| While I was just sipping my post-iftar tea, a brilliant idea like a fart came to my mind. Just thought I'd share it with the hillbillies of MAL. I was looking at this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll Hardly any of those mentioned wars were 'religious' in nature. With the exceptions of one or two probably, each war was political or tribal in nature. So, does that invalidate the most popular atheist opinion that religion has caused more bloodshed than anything in the history of mankind - let's delve in deeper first. j0x made a thread imploring the relation of poverty and religion. The median of everyone's opinion was 'Religion gives the poor folks something called hope'. I wasn't satisfied with this answer. Taking a look at the nations that are 'religious' in today's world, there's something very interesting to be noticed here that almost all of these nations were once 'superpowers' or had seen their fare share of glory in the past. Whereas the non-religious states of today (majority of them) used to be the underdogs. For example, the Middle East. It might surprise you to know this, but ME was once the center of 'learning' and technological advancement. If not for the endeavors of the early Islamic scholars in the field of science, we would at least be half a millennium behind than where we are right now. But right now, it seems perfectly normal if one says ''ME should be just nuked!''. The current superpower - America - only rose to glory once it adopted the teachings of Christianity the way they're meant to be adopted. But now, its losing it values but lets save it for later. So, why do the poor folks cling to religion? The more appropriate answer is: Salvation. Not the type of salvation we read in the books, but rather they see it as their way out of their adversity. Cutting to the chase, I'll only talk about why people cling to religion in my country. I solicited a few people's views on why is religion our only exodus. The answer were, as expected, related to history. The Islamic empire rose because they adhered to their religion. 500 years later, they disputed and thus began their gradual downfall. Every time, some nation has to rise; they look for religion as their answer. Religion brings unification and a unified aim. Whether it promulgates conflict or not, is irrelevant. But throughout the course of the history, this notion has been testified and justified time to time. Mughal Empire for an instance - when it was hanging from its hinges in the late 1700s, the Emperor called for Muslims from all across the India to flock under his banner for the sake of 'Islam'. And it worked. It's other thing they failed laughably (ok, sorry ancestors). The same goes for Persia - when it used to be the superpower before it was conquered by Umar ibn-al-Khattab. And the same goes for Rome, Byzantine and so on. Once nations reach their plateau of success, they slowly start deviating from what binds them together. The Christians of Byzantine started indulging in their luxuries and extravaganza neglecting the teachings of the Bible - this weakness was exploited by the Muslim Crusaders and down went the Empire. Islam laid emphases on unification, but Kharjites fucked it up after Uthman's rule and so began the gradual downfall of Muslims which was later utilized by the Christian Crusaders. In some cases, we even see history repeating itself. For example, the revival of Islam in East Bengal. Most people will, at this point, argue that religion has caused nothing but unnecessary conflict. Conflict - I concede to that. Unnecessary - Hell no. This conflict was often a way to bring about scientific advancement. The reason why most scientific progress happened in the Middle Ages is these 'conflicts'. Most argue that religion only hindered scientific progress. Well, to them I say, list down the names of scientists who were hindered by 'religion' and then I'll list down the names of scientists who were motivated by religion. The results will get you pooping from your nose. Now, for the favorite part of MAL populace. Considering everything I've written thus far, this new 'legalization of Gay marriages' stands where according to you? For the religious people: Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us? For the non-religious people: America's first Constitution was based on Bible. Needless to say that America's independence was propelled by none other than 'Christianity'. ''Gay tolerance'' obviously goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now, how exactly do you think will this not lead to your downfall considering this has always happened that when nations put aside their religion, they fall. inb4 'religion is the opium of masses' If religion is the opium of masses then atheism is the marijuana of individuals. Calm thy mammary glands and stick to the topic for the sake of Obama. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Many atheists, myself included, don't argue that religion caused more bloodshed than anything. /endthread |
