Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547538 Jun 17, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
What I find ironic about the entire debate about what constitutes a "religion" is that the new catch phrase is that "Christianity is not a religion...it is a relationship".
It seems as if Atheists are not the only ones that want to not be associated with the term "religion".
It is because people don't understand their own bigotry or the Bible

They want to take examples of anything that anyone has ever done under the banner of "Christianity" and claim that is indicative of every person in the faith

And the more someone grows in their faith, the more it has to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus than the organized aspect of religion.

Also religion is basically the first step. It is a group of people who follow the Bible and has split into quite a few fractions based on interpretation. That is also why people make the point about the relationship because not only people try to use stereotypes when it comes to morality, they also do when it comes to beliefs.

Helping someone outside the faith to understand people are people, they are individuals with their own interpretations and own relationship with Christ and you can't just lump everyone together is something that shouldn't need to be done. However the distinction is pointed out because there tend to be a lot of ignorant bigots on Topix

All Americans aren't responsible for anything America did that they had no part of. All Americans don't agree with what their "representatives" do in Congress. All Americans aren't immoral because some Americans have done immoral stuff in the name of country. All Americans don't have the same ideologies despite all being under the Constitution and not all Americans interpret the Constitution the same way. And just like Americans don't give up citizenship out of protest over things they had no control over, neither do those in the faith leave their church

These are, or should be easy concepts. When it doesn't involve religion it seems they are easy concepts to follow. But because so many have shown when religion is factored in that they can't exercise common sense when looking at people in the faith, sometimes it is necessary to point out the personal and individual aspect of it

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547539 Jun 17, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
In her defense, "Hinuism" is not "A" religion but a collection of a variety of different and (semi)independent belief systems.
"Hindu religion" is like saying "Abrahamic religion".
Hi there

Yes, I see your point and I can understand how just like Christians, Jews and Muslms, there could be a lot in common between Hindus, Sikhs & Jains.

Having said that, not many Christians will admit to their religion being practically the same as Islam.

I'm wondering whether a Sikh would willingly choose to be closely associated to Hinduism.

Since: May 11

UK

#547540 Jun 17, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
So...
Your posts only supports my point that children are not scared in the RCC by being told they are going to hell
Thanks again dummy!
LOL
For 800 years, the unbaptised have been told that they were going to somewhere called limbo, like the phantom zone a' la General Zod.

for 800 years the parents of every unbaptised child who subscribed to catholicism believed the soul of their child was trapped there for eternity...and suddenly in 2008...Limbo go *poof*. Where did the kids go who had been trapped there for 8 centuries? Were they even there? Did Limbo exist? OR WAS IT SOMETHING TO SCARE PARENTS TO THE BAPTISMAL FONT AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY?

AS WE ALL KNOW THE CATHOLICS LIKE TO GET 'EM YOUNG!

So ask yourself, what else about the entire catholic doctrine is COMPLETELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT AND CAN JUST BE FORGOTTEN?

Children of roman catholic parents have no choice in the matter dummy.

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#547541 Jun 17, 2013
Further my agenda?? really?
[QUOTE who="AnnieJ"]<quo ted text>
Yet you are the one that keeps bringing it up...using it against "G" to further your agenda.
I did not ask about Bunny however...I wrote and will repeat...
"So you believe that once someone does something that you consider "wrong" they are never to be forgiven??? The slate wiped clean as they say???"
In my original post concerning this matter I made the statement that if I remembered correctly "G" offered an apology. Here was your response...
"But he still did it. It no matter if he apologize or not, he was still guilty of the deed."
I find this entire conversation a bit confusing...you follow a faith that depends on forgiveness...yet you see no problem with not forgiving...at least that is the way your posts read.
Again..it is not my place to forgive him. The abuse and violation happened to Bunny and her child. She should forgive him. And I doubt she would forgive him seeing he is doing it all over again. What a piece of dirtbag treating a woman and her child like that--iyai!

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#547542 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
You can pontificate, defecate, twist, flounder, jump through hoops or write until you fingers turn purple---you still part of a religion:
"...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism(Atheism), and others..."
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
You're still providing that fabricated portion of the statement you added in, even after it was pointed out you disingenuously and deceptively, did that.

Fascinating.
trifecta1 wrote:
That statement is part of the case, period.
You should understand at this point what that footnoted observation by Justice Black meant, and that it didn't mean what you think it meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
trifecta1 wrote:
Secular Humanism which includes (Atheism)
Secular Humanists can be atheists, or agnostics, or hold various viewpoints, but they don't have to be atheists or agnostics to be Secular Humanists.

That's much like saying a Christian must believe in the triune, or that being a Christian means you go to church on Sunday.

Have you ever heard of Christian atheists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheis...
http://christianatheist.com/ <= That might be of interest to some Christians reading along.
trifecta1 wrote:
is part of the writings by a Supreme Court Judge involved in the case. It is part of the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

You should probably look at this, too. Peloza v. Capistrano School District, from 1994: "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."

