Topic: God's Will??? (Read 34027 times)

xolik · « **Reply #100 on:** June 29, 2007, 06:17:03 PM »

Quote from: d_money on June 29, 2007, 05:27:07 PM

I think its kind of rude to try and spread your lies to some little kid that of course will believe you, and do it knowing most likely their parents would kick your ass if they saw you doing it.

This is exactly why I'd never put my kids in public school, if I ever had any. /runsaway

12AX7 · « **Reply #101 on:** June 29, 2007, 06:18:26 PM »

Quote from: d_money on June 29, 2007, 06:11:23 PM

Dude, do you have any point with any of your posts? Can I have the link to it? Just one would suffice, thanks.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #102 on:** June 29, 2007, 07:04:03 PM »

He had a point about how much fun reckless driving is a while back.

RelandR · « **Reply #103 on:** June 29, 2007, 09:19:16 PM »

Quote from: d_money on June 29, 2007, 06:11:23 PM

Clever fellow,
typing with invisible bits like that will assure that none will be the wiser as to what you meant to say.
It'll be your little secret.

Nosferatu · « **Reply #104 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:12:27 PM »

In somewhat related news: Do stem cells have a soul?

Vespertine · « **Reply #105 on:** June 29, 2007, 10:16:57 PM »

Quote from: Nosferatu on June 29, 2007, 10:12:27 PM

In somewhat related news: Do stem cells have a soul?

Dammit! Start your own God thread, this one's already been derailed enough.

Rico · « **Reply #106 on:** July 03, 2007, 06:07:16 PM »

lol ...anyway, to answer:

Quote from: Vespertine on June 29, 2007, 12:46:58 PM

I didn't feel like performing the work to quote multiple posts, so this serves as a soapbox/clarification (for me) from a bunch of other posts.

1. OK, I did some digging, and I'm clarifying my earlier question about the (biblical) fine for causing a woman to miscarry. Rico, you suggested that this could be a fine as a result of an accident, or working a woman too hard, etc. The passage is in Exodus (the same book where the 10 commandments are laid out), right before the "eye for an eye" section. If a man pushes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but is not otherwise hurt, then the offender pays only a fine to the victim's husband. Now, in addition to the 10 commandments, Exodus also lays out the crimes and punishments that form the basis of a legal system. Causing (intentionally or otherwise) a woman to miscarry is treated essentially the same as myriad other "property crimes".

Again, it's not talking about abortion. I'm not a Biblical Historian or anything, but I'm as sure as a layman can be that's not the case. Back then it was perfectly acceptable to beat women under certain situations(which is still is in some countries, I believe). If a man beats or even accidently harms another man's wife and kills the unborn child, he HAS damaged property... or would it be had? Whatever. The point is that in those days men wanted to have lots of children because children were free labor. Same reason my grandfather had 13 other brothers and sisters. They were needed to help run the ranch. Of course, there's the whole commandment to be fruitful and multiply too. Again though, it's not talking about beating the woman inorder to abort the child, it's talking about the child's death as a result of another action. I think a better arguement for you on this point would be: If an unborn child is a life, and killing is wrong, and the punishment for killing is death, why would the punishment in this case not also be death. And to that, I really don't have an answer. I will try to find some one more educated than me and ask, though.

Quote

2. There's been a lot of discussion about the fact that the Bible contradicts itself (OT vs. NT). My observations suggest that there are massive contradictions within the OT itself. Did you know that there are two versions of the creation story in the OT? One of them presents man and woman as equal, and the other is the one we all know about? In Exodus, we get the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not kill. In the same book (as mentioned above), the basis of the legal system is laid out. Punishment for intentional killing is death. Punishment for kidnapping is death. Punishment for striking a parent is death. Punishment for insulting a parent is death. Punishment for bestiality is death. BUT, all of these death sentences are right along side the exhortation that THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Seems like a glaring contradiction to me.

One problem is that the OT was written to a specific audience, and there were a lot of things that were thought to just be "understood." So, there are some cases that might seem to be contradictory until you look at it in that historical perspective. You're right, though. There ARE some parts of the Bible that really might seem to be going back on something else, even with that historical perspective. In your example above, it's one of those things many Christians don't like to talk about... the translation of the original text. Rather than "Thou shalt not kill," it should really read, "Thou shalt not do murder." The Bible is very specific in that there are times killing is right. The story of David and Goliath, for example. Hell, nearly any story of David in general! The guy killed a lot of people. If we were commanded to simply not kill we couldn't engage in war, or even medicine. I'll even go you one more than that, since it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill people," we could take it to mean that we shouldn't kill animals or plants. I know, that's ad absurdum, but it's really also the point. That's one of the reasons I really hate that arguement for the Bible(and by implication, Christians), being inconsistant. I understand people may not agree with it, but I really don't see how an intelligent person couldn't see how it's not contradictory.

Quote

3. Someone made mention of Jesus and his "clarification" on the laws in the OT. I believe the statement was something to the effect that "there were misinterpretations of the law that Jesus intended to 'clear up'". If you're a believer, than you believe that the OT is the word of God. There's no room for misinterpretation there. Either God laid out the crimes and punishments (inclusive of the 10 commandments), or he didn't.

Oh wow. That's a REALLY hard one to answer shortly and simply. Basically Christ did not clear anything up, nor did he invalidate rules of the Old Testament. He was the fulfillment of those Old Laws. For instance, you know how they made all sorts of sacrifices in the OT and that was what was required to make up for sins? Well, Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, ultimately pure, ultimately perfect, and there-by ultimately fulfilled that need. I guess it'd be like the insurance law in Texas. If you have a car you have to have insurance, and make monthly payments. If you have a million dollars, you can cover any damage, insure yourself by putting a chunk of it in the bank once, and then you're done. No more periodic payments. I know there are fellow Christians out there who'll read this and have a heart attack for my comparing of Christ's death to car insurance, but I thought the analogy might help. Other than that, this really is more of a theological debate, and probably not all that important to some one that doesn't believe in the religion. I just know the exact explination of the NT's relation to the OT is something debated among Christians since around AD 33, or so.

Quote

4. As relates to number 3, I've never known a religious (of the Christan faith) person who believed that the OT was something of a historical record. The ones I've known believe that the OT is the word of God, and is a factual accounting of the beginning of time. Why else would so many people believe that the world is approximately 6,000 years old? These are the same people who love to throw out Leviticus whenever the topic of homosexuality comes up. Thus proving that their thought process includes this book being the factual, authoritative, word of God, not merely a perspective of ancient civilizations.

Of course, the Old Testament is a historical work. It'd just be a fable otherwise. I firmly believe that every story in the OT has it's basis in historical fact. As I've said before, I don't think belief in God rules out a belief in science. We have fossils of dinosaurs, yet the Bible never mentioned them. Does that mean they didn't exist? Of course not. I know I'll be branded heretical for saying it, but I don't think there's any reason not to accept that stories in the Bible are from the perspective of the teller, and often even not even then, but handed down orally for hundreds of years! I know my mother has a heart attack everytime I suggest that the story of Moses involves crossing the Reed Sea, not the RED Sea. Yet, there is plenty of historical evidence that at least one early Egyptian army seemed to make a psychotic, and obviously failed, attempt at crossing a certain marshy area in norther Egypt. There is also thought that a massive volcanic eruption at about the same period caused a tsunami that drained the marsh for a time and then sent a tidal wave crashing back over it. If that were what happened, it would explain the account in Exodus, and yet it would be no less miraculous that it occured just in time for events to transpire as they did. The Bible IS an historic account of ancient civilizations, and any Christian should acknowledge that, but those civlizations had an intimate relationship with God, and it's THAT which makes the account important.

And on a slightly side note. Christians that make a big to-do about homosexuality can go get bent. Yeah, it's a sin. It's a sin like any other, though. I had sex out side of marriage and that's sexual immorality as well. What those Bible-toting retards don't seem to understand is that we've all sinned. St. John himself said "we've all fallen short of the mark." Which by the way, did you know that's where the word came from? The rings around the center of an archer's mark were called siouns(or scions), and to miss the mark was to sioun. That's where the word "sin" came from. Personally, I've shot the target all to hell and the only thing left is the middle. So, I'm not holding any sin against anyone until I can stop committing them myself.

Quote

5. Finally (and also as relates to numbers 3 and 4), why do so many Christans claim to have the "ace in the hole" when it comes to God? This OT, which many Christians believe to be the word of God, very clearly designates the Jews as God's chosen people. God's one and only chosen people. How do they make the leap to "Jews are out and Christians are now God's chosen people"?

That's an ignorant stance. Even in Revelations, which is the NT's prophecy of the end of times, the Jewish people are refrenced as being important to God. They ARE God's chosen people, and nothing has changed that. As I said before, Christ didn't invalidate the OT, he fulfilled it. It should also be understood that the Chosen people are not "out." I'm not versed enough to tell you exactly how it works, but apparently as they still follow the Old Law, they're still good. As in the above example, if you have plenty of cash but take insurance anyway, you're still insured. I know that's a horrible example, and I should come up with something better, but I'm lazy and tired. In any case, it's through Christ that the rest of us can get in on the action. Not that we're edging the others out. lol I have this irreverant picture of two petulant children competing for Father's favour. I guess that'd make us the suck-up of the two.

I hope that answers somewhat. Sorry it took so long, but the past couple weeks have been a little rough. Also, it wasn't my intention to be preachy, but to just answer questions. I figure if I can do my job as a Christian, people will just think me a good person and choose to follow the same path. I've never really been one for brow-beating anyone other than children into line.

12AX7 · « **Reply #107 on:** July 03, 2007, 08:14:56 PM »

Dude! Excellent piece of work there. Commendations! +1

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #108 on:** July 04, 2007, 02:53:41 AM »

Interesting, certainly, but not satisfying. If you would address my argument perhaps I'd be happier, but as it stands nothing there really addressed my concerns.

Rico · « **Reply #109 on:** July 04, 2007, 08:57:14 AM »

I didn't address yours in part because I barely had time to reply to the one I did reply to. Also, because I had forgotten about it by the time I got back.

Actually, I did answer your question in part and indirectly. The OT isn't invalid, but some of it no longer applies because od Christ. No one went through the Good Book and highlighted rules they liked and ignored ones they didn't. As far as the shellfish and stuff, I don't know for sure, but I've heard it said by people far more studied than myself that those rules were litterally intended specifically for the people they were given to. The word for sin didn't come along until later, and I think the word used in the OT for stuff like eating bad things is more like "bad" and not so much "transgression." If we have any from the Jewish faith among us, I'd take their word over mine any day. They still adhere to the Old Law, so I'm sure they'd be far more versed in it than I.

As far as slaves, you have to first understand that slavery as it speaks of it in the Bible is completely different that your warped idea of slavery, and certainly different than what slavery had become in mid-19th century America. This idea that race has anything to do with slavery is a fairly recent convention, and didn't come about until around the time of Harper's Ferry in America. Racism was a completely seperate topic up to then, though the British have given us plenty of reason to believe it existed.

Slavery before Americans twisted it, was a strictly social status. If you failed to pay what you owed, broke the law, fought war with some one and lost, any of those things could make you a slave. That wasn't a directive from God, that was the law of the land. The Bible makes refrence on how to treat slaves, and I think I remember passages on how to BE a slave, but no directive to have slaves. Since our society doesn't allow for the taking of slaves after combat, that part really doesn't apply to us.

By the way, a little off topic and sure to offend some, did you know that many historians believe indentured servants were treated far worse than slaves? For example, they recently discovered an old body in a basement in New England(I didn't catch which specific city). Testing revealed the man had lived off wheat for many years, and then corn for about the last year of his life. That means he'd come from Europe and lived in America for about a year. The corn had so much sugar in it, that his teeth rotted and that's what killed him. Scientists believe his owner was so ticked that he couldn't finish his indenture that he was punished the only way the owner knew how. He refused to give him a decent burial. Interesting thing I heard on the radio.

Just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean you HAVE to do it. Conversely, just because it's NOT mentioned doesn't mean it wouldn't be the right thing to do. The Bible mentions some one building an ark, but I have no intention of constructing my own shipping vessel, nor do I intend to own a zoo in the near future. The Bible doesn't say anything about heavy traffic, but I think it's the Christian thing to do to slow down and wave people in when they're waiting to pull out into traffic.

Paladin · « **Reply #110 on:** July 04, 2007, 11:13:57 AM »

But on the same lines of thought, the bible pretty certain doesn't mention cloning as an evil thing, or stem cell research. Probably drugs either, but you could argue that alcohol is a generalization. Certanly not about soul coming into existence when the sperm cell enters the ova.

So how can someone (not talking specificaly about you Rico, but belivers in general - those that say that everything comes from the bible) can be for/against those things on the basis of a faith that comes directly from the bible?

I think The Judge mention earlier something about small children not beeing considered human beeings. I don't know about early cristian law, but in roman law, children until 1 year old weren't citizens, after 1 year one could be considered as a heir for example.

TheJudge · « **Reply #111 on:** July 04, 2007, 12:53:22 PM »

Quote from: Paladin on July 04, 2007, 11:13:57 AM

I think The Judge mention earlier something about small children not beeing considered human beeings.

Only if we can eat them!

Actually, that wasn't me. I haven't said anything like that. Not while I was sobber anyway.

Quote from: Paladin on July 04, 2007, 11:13:57 AM

But on the same lines of thought, the bible pretty certain doesn't mention cloning as an evil thing, or stem cell research. Probably drugs either, but you could argue that alcohol is a generalization. Certainly not about soul coming into existence when the sperm cell enters the ova.

So how can someone (not talking specifically about you Rico, but believers in general - those that say that everything comes from the bible) can be for/against those things on the basis of a faith that comes directly from the bible?

Clearly, the bible doesn't describe every possible situation, event, object, things that do not exist at the time it was written, etc. This is where interpretation comes in. Forget the bible for a second.

Imagine that I wrote a book called "Rules of Humanity". The book describes the adventures of the main character, Judgiepoo. The book is in fact a recollection of multiple events that took place in Judgiepoo's life. There is no preface so it is unclear if this is a report of actual events, if it is based on actual events (big difference) or if it is simply fiction. The book is written in the way of short stories. Very short stories, and tons of them. In each short story, there is a basic scenario with some characters. An event occurs, followed by a reaction of some kind (which involves the intervention of Judgiepoo AKA JP the Savior).

Now imagine if you will, that Mr Bush and the "terrist" manage to blow up the planet where everything we know is destroyed, including all of all knowledge. All is lost with the exception of "Rules of Humanity" which somehow manages to survive.

Now fast forward 3000 years, where a new civilization exist. They don't speak English but the brains of that society manage to decipher the English script of "Rules of Humanity" and actually manage to translate it to Engrish, which is what these folks speak. Now, a little sect forms and decides to study intently the book and apply "Rules of Humanity" because they see it as the word of a greater being. Teh kr34t0rz!

Over time, they manage to convert more and more individuals and they relate events of their lives with events in the book although evens are not identical. But, to the best of their ability, and with all genuine intentions of actually living by the lessons presented in the book, they use it to make decisions about events in their own lives, and in the lives of those that surround them.

Congratulations, you have just witnessed the birth of Judgiesim. Now... in this new society, it was always considered acceptable to beat a child with a wooden stick, but a story in the book of humanity clearly describes Judgiepoo beating a kid with a crowbar. But there is one problem. The "crowbar" object isn't described. It just says "He raised forth teh cr0wbarz and wh4cked teh kid in teh f4ce! OMFGLOL!!11" but doesn't describe what a crowbar is. Unfortunately, during the translation process, the word was analyzed and broken down into "crow" and "bar" so all of a sudden, you've got these people trying to raise crow's in a bar so that they can grab the crows by the feet and whack the kids with them. Judgiepoo was eccentric for his time... OK, stupid example, but an example nonetheless.

Next, you have a new procedure in this society that doesn't exist today. It's a painful procedure that involved extracting cancerous brain mass trough the nostrils and it is very much a source of debate in this new society. Thankfully, the following story of judgiepoo clarifies things:

"Need a tissue Judgiepoo?" his wife asked sarcastically. "I don't need no damn tissue. I can pick my own damn nose if I choose to do so bitch!"
And clearly, the "Rules of Humanity" allowed the individual the right to nasal intrusion so the judgiesim church announced to the word that the cancerous brain mass extraction was perfectly acceptable and it was a personal choice. And the world rejoiced!

All this to say that the bible describes events which we can relate to events from our own lives. The problem is that we can't be sure about the accuracy of the events. We can't be sure if they took place, are based on a true story, or are fiction. Secondly, the information was passed on from person to person before it was fully transcribed, then re-transcribed, then translated. So the telephone effect comes into play. We cannot say with certainty that these are actual events and that they are accurately described. We can only choose to believe so, or choose not to believe so.

Is it possible that the bible is pure fiction? Absolutely. Although there seems to be records and evidence that suggest that a man called Jesus did in fact walk this earth and stirred a lot of shit up. So one would tend to think that the bible is based on actual events.

Is it possible that the claims of this Jesus were false and that he wasn't the son of God after all? Absolutely. It is quite possible that Jesus and his buddies wanted to change the world, wanted to make it better because the world that they lived in sucked. So what better way to do that then to lecture people on principles of fairness, and of love? And what better way to capture attention then to proclaim that God himself sent you here on a mission?

Did Jesus walk on water? I don't know. Some will blindly say yes. I think there is the option that Jesus, assuming he did exist, did in fact walk on water after he and his friends had setup an elaborate scheme involving planks just below the surface water. That's my conspiracy theory anyway!

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter of Jesus was the son of God or not. It doesn't matter if he was sent by God or not. Jesus had one goal and that was to better society and humanity. And he conveyed his vision in ways people could relate too, by telling them stories they could relate too. The bible is the legacy of Jesus and it does contain many principles that do in fact better humanity and society.

I believe in such a vision. And I can believe in it without claiming it as truth. I view it as principles to guide our lives, but not to control them. Sometimes, I don't always agree with the principles presented, but many I do support. I do pick and choose what I accept and what I reject. I suppose this excludes me from the Christian group who are apparently not allowed to question "the word of God" and that is their error in my opinion, because questions can only lead to answers. (And more questions!).

I accept the bible as being an edited transcript of the vision of one extraordinary man who had a vision he wanted to share. Nothing more, nothing less.

12AX7 · « **Reply #112 on:** July 04, 2007, 03:17:13 PM »

Nicely said there, Judge. +1

*rejoices*

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #113 on:** July 04, 2007, 03:25:07 PM »

Hurry up with that book, I'm eager to convert dammit!

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #114 on:** July 04, 2007, 06:47:05 PM »

My problem is NOT with those who would analyze the book as a philosophical text, my problem is with those that do not question it and accept it blindly because it is "the word of god." The questions I raise in relation to it are generally to try and show that without questioning what is "taught", we end up following senseless laws.

d_money · « **Reply #115 on:** July 04, 2007, 07:18:55 PM »

Quote

He raised forth teh cr0wbarz and wh4cked teh kid in teh f4ce! OMFGLOL!!11

a lesson learned

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #116 on:** July 04, 2007, 09:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on July 04, 2007, 06:47:05 PM

My problem is NOT with those who would analyze the book as a philosophical text, my problem is with those that do not question it and accept it blindly because it is "the word of god." The questions I raise in relation to it are generally to try and show that without questioning what is "taught", we end up following senseless laws.

Yeah that's true, it always cracks me up when a Bibleguy is trying to make a point to the unconvinced and sites the Bible as a proof.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #117 on:** July 04, 2007, 11:53:06 PM »

Also, I believe that if one feels it is the word of god then they probably SHOULDN'T cut out parts, but that is a separate issue.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #118 on:** July 05, 2007, 01:37:35 AM »

God strikes me as a fan of the school of hard knocks. He COULD have gotten the whole bible right the first time (yeah yeah people wrote it, but couldn't he have pulled a Moses and dictated it to them to make sure they got it all right?), but he chose to let people fuck it up. Why not just forsee people arguing over it thousands of years later and make it right and prevent it from being corrupted over the centuries like it has been? The only way to reconcile a perfect being and all these weird traits is that he must get a real kick out of it. Either that or sadism is a "perfect" trait.

Paladin · « **Reply #119 on:** July 05, 2007, 01:58:28 AM »

what i meant to say was: I think The Judge mention earlier something about small children not beeing considered human beeings in some early cultures, sorry i skipped the important part.

TheJudge · « **Reply #120 on:** July 05, 2007, 07:28:46 AM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on July 04, 2007, 06:47:05 PM

My problem is NOT with those who would analyze the book as a philosophical text, my problem is with those that do not question it and accept it blindly because it is "the word of god."

In my opinion, this is a result of organised religion where religious leaders use "faith" as the ultimate tool for influencing behaviors. You are taught not to ask questions that jeoperdize the so called will of God. In fact, this is one of the first Christian lessons I learned. You are told to do certain things and if you ask why, you are treated as the blacksheep who invokes the wrath of God. This is where the concepts of heaven and hell (reward vs punishement) are used to reinforce fear. The fear of choosing to beleive something else and later being punished for it if you were wrong. The religious system that bases everything on faith has been used for centuries has been directly responsible for countless deaths and suffering. People have taken actions in the name of God, purely based opn faith and personal beleifs, and these actions have lead to bloodshed.