2-methylgeniol said: If religion is the opium of masses then atheism is the marijuana of individuals. Calm thy mammary glands and stick to the topic for the sake of Obama. lmao well said. 2-methylgeniol said: Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us? I suspect that we'll see a succession of various movements advocating for the normalisation and liberty of various perverse acts. As these fall into place, piece by piece, people will slowly but surely stop trying to live decent honest lives. Less people will be married. Less people will stay around to raise their children. More single parent households will exist. More people will be able to take advantage of youths which have had weak parenting. More kids will be lured into mutilating themselves'changing their gender'. Incest and polygamy will be normalised. I don't think that alone will ruin our society. It will weaken it though, and from there it's only a matter of time before some other stronger culture sees an opening and takes advantage of it. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| History does seem to be doomed to repeat itself. Yes, a decline comes after a civilization reaches its peak due to all the lackadaisical practices and preversions that arise, but I think the fall that follows will take some time to manifest itself. Many issues have already arisen in Europe, and I'm expecting something very interesting to happen there soon. The U.S is a different case, and if any woes were to befall it, they would primarily come from within. Sure there's a lot of animosity in many other countries due to the U.S, foreign policy, drones and so on, but they don't really have a current means of doing much damage to the U.S. Right now, it seems that the declining birth rates of these 1st world countries will play the biggest part. Trying to accommodate everyone just leads to insanity time and again. As for the poverty issue, it does make sense as one would expect religion to thrive were people realize their own frailty. Conversely, where human pride rises, you'd see less people inclined to believe that they need anything beyond their own power and the "Self" takes the place of importance in their life. That is probably why pride is referred to as the deadliest of the seven sins. |
TyrelJul 4, 2015 3:04 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Olwen said: Many atheists, myself included, don't argue that religion caused more bloodshed than anything. /endthread No. icirate said: 2-methylgeniol said: Do you think this 'gay tolerance' is simply a result of the decadence that follows prosperity? Why and where exactly will it lead us? I suspect that we'll see a succession of various movements advocating for the normalisation and liberty of various perverse acts. As these fall into place, piece by piece, people will slowly but surely stop trying to live decent honest lives. Less people will be married. Less people will stay around to raise their children. More single parent households will exist. More people will be able to take advantage of youths which have had weak parenting. More kids will be lured into mutilating themselves'changing their gender'. Incest and polygamy will be normalised. I don't think that alone will ruin our society. It will weaken it though, and from there it's only a matter of time before some other stronger culture sees an opening and takes advantage of it. What exactly is a 'stronger' culture now? Muslims? I guess not. I'll agree with RedRoseFring here that any woes that might befall USA, will come from within it. The Muslim world is suffocating under the burden of its own making. 'If you can't rise, then wait for you enemy to fall' - that can hardly be of Muslim interest. Even if its ISIS we're talking about, there's only so much about USA that interests ISIS and its political agenda. From this point on, its safe to assume that for whatever it's worth, each and everyone is going down in a drift. How long it takes or where it leads us - those are the questions we leave up to time. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: icirate said: I don't think that alone will ruin our society. It will weaken it though, and from there it's only a matter of time before some other stronger culture sees an opening and takes advantage of it. What exactly is a 'stronger' culture now? Muslims? I guess not. I'll agree with RedRoseFring here that any woes that might befall USA, will come from within it. The Muslim world is suffocating under the burden of its own making. 'If you can't rise, then wait for you enemy to fall' - that can hardly be of Muslim interest. Even if its ISIS we're talking about, there's only so much about USA that interests ISIS and its political agenda. From this point on, its safe to assume that for whatever it's worth, each and everyone is going down in a drift. How long it takes or where it leads us - those are the questions we leave up to time. I don't think that the Muslim world will take over the U.S. - you're right that it's way more effort than it's worth for any of them. As for what a stronger culture is? The internet, along with a new 'progressive' bigotry and identity politics, is tearing apart Christian culture. People are either turning back toward the Bible and becoming fundamentalists or giving up that identity altogether for a new one. Labels like 'Secular Humanist', 'Feminist', and false gods like 'Equality' and the 'Patriarchy' and so on are pretty popular right now. Of course, these things aren't historically grounded, so they can be warped into all sorts of perverted ideas in almost no time, all the while dragging people along for the ride. The religions 'movements' in question change in structure and ideals so rapidly that people either need to be constantly plugged into the latest happenings on social media or be stuck with a label that represents ideals totally different to theirs. The end result of this social balkanisation will probably be a society where two random strangers will have essentially nothing in common and be unable to reasonably communicate. I can't imagine such a place would be difficult to take over. If it's actually attacked, I'm sure that many people will spring back into a nationalistic fervour though. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: I don't think that the Muslim world will take over the U.S. - you're right that it's way more effort than it's worth for any of them. As for what a stronger culture is? The internet, along with a new 'progressive' bigotry and identity politics, is tearing apart Christian culture. People are either turning back toward the Bible and becoming fundamentalists or giving up that identity altogether for a new one. Labels like 'Secular Humanist', 'Feminist', and false gods like 'Equality' and the 'Patriarchy' and so on are pretty popular right now. Of course, these things aren't historically grounded, so they can be warped into all sorts of perverted ideas in almost no time, all the while dragging people along for the ride. The religions 'movements' in question change in structure and ideals so rapidly that people either need to be constantly plugged into the latest happenings on social media or be stuck with a label that represents ideals totally different to theirs. The end result of this social balkanisation will probably be a society where two random strangers will have essentially nothing in common and be unable to reasonably communicate. I can't imagine such a place would be difficult to take over. If it's actually attacked, I'm sure that many people will spring back into a nationalistic fervour though. I find it really amusing how you use the word ''False Gods'' for equality and freedom. Because a Muslim friend of mine on another site use exactly the same terms to describe it. I totally agree with you that there's not going to be any outright 'war' or conflict. We're at a point where the biggest conflict we witness is the fight between neighbors. In Europe's deliberate attempt to squeeze in everyone - we've all seen how further down the gutter it has descended. Reality is a one way road - you either let one in and shut out the other or let chaos ensue. Your point that the people are either dividing into far right or far left is extremely plausible in this regard. People grow even more exasperated of 'neutrality' once they witness its futility and that's exactly what's happening. For USA right now, either they should expel Christianity as a whole, or stay stuck in this see-saw. I made this thread on another forum, and that Muslim friend I mentioned replied to my question in this way : There are however, a few questions remained to be answered. What exactly is the left's motivation behind ousting Christians? If we go by my friend's passage and your post, its probably the 'nationalistic fervour' in play. But how sure are we about that? Plus, if that is, even in the slightest probability the case, then it'll be extremely hypocritical on their side. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| As a person who has been pretty religious and is now irreligious I can honestly say.... Religion is not inherently a bad thing...although it is a scam. It's used to satisfy the unanswerable questions, and it's followers are usually satisfied with what they get....they rarely question the answers, mostly because many religions openly discourage their members from having doubt. |
2-methylgeniol said: There are however, a few questions remained to be answered. What exactly is the left's motivation behind ousting Christians? If we go by my friend's passage and your post, its probably the 'nationalistic fervour' in play. But how sure are we about that? Plus, if that is, even in the slightest probability the case, then it'll be extremely hypocritical on their side. The left's motivation? Primarily selfishness. They realised that they had the power as a collective to invoke change and that the restrictions that their government placed upon them didn't actually have to stay as restrictions because of the democratic nature of western society. There's a sense among them, having not actually witnessed any wars themselves, that people are inherently good and should be given more freedom by their government. On top of this is this idea of 'my body my rules', or to put it another way: they all claim sovereignty over their own bodies to the extent that if they want to pollute them with mind-altering drugs, or be recklessly promiscuous or so on, they should be given the right to do so. Christianity stands in firm opposition to these ideals. According to the Bible, people are inherently bad and their body is given to them by God and thus, in a sense, not their own (would I be right in assuming that Islam teaches something similar?). This is extremely offensive to the left, so they've decided to wage a continual cultural war against the Bible's 'oppressive' teachings for the sake of personal freedom, not having the foresight to realise that these rules were made with good purpose and that straying from them as a collective would eventually lead to disaster. I think one of the turning points was the invention of 'the pill' and legalisation of abortion, which actually made it viable for women to act promiscuously; many people from the left probably thought that this was a change of such significance that it rendered the Bible's teachings as out of date. You'll certainly see a lot of people from the left referencing the current year as if it was an argument. I like the phrase used by your Muslim friend of 'absolve their souls of the feeling of guilt'. There's very much a sense among the left that the government should be responsible for altruistic works, rather than the individual, and that the individual simply having contributed a vote towards bullying their leaders into throwing more money at various 'good causes' somehow counts as charity. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
2-methylgeniol said: There are however, a few questions remained to be answered. What exactly is the left's motivation behind ousting Christians? Can you give specific examples of how the left is ousting Christians? I assume you speak of the U.S? Cuz, the U.S continues to be the biggest and most powerful christian dominated country on this planet... So I wanna know how they are being ousted by anyone. |
JustALEX said: Catholic Church plsIt's used to satisfy the unanswerable questions, and it's followers are usually satisfied with what they get....they rarely question the answers, mostly because many religions openly discourage their members from having doubt. now ask those people nao and come back latur |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| I hate conservatives. Especially ones like yourself that predict there will later be a fall of some sort just because we allow gay marriage due to so called moral decay. |
 |
JustALEX said: 2-methylgeniol said: There are however, a few questions remained to be answered. What exactly is the left's motivation behind ousting Christians? Can you give specific examples of how the left is ousting Christians? I assume you speak of the U.S? Cuz, the U.S continues to be the biggest and most powerful christian dominated country on this planet... So I wanna know how they are being ousted by anyone. It's not according to my opinion. See the spoiler, I'm following the guy's opinion and raising a question on it. PeripheralVision said: I hate conservatives. Especially ones like yourself that predict there will later be a fall of some sort just because we allow gay marriage due to so called moral decay. Fair enough. With no prior justification to your hatred and no intention of grasping the situation, I can only say your hatred is better than your ignorance for me. icirate said: On top of this is this idea of 'my body my rules', or to put it another way: they all claim sovereignty over their own bodies to the extent that if they want to pollute them with mind-altering drugs, or be recklessly promiscuous or so on, they should be given the right to do so. Christianity stands in firm opposition to these ideals. According to the Bible, people are inherently bad and their body is given to them by God and thus, in a sense, not their own (would I be right in assuming that Islam teaches something similar?). Islam doesn't declare humans to be inherently evil. It's neutral. There's no such thing as an inherent evil, in Islam its only your 'deeds' that define your moral character. Unlike the idea that humans are bearing the burden of the 'original sin', Islam goes out of the way to declare: "And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative. You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer. And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul. And to Allah is the [final] destination." (Surah-al-Fatir 18) "And that there is not for man except that [good] for which he strives". (Surah-al-Najam 39) And that's where Islam denies Prophet Jesus (pbuh) being the 'savior' of mankind as opposed to some Christian sects that believe that Jesus (pbuh) sacrificed himself for the sake of humanity. icirate said: I think one of the turning points was the invention of 'the pill' and legalisation of abortion, which actually made it viable for women to act promiscuously; many people from the left probably thought that this was a change of such significance that it rendered the Bible's teachings as out of date. You'll certainly see a lot of people from the left referencing the current year as if it was an argument. How much of a change in the marital system of USA are you seeing after the legalization of abortion? And how is it leading USA to further decline? I can see it, but you might want to be on the safe side lest someone picks on your post and calls you a bigot. Another thing to be noticed here is that, at large, people are realizing the power of religion. Even if you use it as a face value or distorted versions of it; none can deny the fact that there is nothing better than religion when it comes to controlling people's mentality. However, on a more individual level, we have people who undermine the power of religion in a more moderate context. That is to say, they undermine the fact that if you tolerate gays, you are not tolerating Christians. If you tolerate Christians, you're not tolerating gays. And so they argue "Why does the religious always have to be the one deciding who should be tolerated or not?". As plausible as it may sound, it reflects the sheer ignorance most people exert when it comes to understanding the power of religion in one's life. And that is, most certainly, one of the weaknesses displayed by the leftists. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: JustALEX said: Can you give specific examples of how the left is ousting Christians? I assume you speak of the U.S? Cuz, the U.S continues to be the biggest and most powerful christian dominated country on this planet... So I wanna know how they are being ousted by anyone. It's not according to my opinion. See the spoiler, I'm following the guy's opinion and raising a question on it. PeripheralVision said: I hate conservatives. Especially ones like yourself that predict there will later be a fall of some sort just because we allow gay marriage due to so called moral decay. Fair enough. With no prior justification to your hatred and no intention of grasping the situation, I can only say your hatred is better than your ignorance for me. icirate said: On top of this is this idea of 'my body my rules', or to put it another way: they all claim sovereignty over their own bodies to the extent that if they want to pollute them with mind-altering drugs, or be recklessly promiscuous or so on, they should be given the right to do so. Christianity stands in firm opposition to these ideals. According to the Bible, people are inherently bad and their body is given to them by God and thus, in a sense, not their own (would I be right in assuming that Islam teaches something similar?). Islam doesn't declare humans to be inherently evil. It's neutral. There's no such thing as an inherent evil, in Islam its only your 'deeds' that define your moral character. Unlike the idea that humans are bearing the burden of the 'original sin', Islam goes out of the way to declare: "And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative. You can only warn those who fear their Lord unseen and have established prayer. And whoever purifies himself only purifies himself for [the benefit of] his soul. And to Allah is the [final] destination." (Surah-al-Fatir 18) "And that there is not for man except that [good] for which he strives". (Surah-al-Najam 39) And that's where Islam denies Prophet Jesus (pbuh) being the 'savior' of mankind as opposed to some Christian sects that believe that Jesus (pbuh) sacrificed himself for the sake of humanity. icirate said: I think one of the turning points was the invention of 'the pill' and legalisation of abortion, which actually made it viable for women to act promiscuously; many people from the left probably thought that this was a change of such significance that it rendered the Bible's teachings as out of date. You'll certainly see a lot of people from the left referencing the current year as if it was an argument. How much of a change in the marital system of USA are you seeing after the legalization of abortion? And how is it leading USA to further decline? I can see it, but you might want to be on the safe side lest someone picks on your post and calls you a bigot. Another thing to be noticed here is that, at large, people are realizing the power of religion. Even if you use it as a face value or distorted versions of it; none can deny the fact that there is nothing better than religion when it comes to controlling people's mentality. However, on a more individual level, we have people who undermine the power of religion in a more moderate context. That is to say, they undermine the fact that if you tolerate gays, you are not tolerating Christians. If you tolerate Christians, you're not tolerating gays. And so they argue "Why does the religious always have to be the one deciding who should be tolerated or not?". As plausible as it may sound, it reflects the sheer ignorance most people exert when it comes to understanding the power of religion in one's life. And that is, most certainly, one of the weaknesses displayed by the leftists. How dare you accuse me of ignorance when you're the one linking legalization of gay marriage to moral decay? I refuse to believe for a minute that gay marriage is immoral and whatnot. I don't get everything else you said to be honest. Well, I did to an extent but I rather focus on simple matters. |
PeripheralVisionJul 5, 2015 2:50 AM
| |
| ^Marriage is made for the union of the opposite sex to let them hav a child in the first place |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
PeripheralVision said: How dare you accuse me of ignorance when you're the one linking legalization of gay marriage to moral decay? I'm not here to argue the moral bearing of 'gay marriage' or whatnot. That's not even the point here. Morality is contextual in this case. I'm calling 'gay marriage' a moral decay only because we have religion as the premise. Now, stop being a nutcase and answer the question or better, leave this thread. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: How dare you accuse me of ignorance when you're the one linking legalization of gay marriage to moral decay? I'm not here to argue the moral bearing of 'gay marriage' or whatnot. That's not even the point here. Morality is contextual in this case. I'm calling 'gay uy marriage' a moral decay only because we have religion as the premise. Now, stop being a nutcase and answer the question or better, leave this thread. Oh, well then never mind. I fully understand you're coming from, although where does one draw the line between progression and decay? I'm genuinely curious. |
| |
2-methylgeniol said: It's not according to my opinion. See the spoiler, I'm following the guy's opinion and raising a question on it. Ok, I see.... |
RedRoseFring said: History does seem to be doomed to repeat itself. Yep Although all religion disappeared from the world (which is impossible though), wars and conflict will still continue to exist, the creativity of humans will not stop, technology and society will still continue to growing and evolving itself until there's no life anymore Yep, as long as there's life, this seems likely to goes on over and over again like circle by natural selection You should hate life, not religion Conclusion : just let them be a gay and let them feel special, what's the problem dude? |
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
| I think you have your head buried too far in your Qur'an. |
nopainnolife said: Implying they do it to feel special. Really, people can't be attracted to people of the opposite gender without regards to other conflicts?RedRoseFring said: History does seem to be doomed to repeat itself. Yep Although all religion disappeared from the world (which is impossible though), wars and conflict will still continue to exist, the creativity of humans will not stop, technology and society will still continue to growing and evolving itself until there's no life anymore Yep, as long as there's life, this seems likely to goes on over and over again like circle by natural selection You should hate life, not religion Conclusion : just let them be a gay and let them feel special, what's the problem dude? |
| |
PeripheralVision said: nopainnolife said: Implying they do it to feel special. Really, people can't be attracted to people of the opposite gender without regards to other conflicts?Yep Although all religion disappeared from the world (which is impossible though), wars and conflict will still continue to exist, the creativity of humans will not stop, technology and society will still continue to growing and evolving itself until there's no life anymore Yep, as long as there's life, this seems likely to goes on over and over again like circle by natural selection You should hate life, not religion Conclusion : just let them be a gay and let them feel special, what's the problem dude? Maybe i dunno im not a gay and im not interested in it though Another theory is that because the natural selection itself. The world is over-populated now so the world needs them (gay etc etc) and create the genes (the ones who has potential to become gay) to deal with this issue (since no one will be born through this relationship) |
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
nopainnolife said: PeripheralVision said: Implying they do it to feel special. Really, people can't be attracted to people of the opposite gender without regards to other conflicts? Maybe i dunno im not a gay and im not interested in it though Another theory is that because the natural selection itself. The world is over-populated now so the world needs them (gay etc etc) and create the genes (gay) to deal with this issue (since no one will be born through this relationship) People don't start producing genes like that. You could say it is an environmental issue but it isn't. How would it be felt? It can't be felt. In other words, natural selection doesn't happen as if there's a master plan. Also, the gay gene might actually increase birth rates or something, Iunno. |
| |
_Charl said: dont worryPlease join crusade. the Christian Kingdoms will rise again VIVA IL PAPA KYRIE ELEISON!!!! DEUS VULT!!!! |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
2-methylgeniol said: icirate said: On top of this is this idea of 'my body my rules', or to put it another way: they all claim sovereignty over their own bodies to the extent that if they want to pollute them with mind-altering drugs, or be recklessly promiscuous or so on, they should be given the right to do so. Christianity stands in firm opposition to these ideals. According to the Bible, people are inherently bad and their body is given to them by God and thus, in a sense, not their own (would I be right in assuming that Islam teaches something similar?). Islam doesn't declare humans to be inherently evil. It's neutral. There's no such thing as an inherent evil, in Islam its only your 'deeds' that define your moral character. Unlike the idea that humans are bearing the burden of the 'original sin', Certainly a profound difference between the two. Saved by faith and called to do works, versus called to do work that they may be saved. 2-methylgeniol said: icirate said: I think one of the turning points was the invention of 'the pill' and legalisation of abortion, which actually made it viable for women to act promiscuously; many people from the left probably thought that this was a change of such significance that it rendered the Bible's teachings as out of date. You'll certainly see a lot of people from the left referencing the current year as if it was an argument. How much of a change in the marital system of USA are you seeing after the legalization of abortion? And how is it leading USA to further decline? I can see it, but you might want to be on the safe side lest someone picks on your post and calls you a bigot. In an age where having sex before marriage and going through a bunch of partners over the course of your life becomes commonplace, marriage becomes something people do to settle down, and it becomes a sacrifice with no reward in it for the man. This 'liberation' of women suddenly meant that marriage and sex had an inverse connection to what they had historically. You're more likely to be having sex outside of a marriage than in one! Two changes that followed on, (or coincided with) from this and strike me as particularly destructive were the introduction of no-fault divorce and alimony. NFD was introduced as a way of saving women from domestic violence, and alimony - I have no idea how that even came into existence. Regardless, these two changes flipped the power dynamic of marriage from being man-led to woman-led, as they combine to form a Sword of Damocles: a woman can leave a marriage at any time and will be entitled to half of a man's possessions, just like that. This creates an environment where a man is supposed to lead a woman, yet has no legal authority or power to do so. Then, because divorced single mothers were becoming a more common voting demographic, they have been given more and more rights by the state, have become more socially accepted, and are being given more and more (child) support. Being a married couple has become less of an advantage, and I suspect the trend will only continue in its current feedback-loop. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
PeripheralVision said: nopainnolife said: Maybe i dunno im not a gay and im not interested in it though Another theory is that because the natural selection itself. The world is over-populated now so the world needs them (gay etc etc) and create the genes (gay) to deal with this issue (since no one will be born through this relationship) People don't start producing genes like that. You could say it is an environmental issue but it isn't. How would it be felt? It can't be felt. In other words, natural selection doesn't happen as if there's a master plan. Also, the gay gene might actually increase birth rates or something, Iunno. Well it's just another theory that comes to explain this phenomena, im not forcing you to believe it though If you like, we can also say this gay things is simply just another form of human's s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ creativity Also, the gay gene might actually increase birth rates or something, Iunno. How? |
PROLETARJul 5, 2015 3:29 AM
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
nopainnolife said: PeripheralVision said: People don't start producing genes like that. You could say it is an environmental issue but it isn't. How would it be felt? It can't be felt. In other words, natural selection doesn't happen as if there's a master plan. Also, the gay gene might actually increase birth rates or something, Iunno. Well it's just another theory that comes to explain this phenomena, im not forcing you to believe it though If you like, we can also say this gay things is simply just another form of human's s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ creativity wwwwell, it's not a good theory, because that's not really how evolution works it's impossible for homosexuality to be nature's global population control because it discourages having children and the one with the homosexual genes who doesn't have children does not end up passing on the homosexual genes you see? natural selection is not a sentient force which looks at the survival of a species or a planet and distributes genes accordingly it's just about the choices of individuals and the survival of the mutations (random mistakes in copying DNA when you have children) in these individuals Deus-Vult said: _Charl said: dont worryPlease join crusade. the Christian Kingdoms will rise again VIVA IL PAPA KYRIE ELEISON!!!! DEUS VULT!!!! I'm just waiting for a new Roman Empire to restore the Old Gods and take us back to the glory days. You can keep your slave religion. |
VoltiiJul 5, 2015 3:38 AM
 ~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
PeripheralVision said: Oh, well then never mind. I fully understand you're coming from, although where does one draw the line between progression and decay? I'm genuinely curious. If you're just asking my opinion; the line between progression and decay should be drawn exactly where the gears start to stutter. Like-A-Dance said: I think you have your head buried too far in your Qur'an. Good news for me. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: Oh, well then never mind. I fully understand you're coming from, although where does one draw the line between progression and decay? I'm genuinely curious. If you're just asking my opinion; the line between progression and decay should be drawn exactly where the gears start to stutter. But don't we have to determine a cause? Isn't it possible for one to progress in a state of decay? |
| |
PeripheralVision said: 2-methylgeniol said: If you're just asking my opinion; the line between progression and decay should be drawn exactly where the gears start to stutter. But don't we have to determine a cause? Isn't it possible for one to progress in a state of decay? Simply impossible. When the Muslim hierarch of the Pre-Crusades era tried to integrate the harem culture (yes, it was real) into Islamic Sharia, they failed miserably. The Muslim society used to be a wholly professional one. People were either students or teachers no matter what profession they belonged to. When the higher ups tried to conflate promiscuity with their ideology, they screwed up. Same happened with Ottomans. History is full of examples like that. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: But don't we have to determine a cause? Isn't it possible for one to progress in a state of decay? Simply impossible. When the Muslim hierarch of the Pre-Crusades era tried to integrate the harem culture (yes, it was real) into Islamic Sharia, they failed miserably. The Muslim society used to be a wholly professional one. People were either students or teachers no matter what profession they belonged to. When the higher ups tried to conflate promiscuity with their ideology, they screwed up. Same happened with Ottomans. History is full of examples like that. Well let assume american is moving away from its christian roots. However I still consider it progress when we lifted bans on gay marriage? I'm not sure how to word it. |
| |
PeripheralVision said: Well let assume american is moving away from its christian roots. However I still consider it progress when we lifted bans on gay marriage? I'm not sure how to word it. That's where most go wrong. America cannot move away from its Christian roots. There's only one solution to the problem: Remove Christianity from its roots a.k.a convert every Christian to atheism or any ideology the 'progressive' party prefers. And that is not possible. Consider this, are gays the minority here or the Christians? Who will you compromise most easily? Gays or Christians? There's your answer. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: Well let assume american is moving away from its christian roots. However I still consider it progress when we lifted bans on gay marriage? I'm not sure how to word it. That's where most go wrong. America cannot move away from its Christian roots. There's only one solution to the problem: Remove Christianity from its roots a.k.a convert every Christian to atheism or any ideology the 'progressive' party prefers. And that is not possible. Consider this, are gays the minority here or the Christians? Who will you compromise most easily? Gays or Christians? There's your answer. Wouldn't it be liberals vs Conservatives? Things do change over time. What about racism in the south and such? |
| |
PeripheralVision said: Wouldn't it be liberals vs Conservatives? Things do change over time. What about racism in the south and such? Yes. As for racism, it isn't an ideology. It can be a problem only when its a part of your ideology. And as far as my ken goes, racism isn't a part of Christianity. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: Wouldn't it be liberals vs Conservatives? Things do change over time. What about racism in the south and such? Yes. As for racism, it isn't an ideology. It can be a problem only when its a part of your ideology. And as far as my ken goes, racism isn't a part of Christianity. But can't ideology be racist? And further back, wouldn't it assume every christian is against gay marriage? |
| |
2-methylgeniol said: PeripheralVision said: Wouldn't it be liberals vs Conservatives? Things do change over time. What about racism in the south and such? Yes. As for racism, it isn't an ideology. It can be a problem only when its a part of your ideology. And as far as my ken goes, racism isn't a part of Christianity. Can confirm. God even endorses Moses having an Ethiopian woman as a wife. |
CaelidesuJul 5, 2015 4:40 AM
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Involtus said: nopainnolife said: Well it's just another theory that comes to explain this phenomena, im not forcing you to believe it though If you like, we can also say this gay things is simply just another form of human's s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ creativity wwwwell, it's not a good theory, because that's not really how evolution works it's impossible for homosexuality to be nature's global population control because it discourages having children and the one with the homosexual genes who doesn't have children does not end up passing on the homosexual genes you see? natural selection is not a sentient force which looks at the survival of a species or a planet and distributes genes accordingly it's just about the choices of individuals and the survival of the mutations (random mistakes in copying DNA when you have children) in these individuals Deus-Vult said: dont worry the Christian Kingdoms will rise again VIVA IL PAPA KYRIE ELEISON!!!! DEUS VULT!!!! I'm just waiting for a new Roman Empire to restore the Old Gods and take us back to the glory days. You can keep your slave religion. Well this theory explain very well on animal population and many other experiments But im agree with you, humans had proven themselves to be somewhat the most unique creature on the planet. Culture, social, friends, or even only a new single idea can change human's life forever, something that only a few animal has this similar character such as dolphins, etc etc. Thats why human's lgbt is often included in psychology issue rather than biology issue My theory is, maybe some of them really have this gay genes from the start when they born (ive friend like this who doesnt love girls even from when he's child and more attracted to boys) while the other ones are just a normal person who's become gay because they're influenced by the hypes, or their own desire to become special, or the condition supported them to become a gay |
PROLETARJul 5, 2015 4:19 PM
| WEABOO SCIENTIST |
PeripheralVision said: Well let assume american is moving away from its christian roots. However I still consider it progress when we lifted bans on gay marriage? I'm not sure how to word it. It's legitimate for you to consider it progress whilst simultaneously considering the overall situation to be one of a state of decay. I don't consider a state moving away from Christian values to be progress though. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: PeripheralVision said: Well let assume american is moving away from its christian roots. However I still consider it progress when we lifted bans on gay marriage? I'm not sure how to word it. It's legitimate for you to consider it progress whilst simultaneously considering the overall situation to be one of a state of decay. I don't consider a state moving away from Christian values to be progress though. Yeah, thought it was possible. She said it was decay when the gears started stuttering, though could it be a coincidence is what I'm wondering.... for example, I consider when higher test scores in my state to be progress, but then....I don't know how to say it, I lost it. |
| |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - 6 hours ago |
11 |
by vasipi4946
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» I'm a coomer, but the important question is...LenRea - 5 hours ago |
3 |
by Zarutaku
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - 3 hours ago |
0 |
by _Nette_
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - 10 hours ago |
18 |
by deg
»»
3 hours ago |
|
Poll: » In the future there will be battles for love between species from other planets(theory)Absurdo_N - Yesterday |
10 |
by Dracowyn
»»
4 hours ago |