• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
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.)

Let's see how much I care about your lists:

...

Okay. Now, if you would like to maturely counter my philosophy ("If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be obnoxious") then please, by all means, present an actual argument to it. You don't see me call you a dumb-dumb poo-poo head or putting you on my "Cranky People's List" and yet, for some reason, you feel you have the superior ability of doing it to me. Give me an actual argument or don't bother posting, because all of this "You're on my list" is so ****ing thrid grade. All you're doing right now is reinforcing people's beliefs that the religious are zealots who force people to believe what they do or else pass judgment on them. Put me on your list - I don't give a flying ****. I'd rather be dead than be judgmental and intolerant.
 
Last edited:

ShinySandshrew

†God Follower†
Let's just take these in the order my computer has them...

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?
Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?

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?
Jesus forgives gays of their sin. Any and all. God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior. They don't have to clean up their act to get saved. That doesn't mean He wants them to stay in the same state as when they were unsaved. On the contrary, Ephesians 2:3 and Titus 3:3 say that we should not commit the sins that we committed before we were saved.

Also, Fused, the part about "is it the duty of Crustaceans Christians..." is not logically parallel to the other part of your sentence. As far as I know, no one claims that it's either "gays can continue to live a homosexual lifestyle or Christians must save them." Your statement seems to be a non-sequitor.

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.
One can label things without being judgemental, Fused. Judgement is not always wrong. Neither is labeling.


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.
And what data are you using to support your argument? I'd like to see where your getting your info about what "most religious" people do...

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.
Really now? Why don't you take a look at these articles?



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.
Then let me issue you a challenge, Ethan. Defend the idea that homosexuality is ok according to the Bible. As of yet, I have not seen a defence of homosexuality (on Serebii or somewhere else) from the Bible that did not twist, misrepresent, mis-translate, or ignore something in the Bible. I don't want to see you using some site's explanation; use the Bible exclusively and use a few translations to show the consistency of your claims. I don't care if it's here or in PM/VM.

Do you accept?


All humans, everyone, deserve eternal hellfire even for just one act of defiance?...That's not a God of love.
No, not one act of defiance, sin nature. Everyone born of man has one and suffers from one. Thus, everyone deserves Hell

At what point does being lenient become harmful? Should God allow everyone to get off, just because He is merciful? Far from it!

Jesus is, figuratively, God holding out His hand to each of us to save us from punishment. He asks us to take His hand. What should God do to those who do not want God's help, those who slap the hand away or spit on it or pierce it through and reject the only avenue of help? Force them to spend eternity with a God they hate? That is not a loving God.
 
Last edited:

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?

Logic.

Stoning of witches slowly takes a person's life, based on often paranoid judgements of their actions, by throwing rocks at them.

Slavery is the violation of a person's humanity by merchandising them and using them as objects.

Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex form a relationship. They may have safe sex just like heterosexual couples. Lesbians have been known to have a 0% chance of child abuse. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

They are regulations in place so that they can't give blood in case homosexuality does have some higher rate of STD's, we've covered that base. There is no taking of someone's life or humanity involved in homosexuality. Not even a little, that would be distinct from heterosexuality. Are you still wondering why an athiest would come to the conclusion homosexality is moral and slavery and stoning are not?

...they don't believe in the Bible, so they don't have any reason to think that it is.

One can label things without being judgemental, Fused. Judgement is not always wrong. Neither is labeling.

Your own labeling, SS, that is what we are talking about.

No, not one act of defiance, sin nature. Everyone born of man has one and suffers from one. Thus, everyone deserves Hell

Everyone, even someone who devoted their life to the church and charity deserves hell, God simply spares them from that?

At what point does being lenient become harmful? Should God allow everyone to get off, just because He is merciful? Far from it!

Merciful? You cannot have someone whose will is natural law and morality and then say that they can't can't help persecuting people who transgress those laws. There is no mercy when a monarch spares someone from a situation they put them in, in the first place.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
I don't hate, I strongly dislike, also i have no problems with religious people as long as they are not overly fundamentalist religious asses I'm fine
why would anyone hate them?
because religion contributes a good deal towards slowing down human progress (not anymore have to say that) discrimination a lot of conflicts/wars have been started thanks to religion, also fun things like burning witches slavery, which is funny because christianity is supposed to be against slavery
 

Jb

Tsun in the streets
There is no cons, mosr Regilion really only tells you for the most part ro be "Good". Namely no lying,stealing,killing ect, you know, the stuff you shouldn't be doing anyway, the problem of any kind that presents itself, lies with the "Overly Religious" and the "Scientist" Namely because the "OR" people can't accept people that are differnt from them, and the men in white lab coats are always trying their best to prove a reglion wrong, when in fact most have bases on what will happen in the afterlife and therfore can't proved untill the said person dies, but being the stupid humans we are, we tend to belived their "Facts" and "Evidence" even to the point of trying to prove others who belive in something are wrong, that is where the true problem lies, if humans would stop putting all there trust in science and try to think for their head once in while then., we wouldn't have a problem.



