What religion or belief system are you?

What religion or belief system are you?


  • Total voters
    418

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I actually studied and reconsidered my view on the debate between creationists and evolutionists.
oh boy

Science - 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' (oxford dictionary definition). Atheists can try as hard as they can to elaborate and explain but they are left with one massive obstacle - how can the first forms of life arose from non-life and how can intelligent life form?
heres an experiment where Stanley Miller and Harold Urey created amino acids by mimicking Earth's theorized beginning atmosphere. Amino acids are the basis of proteins, which in turn are the basis of life itself.

Louis Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment - Omne vivum ex vivo, the Latin translation for 'all life from non-life', the experiment that debunked the idea that life can arise from non-life or even life within it's own species and breed. Observable? Yes, very. We see humans breed humans, dogs breed dogs and fish lay eggs. Repeatable via experiment? Certainly! I'm alive to be on smogon thanks to my mom and dad. To this day, no scientist has produced a life from non life despite having sooooo many given resources, time and energy and the laws of biogenesis has stood for over a century. (I assure you it will remain that way forever)
The theory of Spontaneous Generation (what Pasteur was actually studying and experimenting for) is an obsolete theory that says that life can arise from non life at any point, and that such generation was commonplace and routine in society. Obviously this is false, it is a Greek understanding of science. It is not the same thing as abiogenesis is the current understanding of how life can evolve from non-life, and it involves chemical reactions, molecular self-replication, and can only happen under certain conditions. Biogenesis is the concept of life being created from other life, I'm not sure why you even mention this as this has nothing to do with Pasteur's experiment, what he was testing, or the idea of how life can arise from non-life. Simply because biogenesis exists and is observable does not make abiogenesis any less valid thats a child's way of thinking.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Idea that humans were evolved from Apes and species change and adapt due to the process of 'natural selection'. Observable? Not at all. No one in recorded human history has even remotely witnessed an Australopithecine walking on land nor has seen an ape turn to a non-ape. Nor have we seen dogs turn into non-dogs or any species turn into other species. Not once. Repeatable via experiment? LOL what do you think? Maybe if I give an ape a firestone it will turn into infernape? :hyperthinking:
lol come on man
your presumption rests on the idea that all science has to be done under a controlled lab setting and that it is not possible to actually observe evolution in the first place. I don't think you even attempted to search for an experiment and you're just talking out of your ass. There's an entire field dedicated to experimental evolution where experiments have been done on insects, such as fruit flies, or bacteria. Additionally evolution is observable as domesticating a dog. You seem to have a very incomplete and incorrect grasp on what evolution actually is, and I can only assume you were spoonfed your information by your church camp counselor.

And then many evolutionists claim creationists are dumb ignorant fools to believe in supernatural beings where they can't even see/detect the presence of a God while on the other hand they have their 'science' to completely debunk the need for an intelligent designer. I simply reply to them - Sir, if you studied biology or a biology textbook, it is very likely that both of these scientific theories are found in the same textbook. Why do you insist the latter is true while the former must have exceptions when you can clearly both observe and experiment for the former but not the latter?
You realize that the idea of evolution does not necessarily cancel out the idea of an intelligent creator? Like the two can coexist quite easily (God sparked the creation of the universe, and akin to a rollercoaster he just let it ride its journey wherever it might take it). I don't think you understand what a theory is in the first place, a theory is not the same thing as a law, such as the law of gravity. Theres a reason its called a theory, and that two contradicting theories can exist is perfectly normal. Not everyone in the science community is rallying behind one another saying "this is right" in fact thats as anti-science as you can get. Most researchers and experimenters are constantly testing the boundaries of pre-established theories, a theory only becomes a law when it is easily repeatable and whether the results are valid and observable. You really seem to be ignorant or at least only shallowly educated on the topic.

Now to the credit for evolutionist and atheist scientists I actually have much respect for them for trying to find evidence and come up with interesting yet creative theories to prove there is indeed a slight possibility that life can come from non life and that there are indeed exceptions to Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment. After all, those who have an Iron Will to succeed are the ones who are most likely to but you know what, it's time for them to admit that both creation and evolution are indeed faith based. No one has observed an intelligent designer nor has experimented. Similarly no one has observed life arising from non-life nor apes turning into non apes. Scientists can claim how single cell molecules formed and bonded and proteins formed during the big bang via abiogenesis or whatever creative theories they can but one sad fact is they will never be able to create a life from non-life let alone intelligent life; and don't even think about intelligent life forming spontaneously.
most of this was debunked above but I'd just like to touch on your "intelligent creator" argument. Have you ever once considered that the argument for "the universe is obviously designed, and that designer is God" loops on itself to create God^2, then God^3, and so on, and that in itself is enough to debunk it as circular ill defined logic? "everything has to be created from something else, except God he was always there"

Don't get me wrong I don't expect this post to convince you an intelligent designer exist. After all I gave no arguments to imply the evidence of one but maybe to convince you maybe the 'science' produced by atheist scientists and evolutionists actually are just as faith based as creationists if not more.

But hey that's all I'll say. Demonstrate and repeat via observable experimentation how intelligent life can arise from nothing and I'll make sure all biology textbooks in the science education departments all around the world to completely re-write Pasteur's law of biogenesis. In fact since science claimed to have already found the solution yet they are making ZERO efforts to rewrite Pasteur's law of biogenesis. Hmmmm sound strange?

Prove me wrong! >:)
biogenesis is not a law, pasteur did not write it, and as such there is no need to "re-write" his "law of biogenesis."

tl;dr

A said:
After all I gave no arguments
 
Last edited:
oh wait, you mean the person who very blatantly tried to say that liberal media (hah) is somehow being discriminatory and bad against the poor defenseless christians in the west, and then also rante about atheism when that wasn't even the thing being discussed by EV, wasn't very well versed in the bullshit he was trying to spew? What a fucking shocking surprise
 
Just a question for you religious people in this thread, what made you choose that particular religion over all the others? On paper they all seem equally valid.
 
I actually studied and reconsidered my view on the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

Science - 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.' (oxford dictionary definition). Atheists can try as hard as they can to elaborate and explain but they are left with one massive obstacle - how can the first forms of life arose from non-life and how can intelligent life form?

Louis Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment - Omne vivum ex vivo, the Latin translation for 'all life from non-life', the experiment that debunked the idea that life can arise from non-life or even life within it's own species and breed. Observable? Yes, very. We see humans breed humans, dogs breed dogs and fish lay eggs. Repeatable via experiment? Certainly! I'm alive to be on smogon thanks to my mom and dad. To this day, no scientist has produced a life from non life despite having sooooo many given resources, time and energy and the laws of biogenesis has stood for over a century. (I assure you it will remain that way forever)

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Idea that humans were evolved from Apes and species change and adapt due to the process of 'natural selection'. Observable? Not at all. No one in recorded human history has even remotely witnessed an Australopithecine walking on land nor has seen an ape turn to a non-ape. Nor have we seen dogs turn into non-dogs or any species turn into other species. Not once. Repeatable via experiment? LOL what do you think? Maybe if I give an ape a firestone it will turn into infernape? :hyperthinking:

And then many evolutionists claim creationists are dumb ignorant fools to believe in supernatural beings where they can't even see/detect the presence of a God while on the other hand they have their 'science' to completely debunk the need for an intelligent designer. I simply reply to them - Sir, if you studied biology or a biology textbook, it is very likely that both of these scientific theories are found in the same textbook. Why do you insist the latter is true while the former must have exceptions when you can clearly both observe and experiment for the former but not the latter?

Now to the credit for evolutionist and atheist scientists I actually have much respect for them for trying to find evidence and come up with interesting yet creative theories to prove there is indeed a slight possibility that life can come from non life and that there are indeed exceptions to Pasteur's Biogenesis experiment. After all, those who have an Iron Will to succeed are the ones who are most likely to but you know what, it's time for them to admit that both creation and evolution are indeed faith based. No one has observed an intelligent designer nor has experimented. Similarly no one has observed life arising from non-life nor apes turning into non apes. Scientists can claim how single cell molecules formed and bonded and proteins formed during the big bang via abiogenesis or whatever creative theories they can but one sad fact is they will never be able to create a life from non-life let alone intelligent life; and don't even think about intelligent life forming spontaneously.

Don't get me wrong I don't expect this post to convince you an intelligent designer exist. After all I gave no arguments to imply the evidence of one but maybe to convince you maybe the 'science' produced by atheist scientists and evolutionists actually are just as faith based as creationists if not more.

But hey that's all I'll say. Demonstrate and repeat via observable experimentation how intelligent life can arise from nothing and I'll make sure all biology textbooks in the science education departments all around the world to completely re-write Pasteur's law of biogenesis. In fact since science claimed to have already found the solution yet they are making ZERO efforts to rewrite Pasteur's law of biogenesis. Hmmmm sound strange?

Prove me wrong! >:)
infernape evolves at level 36, not with a fire stone
 

Tory

Banned deucer.
I have been gone for ten days, I was busy cooking and street food vending. Me and my business partners were serving customers at festivals and parks in Atlanta. We are going to have another big one around September 15, so I will be busy again, and this will be my final time. After that, I will exclusively focus on my ecommerce store (where I make more profit). I did stop at Discord to make a few messages while I was working, but now I am back at the forums.

Should we seperate religion and politics? Someone would say... “my belief system is not responsible for this, it is [enter form of government].” Does anyone think this is acceptable? I do. I would like to keep it 10%/90% or the audience can decide.

Do I understand metaphors? I do alright with comprehension, but I can understand literature very well.

Hmm, I see your tactic is to belittle my rhetoric instead of my arguments, a poor albeit not uncommon ploy that somewhat shows you either have not understood what I meant (which I must apologize, I thought that writing in a format that everyone here would understand but there are some that don't get my metaphors...) or not read at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the first one, and dissert about one, only one point that you and some others are trying to press in the most.

The choice of putting incest and zoophilia in my argument is not detracting, let alone irrelevant. In your words:

You can correct me if my line of thought is wrong, but I assume you're attacking the moralizing aspect of Abrahamic faith and its influence on behavior, especially concerning sexuality. That the Scriptures of said systems of belief condemn homosexuality is undeniable (although, as rightly points out Roger Chartier, practices are not irreducible to the discourses) and, as a human being born and raised in the XXth - XXIth, you believe in the opposite. However, I assume you also believe that zoophilia and incest are morally wrong. The Book of Leviticus, commonly attributed to Moses, chapter 18 says:

I intentionally kept 18:22 as I cannot put Bible verses out of context. That would be very silly and unprofessional of my part. From 4 to 18, the passage is what we closely see as incest in our modern society, a practice that is still condemned by the bulk of our society. 23 is also closely related to another of our taboos, zoophilia. Now, do you think the modern society consider them wrong because of what? I'd bet that the tradition that considered that as being wrong has to do with the religious formation. Now, homosexuality is being, thankfully, unvilified in the course of the years, and some Christians (including myself and a slew of others that I know) do not condemn them anymore, applying our own critical exegesis to what the Bible had to say. In the future, it's very possible that, although very unlikely especially with zoophilia, such treatment might repeat with the aforementioned prohibitions, but people that will continue to be against will not necessarily use the Scriptures to discredit it, only the "ethic and moral", themselves based on a Christian conception of the world.

And this also shows why I tend to quote anthropologists and social scientists too much here and what my point really was. By analyzing 18:3 and 18:24, you can see clearly that those ws the practices of the others, thus creating a sense of alterity. Hebrews are not like the others. But were they before, or never were? Some researchers (including myself, but with some disagreements) believe that the moral conducts expressed in faith teachings are reinforced by these instead of being entirely created. I know I have to avoid metaphors, but I thik this one you can understand. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? By the same token, which came first, condemning homosexuality in a faith discourse or in a social discourse? Did the hebrews and greeks treated women badly because of their religion or they did that before and religion only explained that? Sometimes, the practices already exist, and a discourse has to be made to give the acts a logic and explanation to the people that they're aimed at. That's why I argue to what is the place of religion in the moralizing practices. I suggest reading the magnificent yet somewhat flawed work of Norbert Elias entitled The Civilizing Process, especially the part on its first volume that deals with behavioral conditioning of individual and society. Or you can be fully materialist and say that religion is a reflex of earthly practices, a Marxian approach agreed by most of the smart marxists ("What happens on Heaven is a mirror of Earth and vice-versa"), that still questions the absolute valor of a system of supernatural beliefs in a society. So I ask, what that is part of what you believe is positvely debitary of the religious system that based your symbolic system? And what isn't?

To fonish, I bolded one point of your argument as I still don't know what it's talking about. What did I make up? I seriously want a clarification. I'm willing to engage in this maieutic as much as possible and I hope that so you are, and I think you can reorganize your ideas and, instead of bashing my rhetoric, actually read what I have been saying and come up with argumentation. I'm just a left-wing Presbyterian, it's not that hard to find flaws in my reasoning! And I'm not even talking from a Christian place, but from a historian specialized in Religion, so it's even easier! If not, well, you really need to watch more Rick and Morty.
The proclamation I am referencing as fictional storytelling is the book, Society Against the State, by Pierre Clastres. Do you realize it is based off ethnocentric mythology and ritual mythology? Numberous examples are Native Americans sterotyped in wanting anarchist-like system. Is this statement is false to me? Not really, I feel that Pierre Clastres's perspective postition of what actually happen with South American rainforest ethnography alliance is currently unknown. There are loads of mystery behind the narrative. Although, my favorite statements about this book is the promotions of polyamorous relationships.

But on closer examination, the definition of adultery in much of the Torah and Holy Bible is one-sided. Men did not have to be faithful to one woman. They could have more than one wife (Deut 21:15), and even for married men, sleeping with unmarried or unbetrothed women did not count as adultery (Exod 22:16-17, Deut 22:28-29). Only men who slept with another man’s wife or fiancée could be punished for adultery, along with the woman concerned (Deut 22:22-26). But a woman had to be faithful to her husband alone and was expected to be a virgin until she married (Deut 22:13-21).

Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your [milk] mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives' mothers, and your step-daughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. - Quran 4:23
And married women(ie married woman are prohibited, continuation of the previous context) except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation [so that they too enjoy the marriage]. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation [if the wife and the husband go beyond the required to please the other]. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. - Quran 4:24.
The text does not mention polyandry, however this generally can mean various of rules. For my point of view, I believe the exact concept was left from older cultures before Islam itself, correct me if I am wrong. Human habitation in the Arabian Peninsula dates back to about 125,000 years ago. https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110127/full/news.2011.55.html, https://www.americanscientist.org/article/new-sites-on-the-trail-of-early-humans Before the City of Mecca, Saudi Arabia was a polytheistic territory. Currently in the Islamic nations, Muslim men may have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four. Muslim women are not permitted to have more than one husband at the same time under any circumstances due to the country laws.

The Quran also prohibites married islamic women from marrying non-believers:

"They (Muslim women) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them." Al Quran 60 : 10
"Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: a man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allure you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of Bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: that they receive admonition (221)" - Quran 2 : 221
What I am pointing out is the double standard, the male equivalent does not exist. There was no purpose of bringing up pedophiles, zoophiles, and incest as examples.

What cultures use to practice polyandry? (women with multiple husbands). Ancient Indian cultures, Mahābhārata, the historical region Tibet, ancient Greece, pre-contact Polynesian societies and pre-contact Melanesian societies. There were belief systems way before Hindu & Buddhism that promote it. What nations still practice them today? Villages located in Nyarixung Township Shigatse, China.

Well known statements about homosexual activity:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
"...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. - Quran (7:80-84) (Inexplicably, the story is also repeated in three other suras: 15:74, 27:58 and 29:40).
"Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being "among great sins." - Quran (7:81)
"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing" - Quran (26:165-166)
"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone" This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word "men" and simply says "two from among you." Yusuf Ali may have added the word "men" because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as "your women"). In other words, since 4:15 refers to "your women", 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men. - Quran (4:16)
I will reiteratively respond, this has no relations to pedophiles, zoophiles, and incest. Here are the nations where same-sex activity are punishable by death under law. Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Brunei. Can you name one non-religious nation that have these laws today?

I see you are pointing out the discrimination that may first originated from anthropology and tribes. What I am pointing out is discrimination from believe systems that is use this present-day. I use to watch South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, The Boondocks, Moral Orel, and Brickleberry. I never seen Rick & Morty before. I could watch it from streaming online.
 
Last edited:
Just a question for you religious people in this thread, what made you choose that particular religion over all the others? On paper they all seem equally valid.
Good Question.

Just looking at the theistic religions (Christianity/Islam/Judaism) etc. I personally accepted Christianity and Jesus at age 14-15 (can't remember exactly). I used to be an atheist back then until my family members convinced me to attend along with some friends. I currently am 21 now and I have been studying some apologetics since then.

I assume you believe in God/or higher deity because that would be a prerequisite for you to ask this question. As for myself personally, what separates the Judeo-Christian God to any other Gods and religions is Christianity is a religion where you do not need to do works or 'good deeds' in order to enter the kingdom of god/paradise/salvation (whatever you love to call it). All other religions including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc are worked based. Islam you have the 5 pillars which followers need to follow, Buddhists have the 4 noble truths in order to reincarnate into a better life in the next life and Hindus require you to do good deeds as well to have 'good karma'.

So what's the big deal you may ask? Why does it matter? If you check the dictionary definition of God you will have at least some of the following characteristics - all powerful, loving omnipotent, all knowing, first cause etc. I want you just to focus on the love category.

C.S Lewis wrote a book that attempt to examine the big 4 loves (these are greek words) Storge which refers to empathy love for family members and close relatives, Eros which refers to erotic love or the romantic erotic intimacy to your spouse, Philia which refers to love for friends and Agape love which refers to God's unconditional love to his creation (aka us human beings). Let's look at the last one - Agape.

The key word here is 'unconditional' and Jesus died on the cross for our sins because he loved us so much. He can have eternal salvation because of him to the point that all we need to do is acknowledge he is our saviour. We don't need to do works we just need to repent from sins and accept his free gift of grace and salvation and this is where my faith kicks in - in no possible way can the human mind can find any form of love demonstrated in recorded human history is as great as this, enduring the pain for us selflessly.

Now compare this to a worked based religion - if we get to heaven because of good works this can mean one of two things:

1. Humans don't need god to salvation, they're powerful enough to save themselves from their sins which indicate our sins are no big deal if we can just do good works to compensate it. (I promise you God HATES sin with a passion)

2. What Jesus did on the cross was not enough that means Jesus' death for us alone is not good enough to save us since we also need to do works. If that's the case then Jesus' love for us is certainly not infinite and he sure is not someone I'd consider a God or he certainly isn't a God worth worshiping if that is the case.

Now not that I have problems with other religions that demand people to do good works in order to get to heaven/be in paradise/salvation but this is just what I believe Christianity has to offer over everything else and that the Christian God has demonstrated the pinnacle definition of Agape love the world has ever seen by the crucifixion of Jesus.

Then Atheists will jump and then ask well if Jesus indeed did demonstrate the pinnacle definition of Agape love then why is there still so much evil on the planet? Why is there suffering? Well that can be a discussion for a separate post but I hope I'd made a brief explanation on why I am a follower of Christ and not anyone else!

Jesus loves you!
 
I have been gone for ten days, I was busy cooking and street food vending. Me and my business partners were serving customers at festivals and parks in Atlanta. We are going to have another big one around September 15, so I will be busy again, and this will be my final time. After that, I will exclusively focus on my ecommerce store (where I make more profit). I did stop at Discord to make a few messages while I was working, but now I am back at the forums.

Should we seperate religion and politics? Someone would say... “my belief system is not responsible for this, it is [enter form of government].” Does anyone think this is acceptable? I do. I would like to keep it 10%/90% or the audience can decide.

Do I understand metaphors? I do alright with comprehension, but I can understand literature very well.



The proclamation I am referencing as fictional storytelling is the book, Society Against the State, by Pierre Clastres. Do you realize it is based off ethnocentric mythology and ritual mythology? Numberous examples are Native Americans sterotyped in wanting anarchist-like system. Is this statement is false to me? Not really, I feel that Pierre Clastres's perspective postition of what actually happen with South American rainforest ethnography alliance is currently unknown. There are loads of mystery behind the narrative. Although, my favorite statements about this book is the promotions of polyamorous relationships.

But on closer examination, the definition of adultery in much of the Torah and Holy Bible is one-sided. Men did not have to be faithful to one woman. They could have more than one wife (Deut 21:15), and even for married men, sleeping with unmarried or unbetrothed women did not count as adultery (Exod 22:16-17, Deut 22:28-29). Only men who slept with another man’s wife or fiancée could be punished for adultery, along with the woman concerned (Deut 22:22-26). But a woman had to be faithful to her husband alone and was expected to be a virgin until she married (Deut 22:13-21).





The text does not mention polyandry, however this generally can mean various of rules. For my point of view, I believe the exact concept was left from older cultures before Islam itself, correct me if I am wrong. Human habitation in the Arabian Peninsula dates back to about 125,000 years ago. https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110127/full/news.2011.55.html, https://www.americanscientist.org/article/new-sites-on-the-trail-of-early-humans Before the City of Mecca, Saudi Arabia was a polytheistic territory. Currently in the Islamic nations, Muslim men may have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four. Muslim women are not permitted to have more than one husband at the same time under any circumstances due to the country laws.

The Quran also prohibites married islamic women from marrying non-believers:





What I am pointing out is the double standard, the male equivalent does not exist. There was no purpose of bringing up pedophiles, zoophiles, and incest as examples.

What cultures use to practice polyandry? (women with multiple husbands). Ancient Indian cultures, Mahābhārata, the historical region Tibet, ancient Greece, pre-contact Polynesian societies and pre-contact Melanesian societies. There were belief systems way before Hindu & Buddhism that promote it. What nations still practice them today? Villages located in Nyarixung Township Shigatse, China.

Well known statements about homosexual activity:















I will reiteratively respond, this has no relations to pedophiles, zoophiles, and incest. Here are the nations where same-sex activity are punishable by death under law. Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Brunei. Can you name one non-religious nation that have these laws today?

I see you are pointing out the discrimination that may first originated from anthropology and tribes. What I am pointing out is discrimination from believe systems that is use this present-day. I use to watch South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, The Boondocks, Moral Orel, and Brickleberry. I never seen Rick & Morty before. I could watch it from streaming online.
Speaking of same sex weddings I'm actually surprised that gay couples NEVER sue Muslim Bakers if they refuse to bake a gay wedding cake yet in recent supreme court cases including one in the masterpiece cake shop two gay couples wanted to destroy the masterpiece cake shop owner's business because of his Christian beliefs on marriage.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
Btw this is the link Youtuber Steven Crowder tried to order a gay wedding cake in a muslim bakery.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/10/jack-and-the-masterpiece-cakeshop-take-two/
Here's the link for latest case for the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.

Also not to mention how Muslim Majority Countries treat gays and women I find it pretty hypocritical the LGBT community never attempts to call out against Islam on their violent actions in the middle east nor feminists criticise how unfairly women are treated over there. They literally breach every human rights issue in every known degree. I mean either you sue everyone who doesn't bake you a gay wedding cake because of discrimination acts or you let those bakeries mind their own business and go to another one yourself. Why only sue Christian bakers but not muslim bakers? Lovely double standard there.
 
Speaking of same sex weddings I'm actually surprised that gay couples NEVER sue Muslim Bakers if they refuse to bake a gay wedding cake yet in recent supreme court cases including one in the masterpiece cake shop two gay couples wanted to destroy the masterpiece cake shop owner's business because of his Christian beliefs on marriage.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
Btw this is the link Youtuber Steven Crowder tried to order a gay wedding cake in a muslim bakery.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/10/jack-and-the-masterpiece-cakeshop-take-two/
Here's the link for latest case for the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.

Also not to mention how Muslim Majority Countries treat gays and women I find it pretty hypocritical the LGBT community never attempts to call out against Islam on their violent actions in the middle east nor feminists criticise how unfairly women are treated over there. They literally breach every human rights issue in every known degree. I mean either you sue everyone who doesn't bake you a gay wedding cake because of discrimination acts or you let those bakeries mind their own business and go to another one yourself. Why only sue Christian bakers but not muslim bakers? Lovely double standard there.
Idk once you win the case once it sets the precedent for a favorable interpretation of antidiscrimination vs religious protection and you're kind of done.
I don't think the couple who got denied service has a responsibility to say "shouldn't we be suing a Muslim who also probably wouldn't bake cakes for us?"
 
Idk once you win the case once it sets the precedent for a favorable interpretation of antidiscrimination vs religious protection and you're kind of done.
I don't think the couple who got denied service has a responsibility to say "shouldn't we be suing a Muslim who also probably wouldn't bake cakes for us?"
Fair enough you got a point there but it’s just I never heard liberals/leftists called Muslims homophobes or sexist despite how literally their own holy book tells them that homosexuals deserve the death penalty and that men can have 4 wives but women can’t have 4 husbands. Yet Christians only said they disagreed with gay marriage (I don’t think any Christian wants homosexuals face the death penalty unless you are a westboro Baptist) yet they are the one labeled bigots. This anti Christian bias is just literally everywhere.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ncelled-over-his-abusive-speech-against-islam

Interestingly enough Richard Dawkins a well known atheist evolutionist scientist is not allowed to criticise Islam.
 

Clouds

False Pretenses
is a Forum Moderatoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staffis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
Fair enough you got a point there but it’s just I never heard liberals/leftists called Muslims homophobes or sexist despite how literally their own holy book tells them that homosexuals deserve the death penalty and that men can have 4 wives but women can’t have 4 husbands. Yet Christians only said they disagreed with gay marriage (I don’t think any Christian wants homosexuals face the death penalty unless you are a westboro Baptist) yet they are the one labeled bigots. This anti Christian bias is just literally everywhere.
I can't help but feel like this is just a poor deflection of more prominent issues within the country. Nobody embraces the blatant intolerance from other religions in regards to same-sex relations, but in the places where most of the larger movements are happening at this current time, most of the opposition is by those with the more common religions in the areas, such as Christianity. Without a doubt, it is far from the religion with the worst treatment of people with different sexual orientations, but we didn't even have same-sex marriage legalized here in the United States nationwide until 2015, really because of religious beliefs intervening with political decisions (separation of church and state where?)

And miss me with that "anti-Christian bias" thing. Playing the victim card makes me lose all respect for anyone who believes their religion's values are supposedly the target when our country was founded on Christian principles; and for hundreds of years, the victimized were the ones who had characteristics that went against the word of the bible, not Christians themselves. Just so I'm not misconstrued, I was raised Catholic (though currently have no religious affiliation) and I have respect for each and every human's belief systems. You're entitled to believe whatever you would like to believe, but when you impose those beliefs on others and then play the victim card, you lose any credibility you once had.
 
I can't help but feel like this is just a poor deflection of more prominent issues within the country. Nobody embraces the blatant intolerance from other religions in regards to same-sex relations, but in the places where most of the larger movements are happening at this current time, most of the opposition is by those with the more common religions in the areas, such as Christianity. Without a doubt, it is far from the religion with the worst treatment of people with different sexual orientations, but we didn't even have same-sex marriage legalized here in the United States nationwide until 2015, really because of religious beliefs intervening with political decisions (separation of church and state where?)

And miss me with that "anti-Christian bias" thing. Playing the victim card makes me lose all respect for anyone who believes their religion's values are supposedly the target when our country was founded on Christian principles; and for hundreds of years, the victimized were the ones who had characteristics that went against the word of the bible, not Christians themselves. Just so I'm not misconstrued, I was raised Catholic (though currently have no religious affiliation) and I have respect for each and every human's belief systems. You're entitled to believe whatever you would like to believe, but when you impose those beliefs on others and then play the victim card, you lose any credibility you once had.
That’s the beauty of the first amendment, the nation I was born in hungered so much for such freedom. But the secular communist government there tried to tear down a mosque just a few days ago and even proceeded to blow up churches yet the American media made so little international headline actually make me think if they care about the tolerance of faith...

