# Religion and you (well, us)



## Archevald (Dec 14, 2009)

Are we really all damned to eternity in hell? And no, hell is not for yiffing but for burning.

(P.S. If you ask I am actually a proud christian, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Dec 14, 2009)

Are you really spending money you don't need to at your church.....

Hell= scare tactic, so you follow the religion

I always say if theres a god he loves everybody.

Also wrong area 4 this I think


----------



## Dass (Dec 14, 2009)

The bible is so gorram flawed it says near every human on the planet is going to hell for one reason or another. 

For example, eating pork, eating shellfish, wearing a blend of fabrics, shaving, speaking ill of your parents (which it also says is punishable by death), having sex with a woman on her period (punishable by exile), etc.

(this was found in the same section as the part against homosexuality, you frakking hypocrite fundamentalists)
(not talking to all christians, just the homophobic ones)


----------



## ADF (Dec 14, 2009)

Difficult to answer seeing how you are a Christian and actually believe in hell, cannot just tell you it doesn't exist. It's just such a ridiculous concept, I don't know why you believe it.

Heaven is the carrot on a stick, hell the whip on the backside for not moving, religion makes great promises and threats to force people to submit to their will.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 14, 2009)

I would find it rather funny if someone's personal beliefs were in fact what happened to them in the afterlife.


You'll find a good few people on here who are rather opposed to religious ideas, rather abrasively as well.


----------



## Tsun (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't care where we came from and where will we go.

I think religion is bullshit by the way. No offence though, it's just my opinion, which you asked for.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Dec 14, 2009)

No.


----------



## Gogledd (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm an atheist, so I think that there's no punishment on the grounds that there's no-one to punish us.

Moral codes yes, superstition no. That's how religion should be viewed in a modern context.

(This is my opinion, you don't have to agree. No offence intended.)


----------



## Senora Kitty (Dec 14, 2009)

Tsun said:


> I don't care where we came from and where will we go.
> 
> I think religion is bullshit by the way. No offence though, it's just my opinion, which you asked for.


*high fives* Agnostic here. I believe in a higher power just not in religion.

IMHO every religion on earth has something fucked up in it.


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 14, 2009)

I have no inclination to believe that anything other than matter and the results of matter exists...so, I'm gonna have to say nobody goes to Hell. Or Heaven. Or anywhere.

When you die...you die. Have fun with what's going on here and don't worry about what's afterward.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 14, 2009)

Archevald said:


> Are we really all damned to eternity in hell? And no, hell is not for yiffing but for burning.
> 
> (P.S. If you ask I am actually a *proud christian*, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)



Religion is nothing to be proud of. It's not an accomplishment, it's a failure :V . Are we supposed to be impressed by the fact that you've managed to doublethink your way out of the fact that your own religion doesn't like you? That isn't much of a feat seeing as your religion doesn't even know what it is :V .


----------



## VoidBat (Dec 14, 2009)

God gives blowjobs in Heaven. Satan does the same in Hell.

End of story.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 14, 2009)

VoidBat said:


> God gives blowjobs in Heaven. Satan does the same in Hell.
> 
> End of story.



So the great philosophical quandary becomes, who gives better head :V ?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2009)

Bible = FOS (Full of shit)

No, I do not think we are all damned to an eternity in hell.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm an atheist.

And no, we're not condemned to hell.  There's likely no such place.  There's likely no heaven either.


----------



## Aden (Dec 14, 2009)

Yes, I'm sure that your god has condomned you to eternal suffering for liking animal-head people. Shame on you.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 14, 2009)

:v This was a terrible Christianity thread. This one better not go ten pages.


----------



## Lil Mal (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm an atheist and a scientist. I personally don't think the religion has any place left to be in this world anymore. Its all superstition crap and its holding back the progress of scientific discovery just because people are scared. And religious people piss me off because they keep me from marrying the man I love when they have absolutely not right what so ever to do so! In my eyes they should be the ones to burn in hell. (sorry if I offended anyone but thats what I think)


----------



## HoneyPup (Dec 14, 2009)

I've always found the concept of "heaven and hell" to be a bit outrageous, but as a Christian I just took it as: even though it makes no sense, it just is. Then I grew up and started to think for myself.

Nothing happens after you die. You just die, cease to exist. 

As for your question... according to Christian belief, the only way to heaven is through accepting Jesus as your savior. Which basically makes all other actions irrelevant. You could be a really good person and end up in hell; or you could be a terrible person and accept Jesus before you die, and get to heaven. It's really silly if you think about it.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Dec 14, 2009)

uhg. Here we go...



Lil Mal said:


> I'm an atheist *and a scientist*.


 
Oh, you have a Google degree like me. Cool.


----------



## south syde dobe (Dec 14, 2009)

Aden said:


> Yes, I'm sure that your god has condomned you to eternal suffering for liking animal-head people. Shame on you.


 They're evil I tellz ya XP


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> uhg. Here we go...


The drama level already is over 9000!

Seriously why do people keep making threads like these on FAF?
It just ends up with a bunch of people yelling at each other telling each other that they're wrong and/or going to hell and/or telling a person they're brain washed, saying if someone doesn't believe the way they do then their intolerant and if they don't agree with your hate towards them side then their being intolerant, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

All this is going to do is get most of the people posting on here butt hurt and making livejournal posts whining, etc. etc.


----------



## selkie (Dec 14, 2009)

Archevald said:


> (P.S. If you ask I am actually a proud christian, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)




I didn't know they conflicted...?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> The drama level already is over 9000!
> 
> Seriously why do people keep making threads like these on FAF?
> It just ends up with a bunch of people yelling at each other telling each other that they're wrong and/or going to hell and/or telling a person they're brain washed, saying if someone doesn't believe the way they do then their intolerant and if they don't agree with your hate towards your side then their being intolerant, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> ...


----------



## Jelly (Dec 14, 2009)

selkie said:


> I didn't know they conflicted...?



and thats pretty much it


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 14, 2009)

"Nee-ner, I get to LIVE FOREVER because God LOVES ME waaaaay more than you. That will SHOW YOU for calling my tie faggy!"


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> "Nee-ner, I get to LIVE FOREVER because God LOVES ME waaaaay more than you. That will SHOW YOU for calling my tie faggy!"


...*facepalm*
didn't you read my comment?

Seriously people you're discussion religion on the forums for a website that you can browse by, inflation, vore, baby fur, bondage, watersports and "other" for anything you can't think of.

What is the matter with people on here?  Being right on the internet doesn't matter, after all the internet is the home of surprise buttsex.

Discussing religion here is like discussion women's rights on youporn.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> ...*facepalm*
> didn't you read my comment?
> 
> Seriously people you're discussion religion on the forums for a website that you can browse by, inflation, vore, baby fur, bondage, watersports and "other" for anything you can't think of.
> ...



Chill pill, brah.

All the SRS religious discussion takes place here, anyway. On the non-yiffing Internets!

Seriously, though, read through it. I think everyone should.


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Dec 14, 2009)

Religion is only what you make of it.  To me, if God loves you then he should love you for being yourself.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 14, 2009)

according to the bible if you steal you go to hell.
according to the bible if you cheat on your wife you go to hell.
according to the bible if you have GAY SEX you go to hell.
according to the bible if you even think about sex you go to hell.
according to the bible if you lie you go to hell.
according to the bible if you even think about lying you go to hell.
according to the bible thinking about lying and GAY SEX are considered equal because all sins are equal.

conclusion? everyone's going to hell no matter what they do because they need to ask for forgiveness.

yiff? ask for forgiveness, ???? profit!


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

Here comes the drama again.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Here comes the drama again.



DRAMA LLAMA


----------



## ADF (Dec 14, 2009)

I remember when the pope made new sins, he created new ways to damn people to eternal suffering to increase confession attendance :lol:


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Dec 14, 2009)

Hot_Dragon said:


> Are you really spending money you don't need to at your church.....
> 
> Hell= scare tactic, so you follow the religion
> 
> ...


 Now that you reject religion, I feel much safer there.
:3c


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 14, 2009)

Having fun is a sin.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2009)

icecold24 said:


> Having fun is a sin.



According to most religions everything is a sin.

Farting is probably a sin.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Dec 14, 2009)

icecold24 said:


> Having fun is a sin.


If fun's a sin then I'm the biggest of all sinners.

RAAAAVE!:twisted:


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

Just about everything in the bible is a sin.

Besides, Furry is a hobby not a goddamn cult.


----------



## Ryis16 (Dec 14, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> DRAMA LLAMA


 LMAO ah Zrcalo, I love you so.

Ok I'm a catholic (barely ^_^) and I was taught one basic thing: If it feels good, stop. I say screw that! Live your life folks!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Just about everything in the bible is a sin.
> 
> Besides, Furry is a hobby not a goddamn cult.



Unfortunately a select few furries see it as a cult for some fucked up reason.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Unfortunately a select few furries see it as a cult for some fucked up reason.



Maybe because of the drama asspatting that goes around like the h1n1 virus?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

I think there is one thing everyone on here can agree with though
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab74/guitar999111/scientology.jpg


----------



## Ryis16 (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> I think there is one thing everyone on here can agree with though
> http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab74/guitar999111/scientology.jpg


 EPIC


----------



## HoneyPup (Dec 14, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> Chill pill, brah.
> 
> All the SRS religious discussion takes place here, anyway. On the non-yiffing Internets!
> 
> Seriously, though, read through it. I think everyone should.



Interesting site.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Maybe because of the drama asspatting that goes around like the h1n1 virus?



I am sure a lot of the drama around is deliberate done because some people love to stir up shit, this goes for both sides.


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

My view is this, Hell is really a place completely absent from God and so 100% terrible. Burning, pain, cold coffee, everything. However, for "christians" to go around and say that God hates homosexuals or whatever is a complete lie. He loves each and every person regarless of sexuality, race, or whatever. And to be honest, i really have no proof that God exists other than the bible and my own faith. If im wrong about God's existance, then fine, im wrong. No big deal. 



Dass said:


> The bible is so gorram flawed it says near every human on the planet is going to hell for one reason or another.
> 
> *For example, eating pork, eating shellfish, wearing a blend of fabrics, shaving, speaking ill of your parents (which it also says is punishable by death), having sex with a woman on her period (punishable by exile), etc.*
> 
> ...


 

As far as this goes, most laws like this were obliterated with Jesus's death and the curtin to the holy of holies tore.

As for homosexuality, its only one sin, equally punishable as a lie. So for a "christian" to look at a gay person and think to themself that that person going to hell is one, judgemental (a sin), two arrogance (a sin), and three prideful (a sin). So boom for the one sin a homosexual committed the "christian" committed three. Personally, i couldnt care what anyone's sexuality is. Its not any of my business and God loves them regardless.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> My view is this, Hell is really a place completely absent from God and so 100% terrible. Burning, pain, cold coffee, everything. However, for "christians" to go around and say that God hates homosexuals or whatever is a complete lie. He loves each and every person regarless of sexuality, race, or whatever. And to be honest, i really have no proof that God exists other than the bible and my own faith. If im wrong about God's existance, then fine, im wrong. No big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I do agree with you on that part.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> My view is this, Hell is really a place completely absent from God and so 100% terrible. Burning, pain, cold coffee, everything. However, for "christians" to go around and say that God hates homosexuals or whatever is a complete lie. He loves each and every person regarless of sexuality, race, or whatever. And to be honest, i really have no proof that God exists other than the bible and my own faith. If im wrong about God's existance, then fine, im wrong. No big deal.
> 
> As for homosexuality, its only one sin, equally punishable as a lie. So for a "christian" to look at a gay person and think to themself that that person going to hell is one, judgemental (a sin), two arrogance (a sin), and three prideful (a sin). So boom for the one sin a homosexual committed the "christian" committed three. Personally, i couldnt care what anyone's sexuality is. Its not any of my business and God loves them regardless.


Cold coffee?
NNNNOOOOOOOO!!!
Also I agree.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 14, 2009)

Ryis16 said:


> LMAO ah Zrcalo, I love you so.
> 
> Ok I'm a catholic (barely ^_^) and I was taught one basic thing: If it feels good, stop. I say screw that! Live your life folks!



I'm christian.
god told me to be gay.

he also lol's.


----------



## Miyuu (Dec 14, 2009)

Hot_Dragon said:


> Hell= scare tactic, so you follow the religion
> 
> I always say if theres a god he loves everybody.



This is exactly what I think.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2009)

I was fortunate enough to be linked to this website which presents a few arguments, backed up by bible passages I didn't know existed when I was raised on it. I'd like to see a response to the author of the site, which argues that rape, slavery, murder, abortion, and war are all *not* advocated and practiced by some or all of the following: God, his Chosen people, and Jesus.

It's uh... it's pretty interesting stuff.
www.evilbible.com
Fun late-night read.

Oh, and it includes Old and New Testament substance. 

All that silly stuff aside, I found this snippet particularly amusing:


			
				(Luke 19:29-35) said:
			
		

> As they came to the towns of Bethphage and Bethany, on the Mount of Olives, he sent two disciples ahead.  "Go into that village over there," he told them, "and as you enter it, you will see a colt tied there that has never been ridden.  Untie it and bring it here.  If anyone asks what you are doing, just say, 'The Lord needs it.'"  So they went and found the colt, just as Jesus had said.  And sure enough, as they were untying it, the owners asked them, "Why are you untying our colt?"  And the disciples simply replied, "The Lord needs it."  So they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments over it for him to ride on.



Next time you're out a ride, ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?"
Definitely not steal.


----------



## Naughtypaws (Dec 14, 2009)

I saw a painting showing the hounds of hell. They looked pretty hot!

I'll get my coat...


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2009)

Oh, I forgot where I was posting.


----------



## Archevald (Dec 14, 2009)

Seeing as I only went to sleep for a few hours I have decided to bring my little piece to this after starting. It goes like this...

I am a Christian for a few reasons:

1. Hell doesn't sound like a very nice place.
2. One that walks with the lord isn't safe from trouble but is helped through hard times like having a personal shrink right there with you the whole time.
3. You build god's kingdom (tithes, offerings, simply volunteering for things) and he will build yours (miracles for you and basicly a 'good karma' setting)

Now, because it says in the bible that beasts do not have souls, only humans that leads u to believe that furries infact are just beasts and would just be that if they existed. BUT...

It is also said that man is to rule over all the animals and has a right to do so. And why you ask? Because we are the ones blessed with an advanced mind. Now things get interesting....

If man is to control the beasts with his supreme mind, if there is a being (notice I said being, not animal) with that same or better brain power and a body to be able to use it to a sufficient standard. Then they are at the same or above level of man, and something equal or beyond the power of man is not in it's cold grasp. 

Therefore, if something is not an animal, and at the same level as man what else can it be but just another version of man? It fits all the categories. 

It also states about the soulless thing and that only those created in god's image have souls, which we THINK is just humans, BUT...

It ALSO states that god is a being of light, has no physical body whatsoever, the only physical representation of such is Jesus who ONLY came out as a human due to being born from a human mother. Think of god like ditto from Pokemon, genderless, and it can change it's shape in order to mate appropriately with any species to get one of the same...

Therefore, we have been made in god's honour yes, but only what's on the inside, the outside is but a simple shell, it withers and dies but we live on. And if god isn't human himself then a furry is in fact a human, just a different shell. Able to think to that powerful level and is exempt from the grasp of man. 

There is my rant, furries should they ever happen are simply humans with a different shell and they DO have souls AND should be treated as such.


As a side note I would like to say I absolutely love the christ-flict this has caused, so many different views and such. Gives me a good snapshot of the FAF fandom members.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

I am going to hell because I am a Godless heathen. :V

Well...Buddhist really..
I'll grab a keg.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Dec 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I am going to hell because I am a Godless heathen. :V
> 
> Well...Buddhist really..
> I'll grab a keg.


 
You a chubby chaser?


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You a chubby chaser?



Buddha was never fat and I hate fat people.

They smell and they bitch when I tell them that their ass is a fire hazard.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Dec 14, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Buddha was never fat and I hate fat people.
> 
> They smell and they bitch when I tell them that their ass is a fire hazard.


 
This made my day. And wasn't fat? Huh. I just assumed he was from all the statues I've seen.


----------



## 8-bit (Dec 14, 2009)

I'd be religious if I wasn't so tired of giving a shit. I'm going to hell? ok.


----------



## Zrcalo (Dec 14, 2009)

in the end during the apocalypse, god's gonna rapture all the heathens and smite all the christians.

that's what he did when he first came anyway.
he smited all the jews and made a new religion.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Dec 14, 2009)

For me religion simply = Pure piece of bullshit. 
My opinion end here, have a nice day.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> This made my day. And wasn't fat? Huh. I just assumed he was from all the statues I've seen.



In Hindu art, they portrayed "Jolly" spirits and things to be chubby. :/


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> *Cold coffee?*
> NNNNOOOOOOOO!!!
> Also I agree.




I saw the joke in a Farside comic, just thought id lighten the mood.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 14, 2009)

Most of the time in history, religion follows this formula.

Make a story > create followers through terror tactics > impede human rights > murder people who disagree with you > ??? > profit!


----------



## Aden (Dec 14, 2009)

lupinealchemist said:


> Most of the time in history, religion follows this formula.
> 
> Make a story > create followers through terror tactics > impede human rights > murder people who disagree with you > ??? > profit!



Christ used terror tactics to gain followers? I generally get the impression that he wasn't that much of a dick.


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm supposed to be catholic, but I believe in earth spirits and stuff like that


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

Aden said:


> Christ used terror tactics to gain followers? I generally get the impression that he wasn't that much of a dick.


The only time he killed something was a tree.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 14, 2009)

Aden said:


> Christ used terror tactics to gain followers? I generally get the impression that he wasn't that much of a dick.


I doubt the J man was either. I'm actually talking about the Crusades and that French werewolf legend whose name I can't think of.


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> The only time he killed something was a tree.



*GASP* that douche! >:c


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2009)

Wait, so am I excused for not going to church?


----------



## ShadowEon (Dec 14, 2009)

I am christian as well and I also believe in hell, I really hope I don't go there but I can only hope for the best. I do worry sometimes but *sigh*...


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> Wait, so am I excused for not going to church?


 
No! You will be excommunicated ASAP! *backs away so I don't get struck by lightning*


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> Wait, so am I excused for not going to church?



Common misconception about Christianity. Really the only point to church is so you can meed with other believers. I almost never go cuz its filled with arrogant old farts who think spiking your hair and wearing bluejeans is disrespectful . Nevermind the fact that the bluejeans are like $85 from Tommy Hilfiger and brand fucking new.


----------



## Bacu (Dec 14, 2009)

*HURR DURR

loldrama
*


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 14, 2009)

adog said:


> No! You will be excommunicated ASAP! *backs away so I don't get struck by lightning*



I guess it's too late to repent...
I shall patiently await thee, lightning bolt.



