Christians and muslims are bad, its all about fear, and being gay is okay

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 44
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I was told that I reject religion because my religious parents didnt beat me enough when I was a child and because they spoiled me.

And I thought "yeah thats probably true".

Maybe if my parents hit me more when I was a child, they would beat the satan out of me.

Because really, to be religious you must have great fear, and what better way to give your child fear than to beat him.

In fact, without fear, there is basically no reason to be Christian or muslim.

You only become Christian if you have fear of hell.

I spend my days on Earth living as half-Christian half-Satanist.

I do try to be nice and kind, but every day I feel the dark world pulling from within.

Which is why I must say now: gay is okay.

In fact, I think its not okay not to be gay.

Being straight is wrong.

We live in the world full of Christians and muslims.

This means that religious people reproduce faster than atheists, which is true, according to some studies, atheists do reproduce less.

So is religion beneficial for reproduction?

If so, what is reproduction beneficial for?

Nothing.

So what is religion beneficial for, again?

Nothing.

Religion is just what you get when people believe in magic, and to no great surprise, religious people are more likely to believe in fortune telling, ghosts, supernatural things...

Science is not like religion,

because in science, you believe in something after you get proof of it,

where in religion you believe in something and spend years searching for proof for it, and then when you find no proof you still keep believing.

The religion is based on no logic, as there are thousands of Gods, and you picked one of them hoping that your guess is right.

Now excuse me, I gonna go pray to Zeus.

Father Zeus, protector of the weak,
help me to be strong against my fears.
Father Zeus, protector of the wronged,
help me to do right by all I meet.
Father Zeus, protector of the home,
help me to safeguard those within my walls.
Father Zeus, help me to do what I must,
be with me as I walk in the world.
Topic's author
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Great Zeus, Father Zeus, master of Olympos,
bearer of the thunderbolt whose might it is
that draws together the darkening clouds,
well-honored one, kind-hearted god to whom we turn
when we are far from home and family, I call to you.
Zeus, I am alone; I stand in the sphere of strangers.
Friend of the foreigner, friend of the visitor,
friend of those who must rely on the good will
of those unknown, the kindness of the host
to the outsider, I pray to you, lead me
to a place of welcome, bring me safely home again

Topic's author
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Zeus of the lightning-strike, Zeus of the sturdy oak,
we hear you in the clash of thunder, we see you
in the bright-lit night, we feel you in the air,
in the exhilaration of the storm. I praise you,
O god whose will it is that the clouds gather low
in the sky, whose gift of rain pulls life from the earth.
Great Zeus, friend of those who wander the world,
of those who are ever again among strangers,
friend of those who rely on the honor and virtue
of others, I praise you, O god of the righteous
whose wrath falls on those who prey on the exile
and the outcast, the recluse and the solitary.
Zeus of the prophets, Zeus of many oracles,
kindly one whose words we hear in silent voices
or see in the throw of the bones, whose messages
we know by their truth alone. I praise you,
O god who is the source of all visions and signs,
of all that is foretold by mortal seekers and seers.

Glorious Zeus, king of the starry heavens, master
of the thunderstorm, swift-striking hurler
of firebolt and hailstone, we know your might well,
in torrents of rain, in winds that tear a man
from mother Gaia’s embrace. The summer showers
are yours, O Zeus, that bring the earth to life each year;
yours too is the windstorm, the cyclone, the typhoon.
Each season’s storms, O Zeus, that bear the names
of women and men, are yours to guide; your hand
it is that brings winged death to one house
while its neighbor stands untouched. I pray to you,
O god of the lightning, god of the wild winds,
grant to us your blessing, grant to us your favor,
grant to us your good will. O kind-hearted Zeus,
I pray to you, keep from us the terror of the storm.

#4
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Best.Korea
+1
Nice post man.

You got a great ( RANT control. ) 
You can here it hitting the limiter throughout your intire  post.


▪○°•▪○°¤▪○°¤▪○°•

Who could EVER possibly guess what it is that they might make there god tell them next. 

Scary fucking dudes man. 

▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•

Gun ownership forms. 

Question number 1.
Tick correct box.

Are you. 
1  □   A christian. 
2  □   A Muslim. 
3  □   No religious affiliations  

If you tick 1 or 2 .  Please turn to page 30. 
Page 30  READS. 
We are sorry to advise you that your request for gun ownership has been declined  at this present point in time. 
Good bye.  


#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Best.Korea
You only become Christian if you have fear of hell.

And god. 

 Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!

Luke: 1-50 And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

The pointless and cruel test of Abraham was to see if Abraham feared the Lord.

Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
 And there was me being told to believe that god knew our every thought.

Omnipotence eh. Just can't believe everything we're told, can we? 


#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Religion is just what you get when people believe in magic, and to no great surprise, religious people are more likely to believe in fortune telling, ghosts, supernatural things...

Science is not like religion,

because in science, you believe in something after you get proof of it

When the people who trust science are telling you that men can get pregnant, than I think religion is likely the antidote. When you become an adult, feel free to chop your sons penis off because he seems a bit feminine. Trust the science. Meanwhile those of us who trust in God will continue to only cut off a small part of our penis instead of the entire thing.

#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
Omnipotence eh. Just can't believe everything we're told, can we? 
I don't know where the belief God is omnipotent or in this case omniscient came from. It clearly wasn't a belief when Genesis was written. I don't even think it was really a thing in anything prior to when proverbs was written. I guess I would have to see the arguments rabbis had with each other to figure out how the belief in God's omniscience came about.

#8
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea

I was told that I reject religion because my religious parents didnt beat me enough when I was a child and because they spoiled me.
Whenever people are told what to think, there will inevitably be problems. Whether it happens in a religious home,church, or nation that prohibits religion.

As far as fear of God and hell, the same principle applies in our law system. We should only have to fear the higher power (law enforcement), and the consequence (incarceration) if we violate the law. The system works if law enforcement is just.

Law enforcement is subject to human limitations, so not all violations are attended to. For the sake of argument, let's assume a creator not attached to any religion. If someone commits a crime, but is not found out, would the creator have the right to invoke justice on that person after they pass on?
#9
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
Slow down Ace. 

How could you ever think that, This " creator " not attached to any religion.  
deals with people after they die. 
Thats friggen odd dude.  It sounds bonkers. 

Its a WILD accusations. 
And not needed. 
Thats to say a "creator"  thats one " not attached to any religion"  has something to do with people after they die.  



Actully  .
I think i know were you got this idea of a creator " from no religion " having dealing with people after they die. 

Your comparing a creator from no religion with a creator from a religion.
Yeah These are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. 
Or are they ? 

Butttttt.
Its the "dealing"  with people after they are dead part that is most important here. 
For this is where the fear lays. 
Or Lies..

Same thing really.  

I highly  doubt there is a creator ,   ( a wild accusation ) 
But if there is. 
There may be a " something " that deals with you when you die kind of guy. 

It coukd be Like a judge maybe.  








#10
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's just a hypothetical question.
Topic's author
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
feel free to chop your sons penis off because he seems a bit feminine
Trans issue is too rare in reality, but comes up in discussion too often.

I dont see why would I prevent someone from getting trans surgery.

Their choice, really.

I dont prevent people from getting vasectomy either.

#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 The system works if law enforcement is just.#8

And there in lies your problem.
#13
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
And there in lies your problem.

Which would be an extremely heavy burden for me to have to carry alone. Maybe if we could distribute some of the weight? Deb could take Albania, etc.
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
For the sake of argument, let's assume a creator not attached to any religion. If someone commits a crime, but is not found out, would the creator have the right to invoke justice on that person after they pass on?
There's nothing inherent in creating anything that bestows complete and total jurisdiction over it, so no. You've set up no rules that have been violated according to the creator, so there isn't any justice to be sought, as there is no violation at all. It's just a thing that happened. Justice only exists, as far as I can tell, in the presence of law or crime, good or bad, all of which differ all over the world and across time. 
#15
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
There's nothing inherent in creating anything that bestows complete and total jurisdiction over it, so no. You've set up no rules that have been violated according to the creator, so there isn't any justice to be sought, as there is no violation at all. It's just a thing that happened. Justice only exists, as far as I can tell, in the presence of law or crime, good or bad, all of which differ all over the world and across time. 
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you.

If someone robbed a bank, but was never caught, the creator (the higher power) would have no right to pass judgment on that person after they pass on?


#16
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
If someone robbed a bank, but was never caught, the creator (the higher power) would have no right to pass judgment on that person after they pass on?
No, because as you've laid it out, this creator only created everything. It didn't say don't rob banks, or issue any rules, it just made everything. There's nothing to "judge", as there's no infraction.