In that above referenced case -(Peloza v. Capistrano School)- the Supreme Court refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.
trifecta1 wrote:
As such, you're part of the most asinine and azz clown religions ever invented by mankind.
It's good to see you admit religions are invented by man.
trifecta1 wrote:
Congratulations.
No, you deserve the congratulations. Your admission speaks volumes.
trifecta1 wrote:
Now go find Dawkins and tell him to freethink you a clue.
Why would I do that?

I don't let people think for me, or an organization or religion declare what I think.

That's what many theists do, however.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547543 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>They are "atheists", Stupidity is Inherent.
Sadly, it would be better if it was just stupidity

Many in this group that came here lie

And to help Scaritual I will explain I call it a group because they travel in a pack and are friends and not because it has anything to do with me. A group simply is a group. Ok some of it DEFINITELY is stupidity!

But a lot of it is their main objective seems to cover each other at all costs to their ethics. They will lie, be hypocritical, defy logic, etc so long as it helps one another out

They are in fact proud of this fact. They think that because they don't argue and share a bond of unethical behavior that somehow that is a good thing. You can always find people willing to group together in hate that will lie for one another in return for the same being done for them.

The fact that Christians in here disagree shows we put principle and belief ahead of alliances

Something most of the atheists here not only don't do but think it is stupid to do

Sad really to stand for so little that anonymous Topix friends means more to them than being honest and staying true to themselves

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547544 Jun 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
For 800 years, the unbaptised have been told that they were going to somewhere called limbo, like the phantom zone a' la General Zod.
for 800 years the parents of every unbaptised child who subscribed to catholicism believed the soul of their child was trapped there for eternity...and suddenly in 2008...Limbo go *poof*. Where did the kids go who had been trapped there for 8 centuries? Were they even there? Did Limbo exist? OR WAS IT SOMETHING TO SCARE PARENTS TO THE BAPTISMAL FONT AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY?
AS WE ALL KNOW THE CATHOLICS LIKE TO GET 'EM YOUNG!
So ask yourself, what else about the entire catholic doctrine is COMPLETELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT AND CAN JUST BE FORGOTTEN?
Children of roman catholic parents have no choice in the matter dummy.
So...

Once again your posts shows that children are not told they are going to hell

Thanks a third time dummy

LOL

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#547545 Jun 17, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
No it has been based on THEIR words
-Happy Lesbo: claims to be a lesbian fighting for equality but says there is nothing wrong with a statement like "filthy gay liar" and compared using gay in a string of insults with using a group as a compliment like "good Christian man".
She claimed she would apologize if others said she defends Ians then disappeared when it happened
She gave 7 stories for why she couldn't source a quote where she obviously lied about getting it off the Internet and constantly cries bullying while she continues with insults of her own. But when she does it she calls them "observations"
-Catcher: A Lawyer who thinks it doesn't matter if you use the proper legal terms in court, made claims he could get testimony stricken he can't, and gave terrible advice as to Miranda
-Ians - A doctor that didn't know Ritalin had the adverse effect on adults, wrote thousands of prescriptions of pain medication and thinks opiates aren't physically addictive, and has been caught lying several times
To be paranoid I would have to have something to be paranoid about. Do you think it makes one lick of difference to me whether he uses a proxy or what any of you clowns say?
I never said i was worried about you living by me. You are paranoid to think I am worried about that!
You are a buffoon.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547546 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>And if [your] assumption to that is no or you don't have to worship Jesus Christ to please that 'cosmic mega being' as you say...then you do so at [your]own risk, not mine.
It's no assumption.

It's exactly what the bible says.

If the god of the bible didn't want people to be judged by their works then he would have removed that particular scripture.

"I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books."

Rev 20:12

"The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds."

Rev 20:13

There you have it.

Your own holy book says we will be judged by our works/deeds. Nothing there about being judged by our faith.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547547 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>He sure healed a lot of disabled people though.
He still doesn't one disabled people coming near him.

What would you think of a high-ranking government official who said that all disabled people were barred from approaching him?

You'd think he was crazy.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547548 Jun 17, 2013
"want" not "one"

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547549 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a buffoon.
LOL

The last vestige of the the man who can't debate on merit!

I include insults simply because they are funny and do so in the middle of systematically using facts to prove my point or disprove the point of someone else

When you and many in your group are left scratching your rear-end trying to figure out how you can lie your way out of the newest hole you dug for yourself, this is what you normally end up having to resort to as you sure can't argue based on the facts!

Thank you for making it so obvious what I said in my post was true.

:)

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547550 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
Newsflash!! Death is a part of life. And children die as well. Does the gunman share any blame? what about his mother that kept guns in the house knowing her son had a mental disease, does she get any blame?
They most definitely do get blamed.

