ideally their followers should too. So faiths have no trouble coexisting in this religion based society.

    So tell me, why?
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  2. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    I think you are asking what the cons are of basing "our" culture off Christianity. The first fallacy of your question is the fact that much of Western pop culture IS based off of religion. Pokemon is based off of Shinto, collecting spirits, and includes figures from various religions including Hebrew figures and Greco-Roman gods.

    The second fallacy of your question is your reference to all athiests in a somewhat hotheaded manner as "having a profound hate for religion". You are stereotyping one demographic of people while complaining about them discriminating against you - you're contradicting yourself.

    My answer is, yes, there are athiests who are resent religion. For various reasons. Multiple religious organizations are pursuing political regulation of homosexuality. Others believe that adherence to the Bible limits your understanding of the natural world. For a pretty straightforward reason.

    You see, you have one perspective. You are religious. Therefore, you make generalizations about athiests, saying they all hate religion. You provide no evidence for this. It is assuringly not true. An athiest has a different perspective. They are not religious; therefore they make generalizations about people who are religious. Some athiests say that adherence to a holy book necessarily means that your understanding of the nautral world is limited. That is also not true, because I know many brilliant Christian scientists.

    Athiests usually take responsibility for modern science. This isn't wholly true. In fact, churches were the basis of early learning. What athiests may claim to be responsible for, and you could give these claims more credence, are a variety of things pivotal to our modern society:

    - The idea that overthrowing a divine ruler for democracy, or equal opinion is noble. Think about it; revolution against a king, who in several cases is religiously mandated, is not a religious concept. In the Bible, comparatively downright an anti-Christian concept. Republics are appointed panels to come to a scientific conclusion that benefits their citizens, not the appointed interpreter of religion or God.

    - Modern women rights (if you study women's rights in college, abortions and lesbianism are matters of feminine liberty with the aid scientific exploration into the safety of the matter, which many religions do not allow)

    - Genetics and evolutionary theory, which make up a sizable amount of modern biological science.

    Among other things, modern religions are growing distant from the progressive world; the religious who reconcile with all these new ideas, the liberal Christians, have to embrace a growing suspension of belief and a rationalization of their holy texts when objectively looking at the world today. We have landed on the moon, raising the idea of why the bible only mentions creation of the earth; we have discovered that animals change, which goes against the traditional idea that animals as they are now came from the Garden of Eden, and we have held women as equal, when in the Bible, Eve was derivative of Adam.

    Also, athiests, besides taking responsibility for modern advancements, may accuse Christianity of being responsible for past atrocities. A common fallacy of athiests is to say that "Christianity" approved of the slaughter of Native Americans, and used the Bible to rationalize slavery. The Christian contribution to these events could be seen more as in-fighting; there were missionaries who were horrified at the treatment of Native Americans, and Christianity was essential for abolitionists and fleeing slaves.

    If we step back and view the atrocities religion in general has committed, we see the existance of religious zealotry.

    So there is a gap between Christianity and our apparent world. Different people deal with it in different ways. Athiests, understandably take it at face value as proof that Christianity is not accurate. And, their belief that religion isn't accurate is enough reason to actively campaign to try and spread truth and reduce what they believe is a lie. After all, many Christians feel the same way, that it is their responsibility to tell the truth.

    Moderate or liberal Christians, in order to reconcile with evolutionary theory, may now believe God started the big bang, or created the universe in six incraments, not the traditional sense of twenty-hour days, or they may incorporate space opera or paganism into God. Other Christians may seek evidence to back up their beliefs, or even reinterpret, add onto, or try to undo apparent flaws in the Bible, and create an alternate explanation of the origin of the world. Me, I'm some mix of the two. I am a Christian, but I operate alone because I want to find God, not the opinions of other people.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  3. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    I knew there was a reason I left this place.

    Alright, I'm an atheist. And guess what I DON'T hate? Religion! OMG! Have you ever studied Greek mythology? I have, and its quite possibly the most amazing collection of stories I've ever heard of in my life. Yes, even better than Harry Potter and Twilight!

    The relationship between Judaism, Christianity and the Roman world is another topic I find quite interesting.

    Not to mention, I recognize that religion offers morals and guidance and peace for those who subscribe to it. I do not subscribe to religion (sorry, YOUR religion) but that doesn't change the fact that I find religion of any kind truly interesting. Just because I am an atheist, doesn't mean I hate religion. It means I don't follow religion. There's a difference. Learn it. Love it.

    There's no inherent problem with religion. The problem lies in how people use it to their own ends. I would think SO MUCH MORE of Christianity if it wasn't injected forcibly into my life every single day when I have to listen to Maggie Gallagher go "GOD HATES QUUEEERIOS!" When you make something a public domain, you need to be prepared for it to be shat on. Do you really think anyone would give two ****s about your religious beliefs if you kept them to yourself? No, because no one would know about them if you aren't obnoxiously claiming them. And yes, I hold atheists to the same standard - if you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be obnoxious.

    Again, there's nothing inherent about religion that promotes hostility towards other religions (except maybe the Judaeo belief that Jesus was not the messiah) - its the way people interpret and manipulate religion to further those hostile ends that is the problem.

    G*ys? I wasn't aware that was now a swear word worthy of censorship. So, Jesus forgives gays? For what? And, if he forgives them, can they continue being or doing what they are, or is it the duty of Christians to "save" the sinners?

    Also, I laugh at the sheer awesomeness of this situation. All atheists hate religion, but as a Christian, you are required to label those of a different faith "sinners?" It doesn't really matter if you love or hate them, the fact is you label people of different beliefs "sinners," but then say that atheists hate religion. Sorry, but as long as you judge and label people, I can't really see how you're much better than a religion-hating atheists if you're a judgmental Christian.

    In this religion? So there is one superior religion? Or is that a typo?
  4. Mandi.

    Mandi. 3:

    It's very easy actually.
    Overly religious people can't find even one little reason to accept anybody else. Because they don't believe in what I believe in, oh man they must be bad people! Even though my religion is stupid and has the most flaws out of everything in the whole world. Still, MINE IS RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO! Because I'm so stuck in my stupid little bible, hating everyone who goes against anything in the bible that some random guy put into the book, that isn't even what god (OH DEAR I BETTER CAPITALIZETHAT G BEFORE SOMEBODY KILLS ME)(if he was here) would want. Because if he was real, he wouldn't hate anybody because he, himself, made them.

    Sorry. This is just how I feel. I'm not saying ALL religious people are like this. Because they're not. But, the big part of them love to shove their bullshit in everyone's faces. And when I or somebody else mentions that they are atheist, they freak out and say YOU'RE A BAD PERSON! Sorry, I'm sick of that crap.
  5. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    I shall tell you the reasons why I hate religion.

    The first reason is simply that religion assumes its own truth. Religion does not operate on falsehoods or maybes, to instill worship it must provide a divine, and thus infallible, mandate. This is absurd. To claim absolute knowledge of the divine, a knowledge based on ancient texts and second-hand reports, and to expect people to believe in this so-called 'evidence' is utterly mind-boggling in its stupidity. I have no problem with ideas of the divine existing, I could quite happily be a deist for instance, but I accept that as a fallible, mortal, far-from-divine being I have no real knowledge of the divine (if it even exists) so I make no claims about its nature (except to claim that its nature cannot be known, or most likely is not known). Religion is a system of interpreting divinity, a divinity that I believe cannot be interpreted or known about precisely because it is divine and we are not. And yet religion asks of us, nay, demands of us, that we do believe in a purported nature of the divine, it gives us laughable evidence for this belief and tells us that if we exercise our critical judgement and admit to the lunacy of such beliefs we are punished, whether it be a punishment on this earth or a divine punishment in the next.

    The second reason why I hate religion is that it attempts to take full responsibility for human decency. People such as yourself say that religion instills us with a sense of morality and goodness. This is nonsense. Perhaps god is necessary for morals (I think not but I've heard good philosophical arguments for this view) but god is not religion. Religion is made by people, ironically by people who display a complete lack of empathy and general decency. To read a holy book is to read of some of the most vile acts imaginable, that are fully sanctioned by the religion. So unless we have gotten our moral codes of acceptance and equality horrendously wrong, I should say that religion does not give us good morals to live by. Rather I think it gives us bad morals that people ignore in favour of their own in-built morals. As an atheist I find it the height of arrogance to be told that my morals stem from religion (not god, remember), that without the mandate of a holy book that I treat with little more than contempt I would be the most foul and depraved of beings. No, what arrogance, what non-sense, what hypocrisy.
  6. Surfing_Pikachu

    Surfing_Pikachu ____________

    Sorry about that. Really no sugarcoating it. It's just that most atheists I've met online are condescending snobs, I see that you're not one at all.

    Come to think of it, this is a flaw. Perhaps religions were designed to be dominant and never have to compete with other huge faiths. Although they are also designed to show respect towards "sinners", back in the days of their creation, the respective regions each one was created in had very little other competition (As with Europe and Christianity). In other words, the whole "you're wrong but I forgive you" system can't work when only 30% of the population agrees with you. When people stop cooperating, nothing will get done. So, we can assume that in this supposed society there would have to be some sort of law keeping it all in check, or also practice complete tolerance towards the "sinners".

  7. Zenotwapal

    Zenotwapal have a drink on me

    I think what Surfing_Pikachu is trying to ask here is why athiests have a niche on attempting to prove Christianity wrong. And religion in general.

    I agree with him. People seem to take Christians out of context. You see people like us who take the Bible waaaay out of context and ban everything that is considered "sinful" out of life. This isn't true. Those people are extremists, and we aren't extremists.

    If anything, religion only hurts others because others seem to take it's message and morph it into something ridiculous and violent.

    I also would like to point out that you people seem to pick on only Christians or people affiliated with that faith, not people that believe in other religions such as Muslim, and Buddism
  8. Grei

    Grei not the color

    The argument is moreso that it's a complete waste of time sitting around praying for something to get done when you could just get up off of your *** and get something done yourself. Why pray for those who are needy when you could supply for the needy? Sitting around and *hoping* something may happen isn't getting anything done, whereas actually doing that something is.

    "Faiths have no trouble coexisting in this religion based society?"

    Are you freaking kidding me?

    Religions like Hinduism have no problem with that, yeah. Because Hinduism is a tolerance religion. They let you believe what you want to believe--and let you reject common Hindu beliefs if you so choose--and don't condemn you for it.

    Christianity, on the other hand, is based entirely around the idea that Christianity is the one and only road to salvation, and any other road will lead you to damnation. I'm not a Christian myself (thank... um), but I've talked to two different devout informed Christians myself, and I know that Christianity does, in fact, believe that it's their way or the highway to hell.

    Christianity is incredibly fear-based. They say that their god is a loving one, but what loving god condemns those who are "different?" What god will send you to hell if you don't do exactly as he says? A lot of Christianity's guidelines are practically threats. "Follow these rules or you will suffer eternally in hell." What kind of loving, "forgiving" religion is that?

    I think a lot of people--a lot of atheists--hate Christianity specifically, not all religions. I'm not religious, but if I was an atheist, I wouldn't hate Hinduism. I actually find it to be pretty sweet. Buddhism isn't as awesome but it's still kind of cool.

    Christianity, though? I would despise it (kind of like I do now). When I really became informed about it, my first impression was that people wanted a religion like Buddhism, but wanted all of the followers for themselves and so they created fear in the hearts of ignorant people, saying that if they don't follow Christianity, they will suffer eternally. It sounds like a cheap marketing tactic, and a religion that's so "terrific" shouldn't generate such an impression.

    Some are, yeah. However I've met quite a few Christians online who tell me I'm damned because I'm bisexual; fated to rot in hell simply for who I am. Who tell me I'm wrong because I don't agree with them. Who twist arguments and resort to trickery in order to make it seem like they are right.

    One could easily make a negative generalization about Christians too, pal.

    Hmm. Maybe this is because people who follow the Muslim or Buddism beliefs don't come around here all the time, telling us we're wrong and that we're going to rot and suffer eternally for it.

    You shouldn't pull the "don't pick on us, pick on other people!" card. Not only is that a selfish attempt at throwing other people under the bus, but that's also ignoring the fact that many Christians bring it upon themselves when atheists say they hate them.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  9. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    This is actually quite logical thinking. Religions were designed by a people to establish and maintain a law, or moral code, among themselves. But, as you said, a law cannot be maintained if only a fraction of the people live by it. Of course, as with everything, as time moved on, people changed their thinking. People changed their habits. Science has affected what we believe. Civilization has evolved and affected how we live. For a moment, compare the US Constitution to the Christian Bible. Each establish a body of laws and create a system to maintain those laws. However, the US Constitution has changed over time to accompany new situations. This is my major beef with religion, because upon its creation, it is deemed holy and sacred and the thought of changing it in anyway would seem blashpemous. However, as the US Constitution clearly shows us, it is impossible for a civilization to survive if the people change but the laws don't. Therefore, even today, we're living by the laws of a two-thousand year old society. I can't see how modern knowledge can mesh with ancient customs.

    That, to me, is the biggest con of religion. It is inherently holy, and therefore it inhibits its own growth and evolution to keep up with the times.

    Well that is actually a very different and completely agreeable stance. If you're an atheist, why wouldn't try to prove religion wrong? Likewise, if you're religious, wouldn't you likely say that evolution is wrong?

    Are you attempting to prove something or accuse us of something or...? To be fair, how many Muslims or Jews have posted in these kinds of debates? I, personally, see no point in preaching to an absent crowd.
  10. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Naturally, if you believe something is the truth, you are going to argue for it and speak your side of the debate. Let's not selectively forget that Christians are always trying trying to spread and recruit. Just the other day I had Mormon missionaries in my bedroom trying to woo me to join their church through things I would swear would be otherwise blasphemoust to them. They are perfectly serious about the continuity of their faith and the fight against ideas they believe are wrong. It is the same way for all other religions, and athiests.

    Well then, the ill-will is shared, because he took athiests out of context in the OP, and then apologized about it. Nonetheless, people who are reading the OP are still hurt and angered by it.

    You are accusing the people who were provoked. "Sinner" is a prejudical term. You call someone a sinner and it will create ill feelings. Likewise, if you try and preach about someone's sexuality, this is the highest level of personal buisiness and it is rather immodest and rude of someone to do so.

    This comes across as quite a selfish point. "If you're doing it to my religion, why not theirs?" Do you want us to do it to theirs? If someone, or enough people come on here with a discussion of how their Muslim or Buddhist parents tried to freeze or electrocute the homosexuality out of them, and hence presented them with abuse, then we will probably talk about them. Christianity is an especially prevalant religion and this likely explains why we are not discussing Buddhism, although I should point out, there is actually a lot of rejection toward Islam here.
  11. Dattebayo

    Dattebayo Banned

    I blame how often the Bible gets mistranslated throughout the years as now, no one really knows for sure if these are the true words of God. I tend to distrust both extremists and atheists because they both try to convert you to their beliefs and what they believe is right. This is why I wish I never want to be a human.
  12. Lbsweet96

    Lbsweet96 &#32

    It's called a vocal minority. Maybe both you and the OP should look it up, since neither of you seem to know what it is.
  13. kryn

    kryn Member

    I think the reason many atheists do not like religion, is because of the religious people that is trying to force their views on everyone, which is the political part of the religion and people are merging it with the spiritual part of the religion.
  14. Aquanova

    Aquanova Well-Known Member

    The cons of basing culture off religion seem to a few.

    I left the religion of Christianity when i was a teenager. For starters i dont think its wrong to believe in something. One of the main problems i see with it is that it encourages the alienation of certain groups of people,often for things they have absolutely no control over. I also do not like the concept of trying to forc people to believe and scaring them with concepts of what will happen if they dont. Its not their business and everyone is entitled to believe as they wish. The sinning thing is quite dumb, I agree you shouldnt do things like steal and kill others, but some of the things that are sins are just mistakes that everyone makes. I dont agree with the controlling aspect of religions, as that is part of the point, getting people to think a cretain way, which is sort of like brainwashing.
  15. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    Hating Religion on Insufficient Grounds

    How on earth do you get the idea that Pokémon is based off of Shinto? And in what way does Shnito feature "collecting" spirits? I looked on Wikipedia and found nothing like that. (And I thought you said you could form a credible argument against Pokémon?)

    The above actually makes me question whether you've actually read Genesis. Though celectial objects are not the focus, the sun and moon are clearly implied in Genesis 1:14-19, and then there's also the express mention, "He made the stars also" (v.16).

    I've emphasized repeatedly that even as a biblically-literal non-evolutionist, I believe living things were not created exactly as we see them today, that there are some minor changes. Some breeds of dogs, for example, are less than a century old! Of course these weren't in Eden! Multiple finch species? These similar finches probably came from a (slightly different) finch!

    Regarding your implication that women are not viewed as equal in the Bible, I'd suggest this article.

    Wow. That is a very mature statement. That's one way to avoid being on my "top ten worst debaters" list. (That last part was sarcasm. Sorta.)

    Now that's just a downright outstandingly high level of tolerance. You just don't see that much anymore. Very commendable!

    (Emphasis added)

    Ahhh, second-hand reports? That's an untruth. Even the extremely radical Jesus Seminar believes that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are actually His words. I've actually examined their book, The Five Gospels (which tried to validate the second-century gospel of Thomas--containing very little of historical value), and I can tell you how they don't consistently follow the proper rules of historical criticism which they themselves acknowledge.

    For example, because of the Criterion of dissimilarity, the Jesus Seminar accepts that Jesus said something very like, "There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him" from Mark 7:15. (See The Five Gospels, page 31) Because of the Jewish emphasis on ceremony and eating the right foods, this is dissimilar enough to be authentic, not borrowed from some other Jewish rabbi. But they don't accept His statements claiming to be the Son of Man (a claim to deity because of an Old Testament reference), despite the fact that others did not claim such a title! In doing this, they reveal that they have assumed that Jesus did not claim to be deity, depsite the fact that this is circular reasoning.

    So, there's no doubt, even by really skeptical scholars, that Jesus said and did some of the things in the biblical Gospels. Secondhand reports? Try again Tim.

    Sorry--the idea that the Bible gets mistranslated so much isn't an issue because of the ancient manuscripts available in the original languages. These can (and have) been examined by Christians, Jews, people from entirely different religions, and secular people. People nowadays can translate out of the original languages with much greater knowledge because of textual criticism (though some very conservative Christians balk at any sort of thing).

    If you want to see an example of an atheist cheating in his analysis of a New Testament manuscript, see the webpage linked in my sig.
  16. Sabonea_Masukippa

    Sabonea_Masukippa Well-Known Member

    While the Christianity has had a reasonably positive swing in recent times, historically the church and its ministers and beleivers have done atrocious things. But I guess they weren't true 'Christians.' (No true Scotsman).

    If the only reason you/other Christians haven't murdered someone else yet is that you fear the eternal punishment of God, then we have a serious problem.

    Also, on what basis do you judge whether the laws in the bible are moral or not? The Bible provides rules (directly from God, through Moses) relating to how to deal with buying and owning slaves. Does that make slavery 'moral'? It even says that it's ok to own slaves so long as they're foreign. It also says that homosexuals and witches should be stoned to death. It's in the Bible - is it moral or not? And what basis are you using to make that judgement if not the divine Word of God?

    Go look up the 'Dark Ages,' or the 'Texas School Board'.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. I just don't see why you'd want to know the truth if you assume you already know?

    You agree that micro evolution (minor changes) is possible but not macro evolution?

    (micro evolution is accumulated small changes over a relatively short period of time, macro evolution is accumulated small changes over a relatively long periood of time). By what process does micro evolution not, over longer periods of time become macro evolution?

    Humans are very occaisonally born with tails, but we all have tail bones. How do you even reconcile stuff like that?

    To answer the pertinent question - while a state allows freedom of relgion among its peoples, it should strive to be as secular and unbiased in its treatment and promotion of these groups as possible, regardless of how many followers any of the individual groups get.
  17. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    While I identify as Christian, I feel often forced to take increasingly liberal interpretations of biblical text. My more conservative counterparts will point and say that I'm twisting God's holy word to suit my own ever so "wicked" desires. Particularly in reference to homosexuality, I truly believe that the scriptures can be intelligently interpreted in a way that does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. However when you have this discussion with modern day evangelicals they shutdown debate. I've seen this just by example by watching TheFightingPikachu and ShinySandshrew debate. They debate intelligently, but they become morally offended by their opponents stances. Often making remarks similar to "You should know better" or "This is not honorable." and the like.

    All the sudden, you don't have a different view or a different opinion, you're simply just wrong. You don't agree to disagree, the matter is entirely more serious. It becomes a situation of "If you do not interpret the scriptures in the manner that I do, you are morally wrong, living in sin, and will suffer hell as a result." This is what I resent in religion. Where there are disagreements, the stakes become so much higher. Instead of having a respectful disagreement in an intelligent discussion, no, now your souls are at stake. It's difficult enough for non believers to be certian of which faith is even true, but it doesn't even end when you make up your mind. There's still religious dissention and the uncertianty of how to interpret what you believe.

    What I resent the most in Christianity, is the belief that all human beings are inherently wicked and evil creatures. This is without dispute what the modern church teaches. Humans are vile, disgusting, born with the inherent nature to sin, they have absolutely no way to redeem themselves on their own, every single one of them is destined for God's holy and divine wrath, and they all deserve an eternity in hellfire. Yet, God loved us so much, that he Jesus Christ. His blood washes away all of the sin to those who accept him, so that God the Father is able to look upon us. One sin is all it takes, to make you completely vile. One sin, a lie, stealing, murder. It matters not. One sin and God says you deserve to spend eternity in hell because you fell short of his perfect standard. But he has to, because he is just and a God of order.

    So Christianity teaches that God is both just and merciful. In the bible, God basically exploits a loophole in his own contract (His contract being his holy word, as God cannot lie or go against his own nature.)

    Not that I really agree with any of what I just explained. In fact its the hardest part of Christianity for me to accept. All humans, everyone, deserve eternal hellfire even for just one act of defiance? No matter how pure hearted you are, no matter how sweet you are, no matter how much good you do in the world, no matter how generous you may be, no matter how much warmth is in your heart, one sin is all it takes to make you worthy of hellfire in God's eyes? That's not a God of love. "

    Hi. I'm God. I love the world and you so much that I sent my only son down to die for you (Don't worry, I bring him right back because he is GOD after all) and if you don't believe in me you'll suffer in hell for all eternity! Bwahahahahaha!"

    In Christianity's attempt to paint both God as just AND merciful they utterly failed, and God now looks as if though he has two split and seperate personalities that he swings back and forth from.


    St. Thomas Aquinas is a douchebag.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2010
  18. Zenotwapal

    Zenotwapal have a drink on me

    I wasn't trying to sound ignorant, but what I was saying is that most people seem to ignore points muslim, islamic, and buddist point of views, and seem to want to prove wrong the christian ones.
    But yes, I do understand the bold.

    But, the stuff in the italicized and underlined, is what I'm getting at. Not all Christians do this type of stuff. most Christians, in fact, are totally OK with homosexuals. The kind that condem them to hell and that jazz, are probably taking it way to seriously, or as I would call it, an extremist.
  19. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    Well for a start, I never once claimed I was talking about Christianity in my post, I was talking about religion in general, so even showing that a few of the parts of the Bible are not second-hand does not really diminish my point. I also did not state that all religious reports are second hand (or at least I didn't mean to imply that) but you must admit that most certainly are.

    As to your Jesus Seminar... I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. The Jesus seminar is using the gospels to form their ideas of what Jesus said... the Gospels are second hand sources. They got most of their information on what Jesus said from this lost 'Q' text which contained his sayings. That makes them second hand by definition doesn't it? Second-hand sources are not necessarily inaccurate, but deserve scrutiny than religious people tend to give them.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2010
  20. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Please. There is an obvious Shinto influence in Johto. The Japanese name for Sinnoh is "Shinou" (sp?) and so the Sintoh (Sinnoh / Johto) ruins, where Arceus is obtained, are named the "Shinto" ruins in Japan. Arceus is likely based off of the Shinto creator God.

    Your only rebuttal for that point is down.

    Ah, I see, you're a non-evolutionist who believes that some evolution occurs...that is not confusing at all.

    No. I only had to read the first few paragraphs to see the distinction without a difference. There is no equality if God intended "male headship". I certainly would not accept that claim. Neither would any woman looking to become a priest or a president. That is at best sexist.

    Your claim that our legitimate qualms with religion equate to "hate", especially since some of us are still giving it a chance, like Ethan and I, is complete hyperbole and rather self-victimizing. Dissagreement is not hate.

    And, you are very biased. This is not an attack on you, it is a formal complaint. Since you approve of male headship...take it like a man. Fused jumped through hoops for your you and your brother; he does not deserve disrespectful asides like that, even if he disagrees with you. Keep that "you're off my top ten worst debaters" stuff to yourself.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page