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=112005
 
I haven't really been paying much attention to this thread but I do want to comment on the evolution vs "creation" thing -

Evolution and Religion aren't in any way shape or form non-compatible. I personally believe that evolution was "God-led" in the sense that God used evolution as his way of "Creation". Many people say that "oh, this couldn't happen in a conventional day", but there are things to take into account, such as the translation of the words not meaning a literal 24 hour day, the sun wasn't even created until "day" 4, God could speed the process up if he chose to, etc. im sure you've all heard these things.

I really don't think the matter of "creation or evolution" actually matters in the long run of anything, it has very little to do with the core values of the Christian faith and what Christianity is.

Also, Ashaebi, please. What are you even trying to argue? That "islam is worse than christianity so christianity is okay"? I literally have no idea what you're talking about and by any sense of reasoning you're argument is faulty. All I see is you trying to compare bad things like radical islam or horrible dictators to Christianity or something, is that what it's really come to? Please man, you're not doing us any favors here. It seems like you're attacking other people's religions in the way we so much dislike being treated.
 
Just views. Evolution vs creation, tolerance on homosexuality, history, nothin more. It’s ok I’m out of views anyway. Probs nothin much left to debate left.

The debate never ends...
 
I haven't really been paying much attention to this thread but I do want to comment on the evolution vs "creation" thing -

Evolution and Religion aren't in any way shape or form non-compatible. I personally believe that evolution was "God-led" in the sense that God used evolution as his way of "Creation". Many people say that "oh, this couldn't happen in a conventional day", but there are things to take into account, such as the translation of the words not meaning a literal 24 hour day, the sun wasn't even created until "day" 4, God could speed the process up if he chose to, etc. im sure you've all heard these things.

I really don't think the matter of "creation or evolution" actually matters in the long run of anything, it has very little to do with the core values of the Christian faith and what Christianity is.

Also, Ashaebi, please. What are you even trying to argue? That "islam is worse than christianity so christianity is okay"? I literally have no idea what you're talking about and by any sense of reasoning you're argument is faulty. All I see is you trying to compare bad things like radical islam or horrible dictators to Christianity or something, is that what it's really come to? Please man, you're not doing us any favors here. It seems like you're attacking other people's religions in the way we so much dislike being treated.
My biology teacher trained as a priest, and his thoughts on evolution were almost exactly the same as yours. Even the vatican have accepted evolution, so I really don't know why there is this evolution vs god debate. Evolution has been constantly examined for over a century. And here's the thing: even if evolution was completely debunked tomorrow, it still wouldn't do anything to prove that any god actually exists.
 
Last edited:
I have no definite religion at present, but I quite like the teachings of spiritism and Ubanda.

#Socialization
 
I'm Christian agnostic. I thenk Jehovah/Yahweh/God is a douchebag, but I also think Jesus was a good role model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BP

Aaronboyer

Something Worth Fighting For
is a Contributor to Smogon
I'm a born-again Missionary Baptist Christian. I believe that God's Design for the world was perfect until we chose to follow our way, more commonly denoted as sin. Our sins lead to brokenness, and our sins separate us from God. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died a gruesome death on the cross, and resurrected, and that by his blood our sins are forgiven and that the relationship between God and man is restored.
 
Last edited:
As of a few months ago we officially don't like being called Mormons, so please change the poll to read "members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints" or I will have no choice but to get offended

(This is both satirical and real, if you want to be inclusive change it to lds or latter day saints but if Mormon is easier for you keep using it as long as you aren't using it offensively lol)

Relevant to current discourse: accepting that God created life through evolution is what we like to call "false doctrine". I could go more into it but I think doing so would end up getting pretty offensive and it's christmastime
 
Why exactly are Pantheism and Atheism combined there? One believes in no god and the other believes in a multitude of gods. They're quite different.
 

Tory

Banned deucer.
Why exactly are Pantheism and Atheism combined there? One believes in no god and the other believes in a multitude of gods. They're quite different.
Pantheism is not just predominantly polytheism. It is the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently. Due to this context, it can be placed in the religious and irreligious category, depending what form of pantheism you are. This includes monism, determinism, gnosticism, reality, divinity, and finally, the one you describe to have the belief in many gods... polytheism.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top