The problem with religion is that they cannot be based on facts. First, the existing claims cannot be verified and proven as fact. That is why the concept of faith is critical. Essentially, it goes like this:

I'm telling you something which I cannot prove. You are raised as [insert religion here] and therefore you must accept what I tell you. Question this statement and rejecting it excludes you from [insert religion here] and proves that you have no faith. [insert God name here] has told us to beleive even without seeing (how convenient), yet you refuse to obey the word of [insert God name here]! Insolent! You shall go to [insert name of punishement (i.e. hell equivalent) of your religion here]. There is hope... Beg for forgivness! Renounce your evil toughts! Ask [insert God name here] for forgivness and he will grant it because he loves all who follow him.

That is essentially the workings of all religions. They ask you to for something and they make you feel guilty/scared when you refuse. It's like those religions where you have to give like half of your paycheck to the church. Did Jesus ever ask anyone for money? He gave, he didn't take. But then again, you just turn that around and state that because Jesus gave, because he was generous, then so should you. And guess who's collecting?

If God is such a powerfull being and he wanted to impose his will on humanity, you would think that he would come down here himself and impose it simply by snaping his finger. But he doesn't. Why? Is it that he doesn't exist? Is it that he does exist but doesn't care? Has he abandon all hope he had for us? Are we a failed experiement? Is God actually not interested in imposing his will on us at all? Does God regret sending Jesus down here because of all the shit it stired up (we are still debating over it 2000 years later...) and therefore refuses to give any signs that he exists? Are God and Santa Clause the same person?

These are all possibilities and they are as valid as the any proclamation made by any church, no matter how ridiculous they may sound. Why? Because none of them can be verified and faith could be used to market any of those option as the truth. At some point in time, religions choose to beleive one thing, on option of many options, and they have been enforcing that belief ever since. Then you have people who stand up with great pride and proclaim their own belief without even being able to support it on anything else than faith. And if that's the case, then I say all religions are either correct or they are all wrong because all their proclamations are based on faith. And since a lot of them contradict one another, then I must logically conclude that not a single one speaks the truth. This brings me back to my bible response where I said I pick and choose what I beleive is good. I have no other choice than to do this after spending years contemplating the faith that had been imposed on me as a child and realizing the truth that all religions are founded on something, yet none can claim absolute truth. And in that sense, they are all equal.

d_money · « **Reply #121 on:** July 05, 2007, 07:48:48 AM »

Most people that accept it blindly are the ones that are brought up in a religious family. They've been fed the "word of god" since they were little and therefore it isn't something that they would question, it's a part of their life. It's the ones that think different or weren't raised in a religious background that do most of the questioning.

12AX7 · « **Reply #122 on:** July 05, 2007, 08:51:24 AM »

Quote from: d_money on July 05, 2007, 07:48:48 AM

Most people that accept it blindly are the ones that are brought up in a religious family. They've been fed the "word of god" since they were little and therefore it isn't something that they would question, it's a part of their life.

This is the kind of thinking/statement making that causes problems.
d_money, where did you find this "fact"? Can we see the information from which you derived this tidbit of knowledge? The poll results of your research? A link?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess you have nothing to prove that "Most people that accept it blindly are the ones that are brought up in a religious family" other than your own wild, uneducated guess. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that it is more probable that following something blindly has more to do with personality type and a person's constitution.

xolik · « **Reply #123 on:** July 05, 2007, 09:06:47 AM »

I was brought up in a strict religious family. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go throw some rocks at fags.

Quote from: 12AX7 on July 05, 2007, 08:51:24 AM

d_money, where did you find this "fact"?

That would be from the data source found in all asses.

To his credit, he never said it was a fact. He said 'most' not 'all' where he should have said 'I think some.' However, it's pretty arrogant to assume that being brought up in a religious family somehow automatically means you're incapable of critical thought.

Don't make me post 'educated.jpg' again.

d_money · « **Reply #124 on:** July 05, 2007, 09:16:44 AM »

I never said it was a fact. Yes, i should have said it was opionion but seeing as i didn't show my charts and graphs from my research i thought it could be determined it was an opinion.

And i never said that ALL people growing up in a religious family weren't capable of critical thought.

All i'm saying is: I believe that most people that accept the bible and other religious testimates and beliefs without question are people that were hand fed it from a young age.

Also i like how you put the word 'fact' in quotations. Quotation marks are supposed to be used in quoting something, and seeing as i didn't use the word 'fact' one time in my post, how are you quoting that in a reply to me?

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: God's Will??? (Read 34027 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7