MathiasLupen said:


> Common misconception about Christianity. Really the only point to church is so you can meed with other believers. I almost never go cuz its filled with arrogant old farts who think spiking your hair and wearing bluejeans is disrespectful . Nevermind the fact that the bluejeans are like $85 from Tommy Hilfiger and brand fucking new.



Yeah, those are expensive jeans. Just because you aren't dressed for business doesn't mean you're underdressed.

I love formalities.


The way I see it, I'm going to leave the speakerphone on, if god wants to ever share his thoughts. I don't really feel like asking anymore though, haha.


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> Common misconception about Christianity. Really the only point to church is so you can meed with other believers. I almost never go cuz its filled with arrogant old farts who think spiking your hair and wearing bluejeans is disrespectful . Nevermind the fact that the bluejeans are like $85 from Tommy Hilfiger and brand fucking new.


 
Church is kind of stupid.  Its only purpose is to reinforce your religion, and if you are already a solid believer than you shouldn't need to go to church


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

adog said:


> Church is kind of stupid.  Its only purpose is to reinforce your religion, and if you are already a solid believer than you shouldn't need to go to church




My thoughts exactly. Besides, in my view, i get a better relationship by bein in a quiet place than in a church with a few hundred people at a time.


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> My thoughts exactly. Besides, in my view, i get a better relationship by bein in a quiet place than in a church with a few hundred people at a time.


 
Yeah, being surrounded by that many strangers is kind of awkward. I can't believe that it is considered a sin to not attend church


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 14, 2009)

adog said:


> Yeah, being surrounded by that many strangers is kind of awkward. I can't believe that it is considered a sin to not attend church


It's not a sin to not go to church.
Who keeps on coming up with the "sins" that it doesn't say anywhere in the bible?


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

adog said:


> Yeah, being surrounded by that many strangers is kind of awkward. I can't believe that it is considered a sin to not attend church



Its not. (well i dont think it is, ah well who gives a fuck)(well sayin that was,.... ah well who gives a fuck)


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> Its not. (well i dont think it is, ah well who gives a fuck)(well sayin that was,.... ah well who gives a fuck)


 
In the eyes of "God" it is considered moral (a.k.a the worst kind of) sin to not attend church because you are deliberately turning your back on him.  Them true catholics are very tricky people to make happy


----------



## MathiasLupen (Dec 14, 2009)

adog said:


> In the eyes of "God" it is considered moral (a.k.a the worst kind of) sin to not attend church because you are deliberately turning your back on him.  Them true catholics are very tricky people to make happy




*cough* horseshit *cough*


----------



## Viva (Dec 14, 2009)

MathiasLupen said:


> *cough* horseshit *cough*


 
I had you....and then I lost you. haha


----------



## gitsie (Dec 14, 2009)

Well I'm a JW probably the only one here, I'm not into the sexual stuff I just like anthro art. I do not think God would have a problem with that.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Dec 14, 2009)

meh religion is to touchy for me to talk about because people have trouble reading my posts then they go bat shat crazy


----------



## Telnac (Dec 14, 2009)

Archevald said:


> Are we really all damned to eternity in hell? And no, hell is not for yiffing but for burning.
> 
> (P.S. If you ask I am actually a proud christian, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)


I see no problem with being a Christian and being a furry.  There are plenty of Christians who'd disagree with me, but those are the sort of Christians who think that dancing & having wine with dinner both earn you a one-way trip to Hell.  (And to them, I issue one simple challenge: chapter & verse, please.)

And yes, I'm a Christian myself.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 14, 2009)

Xipoid said:


> I would find it rather funny if someone's personal beliefs were in fact what happened to them in the afterlife.
> 
> 
> You'll find a good few people on here who are rather opposed to religious ideas, rather abrasively as well.



Yeah well, personally here, I don't have a problem with people being religious.

But mythology should not be a basis for making laws, and when enforcing personal beliefs based on mythology becomes more important than the lives and welfare of people...that's a problem. I can't see it any other way.

That's my contribution to this thread through. Religion and mythology are one in the same to me. I don't see a reason to entertain such thoughts as "Will we go to hell" or anything like that. It's why I say I disassociate with religion.

EDIT: Meaning I do more than just not associate with religion. I disassociate certain thought patterns about religion from my mind. To me those thoughts are a waste of time.


----------



## Solinuas (Dec 14, 2009)

I personally dislike religion, as i just think it is a shmancy excuse to delude yourself. but im not gonna go hate someone because they are religious just because i think its a load of bull, i mean i think Jesus was a normal guy, a good con artist, or very charismatic man, but still normal as everyone else. 

Besides im not gonna live my life other than how i want to live it because i MIGHT go to hell, ill take that chance.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 14, 2009)

Aden said:


> Christ used terror tactics to gain followers? I generally get the impression that he wasn't that much of a dick.



He ransacked a temple in Jerusalem shortly after arriving, according to the Gospels.



			
				Wrong post said:
			
		

> Wrong quote.



Matt 18:20  [Edit: I meant to reply to the not going to church thingy.  Dunno how I missed so epically.]

Despite a growing bad habit of citing Bible verses (especially on a furry forum), I stopped calling myself a Christian years ago.

Personally, I don't believe in separate realms of eternal salvation and damnation, I don't believe that it's possible to get closer to or farther from that which brought us into existence in any sort of meaningful sense, and I never believed that the being that brought me into existence can be so evil as to judge my eternal fate based on the thoughts and will of those who left this world long before I arrived.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Dec 14, 2009)

Lil Mal said:


> Its all superstition crap and its holding back the progress of scientific discovery just because people are scared.


 
Just curious how is it holding back scientific progress,


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 14, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> meh religion is to touchy for me to talk about because people have trouble reading my posts then they go bat shat crazy



Which part: The part when you said you don't approve of child molesters and then said "As long as they are in love it is okay"?


I'll leave that there for future discussion.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

Brinster said:


> Just curious how is it holding back scientific progress,


Seconded

What most people don't understand is alot of scientists are religious also.
One of my friends who is about to graduate is studying to become a scientist and he's extremely religious.  Saying religion is holding back science is just playing a blame game.


----------



## DeGei (Dec 15, 2009)

The funniest part about it is exactly how many of the founders of these religions were on similar tracks. Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, The founders of Hinduism, Muhammad, and Confucius they had all wanted to better mankind. It may seem silly to think of an "afterlife" or "Heaven and Hell" but sometimes the "Carrot on a Stick" is preferable to "Please go that way, we would appreciate it." If so many religions across the world in different places all came up with a higher power, don't you think there might be a reason? That is just opinion on that last part, believe what you will.

Science and Religion are neither mutually exclusive as far as I know. A strong faith (of any sort) may bring a person to want to better the world, which could lead to a career in science. I think one of the biggest problem facing people today is a compulsive need to label everyone and everything around us into groups. Once these groups are established people begin to erect mental walls around them, dividing them in ways that may or may not fundamentally be accurate. "Christian" "Furry" "Scientist" "Politician" "Artist" "Gamer" "Nerd" "Jock" "Goth" "Atheist" "Catholic" "Actor" "Terrorist" "American" "Canadian" "German" "Russian" "Pagan" and I could go on and on. These are just labels. Maybe if religions in general could ignore those labels and start caring about a more general term like "Humans" or "People" they would stop seeming like money cults (*cough*Scientology*cough) and more like the basis for morality they claim to be. 

The religious zealots like to point fingers and say "You are doing this wrong and this wrong and so you have to be punished." Its the tattletale mentality, you look bad so I look better. The books all say be patient and caring, but they do the opposite. Im a Christian, (feel free to boo now) so the story this reminds me of is the one of the good Samaritan. The Samaritan was a holy person, he was the "unclean" race, but he is the one who stopped and helped the mugged character when the holy and religious folks wouldn't. 

It's not a matter of what religion are you. It's not a matter of what happens when you die. It's a matter of who is going to punish you for doing wrong. It's a matter of why do you want to do what's right? And if the only answer religion is giving boils down to "to get the carrot off the stick" then I hope the Atheist and such out there will step up and say "because we can."


----------



## Captain Spyro (Dec 15, 2009)

Archevald said:


> Are we really all damned to eternity in hell? And no, hell is not for yiffing but for burning.
> 
> (P.S. If you ask I am actually a proud christian, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)



I'm a Christian who grew up a southern baptist, but migrated to non-denominational. When it comes to Hell, I'm on the fence.

It wasn't that long ago when I went to a church service, the main subject of that sermon was, indeed, Hell.

I can see the reason for it being there, but it's existence, to me, seems illogical and I happen to believe that God is a logical being.:?


----------



## icecold24 (Dec 15, 2009)

Brinster said:


> Just curious how is it holding back scientific progress,



For one, people are bitching endlessly about embryonic stem-cell research and how we're "killing" what is essentially two conjoined cells in a petri dish. A goddamn embryo is not a child.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 15, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> I'm a Christian who grew up a southern baptist, but migrated to non-denominational. When it comes to Hell, I'm on the fence.
> 
> It wasn't that long ago when I went to a church service, the main subject of that sermon was, indeed, Hell.
> 
> I can see the reason for it being there, but it's existence, to me, seems illogical and I happen to believe that God is a logical being.:?


Hell makes sense if you understand it to be a literal second death.  There are a number of verses that refer to Hell being that for us mortals.  The concept of Hell as a place where one burns and suffers eternally but never dies is something that's not for us.  It's reserved for beings who are by nature immortal: angels.  In particular, fallen angels.

That's the way I see it, any way.  And yes, I've studied the subject extensively.


----------



## Collie (Dec 15, 2009)

Personally I consider myself an unaffiliated Christian, with a slightly odd belief structure.  I don't believe in "hell" in the sense of you go there for all eternity.  I believe you do pay for your sins, however only in relative to what you committed.  Once you've received punishment for your sins I think you're allowed into heaven.  God is loving, not hating, he doesn't just toss you out and leave you to rot.  I like the idea of "levels" of hell for your sins, being that the more serious, the more severe the punishment.  A petty thief isn't on the same level as a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin.  And as for furries and gay, being yourself and expressing what you feel is true and right, so long as it doesn't harm others, in my belief isn't wrong or a sin.  It's who you are, and if it makes you happy why should you be punished for it?


----------



## Telnac (Dec 15, 2009)

Collie said:


> Personally I consider myself an unaffiliated Christian, with a slightly odd belief structure.  I don't believe in "hell" in the sense of you go there for all eternity.  I believe you do pay for your sins, however only in relative to what you committed.  Once you've received punishment for your sins I think you're allowed into heaven.  God is loving, not hating, he doesn't just toss you out and leave you to rot.  I like the idea of "levels" of hell for your sins, being that the more serious, the more severe the punishment.  A petty thief isn't on the same level as a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin.  And as for furries and gay, being yourself and expressing what you feel is true and right, so long as it doesn't harm others, in my belief isn't wrong or a sin.  It's who you are, and if it makes you happy why should you be punished for it?


Welcome to purgatory.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Welcome to purgatory.


You know, I just realized I don't even know how I would react if I went to heaven.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 15, 2009)

There is no god. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2009)

Bla bla bla, the Bible is filled with hypocrisy, bla bla bla, having morals needs no pretext or "ultimate good and evil", bla bla bla, Jesus wasn't a total douche, but neither was he that honest or revolutionary, bla bla bla, modern Christianity is more a culture of fear and exclusion organized in such a way as to create a sense of community and a defense against "undesirables" such as gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Democrats, and people who have actually read the Constitution and understand it.


----------



## Collie (Dec 15, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Welcome to purgatory.



Well, since we all do something wrong we'll be there for at least some time imo


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> There is no god. Your argument is invalid.


http://www.yourargumentisinvalid.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node/gatling_lincoln_0.jpg


----------



## Telnac (Dec 15, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Bla bla bla, the Bible is filled with hypocrisy, bla bla bla, having morals needs no pretext or "ultimate good and evil", bla bla bla, Jesus wasn't a total douche, but neither was he that honest or revolutionary, bla bla bla, modern Christianity is more a culture of fear and exclusion organized in such a way as to create a sense of community and a defense against "undesirables" such as gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Democrats, and people who have actually read the Constitution and understand it.


Drat, you're on to us!  Understanding the Constitution violates the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not know WTF is going on!

Dude, there are plenty of bigots who call themselves Christians who can pull a verse out of context to justify their bigotry.  But don't judge all Christians based on them.  There are a few of us who actually understand the Bible and what it means in context.  Yeah, just about everything is a sin.  But isn't that the whole point of Jesus coming to Earth in the first place?!  If we could earn our way to Heaven/Paradise without Him, the Bible would end at Malachi 4:6.

(Sooner, actually, since that verse speaks about the coming Messiah.)


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Dec 15, 2009)

Telnac said:


> That's the way I see it, any way.  And yes, I've studied the subject extensively.



Oh goodie, that means you surely have enough empirical data and proof on the existence of Hell to share with us.

Please do so.


----------



## Telnac (Dec 15, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Oh goodie, that means you surely have enough empirical data and proof on the existence of Hell to share with us.
> 
> Please do so.


No, I have an array of verses to back up the concept that Hell is a place where one's body & soul are destroyed, as opposed to the more common view that Hell is a place where one suffers an eternity of agony.

All of that assumes one believes in the message of the Bible, and therefore believes in the existence of Hell itself.  Otherwise, what's the point of me quoting verses to someone who doesn't believe them?


----------



## TriggerhappyWolf (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't like organized religon. It's too flawed. 
I had a priest tell me that alchohol was from the devil. I replied "if wine has alchohol in it and Jesus had wine for blood, then Jesus was made by the devil, so... Hail satin." He was in shock. 

There is a religon that believes in the great spaghetti monster. "may he one day touch us with his noodely apendage, may I get a Ramen from the congregation" also look up the church of the sub-genius for fun. 

As I said I'm not religous but you asked for our opinion, we just die and rot in a hole. If you want to call that hell go right ahead.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

No one's going to hell. The ultimate intelligence that created the Universe is loving. Hell would be what humans create for themselves and each other.

Using, often, things like threats of hell.

God, according to the Bible, is a spiritual rapist. "Suck up my bullshit and like it, or I'll burn you-- forever." This is human, not Divine. If any human being said, "Suck it or burn," there's no way we would ever consider that their victim had free will. The same goes with the Bible. It tries very hard to take away free will, through threats and coercion.

Plus, if you need an outside source to tell you what's moral and right, and to force you to obey simple things like don't steal and don't kill... no amount of "saving" can make you a good person. 

Verse 18 of the Tao points this out nicely:

_When the greatness of the Tao is present,
action arises from one's own heart.
When the greatness of the Tao is absent,
action comes from the rules
of 'kindness and justice.'

If you need rules to be kind and just,
if you only act virtuous,
this is a sure sign that virtue is absent.
Thus we see the great hypocrisy.

When kinship falls into discord,
piety and rites of devotion arise.
When the country falls into chaos,
official loyalists will appear;
patriotism is born._


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

Archevald said:


> Are we really all damned to eternity in hell? And no, hell is not for yiffing but for burning.
> 
> (P.S. If you ask I am actually a proud christian, and I have a beautifully crafted explanation for it to back both of my interests up against each other without friction either way.)


 
first of all, i'd _*love*_ to hear this beautifully crafted explanation. hypocrisy always makes my day. 

secondly:
a) if you really believe in your particular god, that's all that matters. 
and
b) if you think you're going to hell for being a furry, then your god has serious issues which he needs to have worked out. besides, no offense, but if the christian god (or any of the other monotheistic gods) were serious about all their gorram rules, they wouldn't wait until _after_ you're dead to enforce them. i mean, c'mon, if the dude's omniscient, he should be smart enough to know that waiting until 60+ years after the sin to punish it isn't really the best motivation

the only religion I have serious problems with is scientology. I want to personally strangle every single one of those bastards


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm a mormon...
And a furry.

First off, for you non-Christians, especially those who aren't very familiar with it, many of the laws of the OT, (That's old testament) and almost every story, is meant to be taken figuratively. Seriously, a lot of it is NOT to be taken literally. God created the world? Yeah, did he do it in seven days exactly? ...Do you THINK I'm that stupid? Of course he didn't. Figurative language, folks. Parables and stories.

And as for the serious laws? Jesus came and changed all that. Jesus was perfect and free of sin. However, he was killed. Willingly. Like a scarifice. HE is why Christians no longer routinely sacrifice animls to make themselves clean. 'Cause through his sacrifice, all men can be clean. 

Secondly, Mormons believe in pre-life existance, meaning that we once dwelled with God in Heaven, and that when God said "Hey my spirit-folk, I'mma send y'all to Earth so you can grow and learn a bunch more than you can up here. Down there you can hear and see and feel and taste and love and touch...It's gon' be wicked. 'k?" and then Lucifer, on of his closest angels was all like "WTF? I ain't goin down there!" and a third of heaven agreed with him and then God was just like "Fine then, jerk. GTFO MY HEAVEN!" and banished them to hell.

THOSE are the only spirits doomed to "hell," or "Outer darkness." Since we all sided with Our God-Man in heaven, we're all gauranteed the eternal life talked about. However, there are three levels. When God sent us down to heaven, he knew that a whole bunch of us would turn away from him, and deny him, and we would be tempted to sin. So he set up the three levels.

The highest level, for all the people who openly believed in God, and embraced his words, where we can all dwell with God and our loved ones after we die.
The middle level, for those people who were, y'know, decent folk but really didn't make an effort towards God at all. It's still pretty great here.
The bottom level, for the people who openly denied God, even while having the truth.

...But each level is still a billion times greater than life on Earth, so yeah. Nope, there's not 'eternal suffering' or any of that.

Least, that's what I believe. 

And please, no hating-on me, or calling me brainwashed. I was baptized into the church by chioce, after a heck of a lot of consideration and learning. My mother raised me as atheistic. I found God on my own, kthx.
However, if any of you are willing to debate, I'd love to. As long as you can keep it civil.

Tl;Dr:

There's no hell because we all made the right choice in a past life. Mormom's FTW.
I'll debate politely with anyone.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm a mormon...
> And a furry.
> 
> First off, for you non-Christians, especially those who aren't very familiar with it, many of the laws of the OT, (That's old testament) and almost every story, is meant to be taken figuratively. Seriously, a lot of it is NOT to be taken literally. God created the world? Yeah, did he do it in seven days exactly? ...Do you THINK I'm that stupid? Of course he didn't. Figurative language, folks. Parables and stories.
> ...


 
that totally convinced me to not slam the door in the face of the next mormon who comes to my door. I'm not saying i'll let them prosletyze, but i might invite them in for tea or somethin'

and personally, I believe that everyone has a god they are _meant_ to follow, but the fact that a lot of kids are raised to be blindly obedient to their parents' religion means that a lot of people end up in a religion they can't bring themselves to put their whole heart in


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> that totally convinced me to not slam the door in the face of the next mormon who comes to my door. I'm not saying i'll let them prosletyze, but i might invite them in for tea or somethin'
> 
> and personally, I believe that everyone has a god they are _meant_ to follow, but the fact that a lot of kids are raised to be blindly obedient to their parents' religion means that a lot of people end up in a religion they can't bring themselves to put their whole heart in



I know, it's quite sad, actually. I can't stand to see people not given a choice in what they do, or how they worship. It's a presonal thing, and if something really IS the truth, they'll come by it of their own accord. The best you can do (What the Momrons did for me) Is convert by example. Show them that you practice what you preach, theach them what you believe, but let them decide on their own.