Yet you honestly believe your god acts to help you but refused to act to help save the lives of those kids.

What makes you so special?
trifecta1 wrote:
what about his mother that kept guns in the house knowing her son had a mental disease, does she get any blame?
What's the difference between this and your god keeping the serpent in the Garden of Eden when he knew how evil and manipulative the serpent was? Does he get the blame?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547551 Jun 17, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Doctors heal far more.
They certainly do.

With much help from the medical scientists who have all-but-eradicated diseases like smallpox and polio which Christians believe the bible god created.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547552 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>??? What's your point?
The point is that they do far more to help than your invisible sky pixie ever does.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547553 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends. Is he doing her or is she doing him?
LMAO!
lol
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#547554 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:
No, I'm saying that homosexual sex and homosexuality are two different things, and not always related to each other. Two teenage kids of the same gender can have sex experimentally with each other, but that doesn't make either of them homosexual. People in prison who have sex with each other for lack of an alternative (or as a demonstration of dominance) aren't romantically attached to each other.
Here you do it again. You use a definition that leads to a conclusion.

You also mix things in like romance. But behavioural science must look at behaviour itself, without starting with these precognitions.

People can be romantically involved with plastic dolls nowadays in long term relationships. Are you going tell me this is predetermined preference? And Christians speaks of Jesus as their bridegroom and their love relation with this fantasized book figure. Is this innate behaviour?

It only tells us how flexible human nature is. Homosexuals want to believe that homosexuality is innate to defend themselves against Christianity. Like Christianity wants to believe it is free choice to justify their discrimination. Both construct these ideas to sustain their position.

In reality preferences can be innate but we can also develop them. I hate olives at first (clearly not innate), but i learned to love them. In my next life I may have an innate preference to olives.

I do not care one way or the other, i worship Nature. I deeply revere diversity. I love the diversity nature brings. I think there is immense beauty in diversity. That is why i worship many Gods and revere all beings and none have to justify their nature. Even if behaviour is hurtful to others, we should confine ourself to only limiting the behaviour. Some people are like aggressive, it is their nature, give them a place where they can express their nature in non-harmful way. Let them fight in sports or make them a doorman. They feel happy and they no longer have to beat their wives.
wilderide wrote:
But then heterosexuality would be likewise defined as merely sexual activity. That is only looking at a small part of human relationship.s
Yes indeed. Christianity has succeeded in convincing us that the behaviour it subscribes is natural as it is normal.

But is it natural for human males to have long term sexual and monogamous relationships with women? In Africa is never was, and black people all over the world still have trouble to adapting to this European ideal.
wilderide wrote:
Mmmmmm. No. First, obviously, this doesn't describe lesbianism very well.
Indeed, Lesbianism is a very different thing and should not be treated as the same thing. Women are a totally different creature. Our society with its unisex ideal, which comes from suppressing sex, is denying that.
wilderide wrote:
Secondly, I think many gay people feel more free to play with or reject the predominantly heterosexual gender role stereotypes. Dominance can certainly be an aspect of that, but I think it's a mistake to overemphasize how much of an influence that has.
We under-emphasize it you mean. The funny thing is that homosexuality was deeply intertwined with machismo, but since we started to oppress the homosexual and he became a victim, he is portrayed like an weak over-feminine man. But as you so rightly state down here:

<quoted text>
wilderide wrote:
I know what you are saying, but I find this whole concept odd. Frankly, there is very little femininity when sex is between two men.
Exactly!
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#547555 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
They certainly do.
With much help from the medical scientists who have all-but-eradicated diseases like smallpox and polio which Christians believe the bible god created.
You are a LAIR, and you are of your father, the devil.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#547556 Jun 17, 2013
liar...
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#547557 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:
I think we necessarily anthropomorphize animals, and that is necessarily going to make us misunderstand them. It's a pity we cannot communicate with them more directly.
That is western thinking, based on the Bible. In the Bible only man is the image of God. Animals are made for humans. How could they have intelligence, feelings, emotions? In the Talmud we even see the idea expressed that the gentiles are simply animals in human form to be able to better serve the Jews (Reminds very much of the Anunaki Gods of Sumeria)

In Nature religion animals are not given this low place. Many are even considered messengers to the Gods. That is why Egyptian Gods have animal heads. It makes them higher beings rather than lower beings.

Animals are more feeling than rationalizing human beings, does that make them inferior? Yes it does from the viewpoint of the rationalizing man. Our culture rather despises feeling as polluter of rational thinking.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 min AN NFL FAN 119,270
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 554,994
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 min onemale 263,565
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Aura Mytha 765,022
Abu dhabi massage for men 0555079516 Alisa 32 min alisa 1
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. 57 min Hatti_Hollerand 68
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 1 hr truth 932
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr truth 5,435

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE