It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 72
16
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
There is only confusion about what it says because you want there to be confusion. What is says, and what it means, are plain and clear. None of the men in the paintings wanted a theocracy, regardless of their personal convictions, and many of them were not even Christian.

There was no confusion over the meaning of the 1st Amendment when it was penned. Washington took the separation so seriously that while President, he did not even permit himself to be seen engaged in religious activity in public - while in official capacity or not.


I don't think there's any confusion either. I think what is says is pretty clear. The people have the right to express their religion and government cannot impose religion. Am I off base here? I think what we're doing is debating what "government imposing religion" means. I don't think putting up this monument imposes anything. Nor would it be having the statue of liberty in New York.


Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779


"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." --George Washington, treaty with the nation of Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and ratified by the United States Senate on June 10, 1797

Which quote shall we take to reflect Washington's true position, the one made as a diplomatic speech trying to convince the Delaware Indians not to join the British, or the one codified into law?


It looks to me like George is making a concession on this treaty. I'm inclined to think the speech he gave is how he personally felt. Or do you think the American Indians wanted to hear that Christianity would be taught in all schools? This is an interesting one you've brought up!
Maybe he was being political and talking out of both sides of his mouth? Could you (or anyone) give more info on what's going on between these two seemingly contradictory statements? This is getting fun.


Originally posted by spamandham
If there was any question what the 1st Amendment meant (which there wasn't), the treaty of Tripoli certainly clarrified it.


You win
. I think this settled the matter then as it settles the matter now. Despite personal convictions, it was agreed upon that this nation was not going to be founded on Christianity.


Originally posted by spamandham
Indeed it does. You would do well to keep in mind that the founding fathers were politicians. Political speeches and unofficial diplomatic letters should be taken with a grain of salt.


Like treaties? God knows how well we kept them with the Native Americans in our "Manifest Destiny". I think we've established there are indeed flaws in government, but such is the way of things when you put trust in man. Glad my money doesn't say, "In man we trust" else it wouldn't be worth anything.



Originally posted by spamandham
While it's true that the majority are Christian in the US, it isn't true that everyone who is a Christian believes the 10 Commandments should be plastered all over the place.


Which is evidence that it's not a vital issue to Christians.


Originally posted by spamandham
You have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to compell others to aid you in spreading your opinion. That's what this is all about.


Behold my massive mind control powers, muhahahaha!
I kid because I care.


Originally posted by spamandham
Surely your not as daft as that.


I don't know, so far I've been called crazy, a zealot, and a few other unsavories, so adding daft to the mix just make me sound like an idiot but with a cool british-esk slant to it. Always been a fan of U.K. slang...


Originally posted by spamandham
They are generally not the version found in scripture. Most of them have "Thou shalt not covet" as the 10th commandment.


And this was different? I really don't know, I haven't seen this monument...or if I had, it's been quite some time.


Originally posted by spamandham
You commit idolatry when you erect one of these monuments, and you also violate the edict of Deuteronomy 4:2 by falsely representing the text.


Who worships this monument? Thanks for referencing the Book, yah, says here not to add or take away from what the Lord commands. I'm good for that. Back to my question to how this is different?

[edit on 30-12-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I think what we're doing is debating what "government imposing religion" means. I don't think putting up this monument imposes anything.


You already agreed it imposed some miniscule fraction of a cent, which is more than I'm willing to donate to your cause. Just as importantly though, it gives the impression that the government officially supports Christianity (which is the underlying purpose of such idols), and provides fuel for asinine things like this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush


Originally posted by saint4God
Nor would it be having the statue of liberty in New York.


The statue of liberty is benign, regardless of whether or not the figure is rooted in Roman paganism. No-one is using the statue of liberty as fuel against those in the minority.

A law that protects only the rights of the majority, is not worthy of support.


Originally posted by saint4God
Or do you think the American Indians wanted to hear that Christianity would be taught in all schools?


Indeed they did. The Delaware Indian delegate he gave this speech to were Christians. If you want to know how these men actually felt and believed, you have to read their personal letters and the laws they passed. Those things spoke to their hearts. The rest is politics as usual where you tell the audience whatever they want to hear to gain their support, just like we witness today.


Originally posted by saint4God
Maybe he was being political and talking out of both sides of his mouth?


I believe that to be the case. I don't believe there are any serious biographies of Washington that show him to be a religious man. 225 years ago, theocracy was the norm. The populace expected to hear religious sentiments intertwined in politics. The 1st Amendment codified for the first time in recorded history, a nation founded on secular principles.