Kids grow up resenting religion instead of keeping an open mind and learning about it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm a mormon...
> And a furry.
> 
> First off, for you non-Christians, especially those who aren't very familiar with it, many of the laws of the OT, (That's old testament) and almost every story, is meant to be taken figuratively. Seriously, a lot of it is NOT to be taken literally. God created the world? Yeah, did he do it in seven days exactly? ...Do you THINK I'm that stupid? Of course he didn't. Figurative language, folks. Parables and stories.
> ...



I know a family of mormons (Not personaly, just online) But never knew much about it. And before I ask a question I just want to be clear that I do believe in god, I just like to raise questions.

I've bolded a line in your post, how do you as mormons know "this is the truth"?

I will admit, I have sinned, been arrested for theft twice once back in 2006/2007, should of been imprisoned but received 80 hours of community service. Second time was in march 2008 where again, I should of been imprisoned but wasn't, instead received a 12 month conditional discharge. 

After that I chose not to commit such crimes (or any crimes) again. And yes, for the religious folk here, I did indeed say a few prayers to god, or whoever was listening up above before each court date. 

Coincidence I was let off lightly? (although still technically punished) maybe, maybe not.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I know a family of mormons (Not personaly, just online) But never knew much about it. And before I ask a question I just want to be clear that I do believe in god, I just like to raise questions.
> 
> I've bolded a line in your post, how do you as mormons know "this is the truth"?
> 
> ...



This is assuming that the "Truth" is the word of God. How do we know it's the truth? Honestly.... we can't KNOW, know. But then that brings up the Proof Paradox.

If there were rock-hard scientific proof of God, then where would the need for faith arise from? God gave every person "Free Agency" or "Free will" to believe in what he chooses, be it God, Scientology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. God does not force people to believe in him, and instead relies on faith. If it were scientifically proven, there would be no faith anymore and we wouldn't have a choice. etc.

It sounds so unintelligent of me, but it just... feels right. I truly believe that something much more powerful than myself has guided me to the Mormom church.

And as for your getting off lightly...
God works in mysterious ways. When we ask, he answers prayer... but not in the way we want, in the way we need. 
It's never direct, it's not 'God, can you do this for me?'

Example... I forgot my lunch at home in a busy morning when Mom was at work, and it was bitterly cold outside. So I prayed and asked for mom to be hom for lunch. I called... she wasn't. As I was leaving the office, my principal walked by and handed me an apple and said "Hey, it's National teacher's day! Have an apple!"

I gaurantee your prayers affected the outcome, but perhaps not in such a direct way.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> If there were rock-hard scientific proof of God, then where would the need for faith arise from? God does not force people to believe in him, and instead relies on faith. If it were scientifically proven, there would be no faith anymore and we wouldn't have a choice. etc.


Yeah if god was proven scientifically that would be the end of faith...
No wonder he doesn't let us see him, we'd all be screwed.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> This is assuming that the "Truth" is the word of God. How do we know it's the truth? Honestly.... we can't KNOW, know. But then that brings up the Proof Paradox.


 
I had a friend who was devoutly 7th day adventist, and when we'd debate about religion, i'd always bring up the fact that the bible was written by _men_, god did not directly inspire their words (though their faith _in_ god inspired them to write about it) and therefore it can be said to be colored by their personal judgements and beliefs. _He_ says that the bible was directly inspired by god, and that each and every word therein, whether or not it's meant literally or figuratively, came directly from god. what do you believe?


----------



## Dass (Dec 15, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah if god was proven scientifically that would be the end of faith...
> No wonder he doesn't let us see him, we'd all be screwed.



I'm curious, exactly how would the end of faith leave us all screwed?


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> I had a friend who was devoutly 7th day adventist, and when we'd debate about religion, i'd always bring up the fact that the bible was written by _men_, god did not directly inspire their words (though their faith _in_ god inspired them to write about it) and therefore it can be said to be colored by their personal judgements and beliefs. _He_ says that the bible was directly inspired by god, and that each and every word therein, whether or not it's meant literally or figuratively, came directly from god. what do you believe?



I was raised SDA, and this thinking is exactly the underlying cause of me ending up leaving the faith. This ideology that says it's a perfect writing from God and that it's incapable of error.

Given that the gospels disagree on the simplest of things, like whether or not Saul's lackeys saw the vision of Jesus... then that would have to mean that God couldn't keep his story straight!



Dass said:


> I'm curious, exactly how would the end of faith leave us all screwed?



Sarcasm, meet Dass. Dass, meet sarcasm.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm counting on reincarnation.  Go fuck your dog(ma), Bibblefurs.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> I had a friend who was devoutly 7th day adventist, and when we'd debate about religion, i'd always bring up the fact that the bible was written by _men_, god did not directly inspire their words (though their faith _in_ god inspired them to write about it) and therefore it can be said to be colored by their personal judgements and beliefs. _He_ says that the bible was directly inspired by god, and that each and every word therein, whether or not it's meant literally or figuratively, came directly from god. what do you believe?



I don't go by the bible, as it has already been said in this thread, "god" made us to have "free will" therefor I have the free will to choose what I believe in. The bible, in my opinion is not convincing enough for me to believe in it, plus I think a lot of the "laws" in the bible are just stupid. 

I don't feel the need to go to a church to worship god, I don't feel the need to worship god anywhere, I don't often pray to him, why? cause I feel like I am just bothering him with problems I can solve easily if I stopped and thought about them.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 15, 2009)

Tycho said:


> I'm counting on reincarnation.  *Go fuck your dog(ma)*, Bibblefurs.



(I found this too funny to be normal...)

Around here, I figure coming back as a dog would be the favourite, eh?
How do reincarnation-folk (ILU India!) explain why the world population is increasing?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> (I found this too funny to be normal...)
> 
> Around here, I figure coming back as a dog would be the favourite, eh?
> How do reincarnation-folk (ILU India!) explain why the world population is increasing?



I was reincarnated, I was a squirrel in a past life, I was.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 15, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> (I found this too funny to be normal...)
> 
> Around here, I figure coming back as a dog would be the favourite, eh?
> How do reincarnation-folk (ILU India!) explain why the world population is increasing?



Nah, not a dog.  I'll take another trip around as a human, if possible, kthx.

I once had a wacky pseudo-fantasy-scifi idea I came up with for a story I never wrote that could explain population fluctuations in a reincarnation-based world.  Can't remember how it went.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was reincarnated, I was a squirrel in a past life, I was.



And I was some sort of mushroom, if I recall correctly. Maybe we hung out in the same forest? :0


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> How do reincarnation-folk (ILU India!) explain why the world population is increasing?



It isn't, really. While humans might be increasing, consider the massive number of animals that are decreasing.

The Earth has the ability to support a certain number of spirits, be they human, animal, or otherwise.

However, that's just my understanding, I'm not answering for any particular dogma/system.


----------



## Aden (Dec 15, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> And I was some sort of mushroom, if I recall correctly. Maybe we hung out in the same forest? :0



Aw shit, that was you? I swore I could hear some tiny screaming when I ate that one mushroom...

Sorry bro


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> It isn't, really. While humans might be increasing, consider the massive number of animals that are decreasing.
> 
> The Earth has the ability to support a certain number of spirits, be they human, animal, or otherwise.
> 
> However, that's just my understanding, I'm not answering for any particular dogma/system.



One of the reasons animal population is decreasing is down to humans, we take their habitats away to build roads, houses etc, humans poach animals in countries like africa.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 15, 2009)

Aden said:


> Aw shit, that was you? I swore I could hear some tiny screaming when I ate that one mushroom...
> 
> Sorry bro



Her last great accomplishment in life was to make you trip balls.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> One of the reasons animal population is decreasing is down to humans, we take their habitats away to build roads, houses etc, humans poach animals in countries like africa.



I'm not sure I get your point. The sky is blue and the grass is green. If animals are being reborn as humans, then they don't need those habitats. They need human habitat, instead.

Before the argument is made, no, that doesn't make it okay to destroy, rape, pillage, kill, and purposely harm other creatures with a spirit of greed. A moral person would not do such, and this should be clear. Obviously, it's not always clear, but it should be.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> I'm not sure I get your point. The sky is blue and the grass is green. If animals are being reborn as humans, then they don't need those habitats. They need human habitat, instead.
> 
> Before the argument is made, no, that doesn't make it okay to destroy, rape, pillage, kill, and purposely harm other creatures with a spirit of greed. A moral person would not do such, and this should be clear. Obviously, it's not always clear, but it should be.



Who is to say animals get reincarnated as humans? what about the possibility of humans being reincarnated as animals? does reincarnation exist? perhaps reincarnation is an option when/if you get into heaven. 

You said about how animal population is decreasing and human population is increasing, correct?

1: there are more teen pregnancies in the uk alone each year then I care to count.

2: Most people do not know what a condom is for and end up getting someone pregnant and doing a runner. 

3: In china (If memory serves me correctly) they have a law which is 1 child per family to control the population, whereas most (if not all) other countries have no such laws.

4: Natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, brush fires, tsunamis, floods often kill a large number of people. 

5: Gay people also play a part in controlling the population of humans.

6: I have not even heard anywhere that animal populations are decreasing anyway. For example, rabbits (more so in my local area) are certainly not dwindling in numbers. 

Imo, it is human fault that the human population has been allowed to get so high. also I do not believe the planet can only hold so many "spirits", that's utter BS in my eyes.

Another point to make is, human females ovulate more frequently than most other mammals, for example isn't it once a month in a human female that they ovulate? most animals have "mating seasons" where they mate once a year, and can only mate during "mating season" whereas in a human female, they can mate all year round, meaning humans are able to reproduce faster.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> ...unrelated sci babble...



Believe what you want. A question was asked of people who believe in reincarnation. I answered from that standpoint. I'm not interested in debating it with you. I don't really care what you think is bullshit. 

One link amongst many that speaks of the increasing rate of species extinction. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/ Should you want more links, I'm sure you can manage the Google function yourself.

However, just to point out, your answers are all incorrect, anyway. The real, scientific answer, is simply this: There are more babies are being born every year, than there are people dying. This = population growth.

1. Teen pregnancy was the way of life in ancient civilizations. Lifespans were short, so one started early. Ergo, teen pregnancy has nothing to do with overpopulation, or it would have happened back then.

2. Condoms are a fairly recent discovery. Yet so is this 'overpopulation' business. Ergo, condoms are a moot point. The lack of condoms does not equal overpopulation, or once more, it would have happened thousands of years ago.

3. Another one in which the world managed somehow to survive for thousands of years without having billions of people in it. Despite only 1 wonderful country that obsessively controls its populace. It must be magic. Oh, where did the magic go??

4. Yes. And yet, despite these things, overpopulation. So what's the point of this little bullet point? Your argument is that humans are overpopulated because some get killed by natural disasters?

5. Homosexuals... oh yes, that's a brand new thing. Never had any of those in the past. Yet, still... overpopulation. Despite our absolutely burgeoning population of homosexuals (unlike, say, ancient Rome), we STILL have overpopulation. Because, you know, homosexuals never existed before. They've only emerged suddenly because of overpopulation. Yeah. For sure. History lies when it claims that past civilizations had homosexual populations.

6. Answered that. There are many, many links all over the internet about declining animal species, and mass extinctions.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Believe what you want. A question was asked of people who believe in reincarnation. I answered from that standpoint. I'm not interested in debating it with you. I don't really care what you think is bullshit.
> 
> One link amongst many that speaks of the increasing rate of species extinction. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/ Should you want more links, I'm sure you can manage the Google function yourself.



Science is known FACT, what you are saying about reincarnation can not be proved. that was my point, but again you back when proved wrong, or can not argue against me.

so you play the "I can't be bothered to argue" card.

I was actually debunking what you said about animal population dwindling because "they are reincarnated as humans" but of course you are too pig headed to see it. You really shouldn't be on a forum if you can not tolerate your views being debunked. "Oh dear I used science to ruin her views boohoo"


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Science is known FACT, what you are saying about reincarnation can not be proved. that was my point, but again you back when proved wrong, or can not argue against me.
> 
> so you play the "I can't be bothered to argue" card.


 
Reincarnation cannot be proved, but it is the most logical life-after-death opinion, considering the amount of energy in the universe must stay the same.  That is, if you consider our "soul" a type of energy.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Reincarnation cannot be proved, but it is the most logical life-after-death opinion, considering the amount of energy in the universe must stay the same.  That is, if you consider our "soul" a type of energy.



I don't consider souls (if we have them) to be a form of energy.

At least you can discuss, pheonixstar obviously doesn't know what debate means as she chickens out when you start debunking her views with some hard known facts of life.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Science is known FACT, what you are saying about reincarnation can not be proved. that was my point, but again you back when proved wrong, or can not argue against me.
> 
> so you play the "I can't be bothered to argue" card.
> 
> I was actually debunking what you said about animal population dwindling because "they are reincarnated as humans" but of course you are too pig headed to see it. You really shouldn't be on a forum if you can not tolerate your views being debunked. "Oh dear I used science to ruin her views boohoo"



I don't really care whether it can be 'proved' or not. I answered the question. The question was a spiritual question.

Anyone... well, almost anyone, apparently... can figure out that there's a growing population of humans because, as I stated, there are more babies born than there are people dying. DUH.

The question was for people who believe in reincarnation, and was asked as a spiritual question. Science doesn't answer the question, because it's not where the question was directed. 

As far as proving reincarnation, there is evidence that supports it. Whether or not such evidence is enough to convince a person, is up to that person. I was informed that I HAD to accept Islam because it "fit the criteria" of proof. The problem being that the proof that convinced the person talking to me, did absolutely nothing to sway my personal beliefs whatsoever. Our criteria for belief was not the same, thus no accord could be reached.

Enjoy the edit above. Your supposedly "scientific" answers are silly, at best. There can be only ONE true answer to the question, if taken from a sheerly scientific standpoint. More babies + fewer deaths = higher population. It ain't exactly rocket science.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't consider souls (if we have them) to be a form of energy.
> 
> At least you can discuss, pheonixstar obviously doesn't know what debate means as she chickens out when you start debunking her views with some hard known facts of life.


Try arguing something that actually speaks to the question. Your arguments had nothing to do with what was really being asked.

It's like someone saying, "How do I get my dog to eat?" and you come along and say, "Cats eat cat food." Like... duh? WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Absolutely nothing, just like when someone asked, "How does someone who believes in REINCARNATION explain why more souls are entering the world than ever before? They can't ALL be reincarnated humans, can they?"

And you come up with some crap like, "OMG, TEEN PREGNANCY, MAN!" 

Yes, dear, kids are getting pregnant. Yes, we'll all politely pretend it's a new thing. Feel all better now? Now, could we get back to the actual conversation?


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> 5. Homosexuals... oh yes, that's a brand new thing. Never had any of those in the past. Yet, still... overpopulation. Despite our absolutely burgeoning population of homosexuals (unlike, say, ancient Rome), we STILL have overpopulation. Because, you know, homosexuals never existed before. They've only emerged suddenly because of overpopulation. Yeah. For sure. History lies when it claims that past civilizations had homosexual populations.


 
is that supposed to be sarcasm? cause if it isn't, you and i have to talk


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> More babies + fewer deaths = higher population. It ain't exactly rocket science.



You didn't say that in your first post, you said "Animal population is dwindling because they are reincarnated as humans" So I was pointing out in my first response that humans play a big part in the decrease of animal population themselves. I never used science in my first response. Then you said "you didn't get my point" so I through some science into the works. 


As for this one, nah really? but again MEDICAL science played a big part in how long we live, it is due to _*medical*_ science that we have all the gadgets and medication that we have today that save lives and allows us to live longer.

Science may not of been able to answer the reincarnation question directly, but you can not deny that science is a big part of everyday life.

If people want to believe in reincarnation, that's fine, but to be totaly honest, I am rather skeptical on reincarnation


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> is that supposed to be sarcasm? cause if it isn't, you and i have to talk



Well, I thought it was obviously sarcasm. If not, then I apologize, I'll try to make my sarcasm a lot more clear next time. Although, I guess it depends on which part you think is sarcastic. No, homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon, and it's been around for recorded human history, according to historians. So the idea that homosexuals suddenly exist in order to curb population growth in humans doesn't hold any more water than teen pregnancy being a reason for overpopulation.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Well, I thought it was obviously sarcasm. If not, then I apologize, I'll try to make my sarcasm a lot more clear next time. Although, I guess it depends on which part you think is sarcastic. No, homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon, and it's been around for recorded human history, according to historians. So the idea that homosexuals suddenly exist in order to curb population growth in humans doesn't hold any more water than teen pregnancy being a reason for overpopulation.


 
well, the rest of what you were saying was serious (I think), so I thought you were serious about that, too. sarcasm is hard to do in text


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> well, the rest of what you were saying was serious (I think), so I thought you were serious about that, too. sarcasm is hard to do in text



She was being sarcastic, fuck.....she sounded serious to me >.<


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> She was being sarcastic, fuck.....she sounded serious to me >.<


 
maybe HTML should come out with a sarcasm tag...something like <sarcasm>_sarcastic statement goes here_</sarcasm>


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> maybe HTML should come out with a sarcasm tag...something like <sarcasm>_sarcastic statement goes here_</sarcasm>



I don't always pick up on sarcasm, as you said, it isn't always easy to pick it up in text form. Plus, I am used to picking sarcasm up in tone of voice and facial expressions, something text lacks.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> well, the rest of what you were saying was serious (I think), so I thought you were serious about that, too. sarcasm is hard to do in text



Well... in all fairness, I'm pretty sure it wasn't magic that prevented 'overpopulation' before the Chinese came up with their bright idea of forced population control.

Like I said, I just assumed it was SO over-the-top that it would be obvious, like the 'magic' comment.

I think it's all sorted out, though. Yes, it was sarcasm. 



RandyDarkshade said:


> You didn't say that in your first post, you said "Animal population is dwindling because they are reincarnated as humans" So I was pointing out in my first response that humans play a big part in the decrease of animal population themselves. I never used science in my first response. Then you said "you didn't get my point" so I through some science into the works.
> 
> 
> As for this one, nah really? but again MEDICAL science played a big part in how long we live, it is due to _*medical*_ science that we have all the gadgets and medication that we have today that save lives and allows us to live longer.
> ...



You didn't get the point. It was a spiritual discussion, not a scientific one. The two can, and often do, overlap, but some questions are purely one or the other.

For example, if someone asks me, "Do you have a cold?" I don't go into a spiritual discussion about disease. I answer the question as asked, "Yes, I have a cold." Is a dissertation on how disease happens in the body really necessary, or even appropriate, when someone asks me that? Nope.

The question was a spiritual one, not a question of "why, scientifically, are there more people in the world today, as opposed to 1,000 years ago?" Well, that's a different question from what was asked.

Yes, context matters. What is the context of the thread, scientific dissertations on why more babies are born than there are people dying? Clearly not... or not so clearly?

Did I accidentally click on the wrong thread, and this isn't actually the "religion and you" thread? Nope, I didn't. So I answered a spiritual question with a spiritual answer.

I didn't ask you to believe in reincarnation. I'm not interested in convincing you of reincarnation.

I was answering a direct question, one that I'm very familiar with, as someone who believes in reincarnation. I hear the "why more humans" question all the time. And it hasn't EVER meant, "tell me the scientific reason why there's more population now than before." Because most people aren't stupid, they can figure out that more babies + fewer deaths = growth in population. So I figured I'd answer the implied question, and that's what I did.

Perhaps the problem here is that you, because you don't believe in reincarnation and don't deal with the question on a regular basis, really didn't understand what was being asked.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't always pick up on sarcasm, as you said, it isn't always easy to pick it up in text form. Plus, I am used to picking sarcasm up in tone of voice and facial expressions, something text lacks.


 
ditto, but sometimes if you know someone well enough, you can tell they're being sarcastic even in text


----------



## Xouls_klattic (Dec 15, 2009)

THe main thing you have to understand, is If you earn your paradise then you get want _YOUR_ paradise is, so if yiffing in a very very warm place is your paradise that what you get if you follow what ever moral code you adhere to.  I,  for example, am closer to a shintoist than anything.  I make sure respect is given where it is due, I try to help out people as much as I can, and ultimate I try to leave things in better condition than when I get them.  Now as for shinto, When you pass on you don't really go anywhere, you become a spirit, a kami if you will (not a god for those of you who forget japanese-english translations cause 90% of misunderstandings between the two cultures)  and at that point I'll have a new code to adhere to.  BUt the main thing to think about is the afterlife is all about perception, and ultill you get there you won't know what its like.  Besides think about what "heaven" was for you 5 years ago, it is proabbly a completely different place not than what it was then for you


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

To the person who asked the question, by the way:

It's an interesting phenomenon that even people who don't believe in reincarnation nearly universally make the assumption that no new souls are ever introduced. They ask the question of "why more humans now?" in part because they hold that paradigm as a given.

This, to my personal opinion, is a very interesting thing, especially since most who ask this question didn't grow up around the concept of reincarnation. So they would have no basis for this strong assumption. One might be brought to wonder where the assumption comes from, given its clear lack within their social framework.

Or not.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

Xouls_klattic said:


> THe main thing you have to understand, is If you earn your paradise then you get want _YOUR_ paradise is, so if yiffing in a very very warm place is your paradise that what you get if you follow what ever moral code you adhere to. I, for example, am closer to a shintoist than anything. I make sure respect is given where it is due, I try to help out people as much as I can, and ultimate I try to leave things in better condition than when I get them. Now as for shinto, When you pass on you don't really go anywhere, you become a spirit, a kami if you will (not a god for those of you who forget japanese-english translations cause 90% of misunderstandings between the two cultures) and at that point I'll have a new code to adhere to. BUt the main thing to think about is the afterlife is all about perception, and ultill you get there you won't know what its like. Besides think about what "heaven" was for you 5 years ago, it is proabbly a completely different place not than what it was then for you


 

go shintoism! in my opinion, though i'm not shinto myself, shinto is _the best_ religion, 'cause it hasn't been influenced by the christians (no offense meant, christians)


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't always pick up on sarcasm, as you said, it isn't always easy to pick it up in text form. Plus, I am used to picking sarcasm up in tone of voice and facial expressions, something text lacks.


 
In order to pick up online sarcasm with people you've never met you need to be a really good guesser


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

nice GIR icon, adog


----------



## Dass (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Sarcasm, meet Dass. Dass, meet sarcasm.



â€¦
Someone really needs to make a gorram sarcasm filter already.

(Is there any particular reason nobody can spell phoenix in their name correctly?)


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Dass said:


> â€¦
> Someone really needs to make a gorram sarcasm filter already.
> 
> (Is there any particular reason nobody can spell phoenix in their name correctly?)



Well, if it's any consolation, I did it with mine on purpose. I more often see it spelled right, than wrong, myself.

I heard that a sarcasm filter was in the works, but god damned it.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

Dass said:


> â€¦
> Someone really needs to make a gorram sarcasm filter already.
> 
> (Is there any particular reason nobody can spell phoenix in their name correctly?)


 
I already said something like that a few posts up. in the meantime, we could use pseudo-html tags (<sarcasm> why, dass, what a lovely shirt you're wearing today </sarcasm>)


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

Poe's law strikes again!


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Poe's law strikes again!


 
poe's law?


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> poe's law?


I'd not heard of it, either, so I looked it up:

"_*Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
- Nathan Poe
*_


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> nice GIR icon, adog


 
Thanks^^. I like your foxy


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Thanks^^. I like your foxy


 
i know, doesn't he look positively evil?


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> i know, doesn't he look positively evil?


 
most definitely.  I hope it doesn't highlight your personality like my gir icon does mine...haha


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> most definitely. I hope it doesn't highlight your personality like my gir icon does mine...haha


 
it's just a statement about foxes in general. everyone thinks we're all cuddly oversexed submissives, and they forget that WE'RE CANINES, TOO. foxes have an evil side, too, you know


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> it's just a statement about foxes in general. everyone thinks we're all cuddly oversexed submissives, and they forget that WE'RE CANINES, TOO. foxes have an evil side, too, you know


 
oh I know it.  A fox ate my kitty when I was 11 :'(


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> oh I know it. A fox ate my kitty when I was 11 :'(


 
see? and it further proves my point that, unlike a normal person, i _giggled_ when i read that post


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> see? and it further proves my point that, unlike a normal person, i _giggled_ when i read that post


 
I cried for like 3 days.  But it made me realize that they aren't just a cuddly loveable animal.  I had a newfound respect for them after that


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

good thing you're not a chicken farmer. there's a reason there's the phrase 'fox in a hen-house'


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> good thing you're not a chicken farmer. there's a reason there's the phrase 'fox in a hen-house'


 
Haha yeah. We have a lot of chicken farmers around here, and foxes become a major problem for our economy. Unless we shoot them and sell their pelts...but i don't kill animals


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Haha yeah. We have a lot of chicken farmers around here, and foxes become a major problem for our economy. Unless we shoot them and sell their pelts...but i don't kill animals


 
you should make two chicken houses, one that the foxes can get into, and one that they can't, put the stupid-looking chickens in the first one. after awhile, they'll totally ignore the other one


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> you should make two chicken houses, one that the foxes can get into, and one that they can't, put the stupid-looking chickens in the first one. after awhile, they'll totally ignore the other one


 
haha won't they be able to smell the chickens and keep coming back and eventually dig their way in?


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Won't they be able to smell the chickens and keep coming back and eventually dig their way in?


 
that's why you make one chickenhouse that's easy to get into, as long as you keep it stocked with the stupid / unproductive chickens, they'll prefer the easy one

and is it just me, or are we the only ppl in this thread right now...we should continue this conversation in a pm...


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> that's why you make one chickenhouse that's easy to get into, as long as you keep it stocked with the stupid / unproductive chickens, they'll prefer the easy one


 
Those poor chickens...:'(.  If only they had been pretty and fertile


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Those poor chickens...:'(. If only they had been pretty and fertile


 
lol

...but they were tasty


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> lol
> 
> ...but they were tasty


 
I could say whoopi goldberg is tasty but that doesn't mean i would eat her...haha


----------



## Azure (Dec 15, 2009)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'll just leave this here...


 
HERESY!


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> HERESY!


 
lol


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

Wow. I disappear for a few hours and get this?
As for the person who asked about my opinion on the Bible (Sorry, folks, for un-derailing this topic)
I do believe that it was divinely INSPIRED. However, that doesn't mean that God stood there in the room and dictated exactly what was to be written. Therefore, personal prejudices may have slipped in.

HOWEVER, if this is about the Gay thing, that's not a personal prejudice. I, myself have no problem with gay people, one of my best friends is openly, loudly, proudly (and almost annoyingly) gay. But the religious standpoint on Homosexuality is that it is wrong BECAUSE Sex, in itself, is a holy, sacred act. And it should only be available in a loving, devoted, eternal relationship open to children. 

See, the Nuclear family is the absolute pillar of the church. And from the church's standpoint, society (I agree completely) This is why the Church is against divorce, as it undermines the 'family.' (Given, in situations such as abuse/adulturey, the church advocates whatever is best for the people involved, which may be divorce if your mate is a compulsive cheater) so Gayness is... not so much wrong, but they see it as undermining the traditional family... Mom and Dad and kids. 

And even biologically, it's true, that's how families should work. Mothers should care for, nurture and raise the children. Fathers should go out and make the bread. That's how we (GASP!) evolved. Even from a scientific standpoint, women are they way they are, to do what they're biologicaly meant to do- bear and raise children. We have hips and breasts for a reason, folks!


...Sorry, I do that a lot. ^^;
I talk ...er, type too much.


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> Wow. I disappear for a few hours and get this?
> As for the person who asked about my opinion on the Bible (Sorry, folks, for un-derailing this topic)
> I do believe that it was divinely INSPIRED. However, that doesn't mean that God stood there in the room and dictated exactly what was to be written. Therefore, personal prejudices may have slipped in.
> 
> ...


 
mansex is sex too! >:[


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 15, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'll just leave this here...


alalala


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> mansex is sex too! >:[



YEAH BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE KIDS OUT THE BUTT.

I don't have a problem with it, myself. I'm no gaybasher.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> Wow. I disappear for a few hours and get this?
> As for the person who asked about my opinion on the Bible (Sorry, folks, for un-derailing this topic)
> I do believe that it was divinely INSPIRED. However, that doesn't mean that God stood there in the room and dictated exactly what was to be written. Therefore, personal prejudices may have slipped in.
> 
> ...



They only thing I want to pick at here is the part on sex. animals do not have such a thing, yes they choose mates, but they don't marry each other and live with each other for the rest of their life.

Humans, infact, are animals aswell, and as such I do not feel the rules our fellow little animals follow should be any different to the ones we follow. Of course if you want to marry before sex, that is entirely your choice, but I don't think god would give a fuck either way. 

basicaly if humans are animals, and animals follow the basic principal of "find a suitable mate, mate, have babies, raise young, move on" Why don't humans, being a mammal, which is an animal, be any different?


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> Wow. I disappear for a few hours and get this?
> As for the person who asked about my opinion on the Bible*1. (Sorry, folks, for un-derailing this topic)*
> I do believe that it was divinely INSPIRED. However, that doesn't mean that God stood there in the room and dictated exactly what was to be written. Therefore, personal prejudices may have slipped in.
> 
> ...


 
1. don't worry, I was worrying myself that I was taking the topic _too_ off-topic

2. are you saying that gay relationships can't be loving, devoted, and monogamous?

3. how did homosexuality evolve, then? go look up 'homosexuality' on wikipedia, they have a very interesting passage on this topic


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> 1. don't worry, I was worrying myself that I was taking the topic _too_ off-topic
> 
> 2. are you saying that gay relationships can't be loving, devoted, and monogamous?
> 
> 3. how did homosexuality evolve, then? go look up 'homosexuality' on wikipedia, they have a very interesting passage on this topic



I wonder if people realize that animals do infact do some weird sexual things aswell?

One of our dogs used to roll up his blanket and hump it. And most recently moms "female" dog tried humping her bosses" female dog" from both ends.

So if animals are permitted to do some strange things sexually, again, I ask the question, as humans are technically an animal species, why are we different? why does religion dictate we have to be different?

It is these little things that make me believe a lot of the bible was written by someone who had views that went against sex before marriage and someone who disapproved of homosexual people. I don't believe that God said these where wrong. I believe whoever wrote the bible said these were wrong.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It is these little things that make me believe a lot of the bible was written by someone who had views that went against sex before marriage and someone who disapproved of homosexual people.* I don't believe that God said these where wrong. I believe whoever wrote the bible said these were wrong.*


 
amen!


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> amen!


 
^^ you made a funny


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> ^^ you made a funny


 
i do that from time to time


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

No, the religious opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, period.  Read your Leviticus.  

The Bible had NO problem with sex.  Sex with multiple wives.  Sex with your daughters.  Sex with your brother's wife after he died.  Sex sex sex.  

The problem the Bible has is with homosexuality.   

And as for your bullshit about Nuclear Family.. the concept of a Nuclear family is not biblical.  It's NEW.  It's something that has come about within the past few hundred years.  

You've been heavily brainwashed by religion, and I'd wager are going to find your stay here a bit uncomfortable until you move off the silly positions you are on.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> amen!



Well that is what I believe anyway, and if I die and God proves me wrong, then I will gladly accept I was wrong.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Are you asking the question of why we have to do things differently from animals as a scientific, or a spiritual question?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

It's funny to me that often the argument of Christian apologists is that humans should stick to the male/female/child form of family because it's natural. It's unnatural, they argue, for homosexuals to be a family because they don't create offspring. However, when pointed out how very many things are natural that are outlawed in the Bible, suddenly the argument alters and we can't base anything on nature, because it's flawed.

I certainly do wish that certain apologists (none I've seen so far in this thread) would get their story straight. Are humans natural animals, subject to following the rules of nature? Or are we unnatural creatures, our fates decided outside of what is 'natural'? Because it seems to me that you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> No, the religious opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, period.* Read your Leviticus *.
> 
> The Bible had NO problem with sex. Sex with multiple wives. Sex with your daughters. Sex with your brother's wife after he died. Sex sex sex.
> 
> ...


 
why? we've already established that the bible was _not_ dictated by god and that, in all likelihood, the personal prejudices of the various authors got slipped in alongside the other stuff. furthermore, if you were gay, would you try to suppress your true nature _just_ because christians tell you to?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

And while we're speaking of evolution, the purpose of evolution is to forward your genes.  Gay people can do that at a sperm bank.    Once you fuck and impregnate (or just impregnate), you are biologically and evolutionarily successful.  That's it.  All you need to do.    Your genes move on.


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> No, *the religious opinion is that homosexuality is wrong*, period. Read your Leviticus.
> 
> The Bible had NO problem with sex. Sex with multiple wives. Sex with your daughters. Sex with your brother's wife after he died. Sex sex sex.
> 
> ...


 
Why is there homosexuality in the world if its wrong? Won't "God" eliminate it?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

adog said:


> Why is there homosexuality in the world if its wrong? Won't "God" eliminate it?



I'm just pointing out to the poster that the Bible explicitly bans homosexuality because it's homosexuality.  I personally am an atheist 

Remember Lot's story?  When the male angels appeared at his door step, the townsfolk wanted to rape them.    Lot said "No.  That's wrong.  Have my daughter instead."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Are you asking the question of why we have to do things differently from animals as a scientific, or a spiritual question?
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't resist.
> 
> ...



Answer my question in which ever way suits you. 

I view humans as an animal, I mean we are technically mammals, a long side dogs, cats, etc etc. The only main differences between us and other mammals is our level of intellect and lack of body hair.

If you could answer in a spiritual way? I am interested to see different answers. Perhaps someone could answer in a scientific way also, just so we can compare replies and different views.


----------



## Viva (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I'm just pointing out to the poster that the Bible explicitly bans homosexuality because it's homosexuality. *I personally am an atheist*
> 
> Remember Lot's story? When the male angels appeared at his door step, the townsfolk wanted to rape them. Lot said "No. That's wrong. Have my daughter instead."


 
Haha i love you


----------



## Thou Dog (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> IAnd most recently mom's female dog tried humping her boss's female dog from both ends.


As hilarious as it is to see a female dog mount any other dog from behind and walk around humping it, it's even funnier to see a female dog mount any other dog from the front. When that happens at the park, people stop breathing - they're laughing too hard.

On a possibly related note: why are living creatures not perfectly designed by their allegedly perfect alleged creator? They're only designed to the standard of "good enough".


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 15, 2009)

DeGei said:


> The funniest part about it is exactly how many of the founders of these religions were on similar tracks. Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, The founders of Hinduism, Muhammad, and Confucius they had all wanted to better mankind. It may seem silly to think of an "afterlife" or "Heaven and Hell" but sometimes the "Carrot on a Stick" is preferable to "Please go that way, we would appreciate it." If so many religions across the world in different places all came up with a higher power, don't you think there might be a reason? That is just opinion on that last part, believe what you will.
> 
> Science and Religion are neither mutually exclusive as far as I know. A strong faith (of any sort) may bring a person to want to better the world, which could lead to a career in science. I think one of the biggest problem facing people today is a compulsive need to label everyone and everything around us into groups. Once these groups are established people begin to erect mental walls around them, dividing them in ways that may or may not fundamentally be accurate. "Christian" "Furry" "Scientist" "Politician" "Artist" "Gamer" "Nerd" "Jock" "Goth" "Atheist" "Catholic" "Actor" "Terrorist" "American" "Canadian" "German" "Russian" "Pagan" and I could go on and on. These are just labels. Maybe if religions in general could ignore those labels and start caring about a more general term like "Humans" or "People" they would stop seeming like money cults (*cough*Scientology*cough) and more like the basis for morality they claim to be.
> 
> ...


 
Christians are most often afraid of their peers, and of the social stigma attached to not being viewed as Christian more than they are afraid of God's wraith. 

And there is a difference between those who talk about faith, and implement faith. You might have faith, but that doesn't mean you are getting into heaven. You gotta do stuff. If you want to be christian, than be Christ-like, and not admit to trying to be christ. They simply do. 

I am not truly christian, though. I study all religions. Especially the Esoteric religions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Perhaps someone could answer in a scientific way also, just so we can compare replies and different views.


Most animals a single gene does a single job, like there's a gene for fur, etc.
Humans... It's a bit more complicated, sure there might be a gene to do a single task, but there are alot of genes that do multiple things or a single task that requires multiple genes.
That's why it took so long to decode the human genome it's more complex.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Most animals a single gene does a single job, like there's a gene for fur, etc.
> Humans... It's a bit more complicated, sure there might be a gene to do a single task, but there are alot of genes that do multiple things or a single task that requires multiple genes.
> That's why it took so long to decode the human genome it's more complex.


 
did you even take science in school? who the hell told you this crap? in most animals, just like in humans, characteristics are caused by the interactions of *multiple* genes


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Most animals a single gene does a single job, like there's a gene for fur, etc.
> Humans... It's a bit more complicated, sure there might be a gene to do a single task, but there are alot of genes that do multiple things or a single task that requires multiple genes.
> That's why it took so long to decode the human genome it's more complex.



Not really true, there.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I'm just pointing out to the poster that the Bible explicitly bans homosexuality because it's homosexuality.  I personally am an atheist
> 
> Remember Lot's story?  When the male angels appeared at his door step, the townsfolk wanted to rape them.    Lot said "No.  That's wrong.  Have my daughter instead."



Actually, that wasn't at all what happened. The people came to "know" the angels-- interrogate them, not rape them. The concept of "knowing someone" in that time period is different from what we have now. Looking at the time period and history, the phrase is about torture and interrogation. 

Then Lot offered his daughters to try to mollify them and keep them from interrogating the angels with torture.

The crime of the two cities is clearly established, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It was inhospitability, which is a far greater crime in those times, because unlike homosexuality, inhospitality can lead to death. Leave someone in the desert when they need help, and they could die. So one of the single greatest laws in the land was actually to be hospitable to strangers.

Wanting to interrogate someone is hardly hospitable.

This is a very common misconception. Additionally, all of the references to homosexuality in the Bible except the one in Leviticus can easily be argued to be NOT about homosexuality at all. The actual words in the original manuscript originally reference (everywhere else, except the Bible apparently) to people who purchase the right to have sex with children. Pedophiles, basically. The fact is that most child prostitutes were male, because female virginity was too costly a commodity. Most men did not patronize them because they were boys, but only because it was cheap and easily available sex. For some odd reason, these people are condemned to hell.

But of course, in modern times, many Christian denominations, as well as the Bible itself demonize the homosexuals by making them synomymous with child rapists. By intentionally misinterpreting that word, a paradigm is created, and it hasn't been questioned.

The reference in Leviticus is easily argued, given that many actual scholars who have studied the remains of the documents argue that it was added in later (along with some other things, but that's a moot point). Furthermore, it's often argued that these were rules for PRIESTS (and that's the section it's in), and not for the regular people.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Answer my question in which ever way suits you.
> 
> I view humans as an animal, I mean we are technically mammals, a long side dogs, cats, etc etc. The only main differences between us and other mammals is our level of intellect and lack of body hair.
> 
> If you could answer in a spiritual way? I am interested to see different answers. Perhaps someone could answer in a scientific way also, just so we can compare replies and different views.



I could answer it from a spiritual perspective, however, I'd prefer not to debate science versus spirituality. I'm not here to convince anyone. If someone's interested in knowing, or curious, that's great. But it's not my job or my interest to convert anyone to my way of thinking.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Actually, that wasn't at all what happened. The people came to "know" the angels-- interrogate them, not rape them. The concept of "knowing someone" in that time period is different from what we have now. Looking at the time period and history, the phrase is about torture and interrogation.
> .



I have a coworker who wrote his own Hebrew translation of the old testament.

It wasn't to 'interrogate', it was to fuck the hell out of.

Your interpretation is not held by a vast majority of bible scholars.

Plus, S&G are referenced later in the bible, and it's made clear that know meant sex in that reference.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I have a coworker who wrote his own Hebrew translation of the old testament.
> 
> It wasn't to 'interrogate', it was to fuck the hell out of.
> 
> ...


 
this part of the argument is pointless. about 20% of the bible has been lost in translation anyway


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

@RandyDarkshade
Humans are further along on an evolutionary scale than animals. We have complex laws and morals and much more developed emotions than many of our mammallian(Spelling?) bretheren. Animals have nowhere near the range of thoughts, feelings and morals that we do (Though they have some. Animals are quite intelligent, and I KNOW they have feelings, too)

See, what God wants is for all children to have a mother and a father, who are honest and faithful to eachother and who are willing to work as a team. He teaches that Sex should be reserved for only this kind of a relationship, because Sex is the ultimate gift we can give to another person. Giving sex is giving the gift of ourselves, fully and completely, to another person. It's the one thing we have, from when we are born, that we should have (many don't... it's terrible.) saved for someone special. When you have sex with someone, you give youself to that person, basically.

I would like to make a point here, that some people are missing.
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE. In fact, I'm a big supporter of equal rights for Gay people. Maybe don't call it a marriage, but yeah. Give them all the rights married couples have, let them be joined legally together, forever. Beneficiary rights, legal rights, hospital visitation rights... Everything that married couples have. 

How Gay people are treated in America is disgusting.

@Raska
1. Haha, I do that sometimes.
2. No. I know they can be. However, two men and two women can't have children, and that's the biological point of sex. I said Loving, Devoted, Monogamous Eternal and open to children.
3. The Wiki is a good one, and yeah. There are many examples of homosexuality in history. <sarcasm> There's also many examples of live human sacrifices, if I am to be certain....</sarcasm>
Just because something appears often in history does not make it right. ( I use sarcasm tags beause someone might actually ake that seriously... ugh, that would be BAD.)

I don't think it's a choice on a conscious level. I know it's not. I get crushes on girls and I watch girls' bums as they walk. But I wouldn't sleep with a girl. I want my first time to be with the man I'm gonna marry and have kids with. (If all goes well, the man I've been with for the last year)

But, I honestly think that a lot (not all) of homosexual people are gay because of things that have happened to them in their past. (Example, my gay friend was brutally raped by his father when he was 8 years old, and his mother is a crack whore who was abusive and cruel.) Maybe not all were extreme to that degree, but I'll use me as an example. I never had a decent male role model. My dad was a druggie. My first stepdad was an abusive prick. My last stepdad was an alcoholic demanding prick. My mother, on the other hand, was a sweet, angel of a woman. So... What gender do you think I sunconsciously preferred?

I don't think it's bad or "OMG YOU'RE GAY OMG YOU'RE A SINNER OMG LETS JUDGE AND ATTACK AND BRUTALLY BASH." That's just wrong.

I just think sex should be kept in married, monagamouns relationships open to children. But if you're gay, and you want sex, go ahead. I'm not gonna stop you. We all have our own opinions, and (my opinion) God gave us free will to choose what we want to do. =)


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

> 3. The Wiki is a good one, and yeah. There are many examples of homosexuality in history. <sarcasm> There's also many examples of live human sacrifices, if I am to be certain....</sarcasm>
> Just because something appears often in history does not make it right. ( I use sarcasm tags beause someone might actually ake that seriously... ugh, that would be BAD.)


 
1. i was talking about the part of the article where it talks about the possible reasons that homosexuality evolved...though that might've been in the article on 'bisexuality'...i'm not sure...

2. finally, someone's taken up my sarcasm html tag idea!


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> @RandyDarkshade
> Humans are further along on an evolutionary scale than animals.



I beg to differ.

Who says?  What scientific grounds do you have to back that up?  Evolution is a process, not a continuum.  It leads where it leads.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So if animals are permitted to do some strange things sexually, again, I ask the question, as humans are technically an animal species, why are we different? why does religion dictate we have to be different?



According to my beliefs, the differences are these, and these are also the reasons why in certain things, we must be 'different':

1. We are able to reason beyond what an animal can. We think about and understand past, present, and future, in ways that animals do not appear to do. So the ability to reason is one of, if not the, main reason why we are expected to behave differently.

2. The ability to have compassion. An animal will kill another animal and usually not understand what they are doing. They kill without remorse or reasoning about it. A human can understand that murder is wrong, and can understand the difference between killing (like say, in self defense) versus murder (killing in anger or from greed, etc.).

3. Because humans are self-aware in ways that animals in general do not display. This self-awareness carries with it the ability to understand self, but also to understand 'other.' This ties in slightly with number two, in that, with the understanding of 'me' versus 'other,' comes the ability to feel compassion for the 'other.'

4. Because humans have a greater power over others. The old "with great power comes great responsibility" and stuff. An animal must hunt. It's on a more even footing with its prey. Humans, on the other hand, have a greater capacity to over-run those odds.

5. Humans are created to have a higher-functioning interaction with the creative intelligence of the Universe. Our highest calling as beings is to express that intelligence and its true essential nature into this existence. We start out without memory of that creative intelligence, and our job is to find our way back. This completes the paradox. No, I'm not going to explain that further.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I have a coworker who wrote his own Hebrew translation of the old testament.
> 
> It wasn't to 'interrogate', it was to fuck the hell out of.
> 
> ...



You are quite wrong. Because your buddy wrote his own personal interpretation doesn't mean that he bothered to study the word outside of the meaning it's been traditionally given. In fact, this is why the 'vast majority of Biblical scholars' don't agree with the fact that the word is misinterpreted. Because they don't study it within the framework of other works of the time. They take the given translation of it and simply run with it. The given translation is wrong, unless you can't be bothered to look beyond the status quo of OUR time.

And, Jesus CLEARLY references S&G and makes it abundantly clear that their sin is INHOSPITALITY. In fact, he condemns another two cities, for the SAME REASON (Jesus says) as S&G... not receiving the representatives of God.

It has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with interrogation. Regardless of that, even if it did, the rest of the Bible makes it clear that the issues were hospitality, and the only other reference to homosexuality, once again, carries the pedophilia reference, NOT homosexuality.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> No, the religious opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, period.  Read your Leviticus.
> 
> The Bible had NO problem with sex.  Sex with multiple wives.  Sex with your daughters.  Sex with your brother's wife after he died.  Sex sex sex.
> 
> ...



Ugh. Relax, dude. 
I'm not here to pick fights.

Actually, the bible had a big problem with sex. At the risk of sounding like a loser, I have a bible, right here. C'mon, number your verses. Tell me where in the bible it says that you can have sex with anyone but your wife. I just went through a whole passage telling you NOT to have sex with ANY of your relations. As for the "your brother's wife" the point of that scripture was so that If she were to become a childless widow, you may get her pregnant to bear a child IN YOUR BROTHER'S NAME. It all comes back to bearing children. If she has no children, she has no one to take care of her and your brother's family line (not genetic line, but his line) never will go on. See, in the time this was written, having children to pass on your line was probably the biggest priority.

The concept is as old as the Bible itself. The TERM Nuclear family is new, yes. But the concept is NOT new.

Look, if you're going to insult me, do it over a Private Message, okay? let's keep this place kinda civil.

At the risk of sounding like a drone, I'm not brainwashed. I know to think out what I believe, why I believe it, and to question incessantly something that doesn't make sense. I believe that there is logic behind my decision to join the church (Decision. I chose for myself. My mother raised me to believe in whatever I felt I believed, and "for God's sake don't be stupid about it!") Yes, I believe in Jesus. Yes, I believe in some magical sky-being who is al powerful. (PS- bad stuff is in the world because of Lucifer... I referenced him in an earlier post... the past lives stuff. He and his 1/3 of heaven that got booted out with him exist only to tempt us away from God) I've seen his work in my life, and in the lives of others around me. 

Frankly, you can say what you want about me. I'm not the one calling others 'brainwashed.' Or... anything, for that matter.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> Ugh. Relax, dude.
> I'm not here to pick fights.
> 
> Actually, the bible had a big problem with sex. At the risk of sounding like a loser, I have a bible, right here. C'mon, number your verses. Tell me where in the bible it says that you can have sex with anyone but your wife. I just went through a whole passage telling you NOT to have sex with ANY of your relations. As for the "your brother's wife" the point of that scripture was so that If she were to become a childless widow, you may get her pregnant to bear a child IN YOUR BROTHER'S NAME. It all comes back to bearing children. If she has no children, she has no one to take care of her and your brother's family line (not genetic line, but his line) never will go on. See, in the time this was written, having children to pass on your line was probably the biggest priority.
> ...


 

1. i hate to say this, but "right on, dude" 

2. I still think that a great deal of what's wrong in the world today can be attributed to the present or past actions of various christian groups


----------



## Jelly (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> @RandyDarkshade
> Humans are further along on an evolutionary scale than animals. We have complex laws and morals and much more developed emotions than many of our mammallian(Spelling?) bretheren. Animals have nowhere near the range of thoughts, feelings and morals that we do (Though they have some. Animals are quite intelligent, and I KNOW they have feelings, too)



Crock of shit.
Range of emotion isn't something you can simply calculate.
Nor can you quantify emotions. You can only look for suggestive responses that do not allow you to understand, subjectively, what any one lifeform is thinking or feeling at the moment.
Same with "amount of thought."

And we're no more or less evolved than anything else on the planet. You can't quantify "evolved"-ness. Unless you're talking about specialization in body plan, in which case, humans are one of the more generalized species on the planets.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> 1. i was talking about the part of the article where it talks about the possible reasons that homosexuality evolved...though that might've been in the article on 'bisexuality'...i'm not sure...
> 
> 2. finally, someone's taken up my sarcasm html tag idea!



Ohh, okay. Someone once told me that it might have come up as a response to overpopulation. Biologically, if no two mating pairs are mating, eventually, you stop overpopulating.

Well, it makes sense. I used to just end with .../sarcasm. But the tags just make it that much cooler.


And I think Pheonixstar gets my point quite well.

Also;
"And, Jesus CLEARLY references S&G and makes it abundantly clear that their sin is INHOSPITALITY. In fact, he condemns another two cities, for the SAME REASON (Jesus says) as S&G... not receiving the representatives of God.

It has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with interrogation. Regardless of that, even if it did, the rest of the Bible makes it clear that the issues were hospitality, and the only other reference to homosexuality, once again, carries the pedophilia reference, NOT homosexuality."

Yes. Inhospitality violates the BASIC tenet of Christianity (Which no one seems to realize, between the prejudice-izing and the Proselytizing, is the only one we REALLY need to follow... ugh.) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
S'why I don't look down on Gays for being gay.
S'why I want to legalize abortion.
S'why I want to legalize Mary Jane.
I don't agree with any of it.... but Dang, you got a right to make choices for yourself. The most I can do is tell you what I think and let you be on your merry (or high,) way.

HOWEVER, Jesus was also VERY clear on how sex should be treated. I think it's in Matthew somewhere... "If soever any man looks at a woman with lust in his eyes, he has already comitted adultery with her is his heart." or something very close to that.

Oh I could go on for hours with this verse. I'll try to keep it short.
If guys only look at girls as 'sex objects' (Which is what Jesus is referring to) then they're never going to listen to her opinion, or take her seriously as a person. He's not going to treat her in a dignified manner, as he only wants her clam. By treating people as sex objects, and not as intelligent, kind people who have so much more to offer, we take them for granted, and we use them. We don't truly respect someone if all we want of them is sex.


----------



## Geek (Dec 15, 2009)

Religion and me...

I can live in a world where the man who lives on the corner, takes his "invisible" horse out for a ride. I'll smile and step aside when he "gallops" by. After all, he's not hurting anyone. No harm, right? I know there's not an invisible horse, but it makes him happy and that's the important thing. It's amusing, actually. But if almost everyone in my town starts to ride "invisible" horses, the dynamic changes drastically. Then I am continually stepping aside for them to "ride" through.

They build barns and stables for their "invisible" friends and they don't pay taxes on these buildings or on anything they buy, that relates to their "invisible" companions. So, I'm paying their share of the taxes and stepping politely aside for them. As if accommodating their "invisible" buddies in these ways isn't bad enough, many people want to talk about them. Although they don't show me pictures, they certainly have a lot of funny stories.  Be careful though, they don't think these stories are funny. They want you to respect their invisible friend and get kind of cranky if you don't.  It gets tricky, because although they are entitled to their beliefs, I am just as entitled to think they are at the very least, childishly delusional. This creates more awkwardness. I am somewhat resistant to stepping aside, paying extra taxes, listening to their stories AND pretending like what they believe is okay. I have limits, I suppose.

A walk through their stables is silent and there is nothing to indicate these invisible creatures actually exist. The building is empty, yet the "riders" enter, talk and carry on like there is something there. They don't notice the silence, because they simply answer for their "invisible" companions, too. No problem, because they know what their "invisible" friend is thinking and what he wants. It's almost like watching a puppet show, but with real people.

When I actually have the temerity to ask them to please ride around me occasionally, they wonder why I "hate" their invisible entities. Any attempt to explain why I can't be hostile toward something that doesn't exist, seems to fall on deaf ears. They claim, if I didn't "hate", then I would see that invisible creatures do exist. Inevitably comes the challenge to prove that these shy little buddies DON'T exist!! Attempts to explain that non-existence is, well... nothing and can't be proven, seem beyond their comprehension. I have asked them to prove that aliens, IPU's, the Almighty Schlogg or Bigfoot DON'T exist, but I've had no takers on even one of these choices. It is apparently unfriendly and unloving to tell someone that their invisible friend doesn't, um... appear to exist. Somewhere along the way, I find that I'm not smiling as much, anymore.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 15, 2009)

Geek said:


> They build barns and stables for their "invisible" friends and they don't pay taxes on these buildings or on anything they buy, that relates to their "invisible" companions. So, I'm paying their share of the taxes.



How are you paying their taxes?


----------



## Zolen (Dec 15, 2009)

Agnostic myself, I kinda have a hearing of all but never follow system for religion, some parts are okay, and i might agree with them, some people can benefit from it. Some have become better people because of what most religions teach. But then again like everything else, war, violence, corruption, pain, brain washing, forced submission, the fact that it basically effected a great deal of harsh actions both past and present overall.

It may seem like I am showing more bad, but meh, its mostly even on pro's and con's. The fact is if you believe in the bible and it is in fact 100% true then yea none of us but the nuns are going anywhere close to heaven.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 15, 2009)

Geek said:


> Religion and me...
> 
> When I actually have the temerity to ask them to please ride around me occasionally, they wonder why I "hate" their invisible entities. Any attempt to explain why I can't be hostile toward something that doesn't exist, seems to fall on deaf ears. They claim, if I didn't "hate", then I would see that invisible creatures do exist. Inevitably comes the challenge to prove that these shy little buddies DON'T exist!! Attempts to explain that non-existence is, well... nothing and can't be proven, seem beyond their comprehension. I have asked them to prove that aliens, IPU's, the Almighty Schlogg or Bigfoot DON'T exist, but I've had no takers on even one of these choices. It is apparently unfriendly and unloving to tell someone that their invisible friend doesn't, um... appear to exist. Somewhere along the way, I find that I'm not smiling as much, anymore.



See, when you believe in something very fully, like they do, it hurts them to hear bad things spoken. It'd be like if someone started badmouthing your grandmother.

As for the hate, man, no one deserves hate. Not me, not you, not anyone. Especially not for something like religion. (or lack thereof in your case) Live and let live, yo. I think it's a little insulting of you to compare God to an invisible horse, however, I'm sure you've been insulted and hurt by HypoChristians before, or have your reasons.

And as for the "doesn't um, appear to exist." comment, you can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God. And that's how it should be. It's just like people who believe in Bigfoot and UFO'S and anything like that. Even without proof, it's a faith thing. And I tell you, some of the things in my life, or in the lives of those around me, couldn't have come from anything BUT God.


----------



## Thou Dog (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> Humans are further along on an evolutionary scale than animals.


This is more fallacious than Ron Jeremy.

There's no such thing as an "evolutionary scale". At all, in any sense, way, shape or form. There is only probability _p_ that species _x_, based on molecular, anatomical or behavioral evidence, had species _x'_ as its ancestor. And from this, of course, we may also learn common ancestry (that is, if species _y_ also has species _x'_ as a very likely ancestor, they are phylogenetically related)


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> 1. i hate to say this, but "right on, dude"
> 
> 2. I still think that a great deal of what's wrong in the world today can be attributed to the present or past actions of various christian groups



Expand #2 to encompass the Big 3 Judaic-based religions, and I'll agree with you. Assuming that we logically lump Catholicism in with the rest of the Christian religions. If you do so, then I agree with you.

The Big 3 being the Jewish faith (not people, as there are no actual Jewish people, just religion-another discussion for another time), Islam, and Christianity.

It's not to say that other groups haven't done damage, just that those three groups all seem to have a very special penchant for destruction. The drive in them to destroy other faiths appears to remain strong to this day. I've seen a number of Christian denominations that make it clear that they want Christianity to rule over America. They consider it to be "a Christian nation," and they want it to "go back" to being one.

Unfortunately, a theocracy is in direct opposition to freedom from establishment of religion (separation of church and state, as it's often mistakenly called)... Indeed, it is in direct opposition to freedom, period.


----------



## Raska (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Expand #2 to encompass the Big 3 Judaic-based religions, and I'll agree with you. Assuming that we logically lump Catholicism in with the rest of the Christian religions. If you do so, then I agree with you.
> 
> The Big 3 being the Jewish faith (not people, as there are no actual Jewish people, just religion-another discussion for another time), Islam, and Christianity.
> 
> ...


 
anyone who tries to say that catholicism isn't a christian religion needs to be shot.

and the christians have done the most damage. the muslims have just been trying to eradicate the christians, and the jews always seem to get the short end of the stick


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> anyone who tries to say that catholicism isn't a christian religion needs to be shot.
> 
> and the christians have done the most damage. the muslims have just been trying to eradicate the christians, and the jews always seem to get the short end of the stick



Really? The Jews get the short end of the stick? Tell that to the Gazan Palestinians. And consider how many genocides the Jews gleefully tell about committing in the Torah. I wouldn't be too quick to say they always get the short end of the stick. 

I know it's not PC to say, but the Hebrew/Jew/Zionist/Kabbalist religions/states haven't always been the nicest, either. And what they're doing right NOW in Gaza earns them a page right beside their old nemesis, in my book. And certainly beside Christianity. That's pretending that all their genocides in the Torah weren't real (which many probably weren't, and some definitely weren't- consider the fact that they 'genocided' the Amalekites no less than 3 times... hmmm).

And the fact that the Muslims are 'only' trying to kill off the Christians doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, IMO.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Dec 15, 2009)

Raska said:


> anyone who tries to say that catholicism isn't a christian religion needs to be shot.



It's one of those statements that buggers my mind, and I've heard it many times as I've grown.

Just because Catholics practice their beliefs differently makes them unChristian?

Of course, I've heard the flipside as well.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 15, 2009)

IMO, most (not all) religions are as bad as each other, a lot of them seem to want to be superior to the others, I mean look at the bitching between Catholics and protestants in Ireland! they go as far as to have separate damn buses because they hate each others guts! 

Why? why the fuck have religions got to fight each other?


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> IMO, most (not all) religions are as bad as each other, a lot of them seem to want to be superior to the others, I mean look at the bitching between Catholics and protestants in Ireland! they go as far as to have separate damn buses because they hate each others guts!
> 
> Why? why the fuck have religions got to fight each other?


Hey, burning forever and ever and ever is pretty serious business, man. I mean, think about it.

And since God's gonna send the one who gets it wrong there, they're all duty-bound to make sure the other one gets it right. And if they don't get it right, kill them before they can send any more people to the wrong gates. 

It's all very sensible, really... it's all about who's right. Oh, and God. Or something. But THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT! It's about who's RIGHT! And hell, or something like that. 

</sarcasm>


----------



## Jelly (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Hey, burning forever and ever and ever is pretty serious business, man. I mean, think about it.
> 
> And since God's gonna send the one who gets it wrong there, they're all duty-bound to make sure the other one gets it right. And if they don't get it right, kill them before they can send any more people to the wrong gates.
> 
> ...



Or its about the consolidation of wealth and power into a "community" which nurtures and cares for its followers, but forces them be at odds with one another to ensure that:
A) beliefs will always require a central guiding principle - usually the clergy.
B) followers will attempt to convert or subvert members of the other group, thus increasing your membership wealth (in the form of followers) and continuing a strong boundary line.

Ultimately, churches are very much the same as many other political structures, they have a central dogma for followers, a means to ensure their self-sufficiency, and an opening to expand that influence and power both for their members and for themselves.

All you're focusing on is dogma, but not why the dogma exists and why conflict naturally follows.

Some spiritual beliefs can co-exist despite difference of opinion, and a number of religions which are virtually identical clash regularly.

eh
whatever


----------



## 2-Tailed Taymon (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm generally AGAINST Christianity but I can tolerate it as long as Christians don't shove their beliefs down my throat. It is for that reason mainly I created my own "religion" of sorts.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 15, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Or its about the consolidation of wealth and power into a "community" which nurtures and cares for its followers, but forces them be at odds with one another to ensure that:
> A) beliefs will always require a central guiding principle - usually the clergy.
> B) followers will attempt to convert or subvert members of the other group, thus increasing your membership wealth (in the form of followers) and continuing a strong boundary line.
> 
> ...



To the heart of what I was pretty much thinking.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 15, 2009)

MeisuWeasel said:


> I'm generally AGAINST Christianity but I can tolerate it as long as Christians don't shove their beliefs down my throat. It is for that reason mainly I created my own "religion" of sorts.



Syncretic beliefs are as natural as orthodoxy is unnatural.
I would say that no objective "truth" can be applied to the wide variations of lives, upbringings, perspective, understanding, and unforseen situation.


----------



## 2-Tailed Taymon (Dec 15, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Syncretic beliefs are as natural as orthodoxy is unnatural.
> The fact of the matter is, no objective "truth" can be applied to the wide variations of lives, upbringings, perspective, understanding, and unforseen situation.


 

I wish I understood that statement...


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Really? The Jews get the short end of the stick? Tell that to the Gazan Palestinians. And consider how many genocides the Jews gleefully tell about committing in the Torah. I wouldn't be too quick to say they always get the short end of the stick.
> 
> I know it's not PC to say, but the Hebrew/Jew/Zionist/Kabbalist religions/states haven't always been the nicest, either. And what they're doing right NOW in Gaza earns them a page right beside their old nemesis, in my book. And certainly beside Christianity. That's pretending that all their genocides in the Torah weren't real (which many probably weren't, and some definitely weren't- consider the fact that they 'genocided' the Amalekites no less than 3 times... hmmm).
> 
> And the fact that the Muslims are 'only' trying to kill off the Christians doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, IMO.


 
Like Dawkins and the others have said. "Science flies people to the moon.  Religion flies people into buildings."

Regarding Furry and Religions.. Religion can suck it.  It's a tired meme and it's run it's course.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Like Dawkins and the others have said. "Science flies people to the moon.  Religion flies people into buildings."
> 
> Regarding Furry and Religions.. Religion can suck it.  It's a tired meme and it's run it's course.



Nah.
I like my spirituality, it keeps me happy. c:


----------



## Geek (Dec 15, 2009)

cruncheweezy said:


> See, when you believe in something very fully, like they do, it hurts them to hear bad things spoken. It'd be like if someone started badmouthing your grandmother.
> 
> As for the hate, man, no one deserves hate. Not me, not you, not anyone. Especially not for something like religion. (or lack thereof in your case) Live and let live, yo. I think it's a little insulting of you to compare God to an invisible horse, however, I'm sure you've been insulted and hurt by HypoChristians before, or have your reasons.
> 
> And as for the "doesn't um, appear to exist." comment, you can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God. And that's how it should be. It's just like people who believe in Bigfoot and UFO'S and anything like that. Even without proof, it's a faith thing. And I tell you, some of the things in my life, or in the lives of those around me, couldn't have come from anything BUT God.



Ah, why is religion so "popular" and why is it such a strong sociological force among humans given that there is no evidence for it or given that there is no rational or logical proof or evidence that demonstrate its truth?

Well, I would guess one very good reason is that humans in general do not require logical or rational proof or evidence of things in order to believe in their truth.

If you have a hint of suspicion that a man-eating tiger or bear is coming near yourself or someone you care about you won't say "I want clear evidence of this before I take any action", you will assume the worst and try to get out of the way or rescue those people from the danger you perceive.

The idea that we want logical or scientific proof of things is a fairly modern thing - In the ancient they accepted something as true if someone could give a "good" argument for it and so Plato's ideal world was considered real and true by many people who considered themselves rational in the ancient.

In particular, during medival times in feudal europe and before it was common that people followed whatever their king said. A peasant typically adopted whatever religion his king had and when his king changed to christianity so did the peasants. If the king or some other authority figure said that their old religion was bullshit and that Jesus was the savior then it surely must be true - the king cannot be wrong, can he?

You see much of the same in for example asia where even in modern day china they do not have proper democracy and most likely a western style democracy wouldn't really work at first even if they attempted to introduce it because people have since ancient times had this same attitude of following whatever the local authority figure tells them to do. Sure, in a modern society you will always find intellectuals and others who think for themselves and make up their own opinion but in for example china they are relatively few and far between. In the west where we have for quite some time now been bred to become individualists and stick out from the crowd and think for ourselves we are in a way in a completely different planet from that of other cultures - including the culture in older europe as it was up until recently.

Then you might wonder how come that US where you do find such individualist culture that so many people are religious? Well, for one thing the individualism is only that far. If you go to some districts in the US you will find that your neighbours pay attention if you do not go to church on sundays etc. The individualism is typically something that is bred in the big cities - not all over. Also, even for those where you do find a steadfast individualism, you also typically often find that it is OK to be individualist in some areas but not in others. So while a right wing conservative can be individidualistic in taste of car it is fine as long as he chooses between chrysler or gm. He might pick a mercedes or BMW or Volvo but people notice if he picks a japanese car. He might pick whatever school he want for his kids as long as it is Ivy League etc. Thus, the individualism is not as strong as some of them think it is. They have to "conform", if not, their neighbours will start to talk and he will not be welcome to visit them any more.

In such a society where people strive to conform and everyone follow some authority figure or they follow "everyone else". This is a society where religion thrives and become powerful and typically those same authority people enjoy this since if they can put their hands on the bible and swear - the fact that many people believe in that bible and hold it as truth and sacred will then give them authority. They can command the nation to go to war, not only because they think it is right and not only because they think it is necessary but because they do it according to their God's will, if it was against God's will then surely God would have stopped them since they got their authority from God when they put their hand on the bible and swear the oath for their office.

Thus, religion and government goes hand in hand as they have since the chief of the tribe and the shaman co-operated to keep the control and authority of the tribe. It is also a nice way for the leaders to remove their own responsibility if something goes wrong. It was the Gods or the spirits will that this happened, we just have to continue to give food sacrifices to the shaman and hope the luck changes. In the bible it is even prescribed how the jews are to give part of the food sacrifice to Levi and his sons - i.e. the priests, it is a good way for the priests to make sure they don't starve and it is much better use of the food that just burning it.

It is also convenient for the rulers. If things go well then they will say that the gods have blessed them and that the tribe should keep them as ruler because that will ensure continued blessing. If things go bad then the tribe must continue to pray and give sacrifices to the rulers in hope that things will improve. It is a win-win situation for the rulers. The peasant and warriors in the tribe are the suckers who are the losers in this game but that is not a problem for the rulers who wield the religion.

So, once you have religion I see very clear reasons why a society continue to have a religion. In particular in older days that the whole community shared the same religion. The idea of having tolerance for multiple religion is an old one in the east but in the west it is something that was first found in the roman empire. The empire was simply too big to enforce a single religion - well, that is until Constantine enforced the christian religion but not even he made other religions illegal. He just heavily rewarded any village who converted to christianity. It is also therefore obvious that religion is originally a social phenomena and NOT a personal phenomena. The idea that religion is something personal is an even more recent origin and even today it is unthinkable in many societies. For example in a tribe in pacific or in the amazonas jungle it would be unthinkable for any tribe member to not share the same religion as the rest of the tribe.

It is the modern pluralistic society where you have many different people of different religions living side by side where the idea that religion is something personal arise. We still have that the rulers draw upon religion to get their authority. "In god we trust" and "under god" and the oath for presidency are proofs of that but it is a watered down religion that doesn't say anything specific. Even a muslim or hindu american would accept such phrases and the authority from some deity from them. As such the muslim nations such as Iran is more specific, they are more akin to the older european and middle eastern societies where the ruler was a follower of one specific religion and while some of them might tolerate other religions it was clear that one religion is the favored one by the government.

In conclusion I would say it is mostly sociological reasons why theism is so strong in a society. Secondly it is historical reasons.

On an individual level you might find some psychological reasons but I think that is actually lower importance than the sociological and historical ones. Only for people who have actively converted to some form of theism which they did not grow up with would the psychological and emotional reasons be the more important ones. The vast majority of christians in a christian dominated society are christian because their parents are christian - end of story.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 15, 2009)

Wow.
Grade school world history and state propaganda is a great thing to base a view of a gigantic anthropological phenomenon on.
It go far!


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2009)

UGH GEEK!
CannonFodder encounters "wall of text"
"wall of text" crits CannonFodder
It's super effective

Wow 10 pages on a forum talking about religion without it becoming a screaming fit, it's a new record!


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Like Dawkins and the others have said. "Science flies people to the moon.  Religion flies people into buildings."
> 
> Regarding Furry and Religions.. Religion can suck it.  It's a tired meme and it's run it's course.



Yes. Science is so pure and innocent. Science gave us Dr. Mengele. It gave us thimerisol in our inoculations. It gave us the nuclear bomb. It gave us the hydrogen bomb. It gave us global warming. It gave us plagues in ancient times by telling people not to bathe.

Oh, and I do believe that science created those planes that flew into the WTC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

So really, science can be used for evil just as much as religion can. So seriously, give Dawkins a pat on the head for me, and remind him that I'd rather say a prayer than push the big red button.


----------



## Skywolfe (Dec 15, 2009)

Religion is an opiate for the masses. I've had religious dogma earlier in my life coming from a Baptist family I always got to hear TBN, and preachers preach how homosexuality is a sin, and I'm going to hell (Don't even want to know what my family thought of me when they found out I was a fur). The Bible has passed through many hands and we all know how we humans like to twist things, and change it more to our perspective our liking. So I believe there's a lot added to the Christian type bible (possibly all I really don't know it's the only one I've studied besides wicca, only touched the surface of others) beside war itself is a sin in that bible Jesus strictly says to turn the other cheek when in a situation that calls for violence simply pray, which gets me why some people claim they've been ordained by that religion/God for violence and war to come to pass, what a cop out, (believe me when I was younger I had to memorize the bible scriptures O_O). Anyways I don't follow religion anymore it's just a clusterf*** in danger of a mob mentality, I just seek sprituality there has to be something out there, art is a reflection of life,life is a reflection of something much bigger.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 15, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Yes. Science is so pure and innocent. Science gave us Dr. Mengele. It gave us thimerisol in our inoculations. It gave us the nuclear bomb. It gave us the hydrogen bomb. It gave us global warming. It gave us plagues in ancient times by telling people not to bathe.
> 
> Oh, and I do believe that science created those planes that flew into the WTC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> So really, science can be used for evil just as much as religion can. So seriously, give Dawkins a pat on the head for me, and remind him that I'd rather say a prayer than push the big red button.



Pushing the red button vs prayer: One does something, the other does not. 


Science is indifferent. It does not take sides. It does not give a shit about good or evil because it is the laws of the fucking universe. 

God on the other hand is the creation of man. He is more-or-less whatever you can make yourself believe him to be. It can be evil or good depending completely on the person who imagines it, or what the person is told to imagine. 


Ultimately the difference is this: you cannot negotiate with science. You cannot misinterpret it, because it will do what it was going to do anyways. It does not give a fuck what you think of it, whether or not you think it works, or what moral implications you put upon it. 

Religion on the other hand can be bent without consequence. You can say that god said anything and if you can get people to buy it you can cause untold damage. God says what you say he says.


----------



## Thou Dog (Dec 16, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> Religion on the other hand can be bent without consequence. You can say that god said anything and if you can get people to buy it you can cause untold damage. God says what you say he says.


1 In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him. 

 2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord of all the earth when it was suited to Man.

 3 And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good. 

 4 And Man formed Aqualung ofthe dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.

 5 And these lesser men were cast into the void; And some were burned, and some were put apart from their kind.

 6 And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.

 7 But as all these things came to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung. 

 8 And man saw it not.

 9 But for Christ's sake he'd better start looking.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 16, 2009)

Skywolfe said:


> Religion is an opiate for the masses.


Religion isn't the opium of the masses, opium is.


----------



## Fokkewolf (Dec 16, 2009)

Really lazy reading all the pages, just read the last. 
 My own point is that I don't really care whether there is god or not. Whether there is hell or not. It's nice to believe that there will be something good after a life full of shit. No matter what we believe in - Hell, Heaven, A furry-world or something like that, it gives us hope. Sometimes. 
  Sometimes it ruins people making them zeals. We have a zealot-teachers in our school. She teaches some kind of sociology (but that's all bullshit and we mostly do nothing at these lessons) and she's absolutely sure all the problems she has is cause "I hated everyone." Omg, like Goths and Emos back in the USSR of the *50? Then other her words were "every humans deed is suggested 70% by the god, 15% by human himself and 15% by somebody else." and "If people has troubles - that's god's punishment". Yeah, like few million Jews were guilty in their previous lives and Hitler is god's angel sent to punish em' all". Anyway, zealots are a particular case.
 The other side is - they earn freaking lots of money on all of us and they always did. So you just get used for such situations as when you sit in a fixed-run taxi (that's how lingvo said, cause my own english sucks a little) and it gets front-cut by a huuuge priest in a Mercedes or some kind of Jeep (sometimes even Cayenne). Oh, and they always have beards. Long, white beards and a gigantic cross right on their gigantic gut. And there always is a church, wherever you go. A small, not painted and stuff, but a church.
  And in conclusion, think: would it be so horrible in hell? Burning 1000 years in a huge cauldron would surely make you bored. Whips, bone breaking and stuff? In a few time you wouldn't feel the pain, you'd just get bored... And heaven? Same thing, don't you think?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Oh, and I do believe that science created those planes that flew into the WTC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.



That was not the planes fault, that was the fault of whom ever was sitting at the controls that day.

As for global warming, I have seen much evidence to prove it is BS.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Dec 16, 2009)

IDK why scientists are mostly atheist. I mean, people have done things deemed as "playing god" through science already... So wouldn't it be possible a far superior being could have made us & our solar system?.... You know not like in a second like the bible says... But over billions of years


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> Pushing the red button vs prayer: One does something, the other does not.



Science is proving that this isn't true. Studies have been done that prayer (and I include meditation in prayer, given that most [not all, but the very vast majority] do it for spiritual purposes) has an effect on both the pray-er, and the recipient.



> Science is indifferent. It does not take sides. It does not give a shit about good or evil because it is the laws of the fucking universe.



Really? So physics aren't a law of the Universe? Gravity isn't a law? You can do whatever you want with science, because there are no Universal laws?



> God on the other hand is the creation of man. He is more-or-less whatever you can make yourself believe him to be. It can be evil or good depending completely on the person who imagines it, or what the person is told to imagine.



All a scientific process. Ergo, science, like religion, can be used for evil. Ergo, science IS evil. Since the whole premise of your ridiculous argument is that religion can be used for good or evil... and that makes it evil... the same is true of science. It can be used for good or evil.

Religion is also impersonal and impartial. It is nothing without human interpretation. A Bible sits and does nothing whatsoever, unless picked up by a human being. A rocket sits and does absolutely nothing, unless a button is pushed by a human being.

But of course, if it can be used for evil, according to your absurd argument, it IS then inherently evil.

Nice to have that shit all cleared up. For a minute there, I thought maybe your argument might start making sense.



> Ultimately the difference is this: you cannot negotiate with science. You cannot misinterpret it, because it will do what it was going to do anyways. It does not give a fuck what you think of it, whether or not you think it works, or what moral implications you put upon it.



You really think that, if there is a Universal Intelligence that created the Universe, it's sitting there whining and crying about WTF YOU think of it? 

As far as misinterpreting science, you have GOT to be kidding me with that shit.

Because, you know, they never thought the world was flat. And they never thought that bathing was bad. And they never thought that children's gender was determined by the woman.

Science can't be misinterpreted. What a bullshit cop-out, if I ever heard one-- and I've heard some freakin' whoppers.



> Religion on the other hand can be bent without consequence. You can say that god said anything and if you can get people to buy it you can cause untold damage. God says what you say he says.



Yes, that's right. It can be bent without consequence.

Millions of people dead. That's clearly without consequence. 

Books burned, cultures destroyed. You're right, no consequences.

Because you know, neither science nor religion have consequences when they're misused...


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 16, 2009)

Hot_Dragon said:


> So wouldn't it be possible a far superior being could have made us & our solar system?.... You know not like in a second like the bible says... But over billions of years



Sure, why not?
But if this being doesn't give us any insight on what it is or even it's properties or goals, the there's no reason to just _assume _it must exist and that it must be Allah/Vishnu/Yahweh/whatever x 10,000 just because those books exist.

It would be slowing down science dramatically to just say "God did it!" when faced with something hard to understand/explain instead of studying and learning about it.

I'm sure a lot of scientists would be cool with a Creator if there were actual evidence for it beyond "mah gravy stain vanished-- it's a MIRACLE! Jesus is real!"


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> That was not the planes fault, that was the fault of whom ever was sitting at the controls that day.
> 
> As for global warming, I have seen much evidence to prove it is BS.



It wasn't god's fault, either. It so happens that it was humans sitting at the controls that day.

I agree, there's much to indicate global warming is BS. However, that just goes to kind of prove my point, either way... either science is being misused in order to sell us a bullshit lie about "global warming" and thus control and manipulate us into buying the whole "green" idea (AND PRODUCTS!)... or, conversely, science isn't quite so perfect as our friend up there is trying to point it out to be. It's clearly just as fallible and misusable as "god" is.

It's one more in a fairly long line of how misinterpreted (or misused) science has been.

It all comes down to one thing. Religion OR science.... it's ALL predicated on human intention and human usage.

Neither one is inherently bad. Religion itself can be good and can be positive.

Some religions, like some sciences, are inherently bad, in my opinion. Mengele's experiments = inherently bad. The teachings of the Bible = inherently bad.

Yet, many Christians cherry-pick the Bible and make it into something positive in their life.

And many scientists use science and create terrible, terrible things. 

So, shall I go around saying that science is terrible, awful, and should be outlawed? Of course not, that's absurd. Like everything, including spiritual beliefs, it's how it's used that makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Yes. Science is so pure and innocent. Science gave us Dr. Mengele. It gave us thimerisol in our inoculations. It gave us the nuclear bomb. It gave us the hydrogen bomb. It gave us global warming. It gave us plagues in ancient times by telling people not to bathe.



Science gave you the Internet you can spout your bullshit on.



> Oh, and I do believe that science created those planes that flew into the WTC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.



Oh, and I do believe religion created those fanatics that flew into the WRC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.



> So really, science can be used for evil just as much as religion can. So seriously, give Dawkins a pat on the head for me, and remind him that I'd rather say a prayer than push the big red button.



Except science has the potential to improve our lives substantially, whereas religion does not.

Call me once prayer removes a brain tumor or cures a severe case of flu.

C'ya.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Science gave you the Internet you can spout your bullshit on.



So what? My spiritual beliefs have improved my life more than the internet.



> Oh, and I do believe religion created those fanatics that flew into the WRC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.



That would be a fun derail. Let's just say that if you actually use this science you're so gleefully worshiping, and do a little research, you'll find that it's unlikely in the extreme that the WTC had any damned thing at all to do with religion.

But we'll find a point at which we can agree... there have been many evil uses of science by religion. There have been many evil uses of science by people who had no religion, as well.

So either we recognize that the culprit in the misuse of either is human intent... or we continue to have stupid debates in which someone tries to prove that science is perfect and flawless no matter how it's used while religion is evil because people abuse it.

At best, an absurd argument. Definitely unscientific.



> Except science has the potential to improve our lives substantially, whereas religion does not.



This is patently untrue. It's prejudicial and once more, totally unscientific. If you're going to worship at the altar of science, buddy, at least have the dignity to USE some science in your arguments.

There are countless people whose lives have been enriched by their beliefs. There are many religious institutions in the country (and here I give Christians credit where it's due) that help many, many people. The majority of giving and helping institutions in this country are religious-based.

Furthermore, many people in religions admit at the end of the day that they're making moral choices often on basis of their belief in a higher moral authority. It's POSSIBLE that these people would still make moral choices without their spiritual beliefs, but it's fairly likely that they would not-- they admit as much themselves.



> Call me once prayer removes a brain tumor or cures a severe case of flu.



How scientific of you to reduce humanity to mere colds and flus. After all, the ONLY quality of life that exists in humanity is whether or not we can cure a case of the flu.

So much for the vaunted scientists. 



> C'ya.



Buh bye now. Come back and play again when you have some actual scientific understanding of humans beyond colds and flus, kk?


----------



## Captain Spyro (Dec 16, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Except science has the potential to improve our lives substantially, whereas religion does not.
> 
> Call me once prayer removes a brain tumor or cures a severe case of flu.
> 
> C'ya.



A little understanding could help here. Yes, while a simple prayer isn't likely to cure cancer (I know, my birth mother had cancer and recently had a recurrence, even after many a prayer and prayer cloths), but many a people in my area alone claim that their own beliefs give them happiness and in some cases, given hem a positive direction.

I have little reason to doubt that.

Science and religion can both be used for good and evil purposes.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

Every study on prayer has been found to be without a control group or without double blindness.  That means they aren't scientific studies, they are simply wishful thinking.

THere was one that met both those criteria, but then they found out the guy doing it faked the data.  Whoops.

The studies that DO use controls and DO use double blindness show that prayer has negligable effect when compared with the control group.

That means it doesn't work.  Those cases where you think it did?  Confirmation bias.

And before anyone starts assuming I'm pushing atheism down their throats, read the fucking topic. "Religion and you (well, us)" 

No, there IS no religion and me.  THAT'S pushing it down someone's throat.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Every study on prayer has been found to be without a control group or without double blindness.  That means they aren't scientific studies, they are simply wishful thinking.
> 
> THere was one that met both those criteria, but then they found out the guy doing it faked the data.  Whoops.
> 
> ...



Regardless, there are plenty of studies showing that meditation and prayer improve a person's health, reactions to stress, etc. 

As for the rest, well. Whether you're a fundamentalist zealot for a religion or against all religion, it's still not a pretty sight.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> As for global warming, I have seen *much evidence* to prove it is BS.



And what would that be?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Regardless, there are plenty of studies showing that meditation and prayer improve a person's health, reactions to stress, etc.
> 
> As for the rest, well. Whether you're a fundamentalist zealot for a religion or against all religion, it's still not a pretty sight.



I guess at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am not a fundamentalist zealot against all religion.  I think you need to look up that word.  There is no fundamental teachings I am adhering to, so I cannot be a fundamentalist.

I am, however, like John Lennon and many others, in favor of a world without religion.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I am, however, like John Lennon and many others, in favor of a world without religion.



I understand that that reference makes you really sympathetic in the heart of the proletariat - but, John Lennon was kind of a dick.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I understand that that reference makes you really sympathetic in the heart of the proletariat - but, John Lennon was kind of a dick.



Well, yeah   But he wrote good songs


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I guess at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I am not a fundamentalist zealot against all religion.  I think you need to look up that word.  There is no fundamental teachings I am adhering to, so I cannot be a fundamentalist.
> 
> I am, however, like John Lennon and many others, in favor of a world without religion.



Of course there are fundamentals to which you adhere. No religion. Non-existence of a higher intelligence. 

I'm in favor of a world with freedom. Freedom to practice your beliefs as you see fit, with the law being that you cannot impose it upon another nor harm anyone in the name of your religion.

I would be most unhappy without my spiritual beliefs. I know, because I was an atheist for a while. The only time I was more unhappy was when I was Christian.

But of course, that's not important, is it? Humans, after all, don't need to be happy, we just need to fit your idea of how to live, right? I rather fail to see how this is any different from Christianity. They would push their beliefs on us, you would push your lack of them on us.

Religion is no more the problem than is the airplane in the WTC scenario. It's the use to which either is put that is a problem.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Dec 16, 2009)

Geek said:


> Ah, why is religion so "popular" and why is it such a strong sociological force among humans given that there is no evidence for it or given that there is no rational or logical proof or evidence that demonstrate its truth?
> 
> Well, I would guess one very good reason is that humans in general do not require logical or rational proof or evidence of things in order to believe in their truth.
> 
> ...



Blah. It's 7am. I have Bacon'n'Eggs waiting for me, so I'll keep it brief.
For the most part, you are right.
Very, VERY many people, throughout history simply followed whatever they were told. However, there were many others who did not. Forgive me for sounding like a Bible-Nerd, but there was Daniel. ...My brain is not working. I smell my food.

As for your governmental topic- It does not apply as strongly to me... I am Canadian, once again. We have a much more secularist society than Americans, and, in fact, We have the option of swearing on the bible, or even mentioning God at all of we are to become something big politically.

Grrrghhh... I AM a convert, kthx. Raised Atheist by my mum, personal choice to go to a catholic school (Frankly, that was just because everyone at the public school was a diiiick, not many schools to choose from) and any and all religios affiliations I have had in my life were 100% my choice and my decision. And I plan to rasie my kids that way. (of course... They may have to come to church with us until they're old enough to stay at home alone, but if they had a place to go/were old enough to be alone, I'm not gonna force them to go.)

Grrrr... I'm usually much more... better at explaining my point. I'mma go eat now. Sorry my argument skillz suck in the mornings.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

Except Atheism is not a belief.  It's LACK of belief.   Do you foster a not-belief in the invisible pink unicorn who rules the earth?  Or the Flying Sphagetti Monster?  Or Zeus?  

No.  There is no belief.

You're assuming I'm unhappy, and that's another horrible assumption.  I was almost a catholic priest   I was happy doing that.  But things change.  Lots of things.  Like the knowledge that even a large number of them don't believe .

The fundamentals you say I follow are not fundamentals.  They are simple lack of evidence.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And without evidence, why should I believe something?  That's not fundamentalism, which is a religious off shoot in the 1700s brought forward to today based on literal and unceasing interpretation of dogma.  That's simply following the evidence.


Do you believe in the lack of Zeus?  Does that make you a fundamentalist too?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

Look, let's get back to the start of this.

If you are a bible literalist, which is becoming a much more common thing in the United States, then yes, being a furry means you're going to hell.  End of discussion.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 16, 2009)

Oh boy, a religions thread. this is going to be fun [/sarcasm]

i believe that  "hell" as we know it modernly is a big fallacy designed and re designed to garner control. To me the afterlife is more like Sheol, rest. Not good not bad, the "punishment" will simply be your regrets from life.

but this is all belief and conjecture, great stuff to argue over


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Well, yeah   But he wrote good songs



Writing a song about how "Woman is the Nigger of the World" is kind of an empty gesture when you beat your wives.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Writing a song called "Woman is the Nigger of the World" is kind of an empty gesture when you beat your wives.



Okay.  One good song  Can we agree with that?  I won't even force you to pick the one song


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Look, let's get back to the start of this.
> 
> If you are a bible literalist, which is becoming a much more common thing in the United States, then yes, being a furry means you're going to hell.  End of discussion.



Wat.

Is this because those whacky Egyptian's had furry gods or what?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> Wat.
> 
> Is this because those whacky Egyptian's had furry gods or what?



Lust, sexual immorality, idolotry, and many, many other things.  One of my fundamentalist friends asked his preacher, and was told that God created mankind above animals and to rule them, and that by pretending we are animals we are spitting on the gift of God.  

Things like that.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> Wat.
> 
> Is this because those whacky Egyptian's had furry gods or what?



Well, I guess if you're a Bible Literalist and that includes the rites of the priests of Levi - then, masturbating is a surefire way to Hell.

But then again, if you're a Bible Literalist, technically so long as you ask God for forgiveness and repent your wayward sins even beyond death, then you'll be alright.

Of course, if you've never followed the dictates of Anastasius and are a literalist and you include the Bible of Thomas - the only Hell is distance from God, which can be understood as a pursuit of an enlightened existence whatever that means.

But then again, I don't know if the apotheosis of the Church was ever mentioned in the Bible, even so, the books included were dependent on the Church consolidating its power.

What a fucking mess.



GraemeLion said:


> idolotry



what


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> what



Idolatry, my bad.

I know.   You wouldn't imagine it would be.

But when you look up all the way back to the old greek, you get that it's not just worshiping something as a god, but having an overwhelming attachment or devotion to something physical / animate / inanimate as well. 

So it falls under idolatry.


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Lust, sexual immorality, idolotry, and many, many other things. One of my fundamentalist friends asked his preacher, and was told that God created mankind above animals and to rule them, and that by pretending we are animals we are spitting on the gift of God.
> 
> Things like that.


 
it's crap like this that makes me think at times that the pagans should've annihilated the christians instead of the other way 'round...but we have our 'an it harm none' thing, so we _definitely_ got the short end of _that_ stick

just because we were given intelligence and sentience, doesn't mean we rule the animals. if god made us 'above' animals, why the hell don't we have fangs _or_ claws? Most animals do, yet we make do with knives and swords (and guns, but they can't function in the way fangs and claws do). Sure, knives and swords kick the shit out of claws, but really...


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Except Atheism is not a belief.  It's LACK of belief.   Do you foster a not-belief in the invisible pink unicorn who rules the earth?  Or the Flying Sphagetti Monster?  Or Zeus?
> 
> No.  There is no belief.



Except that you feel a need to force your criteria of acceptance onto others.

It's one thing to present your reasons for disagreeing with them. But when you begin to want them to have to accept your reasons... then that's a real problem.

The fundamentals to which you adhere are science and the 5 senses. That's the proof that YOU accept. As you wouldn't appreciate someone else saying that you have to accept their criteria for belief, neither do they have to accept your criteria for it (or lack of it).


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Except that you feel a need to force your criteria of acceptance onto others.
> 
> It's one thing to present your reasons for disagreeing with them. But when you begin to want them to have to accept your reasons... then that's a real problem.
> 
> The fundamentals to which you adhere are science and the 5 senses. That's the proof that YOU accept. As you wouldn't appreciate someone else saying that you have to accept their criteria for belief, neither do they have to accept your criteria for it (or lack of it).



So then every time you go to the doctor, you're a fundamentalist too.  That means the entire world are fundamentalists, and the word loses meaning.

And who said anything about trying to force belief?

The thread started with "religion and you (well , us) " and a question on whether or not furries are damned.

That REQUIRES a forced belief of his religion, then it ASSUMES we are COVERED under that religion, and then it DAMNS US.

I'm not trying to force my belief on others.  I'm trying to get people to realize that they force their beliefs on me ALL THE FUCKING TIME.


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> So then every time you go to the doctor, you're a fundamentalist too. That means the entire world are fundamentalists, and the word loses meaning.
> 
> And who said anything about trying to force belief?
> 
> ...


 
well, i'll say it again, if furries are damned under god's law, then he needs to work out some issues


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> So then every time you go to the doctor, you're a fundamentalist too.  That means the entire world are fundamentalists, and the word loses meaning.
> 
> And who said anything about trying to force belief?
> 
> ...



Ah, sorry, I thought it was you who said you want a world without religion. It would seem to me that this is no different than the injustices already done.

As far as going to the doctor and all that, well... let's just say that I don't believe that the medical profession has our best interests at heart. I think it's one of the many ways in which science is abused in order to harm humans in order to further the financial interests of a few. So I'm not sure how far we could safely take the discussion of me and my 'faith' in science. I don't have nearly as much faith in it as you do.

Like I said, I see far too many instances in which it's been totally wrong. Personally, in destroying the ancient ways, science was wrong. 

But we have what we have now, and that's what we have to go forward with. But scientists are definitely lying to us, especially about the history of humanity. In manners of medicine, they are also lying to us, in some quite terrible ways, too.

So my trust in it isn't nearly what yours is, I would venture to guess.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

What ancient ways?

Do you have any evidence that scientists are lying to us?  Especially about the history of humanity?  Come on.  Provide PROOF.  Evidence.  

It's easy to read stuff on the internet and assume it to be true.  It's harder to actually provide evidence.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> What ancient ways?
> 
> Do you have any evidence that scientists are lying to us?  Especially about the history of humanity?  Come on.  Provide PROOF.  Evidence.
> 
> It's easy to read stuff on the internet and assume it to be true.  It's harder to actually provide evidence.



LOL, well, it's easy to read something in a history book and assume it to be true, also. Provide me with actual PROOF that what we're told about who first discovered America is true. Evidence. Evidence that's not on the internet, pls, kthx.

The only real evidence I have, I cannot provide, because it's personal experience. But then again, even that can't really be trusted, because the basic framework for seeing something in layers of Earth that are said to be millions of years old is based on acceptance of the accuracy of something that cannot possibly be proven. 

No one can prove that soil said to be from 500 million years ago really IS from that long. They can only extrapolate based on current experiences.

It's impossible for you or me to either one prove anything to anyone. You cannot prove evolution. I cannot prove evolution. You cannot prove that the Earth is billions of years old, neither can I. 

All you can do is provide something that you have decided is acceptable to YOU as "proof."

No matter what "proof" you offer of anything, someone can come up with something else that debunks it. Or like you, could smugly claim that it's clearly not "proof" because it's on the internet.

We could link studies, but it's on the internet, maybe the study never even happened. Can you PROVE that the study actually happened and isn't just claimed over the internet? REALLY?

Can you PROVE that the world is billions of years old? REALLY? You were there, then? You lived through all billions of years? Unless you lived them all, you're simply basing an acceptance of "billions of years" (or whatever) on evidence provided to you that you're willing to accept as good enough.

All anyone has to do is claim that the evidence isn't good enough because <insert pet reason here, like, 'oh no, that's from the internet, that makes it untrue'>. I suspect that any evidence you have to give, you will have to get from on the internet, too. Unless you plan on visiting my house and delivering The Real Thing to my doorstep? 

If you are, then do tell me, I'm still in my PJs. I'll make you some coffee, and I promise to try to keep my toddler from climbing on you.

I mean, come on. What "proof" is good enough for you, only that which mainstream science gives you? And yet you're claiming that you're NOT a fundamentalist??



Oh, and by ancient ways, I meant homeopathy versus allopathy. Allopathy is pretty new, and it actually killed a lot of good practices. For example, cleanliness was next to godliness in a lot of ancient cultures. But then allopathy came along with the whole germs business and claimed that bathing was dangerous. Then later on, they were like, "OMG, we made this NEW discovery... people must wash themselves!" Uh... yeah... no shit?


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

_stop_ writing such interesting posts! I blame the forum for my writers' block, It's too damned interesting.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

So you refuse to offer proof.

Fine.  Done.  I am not going to prove what is commonly accepted, again.

YOU made the ridiculous claim.  YOU are required to supply the evidence.  You refuse.  Therefore, the discussion has no merit and is over.  Good day.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> LOL, well, it's easy to read something in a history book and assume it to be true, also. Provide me with actual PROOF that what we're told about who first discovered America is true. Evidence. Evidence that's not on the internet, pls, kthx.
> 
> The only real evidence I have, I cannot provide, because it's personal experience. But then again, even that can't really be trusted, because the basic framework for seeing something in layers of Earth that are said to be millions of years old is based on acceptance of the accuracy of something that cannot possibly be proven.
> 
> ...



jesus christ
what a pile of farts


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> So you refuse to offer proof.
> 
> Fine.  Done.  I am not going to prove what is commonly accepted, again.
> 
> YOU made the ridiculous claim.  YOU are required to supply the evidence.  You refuse.  Therefore, the discussion has no merit and is over.  Good day.



I have no burden of proof when you state very clearly that anything on the internet isn't proof. What shall I do, then, reach through the computer and drop it on your lap?

That's the problem with the ridiculous "give me proof" crap on the internet.

It's a deliberate trap... "give me internet proof so I can say that nothing on the internet is proof."

So sorry that you're huffy that I didn't fall for it. Thanks for trying, though. Maybe it'll work out better for you with the next person you try to spring it on.

Yes, though, you're welcome to go eat some more propaganda. It's kind of amusing to know that archeological discoveries are repressed because they question the status quo of Christianity... but you happily adhere to the party line like it's gospel.

Tell me again how you're not a fundamentalist, lol.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

Although, she is right - the internet is like *the source* for academics looking for peer review.

But she's also claiming science is a big jerk and liar man what a meany head
thus its okay that i dont understand how dating of soil strata works and it just doesnt seem RIGHT you know so like you dont know man you dont know


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> jesus christ
> what a pile of farts


 
who's trying to be an asshole now?


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

Raska said:


> who's trying to be an asshole now?



I'm just stating objective facts, man.


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I'm just stating objective facts, man.


 
again with the asshole / not-an-asshole balance, man. can't you just be one or the other?


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

Raska said:


> again with the asshole / not-an-asshole balance, man. can't you just be one or the other?



You might be surprised to learn that people are pretty multidimensional.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

Nowhere did I say that the internet stuff is not evidence.

So quit twisting my words.   You reinterpreted my statement to mean what you wanted, and then shot it down. 

Yes, of course, scientifically peer reviewed papers (preferably published) on the internet carry more weight than Alex Jones' rambling about how the scientists are trying to kill us with mercury in the shots.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 16, 2009)

PhoenixStar: 

Re: "Prayer DOES help" 

Can you cite this? And, more importantly, how does prayer measure up to other useless things such as giving patients sugar pills and telling them it's the cure? 

The rest of what you said seems to be misinterpretations, intentional or not, of the various points I made. 

"Religion bent without consequence" means you can say whatever you want without being "wrong." This fact however DOES have the consequence of creating fanatics. 

Perhaps an example would help. 

If you say that gravity does not exist, someone will likely drop something on your head and laugh at you. Nothing changed because of your statement. 

If on the other hand you say (and successfully convince people) that god told you to exterminate group "X" because group "X" is evil, then suddenly group "X" _is_ evil. You have changed the status of group "X."  

Get it?


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Nowhere did I say that the internet stuff is not evidence.
> 
> So quit twisting my words.   You reinterpreted my statement to mean what you wanted, and then shot it down.
> 
> Yes, of course, scientifically peer reviewed papers (preferably published) on the internet carry more weight than Alex Jones' rambling about how the scientists are trying to kill us with mercury in the shots.





GraemeLion said:


> It's easy to read stuff on the internet and assume it to be true.  It's harder to actually provide evidence.



.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Although, she is right - the internet is like *the source* for academics looking for peer review.
> 
> But she's also claiming science is a big jerk and liar man what a meany head
> thus its okay that i dont understand how dating of soil strata works and it just doesnt seem RIGHT you know so like you dont know man you dont know



Actually, I have a fair working knowledge of how it works. My point is that it's easy to argue with it by using the "five senses" argument. I can say that X, Y, or Z was found in M strata, and I was there, and saw that it was removed under perfect procedures. But then there comes the whole, "I don't believe you" and the "well, carbon dating has been proven inaccurate" and the whole "soil strata dating is called into question by the flood theory" and all the other crapola.

So no matter what it is... and this should tell you something very important about the infallibility of science... there's someone who comes along and "proves" that it's wrong. Or that there's good cause to believe that it's wrong and thus to move it back to theory instead of law.

Of course, evolution is still a theory, yet it's held up as gospel anyway.

Again, the question isn't really proof. The question is, "I don't believe you. I won't believe you. I am certain you are wrong. Provide me with something so that I can claim that it's not good enough proof."

It's the same reason why people ask, "prove that god exists." They aren't interested in you actually proving that god exists, they're interested in ridiculing what you think is acceptable proof.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Actually, I have a fair working knowledge of how it works. My point is that it's easy to argue with it by using the "five senses" argument. I can say that X, Y, or Z was found in M strata, and I was there, and saw that it was removed under perfect procedures. But then there comes the whole, "I don't believe you" and the "well, carbon dating has been proven inaccurate" and the whole "soil strata dating is called into question by the flood theory" and all the other crapola.
> 
> So no matter what it is... and this should tell you something very important about the infallibility of science... there's someone who comes along and "proves" that it's wrong. Or that there's good cause to believe that it's wrong and thus to move it back to theory instead of law.
> 
> ...



Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate in some cases, but its due to "imperfect" conditions.

What "flood" theory?

And in biology a "theory" is the highest scientific proof available.
There are no biological laws.

And its not gospel, its a working cluster of theories that have a massive fossil record of evidence and genetic evidence.

There is no contrary opinion in the scientific community that lifeforms evolve.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.

It says, outright, precisely what I feel.

Simply reading something on the internet and assuming it to be true is one thing, and providing evidence is something completely different.

My statements are not in opposition unless one decides to assume everything they read on the internet is true without providing evidence.


----------



## Raska (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> You might be surprised to learn that people are pretty multidimensional.


 
it just pisses me off that i get pissed off even when you're saying reasonable stuff, which in turn pisses me off even more


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

Unsilenced said:


> PhoenixStar:
> 
> Re: "Prayer DOES help"
> 
> Can you cite this? And, more importantly, how does prayer measure up to other useless things such as giving patients sugar pills and telling them it's the cure?



Actually, the placebo effect is a great example. It's a proven fact that it exists. Therefor, if the 'placebo' is prayer, and it works for the person, then removing it from them is the same as 'taking away their medication' so to speak. 



> The rest of what you said seems to be misinterpretations, intentional or not, of the various points I made.
> 
> "Religion bent without consequence" means you can say whatever you want without being "wrong." This fact however DOES have the consequence of creating fanatics.



No, you can't. Not any more than you can if you do it with science. Just as people rationalize abusing religion, people rationalize abusing science. And just as people get away with abuses in the name of religion, they do in the name of science, as well. Consider our water being poisoned with fluoride with impunity, for example. Or the vaccine makers getting a legal free ride on any negative side effects of their H1N1 vaccines-- so long as they don't know about them ahead of time. Or as long as no one can PROVE that they knew ahead of time.



> Perhaps an example would help.
> 
> If you say that gravity does not exist, someone will likely drop something on your head and laugh at you. Nothing changed because of your statement.
> 
> If on the other hand you say (and successfully convince people) that god told you to exterminate group "X" because group "X" is evil, then suddenly group "X" _is_ evil. You have changed the status of group "X."



You use a physical versus a moral argument, and you think that it's going to make sense?

If on the one hand, you impregnate a woman with a fetus that's not of her biological origin, and you tell people that it's perfectly okay to deprive the offspring of their biological heritage and knowledge of it, then suddenly you have changed the status of the offspring, and you have violated his or her basic human rights. Without consequence, I might add (except to the poor child who must grow up with their rights violated, of course, but THAT's not important!).

Religion and science can BOTH be used to deprive people of their basic human rights. And both HAVE BEEN used as such.

Science isn't limited to basic things like dropping a rock on someone's head. If you're going to make moral examples, then make moral examples. Don't make a moral example versus a physical (non moral) example.

Not that hitting someone on the head is precisely moral, that is.



> Get it?



Nope, not really. I think that you're ignoring the fact that both applications can be used with negative consequences. People have been slaughtered in the name of religion and science both.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.
> 
> It says, outright, precisely what I feel.
> 
> ...



i can understand how someone would misinterpret that, though


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> i can understand how someone would misinterpret that, though



So can I, if someone really wanted to.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> And jelly, you quoted my previous statement.
> 
> It says, outright, precisely what I feel.
> 
> ...



I have seen objects in soil strata that, under current THEORIES, couldn't be there. Because human beings weren't around 500 million years ago making mortars and pestles. So we're told.

I have also seen lighting in a cave that was very obviously not a natural formation or creation. It was machined, but nothing like it exists in the world today, so far as we know, and it couldn't have been put there within the last hundred years or the overgrowth over it wouldn't have been so extensive.

I have reasons to trust the judgment of certain other people who have also seen things that clearly dispute the theory of human beings coming into technological advancement only recently in history. 

But these, of course, are not PROOF to you, because you didn't see them, you don't know me, and I have no "EVIDENCE" to prove it.

So what's the point of relating my personal experiences, when I know perfectly well and have already heard the responses to them a thousand times. 

Until any EVIDENCE as you call it, can be given to you, first we have to establish exactly what you think is acceptable evidence.

I have reason to believe quite a few things that I read on the internet that are considered fringe and unworthy of belief. My personal experiences outweigh your disparagement of them.

History is a lie. Obviously, not all of it, but a great deal of it. And much has been suppressed. 

Mostly by the churchs, but in combination with the scientists, you can rest assured. Because if someone on this planet, 500 million years ago, was making mortars and pestles, then that throws the vaunted THEORY of evolution into turmoil.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 16, 2009)

Oh boy, I can't wait for the lack of evidence of this ridiculous assertion.
I shit candy bars, you should open your mouth and lay down.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate in some cases, but its due to "imperfect" conditions.
> 
> What "flood" theory?
> 
> ...


  There's some theory I don't remember real well that claims that the various strata would be that way if it had settled during a massive, world-wide flood. I don't remember the theory very well, it was posted by some Christian in a debate several years ago. I read it, it was interesting, but I don't know enough to be able to debunk or support it, so I wasn't all that interested in it.

And my point was that it's called a THEORY because they know perfectly well that even the THEORIES that they might hold as gospel can someday be overturned.

There are many paradigms that exist in our culture, one of the main ones being this idea that everything has to begin or end. All scientific theory is based on this unquestioned paradigm. Discussion of how the Universe began is predicated upon the idea that it HAD to "begin."

Simply because the human mind cannot imagine the idea of it having no beginning. Which goes back to the paradigm of, if we cannot imagine it, it cannot exist.

So, basically, it comes down to the idea that "proof" must be first determined. What is acceptable "proof" to one person, isn't to another.

Let's just say that I have a hard time accepting much that I'm told about history anymore. There's a lot left out, yet we're taught it as gospel.

Columbus (or more liberally, perhaps Leif) discovered America. Right?

Uh, except there were people living here, so obviously, they did NOT discover America at all. This is another paradigm-- only the Eastern European "discoveries" are actually that...

So who REALLY discovered America? We don't know. And that's just one of many things we don't know. All because we've bought into a cultural paradigm that states that the only history that exists is our own.

We all know that history is written by the winners, yet we all still pretend that it's all true. The winners, naturally, wouldn't lie to us... right?


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 16, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Oh boy, I can't wait for the lack of evidence of this ridiculous assertion.
> I shit candy bars, you should open your mouth and lay down.



I guess I've been a skeptic for too long, Jellyhurwit.

I knew he was going to be pulling this shit early on in the conversation.  You get used to these kinds of "I read evidence somewhere and saw stuff somewhere."  They never can point you to peer reviewed things, though.. because it's all one giant conspiracy.

And on that note, I think I'm punching out of this thread.  I know a waste of time when I see it.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 16, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> I guess I've been a skeptic for too long, Jellyhurwit.
> 
> I knew he was going to be pulling this shit early on in the conversation.  You get used to these kinds of "I read evidence somewhere and saw stuff somewhere."  They never can point you to peer reviewed things, though.. because it's all one giant conspiracy.


First off, I am a she, in case reading is a bit tough for you. And it's you that's pulling shit. "Give me evidence, but NOT FROM THE INTRANETZ!!!"

Not to mention the same old shit, "if I don't believe it, it's all a big conspiracy [insert snide insinuation here]."

As far as peer reviewed, that kind of makes my point. Your idea of what constitutes proof is different from what constitutes proof to me. I don't follow the "peers" like a sheep. Especially when it's been made clear that the "peers" refuse to accept anything that doesn't support their gospels. I mean, theories.

In particular, I do NOT believe things that contravene the evidence of my own eyes with regards to science. If no one can give me satisfactory answers for why these things were found in strata that is dated at 500 million years ago, then I refuse to simply pretend I never saw it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Studies have been done that prayer (and I include meditation in prayer, given that most [not all, but the very vast majority] do it for spiritual purposes) has an effect on both the pray-er, and the recipient.



That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't. 

In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who _knew_ they were being prayed for had a slightly *worse* state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were _because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails_...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 16, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.
> 
> In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who _knew_ they were being prayed for had a slightly *worse* state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were _because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails_...



All studies I've seen show either no effect or that those who were prayed for did worse than the ones who were not prayed for.

Also, stop feeding the idiot, please?


----------



## Geek (Dec 16, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> That's funny, because the studies I've seen on the subject indicated that in a double-blind test there was NO difference in a patient's physical well-being between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.
> 
> In fact, the only difference between the prayed-for and unprayed-for in the study was that the patients who _knew_ they were being prayed for had a slightly *worse* state of mental well-being - presumably because they concluded that they were in worse shape than they actually were _because prayer is usually seen as a last resort when medical science fails_...



God on the other hand is nowhere to be found. He is a being, an entity, not a concept or feeling. His alleged presence has no observable consequences, nothing to differentiate the actual state of affairs from the one where he does not exist. Though here we have two contradictory claims. Let's use prayer as an example, though there are similiar claims floating around:

- God can be influenced by prayer to heal the sick.
- On a close look, you won't find any evidence for this, because not every prayer is fullfilled.

So you can see the evidence, and no, you can't see or test it.

One of the most carefull studies of this topic has come to the result that people do not benefit from prayer that was done for them, see: 'No health benefit' from prayer. So if evidence is found, it is used to prove that god exists. If no evidence is found, all sort of excuses will be used to "explain it away". People who think that god exists and answers to prayers make a claim about the real world, and these claims are open for scientific studies. But when those studies are made, everything is done to claim that a real influence on this world through god cannot be shown, contradicting the claim. So there is evidence for god, and there is no evidence for god. It shows what belief really is: some sort of bias. Whatever speaks for the case of good is used, whatever speaks against his existence is thrown away, with every excuse that can be found. If Jones is in court and and is accused to be a murderer, and he is innocent. this sort of examination will conclude that he commited murder, not matter what the truth is. God either influences the world, than this can be shown, because science is a great tool for finding that out. Or, he does not influence the world, than all miracle claims are ruled out, and all prayer is moot, and all god-centered religions are arbitrary.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Actually, the placebo effect is a great example. It's a proven fact that it exists. Therefor, if the 'placebo' is prayer, and it works for the person, then removing it from them is the same as 'taking away their medication' so to speak.
> 
> *So be it. I'm not taking away anything by stating facts, it's all in their mind. *
> 
> ...



Responses in bold.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 16, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> :v This was a terrible Christianity thread. This one better not go ten pages.




*Facepalms*


----------



## Kittiara (Dec 16, 2009)

LoL


----------



## Solinuas (Dec 16, 2009)

Well, continuing the subject, it doesn't matter humanity will use any excuse to commit atrocities, i mean with a bit of effort you could probably get people to commit atrocities in the name of a speck of dust.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 16, 2009)

PheonixStar said:
			
		

> words about science



Oh dear, and I wanted to like you too. 

You should start a dedicated thread so we can try to clear out the residual bullshit that seminary left in your head.  I promise a fair hearing of your side on my part, at least.


----------



## Azure (Dec 18, 2009)

Holy crap.  Phoenix Star, what's wrong with America.


----------