In short, Extermeist and Scienctist are the real problem here, because of the retarted people who are too stupid to belive anything else and in sted belive what the rest do, when in fact most reglion tell you, for the most part, the same thing, sure there are changes such as figureheads, but it's the same stuff for the most part.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior.

That doesn't mean He wants them to stay in the same state as when they were unsaved. On the contrary, Ephesians 2:3 and Titus 3:3 say that we should not commit the sins that we committed before we were saved.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two.

Also, one of the main things that continues this religious debate on homosexuality is recognizing whether or not homosexuality is simply behavioral or conditional. Either way, the way you make it sound, God does in fact want us to be a certain way to earn his eternal love and respect, which is a problem many atheists on here have already pointed out: God does not seem to be a fan of unconditional love.

One can label things without being judgemental, Fused. Judgement is not always wrong. Neither is labeling.

I suppose you can then explain how one can form an objective opinion without making some sort of judgment? And how can you accomodate that judgment is not wrong with the belief that only God should pass judgment? (Goes back to the lack of unconditional love.) At several points in the Bible, there are passages that warn people not to judge or that they are not worthy to judge: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matt. 7:1); "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged" (Luke 6:37); "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" (John 8;7). So perhaps you can explain how you believe judgment is not wrong, but the Bible clearly deters us from doing it.

and the men in white lab coats are always trying their best to prove a reglion wrong

Well, beleive me, all the men who gave you internet, television, medicine, transportation, knowledge of the soalr system, etc. are all very, vewy sowwy.

Are you sure scientists have a vendetta against religion? Did you ever think that they were just doing their job?
 
Last edited:

Jb

Tsun in the streets
Are you sure scientists have a vendetta against religion? Did you ever think that they were just doing their job?

And just what is their job? And I'm sure they wern't force to go out on a mission to prove religion wrong, they can't prove sh/t, because for the most part, you can't find out till you die.


Im sure you've seen the classic....

Person A. God does exist.

Person B. Nah unn, I got prove that he doesn't.(Brings out Science studies)

Person A. But that doesn't mean anything.

(Arguement Starts)


I not trying to prove anybody wrong here or point the finger, but all im saying is, you won't know till you die, so who are these people to come outta say someone didn't exist 2000yrs ago, how thw hell would they know, they wern't there.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?
Reasoned, rational analysis and basic in-built human empathy. It's something that has guided human civilisation for thousands of years, forming and opposing religion as and when it is necessary to continued moral behaviour.

No, not one act of defiance, sin nature. Everyone born of man has one and suffers from one. Thus, everyone deserves Hell
No. No one deserves hell. No one can do anything on this earth that possibly warrants an eternity of suffering, and no one can possibly deserve hell based on the actions of their magnificently distant ancestors. This is another massive problem of most religions, they command humanity to hate itself. What self-respect can we have when we are condemned as sinful beings from the moment of our conception to the moment of our death, with no say in the matter, for something we could not possibly have been a part of or prevented? Religion is pernicious, it assures us that our very nature as humans is something wicked and sinful and it demands fealty, it will offer us a cure. A cure that we humans, with our Socrates and our Kants and our Humes and our Singers cannot possibly grant despite thousands of years of debate and critical thinking because they too are bathed in the sin of their fathers and deserve nothing but an eternity of torment.

Religion has no respect for the people it attempts to shepherd, which is why it preys on the weak and the down-hearted and the dispossessed, those who have no self-respect for themselves in the first place.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
And just what is their job? And I'm sure they wern't force to go out on a mission to prove religion wrong, they can't prove sh/t, because for the most part, you can't find out till you die.

I think you might mean theologins, or philosophers - not scientists, at least not in the sense that they made electrical devices too.

Im sure you've seen the classic....

Person A. God does exist.

Person B. Nah unn, I got prove that he doesn't.(Brings out Science studies)

Person A. But that doesn't mean anything.

(Arguement Starts)

Strictly speaking, nobody can prove God doesn't exist, and we don't really aim to - so your portrayal of Person B is unrealistic. Somebody saying that they don't believe God exists does not mean they offer "proof" he doesn't. It usually means they don't accept the proof (holy texts) that Person A provided. In your scenario, for some reason, the burden of proof is already on Person B for some reason. In reality, it would be the burden of proof on Person A to prove that God does exist.

I not trying to prove anybody wrong here or point the finger, but all im saying is, you won't know till you die, so who are these people to come outta say someone didn't exist 2000yrs ago, how thw hell would they know, they wern't there.

That can be reversed. How do religious people know their holy texts aren't written by man and not by divine intervention if they weren't there? Who are these people to say something did exist 2000 years ago?

You shouldn't pose a question to somebody else that you can't answer about yourself.
 
Last edited:

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
And just what is their job? And I'm sure they wern't force to go out on a mission to prove religion wrong, they can't prove sh/t, because for the most part, you can't find out till you die.

How many scientists do you know woke up today and said "I'm gonna prove that religion is ********?" Proving religion wrong/false may be an implication or a result of their findings, but most of the time, scientists perform scientific experiments and observations to record and report scientific facts and add them to the body of knowledge we call science. Now, pelase, tell me how you get "scientists hate religion" out of that. Please. In fact, I can think of several ways that science and religion can be reconciled. You, however, seem to already assume that they are incompatible and therefore cannot fathom that a scientist could be religious.

I not trying to prove anybody wrong here or point the finger, but all im saying is, you won't know till you die, so who are these people to come outta say someone didn't exist 2000yrs ago, how thw hell would they know, they wern't there.

Well, if someone didn't exist, there would usually be a lack of evidence that proves their existence. What you are doing right now is assuming that something existed simply because nothing says that it didn't exist. Logically, you should also believe that a dog with green fur and three horns once existed just because there is nothing denying such a thing.

Also, if we won't know until we die, then why do you think it is okay for someone like you to assume there is a God but then call out those who assume that there isn't a God? You have your faith and scinetists have some scientific findings and you each amke your assumptions off of those thigns. I don't see how you're any better than scientists, or at least how they are any less than you.
 
Last edited:

Jb

Tsun in the streets
Also, if we won't know until we die, then why do you think it is okay for someone like you to assume there is a God but then call out those who assume that there isn't a God? You have your faith and scinetists have some scientific findings and you each amke your assumptions off of those thigns. I don't see how you're any better than scientists, or at least how they are any less than you.

I never said it was, but this is where the problem lies, two differnt groups of people trying to out prove the other, this is the main reason people think religion is a problem and vice versa.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but if these two groups of people would just mind their own buiness and let the other worry about the end result, them we wouldn't have this. This is where the con comes from. People out of human nature defend their belifes, for someone to go out on a mission and try to prove what some else belives is wrong is where the conflict come from.

I'm just saying, if you don't believe in God,Allah, budda, ect, don't go out on a mission prove its wrong since it has nothing to with you.
 
What?

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.

Let's see how much I care about your lists:

...

Okay. Now, if you would like to maturely counter my philosophy ("If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be obnoxious") then please, by all means, present an actual argument to it. You don't see me call you a dumb-dumb poo-poo head or putting you on my "Cranky People's List" and yet, for some reason, you feel you have the superior ability of doing it to me. Give me an actual argument or don't bother posting, because all of this "You're on my list" is so ****ing thrid grade. All you're doing right now is reinforcing people's beliefs that the religious are zealots who force people to believe what they do or else pass judgment on them. Put me on your list - I don't give a flying ****. I'd rather be dead than be judgmental and intolerant.

Oh. I apologize, because I in no way intended to indicate that your statement was not mature (because it most defintely was mature), or that I actually keep a list. I apologize for not making my comment about sarcasm clear enough, and will edit that post to add a clarification (if the forums don't prevent it like they did yesterday when I tried to edit). However, I did not say what you quoted me as saying--I did not say you were on a list!

Although now, to immortalize this incident for humor and not for misunderstanding, I should actually make a list of worst debaters:
1. Ed, Edd, and Eddy
2. The guy from that "Is Cable Better than Gravity?" commercial
3. TheFightingPikachu (for epically failed sarcasm)

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.
Thank you for pointing out something in the 4th Generation to prove that Pokémon is based on Shinto, despite the fact that you haven't shown that Shinto involves collecting spirits, and that Pokémon has been shown multiple times on these forums to be based on bug collecting.

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.
That title was selected specifically in response to Tim the turtle's express statement that he hates religion, coupled with his inaccurate statement about secondhand reports. It was not meant to imply more.

BTW, there's absolutely no problem with a woman president. I don't know where that came from. The Bible also reports that there were prophetesses (though there are no prophets male or female today).

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.
Well first of all, you did say that was part of your reason for hating religion. You didn't say, "some religions," but "religion."

You know, the use of Q in The Five Gospels was one of the first things that jumped out at me when I first flipped through it in the library. But the odd part is that Q is merely a hypothetical document, of which we have no manuscript! It is inferred by parallels between Matthew and Luke, and it is quite logical to believe these literary parallels signify a common source, but it is only for some parts of these two gospels. Q doesn't stand behind Mark or John, and it doesn't even stand behind all of Matthew or Luke. (And, BTW, Luke starts out his Gospel saying he investigated sources. To call this secondhand would be like calling the USA Today articles I've clipped secondhand.)

I would argue that we undoubtedly should scrutinize what the Gospels say. But this goes for the critics as well as the believers. For example, this page from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible alleges a contradiction between some of the Gospel accounts, but it misreads the text in Luke (Luke only said "about eight days" which can't contradict "six days"). The title of this one indicates the author read the word "always" into the Lord's Prayer where it does not occur.

How about this guy? J.T. linked to this page, apparently believing his every word--despite known historical error. (I really like the part where he makes a conspiracy theory out of Strobel explaining the positive changes in his wife's life when she was saved. Because M. Willett or Kush K. would never have published anything negative if either of their wives had become abortion clinic bombers because of Christianity, right?)

Here are a few quotes:
I ask this to Christians and have never received a satisfactory answer: If God is in control and the coming of Jesus Christ was all planned, then how come God forgot to leave eyewitness accounts of such an important event?
There is not a single eyewitness account. There is no archeological evidence. No corroborative evidence. All we have are a few fragments that even when put together reveal nothing.
But there is corroborating evidence! One of the best examples is Lucian of Samosata, who confirms the crucifixion, and even idea that Jesus was worshiped early on. (A better source is found here; it might be useful to compare the two pages.) And that isn't even the end of non-biblical corroboration. I've mentioned some of it on these forums before, only to have it dismissed as rumors--as though pagans and Jews were trying to establish Jesus!

I already mentioned how even the extremely skeptical Jesus Seminar knows that some sayings undoubtedly go back to the historical Jesus. But they operate under the assumption that he didn't claim to be God or do any miracles. But as several Christians have noted, if Jesus were just a guy who told some interesting little parables, why did the leaders condemn Him to death? How did that ever happen if He were such an uncontroversial figure?

Too often the "quest for the historical Jesus" actually presupposes that the Gospels do not have any eyewitness material. The Jesus Seminar would do well to follow their own advice: "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you."
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
I never said it was, but this is where the problem lies, two differnt groups of people trying to out prove the other, this is the main reason people think religion is a problem and vice versa.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but if these two groups of people would just mind their own buiness and let the other worry about the end result, them we wouldn't have this. This is where the con comes from. People out of human nature defend their belifes, for someone to go out on a mission and try to prove what some else belives is wrong is where the conflict come from.

I'm just saying, if you don't believe in God,Allah, budda, ect, don't go out on a mission prove its wrong since it has nothing to with you.

I never said it was, but this is where the problem lies, two differnt groups of people trying to out prove the other, this is the main reason people think religion is a problem and vice versa.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but if these two groups of people would just mind their own buiness and let the other worry about the end result, them we wouldn't have this. This is where the con comes from. People out of human nature defend their belifes, for someone to go out on a mission and try to prove what some else belives is wrong is where the conflict come from.

I'm just saying, if you don't believe in God,Allah, budda, ect, don't go out on a mission prove its wrong since it has nothing to with you.

Having a belief isn't worth much if you aren't willing to defend it.

Scenario 1. Missionaries come to my door asking me how I feel about becoming Mormon. I give them my viewpoint, they give me theirs. Are we now equally at fault for defending our beliefs, even though they came to my door?

Scenario 2. Imagine someone who is homosexual. Prop 8 is on the ballot. That messes around in a lot of people's buisiness. So people go to the streets protesting it. Are the people proposing Prop 8 and the people protesting it now equally guilty for getting in each others buisiness?

Eventually push will come to shove, and you will have to stand up for your beliefs. People don't just suddenly get up and decide to antagonize people like you say; there are situations which require us to get in each other's buisiness.

...

None of the athiests are trying to prove religion wrong here, so you're talking to an empty audience. They were just answering the OP regarding what problem they had with religion. If anything, the attitude of the OP, as well as your posts, started on a defensive note.
 
Last edited:

voltianqueen

Fire and Lightning!
Science isn't really trying to prove religion wrong, it's just trying to figure out how the world works. Figuring out how the world works might disprove religions, but I don't think that's the main goal.
 

Jb

Tsun in the streets
But It mainly comes down to, if people worry about their self and the people in their "groups" there wouldn't be any "cons".

Nobody is wrong or at fault, but in a way, Me and everyone else who has and opinion on the matter are.(As to the "Con" atlest ), looking back I might have worded it wrong,sorry, but a bunch of people having a bunch of opinions on a powerful such as this is what creates the "con".
 

pokedexfiller

Unova Trainer
Science isn't really trying to prove religion wrong, it's just trying to figure out how the world works. Figuring out how the world works might disprove religions, but I don't think that's the main goal.
On this, I'd luike to say that science and religion aren't enemies as most (not all) people crack them up to be. They are simply friends, whose children are the enemies. WE all children. all of us. We can't understand everything that goes on around us, and chances are we never will in this lifetime.
 

voltianqueen

Fire and Lightning!
But It mainly comes down to, if people worry about their self and the people in their "groups" there wouldn't be any "cons".

Nobody is wrong or at fault, but in a way, Me and everyone else who has and opinion on the matter are.(As to the "Con" atlest ), looking back I might have worded it wrong,sorry, but a bunch of people having a bunch of opinions on a powerful such as this is what creates the "con".

Yeah, because with all the opinions running around it is pretty much impossible for everyone to agree on things. What one person find right/just/etc. by their morals might be wrong by another person's morals. Even without a religion-based culture, I'm pretty sure there'd still be disagreements all over the place.

On this, I'd luike to say that science and religion aren't enemies as most (not all) people crack them up to be. They are simply friends, whose children are the enemies. WE all children. all of us. We can't understand everything that goes on around us, and chances are we never will in this lifetime.

Both are pretty much searches for the truth about our universe.
 
Last edited:

pokedexfiller

Unova Trainer
Both are pretty much searches for the truth about our universe.
Exactly, now think of the things people could accomplish if we accepted both. Even if every SINGLE detail doesn't add up, they still work together.

^Yeah, because with all the opinions running around it is pretty much impossible for everyone to agree on things. What one person find right/just/etc. by their morals might be wrong by another person's morals. Even without a religion-based culture, I'm pretty sure there'd still be disagreements all over the place.
Well, a few years ago my friend's best friend died. When he was alive, he taught to to become religious. She started going to church and everything. Then he took his life. She was so devestated that she stop believing in God. She thought that a loving God wouldn't ever let something like that happen.

Me, being the adamant Christian as I am, I want to help her. Basically, we end up having a rational conversation about God and religion and all that. A Christian and an Atheist having a ratinal discussion about God?! Yep. And what she said, I understood. I still want to help her, but I'm not going to shove this down her throat. I feel it's my duty to help her, and I will try to the end, but I'm not going to force it upon, which is what is most of the source of our problems today.

I do have one question for the Atheists, which is not meant to belittle you in any way. I just have always wondered this. Why, if there was even the slightest chance that you could be eternally happy forever, would you not take that chance?
 
Last edited:

Zenotwapal

have a drink on me
I'm having trouble reconciling these two.

Also, one of the main things that continues this religious debate on homosexuality is recognizing whether or not homosexuality is simply behavioral or conditional. Either way, the way you make it sound, God does in fact want us to be a certain way to earn his eternal love and respect, which is a problem many atheists on here have already pointed out: God does not seem to be a fan of unconditional love.
...You do realize that God teaches us that he'll love us no matter what, right?
It is essentially a Christian's staple lesson.

Oh, and I think most of you are forgeting that religion teaches us to respect and love one another. Not to "condemn" others for their faults. Now people try to prove that religion is wrong, and yet they seem to forget that all that religion carries is positive uplifting messages like this? Doesn't that all seem a bit wierd to you all?

Oh and Fused, your coming off very arrogant towards the religious here. I'm just saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top