When the nation was formed, the various protestant sects were as suspicious of eachother as you might be of atheists. While it's true that the majority of the population was Christian, it's also true that there was no support for reinstigating a theocracy from which most who came to this land had escaped (their recent anscestors at least), and it's true that church attendance was at a historical low. Religion played a large role in the language of the day, but much less so in the daily lives of the citizens than it does today.

If you want to learn more about this, I recommend Thomas Woods book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History".


Originally posted by saint4God
Like treaties?


Whether we abide by them or not, they are the law of the land.


Originally posted by saint4God
Glad my money doesn't say, "In man we trust" else it wouldn't be worth anything.


It could just say "e pluribus unum", which happens to be the national motto included on the great seal.


Originally posted by saint4God
Which is evidence that it's not a vital issue to Christians.


It is evidence that many even who are Christian recognize such an act infringes on the rights of others.


Originally posted by saint4God
And this was different? I really don't know, I haven't seen this monument...or if I had, it's been quite some time.


Have you actually read the 10 commandments?

The 10th commandment is not "Though shalt not covet". That's an abreviated version not found in scripture. It is a misrepresentation of scripture, as forbidden in both Deuteronomy and Revelation.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
if there was such a huge conspiracy, one against a religion with over 2.1 billion members, we'd have obvious, concrete proof. any conspiracy has a tiny shred of evidence, and one that big will have a huge shred.

i think the absence of evidence in this case IS the evidence of abscence.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
You already agreed it imposed some miniscule fraction of a cent, which is more than I'm willing to donate to your cause. Just as importantly though, it gives the impression that the government officially supports Christianity


I can agree with the miniscule fraction part, but think it's more accurate to say someone in government may or may not support Judiasm or Christianity, but regardless consider it a fundamental principle or historical foundation of law.


Originally posted by spamandham
(which is the underlying purpose of such idols),


I still don't get this part.


Originally posted by spamandham
and provides fuel for asinine things like this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush


Agreed, to make this statement is asinine.


Originally posted by spamandham
The statue of liberty is benign, regardless of whether or not the figure is rooted in Roman paganism. No-one is using the statue of liberty as fuel against those in the minority.


Uhm, why? I'm paying for it's upkeep, and it's pretty huge
. And that thing gets expensive. As far as its fuel against the minority, it's the same "influence" as the 10 commandments if not moreso because of its size and the first "greeter" to those who immigrated to the isle (and still do).


Originally posted by spamandham
A law that protects only the rights of the majority, is not worthy of support.


Are the 10 commandments our nations law?


Originally posted by spamandham
Indeed they did. The Delaware Indian delegate he gave this speech to were Christians. If you want to know how these men actually felt and believed, you have to read their personal letters and the laws they passed. Those things spoke to their hearts. The rest is politics as usual where you tell the audience whatever they want to hear to gain their support, just like we witness today.


Good to know, learn something new everyday.



Originally posted by spamandham
If you want to learn more about this, I recommend Thomas Woods book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History".


Thanks for all the additional info as well. I'd say I'd put it on my book-list, but it's a bit lengthy at the moment.


Originally posted by spamandham
Whether we abide by them or not, they are the law of the land.


A bit hypocritical of the government then, is it not? We can break our word, but you must do what we say.


Originally posted by spamandham
It is evidence that many even who are Christian recognize such an act infringes on the rights of others.


I'm not convinced. Any Christians here think the posting of the 10 commandments outside a court of law infringes on the rights of others? It's an unoffical poll, but it's a start.


Originally posted by spamandham
Have you actually read the 10 commandments?


Ya, got 'em right here.


Originally posted by spamandham
The 10th commandment is not "Though shalt not covet". That's an abreviated version not found in scripture. It is a misrepresentation of scripture, as forbidden in both Deuteronomy and Revelation.


It goes into list form after that phrase. Are you saying it's okay to covet some things and not others. Sounds very legalistic to me. Christ addresses the problem with legalism, I don't need to do so.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i think the absence of evidence in this case IS the evidence of abscence.


The phrase is as catchy as a McDonald's commercial, but doesn't make it valid. An "I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" head-in-the-sand answer as I see it.




[edit on 3-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
My head is spinning and 5 pages into the thread I did not see this covered so I am sorry if it is a repeat.

I have some fundamental questions about Christianity hopefully some of the well versed Christians can answer for me.

1. God destroyed cities due to sin. Why has this not happened in the last several thousand years? The sins he destroyed those cities for is so much less than what you might consider sin within a city today. Keep in mind everyone knew God did it then, not by hurricane, etc but by the hand of God.

2. In the bible God often spoke to man, to communicate his wishes. He also gave man ways to share that message. Why doesn't he speak to anyone today?

3. How do you reconcile the bible with science in regards to the age of man, dinosaurs, etc?

4. Why no new information? Why is the last information we have directly from God or his Son over 2,000 years old? The Old Testament dealt with life from the start. Jesus then came to start Christianity. With the changes in the world since Jesus being so dramatic why hasn't God sent a new bible or a new messenger to earth?

5. Why didn't Jesus talk about homosexuality, disease, starvation, modern warfare, etc. These are major issues for us today, I believe Jesus would have known this, but why no information on them?

Please understand I am not trying to be anti anything. These are questions I have asked of several people who are in various Christian churches. The attitude I got and lack of answers was very telling for me. Since so many here seem to have a strong grasp of the faith I hoped you might have some insights.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Praying to GOD. One can't tell of which religion they are praying too. That's the kicker my friend saint. I've got nothing against Jesus, GOD, the more than 10 commandments, etc. I just don't want my government into it. According to Lord Jesus it is a personal thing between the individual and GOD. No more, and no less.

My question is if George W. Bush made that statement about atheists I wonder how many he has on the front line doing this countrys work for him? Seems to me they'd get a free ride home.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

My question is if George W. Bush made that statement about atheists I wonder how many he has on the front line doing this countrys work for him? Seems to me they'd get a free ride home.


wait, what statement about atheists, could i get a quote please?
whenever a political leader who's considered born again says anything about atheists, it's gotta be interesting.

don't leave me on the edge of my seat.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i think the absence of evidence in this case IS the evidence of abscence.


The phrase is as catchy as a McDonald's commercial, but doesn't make it valid. An "I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" head-in-the-sand answer as I see it.




[edit on 3-1-2006 by saint4God]


And on that note ... My favorite "head-in-the-sand" answer is, life is to complex to have occured naturally, thus proving the existence of an intelligent designer and/or god. Or, another favorite head-in-the-sand answer (which the church finally doesn't believe due to the amazing wonder's of science) the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolve's around the earth.

Why so many anti-christian's/god people? Maybe the long term goal of religion for destroying culture's, history and forcing they're view's on people ... If god exist's, let us be damned to hell ... but thankfully reality point's to no god so I think we're all safe



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

If god exist's, let us be damned to hell ... but thankfully reality point's to no god so I think we're all safe


Well, I'll be damned to hell, my reality points more towards god than to no god, though it is still in question.
I assume that in your reality, supernatural phenomena are scarce, or more likely, totally absent.
We folk who cannot say that, and are living realities that do, are not so certain of the non-existance of some sort of deity(s) behind the unexplainable events.
But depending on the definition of safe, I support you there. We are all safe, either way, in my view.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

My question is if George W. Bush made that statement about atheists I wonder how many he has on the front line doing this countrys work for him? Seems to me they'd get a free ride home.


wait, what statement about atheists, could i get a quote please?
whenever a political leader who's considered born again says anything about atheists, it's gotta be interesting.

don't leave me on the edge of my seat.


I think he is referring to this one ...

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush

it was posted a few pages back ...

I sincerely hope that the leader of Earth's only superpower did not say that ...or that it is totally out of context ... because if this is true ... then this Bush needs to be pruned.

LCKob



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by Produkt

If god exist's, let us be damned to hell ... but thankfully reality point's to no god so I think we're all safe


Well, I'll be damned to hell, my reality points more towards god than to no god, though it is still in question.
I assume that in your reality, supernatural phenomena are scarce, or more likely, totally absent.
We folk who cannot say that, and are living realities that do, are not so certain of the non-existance of some sort of deity(s) behind the unexplainable events.
But depending on the definition of safe, I support you there. We are all safe, either way, in my view.


What proof do you have that supernatural event's are real? Let's see how many well documented case's there are for esp or ghost's or any supernatural event. I haven't seen one shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural world the imaginary god live's in even exist's.

I've never once experienced anything in these past 26 yrs alive that couldn't be explained through natural mean's. Non of my family or friend's haven't experienced anything that couldn't be explained by natural mean's. Physic's itself doesn't even allow much room for supernatural event's to exist. Does the supernatural world just happen to conviently exist in such a way that it evade's all law's of nature? If so.. prove it.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I can agree with the miniscule fraction part, but think it's more accurate to say someone in government may or may not support Judiasm or Christianity, but regardless consider it a fundamental principle or historical foundation of law.


Only 3 of the 10 commandments are codified into law at the national level. I find it impossible to believe that murder, theft, and false witness were acceptable practices prior to the writing of the 10 commandments. The first 4 are religious commands that are in no way related to modern law, and have no place in law outside a theocratic state.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
(which is the underlying purpose of such idols),


I still don't get this part.


You don't get it because you have the impression that only objects you pray to with your lips are idols. The 10 commandments displays are revered by believers and hold power over those who honor them. That is idolatry.


Originally posted by saint4God
Uhm, why? I'm paying for it's upkeep, and it's pretty huge
. And that thing gets expensive. As far as its fuel against the minority, it's the same "influence" as the 10 commandments if not moreso because of its size and the first "greeter" to those who immigrated to the isle (and still do).


The statue of liberty is not being used as a tool to attempt to oppress religious minorities the way the 10 commandments are.


Originally posted by saint4God
Are the 10 commandments our nations law?


No, but laws and rulings that give special dispensation to the idols of a particular religion (or group of religions) are certainly unworthy of respect.


Originally posted by saint4God
It goes into list form after that phrase. Are you saying it's okay to covet some things and not others. Sounds very legalistic to me.


That's your problem, not mine. If Christ addressed the problem of legalism, why on earth do Christians still support it!? Sounds to me like you don't really have faith in Christ and are resorting to primitive legalism by insisting on plastering the 10 commandments all over the place.

Regardless, you are still altering scripture if you post an altered version of the 10 commandments dressed up to sound less silly than the real ones.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

My question is if George W. Bush made that statement about atheists I wonder how many he has on the front line doing this countrys work for him? Seems to me they'd get a free ride home.


wait, what statement about atheists, could i get a quote please?
whenever a political leader who's considered born again says anything about atheists, it's gotta be interesting.

don't leave me on the edge of my seat.


I think he is referring to this one ...

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H. W. Bush

it was posted a few pages back ...

I sincerely hope that the leader of Earth's only superpower did not say that ...or that it is totally out of context ... because if this is true ... then this Bush needs to be pruned.

LCKob


w00t! I'm unamerican and not a patriot for not believing in god



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

What proof do you have that supernatural event's are real? Let's see how many well documented case's there are for esp or ghost's or any supernatural event. I haven't seen one shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural world the imaginary god live's in even exist's.

I've never once experienced anything in these past 26 yrs alive that couldn't be explained through natural mean's. Non of my family or friend's haven't experienced anything that couldn't be explained by natural mean's. Physic's itself doesn't even allow much room for supernatural event's to exist. Does the supernatural world just happen to conviently exist in such a way that it evade's all law's of nature? If so.. prove it.


Just accept me as one of those 'believers'. I believe you, and am sure you are being truthful, and have not seen a single 'miracle'.
Maybe others have.... like me.
If you scoff, which is the sense I get from your derisive wording and your self-important demand, no biggie.
But, no, I could share all the things I have seen.... proving zip.
And if I could prove it, which I can't, I doubt I would even then.
So, no.
What in the world could possibly motivate me to try to find a way to convince you I am not full of it. In your eyes I am either nuts, or a liar.
I am no liar. And if I am nuts, I am a pretty smart one.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by Produkt

What proof do you have that supernatural event's are real? Let's see how many well documented case's there are for esp or ghost's or any supernatural event. I haven't seen one shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural world the imaginary god live's in even exist's.

I've never once experienced anything in these past 26 yrs alive that couldn't be explained through natural mean's. Non of my family or friend's haven't experienced anything that couldn't be explained by natural mean's. Physic's itself doesn't even allow much room for supernatural event's to exist. Does the supernatural world just happen to conviently exist in such a way that it evade's all law's of nature? If so.. prove it.


Just accept me as one of those 'believers'. I believe you, and am sure you are being truthful, and have not seen a single 'miracle'.
Maybe others have.... like me.
If you scoff, which is the sense I get from your derisive wording and your self-important demand, no biggie.
But, no, I could share all the things I have seen.... proving zip.
And if I could prove it, which I can't, I doubt I would even then.
So, no.
What in the world could possibly motivate me to try to find a way to convince you I am not full of it. In your eyes I am either nuts, or a liar.
I am no liar. And if I am nuts, I am a pretty smart one.


Well share a couple of them and show how they absolutley positivly needed a divine cause to happen ... could your experience's just have happened on they're own? What exactly is a miracle of god or divine intervention?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Like you'd believe that the events happened as I described, anyway. I don't believe in 'God', per se, as I cannot say I have seen anything that has convinced me such a concept is real.
If you are determined to learn about supernatural experiences, for whatever reason, you will.
I had no choice. Over 35 years of my life I saw enough things that do not, in my view, obey the present laws of physics, I eventually was no longer a 'believer', but something more. I am convinced, and content with that, and I know many people can't imagine that I have not somehow been duped. I don't worry about that, it is not my concern.
Atheism is a fine life belief, and I could have been one, my intellectual knowledge has confirmed that it makes the most sense. My fiance is 28, and an atheist, and thats great.
u2u me if you want me to tell you some of my reasons for being a 'believer'.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
If god exist's, let us be damned to hell ...


This is the worst I have ever heard on ATS. Next time be sure to only curse yourself and leave others out of it. If you were looking for a way to make me physically ill, you have found it. Have we met before?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Only 3 of the 10 commandments are codified into law at the national level. I find it impossible to believe that murder, theft, and false witness were acceptable practices prior to the writing of the 10 commandments. The first 4 are religious commands that are in no way related to modern law, and have no place in law outside a theocratic state.


...which is why they aren't law in this country.



Originally posted by spamandham
You don't get it because you have the impression that only objects you pray to with your lips are idols.


Not so, anything a person puts beside or above God is idolatry. Money, pride, success, lust, addictions, and so forth.


Originally posted by spamandham
The 10 commandments displays are revered by believers and hold power over those who honor them. That is idolatry.


The Word of God holds power whether on display or not, and besides who bows...nevermind, asked it a bunch of times without answer on both threads. We're talking about the Anti-Christian Conspiracy here, nice try trying to turn this into a "Absolute Power of Christianity" thread clone. I notice that happens a lot. Nice research experiment, look at the dates and times of the postings of the two threads side by side and see who is engineering the conversation to come out the same on both. That's an Anti-Christian Conspiracy there, that takes little effort to find.


Originally posted by spamandham
The statue of liberty is not being used as a tool to attempt to oppress religious minorities the way the 10 commandments are.


It sure is, it towers over me physically, that roman goddess made of bronze, reminding me that I'm not free to be without sight of paganism. But you know what? I don't really care, except when people say they're being oppressed by visuals. I don't really want to get into the gods of tv - violence, language, nudity, sex, greed, etc.


Originally posted by spamandham
No, but laws and rulings that give special dispensation to the idols of a particular religion (or group of religions) are certainly unworthy of respect.


I don't see where anyone is forcing you to salute as you walk by...but the military will make you do that to the U.S. flag.


Originally posted by spamandham
That's your problem, not mine. If Christ addressed the problem of legalism, why on earth do Christians still support it!?


Some Christians support a lot of things Christ said not to. I'll go further to say I have supported things that I shouldn't have in the past. That's why people should follow him, not me.


Originally posted by spamandham
Sounds to me like you don't really have faith in Christ and are resorting to primitive legalism by insisting on plastering the 10 commandments all over the place.


Who insisted? Who said "all over the place"? Maybe this post was meant for someone else.


Originally posted by spamandham
Regardless, you are still altering scripture if you post an altered version of the 10 commandments dressed up to sound less silly than the real ones.


There's nothing silly with the original, that's your opinion. I don't see where the law changed because it didn't list your neighbors wife, maidservant, ox, donkey or "anything that belongs to your neighbor".

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
The statue of liberty is not being used as a tool to attempt to oppress religious minorities the way the 10 commandments are.


It sure is, it towers over me physically, that roman goddess made of bronze, reminding me that I'm not free to be without sight of paganism. But you know what? I don't really care, except when people say they're being oppressed by visuals. I don't really want to get into the gods of tv - violence, language, nudity, sex, greed, etc.


Huh? Since when were you forced to worship any roman diety? No one force's you to look at anything, you ARE free from the sight of paganism ... DON'T LOOK at it. Unfortunatly I can't say the same for myself... I have to deal with those moron's that go door to door trying to "save" me and teach me about god. Did I ask for them to try and force they're view's at my place of residence? NO! Now we got them trying to force they're way into public school's... Did we ask for that? NO! No one is opressing your religion, but your religion HAS opressed other's throughout history and DESTROYED them in the name of god. Innocent people were killed in recent history for being accused of practising withcraft, another form of religion some people follow. Your religion killed them, they didn't come after you and opress your religion.

Violence - Look at your religion's history. Thousand's of live's killed. Culture and history destroyed if it didn't fit the church's view.

Language - Only thing wrong with cuss words is becuase SOCIETY say's it's wrong.

Nudity - what's wrong with nudity? I have no problem's with nudity at all...

Sex - Sex is great man! try it


Greed - one of the many basic human attribute's. No amount of religion will get rid of it. No amount of law's will get rid of it. We're all greedy, every single human on this planet is GREEDY.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join