And there's still no inherent link between "I created this" and "Therefore it is forever subject to my demands."
#17
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
No, because as you've laid it out, this creator only created everything. He didn't say don't rob banks. There's nothing to "judge", as there's no infraction. And there's still no inherent link between "I created this" and "Therefore it is forever subject to my demands."
Human law would simply be the creator's agents. If the creator designed the law, inspired humans to create the laws, then they would of course be the creator's laws.

We give the rights to civilians to make a citizen's arrest. They don't make the final judgment, but they can act without being the creator of the law pertaining to the given violation.


#18
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 If the creator designed the law, inspired humans to create the laws, then they would of course be the creator's laws.
The creator's laws would have to come from the creator, human laws come from humans.

The issue is if the creator only created everything, why would it care about laws?

Again the only property you've defined is its ability to create physical matter.  And it still doesn't provide the necessary link from "created" to "eternal dominion over."
#19
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
The creator's laws would have to come from the creator, human laws come from humans.
Since the creator created humans, it would stand for reason that the laws man creates (establishes) originated from the creator.

The issue is if the creator only created everything, why would it care about laws?
If the creator created everything, it would have to include laws. Why would it care (or why did the creator care to make laws)? That would be a different issue. It might be similar to asking why your local government cared enough to establish laws.


Again the only property you've defined is its ability to create physical matter.  And it still doesn't provide the necessary link from "created" to "eternal dominion over."
I didn't say the creator would only have the ability to create physical matter. I didn't say anything about the creator being an impersonal deistic creator (god).

I said a creator not attached to a religion. A better way I could have put it would be, not attached to any specific religion. Still, my statement did not in any way render the creator impersonal.

The term religion is really just a means to categorize. Attaching the/a creator to a religion doesn't render the/a creator non-existent. The deistic creator/god is not assumed to have religious attachment. But for the sake of categorization, one would probably still have to start a thread on deism in this forum section called religion.
#20
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since the creator created humans, it would stand for reason that the laws man creates (establishes) originated from the creator.
How so? Ultimately this is your hypothetical, so your sandbox, your rules. I'm sincerely asking. Why would this creator of everything not just create the laws, if it cared about laws? It sounds like you'd credit it with creating the idea of laws but not the laws themselves. Why create the entire known universe and skip that part?

Still, my statement did not in any way render the creator impersonal.
Fair, but it neither did it say personal either. All it said was 'creator not attached to a specific religion.' This is an added condition, that it's personal. I'm not sure what it means, but probably neither here nor there. 
#21
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

How so? Ultimately this is your hypothetical, so your sandbox, your rules. I'm sincerely asking. Why would this creator of everything not just create the laws, if it cared about laws? It sounds like you'd credit it with creating the idea of laws but not the laws themselves. Why create the entire known universe and skip that part?
The law against stealing is a universal law. Every nation in the world honors this law.  In spite of categorization, any religious text demanding laws being practiced among humans will include do not steal.

It's a universal principle that taking something belonging to someone else is a violation against the victim, requiring retribution. If someone takes something valuable that belongs to you, you're going to react. You don't even necessarily need an established law to understand your human right to not have something that belongs taken from you.

Right?

Fair, but it neither did it say personal either. All it said was 'creator not attached to a specific religion.' This is an added condition, that it's personal. I'm not sure what it means, but probably neither here nor there. 
Well the title of the thread mentions 2 different religions. So I suppose that may have been my motivation not to restrict the/a creator to a specific religion.
#22
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 If someone takes something valuable that belongs to you, you're going to react. 
Sure, but this doesn't have anything to do with the law against stealing. I'd react this way if there were no laws about stealing, right? Watch what happens when a predator tries to take a carcass from another predator, and animals don't have laws, religion or any concern that we can see for the creator of the universe at all. They still manage to make very clear that you can't just take what I hunted. Again, exclusive of the idea of law. 

The law against stealing is a universal law. Every nation in the world honors this law.  In spite of categorization, any religious text demanding laws being practiced among humans will include do not steal.

It's a universal principle that taking something belonging to someone else is a violation against the victim, requiring retribution. 
This is an assertion and presumes that you've examined every religion for all time, the laws of every nation on earth (including those that have multiple definitions of stealing, as well as cultures that do not acknowledge personal ownership) and every culture for all time. Narrow this down some. 
#23
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Sure, but this doesn't have anything to do with the law against stealing. I'd react this way if there were no laws about stealing, right? Watch what happens when a predator tries to take a carcass from another predator, and animals don't have laws, religion or any concern that we can see for the creator of the universe at all. They still manage to make very clear that you can't just take what I hunted. Again, exclusive of the idea of law. 
We don't really know what goes on in the mind of a predator (animal). If something is taken from you, you have an understanding that your right of personal property has been violated. It's more than just having your fishing pole taken, you want to go fishing, therefore grab it back from the fishing pole predator. Since it's a universal law spelled out in religious/spiritual texts, as well as human literature, it's kind of silly to think the/a creator wouldn't have the right to execute judgment if a perpetrator avoided human law enforcement. If he robbed a bank, people suffered as a result. Are you against the concept of retributive justice?


This is an assertion and presumes that you've examined every religion for all time, the laws of every nation on earth (including those that have multiple definitions of stealing, as well as cultures that do not acknowledge personal ownership) and every culture for all time. Narrow this down some. 
You mean like communist nations?

This example is not really different than the individual who steals, but doesn't want to be stolen from.

If leaders of a communist, socialist, or fascist nation tells it's citizens they own their property, does that mean they're okay with neighboring nations coming in and helping themselves?


Topic's author
#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,586
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
If leaders of a communist, socialist, or fascist nation tells it's citizens they own their property, does that mean they're okay with neighboring nations coming in and helping themselves?
Ah, yes, the false idea that Communism has something to do with "leaders owning everything".

Really impressive how people dont even bother to google what Communism is 🙁
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
We don't really know what goes on in the mind of a predator (animal)

What causes you to say that?
#26
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since it's a universal law spelled out in religious/spiritual texts, as well as human literature, it's kind of silly to think the/a creator wouldn't have the right to execute judgment if a perpetrator avoided human law enforcement. If he robbed a bank, people suffered as a result. Are you against the concept of retributive justice?
So are we talking about a god that only applies to the texts of Muslim and Christian here, therefore not tied to a specific religion but definitely an Abrahamic one? If so, I can quit this discussion, I'm operating under a different assumption, that this is the 'deism' argument. I don't want to waste your time. Those laws and morals are far from universal, though. THey're common between the two perhaps, but that's far from universal. 

I don't understand what the spelling out of a law in a text in has to do with the creator's desire to keep people from stealing. I also don't understand your question as it relates to a creator. If the creator created a law that was so important for people not to break, then relied on people to do the enforcing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. We also may be using the word 'law' in different ways (you, I think, I using in the way that there is a "law of averages" or "law of physics," I am using it in the legal sense, as in laws that can be broken). 

Perhaps we'll meet again in another thread, good to see you back. 


#27
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
I was actually asking if that's what Ludo meant.
#28
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I was simply pointing out the difficulty in comparing animal behavior with human. Although, ultimately it may not really matter. Even if an animal thinks it's right of possession is violated, it's not really an argument against the right of a creator to carry out any deserved justice.
#29
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
So are we talking about a god that only applies to the texts of Muslim and Christian here, therefore not tied to a specific religion but definitely an Abrahamic one? If so, I can quit this discussion, I'm operating under a different assumption, that this is the 'deism' argument. I don't want to waste your time. Those laws and morals are far from universal, though. THey're common between the two perhaps, but that's far from universal. 
I'm not implying that the Christian and Islamic religions are universal.


I don't understand what the spelling out of a law in a text in has to do with the creator's desire to keep people from stealing. I also don't understand your question as it relates to a creator. If the creator created a law that was so important for people not to break, then relied on people to do the enforcing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. We also may be using the word 'law' in different ways (you, I think, I using in the way that there is a "law of averages" or "law of physics," I am using it in the legal sense, as in laws that can be broken). 
Well, there does seem to be a common principle of reaping what one sows, karma, or what one does comes back to them. These operate outside of human law enforcement, if they're not completely written off. If someone robs a bank, and gets away with it, I would say they experience retribution in other ways, including but not limited to, after they pass on.


Perhaps we'll meet again in another thread, good to see you back. 
Definitely! And thank you! I was kind of surprised when you showed up. Good to see you as well!
#30
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 336
Posts: 866
3
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
3
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Apparently you were told somebody's opinion.